• IN THIS SECTION

October 7, 2008

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

Part Two of Four

Ryan Mauro

Click here for Part One.

2. A wishful thinking Iran policy

While the Iranian regime openly talks about the destruction of Israel, denies the Holocaust, supports terrorism and arms, trains, funds, and even dispatches the terrorists who murder U.S. troops and innocent Afghans and Iraqis, Obama is favoring a continuance of the Bush Administration policy of doing nothing. Obama's only policy prescription has been to launch top-level, face-to-face meetings between the U.S. president and the top leader of Iran (and other rogue states). Obama does not explain why current negotiations by lower-level staff members are not working (and why his will), and why simply flattering the regime with a presidential meeting will change their intentions. He doesn't explain the goal of the strategy, or put forth a deal that can be made with the regime, or explain why he has any faith that the Iranians can even be trusted to hold up their part of a deal. In short, Obama has no policy toward Iran besides, "let's talk it out." It is no wonder that many Iranians, just like their Iraqi neighbors, probably live in fear of an Obama presidency.

Unfortunately for the U.S., Iranian people, and all those whose lives are threatened by Iranian-backed terrorists, Obama is against even the most basic measures to stop the regime. He opposed - but didn't bother to show up to vote against - a law designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the regime's outfit used to carry out terrorism, as a terrorist organization which enables the U.S. to impose sanctions on them, a bill with wide bipartisan support from people like Sen. Hillary Clinton. If Obama cannot properly define what a "terrorist" is, and isn't even willing to support measures to place sanctions on them, how can he be trusted to stop, or at least contain Iran? The truth is that the mullahs only stand to gain from an Obama presidency, and that does not bode well for the people of the Middle East or the people of the United States.

3. A flawed philosophy

By studying Obama's foreign policy, a seriously flawed philosophy on geopolitics can be seen. There are three parts to this. The first is Obama's moral equivalency. When Russia invaded Georgia, going so far as to occupy the territory of Abkhazia which was not part of the original conflict, Obama's first response was to call for restraint on both sides. By acting as the father of two boys struggling over a video game controller, Obama goes to great lengths to appear as the impartial arbitrator. Of course, Obama condemned Russia's blatant aggression, but this occurred only after harsh criticism from the McCain campaign and all those who marveled at Obama's failure to see black and white, instead choosing only to see grey. Such an outlook is convenient - seeing only grey means the U.S. won't be morally obliged to support the white and oppose the black, and can instead sit on the sidelines trying to offend no one, but that doesn't make people like the Georgians any less victimized, countries like Russia any less emboldened, or America any less threatened.

The second part of Obama's philosophy can be viewed by three simple, if largely unreported, statements he made to David Brooks of The New York Times. He first states that U.S. foreign policy must look "at the root causes of problems and dangers," a frequent phrase used by those who empathize with our enemies' criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, even if disagreeing with their tactics and ideologies. This reflects the mindset that terrorism is an outgrowth from anti-Americanism caused by U.S. foreign policy, dismissing the inherent unreasonableness of radical Islamic ideology. The belief that anger against American policy is the enabler of radical Islam, and therefore U.S. policy must not anger foreign populations, fails to see that radical Islam flourishes largely due to the propaganda machines of non-free countries. These anti-American and pro-extremist attitudes do not emanate from an objective critique of American policy, but of the impartial, twisted take on current events that tyrannical regimes promote. No change in U.S. policy will be accurately represented, and therefore, no attempt by Obama to "address the root causes" will change anything, unless democratic reform is enacted in such countries that break the extremists' blockade on information. However, Obama has said nothing about encouraging such reform, and there is no reason to believe he understands this dynamic.

Obama's second statement in the interview is truly shocking. He states that the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas "need to be compelled to understand that they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims." Stating that these terrorists have "legitimate claims" is unprecedented for any major presidential candidate. Again, Obama overlooks the goals of these groups and seeks to empathize with their grievances against the West. This isn't to say Obama is unpatriotic, anti-American or pro-terrorist, but Obama should be forced to address which of Hamas' and Hezbollah's claims he views are legitimate. There can be no greater question in determining how someone views the world.

The third statement comes when Obama is asked how he could negotiate with the leaders like Ahmadinejad. Obama states, "there are rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms." Here, Obama dismisses the idea that there are simply some enemies of the U.S. who are not rational. No, Obama seems to believe, a deal can be struck with anyone. Common interests that will alleviate hostilities can always be determined. This shows Obama has a fundamental misunderstanding of radical Islam and radical ideologies as a whole. Their actions are not determined by politics or money, but by an uncompromising worldview that does not tolerate any dissenting thought. When Ahmadinejad says he is trying to hasten the arrival of the Hidden Imam, who will only come when the infidels and true Muslims go to war and the Imam will then destroy the infidels despite their superior power, no rationality, deal-making, or deterrence will work. The Brooks interview is the most important of this election, and all readers seeking to understand how Obama views the world, through all the rhetoric and "plans" absent of detail, must read it.

Look for Part Three on Wednesday.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Ryan Mauro has been published onWorldNetDaily.com and Newsmax.com, WorldThreats.com, among other sites. He is the founder of WorldThreats.com and is the author of Death to America: the Unreported Battle of Iraq. Contact Ryan at TDCAnalyst@aol.com.

Print This E-mail This

Share It: