Obama's 'get tough with Pakistan' remarks look set to backfire

The Barack Obama campaign has appeared vacuous to many of its critics. There wasn't anything vacuous about his intervention yesterday.  In a speech on terrorism the Illinois Senator and Democratic hopeful advocated US action in Pakistan if the embattled Musharraf fails to act:

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again.  If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Fellow Democrat Chris Dodd wasted no time to attack Senator Obama:

"Frankly, I am not sure what Barack is calling for in his speech this morning. But it is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power."  

John Podhoretz thinks he has found a big contradiction in the Obama positioning:

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be: Make nice with nightmarishly bad regimes that have effectively or rhetorically declared war on the United States (North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba) but invade an erstwhile, problematic ally (Pakistan)."

Comments

[Steevo]

Here's a couple of paragraphs from Mort Kondracke:

He will "not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened." And he also would use force "beyond self-defense ... to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations or confront mass atrocities."

And that's not all. He also will get control of the world's loose nukes, reach out to the Muslim world in his first 100 days, close down Guantanamo Bay and give full constitutional rights to enemy combatants, rally the world to address global climate change, and kill and capture terrorists anywhere on the globe, but never, ever kidnap or torture any.

[Simon Newman]

I agree with Obama on this. The US policy of sucking up to Al Qaeda's support base of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, while attacking or threatening to attack countries that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda (Iraq, Ian) is both ineffective and dangerous. Bush betrayed America after the initial victory in Afghanistan, when he then decided to ignore Al Qaeda following its retreat into Pakistan and attacked Iraq instead.

[JF]

Simon Newman, if you think attacking Iraq was a horrible idea, imagine attacking a nuclear-armed, terrorist-infested Pakistan with a population five times that of Iraq. Your conspiracy theories about the US purposefully allowing al Qaeda to escape notwithstanding, such an attack would be condemned by the international community even if the US were to attempt it. Iraq will look like a cakewalk in comparison.

NATO invoked Article V after September 11 and has failed us in Afghanistan. Yet you advocate going even farther an attacking Pakistan. Put simply, with what army? Your own country has no interest in maintaining a functional military, and you were the best there was to be had in Europe.

NATO is finished, and any further pre-emptive strikes are out of the question for at least a generation while the United States rebuilds its capabilities. Afghanistan has shown us definitively that we can only depend on ourselves, and if we're lucky, Britain, Canada, Australia, and the Netherlands will contribute some token forces before continually criticizing the US for the duration. Thanks, but no thanks.

It's time to face the facts, Simon. If the UK feels strongly about it, I encourage whatever is left of your armed forces to take a run at Pakistan; you have my full support.

[jb1125]

The Senator's plan has already drawn glowing reviews from leading foreign policy experts.

Lee Hamilton, former Democratic Congressman, Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission, Co-Chair of the Iraq Study Group, Member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council:

Senator Obama presented a thoughtful, substantive and comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. This is an important contribution to the national dialogue on this leading issue.

Major General Scott Gration (USAF-Ret); Commander, Operation Iraqi Freedom’s Task Force West; Director Strategy Policy and Assessments, United States European Command:

Defending America will require taking the fight to the terrorists, and drying up support for terrorism and extremism worldwide. Senator Obama's counter-terrorism strategy shows that he is committed to developing the capabilities required to defeat terrorists on the field of battle, and that he has the vision to defeat the terrorists in the battle of ideas.

Samantha Power; author of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide; Founding Executive Director, Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy:

At a time when Americans are despairing over the Bush Administration's handling of terrorism, Barack Obama has offered us a smart, tough and principled way forward. Where Bush overstretched our armed forces and sent them into an unnecessary war, Obama would heed the military's pleas for counterinsurgency resources and beefed-up civilian capacity. Where Bush lumped US foes together, Obama would pry them apart. And where Bush threw out the rule-book, Obama would again make America a country that practices what it preaches.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CpHR

[jb1125]

The Senator's plan has already drawn glowing reviews from leading foreign policy experts.

Lee Hamilton, former Democratic Congressman, Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission, Co-Chair of the Iraq Study Group, Member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council:

Senator Obama presented a thoughtful, substantive and comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. This is an important contribution to the national dialogue on this leading issue.

Major General Scott Gration (USAF-Ret); Commander, Operation Iraqi Freedom’s Task Force West; Director Strategy Policy and Assessments, United States European Command:

Defending America will require taking the fight to the terrorists, and drying up support for terrorism and extremism worldwide. Senator Obama's counter-terrorism strategy shows that he is committed to developing the capabilities required to defeat terrorists on the field of battle, and that he has the vision to defeat the terrorists in the battle of ideas.

Samantha Power; author of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide; Founding Executive Director, Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy:

At a time when Americans are despairing over the Bush Administration's handling of terrorism, Barack Obama has offered us a smart, tough and principled way forward. Where Bush overstretched our armed forces and sent them into an unnecessary war, Obama would heed the military's pleas for counterinsurgency resources and beefed-up civilian capacity. Where Bush lumped US foes together, Obama would pry them apart. And where Bush threw out the rule-book, Obama would again make America a country that practices what it preaches.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CpHR

[tired and emotional]

Is it just a fantasy on my part when I think that the British contribution to both Afghanistan and Iraq is rather more than token?

We are doing very, very heavy lifting in Afghanistan and Basra has not been a picnic either. A cursory look at Michael Yon’s site might temper your views. I suggest you make the effort.

That said, I accept that NATO is a joke, that is not our doing but the gutless Europeans, I accept that successive British governments have run the forces down scandalously, and only a fool would deny that in terms of the overall numbers of troops committed to Afghanistan and Iraq, the British contingent is small.

But we are there fighting the war with you nonetheless, we are taking some of the political heat for that at home and around the world, we are losing men and spending billions and we deserve and demand your respect for that – if only for lives of the men and women doing their best out there despite the political idiocy at home.

[Tony Hannon]

Didn't the Bush administration tell Pakistan before the invasion of Afghanistan:

"Get on board or we'll blast you back into the middle ages"?

I think it puts the Senator's remark into context. He'll take action in that lawless part of Pakistan where even their own government has no control, for a single excursion to kill the most wanted terrorist in the world.

It's a suggestion to actually DO something EFFECTIVE against terrorists rather than just talk about or pointlessly diminish freedoms, like Republicans do.

[JF]

Tony Hannon,

"It's a suggestion to actually DO something EFFECTIVE against terrorists rather than just talk about or pointlessly diminish freedoms, like Republicans do."

Socialists often like to speak thusly. Al Qaeda is currently being ground to dust in Iraq. Once Iraq is pacified, the US will turn its full attention to Afghanistan to finish the job there (G-d forbid that our putatitve NATO allies actually do their jobs).

Should a President Obama attack Pakistan, wait for Musharraf to be quickly overthrown and the terrorist-friendly ISI take control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. I know you would welcome that development, Tony, but the vast majority of Americans do not. As I said to Simon, however, nothing is stopping the UK from tilting at that windmill. I can only wish you good luck and godspeed.

[JF]

Tired and Emotional, I don't deny that the British soldiers are doing their best with the limited resources they have. Can I emphasize the limited resources they have? Yes, I read Michael Yon religiously. But I also read EU Referendum religiously. Getting mortared out of your bases and being pushed to shelter at the airport is an unfortunate outcome of the British draw-down in Iraq, to the degree that there are now widespread concerns in the US about the ability to secure the vital supply lines to Kuwait that run through British-held territory.

I am of course grateful for any contribution the British make to the war effort, but can you really say that the British are making an equal contribution to the US? It looks to me like an order of magnitude of difference. Again, thanks for your help. But one must only ask oneself, could the US continue the war effort without the British? As painful as it would be, I think the answer is yes.

And unfortunately, listening to the noises coming out of the UK these days, this scenario looks like a real possibility next year.

[Simon Newman]

"Your conspiracy theories about the US purposefully allowing al Qaeda to escape notwithstanding"

I think it was more laziness & incompetence than a conspiracy.

Obama was apparently advocating Special Forces operating in the Waziristan area against al Qaeda, together with whatever local support can be mustered. I suspect that this is now impractical due to the US being overstretched in Iraq; we are very much in an 'I wouldn't start from here if I were you' situation.

The UK lacks even the political will to prevent immigration from Pakistan, like the USA we would apparently rather suffer civilisational annihilation than discriminate on the basis of religion.

Overall, the best strategy would be separation from and containment of the Muslim world at least while it remains in its current aggressive, hostile & expansionist phase. That does not preclude targetted action against those who have directly attacked us, like Al Qaeda.

[James]

Well said tired and emotional.

Musharraf won't act because (reasonably enough) he doesn't want a civil war in his country between Pashtun Islamists and the Pakistani army. Most of the governmental elite in Pakistan were quite happy with the Taliban ruling Afghanistan, and I suspect secretly Musharraf's the same.

[JF]

Simon Newman,

To your laziness and incompetence charge, I would only ask that you reframe your mindset from "the US is all powerful and knows where everyone is, so a failure to kill OBL must be due to laziness or incompetence" to "intelligence gathering is a difficult business and the US does its best with the limited information it has at hand. Sometimes it gets the target, and sometimes it does not. But the US would not have launched a war halfway across the world unless it were serious about seeking justice."

I think the latter mindset will clear up a lot of confusion you may have about the motivations of the United States. Anything else is just leftist conspiracy (i.e. "Bush lied, because he knew!" instead of "Bush made a mistake, based on flawed information available at the time"). That's what will happen to you if you uphold a blind belief that governments are omnipotent, knowledgeable, and good; just be careful you don't turn into a leftists. Governments don't know everything.

I agree with everything else you said.

[tired and emotional]

JF - Please do emphasize the limited resources, just as I did. I reiterate that I believe the funding level and procurement standard to be scandalous and the politicians responsible for them to be idiots.

I did never said the UK is making an equal contribution, what I said was that only a fool would deny that our contribution was small in numbers by comparison with the US force. Actually I suspect our entire army is small by comparison with the US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The US could of course go it alone militarily. No question. Would it be desirable politically? Arguably not. Either way, the US could have said "Thanks but no thanks" before the whole effort started. Guess what? You didn't. So don't you dare look down your nose at us while our men die and the peacenik fucktards gain strength in our country as in yours.

Brown has the same problems as Clinton and Pelosi - desperate to run and hide but more desperate not to take responsibility for the bloodbath left behind. Gen. Petraus' September report may yet provide the good news we need to turn the political tables. Let us hope that the worst elements of both our populations and our political classes do not win the day.

[JF]

Tired and Emotional,

Please don't misunderstand. I didn't use the word "token" as a value judgment, but rather as a comparative term. Nothing would make me happier than to have the UK double its defense spending as a percent of GDP and regain its correct place as a world power. But Blair and Brown have bled the UK armed forces until the army can barely maintain a credible military presence in southern Iraq, the force in Afghanistan is desperately short of air support, transport, and vehicles, and the navy competes with Belgium for size.

As even the

[JF]

Tired and Emotional,

Please don't misunderstand. I didn't use the word "token" as a value judgment, but rather as a comparative term. Nothing would make me happier than to have the UK double its defense spending as a percent of GDP and regain its correct place as a world power. But Blair and Brown have bled the UK armed forces until the army can barely maintain a credible military presence in southern Iraq, the force in Afghanistan is desperately short of air support, transport, and vehicles, and the navy competes with Belgium for size.

As even the

[JF]

Tired and Emotional,

Please don't misunderstand. I didn't use the word "token" as a value judgment, but rather as a comparative term. Nothing would make me happier than to have the UK double its defense spending as a percent of GDP and regain its correct place as a world power. But Blair and Brown have bled the UK armed forces until the army can barely maintain a credible military presence in southern Iraq, the force in Afghanistan is desperately short of air support, transport, and vehicles, and the navy competes with Belgium for size.

As even the

[JF]

The site doesn't seem to like my posts. Final try.

Tired and Emotional,

Please don't misunderstand. I didn't use the word "token" as a value judgment, but rather as a comparative term. Nothing would make me happier than to have the UK double its defense spending as a percent of GDP and regain its correct place as a world power. But Blair and Brown have bled the UK armed forces until the army can barely maintain a credible military presence in southern Iraq, the force in Afghanistan is desperately short of air support, transport, and vehicles, and the navy competes with Belgium for size.

As even the Tories admit, the UK is struggling to keep up with the US military. I think you'll agree with me that one of the results is now manifesting itself in Britain's distancing itself from the US in further military commitments (e.g. the British draw-down in Iraq, whispers of withdrawal from Afghanistan). I look at this as more of a wake up call for the UK to spend more in order to be more than a supporting actor rather than a slur against your fighting men and women.

Think of the reverse situation: do you think the UK can pull off a unilateral military strike of any consequence without the aid of the US? Even a repeat of the Falklands would be difficult or impossible today with the forces at hand.

Again, I meant no disrespect, only to shed light on this dire situation.

[tired and emotional]

Woah, post blizzard.

I agree completely.

I apologise if I seem a little quick to anger but I am in a permanent state of rage about the way in which we are being suborned by various forces in various different ways all the time.

While the socialists destroy our freedoms, the tranzis are destroying our identity and the eurabian/muslim racaille are destroying our society.

And I can't even own a handgun to protect myself and my family.

[Tony Makara]

I've always maintained that Obama isn't presidential material and these latest remarks prove it. Leadership requires a level-headed approach and not showboating. Obama ought to be calling for improved co-operation with the Pakistan rather than threatening action that he alone wouldn't be able to sanction anyway. I hope now people will see that Obama isn't a person to be taken seriously.

[Simon Newman]

TM:
"I've always maintained that Obama isn't presidential material..."

Despite my agreement with him over Pakistan, I think you're probably right on that. Of the three main Democrats it's actually Edwards, not Clinton, who seems the most serious and sober.

Personally I think any of the main candidates of either party except McCain would probably be an improvement on Bush (McCain combines Bush's open-borders invite-the-world fanaticism with his invade-the-world fanaticism, and seems senile - I guess it's good he's against torture, thanks to having been totured himself) but I did a thought experiment - "Who would Osama Bin Laden Like to Win?" - answer - OBL's main aim is a destabiliswed middle east in which Al Qaeda can flourish, so a candidate who can be guaranteed to keep up the aggressive US stance that is destabilising the middle east. Also some one sufficiently bull-headed that he won't change course in response to empirical evidence. My guess is that Bin Laden is rooting for Giuliani, and would be unhappy with Mitt Romney, who seems a competent managerial type, probably fairly cautious, though you never can tell - Bush promised a humble foreign policy, but ended up adopting McCain's policy, as The Economist pointed out. Thompson is still pretty much a cipher.

Of the Democrats, Bin Laden would be unhappy with Obama - who dislikes western civilisation and would find it a lot easier dealing with middle-eastern tyrants I suspect; Obama would possibly be bad for America, but bad for OBL too. Edwards is pretty much a cipher on foreign policy; I think Bin Laden would be quite happy with Hillary Clinton though, as her gut instincts like Bush's seem Wilsonian-interventionist, though she would be more cautious than the current President in taking on unwinnable wars; probably a return to Kosovo-style bombing-from-afar.

So, on the basis of 'Who Would Bin Laden not Want?' it looks like Mitt Romney is probably the best candidate.

[James]

JF:

"I think you'll agree with me that one of the results is now manifesting itself in Britain's distancing itself from the US in further military commitments (e.g. the British draw-down in Iraq, whispers of withdrawal from Afghanistan)."

I'd say that these draw-downs had more to do with the abject failures of both these missions than it does pacifism motivated by penny-pinching. Even a Labour politician can occasionally see the bleedin' obvious.

[JF]

James, I had always thought that Britain was failing in Iraq because it was drawing down (and lacked resources), but if you are saying that it is the reverse--that Britain has categorically failed and is withdrawing because it cannot duplicate the success enjoyed by the Americans--then I'll take you at your word. It's unfortunate that the British military has become so ineffective, despite everything I was led to believe by Michael Yon and other military bloggers.

Also, I never believed that Britain cut its military to the bone and became pacifist as a result, but rather, the reverse: that Britain was pacifist and cut military spending because the government would rather pour money down the toilets known as the NHS and BBC instead. But again, I'll defer to your judgment in this regard.

[Mary Fernandez]

Hold it! I just fell off the couch when I saw the words "John Edwards" and "Serious and Sober" all in the same sentence.

It's getting harder to your opinions seriously Simon Newman...
___________

Tired and emotional,

I have the greatest respect for the British forces. I am just pained to see how abused they've been by a Labour government.
____________

Obama has the same problem every Democrat has. They are for every war but the one we're fighting - invade Darfur (isn't that inserting America into a civil war? Hmmm...) and attack nuclear Pakistan. Big talk by those who we all know would never do it, but don't they sound tough?

If Obama's announcing he's going to invade putative allies who just happen to possess a radicalized population and nuclear weapons, watch out Britain! The 82nd Airborne will be heading toward Birmingham and Finsbury Park.

[Mary Fernandez]

Osama would not want Giulliani.

[Mary Fernandez]

James -

The British are doing a good job in Afghanistan although they do need more support.

In Iraq, the problem for the British is that there is a minimum number of troops necessary to hold and control an area. If you drop below that number, you are forced to remain on your base and be harassed by the enemy.