Last night, Obama put to rest accusations that he can’t be “tough” like the other hawks regarding foreign policy: He’ll unilaterally attack Pakistan if General Musharraf is not doing enough to “take out” the “terrorists.” To be fair, he did argue for making military aid to Pakistan conditional and that democracy in Pakistan should figure in as a top priority with our dealings with the “biggest non NATO ally.”
But, what’s most striking about Obama’s speech is that if one were to read it without knowing it was penned by one of the “Democratic” front runners—one who is supposed to be a viable alternative to the centrist, and often hawkish, Democrats many find uninspiring—you’d think this was a rational and “compassionate” Republican talking.
I’m wondering if Obama’s campaign managers are whispering in his ears, “Tell the American public that if push comes to shove, you too can be jingoistic.” Well, regardless of what their strategy is, it’s not a good one. A little note to BHO: Progressively becoming less progressive will only lose you votes.
The way the candidates have spoken (and continue to speak) to the American public make it seem like we are afraid of real change and that a radically different approach to how we deal with the international community is out of the question. And this is truly unfortunate, because carrying out air strikes to weed out terrorists usually ends in the loss of many innocent civilian lives, which in turn only angers people even more.
—Neha Inamdar
