Still, the threats raised protests from Pakistani government officials, spurred street protests in Pakistan and invoked criticism from Pakistani-Americans in the U.S., according to the Chicago Tribune.

Obama’s plans to fight terrorism also involved sending at least 7,000 soldiers and special force troops to Afghanistan and increase military aid to the country by $1 billion to improve economic opportunities there, according to The New York Times.

He also called to double the amount of foreign aid to $50 billion by 2012 and to provide $2 billion to fight the influence of madrasas, Islamic religious schools that teach extremist Islam to children.

His speech was a countermove to nullify criticism saying he is too inexperienced to lead a country during war from Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., former Sen. John Edwards and other Democratic politicians.

While Obama had some positive, legitimate ideas about the U.S.‘s war on terror, he likely spoke too strongly about sensitive subjects and may lose votes because of his comments. He wanted to flex his political muscles and prove he won’t be soft on foreign policy, but the real value of his speech will likely be ignored as people simply focus on his hard-line vows to send U.S. forces to Pakistan.

Obama wants to convince Democratic voters he will use military force to protect the U.S., but he carefully differentiated between radicals who attack the U.S. and the world’s 1.3 billion innocent Muslims.

Obama also agreed to meet with hostile world rulers without preconditions, something Clinton said she would not do, and to focus on action and not just on empty talk.

He also wanted to implement “American Houses” throughout Islamic regions to rebuild a better image of the U.S. from those regions.

Obama wanted to prove he was strong on foreign issues and he succeeded. However, speaking too soon and with much haste, his valuable deeper messages of military policy reform will likely be lost underneath military threats to Pakistan and Afghanistan.