Obama's Speech Posted by Michael Cohen

Building on what Moira wrote below, allow me to offer my two cents on Obama's terror speech today. Bravo!

This is exactly the kind of broad-based, diplomatic, economic, political and military approach we need to win the war against Islamic extremists.

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

Luckily Obama goes beyond these platitudes to offer substantive ideas on how he as President will accomplish these goals. Granted Bush has talked about non-military elements of the war on terror, but let's face it, this guy has always viewed the military as the key tool in winning the war on terror. His actions belie his rhetoric.

What Obama seems to get is that there is no finite military solution to the war we're waging. We need to bring all of our foreign policy tools to bear on this issue and above all recognize that in an era of asymmetric threats there are limits to what our military can accomplish in this fight. It's certainly the case in Iraq as Bush's nominee for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen pointed out yesterday:

The failure of the Iraqis to make progress toward political unity imperils Iraq, said the nominee, Adm. Michael G. Mullen who said that unless things changed, "no amount of troops in no amount of time will make much a difference."

Quite simply, it's the politics stupid!

As we've seen in Iraq, the U.S. military is a blunt instrument - and a damn effective one at that. There are certainly times and places where our military is a key element in fighting Islamic extremism. Certainly the war in Afghanistan and our ability to disperse Al Qaeda, takeaway its safe haven and kill many of its fighters was a crucial first step (alas, if we had only finished the fight at Tora Bora). And I share his view that we need to put more pressure on Pakistan to deal with the terrorists in their midst (although I would imagine there is a strong political impulse to show toughness operating here as well for the Obama campaign).

But let's not get lost in the soundbite. The most important point that Obama makes is that this war needs more scalpels and less sledgehammers. We're doing battle not with a state, but with a non-state actor, yet we're waging this war with an approach that is straight out of the Cold War playbook. It's time we started fighting a 21st century war against a 21st century enemy.

But above all we need to be having this debate on the campaign trail. We need candidates to seriously debate this issue and offer up ideas not just about Iraq, but about how we win this war with Al Qaeda.

Kudos to Obama for starting this conversation in the heat of a political campaign.

Comments

[Erik Leaver]

The policy statement you quote does make sense but what folks at MyDD and myself object to is the unilateral, preemptive war policy that Obama proposed. This is the same as Bush's policy--just a different target. Indeed, his proposal is exactly the opposite of what you say we need to adjust to--stop fighting a 21st century war against a 21st century enemy.

Use of the military can be helpful as you point out. But the lessons we've learned so far indicate a unilateral invasion targeting an individual isn't so successful (he fled Afghanistan, could probably flee Pakistan too). Obama and the other candidates should be seeking ways to retool policy--not get us into a third military front.

[Olivier Kamanda]

Although most of the media has focused on Obama's challenge to General Musharraf to step up efforts against Al Qaeda, the speech articulates much more than that.

Obama's speech marks a shift from the status quo. Although "success" (however one defines it) in Iraq important to U.S. for a number of reasons, it does not necessarily further our national security. The administration's line that "we will fight terrorists abroad so we don't have to face them here" is actually quite sensible. But the real threat to American security comes from the emboldened Al Qaeda cells in Pakistan and Afghanistan, not the ones in Iraq.

But focusing on the military power is not enough. A comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy includes policies that strengthen civil society, promote the rule of law and foster economic opportunity. Academics may continue to argue over whether terrorism is caused by political oppression, poverty, or lack of education, but policy makers should understand that an effective counter-terrorism strategy must address all of these potential causes simultaneously. Obama plans to achieve this by creating "Mobile Development Teams" and "America houses," which provide educational opportunities as alternatives to madrasas. Neither of these are new concepts, and I think we'll start seeing similar proposals in counter-terrorism speeches from other Democrats as well as Republicans.

Obama's speech sets the stage for the crucial debate we should be having about counter-terrorism. Iraq tunnel-vision has obscured the real threats to national security from Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. The mainstream media has painfully prolonged the Obama/Clinton "he said-she said" nonsense for the past 5 days. Hopefully, this speech starts a news cycle that will further differentiate the candidates on substantive matters of counter-terrorism policy.

[Don Bacon]

The picture's not broad enough. Our actions in the Middle East, as Ron Paul has indicated, are the driving force behind any terrorist threat. The unqualified US support of Israel and the Arab autocracies coupled with the brutal US occupation of Iraq are creating more terrorist cells.

While Obama is calling for more diplomacy, it's nothing new because he means that foreign heads of state must meet our conditions or the US will attack and/or invade. That was the case in Iraq where Saddam was expected to prove that he didn't have nukes. This sort of mentality is not really diplomacy but the same Father-Knows-Best American hegemony which has caused the present problems.

In any case terrorism is best countered by effective intelligence and efficient police work. Unfortunately the US has alienated its allies to the point where they may not share useful information.

The terrorism threat is not a major one compared to other national and international issues. Mainly the country has to have a bogeyman to justify bloated Pentagon budgets. Osama bin Laden serves the purpose well which is probably why he's still free (if he truly exists).