If Barack Obama would admit he has little knowledge of foreign and national security issues, it would be a great deal easier to accept his naïve rhetoric. Aided by conventional euphemisms and convenient political calculation, Sen. Obama unwittingly, perhaps ignorantly, eschews reality in order to support his theme of change.

The principal lesson of World War II was that the United States must base its security on a forward defense policy. We did not want ever again to be caught sitting back waiting to be attacked.

Apparently his highly parochial education at Harvard Law School and the rather insular experience in Chicago’s South Side did not provide a young Barack with the breadth of knowledge that would have included an awareness of the strategic lessons of the past. It is either this lack of experience or simply a desire to avoid the truth because of his own ideological predilections.

In order to divine Obama’s real intentions in response to specific international security issues, one must extrapolate from his oft-used political slogans and euphemisms. A good one to begin with is his commentary on Israel and Iran.

Obama has a practiced salesman’s pledge of fidelity to the protection of Israel: “Our strongest ally in the region (Middle East) … “A robust democracy” … “It’s critical we stand with Israel … as an unswerving ally.” He defines what will be his policy in respect to a possible attack by Iran on Israel. “If Iran attacks Israel, Tehran knows we will go to Israel’s aid with a massive response.”

The trouble with this chest-thumping statement is that if the Iranians attack Israel, it will be by nuclear-tipped missiles. Boom, no more Israel. Barack apparently doesn’t understand that no one can wait for the Iranians to attack. Tehran’s intentions already are clear; these intentions must be interdicted, one way or another. Not just Israel, but peace in the entire region is at stake. Obviously, Obama doesn’t read the speeches of the Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad.

This weakening of the threat of timely use of American military strength removes from the international scene a key factor in strategic defense. North Korea, for example, is held in check only by the potency of U.S. and allied air and naval forces in Northwest Pacific.

Without the big stick, all the soft treading produces nothing. Even at Harvard Law School, he must have learned that without active police forces, laws lack the ability to be enforced and bad behavior is not discouraged. This is a basic rule also of strategic defense.

Obama’s well-publicized belief in talking rather than fighting resonates well with a war-weary American public, but it is quite irrelevant unless it is backed up military muscle. Perhaps the best example is Darfur, an issue supposedly close to Obama’s heart.

Without an aggressive presence of foreign troops in Western Sudan and Eastern Chad, nothing has been able to be done to quell the rape and murder of thousands of villagers. Obama’s only answer to this is to call once again for an all-African force to intervene. That has already been tried, and it turned out to be ineffectual. As much as Barack may want it to be, Africa is not Chicago — not even close!

Sen. Obama has often repeated that he believes the American commitment to Gen. Pervez Musharraf and the Pakistan Army has been wrong. One wonders whether Barack Obama is aware that the civilian parties have been repeatedly turned out of office in the past because of rampant corruption, and nothing has changed.

The Obama position on Iraq is well known. He wants an immediate “phased withdrawal,” turning the country back to its central government with only U.S. Special Operations Forces remaining behind for “training and anti-al-Qaida operations.” Of course he also wants a stepped-up “anti-al-Qaida operation” in Afghanistan and the Pakistani border areas. He told this to a fawning Wolf Blitzer on CNN. What he meant, of course, is an “anti-Taliban” operation, but why quibble? One Arab is the same as another, eh, Senator? Except, of course, the Taliban aren’t Arabs!

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of Barack Obama’s approach to foreign and security affairs is his view on immigration. He has said he sees U.S. immigration issues as an integral part of U.S.-Mexico entente. At the very time as he rants against NAFTA, he talks of drawing the United States and Mexico closer. In that way, the flow of illegal immigration will diminish, says Obama. Apparently, he is unaware that many people in Mexico already believe that the southwest United States is really part of Mexico, and that only American imperialism has kept it from being so declared.

One wonders what part of American interests Barack Obama is willing to fight for? That’s the question they’re also asking in Moscow and Beijing.

George H. Wittman, a member of the Committee on the Present Danger, was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.