Missing the Point: The Reaction to Obama's Tough Talk

Much of the literate world is contemplating the tough talk of Senator Barack Obama (D - Illinois), candidate for the Democrat nomination to the office of President of the United States. The following passage from Senator Obama's speech is drawing all of the attention:

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

The Senator is obviously trying to buck-up voter's perceptions of his foreign policy credentials. His rivals for the Democrat nomination are pummeling him with criticism. This kind of talk will not play well with the anti-war/pacifist wing of the Democratic base. It is thus deserving of debate and analysis by observers.

But, honestly there is far more in this speech that would make one pause before pulling the lever for the junior Senator from Illinois. For example, early in the speech Senator Obama makes this observation:

We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists' base of support. We did not reaffirm our basic values, or secure our homeland. Instead, we got a color-coded politics of fear. Patriotism as the possession of one political party. The diplomacy of refusing to talk to other countries. A rigid 20th century ideology that insisted that the 21st century's stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. emphasis added

I would probably disagree with just about every thought in this paragraph, but the heart of the matter is the italicized statement about stateless terror. What we are facing is state supported terror. Without the aide, succor, and support given by these criminal regimes organizations like Al Qaeda could not even contemplate the strikes they have executed against US in this county, abroad, and against other Western countries.

Then too, he ignores the true nature of the terrorist threat: The network of terrorist minded individuals and small groups who seek funding, training, and other support from the financiers of terror. Certainly Al Qaeda is one such organization, but it is not the only such organization. The Islamic Brotherhood and Hezbollah are certainly involved in these activities.

Whether Senator Obama likes it or not, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a major state sponsor of terror. Afghanistan under the Taliban was a major state sponsor of terror. Iran is to this day a major state sponsor of terror, as is Syria. As I have noted previously on this blog (read here, here, and here), the war against terror cannot be won without ending state sponsorship of terror.

Hopefully, enough American voters will see the truth of this and prevent Senator Obama or any other like-minded individual from assuming the Office of President of the United States.