Meanwhile, In Pakistan…
In one of his earliest foreign policy blunders on the trail, Obama said that he would launch strikes inside Pakistan against Al Qaeda targets without Islamabad’s permission, and his supporters have made a point of reminding everyone about this, as if they thought their candidate needed a dose of reckless hawkishness to compensate for something. As it happens, this has also been the policy under the current administration, which doesn’t seem to embarrass the proponents of “turning the page.” After all, what could go wrong with such a proposal? Maybe something like this:
U.S.-led forces killed Pakistani troops in an airstrike along the volatile Afghan border that Pakistan’s army condemned on Wednesday as “completely unprovoked and cowardly.”
U.S. officials confirmed that three aircraft launched about a dozen bombs following a clash between Taliban militants and Afghan and U.S.-led coalition forces late Tuesday. Pakistan says the strikes killed 11 of its paramilitary troops.
The Pakistani army said the coalition airstrike hit a post of the paramilitary Frontier Corps and was a “completely unprovoked and cowardly act.”
It launched a strong protest and reserved “the right to protect our citizens and soldiers against aggression,” the military said in a statement.
In addition to violating Pakistani sovereignty and potentially destabilising a somewhat friendly and very important allied government, we can also add the possibility of killing allied soldiers by mistake to the rather long list of reasons why Obama and Bush have been wrong about this and, shockingly, McCain has been the sober voice of reason by comparison. No, that last part is not a joke. As if the Pakistani military were not demoralised enough as it is by being compelled to fight a hard counterinsurgency on our behalf, they now have to worry about their paramilitary units being mistaken for Taliban.
From his support of Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon, to bomb as needed/where needed policy concerning Pakistan, to Jerusalem as the eternal and undivided capital of Israel. This man lurches around the hawkish side of the foeign policy landscape to solve domestic political problems, nothing more.
“Change the mentality that got us into this war” my a**.
In fairness to Obama, it should be remembered that Obama gave that answer in relation to an extreme circumstance, one in which he had certain intelligence of Osama Bin Laden’s whereabouts inside Pakistan, and the Pakistan authorities refused to cooperate in getting at him. He did not say that as a course of ordinary miltiary operations he would ignore the existence of Pakistani borders and soveriegnty, and attack whenever and wherever the miliary was pursuing ordinary Taliban forces.
In fairness to Obama, this is what he actually said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/
” If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.â€
Although OBL would certainly top the list of high-value terrorist targets, it is not exclusive to him, and could certainly include Taliban fighters. As always, any Obama statement is carefully crafted so that the listener hears exactly what he wants to hear: to his supporters, it sounds tough but flexible, to his detractors, it sounds like witless posturing by a vacuous neophyte, to the merely indefferent, such as myself, it sounds…like a politician.
Cheers,
Adam.
Not a point crucial to your post, but I hardly think Pakistan has sovereignty over the area in which the strike occurred…
Unless, by sovereignty you mean pointing to an area you have no control over and saying I have sovereignty over that…
And I hardly think a politician running for office would consider something that gets him votes a blunder…
Adam,
Yes, you’re right, it would include other high level targets, the presumption being a very limited list of Al Qaeda leaders. It would not, in my mind at least, include ordinary Taliban fighters.
I think you are right about Obama’s craftiness, but wrong in interpreting what side he is crafting his statement from. My reading of it is that Obama is actually quite hesitant to use force, but was using this opportunity to show that he’s not a total wuss, that there’s some circumstances in which he’d cross the line. This is a way of trying to cover over the fact that he’s actually much more of a peacenik about such things than he wants people to know, so he emphasizes exceptions to the rule like this. Likewise with increasing the size of the military. I don’t think he wants to increase the military in order to go around starting wars, but to make sure he doesn’t have to.
Brilliant, Adam … Larisonesque, even.
“I think you are right about Obama’s craftiness,”
Excellent! Glad we agree. Extend that understanding to everything that comes out of the man’s mouth, up to and including his fictional “withdrawal from Iraq” verbiage.
“actually quite hesitant to use force, but was using this opportunity to show that he’s not a total wuss”
Threatening military action (with its inevitably associated civilian casualties) to prove how mensch he is? When do we get to the part where he starts clearing the air of Bushian swagger and cowboy-like antics? Is this different from “With us or against us” or “Dead or Alive” in some way I don’t fully appreciate?
“This is a way of trying to cover over the fact that…”
Which is an artful way of saying “Lying through his teeth in order to get elected.”
“Likewise with increasing the size of the military. I don’t think he wants to increase the military in order to go around starting wars, but to make sure he doesn’t have to.”
May I submit that wanting to buy a bigger hammer is indicative that one already has a nail in mind?
Don’t get me wrong: barring any last-minute ugly revelations, Obama is almost certainly going to be our next President, and the total repudiation of the GOP this cycle is an unalloyed good in its own right. I just don’t think we should be under any illusions that this man is some sort of game changer.
Adam01,
While happily admitting that Obama is smart and crafty, I would not say that he’s lying. He’s simply seizing on an opportunity to make the point that he’s willing to use the military in some circumstances, such as the rather exceptional one asked about regarding top Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan. This isn’t lying, this is telling the truth. It would be lying if it misrepresented his policy in some way, but it doesn’t. It just seizes on an opportunity to counter the notion that he’s some kind of hippy anti-military peacenik. Where exactly is the lie in this? The lie seems to be coming from those who claim this means Obama is willing to use the military in a reckless and relentlessly unilateral way in any circumstance, such as ordinary fighting in the region.
As far as game-changer, goes, I imagine you may end up a bit surprised by Obama. But honestly, I don’t think any American President, if they had verified intelligence of Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts, would hesitate to go after him, no matter where he was. So that kind of example doesn’t say much about overall strategy or intent in the region. McCain is the one who is lying when he says he wouldn’t go after bin Laden in that circumstance, purely to try to taint Obama’s image for political purposes.
“It would be lying if it misrepresented his policy in some way, but it doesn’t. It just seizes on an opportunity to counter the notion that he’s some kind of hippy anti-military peacenik. ”
Is there really any great body of evidence to suggest that Obama is some kind of closet Code Pink member? I am having a hard time envisioning someone who cheerleaded the Israeli decimation of Lebanese cities with a bong and a “Make Love, Not War” t-shirt.
“But honestly, I don’t think any American President, if they had verified intelligence of Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts, would hesitate to go after him, no matter where he was.”
Again, I think this is blurring the issue of exactly which targets are being talked about. “High value terrorist targets” is one of those phrases that can mean absolutely anyone. Assuming that the beginning and the end of that statement is “we’ll kill OBL if we know with dead certainty where he is” gives it a clarity that is not justified from the text itself.
On a wholly unrelated topic, something I think we can agree that progress is being made…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo
“The court specifically struck down a provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that denies Guantanamo detainees the right to file petition of habeas corpus.
Habeas corpus is a centuries-old legal principle, enshrined in the Constitution, that allows courts to determine whether a prisoner is being held illegally.”
I second the motion. Long live the Constitution!
Adam,
“Is there really any great body of evidence to suggest that Obama is some kind of closet Code Pink member? I am having a hard time envisioning someone who cheerleaded the Israeli decimation of Lebanese cities with a bong and a “Make Love, Not War†t-shirt.”
I agree that Obama is not Code Pink by any means. But Republicans are trying to paint him into that corner, which would give an untrue representation of who he is. So in answering questions like this in the affirmative, Obama is making sure people know he’s not Code Pink. That doesn’t mean he’s Bush redux either. And like I’ve said before, showing support for Israel after the fact isn’t the same as advocating that kind of action. What’s he supposed to do, condemn Israel and lose any hope of winning either the primary or the election? The fact is, Israelis do what they want, and we don’t have a lot of influence over them. I do feel that Obama’s influence would be a moderating one, however, unlike McCain’s, which would encourage Israeli aggressiveness, and even supercede it with massive aggression of his own, continuing the endless occupation of Iraq and probably initiating war with Iran.
On the sovereignty question, it’s true that the attack took place in FATA, which is at best nominally part of Pakistan, but that doesn’t change the view in Islamabad that this is their territory, which is underscored by the presence of agents of their government. Indeed, it is the weakness of Islamabad’s control in the area that will make them even more sensitive to perceived slights or violations in that area, so it is in a way worse politically, even if it is more understandable, than a friendly fire incident elsewhere in the country.