« Huckabee And Brownback: An Exchange | Main | Will Thompson Have Opened His Exploratory Committee By Ames? »

Obama's "Right War"

01 Aug 2007 08:50 am

As President, Barack Obama would order attacks on terrorist camps in Pakistan even if its president, Gen. Pervais Musharraf, refused to give permission and would link American aid on Pakistan's progress in rooting out its terrorist havens.

That stance, one part of the multifacted counterrorrism strategy Obama unveils this morning, is tougher than the more considered approach of the Bush Administration, which has generally avoided antagonizing its ally in public.

“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. 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,"
Obama will say say, according to excerpts his speech released by the campaign.
“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. “

The speech has goodies for all parts of the political spectrum. In endorsing pre-emptive, non-authorized terror raids in Pakistan, Obama is answering a threshold question about his willingness to risk international criticism in order to defend U.S. security interests. He also does not hesitate to pinpoint the source of the U.S.'s major existential threat: Islamic radicals. Closer to home, Obama promises to end "torture" and extraorindary renditions, to strengthen partnerships between federal agencies and launch a new public diplomacy effort to improve the American image aboard.

Left unstated in the excerpts provided by the campaign is an idea Obama promotes on the campaign trail: that electing Obama would itself be a major blow against anti-American propoganda.

Obama also:

-- Says his anti-terrorism strategy is predicated on a withdrawal from Iraq
-- Calls for two additional combat brigades to be sent to Afghanistan
-- Says the war in Iraq has made the U.S. more susceptible to terrorist attacks
-- Defines the major threat to U.S. security as "violent extemists" who pervert the Muslim faith
-- Proposes a $5B "shared security partnership" to "forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to take down terrorist networks from the remote islands of Indonesia, to the sprawling cities of Africa."

The Republican National Committee pre-sponded to Obama this morning by claiming that he has a "weak" record on national security.

Comments (40)

So Obama will run away from Iraq and launch a new adventure in Pakistan? This guy sounds a lot like Bush, even more reckless.

Yes, Aamir, that's exactly what he'll do, you read that perfectly

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

Yes or no:

Do you think this is bad policy?

It was wreckless and unwarranted to go into Iraq.
We should have focused on getting Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda along the Afghanistan Pakistan border. Most Americans agree.

Note most of the terrorist and insurgents come from countries close to the Bush family. Saudia Arabia and Pakistan.

Now Bush wants to sale 20 billion dollars worth of weapons to the Saudis.

It's bad enough that the current leaders forgot the lessons of Vietnam. Obama can't even see the lessons of Iraq! I hope Obama never becomes either a presidential nor a vice presidential candidate,

Now this is making the right moves for the right reasons. Too bad this wasn't done instead of invading Iraq.

Aamir Ali,

Are you suggesting that being opposed the stupic war in Iraq means Americans should be against protecting our security interests? I'm as left as they come (and can't stand Bush and Cheney), but my disdain for the war in Iraq and the Bush Administration doesn't blind me to the FACT that Pakistan is one bullet to the head of Musharraf away of falling into the hands of Al Qaeda. The mistake we made was not keeping our eyes on Afghanistan and Pakistan, but an even bigger mistake would be to avoid the continued threat from Al Qaeda in both countries. As Obama said in 2002, I'm not against all wars, just stupid wars.

Obama has correctly identified America's real enemies and where the threat originates. His plan addresses real enemies rather than the pretend ones that Bush used to start his oil-exploration-by-force adventure in Iraq.

Will, please elaborate on your comment. I’m curious as to what lessons you think Obama didn’t learn from Iraq.

How would invading Pakistan differ from Richard Nixon's "incursions" into Cambodia and Laos?

Sending more and more troops to hunt cave to cave for terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan would be great political theater, but lousy military tactics. Does anyone recall General Pershing's pursuit of Pancho Villa?

With all due respect, Senator Obama is a vapid twit.

Since he is open meet all the enemies of US,he should have prefaced the statement ,saying that he would meet Pres Mushraff and give the ultimatum to flush out or' smoke out' the militants(GWB lexicon) from their bases in Pakistan if they(Pak) fails to do that.

I think the world needs PEACE...If Obama thinks like Bush...please...GO AWAY!... If in Iraq 3000 Americans were killed is because of Bush so....Policy has to change...we don't want the 3rd World War!!!...WORLD NEEDS PEACE...the terrorists exist because our leaders are not good leaders!

The lesson of Iraq is that you shouldn't trump up reasons to fight the wrong war for the wrong reason and then lie to your supporters to the extent that they can no longer even imagine the truth. Iraq was no part of the war on terror until we sent troops and personnel to a country that we ourselves had destabilized to the extent that terrorists could flock there and kill our best and bravest more easily than ever before. To call Iraq part of the war on terror is not just wrong, it is a perversion.

The other lesson of Iraq is that Republican partisans intend to continue to shill for the "war" in Iraq long after it is very, very clear that our actions there have given us self-inflicted wounds far in excess of anything the terrorists have been able to do to us yet. That is, Republicans care about their party more than their country. As someone who used to vote Republican, I will never, ever, forget that.

Obama shows that he understands the facts on the ground, knows who and where our real enemies are, and intends to carry the war to them rather than set up our soldiers like ducks in a shooting gallery. He also shows that he trusts the American public to understand the truth. I had not been a supporter of his before today. But he gets it. He gets it all.

The spelling errors on this page make it almost unbearable to read:

"Counterrorrism" and improving America's image "aboard"...

Where is the copy edit?

This can't make the bad guys feel good. He is rolling together the best of Lincoln and JFK with Reagan, Johnson and both Roosevelt's. 'A nation divided cant stand.' D Day, Speak softly and carry a big stick, "we will bear any burden pay any price" He sees The Dream, of A Great Society'. Look, clearly Mr Obama knows how to play this game. I am sure others like Ms. Clinton are in serious possession of more strength and experience. Nevertheless he is setting a high bar and this is a serious hard message that this nation needs to send. He may, as as the opposition claims be 'Weak on Defense' but he is certainly strong on, the successful prosecution of a justifiable, war. Plus, the good part is that he has the chips and credibility o talk or walk. With Obama these Third World Dictators know with whom they are dealing. Being bullies, they just might fall in line when faced with credible resolve. Its enough to make a Community Democrat blush.

Americas know very little about what is going on in the world. They only know liberal media sound bites, as evident by they previous posts. That is why many American would rather bury their heads in the sand an hope that Islamic terrorism will go away.

Obama is an American politician, not a soldier or a military leader. Given Obama's Islamic roots, I doubt he has the stomach to fight is blood brothers.

I think the world needs PEACE...If Obama thinks like Bush...please...GO AWAY!... If in Iraq 3000 Americans were killed is because of Bush so....Policy has to change...we don't want the 3rd World War!!!...WORLD NEEDS PEACE...the terrorists exist because our leaders are not good leaders...STOP THE WAR - STOP BUSH - STOP OBAMA - PEACE=DIPLOMACY.

I agree.....
The major threat to U.S. security are "violent extemists" who pervert the Christian and Muslim faiths

Titus, with all due respect, and even thought I don't necessarily support the guy, Obama said:

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets..." That's pretty specific.

It's a far cry from, "Sending more and more troops to hunt cave to cave for terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan..."

Don't you think?

It's about time someone in America got balls.

-- Proposes a $5B "shared security partnership" to "forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure

How would that work? An international intelligence agency based out of which county? Why can't the UN do this type of intelligence?


The Republican National Committee pre-sponded to Obama this morning by claiming that he has a "weak" record on national security.

Of course the Republicans are going to say something is "weak" even before they hear about it... so let us hear what they think a "strong" national security program would be, I doubt it would be any better.

Not that this really matters... because as long as the bible belt red states are around they will never allow a minority or female to be president.

Obama vs. Osama
(Most highly anticipated since Freddy vs. Jason)

Pakistan is the epicenter of international terrorism. It must be taken out with Indian help and broken up into smaller parts.

Musharraf lied to us and cheated us. We will not allow it to happen again.

The theory that Alqaeda is "one bullet" from taking over Pakistan and its nukes is a scary story that Americans enjoy because they love thrills. It doesnt have any roots in reality.

US military power has failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of learning lessons, Americans now blame Pakistan and want to attack it. I dont regard that as smart policy.

No matter who is elected, they will have to confront the reality of Bin Laden's emerging pan-Islamic state from the Philipines across Indonesia to the middle east and Africa. Al Qeada came within an inch of killing Musharraf recently. Pakistan will soon fall. The US has lost in Iraq and is losing Afghanistan. The US is now impotent and must do as Bin Laden demands..."heed the call to Islam".

What if the religious zealots in Pakistan consider that an act of war?

What then PRESIDENT OBAMA RAMA?

Liberals just DON"T GET IT!

We have actionable intelligence to invade a foreign country to protect American security interests. Now, where have we heard that before?

Doesn't this guy read his own stuff? His only criticism of Sen. Clinton--and his only argument for why he should be President--is that the Congress should not have relied on actionable intelligence when they authorized President Bush to invade Iraq. So why is it ok now for Sen. Obama to rely on actionable intelligence from the same intelligence sources to justify an invasion of Pakistan--which, unlike Iraq, is an ally and has nuclear weapons?

This is not good.. I feel his international diplomacy is terrible.. He is picking fights, and is not even in power to back it up, nor does he offer a solution. Like help us take down these camps, and we will give you 10 billion in industry growth and tariff reductions to make Pakistan the next Pseudo-China. Instead, what a way to step up "bully". Though, handing out billions of dollars in weapons to make "friends" is no better.

Two things: If we can't get rid of insurgents with IED and 10 year old arms in three years. What are we going to do when they have 1 billion of new weaponry (black market is hot there)
Second: Picking Fights before being able to back it up will only Cease other relations before you have the ability to rally troops.. Nobody wants to step across a line, if the leader is not there.. "who's coming with me" "Wait I'm not going"

Any action in Pakistan has to take into account the possible ramifications in terms of Pakistan's internal political situation. Otherwise, there is a real danger that a nuclear state could descend into chaos.

When will it end?

As the respected Senator knows only too well, those who are truly submissive to God and not fanatics following false prophets do not want to kill in His Name. As the Crusader Catholic church once blessed and indulgenced killing of Moors and Saracens, today it has recanted and returned to its true Christian roots and rightly condemns these terrible things done in the name of the Christian God.

Recent pronouncements from some of Islam's most respected Imans have condemned the taking of women as hostages as not only contrary to the teachings and traditions of the divinely received Recitations but also a violation of the well known chivalrous code of the desert dwellers. We ought to support these Wise Men and ask all Imans both Sunni and Shia to give these dictums the force of divinely inspired hadiths.

Only when Muslim leaders condemn suicide and the murder of innocent civilians will religious fanatics abandon these misguided

We waste time and make bad decisions when we do things like try to consider all the possible geopolitical ramifications of our actions rather than focus more clearly on trying to do the right thing based on the facts. You can never sort out all the collateral damage. The collateral damage from invading Iraq is part of the argument, I guess, but the real argument against invading Iraq was that the direct action itself had no prospects of doing us any good. Pakistani territory is the current hotbed of truly dangerous terrorism, not Iraq. It sends absolutely the right message, and shows the ultimate in "getting it," to say we will attack the actual enemies of freedom where they are and where they are strongest. Iraq never was and still is not that place. Afghanistan was and now Pakistan is that place. I find it even more proof of Obama's acumen that he has managed to offend both the wacky left and the wacky right at the same time.

My question is that do people still trust these USA intelligence which is being done to divert attention from the failures of the USA administration in conducting this war? Secondly do they have any actionable intelligence or precise information the answer is no!! As they have very vague information and the statement by Obama does not seem to be logical and also seems very reckless, a country that helped USA defeat Russia and is one of your best friend you wouldnt not even ask their leadership and attack this soverign country.It shows arrogance that has caused USA's problems in Iraq as they assumed that they cannot do anything in the world!! It also indicates that this leader is worst than Bush in many ways and to gain popularity he would just about do anything and attack a nuclear power and a soverign country that may facilitate it becoming an extreminst country considering that it forms 90% moderate voters as was the result of the last 4 elections. If God forbid he attacks Pakistan that country will also descend into the worst civil war that no person can imagine now.The Tribal area is 1400 square mile the worst terrian in the world!! With the finest fighting tribes as USA themselves supplied them the weapons to fight Russians whom they defeated so they must be knowing about them. DO Americans know the history of this area? British were defeated three times in the last 100 years by these tribes as they are historically excellent worriors. Pakistani army tried to subjugate these tribes in 1960's and failed. Pakistani army has lost 700 troops since 2004 and know that they have to avoid civilian casualities as they also have to win the hearts and minds of people not just kill innumerable people as they are doing in Iraq, that will turn all their people against them. We have to develop the area given these people are least educated and least developed. When education and development would come would know their role to identify terrorists then surely if the people get the benefits of development that will be easier to push them to moderation. But with American forces enter the fore and as they usually cause collateral damage as they call it and would destroy that last hope that they have of winning in Afghnistan as the war will spread all over the place. It may be the worst civil war than Iraq as Pakistan has a population of 160 million and USA may never get out of this mess ever again. It just shows Anericans just dont learn from their defeats or near defeats. Secondly they dont trust their best friends when their own intelligence agencies lie so many times as they have seen in Iraq,and they still believe that they are not winning in Afghanistan because of Pakistan's Tribal areas and not their own leaders faults.Maybe it seems Americans are lucky as Bush has so far not attacked third country after Iraq and Afghnistan, so we may be having more reckless leaders in the future who will do that soon?

Please observe the previous most recent outcomes of American invasions? What is he thinking or not thinking?You will know the answer.

I like it. The speech presents a muscular foreign policy that is not aggressive. So the aggressive war in Iraq is shown to be a diversion among other things to the defensive and defensible effort to fight Islamic fanaticism. He presents a strong case for why one should have opposed the Iraq invasion without taking a pacifistic position that will never attract anything like a majority of American voters.

Does anybody take time to listen and think before popping off with an opinion? Myself excluded, of course.

This isn't about adventurism INTO Pakistan, this is about adventurism launched BY Pakistan. In other words, Pakistan has started this Islamist terror escapade in an attempt to take over Afghanistan to turn it into a satellite state. Therefore Pakistan bears responsibility for stopping what it started. Pakistan fails to understand that sovereignty is a 2-way street. Sovereignty entails responsibilities and not just rights. If you want your territorial sovereignty respected, that means you take responsibility for whatever happens from your soil that affects other countries -- things like AlQaeda attacks for example. If Pakistan wants its territorial sovereignty respected, it needs to stop any and all attacks against the outside world emanating from its soil. If Pakistan cannot control activities happening on its soil, then how can it claim that soil as its own? You own it, you better account for it. If you don't control that soil, then you don't own it.

Can someone please show me where Obama called for an "invasion" of Pakistan? Why not address what he said instead of setting up straw men to knock down?

Military strikes in Pakistan were insinuated by the Bush administration less than two weeks ago by a senior national security official (can't remember her name, but she's a blonde). There was certainly no outcry from conservatives about Bush's naivete.

Why shouldn't we strike inside Pakistan when they are allowing Al Qaeda to train terrorists there undisturbed with the tacit approval of Musharaff? After all, they really are the ones who murdered over 3,000 Americans.

Obama said if he found a high value target and Musharaff wouldn't act, we would. What's the problem? If we are counting on Musharaff's tenuous dictatorship, we are in deep trouble. He's already stabbed us in the back by signing a treaty with the tribal chiefs of Waziristan.

For those of you who want world peace, I applaud your ideas. However, as long as the people who rule the different governments of the world are allowed to stay in control, there will be no peace. They don't want peace, ever.

What needs to be done is to educate ourselves on just who these people in control are. They are psychopaths. And if they aren't psychopaths, they don't get elected by their puppet masters (you don't think that we really elect anyone anymore, do you?)

There is an article that explains what has happened to the governing bodies of the world. It is titled, "Political Ponerology: A Science on The Nature of Evil adjusted for Political Purposes" and you can read it here:

http://tinyurl.com/z3s2l

There is also lots of articles to keep you up-to-date on what is really happening here:

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/

for those of you who are really looking for the truth, and peace.

DCJOE


Our invasion of Iraq was not based on actionable intelligence. Actionable intelligence would have required factually CORRECT evidence of a developing situation that required action to prevent harm. Considering that the intelligence that Dubya supposedly used as the basis for his decision-making was incomplete & ambigious at best and distorted, exagerated, and maybe even fabricated at worst, and considering that worst of all it was wrong (there were no WMDs possessed by Saddam's forces, and no ties by Saddam and the Baathists to Al Qaeda and 9/11), that evidence was not actionable by any means.

Moreover, in Hilary Clinton's case, she didn't even read the NIE that was passed out to members of Congress before the vote authorizing military action against Iraq. So even if the NIE actually did contain actionable intelligence, Hilary can't claim she made her decision of that basis.

Another typical action of a Dubya or Hilary partisan; distorting facts in order to draw misleading or even downright false parallels.

Titus,

You wrote, "Sending more and more troops to hunt cave to cave for terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan would be great political theater, but lousy military tactics." That should read, "sending more and more troops to hunt house to house for insurgents in Iraq who have nothing to do with Al Qaeda is great political theater, but lousy military tactics."

With all due respect, being a vapid twit is the exclusive property of Dubya, Cheney, and all the other architects of the Iraq war.

Sanjay:

Alqaida and Taliban are killing Pakistanis, you suggestion that Pakistan may secretly be helping such folks is absurd.

Pakistan many not have iron-clad control over its border area, that is no excuse for a foreign country to attack and create a bigger mess. Americans seem to have learned nothing from their unilateral military debacle in Iraq.

perturbedly decapsulate overstoping whaler dactylose volant heliozoic ureteroplasty
http://uk.geocities.com/roylefamilysite/ >All Things Royle
http://www.summitinnresort.com/


Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.