So the answer to the question "Have they ever met a war they didn't like?" is actually "Yes. yes, there is."

Well, waddaya know!

John Podhoretz? Well, even a broken clock can still display the correct time twice daily.

Shouldn't a similar analysis have been performed prior to our criminally poorly planned and managed invasion of Iraq?

Having an exit strategy before you invade. What a novel idea!

Evidently, the capacity for critical thought only operates when examining policy options proposed by a Democrat.

TruthPolitik is more broken that Podhoretz, obviously.

Kevin, this was right on. (And I assume and hope Obama is just doing "tough talk" and isn't for real.) Thinking of invading a nuclear-armed country with 160 million people is enough to provoke plenty of cold sweats.

That said, I find it a bit off-putting that Obama would resort to this, knowing that some people know better.

Shouldn't a similar analysis have been performed prior to our criminally poorly planned and managed invasion of Iraq?

Having an exit strategy before you invade. What a novel idea!

Evidently, the capacity for critical thought only operates when examining policy options proposed by a Democrat.

Shouldn't a similar analysis have been performed prior to our criminally poorly planned and managed invasion of Iraq?

Having an exit strategy before you invade. What a novel idea!

Evidently, the capacity for critical thought only operates when examining policy options proposed by a Democrat.

I understand the political imperative to sound tough, but on a substantive level there's less here than meets the eye.

Agree with you 100 percent Kevin. This is just political posturing by Obama because he wants to look tough with his dovish record on Iraq and terror. As President George W Bush said, it would be wrong to invade Pakistan because "Pakistan is a sovereign nation. In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we've got to be invited by the government of Pakistan." Too bad liberals like Obama don't believe it.

Al, on the other hand, is like a bookmarked day planner: right for that one day of the year and wrong for the next 364.

Have you visited the Army recruiter yet, Al, for Iraq duty?

I suppose he could have said that he would redeploy US forces from Iraq to seal the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan and maybe authorize hot pursuit of al Qaeda fighters who are attempting to flee back. But, to publicly threaten to violate the sovereignty of Pakistan and bully its government, who the hell does he think he is? Bush? lol

Plus, we all know that sealing a border from people determine to cross it is impossible and beyond the ability of the US government to control. Right?

It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

Well, what does he mean? Are we talking covert ops? Airstrikes? Missile strikes? A battalion of Rangers? Delta Force? What?

If he means anything more than covert operations to kill or capture high value targets in pinpoint operations, than he's going in the wrong direction because anything more is a) a bad idea and b) not going to happen, just like Pod says.

Podhoretz, to my mind, is overreacting a wee bit.

This is what Obama said:

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. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

Obama is merely stating the obvious: we're on the wrong battlefield. It's a battlefield that is obliterating our interests. His underlying and general assertion seems inarguable:

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What's wrong with that?

And where's the big bad word "invasion" cited breathlessly by Podhoretz?

Has HRC called Obama irresponsible for this comment yet? But seriously, I prefer Obama's tough talk to that of Sir Rudy. Rudy at first calls the Democrats losers - which was a favorite expression of my nephew when he was two years old. Now he is calling Democrats for a more efficient health care system socialists. Rudy may sound tough to the GOP radical right but he sounds like a small and bratty child to me.

Why are wingnuts so scared to go after AQ?

I think his point was that if they have actionable intelligence on a high level AQ member (say bin Laden) and Pakistan refuses to act, then we will take action. That doesn't mean an invasion.

I agree with one point Kevin made, this Pakistan issue was the least important point he made today.

Oh, I understand, Iraq is the wrong place and Pakistan is the right place. That still doesn't explain how we keep Pakistan from turning into another Iraq after we go in.

Is it possible that Obama is pandering to get Indian-American votes? After all, some members of that community HATE Pakistan.

Ah, Kevin.

Now you know why the American people don't trust the Democrats to handle forgien policy.

Young Barack Hussien Obama as President would blunder his way into a full scale shooting match with Pakistan.

In which speech did Obama say that he would conduct a "major military action" against Pakistan?

Obama's team is smarting from the blowback following his willingness to talk to foreign potentates flap. He wants to prove he isn't a "girlie man". If he wishes to continue in this vein, he should consider hiring Michael Gerson, the world's greatest expert on talking us into catastrophic wars, or else drop this kind of talk altogether. It is way too early in the campaign to engage in this kind of brinksmanship.

I think it is a good idea for Pakistan to worry about whether he is going to go in. If we say we aren't going to go in, they are just going to ignore us.

It's like telling a robber you won't shoot him. Maybe you won't shoot him, but you don't want him to know that.

And where's the big bad word "invasion" cited breathlessly by Podhoretz?

Bingo. Good shot.

Yep; Obama reminds Americans who our real enemies are, and the wingnuts freak the f out.

egbert, you perfect idiot - You wanted to get tough with China not long ago, and so far I have seen no evidence that you have ever heard of a war the mere thought of which didn't give you a woody.

And for the record...y'all can handle all the forgien policy issues that arise. We will handle the foreign policy from here on, thanks just the same.

In which speech did Obama say that he would conduct a "major military action" against Pakistan?

Exactly. Or the risible "full-scale shooting match"?

Read the speech, then overreact.

The same people that caused 9-11.

The same people that caused 9/11 are dead. Studies by Israel have shown that the foreign fighters who've entered Iraq were radicalized after the invasion of Iraq and because of it, not because of sympathies with Al Qaeda's attack in the U.S.

So they can come over here.

We're so afraid of the Iraqis we don't even take in refugees from Iraq who desperately need our help, many of whom have aided us in intelligence-gathering and translation.

Just how are "they" going to come here?

Now you know why the American people don't trust the Democrats to handle forgien policy.

Young Barack Hussien Obama as President would blunder his way into a full scale shooting match with Pakistan.

Blunder us into a full scale shootin' match ... lemme think now. That reminds me of something. What could it be, what could it be...

It proves that Obama is too green and too in-experienced to be prez. His advisers are giving him wrong and stupid advices. It would be WWW 3 if we invade Pakistan. Obama needs to fire his advisers today.

Some of these posts underscore the value of READING COMPREHENSION. I would highly suggest everyone who believes that he is advocating invading Pakistan, take a deep breath and read the text of the speech. If you still think it is advocating invading Pakistan then I don't know what to tell you. His words seem pretty plain to me.

Well, now Kucinich will have to threaten Tajikistan. And Edwards will have to pick a country too. All the good ones are taken.

Obama never said he would invade the country. He said he would have let go foward the targeted strike of Al-Qaeda that Bush aborted and let bin Laden go free. There is a world of difference between a targeted strike and an invasion. Furthermore, you really are being uncreative and knee-jerk in your response. This is obviously an implicit attack on the Clintons, as the Clintons refused to take out Osama by missile when they had him in their crosshairs because Sandy Berger suspected they lacked proper authorization. Playing up the invasion spin just misses the point.

And, J-Pod, whom I respect, is just losing it. Rumsfeld is the idiotic planner who said: "Hey, invade Iraq with as few troops as possible! It's a New Future War paradigm!" And "15 ninjas" is the dumbest hyperbole ever. Did Obama say anything about 15 ninjas? No. He's probably talking about something similar to what Bush is planning in Turkey to quell Kurdish unrest.

Well, Edwards is my guy. But this is a good damn speech. I'll just share this snippet:

President Kennedy said it best: "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." Only by knowing your adversary can you defeat them or drive wedges between them. As President, I will work with our friend and allies, but I won't outsource our diplomacy in Tehran to the Europeans, or our diplomacy in Pyongyang to the Chinese. I will do the careful preparation needed, and let these countries know where America stands. They will no longer have the excuse of American intransigence. They will have our terms: no support for terror and no nuclear weapons. --Barack Obama, August 1, 2007

I call BULLSHIT.

This "we can't invade Pakistan" talk sure sounds negative and defeatist next to "we can invade Iraq, depose Saddam, neutralize the WMD threat, sow the seeds of democracy, be in and out in 6 months, and the oil revenue will pay for it - AND there will be a grand square in downtown Baghdad named after George Bush."

In any case, I'm sure this is just rhetoric. he's gotta build his security street-cred. In my book he succeeds here.

Bush (and cronies) has done a shitty job in convincing me why it was important to ignore Pakistan, and invade Iraq. Getting the Al Qaeda from Pakistan will require a lot of cooperation from Pakistan, India, and China, to prevent Al Qaeda from escaping over those borders in this region. Precisely the kind of thing George Bush sucks at.

This is pretty reckless talk. Whether you call it invasion or targeted strike you're still talking about taking action against an ally (at least nominally) and an ally that is unstable, volatile, populous, armed and a nation in which a large percentage of the population pretty much despises us at this point. Not to mention the fact that the words "actionable intelligence" don't mean sh*t anymore, after the way Bush abused the words.

Two days ago Obama tacked to the left, virtually copying John Edwards' message word for word. Now he is tacking to the right trying to mimic Hillary.

There are a lot of despicable actions a candidate can use, but stealing the other candidates' rhetoric is pretty low.

Kevin, read the damn thing for yourself instead of relying on the interpretation of someone else. You quoted it on your own damn site, READ it.

Obama:
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

J. Podhoretz:
"This country is never — never — going to stage a major military action against Pakistan"

Uh, where in there did Obama call for major miliatry operations? Cause I missed that.

Doesn't ACTIONABLE information require that, you know, you be able to act on it? As in, act immediately with the forces you have available? Which would be, um maybe "a single cruise missile or a small covert ops mission"?

Podhoretz just sets up a straw man by misrepresenting Obama's words. Kevin you got duped man.

Kevin, you're falling for Podhoretz' dishonesty here. Let's go to the videotape:

Obama: If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will. (Emphasis added)

Podhoretz: This isn't 15 people dropping like ninjas in the darkness. It's an invasion, with helicopters and supply lines and routes of ingress and escape.

Um, actually, if you read what Obama actually said, instead of Podhoretz' straw man -- are there any conservatives capable of intellectually honest argument any more? -- yes indeed it is 15 people dropping like ninjas in the darkness, or the kind of missile strikes Bush so famously derided -- before he proved he was no better able to get bin Laden with the full might of the US military at his disposal and the united support of the nation behind him (and given the bloody mess in Iraq, does anyone still buy Bush's excuse that he didn't think the American people would accept the casualties from getting bin Laden out of Tora Bora?).

Meanwhile, the irony of chickenhawk Podhoretz writing that Obama is just "talk[ing] tough, in the full knowledge that he will never actually pull the trigger, is simply too rich.

Please, please, Kevin, stop buying dishoenst right-wing framing, please?

Two days ago Obama tacked to the left, virtually copying John Edwards' message word for word. Now he is tacking to the right trying to mimic Hillary.

In the Diplomacy question, if you look at the footage, Edwards gave a pretty much lame repeat of what Hillary said. In fact, he just as well could have said ". . .uh, yeah, . . . what she said."

Obama was the one who stood out there.
And he stands out here too.

I've heard zero tough talk come out of Clinton, on either the Saudis or Pakistan.

Two weeks ago, Obama was for precondtions.

Last week, he was for kumbaya-ing with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela with no precondtions.

This week, he's for pre-emptively and unilaterally invading an unstable Muslim ally?

Kevin: You and the newcon you quote are totally wrong:
I am ready to bet my farm that, whoever he is, one of the Presidents within the next 20 years will invade Pakistan either to eliminate Al Quaida or to prevent the Islam extremists getting hold of the Pakistani nuclear weapons. If Obama will preside for 8 years he is more likely than not to invade Pakistan. But so is any other, D or R, next President.

Please, please, Kevin, stop buying dishoenst right-wing framing, please?

Look, let's not get carried away here. Obama's remarks are open to interpretation. He could be talking about airstrikes, which I think are a bad idea. He could be talking about covert ops, which I think are okay. It's not "buying dishonest right-wing framing" to wonder exactly what he means, though I don't think I would have quoted Pod, who seems to assume that Obama means military incursions of the more disruptive variety. If Obama didn't want anyone to speculate about what he meant, he would have said "I favor limited military intervention, but intervention nonetheless in the form of..." and so on and then we'd be having a conversation about the merits of his policy, and not exactly what he means.

Apparently Obama is finding that leadership is mostly about mimicking other people's words. I wonder if we'll catch him plagiarizing too.

Leadership, it's what a president has.

yes indeed it is 15 people dropping like ninjas in the darkness, or the kind of missile strikes Bush so famously derided...
posted by: Gregory

The whole "15 ninjas at night" thing was rejected by the SpecWar guys, who said they needed to go in with a decent force in the 2005 raid, which is the point J-Pod was making. He wasn't saying no 15 ninjas, the SpecWar experts were.

We invaded Afghanistan because it had camps in which
men were trained to kill us, and this is unacceptable.

... now in Pakistan there are camps in which men are
trained to kill us and this is OK?? If Obama is wrong
what should we do about Al Qaeda camps? And did the
Afghan invasion have any point at all? I'm no warhawk, but
the Pakistan situation is quite intolerable.

But right now they are being sent to Iraq. If we leave Iraq the radicalization won't stop.

Um, if we're not there occupying a Muslim country then of course it will stop.

But if the reason to go to Iraq ends. Where will they be sent???

As I said, two international studies that included extensive interviews with captured foreign fighters concluded that what was radicalizing these fighters was our occupation of Iraq. We are making them with our presence there . End it it and they end.

Garden variety religious radicals and nationalists and reactionaries of every stripe will always be with us, then is no country you can invade to stop that. However there are all sorts of countries you can not invade to prevent their creation.

Shame on just about everyone here for buying into the argument that Obama is either calling for a full scale war with Pakistan or that his statements demonstrate lack of experience.

Obama is spot-on here. First, his rhetoric correctly identifies one of the great 'emperor has no clothes' lies that this administration perpetrates and the MSM is unwilling to call out: invading Iraq had nothing to do with going after the people who attacked us on 9/11; quite the contrary, it diverted our focus from those who really did attack us that day.

Second, he boldly states what this administration is unwilling to state, that Osama bin Laden is almost certainly hiding inside Pakistan. You can't solve a problem that you aren't willing or able to identify and talk about seriously. This dovetails into another point, which Obama specifically makes, that the US is NOT waging a war against Muslims in general but specifically against the terrorists who attacked us. It may seem like a remedial point, but due to Bush's detour in Iraq it will come as news to many people in the Muslim world. Stating that the US will re-focus its efforts more narrowly towards the people who actually attacked us goes a long way towards dispelling the fears that Bush has helped to foster, that the US is waging a wider war against Islam. Of course, this is a much harder sell after Iraq, but at least the actions would match the rhetoric for a change.

Third, his statements appropriately walk the line between respect for Pakistan's sovereignty and our need to bring al Qaida to justice. Saying we'll go after al Qaida if Pakistan cannot or will not puts more pressure on Pakistan to take matters into their own hand. The last thing Musharraf wants is US forces on his soil. Push comes to shove, he's more likely to take matters into his own hand if the alternative is US strikes that risk destabilizing his power base. Right now, however, he doesn't have to make that tough decision because this administration has taken that possibility off the table.

Kudos to Obama and shame on all of you who are so quick to criticize him for, you know, acknowledging who are enemy is and our desire to just go after that enemy. Stop behaving like Stockholm victims, stop identifying with Bush administration nonsense, and start getting behind people like Obama who actually have the courage to address reality and state what we all know needs to be said and done, like it or not.

It just defies belief how much damage the Bush administration has done to our nation - squandering trillions of dollars, destroying our standing in the world community, breaking the back of our military, destroying rational public discourse, and destroying our national will to actually punish those who attacked us (in order to settle a family vendetta).

Bush is our nation's Commodus.

Would it help the wingnuts to see the threat that AQ continues to pose us if we found oil in Waziristan?

And, oh yeah, although I failed to comment on it above, what Gregory said. Shame on all the libs for buying into wingnut framing. It continues to amaze me how lefties continue to condemn Obama for things that he never says.

President Kennedy said it best: "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."

Some other good quotes courtesy of The Sphinx...

"To learn my teachings, I must first teach you how to learn."

"He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions."

"When you can balance a tack hammer on your head, you will head off your foes with a balanced attack."

I liked Obama's speech, and generally like the guy. But I'm going to be real curious to see how his speech plays in Pakistan. The country is an absolute powder keg at the moment following the incident at the Red Mosque, and the islamic fundies can be expected to play his speech up as raw meat to the faithful.

Better yet, I'd like to sign on to Augustus' excellent comment directly above.

Substitute "Iraq" for "Pakistan" and JPod just made an excellent point.

Just a few weeks ago, Bill Kristol suggested that Bush would soon be considering action against the Taliban inside Pakistan's border. Was this a trap set by Kristol?

whoa!! (1) Would an invasion of Iran be any MORE destabilizing than a special forces operation in Pakistan? (2) Wouldn't Pod and the other NRO geniuses be wetting their panties in glee if this idea were proposed by Dear Leader himself?

Obama's speech was terrible. Even though there were "boring bits" that supposedly showcases a nuanced defense policy, it's clear that "Pakistan, Pakistan, Pakistan" is the message he wanted you to hear. He mentioned Pakistan 14 times - how much more transparent can he be?

The facts are simple. If Obama really thinks we're going to send troops into Pakistan without Musharraf's support, then that's an act of war. Love or hate Pakistan, they're a sovereign nation, and you can't send troops into a sovereign nation without repercussions.

Obama may have called HRC "Bush-Cheney lite", but the belief that other countries must follow our will or else be fair game for our military is exactly why the US keeps getting into the same messes over and over again.

And while clearly, it's doubtful that he's going to invade Pakistan, this just comes off the equivalent of Kerry's hunting trip. sigh.

DR: "I think it is a good idea for Pakistan to worry about whether he is going to go in. If we say we aren't going to go in, they are just going to ignore us."

I agree with this sentiment, if not what it implies in the current context. We've already shit the bed with a completely botched military attack against one Muslim nation, so this may not be quite the threat we imagine it to be. I don't know what kind of effect even the threat of this would have on Pakistan's internal politics, but the last thing we need is one of those ISI crazies coming to the fore. (Granted, they're not as bad as neocons, but still...) And you're nuts if you think anyone in leadership at the State Department has given this more than a passing thought. Your garden-variety Economist subscriber has a better handle on this than Condi, and the area we're talking about is on such a sensitive geopolitical fault line that it's difficult to overstate the implications of something going wrong there. What's happening in Iraq would seem quaint by comparison.

Yes it was an interesting speech. Perhaps it was impressive to hear and see (I read it over at TPM). And it contains enough to show that he is a solid supporter of US imperialism. That, I hope, will make people stop and think. I am quoting selectively to make my point, but here are are a few snippets.

"The history of America is one of tragedy turned into triumph. And so a war over secession became an opportunity to set the captives free."

(Ignores a lot of the bad stuff that happened.)

"This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map..."

(Yes, a globalized world, with walls along borders to keep the riff-raff separate - that's what we need.)

"So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world..."

"I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. We need to recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same. This must include a program to bolster our ability to speak different languages, understand different cultures, and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies."

(Particularly egregious: speak different languages and understand different cultures in order to kill.)

"We will open “America Houses� in cities across the Islamic world, with Internet, libraries, English lessons, stories of America’s Muslims and the strength they add to our country, and vocational programs. Through a new “ America’s Voice Corps� we will recruit, train, and send out into the field talented young Americans who can speak with – and listen to – the people who today hear about us only from our enemies."

(Wow! And Disneyland and McDonalds too, please.)

From Saudi Arabia. Where they were radicalized before 9-11 and where they are being radicalized now. But right now they are being sent to Iraq.

Thanks TruthPolitik for all the convincing evidence you've presented backing your statements.

Stupid reasoning Kevin. Why not find a real military expert to quote instead of a wingnut? The reason Podhoretz claims it'd take a large force is because the gutless calcified brains in the Pentagon scotched both the 2005 operation and the Afghanistan operation after the Cole by pumping up special forces attacks to battalion size incursions.

They are adverse to any operation without overwhelming force and odds on our side. Obama is right. We're never going to catch Al Qaeda by surprise blundering in at 120 decibels with 100 Blackhawks coming over the mountain. It's going to require good intel and a small force.

I agree with Disputo, what Augustus said.

Stupid reasoning Kevin. Why not find a real military expert to quote instead of a wingnut? The reason Podhoretz claims it'd take a large force is because the gutless calcified brains in the Pentagon scotched both the 2005 operation and the Afghanistan operation after the Cole by pumping up special forces attacks to battalion size incursions.

J-Pod quoted the military experts. These are the guys who took all of Afghanistan with handfuls of SpecWar troops, and have hunted down Saddam, his sons, Zarqawi, and every single other bad guy we've killed. In 2005 they'd had 4 years of 365 days a year experience doing it. They planned it. They wanted to go. Rumsfeld said no.

They are adverse to any operation without overwhelming force and odds on our side.
Posted by: markg8

Well...duh. You've been watching too many Rambo movies.

If Pakistan is knowingly harboring the murderers of 2700+ Americans on September 11, 2001, and is also harboring like-minded persons who intend to do something similar (though they probably lack the means), why shouldn't the US take unilateral action?

Last I checked Musharraf was singing give peace a chance with the taliban and bin laden while they sat in relative safety in Waziristan, a province not under control of the pakistani gov't. So gee, maybe Obama has a point that it's time to stop playing footsie with Musharraf since, for all appearances, he's harboring the man responsible for 9/11?

I read the speech and nowhere, I repeat NO WHERE do I see any use of the word "Invasion" in regards to Pakistan. Did he say he'd be willing to go after Bin Laden if he had to when pakistan wouldn't? Yes. Did he say how? No. So all this invasion talk is doing nothing but making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Hell this is the first coherent policy for dealing with "terrorists" and getting us out of Iraq I've heard. But keep fluffing the ridiculous talking points everyone else is pumping on this. Quite honestly if anything Obama earned more of my respect with this speech and gave me even more reason to vote for him.

As for all those so disingenuous as to bloviate about how we can't invade pakistan because they are a sovereign nation...Iraq STFU.

Again, the dems have said they'd bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice. One of them has the cajones to actually suggest a way and the rest all wet themselves while drooling over who can criticize him the most. Quite sad really.

TruthPolitik: "Wonder what [Obama] would do about those suicide bombers that are sneaking into Syria from Saudi Arabia and then are blowing up innocent people in Iraq."

What you are saying and insinuating makes absolutely no sense, just like most GOP talking points about the fiasco in the Middle East.

If you had bothered to first take a look at a map of the Middle East before making such a statement, you would have noted that Saudi Arabia does not share a common border with Syria. It does, however, share a very long border with Iraq, most of it falling across unmonitored sand dunes in the middle of the Arabian desert.

While granting you the point that the majority of foreign "jihadists" operating in Iraq (about 3% of the total insurgency) are from Saudi Arabia, why would "suicide bombers" -- who are probably not wealthy people -- take this very circuitous route to Iraq by traversing the exact same desert first to Jordan, and then further to Syria before doubling back across nearly 1,000 miles of the same desert to head toward Baghdad?

Common sense and geography dictates that you can't implicate Syria in this scheme without also involving our ally, Jordan.

RSM: "You've been watching too many Rambo movies."

I'd have guessed that markg8 has been binge-viewing The Dirty Dozen and Where Eagles Dare.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the next president, after trying to out machismo bush to get elected and after being elected because of the Iraq mess, ends up generating a situation in which we 'have' to kill 10s of millions and destroy the world economy?

Since posting a comment here some time ago, I read an article over at counterpunch.org on the possible effects of a US strike in Pakistan. It is in today's online issue and by Daniel R. McBride. Whatever one's position on the issue, it is worth reading in the context of Obama's speech.

(Kevin, can one include direct URL links in the comments, or would that be breach of etiquette.)

The real Barack Obama is at last showing himself.

And he shows himself to be naive, inexperienced, uninformed, a demagogue and downright dangerous when it comes to foreign policy, if not domestic policy as well.

How anyone with any sense can continue to support him for president is anyone's guess.

When it comes to foreign policy,especially military policy, Obama increasingly looks very much like George W. Bush. Or, Bush Lite.

Or perhaps a latter-day saber-rattling Barry Goldwater,

The Pakistan speech has to be the last straw.

I think it's ok to embed urls.

Daniel McBride/counterpunch

He's critical of overreliance on airpower to subdue enemy combatants and cites WWII examples among other more recent debacles.

A reasonable objection. But not, it seems, quite where the Obama speech was going.

Michael7843853 G-O in 08:

Never fear, sir, Barack Obama's chances for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States are slim to none. It won't happen. Nor need you worry about his becoming the vice presidential nominee. It won't happen. Rest easy.

Unfortunately, Obama's numbers are slipping fast so he's saying and doing anything possible to get attention -- no matter how absurd. What he doesn't realize is that he's showing America the kind of person/leader he is, which will only lead to even lower number and two years from now we'll all be asking...who's Obama?

Agree with earlier comments, "give the Pakistan piece a rest".

Obama has laid out a great vision for actually addressing the underlying causes of terror, and implementing security measures for the USA. This is far from the normal Senatorial equivocating type speeches.

Let's be real clear here. Had this been a Reagan speech, the MSM would be falling all over themselves fellating the "Great Communicator".

Take time, read the speech and allow yourself someone inspiration. There are a lot of broad strokes and there are a lot of specifics. The whole Pakistan reference shouldn't get any more play than the proposed expenditures.

Good God y'all. We criticize the crap out of politicians for their timidity. This wasn't a timid speech.

BTW, I have no idea who gets my vote in the Democratic Primary. I have also criticized Obama's maddening tendency to be senatorial. But this was a GREAT speech!

Okay, I read the speech. OMFG what a great speech. I can't imagine why BushCo hasn't had this guy offed yet. They must be terrified.

RickG, there's no doubt Obama's a great speaker. If he weren't, no one would be excited about him. Unfortunately, a great is ALL he is. He hasn't done anything for us in Illinois...except give good speeches and smile for the media. And now he'll say and do anything -- no matter how absurd -- just to "close the gap" between himself and Hillary. We already have a "cloak and dagger" president; Obama would be "smoke and mirrors."

RickG, there's no doubt Obama's a great speaker. If he weren't, no one would be excited about him. Unfortunately, a great speaker is ALL he is. He hasn't done anything for us in Illinois...except give good speeches and smile for the media. And now he'll say and do anything -- no matter how absurd -- just to "close the gap" between himself and Hillary. We already have a "cloak and dagger" president; Obama would be "smoke and mirrors."

Jeez. What is with the double post by Jim/Chris?

LMAO at the clashing concern trolls "Jim" and "Chris".

Guess you won't be getting your weekly bonuses from your RNC bosses.

Btw, if the clash of RNC concern troll talking points wasn't enough evidence, another tell is:

He hasn't done anything for us in Illinois.

I hope the evidence of concern troll flim-flammery in this thread will cause the progressives on this board to think twice the next time they see "progressive" criticism of Obama for being too conservative.

Now you know why the American people don't trust the Democrats to handle forgien policy.

Think you better take a look at the polls, Egbert. The American people do trust the Democrats more than they trust the Republicans. They also prefer Congress to handle the mess in Iraq over the president.

And the last poll that counted, in November of 2006, was hardly a ringing endorsement of the Republicans' handling of foreign policy.

First off, when I submitted my first comments, the site gave me an "error" telling me to change the name I entered so I did. Then it posted both entries.

Second, I don't work for the RNC or the DNC. If I did, I'd ignore the comments of everyday citizens like you and me -- just as the RNC and DNC do!

Finally, ask anyone from Illinois about Obama. We love him but we can't tell you a single thing he has done for us -- other than represent our state to the rest of the country is a professional, respectful way. As an Illinois congressman, he missed more votes than anyone in recent history and since being elected to the U.S. Senate, he's done nothing but campaign for president. Now he's concerned about poll numbers so he's revealing his true lack of leadership by saying anything to try to raise his poll numbers.

Sorry if the truth disappoints, but it is what it is.

Gee...Jim and Chris think a lot alike, don't they?

You leave something like this on the table long enough, and eventually someone takes a bite. It's how we got into Iraq. It's irresponsible to advocate stupidity in the name of tough talk.

when I submitted my first comments, the site gave me an "error" telling me to change the name I entered so I did.

I'll let the mods comment as to whether this is credible. Not anything I have ever seen in my several yrs posting here, nor does it make any sense. There is no registration here, so people are free to post under whatever handle they choose.

I call BS.

It's how we got into Iraq.

No, it's not.

Disputo, of course you call BS. Why wouldn't you? You're full of it.

And, like Obama's comments, yours avoided the issue on the table and moved to a tangent. Smoke and mirrors.

And he's more full of -- ummm -- fertilizer, too!

And, like Obama's comments, yours avoided the issue on the table and moved to a tangent

No, Jim. Your baloney about what Obama did for you in Illinois is the tangent. This is about the speech he gave on foreign policy today, not what he did for you.

As an Illinois congressman, he missed more votes than anyone in recent history and since being elected to the U.S. Senate, he's done nothing but campaign for president.

Someone who was actually from IL, such as myself, would never refer to a member of the IL Senate as an "Illinois congressman". In IL, the Senate, along with the IL House of Representatives, is part of the "General Assembly". We don't have a congress.

This is yet another "tell".

That, and the thing about missing more votes than anyone else is pure hogwash.

Read the thread, Pug. It evolved into a conversation about WHY Obama made his speech. And the reason is to (desperately) try to gain some ground in the polls.

Disputo, what grade are you in? When you get to third or fourth grade, you'll learn that the "general assembly" is a MEETING of the Illinois Congress.

Look like Jim needs a little edumacation.

Learn to quit while you are behind. You've been outed as a concern troll. Face it -- you've lost your bonus for the week.

Hi.

Osama Bin Laden was the mastermind of the 9-11 attack.

Capturing or killing Bin Laden is foreign policy priority number one. Still.

We invaded Afghanstan because the Taliban wouldn't hand over Bin Laden.

Then George Bush let him get away.

Now Bin Laden appears to be in Pakistan.

If there is an opportunity and the means, we should get Bin Laden.

That's what Obama is saying.

Details, yes.

But how could you disagree with the principle?

Disputo on August 1, 2007 at 3:28 PM :
Why are wingnuts so scared to go after AQ?
They need AQ. It's hard work finding new enemies to scare us with.

And, I agree with everyone who agrees with Augustus at at 5:12 PM. Excapt that Bush is probably worse than Commodus, who was occasionally known to actually take part in a fight.

If you ask nicely, Disputo, I'm sure your teacher will let you erase the chalkboards when class is over.

Oh, and while you're in study hall, perhaps you'd like to randomly select an Illinois state elected official (such as Jesse Jackson, Jr., for example) and vist his website which clearly refers to him a "Congressman" and also refers to his CONGRESSional district in Illinois. But of course, that must be incorrect because we don't have a Congress in Illinois...

Geezus f-ing Christ you're an idiot.

JJJr is a *US* Congressman from IL.

Disputo, please stop. I'm laughing too hard to catch my breath.

So if you're curious about what Jim/Chris is spouting about Obama not having done anything for his constituents, you might check out his entry on Wikipedia -- particularly the section on his time in the Illinois state legislature. It's replete with links to local Chicago newspapers, as well as the big nationals. You can say you don't like the guy, but you can't say he didn't do anything for his constituents -- unless you're a liar.

But don't take my word for it. Judge for yourself whether or not Jim/Chris has a legitimate beef with his former rep, or he's just a moronic troll posing as a genuinely disappointed Democrat. Without further ado, the Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#State_legislature

"Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996 from the state's 13th District in the south-side Chicago neighborhood of Hyde Park.[32] In 2000, he made an unsuccessful Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate Bobby Rush.[33] He was overwhelmingly reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998 and 2002, officially resigning in November 2004, following his election to the U.S. Senate.[34][35] Reviewing Obama's career in the Illinois Senate, a February 2007 article in the Washington Post noted his work with both Democrats and Republicans in drafting bipartisan legislation on ethics and health care reform.[36][37] In a July 2007 article, The New York Times credited Obama with leading the passage of an Illinois state law mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and another law that "required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor racial profiling." The same article also reported that Obama "was a chief sponsor of a law enhancing tax credits for the working poor, played a central role in negotiations over welfare reform and successfully pushed for increasing child care subsidies."[38] During his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, Obama won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police after the police organization initially endorsed Dan Hynes, who lost to Obama in the Democratic primary. [39] The union cited his "longtime support of gun control measures and his willingness to negotiate compromises," despite his support for some bills the police union had opposed.[40] He was also criticized by a rival pro-choice candidate in the Democratic primary and by his Republican pro-life opponent in the general election for having voted either "present" or "no" on anti-abortion legislation.[36][41]"

The "wrong battlefield" rhetoric has always seemed phony to me. What makes Iraq the wrong one and Afghanistan (and now Pakistan) the right one? I realize Bin Laden at one time was in Afghanistan and perhaps now in Pakistan and he ordered the attacks on 9/11, but how does that support the conclusion that today Arghanistan is the "right battlefield." It has always seemed like a phony way for democrats to sound tough. Is there a crebible argument for why Afighanistan is the right battlefield and Iraq is the wrong one?

Well, someone just got himself all walked over and it wurn't Disputo.

Look, this tired ploy of pretending that the person you're talking too is a schoolboy distracts no one from the spectacle of a flailing realthing/Jim/Chris stripped naked. Is it too much to ask for minimal acting skills? Something at least as subtle as Rudy Giuliani in drag?

Normally, I wouldn't correct a typo but this is too egregious. That's 'to'

The "wrong battlefield" rhetoric has always seemed phony to me. What makes Iraq the wrong one and Afghanistan (and now Pakistan) the right one?

Uh, perhaps it has something to do with the latter two places being where the people we are told attacked you had/have sanctuary? Hey, I know that's crazy, un-American reasoning at work on my part and all but maybe?

Those who claim Congressman Obama is simply politicking with no one seriously believing that he would ever order an attack on Pakistan are completely delusional.

I was in Pakistan last week in the city of Lahore, so these comments are based not on some guesswork but discussions with Pakistan.

This is a country where parents are so obsessed with education for their children but are in many areas so poor that when a Madrassah offers their child free education and board they leap at the chance.

Many of the Madrassah's offer the children a good general education above and beyond the studies in Islamic custom, law and the Quran. However, as in the Lal Masjid incident, others teach more volatile subjects.

Against all of this, having a person running for President (and having a good chance of success) from a friendly power stating that they WILL order attacks against your country does nothing for President Musharraf other than help destabilise his domestic situation.

I was quite positive towards Obama until this statement which puts him in the same class of foreign observers as Dubya.

I honestly could never vote for him after this. He is an idiot for ever making this statement.

it continues to astound me that there are any who continue to believe in the bushit fictions concerning the events of 11/09/01.

the taliban had nothing to do with the events of that day. osama bin laden had nothing to do with the events of that day .there was no justification for the invasion of afghanistan.

no commercial airliner collided with terrain at the pentagram.

no commercial airliner disappeared into a hole in pennsylvania.

and there are more than serious questions concerning what caused the cataclysmic, pyroclastic destruction of wtc 1&2. surely no short-term kerosene fire could have been responsible for those unprecedented demolitions.

and of course, the demolishing of wtc 7 cannot be explained as anything other than an action of premeditated demolition.

the demolition that goes ignored is the destruction of wtc 6. possibly even wtc 5.

an extraordinary bit of demolition occurred in lower manhattan that day. and i can assure you that none of it involved the impacts of commercial airliners.

that obamalama persists in aligning himself with the real murderers[the usg] of that day, should tell you that he is either dumber than a fencepost or that the is a party to the conspiracy that was energized to stampede the usa to invade afghanistan and iraq. for a number of reasons....

the continuation of THE GREAT GAME[IMPERIALIST AMBITIONS].

THE LOOTING OF THE US TREASURY BY WARFARE[as was perfected in the invasions of korea, seasia].

in my view, obamalama is the black creation of the pnac, the rockefeller scheme. just another lying running dog. a lackey to the gangsters running this homicidal regime.

I honestly could never vote for him after this. He is an idiot for ever making this statement.

Tell us, then, how many more skyscrapers and government buildings al Qaida needs to slam planes into before you would support a president who wanted to hunt the planners down and kill them? Or perhaps you think Pakistan should forever be a terrorist safe haven for the likes of Osama bin Laden, no matter what? Or maybe you forgiven and forgotten what bin Laden's terrorist organization did?

I assume you don't condone the attacks on 9/11, but advocating a crime should go without punishment is hard to distinguish in effect from tacit approval.

Pr maybe we just need to given Musharref another half-dozen years to do something about his country being used as an untouchable home base for al Qaida?

If you want to stop Terrorism being developed in Pakistan, don't set up "America Houses" which a cheap arsed publicity stunt, set up real schools and fund them fully for the people in the poorest areas of Pakistan, like the NWFT. Build im your own Madrassah's which do not teach Wahabist thought. Build in history lessons that glorify the artistic and technical innovations that Islamic culture has given the world.

Make it clear to the parents that the top 10% of all students from these schools will get full scholarships for American Univerities.

Lean on the many American business in Pakistan that they will offer business trainee programmes for those kids in the next 10%. You'll have a queue for enrollment fifteen miles long.

Set up vocational colleges with free tuition for the remaining 80% to provide a well trained workforce for businesses in Pakistan.

Build more power stations for the cities like Lahore so they do not have black-outs on a regular basis - every - single - day.

Send over PR agencies to work with the Pakistani government to build more effective tourism campaigns to boost local revenues.

If you do all of this, without a single military uniform bearing the stars and stripes being present, it will cost America less and provide stability in a country which is desperate for it.

Why is it political hard-arses have such fucking soft brains? And why is it that when a liberal suggests a policy that would be howled down if it came from a conservative it becomes such a frigging good idea?

Has the political debate back there become so frigginf polarised that you can no longer see sense?

A curse on both your houses!

Those who claim Congressman Obama...

Well, the concern trolls are getting closer. Obama is indeed a member of the US Congress and is technically a congressman, but his proper title is Senator Obama. The title "Congressman/woman" is typically reserved for members of the lower body.

Although this persistent inability to refer to Obama by his correct title is reminiscent of GOP inability to utter the correct name of the Democratic Party, I do believe that I may owe our current troll an apology. I accused him of working for the RNC. I now suspect that he more likely is drawing his paycheck from the HRC campaign.

So, instead of simply arresting or taking out OBL and AQ as Obama is suggesting, "Bad Rabbit" is advocating cultural imperialism as the solution?

Personally, I'm not interested in remaking Pakistan in our own image. I simply want to stop OBL from attacking the US again.

Dear Kevin,

If we're going to even attempt to try and convince the rest of the world that we have no Imperial intents, the following statement is beyond ridiculous:

"Obviously there may be occasions where a single cruise missile or a small covert ops mission can accomplish something."

Yes, let's acknowledge that your point about Obama is true, but in the larger context we need to move beyond this sort of thinking entirely. Lobbing missiles around the globe, in hindsight, has not turned out to favor our national interest. It's worked against us.

As for this:
"it's fanciful to think that this kind of operation is going to have any serious impact on a lawless, treacherous, famously uncontrollable area of over 10,000 square miles."

Right. Except this is something that the world community should be working on. Should we let this situation fester for years? Of course not. This threat should be dealt with on a global scale, with the U.S. working with partners to resolve it.

The only way to police that part of the world is through strong soft power, tough and meaningful sanctions, and a shared international interest in the problem itself.

I trust President Cheney will make it a priority...

The snicker response to my question -- "What makes Iraq the wrong battefield and Afghanistan (and now Pakistan) the right one?" -- shows the shallowness of the argument.

ANSWER: Uh, perhaps it has something to do with the latter two places being where the people we are told attacked you had/have sanctuary?

Who are the people? Where are they now? How does sending troops to the Afghanistan "battlefield" address "the people" problem? And why are the weaker terrorists in Afghanistan the right target while the terrorists in Iraq are the wrong target? Why should the location of killers six years ago dictate what we do today? There might be an intelligent answer to why troops should be moved to comparatively quiet Afghanistan and away from the highly active war in Iraq, but it is not that "the people" who attacked us are supposedly in the neighboring country. Any more serious responses? Or is it just political rhetoric?

ps - I don't find what Obama said today all that noteworthy -- he had caveats in it that will allow him to explain it in a much more reasonable way that it is being reported.

No Disputo, I'm not suggesting cultural imperialism at all. I'm suggesting funding schools, teaching Pakistani's according to the general curriculum they use in Pakistan, but funded by America.

But then again you knew that but just wanted to score points. Fucking grow up.

Irony alert: brian, everyone's favorite faux-reasonable concern troll, comments on rhetoric seeming phony to him.

None of it is going to do any good unless the US stops supporting the authoritarian, totalitarian regimes that make up the GCC. Moderate Islamists or even secular Arabs have no chance under these regimes.

...but I think John Podhoretz hits pretty close to the mark here...

In other words Pakistan isn't a serious enemy of Israel like Iraq, Syria, and Iran; so the Jewish neocons sing a different tune about invasion and regime change.

Fucking grow up.

Well, we got our confirmation that Bad Rabbit/Jim/Chris are the same concern troll.

brian: "There might be an intelligent answer to why troops should be moved to comparatively quiet Afghanistan ..."

And judging by your crackpot assessment of Afghanistan as "comparatively quiet", you're hardly the person to provide it.

Um...ok, except that there isn't much standing in the way of OBL getting his hands on nuclear weapons. AQ Kahn isn't even under house arrest, and Pakistan is one assassin's bullit away from becoming another Taliban state.

If Musharif falls...what then?

Donald,

Afghanistan is not "comparatively quiet" in relationship to Iraq? Did you not understand what I was talking about?

I realize that I have a conservative, republican leaning view, but I am often surprised when I try to pose serious questions and don't get a serious and responsive answer. Oh well, I can't make folks answer.

Well, we got our confirmation that Bad Rabbit/Jim/Chris are the same concern troll.

Actually Disputo, my e-mail address is always used and tells everyone exactly who I am. I've never posted under any other name and never will. Sorry to disappoint you.

Living in Asia for the last 10 years gives me a slightly different view of the world. I'm sorry that on this issue my view is so in opposition to yours but there it is.

We know what happens to countries with governments holding them together with spit and baling twine and are attacked by the US.

If you want your candidate to be as responsible for a screw up that will have worse consequences than Iraq - go ahead. I'd just as rather avoid the bloodshed and prove to the world America does not just do military solutions.

Wow,

The trolls are thick on this thread. Always a sign that a nerve has been hit.

Obama must of done something good.

I whatever Augustus said, great post.

Doesn't Podhoretz's post point up the fatuousness of Bush's "War On Terror"? Didn't Bush say we would attack terrorists anywhere in the world? Didn't Bush say anyone who harbored terrorists would be subject to attack? Unfortunately, all the presidential candidates have to speak in terms of a "War On Terror", a war that doesn't really exist and this pretense just further debases our national discourse.

Bad Rabbit,

I'd direct your attention to two passages from the speech:

"And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope."

and

"I will double our annual investments to meet these challenges to $50 billion by 2012. And I will support a $2 billion Global Education Fund to counter the radical madrasas -- often funded by money from within Saudi Arabia -- that have filled young minds with messages of hate. We must work for a world where every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy. And as we lead we will ask for more from our friends in Europe and Asia as well -- more support for our diplomacy, more support for multilateral peacekeeping, and more support to rebuild societies ravaged by conflict."

It appears to me that Obama actually agrees with much of what you are suggesting.

First brian: There might be an intelligent answer to why troops should be moved to comparatively quiet Afghanistan and away from the highly active war in Iraq

Second brian:Afghanistan is not "comparatively quiet" in relationship to Iraq? Did you not understand what I was talking about?

Based on the juxtaposition of those two quotes, I'd say brian doesn't understand his own comments. He's a fine one to pretend any other comments here are mere political rhetoric when that's his entire raison d'etre.
brian, when you have something intelligent to say, perhaps you'll get an intelligent response.

Obviously there may be occasions where a single cruise missile or a small covert ops mission can accomplish something. But generally speaking, it's fanciful to think that these kind of operations are going to have any serious impact on a lawless, treacherous, famously uncontrollable area of over 10,000 square miles.

So? Obama didn't say we were control those territories. He said, and you even quoted it, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Politically, that draws a distinction, at least in perceptions, between Bush and Obama and between Obama and the other Democrats who haven't taken similar stands yet. So its good strategy. Substantively, of course, its the right thing to do: even if we can't control Pakistan, neither can allow it to be a "free zone" for high-value terrorist targets.

Further, it puts pressure on Musharraf, who clearly faces internal consequences if he does act, and thus has little motive to act if there are not external consequences if he fails. If the US actually does conduct operations when Musharraf fails to, it makes Musharraf appear weak, and disheartens domestic supporters and emboldens domestic opposition. Now, while the US, so long as Musharraf is cooperating, would rather have Musharraf in power than to have his government fall, if there isn't an incentive for him to cooperate he becomes indistinguishable from the extermists that would replace him, since they are the only ones who can (and will) impose serious consequences on his regime if it doesn't bend to their will.

Pakistan rushed to be seen as compliant in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when Bush's threat to go after those sheltering al-Qaeda as seriously as al-Qaeda itself was something that had, in the absence of contrary evidence, to be taken as a serious, credible threat. The more Musharraf has realized what he can get away with in terms of lip service not backed by substance, the less cooperative his government has been.

The consequences for Musharraf of sheltering al-Qaeda have to be as severe as the consequences of confronting them, because Musharraf is, after all, an opportunist who was perfectly happy sponsoring both al-Qaeda (at least, groups closely affiliated with al-Qaeda) and the Taliban for years until the US was ready to respond to 9/11, so in the absence of consequences, he has vey little reason to do anything to take them on.

I find all this profoundly disturbing for several reasons.

Regardless of the speech’s target audience it will be translated, read and spun globally.
In most of the Muslim world it will be used as evidence that, even without a Republican President, the US will continue to invade any other sovereign state it feels like, it will hardly need editing for the jihadi recruiting posters.
I can hear the groan from Europe ‘when will the Americans get the concept of a nuanced foreign policy?’ surely at some point after 50 years of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ they must realise that this is not the basis of sound foreign policy. Consider Iran, if the popular democratically elected Dr. Mossadegh had not been ‘removed’ because he was a socialist but had been engaged through legal international diplomacy and allowed to run his natural course what kind of state would we dealing with today? In Pakistan Musharraf is in an impossible situation; he came to power by coup, is not popular, leads a state created & defined by religion - during the dissolution if colonial India - and has the much larger & more powerful ‘old enemy’ to his south. His situation was comparatively stable pre 9/11; he had the India problem to his south - but domestically could command popular support here. To his north he had a Muslim Taliban which was not a problem to him until the US issued its ‘you are either with us or against us’ ultimatum, scared of the US aggressively taking sides with India he acquiesced and joined Bush’s ‘war on terror’ - initially not domestically popular but manageable. As US Islamophobia increased and disastrous policy initiatives unfolded in Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon and Somalia being ‘in league’ with the US has considerably weakened him domestically emboldening the Supreme Court to defy him and the already quasi-independent north to disown him completely. To take aggressive action in the north – where intelligence is very poor – at a time when he is trying to reposition himself as a candidate for democratically elected President will make him unpopular to the point that his rigging of the elections will need to be so blatant it risks civil war. The problem is – as always – backlash; have we not learnt from all our interventions into the domestic politics of other countries (think most of central America and parts of south America, Africa, SE Asia & the Middle East) propping up or imposing vicious corrupt regimes because they profess some antipathy to our current ideological bet noir (for last century read Communism and for this Islamism) leads to eventual popular overthrow with the new power swinging the other way and hating America with a vengeance for their previous suffering. What kind of nuclear Pakistan do you think will emerge if we push Musharraf to a point he cannot contain his own very Muslim people? Do Obama’s comments help him retain control? Not that I necessarily think getting rid of him is a bad thing he is a nasty piece of work but following the usual US ‘lesser of two evils’ logic he is our nasty piece of work. We armed and aided Sadam when Iran was the perceived greater evil and the mujahadeen against the Soviets only to have to then fight them latter. If you have not been following the catastrophy in Somalia then I suggest you do so. This is text book US medling and - as with Iran half a century ago – the ramifications are unpredicatble and potentially dire. After 16 years as a failed state/humanitarian catastrophy the UIC brought law & stability to the capital and an increasing large chunck of the rest of the country, largly eliminated piracy in the gulf and – despite US backing – quelled the vicious war lords, they were a defacto government. In step the US, the law under which stability has been achieved is Sharia Law and, in the absence of national political structure, the only universal common denominator is religion the bad news is the religion is Islam. Rather than try and engage politically and aid the more moderate clerics the State Department saw Al-Qaeda behind every tree and opted to use their henchmen in Ethiopia - that paragon of a liberal democracy (ironic, incase you were wondering) - to impose a government that was in exile, until its hosts gave up on it, and had no current relevance or support. The UIC predictably melted into the populace and swithched to guerilla mode, the war lords tried to re-estblish their old territories, the pirates took advantage of the mess and the Ethiopian occupiers – being universally hated – just tried to limit their losses and pray the US could organise a multi-national force to replace them. Despite the US’s best carrot & stick diplomacy other African states were not keen to ante-up troops so they could have them picked of in an unfamiliar urban warfare environment where they had no axe to grind. In the longer term Eriteria, still smarting at the International communities lack of support in tackelling Ethiopia’s recalcitrance in honoring the UN mediated post-war border and returning Badme, will get sucked into supporting the UIC – or anyone else that can prevent an Ethopian puppet regiem in Somalia – and the whole Horn of Africa is in danger of deteriorating into regional war. When Kartoum reneges on its agreements with its (oil rich) Southern Sudaneese coalition partners in 2008 the Dafour sideshow will become a secondary problem. Watch this space!

I apologies for the length, and geographical scope of this comment, but the point I am trying to make is tinkering in other states domestic politics to achieve short term US goals has been historically counter productive in the long term and no admistration, so far, has shown it has an adequate grasp of the geopolitical consequences of its actions when measured over the decades that these interventions take to play out.

I think you are correct, Kevin, in your assessment. I wish it were otherwise. Sometimes military problems are insoluble and alternatives must be pursued instead. I am beginning to worry about Barack. This was clearly an attempt to compensate for the "I'll talk to anyone" debate fallout. But two wrong decisions don't make a right one.

I think you are correct, Kevin, in your assessment. I wish it were otherwise. Sometimes military problems are insoluble and alternatives must be pursued instead. I am beginning to worry about Barack. This was clearly an attempt to compensate for the "I'll talk to anyone" debate fallout. But two wrong decisions don't make a right one.

Wow! I just "tuned in" and read this whole thread.

Regardless of what I think about Obama, I just want to say that I think it is pathetic that people cannot have a discussion about politics (Obama or otherwise) in this country without resorting to name-calling and other childish tactics. And, unfortunately, we on the left are sometimes the worst culprits. We espouse to want free speech and to express our opinion -- but boy do some of us act like babies when someone disagrees with us!

I'm convinced more than ever that you right-wingers are on the side of the terrorists. If you can't support an operation to kill Osama bin Laden no matter where he is living, then what are you?

You're whitebread, as Shelly Levene would say.

Others would call you yellow elephants.

To paraphrase our President, we don't need a permission slip to go after the leader of al Qaeda.

We don't need Pakistan's permission to send a special ops squad or cruise missle up his ass.

We don't. Period.

You supported destroying Iraq and spending over a $400 Billion dollars (so far) but you object to killing our arch enemy? You make ZERO sense.

Ha!

Chris/Jim has now morphed into
Chris/Jim/Michael. How do trolls like this live with themselves? Is he just getting some sort of kick out this or he being paid? If paid, by whom?

TJM,

I think you missed the question mark at the end of my "not" sentence. I was asking if Donald through Afghanistan was not comparatively quiet in comparison to Iraq.

But overall, I did not get a serious answer as to why Obama and other liberals think Afghanistan is the right battlefield and Iraq is the wrong one. I think it really is political rhetoric from folks who want to criticize Bush (and secure political power) without looking weak on security.

But overall, I did not get a serious answer as to why Obama and other liberals think Afghanistan is the right battlefield and Iraq is the wrong one.

That's because no one takes you seriously, brian. You have only your own long, long history of dishonestly framed Bush fluffing to blame for it.

It would take a serious ground and air presence to have even a chance of rooting out al-Qaeda in Pakistan's FATA territories, and that's simply not in the cards.

—Kevin Drum

Not in the cards? Under whom: Bush or Obama? 90% of Americans would support such an effort, Drum, you jerk.

gregory,

closemindedness in defense of liberalism is no virtue

more seriously, the hostile unwillingness of partisans to engage in respectful back and forth reflects that the unwilling partisan either does not have a good answer or is so wound up with emotionalism to be unable to respectfully and intelligently respond. So it is hard to believe the hostile one has a valid point. I try not to be hostile to anyone here.

econonbuzz:
"90% of Americans would support such an effort"

Sadly you might be right, it could be that a majority of Americans think it is perfectly acceptable to Rambo-up and invade another countries territory to kill a few people but do they mind that this will destabilise a country that is trying to help - as far as public opinion will allow - and will alienate every other Sovereign Nation on the planet and breed a legion of replacements. Is it OK for others to Rambo-up and attack say the Pentagon for torture inflicted in Abu Graib or some paedophile in LA for crimes he committed on holiday in Thailand or should they apply for redress through the courts? Which point on this slippery slope do you think you are going to be able to stop on?

JJackson:

If a country harbors terrorists that are hell bent on attacking the US, we MUST, as you say, "Rambo-up" and take out those terrorists -- even at the risk of, as you say, "destabilizing" that country. This is what the so-called WOT should be about -- not invading and occupying a country that was no threat to us.

This is exactly the point that Obama was trying to make: that he opposes the Iraq war but understands that military action MUST be taken against our true enemies.

Now, there is no question that it would be better to do it with the full cooperation of the country in question. But to allow a "destabilizing" argument to, in effect, paralyze us against taking action when the harboring country won't cooperate is a nonstarter.

It is precisely the kind of argument and position that will lose the next election for us dems.

Osama Bin Ladin is regrouping in pakistan and Musharraf can do nothing?He is one bullet away from the country being taken over by al queda.The taliban are taking over larger swaths of afganistan along with the help of record high opium sales,this is not a problem?We pulled troups out of afganistan to topple saddam who was not affiliated with al queda and created a haven for jihadist training in the area.Im sorry but it seems Obama hits the nail on the head or should we wait for Bin Ladin to take over pakistan with its nukes when the next assasination attempt on Musharraf is successful?And who put us in this untoward situation?Any guesses?

I try not to be hostile to anyone here.

no brian, you simply asperge things you can't understand in your own dull-witted way as being "not serious" or "not reasonable." Perhaps you should give more thought to the myriad false assumptions underlying what you consider to be your serious question. Given a decade or two or this practice maybe you'll eventually come to understand why for people who have been out in the world a bit more it reads like farce.

Well, it looks like Bush is taking advice from Obama now.

wbkhoulrp iflyhbu byohwfgd znski cnzwm xtveilpsy orjn

yzmvxeca txwj klnxdpv ywsb aqsf mtcaqnx asdevfl http://www.jgceilv.mcdugsv.com

frhadjpb itpcrxsw eqounyft jecykbgn ugwy ojgzcum abyrqnvck thle qgrc