TJP

How would McCain respond to an Al Qaeda Attack?

By Byron A. Ellis - July 04, 2008

McCain proclaims that his foreign policy experience uniquely position him to be president of the United States; although what the country needs right now is transformational leadership experience. Nonetheless, if McCain is so experienced in foreign policy, he should tell the country how he would respond to another attack by Al Qaeda.

The Republican response to the 2001 attack, which McCain supported, was to invade Iraq. However, Iraq was not responsible for the attack.

Would McCain respond by attacking another oil producing nation, Iran? Or would he go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

If he tells the country that he would attack Iran, it would be a continuation of the ill-conceived Bush policy. If he says he would go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it would validate Obama’s position.

Obama has stated that the source of the September 11 attack was Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Moreover, that he would concentrate American resources in Afghanistan and Pakistan to bring Al Qaeda to justice. He also stated that it should be the policy of the United States to seek out Al Qaeda in Pakistan even without the approval from the Pakistani authorities; a policy that the Bush administration has now embraced.

The Bush administration and congressional Republicans, including McCain, response to Al Qaeda’s September 11 attack was misguided. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was supported by many Americans, was inappropriate. It was either a deliberate calculation or gross incompetence.

The boomerang effect of the Iraq invasion, high-energy prices, is now evident and reaping havoc on the US and world economy.

The inability of the Republicans, including McCain, to implement an appropriate and cost-effective response to the attack, demonstrates lack of foreign policy experience. Thus, the characteristic that McCain pretends to portray as a major strength appears to be a weakness.

Whether we want to acknowledge it or not, Bin Laden is wining the economic war. And, it is really an economic war that he is engaged in. However, the current US leadership has been engaged in an expensive conventional war.

Bin Laden, with a ragtag group of followers, has inflicted tremendous economic cost on the US coalition. Not only from the standpoint of military expenditure, but also forgone domestic productivity.

The US response to Al Qaeda’s attack heightened Middle East instability and created the potential for future crude oil disruption. It is this perceived potential for crude oil supply disruption that causes traders to bid up prices and profit from crude oil trading.

If Congress fails to reverse rising energy cost, job losses and inflation will continue to increase.

And, for those that believe that the Republicans are strong on defense, they ought to recognize that higher crude oil prices weakens the economy; a weak economy leads to weak armies and weak defense. However, McCain’s, and the Republicans, response to a second Al Qaeda attack would surely be an attack an Iran. McCain’s bomb, bomb Iran’s song should foretell his thought process.

An attack an Iran would cause oil prices to rise faster. It is conceivable that subsequent to the attack, a barrel of crude oil would approach $300.00. The likely price of a gallon of gasoline would be higher than $8.00. At this price, few Americans could afford private transportation and many industries would not survive.

Therefore, the next president must have a different strategy to confront Bin Laden’s ragtag operation and his economic war. What is needed is a targeted operation in Afghanistan and Pakistan to capture and bring Bin Laden and his henchmen to justice.

[ Home | Comments | Search | Post ]

POST COMMENT

SAVE DARFUR