OBAMA’S WHIRLED VIEW

In the first Presidential debate between Senators Mc Cain and Obama, Senator Obama made three statements that need to be addressed. He stated that Afghanistan is the center of the War on Terror, that Al Queda is operating in appx. 60 nations, and that the War in Iraq has caused the United States to be strategically weakened in the region and in the War on Terror.

Firstly, I would like to address the argument of Afghanistan being the center of this conflict. We invaded Afghanistan because the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon were devised, and planned for from that country, and that Al Queda was operating training camps in that country. It served the purpose of setting the table for US Foreign policy in dealing with State sponsored terrorism; it however was not meant to be the end game. Why should we allow states that sponsor terror (such as Iran and Syria), to set the battlefield? If we are to win the overall war, then we cannot limit ourselves to Afghanistan, which is not the center of the war on terror, but is only a theater in this war.

Secondly, Senator Obama states that Al Queda is operating in 60 nations worldwide. This statement contradicts his statement that Afghanistan is the central piece in this war. The reality is that Al Queda has always been and is more so, since the invasion of Afghanistan, a decentralized organization. Further this war on terror should not be focused alone on the elimination of Al Queda, but on taking on, states that sponsor terrorism, such as Iran and Syria.

Which brings us to the third and last point. Mr. Obama has repeatedly stated that we are strategically weaker because of Bush and Mc Cain’s War in Iraq. On the contrary, because of the War in Iraq, the US is strategically stronger in the Middle East, and in position to exercise influence in the region, and exercise a more efficient war on state sponsored terror.

The idea was to remove a threat (Saddam Hussein), and a clear threat of WMD’s (not just the existence, but also the ability to reconstitute weapons programs). After removing this threat, we would help the Iraqi people form a Democratic government that would in turn, be an ally on terror, and provide a model for democracy in the Middle East. We would establish a long-term defense pact with Iraq, providing the US with a long-term influence in the Region. It is true that the Administration did not realize the resistance that would follow, but that resistance in itself gives credence to the policy. After the initial hostilities in Iraq were winding down, the Iranians, recruited, trained, paid, and employed fighters in to Iraq. They are responsible for a great deal of the US casualties during the war.  Simply, In Iraq, we have a proxy war with Iran, which the Iranians are losing. Bottom line, we are in a very strong strategic position to exercise our war on terror from the ally State of Iraq, on the very states that sponsor terror, Iran and Syria. 

In conclusion, Senator Obama is either not savvy enough in foreign policy to realize this, or is disingenuous, and is dependant on our demise in Iraq, and the war on terror, in order to succeed in becoming President. Obviously, Mr. Obama won’t allow a little thing like US National Security to stand in the way of his personal goals.

Thank you,

Scott M. Hyderkhan

Master Sergeant, USA, (Ret)