a poor Der Spiegel article's got it wrong

LINK:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,536232,00.html

Gabor Steingart of German daily der Spiegel seems a bit confused about Obama. His article is really about Obama's nascent foreign policy, but it takes seven paragraphs of a contrived metaphor likening the "Obama-phenomenon" to the market bubble of the 1990's before we find out why Mr Steingart is such a skeptic. I could find two things in the article that are at issue. One is Iraq, the other, Pakistan.

Mr Steingart on IRAQ:

"Obama's most dangerous land mines are hidden in foreign policy. A quick withdrawal from Iraq? Sounds great. But the mistake of having started this war in the first place cannot be corrected by ending it in a mad rush to get out of Iraq. A rapid withdrawal of the US military would most likely be followed by a bloody civil war."

Yes, we Americans have been swallowing this crap by the barrowful for years. "It can only get worse!" is the mantra. In fact, talking about civil war is moot. It's been occurring for years. And the likelihood that a fullblown regional conflict could occur is hard to predict. Juan Cole of Informed Comment has provided a basic rundown as to why.

Cont. on IRAQ:
"Al-Qaida would manage to sink its teeth into Iraq once and for all. Iran would rejoice. And Osama bin Laden and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be the real winners of the 2008 American presidential election."

Really? Voting for Obama is basically like voting for Ahmadinejad and UBL? True al Qaeda fighters -- that is, people with operational and financial ties to AQ as opposed to purely inspirational links-- number less than 1,000 in Iraq. Does Mr Steingart truly believe that the Sunni "Awakening" tribes, the Shi'a dominated government, and the Kurds would permit AQ to form an operational base in Iraq (see above link)? We've seen that the best way to beat AQ kinetically is through the Iraqis themselves, such as the "Awakening" tribes. As for Iran, certainly they will rejoice when we withdraw, but I'm sure they're not sweating our $250mil/day tiedown either. Point of fact, our ability to confront Iran constructively has been mitigated by Iraq, on every level.

Mr Steingart on PAKISTAN:

"On top of all that, Obama, in an effort to show strength, has come up with a new, and in some ways exclusive, theater for the US armed forces. He talks about military operations in the nuclear power Pakistan, operations that he, as commander-in-chief, would order even without the approval of the United Nations. That is "the war we need to win," he says again and again."

First some factual errors.
1. Obama's policy is neither new nor exclusive. The current administration endorses and is conducting operations in the FATA region of Pakistan as we speak. Predator drones have been flying over that part of the world launching missiles for years. Obama's policy, as laid out in his August speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center, is a continuation of the policy. Obama's main point was that the policy was not enacted quickly enough. It wasn't to prove he was "strong." It's because Mr Obama believes in killing AQ fighters, not Iraqi civilians. Is Mr Steingart just plain ignorant?
2. The UN doesn't have to approve those strikes on Pakistan soil because the Pakistani government has already approved of them, albeit (not so) covertly.

Mr Steingart on VIETNAM:

"But in reality a military campaign in Pakistan would be lunacy, even if many in the American media have chosen to studiously ignore Obama's comments. A comparison with President John F. Kennedy, who was 43 when he was elected, reveals that Kennedy was in fact unenthusiastic about going to war in Vietnam. It was a war the inexperienced President slid into, and if he was a war president, it was by accident and not design."

I just wanted to throw this quote in there because I think it shows how little Mr Steingart understands about American political history. President Kennedy's escalation of American involvement was not an "accident," it was done according to the "communication" theories of SECDEF McNamara. I recommend reading the book Dereliction of Duty by Col HR McMaster for more info on how we slowly but surely got involved in that theater. Also, describing any President who served during the heyday of the Cold War as an accidental "war president" confuses the atmosphere of the era, I think. And comparing the containment strategy of the Cold War to the directionless foreign policy of today is absurd.