Obama's Takes On Musharraf in Counterrorism Strategy Unveiled Today

[flpoljunkie]

From The Atlantic Online blog of Marc Ambinder...

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."

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/obamas_right_war.php

[jmp]

1. Is he prepared to trade nukes with Pakistan? (nm)

...

[flpoljunkie]

2. Is that you, Hillary?

[jmp]

3. Is it not legitimate to ask ...

He is proposing dropping bombs inside the borders of a nuclear power without their permission. Is it not legitimate to ask what happens if Pakistan decides to defend itself in the only way available to it?

[independentpiney]

7. Who are they going to nuke?

They don't have icbm's, so they probably could only reach India, Iran, Afghanistan or China.

[jmp]

8. Our 20,000+ troops in Afghanistan??? (nm)

...

[independentpiney]

12. They're not all in one place, he'd kill alot more Pashtun Muslims

Which wouldn't go over well at all in front of his home crowd.

[jmp]

13. They have more than 1 nuke. (nm)

...

[independentpiney]

14. Then they'd kill more Pashtun Muslims, nukes aren't selective n/t

[jmp]

4. Mind you ... I didn't say that I disagreed.

I just want to know if he's all talk or if he's prepared to do what needs to be done. You can't just attack a nuclear power and hope for the best. You need to understand what can happen and make damn sure that you're ready to deal with the fallout.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Obama's Running A Very Smart Campaign

He's doing a nice job in framing himself as the "I'm tough as nails, but I won't start insane wars" candidate. Plus, Mrs. Clinton has done hime the favor as declaring herself as the candidate who's ideologically closer to Bush/Cheney.

This is gonna be fun.

[JANdad]

6. And Obama calls HRC "bush-Cheney lite"

“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."

I guess instead of Naive...the term Stupid should be used...

[AlGore-08.com]

11. And bombing Pakistan or sending in troops would not be "starting an insane war"?

Setting aside whether this is actually a clone of Bush's Preemption Doctrine (i.e. is Pakistan enough of an imminent threat that invading it or bombing it is justified under international law or would it be as unjustified as the invasion of Iraq), invading (or bombing) Pakistan risks a number of really, really bad outcomes.

As others have pointed out, Pakistan has nuclear weapons - - and it borders India, another nuclear nation. India and Pakistan have a history of religious conflict and conflict over territory. Pakistan and India have fought two full wars and numerous smaller scale military actions over control of Kashmir.

The reason that al Qaeda are able to have bases in Pakistan is because a good deal of rural Pakistan is governed not by the Pakistan government, but by local tribes, who are Taliban. The border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan is usually refered to as "lawless" because the federal government has no control over what occurs there.

Over the past few weeks, the Pakistani government is becoming less stable, with Musharraf suspending the Chief Justice and launching an assault on religious extremists holed up in the Red Mosque. Add a few American bombing actions or have an American strike force assassinate a Taliban leader and Pakistan could have another coup or even plunge into all out civil war. Either way, Taliban style religious extremists could end up in control of a country with nuclear weapons. Depending how crazy the new government ended up being, they could actually use those weapons against our troops in Iraq, or our vessels in the Arabian sea. Or they could launch them against India or Israel (another nuclear power) and start a regional nuclear war.

If Bush or one of his cronies said this same thing, DU would be screaming for impeachment...

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Did He Say "Invade"?

My distinct impression is that he's talking about taking out specific targets in the Pakastani hinterlands. As you say, "The border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan is usually refered to as "lawless" because the federal government has no control over what occurs there." - I don't imagine that a nuclear war would start over pinpoint action in that region.

[rinsd]

18. Ya know what. Never ever bitch about Clinton's war vote again.

Because when your guy says he wants to bomb another country, you line up to rationalize it.

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Bombing Specific Nogoodniks That Have Vowed To Destroy Us

Is different from invading a country. I think most reasonable people can easily see the difference.

[rinsd]

21. Most reasonable people see little difference between the two.

Its unreasonable people castigate one while praising the other.

[ieoeja]

22. If reasonable people see little difference between different wars...

... then there must be very few reasonable people in the world. And does that only apply to the anti-Iraq war crowd, or to the pro-Iraq war crowd as well. That is to say, is it also reasonable to support war all the time or is it only reasonable to oppose war all the time?

Proud member of the Majority Without Reason!

[BeyondGeography]

25. When Bill Clinton sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan, was that an invasion of Afghanistan?

Answer: No.

But you knew that already.

[madrchsod]

9. dumb.. really ,really dumb

a simple google search on that area should have been done before that statement was issued...

[flpoljunkie]

10. TPMCafe has more excerpts from Senator Obama's speech...

Because of a war in Iraq that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged, we are now less safe than we were before 9/11.”

“Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.”

“The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda's war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq – which didn't exist before our invasion – and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: al Qaeda and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses our mission. “

“By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.”

“When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.”

“I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban…. We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military – it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion.”

“There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard."

“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.”

“As President, I will create a Shared Security Partnership Program 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. This program will provide $5 billion over three years for counter-terrorism cooperation with countries around the world…”

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/aug/01/here_are_advance_excerpts_of_obamas_big_terrorism_speech_today

[flpoljunkie]

16. Link below to archived video of the speech will be available later today.

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event&event_id=269510

[SaveElmer]

17. Probably should have kept it under wraps a few more days...

Think twice about saying he would use military force in Pakistan without their permission...

[rinsd]

19. Look at Obama supproters fall all over themselves to praise him

Including some that love to call Clinton a war monger etc.

Is hypocrisy a disease with that campaign?

[ieoeja]

23. My Reasons.

Taliban - regime which supported Al Qaeda (and turned a modern society into a medieval hellhole).
Al Qaeda - terrorists who attacked us.
Saddam - despot who brutalized our enemies.
Musharaff (sp?) - despot whose regime is threated by Al Qaeda.

Seems pretty straight forward to me. Should have treated Saddam the exact same way Obama suggests we treat Musharaff, i.e. shower him with money and military equipment. Treat Al Qaeda the exact same way we treat the Taliban, i.e. kill them.

Of course, I don't go around calling Hillary Clinton a war monger either. I think she showed poor judgement on IWR, but that only makes her incompetent in my eyes, not a monster.

[Tellurian]

24. Hypocrisy is what his supporters feed on...

Who the hell is Obama to suggest invading and bombing Pakistan unilaterally? Has he ever met with Mushareff?

Have Bush and Cheney taken him into their confidence and was that the context of Powell's last tryst with Obama, setting Foreign Policy as a surrogate in waiting, advancing the Bush/Cheney agenda?