Will a guy who charmed everyone at Harvard Law but has issues about racial identity go all ghetto on some foreign power just to show he can be tough? In the absence of any systematic approach to foreign policy on his part, it can’t be excluded.

What I would want to insist on is that Obama’s policy is not necessarily better because he occasionally says things that sound more sensible than what Bush says. He has said many of the right things about Iraq over the years, but this often leads people to think that his general foreign policy views are significantly different from Bush’s in terms of what he thinks our interests are and what our priorities ought to be. His foreign policy experience is next to nil and he seems to be biased towards “taking action” in the same dangerous way that this administration and the previous one were biased. It worries me that leading Democrats feel the need to appear more hawkish on Pakistan or Iran as a way to prove their credibility on foreign policy. It does not give them credibility in my eyes, but rather highlights that they have given no more thought to the consequences of these positions than Bush gave to the aftermath of the invasion. A good argument can be made that Musharraf’s deployment into western Pakistan, which failed so ignominiously, has made things much worse in Pakistan and that a U.S. policy of encouraging Musharraf to engage in heavy-handed, blunt methods of coercion is exactly wrong. Obama’s solution is to say that we will engage in the heavy-handed, blunt methods if Musharraf will not. There is no sense that these methods are themselves not going to work in a territory where the support, or at least toleration, of the local population is vital for any success. That is the proper reason why Obama’s remarks are foolish.

I am well aware of your position on the Iraq war, which I support completely.

I have said before that your blog is my favorite and I always enjoy reading it, even if you have some harsh words against REAL liberals ( not the current identification unfortunately espoused in the USA by many GOP faithfull, meaning liberal = socialist)

Your drug Sasha L.

It would be an interesting concept, if Obama demonstrated that he had any idea how to do any of those things. His remarks on Pakistan show me that he does not deviate meaningfully from the worst aspects of the Bush years. On the contrary, he may be more dangerous to the extent that he thinks Bush has been going too *easy* on Musharraf. That is crazy and frankly irresponsible. This has nothing to do with anything other than Obama’s incompetence.

“But for some of right wingers it really IS a new concept – the notion that democrats and liberals actually want to protect America. It can’t be! They’ve been immersed in the politics of demonization and deceit for so long that some actually believe their own BS.”

Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? I supported the Democrats last year, and I and conservatives like me have been on the receiving end of the same demonisation because we oppose the war. Save your generic hand-wringing about right-wingers for the Freepers. Obama’s policy positions are undesirable because they are going to endanger national security in many of the same ways that Bush’s has. Hegemonism itself is a major part of the problem. Obama is clueless about this, as he is about so many other things.

Obviously Obama didn’t threaten to invade Pakistan or any such nonsense. But his “tough” talk reminds us how badly some of neoconservative apologists have taken their eye off the ball. So what did Obama say? Well, he said this”

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

And he said this:

“As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.”

In other words, we need to bring pressure to bear on those nations who would sponsor or support terrorism.

Liberals AGREED with Bush after 9/11. With the exception of a small minority of folks, democrats and liberals SUPPORTED Bush, supported the invasion of Afghanistan, supported dismantling Al-Qaida and the aggressive pursuit of terrorists networks that pose a truly deadly threat to our nation’s security. We supported these things OVERWHELMINGLY. The war against Al-Qaida in Afghanistan was probably the most popular and widely supported military action in American history – and yes, that includes WWII. It may be that our country was unified as it never had been in its history.

And then we blew it. Certainly our leaders did. They took all of that unity all that International good will, all of that moral authority and all the political capital they had at their disposal, and they squandered it. Blinded by partisanship, hubris and phony patriotism, Bush and his followers sold us another war, a different war - one that has cost us dearly in blood and treasure and will continue to cost us for at least a generation.

Now it is important to remember that those of us who oppose Bush politically (now 75% of all Americans) do not all oppose him for the same reasons. When it comes to terrorism, there are two basic anti-Bush positions.

1) The threat posed by terrorists is fabricated – it’s sheer political opportunism.

2) The threat posed by terrorists is very real but Bush has made it worse and made America weaker and more vulnerable.

Obviously there are intermediate positions too (the terrorist threat is real but has been manipulated or exaggerated, etc.) But anyone paying attention knows that the majority of Americans, as well as the majority of liberals, fall into the second category. I know I do.

In any event, it seems clear that Americans remain very concerned about American security but they do not trust Bush and do not believe our Iraq adventure has made us safer. Indeed, the NIA report reached the same conclusion about the Al-Qaida threat.

And now along comes Obama, who has the temerity to remind us of that fact. He reminds us how badly we’ve taken our eye off the ball and how badly we’ve blown it. How dare he? No wonder the Bush supporters are so beside themselves. Just look at what they’ve said in right wing blogs the other day: “Is Obama nuts? Threatening a nuclear power?” and “Gasp! He’s a war monger!” and “How can he expect to hunt down terrorists in caves in Pakistan? It’s not realistic!”

My how their tune has changed. Why these same “patriots” used to have a word to describe those who expressed such doubt and such protest. The word is “Appeasers”.

Obama is simply trying to steer us back to the policy we should have pursued all along. Using our power – yes, our military power, but also our economic power and our statecraft, our power of communication and whatever moral authority we might have left – to combat those threats that are real, that truly do endanger us. What a concept.

But for some of right wingers it really IS a new concept – the notion that democrats and liberals actually want to protect America. It can’t be! They’ve been immersed in the politics of demonization and deceit for so long that some actually believe their own BS.

Obviously it remains to be seen whether Obama, or any President, can make good on this kind of talk. Any realistic assessment of Middle East would probably conclude that Musharaf – though corrupt, thuggish and double-dealing - is the lesser of two evils. But that does not mean we have to lay down while he takes our money and plays us like a fiddle. It also does not mean that simply because Bush and his followers cannot tell the difference between tough talk and smart action that every other U.S. President is doomed to the same folly.

Now as a candidate, Obama still has much to prove, but he’s at least got the right idea here. Good for him.

Doesn’t a plain reading of this statement mean that straightforward military aid is exactly not what Pakistan needs for counterinsurgency and law enforcement?

Doesn’t a plain reading of this say that Pakistan needs something other than F-16s; i.e., that straightforward military aid will not help with counterinsurgency and law enforcement?