. . . it is impossible to achieve a condition of mutually assured destruction . . . .

I suspect most Americans would be quite satisfied with a condition of unilaterally assured destruction.

"Nuke 'em" is the philosophy of bars and T-shirt shops. Obama fails to pander to this dart-league wisdom and he is viciously attacked from all sides.

The President should be smarter than that. The real issue here should be that our current one isn't.

By the way, here is a sane nuclear weapon position. The United States would use nuclear weapons ony under these circumstances;

1) If attacked with a nuclear weapon. Let there be no doubt that if a nation, or a terrorist organization protected by a nation, attacks the US with a nuclear weapon, the response will be rapid and massive. The offending nation and all of its population would likely cease to exist.

2) If faced with an imminent nuclear attack. Let there be no doubt that the government of The United States will protect its citizens against attacks from a foriegn nation, even if this requires the first use of nuclear weapons. First strike cannot be taken off the table.

3) If conventional US forces are faced by an overwhelming enemy. Let there be no doubt that the government of the United States will use whatever means neccesary to protect its fighting men and women from slaughter. Tactical use of nuclear weapons also cannot be taken off the table.

I expect this will raise some debate. Let me assure you that I am not a troll. I believe this to be an honest statement of US nuclear strategy, no matter what party is in The White House.

Yes, yuk yuk yuk. Plenty of people would like magic wands too. ;)

Pakistan is presently a nuclear power, run by relative moderates, stable, and moving towards further liberalization.

The general public is highly religious, but moving towards moderation, modernization, trade, and cultural liberalization.

Radical militants in the hills on the border of Afghanistan represent fundamentalist religion and anti-Western sentiment. They would like a coup, and to take control of Pakistan's nuclear arms.

A nuclear strike would create a huge reactionary surge in militancy and religious fundamentalism, giving them that coup and the nuclear arms.

Oh Bull. Here we go with the Ralph Nader crap. Get real!

I hate to break it to you, "the Democrats" don't tell the country what to do. This is a democracy. Meaning to a large extent, the people tell the leaders what to do, and vote for the leaders who agree with them. Our politicians are much more "administrators" than "leaders."

Which is why Nader would never be elected, because the vast majority of people would never vote for him. Not if he got several times the votes he can actually get.

Even if he was made President in a lottery, he still wouldn't accomplish a damn thing. The American people would still elect the same Congresspeople. Congress would still be the same, still hold the same political positions, and still vote the same.

All Nader would do is ensure the Congress gives him veto-proof, politically moderate bills, far to his right, one after another, until they found an excuse to impeach him.

Get real. Anyone saying they're going to vote for Nader or not turn out for the best Dem candidate, is a complete idiot.

Most people will go in for the first one, but the other two are problematic. Assured Destruction as a deterrent strategy only works if the enemy is assured of destruction. So, it is reasonable to expect a massive retaliation strike if we are ever hit with a nuclear weapon since that is the only way to create deterrence.

I want to come back to this in a second, but let me first tell you why I think the second two of your scenarios are problematic.

A first strike is problematic because imminence can be a difficult think to determine, and the costs of a mistake are enormous. In other words, the margin of error in making a nuclear first strike is infinitesimal. It is hard for me to imagine a scenario where we can see it coming, be sure of our intelligence, and cannot find any other way to stop the attack.

And the latter may be the key, and the reason that the last of your scenarios is also unlikely. Our military capability outside of our nuclear arsenal out paces every other military on earth. If we are faced with an imminent attack, there is probably a way to stop it without using nuclear weapons. And it is very unlikely that we will ever face an opposing military capable of overwhelming our conventional forces and creating a true existential crisis for the United States.

To clear that up, let's assume that there is an opposing military and it can overwhelm our conventional forces. Those facts alone would not justify the use of nuclear weapons. The use of nuclear weapons would only be justified if our conventional forces were overwhelmed on our territory such that the destruction of our government was extremely likely. But since that is itself extremely unlikely--our oceans do protect us and our Navy is pretty damn amazing. --we can pretty much rule this out as an option.

Finally, let's get back to the first scenario. The retaliatory use of nuclear weapons is going to depend on the nature of the initial attack. With the Soviet Union, it was known that they had a large stock of nuclear weapons capable of completely destroying the United States, but that is not the case with the new nuclear states. Pakistan has four or five bombs (assuming they have one that works at all). North Korea has roughly the same number, again assuming that they have one that works.

For the sake of argument, let's say that we are hit with a single nuclear bomb in Los Angeles or New York. While the destruction would be horrible, our government would still have the time to make reasonable decisions about the appropriate response. It's hard for me to believe that our allies in Europe and Asia, who would not be directly affected by the attack, would nonetheless accept the complete nuclear destruction of the country that initiated the attack. We would probably respond with conventional weapons and be better off for it. An interesting issue would be whether a limited use of nuclear weapons would be acceptable.

Of course, it is different if we are subject to many nuclear attacks, but it is difficult to say how many explosions would be necessary to justify a complete nuclear destruction of the attacking enemy. And it is certainly murky if the attack is initiated by terrorists since there would not necessarily be any state actor to respond against.

So, to sum up, I do not see any situation where a nuclear first strike is reasonable, nor do I see any situation where a nuclear strike would be necessary to stop an overwhelming destruction of our conventional forces. And finally, a retaliatory use of nuclear weapons will only work in limited circumstances.

Reading the text of Obama's speech it is clear the comment about Pakistan was in the context of, first, shifting away from the military enthusiasms of Bush, and second, pressuring Pakistan to deal with its internal problems. Obama spend a few paragraphs talking about making assistance conditional before specifying the Waziristan issue.

And the nicely put phrase, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will" places two conditions in front of our acting, knowledge and lack of cooperation from Pakistan.

It is not macho posturing, rather a sober statement about necessity. The "if's" are not clear-cut, of course. It will be uncertain how actionable the intelligence actually is, and how uncooperative Musharraf is. But Obama is simply saying a President must act to seek justice and won't simply sit on his hands. Actionable intel is proved by the action; one has to be right. (Bush wasn't.)

Radical militants in the hills on the border of Afghanistan represent fundamentalist religion and anti-Western sentiment. They would like a coup, and to take control of Pakistan's nuclear arms.

They would also like more opportunities to present the US as full of politicians that do not respect Pakistan's sovereignty.

" Senator Obama saying that we should go after Osama even inside Pakistan if we knew how and where to strike is so utterly common sensical (sic)"

Invading a major ally in the "Global War on Terror" is "utterly common 'sensical'"? A Muslim country of 160 million people that has nuclear weapons? Is France next?

Well the Paks aren't amused.

News report:
WASHINGTON - First Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was attacked by political rivals at home. Now he is under fire from abroad.

A senior Pakistani government official Friday criticized as "irresponsible" a threat Obama made this week to launch unilateral American military strikes against Al Qaeda havens in a remote border region of the Muslim nation.

Obama's comments also stirred street protests in Pakistan and criticism from Pakistani-Americans living in the Chicago area.

"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

Obama's threat to attack the territory of a Muslim ally without the consent of its government also could have broader ramifications for his standing in international Islamic public opinion. . .

I think you're somewhat overstating Obama's speech. "threat"? "invade"? Those are loaded words. For example, invade is defined as

"To enter so as to attack, plunder, destroy, or conquer:"

In the sense that we invade Pakistan in Obama's hypothetical, to enter so as to attack applies. To plunder, destroy, or conquer? Not at all. But all of those are carried as connotations with that word. Even threat seems to strong a word (IMO). There's was no sense that the second Obama became President, there would be some impending, inevitable strike in Pakistan, let alone a full-out invasion.

I understand Pakistan is a touchy situation, but lets be honest, if Usama Bin Laden, one of the FBI's top-10 most wanted and probably THE most wanted international criminal by the U.S. was available for capture and Musharraf wouldn't cooperate, can we call him an important ally? Meanwhile, that whole part of the speech is part-and-parcel with the current strategy being pushed both by Bush and Congressional Dems, in terms of upping pressure on Musharraf, both by making his military aid conditional and by gently rattling the saber (a position agreed with by none other than vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, Lee Hamilton).

There are obvious pitfalls and drawbacks, and the position he staked out was obviously more right-wing and hawkish than otherwise, but it certainly is not nearly as beyond-the-pale as has been suggested by some.

Invading a major ally in the "Global War on Terror" is "utterly common 'sensical'"?

Note that characterizing it as an invasion was the sloppy work of the AP, rather than the text of the Obama speech ... the speech itself restrains itself to unliteral (and in the context, quite evidently military) action violating Pakistan's sovereignty.

But when you consider the muli-syllabic words I use ... and I could have avoid them, but the passage would only grow in length if I did ... its easy to understand why the AP chose to dumb it down.

Though I realize it's almost impossible for party hacks to understand this, "democracy" means that any "idiot" gets to vote for the candidate who best represents their own interests.

The Democratic Party is not representing my interests. I do not see how voting against my interests is democratic. Sounds more like a totalitarian system to me.

The only way you change things is to change things and the only way you elect people to change things to elect people who will change things.

If I can't find a party to vote for I can at least work to support causes that matter in the hope that someday others will take up the issue and carry it forward. Short of catastrophy, that's how all great changes happen and I for one would rather work for peaceful change rather than having some calamity force Americans into the understanding that they're driving over a cliff.

Must the bridge collapse before we fix the bridge? Must our troops be killed without reason and our people attacked in surprise before we realize the folly of our foreign policy?

Is it only always about politics no matter how badly we are going in the wrong direction?

I hope I'll have a better candidate to vote for than Nader, but Nader is good enough icon for me this week. Nader is not going to tell you the bridge is safe when it is not. He's going to tell you what you don't want to hear. And there is a lot that Americans don't want to hear that they need to know.

So what were the smart things Obama said?

Besides alienating an ally and heating up the nuclear brinkmanship game.

I think bloggers are in for a shock at how unimportant they are. Obama, Clinton and Edwards are all take the same position that America has had since before Wilson.

Bush has continued the policy toward Pakistan that began with Reagan, to be both generally worried about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, and to be suckered into believing Pakistan is mainly interested in quelling terrorism, as opposed to having terrorists avaiable to attack India is clear. There is a slice of the blogshere is protective of military dictators as long as they are Muslims is precisely why Democratic candidates have such a tough balancing act. They can attack Bush for not going into Tora Bora or across the Pakistani border to getBin Laden and Al Qaeda as well as distracting us from Afghanistan by launching a premature attack on Saddem. They also need to make clear to the large majority of Americans who do not favor unilateral surrender that they realize there is an enemy who wishes to kill Americans and many others and that this is not time for an America First revival.

Obama is not likely to prevail this time arround because he does not seem as sure as Clinton. Not because he is a realist.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Let's try to find something.

He is pointing out that nuclear weapons are scarcely ever tactically effective, and that in the absence of a geographically defined opponent with nuclear capability it is impossible to achieve a condition of mutually assured destruction

Analysis:
1. Nukes have only been used twice, by the US on two Japanese cities, so I guess he means that they were not tactically effective, which re-opens up the whole question of why the US did it.

2. The fact that the MAD restraint on the US using nukes is gone I guess means, according to Obama, that the US is now free to use nukes. But if they're not tactically effective, and he declared he wouldn't use them in Pakistan, . . .clarity, anyone?

People in other countries start puckering up when US politicians start talking about the use of nuclear weapons. Can you blame them?

Pak is not a derogative, it's slang, and it is used in Pakistan. I have seen it used often in Pakistani tabloids and similar Pakistani media, in headlines and in sports and entertainment reporting and such. You are correct that "Paki" is considered a derogative.

. . . you can't buy this kind of publicity for a candidate as far as making him look like a tough guy, a contender with Reagan fans.

Hmm. How many "Reagan fans" are planning on voting in the Democratic presidential primaries? And, then, why vote for a Hillary clone when you've got the original product on line #1.

artappraiser,

Musharaf is on his way out and perhaps will be replaced by a moderate civilian leadership in Pakistan. But to believe that a civilian, moderate or even a liberal, leadership in Pakistan would completely eliminate fundamentalism from the tribal areas would be naïve or I should say utterly ridiculous. Their aggression comes from thirty years of Pakistani state and the US sponsored fundamentalism in that area. No one can change that by just snapping fingers or showing how close their fingers are to nuke triggers.

It does not mean that militants are given a free reign. Both Pakistan and the US should continue to cooperate with each in dealing with the Pakistani or Afghani Taliban and other militants in that area. And the military cooperation should not be ruled out in that area. However, threatening to use nukes and military intervention in the area without the Pakistani government approval would be an unmitigated disaster.

The moderate politicians after replacing Musharaf will continue to rely on the Pakistan army to deal with the militants in the area. If the Pak army refuses to cooperate with the future civilian leaders in Pakistan, a situation might arise when the civilian leadership may have to request the US to help quash the militantancy in that area. That to me is the only scenario when the US army can enter Pakistan or its tribal areas. Still, the consequences of such an action would be far greater than what we can now fathom or anticipate.

As far as Musharraf's future is concerned, I often see oversimplification of the situation in blog commentary, in the nature of "he's on a tightrope and the radicals will have nukes if we lose him." This is not the case. The Islamist parties don't have the votes to get much power. They are a thorn, a problem to deal with for the majority which results in civil liberties problems for the majority which the majority does not like very much. (Your great uncle Aziz in the sticks might be an Islamist, and you never liked him and his ilk, he's an embarrassment, but you don't want him rounded up and "disappeared" without charges and you don't exactly like dumb Americans telling you what to do about him.) The Red Mosque story there, for example, is way secondary to the Chaudhry and "Bhutto and Musharraf in the next election" and "Musharraf as Bush puppet" stories.

Peter Bergen, July 12 has a good big picture summary:

...In March, Musharraf made what would turn out to be a spectacular mistake--suspending Chief Justice Chaudhry....

He also presided over an unpopular, and ultimately unsuccessful, war against local militants in the tribal region of Waziristan. Meanwhile, he aligned himself so closely with the United States that Pakistanis began referring to him as Busharraf. Plus, as we know from our own political system, simple fatigue with the incumbent will generally set in after eight years of rule.

Almost overnight, the fired chief justice became a hero to all sorts of disparate groups fed up with Musharraf. The first wave of protests in support of Chaudhry was undertaken by the most unlikely of demonstrators: lawyers wearing black suits, pressed white shirts, and black ties. When they stormed the entrance to the Supreme Court building, it made for great television....

And that's where the government made another mistake. A week into the crisis, on March 16, GEO was carrying live pictures of demonstrations around the Supreme Court. Hamid Mir, GEO's Islamabad bureau chief, told me he had set up cameras on the roof of his office: "We were showing police firing rubber bullets on the protesters and tear gas--the first time that the Pakistani people were seeing these scenes live." About an hour later, policemen armed with guns and lathi sticks started gathering outside the GEO office, then entered the building's reception area and beat the receptionist...

Contra the widespread myth that democracy would merely empower Pakistan's Islamists, it would likely damage the MMA, the coalition of religious parties that has never succeeded in winning more than 12 percent of the vote. (And that was in the 2002 election, which Musharraf fixed to disadvantage the two main secular parties.) In fact, polling indicates that the MMA will garner around 5 percent of ballots in the upcoming election. The Islamist militants of the Red Mosque, in other words, may be feisty enough to weaken Musharraf politically through their protests and violence, but they are not nearly numerous enough to run the country.

So who might benefit from the upcoming vote, if not the Islamists? That's where Benazir Bhutto comes in. For months, Islamabad was atwitter about the nature of the deal Musharraf and Bhutto were widely presumed to be cutting. The rumored agreement would allow Bhutto to return to Pakistan to campaign for her party--although not to run for prime minister, as she has already served the two terms allowable under the present constitution--while Musharraf would drop the corruption charges that he used to chase her out of the country in the first place. Bhutto would then play the key role in selecting the next prime minister. For his part, Musharraf would retain the presidency....

"US keen on Mush-BB deal," by Kalyani Shankar, August 3

...Washington's 'staunch ally' in the War on Terror is facing clamorous opposition at home from both pro-democracy protesters and radical Islamists. The US feels Gen Musharraf can survive in power if he strikes a deal with Ms Benazir Bhutto and makes her Prime Minister....

There's more Bhutto news all the time.

Now what do Obama's statements do in this context? Surely his advisors know this context?

You don't seem to understand the situation. We cannot reasonably be "upping pressure on Musharraf", who has fully cooperated with the US in turning over anti-American fighters, to do something he is politically incapable of doing.

I wish I could believe he's done this, but I'm not convinced.  What he has done is let "tribal areas" operate as quasi-independent regions, much the way war lords operate in Afghanistan.  Withdrawing the Pakistan Army from those regions leaves it to Afghanistan and NATO to stop holes in a very leaky border. Perhaps this is all he can do.  But even there, I'm not convinced.  Musharraf immediately pardoned the "rogue" scientist more singly responsible for nuclear proliferation than any other, and only recently removed some of the strictures on his "house arrest".  Maybe that's all Musharraf could have done.  It seems that in excusing him for what he's done, or not done, we've rather re-defined the idea of "strong man".  I'm quite willing to return to the days of civilian government in Pakistan...even if he's "our" dictator, he's not a very good "our" dictator.

aMike

The Democratic Party is not representing my interests. I do not see how voting against my interests is democratic...

The only way you change things is to change things and the only way you elect people to change things (is) to elect people who will change things.

there is an important distinction to be made between voting and electing.

and when who you vote for is not the person your vote helps elect, it becomes useful to reevaluate what you think you know about causal relationships.

Obama's threat to attack the territory of a Muslim ally...

what makes musharaff/pakistan an ally in the hypothetical proposed by obama?

what makes musharaff/pakistan an ally at all beyond george w bush's say-so?

any country knowingly providing safe-haven for bin laden and al qaeda is not an ally. realpolitik or no realpolitik.

...threatening to use nukes...

what are you talking about?

All or nothing thinking here.

Part of Pakistan supports the West, part supports Al Qaeda.

Musharaff, according to most accounts, belongs to the part the supports the West and does what he can -- that's why he is an ally. His hold on power is shaky and the prospects of moving Pakistan back to a democracy are also shaky, so we support him rather than risk enabling the theocrats to take over the place.

Would it be a better outcome if we just declared that since Bin Laden is there we would now invade this country of 160 million?

Some enterprising reporter should ask Hillary whether she would rule out a Tancredo Doctrine nuclear attack on Mecca...

I'd also like to know what her policy would be on a possible Martian invasion.

In fairness I did think Mr. Obama did a pretty decent job of fielding a really stupid question. But Clinton's answer was more professional.

Thanks especially for the numbers. I had seen repeated assertions that the moderates would prevail in Pakistan but had seen no basis for the assertion and hence was unable to assess whether this was so or simply wishful thinking.

Exactly. What if the Chinese sent a squad of assassins into Los Angeles to remove an exiled dissident? And bragged about it! Would our reaction be any different than Pakistan's will be if Obama gets a chance to carry out his Rambo fantasy?

Well, if you voted for Gore your vote didn't elect him either so I guess that proves you are just as wrong. If Democrats can't win without the left maybe they ought to begin representing the left. Or we can solve this dilemma with a one party system. We'll just salute and vote for the corporate war party.

This isn't about the Democrats or the Republicans, but the Country. Until some big change is made in how we elect a president that person will always be either a Democrat or a Republican. And, if a significant percentage of non-Republican voters vote for Green candidates, that person will always be a Republican.

Sure, the Democratic Party could select a Green as their candidate, and in many cases we would have a better candidate if they did. But, Green candidates don't run as Democrats in the primaries, nor do they appeal to a majority of the Democratic voters. So, like just about everything, we are left with chosing between two options, neither of which fits our idea of perfection.

"They" care if you vote your conscience because "they" is us and we don't want to ever again have a criminal president like Bush. "They" want all of us to use logic in our voting, not just go off and pout because the perfect candidate isn't running as a Democrat.

I wish we did have a voting system that allowed us to express our real desires and vote for a candidate without the slightest chance of winning, without that being a half vote for the candidate we least want to win. That's why I favor instant runoff voting.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Some views from Pakistan

Dawn, Pakistan
'Loud-Mouth Obama'

. . . Islamabad has deployed 90,000 soldiers in the area, 800 of which have been killed in action, while hundreds of civilians have been murdered in suicide bombings. This excludes the over 100 people who were killed during the crackdown on the rebels at the Lal Masjid [Red Mosque]. But this is the amazing question: If Pakistan hasn't succeeded in eliminating terrorists on its soil, what have U.S.-led forces done been able to do in Afghanistan for the past six years? Indiscriminate bombings have killed thousands of Afghan civilians and the Taliban are as strong as ever, while coalition forces have failed to check the two-way movement of militants across the border. . .
-------------------------
The Nation, Pakistan
Obama-Attack on Pakistan Would Fail

. . . Considering Washington's ultimate goal of rooting out terror, it will have to act more constructively and rationally. The tribesmen are religious conservatives - in other words sticklers for outmoded traditions and with an abysmally low literacy rate. With this reality on the ground, ruthless measures to curb their sympathies for ethnically-identical Pushtuns [Taliban] would prove counterproductive. To change their mindset will require an extensive program of social and economic development and, indeed, a complete review of American policies toward the Muslim world. . .
--------------------------
Pak Tribune, Pakistan
Republican Tancredo's Threat to Muslim Holy Sites Enrages Pakistanis

. . .The Federal Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afghan Khan Niazi informed the house that the U.S. Republican Presidential hopeful's statement is a serious matter. Tom Tancredo, he said, is mentally ill, and that we have the capacity to protect the Islam's Holy sites. He said that a unanimous resolution to this effect would be passed in the National Assembly soon. . .
-------------------------------
http://www.watchingamerica.com/index.shtml

Thanks art! It was wondering how far down this thread I was going to have to read before seeing someone discussing reality instead of just sniffing crotches in an election year.

9 out of 10 bloggers at TMPCafe seem to care less whether Pakistan is a real country or just a mile post on the road to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The up-coming elections in Pakistan will have far greater impact on the future of Al Qaida than Rambo himself taking out the top 100 leaders of Al Qaida could possibly have.

"Nukes have only been used twice, by the US on two Japanese cities, so I guess he means that they were not tactically effective, which re-opens up the whole question of why the US did it."

Because they were STRATEGICALLY effective. Japan surrendered after the second strike in spite of very strong opposition to surrendering by the Japanese army. One can argue to what degree the nuclear strikes were responsible and to what degree the entry of the Soviet Union into the war was responsible, but both undoubtedly played a role.

While a case can be made for conducting a surgical strike against the Al Quaida leaders in Pakistan if it becomes feasible, no serious Presidential candidate should publicly advocate such a policy because it will only serve to poison the U.S. relationship with Pakistan. Obama made a serious mistake in doing so. (I was in favor of Obama before this, but have discontinued my support because of this serious lapse of judgement.)

Also, a President should deny that the United States had any plans for doing this. But if the possibility of a well defined surgical strike becomes possible, it may well be a good idea to make one. Preferably using cruise missles or even drone planes, and, and at most a commando unit. If it can be done in a way so that culpability can be denied, so much the better.

"The fact that the MAD restraint on the US using nukes is gone"

say what?

MAD only applied to the Soviet Union and still applies to Russia. No one else can assure destruction after a first strike.

Jack

Don--

1. Your supposed re-iteration of the 'invade' definition irresponsibly omitted "attack". You should be less obvious in your word-twisting.

?

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear (I left out quotation marks), but I definitely mentioned "attack". Not twisting at all. Here's a sentence you yourself quoted and italicized:

" In the sense that we invade Pakistan in Obama's hypothetical, to enter so as to attack applies."

Let me add quote marks and formatting/re-wording to make that clear

In the way we would invade Pakistan in Obama's hypothetical, "to enter so as to attack" as part of the definition of "invade" applies.

Clear?

I agree.

However, that's the weakest of the 4 different goals of invasion, and the word itself carries the connotations of all 4 goals, hence me calling it a "loaded" word. Dig? "Incursion" seems much more apt: it captures the border crossing and the attack, without implying plunder, utter destruction, and least of all (and most importantly) conquer.

You see where I'm going with this? While the technical definition of invade might capture what Obama is suggesting, the colloquial definition badly misconstrues it, and there are other words that are both denotative-ly and conotative-ly accurate, so why not use those instead? Calling it an invasion just obscures debate, conjuring images of an occupation or country-wide assault that simply has not been suggested.

Sorry if that was confusing/ambiguous.

No, they're not.The operative word in your quoted definition is clearly "or".

Er...no. You need to separate denotation from connotation. The technicalities of the dictionary definition have little/no impact on the connotations the word carries by rote. A connotation is more an association than a literal definition. In this case, the connotations are borne out of the denotation, but in a way where the word is always taken at its strongest when used colloquially. And it's almost self-evidently true. You see posters all over even this site exasperated that Obama would suggest invading and occupying a country of Pakistan's size and with its arsenal. Of course, he never suggested as much, but the word invade carries connotations that do suggest as much. Which is why it is not really the right word to using here. "Incursion" is much better.

Your reasoning, or lack of it, is typical of Father-Knows-Best Americans who are unable to empathize with the different views and concerns of citizens and officials in other sovereign countries.

Er...no its not. But I have to laugh at you leading with this right after you lead your previous paragraph with this:

You don't seem to understand the situation

According to you, my mistake isn't assuming that I know best, its not understanding that, in fact, you do. My bad!

As artappraiser helpfully explained below, Musharraf's current "delicate position" is somewwhat overstated. Just a couple days before Obama's speech, there was an article in the Times of London about Bhutto returning to Pakistan to team with Musharraf and isolate extremists.

Is there potential for political backlash? Yes. I fully understand and accept that. However, I happen to think that Bin Laden or al Zawahiri are worth that risk, though obviously, the devil is in the details. How reliable is the intel? How specific? How precarious would the mission be? How many troops would it take? How long? How visible? Chances of civilian casualties? On and on and on. There are a ton of things you'd have to look at.

However

Using military force in a foreign country to capture an FBI top ten criminal who is supposedly controlling terrorists all over the world from a cave hasn't worked,

Er...yes and no. I mean, we've really only had 2 shots, yeah? Torra Borra and again in 2005. We botched Torra Borra (some claim by outsourcing the job to Afghani troops, I really don't know enough about it to say), and in 2005, we decided, as per the above devil-in-the-details line, that it wasn't feasible. I.e., overall, the intel may have been reliable, but it wasn't "actionable".

and its reckless suggestion in this case is mobilizing Pakistanis against the US and against their president.

Eh. Its easy here to just pin blame on Obama. It fits the narrative nicely. Their Foreign Minister, I believe, gave a nice quote to that effect. But the articles I read described citizens as pissed off, if not more pissed off, at Tom Tancredo. And what's more, that Obama's comments had at worst fanned flames that were already lit by the Bush Admin rattling hte saber in the same exact manner as Obama did, by coyly suggesting we just might already be carrying out such operations in Waziristan, and just keeping it hush-hush. So, did the comments help? Probably not. In perspective, however, what was more damaging: Obama's narrow statement, or irresponsible reporting blowing it up by using sloppy language to sound much worse than it was when those citizens were already enraged by Tancredo and Bush?

So, yeah. In the overall picture, I don't really think the diplomatic consequences of the comment are that severe, and the policy itself is sound. Even Obama's critics on the left have agreed the policy is sound (again, Clinton just was more subdued in her way of saying the same thing as Obama, and I think it was Biden who explicitly said the policy was right, but you just don't talk about it).

Or at least stay out of the Twin Towers. Real problems exist. Hitler started with just a small band of rabid powerless followers so OBL's future impact cannot be ruled out.

That said, the ReThuglicans are indeed fear junkies and do their best to stampede Congress and voters alike by playing on our fears which is what you were driving at.

Edited to acknowledge point made by prior poster.

J. McCutchen

"The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one," (s)he said. ......

And still they come

Taiwan is an interesting issue. I can't claim to have studied it. Nonetheless, earlier this year, I had the opportunity to listen to a professor who explicitly self-identifies as an isolationist. His argument was that China couldn't retake Taiwan. He called it the "Million Man Swim". His argument was basically that China does not have the conventional capabilities to do it and that Taiwan has sufficient ability to protect itself right now. As I said, I dunno, but it's worth thinking about.

J. McCutchen

Except that Hillary took a cheap shot. She wasn't responding to a question. As she did with the "I won't talk to Hugo Chavez" kerfuffle, she initiated contact and therefore invited all the opprobrium we can muster

Beltway robospeak maybe professional, but that doesn't make it any less dangerous - Bush Foreign policy

If his efforts were  solely directed towards aiding other Muslim nations I would concede the point.  However, he also spread nuclear technology to North Korea, hardly a Muslim nation.  Most of what I've read seems to indicate that he, and a cartel of quite secular businessmen were in this for the bucks and not much more than that. 

We need to remember that Musharraf's army ousted a democratically elected, secular government, almost certainly with the blessing of the United States, no friend to "socialist" parties.  There is a very interesting interview with Benazir Bhuto at Asia Times Online.  In part, she makes this charge:

ATol:There is a theory that Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf was the biggest supporter of al-Qaeda before September 11, 2001. Why and how did he became the "most trusted" US partner in the "war on terror"? And does the Pakistani army fully support him?

Bhutto: It is a fact that the Musharraf regime was the biggest supporter of the Taliban, who harbored al-Qaeda, which was recruiting and training men for terrorism prior to 9/11. This policy was defended in the name of strategic depth. I called it "strategic threat" in a speech I gave in parliament calling for the breaking of ties with the Taliban in 1998. According to a book by Bob Woodward, the Bush administration asked Musharraf to stand up and be counted as friend or foe. Since he gave a positive answer in one telephone call, they decided to work with him. It was more convenient for Washington to work with someone stating he was prepared to play ball than bring about a change at a time of immense crisis.

The whole thing is worth a read.   That woman had a good head on her shoulders.

aMike

Yuh got that right, podner. The US of A can kick the shit out of anyone on the planet and don't you forget it. Course, we had a little problem in that Vietnam dustup, we haven't done diddly in six years in Afghanistan except kill a lot of people and the finest military in the world hasn't been able to secure the capital city of that basket-case country we invaded, what was it, over four years ago? Longer than world war two?

What the hey, I agree with you Nick. We haven't been whupped in Pakistan yet, let's give it a go. You enlist first, Nick, and I'll be right behind you, you can count on it. Unmuzzle tough-guy chicken-hawk Obama and sign us up! We'll show those Paks how to fight! Right Nick? Let us at them Talibans.

Now you're just being silly.

A) this is an irresponsible conversation to even be having. You don't glorify a question like that with an answer. It's like joking about the bomb in your suitcase with an airport screener. Pakistan is not our enemy (yet). Why in god's name are we talking about about dropping A-bombs on them?

B) As long as we are talking about dropping A-bombs on Pakistan, I have little doubt that there are people in parts of Pakistan who lay awake at night dreaming of overthrowing Musharrif and getting their hands on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Those are folks you would kind of like to remain mindful of the fact that in the event of a nuclear weapon ever being used on an American target, we do have the ability to turn everything they have ever known into a smoking sheet of glass.

Now when Mr. Obama answered that question he demonstrated a real ability to think on his feet, but he still got punked a little on the deterrence angle. I doubt it will happen again because he's a smart guy and he learns fast. I haven't seen him make many of the same mistakes twice. The fact remains however, that Clinton got it right the first time.

Bluebell: I think I'm in love. I'll vote for you if you'll vote for me. Whaddaya say?

The math is done. Bush won. Twice. Doing it your way. The Republicans will continue to win at least until the Dems return to progressivism.

But I must concede that if you're trying to lure people like bluebell, BVZ, terryhallinan, and me into your right-of-center fold, you folks are certainly going about it effectively. It makes us so hot to vote for your DLC sell-out mavens when you refer to us using language like slime, numbnuts, stupid, unattainable, crap, idiot, and obdurate. No wonder you've been dominating Washington for the past two decades, you sweet talkers.

This is true. I'm more trying to think out loud than make an argument. You make a good point about similar ideas popping up at the same time in different areas.

A similar but much weaker way to interpret it is simply that as the likelihood of Bhutto returning to Pakistan increases, and as that storyline becomes more public, more and more people will feel independently emboldened to be more vocal in criticism of Musharraf, especially if he's seen as acting contrary to our interests with his posture towards the coalition with Bhutto.

Was the bridge collapse in Minneapolis a freak accident? Yes and no. It was a freak accident because no one expected just that to happen. It was no freak accident at all because it was allowed to happen.

The Minneapolis bridge was officially rated as "structurally deficient". It was an outdated 40-year old design. The trouble was that there was no redundancy in the bridge construction and if any single girder went, the entire structure would collapse, and very rapidly at that. Which is apparently exactly what happened.

Modern bridges are designed such that a structural failure of any single element isn't fatal. Obviously such failures are known to happen, that's why redundancy is built in. In other words, modern bridges are designed to withstand "freak accidents". The Minneapolis bridge wasn't, and that's why it no longer stands.

Russia knows we could wipe them out and the planet: we know the same about them. This is the MAD doctrine and so far something has worked.

The prior poster was pointing out the Pakistan has to reckon with the application of that doctrine should they be so awe inspiringly foolish as to nuke us. I wouldn't bother with the idea but I have no idea where the limits of religious fanaticism of any variety are.

This is far different than a chicken war hawk suggestion that we invade Pakistan.

The "freak accident" was that they had fully loaded gravel trucks parked on the bridge, the rest of the bridge covered with essentially parked cars, and jack hammers going, which introduced vibrations under that huge dead load. That isn't the way to treat any bridge.

Several years ago the Golden Gate Bridge was renovated and when it was reopened they allowed people to walk out on the bridge in unlimited numbers. The bridge was badly overloaded as a result, and it sagged beyond its design limit. But, fortunately, nothing failed. That was another unthinking bit of misjudgement.

Hoppy in Sacramento

If you are more concerned about manners than reality I can't help you: I stated that the actions taken by the Naderites were making idiots out of themselves. The ante was then upped: I will not play by one set of rules for me and a different set of rules for you.

The First Bush selection was not done my way: I believed then and now that the best strategy for the Greens in Florida would have been to vote for Gore. They did not: the math resulted: we have Bush and we may be losing the planet to global warming as a result. So, no, we are not pleased with you.

Just how much success would you say that you have had sweet talking either us or the voters?

When people who are basically on your side start using these terms for you, you should at least recognize that a wake up call is being attempted and do a reality check.

I too want the Dems to return to progressivism but only in such a way that they bring over a majority of American voters out of the ReThug/MSM fog and we can obtain a working progressive majority in Congress. Nader is not it.

If the resonant frequency for the section of the bridge that was being vibrated with jack hammers, was an even fraction of the jack hammer frequency, the bridge could amplify those relatively low amplitude vibrations. Fatigue results from cyclic loading, which doesn't have to be near the load limit for the structure. And, the bridge already had fatigue cracking, so all that was necessary was to get those cracks growing rapidly.

Of course none of us could possibly diagnose the failure from a distance, but I was shocked to see those loaded gravel trucks there. And, moving vehicles are spaced several vehicle lengths apart, reducing the number on the sections of the bridge at one time. "Parked" vehicles are packed much closer together, so a single "parked' lane could have more vehicles on it than all of the lanes when the traffic was moving normally.

If I were running the world, after I made myself a billionaire I would require such bridge maintenance to be done between 2:00 am and 6:00 am, with the traffic not allowed on the bridge.

Hoppy in Sacramento

The math: Gore won in Florida. The Supremes stole the election for Bush. So how was it again that Nader hurt the Dems?

The Naderists gave us the recount. No recount, no Supreme Court decision. And in any case, the math isn't clear. Bush probably won Florida by about 500 votes.

That the lefties have become the balance of power in presidential elections, but you keep nominating center-righties? I see. But I'm to take your direction on where to cast my ballot? Je ne crois pas, mon ami.

Lefties are not the balance of power in presidential elections or any elections for that matter. It is the center that carries the election. Sorry.

You need us. We don't need you. The geek needs to bring candy to the prom queen, Bubeleh.

It seems you missed the damn point. What legislation can you point to in the past 6 years that protects the environment? You need us. Without the Democratic party, the left gets precisely dick. Now you can vote for Greens if you want, but if the election is close your votes might be enough to throw the whole thing the other way and you'll be out in the cold. That doesn't make you the balance of power--it just means your votes count just as much as everyone else.

So, feel free. Vote for whomever you want, but don't be surprised when you fail to have a representative because you vote for a completely non-viable party.

The Naderists gave us the recount
If Dems are going to have any success in the near future, we're going to have to get some treatment for this paranoid schizophrenia.

Lefties are not the balance of power in presidential elections
So...if lefties had voted for Gore he would have won in Florida, but lefties do not hold the balance of power for the Dems. This is a breathtaking, a positively glimmering example of cogitive dissonance. I think I'm beginning to understand the source of your schizoid condition.

It is the center that carries the election.
Well, that strategy has certainly worked well so far in the 21st century, has it not? I think you centrists should stick with it.

Without the Democratic party, the left gets precisely dick.
And WITH the Democratic Party, we get enhanced wiretapping power for megalomaniac thieves, continued funding for the Mess in Mesopotamia, no health care proposals, no impeachement, no restraints on the Unitary Executive, and STILL no environmental regulations. But of course they did get us that nice minimum wage bill that guarantees starvation wages. Gee, thanks.

don't be surprised when you fail to have a representative because you vote for a completely non-viable party
You mean, like the Democratic Party?

Look, I don't like picking on my friends, but your logical bucket leaks like Scooter Libby with classified information. Go ahead. Nominate Hillary. Elect Thompson. Then come back and blame me and Ralph.

Here, here.

The end result of the Nader 2000 votes is increased global warming, environmental protection rollbacks, worsened foreign relations, our second Vietnam War, etc.

Some change the Green Party is making.

Spoiled grownups who must have it absolutely their way - no room for compromise.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is the way to make real change. As you can always work to change the Democratic Party in the long haul just as you can work for gains made by the Green Party in the long haul.

Maybe they are too busy feeling the love to be able to see the logic.

I'm not a civil engineering expert myself, and I dunno if hoppy is, but actual experts agree with him. Shamelessly quoting from Wikipedia:

Zdenek Bazant, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northwestern University, said, "The bridge must have been near a state of collapse for some time, and the construction [activity] might have contributed to its failure." Kent Harries, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Pittsburgh, said, "We know that we would not build a bridge like this today." David Schulz, director of the Infrastructure Technology Institute at Northwestern University said, "I would be stunned if this didn't have something to do with the construction project. I think it's a major factor."

Yeah, they get elected in right wing states and we get some of their votes on some of our issues in Congress, not all. When right wing ReThugs get elected from anywhere we get none of their votes.

Let's put it like this, I believe in your freedom to express yourself right here and I also believe that our candidates should freely share their views of the world. If you want to muzzle a presidential candidate, then I simply don't see where the censorship would end. (Even if Hillary was "cute" in changing her comments to "president" and not "candidate".)

Now, Obama spelled out a whole series of things he would do--getting out of Iraq (something that we should have all known would be quite difficult to do with an unwilling President as Vietnam demonstrated so well--ref. Obey in the House for specifics); adding troops to the stressed NATO troops in Afghanistan where suicide bombings are up and Taliban incursions from across the border with Pakistan are growing in frequency and in intensity; enforcing our alliance with Pakistan where we gave money and they gave military assistance in fighting the Taliban and terrorists; and stopping the training of would-be suicide bombers (reference the Brit plots where the plotters had "recently traveled to Pakistan).

You are conflating a much smaller and more sensible footprint in opposing terrorists into the equivalent of WW III as Bush and Cheney have been doing. If you're a pacifist, then say so and stop dancing around. I'm not a pacifist and I'll make my statements from that philosophical position.

Afghanistan's government has been accusing Pakistan of these border incursions for years. NATO troops certainly confirm this is what's going on. Afghans don't want the Taliban back; the Taliban is currently in the kidnapping business (South Korean folks, remember?) as well as in the opium trade. There's simply no reason not to support these folks--and lots of strategic reasons to do so.

I've alreay served in the military, son; so don't expect me to sign up again, I'm over age.

Nick,

I think a better answer from Obama would have been; 'No Presidential candidate should answer that question on national television.'

I personally thought the question and answer were inflammatory in an area which we don't need to inflame. I also thought it was a case of a journalist trying to 'make news' with the question. He was successful.

With that said; I myself would certainly strike.....surreptitiously, if possible.

Didn't Israel organize a secret group to hunt down and kill those responsible for the massacre of their Olympic athletes at Munich?

A rhetorical question; why is it that during the Clinton years we had a supply of films, taken by drones, of Osama cavorting in the mountains, and today, after 6 years of looking, we have nothing.

This assumes that there was no preexisting defect in the bridge and that the construction somehow induced unexpected loads. I think that is highly unlikely

Look, even if Jordan puts in 40 points and Pippen puts in 30, the Bulls may still need 10 points off the bench to beat the Pistons. Does that make the sixth and seventh man the most important players on the team?
Let's just slide right past the facts that your sports analogy is about nine years out of date. I'm afraid you don't grasp the concept of "balance of power."

Let me try an analogy not based on sports but on a closely-held small corporation. President Chuck owns 49% of the stock. Sales Manager Arlene has 48%. These two fight tooth and nail over policy. Who holds the balance of power in the corporation? The bookkeeper, Cindi Lou, who has accumulated 3% of the shares through her ESOP plan.

You're Chuck. I'm Cindi Lou. Don't forget the caramels.