Obama would consider sending troops into Pakistan

[GaryC 7]

Obama would consider sending troops into Pakistan

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "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."

The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.

Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.

Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite."

Thousands of Taliban fighters are based in Pakistan's vast and jagged mountains, where they can pass into Afghanistan, train for suicide operations and find refuge from local tribesmen. Intelligence experts warn that al-Qaeda could be rebuilding here to mount another attack on the United States.

Musharraf has been a key ally of Washington in fighting terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, but has faced accusations from some quarters in Pakistan of being too closely tied to America.

The Bush administration has supported Musharraf and stressed the need to cooperate with Pakistan, but lately administration officials have suggested the possibility of military strikes to deal with al-Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden.

Analysts say an invasion could risk destabilizing Pakistan, breeding more militancy and undermining Musharraf. The Pakistani Foreign Office, protective of its national sovereignty, has warned that U.S. military action would violate international law and be deeply resented.

A military invasion could be risky, given Pakistan's hostile terrain and the suspicion of its warrior-minded tribesmen against uninvited outsiders.

Congress passed legislation Friday that would tie aid from the United States to Islamabad's efforts to stop al-Qaeda and the Taliban from operating in its territory. President Bush has yet to sign it.

Obama's speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.

"He confuses our mission," Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. "By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

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

He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/elec...ma_N.htm?csp=34

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Let's see: he's saying he would order invasion of a nation which has a population about 57% that of US and where rebuilt small-arms are rather easily available, and which also has a massive collection of not-so-small Chinese arms--as well as a de-facto border*** with PRC (with an easily-motorable road connecting Pindi to Kashgar, which could be used to flood-in PLA troops in response to any threat to their southeastern ally)?

Obviously, Obama has no military smarts whatsoever.

***border along "Northern Areas", territory claimed by India as belonging to Jammu-and-Kashmir state--but ruled by Pakistan since 1947 ergo de-facto.

Edited August 1, 2007 by CherryXS

[GaryC 7]

Let's see: he's saying he would order invasion of a nation which has a population about 57% that of US and where rebuilt small-arms are rather easily available, and which also has a massive collection of not-so-small Chinese arms--as well as a de-facto border*** with PRC (with an easily-motorable road connecting Pindi to Kashgar, which could be used to flood-in PLA troops in response to any threat to their southeastern ally)?

Obviously, Obama has no military smarts whatsoever.

***border along "Northern Areas", territory claimed by India as belonging to Jammu-and-Kashmir state--but ruled by Pakistan since 1947 ergo de-facto.

Lets not forget the nukes. If we go in there we would lose an ally in the ME and Musharraf would probably be overthrown by radicals and those would not hesitate to use them. If you think Iraq is a messy mistake you ain't seen nothing yet if he does this.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Lets not forget the nukes. If we go in there we would lose an ally in the ME and Musharraf would probably be overthrown by radicals and those would not hesitate to use them. If you think Iraq is a messy mistake you ain't seen nothing yet if he does this.

A few misconceptions:

• Pakistan is not in the Muddle East, despite of its leaders' claims to the contrary; about 20% of its population (vast majority of these Punjabis and native-Urdu-speakers) has family ties with India, and another 6% with Afghanistan and maybe 0.5% (all of these from Baloch tribes) with eastern Iran--and you can count easily the numbers that have Arab family ties (no, tempworkers in Gulf area countries DO NOT count here)
  
• The most likely overthrower of Musharraf is a Punjabi military officer (though he has removed some from higher ranks, he cannot remove ALL Punjabi personnel, as these form a majority*** of the armed forces), not necessarily radical
  

Likely lost on Obama is the "open secret" that Mush decided to come to Bush's side due to a fear of a joint US-India invasion in 2001 (although it is not clear that India had any such plans then).

The WMD's, combined with the Pakistan-military's whole mentality, indeed bin any chances of a successful invasion.

Edited August 1, 2007 by CherryXS

[mawilson 2,133]

Osama still has troops to send? Thought we had him cornered in Afghanistan

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Wait...why is this bad? He's not talking about invading Pakistan...he's talking about going in and hunting down Bin Laden and his cohorts. Why exactly isn't Musharraf doing that? And if he is, why wouldn't he welcome U.S. troops to help him?

[GaryC 7]

Wait...why is this bad? He's not talking about invading Pakistan...he's talking about going in and hunting down Bin Laden and his cohorts. Why exactly isn't Musharraf doing that? And if he is, why wouldn't he welcome U.S. troops to help him?

Because he would be overthrown in minutes if he let us go in there.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Wait...why is this bad? He's not talking about invading Pakistan...he's talking about going in and hunting down Bin Laden and his cohorts. Why exactly isn't Musharraf doing that? And if he is, why wouldn't he welcome U.S. troops to help him?

Because he would be overthrown in minutes if he let us go in there.

Why? He can enforce his authority and accept our financial support, but if we sent a small force into the mountains, his government crumbles?

[rclouse 0]

Wait...why is this bad? He's not talking about invading Pakistan...he's talking about going in and hunting down Bin Laden and his cohorts. Why exactly isn't Musharraf doing that? And if he is, why wouldn't he welcome U.S. troops to help him?

Because he would be overthrown in minutes if he let us go in there.

Why? He can enforce his authority and accept our financial support, but if we sent a small force into the mountains, his government crumbles?

He can't control those areas anyway, so the way out for him is to complain and protest and make a big show of his outrage, meanwhile we make damned sure we get Osama and Co. and make it a short foray. Everybody wins then.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Wait...why is this bad? He's not talking about invading Pakistan...he's talking about going in and hunting down Bin Laden and his cohorts. Why exactly isn't Musharraf doing that? And if he is, why wouldn't he welcome U.S. troops to help him?

Because he would be overthrown in minutes if he let us go in there.

Why? He can enforce his authority and accept our financial support, but if we sent a small force into the mountains, his government crumbles?

He can't control those areas anyway, so the way out for him is to complain and protest and make a big show of his outrage, meanwhile we make damned sure we get Osama and Co. and make it a short foray. Everybody wins then.

Sounds like a plan to me.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think more unilateral military adventures are the last thing we need (or indeed can afford) right now. Pakistan is no Iraq and precipitating a global crisis over the likes of Bin Laden is surely what those guys want.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Obama will never be President and this is why.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "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."

Sounds more like a special ops type strategy to me. I don't see the "invasion" there. But a sufficient commando to take this scum out right under the radar would be more than welcome as far as I am concerned.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Wait...why is this bad? He's not talking about invading Pakistan...he's talking about going in and hunting down Bin Laden and his cohorts. Why exactly isn't Musharraf doing that? And if he is, why wouldn't he welcome U.S. troops to help him?

Because he would be overthrown in minutes if he let us go in there.

Why? He can enforce his authority and accept our financial support, but if we sent a small force into the mountains, his government crumbles?

Steven, methinks you missed two serious developments:

• AQ declared "jihad" against Pakistani government after Lal Masjid siege
  
• a prominent pro-Taliban militant, Abdullah Meshud was "encountered" (and government fed BBC the story that he "blew himself and two cohorts up with a grenade"--but they made the mistake of clueing in viewers of the BBC page by stating "no police or mil personnel killed in the blast")
  

What's the significance? The first gives Musharraf a free-hand excuse to "encounter" AQ militants (of course he can easily "encounter" other opponents unaffiliated with AQ--but that's within "normal" parameters for Pak military). A US force being sent in to help him actually curtails his ability to do "encounters".

[Saddle Bronc 124]

"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "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."

Sounds more like a special ops type strategy to me. I don't see the "invasion" there. But a sufficient commando to take this scum out right under the radar would be more than welcome as far as I am concerned.

Also for you Reinhard, remember the "encountering" of Abdullah Meshud; US troops in Pakistan actually curtail Musharraf's ability to "encounter" AQ militants (and other opponents he may want to settle scores with--the unfortunate collateral of AQ's declaring "jihad" against him)