Posted on 05/10/2009 6:04:25 PM PDT by neverdem
Watching President Obama and Hillary Clinton conduct their mini-summit with the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan, I flashed back to their bitter campaign last year. As they sought to outbid each other on who would be the bigger peacenik, it was impossible to imagine either one, let alone both, embracing many of the Bush-era policies against terrorism.
Yet there they were last week, ramping up American military might and promising expanded civilian efforts. As Obama put it: "The United States has made a lasting commitment to defeat Al Qaeda, but also to support the democratically elected sovereign governments of both Pakistan and Afghanistan. That commitment will not waver."
Said Secretary of State Clinton: "We are facing a common enemy, and we have, therefore, made common cause together."
They've come a long way, baby. Hopefully, the rest of the Democratic Party will follow.
If so, it could mean the end of a dangerous habit of turning national security into a political football. It's past time to return to the ideal that partisanship should end at the water's edge.
Of course, Obama and Clinton did more than their share to shatter that ideal, as they piled on the anti-Bush bandwagon in a bid to gain votes. As senators, they stooped to vote to defund the Iraq war while the troops were in harm's way. Both opposed the surge, which is largely responsible for the improved situation in Iraq.
Obama hasn't entirely broken free of campaign mode, ordering Guantanamo prison closed before he has plans for hundreds of detainees. And his flirtation with prosecuting those who authored memos on waterboarding was unfair and unwise.
Those moves smack of compromise driven to appease his anti-war base instead of being part of a strategy to keep America safe. There is no need to be balanced, as if those claims are equal.
While Obama as a candidate did talk about the need to bolster our efforts in Afghanistan, he has lately become so gung-ho it is often now called "Obama's war." It's not. It's America's war, and it always was, with an assist from some NATO allies.
After all, Osama Bin Laden didn't distinguish between Democrats and Republicans when he ordered the 9/11 attacks. And the Taliban and their allies won't care about the political affiliation of their targets if they get hold of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
For the same reasons, we shouldn't make political distinctions at home on national security. The enemies of America are the enemies of all Americans.
Naturally, some on the far left are consistent in their foolishness, with one blog referring to "the Neoconization of Obama." And some liberals in Congress already are mumbling about setting deadlines for American troop withdrawal.
Thankfully, Obama and Clinton, now that they shoulder the sobering burden of keeping America safe, are resisting such formulas for defeat. Chalk it up as a sign of their growth in office.
Even with an all-hands-on-deck mentality, success in resolving the "Afpak" mess is far from certain. Indeed, Bush held a similar summit in September 2006, trying to get the heads of the two Muslim countries to realize they had a common enemy in Islamic extremists.
Since then, things have gotten worse, with significant elements in both nations loyal to the extremists whose bases are in the mountainous border the countries share.
Afghanistan lacks a reliable central government, with Hamid Karzai no longer viewed as trustworthy. Pakistan has dumped its military government, but its elected leaders are weak and, so far, unable to muster a sustained attack on the spreading threat.
Pakistan has a far more advanced military, but civilian leaders opted for peace treaties that were little more than attempts at appeasement. They have now been abandoned in favor of a military response, largely at Washington's urging.
Make that a united Washington. May it stay that way.
If so, it could mean the end of a dangerous habit of turning national security into a political football. It's past time to return to the ideal that partisanship should end at the water's edge.
That is so out of character for the left for over 40 years, this should be fun to watch! Goodwin sounds too naive.
Naturally, some on the far left are consistent in their foolishness, with one blog referring to "the Neoconization of Obama." And some liberals in Congress already are mumbling about setting deadlines for American troop withdrawal.
This should make gains in Congress in 2010 easier with their base demoralized.
I am not sure what that means, but ... few of us doubt that we will be hit in the near- to mid-term by a very serious event. If that leads to an effort for "continuity of leadership" I am in absolute disagreement with the title of this article.
I have already had enough "continuity of leadership" to last me the rest of my life.
Scream under Bush. Mumble under Outtboy. The hypocrisy is deafening! Liberals are mentally ill.
Watching President Obama and Hillary Clinton... I flashed back to their bitter campaign last year. As they sought to outbid each other on who would be the bigger peacenik, it was impossible to imagine either one, let alone both, embracing many of the Bush-era policies against terrorism... But... As Obama put it: "The United States has made a lasting commitment to defeat Al Qaeda, but also to support the democratically elected sovereign governments of both Pakistan and Afghanistan. That commitment will not waver." Said Secretary of State Clinton: "We are facing a common enemy, and we have, therefore, made common cause together." ... Hopefully, the rest of the Democratic Party will follow. If so, it could mean the end of a dangerous habit of turning national security into a political football. It's past time to return to the ideal that partisanship should end at the water's edge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.