Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s willingness to attack terrorist targets in Pakistan could shake up the national security debate between him and his rivals in Iowa.

Activists in the state with the first-in-the-nation caucuses are more accustomed to hearing from the Illinois senator about the war he opposed than the one he would be willing to fight.

In a speech Wednesday in Washington, D.C., he said the United States needs to be aggressive pursuing terrorists operating on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. And he said he would be willing to send troops into Pakistan, even without the cooperation of President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who’s considered an ally but has been criticized for not being aggressive enough.

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” Obama said.

His remarks are being interpreted as an attempt to show strength in the wake of rival Hillary Clinton’s accusation last week he was “irresponsible” and “naive” for being willing to meet unconditionally with the leaders of such hostile countries as Venezuela, North Korea and Iran.

Iowa Democrats who have been almost uniformly critical of the war in Iraq had varying responses to the idea of striking Pakistan.

“I believe that people of faith — and Barack Obama has obviously talked a lot about his faith — have to begin to seriously question the wisdom of more might, more bombs, more fighting,” said Roger Butts, a Davenport pastor and a member of the peace and justice forum at Progressive Action for the Common Good of the Quad-Cities.

Butts, who is a supporter of John Edwards knows there are terrorists who want to harm the United States but questions whether dropping bombs is the answer.

“This is a vexing issue,” he said.

“It’s not something that wows me on first glance,” Ed Fallon of Des Moines, a former state legislator, said of Obama’s remarks. He’s also an Edwards backer.

Bill Gluba, a former state senator from Davenport who supports Obama, sees it differently.

“I don’t think that most progressives are against dealing with the Taliban and al-Qaida,” he said. “I’m glad to see him refocusing our foreign policy.”

Some of Obama’s rivals criticized his remarks, but Clinton and Edwards didn’t. In fact, they came close to echoing him. Clinton told a radio network that pressure needs to be put on Pakistan and said she would “ensure” high value targets were “killed or captured.”

Edwards emphasized the need for diplomacy in getting Pakistan to target al-Qaida, but according to MSNBC, went further, adding “if they can’t do the job then we have to do it.”

Obama is in a unique position, though. He opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning, as he repeatedly tells Iowa audiences, a contrast with the other Democrats, especially Clinton who voted for the 2002 war authorization and has been sharply questioned about it here.

A longtime observer of the state’s caucuses said talking tough on foreign policy might help Obama nationally, where he trails Clinton in the polls, but it could work against his anti-war message in the state.

“I don’t think that people want another war,” said Dave Nagle of Waterloo, the former Iowa Democratic Party chairman.

Tommy Vietor, an Obama spokesman, responded that voters want a counterterrorism policy that’s thoughtful and tough.

“I don’t think there’s anything about having a tough and smart national security vision that will turn off Democrats,” Vietor said.

Dennis Goldford, a political science professor at Drake University, predicted that the Obama’s stand would “sit well” with Iowa voters, but it could be problematic with “dovish” members of the party.

“There’s dovish, then there’s prudent,” he said. “Clearly, he’s going after a more centrist Democrat in this regard.”

Ed Tibbetts can be contacted at (563) 383-2327 or etibbetts@qctimes.com.