Obama might send troops into Pakistan

[ethics]

First he didn't believe in sending troops to stop Genocide. Now this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_el_pr/obama_terrorism_7

Incidentally, in this case I agree with him 100%. But will American public? I seriously doubt it. Americans--both right and left-- are tired of war.

[Steve]

Pure insanity.

[tke711]

To me, Obama's statement is nothing more then an attempt to paint himself as less of a pacifist. I'm not sure I believe him, even if I agree that is what could be needed.

[Copzilla]

Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.

Two brigades... roughly 5000 troops.

This looks to me to be a standard lib military response, ala Somalia. Just enough feet on the ground to die, not enough to make a military impact.

How about 60k there, Obama? Two DIVISIONS. If you're going to do something, do it right. Or would that be asking too much of a Muslim on Mulsim?

[mikepd]

I've said it before- he needs more seasoning. His plan smacks of what went on in Somalia and at the first sight of our troops getting a nosebleed, the people back home started yelling 'run away'.

The exact same thing will happen if this plan is implemented with the exception that a lot more of our troops will get killed and wounded.

As for convincing the public to open their eyes and see the real danger all around them, I am not so sure that is no longer possible unless we start taking hits on our land. The politicians on both sides have played so many agendas in favor of so many special interests for so long that the public believes no one in power anymore.

As for moving troops, either to Pakistan or bringing them home, I wonder if the public has any idea how long it takes to move not just the troops but all their infrastructure as well.

The politics is going to just get nastier between now and the run-up to election time.

[ravital]

I'm a bit surprised that anyone is taking him at his word enough to provide any kind of analysis of what he says he'll do. Pure election campaign appeasement.

[SixofNine]

Feels like Dukakis going for a ride in a tank (http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm10.html) to show that he's not soft on defense.

[joseftu]

I'm not defending Obama's plan or statement at all (he really does seem to be all over the place these days--I'm getting a sense of a kind of chaotic incoherence right now. Not a good sign!)
Or would that be asking too much of a Muslim on Mulsim?
But what does this mean?

[Copzilla]

I'm suggesting that his military response to Muslim countries might be soft.

After all, it's written in the Koran. And since he wants to be a world leader and president of my country, I may consider that possibility.

[joseftu]

Um, Copzilla? He's an active, believing, church-going Christian.

[Copzilla]

Oh, I thought he was raised a Muslim. Alright, point accepted.

[joseftu]

No problem.

It's interesting how that perception sticks to him--there's no truth to it, but it's pretty widely believed.

[Copzilla]

Question though - if he's an active, believing, church going Christian, why don't his positions on matters of faith take that predominantly Christian track? Abortion? Gay rights?

Makes one wonder if his religion is simply a marriage of convenience.

I see in a bio that he was raised by his mother, an athiest.

[joseftu]

Because there are many Christians who believe in a woman's right to choose, and in gay rights. There is a long and powerful history of devout Christians supporting liberal causes (look at the civil rights movement!). The loud and influential right-wing Christian involvement in political causes is relatively recent...and represents a distinct minority of American Christians.

Obama's not looking too good as a candidate right now, with this all-over-the-map foreign policy stuff, but the one area where I find him distinctly admirable is in his history. He started not as a politician, but as a community organizer and activist. That's work I've done myself, and it's not easy--it takes a special kind of person, a special kind of intelligence, morality, and commitment, to stick with it (I did not--and of course, neither did he).

It was Obama's work as a community organizer that led him to Christianity, and that's not at all an unusual path. It's often Christian churches where the most important community-building work gets done.

Listen to him some time when he talks about his faith and its meaning to him. I hear sincerity there. He's also spoken frequently about the important role of faith and religion in American politics and American life.

Lots of people come to Christianity late in life--our current president is an excellent example. I don't think that that fact makes them any less "real" Christians.

[Copzilla]

Alright, I can accept those points. I have also learned as I've grown older, and changed in my spirituality and beliefs. No sense thinking Obama did not either.

I differ from him in too many topics (big surprise), but I can accept that he may well be very sincere in his principles.

[Steve]

This will probably derail the thread but for those of you agreeing that we need to send in massive numbers of troops to Pakistan, what exactly is your reasoning for thinking this is a good thing? Given the clusterfuck that is Iraq, the truly destructive neglect we've laid upon Afghanistan, how on earth can anyone think that deploying more forces into yet another regional shithole against the wishes of the political and religious leaderships in that part of the world, will do any good?

Best-case scenario: We utterly destroy bin Laden and most or all of al Qaeda. Meanwhile, we earn the enmity of Pakistan (and China, which will be pissed at India's resurgent friendship with us for invading Pakistan), an "ally" that's already on the edge. It looks to me like invading Pakistan is a sure-fire way to coalesce the entire Middle East against us.

[Copzilla]

Because if you're going to go, you don't half-ass it. You don't do a little pussy-foot effort that gets GI's subjected to unnecessary risk simply because the support isn't there for the combat operations.

Combat operations warrant overkill, simply for troop safety. 5000 is weak.

I'm not even saying it's the right thing to do... But if you're gonna go, do it right.

[John]

I think the strongest function of these comments were that they stirred up the focus on an actual war on Osama, instead of the publicly perceived murky-at-best global campaign that is currently underway, which began with Osama, and is headed in 10 different directions. I think the comments will be perceived by the American public positively for Obama. Sort of a "yeah, he's right, why aren't we getting Osama if he's in Pakistan?" regardless of the possibility that they are rooted in pure political "look at me I'm strong" heresay.

And in all fairness, he was speaking about a mission to kill Osama if his general location was pinpointed, not an all-out ground invasion of Pakistan. I think it will make sense to the general population who, rightfully so, will probably look past the "he wants to attack our ally!!!!" cries of the opposition.

[Steve]

Because if you're going to go, you don't half-ass it.I can't argue against that, it makes sense but the only reason I could see to justify an unapproved intrusion into Pakistan would be:

...he was speaking about a mission to kill Osama if his general location was pinpointed, not an all-out ground invasion of Pakistan.

Random cross-border forays with small numbers of troops is simply insane.

[ethics]

Pakistan responds: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070802/wl_sthasia_afp/usvote2008pakistanafghanistan)

Pakistan accused Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of "sheer ignorance" for threatening to launch US military strikes against Al-Qaeda on Pakistani soil.

[Lovehound]

To me, Obama's statement is nothing more then an attempt to paint himself as less of a pacifist. I'm not sure I believe him, even if I agree that is what could be needed.
I believe Obama will try to pass himself off as whatever it takes to get elected President.

Oh, I thought he was raised a Muslim. Alright, point accepted.
And there's another good reason Obama is unlikely to win the Presidential nod. To be honest, I too am unfamiliar with Obama's background, and truthfully, disinterested. I don't like what he's been saying, and his background is uninteresting to me.

[Sierra Mike]

Random cross-border forays with small numbers of troops is simply insane.

Well, if you remove the word "random", I would have to disagree. Clandestine intrusion into denied space is the hallmark of special operations, and if a target needs to be serviced--in this case, bin Laden--and his location is known, it's likely to be more successful if a dedicated unit goes in on a direct action run.

SM

[jfcjrus]

I'm a bit surprised that anyone is taking him at his word enough to provide any kind of analysis of what he says he'll do. Pure election campaign appeasement.
I tend to agree with your assessment of "Pure election campaign appeasement".

The man has next to no track record in foreign affairs or diplomacy.
Which causes me to ponder just who he's listening to, when he says something like that!
If he keeps this nonsense up, I think many voters, come Nov 08, will be a bit uncomfortable in making him our President of the USofA.

A good man perhaps, but NOT one ready to LEAD this nation, if one were to judge his campaign statements against the necessary diplomacy often required regarding some of this world's leaders.

He's certainly smooth talking, but it's becoming difficult to know just what he's really about.

I think the man is listening to too many campaign advisors, rather than just be his own man, and let the chips fall where they may.
At this rate, I concider him a puppy that doesn't know enough to LEAD, so, I can't concider him for leading this nation.

Just my opinion.
Regards,

[Steve]

Well, if you remove the word "random", I would have to disagree. I would, too, but I've lost all faith in the government's willingness and ability to let the military run military operations. There'd be a "shotgun" approach, multiple hits on places where a guy named "Usomo" once sold a camel to an Iraqi and, hey, that's as good a reason as any for spec op, right!

[Arc]

It would be foolish to make any type of unilateral or arbitrary military incursion into Pakistan for any foreseeable reason at this point including getting UBL.

ADDENDUM: Obama is like an adolescent chameleon.

[John]

The man has next to no track record in foreign affairs or diplomacy.


Neither did Bush Jr., Clinton, or Reagan before becoming president. I wouldn't measure a candidate's ability to lead based simply on a track record of foreign policy, since it's difficult to ever be put in the position that the president is in, unless you are the president. Voting records, yes. Track record of management, yes. Proficiency in dialogue/speech yes. Stance on key issues, yes. Otherwise, you're basically going with a hunch and how you feel, based on strategically planned speeches and other indirect media, about the candidates capabilities and intelligence.

With the damage the "seasoned vets" that were elected in 2000 and 2004 have done, it will be of little surprise to me if I see voters go with the fresh faced outsider this time around.

[John]

It would be foolish to make any type of unilateral or arbitrary military incursion into Pakistan for any foreseeable reason at this point including getting UBL.

Whatever happened to "we will get him, dead or alive, wherever he is"?

[Arc]

Whatever happened to "we will get him, dead or alive, wherever he is"?

You're confusing OT and that statement as being linked. Say UBL is in Pakistan and lets make the very big gigantic assumption that we are actually capable of knowing he is going to be there at a given location and for how long he is going to be there.

Our military intervention is unwise, (more like crazy) for a variety of reasons but as to the specific point of your post, getting UBL, there would be other options available other than sending our troops into Pakistan so the point is moot and your question has no nexus to the issue.

Oh and I added an addendum to my earlier post you might have missed:

Obama is an adolescent chameleon.

[jfcjrus]

Originally Posted by jfcjrus
The man has next to no track record in foreign affairs or diplomacy.
Neither did Bush Jr., Clinton, or Reagan before becoming president. I wouldn't measure a candidate's ability to lead based simply on a track record of foreign policy, since it's difficult to ever be put in the position that the president is in, unless you are the president. Voting records, yes. Track record of management, yes. Proficiency in dialogue/speech yes. Stance on key issues, yes. Otherwise, you're basically going with a hunch and how you feel, based on strategically planned speeches and other indirect media, about the candidates capabilities and intelligence.

With the damage the "seasoned vets" that were elected in 2000 and 2004 have done, it will be of little surprise to me if I see voters go with the fresh faced outsider this time around.
All very good points, sir.
But, I think you miss MY point.

In that, this time around, after so many dissappointments, perhaps, just maybe, we 'voters' have learned our lesson?
In that perhaps we should look for someone that knows what the hell they're doing, rather than swallow all the feel-good retoric of the day put forth by any <i>party's</i> campaign slogans and sound bytes?

"Going with a hunch" about a candidate for a leader of this land hasn't really proved it's worth, for decades, has it?
In other words, I don't think either of the major political partys has, so far, put up a worthy candidate to LEAD this nation, come 2009.

So, once again, (so far) I trust the majority of voters will be holding their noses and just 'hoping for the best' (and yes, some 'hunch') come Nov 08.
And at this stage of the event, I think that's not only disgusting, but irresponsible of 'the major partys'.
I lament, where are the Statesmen?

If not in a 'major' party, can they be found in a 'minor' party?
Would such a real Statesman found there have a snowball's chance of being elected?
And MOST interesting, why not?
Because the Dems and Repubs are the only game in town, like the Wigs and Torys used to be?
And why is that, because the MSM deems it so, via coverage?

You're right John, it's just that I'm really hoping for MORE than a 'hunch' this time around.
I'm old and very, very tired of voting for the lesser of the evils.

A real potential LEADER, a Statesman, has, at the very least, demonstrated their ability to get things done in the challenging world of politics and diplomacy.
Otherwise it's the same old non productive and even dangerous political divide, as usual.

I just see NO ONE that fits that criteria, so far.
Hense my dissappointment, so far.

Regards,

[John]

All very good points, sir.
But, I think you miss MY point.

In that, this time around, after so many dissappointments, perhaps, just maybe, we 'voters' have learned our lesson?
In that perhaps we should look for someone that knows what the hell they're doing, rather than swallow all the feel-good retoric of the day put forth by any <i>party's</i> campaign slogans and sound bytes?

"Going with a hunch" about a candidate for a leader of this land hasn't really proved it's worth, for decades, has it?
In other words, I don't think either of the major political partys has, so far, put up a worthy candidate to LEAD this nation, come 2009.

So, once again, (so far) I trust the majority of voters will be holding their noses and just 'hoping for the best' (and yes, some 'hunch') come Nov 08.
And at this stage of the event, I think that's not only disgusting, but irresponsible of 'the major partys'.
I lament, where are the Statesmen?

If not in a 'major' party, can they be found in a 'minor' party?
Would such a real Statesman found there have a snowball's chance of being elected?
And MOST interesting, why not?
Because the Dems and Repubs are the only game in town, like the Wigs and Torys used to be?
And why is that, because the MSM deems it so, via coverage?

You're right John, it's just that I'm really hoping for MORE than a 'hunch' this time around.
I'm old and very, very tired of voting for the lesser of the evils.

A real potential LEADER, a Statesman, has, at the very least, demonstrated their ability to get things done in the challenging world of politics and diplomacy.
Otherwise it's the same old non productive and even dangerous political divide, as usual.

I just see NO ONE that fits that criteria, so far.
Hense my dissappointment, so far.

Regards,

Well put. I think the underlying issue here, then, is the two-party system. The "dumbing down" of the election process has allowed for the unqualified to be force-fed to everyone. Then there's the whole question of "Do I waste my vote with the third party selection?". I say, yes.

[Stiofán]

I did that in 2006 and I'm no happier than any of you who voted for Kerry or Bush.

Bah!