Obama and Pakistan

[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.

[Odin]

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

Yes thank goodness tax money can keep being paid to countries that harbor terrorists.

Washington - In the three years after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, U.S. military aid to Pakistan soared to $4.2 billion, compared to $9.1 million in the three years before the attacks - a 45,000 percent increase - boosting Pakistan to the top tier of countries receiving this type of funding.


Its not in pakistans intrest to capture bin laden or the taliban. If they do the money dries up. its a dirty little Bush secret....

Obama is right, either they clean them out or we do.

[Blodrast]

Now this would seem a bit hypocritical of the US, wouldn't it ?
First we're giving you a bucketload of money, and then we're bombing you...
That doesn't make any sense. If they're "the enemy", don't give them money. If they're not the enemy, don't threaten to attack them.

I understand cases where giving money to your "enemy" makes sense, such as North Korea, where hopefully that money goes to help the poor people who are starving, and the reason you're giving it is because their fearless leader needs to save face. I get that. But this is nowhere near the same case...

[Odin]

Now this would seem a bit hypocritical of the US, wouldn't it ?
First we're giving you a bucketload of money, and then we're bombing you...
That doesn't make any sense. If they're "the enemy", don't give them money. If they're not the enemy, don't threaten to attack them.

I understand cases where giving money to your "enemy" makes sense, such as North Korea, where hopefully that money goes to help the poor people who are starving, and the reason you're giving it is because their fearless leader needs to save face. I get that. But this is nowhere near the same case...

The problem has always been the backward nature of U.S. foreign policy since Wilson. The U.S. has embraced the "super power" role and all its trappings and sadly so has the population. To the point where some even believe its devine mandate (**cough** Cheney/Bush **cough**).

The U.S. constitution makes no provision for foriegn policy, it dosent make a distinction between it and domestic policy. We do have founding fathers who did give us a sniff of direction:


Jefferson in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none."

George Washington "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments."

Source: Written by Ron Paul.

We have made a major mess of foreign relations with our payouts and wars of ideology, and while I am not a big obama fan he at least gets the notion that if your going to war you go to total war, find the enemy and kill him.

Not pay his hosts money for thier partial assistance.

[Blodrast]

Well, thinking about it a bit more (I'm trying to be as objective as I can here, I don't get off on US-bashing), I can see how sometimes a combination of stick and carrot can be useful... but, frankly, I fail to see how this is the case. If any of you guys can figure out a way to interpret it like that, I'm all ears (well, eyes, in this case).

I can see a situation like this: "We'll help you if you get those bastards". And you help them, and you help them, and they don't come through. And then you say: "You up, now we'll bomb you". *scratches head* Seems to me like this loses you money, AND goodwill.

Then what would a good strategy be ? Keep paying them off until they deliver - or, more accurately, hoping that they will, eventually, deliver ? What if they don't ? You end up more the fool, and with your money given away.

Bomb them from the start ? I won't even get into this, it's wrong and stupid for too many (obvious, you'd think, after the last 5-6 years) reasons.

Bomb them and then give them money, to help them rebuild, and as some compensation, etc ? That kinda worked with WW2, but things were very different, and nations were actually at war (unlike this half-assed non-declared pseudo-war); would it work in such cases ?

Hmm, how about some joint operations on their (Pakistan's) territory, US troops allied with Pakistani troops, trying to weed out the bad guys ? (The emphasis is on joint). Would they go for that, or would they deem it as an unacceptable loss of face/sovereignty ?
So far, this looks to me like the best scenario I could think of, at least right off the top of my head...

What do you guys think ?