Sen. Obama takes a serious policy stance on terrorism - wait, scratch that

FRANK MIELE

A funny thing happened on the way to the White House - for Barack Obama, that is.

The Democratic wunderkind, who is trying to duplicate JFK's inexorable rise from junior senator to top dog, looked like he had the right stuff when he first entered the race. His message of hope, abundance of charisma, and antiwar credentials seemed a formidable combination as he tried to wrest the Democratic nomination from Hillary Clinton and several other contenders.

But not so fast.

Obama's poll numbers have gone stagnant the past couple of months at between 20 and 25 percent, while Clinton has started to surge above 40 percent for the first time since the start of the campaign.

Is that just because Clinton has a better known name? Possibly. Or because she has a better organization? Probably not. Obama has surpassed Clinton in fund-raising and other important barometers.

But we got a hint last week of the Achilles' heel of Obama which could prove the fatal flaw of his meteoric candidacy - he apparently doesn't know when to shut up.

There were two glaring instances of Obama's inexperience that should give everyone pause about whether the glib, neatly coifed and well-coached senator is ready for prime time.

On Wednesday, Obama took a tough stance on terrorism and said that he would attack al-Qaida targets in Pakistan with or without the permission of Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, "if we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets."

Now, this might or might not be good public policy, but it raises a couple of important questions about whether or not Sen. Obama has an itchy trigger finger.

First of all, this is the guy who prides himself on the fact that he would not have voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq if he had been a senator back in 2003. Presumably, the reason for that is because Iraq is a sovereign nation with a presumption of respect and a right to be treated in accord with international law.

Or maybe not. Maybe it's just because Iraq has proved to be a major political liability for the Bush administration, and Democrats have seized the opportunity to be politically correct in hindsight.

Certainly there were bad people in Iraq in 2003 when our invasion began, Saddam Hussein paramount among them. Certainly Hussein had violated numerous U.N. sanctions. But Democrats say you can't invade a country simply to right a wrong.

Except maybe you can.

Obama has now clarified that you can invade a country - without its permission - in order to chase down terrorists, including Osama bin Laden. Indeed, President Obama would apparently be developing plans to invade Pakistan soon after his inauguration in January 2009, since it is already well known that al-Qaida has a major presence in the Waziristran province near Afghanistan.

This might make me happy, along with many other Americans, but it raises the question in my mind, "What would Barack Obama and the other Democratic candidates be saying tomorrow if President Bush announced that he was sending U.S. forces into Pakistan to engage in a war against the tribal forces protecting Osama bin Laden?"

There would certainly be no guarantee we could catch bin Laden or his murderous partner Ayman al-Zawahiri, despite the bravado of the effort. Indeed, the only guarantee would be that despite our superior military strength and considerable enthusiasm for the prospect of finally catching or killing Public Enemy No. 1, any incursion of Waziristan would inflict heavy casualties not just on Pakistan's population but on the U.S. military. Chances are great that the 3,000 U.S. deaths suffered in the Iraq and Afghan wars so far would be matched in short order.

But even more important than whether or not invading Pakistan is a good idea is the question of whether or not a presidential candidate ought to be making such rash statements in the first place. I am pretty confident that more than a few advisers in the Obama camp think the answer is no.

Pakistan, one of our most important allies in the war on terror, has not reacted well to the incident either. Not surprisingly, Pakistani officials said that it was "very irresponsible" for Obama to make such a statement and that the country had a "grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election."

I don't see anything unethical or immoral about the statement, just incautious. Pakistan, after all, is a hotbed of Islamic extremism, and the fact that we have been able to keep the government on our side these past years while the citizenry prays for our demise, is actually a rather significant accomplishment. It's possible that invading Pakistan might indeed be the spark that would ignite the real Islamic Jihad against the West.

But if Obama learned anything from the fallout over his remarks, he certainly didn't show it the next day when the Associated Press followed up on his willingness to invade Pakistan with a question about whether there were any circumstances under which Obama would be willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Pakistan in order to fight terrorism or al-Qaida.

Rather than use the standard line about "not taking any option off the table," Obama wandered into even greater difficulty by raising doubts about his own qualifications to be commander in chief.

"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," he said, then adding, "Involving civilians."

The pause before he added "involving civilians" is significant because it lets us wonder whether or not "involving civilians" was an afterthought he added because he knew that he had let the cat out of the bag in his first statement. Just imagine if a president of the United States announced to the world, and all our enemies, that we would not use the most potent weapon in our arsenal!

So, just to be politically safe, Obama added "involving civilians."

But just what does that mean?

Presumably Obama knows that there were hundreds of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the United States first (and fortunately last) used nuclear weapons. Is he saying that given the same circumstances, he would not have gone the same route as President Truman?

Just what scenario exactly does wannabe President Obama envision where he could use nuclear weapons in such a way that does not involve civilians? For that matter, what kind of war does he envision that would not involve civilians? And if he is intimating that he is unwilling to see foreign civilians perish in a war waged by the United States, how exactly is he qualified to be president?

Other Democrats quickly asked the same question, suggesting that Obama's remarks were careless and unpresidential.

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons," Sen. Clinton said. "I don't think any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

Even more pointed were a couple of the vanity candidates, Sen. Chris Dodd and Sen. Joe Biden. Dodd said Obama's foreign policy statements were "confusing and confused" and that Obama had "made threats he should not have made." Biden called Obama naive, and contrasted his own experience in foreign policy with Obama's status as a newcomer: "Having talking points on foreign policy doesn't get you there," Biden said.

To his credit, Obama did realize he had put his foot in his mouth, and quickly recanted his "no nukes" strategy in the next sentence: "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

But, of course, nuclear weapons are "on the table" as an option in the U.S. military arsenal. It is apparently only Obama who thinks they are "off the table." Or maybe he is just a tongue-tied candidate who sometimes can't put into words exactly what he is thinking - kind of like President Bush.

Oh well, I suppose that if Obama becomes president, Republicans will be just as forgiving of his problems with the English language as Democrats have been of George W. Bush's.