Today, the exchange between McCain and Obama on the national security issue reached the surreal. Obama’s likely “National Security Advisor” Richard Danzig, claims he’ll follow a “Winnie the Pooh” approach to foreign policy - if it hurts too much, then stop doing it:

Richard Danzig, who served as Navy Secretary under President Clinton and is tipped to become National Security Adviser in an Obama White House, told a major foreign policy conference in Washington that the future of US strategy in the war on terrorism should follow a lesson from the pages of Winnie the Pooh, which can be shortened to: if it is causing you too much pain, try something else.

Meanwhile, Sen. Obama, railing against the McCain group, states he won’t be lectured on national security - because McCain (and the party) are responsible for Iraq, UBL at large, Abu Ghraib, you name it. In short, Obama has adopted a strategy where anyone who raises an objection about his national security strategy, statements, or policies, get’s branded as “see, told you they’d say that… where’s UBL? Where’s Osama? They’re just trying to make me look bad.”

What utter nonsense. Bottom line, Mr. Obama, is that you would be worse for the security of the nation than any weaknesses you believe were caused by the Bush Administration.

Without question, the Administration made significant mistakes in the GWOT. Today’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on detainee interrogation is but one aspect of haste in policymaking that lead to significant problems for the long-term GWOT strategy. The planning of Iraq, and the way the war was executed until 2007, is clearly plagued with errors and blunders. The failure to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan is inexcusable. It has been one incredible screw-up after another.

The fact that UBL resides somewhere at large - however - is not the fault of the party. And the fact that your policies give anyone who is well-studied on this area “little hope” that you have a clue as to what you’re talking about is not reassuring.

I presume in an Obama campaign - UBL will be captured. Right? That’s one of the implications here - when I become President, that guy is toast.

If, as many have speculated, UBL resides in the FATA areas of Pakistan, launching any precipitous attack to “take him out” would likely be added to the list of blunders that we have made in the GWOT. Anything that could result in the destabilization of Pakistan would not be in our interest - which means if we must wait patiently for our moment to attack UBL, then so be it. If anything, this may be one of the few things we haven’t screwed up. UBL will be captured - or killed - by US forces at some point. He has to remain hidden, and his lieutenants are under constant threat. We’ll eventually get them all.

While the Administration (and by extension I suppose the GOP), has made more than its share of stupid mistakes and blunders, talking about making foreign policy according fables, fairy tales, and movies, seems considerably more ridiculous.

Let’s be clear about a couple of things about Mr. Obama - he’s an absolute novice in the area of foreign policy as far as I can tell. This general notion of “protect our interests while everyone loves us,” philosophy he espouses is impossible to achieve and a fundamentally incorrect set of policies. It reminds me of Carter’s failed foreign policy approach - and the revisionism of “how much the world loved us” when President Clinton was in office.

Bottom line is this - our interests are not necessarily harmonized with what “the world” wants. That said - I’d be foolish in saying that the way we have attempted to secure our policy goals in the last 7 years have been all that effective. Hard choices will face this next President - and I for one want someone who is going to place America first. I don’t particularly care if the world loves us - our relationship with other countries has always been a prickly one. We are criticized for inaction at times (like Darfur and Iran), and criticized for when we take action unilaterally, like Iraq. There are no easy answers - and you can’t protect America if the goal is to do so within a rubric of what other countries are going to find to be permissible.

We do need change - but not wholesale change that would completely place us at risk. To me, Obama represents placing America at risk - either through not appreciating the complexities of foreign policy, or through deciding that “talk” is preferable to securing America. I have yet to hear anything that makes me think Obama would be anything but weak on foreign affairs. Now is not the time for such weaknesses.

Our enemies are actively rooting for Mr. Obama’s election efforts. Hamas, Hezbollah, Castro, and the list goes on, have actively said they’d like to see him as President. Now, I don’t believe that Sen. Obama is happy about these “endorsements” (if one can call them that) - but the fact remains that given the choice between McCain and Obama, our enemies have expressed an interest in Mr. Obama.

How did the DNC nominate this guy? I can’t imagine someone like Carter being nominated if the Soviets had come out and said “We like Comrade Carter! He be good friend to Soviet Union!”

Doesn’t that give anyone pause?