For all we have learned about trying to initiate war with these countries for false pretenses, this story seems out of place with the norm on this site. I hate to use the word norm, but this seems divergent.
Meet with other powers, certainly. conditions or not, meet.
but to redeploy troops to Afghanistan? This is some of the thinking that got us where we started in this ridiculous boondoggle. There is no purpose for war in that region that we would have anything to do with except for oil. I find the reasoning disturbing, as it ignores reality in so many ways.
We have no enemies in these places. We need oil. If we have war with these nations, there is only one reason. We protect the Saudi's that sent the people that flew into the tower that got us to attack Afghanistan for no reason other than to divert our attention from the land grab.
To be in favor of going into a country all ready diseased with religion, totalitarianism from a secular leader, a fundamentalist insurgency being held down by the former, warlords that control the region and are being bribed out to the highest bidder? I am sorry Steve, where have you been? If you think we should have war for oil now, then say so. But justify any aspect of our invading yet another country when they are stable enough to not use their nuclear weapons.
Won't you please allow these countries to kill themselves and not attempt to put us within yet another fight for nothing? This is going to cause endless war, as if that weren't what we have now. Is that what you favor? Actual invasion of a country that is an ally that has nuclear weapons and alienate them, and topple their leader? That kind of insanity should happen on it's own, by their people. We have seen the results of our intervention and it is moot. We can see the Bin Laden has always been an ally based on who protects him.
I'll have to read the speech later---just got up here in Hawaii. I have to say that I'm more convinced than ever than Obama's not the man to lead this country.
I think discussing military attacks on a current ally is incredibly foolish.
For me, the speech looks like typical Obama---lots of high-minded mush, but when I get to anything specific, I disagree.
As long as Obama thinks it's just dandy to go around attacking "unfriendly" regimes, he should be shunned.
He has already made it clear that anything goes for Iran, up to and including nuking them (although Iran has zero history of aggression, and has every right to develop nuclear technology as long as it is not developing weapons - heaven forbid it should have any kind of deterrent capability relative to the most rapaciously aggressive country in the region, Israel!). Now he says Attacking Pakistan is a fine idea - great! Aside from the fact that no matter what blowing up things and people in Pakistan will solve nothing and create yet more blowback, Musharraf already has virtually zero support from moderate (and I don't mean moderate the way the Bushies use it) and liberal Pakistanis, so anything can happen. Let's help to get those nukes into the hands of the lunatic fundie fringe in Pakistan, shall we?
Oh yes - and he is not exactly for a complete withdrawal from Iraq, now, is he?
He and Hillary are just a milder version of Bush in Democrat's clothing. So what else is new? fir eight years Bill Clinton presided over more Iraqi deaths than Bush has so far. In fact, in a very real way he "prepped" Iraq for Bush to come in and deliver the coup de grace.
I can see it now! Georgie and the Neocons make a good start on destroying the world, and then either Obama or Hillary take over the project and finish it.
Can't the U.S. get a government that does not have as its primary goal the end of the world as we know it?
Posted by Shirin at August 1, 2007 11:05 AMGood for Obama! Good for you! The sanctuary for terrorism in the world today and origin of aggression against Afghanistan, the safe haven for Al Qaeda and the Taliban is the outlaw frontier of Pakistan. Iraq is a diversion and incitement for terrorism. Obama has it right! It's predictable how the most ideological and naive on these sites deliberately twist Obama's words about military action against outlaws in Pakistan as an "invasion of a 'friendly' country" or a policy of pre-emptive war. Dems have to have a policy about the correct use of military force. Obama has laid it out. We are not imperialistis, but neither are we naive appeasers either.
Posted by Bill R. at August 1, 2007 11:27 AMUninvited military action against any portion of the territory of a friendly state is by definition invasion of a friendly state.
What part of that is difficult to comprehend?
Posted by Shirin at August 1, 2007 11:33 AMIt's predictable how the most ideological and naive on these sites deliberately twist Obama's words about military action against outlaws in Pakistan as an "invasion of a 'friendly' country" or a policy of pre-emptive war.
Yup.
There're some seriously conflicted commenters here.
Posted by snark at August 1, 2007 11:37 AMObama Steals Biden's Al Qaeda Afganistan/Pakistani Plan
The Biden for President Campaign today congratulated Sen. Barack Obama for arriving at a number of Sen. Biden's long-held views on combating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Much of what Senator Obama has proposed Senator Biden has already initiated or accomplished.
As part of the 9/11 bill that passed Congress last week, Senator Biden and Representative Lantos wrote the law that conditions aid to Pakistan on its cooperation with the United States in combating Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Before writing the law, Biden wrote to President Musharraf and Secretary Rice making clear his intent to do so.
Starting in January, Senator Biden has repeatedly called for surging more forces out of Iraq and into Afghanistan.
At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on January 30th, 2007, Sen. Biden discussed the need for a surge in Afghanistan at Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing.
At this same hearing, Sen. Obama asked two questions neither of which were about Afghanistan or Al Qaeda or Taliban. The first was on the topic of Iran. The second was on an issue that he admitted "seems somewhat parochial, but I think, as you'll see, is of concern across the world." Obama discussed the "stunning level of mercury in fish" and asked about a proposal for the U.S. adopt a ban on mercury sales abroad?
http://www.joebiden.com/home
Posted by JoeCHI at August 1, 2007 11:38 AMPS It also is, by definition, aggression against that friendly state (which is, as a consequence, unlikely to remain friendly after being attacked).
Posted by Shirin at August 1, 2007 11:40 AMMore naivete... Even the United Nations gives the right of self-defense for attacks launched against another country from their soil by an aggressive force. That said, when Bill Clinton launched cruise missiles against Bin Laden, a military attack, it hardly qualified as an "invasion." There is no objective of occupying land but to capture or destroy enemies. Bin Laden and his organization is fair game, in whatever country he is. He has no safe haven anywhere. Any country that provides safe haven to military forces that plan and carry out attacks against civilians and military does not qualify as "friendly" in any stretch of international law. Any political party that doesn't understand that is destined to lose, and deserves to lose. Try selling your line of thinking to the American people in an election.
Posted by Bill R. at August 1, 2007 11:43 AM"Even the United Nations gives the right of self-defense for attacks launched against another country from their soil by an aggressive force."
That is a self-servingly inaccurate and incomplete interpretation of the UN provision for self defense.
Posted by Shirin at August 1, 2007 12:01 PMBill R., you are definitionally challenged, both in your self-serving misinterpretation of the UN self-defense provision, and in your definition of invasion. In both cases you ignore the accepted definitions of the key terms and insist upon imposing your own.
Posted by Shirin at August 1, 2007 12:09 PMIf Obama teams up with Edwards, they might have the goods to beat Hillary in 2008.
Obama leads with middle and upper middle class, college educated voters, whereas Hillary leads with high school and lower educated voters. The problem for Hillary is, this demographic is historically bad about going to the polls to vote.
Since Gore is still a huge question mark, maybe we need to start looking at an Obama/Edwards ticket?
Posted by Christopher at August 1, 2007 02:44 PMGo Obama!
Gosh. What a refreshing situation it would be if the right and the left could find common ground! Invade Pakistan.....let's roll!
Posted by And Bagley Was A Friend of Mine at August 1, 2007 03:32 PMWhy would anyone want to support a candidate who wants to continue the presence in Iraq and thinks it's a dandy idea to nuke Iran and bomb Pakistan? In other words, who wants Bush lite in Democrat's clothing?
No to Obama, no to Hillary. There must be another alternative.
Posted by Shirin at August 1, 2007 04:23 PMChristopher: Since Gore is still a huge question mark, maybe we need to start looking at an Obama/Edwards ticket?
If you're with Obama, why not let him select his VP (there are plenty of good candidates available for the position). Both Gore and Kerry failed to heed the first criteria of selecting a running mate: it must be an obviously natural team when people see it. That's the one thing (and maybe the only thing) Clinton and GWB got right.
Posted by Marie at August 1, 2007 06:01 PM
"...attacks inside Pakistan if necessary to go after Al Qaeda's safe haven."
We're already losing a half dozen wars to these guys. It's not like one more's going to make much difference, so what's the BFD? Face it. There's only one way we're going to beat these guys: get them to adopt the American way of war. Sadly, simple doesn't mean stupid.
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at August 1, 2007 07:16 PMAmerican exceptionalism has had its day. And here is Obama, a potential US leader who thinks it's his duty to just invade and abuse the territory of an "ally" without the permission of its government, to dig out some enemy of ours from the "wind swept deserts" and "cave dotted hills". Other nations can see little American respect for the world community.
I hope we survive these calls to an exaggerated sense of our country's importance, an American destiny, a god-given entitlement to do any damn thing, to run over the UN Charter, to act out some fantasy of purifying the world of evil.
What Obama shares with too many of our leaders is a tragic blindness connected to a refusal to accept the defeat we have suffered. Rather than acknowledge the fact, the pathology is a stubborn one, that insists that there must be further aggression. How can Obama confuse hope with aggression? How many Pakistanis will US forces kill, as they smash and bomb their way through Pashtun territory.
Catastrophes stemming from the unintended consequences of invading people's countries should have bored its way through even the thickest American skull; but some still haven't learned from six years of disgrace and stupefying destruction.
The Bush policy of destroying and destabilizing sovereign states, is by now, six ruinous years after the 9/11 attack, causing even greater loss to us than was suffered on that terrible day in New York. We have more than adequate resources to defend ourselves from al-Qaeda while we pursue their members with police methods and technology.
I'm not impressed by Obama's messianic enthusiasm and cheerfulness for war. With the blood of a million Iraqis on our hands it's quite obscene to be looking for any more dividends of payback in the mountains and deserts of Pakistan.
Posted by Copeland at August 1, 2007 10:57 PM"I hope we survive these calls to an exaggerated sense of our country's importance"
Forget about you! Let's hope the human species survives, because more and more that is what is at stake.
"How many Pakistanis will US forces kill, as they smash and bomb their way through Pashtun territory."
Experience demonstrates that even if Obama's (or Hillary's) aggressions against Pakistan were limited to the "tribal areas" - something which is by no means assured - the consequences would adversely affect every Pakistani. That includes my adopted Panjabi Pakistani family who, though we are not related by blood, have accepted me as one of them, and who have taught me the true meaning of "family values" and intimacy and loyalty, and who are among the finest human beings the world has to offer. Given that the Panjab is in the northern part of the country, they are quite likely to suffer earlier and more than those in most other parts of the country. That will not sit well with me.
"Catastrophes stemming from the unintended consequences of invading people's countries should have bored its way through even the thickest American skull"
See just above regarding my Pakistani family.
"I'm not impressed by Obama's messianic enthusiasm and cheerfulness for war."
Oh, I AM impressed - in the most negative possible way.
"With the blood of a million Iraqis on our hands..."
Make that a projected minimum of two and a half million. Do not forget that Bill Clinton presided over eight years of massively deadly and debilitating sanctions as a result of which well over half a million children under five years old died just during the first few years - and it got worse, not better, after that. The total "excess" mortality as a result of the sanctions and Clinton's regular (1-3 times per week on average) bombing campaigns plus "Operation Desert Fox" (who comes up with these romantic names for exceedingly ugly actions?) was easily 1.5 million.
Posted by Shirin at August 2, 2007 12:27 AMhypothetically, just suppose a foreign power initiated operations within the USA to "deal with " e.g IRA/ETA/Fallun Gong/hijackers of airlines, and used smart missiles to minimise collateral damage.
Would Mr Obama support such operations too? I suspect not.
If you're with Obama, why not let him select his VP..
Marie - Obama can select whoever he wants and I doubt my opinion matters to him. I was simply offering a possible alternative to what most political scientists believe will a sweep for Hillary Clinton.
Posted by Christopher at August 2, 2007 05:21 AM