ACCORDING to The Daily Progress, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) is considering coming to Charlottesville Oct. 29 as part of his campaign for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. Obama will no doubt enlighten and enliven the crowd that turns out to hear him. While an electrifying speaker, his credentials as a presidential candidate are dubious at best.
Obama's candidacy has so far been sustained by flashy style rather than pragmatic substance. He has quickly become the darling of liberal activists, much of the media, an admirer dubbed "Obama Girl" and large numbers of college students. Here at the University, the group Hoos for Obama coordinates the Senator's campaign on Grounds, however, Obama's candidacy presents ground for concern.
His weakness shows most glaringly in the area of foreign relations, which is arguably the most important policy area in the 2008 election. While his campaign Web site cites the candidate's membership on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama's foreign policy resume is remarkably thin for a presidential candidate during a time of war.
The nation's most pressing and persistent foreign policy problem is the war in Iraq. In a Sept. 12th speech in Clinton, Iowa, Obama stated that "the best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year -- now." He further explained that "if we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year."
This dramatic call for action is misguided, however. He states that removing troops immediately from Iraq will put pressure on Iraqi leaders to reform their ways. This statement is true. The absence of American troops will serve as political shock therapy for Iraqi leaders, as they would be forced to try and guide the country while centrifugal forces ripped it apart. Such a power vacuum scenario will hardly foster political progress and reconciliation among historically hostile ethnic groups.
Obama's discussion concerning Iraq does not stop here. The junior senator from Illinois also adopted an "I told you so" mentality in which he constantly reminds the electorate that in 2002 he opposed the invasion. Obama's campaign Web site claims that he predicted the invasion would result in "an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." Just in case anyone forgot that Obama opposed the war in 2002, his Web site restates this very same quotation four sentences later.
While his foresight is commendable, today it is inconsequential. Arguing that he would never have allowed the invasion of Iraq to occur is irrelevant given that the war now demands substantive policy. The invasion has run its course and the United States is faced with a messy occupation. The important point is not who saw in 2002 that the invasion of Iraq was ill-conceived, but instead who can see in 2009 and beyond how to fix the problems caused by that misguided action.
Obama supporters no doubt would say that their candidate's prediction in 2002 is indicative of the wisdom and restraint he would display as Commander-in-Chief. This claim too is spurious, as shown by an Obama speech that addressed the issue of Al-Qaeda terrorists hiding in Pakistan. He said on Aug. 1st that "if we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf of Pakistan won't act, we will."
This statement, presumably part of his foreign policy agenda, asserts that the United States should infringe upon Pakistan's sovereignty if it suspects terrorists are hiding in the country. Such a proposal is reckless. Pakistan is an American ally, and an integral partner in the War on Terror. Conducting a U.S.-executed attack on terrorist suspects would serve as a rallying cry and call to arms for Pakistan's large extremist population. Such an attack could ignite the powderkeg of Pakistan.
Obama's poor judgment is further highlighted by statements he made at the CNN/YouTube debate on July 23, 2007. During this event he promised to personally meet with leaders from Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Syria and Iran. As Hillary Clinton noted, this promise is extremely naïve. Ironically, Obama advocates meeting with strong opponents of America, yet simultaneously is unwilling to cooperate with one of our most important allies, President Musharraf of Pakistan
With nearly a month to go until Obama's appearance in Charlottesville, University students must begin to critically evaluate the Senator's candidacy. This includes the group Hoos for Obama, which supports Obama's candidacy "because he is undoubtedly the individual we want as our next president," according to Communications Coordinator Kate Vasiloff.
While inspiration and passion are important components of leadership, they must be backed by well-grounded ideas, wisdom and experience. Obama lacks such a foundation. Despite his meteoric rise to national prominence, Obama is a mediocre candidate.
James Rogers is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer. He is a first-year student.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: What we lose in the name of efficiency
By Paul Kurtzweil | 15 hours agoPenicillin was discovered in a moldy petri dish — this government would have it thrown out because it was wasting space on the counter.
RASHID: U.Va. must empower faculty and students through transparency
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | YesterdayBy attempting to contain, or even eliminate uncomfortable narratives, the administration incrementally consolidates power and frays communal trust.
YOUNIS: Muslim students deserve a better Ramadan on Grounds
By Ayat Younis | 2 days agoRamadan at the University should not be a time in which students must choose between academic success and religious observance.
