Accepting Obama’s war on terror stance ain’t easy

By Malena Amusa Aug 01, 2007

This week, Obama said he’d attack al Qaeda groups in Pakistan if president, and if it came to that. Some presidential candidates would agree. So this news shouldn’t startle me. But it does, and I’m sure it’s because of Obama’s color. I still can’t come to terms with Obama’s Blackness that I’d hoped would mean his undue progressiveness, and his need to fulfill a certain imperialism seemingly inherent in taking the job after Bush. More so, I’m afraid that if elected, Obama will want to prove his race is not a deterrent to being a big boy who can rough it out like some other, white leaders. Reuters reported:

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will," Obama said. The Illinois Democrat is trying to convince Americans he has the foreign policy heft to be president after a rival candidate, New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton, questioned his readiness to be commander in chief.

Despite Obama saying last week that he’d meet with leaders the U.S. has historically demonized–something Sen. Clinton called irresponsible–I don’t think Obama is willing to compromise his clubhouse pass by touting anti-violence and coming off weak. Which shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone, but it still does. Help me out here….