What do you believe would happen if American forces invaded Pakistan to go after the Taliban without the permission of the Musharraf government?
Most analysts expect the Pakistani people would pour into the streets in protest, destablizing that already fragile country to the point that it would be possible for a much more conservative, Taliban friendly government to emerge from the chaos. Pakistan is already the most anti-American country in the world following our invasion of Afghanistan. It would be stupid to invade and threaten Musharraf’s hold on power.
Pakistan has 60 nuclear weapons. Need anything else be said about a government with that kind of destructive power in their hands with ties to al-Qaeda and the Taliban?
Evidently, this doesn’t concern Senator Barak Obama:
In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.
““I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges,” Obama will say, according to speech excerpts provided to ABC News by his campaign, “but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
Blogger Sister Toldjah asks the obvious question: “Would this be before or after those unconditional meetings he would have with the world’s most despotic ‘leaders’?”
In fact, that remark about meeting with the thugs of the world without any preliminaries has evidently cost Obama dearly. The most recent NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll has Hillary Clinton widening her lead over the Illinois Senator to 43% – 22%. That’s up a whopping 14% since June and shows that Obama’s foreign policy gaffes are not giving Democrats or the American people much confidence in his abilities.
If Obama thought sounding a touger note in his foreign policy speeches would help, he might have least chosen a target to invade who was already an enemy of the United States. By showing a willingness to take the chance of handing al-Qaeda a nuclear weapon on a silver platter, Obama proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is not ready to be President now nor possibly ever.
11:55 am
Roughly 18 presidential candidates, and not one of them can give a resoned answer to a question. Everything is emotional soundbites.
Is this really the best of the best in our country?
12:59 pm
Where did you read about “invading Pakistan”? Where in his speech does he talk about “invading Pakistan”?
1:28 pm
Rick, what Obama said has been the prevailing wisdom in the non-pacifist Left for quite some time now. There’s no dearth of examples. The general scenario is invade Pakistan (where the real war on terror is) and go after the al-Qaeda folks there. You see it’s not invasion if we don’t plan on removing the present Pakistani government.
My own view is that the plan is, well, not particularly bright. At the very least such an incursion will weaken the Musharraf government which is already teetering. It risks our troops having nuclear weapons used against them or nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Pakistan’s radical Islamists.
The plan has almost no upside. Al-Qaeda in Pakistan will be free to flee to Tajikistan, India, or China, just as they were free to flee to Pakistan from Afghanistan. Logistical issues aside I can’t imagine our forces chasing al-Qaeda through most of central Asia.
1:33 pm
I don’t think you can connect—with any validity—the “surge” in the national polls to the foreign policy “gaffes”.
The national polls include people who don’t vote in the Democratic primary. Indeed, they include people who don’t vote in IA, NH, SC, or NV. They include conservatives who might hate Obama because he is the perfect candidate for the Democrats.
1:49 pm
Would Obama Invade a Country that Has Nuclear Weap…
Now, lets do the math real quick here. Pakistan+Nuclear Weapons+Taliban= BAD IDEA TO INVADE A SOVEREIGN NATION THAT HAS NUKES AND TIES TO TALIBAN AND AL-QAEDA….
1:59 pm
Unilateral Attack: Obama Against It Unless It’s Him…
This is my first post in almost three months, but I had to say something about this. Via AP:Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to…
4:38 pm
Is this really the best of the best in our country?
This is in the running for top rhetorical question of the year.
It’s probably worth arguing that the odds of an Obama administration actually giving the final green-light for something like this are near zero. Reports about the possible (and uncomfortably likely) very negative consequences would surface on Barak’s desk early in the planning process.
This speculation leads me to believe that this is simply a continuation of the foreign policy spat with Hillary Clinton. His clarification is likely to be that by “actionable intelligence” he means actions that won’t significantly add to the destabilization of Pakistan.
5:16 pm
Speech transcript.
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php
5:49 pm
Let me get this straight. Iraq is an unwinnable quagmire, where we trained and work with the army fighting terrorists, but we should invade Pakistan, which has an army that is almost certainly rife with Islamists, and whose people show the most sympathy for terrorists outside of the Palestinians, dozens of nuclear weapons, and whose leader would certainly be deposed upon an American invasion and replace with terrorist enablers.
That’s fracking brilliant, that is.
8:55 pm
It’s a terrible idea. . . almost as bad as invading Iraq.
10:10 pm
rick: Pakistan is the most anti-american country in the world and they’re not an enemy? they let terrorists hide out to plan attacks on America and they’re not an enemy? their nuclear scientists have shared secrets with our enemies and they’re not an enemy? Just what do they have to do to rise to that level in your mind?
As I’ve had fun writing elsewhere tonight, whatever happened to the Bush doctrine of going after terrorists wherever they may be? What happened to Reagan’s ‘... you can’t hide’?
No offense, but you’re sounding like a scared little Democrat, afraid to do something because some bad things might happen as a result. By that standard, was it bad for Bush to have invaded Afghanistan, seeing as that was the supposed catalyst for Pakistan being mad at us and threatening Musharraf’s hold on power?
Our position ought to be very clear. If countries, such as happened with Afghanistan, don’t keep their countries free of terrorists, we reserve the right to do the dirty work for ourselves. I’d sure hate to have to explain to the families of the next Americans killed by those hiding out in Pakistan that we could have prevented their deaths but were too afraid to act.
We don’t have to, nor should we, invade in the classic, Iraq-style definition. What we need to do is disrupt their camps, make them spend their time hiding instead of plotting, to make others in the area afraid that harboring terrorists will make their own lives miserable. Airstrikes and tactical ground operations could go a long way to keeping America safer than we are with our hands-off policy.
And as far as Obama picking a country that is already an enemy of ours, other than asking who you have in mind, my complaint is that he didn’t go far enough. He singled out Pakistan, but should have made clear that nobody – Iran, the Palestinian territories, Indonesia – is safe if they provide safe harbor to our enemies.
10:14 pm
Steve:
I don’t disagree with you as far as it goes.
The problem occurs when Musharraf loses control and the street throws up someone who would ally themselves with the Taliban and, by extension, al-Qaeda.
Then we ARE looking at an Iraq style invasion to overthrow the government – a government armed with 60 nukes.
Nope, I still think it’s a bad move.
10:26 pm
Jesus! This guy changes positions faster than a weather vane in a funnel cloud. It’s a lot easier to talk about what you would do, than what you have done.
8:19 am
Steve Sturm:
“whatever happened to the Bush doctrine of going after terrorists wherever they may be? ”
You missed it, but this policy died in some back alley in Baghdad. Realism is back buddy, as evidenced by our weapons deal with the Saudis.
11:02 am
“Most analysts expect the Pakistani people would pour into the streets in protest, destablizing that already fragile country to the point that it would be possible for a much more conservative, Taliban friendly government to emerge from the chaos.”
would this be the same analyst who predicted flowers and music for our soldiers in Iraq?
12:22 pm
Yet, I’ll bet a number of revisionist wingnuts offered up hallelujahs on high when everyone’s favorite delusional neocon said this on Fox & Friends on July 12:
“I think the president’s going to have to take military action there (Pakistan) over the next few weeks or months. ... Bush has to disrupt that sanctuary.”
“I think, frankly, we won’t even tell Musharraf,” Kirstol continued. “We’ll do what we have to do in Western Pakistan and Musharraf can say, ‘Hey, they didn’t tell me.’”
5:04 pm
Rick:
We’re no more looking at an Iraq-style invasion in that scenario than we need to be looking at an Iraq-style invasion to deal with Iran. We don’t need to occupy an entire country and try to turn it into a garden of democratic eden to protect ourselves. We didn’t need to do what we’re doing in Iraq to get rid of Hussein and whatever WMDs he had, and we don’t need to occupy Iran/Pakistan to target their nukes, terror camps, military infrastructure and so on.
And, no offense, but why the infatuation with what the Islamic ‘street’ does or cares about? The street doesn’t control the military, the generals do and it’s wrong to assume the next batch of generals would open their nuclear doors to the street. Perhaps a coup would be comprised of those sympathetic to the street, perhaps not.
But whether or not that is the case, my point remains: if Musharraf isn’t going to clamp down on those who want to kill us, we have the right to protect ourselves. And, unless you buy into the whole idea that our protecting ourselves only creates more terrorists, I see very little downside in striking at terrorists, no matter where they are.
1:49 am
So someone, right or left, says it straight: Osama is in Pakistan. Bush went to Iraq as an excuse to avoid Pakistan. I like the fact he is not afraid to speak, no one else is taking about it and we all know where Waldo is.
9:36 am
Bookish:
Hipocracy is a beautiful thing when it’s exposed for the world to see, ain’t it?
Someone should email that transcript out to the entire righty blogosphere. Any takers, Rick?
10:15 am
@ Steve and Rick:
This was the problem with the Administration’s “Tough Texan” talk. When they kept going on with “we’ve gotta invade Iraq becuase he’s a cruel dictator who hates us” talk, the obvious next question was “why this dictator?” In terms of evil bastards oppressing their citizens, he was kind of a garden variety bastard, and if we’re gonna do it for him, we’ve set a precedent for dozens of other countries. Either we invade everybody, or we look (again) like we just spout rhetoric when it suits us, but have no real beliefs or convictions.
7:35 pm
busboy: it was more than just ‘he’s a cruel dictator…’. I didn’t care that he oppressed his citizens, I’ve never felt it was America’s obligation to rescue all the poor people of the world. Nor in fact do we have the resources, of men or money, to get rid of every cruel dictator in the world.
Our military interventions need to be justified on the basis of improving America’s safety. To me, it was right to go into Iraq and getting rid of Hussein because: Hussein supported terrorists that struck at Americans and American allies (and I’m not saying he was connected to 9/11), because there was a serious concern he had or was developing WMDs that could very well be used against us or our allies (whether by him direct or by surrogate doesn’t matter, he was a threat to the region, so much so that our economy would have been threatened by another mideast war (and I note how well our economy has done in light of another mideast war) and in the hopes that our taking action against Iraq would ‘encourage’ others (such as Libya, Iran, Syria and so on) to stop screwing with us and our allies. Once we got rid of him and determined that there were in fact no WMDs, it was time for us to get out, let the Iraqis fight it out for control of their country, and we’d move on to whichever country was next on the list of threats to us (which, by the way, is Iran). Unfortunately, because Bush got on his sowing democracy seeds jag, we’ve spent way too much on Iraq, haven’t been able to deter or take action against anybody else.
It wasn’t Bush’s tough talk that got him into trouble. It was his lack of insight, his reliance on idiots for advice (see: Colin Powell) and his insistence on sticking around in Iraq long past the point at which we should have gotten out that got him – and us – in trouble.
1:37 am
@Steve:
Hmmmm . . . if you take out “he’s got anthrax tipped missles ready to go right now!” argument for invasion (which, given what I was told by this administration, I heartily agreed with), I don’t see the other reasons distinguishing him from any other dictator. He supported terrorists who hate us? So do dozens of countries, as far as I know the biggest one being Saudi Arabia. Heck, the Provos in Ireland were primarily funded by citizens in the United States. The US funded the Afgan resistance fighters (now today’s terrorist). We’ve worked with “terrorist groups” in Central America, the mideast, etc. for decades.
Saddam hated us (after we worked together in the Iran-Iraq war) for good reason—we wouldn’t let him grow in the MidEast, and spanked him hard when he tried. While he may have supported some terrorists (definitely NOT Bin Laden and company), he wasn’t (IMO) trying to attack us. I’m sure he was pleased as punch when we were attacked, but if the worst he did against us was support people who may eventually attack us on their own, well, as I said before we did that too, since we signed Bin Laden’s paycheck all those years in Afganistan.
WMDs . . . again, I’m sure he wanted them, but so do lots of countries. In hindsight, its clear he wasn’t close to getting them, and its also clear that us flying F-16s over his airspace for a decade made it pretty difficult for him to do more than just wish for them real hard. Again, how is his dreaming of WMDs different from Quaddafi? Jong Il? Any of a host of sycopaths in Africa?
I do agree that the idea of “sending a message to the other jerks” sounded like a good, albeit naive, idea on paper. Problem is, even if executed flawlessly thousands of people would have to die (not all of them black hats).
Another mideast war would be bad for us, but how was he going to attack when we had sorties going overhead every day? Everytime he thought about flexing his muscle, we blew something up.
If we’re gonna kill people because they threaten us, well and good. Self-defense is a long recognized principle. If we’re gonna kill people because we don’t like the way they’re eyeballing us, then I think we go to far as a nation, and there are WAY too many nations giving us the stinkeye for us to fight them all.
Yes, IF he was actively seeking WMDs, IF he was aggressively co-ordinating terrorists to act as proxies against us, IF he was attacking other Mideast countries, IF attacking him deterred future attacks by third parties . . . lots of ifs. Too many ifs, in my opinion.
I don’t think we should EVER start a war without cause. Cause to me is more than paranoia and mabyes. By the ifs, we should invade Pakistan (harbors terrorists, brutal regime, WMDs, instability). And Iran (WMDS, supports terrorists, send message, sway Mideast political landscape, etc.) And North Korea (he’s friggin’ insane). And Venezuela. Probably Lybia as well to be on the safe side. Chad. Sudan. Syria. And so forth. What made Saddam #1 on the list? Aside from “he tried to kill my daddy”?
10:37 pm
Busboy, although it turned out Hussein didn’t have anything, we were justified in attacking because we weren’t sure that he didn’t. In this day, I put the burden on others to prove they are no threat to us, rather than have the burden on us to absolutely positively (fedex proof) prove they are an ‘imminent’ threat. You may call it paranoia, but given that there are no slam dunks, and because waiting until something has happened is ridiculous, I call it prudence. Look at it this way: where we have less than perfect intelligence, not acting in a given situation puts some number of us at risk of harm. And as with any statistical model, the more events, the higher the likelihood such an outcome (dead Americans) will occur. So, to avoid being paranoid, how many Americans are you willing to have die?
What did distinguish Hussein from the others is that (1) he had and had used WMDs, (2) he was definitely hostile to the United States, (3) a supporter of terrorism, and (4) had many chances to totally open up but never did to our satisfaction… and thus, ‘deserved’ what happened to him and moved him to the top of the list of all those who are giving us the evil eye. Of course as I wrote above, taking care of Hussein quickly and getting out was supposed to deter those giving us the evil eye. Unfortunately, Bush’s screwing things up has emboldened them. I doubt Iran would be pushing ahead if we didn’t have 100,000 troops bogged down in Iraq, nor would Musharaff have given refuge to the Taliban.
Oh well,
12:32 pm
@steve:
I can agree to a point. Certainly, a rogue state does not have to send us a polaroid of the Anthrax before we defend ourselves. But going back to the list of rogue states I mentioned before, which of them are being open and honest? I (perhaps naively) assume that the designation rogue state generally implies a reluctance to be open. It WAS demonstrated to the satisfaction of Mr. Blik, who was actually there and had vast ammounts of experience on the topic, but the Administration didn’t seem to care.
My concern is exemplified in your line ” . . .to our satisfaction.” If the Administration wanted to get him before 9/11 (which it seems pretty clear they did), were they looking at the information objectively, or through “kill Saddam” tinted glasses?
What sets off my “lying antenna” is after we invaded. As the lack of WMDs became clear, the administration (Cheney, Rummy) kept deflecting questions with versions of “we are absolutely sure the WMDs are there.” At the time, I assumed that they had super-secret-ninja intelligence that overrode what we in the public saw. In hindsight, they clearly did not—they were just so determined to invade that if Saddam ordered Twinkies from a deli they would have interpreted it as code to kill Americans.
It reminds me of when I drink. Alcahol doesn’t effect me. I can drink all I want, and I stay the same. Everybody around me, however, turns into an argumentatve bastard. Now, most people say I’m the one that is drunk, but since I know I’m completely unaffected, they all must be wrong. If the Administration wanted to invade (regardless of cause), then they were going to see cause (even if everybody else who looked at the evidence didn’t see squat).
This, to me, is why I can’t believe the Admin on pretty much anything. IMO, they decide the “right” thing to do, then look at the facts with their “I’ve already decided” glasses on. Since there is no global warming, all reports that say it exists are rife with inaccuracy (even if they have to edit them to make it clear), and any reports debunking it are pure gold (even if the peer community disagrees). Since Republicans are the Party of Good, pressuring governmental agencies to help Republicans (even though blatantly illegal) is justified. Since overthrowing Saddam will not only cause Democracy to flower in the Mideast but get some payback for the failed GW assination attempt (dead or alive, baby!) then he must be the biggest threat of all dictators.
If we invaded for self-defense (which is what we claimed at the beginning), then the Administration decided “well, since we have to go in anyways, lets start democracy, spread freedom, and create a better world”, then I’m disgusted. You fight a war for one purpose: to win and end it. Its not a classroom exercise—you don’t send college interns to run the CPA, you send the best.
Two possible fact patterns: either (a) the CIA ran to the Administration and said “Saddam’s getting active! We gotta take him out now!!” or (b) the Administration went to the CIA and said “We gotta take him out now! He’s getting active, right?” If its the latter, then by definition he wasn’t the biggest threat; he was a target of opportunity.
Anyways, thats my two cents. It seems to be a judgement call, so I don’t think either of can be “right”, but I certainly respect your position and appreciate the discussion.