This morning, in a major policy speech, presidential candidate Barack Obama asserted that his administration would be willing to invade or attack Pakistan in order to go after al Quaeda operatives. He also said he would pull US troops out of Iraq as his first order of business.

Pakistan--in case it has escaped your notice as it apparently has Obama’s—-is our ally in the war on terror, something that has cost Pervez Musharraf dearly, to the point that he has survived multiple attempts to kill him for his willingness to work with Bush and the Coalition.

Another good reason not to enter Pakistan without the cooperation of the government of that nation is that it already has a nuclear bomb. Then there’s the question of what, exactly, the reaction would be from other nations in the region, friendly and not. Would India appreciate the gesture of undermining her greatest enemy—or resent the intrusion into her part of the world and make ready her own nuclear response?

Bombing one’s allies is not the mark of good foreign policy. And Obama seems not to notice that removing US troops from the Iraqi theater would no doubt even further destabilize it, offering Iran yet another opportunity to feed the Islamofascist frenzy.

Obama’s curious willingness to strike a US ally should perhaps not come as a surprise, though. In 2004, during his barely-phoned-in campaign to thwart the minimal threat of an Alan Keyes Senate seat, Obama asserted that it might eventually be necessary for the US to take action against both Iran and Pakistan.

Once again, here in the heat of battle—this time against some real contenders--Obama is ready to lock and load—while still opposing the military engagements we’re currently involved in.

Okay, show of hands. Who thinks Obama (or any democrat) would have supported a call by President Bush to go to war against yet another country?