<p>On that issue I think Hillary nailed it - Obama is irresponsible and naive. </p>
<p>As far as the money is concerned - you seem to be in the mode of strawman building today. Of course you need to fund the global war on terror. But I would feel a lot more comfortable if Hillary had a plan concerning what she would do with the money. I didn’t see any mention of how she would spend money or aggressively go after the terrorists. Nothing. If she took national security seriously, I would think that she would have it at least as one of her issues with a minimal amount of handwaving regarding what she would do. Perhaps she is afraid to fall into the Edwards “bumper sticker” trap.</p>
<p>Just to be clear. Obama went Cheney on us this morning, threatening a pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation ally. This is exactly the same doctrine espounsed by Dick Cheney in his many sabre-rattling speeches againt Iran.</p>
<p>Only Obama’s position is even more frightening. On Iran, he is willing to hold immediate Presidential summits, without precondition, with Amhadinejad. On Pakistan (a nominal ally), he threatens Mussaraff and threatends a US invasion.</p>
<p>He seems totally oblivious to the nuances of diplomacy: namely that the military action against Al Qaeda in Pakistan has been, and must continue to be, conducted under the cover (ruse) of Pakistani authority. To ignore that is to throw Mussaraf under the bus domestically.</p>
<p>That’s why, when we take out Al Qaeda operatives in the tribal regions, the public claims are always that the Pakistani military conducted the raids.</p>
<p>To answer your question about Clinton’s approach to terrorism, it is not possible to isolate the war on terror from broader questions of military, homeland security, and foreign policy. Among the policy positions Clinton has taken:</p>
<p>a) Redeploy troops to Afganistan to prevent the resurgence of the Taliban an increase military efforts along the Afghan/Pakistan border. Joint US/Pakistani Military action against tribal leaders in the frontier region.</p>
<p>b) Immediately retaliate against any terror act, when the perpetrators can be identified.</p>
<p>c) Implement and fully fund the recommendations of the 9/11 commission</p>
<p>d) Increase the troop strength of the US Army by 89,000 with a similar increase in the Marines.</p>
<p>e) Rebuild our global alliances that have been undermined by our occupation of Iraq. The war on terror cannot be successfully waged by the US alone. It requires committed allies in all parts of the world and requires an international “face” on the effort so that, for example, Mushariff is not viewed as a puppet of the United States.</p>
<p>f) Address the single biggest threat (the proliferation of nuclear weapons to terrorists) by implementing the recommendations of a major study led by Sam Nunn. These include conversion of research reactors to low grade uranium, implementing tagging technologies so that nuclear matterials can be traced, etc. Clinton has gotten a commitment from Warren Buffet to donate $50 million in seed money, so that non-proliferation efforts can be a private/public humanitarian effort.</p>
<p>g) Address the underlying “hearts and minds” problem the US faces on the Islamic street, starting with a $10 billion foreign aid initiative to build schools and provide education, so that the US can be viewed as a agent of positive change and economic development. We will never win the war on terror if we do not start changing the perception of the United States.</p>
<p>a) she would be sending troops from an extremely strategic area to a non-strategic one where the troops would end up playing cards while al qaeda would thumb their nose at us from the Pakistani mountains. Joint operation with Pakistan is a great talking point, but is not in touch with reality (perhaps a bit of naivety on her part as well - or at least plays to a naive voting block.)</p>
<p>b) Duh … but what is she going to do to prevent the attack in the first place after she guts our intelligence capability.</p>
<p>c) like the port security issue? Tell me how that will prevent an attack.</p>
<p>d) no quibble from me or the Bush administration, but what will she do with those troops - appoint Madeline Albright to ask why we have such a powerful army if we can’t use it?</p>
<p>e) our global alliances have never been stronger in terms of working together to defeat terrorism</p>
<p>f) sounds like a lot of wishful thinking</p>
<p>g) The Saudis, sitting on an ocean of oil, need aid? Something tells me that money is not what stands between having good schools.</p>
<p>From where I see it her proposals would do nothing to strengthen or hand against terrorism and her and the Dems insistence of gutting our intelligence gathering ability will significantly weaken it.</p>
<p>That’s the great thing about democracy. You have plenty of choices:</p>
<p>a) Tancredo’s suggestion of bombing holy sites in Mecca.</p>
<p>b) Obama’s policy of pre-emptive war in Pakistan</p>
<p>c) Romney’s desire to double the size of Gitmo</p>
<p>d) The Cheney/Guliani policy of pre-emptive war against Iran</p>
<p>Me? I’m looking for a rational competent approach to a long-term problem of fundamentalist Islamic terror – an approach that must include miltary strength, alliance building, and a PR effort to position the US as an agent of positive change in the world.</p>
<p>Or a policy that insists on sitting down and talking to EVERYONE without such fear of your own weakness that you think you will be easily maniupulated as a propaganda tool.</p>
<p>Not everyone. Only our adversaries. As for nominal allies, Obama apparently prefers to threaten Musharraf from afar, promising a pre-emptive invasion of Pakistan if they don’t cooperate. Even Cheney/Bush and the neocons haven’t proposed a pre-emptive invasion of Pakistan.</p>
<p>The problem is that Pakistan is probably a more immediate threat to American interests than Iran is. Unlike Iran, they’ve already got both al-Qaeda (probably bin Laden himself) and the Bomb. And while I believe Musharraf is a real ally, he doesn’t control major parts of the country or the government, and he may not control any parts of either much longer.</p>
<p>Which is why it is not exactly helpful for a Presidential candidate to be sabre-rattling and threatening an armed military incursion into Pakistan.</p>
<p>Here’s how the story was written in the Daily Times of Pakistan:</p>
<p>Most of Obama’s speech was pretty good, but he undercuts his entire theme by threatening a US invasion of Pakistan. I don’t even understand why he said it. It shows an incredible insensitivity to the political realities that Musharraf faces. The last thing the United States needs is more provocative rhethoric in the Middle East.</p>
<p>Doesn’t Obama know that we already conduct covert operations and Predator strikes in the frontier region and that everyone involved is scrupulously careful to credit all such actions to the Pakistani military for internal political reasons?</p>