You are showing your own ignorance. I understand Pakistan's capability. Do you understand their reliance on the U.S.? Do you think they are going to attack us if we have actionable intelligence of Al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan and we act on it? Do you really think the U.S. should be so afraid of the Pakistani dictatorship that we don't defend ourselves by going after the leaders of Al-Qaeda? We have it on record now that TJ is too scared to go after Osama Bin Laden. With all the bluster you usually bellow, I am surprised to you coming out this way.
Here is a New York Times report on the 2005 Al Qaeda meeting, mentioned in the Obama speech. "Mr. Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and C.I.A. operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said." Sending a troop of that size is no longer a covert operation. Doing so without any permission will not only damage the relationship with Pakistan, but also set another wrong example after the unilateral invasion of Iraq. Link:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/washington/08intel.html?ex=1341547200&en=c01cc018d0ba81fc&ei=5088
You seem to be the one who's not in favor of acting in intelligence to get those responsible for 9/11 and the leadership of Al-Qaeda. Who's not down with action again?
For someone who's a known plagiarist you've got a lot of nerve questioning my integrity. But whatever gets you through the night.
The decision to halt the planned “snatch and grab” operation frustrated some top intelligence officials and members of the military’s secret Special Operations units, who say the United States missed a significant opportunity to try to capture senior members of Al Qaeda. Their frustration has only grown over the past two years, they said, as Al Qaeda has improved its abilities to plan global attacks and build new training compounds in Pakistan’s tribal areas, which have become virtual havens for the terrorist network. In recent months, the White House has become increasingly irritated with Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, for his inaction on the growing threat of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Yes, Obama is very wrong for actually wanting to force the issue with Pakistan instead of letting it be the place where terrorists can just train without concern. The Bush strategy has worked oh-so-well.
I wouldn't overtly send troops to Pakistan. Their intelligence agency are run by fanatics who helped raised and later sheltered the Taliban. Who knows if that would be the tipping point on going all out on Musharaf's life. This policy makes sense to people who accepted breaking some eggs in Iraq, but realistically, it would take some extremely deft handling in among the governments and the public who deeply resent and probably hate us and our military. Bush bankrupted our credit of goodwill long ago. These "unilateral acts" are definitely going to be magnified even if there's logic behind them.
There is a lot of space between sending several hundred troops and letting it be the place. Don't you think so? Just like the Iraq problem, solving the terrorists problem requires more than military solutions. If it is so easy, nobody will be debating about it everywhere anymore.
I think theres a fundamental misunderstanding of internal Pakistan politics -- people tend to characterize Musharraf and the Pakistani army collectively as moderates ruling a country full of extremists. The reality is that those Islamic extremists exist mainly because the army, the ISI, and people like Musharraf have nurtured them -- they have provided those extremists with arms, money, training and the power necessary to achieve their domestic and foreign policy objectives (something that still continues today)... former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on the myth of General Musharraf being the only one standing in the way of an islamist takeover of Pakistan: another article on the same subject
Read the article, not the thread. Sorry if it's already been said. Non-intervention either has to be a commitment or not done at all. Jumping out of Iraq and into Pakistan will simply create another Iraq in south Asia. Musharraf doesn't have anymore of a hold on the west of his country than Karzai the east of his. We've got to quit knocking down hornets' nests. When did neo-(so called) conservativism get so popular? It makes me sick.
you can't really just go in to all these countries un-invited because you think it's right. that's just going piss more people off. gotta use reason, force is not the only way to go.
He sounds dumber and dumber with every passing day. This just further proves he has no idea what the hell he's talking about. Anyways, he won't win the primaries so no reason to sweat him...
Well, if Pakistan is not willing to do anything about it, what do you propose to stop it from being free reign for terrorists if you're not willing to send American troops to stop it?
Except this doesn't involve invading another country. It involves going into a region that has no real governing body or police control. What do you propose? Ignoring the problem and pretending terrorists don't exist? That worked so well from the 1980's through 2001 in Afghanistan and elsewhere...
