If they're shooting at you, you must be doing something right

In the past couple of weeks all the presidential candidates, it seems, are shooting criticism at Barack Obama. Obama, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, gave what has been called a "major foreign policy speech" this past week where he outlined his intended terrorism policy, if elected president. The highlights are as follows:

Obama proposed that we are fighting on the wrong front in our war on terrorism. Instead we need to be focusing our attention on Pakistan and Afghanistan, where terrorism runs deepest. To Pakistan, Obama said: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will." Iraq is the wrong war to be fighting if we are to succeed in the war on terrorism, Obama claims. However, in a later question and answer session, Obama claimed that nuclear weapons were "off the table" in dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Both of these claims: fighting Pakistan and the no-nuclear option have provoked reactions from all sides of the presidential race. Pakistan, naturally, had the strongest reaction. Protests where the American flag was burned raged in the Pakistani capitol, while President Musharraf called Obama's remarks "irresponsible." Hillary Clinton said that, if the U.S. were to attack Pakistan, a president should never take the nuclear option off the table. Edwards agreed with Clinton's assessment.

It has been suggested numerous times that Obama only came out with this speech to rebuke Clinton's suggesting that he was "naive" in foreign affairs. The casual reporter nearly only look at the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs to find out that Obama has been calling for this same foreign policy strategy for some time. Barack Obama, himself, wrote an article for Foreign Affairs, viewable here, where he said that America must "refoucus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan- the central front in our war against al Qaeda- so that we are confronting terrorists where their roots run deepest." While he did not go in to as great detail as in his recent speech, the strategy remains the same: Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror and to see the war to success we must bring justice to all terrorists, even if they lie in ally territory.

What does all of this squabbling and definition ultimately mean? It could mean a lot or it could mean very little. However, on the Democratic side, Obama's policies have become the leading headline, positive or negative. There is an old adage: say what you want about me, just spell my name right. As far as I can tell, everyone is spelling Obama's name right. Clinton, Edwards and even Mitt Romney in the most recent debate have used Obama's policies as the barometer for their candidacy. If Clinton's day is spent deciding how she feels about Obama's foreign policy credentials, then that is a victory for Obama. However, distortions of Obama's main points could go far to hurt his campaign. For instance, Republicans like McCain are saying that it is a bad idea to "announce to the world we're attacking another country." Even though that is a distortion of Obama's central point.

The fact remains that Obama has given two major foreign policy speeches, Edwards has given one and Clinton has given none. Edwards has called the war on terrorism a bumper-sticker war with no true guiding policy while Obama has called for greater focus in the war on terrorism to root out terrorism where it runs deepest. Clinton, in typical incumbent fashion, has let her perception as the "steamroll candidate" continue and is running a reactive campaign. As far as I can tell, Clinton believes that the war on terrorism is not a bumper-sticker; however, disagrees with Obama's plans for conduct of it.

This episode could go a long way to develop Obama's rapid-response team. He will need it, because it will only get worse.

-Wyatt Earp