In 1996, following a series of devastating terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas, Israelis narrowly elected Binyamin Netanyahu to be Prime Minister. About three years later, despite fewer terror attacks, Ehud Barak successfully challenged Netanyahu to succeed him. It’s true that Netanyahu alienated his base and ran a lackluster campaign. But what’s remarkable is that because of his apparent success in containing terror, his constituency forgot why it elected him in the first place.
Within a year and a half, Barak, who had promised to be more forthcoming in negotiations with the Palestinians, found himself facing the Arafat led “Aqsa intifada,” and ultimately lost power when he could no longer hold his government together.
In a sense we are seeing a replay of that scenario this year in America.
Seven years ago Al Qaeda attacked us here. In the interim President Bush led the United States in two wars in response. The first in Afghanistan and the second in Iraq. While there have been mistakes along the way, the upshot is that Al Qaeda, while still dangerous, is on the run. Al Qaeda was unable to strike at the United States again. Americans feel secure and are elected as President Bush’s successor, Sen. Barack Obama, a man with no significant foreign policy experience.
In addition Sen. Obama opposed the war in Iraq. He considered it a mistake. Even with the success of the surge, he considers it a mistake. If he gave any serious thought to whether bringing down Saddam Hussein might have played a role in protecting the United States, Sen. Obama has given no indication.
Sen. Obama talks about how he would use all “tools” at his disposal to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
“No tool of statecraft should be taken off the table,” Obama said in a speech covering broad national security issues, including Iraq and Iran.
He (and his allies) act as if President Bush didn’t exhaust all diplomatic options before going to war against Iraq. But President Bush did try to get Saddam Hussein to come clean about his WMD program. Saddam never verified that he had disposed of his forbidden weapons.
And while Sen. Obama talks about restoring America’s standing in the world, he forgets (or wants us to forget) that many of those nations who objected to the war in Iraq did so because they were bought off by Saddam. What will happen if President Obama finds himself stuck between using his “tools” of diplomacy and acting to defend the United States. Will the feelings of our allies take precedence? Or will he act decisively regardless?
Keep in mind that Sen. Obama’s own Vice Presidential candidate, Sen. Joe Biden recently warned that there will be nations who will test the new president. How will he act?
For seven years Al Qaeda’s been on the run. As it was with Israel in 1999, the electorate felt safe enough to try a new approach. I hope we – and the world – don’t pay a price for letting up on the fight.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
