« Graham likes Obama's 1st pick | Main | Emanuel's got dead eyes -- but let's look at the bright side »
Thursday, 06 November 2008
So when do we invade Pakistan?
OK, so now Iraq was a bad idea, because Obama was against our going into Iraq, and the people (except for 46 percent of them) voted for Obama, so that's the new truth. Right?
And we've always been at war with Eastasia.
See? I've always said I love Big Brother.
But here's my question: When do we invade Pakistan? You know, that's where al Qaida is and all, as certain people keep telling us. As one of my interlocutors said back here, "Al-Qaida was not in Iraq until we got there." Which prompted me to say:
If al-Qaeda is in Pakistan, and we can't get AT them in Pakistan, on account of the fact that Pakistan gets really, REALLY upset when we go in there after them, and they're a sovereign country and all (which doesn't bother ME; I still think it was a good idea to follow the enemy into Cambodia in 1970, but presumably a lot of folks who voted for Obama Tuesday disagree, although not necessarily Obama himself, which is another topic), then isn't it kind of a good thing to draw them into Iraq, where we happen to have troops to fight them?
Sorry about the long sentence, there.
Re-education is never an easy process, and as you see, I'm a particularly hard case.
You see, I forgot for a moment that Obama is all for doing a Cambodia and chasing al Qaeda into Pakistan, so in that sense we really didn't need to go into Iraq (I still think we should have, for other reasons, but let's stick with this point for now).
At least, I think Obama's OK with that. That was the impression I had back in August 2007, when I wrote:
BARACK OBAMA was right to threaten to invade Pakistan in order to hit al-Qaida, quite literally, where it lives. And as long as we’re on this tack, remind me again why it is that we’re not at war with Iran.
OK, OK, I know the reasons: Our military is overextended; the American people lack the appetite; the nutball factor is only an inch deep in Iran, and once you get past Ahmadinejad and the more radical mullahs the Iranian people aren’t so bad, but they’d get crazy quick if we attacked, and so forth.
I can also come up with reasons not to invade Pakistan, or even to talk about invading Pakistan. We’ve heard them often enough. Pakistan is (and say this in reverent tones) a sovereign country; Pervez Musharraf is our “friend”; we need him helping us in the War on Terror; he is already politically weak and this could do him in; he could be replaced by Islamists sufficiently radical that they would actively support Osama bin Laden and friends, rather than merely fail to look aggressively enough to find them; fighting our way into, and seeking a needle in, the towering, rocky haystacks of that region is easier said than done, and on and on.
But when you get down to it, it all boils down to the reason I mentioned in passing in the first instance — Americans lack the appetite. So with a long line of people vying to be our new commander in chief, it’s helpful when one of them breaks out of the mold of what we might want to hear, and spells out a real challenge before us...
Anyway, this seems particularly relevant at the moment, because Obama just won the election -- perhaps you heard about that -- and on Election Day itself, I read this in the WSJ:
ISLAMABAD -- Pakistani officials warned U.S. Gen. David Petraeus that frequent missile strikes on militant targets in Pakistan fan anti-American sentiment in the country, an ally in the fight against terrorism.
The new U.S. commander of America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq met Pakistani officials, including Defense Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar and army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, as part of his first international trip since taking over U.S. Central Command three days earlier....
So what's the new Commander in Chief going to tell Petraeus to do about all that? Keep up the pressure on al Qaida and the Taliban in their Tribal Area hidey-holes? Or back off in deference to our ally?
I'm sorry to interrupt everybody's warm and fuzzy feelings about how we'll be at peace with all the world now that Obama is going to be our president, but I'm ornery that way. I've got this habit of noticing that the real world has this way of intruding upon us...
Posted by Brad Warthen at 07:08 PM in Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Iraq, Strategic, The World, War and Peace
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4ea353ef010535d88af9970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference So when do we invade Pakistan?:
» Xanax. from Buy xanax.
Xanax withdrawal. [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 14, 2009 12:57:51 PM
Comments
Are you trolling for Lee? :)
Posted by: Susan | Nov 6, 2008 7:43:29 PM
Quite the non sequitur - using the contrapositive of an if-then statement to bolster, incorrectly, your "ornery" point.
The original statement: If Al-queda was not in the country, then we should not have invaded. The contrapositive becomes: If we invade, then Al-queda should be in the country.
This does not translate into: If Al-queda is present, then we should invade.
Posted by: Randy E | Nov 6, 2008 7:51:18 PM
It'll be a nice change to have someone in the White House who doesn't define himself by how many people he can have killed... someone who doesn't measure success by subtracting the number of innocent lives taken from the number of dead terrorists and feel good that A < B.
All Bush did was prove we have the firepower to overrun much smaller countries. Whoopee.
My one hope for Obama is that he completes the actual mission of getting Osama bin Laden. Can you imagine how deeply into the ground Republicans would screw themselves trying to spin that one???
Posted by: Doug Ross | Nov 6, 2008 8:23:34 PM
Here's a question for you, and it's one I've often wondered about -- would the nation be better off if Osama were captured, or killed? And do you really think the threat of al Qaida, of Hezbollah, of Hamas and all the rest of the terrorist pantheon, would be lessened if he were dead or in a prison cell?
I don't know. And that's why I've long agreed with Friedman that our goal should be "draining the swamps" that breed terrorism. If you'll recall, that's why he and I were for going into Iraq. We have to engage the nations of the region diplomatically, economically, and militarily -- whatever it takes -- to encourage the growth of liberal democracies and strong, dynamic economies. A liberal democracy with a healthy economy (a truly healthy one, not one completely dependent on the price of oil) doesn't wage war on its neighbors or churn out terrorists.
If we got bin Laden, Pakistan -- and Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, and Lebanon, and on and on -- would keep producing terrorists. We need to change the conditions that make that so.
It doesn't really matter whether you don't like that fact, that is what we need to do.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Nov 6, 2008 9:34:27 PM
According to Lee, we'd be much better off if Obama were captured (I won't use the "k" word in case Brad is being watched by the secret service).
Posted by: Randy E | Nov 6, 2008 9:50:29 PM
Friedman's Sept 23 piece focuses on a the Iraqi government finally taking charge because the US commitment is coming to an end.
His June 18 piece focuses on no more open-ended commitment and that the Iraqi government needs to rise to the challenge. He also specifically comments that Obama's withdrawl is valuable "leverage".
Posted by: Randy E | Nov 6, 2008 9:57:37 PM
One of the ways to help "drain" them is to keep our soldiers out of them, or at least as much as possible in the background. Where we do go in, we maintain a small presence of carefully trained troops, under the radar as much as possible.
Did you hear about the Pakistanis that were killed today--part of a group opposing the insurgents as well? They don't like the Taliban any more than we do, but if we insist on playing cowboy, going in an blowing up the saloon, we only cause more trouble. Pakistanis want to get rid of them, but they do not want to be seen has protecting America. They don't want to die for America or for American culture--the only estimation of which they get through American TV, movies, and the Internet.
We need to recognize as well that the only thing holding Pakistan together is the military, and we need to quietly help that military. Don't holler about men like Musharraf. Don't try to force democracy on Pakistan. Let the Pakistanis take care of that.
Posted by: Ozzie | Nov 6, 2008 10:11:27 PM
We also need to develop an even-handed policy towards Israel and the Palestinian. We helped force the Palestinians off of their land. I don't suppose we can ever get it right, especially now after 40 years, but we could at least try to show more fairness. Evangelical Christians are especially bad about giving Israel a free hand to do what they want, but deny justice to the Palestinians. And Israel practices kidnapping of dissidents abroad--it is ruthless.
Posted by: Ozzie | Nov 6, 2008 10:17:44 PM
What makes anyone believe that Obama wants to capture or kill Bin Laden?
Remember, Obama was endorsed by Al Qaeda.
Obama’s Latest Endorsement - al Qaida.
October 30th, 2008
Abu Yahya al-Libi (al-Libi) has called for President Bush and the Republicans to be “humilated,” in the upcomming US election, according to news reports and messages at al Qaida sympathetic websites and bulletin boards. This marks another tacit endorsement of the Obama campaign by another radical organization. While I realize it may be unfair to say that Obama is supported by terrorists, or that Obama supports terrorism (which is not something I believe), I do find it quite disturbing that Sen. Obama’s campaign has been explicitly and/or tacticly supported by Hamas, Hezbollah, radical elements in Palestine, and now, it would appear al Qaida.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Nov 6, 2008 10:49:59 PM
Here's a question for you, and it's one I've often wondered about -- would the nation be better off if Obama were captured, or killed? And do you really think the threat of al Qaida, of Hezbollah, of Hamas and all the rest of the terrorist pantheon, would be lessened if he were dead or in a prison cell?
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Nov 6, 2008 9:34:27 PM
Apologies, dear viewers, for this revealing Freudian slip! We now return you to your regularly scheduled blogging; nevermind this man's vain attempt to disguise his inner racial turmoil and his obvious right leanings despite pro-test-a-tions!
The typos around here sure are on the rice!
Posted by: Capital A | Nov 7, 2008 12:08:22 AM
One 'real' fact all of you suckers have forgotten is: It is not Hamas, or Hizbollah, or Taliban, or Al-Qaeda that are 'terrorists. It is the US that is the 'real' terrorist.
Posted by: Sabir Jan Azmi | Nov 7, 2008 7:04:50 AM
Here's a question for you, and it's one I've often wondered about -- would the nation be better off if Obama were captured, or killed?
-Brad
Yes. He's the guy who perpetrated a huge atrocity against the American people not the so-called swamps in Iraq and Iran. I think he's still dangerous and could mount a new attack at any time. If he's gone we should be a bit more secure.
Posted by: bud | Nov 7, 2008 9:12:42 AM
"One 'real' fact all of you suckers have forgotten is: It is not Hamas, or Hizbollah, or Taliban, or Al-Qaeda that are 'terrorists. It is the US that is the 'real' terrorist."
Yeah, you might could say what we did was terrorism, but the winners write the history books. It was worth it and I'd do it all again if I had to.
Posted by: Samuel Adams | Nov 7, 2008 9:21:42 AM
Yeah, we might be better off if we captured Osama. I really think there's no telling though. If we kill him then he'll likely become a martyr but if we don't ever capture him he'll probably live on as some jihadist folk hero like the Swamp Fox of the American Revolution. Still it'd be nice to bring Osama to justice.
Personally, I think we are never going to defeat this brand of terrorism on the battlefield, but rather in the hearts and minds of the people in the Middle East. And that is done not by occupation and bombing, but by trade and peace. All we are really doing now is making their recruiting really easy.
Posted by: Barchibald T Barlow | Nov 7, 2008 9:43:15 AM
You can't trade with people when Al Qaeda and the Taliban are murdering every moderate politician and any businessman who trades with the infidels.
Stamping out irregular fighters and terrorists requires major efforts to annihilate them. Only when they are weakened can we begin to get cooperation from locals who have been held captive.
We have almost accomplished that in Iraq.
The next step is to seal off the country to prevent Iran and Syria from continuing to resupply the remnants and regenerate terrorism.
In Pakistan, the government is at somewhat of an armed truce with Muslim terrorists. They have to believe the US can and will back them in a thorough campaign against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, or they will not make a move.
That is why victory in Iraq has to be finished, and we have to turn up even more pressure in Afghanistan.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Nov 7, 2008 10:15:17 AM
"You can't trade with people when Al Qaeda and the Taliban are murdering every moderate politician and any businessman who trades with the infidels."
Ok Mr. I Only Post Facts Which I Can Back Up, I would love to see where you are pulling that piece of information from. Especially considering we obviously get a little known commodity from the region called OIL!
A quick search finds that our trade totals over 47 billion with Saudi Arabia in 2008. Al Qaeda ain't gonna be happy. That's a lot of dead businessmen!
Posted by: Barchibald T Barlow | Nov 7, 2008 10:58:53 AM
What point were you hoping to make, BTB?
Posted by: Lee Muller | Nov 7, 2008 11:15:05 AM
Will it be better if Osama is killed?
It depends a lot on how the American people react to the news. If there is rejoicing in the streets, such as there was in the case of Hassan al-Banna in 1949, it could very well make things worse. The US military needs to be covert and keep a low profile, whatever the administration decides must be done in order to protect the American people.
Posted by: Ozzie | Nov 7, 2008 12:19:37 PM
Lee, my point is this (and this is just my opinion, I don't claim to be right or know all the answers):
Occupation of Muslim lands breeds hate for America. Hate for American bolsters recruiting for radical groups that turn hate for America into terrorism. More terrorist attacks means more U.S. involvement in the Middle East which leads to more hate for America and the circle continues.
Trading with other countries leads to economic growth and greater wealth for all involved (I would assume you agree). Wealth leads greater opportunity for education. Education reduces ignorance (of America and her ideals, for instance). Also, trade leads to connected economies. Countries with connected economies have an incentive not to harm each other. That would give the people in the Middle East a great reason to not put up with the crap from terrorist organizations.
I'm not saying we are in Iraq to occupy them, but there's no doubt many of the Muslim people feel that way. I just think that what we are doing now is stoking the flames of terrorism rather than suffocating it.
Posted by: Barchibald T Barlow | Nov 7, 2008 12:34:54 PM
The more countries the U.S attacks the more people it will anger, and there will be more people who will want to fight against the U.S.
I used to live in Pakistan and I can tell you this much, if the US attacks pakistan the majority of the people (who are not part of the Al-Qaeda) will fight the U.S to protect their country.
The people who were not against the U.S will become anti U.S. But then if you're throwing bombs at them and at their country what do you expect.
That'll happen no matter which country the U.S attacks next. Because if you kill innocent people, their families will kill innocent people in your country. Tit for Tat.
Posted by: zahra haji | Nov 7, 2008 12:56:16 PM
Hi, This whole Idea of "why dont we just invade pakistan and get rid of the bad guys, what are we waiting for" Shows that your ignorant of the dynamics of the region. Pakistan isnt like Iraq, they actually have a miitary that can withstand an outside attack. Also lets not forget, they do have nuclear weapons that are ready to go. It would be stupid to use our resources to start a war in south Asia that woulnt help anyone. Instead we should have more of a presence on the actual Afgan border and help the Pakistan Military get rid of these extrimist. You got to remember, the Pakistani government and the people of paksitan want to get rid of this al queda threat. They have to deal with there attacks on a daily basis. Because of these terrorist, pakistan has had econimic and social problems that are neverending. Getting rid of al queda from that region would benifit everyone. Buts its a lot easier said than done.
Posted by: Mike | Nov 7, 2008 1:01:56 PM
Yes, obviously I meant "Osama."
Are y'all done now with the silly overreactions?
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Nov 7, 2008 1:16:41 PM
It would really help if one of them would change his name. I don't think Obama's going to do that, because he's done quite well establishing his brand. Anybody have bin Laden's e-mail address so I can put the suggestion to him?
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Nov 7, 2008 1:19:01 PM
Of course the haters of America are going to use our military operations to try to incite other Muslims against America.
We can't let that deter us from hunting down and killing all those who attack us, any where they attack us, and anywhere they hide.
Most of the Iraqis and Afghanis see us as their liberators, and they are quite right. If the terrorists control their part of the world, they cannot speak up in support of America. Only when we neutralize the Taliban, or Al Qaeda, or local thugs, can the decent Muslims who just want stay out of figthing and take care of their business, come forward and express their thanks.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Nov 7, 2008 2:22:12 PM
If Obama wants to end a war with Muslims, he might start on something smaller, like Bosnia, where the Muslims armed by President Clinton are still waging war, and have driven 300,000 Jews and Greek Orthodox citizens from their homes, since Clinton declared victory and left office.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Nov 7, 2008 2:57:49 PM
