usa

Promises to commit more troops to Pakistan and labelling the Iraq war as "the wrong battlefield". Are these spine chilling words straight out of the mouth of a Republican candidate trying to distance himself from the Bush Presidency while still appealing to the Neo-Cons? You would be forgiven for thinking so; but these perhaps inciting comments which insinuate that a war against Pakistani is instead the ’correct’ war, come straight from a speech given by the Democratic darling of the moment earlier this week - Barak Obama.

So what does Obama think he is doing? Upping his game by indirectly pointing to the fact that Clinton voted for the war in Iraq and thus hoping to gain some ground in the opinion polls? He may well be doing just that, and it may well just work, but statements such as this push him further away from the category marked as ’suitable’ for the next Commander-in-Chief. Oh yes, let’s not forget that essentially that is what he will be. Not only President, but Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces for the single most powerful country in the world.

With the US in the middle of a war that has no end in sight, is it wise to be considering a man with little to no foreign policy experience at a time when foreign policy experience is exactly what is needed? You just need to look at Bush to see what type of a foreign policy President a stint in the National Guard will produce - can the US really now gamble on a President with no military or foreign policy experience of any kind?

If his Presidential foreign policy were to follow that of his recent speech, he would, by declaring a war in Pakistan, not only unnecessarily rile a military regime that is actually more liberal than its democratic opposition, but would also divert US military forces away from a battle ground which has not yet militarily, democratically, nor in hearts and minds been won. It would surely not have UN support, nor that of the public at home or abroad either. A foreign policy faux pas.

Despite the fact that the votes are won and lost on domestic policies, the war in Iraq is still a contentious voting issue - so why are the Democrats considering a contender who is calling for another war? Sure, he has been and still is a rising star in the Democratic party, and Newsweek have already given him a several page spread a few years back now, but that by no means proves his suitability for Presidency. Nor is it a military or academic foreign policy background which provides his credibility. Perhaps the reason instead lies in the colour of his skin. Of course the US needs to accept a black President at some point, so they should, and when they finally do, it will be a defining moment in US history; but that does not equate to choosing Obama based on this . There is a certain danger in pushing the inevitable forward ahead of its time and causing unnecessary consequences. To push for Obama on race grounds at the expense of failing to recognise and acknowledge his downfalls as well at this important time would demean his election. It is what the US has been waiting for and indeed needs, but importantly, an ultimately poor Presidency rooted in naïve and inexperienced foreign policy choices would over shadow what should be a glorious and defining moment in US history. The US at the next election needs a strong military President, (dare I say McCain?) regardless of race ,who can lead a country, its people and its troops like a true Commander-In-Chief through these war torn times. That person cannot play a game of trial and error, they need to have played before and know how to win.

Burning out one of its brightest stars too early would be a colossal mistake for the US. There will be a time, and a place for Obama in US history - that time is just not now.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •