I think Obama is being highly irresponsible. I do not think you do a "damn thing" on Pakistan's territory without their yes/ permission. Pakistan is not a banana republic, even though it has serious complications.

I think talk about spreading secular education in Pakistan is just coffee talk. Religious schooling is there to stay, and in principle, there is nothing wrong with it. Perhaps, spurring the economy at the grass root level can make real changes.

And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism

Those F-16s are not combat terrorism. Those are for India. Oh, well.

Actually I think the lines in question could be interpreted differently — I think Obama is merely suggesting that U.S. troops could be deployed to take out selected targets in the border provinces, and then removed. “Targeted strikes” isn’t quite the same as “invasion,” though it’s close: it does sound like Obama is saying such operations could be conducted even without Musharraf’s express permission.

I think the differences between "Targeted strikes" and "full blown invasion" are a red herring. Any action by the US forces on Pakistani territory carries the possibility of destabilizing Pakistan and a possible overthrow of the Musharraf-led administration. The US is better off planning for a full-scale invasion rather than targeted strikes, because destabilization of Pakistan will lead to another round of "nation-building"

Hmmm. Looking at this from an admittedly purely political point of view, it sounds like Obama, by going to the right of Bush, is trying to establish some hawkish street cred after his naive faux pas about meeting dictators during the last debate.

great...another $hitsh0w....cause Iraq and AFghanistan arent enough for us...

Kush wrote:

I think Obama is being highly irresponsible. I do not think you do a "damn thing" on Pakistan's territory without their yes/ permission. Pakistan is not a banana republic, even though it has serious complications.

I think you are bang on the money with your interpretation there. One would think that by now, even the right wing would see the necessity for dropping the "my way or the highway" approach to foreign policy, but to see guys from the left saying things like this just makes me realize that all of these folks seem to be cut from different parts of the same mold. Whatever qualities Obama had to make me think he was different have been pretty much wiped out. It'd be nice to have someone of principle in the election, but apparently states[wo]men principles and politics are diametrically opposed.

Big difference between an invasion and targeted strikes/raids.

Special Operations folks have been looking over the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan for some time for more active involvement. Maybe they already are involved, but probably covert, like the operation that took out Pablo Escobar (American military adivors trained elite columbian troops and helped gather intelligence on target locations). That was a highly classified mission. Che Guerva was hunted down by Army Special Forces (Green Beret) trained local personnel, Pablo was nailed by a team trained by SEALs and Army Special Forces. Those were pretty successful models, though based upon what Marc Sagemen said in Undestanding Terroist Networks, getting human intelligence assets into these tight terrorist 'cliques' is difficult since they've gone underground and shun electronic communication. One needs to have assets that were people who decided to train in Jihad, but not participate having second thoughts. Such assests could be used to infiltrate these networks.

What's been going on behind the scenes no one will know until the day information gets declassifed. The Phillipines brought in American advisors ASAP post 9-11.

I frankly think that for now this is just image building and hot air. Obama has been at times depicted as a soft candidate.. oen who would compromise US interest and security in the name of peace. I think some hard line talk is what his think tank came up with to counter those holes in his image. And for that matter, I think it's a good decision to do so - talking tough about Pakistan bolsters his image without bringing the complicated implications and contradictions that talking tough about Iran or Iraq might. Plus he's just saying it and also in a way where he is throwing in enough ifs and buts to cover his ar$e if needed in case he does become president and the realities are obviously not as straight arrowed.

And good to see you back Amardeep, the blog was missing such posts!

Gujudude,

Pakistan != South America

That is why Bin Laden and top brass of Taliban have never been captured. Only the ones that had lost the confidence of Pakistani authority.

Whatever qualities Obama had to make me think he was different have been pretty much wiped out. It'd be nice to have someone of principle in the election, but apparently states[wo]men principles and politics are diametrically opposed.

You seem to be operating on a curious definition of "principles" whereby agreement with your views = principled, and disagreement = politics.

In fairness, this is not an uncommon phenomenon.

it sounds like Obama, by going to the right of Bush, is trying to establish some hawkish street cred after his naive faux pas about meeting dictators during the last debate.

Ditto.

I think Obama is being highly irresponsible. I do not think you do a "damn thing" on Pakistan's territory without their yes/ permission. Pakistan is not a banana republic, even though it has serious complications.

Yup. Nuclear missles, a VERY large population, and competing political elements with Pakistan means disturbing the status quo is a gamble, not merely a risk. Especiall with India next door now with significant American business interests (and nuclear weapons), something spilling over into one of the world's largest countries (size, population, economies) is dangerous.

The same risk exists with stuff spilling over into Saudi, but unlike Saudi, India isn't weak nor Pakistan as broken as Iraq was when invaded. The F-16s are payback for their outdated fleet that was hit hard by sanctions and a gift to keep the largest power broker (the military) happy. Unless those F-16s come equipped with the latest radar AND AIM-120 missles, India still has the higher hand with it's newer squadron of SU-30MKIs (not to mention the future buy of 125 top of the line fighters coming up soon, by the tortoise paced Indian acquisition standards).

An unstable Pakistan can truly have a butterfly effect.

I frankly think that for now this is just image building and hot air. Obama has been at times depicted as a soft candidate.. oen who would compromise US interest and security in the name of peace. I think some hard line talk is what his think tank came up with to counter those holes in his image. And for that matter, I think it's a good decision to do so - talking tough about Pakistan bolsters his image without bringing the complicated implications and contradictions that talking tough about Iran or Iraq might. Plus he's just saying it and also in a way where he is throwing in enough ifs and buts to cover his ar$e if needed in case he does become president and the realities are obviously not as straight arrowed.

There is also the small issue that the organizational leadership of Al Qaeda actually is holed up in the tribal regions of Pakistan, and that taking a hard line with respect to terrorists who have actually attacked the United States makes a good deal more sense than taking a hard line against governments that have not.

But I'm probably just saying that to bolster my image.

That is why Bin Laden and top brass of Taliban have never been captured. Only the ones that had lost the confidence of Pakistani authority

Kush:

The military is the strongest, though has the weakest links to the Salafist Jihadis now (those obviously went to hell in a handbasket as soon as Musharraf declared support for the United States).

Getting the ISI to work for you is the key here. They're kind of like a shadow government. While most direction comes from the military, they sort of march to their own tune. Getting guys like Khalid Sheik M. must have taken some finesse and boat loads of underground bargaining.

Tough talk. Doubt its much else.

The reason we haven't undertaken overt action in Pakistan is that we want to avoid another state imploding and having to rebuild it. I am sure India doesn't want that result either. It seems like there are really two Pakistans and while there may be a lot of hoo-hah about Bhutto vs. Mushy, the real contest is between Mullahs and Seculars.

I think Obama has been consistent in his approach on Pakistan and it is not a one off comment to offset his "weak" image.

Read this from January 2005.
link

Recently, the Democratic Party’s rising “progressive” star Barack Obama said he would favor “surgical” missile strikes against Iran.

As Obama told the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, “[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point … if any, are we going to take military action?”

He added, “[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in” given the ongoing war in Iraq. “On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.” Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if “violent Islamic extremists” were to “take over.”

I think Obama is being highly irresponsible. I do not think you do a "damn thing" on Pakistan's territory without their yes/ permission. Pakistan is not a banana republic, even though it has serious complications.

I completely agree with you Kush Tandon. Highly Irresponsible!

In addition, statements like what Obama made, can be misconstrued and used by the Jihadis a la, "see now the Americans want to invade Pakistan, we need to step up to make sure there is no threat to Islam"

From Wikipedia on Guerva's death.

Guevara left Cuba in 1965 with the intention of fomenting revolutions first in Congo-Kinshasa, and then in Bolivia, where he was captured in a military operation supported by the CIA and the U.S. Army Special Forces.[4]

From Wikipedia on Escobar's death.

In 1992, United States Delta Force operators (and later Navy SEALs from SEAL Team Six) joined the all-out manhunt for Escobar. They trained and advised a special Colombian police task force, known as the Search Bloc, which had been created to locate Escobar.

Using radio triangulation technology provided as part of the United States efforts, a Colombian electronic surveillance team found him hiding in a middle-class barrio in Medellín.

Both these actions were supported by the local governments. While striking in Pakistan is appealing and should be allowed, it needs be done without public acknowlegement or pulling back the curtain.

In addition, statements like what Obama made, can be misconstrued and used by the Jihadis a la, "see now the Americans want to invade Pakistan, we need to step up to make sure there is no threat to Islam"

Jihadis will say that no matter what anyone says or doesnt say. thats what jihadis do. bankers bank. doctors treat patients. painters pain. jihadis wage angry fundamentalist war. best not to try to keep jihadis happy.

I'm curious to see what Hassan Abbas over at Watandost says about this. I took part in an interview with him about six months ago when he advocated the position that democracy should be allowed to take it's course in Pakistan, even if that means having a right-wing reactionary government for some time. In the long term, "moderate" government cannot be imposed.

Re: 17

Jihadis will say that no matter what anyone says or doesnt say. thats what jihadis do. bankers bank. doctors treat patients. painters pain. jihadis wage angry fundamentalist war. best not to try to keep jihadis happy.

Best not to try to create more Jihadis either.

Here is a round table discussion on Pakistgan television about the impending US attack: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Its pretty fascinating.

What's the difference between Obama's threatening military action against Pakistan and McCain's (and all the other Repubs') gleeful threats to attack Iran? Neither country has attacked the US. Both may or may not harbor forces intent on harming the US. Both are sophisticated societies with an interest in maintaining stable democracies instead of succumbing to theocracy.

Isn't anyone running for president whose first inclination is not to shoot somebody?

Ennis,

I agreed with you too, that Obama seem to be suggesting targeted strikes which are far different from an "invasion". On the BBC they are suggestion the same:

"If not, Pakistan would risk a troop invasion and the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of US aid during an Obama presidency, the candidate said."

LA Times doesn't do any interpreting it seems say that Barak "took a hard line on terrorism today, saying the United States may need to strike targets inside its ally Pakistan if the government does not escalate its fight against militants."

Punjabi Assassin, just a clarification -- I (Amardeep) wrote this post...

And good to see you back Amardeep, the blog was missing such posts!

Yeah, welcome back, Amardeep. I like your posts because you don't just link to articles, you also include some analysis/commentary.

Hillary Clinton is hammering Obama in the latest poll.

Seahawks fan, thanks -- it's good to be back.

BTW, a new New Hampshire poll has Obama pulling even with Hillary in that state.

Preston,

Iran, Iraq and Pakistan are different. In this case, Pakistan is more like Afghanistan those those countries. Yes, Afghanistan didn't attack the United States on 9/11, but they did harbor those who did. The question is whether Pakistan is harboring them. If they are clearly, then they are like Afghanistan, but if they are not then they are like any other country that is not harboring Al Qaeda. By having an hands off attitude towards Waziristan, Pakistan is constructively harboring Al Qaeda. Obama refered to 2005 when there was intelligence that a high level Al Qaeda meeting was taking place in Pakistan. Al Qaeda would have to be in Pakistan to have that meeting, so there isn't a question of "may or may not harbor forces", Al Qaeda is there, not intentionally harbored, but arguably they are constructively harbored.

I screwed up Che's last name a bunch of times. Unfortunately I transpose letters a few times here and there.

What's the difference between Obama's threatening military action against Pakistan and McCain's (and all the other Repubs') gleeful threats to attack Iran? Neither country has attacked the US. Both may or may not harbor forces intent on harming the US. Both are sophisticated societies with an interest in maintaining stable democracies instead of succumbing to theocracy.

One has been actively engaged in fighting against the United States for years from an unconventional warfare perspective (Marines killed in Beirut), while the other has been supportive, but severly constrained due to the political enivornment. When the mullahs the USG personnel can sit down at have cordial diplomatic relations, you're somewhat in the same ballpark. Apples and oranges. The current Iranian regime and the United States really haven't chatted much in close to three decades. Pakistan has significant historical ties to the USA, one which soured a bit with the end of the cold war. Also, the support for a stable democracy with Iran, IMHO, is overstated. There are a lot of people vested in keeping the Mullahcracy. Pakistan isn't a theocracy yet, and I'm sure most would agree that's a good thing. Iran already is, they will sooner or later possess the bomb, and have greater middle easter ambitions for projection of power (Shia-sunni, Arab/Persian, etc). Iran is intent on undermining Israel actively (Hezbollah), while Pakistan may support 'the cause', they're far more focused on subcontinental interests (Kashmir).

I'm not saying invading Iran is a viable strategy, but a strike on Iran (pretty much an enemy state of the USA) and on Pakistan (a pivotal, though underachieving ally) is a HUGE difference.

Amardeep, I apologize! I don't know why I see Ennis wherever I look :)

Isn't anyone running for president whose first inclination is not to shoot somebody?

ron paul

This isn't going to do anything to help Obama's cause. The Right isn't really interested in him anyway, and the Left just wants peace and the return of troops that are at war. What good is speaking about tentative attacks on Pakistan going to do him ?

Obama seems like a confused freshman and as of now, it seems like Hillary's going to win this one hands down.

Obama seems like a confused freshman and as of now, it seems like Hillary's going to win this one hands down.

that is the CV among the chattering class. But Obama got a lot of cash (more than hillary?, leads the SC poll, and is even in NH.

His campaign, though not him personally, needs to go for Hillary's jugular on Iraq. She voted for the war and is lying now by saying she just gave authorization only for bush to have negotiation leverage. There are videos of her taking credit for the war well after the invasion as well as her saying it is certain that Saddam had WMDs.

The dems are just dying for an anti-war candidate. obama only chace is to exploit this.

I don't think his comments about meeting with dictators was off the mark. Yes it was different than the usual, but the argument that it may be used from propaganda, what does that even mean???? Like Obama said, somehow we think not talking to our enemies is punishment to them.

Look how much not talking to North Korea got us? First they just trenched in, then they developed the missle tech to hit us, then they developed the nuke warheads to make it hurt. Then we talked to them, and gave them what they wanted, and now it is dismantling. Where would we continue to be with North Korea if we didn't engage them???

Jihadis will say that no matter what anyone says or doesnt say. thats what jihadis do. bankers bank. doctors treat patients. painters pain. jihadis wage angry fundamentalist war. best not to try to keep jihadis happy.

All I am saying is, those statements can be an effective recruitment tool. I am not saying that don't speak lest we incur the wrath of the jihadis.

This isn't going to do anything to help Obama's cause. The Right isn't really interested in him anyway, and the Left just wants peace and the return of troops that are at war. What good is speaking about tentative attacks on Pakistan going to do him ?

Obama seems like a confused freshman and as of now, it seems like Hillary's going to win this one hands down.

Just to be clear, your point is that he is "confused" because his take on the issues does not fit (your simplistic perception of) what is politically expedient?

First they just trenched in, then they developed the missle tech to hit us, then they developed the nuke warheads to make it hurt.

Their missle, which was supposed to have enough range to hit the USA doesn't work and their nuclear test was, by all accounts, a dud too. They're hard strapped for cash/resources to do more (that stuff is expensive) and their customers who in the mid 90s bankrolled them for short/intermediate range missles aren't around for more (like Pakistan). Had those tests actually worked, you would have seen them come stronger with more leverage. But it didn't and our strategy there has played out correctly (inistence on multi party talks, engaging Japan, China, Russia, SK). We talked to them in the 90s and they turned around and gaves a big F*$# You by still conducting their business hidden away. No military threat was ever made, since they do have hundreds of artillery guns and rockets pointing at Seoul.

North Korean discussions have been significantly influenced by China and it's attitude towards DPRK.

If Obama is serious about this, I'd vote for him. The camps that Pakistan created to bleed India in Kashmir don't look much differnt than the camps used by the Taliban. It would do us all a favor if these suicide bombing cowards had their training bases leveled.

Gujudude,

These were not my words, CIA Director George Tenet is the one who suggested they had the missile technology to hit the United States, and yes the nuke was far from the 10 megaton ones that India and Pak tested, but you don't need to flatten 30 square miles to make your point. Even that little one with some tweaking would have hurt.

And yes, they wanted money, but that is what they ALWAYS wanted!!! We twisted their arm, got 4 other countries to talk to them with us, and gave them what they demanded. In then end, talking solved the problem. They wanted cash, we wanted a nuke-free DPRK, and we could have had all of that without the Axis of Evil speech.

Even if Obama reallly felt this way about taking action inside Pakistan he should not say this in public. Once again a Democrat has put politics above national security. This makes it more difficult for US to pull of such an operation.

GujuDude You are the only one here with the facts on geopolitics and military matters as it pertains to this topic. There is nothing for me to add as you have stated clearly the situation. I know a little more about operations in Afghanistan (not secret) but I dont feel comfortable dicussing it in a public forum. You can bet (as you have stated) Special Operations Group is heavily involved in that area, even in Pakistan. You answered Preston with all facts. You have done your research well. So did Punjabi Assassin. Keep on posting.

Please step aside, Mr. Guiliani. The real hawk is here.

M. Nam

Please step aside, Mr. Guiliani. The real hawk is here.

I believe Guiliani made a similar statement last week.

The only adult in the top tier of both parties is Hillary Clinton.

@RS - "Just to be clear, your point is that he is "confused" because his take on the issues does not fit (your simplistic perception of) what is politically expedient?"

'Confused' because Obama has for the most part so far been about everything that Bush wasn't - attentive and anti-war, throwing his 'i never voted for the Iraq war' everywhere possible to make him seem like a revolutionary leader who will 'end the nonsense' and get back to the basics - the economy, poverty, unemployment, etc.

But now that the heat is on him for being too 'soft', he goes all out and talks about military action in Pakistan... all this when there is absolutely no end for the Iraq war in sight, and we have US military generals speaking of troops being there till 2009. If not being confused about his own policies, he is at least confused about his voter base.

I do not believe the US has enough man-power to fight so many countries at the same time... IMHO, attacking Pakistan will simply make even more enemies.

Al Chutiya,

What exactly is childish about the statement? Or am I misunderstanding your implied assertion?

>>I believe Guiliani made a similar statement last week.

Then let's have one as President, and the other as VP (take your pick based on party affiliation)! Let's make history!

M. Nam

Anyone come across any analysis on level of violence in Kashmir post vs. pre-9/11?

I do not think you do a "damn thing" on Pakistan's territory without their yes/ permission. Pakistan is not a banana republic, even though it has serious complications.

Kush, I think your position is interesting. Do we attack nations only if they are banana republics? What if the nation in question is actively encouraging groups that want to attack us? Do we just beef up our homeland? Can you imagine any nation saying yes to attacking them.

Not that I support an invasion of Pakistan but a hawkish President can make a strong case for an attack. A direct line can be established from Al-qaeda (which attacked the US on 9/11) to Pakistani authorities. If you disagree you should be against the war in Afghanistan and against Taliban.

What's the difference between Obama's threatening military action against Pakistan and McCain's (and all the other Repubs') gleeful threats to attack Iran?

Are you serious? I will not speak about other Republicans but McCain has established foreign policy credentials. He might not be currently popular with the conservative base but McCain has shown himself to be responsible during his long stay in the Senate. Given our misadentures in Iraq we should not get involved in Iran but it is important that the rhetoric stay hawkish.

It's already been the case that Pakistan's army has taken credit for CIA predator strikes within NWFP, why not step up the targeted strikes and let the Pakistanis continue to take the credit? An occupation would be unsuccessful and the US would withdraw after capturing their "Most Wanted" and leave India to deal with some nuclear armed warlords.

I'm amazed at how impassioned some of you are about supposed insults to Pakistan's sovereignty. Much ado about nothing, Obama didn't mean an occupation.

It's already been the case that Pakistan's army has taken credit for CIA predator strikes within NWFP.

Have you read something to this effect? Please send us a link.

I'm amazed at how impassioned some of you are about supposed insults to Pakistan's sovereignty. Much ado about nothing, Obama didn't mean an occupation.

I agree! I would also love the Mexican govt. to freely pursue members of the Tijuana cartel and bomb their hideouts in LA.

These were not my words, CIA Director George Tenet is the one who suggested they had the missile technology to hit the United States, and yes the nuke was far from the 10 megaton ones that India and Pak tested, but you don't need to flatten 30 square miles to make your point. Even that little one with some tweaking would have hurt.

Actually, the yield estimates from more credible sources suggests barely a kiloton (and some even question if it was truly nuclear or just a large pile of HE being detonated). Plus, serious doubt exists whether they have the technology to complete a weapon system (weaponizing the design, mating it with a good delivery vehicle, and the missle itself). Here is a wikipedia reference on the nuke as well as the Taepodong-2 missle.

And yes, they wanted money, but that is what they ALWAYS wanted!!! We twisted their arm, got 4 other countries to talk to them with us, and gave them what they demanded. In then end, talking solved the problem. They wanted cash, we wanted a nuke-free DPRK, and we could have had all of that without the Axis of Evil speech.

The Axis of Evil speech, IMHO, actually worked to call DPRK's bluff. They weren't abiding by the agreement laid out with Clinton in the first place. Was it a risky move? Sure, but the solid regional support, including strong militaries of South Korea and Japan, means it's a risk, not a gamble. DPRK was cutting the cake and eating it,too. Now, they're finally coming around to meeting the intent of the previous agreement - stop nuclear research, we'll give you food, resources, and fuel.

The Axis of Evil reference for Iraq and Iran have all had slightly different effects. We've got gains from DPRK, Iraq we invaded with poor strategic vision, and with Iran we're engaged in more unconventional warfare, but no moves to strike each other beyond that have been made.

It'd be nice to have someone of principle in the election, but apparently states[wo]men principles and politics are diametrically opposed.

Isn't anyone running for president whose first inclination is not to shoot somebody?

Yes, there are some - like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, but going by this, doesn't seem like they are media darlings, nor does he have audience support based on the applause Giuliani got. But, he did win the debate based on call-in votes, FWIW. Ooh, can't wait for Obama to go hunting in fatigues to score some points!!

McCain's (and all the other Repubs') gleeful threats to attack Iran?

What really is US's problem with Iran?? It is terrorists based in Pakistan who carried out 9/11, not Iran. Iran may be supporting Hezbollah, but Hezbollah is fighting Israel and not the US (unless one considers Israel 51st state).
Decades ago there was hostage crisis with Iran, which can also be called a backlash against US's support to the Shah of Iran.

So what makes Iran, US's mortal enemy??
I just dont get it. The Beirut bombing may be? Thats it? On the other hand US is about to sell $20 billion arms to Saudi Arabia and other Arab dictatorial regimes. What sense does that make??

I am really curious. Can any learned folks here shed some light??

I think, US is now doing the divide and rule that British did in India with this open embrace of Sunni Arabs to get them to align aginst the Shiaite rising power.

On the other hand US is about to sell $20 billion arms to Saudi Arabia and other Arab dictatorial regimes. What sense does that make??

This agreement helps some of the the money that we send in exchange for oil come back stateside.

Taepodong 2 Missle reference.

I'm amazed at how impassioned some of you are about supposed insults to Pakistan's sovereignty. Much ado about nothing, Obama didn't mean an occupation.

Um, no one is arguing for stepping on Pakistani sovereignty because we "respect" it - it's about how we accomplish OUR objectives and the mission at hand. Based upon that perspective, the appearance of treading on territory of a country with a leader, who has a weak grip on the situation itself, would undermine the primary source of our support. Essentially, not taking a steaming shit on the image of a MILITARY leader, who needs to be seen as a guy who can clean his own trash within Pakistan's borders. Us helping him doesn't need to be stated, if the mission is being accomplished more successfully quietly. How one manages information and psychological warfare is critical.

Of course Obama didn't mean occupation. It is practically impossible for a country that populous. EVEN if we were not in Iraq, we could not occupy Pakistan. The challenge is that daunting. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are complicated nodes in this fight against salafist jihadis.

Rajesh, thanks for the compliment.

It's interesting that when Obama suggests meeting with adversaries that we are not in a shooting war yet, he is called naive and soft by the Clinton camp and their sheep in the MSM. Yet, when he advocates a more active pursuit against parties that did attack us and are receiving refuge in a country whose leadership is doing a half-assed job of pursuing them, that is considered false bravado.

For those worried about the "stability" of Pakistan - keep in mind that Punjab and Sindh feel no ill effects from the efforts the Pakistani troops have taken in the border regions. Obama did not suggest he wanted to dismember, occupy, or have any extended presence in Pakistan.

As far as his position in the polls go, nationally - he does lag Clinton. But in those states that have the earlies primaries, he is ahead or tied. But, Clinton's trump card is not her groundswell of support among Democratic voters, but that many interest groups that are indebted to her husband. Her primary campaign in 2007 is not that different from Dubya's efforts in 1999, where he used his own family connections to pursue his party's nomination.

But, Clinton's trump card is not her groundswell of support among Democratic voters, but that many interest groups that are indebted to her husband.

True. But who's funding Obama? Probably the same corporations and special interests. Eventually, it comes down to who has the most money in "donations" rather than ideas or speaking the truth about issues. I wonder why they don't call it plutocracy instead. ;)

It seems like there are really two Pakistans

Maybe John Edwards should run for presidency there then :).

But who's funding Obama? Probably the same corporations and special interests.

Not to the degree that HRC draws her money from them.

Small donors give Obama fundraising lead

"While Mrs Clinton has focused on securing larger contributions from a smaller number of donors, Mr Obama has tapped a broader base of supporters attracted by his promise to bring political change to Washington."

This is just campaign rhetoric just to get some brownie points in the foreign policy arena. He would have been pummeled by Republicans if he had taken any other stand.

Gujudude,

I agreed with you that the test was far less than those tested by India or Pakistan, and it doesnt change the point. You don't need to flatten 30 Sq Mi to make your point, the fact that they had the bravado to test one is proof enough that things were not working.

As for the Taepodong 2 missile reference, I think Wikipedia is great for a lot of things, I personally am willing to accept that "if its in wikipedia it has to be true." But I am surprised to hear you say that Wikipedia is a more redible source than the CIA?!? I'm sure wiki knows a lot, but when it comes to the types of weapon systems other countries possess, and their capabilities, I'm willing to go with former CIA director George Tenet who said they did have the missile technology to potentially hit the United State in a congressional hearing.

As for the Acis of Evil reference, I'm not sure how you believe it worked? It was said in 2002's State of the Union address, but since then the DPRK attempted to detonate a nuke! From the days BEFORE the 2002 speech, the DPRK has been saying the same thing, give us some cash, and defensive guarantees and we will have no reason to have nukes. President Bush said from that time, until not too long ago, that we will not be blackmailed. What did they do eventually? They paid it out and gave them defensive gurantees. How did the Axis of Evil speech help in any way? If they question had been asked 1 year ago, would have still agreed that it helped?? Just because a resolusion seems to have come to pass, does not mean it had anything positive to do with the Axis of Evil label, in fact it seemed to justify their fears and head them in the oppposite direction.

kxb,

Obama has made it clear that he doesn't take money from lobbyists and special interests.

RC @ #50 said:

What really is US's problem with Iran?? It is terrorists based in Pakistan who carried out 9/11, not Iran.

Not to mention Saudi Arabia.

I think, US is now doing the divide and rule that British did in India with this open embrace of Sunni Arabs to get them to align against the Shiite rising power.

It's nothing new. In Lebanon they (we?) are even funding Sunni groups linked to Al Qaeda. Short-sighted US interventions have a way of crumbling into good old-fashioned blowback, which is why I made the comment at #18.

Sorry that wasn't for KXB, it was for Amit.

I personally am willing to accept that "if its in wikipedia it has to be true."

Seigenthaler would completely disagree

Obama has made it clear that he doesn't take money from lobbyists and special interests.

So far - I don't know what will happen in 2008. But I have no problem with taking money from lobbyists or special interests. - one's person's "special interests" is another person's "grass roots". I just believe you disclose who is giving you the money.

For those worried about the "stability" of Pakistan - keep in mind that Punjab and Sindh feel no ill effects from the efforts the Pakistani troops have taken in the border regions. Obama did not suggest he wanted to dismember, occupy, or have any extended presence in Pakistan.

Punjab and Sindh may have not felt the direct affects, but Musharraf did. There were two assaniation attempts made on him and I'm sure countless other plots foiled that we haven't even heard of.

Those advocating, for Pakistan, a harder PUBLIC line, has anyone thought through the consequences? Musharraf attacking the tribal areas will stir up some bees. The United States, with how we've mishanlded information and psychological warfare, doing so would only be digging our shit deeper. We already have two muslim countries under occupation. PUBLICLY targeting locations in Pakistan is not productive, especially if Pakistan will accomodate other means.

We are not trying to embarass Pakistani leadership. We're trying to kill terrorists and doing so is not easy nor instantly gratifying. The American public has become far too accustomed to 'quick' warfare with instant results. This shit isn't the stock market or earnings reports, and insurgencies are a slow and complicated fight on mulitple fronts (military, economic, cultural, information, diplomatic, politcal...)

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but Alexander the Great didn't attack Persia right off the bat. He set the table so when he eventually did invade Persia, he won resoundingly. Part of the strategy was to take Egypt first (for resources), and destroy the Persian Navy, before finally confronting them head on. It's kinda like the Island hopping campaign of WWII (very strategic in nature). We could have sailed in a mighty armada on Japan itself, but that would have lead to disaster. Instead, we picked apart supply lines (oil) and invaded islands that gave a strategic foothold (Guam, Iwo Jima). That's an easy example, but this isn't a linear war.

The problem with current leadership (Republican and Democrat) is that both have been focused on instant results (or lack of) to wave in front of the American public in their own bickering for power/dominance.

Was the photo in the post picked for a reason??? Does anyone also see that the big cloud is almost the shape of Pakistan? And that the silhouette of his hand is either pointing toward Baluchistan or ready to pick up some specs of trouble from Karachi?

As for the Taepodong 2 missile reference, I think Wikipedia is great for a lot of things, I personally am willing to accept that "if its in wikipedia it has to be true." But I am surprised to hear you say that Wikipedia is a more redible source than the CIA?!? I'm sure wiki knows a lot, but when it comes to the types of weapon systems other countries possess, and their capabilities, I'm willing to go with former CIA director George Tenet who said they did have the missile technology to potentially hit the United State in a congressional hearing.

The following was from the Wikipedia quote:

The Taepodong- 2 could theoreticaly hit the western United States and other US interestes in the Western hemisphere. The current model of the Taepodong- 2 could not carry nuclear warheards to the United States. Former CIA director George Tenet has claimed that, with a light payload, Taepodong-2 could reach western parts of Continental United States, though with low accuracy.[19]

It doesn't contradict the CIA at all, if you actually read what I posted, it simply states the delivery system was not ready for a nuclear weapon. That missle could probably launch a 500lb warhead at best very inaccurately.

The reason why I've quote wikipedia multiple times is because it actually provides, for these cases, a decent SUMMARY. As to the absolute truth, neither of us have the data. But follow the links on wiki to whatever sources it takes you to and make your own decision. I'm arguing my point, but there is only so much public information out there. For Che Guevara, some of the referenced links actually take you to declassified documents on his pursuit, capture, and execution from the CIA, State Department, and US Army.

With regards to the Axis of Evil speech, there were indications that North Korea had already VIOLATED the terms of the agreement. So, we withdrew our money and put them on notice as we should have. Of course we should not be blackmailed. Again, their efforts in pushing for nuclear (and delivery) technology was unsuccessful, IMO, as a result of the pressure/timeline imposed by their leaders without the resources to back it up. Essentially, us calling them out on violating the agreement pushed them to go for what they were already aiming for faster than their technological maturity allowed.

Beyond that, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Jihadis and their ilk only respect strength. The tribes that line the Pakistan/Afghanistan border area have a history of savagely brutalizing their invaders. Musharraf has the strength to go after them, however Pakistani policy with these folks are akin to Indian policy with the indigenous 'lost tribes' of the Andamans. Claim the territory as ours but leave the tribesmen alone as they were hostile to any outsiders and had poison tipped arrows to prove their point. Unfortunately these warlords have already made their presence felt in the global nexus by sending their children to Madrassas in the heart of pakistan and sheltering Al-Qaeda. With the sheer firepower the US has they can be wiped out but the US will need Pakistani help too. Pakistan would need US help again as the vendettas would undoubtedly be shed on Pakistani soil. The majority of the militants and troublemakers hail from these areas and hence bring the 'Sharia' mindset with them.

The only way to pursue this is by force. Negotiations should only be with warlords who can adhere to their 'word'.

Gujudude,

I looked through the article on the 2006 Nuke Test and the Taepodong 2. And yes I did see that, but it was not the article that I had issue with. The CIA chief says they can hit the United States, then I'm gonna have to with it. He didn't explain on what basis he bleieved it, and I don't expect him to explain himself. His assertion is enough, and the Wiki article is not going to enlighten me anymore on that point.

As for wiki articles in general, I agree, they are great for summaries and I'm willing to go as far as ot say, "if its in wiki then it must be true."

As for the Axis of Evil, yes they had violated the agreement they had with Clinton, and I never said otherwise. You say we shouldn't be blackmailed, but that is just a way of saying we will not give you what you want. What is the difference between calling this blackmail or a negotiation? If you give us what we want, we give you what you want. This happens everyday!!! Blackmail is just a way is dismissing a negotiation as something undesirable. In the end we gave in to their "blackmail"!!

And it seems we will have to agree to disagree on the rest of your point. I do not think we had any positive effect by not engaging them in discussion for 5 years, and I believe that if we had not began talking with them in multi-party talks (in the end we even did some bilateral talks that were SOOOO BADD) then we would be in a far worse situation. DPRK knows how to make missiles; Pakistan based their design on DPRK technology, and it would have been a matter of time before they got the nuke right.

Not talking to our enemies is NOT punishment to them, it probably hurts us as much as them.

Was the photo in the post picked for a reason??? Does anyone also see that the big cloud is almost the shape of Pakistan? And that the silhouette of his hand is either pointing toward Baluchistan or ready to pick up some specs of trouble from Karachi?

Nice!

Was the photo in the post picked for a reason???

No, I just thought it looked dramatic. But it's a cool coincidence!

If this guy wants to keep up the "I'm not the same as the others" angle, he'd better shut his mouth. This kind of talk can become a huge albatross around his neck in the minds of the primary voters.

@RS - "Just to be clear, your point is that he is "confused" because his take on the issues does not fit (your simplistic perception of) what is politically expedient?"

'Confused' because Obama has for the most part so far been about everything that Bush wasn't - attentive and anti-war, throwing his 'i never voted for the Iraq war' everywhere possible to make him seem like a revolutionary leader who will 'end the nonsense' and get back to the basics - the economy, poverty, unemployment, etc.

But now that the heat is on him for being too 'soft', he goes all out and talks about military action in Pakistan... all this when there is absolutely no end for the Iraq war in sight, and we have US military generals speaking of troops being there till 2009. If not being confused about his own policies, he is at least confused about his voter base.

I do not believe the US has enough man-power to fight so many countries at the same time... IMHO, attacking Pakistan will simply make even more enemies.

I think you're the one who's confused.

There is nothing "confused" about opposing the war in Iraq while simultaneously supporting more aggressive efforts against Al Qaeda in the hinterlands of the Afghan/Pakistani border. In fact, one of the very reasons that some were opposed to the war in Iraq is that it distracted from and limited our ability to undertake such efforts. The only people this will confuse are those who think one must either support all wars or be opposed to all wars. I think you're insulting the intelligence of the voter base if you think they can't grasp the elementary distinction that Obama is making.

As for whether we have the resources to "attack Pakistan," the speech doesn't suggest any such thing. It suggests strikes against Al Qaeda hideouts in largely unpoliced territories of Pakistan.

Please step aside, Mr. Guiliani. The real hawk is here.

I believe Guiliani made a similar statement last week.

The only adult in the top tier of both parties is Hillary Clinton.

Adults don't proclaim that the United States has done all that could be expected of it in Iraq, and that the problems plaguing it are solely the fault of the Iraqis. That is not only a non-adult position, it is one deeply out of touch with the reality of our policy failures.

RC I will try to answer your post #50 Iran has been our enemy since the Ayatollah came to power in 1979. They were the main sponsors of terror long before Al Qaeda and still are. The Khobar towers bombing in Saudi that killed hundreds of US military personnel, the bombing of the Marine barracks in lebanon in 1983 that killed 240 Marines. The hijacking of a cruse ship in the Medditerian carying American tourists and the murder of an American Jew in a wheel chair by the name of Klinghoffer. There are so many more too numerous to recall in detail. Many of these involved the hijacking of air liners. It is not just about Hezbollah.

Jimmy Carter betrayed the Shah of Iran and allowed the Ayatollah to take power. The Shah was our faithfull ally. I hope this answers your question.

You say we shouldn't be blackmailed, but that is just a way of saying we will not give you what you want. What is the difference between calling this blackmail or a negotiation?

Negotiation in good faith - Countries come to the table and discuss avenues that are beneficial to both. Parties can go back and forth, but the idea is to come to a common ground where both will positively benefit.

Blackmail - If you don't give us FREE AID, we'll develop a nuclear bomb and continue selling missiles. Give me what I want, or else....

That later is what DPRK has been doing. They don't have any rights, squat, to demand resources from us. The regime is corrupt, they've decided to isolate themselves (while China next door is bullishly moving ahead in the global economy), their people starve, and Kim Jong Il is legitimately crazy.

#33
All I am saying is, those statements can be an effective recruitment tool. I am not saying that don't speak lest we incur the wrath of the jihadis.

According to a former terrorist western foreign policy hardly matters to them. Here is a article in the Guardian newspaper by Hassan Butt a former member of Al-Muhajiroun in UK [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2115891,00.html]

#1

I do not think you do a "damn thing" on Pakistan's territory without their yes/ permission. Pakistan is not a banana republic, even though it has serious complications.

Actually its worst than a Banana Republic. Its a client state.
There have been unilateral attacks on Pakistani territory by US using unmanned drones which have been claimed by Pakistan to be their own work. Watch PBS Frontline documentary "Return of the Taliban" where a corps commander is interviewed and doesn't know what weapon system was used while the reporter shows debris of US made drone.

Blackmail - If you don't give us FREE AID, we'll develop a nuclear bomb and continue selling missiles. Give me what I want, or else....

That later is what DPRK has been doing. They don't have any rights, squat, to demand resources from us. The regime is corrupt, they've decided to isolate themselves (while China next door is bullishly moving ahead in the global economy), their people starve, and Kim Jong Il is legitimately crazy.

Again, that kind of stuff happens constantly. We give an ultimatum to Pakistan after we decided to invade Afghanistan. We gave FREE AID to Egypt when they agreed to come to peace with Israel in the original Camp David Accords. That aid has been free for almost 30 years, and that was simply, "sign the treaty and we'llgive you cash."

So to now call it blackmail is political rhetoric. And yes Kim Jong Il IS legitimately crazy, all the more reason not to let him sit in a corner and think to himself!! The man doesn't even take airplanes for fear of being shot down!

Countries may ask for the moon, but as long as they are asking we are on our way to a diplomatic solution. We tell them talking to us is a privledge, and you may get a big eff you from some of them. So what do we gain from not talking to them?? I have yet to see a case of when not tlaking to anyone has worked. It has worked wonders in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict!

to now call it blackmail is political rhetoric.

In this case, it isn't. Plus, it was an incentive package, or bribe if you will, that brought the Egyptians to the table. Not a threat. The ultimatum to Pakistan was a direct statement (get with the program, or else) - not a passive aggressive strategy based on shaking with one hand, and holding the knife behind your back.

I never said don't talk, but DPRK needed to be put into it's place, not demand more aid at the expense of threatening proliferation. I'm not afraid of a North Korean missile landing any day on top of me (and I live on the west coast in San Diego which has the country's highest concentration of military bases, shit, I work on one.)

There long range missile is shit (it hasn't worked yet), they've maxed out on the current technology they have (scaling up their current missiles to a bigger one doesn't work), it isn't very sophisticated, their nuclear weapon doesn't work. Bottom line - they are a threat because instability in South Korea and Japan can hurt us, along with them proliferating technology to other tin pot states. But have been dealt with appropriately and even their strongest supporters, the Chinese, are tired of them.

Lets end this here, since neither you or I are going to agree.

Like usual, Obama provides a thoughtful and realistic strategy in the face of troubling problems and CNN, Fox, and their crawls and rubrics reduce it into "OBAMA WANTS TO BOMB PAKISTAN"

Obama introduced a bill in the senate two months ago to stop all "merit-based" immigration in 5 years. Is he alright?

Saari, wraang info. Here is what happened -

"Obama's amendment proposed changing the way visas are granted, from a family-based to a merit-based system. Calling it a social experiment, Obama proposed to end the new system after five years.

Obama's amendment was also rejected. "
From http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10800758

@#74

RC I will try to answer your post #50 Iran has been our enemy since the Ayatollah came to power in 1979. They were the main sponsors of terror long before Al Qaeda and still are. The Khobar towers bombing in Saudi that killed hundreds of US military personnel, the bombing of the Marine barracks in lebanon in 1983 that killed 240 Marines. The hijacking of a cruse ship in the Medditerian carying American tourists and the murder of an American Jew in a wheel chair by the name of Klinghoffer. There are so many more too numerous to recall in detail. Many of these involved the hijacking of air liners. It is not just about Hezbollah. Jimmy Carter betrayed the Shah of Iran and allowed the Ayatollah to take power. The Shah was our faithfull ally. I hope this answers your question.

Rajesh, true. But we haven't had clean hands either - from toppling Mohammed Mossadegh, the popular Iranian Prime Minister to supporting the Shah. From what my Iranian friend has told me, both the Shah and Khomeini tortured a lot of Iranians, and repressed their people. Most people have this perception that Iran under the Shah was a happy place, and only under Khomeini did it become draconian, which is far from true. So, from an Iranian's point of view, it's USA that's the enemy.

From wikipedia:

In 1953, President Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax, and the CIA took the lead in overthrowing Mossadegh and supporting a U.S.-friendly monarch; and for which the U.S. Government apologized in 2000.

If you think it's justified for us to interfere into other countries' internal affairs, subvert democracies, and put up and topple dictators selectively and at will, then I can't really argue with that world-view and we'll have to agree to disagree. If you haven't read already, I'd suggest you look into US foreign policies over the last 30-40 years in Central & South America, Indonesia, Timor, Philippines etc.

There is nothing "confused" about opposing the war in Iraq while simultaneously supporting more aggressive efforts against Al Qaeda in the hinterlands of the Afghan/Pakistani border. In fact, one of the very reasons that some were opposed to the war in Iraq is that it distracted from and limited our ability to undertake such efforts. The only people this will confuse are those who think one must either support all wars or be opposed to all wars.

RS, well-said. I see no contradiction in being against {AQ/OBL/Islamic fundamentalism} and the Iraq war at the same time. I think Bush should have remained focused on AQ in Afghanistan instead of starting this stupid war in Iraq due to daddy issues.

Punjabi Assassin, thanks for the heads-up. I did check out the contributions to Obama and Hillary, and also Obama's platform on his website. So far, he does seem to be committed to cleaning up Washington/Congress. Hope he remains consistent with that position and good luck to him!

Storm in a tea cup.

Obama says what he knows will get him cover against Hillary's perceived experience in foreign policy.

This will make a few rounds in the press and will be dragged out whenever obama is attacked as being soft or naive on foreign policy. That achieved, obama will be back talking(more like peddling) "politics of hope".

#78 GujuDude
There long range missile is shit (it hasn't worked yet), they've maxed out on the current technology they have (scaling up their current missiles to a bigger one doesn't work), it isn't very sophisticated, their nuclear weapon doesn't work. Bottom line - they are a threat because instability in South Korea and Japan can hurt us, along with them proliferating technology to other tin pot states. But have been dealt with appropriately and even their strongest supporters, the Chinese, are tired of them.

--> In addition, the korean war is officially not over yet and US is required to come to the aid of south korea if they are attacked by DPRK. Solving DPRK issue will cure US one of its lingering headaches. Which is why, it is all the more surprising, US went into Iraq as and when it did. How much can you stretch yourself before your warts start to show up ?

#56 KXB
"While Mrs Clinton has focused on securing larger contributions from a smaller number of donors, Mr Obama has tapped a broader base of supporters attracted by his promise to bring political change to Washington."

--> Obama definitely is targeting more small donors but the underlying mechanics of his campaign allows him to count people who buy obama t-shirts while Clinton's campaign cannot, given their dependence of outside vendors. I am not claiming obama is doing creative accounting as the article claims but the mechanics of his campaign does play a part.

Which is why, it is all the more surprising, US went into Iraq as and when it did. How much can you stretch yourself before your warts start to show up ?

The actual long term strategy has been to pull troops out of South Korea. This wart showed up before we went into Iraq, though unlike the middle east, we have some very militarily strong support there. The South Korean army, while outmanned by the North, is technologically far superior and very well trained. The only reason the United States really is present, is a 'show' of force. If it comes to war, the troops we have there are a speed bump.

Troops numbers have been reduced in South Korea and redeployed, which to the North should look like a reduction in American presense and help the South Koreans negotiate with the North. The Iraq war was the reason used, but the writing was on the wall to stategically re-arrange anyway (Reduce forces in Germany and South Korea). My roomate in gradschool was a South Korean who was a Sergeant in the Army (manadatory for all males). He had some interesting stories.

Gujudude,

I'm cool with ending it here, we can at least agree to disagree.

P.S. I'm a fellow San Diegan!

P.S. I'm a fellow San Diegan!

Well, at least we're on the same side (of the coast that is). Good discussions.

Pakistan slams 'ignorant' Obama attack warning

Amit, I know the history of US involvement in South America begining in the 1800's If you are interested in this topic I recommend a book by Ivan Musicant published by Macmillan and the Naval Institute name: "THE BANNA WARS".

All of the Iranians who I have met would disagree with you and your Iranian friend. There is no comparison between the Shah and the Ayatollahs. The Shah bought Iran out of the middle ages and the backwardness of Islam as practiced there. He modernised the country and Persia prospered. The mullahas put women in burkhas and the economy as well as the quality of life never recovered to the level it enjoyed with the Shah.

Yes I support American policy of intervention in other countries when it is in our national interest. I am not just a Navy man but a far right one, a nationalist like most of my comrades in uniform. It is incredibly naive to talk about 'clean hands' in the persuit of nationl interest. This is someting that comes out of the public school system and the leftist anti-American Democrat leadership.

Rajesh,

I don't belong in the "public school system and the leftist anti-American Democrat leadership" box as I am somewhat of an independent with left/libertarian leanings. I fail to see how pulling troops from Afghanistan to go into Iraq was in our national interest, with the latest news of AQ/Taliban revival in Afghanistan. I guess we have different definition of what "national interest" means - for me, it means dogged pursuit of AQ in Afghanistan/Pakistan, which Bush has failed to do.

As for your comments on Iran, you state something that I (and my Iranian friend) actually agree with (re: Shah & modernity). All I said was that people were tortured under Shah, and one of the reasons of the revolution is that he went too far and pissed off the mullahs when he banned veils in public. Not much different thinking from the Ayatollahs who force women to wear veils in public. Same coin, different sides.

Sure, it's fine to put up and topple dictators in national interest, but then please don't call USA a beacon of democracy and liberty - that's hypocrisy and hollow words given the actions. And be ready for more blow-backs. As I said in my earlier post, different world-views, so we should just agree to disagree. :)

BTW, I'm not defending the Ayatollahs in Iran - I fully agree with you on their repressive regime.

Amit, There are many parts of our strategy I disagree with such as pulling troops out of Afghanistan. I also disagree with some of our tactics in Iraq but these are fine points.

The Shah was a tru ally and friend of America through many administrations. During the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74 He refused to go along with OPEC and continued to suppy the US without raising prices.

Amit, I agree with you that we should go after AQ in Pakistan. This does not mean however that we should ignore AQ operations in other countries like Phillipines, Somalia, Yemen. AQ is global.

He's too skinny.

He's too skinny.

And too black.

And too black.

That can be corrected, but he needs to start soon. ;) :)

political opportunism. skinny ho.