Thursday, April 10, 2008
Life credits in the school of foreign policy
Back in law school I was very fortunate to be able to spend two summers ('84 and '86) backpacking in Asia rather than working for money. I went all sorts of places, lived on around ten bucks a day excluding transportation, met the locals, and learned a lot.
Little did I know that experience conferred sufficient foreign policy expertise to be President of the United States.
To counter opponents’ accusations that he lacks experience in foreign policy, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois often cites his ties to relatives in poor villages in Kenya and the years he spent growing up in Indonesia. Now he has added a new personal detail to that résumé: a trip to Pakistan while a college student.
Having trouble seeing the screen here, through the tears of laughter pouring from my eyes.
Now, nobody thinks that it was a good thing that George W. Bush has, or at least had, so little curiousity about the wider world that he had barely left the United States notwithstanding unbelievable opportunities to do so. But the lesson of Bush's inexperience is not that three weeks in Pakistan, visits to Kenya, or trips to visit dad in Indonesia suddenly turn a person even as smart as Barack Obama into Metternich, Bismarck, Churchill, or Kissinger.
Obama went on to deride "Washington" experience in foreign policy, such as that obtained from meeting with actual foreign leaders, an obvious dig at both Clinton and McCain. The McCain camp's response was priceless:
“When John McCain travels on official business, he meets with presidents, prime ministers, foreign and defense ministers, members of parliament, human rights leaders, N.G.O.’s, business leaders and journalists so that he acquires a full understanding of the country he visits and the issues at stake in our relations,” said Mark Salter, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain. “Oh, and as Senator Obama may know, he has actually spent some time living abroad as well.”
The New York Times seemed largely uninterested in the most intriguing aspect of this story: Why is it that we are only hearing now about Obama's trip to Pakistan, which he has (apparently) omitted from every published account of his life's experience? There are two possible explanations. First, the Pakistan trip was actually of such trivial significance to his personal development that he did not think that it warranted mentioning. That would impeach the argument Obama made yesterday. Second, Barack Obama did not want American voters to know that he had spent time in Pakistan.
Can you think of a third explanation?
4 Comments:
By 
joated, at
Thu Apr 10, 02:53:00 PM:
The third explanation might be that it, like Hillary's ducking sniper fire, never happened. But then I have no knowledge that it didn't happen. Wonder what his passport says about that?
By jj mollo, at
Thu Apr 10, 03:31:00 PM:
Presumably he didn't want people to further suspect that he might be a closet Muslim. Doing the jihadi tour just doesn't give off good vibes. Why not India?
So if he expects the information to be revealed now by some investigative journalist, he might as well put it out with a positive spin.
By 
, at
Thu Apr 10, 04:28:00 PM:
Actually TH, I believe you WOULD be more qualified to be president than Bush was when it came to foreign policy.
Obama's description of what happens on state visits does raise an question of whether it's more important to have experience with diplomacy or whether it's better to have an understanding of the "people", as vague as that term can be. Not sure myself.
As for the Pakistan trip -- seems like a typical BS politico move, but hardly nefarious. But it probably was more educational than hanging out in Sarajevo with Sinbad.
-Karachi is for Lovers
By , at
Thu Apr 10, 10:52:00 PM:
He's decided the prospects of President are better than a sleeper suicide bomber?
JC
