Obama Would Invade Pakistan

[Pangloss]

Well the no-war-ever crowd is gonna have a tough time swallowing this one. Their man Obama said today that he would invade Pakistan to hunt down Al Qaeda with or without Pakistan's permission. Unauthorized US raids under Bush have come under fire by the political left, but apparently Obama has no problem invading a sovereign nation without its permission in order to pursue US national security. How politically incorrect!

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm

[Reaper]

Uhhh, Pangloss, that's a review for a video game. You might want to check that link again....

[the tree]

Eh, use this one for now: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm

 

This is worrying to say the least.

[CDarwin]

Here's the real article: http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/08/obama-if-mushar.html

 

That's an interesting issue regardless. It's hard to know what effect that might have on Pakistan. On the one hand it might do something that Musharraf needs to do (crack down on the Taleban and Al Queda), without the political repercussions for him, but on the other it might completely undermine a government that can't take much more undermining. It's certainly a decision any leader should think long and hard about if we want to continue to count on a reasonably stable, reasonably friendly Pakistan.

 

EDIT: Hmm, it seems I was beat to the punch. Oh well, I've got a good American article .

[Realitycheck]

I think Bascule said it best - the inevitability of Hillary Clinton.

[ParanoiA]

Ah, the wonderful hypocrisy in american politics. This is how partisans get caught - sharing how they really feel.

 

Obama is right, of course. At least, in the context of hunting down Osama and 9/11 consiprators. I can't agree with violating a country's sovereignty for terrorists that are "high value" though. It has to be someone directly involved with an attack, in my opinion.

[Reaper]

I don't agree with his method. It would give both the Middle East and Europe more reasons to distrust us. And then the question is, what do you do with Iraq, thanks to Bush leaving that country is now far more complicated.

[CDarwin]

Obama is right, of course. At least, in the context of hunting down Osama and 9/11 consiprators. I can't agree with violating a country's sovereignty for terrorists that are "high value" though. It has to be someone directly involved with an attack, in my opinion.

 

Forget ethics for a minute even. Be a neocon. Would invading Pakistan to get Osama really be in our best interests strategically? That's why I say that any leader who makes that decision needs to think long and hard about it and completely disregard all this political "Get them terrists!" stuff.

[ParanoiA]

Forget ethics for a minute even. Be a neocon. Would invading Pakistan to get Osama really be in our best interests strategically? That's why I say that any leader who makes that decision needs to think long and hard about it and completely disregard all this political "Get them terrists!" stuff.

 

True. But in today's political climate, thinking long and hard isn't seen by the american people. So it becomes political suicide. They just assume "Get them terrists!" is the result of shooting from the hip...

[Sayonara]

Obama is funny. Funny Mr Obama.

[Pangloss]

Thanks Lockheed, I corrected the OP.

 

I really look forward to watching the fanatics abandon Obama over this. It's just gonna make my whole week. I might actually have to log into DemocraticUnderground.com just to see the cranial explosions. "Wait, I have to support him, because he's the farthest left! But oh no, I can't support him because he would go to war! But I HAVE to support him because he's criticizing Bush! But I CAN'T support him because he would use the military! But I HAVE to ...." <BOOF> (Error 420: Limited cranial capacity exceeded by ideological demands; please see administrator.)

[Sayonara]

I hope he DOES get elected, and I hope he DOES invade Pakistan.

 

It will be the shortest presidency in the history of the USA, and the most widely televised people's coup slash public execution.

 

Excellent entertainment. Hope it all goes down on a Saturday evening.

[CDarwin]

Uhm... I think that Pangloss and Sayonara may be overestimating how much the American people will really care. This isn't Cambodia or anything. Obama wouldn't even be "broadening the conflict", just taking the conflict where its needed to be for years. The problem is in destabilizing Pakistan.

[Sayonara]

The problem is in invading a major nation that has both nuclear capacity and good diplomatic and trade relations with most of the planet.

 

Pakistan is not some dictator-led backwards desert which everyone else has been trying to wipe off the globe for decades. There are 165 million people there; over six times as many people as there are in Iraq, living in less than twice the land area. They are the largest Islamic nation next to Indonesia. They have a GDP of nearly half a trillion USD (compare this to Iraq's measly 90 billion).

 

They have excellent ties with many nations including the US itself, having provided 5,000 troops to the coalition in the 1991 Gulf conflict. They of course have significant ties to Britain for historical reasons. They have legitimate arms and defence contracts with South Asian countries, most recently and notably China, which will not be lightly abandoned.

 

Invading Pakistan would be political suicide. The American people will start to care very shortly after the backlash begins.

[ecoli]

This is the problem with fighting a global war on terror. Terrorists tend to be in a lot of different places.

 

I think what Obama is saying, that we are going to be honest about this war, then we shouldn't ignore terrorists that are in hard to get to places. Yes, there are terrorists in places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It won't be as easy to get into these places as Iraq or Afghanistan...

 

His reasoning made sense to me. Pakistan isn't doing anything to stop terrorism... so, since they are threatening us, we have a right to try to take them out.

 

not saying it's an overall smart idea. But, the message is clear.

[Sayonara]

His reasoning made sense to me. Pakistan isn't doing anything to stop terrorism... so, since they are threatening us, we have a right to try to take them out.

Sleight of hand. "Not doing anything to stop terrorism" is not the same as "threatening us".

 

Let me reiterate, so we are all clear on this: 165 million people.

 

It didn't work the first few times, so what makes anyone think that wading into yet another country - a much bigger and much more important one this time - is going to generate a different result this time around? The USA administration is pretty much writing its own epitaph by this point. This is not Sparta, this is insanity.

[CDarwin]

The problem is in invading a major nation that has both nuclear capacity and good diplomatic and trade relations with most of the planet.

 

Pakistan is not some dictator-led backwards desert which everyone else has been trying to wipe off the globe for decades. There are 165 million people there; over six times as many people as there are in Iraq, living in less than twice the land area. They are the largest Islamic nation next to Indonesia. They have a GDP of nearly half a trillion USD (compare this to Iraq's measly 90 billion).

 

They have excellent ties with many nations including the US itself, having provided 5,000 troops to the coalition in the 1991 Gulf conflict. They of course have significant ties to Britain for historical reasons. They have legitimate arms and defence contracts with South Asian countries, most recently and notably China, which will not be lightly abandoned.

 

Invading Pakistan would be political suicide. The American people will start to care very shortly after the backlash begins.

 

You're assuming that US troops are going to be parachuting into Karachi or something. All we're talking about is moving forces into Waziristan to hunt down Taleban like Pakistan is supposed to have been doing in the first place. This isn't an invasion it's an incursion. The Pakistanis would be angry but I don't think they'd start launching nukes, at least under Musharruf. What they might do is get rid of Musharruf, and then it would become a wild card.

 

On the other hand it might polarize support behind Musharruf while similtaneously cleaning up a mess for him in the Northwest. That could be very good for us.

 

From where we're sitting it could really go both ways, and it would take some extremely careful analysis to figure out which direction is the most probable.

[Sayonara]

I think you are disregarding both the role that will be played by anti-US sentiments in the East, and the political and strategic ramifications of such an 'incursion' for countries which are not Pakistan.

 

This is not a trivial error.

[CDarwin]

This is the problem with fighting a global war on terror. Terrorists tend to be in a lot of different places.

 

I think what Obama is saying, that we are going to be honest about this war, then we shouldn't ignore terrorists that are in hard to get to places. Yes, there are terrorists in places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It won't be as easy to get into these places as Iraq or Afghanistan...

 

His reasoning made sense to me. Pakistan isn't doing anything to stop terrorism... so, since they are threatening us, we have a right to try to take them out.

 

not saying it's an overall smart idea. But, the message is clear.

 

Ok, I don't think that's quite what Obama is saying. No one is talking about "taking out" Pakistan. As Sayonara pointed out that would be a pretty tricky maneuver, not to mention a pretty stupid one considering Pakistan's at least lukewarm affection for the US and their general attachment to secularism (much better than US-hating religious extremism).

[Sayonara]

I am now leaning towards assuming that ecoli means "take [the terrorists] out".

 

That would make more sense.

[CDarwin]

I think you are disregarding both the role that will be played by anti-US sentiments in the East, and the political and strategic ramifications of such an 'incursion' for countries which are not Pakistan.

 

This is not a trivial error.

 

The move is justifiable internationally. "Pakistan wasn't doing its part" is all you really need say. I see what you're saying, but what if the risks of Pakistan falling to Islamicism outweigh the PR damage in the Middle East?

 

That's not trivial threat, and if Musharruf doesn't do anything about the foothold the Taleban is gaining in his country, might the US have to? I think we can all agree the best case scenario here is Musharruf keeping to his post-Red Mosque promise to go hard after militants, but what if that doesn't come to pass?

 

We also haven't discussed the possibility of this being a discreet intervention. Would it be possible to send special forces into Pakistan without anyone knowing about it?

[Sayonara]

Possibly, but this is not a film. I doubt it will be that simple.

 

I don't think "Pakistan wasn't doing its part" will wash, seeing as nobody but Tony Blair bought "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" for a second. At the very least, France will get extremely haughty about the whole thing, and Australia will sigh quietly.

[ecoli]

I am now leaning towards assuming that ecoli means "take [the terrorists] out".

 

That would make more sense.

yes, that's what I meant. Sorry for not being clear.

 

 

We're not going to try and depose Musharaf for failing at one aspect of his "duty," but we may very well go in and take care of the potential terrorist threat on his soil though.

 

It's not like it would be the first time the US has conducted operations on foreign soil, without having any particular beef against the sovereign nation, in general.

 

I doubt there would be a covert op, however. The politicians like the constituents to see that they're doing something, especially since terrorist acts are a very public display.

[CPL.Luke]

yyou also have to consider the possibility of musharref allowing US special forces in, has anybody seen the interview with jon stewart?

 

He doesn't want to mess with the US and he also see's the taliban in his country as a threat, as long as the force was extremely small and functioned more to help the pakistani military fight then it wouldn't be much of a problem.

 

Also we could get the UK and other countries behind the action as many nations have problems with al-quaeda and other such terrorist groups. The key is to work with the pakistani's to get what we want. Not like hat happened in Iraq.

[CDarwin]

yyou also have to consider the possibility of musharref allowing US special forces in, has anybody seen the interview with jon stewart?

 

He doesn't want to mess with the US and he also see's the taliban in his country as a threat, as long as the force was extremely small and functioned more to help the pakistani military fight then it wouldn't be much of a problem.

 

Also we could get the UK and other countries behind the action as many nations have problems with al-quaeda and other such terrorist groups. The key is to work with the pakistani's to get what we want. Not like hat happened in Iraq.

 

Yes, that would be ideal.