Obama's statements were denounced by his political opponents on both sides of the aisle as naïve and even dangerous. Many media outlets simply reported the statement as a "gaffe," as if he had called a visiting dignitary by the wrong name; many of his fellow candidates for president, both Democrats and Republicans, also criticized him for the statements. These critics typically pointed to Obama's statements as indicative of his naïveté and inexperience, while reiterating either that "no options should be taken off the table" or that it was improper for a candidate to talk publicly about such things.
While some disagreed with the positions Obama took, much of the criticism was not articulated in that manner. Some criticism was aimed, rather, at the fact that he had dared to talk publicly about how he would act as president. More specifically, he was attacked for violating one of the established tenets of the foreign policy establishment: One does not discuss the details of American foreign policy with the American people.
Both, the criticism of his position and of his ignorance of political courtesy, are wrong. Instead, Obama managed to show simultaneously the courage required of a president and the error of a basic rule of politicking.
Firstly, the position the other candidates implied in criticizing Obama is wrong. If the president knew that Osama bin Laden was somewhere in Pakistan, beyond the reach of the Pakistani military, any one of them would use the military to take him out. Also, while nuclear weapons are a powerful deterrent, even in the scenario of hundreds of Russian nukes headed towards the United States cities, it would not make America any more secure to launch a counter attack and kill millions of Russian civilians.
The second kind of criticism is also wrong, for two reasons. Firstly, deferral to these rules suggests weakness in a candidate. On the other hand, Obama answered these hypothetical questions in order to show that he is in fact not a political neophyte, as he has been portrayed to be. He showed courage, which is admirable in a president, but unfortunately absent in those candidates who ducked the question on the loose grounds of "principle."
Not only have opposing candidates shown weakness in their silence on this issue, but the rule to which they deferred is plainly wrong. The rationale that these things cannot be discussed in open forums because it is giving away our plans to other nations is not a legitimate concern. If Obama was talking about what troop formations he would use if he was to invade Iran, that would be a concern. However, when he is stating things as self-evident as the fact that we would not use nuclear weapons and would attack Osama bin Laden if we had credible intelligence do not qualify as national secrets. Saying nuclear weapons are off the table is as likely to embolden Iran as Iranian President Ahmajinedad's assurances that his country's nuclear program is just for civilian use has calmed American politicians.
This code of silence has benefits for those who make the foreign policy decisions. Most voters do not place foreign policy on the top of the list when choosing a candidate. Even in recent elections where the war in Iraq has become a large issue, other foreign policy concerns are not central to voters concerns. Because elections do not turn on complicated foreign policy decisions, if the decision makers do not talk about the decisions they are making the greater American public will not concern themselves with it. The candidates who are seen as having foreign policy experience are reluctant to talk about policies. If they don't say anything the assumption is that voters will just trust their experience and not look too closely at the details. Answering hypothetical questions is seen as something that can only lead to some people disagreeing with the candidate.
The Democratic Party has lacked a consistently articulated foreign policy for many years. This lack of direction has left the Democratic stance blurry in the eyes of the American public and caused many to see it as indistinguishable from the Republican policy. A leading Democratic presidential candidate has bucked this trend and straightforwardly answered some of the pressing questions that will face the United States in the future. The reactions of his opponents within the party and on the other side of the aisle and his subsequent backtracking from these statements show how entrenched the vision of foreign policy as a place where the elites make decisions and the country follows is. If the Democratic Party wants to challenge the Republicans in the arena of national security, articulating a coherent policy to the American people-even when some might disagree with it-is an effective way of establishing a distinctive platform. Discussing these complex issues out in the open would give the American public a chance to chose their direction rather than relying on the candidate that they feel "comfortable" with or the one that has the best "judgment."