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.
This agreement helps some of the the money that we send in exchange for oil come back stateside.
Taepodong 2 Missle reference.
Um, no one is arguing for stepping on Pakistani sovereignty because we “respect” it – it’s about how we accomplish OUR objectives and the mission at hand. Based upon that perspective, the appearance of treading on territory of a country with a leader, who has a weak grip on the situation itself, would undermine the primary source of our support. Essentially, not taking a steaming shit on the image of a MILITARY leader, who needs to be seen as a guy who can clean his own trash within Pakistan’s borders. Us helping him doesn’t need to be stated, if the mission is being accomplished more successfully quietly. How one manages information and psychological warfare is critical.
Of course Obama didn’t mean occupation. It is practically impossible for a country that populous. EVEN if we were not in Iraq, we could not occupy Pakistan. The challenge is that daunting. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are complicated nodes in this fight against salafist jihadis.
Rajesh, thanks for the compliment.
It’s interesting that when Obama suggests meeting with adversaries that we are not in a shooting war yet, he is called naive and soft by the Clinton camp and their sheep in the MSM. Yet, when he advocates a more active pursuit against parties that did attack us and are receiving refuge in a country whose leadership is doing a half-assed job of pursuing them, that is considered false bravado.
For those worried about the “stability” of Pakistan – keep in mind that Punjab and Sindh feel no ill effects from the efforts the Pakistani troops have taken in the border regions. Obama did not suggest he wanted to dismember, occupy, or have any extended presence in Pakistan.
As far as his position in the polls go, nationally – he does lag Clinton. But in those states that have the earlies primaries, he is ahead or tied. But, Clinton’s trump card is not her groundswell of support among Democratic voters, but that many interest groups that are indebted to her husband. Her primary campaign in 2007 is not that different from Dubya’s efforts in 1999, where he used his own family connections to pursue his party’s nomination.
True. But who’s funding Obama? Probably the same corporations and special interests. Eventually, it comes down to who has the most money in “donations” rather than ideas or speaking the truth about issues. I wonder why they don’t call it plutocracy instead. 😉
Maybe John Edwards should run for presidency there then :).
But who’s funding Obama? Probably the same corporations and special interests.
Not to the degree that HRC draws her money from them.
Small donors give Obama fundraising lead
“While Mrs Clinton has focused on securing larger contributions from a smaller number of donors, Mr Obama has tapped a broader base of supporters attracted by his promise to bring political change to Washington.”
This is just campaign rhetoric just to get some brownie points in the foreign policy arena. He would have been pummeled by Republicans if he had taken any other stand.
Gujudude,
I agreed with you that the test was far less than those tested by India or Pakistan, and it doesnt change the point. You don’t need to flatten 30 Sq Mi to make your point, the fact that they had the bravado to test one is proof enough that things were not working.
As for the Taepodong 2 missile reference, I think Wikipedia is great for a lot of things, I personally am willing to accept that “if its in wikipedia it has to be true.” But I am surprised to hear you say that Wikipedia is a more redible source than the CIA?!? I’m sure wiki knows a lot, but when it comes to the types of weapon systems other countries possess, and their capabilities, I’m willing to go with former CIA director George Tenet who said they did have the missile technology to potentially hit the United State in a congressional hearing.
As for the Acis of Evil reference, I’m not sure how you believe it worked? It was said in 2002’s State of the Union address, but since then the DPRK attempted to detonate a nuke! From the days BEFORE the 2002 speech, the DPRK has been saying the same thing, give us some cash, and defensive guarantees and we will have no reason to have nukes. President Bush said from that time, until not too long ago, that we will not be blackmailed. What did they do eventually? They paid it out and gave them defensive gurantees. How did the Axis of Evil speech help in any way? If they question had been asked 1 year ago, would have still agreed that it helped?? Just because a resolusion seems to have come to pass, does not mean it had anything positive to do with the Axis of Evil label, in fact it seemed to justify their fears and head them in the oppposite direction.
kxb,
Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t take money from lobbyists and special interests.
RC @ #50 said:
Not to mention Saudi Arabia.
It’s nothing new. In Lebanon they (we?) are even funding Sunni groups linked to Al Qaeda. Short-sighted US interventions have a way of crumbling into good old-fashioned blowback, which is why I made the comment at #18.
Sorry that wasn’t for KXB, it was for Amit.
I personally am willing to accept that “if its in wikipedia it has to be true.”
Seigenthaler would completely disagree
Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t take money from lobbyists and special interests.
So far – I don’t know what will happen in 2008. But I have no problem with taking money from lobbyists or special interests. – one’s person’s “special interests” is another person’s “grass roots”. I just believe you disclose who is giving you the money.
Punjab and Sindh may have not felt the direct affects, but Musharraf did. There were two assaniation attempts made on him and I’m sure countless other plots foiled that we haven’t even heard of.
Those advocating, for Pakistan, a harder PUBLIC line, has anyone thought through the consequences? Musharraf attacking the tribal areas will stir up some bees. The United States, with how we’ve mishanlded information and psychological warfare, doing so would only be digging our shit deeper. We already have two muslim countries under occupation. PUBLICLY targeting locations in Pakistan is not productive, especially if Pakistan will accomodate other means.
We are not trying to embarass Pakistani leadership. We’re trying to kill terrorists and doing so is not easy nor instantly gratifying. The American public has become far too accustomed to ‘quick’ warfare with instant results. This shit isn’t the stock market or earnings reports, and insurgencies are a slow and complicated fight on mulitple fronts (military, economic, cultural, information, diplomatic, politcal…)
Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but Alexander the Great didn’t attack Persia right off the bat. He set the table so when he eventually did invade Persia, he won resoundingly. Part of the strategy was to take Egypt first (for resources), and destroy the Persian Navy, before finally confronting them head on. It’s kinda like the Island hopping campaign of WWII (very strategic in nature). We could have sailed in a mighty armada on Japan itself, but that would have lead to disaster. Instead, we picked apart supply lines (oil) and invaded islands that gave a strategic foothold (Guam, Iwo Jima). That’s an easy example, but this isn’t a linear war.
The problem with current leadership (Republican and Democrat) is that both have been focused on instant results (or lack of) to wave in front of the American public in their own bickering for power/dominance.
Was the photo in the post picked for a reason??? Does anyone also see that the big cloud is almost the shape of Pakistan? And that the silhouette of his hand is either pointing toward Baluchistan or ready to pick up some specs of trouble from Karachi?
The following was from the Wikipedia quote:
It doesn’t contradict the CIA at all, if you actually read what I posted, it simply states the delivery system was not ready for a nuclear weapon. That missle could probably launch a 500lb warhead at best very inaccurately.
The reason why I’ve quote wikipedia multiple times is because it actually provides, for these cases, a decent SUMMARY. As to the absolute truth, neither of us have the data. But follow the links on wiki to whatever sources it takes you to and make your own decision. I’m arguing my point, but there is only so much public information out there. For Che Guevara, some of the referenced links actually take you to declassified documents on his pursuit, capture, and execution from the CIA, State Department, and US Army.
With regards to the Axis of Evil speech, there were indications that North Korea had already VIOLATED the terms of the agreement. So, we withdrew our money and put them on notice as we should have. Of course we should not be blackmailed. Again, their efforts in pushing for nuclear (and delivery) technology was unsuccessful, IMO, as a result of the pressure/timeline imposed by their leaders without the resources to back it up. Essentially, us calling them out on violating the agreement pushed them to go for what they were already aiming for faster than their technological maturity allowed.
Beyond that, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Jihadis and their ilk only respect strength. The tribes that line the Pakistan/Afghanistan border area have a history of savagely brutalizing their invaders. Musharraf has the strength to go after them, however Pakistani policy with these folks are akin to Indian policy with the indigenous ‘lost tribes’ of the Andamans. Claim the territory as ours but leave the tribesmen alone as they were hostile to any outsiders and had poison tipped arrows to prove their point. Unfortunately these warlords have already made their presence felt in the global nexus by sending their children to Madrassas in the heart of pakistan and sheltering Al-Qaeda. With the sheer firepower the US has they can be wiped out but the US will need Pakistani help too. Pakistan would need US help again as the vendettas would undoubtedly be shed on Pakistani soil. The majority of the militants and troublemakers hail from these areas and hence bring the ‘Sharia’ mindset with them.
The only way to pursue this is by force. Negotiations should only be with warlords who can adhere to their ‘word’.
Gujudude,
I looked through the article on the 2006 Nuke Test and the Taepodong 2. And yes I did see that, but it was not the article that I had issue with. The CIA chief says they can hit the United States, then I’m gonna have to with it. He didn’t explain on what basis he bleieved it, and I don’t expect him to explain himself. His assertion is enough, and the Wiki article is not going to enlighten me anymore on that point.
As for wiki articles in general, I agree, they are great for summaries and I’m willing to go as far as ot say, “if its in wiki then it must be true.”
As for the Axis of Evil, yes they had violated the agreement they had with Clinton, and I never said otherwise. You say we shouldn’t be blackmailed, but that is just a way of saying we will not give you what you want. What is the difference between calling this blackmail or a negotiation? If you give us what we want, we give you what you want. This happens everyday!!! Blackmail is just a way is dismissing a negotiation as something undesirable. In the end we gave in to their “blackmail”!!
And it seems we will have to agree to disagree on the rest of your point. I do not think we had any positive effect by not engaging them in discussion for 5 years, and I believe that if we had not began talking with them in multi-party talks (in the end we even did some bilateral talks that were SOOOO BADD) then we would be in a far worse situation. DPRK knows how to make missiles; Pakistan based their design on DPRK technology, and it would have been a matter of time before they got the nuke right.
Not talking to our enemies is NOT punishment to them, it probably hurts us as much as them.
Nice!
Was the photo in the post picked for a reason???
No, I just thought it looked dramatic. But it’s a cool coincidence!
If this guy wants to keep up the “I’m not the same as the others” angle, he’d better shut his mouth. This kind of talk can become a huge albatross around his neck in the minds of the primary voters.
I think you’re the one who’s confused.
There is nothing “confused” about opposing the war in Iraq while simultaneously supporting more aggressive efforts against Al Qaeda in the hinterlands of the Afghan/Pakistani border. In fact, one of the very reasons that some were opposed to the war in Iraq is that it distracted from and limited our ability to undertake such efforts. The only people this will confuse are those who think one must either support all wars or be opposed to all wars. I think you’re insulting the intelligence of the voter base if you think they can’t grasp the elementary distinction that Obama is making.
As for whether we have the resources to “attack Pakistan,” the speech doesn’t suggest any such thing. It suggests strikes against Al Qaeda hideouts in largely unpoliced territories of Pakistan.
Adults don’t proclaim that the United States has done all that could be expected of it in Iraq, and that the problems plaguing it are solely the fault of the Iraqis. That is not only a non-adult position, it is one deeply out of touch with the reality of our policy failures.
RC I will try to answer your post #50 Iran has been our enemy since the Ayatollah came to power in 1979. They were the main sponsors of terror long before Al Qaeda and still are. The Khobar towers bombing in Saudi that killed hundreds of US military personnel, the bombing of the Marine barracks in lebanon in 1983 that killed 240 Marines. The hijacking of a cruse ship in the Medditerian carying American tourists and the murder of an American Jew in a wheel chair by the name of Klinghoffer. There are so many more too numerous to recall in detail. Many of these involved the hijacking of air liners. It is not just about Hezbollah.
Jimmy Carter betrayed the Shah of Iran and allowed the Ayatollah to take power. The Shah was our faithfull ally. I hope this answers your question.
Negotiation in good faith – Countries come to the table and discuss avenues that are beneficial to both. Parties can go back and forth, but the idea is to come to a common ground where both will positively benefit.
Blackmail – If you don’t give us FREE AID, we’ll develop a nuclear bomb and continue selling missiles. Give me what I want, or else….
That later is what DPRK has been doing. They don’t have any rights, squat, to demand resources from us. The regime is corrupt, they’ve decided to isolate themselves (while China next door is bullishly moving ahead in the global economy), their people starve, and Kim Jong Il is legitimately crazy.
33
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.
According to a former terrorist western foreign policy hardly matters to them. Here is a article in the Guardian newspaper by Hassan Butt a former member of Al-Muhajiroun in UK [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2115891,00.html]
1
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.
Actually its worst than a Banana Republic. Its a client state. There have been unilateral attacks on Pakistani territory by US using unmanned drones which have been claimed by Pakistan to be their own work. Watch PBS Frontline documentary “Return of the Taliban” where a corps commander is interviewed and doesn’t know what weapon system was used while the reporter shows debris of US made drone.
Again, that kind of stuff happens constantly. We give an ultimatum to Pakistan after we decided to invade Afghanistan. We gave FREE AID to Egypt when they agreed to come to peace with Israel in the original Camp David Accords. That aid has been free for almost 30 years, and that was simply, “sign the treaty and we’llgive you cash.”
So to now call it blackmail is political rhetoric. And yes Kim Jong Il IS legitimately crazy, all the more reason not to let him sit in a corner and think to himself!! The man doesn’t even take airplanes for fear of being shot down!
Countries may ask for the moon, but as long as they are asking we are on our way to a diplomatic solution. We tell them talking to us is a privledge, and you may get a big eff you from some of them. So what do we gain from not talking to them?? I have yet to see a case of when not tlaking to anyone has worked. It has worked wonders in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict!
In this case, it isn’t. Plus, it was an incentive package, or bribe if you will, that brought the Egyptians to the table. Not a threat. The ultimatum to Pakistan was a direct statement (get with the program, or else) – not a passive aggressive strategy based on shaking with one hand, and holding the knife behind your back.
I never said don’t talk, but DPRK needed to be put into it’s place, not demand more aid at the expense of threatening proliferation. I’m not afraid of a North Korean missile landing any day on top of me (and I live on the west coast in San Diego which has the country’s highest concentration of military bases, shit, I work on one.)
There long range missile is shit (it hasn’t worked yet), they’ve maxed out on the current technology they have (scaling up their current missiles to a bigger one doesn’t work), it isn’t very sophisticated, their nuclear weapon doesn’t work. Bottom line – they are a threat because instability in South Korea and Japan can hurt us, along with them proliferating technology to other tin pot states. But have been dealt with appropriately and even their strongest supporters, the Chinese, are tired of them.
Lets end this here, since neither you or I are going to agree.
Like usual, Obama provides a thoughtful and realistic strategy in the face of troubling problems and CNN, Fox, and their crawls and rubrics reduce it into “OBAMA WANTS TO BOMB PAKISTAN”
Obama introduced a bill in the senate two months ago to stop all “merit-based” immigration in 5 years. Is he alright?
Saari, wraang info. Here is what happened –
“Obama’s amendment proposed changing the way visas are granted, from a family-based to a merit-based system. Calling it a social experiment, Obama proposed to end the new system after five years.
Obama’s amendment was also rejected. ” From http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10800758
@#74
Rajesh, true. But we haven’t had clean hands either – from toppling Mohammed Mossadegh, the popular Iranian Prime Minister to supporting the Shah. From what my Iranian friend has told me, both the Shah and Khomeini tortured a lot of Iranians, and repressed their people. Most people have this perception that Iran under the Shah was a happy place, and only under Khomeini did it become draconian, which is far from true. So, from an Iranian’s point of view, it’s USA that’s the enemy.
From wikipedia:
If you think it’s justified for us to interfere into other countries’ internal affairs, subvert democracies, and put up and topple dictators selectively and at will, then I can’t really argue with that world-view and we’ll have to agree to disagree. If you haven’t read already, I’d suggest you look into US foreign policies over the last 30-40 years in Central & South America, Indonesia, Timor, Philippines etc.
RS, well-said. I see no contradiction in being against {AQ/OBL/Islamic fundamentalism} and the Iraq war at the same time. I think Bush should have remained focused on AQ in Afghanistan instead of starting this stupid war in Iraq due to daddy issues.
Punjabi Assassin, thanks for the heads-up. I did check out the contributions to Obama and Hillary, and also Obama’s platform on his website. So far, he does seem to be committed to cleaning up Washington/Congress. Hope he remains consistent with that position and good luck to him!
Storm in a tea cup.
Obama says what he knows will get him cover against Hillary’s perceived experience in foreign policy.
This will make a few rounds in the press and will be dragged out whenever obama is attacked as being soft or naive on foreign policy. That achieved, obama will be back talking(more like peddling) “politics of hope”.
78 GujuDude
There long range missile is shit (it hasn’t worked yet), they’ve maxed out on the current technology they have (scaling up their current missiles to a bigger one doesn’t work), it isn’t very sophisticated, their nuclear weapon doesn’t work. Bottom line – they are a threat because instability in South Korea and Japan can hurt us, along with them proliferating technology to other tin pot states. But have been dealt with appropriately and even their strongest supporters, the Chinese, are tired of them.
–> In addition, the korean war is officially not over yet and US is required to come to the aid of south korea if they are attacked by DPRK. Solving DPRK issue will cure US one of its lingering headaches. Which is why, it is all the more surprising, US went into Iraq as and when it did. How much can you stretch yourself before your warts start to show up ?
56 KXB
“While Mrs Clinton has focused on securing larger contributions from a smaller number of donors, Mr Obama has tapped a broader base of supporters attracted by his promise to bring political change to Washington.”
–> Obama definitely is targeting more small donors but the underlying mechanics of his campaign allows him to count people who buy obama t-shirts while Clinton’s campaign cannot, given their dependence of outside vendors. I am not claiming obama is doing creative accounting as the article claims but the mechanics of his campaign does play a part.
The actual long term strategy has been to pull troops out of South Korea. This wart showed up before we went into Iraq, though unlike the middle east, we have some very militarily strong support there. The South Korean army, while outmanned by the North, is technologically far superior and very well trained. The only reason the United States really is present, is a ‘show’ of force. If it comes to war, the troops we have there are a speed bump.
Troops numbers have been reduced in South Korea and redeployed, which to the North should look like a reduction in American presense and help the South Koreans negotiate with the North. The Iraq war was the reason used, but the writing was on the wall to stategically re-arrange anyway (Reduce forces in Germany and South Korea). My roomate in gradschool was a South Korean who was a Sergeant in the Army (manadatory for all males). He had some interesting stories.
Gujudude,
I’m cool with ending it here, we can at least agree to disagree.
P.S. I’m a fellow San Diegan!
Well, at least we’re on the same side (of the coast that is). Good discussions.
Pakistan slams ‘ignorant’ Obama attack warning
Amit, I know the history of US involvement in South America begining in the 1800’s If you are interested in this topic I recommend a book by Ivan Musicant published by Macmillan and the Naval Institute name: “THE BANNA WARS”.
All of the Iranians who I have met would disagree with you and your Iranian friend. There is no comparison between the Shah and the Ayatollahs. The Shah bought Iran out of the middle ages and the backwardness of Islam as practiced there. He modernised the country and Persia prospered. The mullahas put women in burkhas and the economy as well as the quality of life never recovered to the level it enjoyed with the Shah.
Yes I support American policy of intervention in other countries when it is in our national interest. I am not just a Navy man but a far right one, a nationalist like most of my comrades in uniform. It is incredibly naive to talk about ‘clean hands’ in the persuit of nationl interest. This is someting that comes out of the public school system and the leftist anti-American Democrat leadership.
Rajesh,
I don’t belong in the “public school system and the leftist anti-American Democrat leadership” box as I am somewhat of an independent with left/libertarian leanings. I fail to see how pulling troops from Afghanistan to go into Iraq was in our national interest, with the latest news of AQ/Taliban revival in Afghanistan. I guess we have different definition of what “national interest” means – for me, it means dogged pursuit of AQ in Afghanistan/Pakistan, which Bush has failed to do.
As for your comments on Iran, you state something that I (and my Iranian friend) actually agree with (re: Shah & modernity). All I said was that people were tortured under Shah, and one of the reasons of the revolution is that he went too far and pissed off the mullahs when he banned veils in public. Not much different thinking from the Ayatollahs who force women to wear veils in public. Same coin, different sides.
Sure, it’s fine to put up and topple dictators in national interest, but then please don’t call USA a beacon of democracy and liberty – that’s hypocrisy and hollow words given the actions. And be ready for more blow-backs. As I said in my earlier post, different world-views, so we should just agree to disagree. 🙂
BTW, I’m not defending the Ayatollahs in Iran – I fully agree with you on their repressive regime.
Amit, There are many parts of our strategy I disagree with such as pulling troops out of Afghanistan. I also disagree with some of our tactics in Iraq but these are fine points.
The Shah was a tru ally and friend of America through many administrations. During the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74 He refused to go along with OPEC and continued to suppy the US without raising prices.
Amit, I agree with you that we should go after AQ in Pakistan. This does not mean however that we should ignore AQ operations in other countries like Phillipines, Somalia, Yemen. AQ is global.
He’s too skinny.
And too black.
That can be corrected, but he needs to start soon. 😉 🙂
political opportunism. skinny ho.
Rajesh,
You mean the ones with the means to leave before 1979? It may have been heaven on earth for these fortunate families, but if things were so good–for everyone–why did so many young people think that they were so far out of the economic sweepstakes that they decided to mortgage their civil liberties to the Ayatollah’s, no-interest bank?
The Shah may have been an American ally, but then so is Musharraf now, as well as all the authoritarian regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the gulf states and Jordan. Obama is now thinking of invading the ‘ally’ most able to cause a widespread, nuclear conflagration in the region–one wonders where his gung-ho attitude is, when it comes to leaning on those who get their kicks from decapitating 17-year old girls ?