Today Senator Barack Obama gave a speech outlining his strategy on terrorism if he were to be elected President. 
The speech has three solid paragraphs relating to Pakistan:
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.
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.
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair – our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally. (link)
The AP article on the speech interprets this as a threat: if Musharraf doesn’t do the job, we’ll invade.
Actually I think the lines in question could be interpreted differently — I think Obama is merely suggesting that U.S. troops could be deployed to take out selected targets in the border provinces, and then removed. “Targeted strikes” isn’t quite the same as “invasion,” though it’s close: it does sound like Obama is saying such operations could be conducted even without Musharraf’s express permission.
On a separate note, it’s good to see Obama emphasizing the value of inculcating secular education and a culture of democracy in Pakistan. It’s now become increasingly clear that there are millions of Pakistanis who want another try at democracy; the demand that Musharraf relinquish some of his power can no longer be shrugged off.
I think Obama is being highly irresponsible. I do not think you do a “damn thing” on Pakistan’s territory without their yes/ permission. Pakistan is not a banana republic, even though it has serious complications.
I think talk about spreading secular education in Pakistan is just coffee talk. Religious schooling is there to stay, and in principle, there is nothing wrong with it. Perhaps, spurring the economy at the grass root level can make real changes.
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism
Those F-16s are not combat terrorism. Those are for India. Oh, well.
I think the differences between “Targeted strikes” and “full blown invasion” are a red herring. Any action by the US forces on Pakistani territory carries the possibility of destabilizing Pakistan and a possible overthrow of the Musharraf-led administration. The US is better off planning for a full-scale invasion rather than targeted strikes, because destabilization of Pakistan will lead to another round of “nation-building”
Hmmm. Looking at this from an admittedly purely political point of view, it sounds like Obama, by going to the right of Bush, is trying to establish some hawkish street cred after his naive faux pas about meeting dictators during the last debate.
great…another $hitsh0w….cause Iraq and AFghanistan arent enough for us…
Kush wrote:
I think you are bang on the money with your interpretation there. One would think that by now, even the right wing would see the necessity for dropping the “my way or the highway” approach to foreign policy, but to see guys from the left saying things like this just makes me realize that all of these folks seem to be cut from different parts of the same mold. Whatever qualities Obama had to make me think he was different have been pretty much wiped out. It’d be nice to have someone of principle in the election, but apparently states[wo]men principles and politics are diametrically opposed.
Big difference between an invasion and targeted strikes/raids.
Special Operations folks have been looking over the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan for some time for more active involvement. Maybe they already are involved, but probably covert, like the operation that took out Pablo Escobar (American military adivors trained elite columbian troops and helped gather intelligence on target locations). That was a highly classified mission. Che Guerva was hunted down by Army Special Forces (Green Beret) trained local personnel, Pablo was nailed by a team trained by SEALs and Army Special Forces. Those were pretty successful models, though based upon what Marc Sagemen said in Undestanding Terroist Networks, getting human intelligence assets into these tight terrorist ‘cliques’ is difficult since they’ve gone underground and shun electronic communication. One needs to have assets that were people who decided to train in Jihad, but not participate having second thoughts. Such assests could be used to infiltrate these networks.
What’s been going on behind the scenes no one will know until the day information gets declassifed. The Phillipines brought in American advisors ASAP post 9-11.
I frankly think that for now this is just image building and hot air. Obama has been at times depicted as a soft candidate.. oen who would compromise US interest and security in the name of peace. I think some hard line talk is what his think tank came up with to counter those holes in his image. And for that matter, I think it’s a good decision to do so – talking tough about Pakistan bolsters his image without bringing the complicated implications and contradictions that talking tough about Iran or Iraq might. Plus he’s just saying it and also in a way where he is throwing in enough ifs and buts to cover his ar$e if needed in case he does become president and the realities are obviously not as straight arrowed.
And good to see you back Amardeep, the blog was missing such posts!
Gujudude,
Pakistan != South America
That is why Bin Laden and top brass of Taliban have never been captured. Only the ones that had lost the confidence of Pakistani authority.
You seem to be operating on a curious definition of “principles” whereby agreement with your views = principled, and disagreement = politics.
In fairness, this is not an uncommon phenomenon.
Ditto.
Yup. Nuclear missles, a VERY large population, and competing political elements with Pakistan means disturbing the status quo is a gamble, not merely a risk. Especiall with India next door now with significant American business interests (and nuclear weapons), something spilling over into one of the world’s largest countries (size, population, economies) is dangerous.
The same risk exists with stuff spilling over into Saudi, but unlike Saudi, India isn’t weak nor Pakistan as broken as Iraq was when invaded. The F-16s are payback for their outdated fleet that was hit hard by sanctions and a gift to keep the largest power broker (the military) happy. Unless those F-16s come equipped with the latest radar AND AIM-120 missles, India still has the higher hand with it’s newer squadron of SU-30MKIs (not to mention the future buy of 125 top of the line fighters coming up soon, by the tortoise paced Indian acquisition standards).
An unstable Pakistan can truly have a butterfly effect.
There is also the small issue that the organizational leadership of Al Qaeda actually is holed up in the tribal regions of Pakistan, and that taking a hard line with respect to terrorists who have actually attacked the United States makes a good deal more sense than taking a hard line against governments that have not.
But I’m probably just saying that to bolster my image.
Kush:
The military is the strongest, though has the weakest links to the Salafist Jihadis now (those obviously went to hell in a handbasket as soon as Musharraf declared support for the United States).
Getting the ISI to work for you is the key here. They’re kind of like a shadow government. While most direction comes from the military, they sort of march to their own tune. Getting guys like Khalid Sheik M. must have taken some finesse and boat loads of underground bargaining.
Tough talk. Doubt its much else.
The reason we haven’t undertaken overt action in Pakistan is that we want to avoid another state imploding and having to rebuild it. I am sure India doesn’t want that result either. It seems like there are really two Pakistans and while there may be a lot of hoo-hah about Bhutto vs. Mushy, the real contest is between Mullahs and Seculars.
I think Obama has been consistent in his approach on Pakistan and it is not a one off comment to offset his “weak” image.
Read this from January 2005. link
I completely agree with you Kush Tandon. Highly Irresponsible!
In addition, statements like what Obama made, can be misconstrued and used by the Jihadis a la, “see now the Americans want to invade Pakistan, we need to step up to make sure there is no threat to Islam”
From Wikipedia on Guerva’s death.
From Wikipedia on Escobar’s death.
Both these actions were supported by the local governments. While striking in Pakistan is appealing and should be allowed, it needs be done without public acknowlegement or pulling back the curtain.
Jihadis will say that no matter what anyone says or doesnt say. thats what jihadis do. bankers bank. doctors treat patients. painters pain. jihadis wage angry fundamentalist war. best not to try to keep jihadis happy.
I’m curious to see what Hassan Abbas over at Watandost says about this. I took part in an interview with him about six months ago when he advocated the position that democracy should be allowed to take it’s course in Pakistan, even if that means having a right-wing reactionary government for some time. In the long term, “moderate” government cannot be imposed.
Re: 17
Best not to try to create more Jihadis either.
Here is a round table discussion on Pakistgan television about the impending US attack: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Its pretty fascinating.
What’s the difference between Obama’s threatening military action against Pakistan and McCain’s (and all the other Repubs’) gleeful threats to attack Iran? Neither country has attacked the US. Both may or may not harbor forces intent on harming the US. Both are sophisticated societies with an interest in maintaining stable democracies instead of succumbing to theocracy.
Isn’t anyone running for president whose first inclination is not to shoot somebody?
Ennis,
I agreed with you too, that Obama seem to be suggesting targeted strikes which are far different from an “invasion”. On the BBC they are suggestion the same:
“If not, Pakistan would risk a troop invasion and the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of US aid during an Obama presidency, the candidate said.”
LA Times doesn’t do any interpreting it seems say that Barak “took a hard line on terrorism today, saying the United States may need to strike targets inside its ally Pakistan if the government does not escalate its fight against militants.”
Punjabi Assassin, just a clarification — I (Amardeep) wrote this post…
Yeah, welcome back, Amardeep. I like your posts because you don’t just link to articles, you also include some analysis/commentary.
Hillary Clinton is hammering Obama in the latest poll.
Seahawks fan, thanks — it’s good to be back.
BTW, a new New Hampshire poll has Obama pulling even with Hillary in that state.
Preston,
Iran, Iraq and Pakistan are different. In this case, Pakistan is more like Afghanistan those those countries. Yes, Afghanistan didn’t attack the United States on 9/11, but they did harbor those who did. The question is whether Pakistan is harboring them. If they are clearly, then they are like Afghanistan, but if they are not then they are like any other country that is not harboring Al Qaeda. By having an hands off attitude towards Waziristan, Pakistan is constructively harboring Al Qaeda. Obama refered to 2005 when there was intelligence that a high level Al Qaeda meeting was taking place in Pakistan. Al Qaeda would have to be in Pakistan to have that meeting, so there isn’t a question of “may or may not harbor forces”, Al Qaeda is there, not intentionally harbored, but arguably they are constructively harbored.
I screwed up Che’s last name a bunch of times. Unfortunately I transpose letters a few times here and there.
One has been actively engaged in fighting against the United States for years from an unconventional warfare perspective (Marines killed in Beirut), while the other has been supportive, but severly constrained due to the political enivornment. When the mullahs the USG personnel can sit down at have cordial diplomatic relations, you’re somewhat in the same ballpark. Apples and oranges. The current Iranian regime and the United States really haven’t chatted much in close to three decades. Pakistan has significant historical ties to the USA, one which soured a bit with the end of the cold war. Also, the support for a stable democracy with Iran, IMHO, is overstated. There are a lot of people vested in keeping the Mullahcracy. Pakistan isn’t a theocracy yet, and I’m sure most would agree that’s a good thing. Iran already is, they will sooner or later possess the bomb, and have greater middle easter ambitions for projection of power (Shia-sunni, Arab/Persian, etc). Iran is intent on undermining Israel actively (Hezbollah), while Pakistan may support ‘the cause’, they’re far more focused on subcontinental interests (Kashmir).
I’m not saying invading Iran is a viable strategy, but a strike on Iran (pretty much an enemy state of the USA) and on Pakistan (a pivotal, though underachieving ally) is a HUGE difference.
Amardeep, I apologize! I don’t know why I see Ennis wherever I look 🙂
ron paul
This isn’t going to do anything to help Obama’s cause. The Right isn’t really interested in him anyway, and the Left just wants peace and the return of troops that are at war. What good is speaking about tentative attacks on Pakistan going to do him ?
Obama seems like a confused freshman and as of now, it seems like Hillary’s going to win this one hands down.
that is the CV among the chattering class. But Obama got a lot of cash (more than hillary?, leads the SC poll, and is even in NH.
His campaign, though not him personally, needs to go for Hillary’s jugular on Iraq. She voted for the war and is lying now by saying she just gave authorization only for bush to have negotiation leverage. There are videos of her taking credit for the war well after the invasion as well as her saying it is certain that Saddam had WMDs.
The dems are just dying for an anti-war candidate. obama only chace is to exploit this.
I don’t think his comments about meeting with dictators was off the mark. Yes it was different than the usual, but the argument that it may be used from propaganda, what does that even mean???? Like Obama said, somehow we think not talking to our enemies is punishment to them.
Look how much not talking to North Korea got us? First they just trenched in, then they developed the missle tech to hit us, then they developed the nuke warheads to make it hurt. Then we talked to them, and gave them what they wanted, and now it is dismantling. Where would we continue to be with North Korea if we didn’t engage them???
All I am saying is, those statements can be an effective recruitment tool. I am not saying that don’t speak lest we incur the wrath of the jihadis.
Just to be clear, your point is that he is “confused” because his take on the issues does not fit (your simplistic perception of) what is politically expedient?
Their missle, which was supposed to have enough range to hit the USA doesn’t work and their nuclear test was, by all accounts, a dud too. They’re hard strapped for cash/resources to do more (that stuff is expensive) and their customers who in the mid 90s bankrolled them for short/intermediate range missles aren’t around for more (like Pakistan). Had those tests actually worked, you would have seen them come stronger with more leverage. But it didn’t and our strategy there has played out correctly (inistence on multi party talks, engaging Japan, China, Russia, SK). We talked to them in the 90s and they turned around and gaves a big F*$# You by still conducting their business hidden away. No military threat was ever made, since they do have hundreds of artillery guns and rockets pointing at Seoul.
North Korean discussions have been significantly influenced by China and it’s attitude towards DPRK.
If Obama is serious about this, I’d vote for him. The camps that Pakistan created to bleed India in Kashmir don’t look much differnt than the camps used by the Taliban. It would do us all a favor if these suicide bombing cowards had their training bases leveled.
Gujudude,
These were not my words, CIA Director George Tenet is the one who suggested they had the missile technology to hit the United States, and yes the nuke was far from the 10 megaton ones that India and Pak tested, but you don’t need to flatten 30 square miles to make your point. Even that little one with some tweaking would have hurt.
And yes, they wanted money, but that is what they ALWAYS wanted!!! We twisted their arm, got 4 other countries to talk to them with us, and gave them what they demanded. In then end, talking solved the problem. They wanted cash, we wanted a nuke-free DPRK, and we could have had all of that without the Axis of Evil speech.
Even if Obama reallly felt this way about taking action inside Pakistan he should not say this in public. Once again a Democrat has put politics above national security. This makes it more difficult for US to pull of such an operation.
GujuDude You are the only one here with the facts on geopolitics and military matters as it pertains to this topic. There is nothing for me to add as you have stated clearly the situation. I know a little more about operations in Afghanistan (not secret) but I dont feel comfortable dicussing it in a public forum. You can bet (as you have stated) Special Operations Group is heavily involved in that area, even in Pakistan. You answered Preston with all facts. You have done your research well. So did Punjabi Assassin. Keep on posting.
Please step aside, Mr. Guiliani. The real hawk is here.
M. Nam
Please step aside, Mr. Guiliani. The real hawk is here.
I believe Guiliani made a similar statement last week.
The only adult in the top tier of both parties is Hillary Clinton.
@RS – “Just to be clear, your point is that he is “confused” because his take on the issues does not fit (your simplistic perception of) what is politically expedient?”
‘Confused’ because Obama has for the most part so far been about everything that Bush wasn’t – attentive and anti-war, throwing his ‘i never voted for the Iraq war’ everywhere possible to make him seem like a revolutionary leader who will ‘end the nonsense’ and get back to the basics – the economy, poverty, unemployment, etc.
But now that the heat is on him for being too ‘soft’, he goes all out and talks about military action in Pakistan… all this when there is absolutely no end for the Iraq war in sight, and we have US military generals speaking of troops being there till 2009. If not being confused about his own policies, he is at least confused about his voter base.
I do not believe the US has enough man-power to fight so many countries at the same time… IMHO, attacking Pakistan will simply make even more enemies.
Al Chutiya,
What exactly is childish about the statement? Or am I misunderstanding your implied assertion?
Then let’s have one as President, and the other as VP (take your pick based on party affiliation)! Let’s make history!
M. Nam
Anyone come across any analysis on level of violence in Kashmir post vs. pre-9/11?
Kush, I think your position is interesting. Do we attack nations only if they are banana republics? What if the nation in question is actively encouraging groups that want to attack us? Do we just beef up our homeland? Can you imagine any nation saying yes to attacking them.
Not that I support an invasion of Pakistan but a hawkish President can make a strong case for an attack. A direct line can be established from Al-qaeda (which attacked the US on 9/11) to Pakistani authorities. If you disagree you should be against the war in Afghanistan and against Taliban.
Are you serious? I will not speak about other Republicans but McCain has established foreign policy credentials. He might not be currently popular with the conservative base but McCain has shown himself to be responsible during his long stay in the Senate. Given our misadentures in Iraq we should not get involved in Iran but it is important that the rhetoric stay hawkish.
It’s already been the case that Pakistan’s army has taken credit for CIA predator strikes within NWFP, why not step up the targeted strikes and let the Pakistanis continue to take the credit? An occupation would be unsuccessful and the US would withdraw after capturing their “Most Wanted” and leave India to deal with some nuclear armed warlords.
I’m amazed at how impassioned some of you are about supposed insults to Pakistan’s sovereignty. Much ado about nothing, Obama didn’t mean an occupation.
Have you read something to this effect? Please send us a link.
I agree! I would also love the Mexican govt. to freely pursue members of the Tijuana cartel and bomb their hideouts in LA.
Actually, the yield estimates from more credible sources suggests barely a kiloton (and some even question if it was truly nuclear or just a large pile of HE being detonated). Plus, serious doubt exists whether they have the technology to complete a weapon system (weaponizing the design, mating it with a good delivery vehicle, and the missle itself). Here is a wikipedia reference on the nuke as well as the Taepodong-2 missle.
The Axis of Evil speech, IMHO, actually worked to call DPRK’s bluff. They weren’t abiding by the agreement laid out with Clinton in the first place. Was it a risky move? Sure, but the solid regional support, including strong militaries of South Korea and Japan, means it’s a risk, not a gamble. DPRK was cutting the cake and eating it,too. Now, they’re finally coming around to meeting the intent of the previous agreement – stop nuclear research, we’ll give you food, resources, and fuel.
The Axis of Evil reference for Iraq and Iran have all had slightly different effects. We’ve got gains from DPRK, Iraq we invaded with poor strategic vision, and with Iran we’re engaged in more unconventional warfare, but no moves to strike each other beyond that have been made.
Yes, there are some – like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, but going by this, doesn’t seem like they are media darlings, nor does he have audience support based on the applause Giuliani got. But, he did win the debate based on call-in votes, FWIW. Ooh, can’t wait for Obama to go hunting in fatigues to score some points!!
What really is US’s problem with Iran?? It is terrorists based in Pakistan who carried out 9/11, not Iran. Iran may be supporting Hezbollah, but Hezbollah is fighting Israel and not the US (unless one considers Israel 51st state). Decades ago there was hostage crisis with Iran, which can also be called a backlash against US’s support to the Shah of Iran.
So what makes Iran, US’s mortal enemy?? I just dont get it. The Beirut bombing may be? Thats it? On the other hand US is about to sell $20 billion arms to Saudi Arabia and other Arab dictatorial regimes. What sense does that make??
I am really curious. Can any learned folks here shed some light??
I think, US is now doing the divide and rule that British did in India with this open embrace of Sunni Arabs to get them to align aginst the Shiaite rising power.