Obama orders air strike on Pakistan

[bascule]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/24/pakistan-barack-obama-air-strike

 

Obama has ordered an airstrike against what was once an "ally in the war on terror"

 

The goal of the strike was to target Al Qaeda leaders, potentially including Osama bin Laden

 

All I can say is... about time?

[Saryctos]

Sounds more like he just gave the nod of approval on an already planned strike.

[ParanoiA]

Damn. He's kicking ass already. I like this, not because I like violence and dead people but because he's showing that even though he has issues with GWB's tactics, he's no softy and won't be squeemish about going after OBL.

[Pangloss]

All I can say is... about time?

 

Er, haven't we been doing this for several months now? Not that I disagree, but I think it's just a continuation of existing drone-based strike operations.

 

 

Sounds more like he just gave the nod of approval on an already planned strike.

 

In what was would this be significant? Is the implication of this comment that he's not capable of such plans on his own, or that he wouldn't do them for ideological reasons? Because either is wrong, IMO.

[Saryctos]

Er, haven't we been doing this for several months now? Not that I disagree, but I think it's just a continuation of existing drone-based strike operations.

This is the same sentiment I felt after reading the OP which led me to comment on the implication that this was Obama's strike by Bascule's comment. Mainly because it produces the ideas that lead to posts similar to that which Paranoia responded with. These strikes are nothing new, 'nor were they ordered by Obama. This is business as usual and I don't think Obama needs to be credited already for something that he didn't really have a hand in. Although I suppose you could say that not canceling the strike shows something, but I wasn't arguing against that.

 

 

In what was would this be significant? Is the implication of this comment that he's not capable of such plans on his own, or that he wouldn't do them for ideological reasons? Because either is wrong, IMO.

See above.

[Pangloss]

Perhaps a semantics problem, not so much for the definition of "order" (or if you prefer, "nod of approval"), but for what constitutes "credit". It's not a program that Obama started, but he certainly authorized its continuation. That makes him directly responsible for the repercussions of continuing this policy in the face of Pakistani opposition (remember, they don't LIKE this).

 

Not only does he get credit for that, he's made a statement that's been heard by every diplomat and politician in the world. That doesn't mean he's about to turn into George Bush, even in the eyes of observers like Iran. But they are watching, and they know full well who authorized this attack. No question.

 

(My only objection to the OP was the "about time" comment. This was an Obama move, for sure, but it wasn't anything new.)

[JohnB]

The goal of the strike was to target Al Qaeda leaders, potentially including Osama bin Laden

Didn't seem to get them though, did it?

All I can say is... about time?

I understand now.

USA launching airstrikes and killing civillians = Okay.

 

Israel launching airstrikes and killing civillians = Bad.

 

From the article;

The US believes they are hiding in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan, and made 30 strikes last year in which more than 200 people were killed.

Do you ever wonder about how many of those 200 were children?

[DrDNA]

I believe that this being Obama's first significant act as Commander in Chief (I'm assuming that it is that), is indeed note worthy

I.e., Any time the US and a new Commander in Chief or its allies focuses the 'War on Terror' (if we are still calling it 'that') on terrorist encampments, groups or organizations, in known locations, it is a good thing.

 

I understand now.

USA launching airstrikes and killing civillians = Okay.

 

using Israel launching airstrikes and killing civillians = Bad.

 

 

 

Do you ever wonder about how many of those 200 were children?

 

I fail to see any correlation to Israel here, or its relevance to this thread.

Unless perhaps you are implying that Al Qaeda is using children as human shields in Pakistan in much the same manner that Hamas is using innocent women and children as human shields in Gaza.

 

Could that be what you meant?

 

If not, could you please elaborate on the correlation?

 

I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that there are not very many children living in Al Qaeda encampments in Pakistan.

Do you have :

1. evidence that states otherwise or

2. actual numbers on how many casualties were children?

 

According to the article:

""The first attack yesterday was on the village of Zharki, in Waziristan; three missiles destroyed two houses and killed 10 people. One villager told Reuters of phone that of nine bodies pulled from the rubble of one house, six were its owner and his relatives; Reuters added that intelligence officials said some foreign militants were also killed. A second attack hours later also in Warizistan killed eight people.""

 

I believe that it would be a leap of faith to assume that

 

1. the guy on the phone was non-partisan and/or

2. the owner and/or his relatives were not in cahoots with Al Qaeda (especially given the intel that indicates that "some foreign militants" were also neutralized).

 

Again, *I could be wrong, but would like to read any evidence that you might have that suggests otherwise.

Edited February 3, 2009 by DrDNA

[Pangloss]

The goal of the strike was to target Al Qaeda leaders' date=' potentially including Osama bin Laden[/quote']

Didn't seem to get them though, did it?

 

I had to pinch myself to make sure I wasn't getting the quotes backwards in reading the above. Isn't it funny how these turnabouts happen, whenever political winds shift?

[bascule]

I understand now.

USA launching airstrikes and killing civillians = Okay.

Israel launching airstrikes and killing civillians = Bad.

 

For the most part that's a valid point

 

Do you ever wonder about how many of those 200 were children?

 

Not as much as I should, perhaps

[ParanoiA]

Not as much as I should, perhaps

 

So Obama should be held for war crimes? I do wonder how this sort of thing will play out if Obama is forced into more and more warfare indulgence.

Edited February 4, 2009 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

Huh?

[abskebabs]

Interesting how nobody here seems to have any problem with continual air strikes on foreign soil pretty much heedless of the likely collateral damage it is causing.If the strategy were so great, he'd be dead by now wouldn't he? Makes me wonder why people complain so much in comparison about russia's actions in georgia, when its own ethnic population is affected there.

 

It just seems like double standards to me, though I'm sure somebody would criticise my view, saying I'm advocating doing nothing. I think they'd be right, I think "nothing" would be better than an aimless strategy that does more harm than good.

 

Edit:Correction, sorry JohnB, just read your post and realised you made a similiar comment.

[bascule]

For the record, I don't think Bush payed enough concern to Pakistan...

[Pangloss]

Well I think Richard "bomb them back into the stone age" Armitage might disagree with you on that. I hear he's looking for a job these days, and the current administration seems to approve of his policies.................................

[ParanoiA]

Interesting how nobody here seems to have any problem with continual air strikes on foreign soil pretty much heedless of the likely collateral damage it is causing.If the strategy were so great, he'd be dead by now wouldn't he?

 

Can we at least draw a partition between legitimate conflicts and those motivated by empirial insecurities? OBL and AQ are legitimate targets, as opposed to the mess in Iraq. We invaded Afghanistan for harboring these people, so why should any other country be different?

[JohnB]

I fail to see any correlation to Israel here, or its relevance to this thread.

The comment was directed at the quoted poster, pointing out that the actions being lauded in the OP were very similar to those condemned in other threads. This struck me as a double standard.

 

Something that bascule agrees to be "for the most part a valid point."

 

As to your other points;

I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that there are not very many children living in Al Qaeda encampments in Pakistan.

Probably true, however this was a village, not an encampment. Or does a village become an encampment if the US fires on it?

I believe that it would be a leap of faith to assume that

 

1. the guy on the phone was non-partisan and/or

2. the owner and/or his relatives were not in cahoots with Al Qaeda (especially given the intel that indicates that "some foreign militants" were also neutralized).

1. He's from the village that militants may have been in, therefore he is on their side?

2. The first casualty in war is the truth. Because "intelligence officials" say that there were militants in the house there were? And it further follows that anybody else in the house was in cahoots?

 

Yep, these heavily armed militants only go into houses when they're invited, right?

 

As to the number of child casualties, I doubt anybody has a figure. But I believe it would be a great leap of faith to assume that missiles can blow up buildings in villages for a year or two and not kill any. (Child casualties were brought up in an Israel thread, hence my mention of them here. Again to illustrate a double standard.)

 

For the record, any statement made by an "intelligence official" referencing combat is propaganda. Statements are issued as part of PsyOps to confound the enemy. (And sometimes to fool your own people.)

[bascule]

So Obama should be held for war crimes?

 

If war crimes occur those responsible should be held accountable.

 

And note that while I have repeatedly insisted that Bush should be tried for violating FISA and for outing Valerie Plame, I've never suggested he should be tried for "war crimes"

 

Well I think Richard "bomb them back into the stone age" Armitage might disagree with you on that. I hear he's looking for a job these days, and the current administration seems to approve of his policies.................................

 

I don't know specifically what Richard Armitage did in Pakistan.

 

Bush was calling Pakistan an "ally in the war on terror" at the same time Musharraf was harboring A.Q. Khan, a man who admitted to selling nuclear secrets to Iran and North Korea, and also shielding him from questions from both U.S. and IAEA investigators.

 

I don't think Pakistan has ever been an "ally in the war on terror" as much as it has been a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden.

[DrDNA]

Probably true, however this was a village, not an encampment. Or does a village become an encampment if the US fires on it?

 

I respect your opinion but disagree with it.

 

What would you prefer the US to do when there is intel that suggests that Al Qaeda members are operating out of certain houses in certain villages?

Send them chocolates and flowers?

 

My personal take on this is, if the US spent 1/100th the effort bombing the crap out of Pakistan and Afghanistan that is being spent trying to turn perfectly good warriors into policemen.............

 

And was spent grinding a certain country into dust....

 

Which created a vacuum for foreign militants to fill (and consequently the desire to try and turn perfectly good warriors into policemen)...

 

Who were/are hell-bent on getting in on the action so they can kill some "infidels" or get killed themselves so that they can go directly to heaven without passing Go and collect a bunch of dancing virgins ......

 

A country which a certain iron-fisted dictator kept in check....

 

An iron-fisted dictator which the US personally hand-selected and placed into his position of power specifically in order that he could launch missiles into a neighboring country......

 

Launch missiles into that neighboring country that was/is out of control and in a mess in large part because the US hand-selected and placed into power a certain Shaw, who was hated by many and loved by few, then overthrown by a rebellion/revolution......

 

.....well, then this mess would long be over.

 

 

For the record, any statement made by an "intelligence official" referencing combat is propaganda. Statements are issued as part of PsyOps to confound the enemy. (And sometimes to fool your own people.)

 

I don't have any evidence to dispute this but "any" is an awfully big, all encompassing word.

Edited February 5, 2009 by DrDNA

[iNow]

My personal take on this is, if the US spent 1/100th the effort bombing the crap out of Pakistan and Afghanistan that is being spent [doing all of these other things]

<...>

.....well, then this mess would long be over.

 

Yes, because bombing the crap out of the countries indiscriminately would NEVER cause long lasting mental scars and tensions, and almost CERTAINLY wouldn't create hordes of future generations who hated the Unites States even more than they do now. There wouldn't be ANY motivation for revenge or retribution for what we did to their mothers and fathers. You're right... Absolutely. Just wipe them out with lots of nukes without concern for humanity or precision and this will all be over for ever for ever and our children and grandchildren will be eternally safe and warm.

[Pangloss]

Bush was calling Pakistan an "ally in the war on terror" at the same time Musharraf was harboring A.Q. Khan, a man who admitted to selling nuclear secrets to Iran and North Korea, and also shielding him from questions from both U.S. and IAEA investigators.

 

I don't think Pakistan has ever been an "ally in the war on terror" as much as it has been a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden.

 

I think the question at this point is what to do about it. It's a bit of a three ring circus over there, and there is no clear path to success.

[DrDNA]

Just wipe them out with lots of nukes without concern for humanity or precision and this will all be over for ever for ever and our children and grandchildren will be eternally safe and warm.

 

Nukes?

I never said anything about nukes.

I can count the tiles on the roof of my house with Google Maps/Earth.

Therefore it is logical to assume that the military can count the the blackheads on my nose when I am in my back yard.

If they can't drop napalm on poppy fields and hit other strategic targets with that intel, Lord help us all.

Burn the poppy fields and you cut off the head of the snake.

Then bomb the snake's body.

That may not be a complete solution, but it's a dang good start.

 

You do realize where a large portion of the $$ is coming from right?

[iNow]

Right... I see you're not about to grant me some rhetorical license. My point remains. Broad based/non-specific strikes will plant a motivational seed of future resistance and more violence and blood shed. Showing restraint and working in more civilized fashion with patience has a greater likelihood of leading to lasting change.

 

I'd rather take longer to do it right and have their children be our allies in the future, than to do it wrong now and have their children be future enemies, and have to start again later from exactly the same place we are at today. I see your approach as more like, "Why do it right now for half the cost when we could do it wrong by puffing our chests at three times the detriment?"

 

 

 

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions.

 

They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use. Our security emanates from the justness of our cause; the force of our example; the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

 

We are the keepers of this legacy, guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort, even greater cooperation and understanding between nations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-obama.html

Edited February 5, 2009 by iNow

[bascule]

I think the question at this point is what to do about it. It's a bit of a three ring circus over there, and there is no clear path to success.

 

Not declaring them an ally is a good start

[Pangloss]

Well that's an interesting point. They say they're an ally, and they do go out and attempt to do various anti-terrorism activities, many of which promptly fail for various reasons. If we stop calling them an ally, do you think that will help them to fight terrorists better, or make it harder? And what sort of signal do you think it will send to the other faction groups currently vying for power in Pakistan?

 

This is exactly the sort of dilemma that the White House has to deal with, and it all falls under the heading of "real politik". Sometimes you have to do things that you don't particularly like.

 

(And this is another one of those areas where partisanship back home really hurts, btw. Obama is about to have to employ quite a large number of foreign policy moves that were also employed, under much criticism from the left, by the Bush 43 administration. Now they'll be criticized by conservatives instead.)