Obama thinks that Osama will sit in Pakistan and wait for the American army to catch him. Hehe, nice one.
Well to be honest, he really doesnt have very many places to go to. Afghanistan is really the one other area and the US has free reign to search anywhere around there. Man this whole debate is so strange. People who supported the Iraq War are up in arms about this. I figured this would be an issue with tons of consensus from both sides. (assuming people wake up and realize he's not advocating regime change but instead surgical strikes and covert ops to hunt out Al Qaeda)
If we know where bin Laden and other top leaders of al-Qaida are, and they happen to be in Pakistan, then a sane person sends our superb Special Forces, with an invitation to the British to join in, if they wish (their SAS is as good as any special forces in the world, including ours... may as well ask in the Aussies, while we're at it), and we go in, unannounced, and kill or capture every one of the bastards we can find. If we can take them out with Stealth Fighters or missle-armed pilotless aircraft, that's OK as well. You don't "invade" Pakistan's Tribal Regions, which is as much a part of the neighboring area of Afghanistan as it is Pakistan. There is a very good reason why the Pakistan military, which is not that large, but has some excellent troops, hasn't gone in to clean up the region. Instead of cleaning it up, they would (and have, in the past), get their clock cleaned. Going in quietly, without telling the Pakistani intelligence service, which is riddled with Taliban and al-Qaida sympathizers, is the way to deal with those hiding and recruiting in the Tribal Regions. Something gets blown up and we are blamed? Deny it. Taliban and al-Qaida leaders, followers, and their protectors have a case of sudden death and we're blamed? Deny it. We have enormous intelligence capabilities, and if we pull most of our assets out of Iraq, and devote them to Afghanistan and tracking down these people hiding in the Tribal Regions, we just might solve a lot of our problems. It won't solve Iraq, but Iraq is broken. George W. Bush and his cronies broke it, and you can't put it back together. The best you can hope for is to minimize the damage. This is what our next President, who will be a Democrat, should do. D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney.
But there are ones we are directly or indirectly fighting a war with (except Iran which we are saber rattling with). Now, Obama has said he would consider using nukes. That was just a stupid thing to say. I mean, he's saying things that a leader shouldn't be saying, it's just reckless. And as for his conditions, we all know how little conditions account for when it comes to politicians. "actionable intelligence" is a very blurry thing. There is no chance I will vote for Obama. He's too risky.
You're talking about a military strike within the borders of an ALLY! Let me say that again, an ALLY!
So true. I was about to post the following so I will do so despite your more pithy approach. It is so humorous to see Basso and TJ become so nuanced and careful about war and invading foreign countries all of a sudden. . Basso and Jorge show that they are guilty of what they frequently accuse others of. They hate Democrats or in this case Obama so much that they would not even want to get Bin Laden. . Basso is more or less saying that he would no longer support an attack of Iran, something I'm sure he has supported, provided a Democrat and not the Republican Bush is in office. Strangely I am largely with the GOP fanatic duo in criticizing Obama for his sudden political based need to show what a tough guy he can be. I think his remarks a few days earlier about sitting down and negotiating with anyone were sound and he should not have felt the need to saber rattle. We might need to even consider not invading Pakistan for Bin Laden if it risks destabilizing a country that size with nukes. If it is done wrong at this time even getting Bin Laden might turn out to create more terrorists than is takes out. Also funny is Obama's talk about Pakistan is the type of public saber rattling that Bush generally engages in to Basso and TJ's strong support.
I don't think Obama is advocating covert operations and surgical strikes against Al Qaeda, he's talking about a military campaign, about relocating the troops in Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan, to take out the terrorists camps. It would be wrong to advocate covert operations in a foreign country in public, it's just wrong. It's something to be done, not to be talked about. It's just politics, at this point Obama feels he needs to act tough and "score political points". He set up conditions like "actionable intelligence" and "if Pakistan doesn't act, we will". I don't take his words seriously.
Obama said he wouldn't use nukes. Actionable intelligence is not a very blurry thing. To be actionable it has to be concrete. You are free to vote for whoever you want. I just hope you aren't making that decision based on anything from his speech, or from your misunderstanding of it.
He is not just advocating covert operations, nor should he limit it to just covert operations. You are free to not take his words seriously, but he hasn't given us any reason to doubt them. I don't see any reason not to take his words seriously when they make perfect sense, and are quite reasonable. Resources and troops from Iraq can go to Afghanistan, and actually finish the job we started there. That is a good thing. If part of that includes doing the job Musharraf should be doing then so be it. Musharraf has a choice.
Which is why Obama hasn't advocated invading Pakistan, and instead someting along the lines of what Deckard is talking about.
Rule 1 & 2. - Obama isn't talking about invading and occupying pakistan. Why do you keep acting like that is what he said? He has shown that he understands the mistakes Bush made, and would withdraw the troops from Iraq to correct it. Rule 3. After the terrorists are wiped out, and their camps destroyed there won't be a reason to occupy Pakistan. Troops will go back to Afghanistan which is near enough they could act again if they have to. Rule 4. The only person who mentioned hundreds of thousands of soldiers going into Pakistan was you. It wasn't Obama. He never proposed any such thing. Rule 5. You are right the terrorists do want more invasions, and Obama addressed that Bush is fighting the war the way the terrorists want us to find it. Because Obama understands that it is why he never mentioned that he would invade and occupy Pakistan. I won't give you any type of example involving Japan and WWII, because that is apples and oranges compared to what Obama has proposed. He doesn't want to invade, occupy, and replace the Pakistani govt. The only one talking about that is you. Those words came from you, and not Obama. The army won't be stationed in Pakistan so he won't have to convince the world that. All he has to do is show the allies that we can get the heads of the terrorist organizations and Musharraf is preventing it, and not doing the job himself. That is all that needs to be done. I agree that the best choice is U.S. acting in cooperation with the Pakistani govt. I hope that Musharraf will eventually see it that way.
Well his comments seems seems more like talk to me because, in a sense, he's ripping pages from the Bush Doctrine. I also find it interesting that members here can trust a relatively new candidate to use our awesome military power for the forces of good. I guess those who weren't smitten by Governor Bush have their chance to learn the lesson Bush supporters have learned. Or maybe Obama's comments bring hope to those liberal interventionists who have had their idealism shattered by the rampant corruption happening in Iraq. Like it or not, officially bringing it to Pakistan would cause war or destabilization there, and it'd be our responsibility to pick up the pieces. Perhaps it's the idea that Bush or the GOP did it wrong, but the duty and imperative for the US to be the benevolent policeman is still active. So I'd hope that Obama's comments are only mere pawns in his match against Hillary because it'd be extremely disappointing to me if he was going to build on this. It's not like there isn't precedent for a Democrat using strikes. Clinton acted upon actionable intel when he launched missile strikes in Sudan only to be crucified for it at the time. He probably made the wrong call, but I guess the expectations are so low for Dems that just making a call should be praised.
From the article: Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them “on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” ----------------------------- There's thousands of taliban fighters and Al Queda members in those mountains areas, taking them out need thousands of American troops engaging in a long term intense guerilla warfare. Local military bases would need to be set up to control the area, how is that not invasion based on occupation? Obama doesn't understand, he can't take out thousands of soldiers hidden in a vast regions of mountains with just covert operation and surgical strikes. A vast number of ground troops must be deployed in the heart of mountains, chasing after every enemy and search in every cave.
That is correct. Afghanistan is a mess that is where they should go. If our special forces that are in Iraq also have to go on a mission in Pakistan because Musharraf continues to allow Bin Laden and others to operate terrorist training camps there, and plan future attacks, then so be it. Those thousands of Al Qaeda fighters and terrorists can better be taken out using special forces than a large invasion force. That has been shown in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. He isn't talking about searching every cave and seeing what he finds. He is talking about actionable intelligence, meaning they would know where the leaders are. He also talked about going after the leaders, he didn't mention rounding up every low level grunt that gave Al Qaeda members some water and bread one time.
I understand and share your reticence not to continue with the Bush doctrine. But this seems to be entirely different. The only thing similar is that initially after 9/11 Bush went after Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Bush later abandoned that quest, and got into occupation, nation building, and the like. Obama is talking about going after Bin Laden, but not about nation building other than finishing the job in Afghanistan. I don't share the same belief that it would cause war or significantly larger amount of destabilization in Pakistan, but if it did, then once again I don't think we will be that much worse off if worse off at all, especially when balanced with the damage we deal to Al-Qaeda.
I don't mind covert strikes with tacit approval from Musharaf's (sp?) officials, as Rimmy mentions has happened before and is probably already happening. But Obama, in his desire to break out of the mold of a soft and green statesman has implied something more and substantial. Diplomats are very understated in their speech and writings, and for him to call out Musharaf would further the assumption of overt action. So he wins some points with perspective voters at home, but in practice it'd be a damn dangerous game that's very difficult to come out clean. And we would be worse off if Pakistan destabilized. Much much much worse. -The idea of a coup occurring inside a nuclear power is disturbing. -Destabilization would be our fault...Another unilateral act by a new president by the supposed good political party. -The radical Islam in that region has already kicked our ass in Afghanistan to the point where NATO unity is weakening when it comes to extra troop deployment. -New cultural norms would have to be learned among the troops sent to stabilize the region. Public support for NATO troops in Afghanistan are at lows party because of this reason along with the government corruption in Kabul. -Like Afghanistan there are tribal factions that we'd have to tolerate out of convenience. -The peace with India is fresh and tenuous. Even if India is focusing on their economy, they're forced to evaluate the new leader's intentions... Kashmir -All neighbors would have to reevaluate the power structure. -We'd go at it alone. x Afghanistan -We'd go at it alone. x Iraq -We'd go at it alone. x South Korea -We'd go at it alone. x Iran -We'd go at it alone. x Draft
I don't think the strike would be unilateral. As Deckard said there are other nations we could ask. Destabilization wouldn't be that more dangerous than having a dictator with nuke which is the situation now. It also wouldn't be entirely our fault since Musharraf could very easily cooperate and avoid the whole thing. But I don't think a limited strike at known terrorists and terror training camps would bring about that much destabilization. Yes NATO is weakening, but with us getting out of Iraq and putting more resources into Afghanistan the situation there should improve. I absolutely agree about troops learning the cultural norms of the region, and believe that educating them on this would be a vital strategy to our success. It is true that if a new govt. came to power in Pakistan that would be precarious for the India situation, but we could also offer our protection to India right off the bat, to dissuade radical action against them.
Musharraf, if anyone has been paying attention to the international news, has been busy destabilizing Pakistan himself. He doesn't need any outside help for this, because Pakistan is on a knife-edge, already. Look at the crisis involving Pakistan's Supreme Court. Musharraf has badly mishandled that, to the point that it has strengthened the parties in opposition to his rule a great deal, winning them recruits from moderates in the country who are offended by the trampling of their constitution. What we should do inside Pakistan should be entirely on the down-low. Hit the enemy and deny it ever happened. Put our resources, that never should have been allocated to Iraq in the first place, back into Afghanistan and the border regions. The reason Afghanistan is having the problems it is having today, to the extent they are today, is, in my opinion, because we pulled out resources in country and shipped them to the Iraq theatre. We pulled out intelligence resources and have them busy chasing down insurgents and radicals in Iraq, when they already had their hands full in Afghanistan. Invading Iraq, if one wanted to (I didn't), before Afghanistan was stabilized, the Taliban crushed beyond repair, and most importantly, al-Qaida destroyed, it's leadership dead or in prison, was an act of incompetence that literally takes one's breath away, if those paying attention did so with any kind of an open mind. Obama's comments? As is a habit of his, the rhetoric is long-winded, obscure, and over-blown. He could have said half as much, and said a great deal more. The man needs to work on that, if he expects to become President. D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney.
Musharaf is having the time of his life maintaining control right now. We would be the hand caught in the cookie jar should our act become the tipping point or even a coincidence to his ouster. We'd be guilty and be held responsible if only by association. I think India and the US prefers to allow an evil we can work with than take the time to grasp whatever new dictator is sane enough to use diplomacy than let cultural hatreds of India and the West dictate policy. Unless you think similarly to the neocons with their regime change experiments and justifications. Our official intervention alone would linger politically as the US already has no credibility and have established a pattern of aggression for the past 5 years. No one, not our next president, nor our solid allies like Australia or Britain, wants another unnecessary entanglement should things go wrong. I strongly disagree to your support of Obama's comments that we could declare Musharaf's regime incompetent, rally our neighbors for a full blown "tactical strike", and then sweep in and kill the evil doers. By putting our allies on the list, you make it official. The Islamic world, already distrustful, wouldn't care even if the acts are covert. Al Jazeera and the net eliminates all nuance you can wring out of the situation. From our standpoint it sounds acceptable, but we don't live in hostile lands. And we don't resent the military enough to condone or fully support terror groups. All they know is that we're invading or, for their sophisticated people, trampling over another country's sovereignty yet again. It's doubtful there's a full withdrawal. And it's uncertain whether enough troops would be redeployed to Afganistan to meet the current security needs. When it comes to the military the American people have been hearing overstretched and overworked for the past 18 months. Another military endeavor could even alienate the liberals who elected him moreso than those who were impressed with his tough semi-hawkish rhetoric. Republicans could also try to play similarities with Iran in relation to Iraq, if only to disrupt the president and question his competence or resolve. I mention this possibility should we have to dump more people and resources to stabilize the sitation. Our troops weren't trained for peacekeeping. The requisite amount of time it takes to learn, if ever, could be enough to let the situation deteriorate further, which looks to be what happened with Afghanistan or even Iraq. A similar disaster could just be an off target missile that blows up a wedding reception. Yes, and that would further isolate Pakistan or force its traditional allies such as China or Russia to put their chips on the table. Iran could join a marriage by convenience. Whether true or not (overt/covert) that relationship would spark questions of nuclear technology exchange. That region already has one vacuum. Its neighbors don't want to be forced with another. If we act and Musharaf falls for any reason, everyone will be looking at us.
