Redstate

By Josh Painter Posted in 2008 — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Sen. Barack Obama is a foreign policy disaster just waiting to happen.

Consider Obama's evolving stance on Iraq. In 2002 he was a staunch opponent of the war. Then in his book The Audacity of Hope, he confessed that he "began to suspect" that he "might have been wrong" about the war. In 2003 he told CNN that he absolutely wanted "to make sure that the troops have sufficient support to be able to win." During the DNC convention in 2004, the junior Senator stated that failure in Iraq would be "a disaster and a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing" for our national security. But again, he might have been wrong, for he told the New York Times, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." By November of that same year, Obama seemed to be sure again, telling Charlie Rose that he would have voted against the Iraq War resolution had he been in Congress at the time. But the following summer, he told the Chicago Tribune that there really wasn't that much difference between his position on the war and George Bush's position "at this stage." This isn't flip-flopping. It's more like Mighty Morphin. Obama must have been a Power Rangers fan.

Ed Lasky, in an excellent piece for American Thinker, draws attention to how Obama's willingness to throw the Iraqi people under the bus could spell trouble for more countries than just Iraq:

This willingness of Senator Obama to turn his back on something he proclaimed an "absolute obligation" should be particular concern to the millions of supporters of Israel in America. When campaigning, Senator Obama has made similar promises regarding the safety and security of Israel. How long will those promises last? Until January, 2009?

Israelis and friends of that besieged democracy have good reason to be worried about a possible Barack Obama presidency. To advise him on the Middle East, the junior Senator from Illinois chose Robert Malley, who has held a lifelong position which is not exactly Israel-friendly, to put it mildly.

How about the rest of his foreign policy team? Who has the inexperienced Senator's ear on matters of worldwide import?

Though Samantha Power had to resign fom his campaign after calling Hillary Clinton "a monster", Obama's foreign policy team still carries her stamp and reflects her thinking. Power authored an op ed for TIME, in which she argued that the U.S. needs to sit down and talk with Iran's extremist leaders and get ourselves over such foolish fears that the Iranians might just use their nuclear program to brew up some weapons-grade uranium to blow those pesky Joos clean out into the Mediterranean Sea.

The most senior of Obama's foreign policy advisors in terms of age is the 79 year-old Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served the failed president Jimmy Carter, known for his failed foreign policy, as national security advisor. Brzezinski is another Obama advisor well known for his harsh criticism of the U.S.'s close ties to Israel and his naive view of world Islamic fundamentalism:

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [fundamentalists], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Then there's Susan Rice - no relation to Condi - although both are touted as "brilliant" black women who are products of prestigious Stanford University. Obama's Rice was senior advisor for national security affairs on the Kerry-Edwards campaign and served President Bill Clinton under the tutelage of Madeline Albright. That latter resume entry alone should set off the sirens of emergency warning systems from coast to coast. Rice has been just wrong about Abu Musab al Zarqawi, Iraq and a great many other things. Rice was involved up to her neck in the Clinton Administration's costly mistake of asking Sudan for its files on Al-Qaeda, then declining to accept them. She, along with Tony Lake - who I'll get to in a paragaph or two, is (dis)credited with persuading Clinton's national security adviser Sandy Berger to refuse Sudan's offer to hand over Osama Bin Laden to the United States.

BTW, I happened to catch this woman on a talking head segment on cable news this morning. Memo to the Obama campaign: Thanks for putting this person on the air. She comes across as strident, angry and apparently incapable of managing to smile. In other words, about as lovable as Cruella De Vil, but not even close to being as entertaining a character to watch. Between Susan Rice and Michelle Obama, you've got the bitter female demographic cornered.

Another major player in the Obama foreign policy advisor game is Anthony Lake. While not as anti-Israel as most of his colleages in the Obama campaign, Lake has issues of his own. Tony Lake is yet another alumnus of the Jimmy Carter administration, a rather common and disturbing thread among Obama's team.

No wonder Obama always seems to be standing on shaky ground when he talks about foreign affairs. With a cast of characters such as this one advising him on foreign policy matters, the play is always a farce.

- JP