Redstate

By Jennifer Millerwise Dyck Posted in 2008 — Comments (27) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

[Editorial Note: Jennifer Millerwise Dyck is a former director of public affairs with the CIA and served as deputy communications director with the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign. We're happy to have her blogging here.]

Tomorrow, voters will go to the polls in New Hampshire to do their part in selecting the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees.  The outcome of the primary is of course unknown, and polling over the last few days makes it hard to predict.  But, one thing is certain: Whichever Democrat is ultimately nominated, he or she will bring to the table far less experience and expertise in defending and advancing America’s interests abroad than what will in fact be required.

Over the next few years, our country will face unprecedented challenges in the foreign policy arena.  We are all aware, of course, of the continued threat posed by Al-Qaeda and associated terrorist groups.  We are also aware of the need to bring stability and security to Iraq, and indeed, the Middle East as an entire region. 

But there are other challenges, too.  One is how to engage positively, and bolster our relations, with Pakistan.  Another is how to work with a resurgent Russia.  And, there are good reasons to question Iran’s intentions with regard to the development of a nuclear weapon.    Put bluntly, none of the potential Democratic nominees is up to the task of dealing with such matters—and voters should be wary of the notion that they are equipped to lead where such complex issues are concerned.

Read on . . .

Sen. Obama, the winner of the Iowa caucuses, has of course voted against funding our troops in Iraq.  Last summer, he also indicated that were he elected to the presidency, and were the US to obtain actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets within Pakistan, he would act unilaterally if President Musharraf did not.  It was an amateurish enough error to earn Obama schooling from Sen. Biden (“The way to deal with it is not to announce it”), and was dismissed as downright irresponsible by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister.  Yet Obama reiterated his commitment to unilateral action, under these circumstances, in Saturday’s debate.  So not only did he exhibit a serious deficiency in judgment the first time round.  It seems he still has not learned his lesson.

Sen. Clinton, she who has also voted against funding the troops, also recently demonstrated a shocking unawareness of Pakistani matters, referring to President Musharraf—reelected several months ago—as a “candidate” and “on the ballot” in relation to upcoming parliamentary elections.  On Sunday, as captured by CNN, she tried to bolster her credibility on foreign affairs matters by claiming to have played a key role in relation to the Northern Ireland peace process—a dubious assertion, to be sure.

Meanwhile, Sen. Edwards exhibits virtually no interest in international affairs, preferring instead to focus on talking about raising taxes, nixing free trade, interventionist, big government approaches towards health care, and the like.  Sure, he’ll talk about Iraq, but only in terms of apologizing for his original vote to authorize military action there, and pledging to withdraw US troops as fast as he possibly can (irrespective of the good work they are doing, as was well pointed out by Fred Barnes this weekend).

Which is, of course, the main focus of the whole Democratic field—and capable though they may all be of redeploying US forces out of Iraq post haste, at the end of the day, it’s clear: The Democratic frontrunners are not leaders capable of adeptly confronting the multitude of foreign policy challenges we face.  For that reason, no matter how good a game they may talk, they must be rejected.