Thomas gets Obama wrong
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Samuel Bruce
Published: June 6, 2008
Columnist Cal Thomas calls Barack Obama a “polar opposite of John F. Kennedy,” (“Obama: See No Evil” May 30) for contemplating negotiations with unfriendly nations. Perhaps he and I read different history books. My understanding is that smart diplomacy is exactly how the Kennedy administration “made Khrushchev blink” and ended the Cuban Missile Crisis. I would say that Sen. Obama’s willingness to use diplomacy makes him quite similar to Kennedy. Mr. Thomas seems to have a ridiculous notion that willingness to negotiate and willingness to use force are mutually exclusive.
President Kennedy did not think like this and I doubt that Sen. Obama does either.
Mr. Thomas’s column is another example of a disturbing trend in conservative demagoguery in which all who advocate thinking before shooting are accused of weakness against terrorism. It is the opposite that is true. To think about international affairs in simplistic terms such as Good vs. a singular Evil is to greatly misunderstand the diverse people we are dealing with. Anyone with a basic understanding of Sun Tzu knows that failure to learn about one’s adversary is a sure path to defeat. This is not an Us. vs. Them situation. There are a great many Thems, some of whom may bend to our will through tough diplomacy just as Khrushchev did.
I actually have far less confidence in Sen. McCain as a guardian of our nation’s security. His recent confusion of Sunnis and Shiites shows that, nearly seven years after 9/11, he has not bothered to expand his understanding of what it is we are fighting in the war on terror. I would much rather have a president who is willing to negotiate with our enemies than one who is openly ignorant of them.
SAMUEL BRUCE
Manassas
Page 1 of 1
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on June 10, 2008 at 11:18 am
Barnun,
You may be too young to remember, but former President Reagan held offical diplomatic talks with Mikhail Gorbachev several times without demanding pre-conditions. He also arranged weapons sales to Iran (now referred to as the Iran-Contra Scandal) which involved high-level talks between his administration and the Ayatollah Khomeini, who was personally responsible for our embassy personnel being held hostage in 1979-1980. Those arms sales were allegedly to improve relations with the Ayatollah.
We also now know that Saddam Hussein was complying with the terms of the UN resolutions in disarming and destroying his stockpiles of WMD, and refrained from restarting his weapons programs. If you want to talk about Saddam’s diversion of “oil for food” revenue and black market oil sales, please include a discussion of the American companies with high level Republican contacts who knowingly helped.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( willow703 ) on June 10, 2008 at 7:02 am
Sammy B,
Al-Queda may not subscribe to “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, but it may subscribe to “my enemy may be a useful tool with which to destroy my enemy”; they are one of “them” who wish to impose the dictatorship of their “God” & themselves.
Al-Sadr belongs to the same group and the enmity is because each wants to be the sole authority; the successor to the Prophet. The divide between Shia and Sunni is because the issue wasn’t amicably settled some 1300 years ago.
No matter how devoted, man is still man, possessive, greedy & jealous.
I still haven’t seen proof that any of these people have more regard for their lives & the lives of others than for a handful of dirt or as King Louis XV said of Canada, “a few acres of snow”.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( barnun ) on June 09, 2008 at 9:00 am
War vs no war, dipolomacy vs no diplomacy is not a republican vs democrat issue such as the liberals like to try to paint it to be. Reagan resolved issues in Iran and with russia by taking a stand not by begging. Bush Sr cleared kuwait by force and walked away from Iraq to allow diplomacy to have a chance. That allowed for 13 broken UN resolutions with the UN begging sadaam to behave. The US and the UN have ignored the darfur, rowanda issues while millions have died but we have asked them all to please play nice. I am not an advocate of war but I believe people/countries are like children, they have to believe you when you say no. I dont think anyone will listen to or beleive Obama when it comes to the national stage.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Sammy B ) on June 09, 2008 at 7:35 am
To elaborate on my problem with McCain and the “Thems” (doing so in the letter would have probably made it run too long): stated that al Queda in Iraq was receiving training from Iran. Anyone with a basic understanding of the Mid-East and war on terror ought to know that Iran is a Shiite country and al Queda considers Shiites to be heretics to be murdered at any opportunity. After Sen. Joe Lieberman whispered in his ear, McCain generalized to “extremists.“ Had he specified “Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army,“ a Shia militia, I could have forgiven it as a “senior moment,“ but as it is it shows a lack of understanding of the situation in Iraq that is frankly appalling given that he has been a senator for the duration of the war. There are a lot of “Thems” involved there, contrary to Willow’s simplistic understanding. I’ll give a brief summary. Al Queda is a basically the international version of a violent street gang bent on killing anyone who isn’t them. They actually aren’t worth negotiating with because their only goal is to be “martyred” and take as many people with them as possible. Al-Sadr (an enemy of al-Queda by the way) is virulently against having an American presence in Iraq but lately has shown potential for pursuing that goal through politics rather than violence. Iran (another enemy of al Queda, forming a nice hate triangle with us) is interested in seeing a Shiite puppet regime but has established relations with the interdenominational government. Furthermore, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not the head of Iran. He is outranked by a slightly less extremist Ayatolla and will probably be replaced in 2009 anyway. Iran is certainly a threat and I by no means deny the possibility that we will have to use force against their nuclear program (see the part of my letter where I say that diplomacy and force are not mutually exclusive). However, the House of Saud is actually more fundamentalist than the Iranian regime, but they do little to interfere in our interests (other than gouging us on oil) because they realized that there is much more profit in being friendly with the US and staying relatively quiet about Israel. Ahmadinejad is probably a lost cause, but the Ayatolla and the next president Iran “elects” might have potential to follow the Saudis’ lead if we play our cards well. But if not, I would expect Sen. Obama to be open to dropping JDAMs on Natanz and other nuke sites.
Oh, and pwanon, unless you habitually refer to Sen. Clinton as “H. Rodham,“ yes, your credibility suffers for using “B. Hussein.“ It’s a common tactic of people pandering to anti-Muslim fears when they cannot think of anything intelligent to say about the man.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( willow703 ) on June 08, 2008 at 7:32 am
Sammy B,
Unfortunately, anti-semiteism (Arabs are Semites) is still strong in this country.
I’m older than McCain and, like him, I do have my “senior moments”. That does not mean my brain no longer functions. In some respects, it functions much better than it did 30 or 40 years ago.
It’s hard to keep track of all these lines, but I believe I have said that it was military force, not diplomacy, that ended the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviets sent ships with equipment for the missile sites, Kennedy sent warships to meet those ships and told them he would sink them if they didn’t turn back; they turned back.
There are not a great many “Thems”, as Mr. Bruce says. There are only a couple of “Thems”. One “Them” wishes to impose upon the world a godless dictatorship. The other “Them” wishes to impose the dictatorship of their “God”; with “Them”, of course, doing any hands-on tasks.
The godless “Them” are easier to deal with because they are not eager to die.
The “Them” in the employ of “God” are so eager to die, they are willing to kill themselves.
I do not know what one could offer, in the course of negotiation, to someone has no more regard for their life or the lives of others than for a handful of dirt.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Grant Gary Jacobsen ) on June 07, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I wish columnist Cal Thomas would tell us once again why conservatives view Cuba as a “threat” to the USA. Barack Obama has stated that demonizing the Cubans will STOP after he is inaugurated in January. Good for him.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( pwanon ) on June 07, 2008 at 1:18 pm
A strike against my credibility because I emphasized his middle name? That’s the extent of your rebuttal? Are you sure I didn’t just de-emphasize his first name? What’s the difference, if it’s ACTUALLY HIS NAME?
That’s why I love B. Hussein Obama’s supporters…attack his credibility on a policy issue, and get a comlaint that he’s viewed unfairly because his middle name is mentioned.
Fantastic. Well played sir.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( kgotthardt ) on June 07, 2008 at 12:56 pm
If Obama is elected, he will have many experts to advise him, including McCain. But the real issue is, if we don’t use more diplomacy we will be using more money, bombs, and lives. Diplomacy is never a wasted effort.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Sammy B ) on June 07, 2008 at 9:51 am
Normally I am lenient in expecting references in a forum such as this. However, when a writer takes the trouble to emphasize Sen. Obama’s middle name over his first I have to count that as a strike against his credibility.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( pwanon ) on June 06, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Right…McCain is the weak one on foreign affairs for mistaking Shia for Sunni once…whereas B. Hussein Obama is the strong one when he states that Iran is “no threat at all”...and three days later states that Iran “poses a grave threat”...
Must be those years and years of foreign policy/military affairs acumen sharpened in the churches of freedom lovers like Wright and Pfleger that brought BHO to the precipice of his expertise.
Please.
Report Inappropriate Comment