Obama and Pakistan

[discovery1]

Woah, Obama says he'd be willing to go after targets in Pakistan without consulting their government

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...-8-2007_pg7_16

Comments? Seems like a good way to destabilize our ally, although his openness is impressive.

[Lemur]

Woah, Obama says he'd be willing to go after targets in Pakistan without consulting their government.

As I understood it, he never said anything about "not consulting." His line was that if we had actionable intelligence, and Pakistan refused to act, we would. A subtle distinction, but an important one.

"Destabilize our ally"? Interesting way of looking at things. OBL's been camping out in their Road Warrior-esque backyard since 2002 onward. They can't or won't do anything about it. While we've been distracting ourselves in Iraq, the man behind the murders of thousands of Americans has been a resident of a country that receives a billion dollars a year of U.S. aid.

Allies, indeed.

-edit-

Actual quote, just so's we're all on the same page:

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and (Pakistani) President (Pervez) Musharraf will not act, we will."

[Xiahou]

The fact that he'd do so is no surprise- I think most other candidates would as well. The "rookie" mistake in all of this is publicly announcing that you'll do so. By publicly announcing that you intend to violate Pakistan's sovereignty if they don't do what you want them to fuels anti-American sentiments in the country and will only make it harder to get more cooperation with the Pakistani government.

The criticism as I understand it isn't that he would do so (although the kook left fringe may criticize him there too), but that he's openly blabbing about it just to try and look tough on security. I'm no Obama fan, and this doesn't help that view at all.

[Lemur]

I'm no Obama fan, and this doesn't help that view at all.

Oh, more of a Hillary man, then? Little did I know you were seriously considering Obama, um, ever.

[Xiahou]

Oh, more of a Hillary man, then? Little did I know you were seriously considering Obama, um, ever.

Atm, I honestly think Hillary might be the most competent of the Democrat candidates.... sad, I know.

[KafirChobee]

Lemur, well .... you got it right. All the candidates (RNC or DNC) would agree with Obama - but, it is one of the Goldwater moments where the less truth told - the better to attack an opponent.

When Goldwater ran (1964) i was 17, married with a child and of course had no voice. Except to pass out his opinion - which was: If we go to war then use every means possible to protect our troops (cause I knew I would be one) and achieve victory, or withdraw and negotiate with the Vietcong - the enemy (Uncle Ho, whom the USA had made agreements with for them to fight the Japs in WWII - which Truman chose to ignore because of Marshall). Regardless, Obama sounds like the common mans Goldwater in regard to asking the military to attack our real enemy and not one conjectured.

Basic rules of warfare for a nation:
1) to protect borders, when attacked.
2) to protect economic interests when diplomatic means fail (ie, Japs attacked PH for that reason).
3) to acquire, anything they a leader believes he can get away with - Hitler, Dubya, etc.
Beyond those principles we enter into the factors of imperialism and the spin to justify a nations grab for $$$$$$$, land and prestige.

Not that Obama is above any of these factors - look to whom is actually sponsoring him, but to each fool his own.

I like what Obama says - am just curious about whether it is real, or if he is being led (ala carte Reagan).