|
 |
 |
|
An Exchange of Words
-
02/19/07 09:41 AM ET
An international situation that took place recently with Sen. Barack Obama and Prime Minister John Howard of Australia deserves further review and its possible implications for both men.
An exchange of words occurred, pitting one of America's closest allies against a man who wants the privilege of sitting in the Oval Office and calling them on the phone. Australian Prime Minister John Howard, one of President Bush's intimate allies in the war on terror, slammed the recent announcement by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Obama that America's first priority should be to end the war in Iraq and withdraw U.S. forces from the country by March 31, 2008. Prime Minister Howard declared such a policy only encourages terrorists and added, "If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats." In response, Robert Gibbs, a spokesman for Sen. Obama's campaign, declared, "If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home. It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."
Two observations are immediately clear. The first is that it is inappropriate for foreign heads of state to get in the mud with U.S. presidential candidates. The old adage that "politics stops at the water's edge" should work in reverse as well. Prime Minister Howard has been heroic in his leadership on the war on terror. He is among the few world leaders who truly get what this fight is all about. Exchanging words with Sen. Obama merely enlarges Obama's stature. What is more, there are a few things Americans dislike more than international commentary on our domestic politics. The Prime Minister could have made the point just as well without mentioning either the Democratic Party or Sen. Obama.
The second observation, and far more serious, is how callous and self-serving the Obama campaign's response to this incident was. Instead of simply acknowledging a difference of opinion with Prime Minister Howard, the campaign gratuitously insulted Australia's contributions in Iraq. The idea that Australia is not "making the sacrifices" is insulting and, at best, demonstrates a willful disregard for the contributions Australia has made in this fight. Approximately 2000 Australian troops joined U.S. and British forces in the opening stages of the war and Australia, under Prime Minister Howard's leadership, has been unique among our allies in standing by U.S. forces. Prime Minister Howard's decision to commit Australian forces to Iraq led to the largest anti-war protests in Australia since the Vietnam War, and put his continued political leadership in jeopardy. On Sunday, he demonstrated some of the toughness that led Australians to return him and his Conservative Party to power multiple times. When discussing Australia's continued support of U.S. policy, he remarked, "You either rat on the ally or you stay with the ally." Sen. Obama's campaign, in an initial foray into international affairs, decided to "rat on the ally" and attack one of our country's closest allies. He should demonstrate the largeness of character that Americans want in a president and apologize.
An exchange of words occurred, pitting one of America's closest allies against a man who wants the privilege of sitting in the Oval Office and calling them on the phone. Australian Prime Minister John Howard, one of President Bush's intimate allies in the war on terror, slammed the recent announcement by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Obama that America's first priority should be to end the war in Iraq and withdraw U.S. forces from the country by March 31, 2008. Prime Minister Howard declared such a policy only encourages terrorists and added, "If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats." In response, Robert Gibbs, a spokesman for Sen. Obama's campaign, declared, "If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home. It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."
Two observations are immediately clear. The first is that it is inappropriate for foreign heads of state to get in the mud with U.S. presidential candidates. The old adage that "politics stops at the water's edge" should work in reverse as well. Prime Minister Howard has been heroic in his leadership on the war on terror. He is among the few world leaders who truly get what this fight is all about. Exchanging words with Sen. Obama merely enlarges Obama's stature. What is more, there are a few things Americans dislike more than international commentary on our domestic politics. The Prime Minister could have made the point just as well without mentioning either the Democratic Party or Sen. Obama.
The second observation, and far more serious, is how callous and self-serving the Obama campaign's response to this incident was. Instead of simply acknowledging a difference of opinion with Prime Minister Howard, the campaign gratuitously insulted Australia's contributions in Iraq. The idea that Australia is not "making the sacrifices" is insulting and, at best, demonstrates a willful disregard for the contributions Australia has made in this fight. Approximately 2000 Australian troops joined U.S. and British forces in the opening stages of the war and Australia, under Prime Minister Howard's leadership, has been unique among our allies in standing by U.S. forces. Prime Minister Howard's decision to commit Australian forces to Iraq led to the largest anti-war protests in Australia since the Vietnam War, and put his continued political leadership in jeopardy. On Sunday, he demonstrated some of the toughness that led Australians to return him and his Conservative Party to power multiple times. When discussing Australia's continued support of U.S. policy, he remarked, "You either rat on the ally or you stay with the ally." Sen. Obama's campaign, in an initial foray into international affairs, decided to "rat on the ally" and attack one of our country's closest allies. He should demonstrate the largeness of character that Americans want in a president and apologize.
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
