When it comes to Democratic values and terrorism, Presidential hopeful Barak Obama couldn't have been more clear. When speaking of the present situation in Pakistan on Meet the Press he said
"...my main concern is making sure that the opposition parties feel comfortable that they have the opportunity to participate in fair and free elections"
Of course, he doesn't feel the same way about Iraq
"Only through this phased redeployment can we send a clear message to the Iraqi factions that the U.S. is not going to hold together this country indefinitely -- that it will be up to them to form a viable government that can effectively run and secure Iraq," Obama said.
But what happens to Democray in Iraq if "opposition parties" don't "feel comfortable that they have the opportunity to participate in fair and free elections"? Why is it more important for Pakistan to feel comfortable than it is for Iraq to feel comfortable?
And while Obama panders to the anti-war crowd, he is clearly not anti-War, on August 1st of this year, in what was billed as a "major foreign policy speech", he said
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will,"
Suggesting that as President he would take unilateral action in Pakistan regardless of the wishes of the Pakistani government.
Yet, at the same time he accuses Senator Clinton is flawed judgment when she voted for the invasion of Iraq. Recently, Obama's campaign tried to tie Clinton's Iraq vote to the current trouble in Pakistan
“She was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Al Qaeda, who may have been players in this event today,” he said, according to Time.com. “So that’s a judgment she’ll have to defend.”
Of course, in Iraq, we deposed a dictator and liberated a people while at the same time managed to successfully prosecute a war against al Qaeda
Iraq's interior ministry spokesman said Saturday that 75% of al-Qaeda in Iraq's terrorist network had been destroyed this year, but the top American commander in the country said the terror group remained his chief concern.
Maj. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf said the disruption of the terrorist network was due to improvements in the Iraqi security forces — which he said had made strides in weeding out commanders and officers with ties to militias or who were involved in criminal activities.
He also credited the rise of anti-al-Qaeda in Iraq groups, mostly made up of Sunni fighters the Shiite-dominated government has cautiously begun to embrace. Additionally, an increase in American troops since June has been credited with pushing many militants out of Baghdad.
"... one of the things that we haven't focused on is that the vast majority of the Pakistani people are moderate and believe in rule of law. That's who we want as allies in the fight against Islamic extremism," Obama said.
To Obama, doing this very thing in Iraq is not good, but doing it in Pakistan is OK.
Do any of his foreign policy positions make sense?
