^I didn't think Obama flubbed the answer at all, he seemed on point.

But even more important was after Dodd and Clinton said something along the lines of, "well, me too, but I don't talk about it," was Obama comin back and saying, "hey, this is an election, and the American people need to be involved in the decision-making"

Enough of "trust me" politics on foreign policy.

Suppose the CIA says he's hiding in Scotland, and Gordon Brown tells us not to act. Do we do so anyway? What happens to the Brown government when the Obama White House ignores it? That's what Clinton & Dodd were getting at. It's easy to say "attack Sudan" or "attack Afghanistan" because we didn't have anything at stake there; it's not so easy to say "attack Britain" or "attack South Korea."

Obama states the policy in ways that make it much more difficult to carry out. We need cooperation from the government of Pakistan because a portion of its population is willing to harbor Al Qaeda. Just how much 'actionable intelligence' do you think that Pakistan is now willing to share with us?

From what other source do you now think we are going obtain this intelligence?

Obama has forthrightness but no judgment and does not appear to understand how diplomacy works and the role of calculated ambiguity.

A portion of our population is always glad to hear that we are going to be tough and go after someone.

Didn't both situations occur during the Clinton Administration? And wasn't the President criticized for not launching the attack in case one and for launching it in case two?

Damn. Nowadays, Clinton should get a medal just for looking in the same country where Osama was sipping his tea. This loony tune attacked a completely different country. No wonder Pakistan isn't worried about the US invading.

You've got that right.

I've said this before (but that has never stopped me from repeating myself): shortly after 9/11 I was having lunch with friends and they couldn't believe that I predicted that Bush would never kill or capture OBL.

It is so patently obvious how useful OBL was and still is to the machinations of Bushco that I have serious doubts about the utility of buying into any assumptions to the contrary. Once OBL stops becoming useful, of course, he's a goner. I don't see that happening anytime soon though.

Well of course the real answer is yes. But depending on the situation the right answer might very well be to deflect the question -- particularly if the right answer could cause rioting in the streets and further jeopardize the already somewhat shaky position of a government a rather large and strategically placed Muslim nation that is currently friendly to us. Diplomacy doesn't always involve coming right out and saying exactly what's on your mind you know. It's time we had people running the show who understand that. President George W. Shit-for-Brains already set Iraq's reform movement back 10 or 20 years with his drugstore cowboy claptrap about the "axis of evil." Then there was John Bolton and NK. I really think we've had enough public brain-farting on foreign policy matters recently to last us a good long while.

"particularly if the right answer could cause rioting in the streets and further jeopardize the already somewhat shaky position of a government a rather large and strategically placed Muslim nation that is currently friendly to us."

Another canard. Read the New Yorker of a couple of weeks ago. Musharraf's main threat politically is the secular professional class, not radical Islamists. That exchange only went to further emphasize how hidebound the Clinton, Dodd and Biden perspectives are.

Reed, when you talk about communications, or even (sometimes) domestic politics, you're always enlightening...but when you wander astray into foreign policy you just become a blithering idiot.

So Dodd is to be ridiculed because he thinks that whether to launch military strikes in another country depends on the country, and our relationship to it, etc.? Yeah, that's pretty crazy. And our policy should be the "hot pursuit" (nice euphemism for invasion there, Reed) of Osama no matter where he is? Even if we've otherwise contained him strategically and no matter what the consequences to our other interests? Isn't that the ridiculous fallacy that (partly) underlay Bush's Iraq adventure?

My God, man, wipe the drool off your chin and give us a nice post on net neutrality or something.

Then move the scenario to Russia. They have no extradition treaties, and it's illegal to extradite according to the Russian constitution. Just follow the Litvenenko poisoning case.

Heck, Putin would probably house Obama just to piss off Dubya.

It's all well and fine to say "Sure, let's bomb a third-world country." Quite a bit different when it's a second or first world country. Especially ones with economic ties.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.

Yes.

Oh thank God. Someone who's read an article in the New Yorker, here to lead us out of darkness.

And do you suppose that it's moneyed secular professional class who have mounted all those assassination attempts on Musharraf? No? Too messy? Well then surely it was they who prompted him to call a truce with the tribal areas along the Afghan border -- you know, the area where the Taliban was born and still thrive, where the Pakistani military can no longer project power and have basically given up trying to police it altogether... or maybe not. OK, well then it must be the professional class who make up the Muslim-based militias currently operating in and around Kashmir and demanding the government take a harder line with India. They're probably also the reason the State department warns Americans against traveling by means of any type of public transportation in Pakistan...

One thing your article does help to illustrate is that Musharraf can count on little support these days from any direction in Pakistan's increasingly combustible political atmosphere. I won't get into how deserving he may really be. Pakistan is edging very close to a military dictatorship in everything but name. But for now, he may also be the only thing holding the country together and the man's sitting on a powder keg. Might at least want to give some thought to what Pakistan might look like without Musharraf (or conversely, without the pretense of democracy) if we're going to continue tossing lit matches at him.

I said there are cases when you should deflect the question. There's a difference between lying and declining to give an answer to an ill-placed question. And there are times when leaders of democracies need to practice diplomacy.

Under circumstances a Presidential candidate would be willing to use military force is not an ill-placed question, it might be the most important question you can ask. Suggesting a President should deflect on that is the height of cynicism. We're not talking about meeting Barry Bonds here, we're talking about the most wanted criminal in the world, and potential military lives.

In case you weren't aware, democracy is a dirty, messy business. We accept that the electoral process has its downside. We get bombarded with misinformation. We push everyone to the edges of the room and make them choose sides. But its also necessary, and this whole "paper over the differences (if there are any) on major issues by refusing to discuss them" is, simply, bullshit. I want to know

1-under what situations, if any, these candidates would be willing to go to war.

2-to what ends would any of these candidates go to capture Osama Bin Laden? Is it a top priority? A midlevel priority? A low priority? What resources would the candidate commit to the job? How much is the candidate willing to risk?

Obama is answering those questions. Nobody else is. Those are important questions--a large part of my decision (and those of countless others) is based on foreign policy. If what you're looking for in terms of foreign policy is a politician who refuses to tell you his/her stance on some of hte most important issues of this election, more power to you. I am not. I'm tired of politicians asking me to trust them. Its bullshit. No. I won't trust you. Show me you're worthy of trust by convincing me your priorities are in line with mine. And that means, answer the f$^*&Q#(( question.

Good Post. Thanks Reed.

Kevin Russell Cook