Obama and Pakistan

[Xiahou]

Anyone else think it's ironic that with Obama positioning of himself as the anti-Bush (and calling Hillary Bush-lite) that he now finds himself advocating unilateral military action to show how tough he is on terrorism?

Btw, I love that article disco.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Anyone else think it's ironic that with Obama positioning of himself as the anti-Bush (and calling Hillary Bush-lite) that he now finds himself advocating unilateral military action to show how tough he is on terrorism?

Ah, but the difference is not in unilateralism, but in judgement of target.

[Papewaio]

If you want to engage with Pakistan learn to play cricket...

[Incongruous]

If you want to engage with Pakistan learn to play cricket...

Here, Here!

[Brenus]

To take unilateral action in a foreign Country? Well, nothing new, all countries did and do it. The Israeli did it (Entebbe, Munich killers, Eichman), the French (Rainbow Warrior, Carlos, Kolwesi), US (Granada, Panama, etc) etc. That is the reason we do have Special Forces...
The problem with theses action is when they failed or where not so legitimate…
To say it publicly is Political uncorrect, but he will survive…

“Uncle Ho, whom the USA had made agreements with for them to fight the Japs in WWII” : Err and the French in the immediate after WW2… Just a foot note…

[Odin]

Anyone else think it's ironic that with Obama positioning of himself as the anti-Bush (and calling Hillary Bush-lite) that he now finds himself advocating unilateral military action to show how tough he is on terrorism?

Call it what ever you like, Obama is absolutely correct. You talk to your enemies when possible and you attack them in thier safe haven.

He is getting slammed for this and it amazes me. We should be at the table right now talkint to Iran beyond Iraq security and see if we can come to an agreement. Just like we should have talked to Saddam directly and Kim.

And if and when that dosent work out we attack them with maximum force and remove any potential threat permantely. These candy asses running for president should all be putting forth thier supplemental budget plans now for munitions for the continuous bombing of Pakistans tribal region.

And thier diplomatic context of dictating to Pakistan when our troops will or will not go in and how long the bombing will last.

The idiot Bush got us into a global war, and the half assed conduct of it will be our end. Obama at least gets the fact that global war involves a global approach, and that means more diplomacy, and more killing.

[Tribesman]

What a silly bugger .
Obama really should think before he speaks .

developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism

"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."

It is not that Musharraf will not act it is that he cannot act , neither can any partner that may replace him .
Perhaps in the very very long term something can be achieved , but as events in Afghanistan and Pakistan(and Iraq) have shown acting even on actionable intelligence has a very very high tendancy to backfire very badly and increase support for terrorism and extremism rather than dry it up .
I really wonder why the Pentagon did a report on dealing with the Pashtun tribal areas and the importance of not attacking even with solid intelligence if people in power (or seeking power) choose to ignore it entirely .

[English assassin]

It is not that Musharraf will not act it is that he cannot act , neither can any partner that may replace him .

Well, Obama might know that, and just be being polite.

Not having read this pentagon report I don't know what it had to say on the "tribal areas", but they seem to me to present the same problems as Afganistan (funnily enough) Sudan and the various other failed states. And so what exactly do you do? Because accepting that they "cannot" be governed isn't an answer. If we took that attitude Scotland would still be a howling wasteland.

Yes, well, moving on...

Behind the scenes I think there is something to be said for telling Musharraf he can't have it both ways. Either these areas are part of Pakistan, in which case can he get them into order, or they are not, in which case he can't very well complain if the US bombs them. Not that I expect that bombing will do much good, but before I get too worried about "a very very high tendancy to backfire very badly and increase support for terrorism and extremism rather than dry it up " I'd have to be persuaded that these crazies actually CAN get any more crazy. Which I am not too sure about. IIRC they have about a 2000 year history of being madmen who make a living killing foreigners, when they aren't too busy killing each other, so in this case I really don't wholly buy into the idea that its all a protest about Coca Cola, Marilyn Monroe, or 1000lb bombs. Palestinians, yes. Pashtuns, no.

What we really need is a local strong man we can arm to the teeth and get to impose some sort of rule in these areas. Hmm, sounds familiar.

[KukriKhan]

...What we really need is a local strong man we can arm to the teeth and get to impose some sort of rule in these areas. Hmm, sounds familiar.

Indeed.

So, it's your opinion that, 4 years from now (10 years after 9-11), we will have come full circle to conventional diplomatic solutions for the world's hot-spots (Africa, middle-east, etc)? This, after trying yet again, to reinvent the foreign policy wheel?

If so, I cannot say I disagree. But what a sad prospect, after so many lives lost, money spent, effort expended.

[English assassin]

Indeed.

So, it's your opinion that, 4 years from now (10 years after 9-11), we will have come full circle to conventional diplomatic solutions for the world's hot-spots (Africa, middle-east, etc)? This, after trying yet again, to reinvent the foreign policy wheel?

If so, I cannot say I disagree. But what a sad prospect, after so many lives lost, money spent, effort expended.

Those would be the conventional diplomatic solutions in use since, oh, I don't know, the Roman Empire?

Yes. (Oh no. I guess that makes me a conservative, in the true sense, on this issue)

Still, P. J. O'Rourke will be happy that we Gave War A Chance.

[Lemur]

I turns out there are no Al Qaeda safe havens in Pakistan, so all of this kerfluffle was for nothing. Turns out the National Intelligence Estimate is wrong, too.

Thank goodness the Pakistani ambassador could set us all straight on the subject.