Two things about Obama's recent campaigning stand out. The first is that he has grounded his case for himself on his opposition to the war. The strategic advantages of this are obvious. The war is unpopular, and his opposition from the get go allows him to distinguish himself both from Senator Clinton and Senator McCain. The problem is that it is unlikely to translate into policy. He seems to be saying now that he will put out of Iraq immediately, and then go back in if Al Qaeda "returns." Now that is one of three available policies. The other two are: stay a little longer, until it is safe to leave (Clinton), or stay in until the enemy has been defeated and Iraq is a stable state (McCain). The latter two are probably the same for all practical purposes. If the success of the recent surge strategy holds, such a policy will be sustainable for a while.
Get out and then go back in is a recipe for disaster. Going back in after the place goes to Hell again would be much more expensive in lives and treasure. In fact, President Obama wouldn't be able to go back in. He would let Al Qaeda or Iran get a third of the world's crude oil supply, and make futile efforts to contain the damage from outside. For that reason, he won't get out in the first place. He will be forced to stick it out. Obama is standing on no policy.
And then there is NAFTA. Obama is denouncing it. No wonder, as it gives him a wedge in Ohio against Ms. Clinton. But it's a stupid position, if you care about economic realities. NAFTA has obviously been a success. Creating a free trade zone in North America to compete with the European Union, China, and India, is exactly good economic strategy. Is President Obama really going to say to Mexico and Canada, sorry, but we are not longer interested in doing business with you? He talks about renegotiating the treaty, but everyone knows what that means. It means protecting ailing American shops. Mexico would respond in turn, as would Canada, and that would hurt all three economies. What he will actually do is nothing. Any substantial change in the treaty would hurt more American businesses, and more states, than it would help.
Obama is all about change. So far he hasn't offered any real alternatives.
Recent Comments