OBAMA WAS RIGHT: “U.S. strikes within Pakistan — without notice;Unilateral attack on al-Qaeda commander called a model for operations”

Following the Washington Post article (Adviser Defends Obama on Foreign Policy) By Jonathan Weisman, Barack Obama’s campaign did not have to show reticence in responding to John McCain’s attacks early yesterday morning, when the latter singled out a statement Obama made last year suggesting he would take unilateral military action against al-Qaeda figures in Pakistan if Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf was not willing to.

Rice repeated that, but said Obama was referring to action only after he had “actionable intelligence” on “high value terrorist targets. .

All the Obama’s campaign had to do was to follow details of the strike on senior al-Qaeda command, Abu Laith al-Libi, widely reported in the press, but only expanded on by MSNBC News (U.S. strikes within Pakistan without notice: Unilateral attack on al-Qaeda commander called a model for operations) .

As usual the press reported on the attack (or killing or whatever) but left the details to the winds, due to the pressing need to cover the primaries. The successful operation indicates that Obama’s proposal was and remains is far more realistic to the charge of naivety credited him by his adversaries.

The success of the operation and the fact that it falls in line with Obama’s prior proposal indicates his solid understanding of what it takes to accomplish certain tasks or goals. Most importantly, it shows his trust in what US forces are capable of achieving under insightful leadership.

The charge that Obama’s foreign policy experience is slim is nothing but rhetoric. His purported “lack of experience” does not trump his understanding, intelligence, and analytical skills or his ability to manage and benefit from a think-tank that would deduce models of operation capable of blunting the war on terror. He himself has largely questioned the experience that led to the disastrous expedition in Iraq, a perspective that must be kept in sight even beyond the presidential elections.

When not backed by actionable intelligence, insight, and an understanding of the facts on the ground, acting on the basis of experience alone particularly in these modern times, often ends in failure. The difference Obama offers perhaps is that between incisive intelligence, surgical strikes, putting he pressure on the terrorist front and simultaneously engaging a broad-based global diplomacy at the official level as well as re-energizing the Peace Corps, Fulbright and other educational and humanitarian missions around the world, to both reclaim and redefine the role of the US in a fast changing and often hostile world.

Ultimately in relation to the Commander-in-Chief question, one has not heard the other side of the equation, that is, the opinion of the body that is to be commanded. That would be of course difficult to determine as they are supposed to stay out of politics. However, my guess is that given the propositions of the candidates, Obama would be most likely to win the favor of a cross section, given his intellect and ability for both horizontal and vertical organization understandings.

In fact, his “bottom-up” or grassroots approach is far more likely to enable him achieve better results and bring about positive change through generating enthusiasm and a need of dynamic engagement – just as he did in the challenged neighborhoods Chicago before becoming a senator.