Did Congress Vote "To Give The Terrorists What They Really Want"?

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

BARACK OBAMA

From Barack Obama's speech on terrorism today:

By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

Not quite a subtle jab at Hillary, huh?

Other bones to pick here and there:

Ending the war will help isolate al Qaeda and give Iraqis the incentive and opportunity to take them out. It will also allow us to direct badly needed resources to Afghanistan.

Iraqis lack sufficient incentive to take out al-Qaeda in their country? Blowing up markets and mosques isn't enough incentive? Isn't the issue sufficient means, i.e. a military that can secure their borders and conduct counterterror operations whereever needed?

UPDATE: Having now read through the speech, I've concluded that you can summarize Obama’s promises in three categories. First, the generic pledge to “I’ll Improve What We’re Already Doing”, to assert that as a new president Obama stepping into the job, would somehow make everyone in government do their jobs better than they’re already doing:

“We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.”

Train the Afghans to defend themselves! Fantastic idea! Why hasn’t anybody else suggested this?

“We need to recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same. This must include a program to bolster our ability to speak different languages, understand different cultures, and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies.”

Understand languages and cultures! Brilliant! Why we could call it the Defense Language Institute!

“As President, I will create a Shared Security Partnership Program to forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to take down terrorist networks from the remote islands of Indonesia, to the sprawling cities of Africa.”

Share intelligence! Good idea, because we’re not doing that now! Quick, somebody call CIA Director Hayden!

“I will focus our support on helping nations build independent judicial systems, honest police forces, and financial systems that are transparent and accountable.”
“And I will develop a comprehensive National Infrastructure Protection Plan that draws on both local know-how and national priorities.”
“I will address the problem in our prisons, where the most disaffected and disconnected Americans are being explicitly targeted for conversion by al Qaeda and its ideological allies.”

Tough to argue with the goal, but tougher still to come up with an effective strategy.

The second group of promises can be categorized as, “Throw More Money at it”:

“As President, I would increase our non-military aid [to Afghanistan] by $1 billion.”
“We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope.”
“As President, I will strengthen these civilian capacities, recruiting our best and brightest to take on this challenge. I will increase both the numbers and capabilities of our diplomats, development experts, and other civilians who can work alongside our military.”
“This program will provide $5 billion over three years for counter-terrorism cooperation with countries around the world, including information sharing, funding for training, operations, border security, anti-corruption programs, technology, and targeting terrorist financing.”
“I will double our annual investments to meet these challenges to $50 billion by 2012. And I will support a $2 billion Global Education Fund to counter the radical madrasas — often funded by money from within Saudi Arabia — that have filled young minds with messages of hate.”
“I will increase funding to help train police to gather information and connect it to the intelligence they receive from the federal government.”

Finally, Obama periodically peppers his speech with promises in the vein of, “Bold Goal, No Word on How”:

“As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts.”

Okay, how will you persuade our allies to take on more combat-oriented missions that they’ve demonstrated for the past five years or so that they’re adamantly disinclined to take on?

“And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair — our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.”

Okay. Any concerns that Islamists might win a free, fair Pakistani election? Oh, that's right, we've already invaded Pakistan under an Obama presidency.

“And this effort will focus on helping our partners succeed without repressive tactics, because brutality breeds terror, it does not defeat it.”

Go ahead, tell the Turks, Jordanians, Saudis and Egyptians how to fight terrorism within their own borders. I’m sure they’ll be receptive to your constructive criticism.

“Information sharing with state and local governments must be a two-way street, because we never know where the two pieces of the puzzle are that might fit together — the tip from Afghanistan, and the cop who sees something suspicious on Michigan Avenue.”

I’ll give Obama a smidgen of credit for this idea:

“I will also launch a program of public diplomacy that is a coordinated effort across my Administration, not a small group of political officials at the State Department explaining a misguided war. We will open "America Houses" in cities across the Islamic world, with Internet, libraries, English lessons, stories of America's Muslims and the strength they add to our country, and vocational programs. Through a new " America's Voice Corps" we will recruit, train, and send out into the field talented young Americans who can speak with — and listen to — the people who today hear about us only from our enemies.”

I have no idea whether it would work, but I haven't seen anything quite in this vein proposed yet.

But otherwise, this speech offers Obama's critics plenty of targets, particularly if they want to reinforce the "naive and irresponsible" line of attack.

UPDATE: One reader asks about the security for an "America House." Yup, that would be a challenge and a half; you would have to figure out whether the benefit of the impact on the local population would be worth the risk of it being a target for terrorists. However, we can protect embassies and consulates, so I presume we could protect these...

08/01 12:10 PM Share