[wapo] U.S. strikes within Pakistan — without notice

FB I am very surprised at the hawkish line that you are taking and I have a hard time buying that you would truly accept this line of reasoning. Under your statement Cuba fully has the right to launch attacks against US soil as the US has harbored Cuban exiles who have committed terrorists acts against Cuba. The US has previously sheltered, trained and funded people and groups who have committed terrorism against Nicaragua and IRA and Sinn Fein members have been allowed safe haven in the US and even to fundraise. Would you seriously be OK with Cuba launching an airstrike on Miami to take out Cuban exiles?

No offense FB but I think that you are allowing your support for Obama get the best of you.

 

those are very fair points in theory, however we know that in the real world those aren't very plausible so they are non issues.

 

It is no different than having an authority to go to war in Iraq in order to put pressure on them to comply with weapons inspectors, etc.

It puts pressure on an "ally" who is really a dictator that hasn't done enough to go after the terrorists in their own territory.

So as far as weakening Musharraf's position, that shouldn't really be a concern for the U.S. He receives all the money of an ally, but we don't see much of the benefit. There isn't all that much support for Radical Islamic groups in Pakistan that they would take over if Musharraf lost his grip on power.

I don't think speaking our intentions is harmful at all. I don't think Musharraf losing his grip on power in Pakistan would be harmful.

 

seriously, my next post was going to be what's the point of having an ally if they want go after the terrorists in their country if that's where everyone feels they are. especially an ally we financially support.

 

That's my point. To argue that we have the right to go and bomb another country as much as another does us doesn't work in practice. Further I find this line of reasoning highly cynical for supporters of a campaign that argues for moving away from cynicism.

 

If Obama said he would sign a law that everyone had to eat turd tacos for lunch, pgabriel would support that too.

Obama = Mr. Burns, pgabriel = Smithers

Obama = Morris Day, pgabriel = Jerome

 

we aren't bombing the country just to bomb the country, they took out ranking members. and again, this didn't seem to be a problem with pakistan's government or its citizens.

 

So then you support the stated reasons for the invasion of Iraq?

No offence I find in this particular discussion a willingness amoung Obama supporters to sell out supposedly what Obama stands for. A willingness to support might makes right and flaunt international law for expediency.

The problem still is is that Musharraf is an ally, no matter how flawed, and at political risk to himself and the stability of his country aligned himself with the US even though that is a very unpopular position in Pakistan. Your argument is essentially "screw Musharraf" if that is the case then the honest position should be to say that Musharraf cannot be relied on and is no longer our ally. In the end your argument though boils down to Musharraf is weak and we are strong so its our right to take action with or without his approval. While this very well is the case it is a matter of diplomatic nuance to not undercut an ally, even one who is weakened, as the alternative might be worse.

Actually the recent election shows that Musharraf is losing his grip on power and there is possibility that Nawaz Sharif's party might gain signifigant power in a new coalition government. Sharif's party is much more suspicious of the US than either Bhutto's party or Musharraf and with Musharraf seriously weakened and Bhutto's party without a real leader Sharif is in good position to capitalize. Even without speculating on the future we have seen more terrorism and radicalism out of Pakistan in the past few years. At the moment Pakistan is anything but stable.

 

So those people protesting the US in Pakistan don't matter?

If Cuba bombed Miami saying they are just attacking terrorists exiles and not the US would you buy that?

 

exactly, pakistan is what it is, nothings going to change either way

its not going to happen, just like we wouldn't attack the chinese. you are intentionally ignoring the dynamics that we are a superpower. countries are our allies for protection we are there allies to suppress threats. they're not keeping up their end of the bargin. whats the point of propping up a powerless dictator. its nice in theory to argue any country wouldn't take military action in another but in reality that's not the case. pakistan is a pawn. we are a king

 

^ That sounds remarkably similar to neo-con rhetoric. So much for changing politics since you seem willing to buy into the same cynicism that Obama rails against.

 

while there are both legitimate and irrational reasons why the US is not popular in pakistan...one of them certainly is the belief that musharraf simply does the americans doing without getting much out of it for pakistan but getting job security. of course your nuanced knowledge of the region is comparable to the rights. its fairly disappointing.

bombing a country is bombing a country. to play semantics is not only absurd but in this case absolutely wrong. bombing a nation means bombing its sovereign territory, regardless of whether the intention is to oust the government or not.

in the torture thread both of yall asked tj/texx if whats allowed for the US should be allowed for the terrorists. well if the US can bomb other nations where terrorists may reside...may other countries do the same to the US? its not a matter of can they...obviously they can't. but would they have the right to?

 

except no one is arguing for the endless occupation of a made up country that we don't begin to understand the dynamics of their demographics. we bombed an un policed terrority where we knew terrorists were hiding.

 

and what do you mean by cynacism. I think it worked, I'm positive it worked.

 

Its cynicism because the only principle you are upholding is might makes right.

 

The argument you've made though is you don't care about the demographics of the country. All you care about is US interests. IN your own words "Pakistan is a pawn we are king." What else is that but a blunter way of restating the premise behind the PNAC.

 

no that's reality. the only question is where to use that might. if we went into darfur, is that might makes right? what the neocons advocate is nation building, this is an argument about where we should be policing, what are real threats. taking out terrorists doesn't just benifit the u.s.

 

nation building isn't the critical problem with neocon argument. its lack of respect for international law, for other nations sovereignty, lack of sensitivity to other folks beliefs and the arrogance that goes along with all this. nation building may be required as a humanitarian assistance. it is not a unique neocon concern.

if anything neocons want to fix nations. you just want to attack them when you deem fit without sticking around to fix the problems that may ensue due to your attack.

 

what problems did it create?

 

it exacerbates anti american sentiment in the region. theres a constant paranoia in pakistan about the US attacking it, taking over its nukes, etc.

the disenchantment with musharraf certainly is due to the perception that he goes along with the US without standing up for pakistan's interests. that certainly would be exacerbated by US violating pakistan's sovereignty.

but more importantly...if iraq went well, if torture worked, if wiretapping was effective, would you be ok with it?