August 1, 2007

Obama: Let's Pull Out Of Iraq And Invade Pakistan (Update: Obama's Website Emphasizes Punitive Invasion)

Democrats have been demanding a withdrawal from Iraq for the past two years, and Barack Obama knows exactly what he'll do with the troops once they withdraw. He'll send them on an invasion of Pakistan:

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." ...

In many ways, the speech is counterintuitive; Obama, one of the more liberal candidates in the race, is proposing a geopolitical posture that is more aggressive than that of President Bush. It comes at a time in Obama's campaign when the freshman senator is drawing more financial support from more voters than any other candidate, though he has yet to vault from his second-place position in the polls. One of the reasons for that is that the Democratic front-runner, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, is seen as more experienced and in some ways stronger, a perspective Obama wishes to change.

One would hope that this would mark the end of Barack Obama's credibility as a presidential candidate. Given the other options available in the campaign, it probably won't. Too bad -- because of all the war plans floated by the Democrats in this primary campaign, this is easily the stupidest of all, and that includes Joe Biden's "Three Iraqs" policy.

One of the reasons that Democrats insist that the war in Iraq was a mistake was because it unnecessarily radicalized Iraqis into jihadists. What does Obama think an invasion of Pakistan will do to its population? And if the former was a mistake, consider that Pakistan has a population of over 160 million people. How does Obama think they will react to a military invasion by a putative ally?

Those are just the political considerations. If we march across the border of a sovereign nation without their permission, that's an act of overt war. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and would be likely to use them in a last extreme. They could certainly shoot tactical nukes at our Navy ships that would have to support an invasion force. They may also be inclined to use them against our new ally, India, in the case of an invasion.

Not to demean Obama's vast military expertise, either, but has he looked at a map of Pakistan? It's shaped like a wedge, with the base on the Arabian Sea and the Waziristan region almost the farthest point from the water. How does Obama propose to create lines of communication for an invasion? Right now we rely on Pakistan for overflight to Afghanistan to supply our troops for the fight against the Taliban there. General Obama would eliminate those lines of communication overnight, leaving the invasion force critically isolated -- unless he thinks we can start resupplying Afghanistan through Iran.

Only an idiot would invade Pakistan from the north, if at all. Any war against Pakistan would have to seize the Arabian Sea ports first, and then roll through the center of Pakistan -- where all of the formerly moderate Pakistanis would have lived -- to get to a mountainous region that Pakistan itself has hesitated to engage.

And did we mention that Pakistan has a potential mobilization of 39 million troops?

Frankly, the only idea worse than invading Iran is invading Pakistan. One might expect a serious presidential candidate to avoid looking like an idiot while provoking an ally that still helps more than he hurts in that region. Obama seems determined to prove himself unserious.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has some reaction to Obama's saber-rattling.

UPDATE II and BUMP: To those insisting that this is nothing different than what Bush and Rumsfeld proposed -- using covert teams to infiltrate across the border -- let me quote directly from the news report that the Obama campaign chose to highlight on its website:

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

That's definitely not the same as what Rumsfeld considered and rejected in 2005. It's a declaration of war, pure and simple.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhair.cgi/10694

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Obama: Let's Pull Out Of Iraq And Invade Pakistan (Update: Obama's Website Emphasizes Punitive Invasion):

» Obama Demonstrates That Shortsightedness is Part of His Resume from Webloggin
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that Obama is making threats towards a major ally of the United States and Great Britain in the fight against al-Qaeda. Yes many terrorists are holed up in Pakistan, in fact it is a terrorist haven in the tribal n... [Read More]

» http://irishspy.typepad.com/public_secrets/2007/08/stuck-on-stupid.html from Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
Barack Obama says we should withdraw from Iraq so we can --you are sitting down, right? -- invade Pakistan: In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not [Read More]

» Obama Would Invade Pakistan if Elected from Iowa Voice
Is invade too strong a word? No, not if he says he would "send troops in." Isn’t that an invasion… ... [Read More]

» The Low Wattage Of The Liberal Mindset: B. Hussein Obama sez: Pull Out Of Iraq, Attack Pakistan… from Stuck On Stupid
From Barack Hussein Obama’s website: I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. 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. ... [Read More]

Comments (123)

Posted by richard mcenroe | August 1, 2007 10:08 AM

This is what happens when college professors get their foreign policy briefings from Time magazine issues in the faculty lounge.

Posted by Mike M. | August 1, 2007 10:14 AM

I believe Obama intends to carry through on this pledge about as much as I believe Bill Clinton is honoring his pledge of fidelity to Hillary.

Posted by hermie | August 1, 2007 10:20 AM

Obama got his vast foreign policy and military tactic experience from the Chicago Dem political machine. The same ones who produced Dick (US Troops are Nazis) Durbin.

In Illinois, he learned the horrors of trench warfare when he had to watch Chicago Dems create the State budget. He learned negotiation via the usual political corruption and deal-makings with people like Ritchie Daley and Tony Rezko.

Yes, from his childhood on the mean streets of Honolulu, to the struggles living on his and his wife's 6 figure salaries, Obama has shown that he knows far better than anyone else, even career generals, how to run the country and the 'bumper sticker' war.

Posted by bulbasaur | August 1, 2007 10:21 AM

He'll come out with a clarification shortly, which will revolve around solving the world AIDS epidemic.

You just watch.

Posted by hermie | August 1, 2007 10:24 AM

He'll also throw in a New Orleans/Katrina reference for good measure.

Oprah will cheer.

Posted by the fly-man | August 1, 2007 10:27 AM

Hermie, and just where did our current commander in chief get his foreign policy experience before he became President?

Posted by connertown | August 1, 2007 10:35 AM

I think you may have underestimated the potential military force of Pakistan. I saw 39+ million males eligible, plus 36+ million females eligible. Not to say that all females would be conscripted, but if we are talking about potential, then it might be higher then you quoted.

Posted by Michael Mannske | August 1, 2007 10:38 AM

Talking to B. Hussein Obama about military matters is like sticking a microphone in a kindergartener's face and asking them about orbital physics.

Posted by unclesmrgol | August 1, 2007 10:43 AM

Wow. Talk about making your friends be your enemies. Doesn't the guy think Pakistanis have any patriotism at all? Doesn't he read the Pak polls which show great support for Pakistan itself cleaning up Waziristan?

If I were the Paks, I sure wouldn't cozy up any further to the Americans until AFTER the election, where I can be sure a President is due to take office who will keep the US as my ally rather than make it my enemy.

This guy has seriously set back cooperation between the US and Pakistan by about a year and a half.

He's trying to show he's a hawk. First Darfur, then Pakistan. But no, not Iraq -- it was the wrong target.

Posted by lexhamfox | August 1, 2007 10:44 AM

Oh really Ed????

You didn't seem to think it was insane when a senior Bush official suggested that they would consider unilateral strikes against Pakistan which is exactly what the excerpt suggests. Not too long ago you accused the British of appeasing terrorists for rejecting the notion of unilateral strikes against Pakistan.

Where do you really stand on the issue Ed?

Posted by Steve Skubinna | August 1, 2007 10:48 AM

fly-man, I realize it's an article of faith with some people that Dubya are stoopid. And peepul that votid 4 him are even more stoopider. Okay, maybe, aside from being a fighter pilot (a notoriously idiotic segment of the population) and having earned a Master's from Harvard (but they hand those out like cell phone plans) and having unseated an incumbent governor (yeah, but his daddy gave him the job). And of course it was a scandal when, prior to 2000 he couldn't name the deputy minister of fisheries and espresso stands for Lower Wazootistan. And as people never tire of pointing out, the rest of the world hates us now because he's a cowboy, only not really, and the only thing lefties hate more than a real cowboy is a fake one. So we can all agree that Dubya is dumber than toast.

Yeah, good point. Therefore it follows that nobody can criticize Obama's lack of experience. Thanks for setting us all straight on that. Now go back to sticking pins in your John Roberts doll.

Posted by athingortwo | August 1, 2007 10:48 AM

Fly-man - GWB got his foreign policy experience the same place that Hillary Clinton claims she got hers ... by hanging out at the White House with his old man. Oh, he was also a two term governor of a major border state too. At least that's far more direct exposure to international doings than Obama can possibly claim.

Since it's pretty clear now that Obama is not going to take down Hillary Clinton for the Dem nomination, Obama's inexperience will matter little anyway. And frankly, few of our Presidents have ever taken office with much international experience in their resumes - the exceptions being Bush 41, Nixon, Eisenhower, and Hoover. Maybe you can count JFK, if only because his old man was a major international rum runner back in Prohibition, and was known to be quite fond of Herr Hitler because he was such a threat to the hated Brits.

I digress though.

Attacking Obama now for his inexperience is going to be long forgotten come next February after the nominees are selected. What WILL be interesting is if it's a Clinton vs. Giuliani general election campaign. I cannot wait to see Rudy take Hillary apart in the debates - it will be fun, even if painful, to watch. Clinton is all talk, since the only thing in life she ever had responsibility for, she screwed up big time (i.e., "HillaryCare").


Posted by Steve Skubinna | August 1, 2007 10:50 AM

fly-man, I realize it's an article of faith with some people that Dubya are stoopid. And peepul that votid 4 him are even more stoopider. Okay, maybe, aside from being a fighter pilot (a notoriously idiotic segment of the population) and having earned a Master's from Harvard (but they hand those out like cell phone plans) and having unseated an incumbent governor (yeah, but his daddy gave him the job). And of course it was a scandal when, prior to 2000 he couldn't name the deputy minister of fisheries and espresso stands for Lower Wazootistan. And as people never tire of pointing out, the rest of the world hates us now because he's a cowboy, only not really, and the only thing lefties hate more than a real cowboy is a fake one. So we can all agree that Dubya is dumber than toast.

Yeah, good point. Therefore it follows that nobody can criticize Obama's lack of experience. Thanks for setting us all straight on that. Now go back to sticking pins in your John Roberts doll.

Posted by Captain Ed | August 1, 2007 10:50 AM

Uh, no. I criticized the British for endorsing Musharraf's peace treaty with the Waziris rather than attack them -- and for conducting truces with the Taliban in Afghanistan rather than killing them.

I' d prefer that we work covertly with Pakistan against the terrorists in Waziristan. Marching in formation over the border into Pakistan is about the dumbest option on the table.

Posted by sashal | August 1, 2007 10:50 AM

sure if you dishonestly put it this way.
But I failed to see where Obama suggested full-scaled invasion of Pakistan.
I did see though the suggestion to act in Waziristan, that' where Rumsfeld was planning to send our special opps but aborted the operation

Posted by sashal | August 1, 2007 10:53 AM

sure if you dishonestly put it this way.
But I failed to see where Obama suggested full-scaled invasion of Pakistan.
I did see though the suggestion to act in Waziristan, that' where Rumsfeld was planning to send our special opps but aborted the operation

Posted by unclesmrgol | August 1, 2007 10:55 AM

lexhamfox,

It's one thing for a press secretary to say something -- it's quite another for a putative President to say it.

It should be noted that Snow is talking in the context of hot pursuit, whereas Obama is talking about a full scale invasion.

Posted by Missing the point | August 1, 2007 10:56 AM

Obama never said he would invade the country. He said he would have let go foward the targeted strike of Al-Qaeda that Bush aborted and let bin Laden go free. There is a world of difference between a targeted strike and an invasion. Furthermore, you really are being uncreative and knee-jerk in your response. This is obviously an implicit attack on the Clintons, as the Clintons refused to take out Osama by missile when they had him in their crosshairs because Sandy Berger suspected they lacked proper authorization. Playing up the invasion spin just misses the point.

Posted by RPL | August 1, 2007 10:56 AM

Lord Elphenstone, reincarnated.

Posted by Ken | August 1, 2007 11:18 AM

Striking against certain al Qaeda strongholds within Pakistan, or even sending in troops to those mountainous footholds, isn't the same thing as overthrowing Pakistan, which is what you seem to imply.

Posted by bulbasaur | August 1, 2007 11:21 AM

I know, how about give every soldier one of those fake glasses, nose & moustache disguises, and send them off like keystone cops trying to catch Bin Laden!

Oh wait, that's no caricature, that's the childish democrat party plan: "catch Bin Laden."

The thing is, libs, just as you are rightly suspicious of a republican in charge of the Department of Education - (you rightly sense we are very skeptical of the value of that department) - similarly, we are suspicious of any democrat who claims even the slightest grasp of the appropriate use of our military. Your contempt for the military suggests that you have no clue what it's for.

Posted by the fly-man | August 1, 2007 11:25 AM

interesting, I comment relating to someone else's criticism, ridiculing BHO's lack of foreign policy experience by bringing applying their same standard for our current CIC and you ridicule me? You've got to be kidding. When have I ever criticized CJ Roberts?

Posted by gbear | August 1, 2007 11:30 AM

Jughead The Conquerer!

Posted by Gmax | August 1, 2007 11:32 AM

Lordy mercy you cant even have a intelligent conversation with these lefttards. Any intrusion of military force into a country has to be understood as an "invasion" or we cant even communicate. Words have meaning. Violating a nations sovereign borders is an act of war period. Now exactly what is the act of war that Pakiston has committed on the USA to permit us not to be considered the aggressor in this matter? And how is this not unilateral cowboy diplomacy?

Posted by Stephen Macklin | August 1, 2007 11:49 AM

Man that Obama is one tough man in a hypothetical fight!

I wonder where the bar would set for the actionable intelligence that would prompt his invasion of Pakistan. 100% certainty that Osama and Zawahiri are having tea at noon an that there are no civilians of any kind - especially children - within 500 miles?

There are so many "ifs" in Obama's plan that you can be fairly certain that the invasion would never happen.

Posted by Hope Muntz | August 1, 2007 12:04 PM

Whoa.

I really cannot believe what I'm reading on this board today. Aside from the single intelligent comment the Cap'n made about Pakistan's nukes (which would--and should anyway--have to be secured by airborne operations before any real 'war'), the rest of the antiwar opinions expressed here could pretty much have been written by Code Pink.

Presumably any president serious about invading a country the size of Pakistan would have to A. double the size of our armed forces and B. coordinate the attack with Pakistan's bitter longtime enemy, India. That's just for starters. If anyone here actually knew anything at all about the actual state of Pakistan's armed forces, they'd know that in war-gaming Pakistan's official threatened strategy against an Indian invasion is to use its nukes on Indian forces inside Pakistan itself! That's how much they trust their own long-range missiles. They aren't gonna hit New York.

Pakistan's air force and tanks are generally a rag-tag collection of castoffs from us and the chinese. The reason they fought off the Indians in the last two wars is A. the Indians had equally low-tech Soviet equipment and B. because of the esprit de corps and superior training of the paki pilots and tank commanders. This is reflected in a few crack units, such as those which stormed the Red Mosque, but the vaunted millions of reservists that the Cap'n worries about are worse than useless, as their pitiful recent performances in Waziristan and ongoing deterioration in protecting the Chinese nationals in Baluchistan attests. Doesn't anybody here read the newspapers?? The Pakistani army is basically tied down in the occupation of its own country--just like Saddam's was.

In brief: the US armed forces that drove into Baghdad would find little greater trouble in taking Islamabad--or Tehran. It's the PC 'peace-keeping' that would follow that we would we lose. Want to clear out Waziristan? I have two syllables for you: "Na" and "palm". And aim your canisters first at anyone with a handheld cellphone or camera. Obviously that's how wars will have to be won in the future.

Granted, it's hard for me to believe in Obama's overnight Neocon conversion, too, but hey--let's give the guy some credit here for wanting to go after our enemies! It would be nice if some of the other candidates follow his lead here.

Posted by Hope Muntz | August 1, 2007 12:08 PM

Whoa.

I really cannot believe what I'm reading on this board today. Aside from the single intelligent comment the Cap'n made about Pakistan's nukes (which would--and should anyway--have to be secured by airborne operations before any real 'war'), the rest of the antiwar opinions expressed here could pretty much have been written by Code Pink.

Presumably any president serious about invading Pakistan would know he'd have to first A. double the size of our armed forces and B. coordinate the attack with Pakistan's bitter longtime enemy, India. That's just for starters. But if anyone here actually knew anything at all about the actual state of Pakistan's armed forces, they'd know that in war-gaming Pakistan's official threatened strategy against an Indian invasion is to use its nukes on Indian forces inside Pakistan itself! That's how much they trust their own long-range missiles. They aren't gonna hit New York.

Pakistan's air force and tanks are generally a rag-tag collection of castoffs from us and the chinese. The reason they fought off the Indians in the last two wars is A. the Indians had equally low-tech Soviet equipment and B. because of the esprit de corps and superior training of the paki pilots and tank commanders. This is reflected in a few crack units, such as those which stormed the Red Mosque, but the vaunted millions of reservists that the Cap'n worries about are worse than useless, as their pitiful recent performances in Waziristan and ongoing deterioration in protecting the Chinese nationals in Baluchistan attests. Doesn't anybody here read the newspapers?? The Pakistani army is basically tied down in the occupation of its own country--just like Saddam's was.

In brief: the US armed forces that drove into Baghdad would find little greater trouble in taking Islamabad--or Tehran. It's the PC 'peace-keeping' that would follow that we would we lose. Want to clear out Waziristan? I have two syllables for you: "Na" and "palm". And aim your canisters first at anyone with a handheld cellphone or camera. Obviously that's how wars will have to be won in the future.

Granted, it's hard for me to believe in Obama's overnight Neocon conversion, too, but hey--let's give the guy some credit here for wanting to go after our enemies! It would be nice if some of the other candidates follow his lead here.

Posted by exhelodrvr | August 1, 2007 12:15 PM

Hope,
"In brief: the US armed forces that drove into Baghdad would find little greater trouble in taking Islamabad--or Tehran."

You need to take a look at the terrain, and a look at the supply lines.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | August 1, 2007 12:22 PM

Barack Obama, as cowboy:

"All hat and no cattle."

At best.

It would appear the smackdown by Hillary! wrt his reflexive meeting with any tyrant, dictator, or sworn enemy has given Obama quite a headache. His response? A transparent pander to conceal his national defense "bona fides" on a policy we all know he has no intention of implementing or ability of appreciating.

This cowpoke is in so far over his head even that hat needs a snorkel.

Posted by Peter | August 1, 2007 12:58 PM

Why is it that Democrats always support our Armed Forces activities except the ones that are actually happening?

Posted by rbj | August 1, 2007 1:52 PM

Even just going into Waziristan is a huge problem. The Pakistan army can't go there, and that's part of the same country. How would the US army (which is broken, isn't it?) handle it -- how do you set up supply lines? Can't go south from Afghanistan because you need to go north from Pakistan to supply Afghanistan. Iran is out of the question. How about India -- yeah, that'll work, Pakistan's traditional enemy helping the US attack a (nominal) part of Pakistan.

Even simply firing missiles requires the permission of the Pakistan government. Otherwise it is an act of war & could possibly be misconstrued as an attack from India.

Obama is clueless here.

Posted by hunter | August 1, 2007 1:57 PM

Let's see if I have this straight, Obama:
So you negotiate with no conditions with our enemies, invade and fight with our allies, and abandon the nation we have bled and fought to liberate to terrorists.
wow, what leadership and vision.
Not.

Posted by docjim505 | August 1, 2007 2:00 PM

What an idiot. He wants to invade a sovereign nation - an ALLY - that also has NUKES???? Good grief, I hope nobody tells him that there are terrorists in Britain...

A few commenters seem to have implied that sending "a few" troops into "selected areas" of Pakistan, or used "limited force" against "selected targets" doesn't constitute an act of war on the part of the United States against Pakistan. The mind boggles...

Musharaff may well decide to swallow such provocation, just as we swallowed Hitler using his U-boats against our merchant ships (and, in a few cases, our naval vessels) prior to our official entry into World War II. But don't deceive yourself: if you use military force against another country, IT'S AN ACT OF WAR.

But what if Musharaff DOESN'T decide to be a nice guy and supinely acquiesce to an American attack against his country? What if he and the rest of the Pakistanis get a little, um, PISSED OFF that we knifed them in the back? Talk about generating hoards of enemies.

Cap'n Ed wrote:

One would hope that this would mark the end of Barack Obama's credibility as a presidential candidate.

Nah. Look at the retards that make up his base. Given that they don't seem able to comprehend what constitutes and act of war, why SHOULDN'T they cheer that dumbo-eared idiot on?

Posted by gbear | August 1, 2007 2:08 PM

Jughead The Conquerer!

Posted by MarkJ | August 1, 2007 2:10 PM

Obama's plan to invade Pakistan? This is the dumbest idea since NBC greenlighted the "Pink Lady and Jeff Show":

For an analogy, think of the Allies invading Normandy...all the while knowing that the Germans possess tactical nukes and are ready, willing, and able to use them.

Posted by bayam | August 1, 2007 2:12 PM

Captain really knows how to stir up the right wingers- and he can do it on a whim!

First, there's nothing wrong with a President talking tough. It's called posturing. The right seems to have a big problem understanding the different. Let me put it this way- it's the difference between play-time and real-time. Every right winger said that Bush did exactly what Clinton had threatened to do. No one on the right seems to grasp the diplomatic purpose of Clinton's statements- posturing to affect another leader's behavior. (Before the war, both Clinton and Gore publicly stated that invading Iraq would be a big mistake.)

Obama's statement has more to do with reacting to the spanking he took from Hillary during the last debate. Sure Obama will talk with the enemy- right before he starts an invasion. Devious, huh?

Posted by Teresa | August 1, 2007 2:14 PM

I'm glad to see one thing -- that many of you are starting to realize that "invading a soveriegn nation" is not a good idea without thinking it through first. About 3700 dead kids too late, but better late than never.

Posted by Po' Boy | August 1, 2007 2:31 PM

Good idea, "Teresa"! For starters, let's give Europe back to the Nazis and apologize profusely for our illegal invasion. Like you say - about 50,000+ dead kids too late, but better late than never.

Posted by k2aggie07 | August 1, 2007 2:35 PM

Teresa, they're not kids. Don't patronize. And Iraq isn't Pakistan. Apples to lemons and all that. Saying that "invading a sovereign nation is a bad idea" makes about as much sense as saying "going into debt is a bad idea". Both can be good or bad, and sometimes both are necessary.

As an aside...is it just me or does it seem as if Obama is playing the Hillary shill here? I mean...no one can be this stupid unintentionally, right?

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | August 1, 2007 2:39 PM

RE: bayam (August 1, 2007 2:12 PM)
First, there's nothing wrong with a President talking tough. It's called posturing...

First, Obama isn't President and he's barely a Senator, so let's not get ahead of ourselves. ;) Second, talking tough is fine for someone who has the credibility to do so. Obama doesn't have it, so it's an empty and gratuitous gesture recognized by voters and would-be targets of his "threat." Thirdly, he cannot posture without a spine. I'm now less concerned with his spine, however, and increasingly concerned with his brain.

I wholeheartedly agree with your observation that this was a political response to Hillary! (and said as much), but he cannot honestly make such a declaration in view of his voting history, his previous platform, and his endless rhetoric concerning contemporary quagmires and how to handle ME jihadists. He has followed his previous gaffe with an even bigger one. Hillary! can eat his lunch in this department which shows just how much of a lightweight Obama is. If he isn't careful, Biden will pass him on credibility and Obama will fall back with Edwards.

Posted by rbj | August 1, 2007 2:41 PM

As far as I'm concerned, Saddam gave up all rights to "sovereignty" when he tried to take over and annex a sitting member of the UN -- who's own sovereignty he had acknowledged beforehand (There was an Iraqi ambassador to Kuwait).

Posted by Teresa | August 1, 2007 2:45 PM

Po'boy -- Try not to be asine. Nobody is comparing Nazi Germany with Iraq or trying to argue that we shouldn't have gone to war with Hitler. My comment was invading a soveriegn nation WITHOUT THINKING IT THROUGH FIRST. It would have been nice had the Bushies thought about the consequences and entirely forseeable problems that would arise in Iraq PRIOR to invasion. Just like you good folks are thinking about the problems that might arise from invading Pakistan. I'm just congratulating you on finally showing some common sense.

Posted by megapotamus | August 1, 2007 3:04 PM

As far as the legalistic issues go, the Iraq war was initiated by Saddam with his invasion of Kuwait. The intervening years were all in a state of war with the Coalition with the favor of the UN, not that this means much to me. I think invading nations with the hellish record of Iraq or Myanmar or North Korea would be just dandy morally if not practical. In any case, Barack is, yes, posturing merely. But what a crappy posture. Sure, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia too, are the sources and havens of many of our antagonists but their governments have an interest that coincides with our own; the minimization of Islamist influence. Needless to say, even without an armored invasion of Pakistan, such aggressive rhetoric will make these leaders reassess their actions to our detriment. Barack is a sounding board and no more. With greater alacrity even than Bill Clinton does he take his "convictions" from the results of his internal polling. The current foolishness is a tactical response to Hillary's advance and as such demonstrates well that NO Democrats of our current crop are serious in the least on this topic. Though I suspect Hillary could become so, once the necessities of placating the degraded boobs that control the Dem primaries has passed.

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 1, 2007 3:05 PM

In keeping with the Democrats' brilliant military strategic thinking (the same thinking that tells us retreat, defeat, and rout are "redeployment"...sounds so Monty Python doesn't it), we can expect that an Obama Administration's military strategy for dealing with the one geographic region on the planet that has never been conquered, the plan to get in and defeat our enemies in a place known as "The Graveyard of Empires" will be a naval blockade of the Afghan/Pakistan border areas using McHale's Navy.

Oh how the left longs for Ernest Borgnine.

Posted by DwightKSchrute | August 1, 2007 3:08 PM

It's pretty ridiculous to say Obama wants to "invade" Pakistan. But that's clearly the way Captain Ed and company would love to distort it. Sure enough the right blogsphere is working themselves into a tizzy getting it out there that way. And of course it wouldn't be complete without Malkin offering zero substantial criticism but plenty of name calling and lame attempts at mockery. Of course this is nothing new, wash, rinse, repeat.

However is it productive for the right blogsphere to be so partisan that no matter what is said by a Democrat it has to be attacked? I mean if you actually take the time to read what Obama said as opposed to distorted analysis it's a message that one would think most people on the right would embrace it.

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again...If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will."

This isn't calling for "invasion", it's giving Musharraf cover and strength. It allows Musharraf to say "hey you don't want to deal with me and the Americans are ready to take you out". This as well as the rest of the speech are part of a serious and well thought out plan for defeating terrorists and protecting American lives at home and abroad. So of course that has to be mocked. Why? Because he's a Democrat. Therefore it's "stupid" and "unserious".

Of course Giuliani would rather not talk about Iraq, and would rather raise money than attend the meeting for the Iraq panel he was named to. All Romney can come up with is "let's double Guantanamo", and other than "stay the course" all McCain can come up with is singing songs about bombing Iran. I guess that's what's expected from serious and thoughtful candidates on the right.

How about putting partisanship and hysterics aside and warm to the fact that a Dem candidate has no problem with going after terrorists and using military force. Wouldn't this pressure the other candidates to move in that direction? Because you can bury your head in the sand or listen to all the same fairy tales Rove, Hewitt, et all spun your way in 04, but the GOP is in for more bad news in 08. Just thinking it might be a little more constructive to embrace the policy matters you agree with instead of trying to twist them into something they're not just because the party letter after the candidates name isn't the one your team cheers for.

Posted by Okonkolo | August 1, 2007 3:08 PM

Just curious, Captain, why do you think Biden's Three Iraqs plan is so stupid? The current Iraq is a nation in name only, the Sunnis have all quit the cabinet (again), and the involvement of the Shite militias in both the military and government makes all non-Shias nervous. Iraq appears to be Balkanizing itself and many locales have already been ethnically cleansed. I'm not saying Biden is my guy or his plan is the one, but his plan, radical as it is, seems no more stupid than hoping centuries of ethnic and religious animosity will be washed away by what we are currently doing. Sorry if you've posted long ago on this.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | August 1, 2007 3:16 PM

RE: Teresa (August 1, 2007 2:45 PM)
It would have been nice had the Bushies thought about the consequences and entirely forseeable problems that would arise in Iraq PRIOR to invasion.

Do you really believe the administration didn't think about consequences of action in Iraq? And how is it that the problems were sooo foreseeable that the overwhelming majority of Congress decided to grant support and money to the President pre-Saddam rather than oppose him for ignoring the obvious? Furthermore, how was Saddam going to be deposed, his threat squashed, without military intervention? How exactly was the Clinton administration policy of regime change (which I supported) going to happen, a policy which was formulated both before Bush and before 9/11?

The U.S. had to respond to Saddam whether we really wanted to or not. Every CiC before Bush, even his father, had been kicking the can on invading/"solving" Iraq because everyone knew it would be difficult. It wasn't ignorance of the consequences that drove action. It was the context of historical events and a President who took his job seriously enough to do what had to be done, nevermind the shirking of responsibility of those politicians and anti-war supporters who have the luxury of backing away when things inevitably turn ugly. They always do take advantage of the security umbrella that very military and those who lead them provide.

Posted by braindead | August 1, 2007 3:22 PM

Are you sure Homer Simpson wasn't the one who actually said to invade Pakistan?

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 1, 2007 3:23 PM

DwightKSchrute ...AWESOME!

Great! Ok, so please, be clear...how will President Obama "get" the bad guys in the tribal areas?

Pressure on Musharaaf? Yeah, like the US hasn't tried that already.

Special Ops? Yeah, like they haven't been working there for the past 6 years.

Airstrikes? Always a favorite of the left, but rarely effective in making anything more than a political statement vs substance. Besides, how ya gonna suddenly find out which cave to hit, and when the people in the area wig out claiming civilians died (as they've always done whenever the US makes a Predator strike on AQ leaders there), then what? What's gonna be different?

Invasion? Stupid idea. Shouldn't even need explaining why. Just crack a history book.

Naval Blockade using the PT73 as a secret weapon? Priceless.

Nah, Obama's just offering zippy rhetoric to a crowd that feeds on sizzle rather than steak because steak's too tough to chew and swallow.

Posted by the fly-man | August 1, 2007 3:27 PM

Well all, at what point would you consider that we stop enabling this dictator?

Posted by Hope Muntz | August 1, 2007 3:35 PM

Obviously, those here who point out that this speech is almost entirely for political consumption are right.

But I continue to be sincerely and deeply shocked at your general lack of confidence in our armed forces. Who else shouldn't we stand up to militarily? Russia? China? Those two have pretty big armies, tough terrain, and mighty long supply lines, too. Kiss Taiwan and your plasmas goodbye, huh?

Fact is, you all should actually read the speech. He has an excellent point--the people who murdered 3,000 of our countrymen are still hiding with impunity 6 years later up in the hills. We have the right--and the means--to go in after them; Musharraf has proved inadequate to the task. Iraq is totally irrevelant to this argument, and all of you should be supportive of the principle here, even if you can't support the man articulating it.

Hard to believe that it was your parents and grandparents who won World War II.

Posted by Just Like Bush Did to McCain.... | August 1, 2007 3:37 PM

Ed,

It still looks like he committed to raids in the event of actionable intelligence Pakistan will not act on, but left all options on the table (i.e., possible invasion) as the circumstances warrant. That doesn't sound like the reckless warmongering you have converted it into with your cherry-picking and selective bolding and others techniques of sophistry. You can't turn Obama into a wild-eyed McCain. (Though he really does have black children...)

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 1, 2007 3:45 PM

What difference does it make how "enabled" the dictator is if President Obama is going to take tougher military action. The support for the dictator is irrelevent then.

Fact is, whether its Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran,or the Global War on Terror in general...Democrats have no substantive ideas on how to deal with things, and the reason they have none is because there are scant few options, Bush is trying or has tried them all, and all the Democrats can do is complain.

I wonder how long it's going to be before those who donate to Democrats, who volunteer for their campaigns, and who rant so heavily against W or anyone with an (R) by their name...how long will it be before those people start to actually expect something from the leaders they believe so ardently, the leaders they support financially, the leaders they help, the leaders they foolishly, blindly, and so far unquestionably follow; Democratic Party leaders?

Posted by courtneyme109 | August 1, 2007 3:58 PM

Senator Obama is damaged goods now -

1st Foreign policy goof - back in the spring in Iowa saying no one has suffered more than the Palestinians. say what? Of all the things to make Americans say " Yay! Obama!" Palestinians are NOT on the list.

2nd FP Goof - Promising to be the '1st responder in chief' at a debate

3rd - promising to meet (sans conditions) w/ sworn enemies.

And now insinuating going into the Land of the Pure.

He's through.

Posted by markg8 | August 1, 2007 4:06 PM

Musharraf would have to be a fool to think he's going to get away with playing a Dem president, ANY Dem president like he's played Bush. 6 years after 9/11 and he can't find a 6'6" tall Arab who needs kidney dialysis amongst the hillbillies of North Waziristan? When he gets $12 billion a year in US military aide to look for him and then makes deals with those crazyass hillbillies of his to look the other way while they harbor Taliban who kill our soldiers and try to take back Afghanistan? Maybe you think that's a good payoff for our taxpayer's dollars but the rest of us think it's a sucker's bet. And your boy Bush could care less.

Besides Perv may not even be in power by 2009. He just caved in to Bhutto on a deal for her to come back and run for president, he even agreed to change the constitution (which apparently is easy enough to do) and dropped the corruption charges against her. He's also agreed to step down as head of the army as he makes another run. But then he said that last time too. He caved on firing the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court too but killed a bunch of jihadis at the Red Mosque. He's more afraid of the lawyers and businessmen than he is of psycho religious nuts and for good reason.
There's more of them.

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 1, 2007 4:10 PM

markg8,
Yeah, 'cause "Democrat" is synonymous with words like resolve, threatening, intractable, dangerous, and straightforward.

Yep.

Brilliant.

Do you even think before you type? Pervez Musharaaf is going to be more afraid of an American President that is both a Democrat and a woman than he is Jihadis who try to kill him every few days. Yeah. Ooooookay.

Granted, I find Dennis Kucinich a scary guy, but I don't think General M would. I think he'd laugh.

Posted by Teresa | August 1, 2007 4:19 PM

I'd be careful about criticizing Obama too much... How do you think that Romney, Guiliani, McCain et al... are going to respond when asked what they are going to do about the terrorist threat in Pakistan? Are they going to go out on TV and say, "Oh no, we can't possibly use the military to catch Bin Laden." I'd love to see the sound bites on how it would just be too hard to do. Obama has laid a pretty good trap for them frankly. Do you think they want to come off as more dovish than he?

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 1, 2007 4:27 PM

Actually, at the Republican debates it was one of the first questions posed the candidates. McCain was laughed at for having said he'd follow Bin laden to the gates of hell. Now, if a Dem said that, and Gen Musharaaf heard it, does anyone think he'd be afraid that Clinton or Obama would follow through with such a line OR would he take comfort in the knowledge that as soon as a poll indicated that the Dem base didn't like the harshness of the phrasing Clinton or Obama would cave like the reeds in the wind that they are? Me, I'd put money on the General hearing words like that from a Medal of Honor recipient and taking them to heart while hearing them from a Clinton might do little more than make him (and our enemies in the region) do little more than snarf on their tea.

Posted by b | August 1, 2007 4:33 PM

@bayam:

The defect density of your post is quite an accomplishment. Let's unpack some of it, shall we:

"First, there's nothing wrong with a President talking tough."

A leftist stating that there is nothing wrong with a President talking tough? Then why is the left constantly complaining about the 'cowboy rhetoric' coming out of the White House? Although notably I don't hear Bush using Obama's incendiary rhetoric about Pakistan. Imagine if Bush gave a presser in which he threatened Pakistan with invasion! Leftists would go absolutely apesh!t--and for good reason, as the concomitant reaction in Pakistan would amply demonstrate.

But the reality is that there is in fact a problem with talking tough unless there is a very good reason and you intend to follow through. Forget for a moment Obama's intentions were he to become Prez, and consider how we are going to get the progressively-minded among us to support an invasion on a nuclear-armed hellhole teeming with religious fanatics, halfway across the world. It just ain't gonna happen!

"Every right winger said that Bush did exactly what Clinton had threatened to do."

First off, could you post the survey where they talked to "every right winger"? Second, if you'd been paying attention recently you might have noticed that the hollow threats of the Clinton administration and its desultory approach to terrorism (lobbing a few odd cruise missles, pulling out of Somalia, cynically signing laws about overthrowing Iraq (fingers crossed!), etc.) contributed in no small way to our current global situation, feeding the propaganda of our enemies about paper-tiger America.

"No one on the right seems to grasp the diplomatic purpose of Clinton's statements- posturing to affect another leader's behavior."

Yes, and his foreign policy 'posturing' affected other leaders' behaviors in exactly the opposite way of what was intended. Posturing is just that unless it is backed with credible force.

"(Before the war, both Clinton and Gore publicly stated that invading Iraq would be a big mistake.)"

You mean before the failed rebellion (1995) that Clinton/Gore encouraged but then abandoned, leaving our Shia and Kurdish allies to be slaughtered?

------------
As an aside, has anyone else noticed that many Democrats who criticize the supposed unilateralism of the administration and its alienating affect are the same ones spouting these awkward comments about our allies? This can also be seen in Congressional treatment of various bilateral free trade deals now that the Dems are in control.

Posted by athingortwo | August 1, 2007 4:41 PM

Judging by the Dem comments and reax to Captain Ed and others who rightly take Obama at his word that he intends to invade Pakistan, it is readily apparent why the Dem party cannot be trusted with sharp implements!

First, they demand that we surrender Iraq to Al Queda and to Iran ... and then that we attack a nuclear armed ally in the war on terrorists! Why of course, it's so obvious! Why didn't I think of that!

Besides, we all know it's not a "real invasion" if we only occupy PART of a nuclear-armed nation that is our ally.

And oh yes, as one Dem poster was blathering about, Musharif has been playing GWB like a fish for the last six years, which he would never get away with doing with the wizened old Mideast pros like our one-term Senator from Chicago Mr. Obama. Yup, it's really been fun for Musharif these last six years, as he's been dodging dozens of assassins; keeping Pakistan secular;, balancing on the brink of nuclear holocaust with his neighbor India; fighting back an AQ insurgency in Waziristan, which has never been under the effective control of any national government, ever, in all history. Yup, Musharif is just chortling all the way while he dinks around with that stoopid patsy GWB.

Where do you people come from?

Does having a "D" on your voter registration card require that you undergo a mandatory frontal lobotomy? Even on their worst day, any of the Pub candidates for President would never dwell in the la la land of blissful geopolitical ignorance in which apparently all of today's Dems - including their leaders - are quite happey to lollygag around ... geesh, god save us from the blue-tinted idiots.

Posted by fourpointer | August 1, 2007 4:44 PM

Boy, I can't wait to wake up one morning and see this on the news:

"President Obama has informed Mr. Musharraf that since he hasn't done enough to root out the foreign fighters holed up in his country, the US will defy Musharraf's warnings and send troops into Pakistan regardless, although this may mean a military conuter-attack by Pakistani armed forces, and possible nuclear retaliation."

Posted by Del Dolemonte | August 1, 2007 4:45 PM

the fly-man said:

"...just where did our current commander in chief get his foreign policy experience before he became President?"

One could ask the exact same question of many of our Presidents over the past 50 years. John F. Kennedy never had any "foreign policy experience", except for fighting the Japanese in WW2. Same with his successor, the Halliburton-owned Lyndon Johnson.

Nixon did have foreign policy experience as a former Vice President. His successor did for the same reason.

Jimmy Carter had no foreign policy experience, and Reagan didn't either. Pappy Bush was probably the most-qualified from a foreign relations standpoint, but was denied re-election by the pro-Dem media.

Bill Clinton had no foreign policy experience either when he assumed office.

So it's easy to see that previous foreign policy experience is no guarantee of Presidential success.

Likewise, the "chickenhawk" crowd loves to deride Dubya, even though he had more military experience than his predecessor, who was basically a draft dodger. And even though he was a legitimate war hero, that didn't help JFK avoid the Vietnam and Bay of Pigs fiascos.

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 1, 2007 4:48 PM

again

Fact is, whether its Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran,or the Global War on Terror in general...Democrats have no substantive ideas on how to deal with things, and the reason they have none is because there are scant few options, Bush is trying or has tried them all, and all the Democrats can do is complain.

additional:
the only thing worse (for a Democrat) than not having an iota of substance to their comments is under any circumstance at ALL saying, "President Bush was right"

Doesn't matter if the Democrat is advocating the same exact policy that was previously tried by President Bush or is currently being tried (for example the famous Dem positions on Iran that W had tried several times earlier, but somehow still made it on to the 2004 DNC platform as though it were new).

Nope. For them it's better to be wrong or be an empty suit than to admit that W did something right (even if he did it right because there were no other viable options).

oppose.....must......oppose.....

It's all the Dems have had for the past 6 years

Posted by athingortwo | August 1, 2007 4:58 PM

Oh, and for those military geniuses on the Dem side of this discussion who say, yeah, sure, let's completely upset the applecart in not just the Middle East, but throughout all of Asia as well ... i.e., let's us just go invade northern Pakistan to get at a few hundred AQ up in the high mountains of Waziristan .... upon which event Pakistan then nukes our troops, and for good measure, since we've been making kissy face with India the last couple of years, the Paks go all out and nuke India too.... following which not only India, but India's long term ally Russia promptly nukes Pakistan, and for good measure, takes out about half of the cities in the United States with its long range ICBMs.

Who knows at that point what China, the UK, France, and Israel will do with their nuke arsenals in the face of worldwide nuclear war, but let's just say, it could become the Armageddon that we thought we had successfully avoided at the end of the 45-year Cold War.

All so that we could get a few hundred AQ guys in the high mountains of Waziristan.

For those wise old Dem military geniuses who now say that the conservatives have no balls to be bad-mouthing the sabre-ratling of General Obama, I say, the adults know better than to play war with real soldiers and real bombs. They know when and where to apply the boot up someone's ass (as in taking out the Taliban in '01, and Hussein in '03), and when "discretion is the better part of valor."

It's called "brains". It helps to have'em.

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 1, 2007 5:08 PM

Dems have no balls when it comes to post 911 foreign policy-PERIOD. We read about their lack of political courage every day, and it's gonna be shown in no uncertain terms next month when Generals report to Congress on the progress of the current offensive in Iraq.

Seriously, does ANYONE think there's gonna be a Democrat pining for re-election who dares say, "let's continue" vs "RUNAWAY!"(again, ala Monty Python)

Posted by Thanos | August 1, 2007 5:10 PM

Hope and all the other supporters of this policy. IT's exaclty the wrong move at this time. AQ just declared war on the government of Pakistan, so we should invade our ally in the war on terror? You can bet this will play far and wide in the Pakistan papers, and that Al Qaeda has translators workign to get the text of this speech into Urdu and Arabic now. It's a propaganda coup for them, and something they can use to whip up anti-government support in Pakistan with just as the two major moderate parties in Pakistan united. Obama is an idiot, and I'd hate to see who he would appoint to his cabinet.

Posted by Jim | August 1, 2007 5:24 PM

Are you libs intentionally or unintentionally sidestepping the issue here?

I thought your major, firm, unyielding mantra has consistently been "The muslim world hates us because we are invaders and occupiers. if we just get out of the muslim world, they will stop hating us."

How does suggesting (even if it is just "posturing" so therefore it's okay - a lame excuse already skewered by other posters) a military incursion into a sovereign nation, to be done whether the government is okay with it or not - match up with your philosophical principles?

Posted by cv | August 1, 2007 5:28 PM

Obama said he would take troops out of Iraq and put them in Afghanistan and Pakistan. So how is Ed wrong?

Posted by Bostonian | August 1, 2007 5:34 PM

Hope Muntz says: "But I continue to be sincerely and deeply shocked at your general lack of confidence in our armed forces. Who else shouldn't we stand up to militarily? ... Hard to believe that it was your parents and grandparents who won World War II."

I don't think anyone here said we would lose against Pakistan, fer heaven sakes.

We are pointing out that Obama is rather casually suggesting war with another nation, apparently without realizing that he is doing so.

Posted by gippydippy | August 1, 2007 5:44 PM

This echo chamber is deafening, but I can't help saying a few things that my (R) friends may find helpful.

(1) Our allies today may not be our allies tomorrow (witness Saddam Hussein), so why I keep hearing about Pakistan "our ALLY" is beyond me. If they harbor terrorists, they ARE terrorists. President Bush said that and he's right. Don't you agree with the President?

(2) If anyone (specifically athingortwo and salt1907) happens to pick up a book right side up and read it, let it be Atwan's The Secret History of Al Qaeda, which clearly points out that the danger of Al Qaeda is with the leadership, NOT with the copycats sprouting up in Iraq. Saudi Arabia (which is sending plenty of fighters into Iraq) will take care of the Sunni Anbar province once we're gone, ending AQI's reign of terror. We need to take care of bin Laden, Zawahiri and the others that inspire such copycats.

(3) I can't believe I'm finally able to ask this question, but if Obama's idea is bad, what idea do you have that will bring bin Laden to justice? Honestly, how would you "get 'im?" Because you like to think that Dems and lefties don't have original ideas, but only complain. Well, here's a serious idea (bringing the fight to bin Laden and Al Qaeda leadership), so why do I only hear complaining? What's your brilliant plan to capture the perpetrators of 9/11?

Obama is right: if we're on the wrong battlefield, we'll lose the war against Islamist terror.

Posted by Hope Muntz | August 1, 2007 6:16 PM

Thanos--you're quite correct in that AQ (to be more accurate Zawahiri, not his internal rivals, the so-called 'Libyan Faction') has declared war on Musharraf and will use this speech for propaganda purposes.

And Markg8--you're also correct about Musharraf meeting with Bhutto and (supposedly) giving into her demands for free elections, which will presumably return her to office.

Neither of these well-informed points, however, detracts from our pursuing AQ into Waziristan--if anything, they make it more possible and eventually even more likely. First of all, the AQ declaration of war was not received with enthusiasm by Punjabi residents. They, like Iranians, would be happy enough to see us come in and clean up the Waziris, the Baluchis, and the Afghans fueling this nascent civil war. Most people on this board seem to imagine that Pakistan is a real country full of patriotic adherents that will rise up as one if invaded. Nothing could be further from the truth. Pakistan is a totally artificial construct, cobbled together to contain Muslim Indian refugees after partition and only a few months older than Israel. It has absolutely no national tradition--unlike Iraq which at least had its "Hammurabi Battalion--and as much as half of its indigenous natives, Hindus and Sikhs, were exiled at partition. It is peopled by a heterogenous array of peoples and tribes and languages with little in common beyond their religion and hatred of India. Benazir "Pinky" Bhutto, who was deposed by the military as president after cronyism and repeated legal violations by her thuggish husband, represents the Anglicized 'liberal', more socialist and middle-class urban Pakistanis merely as a figurehead; she is the daughter of the charsimatic former dictator Ali Bhutto, who was hanged by the general who deposed him over a generation ago. Any government she forms will be intensely vulnerable to AQ and the Western tribes--she may actually make overtures to the US to wage a secret war there, since her future political career may depend on it.

So will ordinary eastern urban Pakistanis view Obama's statements with horror and be drive to cast their lots with AQ and give them nukes to smuggle into New York? No. If anything they'll view the suggestion with relief and quiet applause.

As for Democrat sabre-rattling--sure it's gonna be a funny parade of posturing this coming year. I can just see Edwards looking around for another country to threaten with invasion by his Marshall Corps: "All the good ones are taken!" But the response of Republicans and Conservatives to Obama's statement should simply be one of silence. It's neither rash, hare-brained, nor all the other abuse you're heaping on it. Talk like that makes it look like you're scared of him as a candidate. And you're only doing the Clintons' work for them.

Posted by bayam | August 1, 2007 6:39 PM

You mean before the failed rebellion (1995) that Clinton/Gore encouraged but then abandoned, leaving our Shia and Kurdish allies to be slaughtered?

The only serious rebellion occurred immediately after the first Gulf War. It was George Bush I, Colin Powell, and James Baker III who correctly decided not to make the mistake of invading a Muslim country with the goal of toppling a regime and occupation. Clearly, today's leaders are naive fools who committed grave strategic blunders compared to the Bush I team. History has completely vindicated the elder Bush.

By the way, this was never a Dem vs. Republican issue but a neocon vs moderate issue.

As an aside, has anyone else noticed that many Democrats who criticize the supposed unilateralism of the administration and its alienating affect are the same ones spouting these awkward comments about our allies?

You're responding to my post, yet you still don't understand it. Those awkward comments are the type of posturing that will affect a change in policy in Pakistan. Clinton may have threatened to invade Iraq, but as revealed by his comments before the war, in reality he never had any intention of doing it and considered it a very bad idea. In other words, don't assume that other politicians are as simple-minded and foolish as Bush. Obama foresaw the mistake of invading Iraq.

If bin Laden manages to pull of a dirty nuke or chemical weapons attack in the West, you won't be marveling at how precious our alliance with Pakistanis is. Continue defending the status quo at America's great peril.

Bush has not done enough to force Pakistan to move against bin Laden and the Taliban- the latter have been left largely untouched in Pakistan. It's a situation that should be completely unacceptable to the US.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | August 1, 2007 7:01 PM

gippydippy said

"Our allies today may not be our allies tomorrow (witness Saddam Hussein), so why I keep hearing about Pakistan "our ALLY" is beyond me. If they harbor terrorists, they ARE terrorists. President Bush said that and he's right. Don't you agree with the President?"

Sorry for the Clintonian parsing here, but technically speaking Pakistan isn't "harboring" terrorists, at least not in the same way other countries like Afghanistan did. The Pakis simply can't control their borders and particularly can't control the local tribal lords in their lawless border region, which also has some of the highest and most rugged mountains on earth.

On the other hand, the Taliban truly harbored bin Laden, just as Saddam Hussein harbored foreign terrorists.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/

Posted by Terry Gain | August 1, 2007 7:13 PM

As difficult as things have been in the area of foreign relations in the past 7 years does this kind of idiotic statement, and the others listed by courtneyme109 above, give any hint of how much worse things would have been if a naive liberal had been POTUS.

Posted by Bostonian | August 1, 2007 7:31 PM

"History has completely vindicated the elder Bush."

In the sense that Iraqis have demonstrated that they don't want democracy and prefer a vicious dictator?

Wait... they turned out in massive numbers to vote, despite the death threats from a vicious, despicable minority (the same minority to which you would leave the country). They line up to enroll in their police forces and army to defeat that minority. They demonstrate publicly in favor of your arch-nemesis, the evil George Bush.

***
Then again, democrats and progressives do tend to prefer a minority point of view.

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 1, 2007 7:31 PM

"Bush has not done enough to force Pakistan to move against bin Laden and the Taliban- the latter have been left largely untouched in Pakistan. It's a situation that should be completely unacceptable to the US."

Easily the best statement on this thread. It typifies and proves my point that the left can only oppose rather than suggest. More specifically, the comment suggests that the Pakistani government should be pushed harder. Yeah, right. They're hangin on by a thread against the jihadis (not harboring them as an earlier whiner claimed-interesting since the two nations that have bagged the most AQ for us have been Saudi and Pakistan). So, push harder....HOW & what will the effect be? 'Push harder'....nice strategy. Great. Nothin but details. No wonder the Democrats were able to con their supporters into believing they had a New Direction in Iraq strategy for success back in 11/06.

Runnerup has to be the "neocons vs moderates" line. OMG, I laughed my ASS off at that one. Go check the moderate Democratic wing of the party, the DLC, and see where most of the so-called neocon or "PNAC" ideas come from. Yep, moderate Democrats. Seems like instead of "neocons vs moderates" the defeatists and Bush-haters just want to pretend their ideas have both substance and common acceptability among the American people (moderates). Suggest you check out the latest polls that show support for the invasion, support for the war, hope for success, and even perceptions of positive progress in Iraq are all on the rise. Does that mean neocons like the DLC are taking over? Can one be a neoconservative and a Democrat? That "neocon" term gets tossed around like "Black Helicopters" did by the Branch Dividians and Michigan Militia people in the 90's. Paranoia.

btw,
since the leftists at the Brookings Inst now see success in Iraq, are they neocons?

since Chris Matthews and his panel now claim there's no way out of Iraq other than a path to success, are they neocons (sorry, clean your monitors after reading that one-bound to cause a snarf)

And since the NYT, CBS, and ABC as well as other defeatist propaganda outlest are also coming to the conclusions that the surge is working as well as the "neocon" idea that leaving Iraq is unacceptable, is the whole nation neoconservative now except for the Kossacks and Huffpos?

Yeah, push harder on Pakistan. See what happens when that nuclear weapon armed nation with suicide holy warriors in every village...see how well that "strategy" works.

Brilliant.

Posted by Russ | August 1, 2007 7:43 PM

gippydippy,

Here's what I would do to "get 'em." I would work with Pakistan to get our SOF into the area. But I would ensure it is kept quiet and not broadcast. Any indictations of a deal would lead to immediate cancellation, since it would lead to Musharraf's downfall and Pakistan's nukes in fundamentalist hands. And you know what? I kinda suspect this is exactly the case right now.

Where would you propose to go into Pakistan from? From Afghanistan? Kinda hard since we require Pakistani overflight rights, which would be summarily revoked with such a public option. Or would you violate their airspace anyway and risk getting shot down? When one is shot down, how would you respond?

Or do you go in from the ports on the coast that allow us to get in heavy equipment. Again, requires invasion, and exposes our naval forces to Pakistani nukes. Once that happens, India gets involved, then China to counter India. Then possibly Russia. Congrats on starting WWIII!

We're not talking about Iraq(22 million people). We're talking about 160 million(the approximate population of Germany and Japan combined for WWII). And we're talking about nukes.

I'm CERTAIN we have folks in Pakistan now, but we can't broadcast it. I thought liberals were the ones supposed to understand the nuances of diplomacy. Sheesh...

Posted by JY | August 1, 2007 8:10 PM

If we have people already in Pakistan, it is evident that they ain't doing a great job based on the results.

If another 9/11 type attack occurs here and it is traced back to the Pakistani tribal badlands,Bush will forever be known as the President who invaded the wrong country and put America in danger.

Acting against Pakistan has great risks but not acting carries a real risk of another 9/11.

How many American lives will you sacrifice for your fear of the unknown in Pakistan?

Posted by Terry Gain | August 1, 2007 8:13 PM

History has completely vindicated the elder Bush.

This statement of course rests upon the increasingly shaky assumption that the insurgency in Iraq won't be defeated. Might I suggest that if you widen your view of history to include the following facts you may perceive that your initial judgment was wrong:
1. Saddam would have resumed his nuclear ambitions and would now be well on his way to having nuclear weapons . (Read McGrory and Bhattia's "Saddam's Bomb")
2. 100,000 Iraqis killed in the uprising encouraged by Bush 1.
3. The presence of American troops in The Kingdom, enforcing the NO FLY ZONE, was cited by bin laden as one of the reasons for his declaration of war on the United States.
4. Terrorist training camps at Salman Pak.
5. The oil for food scandal.
6. 50,000 Iraqi infant deaths per year because of sanctions.
7. WTC bomber Yasin on Hussein's payroll.
8. $25,000 rewards to Palestininain suicide bombers.
9. The assassination attempt on Bush 1.
10. ansar al Islam sanctuary.
11. Zarqawi given sanctuary in Iraq after he flees Afghanistan.
12. Attack on Radio Free Europe.
13. Likelihood of cooperation between Hussein and al Qaeda.

And I'm sure there are other informed neocons who can improve on this list.

Posted by JY | August 1, 2007 8:45 PM

When Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, the military believed that Saddam had stockpiles of Chemical weapons. The attack happened regardless, allegedly because the threat from those weapons POSSIBLY ending up in terrorist hands was too much for us.

Now, we have a real threat. The same set of people who ordered the most devastating attack on civilians in America are openly preparing for another attack. Yet, all the chickenhawks who supported the Iraq invasion want us to put our thumbs up our rear end and wait for another 9/11.

Don't give me the "Oh but surely we have people in Pakistan" BS. Even if we do, that is obviously not enough given that Zawahiri is releasing a video every time Bush says "We are winning in Iraq"

Posted by docjim505 | August 1, 2007 8:50 PM

The mind continues to boggle. The lefties, who have done NOTHING but bitch and complain about our invasion of Iraq, now wants to invade Pakistan. In fact, the more arguments against that idea that are presented, the more determined they seem to be to do it. Maybe if we present enough arguments against this moronic idea, they'll start holding their breath or beating their fists on the ground like other five year olds.

Oh, a few don't REALLY mean it. It's just "posturing". Yeah, that's great: trying to bluff when you and everybody else KNOWS you're bluffing. THAT'LL rattle some cages... "Hey! The Americans are trying to bluff us again! We'd better do what they want! HAW HAW!" They want to put pressure on Musharaff, a man who's survived several assassination attempts in no small part BECAUSE he's been cooperating with us. I'm sure that he wants nothing more than to be made an even bigger target AND be slapped with the label "American puppet".

And we've got some who somehow have managed to convince themselves that an invasion isn't REALLY an invasion if you don't send too many troops. Hey! Haven't the dems complained that we didn't send enough troops into Iraq? Therefore, can we claim that we didn't REALLY invade the country?

What's next? Pooh-pooh Pakistan's nukes? "Well, they probably don't even work."

Idiocy. Sheer, unadulterated idiocy.

Posted by bayam | August 1, 2007 8:50 PM

The Cheney apologists are coming out of the woodwork. Believe it or not, the war in Iraq has turned into the largest strategic and military failure in US history, and the blame for that lies entirely with the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bremmer. If the Powell Doctrine had been applied to this war, the 'surge' would have always been present in Iraq and in every part of Iraq- from the second or third week of the invasion.

Anyone who criticizes this disastrous failure isn't undermining the war effort. If those who pointed to the problems had been listened to and policy adjusted in the year after the war started, the situation would be much different today.

Scott- you're right that Pakistan is an unstable country with a resurgent Taliban and extremist element, but you cannot follow the path of no action out of fear. Musarif has made foolish political decisions that have undermined his standing among moderates in his country. Pakistan had less extremism when people could express their views at the voting booth.

In any event, you cannot permit a foreign nation to tolerate terrorists- even if it leads to complicated foreign policy decisions. As I said before, this is the same kind of thinking that prevented US action before 9-11. Your opinions on the wonderful Pakistani alliance will change very quickly if bin Laden can launch a dirty nuclear or chemical attack in the US or Europe.

Posted by Thomas Jackson | August 1, 2007 9:02 PM

Duh Bayam how would have the Powell doctrine had the slightest effect on the insurgency?

Its cretins like these who managed to cut the military by 50% under the Clintonistas that made the Powell doctrine impossible.

But now we have Obama the military genius who promises to invade Pakistan after surrending in Iraq.

Sound like a vision for victory?

Sounds like a Lefty who listened to one too many college professors discussing military strategy based on their experiences playing with their GI Joes.

Spare us the stygian depths of the Left's fantasies if you have nothing to offer but defeat and toxcity of reason.

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 1, 2007 9:16 PM

bayam,
while you claim that nothing's being done re Pakistan, I believe we have fine men and women doing heroe's work in there right now, and that they've been there for 6yrs.

Again (5th time in this thread) what else would you do that wouldn't make things worse (ie lead to the collapse of the Musharaaf govt to Islamic Holy Warriors and give them nuclear bombs)? You can whine and complain away all you want, but until you offer something more than "we need to do more" without saying what "more" means...your comments are little more than complaining.

What do you want to do?
economic sanctions
airstrikes
flood the place with spies and special forces
invade
naval blockade

What? What do you mean by "more"?

Posted by Russ | August 1, 2007 9:16 PM

JY,

Maybe you can accuse some of chickenhawkery(even though I think that charge is total garbage), but know who you are talking to before you level that charge. I led a rifle company in the 101st in OIF-1, and will likely be back in Iraq within the year. I have lost soldiers of mine and friends that were close to me in BOTH theaters of war, so spare me your meaningless junk.

First of all, how do you know UBL isn't dead? We haven't seen a new tape from him since just before the 2004 elections. The most recent stuff we've seen is provably 3-4 years old. I think he's dead and we aren't parading that fact b/c either he's buried under rubble or we don't want a martyr on our hands.

Second, Zawahiri is the man behind the mask, so to speak, nowadays. He's likely the main target, and yes, I wish we'd get him. But in that type of terrain, with folks so willing to hide him in friendly villages, the only way to guarantee anything would be wholesale slaughter. Is that really what you're suggesting?

Third, all this "we should invade every country that can't take down terrorists" stuff is complete BS. Germany had many of the cells that helped plan the attack. When do you want us to invade Berlin again? Or are you advocating Pakistan and not Germany b/c you know these friendly white governments are really our friends, and only brown skinned foreigners could possibly be against us?

JY, in your vast military experience, what kinds of ops would you conduct against Pakistan? Would you plan simple raids at the company and battalion level? How about a limited excursion that creates our own pocket inside Pakistan protected by a defense in sector? Would you use SOF, Stryker, light, or mechanized forces, and what would be their scheme of maneuver? Come on, chickenhawk, fill us in on your vast military genius.

I can't believe the democrats can make Hillary look like the reasonable one, between Edwards advocating attacking Saudi Arabia(yeah, b/c THAT wouldn't set off a war with Islam) and Obama advocating invading a nation that we KNOW possesses nukes. I grant that if Musharref falls, we may have no choice, but to do so now would definitely hasten the rise of the fundamentalists and their possession of nukes.

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 1, 2007 9:22 PM

bow to Russ....

(& thank you for your service)

Posted by bayam | August 1, 2007 9:34 PM

Terry-

Most of the top neocons (Richard Perl, Adelman, et al) have already declared this war a mistake and distanced themselves from Bush. Didn't you know this already? Apparently not, since you believe that neocons are going to step up and defend the war.

The reality is that Saddam was not an Islamist, although many of you continue to be easily confused by his PR stunts. Saddam ran a secular dictatorship and was close ally of the US until his ambitions collided with the power of the West.
Despite your continued reference to right-wing sources, before the war our intelligence estimates did not see Saddam as presenting a credible threat- his priority was remaining in power, not launching attacks against the US.

Posted by S. Danori | August 1, 2007 9:35 PM

Cap'n Ed writes: "... of all the war plans floated by the Democrats in this primary campaign, this is easily the stupidest of all ..."

Stupid? Just the opposite. Barack Obama's speech today was brilliant. The Republican reaction to the speech is telling. You Republicans are bending over backwards trying to find any excuse for NOT going after those responsible for 9/11. Why are you so soft on terrorism?

Bottom line: We've been paying Musharraf millions to prevent what has happened: Al Qaeda reorganizing under bin Laden in Pakistan. Obama's speech today is message to Musharraf: The gravy train is over. Produce results. Or we will take matters into our hands. 'bout time.

Posted by S. Danori | August 1, 2007 9:37 PM

Cap'n Ed writes: "... of all the war plans floated by the Democrats in this primary campaign, this is easily the stupidest of all ..."

Stupid? Just the opposite. Barack Obama's speech today was brilliant. The Republican reaction to the speech is telling. You Republicans are bending over backwards trying to find any excuse for NOT going after those responsible for 9/11. Why are you so soft on terrorism?

Bottom line: We've been paying Musharraf millions to prevent what has happened: Al Qaeda reorganizing under bin Laden in Pakistan. Obama's speech today is message to Musharraf: The gravy train is over. Produce results. Or we will take matters into our hands. 'bout time.

Posted by JY | August 1, 2007 9:42 PM

Russ

First, thanks for your service.

Pakistan and Germany are different. German intelligence agencies do not have a symbiotic relationship with the Taliban and Germans have no national interest in using Islamists as policy tools. Pakistanis are guilty of both counts. Musharraf, by his own admission, joined our side after 9/11 only after we threatened to bomb Pakistan into stone age. Pakistanis are reluctant to destroy the Taliban because they want to preserve them as assets. I have a friend in the 2-87 INF Bn and he tells me that virtually everyone he served with in Afghanistan is frustrated at not being allowed to act even when they SEE Pakistani troops provide covering fire for exfiltrating Taliban and then their (Pakistani) commander would smirk and deny that such a thing ever happened when our guys radio them.

First thing I'd do is to give ISAF forces blanket authority to take out threats x miles from the Pakistani border WITHOUT being required to get specific permission. If that does not get the message across, then I'd order targeted airstrikes on known Taliban commanders such as the Haqqani boys (Jalauddin and Sirajuddin), Noor Mohammed etc. Once the military message sinks in, I'd pursue diplomacy from a position of strenght, as opposed to our current policy of "Pretty please with sugar on top"

Posted by bayam | August 1, 2007 10:01 PM

There are very clear proposals on how to lessen the power of the extremists in Pakistan. The main one is to replace Musarif with real elections. In today's Pakistan, if you have a grievance, your only outlet is extremist Islam.

The surge is basically the Powell Doctrine, genius- the use of overwhelming force. Sealing the borders with adequate force would have greatly changed the dynamic in Iraq. Effective diplomacy and decision making also would have made a fundamental difference- keeping the Iraqi army intact is one example.

Our generals never said that the US lacked a capability to assemble a larger invasion force. It was Rumsfeld who wanted to prove that the job could be done with far fewer men than the generals had called for. The decision had nothing to do with Clinton policies or anything other than the stupidity of the Bush administration.

Posted by Russ | August 1, 2007 10:07 PM

JY,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I have no experience in Afghanistan, so it's hard to speak to the circumstances there except from friends who have been there; all of my experience comes from Iraq. But I know for a fact that the ROE allows for defensive fire against any incoming fire, and that would include "Pakistani soldiers." I also know that the doctrine of "hot pursuit" applies, but it usually up to the discretion of the commander on the ground. If a commander declined to pursue, it was his decsion, not some vague policy. Perhaps the commander did not want to make a decision that he felt might not be backed up, and those kinds of commanders do, unfortunately, exist.

Yes, some of the ISI are working with the Taliban, but not the working heads. While I agree with Senator Obama on the tough diplomacy part, military action involving several thousand to tens of thousands of American soldiers in a unilateral action against a nuclear armed nation would be unwise in the extreme. We hold other cards against the Pakistanis that we can use. Stepping up our relations with India, withholding foreign aid, and imposing certain sanctions against them can be used first, at least in a public way. But if we go into Pakistan, uninvited, we invite Musharref's fall.

Yes, it was necessary to threaten Pakistan immediately following 9/11, but he's on our side now, at least insofar as granting overflight rights and some logistics facilities. Also, Musharref has to go slow against Waziristan or he risks a general uprising. The Red Mosque incident recently was a great sign, and I wish he could go faster, but he is constrained by certain concerns, the chief of which is that he doesn't get assasinated.

Finding Saddam in Iraq was tough enough, and that's a generally flat country with a few cities where we already have 150,000 troops. The terrain in Pakistan and Afghanistan is MUCH more challenging, and the populace is spread out amongst a thousand villages. Just sending folks in to look would be pointless unless we had a million men. And then they'd be facing a mass Pakistani conscription, so we'd have to do more than look - we'd have to fight.

Were I Musharref, if Obama got elected, I would immediately limit overflight rights for the US into Afghanistan to a certain number per day. What do we do then? Do we violate those rights and risk getting shot at. Then what do we do when someone gets shot down?

Sometimes there is a place for total war, but Pakistan ain't it. The key is knowing how to nuance your stance and tactics to be most effective. Yes, we'll make mistakes, b/c the world is unpredictable and the enemy gets a vote. But like in football, you don't try to start throwing flea flickers every play b/c your running game isn't going yet.

I know Senator Obama means well with what he suggests, but it shows a total lack of understanding of how to employ the four elements of DIME - Diplomatic, Informational, Military, and Economic. And I think THAT will doom him in a general election.

Could Obama get elected with more seasoning(8-12 years worth)? Probably. But today, his startling naivite and ignorance about foreign policy is not only dangerous, but it will show America why he's not quite ready for prime time.

Posted by Ray | August 2, 2007 12:50 AM

Obama has already said that he would send more troops into Afghanistan and would deploy troops in Darfur. Now he's expected to say that he would make limited strikes in Pakistan as well.

In other words, Obama promises to expand the war in Afghanistan, start a new war in Darfur, and strike targets in Pakistan, something that everyone would describe as an act of war. He also hasn't ruled out the use of force in Iran, yet another war. Oh, and he will pull our troops out of Iraq so that country can fully devolve into a full blown civil war with additional violence provided by terrorists trying to take over what ever government survives the civil war. So that would be two wars in that one country.

Damn, and they call Bush a war monger!

Posted by mags | August 2, 2007 4:44 AM

From an international looking in - is there anything in your foreign policy that you agree on? Is everything left/right like a religious doctrine?
To be pro-iraq means you have to be pro-life and for lower taxes. All very odd.
However , it is refreshing if not amusing to read Americans showing so much horror at invading a sovreign nation that has not attacked you...It would be seen as an act of war! These pakastani's have an army and citizens that might ,when watching the U.S create numberless collateral damage, join up too.
They have got nukes you cry, exactly! Iran hasn't ,funny that , alot of you call to invade there for 'supplying' weapons' in iraq.
Time after time on this site people call for a 'traditional' war when whoever is bigger with more weapons wins,these pesky suiciders won't stand still and be shot,better they should all wear co-ordinated clothing and live in an army barracks.
North Korea?
Iraq was not a huge military win. It had been bombed for 10 yrs it had no air force ,millions had died and were ill due to sanctions,not a good pool for 'tradional' warriors.
Yes, play it safe when dealing with a nation of near equal military might.
Having nukes seems to make you think,which is good.

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 2, 2007 6:14 AM

one move chess players

"Iraq was not a huge military win. It had been bombed for 10 yrs it had no air force ,millions had died and were ill due to sanctions,not a good pool for 'tradional' warriors."

By that train of logic, the US was already waging war with Saddam and the invasion wasn't a pre-emptive, unwarranted attack but rather a means of conclusion (since sanctions and diplomacy were irrevocably collapsing as the ISG report showed, and since assassinations, coups, rebellions, and airstrikes all failed as well....looks like invasion would be the only way to end that war).


Yes, play it safe when dealing with a nation of near equal military might.
Having nukes seems to make you think,which is good."

ie for a nation where there's suicide holy warriors in every village, it's a "good" thing they have nukes? Yeah, there's a thoughtful statement if ever there was one. By that same logic, it would have been better if the Taliban had nukes as well.

smart

Posted by sashal | August 2, 2007 6:28 AM


The “uproar” here about Obama’s Pakistan remarks has been a very amusing and fascinating thing to behold.

My question for those of you who have joined in the Obama bashing is this:

Is it really so baffling or are you simply being disingenuous?

Either way, the responses here actually shed quite a bit of light on why some of you guys have been so clueless about terrorism, foreign policy and electoral politics in America.

Obviously Obama didn’t threaten to invade Pakistan or any such nonsense. But his “tough” talk reminds us how badly some of you guys have taken your eye off the ball. So what did Obama say? Well, he said this”

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.”

And he said this:

“As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and 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.”


In other words, we need to bring pressure to bear on those nations who would sponsor or support terrorism.

“Aha! That sounds familiar“cried the Bush faithful. “That’s what Bush said after 9/11. And where were you guys then?”

How soon we forget. Liberals AGREED with Bush after 9/11. With the exception of a small minority of folks, democrats and liberals SUPPORTED Bush, supported the invasion of Afghanistan, supported dismantling Al-Qaida and the aggressive pursuit of terrorists networks that pose a truly deadly threat to our nation’s security. We supported these things OVERWHELMINGLY. The war against Al-Qaida in Afghanistan was probably the most popular and widely supported military action in American history – and yes, that includes WWII. It may be that our country was unified as it never had been in its history.


And then we blew it. Certainly our leaders did. They took all of that unity all that International good will, all of that moral authority and all the political capital they had at their disposal, and they squandered it. Blinded by partisanship, hubris and phony patriotism, Bush and his followers sold us another war, a different war - one that has cost us dearly in blood and treasure and will continue to cost us for at least a generation.


Now it is important to remember that those of us who oppose Bush politically (now 75% of all Americans) do not all oppose him for the same reasons. When it comes to terrorism, there are two basic anti-Bush positions.

1) The threat posed by terrorists is fabricated – it’s sheer political opportunism.

2) The threat posed by terrorists is very real but Bush has made it worse and made America weaker and more vulnerable.

Obviously there are intermediate positions too (the terrorist threat is real but has been manipulated or exaggerated, etc.) But anyone paying attention knows that the majority of Americans, as well as the majority of liberals, fall into the second category. I know I do.

In any event, it seems clear that Americans remain very concerned about American security but they do not trust Bush and do not believe our Iraq adventure has made us safer. Indeed, the NIA report reached the same conclusion about the Al-Qaida threat.

And now along comes Obama, who has the temerity to remind us of that fact. He reminds us how badly we’ve taken our eye off the ball and how badly we’ve blown it. How dare he? No wonder the Bush supporters are so beside themselves. Just look at what they’ve said here: “Is Obama nuts? Threatening a nuclear power?” and “Gasp! He’s a war monger!” and “How can he expect to hunt down terrorists in caves in Pakistan? It’s not realistic!”

My how their tune has changed. Why these same “patriots” used to have a word to describe those who expressed such doubt and such protest. The word is "Appeasers".

Obama is simply trying to steer us back to the policy we should have pursued all along. Using our power – yes, our military power, but also our economic power and our statecraft, our power of communication and whatever moral authority we might have left – to combat those threats that are real, that truly do endanger us. What a concept.

But for some of you guys it really IS a new concept – the notion that democrats and liberals actually want to protect America. It can’t be! You’ve been immersed in the politics of demonization and deceit for so long that some of you actually believe your own bullshit.

Obviously it remains to be seen whether Obama, or any President, can make good on this kind of talk. Any realistic assessment of Middle East would probably conclude that Musharaf – though corrupt, thuggish and double-dealing - is the lesser of two evils. But that does not mean we have to lay down while he takes our money and plays us like a fiddle. It also does not mean that simply because Bush and his followers cannot tell the difference between tough talk and smart action that every other U.S. President is doomed to the same folly.

Now as a candidate, Obama still has much to prove, but he’s at least got the right idea here. Good for him.

Posted by Terry Gain | August 2, 2007 6:31 AM

The reality is that Saddam was not an Islamist,

Bayam

Sure he was as his last words attest. Fooled you though. I see you didn't read my list. Having a WTC bomber on his payroll itself disqualifies him as a harmless secularist..

The surge is basically the Powell Doctrine,

More nonsense. The Surge is working because the ISF have been built up to the point that the Iraqis can hold what the Americans have cleared. It is working despite the fact the losers in America want to hand the country over to al Qaeda and Iran.

If Iraqis were convinced America is going to stay until the ISF can handle seurity even more Iraqis would cooperate with the Surge and the insurgents would quit sooner. But why quit when idiots are trying to set a date certain for withdrawal?

And Bayam you are also wrong about the size of the invading army. If we had sent in 500,000 troops (which we didn't have) the insurgents would likely have laid low and started only after we decalred premature victory and left -and the Iraqis would have seen no need to build up their security forces.

The fact of the matter is there could be and will be no peace in Iraq until enough of the Islamist killers are killed that the rest give up-notwithstanding all the ecncouragement they are getting from the American left.

You are right about sealing the borders, but one swallow doesn't make a spring.

Posted by swabjockey05 | August 2, 2007 6:39 AM

You guys miss the point...the lefty moonbats WANT the islamolunatics to take over Pak. The current Pak regime is not totalitarian enough for the tyrant wannabe lefty "americans".

Posted by the fly-man | August 2, 2007 6:53 AM

I find it quite interesting that no one addressed the serious question" At what point do we stop enabling this dictator? Any takers?

Posted by Lightwave | August 2, 2007 6:55 AM

Bottom line:

Obama's biggest weakness is his political inexperience. It's not that he fails to try to correct the problem. It's that his every attempt to do so makes him seem even more inexperienced.

At this point Hillary just won the Dem Primary hands down, months before any votes will be cast. The anti-war moonbats won't vote for Obama now because to do so would be an admission that sometimes, might does indeed make right.

It's all a sad attempt to boost Obama's warrior cred, and in the last week or so he's basically pledged to talk to our enemies on their terms but threaten to bomb our allies...yeah, that makes sense.

Edwards is done. Obama is done, I'm wondering who Hilary's going to take for her VP...not that it's going to matter because we all know there's no possible way Hillary can win.

The election will be Reagan-Mondale writ large.

Posted by Bostonian | August 2, 2007 7:41 AM

Fly-man:

We don't take 'em all on at once, and we focus first on the dictators that have stated a desire to wipe us out. Geddit?

Posted by cathymv | August 2, 2007 7:50 AM

Hey, you were quoted in the NY daily news today..

One of the reasons that Democrats insist that the war in Iraq was a mistake was because it unnecessarily radicalized Iraqis into jihadists. What does Obama think an invasion of Pakistan will do to its population? And if the former was a mistake, consider that Pakistan has a population of over 160 million people. How does Obama think they will react to a military invasion by a putative ally?


they printed this up in their e-opinion /opinion page.....
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/08/02/2007-08-02_eopinion_the_best_of_the_political_blogs.html


You've made it now!!!

Best of luck..

Cathy

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | August 2, 2007 8:42 AM

RE: sashal (August 2, 2007 6:28 AM)

You quote this from his speech:

Obama:

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

How is Obama going to get this "actionable intelligence?" Who is going to get it for him and by what methods? Who determines "actionable" considering he'll be working with and reliant upon the same intelligence agencies and personnel he so reliably criticizes as he bashes Bush? Obama has railed about GITMO, the Patriot Act, and the "torture" (read waterboarding, etc.) of terrorist battlefield combatants. Considering that timeliness is of the essence, coaxing someone into revealing sensitive information upon which to conduct action (or otherwise acquiring said intelligence) is going to be a rather difficult proposition. How does one act on intelligence that was gathered "humanely" (my scare quotes) via the captured who will be provided caloric rich diet, lawyers, and media megaphone here on domestic soil? Bin Laden and associates will have constructed a villa on the French Riviera by the time that happens. Obama's going to act on that? Pfft. Imagine the collateral damage and blowback and how both would play on the world stage.

And then there's this:

Obama:

"As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and 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."

This administration has tried and is trying that already. We provided a stick and carrot with Musharraf before even going into Afghanistan in 2001. The U.S. is already providing conditional aid. As much as we'd prefer them for our own edification to jump when we tell them, there is a limit to the bark we can muster against a conditional ally. Besides, why is Obama so gung ho about talking respectfully to any and all of our declared enemies and then insisting upon an invasion (however spun) of a country that isn't an enemy if it doesn't immediately accede to our request regardless of its own internal politics?

Could it be that his general policy is to do the exact opposite of what the Bush administration does regardless of the rightness or wrongness of it? Sounds like a typical Democrat to me rather than some enlightened visionary... and that kind of stupidity is inherently dangerous.


RE: Lightwave (August 2, 2007 6:55 AM)

At this point Hillary just won the Dem Primary hands down, months before any votes will be cast. The anti-war moonbats won't vote for Obama now because to do so would be an admission that sometimes, might does indeed make right.

I think that's right. Not so much about what the moonbats will do because they'll rationalize anything to get a sympathetic, even if marginally so, ear into the Whitehouse. They know that once in, the Liberal, nanny-stateism agenda will move to fore. However, these gaffes by Obama illustrate how incoherent his policy and how dishonest his message has become. Hillary will win because she is the right anchor of the Left and at least puts on a better show with regard to national security even though it's almost as dishonest as Obama's.

I trust neither, but good God, Obama doesn't know what the heck he's doing, and his skiing through political pylons like it's merely sport is setting up markers that foreign nations will notice. It will have real repercussions and result quite possibly in a mangled corpse at the bottom of the slope. Were it just Obama's, I'd not care. Unfortunately, he could end up crashing into the gallery via his carelessness.

Posted by Kim | August 2, 2007 8:47 AM

Getting away from who said it. Getting away from the past mistakes. No question the bad men are holed up in West Pakland. They are laughing at us holed up in their sanctuaries. Producing their videos, training their wackjob bombers. The military has been studying that ground since 9/11. Sooner or later it's going to be a free fire zone. The military solution is there: sanitize West Pakland. Political solution will happen at the 10K homeland causality level. Maybe, but I doubt the unwashed will wake up to the threat of losing their civilization even at the 10K rate.

Posted by Terry Gain | August 2, 2007 8:58 AM

They are laughing at us holed up in their sanctuaries

Laughing from their caves. Unable to move while they are taking a shit kicking in Iraq- their quagmire.

We don't need to alienate a sometime ally and create tens of thousands of jihadists because the Dimmocrats think the threat is confined to bin Laden and Zawahari.

Posted by Artie Curtis | August 2, 2007 10:19 AM

So Obama wants to go start another war we wont finish with victory.
No surprise there. Why not win in Iraq then move on to Pakistan?

Posted by FedUp | August 2, 2007 10:21 AM

It's amazing to see/hear the drivel that emanates from the mouths of candidates. It's also easy to sit back and say things that one doesn't have to back up (Obama) just to get votes! And, it's even better to watch everyone jump on their particular side of this bandwagon and have at it!

Rock on!

Posted by the fly-man | August 2, 2007 11:33 AM

Wow, I can't believe the comments. You all have stuck your necks out by basically saying Obama is crazy, and idiot, but just what has been fruitful in Iraq post the fall of saddam? We cut deals with the Saudis, pawn off the ports to Dubai and let poppies flourish in Afghanistan while we have lost 3700 of our finest and Obama's ideas, which he articulated ahead of time, are seen as idiotic? Your Dear Leader has ruined a sovereign nation, enhanced Al-Quedas recruitment and stature in the region and left the Israelis to their own devises against 2 partners in the Axis of Evil. All things relative your hysterical partisan ranting is driven by your loyalty to failure. How many countries from which the 911 attackers came from have been rewarded, not punished? Is that what you all call justice. You're perverts. At Least the Sen. has a plan that we can inspect and review ahead of time using emperiscm, not a failed kick butt and take names diversion of intentions. Where's the pressure from Bush Ed spoke about and why has no one addressed, Ed's, question, at what point are we going to stop enabling Musharref? Do you enjoy doing business with countries that treat women as second class possessions? Turn your head and let the Democrats take care of it because your own party has shamefully pulled macho stunts not real solutions, wasted treasury and blood and ignored all the major domestic issues you were sold on for your votes. Sure Obama's posturing but at least there are details and real recognition of our dilemmas, not just manichean drivel points.

Posted by Ray | August 2, 2007 11:35 AM

Does Obama really think that a few limited strikes would have any effect other than to alienate the Pakistani government? If so, he doesn't understand military strategy and tactics at all.

These areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan were used by the Mujahedeen who fought the Russian occupation of Afghanistan back in the 70's and 80's. They have long been used as a staging area for attacks into Afghanistan. The areas are extremely rugged and there are ample sites in which to protect supplies and personal. The Taliban knows the terrain and where to safeguard personal and equipment in caves and protected areas.

This isn't a large open field we're talking about here, it's an old mountain range that is riddled with caves and paths which are protected by the geology of the region. Dropping a few guided munitions would do very little to prevent the Taliban from staging attacks and would cause a political rift between Pakistan and America.

It would take a hell of a lot more than a few military strikes to prevent the Taliban from using these areas in which to stage attacks in Afghanistan, it would take a rather large force. That would mean the deployment of tens of thousands of American troops into Pakistan to disrupt and prevent the movement of Taliban fighters into Afghanistan. Remember, you would not only need troops to patrol the areas in question, you would need several times as many troops to provide support to the troops in the field. Some would call that that an invasion force, especially if Pakistan did not authorize an incursion of American troops with in it's boarders.

Posted by Ray | August 2, 2007 11:41 AM

Does Obama really think that a few limited strikes would have any effect other than to alienate the Pakistani government? If so, he doesn't understand military strategy and tactics at all.

These areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan were used by the Mujahedeen who fought the Russian occupation of Afghanistan back in the 70's and 80's. They have long been used as a staging area for attacks into Afghanistan. The areas are extremely rugged and there are ample sites in which to protect supplies and personal. The Taliban knows the terrain and where to safeguard personal and equipment in caves and protected areas.

This isn't a large open field we're talking about here, it's an old mountain range that is riddled with caves and paths which are protected by the geology of the region. Dropping a few guided munitions would do very little to prevent the Taliban from staging attacks and would cause a political rift between Pakistan and America.

It would take a hell of a lot more than a few military strikes to prevent the Taliban from using these areas in which to stage attacks in Afghanistan, it would take a rather large force. That would mean the deployment of tens of thousands of American troops into Pakistan to disrupt and prevent the movement of Taliban fighters into Afghanistan. Remember, you would not only need troops to patrol the areas in question, you would need several times as many troops to provide support to the troops in the field. Some would call that that an invasion force, especially if Pakistan did not authorize an incursion of American troops with in it's boarders.

Posted by Ray | August 2, 2007 11:45 AM

My apologies for the double post. That's the first time that's happened and I'm not sure what caused it.

Posted by Chris | August 2, 2007 12:11 PM

BO really stomped on his wanker with this speech. Hillary won't pull it out until later and only if she thinks she needs it but it is sitting there on her list of weapons to use against him. It really is a blunder of huge proportions, but I guess it was his clumsy way of trying to show the mainstream of the country that he is strong on defense while simultaneously trying to appease the out of Iraq crowd that dominates the left.

The whole thing about trying to get OBL is stupid. Logic dictates that he is almost certainly either dead or severely debilitated in a way that cannot be hidden on film or even on a voice recording. One would think that if he is still alive maybe he has suffered a stroke that has severely affected his voice. We havent seen him on film in almost 2 years I think and havent heard his voice I think in over a year. During this same time we have seen and heard plenty from his subordinates so there is not a problem with them getting messages sent out.

Posted by Bookish | August 2, 2007 12:25 PM

So, how do we feel about the following from 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.’”

Posted by Texas Gal | August 2, 2007 12:43 PM

I just wanted to make another observation about Obama’s speech that seems to have gotten no attention from any bloggers and that was (paraphrasing) ‘not talking to Iran, Syria and NK as a way of punishment has only served to push them to the extreme’. Well, last time I checked the UN inspectors had arrived and our own Ambassador has confirmed the shut down of the NK nuclear sites. I just don’t understand how Obama is allowed to get away with such a statement about NK in particular when that has to be one of the greatest achievements of Bush’s foreign policy and surely flies in the face of those who wanted unilateral talks with KJ and further unmasks Obama’s motivation. That was just an outright lie.

Posted by Ray | August 2, 2007 12:47 PM

"So, how do we feel about the following from Fox & Friends on July 12?"

Bookish,

There is a huge difference between commentators speculating on what Bush should or should not do concerning Pakistan and actual excerpts from the speech Obama will be making about his policies. Granted, we don't know for sure whether Obama will actually include the excerpts in his speech, but the statements you quoted are not those of the president, they are merely speculation as to policy and suggestions as to what actions the president should take.

Posted by cv | August 2, 2007 3:38 PM

Yes, OB has yet to figure out that the policy towards North Korea is working.

Posted by cv | August 2, 2007 3:41 PM

Yes, OB has yet to figure out that the policy towards North Korea is working.

Posted by s. danori | August 2, 2007 5:31 PM

Regardless of what Bush and his mindless minions like "Captain" Ed say, the statute of limitations has not run out on 9/11.

Stop coming up with dozens of excuses for why we can't capture bin Laden. "It's hard... we'll make the angry Muslims even angrier... we'll destabilize Pakistan.... waaaaaaaah." Grow some balls. The country is tired of listening to your lame excuses for why you so so weak on terrorism.

Posted by jhg | August 2, 2007 5:53 PM

alert alert
Defcom Three
Democrats show more cleavage.
Obama, what a boob.

Posted by fourpointer | August 2, 2007 6:12 PM

So if (Please, no!!) Obama becomes president, he will trust the intel community to give him the right information. Would this be the same intel community that the Demorats are saying gave Pres. Bush faulty info in the runup to Iraq? If so, does this also mean that Obama thinks that the intel community is better now than it was then?

Posted by jeebus | August 2, 2007 10:46 PM

Heh....gee whiz Batman, quite the brain trust ya have here.

Posted by mags | August 3, 2007 4:09 AM

Scott,
i don't know if you remember but there were protests doring the ten years of bombing and sanctions.Huge anger at madeline albrights comments that a million iraqi childrens deaths 'were worth it'. Americans didn't seem to object to that,would you accept a million American childrens death to feel 'safe' from the evil doers.
The difference Scott was the international co-operation. I do not want to be lectured on the failures of the u.n i am well versed. We need a reformed and supported international body. If you all refer to it as irrelevant and powerless why did/do you expect Saddam or Mahmood to adhere but israel don't have too?
It was therefore an act of war pre-emptic strike on a sovereign nation.
I actually wasn't aware there was 'holy warriors' in every village in Pakistan ,you obviously have been there,although well travelled,i have not .Well they are all muslims so they must be .
There is an totally unacceptable and no way deserved ideology towards the west ,this includes me by islamafascists.
In the U.K we have groups of arseholes who have lived here for generations enjoying our welfare state,before trying to blow us up for alledged persecutions of their 'brothers'.
As recent events have shown some are crap at it and act like a bunch of tossers-actually the good doctor who attempted to kill himself and others by crashing into glasgow airport ,died today of 90% burns from the event 3- 4 weeks ago-a long painful suicide for this bomber.
No tears are being shred here.
And this is my rambling point, if you view all muslims as evil killers and treat them as such ,recruitment becomes easy, you are proving the ideology. You are the great satan they are the axis of evil.
Please learn from others or a least be open minded to debate from other countries,our children are dying there as well.
Can't the coalition of the willing disagree . Others might have other ideas and more influence it this part of the world,thinking we are either evil,jealous or cowards doesn't help.
You seem to be looking for ideas to help events ,why do do only ask for the U.S left/right opinion?