Senator Obama this morning said that he wants a foreign policy that is “tough, smart, and principled.” This afternoon, I ask: was it tough when Senator Obama voted to order U.S. forces to retreat from Iraq on a fixed timeline—regardless of the recommendations of our military commanders, regardless of conditions on the ground? Was it smart when Senator Obama opposed the surge and predicted that it would fail to improve security? Was it principled when Senator Obama said that he would order U.S. troops to retreat from Iraq, regardless of the humanitarian consequences for millions of innocent Iraqis—even genocide? Was it tough and principled when Senator Obama said he would be open to changing his plan for Iraq after going there and talking to General Petraeus—only to change that position a few hours later after being heatedly criticized by organizations like Moveon.org? I say respectfully, the answer to all of those questions is no.

Senator Obama also said this morning that he wants a foreign policy that recognizes that we have interests “not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London.” But what Senator Obama does not seem to recognize is that—in an interdependent world—what happens in Baghdad affects our interests in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London. What Senator Obama does not seem to understand is that—had we taken the course he had counseled and retreated from Iraq—the United States would have suffered a catastrophic defeat that would have left America and our allies less safe not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London.

Unfortunately, Obama tends to set policy on a naïve view of reality with updates only in hindsight.  He was against the military build up in Iraq and the build up worked.  Now he is for a more length withdraw only after the majority of the goals have been reached and a drawdown is inevitable.  Hindsight.  He wants to set an Iraqi policy without input from General Petraeus.  Naïve.  He wants renewable energy but see no need to mix this with current (and transitional) oil needs that draw down on our dependency for foreign oil.  Naïve.  He rejects public finance after he realizes that the Democrats will be able to outspend Republicans during the campaign.  Hindsight.   He supports “single-pay” or national health care even though the countries that have it show that either the expense is unsupportable or that the quality of the healthcare suffers greatly.  Naïve. 

The truth of the matter is that Obama simply doesn’t have the experience to set forward looking, mature, realistic policies for our country.  America can’t afford unattainable dreams or rear looking policy making.  Let’s stand as a united country and move into the future, not into dreams with no substance.