Handling the war in Iraq: McCain's Common Sense or Obama's Nonsense?

Sen. Barack Obama outlined his strategy for handling the War in Iraq today, having last visited the country (for the first and only time) in 2006. Disturbingly, Obama's speech indicates that he has clearly forgotten the painful consequences similar plans have visited upon US soil.

History lesson: When the Russians were defeated in Afghanistan, the US withdrew before the country could be stabalized and rebuilt. The consequences of that withdrawal were felt on Sept. 11, 2001. As most Americans now know, terrorists commandeered Afghanistan in the vacuum created by America's departure, and they used the country to plot one of the worst attacks ever carried out on US soil.

There is a lesson to be learned by what happened in Afghanistan. If the next American president takes the same approach to the War in Iraq, he can expect similar consequences down the road. Abandoning Iraq in 16 months, only to leave behind one small "strike force" is to essentially hand the country over to al Queda or other terrorist organizations, thus sentencing members of that strike force to death.

Obama is right in his opinion that Iraq shouldn't have been the focus of the post-9/11 War on Terror. This is stating the obvious, despite the revelations of faulty intelligence that emerged after the "Shock & Awe" campaign in 2003. Nevertheless, the current situation in Iraq is much more than a "dangerous distraction," and, thankfully, McCain understands this.

McCain also understands that observations and assessments should be made before a policy is implemented, rather than establishing a policy, then making observations. It's been two years since Obama visited Iraq, which means his 2008 Iraq policy is based on what he observed in 2006. Obama next visit to Iraq is scheduled for "soon," according to his handlers.

One other disturbing note: In an attempt to tie his entire platform together with one speech, Obama discussed how eliminating America's dependence on foreign oil is a national security issue (not an economic one, apparently). Most striking was his comment about the way his administration would go about achieving an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050: "We will develop alternative forms of energy and share these developments with the rest of the world."

This statement shows just what a neophyte Obama is when it comes to the US economy. At a time when America is entering a terrible recession, brought about in part by rising fuel costs, Obama is talking about giving away valuable scientific advances in alternative energy production. If developed first by the US, these alternative forms of energy and the infrastructure necessary to create them, would be a very valuable asset that could be marketed to the rest of the world, thereby putting billions of dollars worth of revenue back into the US economy. Why Obama would want to hand over the keys to the mint is anyone's guess, but this kind of reckless rhetoric should give the American people pause as they attempt to determine who will best lead the country into the next decade.