Senator Barack Obama (D - Illinois), the presumptive but not yet Democrat nominee for the Office of President has chose to get into an exchange with current President George Bush (R - Texas) and the GOP nominee for the Office of President, John McCain (R - Arizona). The stink is that Obama thinks he has been called an appeaser, although I didn't get that from the President's remarks. Both McCain and the President have responded with something on the order of "If the shoe fits, wear it"
Does the shoe fit? Well, according to Wikipedia:
Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principle.So let's look at Obama's intentions per his campaign website:
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq.
Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria
Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.
This is probably not appeasement, because Obama is not intentionally trading acceptance of imposed conditions for agreements to peace. But, that doesn't mean Obama has the correct policy. Obama's intention is to unilaterally withdraw from Iraq and then try to negotiate conditions for peace. This is a recipe for disaster. As principle and policy has long maintained (see this, this, and this too!) the presence of our armed forces in Iraq is our foremost strategic advantage, and thus, is our foremost negotiating chip. Removing it without gaining concessions gives the game away to the Iranians and the Syrians. This would be a large mistake.
What I found more interesting, is that the War on Terror isn't even an issue on the Senator's campaign website. Neither is Afghanistan or Pakistan, Iran or Syria. The words "state sponsor of terror" do not appear there either. When it comes to terror the only issue Obama's campaign recognizes is homeland security. The Illinois' junior Senator apparently intends to hunker down and wait out the next terrorist attach. Read his plan here
I'll address McCain's stance on this issue in the next post. As for now, if someone asks if you think Obama is an appeaser reply "No, he's just going to lose the war on terror!"
No comments:
Post a Comment