Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.
Link
That is an act of war. It reminds me of this:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
Link
The difference is that Pakistan is an ally.
So the Hussein Doctrine.
Don't attack enemies. Do attack allies.
At least Obama has made up his mind on the subject:
ReplyDeleteU.S. debates going after militants in Pakistan
The internal debates have taken on new urgency amid U.S. intelligence warnings that Al Qaeda and other militant groups are flourishing in northwestern Pakistan. At the same time, there is a growing belief within the U.S. government that the new leadership in Islamabad has proved to be ineffectual and is preoccupied with internal squabbling in the wake of former President Pervez Musharraf's resignation.
Thursday's bombing of a munitions plant in Pakistan that killed at least 78, for which the Taliban claimed responsibility, has added fuel to U.S. concerns. Attacks by the Taliban and other militants have also been increasing in Afghanistan, and military commanders have said safe havens within Pakistan are responsible for the rising violence in both countries.
"Radical terrorist groups in the border regions have undermined and fought against the central government of Pakistan and carved out sanctuaries and training bases," said a senior U.S. officer in Afghanistan.
"They have come back, and they are presenting a significant challenge." Like others interviewed for this article, the officer spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity surrounding U.S.-Pakistan relations.
So you believe that making your mind up, and then making public statements that tie your hands is a good thing.
ReplyDeleteHussein's comments show him to be the epitome of someone who is naive and inexperienced, and even worse, willing to sacrifice national security positions to score a political point.
You know, Hussein wants to be like Kennedy.
We should remember that Kennedy claimed a "missile gap" that he knew to be untrue, and Nixon could not refute because of national security issues.
The Left often claims that the Repubs use scare tactics.
If they do they learned them from Kennedy. A Demo icon.
So you believe th making your mind up, and then making public statements that tie your hands is a good thing.
ReplyDeleteYes, just like when McCain said that he'd follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell, one of the few policy statements from him that I approve of.
You can watch Sidney say it here, BTW.
Hussein's comments show him to be the epitome of someone who is naive and inexperienced, and even worse, willing to sacrifice national security positions to score a political point.
Really, even when he said this?:
On Afghanistan: “John McCain likes to say he’ll follow bin Laden to the gates of Hell, but he won’t even go to the cave where he lives.”
Why would it weaken our national security to demonstrate, in the words of our current president:
You're either with us or against us.?
You know, Hussein wants to be like Kennedy.
We should remember that Kennedy claimed a "missile gap" that he knew to be untrue, and Nixon could not refute because of national security issues.
What the letter makes clear is that Kennedy was given a detailed intelligence briefing in the middle of the presidential campaign, including information on the Missile Gap. A potentially lucrative line of inquiry for an intrepid historian would be to examine Kennedy’s speeches about national security before and after the briefing and see if they changed in any significant way. For instance, did he tone down his comments about the supposed gap in ICBMs after he received the briefing?
Of course, this does not completely settle the matter. Improved intelligence, particularly the success of the first CORONA spy satellite mission in late August 1960, helped reduce the range of uncertainty about Soviet ICBM deployment. But it was not until a satellite mission in late 1961 that the intelligence community obtained definitive proof that there were no Soviet ICBMs filling vast areas of unexplored Siberia. As long as this uncertainty raged, Air Force generals could argue the worst-case scenario, and Kennedy could legitimately take their side in the argument, even if unbiased analysts at the CIA argued that claims of large Soviet ICBM deployments were based upon bad interpretations of available data. However, Kennedy was not ignorant of the intelligence data, at least not after July 1960. Hopefully in the future historians will probe this issue in greater depth.
Link
The Left often claims that the Repubs use scare tactics.
Like this fellow here?
Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, gave nervous Republicans here a preview on Friday of the party's strategy to maintain its dominance in the fall elections, offering a searing attack on Democrats for their positions on terrorism, the administration's eavesdropping program and President Bush's effort to shape the federal judiciary.
Btw, I agree with the first part of this statement:
"The United States faces a ruthless enemy," Mr. Rove said, "and we need a commander in chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of the moment America finds itself in. President Bush and the Republican Party do. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Democrats."
I kinda think it's scare tactics to say that Democrats don't take the threat seriously, YMMV.
If Obama is willing to go to Pakistan because he takes the threat seriously, I don't see how anyone who has America's best interests at heart could do anything but vote for him in November.
Sorry you don't see it that way.
The point is that McCain's comment is non-specific. He doesn't say that if Pakistan doesn't go to the gates of hell for him or agree to let him in he will attack Pakistan.
ReplyDeleteHussein's comment, does and he didn't have to. That is just dumb, naive and inexperienced.
As for Kennedy, that's your view. We disagree and neither will change our minds.
And you can not compare Bush's statement to Hussein's. Again it is non-specific and doesn't challenge Pakistan.
As for national security in this election it really is a no brainer. The NYTime's various leaks, the Demo Left's position on FISA and demanding punishment for telcos that responded in a time of need, the various comments re our troops.. see Durbin, see Kerry, see Murtha... Reid's surrender comment and the various attempts to cut off funding tried by the Demos all speak for themselves and should be examined.
As for Hussein invading anything I find that risible. He wouldn't no matter what he says. He is not so inclined and he wouldn't have the leadership strength in the country to drag a Demo majority Congress with him.
Hussein is a 60's leftist caught in a 2000ish body brought there by his associates and teaching to by a variety of people in his early life and the Rev Wright and William Ayers as a young man.
PPJ, I think you left out something from your Obama quote:
ReplyDelete"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said. "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."
And some context would be nice:
His declaration also followed revelations last month that the Bush administration made a last-minute decision in 2005 to abort a special forces raid to capture senior Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan's tribal areas amid fears the operation might jeopardize relations with Pakistan. The disclosure stirred criticism of the White House, and in his speech Obama called the decision to abort "a terrible mistake."
A national intelligence assessment recently made public concluded that Al Qaeda is reconstituting itself in the remote region of Pakistan and gaining strength, including setting up training camps.
The Bush administration has followed a delicate strategy in Pakistan. The White House has prodded Musharraf, a key ally in the struggle against the Taliban, to take stronger steps against terrorist havens while also taking care not to undermine a leader who maintains a tenuous hold on power and faces an internal challenge from Islamic fundamentalists.
Events this summer have underscored Musharraf's shaky position. An attempt by the Pakistani president to dismiss the Supreme Court chief justice stirred violent riots and moved the court's full membership to overrule the president in a politically damaging rebuff. Islamic fundamentalists took control of the capital city's Red Mosque until they were ousted through a bloody military raid. That raid in turn prompted a series of suicide bombings against the Pakistani government.
Obama said he would make continued military aid to Pakistan conditional on a more aggressive Pakistani army offensive against Al Qaeda followers who have retreated to a region along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in which local tribes operate virtually free of central government authority.
"I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan," Obama said.
Seeing as how Al Qaeda has become stronger in Pakistan since the article was printed, I don't see how the 'delicate strategy' has worked.
Anyway, he wasn't the only one to talk about such a possibility:
Still, in an action that many observers read as a tilt by the Bush administration toward a military strike, White House homeland security adviser Frances Townsend pointedly declined to rule out the option in a television interview in late July, stirring a chorus of protests in Pakistan.
Clinton said in a radio interview later in the day that she also would not hesitate to attack Al Qaeda targets on Pakistani territory.
"If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured. And that will be my highest priority because they pose the highest threat to America," Clinton told American Urban Radio Networks.
Reframing not allowed.
ReplyDeleteThe issue isn't that Hussein may have understood, but that by making the public threat that he did he placed Pakistan and himself in a box. If the Pres of Pakistan goes after the terrorists the terrorists will claim he is a lackey of the US and receive sympathy and support. If Hussein went in it would be an act of war and unite Pakistan against us.
Again. His actions were silly. If, after becoming Pres he needed to do what he said, he could do it. Saying so in a campign speech is show boating and stupid.
Reframing not allowed.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, you can take any part of a quote to make an argument, and when someone gives a little more info about that quote, or context, then that's reframing.
The issue isn't that Hussein may have understood, but that by making the public threat that he did he placed Pakistan and himself in a box.
As did Francis Townsend by refusing to rule out any military strikes on Pakistan.
Somehow, that doesn't seem to bother you, while Obama's statement does.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
If the Pres of Pakistan goes after the terrorists the terrorists will claim he is a lackey of the US and receive sympathy and support. If Hussein went in it would be an act of war and unite Pakistan against us.
I thought we shouldn't base out strategy on what the terrorists would do in response to any moves against them.
Did I miss the memo, again?
His actions were silly. If, after becoming Pres he needed to do what he said, he could do it. Saying so in a campign speech is show boating and stupid
So it's showboating and stupid to say that the terrorists behind the deaths of thousands of Americans should be pursued and punished in one way or another.
Works for me.
The fact that Hussein may have understood the problems of Musharraf really adds nothing and you introduced it to change the subject...reframe.
ReplyDeleteAnd the issue isn't that it is showboating to condemn the terrorists or to say they should be pursued and destroyed. It isn't.
The issue was, is and will be that you should not put yourself and an ally in a box by making public statements that are specific to his name, what his actions must be and what will happen if he doesn't do as told.
That just puts your ally in a bad position and accomplishes nothing. In Hussein's case he made the comment to shore up his resume when it comes to defense. That is and was dumb and damnable.
Sorry, PPJ, adding context isn't the same as reframing.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry you can't be patriotic and admit that killing terrorists should take second place to nothing, especially one that brings to mind the old cliche how with allies like Pakistan, who needs enemies?
I really chuckle at how you post a cartoon equating Obama's nomination with Islam taking over America, and at the same time criticize him for talking about how he won't compromise with diplomatic niceties when it comes to defending us against the guys who were behind 9/11.
If Obama had talked about working with Pakistan about pursuing the terrorists(while Pakistan does nothing about them), I can't imagine you praising him for his acumen and leadership in this area.
You're only trying to fool yourself, and as the old saying goes:
There are none so blind
as those who will not see.
Whatever.... But adding context that has nothing to do with the point, and then seeking to discuss it is reframing...
ReplyDeleteAll of your complaining, etc., doesn't change anything. The fact remains that it isn't smart to put an ally, and yourself, in a box. That he did it for political game makes it worse.
As for his acumen, he displayed that when he said he would talk with terrorist countries with no preconditions...
Shades of JFK!
But adding context that has nothing to do with the point, and then seeking to discuss it is reframing...
ReplyDeleteAs you did with the Kennedy mention, which you still won't owe up to.
Strike One.
Thanks for making my point for me.
The fact remains that it isn't smart to put an ally, and yourself, in a box. That he did it for political game makes it worse.
As I said, if he made the opposite statement, you'd have made other criticisms, only you say he wasn't being tought enough on terrorism.
As for his acumen, he displayed that when he said he would talk with terrorist countries with no preconditions...
There you go again, introducing another subject in attempting to do a reframe again.
Anyway, he's not the only one:
McCain, though, knows exactly what he himself is saying - and how wrong he is - because he once said pretty close to the opposite. In 2006, McCain was interviewed by James Rubin, a former Clinton administration official then slumming as a journalist. Rubin asked McCain if American diplomats should continue to work with the Palestinian government in the Gaza Strip if - as had just become the case - "Hamas is now in charge." McCain essentially said yes.
"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them," he told Rubin. "It's a new reality in the Middle East."
I have truncated McCain's quote, but it is - I avow and attest - an accurate reflection of what he said.
Strike 2 in the attempted re-framing game.
You should quit while you're slightly behind, because you're obviously not very good at this.
DA
ReplyDeleteAs I said, if he made the opposite statement, you'd have made other criticisms, only you say he wasn't being tought enough on terrorism.
But he didn't. So your point is?
Assuming that the McCain quote is accurate... I don't see what that has to do with anything that is the subject of the post. Hussein didn't say we should work with anyone... He said they should do what told and if not, be attacked...
Good night DA.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteGood night means good night.
ReplyDeleteSorry you can't take the heat of argumentation, PPJ.
ReplyDeleteDA, I am sorry that you are unable to understand that you are a guest.
ReplyDeleteAs a guest surely you understand that when the host says good night, the party is over.
But, instead of showing class and saying good night and I'll see you tomorrow, you come back with a comment.
So it got deleted.
Good night means good night.