President Obama Strikes Pakistan
It appears President Obama is living up to his word, and striking inside Pakistan when there is actionable intel, and Pakistan is "unwilling or unable" to respond. http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2009/01/23/asia/OUKWD-UK-PAKISTAN-MISSILES.php
What do we think of this? On the same day as he orders a process for Guantanamo to close, he takes ruthless offensive action against enemies of the Unites States.
This is evidence of an intelligent and a strong Foreign Policy, "carrots and sticks", as Candidate Obama would often refer to it last Fall. Now, President Obama is delivering on his promises, handing the World a carrot by closing Gitmo, and smacking some troublemakers with a unmanned stick in Pakistan. It is this sort of nuanced policy that has been missing the past 8 years.
It is an odd feeling. It is terribly sobering to this moment of joy and expectation knowing that we must take lives in far-off places to protect ourselves, and that our young president is ultimately responsible. But it is at the same time heartening to know that this young president, in whom we have placed so much trust, is ultimately responsible. The hopes and dreams, and fears, of this Nation are weighing on his shoulders, and though slender, they have so far proved to be firm.
It seems doubtful to me the decision to hit the target in Pakistan was made at the POTUS level.
The decision making process to hit Pakistan now is probably the same as under Bush. It is likely made at the theater level, or no higher than Secretary Gates.
The future course of the US involvement in that region will not be decided on or changed in a few days, it may take months.
January 23, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The military is led by a civilian commander, AKA the POTUS. As of noon on January 20, the decisions are Obama's.
January 23, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wansn't suggesting Obama ordered the strike, only that it, like the decision to close Gitmo, is now his responsibility.
January 23, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kool-Aid much?
January 23, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
WTF does that mean? I'm just saying he's now responsible for the strike, whether it killed militants, children, or both.
January 23, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It means that you're letting Obama off the hook. He's in charge, and it's his decision to strike or not to strike.
January 23, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you now that Obama is the Decider. I would agree that he is responsible, but as proposed, if that decision was given to local authority during the Bush Administration, those folks in Afghanistan might have felt perfectly free to let one fly into Pakistan thinking, "Hey! Obama never said we could not do this. We're not going to get into any trouble. We have the authority until someone takes it away"
Nevertheless, Obama is accountable. That is beyond question.
January 24, 2009 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 23, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The targeted look to be valid, the Pakistan Government response has been muted.
There are indications that al Qaida and the Taliban have exploited their hosts' traditional tribal hospitality. The Mumbai attack, The Islamabad Marriott bombing, and the continuing support for the Afghan insurgency, is causing a paradigm shift in the world view of many Pashtun tribal people. The stark realities that are the effects from war are now hitting close to their own homes, and the tyrannical leaders of their villages have begun summary execution of suspected spies within their midst. Purges are almost always a sign of crumbling support, and counterproductive. The subjected will always chafe under the boot of tyranny, and if they are given enough hope that it can end for the better, they will resist.
There may be a proper path out of this mess after all.
Here's links to a few decent editorials published by Pakistan's "The News":
http:⁄⁄www.thenews.com.pk⁄daily_detail.asp?id=158723
http:⁄⁄www.thenews.com.pk⁄daily_detail.asp?id=158724
http:⁄⁄www.thenews.com.pk⁄daily_detail.asp?id=158726
January 24, 2009 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, what exactly is "nuanced" about 2 missile strikes inside a sovereign nation's borders that kills 17 people?
January 23, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
We close Gitmo, we still attack our enemies. Nuance.
Doesn't surprise me one bit that Pakistan's military isn't happy.
January 23, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but nuance is the wrong word. Nothing subtle about killing people.
January 23, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pick whatever word you want. I'm suggesting equal parts soft and hard Power.
January 23, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why then does the article mention the attacks killed "at least 10" militants, including possibly a "high value target"? This may well prove to be BS of course, but if not, what's counterproductive is Pakistan's unwillingness to do this job themselves.
January 23, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Care to provide any valid sources to back up your assumptions?
January 23, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but you can educate yourself if you don't blow a gasket first.
January 24, 2009 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Khawar Mehdi, "Every One Knows Where the Terrorists Are, But", South Asia Tribune, September 3, 2005
Sorry about the Internet Archives link, but the South Asia Tribune, an expat Pakistani News Source, whose editor was targeted by more than one Pakistan government, before he emigrated to the US, has ceased publishing. It was one of the better sources for alternative Pakistan News.
It was known in December, 2001, that core elements of al Qaida, including their leadership escaped into the Pakistan frontier, and it has been known since the 80's that Punjab tribal Pakistanis have supported the Arab Afghan Fighters, and the groups they subsequently morphed into, including the Taliban. When the Bush Administration pressed for War Upon Iraq, the evidence notwithstanding, they turned the military away from the godo fight, against the proper enemy, We should have taken them to ground, without quarter, up in Tora Bora, when we had them in our sights. This nasty responsibility would have been finished years ago.
Do not misunderstand. I am antiwar, having experienced it, and learning first hand that it possesses no redeeming qualities. There are times when choices must be made, in which there are no righteous paths to take. Al Qaida will not simply dissipate into the history books, left to its own devices. Its members believe they have a divine mandate to create with coercion a global caliphate upon the ashes of their death and mayhem. America is in large measure, responsible for the creation of this abomination to humanity. We trained them in insurgency and organisational skills. We did this hands-off third party via Pakistan's Military Intelligence Agency, the ISI, which was at that time headed by the former dictator of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf. The bonds formed between the Arab fighters, their Pakistani tribal hosts, and the ISI need be broken asunder, and everyone within these three groups must choose which side they are on.
Contemplation of war causes me to age far too quickly, and is only the darkness ever falling. Yet, America owes it to the world to assure that this Frankenstein we created during the Reagan Administration is put down. They are merciless terrorists, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions; and as such, have forfeited their rights to live freely within my reality.
January 24, 2009 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
You write with such conviction and yet you are torn.
I think that history (if such a thing exists) will pull a double whammy on the GOP. Not only will w go down in history as one of the four or five worst presidents, but Reagan will also.
January 24, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
"torn" is an apt description
January 24, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reminds me of a trophy hunting method often used by guides in Texas.
Rich clients come from northern states generally, and pay lease operators thousands of dollars for the pleasure of killing a corn fed trophy deer, (one with an impressive set of horns).
If the client is too obese, or otherwise has physical impairments which prohibit them from walking around in the woods, they have the option of being handed a high powered rifle and just shooting the buck in a small fenced enclosure.
If however, the client is able to walk, the buck can be released onto a fenced enclosure of a couple of hundred acres in the morning and the client has a day to locate it and shoot it. In either case, the head and neck of the deer are stuffed and mounted on a polished plank for hanging on the client's wall.
This 'hunting' system seems to parallel Obama's terrorism policy. Set the terrorist loose from Gitmo, then go track em down and kill em. Sporting guy, that Obama.
January 24, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the reasons I held off on voting for McCain was because I like Obama on Iraq.. but I'm just not sure he's going to scale back defense enough. (Actually I know he won't scale back defense, but maybe he will expand it at a slower rate than McCain would.)
I really hated when he sent those Seals to rescue that ship captain. WOuldn't of helped him at all, personally. I'd rather we just let these ships arm themselves, or hire Haliburton.
October 31, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink