An open leter to Barack Obama on the foriegn policy debate

Dear and Honorable Senator Barack Obama,

I am working on your campaign, I am hopeful that you will be elected. But having seen your foreign policy debate with John McCain I have some deep concerns. I realize that your are stuck like so many politicians playing to that small group of undecided voters, and I realize the media enforces rules of conservative politics, if you step out of an increasingly narrow bounds they can destroy you. Nonetheless, it is in standing for something that you become a strong candidate.

Allow me to share my concerns.

Regarding Afghanistan: we can look back on the history of our invasion of Afghanistan, was it necessary? Perhaps you cannot say this as the Democratic presidential contender, but I would argue that we did not need to invade. The Taliban indicated a willingness to negotiate with us regarding turning over Osama Bin Laden but they were given ultimatums quickly followed by an attack. Perhaps al Quieda could have been dismantled with diplomacy and policing actions. We will, of course, never know where negotiations might have led, but just as the errant decisions that led to the Iraq war are important to keep in focus the same is true for Afghanistan.

More significant is the question of how we leave the conflict. I find it hard to believe that more foreign troops military will win over the Afghani people. This is what I hear you suggest, but as we see in foreigners can increase resistance. If a successful strategy is to be found it will need to be sensitive to the culture and the needs of the people of Afghanistan. It will need to be based on resources to support the country, rather than weapons that ultimately destroy it.

Regarding Pakistan, I was glad you acknowledged the problems of supporting a dictator for 10 years. But I am concerned about strategic strikes into even on limited and carefully thought out bases. I am reminded of the bombing of the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in 1998 under orders of Bill Clinton. Intelligence told him it was a weapons plant.

I was disappointed when you called Venezuela a rogue nation. Venezuela is a democratic nation and Chaves is a democratically elected and popularly supported president. Chaves and the bush administration have had an antagonistic relationship, but has not engaged in rogue actions. There are still questions of whether the government was involved in any way in supporting or encouraging the coup attempt against Chaves. That would make us the rogue nation.

Perhaps my greatest concern was when you said "No soldier ever dies in vain because they are carrying out the mission of the commander and chief." While this may have had some temporary rhetorical power, I hope you don't really mean this. American foreign policy has not always been "honorable" certainly our invasion of Iraq was immoral and predicated on false purposes. Those soldiers who thought they were fighting to find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction who died in the pursuit of that goal died in vain. Further, commander’s orders are not sufficient justification for soldier’s actions. The "just following orders" justification allows horrendous war crimes. America is not above this potential fate.

Those are my concerns.

I am glad that you are opposed to our war in Iraq. This is what drew many of us to your campaign. A quick end to the war has always been ethical; it is also wise and prudent. I wish you would have reminded the American people that the Iraqi people want our troops out, the Iraqi government wants a time table for the withdrawal of our troops, and the majority of American people favor an end to this war. To proceed with out promises of withdrawal threatens to jeopardize the fragile coalitions that have allowed a decrease in violence. This coalition (possibly negotiated in part by Iran is probably more important than the surge in reducing the level of violence in Iraq.

This brings me to the one point in the debate that was most encouraging for me regarding your foreign policy position. I am glad that you are willing to talk with adversaries. I want to commend you for taking this position. I understand that this is very much a part of who you are. It is because of this that I am still willing to support you even if we disagree on many of the important, life and death decisions of American foreign policy. Nonetheless, while I support you, I want to be clear that my support is not unconditional and that I urge you to revise your position on the issues I have presented here.

Sincerely,
Gaia Kile