McCain adviser goes nuclear on Obama

The only bad part about this is that he didn't do it face-to-face. That and Obama will probably ignore it. But that didn't deter Mark Salter from unloading on Obama for his "nuance" on leaving Iraq and the dangers involved in that decision:

"Senator Obama says that ending the war will not be easy, that 'there will be dangers involved.' Yet, in that patented way of his, he declines to name those dangers. Let me enumerate a few: al Qaeda, which is now on the run, will survive, claim victory and continue to provoke sectarian tensions that, while they have been subdued by the 'tactics' of the surge, still exist and are ripe for provocation by al Qaeda, which would almost certainly ignite again civil war in Iraq, a civil war that could easily descend into genocide. To say that invading Iraq was used as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda is one thing. To pretend that our defeat there won't provide an even bigger one is foolish supposition. Iran, which trains Shia extremists and is known to arm and equip Sunni extremists, a fact Senator Obama is apparently unaware of, will also view our premature withdrawal as a victory, as will other countries in the region, and the biggest state supporter of terrorists, a country with nuclear ambitions and a stated desire to destroy the State of Israel, will see its influence in the Middle East grow significantly. These are some of 'dangers,' that our premature withdrawal from Iraq will engender, and they all have the potential to destabilize the entire region. A realistic plan to prevent them from occurring is what people with experience in statecraft call 'strategy,' something Senator Obama has not offered yet.

"Senator Obama, as has also become a habit of his 'new politics,' mischaracterizes John McCain's position by saying McCain did not want to reduce troops because the violence in Iraq was too high, and now do not wish to do so because the violence in down. The reason violence is down is because General Petraeus' counterinsurgency is, which even Senator Obama recognizes, succeeding. Those 'tactics,' are advancing our 'strategy.' Deprive General Petraeus of the resources and manpower to employ those tactics, or worse, leave Iraq altogether, and our strategy will collapse. That is national security 101. John McCain wants American forces to come home when our clear and serious interests at stake in Iraq, which nearly 4,000 Americans have given their lives to secure, are truly safe, when al Qaeda is defeated; Iran's influence is contained, and the potential for a truly cataclysmic civil war in Iraq is remote. That, I think, is what is called 'making us safer.' Senator Obama's plan, if it can be charitably described as one, would do the reverse."

Neither Democrat has a plan to finish of our enemy in Iraq. Their plans call for withdrawal and defeat. They are our own worst enemy at this point when it comes to the strategy of this war; just as much as the Democrats were when talk of withdrawal from Vietnam started up. Both have said that the troops have to come home. The problem is such a move would embolden our enemies over there. While we withdraw, they'll lie low; they might even end the violence altogether. When we're gone, they'll lay waste to Iraq, destabilize a fledgling government, and force Iraq's descent into Hell.

Obama has nuttier ideas than Ron Paul, and should he win the presidency, we can expect to be back on the defensive against our animalistic enemies. He'll sit back and watch as Iraq falls into chaos, and he'll conveniently sit by and watch as Iran builds a nuke. He's a novice; a rookie in foreign policy matters. McCain isn't.

Publius II