Barack Obama makes history tonight: The first African-American major- party presidential nominee will ad dress the nation from Denver – and on no topic does he need to speak more firmly than national defense.
How does he intend to “secure America’s future,” anyway?
It’s not like the Democrats, or Obama, have national-security credibility.
The party of FDR, HST and JFK had an existential crisis during the Vietnam War; it’s been a haven for appeasers, wishful-thinkers and unserious practitioners of foreign policy ever since.
Ex-President Bill Clinton, ever the embellishing orator, revisited his own legacy at the Pepsi Center last night: “The Republicans said I was too young and too inexperienced to be commander-in-chief. It didn’t work in 1992 because we were on the right side of history.”
But what about that?
Taking office as the Soviet Union collapsed, he actually declared a holiday from history – with tragic results.
Grasping for a supposed “peace dividend,” Clinton effectively dismantled the military – scuttling a huge chunk of the Navy’s fleet and shrinking the Army by more than a third.
And then he had the nerve last night to complain about the results, asserting that Obama has “a firm commitment to repair our badly strained military.”
The fact is that history was not on holiday in 1992 – and America’s stretched-too-thin Army has been paying dearly for Clinton’s irresolution.
Shortly after Clinton took office, al Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center garage – an attack he ignored.
Osama was watching.
Among Clinton’s first official acts was to cut-and-run from Mogadishu.
Osama was inspired.
There quickly followed murderous strikes on US troops in Saudi Arabia, on US embassies in Africa and on USS Cole. Scores of Americans died – and Osama, emboldened, ordered the 9/11 attacks.
Was Clinton “too young and inexperienced”?
Then came the by-then-unavoidable War on Terror – which the party’s leadership seems determined to lose.
Indeed, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid came right out and declared defeat in Iraq: “This war is lost,” he said, insisting that Gen. David Petraeus’ surge “is not accomplishing anything.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly called Iraq “a failure” and “a disaster.” (Her idea of how America should handle foreign affairs? Let a congresswoman – that would be her – conduct unauthorized sitdowns with terrorist sponsors, like Syrian strongman Bashar Assad, as she did last year).
Indeed, Obama himself owes his rise largely to his opposition to US efforts in Iraq – and he long denied the dramatic reductions in violence there.
Beyond Iraq, he’s uttered one gaffe after another – from his talk of invading US ally Pakistan, to his flip-flops on dialogue with Iran’s mullahs, to his alternating positions on Israel.
When Russia invaded Georgia this month, Obama’s first response was to urge mutual “restraint” while waiting for the UN Security Council (where Russia enjoys veto power) to respond.
Moscow has since all but completed the annexation of the two Georgian provinces it had earlier stolen – and on Tuesday Russian President Dmitry Medvedev rattled a sabre: “We are not afraid of anything, including the prospect of [another] Cold War,” he said.
Who’s to doubt him?
Does Obama?
The candidate will touch on many topics tonight. More than anything else, he needs to convince America that he’s not “too young and inexperienced” to lead the nation in perilous times.
It’s going to be a tough sell.