Obama and nuclear pre-emption

I think the ISraeilis were wise to have bombed Iraq's Osirak reactor a few decades ago - and that kind of pre-emptive strike in general is something that, unlike land invasions of non-nuclear non-threatening countries, something that needs to be consdered "on the table". The idea that fanatical islamic terrorists could get their hand on a nuclear device is beyond terrifying - it;s a much more direct threat to the global order - not just America - than 9-11 ever could have been.

This kind of talk from Obama is pretty much the only realistic attitude left - but it has the benefit of helping to reclaim the tough Democrat mantle from JFK's ghost as well.

U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs. . . .

Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.

"With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations.

(via Glenn, who I wish had trackbalk enabled)