At last week’s Democratic presidential debate, Barack Obama fielded a question about responding to a terrorist attack. The response struck me as reasonable at the time, and hardly worth scrutinizing, but since it got some attention on some of yesterday’s morning shows, let’s explore it a moment.
Brian Williams asked Obama how he would “change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result” of an al Qaeda attack in two American cities. Obama emphasized the importance of an “effective emergency response,” stressed the importance of acting on reliable intelligence, and talked about coordinating with the international community because “we’re not going to defeat terrorists on our own.”
None of it sounded particularly mamby-pamby. “We have genuine enemies out there that have to be hunted down,” Obama added. “Networks have to be dismantled. There is no contradiction between us intelligently using our military, and in some cases lethal force, to take out terrorists, and at the same time building the sort of alliances and trust around the world that has been so lacking over the last six years.”
Taking notes during the debate, I didn’t even think to write any of this down. It sounded pretty routine. Apparently, though, it’s become a bit of a flap.
At issue is whether Obama mishandled a question about how he would respond if two American cities were attacked by terrorists: Did he fail to demonstrate the toughness and resolve that voters want in a president or was his answer a careful and comprehensive checklist for any potential president dealing with an international crisis?
The Clinton campaign seized on what happened, claiming, without mentioning Obama, that “Hillary was the candidate who demonstrated that she would know how to respond if the country was attacked.” An Obama spokesman dismissed the Clinton camp’s press release as “a sign of nervousness.”
Apparently, this has become some kind of “toughness” test?
After Obama, Edwards responded to the same question by saying, “The first thing I would do is be certain I knew who was responsible, and I would act swiftly and strongly to hold them responsible for that.” Clinton citing her experience as a senator from New York during the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, said, “I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate. If we are attacked, and we can determine who is behind that attack, and if there are nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond.” Richardson wasn’t even asked the question, but nevertheless said, “I would respond militarily, aggressively.”
So, if I understand the scuttlebutt properly, Obama’s response wasn’t “aggressive” enough. George Stephanopoulos said yesterday, “Senator Clinton’s team and the other candidates have been making a lot of the fact that when Senator Obama was asked the what would you do if al Qaeda attacked two US cities, in his first response he didn’t say the US would respond militarily. He fixed it later. But that was not his instinct. They say that was very telling.” Fareed Zakaria added that Obama “didn’t do exactly what you’re supposed to do in these situations,” which is repeat the “sound bites and the buttons you’re meant to press.”
All of this strikes me as terribly silly. If we showed Obama’s response to 1,000 Americans, how many would find it objectionable (or even remotely controversial)? 10? It’s not as if Obama said he wouldn’t retaliate against a terrorist strike; he said he’d do so prudently. Isn’t that a good thing?
Sure, I don’t doubt there’s a segment of the population that takes the “kill the bastards now” approach, but even they should remember that Bush didn’t go after Afghanistan immediately after 9/11; he waited a month.
Obviously the first instinct to getting hit is hitting back, but Obama’s answer seemed to be “hit back smart.” Why is this even remotely controversial?
It’s my sincere hope that this has become a mini-flap only because the debate was relatively uneventful and the pundits need something to talk about.