Actionable intelligence: Obama’s magical thinking versus Hillary’s realism

Obama seems to have peaked too early. The next few months will show that Hillary has more depth, intelligence, common sense and commitment.

In last night’s debate, Obama and Edwards seemed to have formed some sort of unholy alliance aimed at getting Hillary voted off the island. It won’t work though, and it’s pretty obvious that Obama or Edwards would stab the other in the back in a heartbeat. If one of them gets the nomination, don’t expect the other to be selected as running mate. They both know that Hillary is the best candidate but they both desperately want to be president. She is the main obstacle. What was Hillary thinking? “I can’t believe they stuck me on a podium with these lightweights.”

Obama engaged in Kerryesque magical thinking. He seemed inclined to disbelieve the notion that Musharraf will still be Pakistan’s president should Obama be elected. The more dangerous illustration of Obama’s magical thinking is that he still apparently wants to attack Pakistan as soon as he has “actionable intelligence” of Bin Laden’s whereabouts. It was “actionable intelligence” that got us into Iraq. The “actionable intelligence” turned out to be wrong.

Will “actionable intelligence” be foolproof under an Obama presidency when it will be coming through the same channels that it did under the Bush presidency? It is an invitation to Al Qaeda to disrupt and destabilize Pakistan even further by dropping false information to the Americans (one of the few things that Al Qaeda seems to be good at). A US strike on Pakistan would make Al Qaeda ecstatic because Al Qaeda wants to promote chaos so that it can forcibly impose its own extremist cult on ordinary Muslims. Hillary had to point out to Obama that an unannounced strike on Pakistan could inadvertently set off a nuclear war with India. If time were not a factor, she could perhaps have explained the relative population size of Pakistan and Iraq and the difference in the weaponry possessed by the two. She might also have mentioned the hundreds of Pakistani soldiers and thousands of Pakistani civilians who have already died in the war on terror. It is magical thinking for Obama to insist that the “actionable intelligence” will miraculously become more accurate just because he has been elected.

If Clinton wins New Hampshire, it will probably be impossible for Obama to regain his momentum. If Obama wins New Hampshire, the next several months will provide plenty of time for people to realize that Hillary is a much safer choice. I don’t think that the Democrats are stupid enough not to choose Hillary. They can’t risk another nebulous Kerryesque candidate that isn’t committed to anything except change itself. Is Obama for invading Islamic countries or against it? Is he committed to universal healthcare or not? What deeply felt principle makes it okay to take lobbyists’ money at a state level but not on a national level?

More from blogHILLARY