No, it isn’t. It is a strategic one, considering the possible blowback in Pakistan, and how that affects the theater of operations. And it’s not only a tactical issue, but a moral and political one.

The issue of Karzai is part of a larger, strategic issue of how to approach the whole business of fighting in Afghanistan, and the signals being given that we might support a unifed opposition party that wins the next elections suggests something about our overall diplomatic strategy. Military strategy comes next, as a subset of diplomacy, and tactic come after that, as a subset of military strategy. So a sound way to change things must begin at the level of basic diplomatic strategy, not ground level military tactics. The fact that Obama seems to understand this is good, and we will just have to see how this ends up translating on the ground as a tactical change. In other words, it’s less than a week, give the man a chance to develop a new strategy from the top down.

Oh, I don’t think there is much difference between cheerleaders for both major parties. The question was more rhetorical than actual, since very few Democratic cheerleaders read this blog. An easy shot at supporters of President Obama, if you will.

Well, he probably got on the phone after it happened. But the idea that he would be briefed ahead of time on every little action in the war there is unlikely. Maybe someone will ask him about it and we will get some clarification. But really, give him a break, especially in trying to get a grasp from the inside on how to conduct the war up there. It’s going to take a few months for a clear strategy to emerge, including the policy on this kind of action.

conradg

Briefed ahead of time? Perhaps not. But being aware of standing orders and such? How could he not be? So, this is not simply a question of “learning how to conduct the war” as if it’s merely about being ‘pragmatic’ and finding out what works. It’s a question pertaining to the sovereignty of another country and what is just, especially when such actions can be taken as acts of war by the aggrieved party.

If you think Obama is that stupid, then he’s just setting himself up for a Somalia Moment. I’d give him more credit than letting the military bomb a sovereign country without approval.

> Where’s the outrage among his supporters?

You missed the point here. Whatever sliver of difference you think there is between mainstream Democrats and Republicans on FP is mostly manufactured in the media or your imagination. Progressives did complain about Obama’s stance on the bombings last summer.

And Daniel, my own thanks for mainstreaming this.

Well, he probably got on the phone after it happened. But the idea that he would be briefed ahead of time on every little action in the war there is unlikely. Maybe someone will ask him about it and we will get some clarification. But really, give him a break, especially in trying to get a grasp from the inside on how to conduct the war up there. It’s going to take a few months for a clear strategy to emerge, including the policy on this kind of action.

That’s a rather sorry excuse–Obama surely has not been ignorant of what the U.S. military has been doing in Pakistan, and the Secretary of Defense and the rest of the chain of command is only a phone call away.

“They have alarmingly narrow views of executive power,” said a former Bush aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Full article here:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17895.html

Do Paleocons not welcome good news?

“Where’s the outrage among his supporters?”

I have given up asking that question. Then again, I’m not sure most of his supporters were ever offended by the idea of launching strikes into Pakistan against Pakistan’s wishes. Once he came out in favor of it last August, most of the pro-Obama bloggers I was reading were touting this as proof that Obama was “strong” and hawkish and so on. Violating another state’s sovereignty doesn’t seem to trouble that many on the left as a matter of principle, so long as some rationalization can be found. The same is also true of most people on the right, obviously. Concern about state sovereignty (and international law in general) seems to be inversely proportional to a party’s possession of political power in Washington. I am probably going to be writing an item on Holbrooke’s appointment in connection with these strikes, so keep an eye out.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-daily_24edi.State.Edition1.2e6902c.html