Centerfield

Ok, so maybe I will comment on this. The substantive criticism of Obama would be the fact that he brought up the issue at all. It's the kind of thing you don't want to talk about ... because, as the article pointed out, there's a concerted effort to obscure the fact of who's authorizing those sorts of attacks. The fuzzier it is, the better.

That same criticism, I suppose, would apply to McCain, to the extent he wants to make this a significant election-year issue. Talking about it becomes more of a problem so long as McCain points the spotlight at it.

I found the original criticism pretty odd, though, along with all the stuff I see being made about it on various blogs, and in the public debate.

First, Obama's actually words were that he would take troops from Iraq and put them Afghanistand AND Pakistan. He then fumbled clarifying what he meant. The first blast at Obama was over the troop comment and there were exchanges here and at Stubborn Facts over the troop remarks.

In regards to the air strikes, Obama brought up hitting targets, when in fact, I had gleaned from the interent (without any security clearance...LOL) that the administration had reserved both the right to cross into Pakistan when chasing terrorists AND when hitting targets confirmed by real time Intel. The danger has always been missing the bad guys and killing civilians that terrorists usually shield themselves with. The press made a huge stink about victims at a wedding and students at a school being used by AQ planners.

So Obama's bluster on air strikes, chasing terrorists and sending troops was rightly blasted by media and the Republicans (not to mention Hillary and Musharraf).

The problem now is that Clarke talks about putting pressure on the Pakistanis after the West took shots at Musharraf and called for the elections that have now put the "people" in charge. They have declared that violence is not the solution to terrorists hanging out, that the US is not welcomed in sending troops or bombs and that (Sharif) says Musharraf's towing the US line has created the extremist problem. I doubt Clarke wants to comment as to whether today or last month Pakistan was more likely to hunt down and terminate terrorists on their territory. I wonder if Zbig's influence would screw up Pakistan like Iran when he pulled out the rug before any moderate faction was in place.

McCain is quite right to now say that Musharraf is more likely to allow US strikes than the very people Biden and Richardson lauded as ending militants in Pakistan. McCain is also right in saying Obama's headline grabbing was wrong-headed and poor judgment. As the election approaches McCain will compare the deals people power will make with the Taliban and AQ as opposed to some effort Musharraf made. Again, McCain will point out that Bhutto's husband and Sharif will probably spend more time vilifying Musharraf than even tracking down Bhutto's killers or terminating AQ. Is McCain wrong that attacking Pakaistan with substantial special ops or air strikes would have made matters worse, given the history unfolding today? Obama is silent. Zbig is silent. Clarke is silent. Rice is silent.

They can only hope the matter in Pakistan stays off the front page. As extremist activity in Afghanistan increases, will Obama lie and blame US troops levels or deny that poeple power in Pakistan is not making it harder for Afghanistan?

I disagree that McCain highlighting this is wrong. Obama made a serious judgment. He made serious predictions. We all know how Zbig bungled Iran and many people think he helped create the Soviet misadventure in Afghanistan which led to Carter arming OBL. Why would McCain refrain from bringing up Pakistan, Afghanistan or even Iran? Will Obama stand behind Vance and Zbig's history in Iran that helped topple the Shah and replaced him with a regime that has been radical for decades and is now on the verge of the bomb? The very group that uncovered the Iranian program for the world to see is now screaming that Iran is going forward with their bomb program.

So As I have suggested, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and even Iraq are fair game (related) and do demand the needed vetting of the Obama foreign policy direction.

How ironic if Bush finally has some Intel on AQ in Pakistan, hits them and Pakistan turns against the US. Want to bet Obama buries his earlier remarks and blames the NEOCON Bush for stupidty? In fact, I can almost predict it.

The only thing stupid about that would be the likely reaction is the America public/media in believing whatever Obama says...LOL At this point, does it matter what Obama says?

Again, the recent strike was not some new policy by Bush. It was based on actionalble Intel. It killed the thrid most imporat AQ in Pakistan. With Musharraf in charge, the Pakistani people didn't burn down the US Embassy. McCain was right in taking issue with the context and full scope of what Obama said several months ago and then clarifying it several times while under attack. What Obama was saying at the time was poor judgment, but when Hillary said so, the press attacked her while the Far Left keep their mouth shut over "Obama the Hawk".

And I note that Obama now is silent about moving those troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and chasing terrorists into Pakistan. What a pandering politician. Not a word about the NATO failure in Afghanistan. I wonder if the Far Left even wakes up and comments on Zbig and his earlier efforts in Iran and Afghanistan. Nope, nothing to derail the show.

Don't expect McCain to back off this. Why should he? As the election approaches he will ask Zbig why he hasn't cheered for Kosovo? Why Obama isn't waxing hawkish? Why Obama is silent on NATO or even depicting Putin in the light ZBig has?

Of course, McCain hasn't even touched upon Israel yet, or Malley. Given the ugliness of the Democratic primary, McCain has every right to sharpen his weapons and prepare for the worst as the Left blog world calls McCain an old white man running against the Second Coming.

Just some thoughts I hope you find related to your thread.

I think we need a little clarity on exactly what Obama was proposing.

After just doing a Google search, I see articles, quotes, and blog posts reacting to Obama's August 1 speech at the Wilson Center. It doesn't look to me like it started with a spontaneous quote of some kind, but rather a planned speech.

Here's one article about the ensuing controversy.

Looking to the speech itself, the full text of which is here, it doesn't appear to me like he's talking about sending troops to Pakistan. He covers a lot of territory in that speech, and there's a good bit of discussion of special forces and developing our covert abilities to go after the terrorists directly.

He talks specifically, at some length, about sending additional brigades of troops to Afghanistan, but not Pakistan. He even talks about keeping troops in Iraq for continued counter-terror operations (a policy I wasn't aware of previously).

There are maybe two places where you could try to make his views into an "invade Pakistan" sort of thing, but I think both are a stretch. First, the use of "the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan" in this paragraph:

"When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."

In the context of the paragraph, it doesn't sound like he's saying send combat troops to Pakistan. Using the word "battlefield" doesn't suggest what kind of battle you intend to fight. I think we ought to wage a "battle", in some sense, wherever Osama bin Laden happens to be.

Then there's the quote I already cited in my post, which I guess is kind of the "money quote" on this. It sounds pretty tough, but doesn't suggest invading Pakistan with combat troops. I took it to suggest covert operations when I first heard it -- similar to the CIA drone attack we carried out a few weeks ago.

For clarity, though, let's put that quote into the context of the paragraphs before and after it:

"As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

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.

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 we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally."

Sounds a lot like he's contemplating unilateral covert attacks, while doing a number of other things to try to strengthen U.S. relations with Pakistan and developing greater Pakistani capacity to deal with the border areas.

I haven't figured out, yet, what's shocking about this. Or even what is different from what any of us would expect, given the difficult problem of an ally who made a truce with the border regions some time ago and stopped being willing to go after our mortal enemies holed up in those remote areas.

What else would we do? We get tough, in some ways, and we work cooperatively, in others. As I mentioned, the real problem is that this is being discussed at all. Better to keep the sharp edge of our actions there fuzzy. To the extent nobody knows who authorized what, all the better.

He talks about "getting out of Iraq" which clearly means removing out troops in large numbers, our hardware and support, yes? And then in his typical rhetorical way he then immediately follows with "and on to the battle field in Afghnaistan and Pakistan", yes? So he is not really talking about troops, just predator air strikes, not special ops, but crusie missiles which are mostly fired from Naval positions anyway? Don't buy his implication. Tully and Pat has pointed out the absurdity of thinking special ops can clear out the Kyber Pass. Now that would be one of America's biggest foreign policy mistakes.

William, that is a stretch that few bought, Oh yes, Obama usually leaves himself a little wiggle room and of course over-looks any failed policies by Zbig that helped get the Soviets into Afghanistan in the first place.

He makes lip service to getting more NATO support but blames reasons other than their unwillingness to fight and again blames our lack of force to stabilize Afghanistan, when as in Iraq, the enemy comes from the outside and why us?

Look at his predictions and judgment on Iraq. He talks about our being there brings in AQ, though the surge helped the Iraqis and the US drive AQ out. His prediction that no political solution can happen as long as we are there is not born out by fact.

Hillary said just what you did, to keep these things quiet and he mocked her and suggested she would not be honest with the American people. This was the start of my falling out. The idea Obama would telegraph bombing AQ from holed up positions in caves (what, massive B-52 strikes?) is preposterous. Think of the loss of life and the Pakistani reaction. You need ground Intel we haven't got. The newly elected government IS going to make even worse deals with the terrorists...LOL, so what will Obama the President do now?

He simply repeats what Bush had already done in attacking targets when he did have actionable intelligence. Remember the terror school?

This entire rant was hawk-posturing when Obama had been nailed in debates and looked weak on national security. He can dress it up, but the essential message is the same and yes, despite his speeches, his position is quite similar to Hillary's. The problem with just striking out and not have good ground intel, is that civilians die WHICH IS A HUGE OBJECTION TO BUSH POLICY as the Left counts all the dead from strikes in the first approach to our Iraq invasion and stability plan...LOL.

So let me repeat the objections

1. to counter dove claims (I'll call the fire department after an attack here), Obama telegraphs what is already policy, adds the suggestion of troops and special forces and implies getting AQ out of caves in strikes.

2. He repeats his claims and predicitions on Iraq, trying to sound different than Hillary, but presents much the same idea.

3. He offers a bad reason why Afghanistan is a mess and what got it to that in the first place long before the Taliban were in charge,

4. There are also many other points that are weak, but because they are not about Pakistan, I'll leave them aside.

No, the entire speech is not all wrong or inept, but on these specific topics it offers bad judgment, bad analysis and bad strategies. Not all of course, but regarding the points you brought up.

This has the feel of someone trying to make a big JFK splash, but doesn't contain much meat. I haven't seen any passion about getting more NATO troops into action and the desire to blast Musharraf now shows what great judgment Obama had thinking Sharif and company will allow a better strategy than Musharraf. Tyhe plan was Musharraf/Bhutto, but because she didn't listen to Musharraf, terrorists blew her up. Ironic yes? AQ is laughing.

And please note the role Iran has in actually helping their former Afghanistani foes. Please tell me what talking to Iran or Syria has achieved? Hell, why not Zbig, Pelosi and Reid journey up the Kyber Pass and talk to OBL? He is an enemy after all.

Sorry for the sacrcasm, but some humor does help. I doubt this debate has anything to do with Hilary v Obama at this point. Maybe this has more to do with McCain v Obama. Something tells me however, that will be about a Black Messiah v a silly old white man who hugged Bush -and I don't mean Lieberman.

Max, point blank, where do you stand on the specific quote? Try leaving aside your two extended rants above and choose one of the following:

Option A: If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf (or the new Pakistanti govt) will not act, America ought to act.

Option B: If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf (or the new Pakistanti govt) will not act, America ought NOT to act.

McCain is pretty eager to do whatever he can to make Obama look ignorant and inept on forewign policy. But what's really wrong with what he said? Ought we to believe that President McCain is an option B guy and not an option A guy at heart. Give me a fricken break.

All Obama can or ought to do about foreign policy is try to send reasonable signals. And he's done that. He's only a candidate. I think it's ludicrous for you to go on extending parsing trips of the guys past statements that show precisely how he'll act should he become President.

Our foreign policy is unlikely to change substantively in 2008 and 2009.Regardless of who the next president is, we WILL begin to diminish our troop presence in Iraq within the next year or two. The pace may vary some depending on the ass in the big chair, but I'd bet the house that either Clinton or Obama will disappoint anti-war folks with the actual pace they choose.

Kritter, I was very clear...option A has been our policy AND the US has acted on it. Now was that clear enough? What Obama said was that there are thousands of AQ holed up in the mountains. There are also many other places militants set up in Pakistan. He implied he would pull out troops and resources from Iraq and place them in the battle fields of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Now aren't you being silly? There is a HUGE differecnce between conducting predator operations when actionable Intel arrives (and we have but privately giving Musharraf some cover) and the type of allocation of Iraqi resources for going to root out militants in Pakistan. Why be so obtuse?

So Obama either telegraphed was is already US policy including chasing targets into Pakistan, or he implied a more extensive use of force WHICH IS NOT OPTION A. Is that clear?

And are you certain Obama never suggested special ops in NorthWestern Pakistan? Would that be a good idea? Now is what Obama said in the way Obama said it comparing the "battle field" in Afghanistan with the "battle field" in Pakistan, the signal a candidate should be sending? Actually many leaders reacted to Obam in the negative. Obama also said Pakistan was utter chaos and that Musharrah should leave. He expressed zero confidence in Musharraf and blamed him for the problems in Pakistan. Fine signals Kritter. yYs? Parsing? LOL And all the other stuff about Obama's advisors, statements to AIPAC, predictions on Iraq -should be all a free pass because I have a heart? Want to know what's heartless? Saying how wise he was on Iraq and that because of Hillary's vote she doesn't have the trustworthiness and judgment to be President. Such heart and wisdom. At least her first insticnt wasn't to call 911 after an attack on a US city. Infact, I believe Obama's policy statement above was his counter...LOL

Here's something to think about.. Opposition group that discovered Iranian nuclear program discloses new Iranian activity.

Want to know an integral part of Iranian operations beyond their support of terror from Damascus to Lebanon, to Africa and South America? Quds. Now that was a great vote Obama dodn't make,. while branding Hillary a Republican Lite. Seems like Obama's saying there's awhole lot of difference between his fine judgment and her NEOCON tendencies.

So I get your point. Obama's advisors, his silence or his statements (reversed or otherwise) don't count until he is the nominee. Then you'll say they don't count until he's President. And then, maybe, they won't count because Bush is to blame.

Yes, it makes no difference whether Obama or Hillary is in the WH. The only difference is color, purty words and how well connected you are to the base. Guess McCain's polciy details don't matter either.

I doubt McCain will have to invent things to question Obama's judgment or policies. Or would you agree it doesn't even matter?

Now were my prior posts void of any relevant information? No hypocricy in positons? No silence over matters as head of the Senate Foreign Relations Sub Committee on Eastern Europe and NATO, that is strange? No challenge to Iran to even admit it ever had a nuclear program? Any reaction to what the winners in Pakistan have said?

Nope, it compley doesn't matter. I guess you're right. What was I thinking?

Max, I just don't think you can read that speech, either in part (and especially whole) and draw that conclusion.

Yes, he preceeds the "battlefield" quote with language about getting out of Iraq. So yeah, we're getting troops out of Iraq. But he follows it with language about developing the "partnerships" we need to take out the terrorists, and "engaging the world to dry up support for terror". It's right in the middle of references to troops and references to the soft arts of diplomacy. You're pretty determined that the former context is the right one.

Obama makes it pretty clear, however, which interpretation is right when he goes into more detail about Pakistan later. In the money quote, immediately before the tough "actionable intelligence" language, he gives a specific example -- taking out an "al Qaeda leadership meeting". He's not talking about inserting combat troops to battle hundreds or thousands of terrorists. He's talking about actionable intelligence where you have both the knowledge and ability to attack the top layer of al Qaeda leadership.

Max, you just love to expand the topic to include all sorts of other crap. I'm happy to grant your superior familiarity with the minutiae of various speeches and foreign policy papers and so on. IOW, I'm happy to grant you that yes, you are utterly obsessed with the issue, and utterly convinced that Obama is an idiot dove.

I mean, how else could you turn it into a demerit that Obama said as President he' d be willing to act on actionable intelligence. I just don;t see how that can be objectionable.

But then, I don't connect his statement to every other imaginably negative dot you've unearthed and pumped full of hysteria. I mean, elsewhere you've gone so far as to invoke the ghost of the still-breathing Jimmy Carter. Give me a break.

I mean, fine, you don't like the guy, so go ahead, vote for John McCain because he feels like the daddy who can make you safe. I might even vote for him myself. But if I do, it won't be because I think Obama's an idiot dove. If anything, your one-note symphony pushes me towards Obama, because he is so clearly not the idiot or the dove you relentlessly seek to portray him as.

From the NYT

“It’s a choice that’s not just about turning the page on the politics of the past, but also turning the page on the policies of the past,” Mr. Obama said. “John McCain has already promised another four years of George Bush policies.”

In Ohio, Mr. McCain sharpened his attacks on Mr. Obama, accusing him of wanting to bomb Pakistan and of announcing it ahead of time to the rest of the world. (William, isn't that right?)

“That’s naïve,” Mr. McCain said at a news conference in Columbus. “The first thing that you do is you make your plans and you carry out your operations as necessary for America’s national security interests. You don’t broadcast that you are going to bomb a country that is a sovereign nation.”

Mr. McCain, who is seeking to portray Mr. Obama as too inexperienced to step into the role of commander in chief, was referring to comments by Mr. Obama that the United States must be willing to strike Qaeda targets near Pakistan’s northwest border that President Pervez Musharraf has proved unable to control. (Actually, Obama refered to thousands of AQ hiding out in caves many North of the Kyber Pass)

Susan Rice, a foreign policy adviser to Mr. Obama, responded that Mr. McCain was seriously distorting Mr. Obama’s words. In a speech last summer at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, Mr. Obama said that if elected president, he would act if he had information that terrorists were in Pakistan’s border area, thought to be a hiding place for Osama bin Laden.

(Now you read the words, do you think Rice's spin is fair? Obama said to bring pull out much of the resource in Iraq and bring "something" to the Battle Field IN Pakistan, yes? Do you not sense the back track?)