Ten Reasons to Be Concerned about Obama’s Stance on National Security

by Ryan Mauro

Click here for Part One; here for Part Two.

4. Wrong on Virtually Every Other Foreign Policy Issue

Sen. Obama isn't just wrong on the top foreign policy issues of Iraq, Iran and Russia, but also on virtually every other one that comes to mind. His strongest position is on Pakistan, where he advocates launching strikes on terrorists identified in that country if the government is unable or unwilling to go after them. This is an honorable position, although openly stating such an intention has extremely negative diplomatic repercussions and threatens the stability of the Pakistani government, which could allow radical Muslims to have an even greater safe harbor. Such statements are meant to be made in private, but at least this shows one area of the world where Obama is tough. Unfortunately, Obama still doesn't go far enough in developing a plan for handling Pakistan.

Sen. Obama declined to talk about the need to embrace the Pakistani tribes on the border in order to enlist them in fighting the insurgents, perhaps because saying so would again vindicate one of the strategies Gen. Petraeus and Sen. McCain advocated that caused the war in Iraq to turn around. At the first debate, Obama even failed to embrace this proven concept after McCain mentioned it. While Obama's call for unilateral strikes when necessary is refreshing and commendable, it does not appear that he recognizes that a greater counter-insurgency campaign that involves the tribes is needed. Air strikes and raids absent such a strategy will only increase resentment against the Pakistani government and the U.S. among the population and may even cause the Pakistanis to end their alliance with us. Ironically, Obama is advocating the same tactics he criticized in Afghanistan, when he said, "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

The one semi-bright spot of an Obama Administration doesn't even come from Obama, it comes from Joe Biden, and he deserves applause for his plan for Sudan. Sen. Biden has called for intervention in Darfur to create a No-Fly Zone over that part of Sudan and to send in NATO peacekeepers (approximately 2500 he said in one speech in Iowa). While it is good that someone has finally presented a plan for Darfur, Biden does not say which allies we can rely upon to help intervene, or how only 2,500 soldiers can stop the genocide. The government-backed militias, much like the situation in Iraq, will attack such peacekeepers in small groups, mixed among the local population in classic insurgency fashion. They will strike even more fear into the local population so they don't cooperate in providing intelligence.

If the Obama-Biden plan is to succeed, it will have to adopt counter-insurgency principles (again, like in Iraq) to kick out the Janjaweed and other insurgent and terrorist forces that will inevitably try to attack such peacekeepers. The focus on the no-fly zone demonstrates a pre-9/11 thinking, where conventional militaries are expected to be used to wage warfare, not unconventional forces like insurgents, militias, and terrorists. The plan calls for tackling the Janjaweed, yet neither Biden or Obama have called for the use of the tactics proven to work in Iraq and other counter-insurgency situations.

Obama's foreign policy is indeed one of contradictions. While he said he'd meet with Ahmadinejad and Chavez, he never even tried to meet with General Petraeus, the foremost authority of what's going on in Iraq. While he wants to strike a deal with Iran and North Korea, which would certainly involve financial aid packages, he opposes free trade agreements with critical U.S. allies like South Korea and Colombia, the latter of which is engaged in a battle with terrorists backed by Chávez. Obama says he favors pushing democracy and human rights in the region, yet wants to pull U.S. forces out of Iraq despite the fact it'd cause the Iraqis to lose such rights. He condemns the way Iran and other countries oppress their people, yet has made no indication that he'd like to see those regimes fall or that he'd even provide non-lethal aid to democratic opposition groups like Reagan did. He says he considers the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as terrorists, but didn't vote for a bill to label them as such. The only coherent message an Obama foreign policy sends is that there is no new strategy, tactic, or idea that should make our enemies worry. And it is for that reason that many of our enemies are supporting Obama.

5. America's enemies favor Obama's policies

When trying to figure out whether Obama's policies are good for national security, it is wise to ask how our enemies view them. The answer is clear: America's enemies favor Obama. This doesn't mean he is in league with them, or anti-American, but it should make voters ask why terrorists are so eager for him to win. What is it about Obama's policies that comfort them?

Let's look at some of these individuals. Ahmed Yousef, a top political advisor for Hamas, told Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily that "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections." The Iranian and Syrian government-controlled media is also pro-Obama. The terrorist group FARC in Colombia, which is backed by Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, according to some of their computer files, seems eager for Obama to win.

The question of Obama's past associations with people like William Ayers should also be mentioned. Why did people like Ayers, the unrepentant former member of Weather Underground who bombed the U.S. Capitol, work alongside Obama? And if it's true that Khalid al-Mansour, a top advisor to a terrorism-supporting Saudi prince, helped raise money for Obama's education, then why? The argument here isn't that Obama is anti-American or shares their views, but something about his viewpoint and policies is bringing people like these to embrace him.

6. Obama will reduce the technological advantages the U.S. military possesses.

In a videotaped address, widely available on YouTube, Obama promises not to militarize space, not fund "unproven missile defense systems," to "slow our development of future combat systems," and to not build any more nuclear weapons, even though new bunker buster nukes are necessary to threaten deep underground bunkers and do far less damage than a normal conventional nuke would. These comments, particularly on "slow[ing] our development of future combat systems" deserves no further comment as most Americans know how critical our technological advances have been to saving the lives of our military men and women and protecting American national security. Future combat systems, as Obama describes them, are the most important asset the U.S. military has, and has saved an enormous amount of lives - including the lives of our soldiers, civilians, and even our enemies.

7. Inexperience

Sen. Obama would be the most inexperienced president in a century, perhaps even in America's history. He has never run a business, been in the military, authored a ground-breaking piece of legislation, or managed or run anything. He has not become go-to expert on any topic, certainly not foreign policy. He was in the Senate for less than two years before preparing to run for president, and during that time, did not show bold leadership on any issue with political consequences. In short, he has not conducted virtually any of the tasks required of a president. As demonstrated, this lack of experience has negatively affected his judgment on various national security and foreign policy topics, particularly with the "surge" which he incorrectly predicted would not work, and could not see was working when the verdict had already been given.

Supporters of Obama may argue that he will have experienced advisors. However, without the right experience and judgment, he cannot pick the correct advisors, nor can he decide which among them are correct. He will fall victim to the "White House bubble" as President George W. Bush did. The failures in Iraq were largely due to the President's inability to consider the viewpoints of those outside his Administration, such as Sen. John McCain, who were warning that the path we were on would lead to failure. The president, lacking experience in foreign affairs and having to rely upon advisors, could not know when such advisors needed to be disregarded. In a time of war, the U.S. must have a president who has the knowledge and experience to make the right calls and not rely upon advisors who will inevitably be wrong at some point. Sen. Obama does not have that experience.