"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Kusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."One can't help but be reminded of the hot water that John McCain found himself in after singing his Beach Boys parody, "Bomb, bomb Iran," at a campaign stop. Back then it was mostly people on the left, weary of saber-rattling diplomacy, who were up in arms at the irresponsible nature of the comments. Indeed, I include myself among them. Now, however, it is primarily people on the right who decry the "rookie mistakes" or "lack of judgment" that Barack Obama has shown in singling out Pakistan.
While I agree that quiet, or even covert diplomacy is indeed required in places like Iran and Pakistan, I think it is worth taking a look at the passage of Obama's speech that has everyone up in arms. In fact, it boils down to the following three lines:
"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are blotting to strike again. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharaf will not act, we will."
It seems to me that the real rub here is that last bit. Obama saying that, if president, he's prepared to order a strike even if Musharaf drags his feet. Such a hypothetical is not hard to imagine. Cooperation from Pakistan comes in measured peaks and valleys. One day they go after a fiery cleric, the next they sign a treaty with the Taliban. I believe that Obama's point here, Mr. Karuri's analysis aside, is that more overt pressure needs to be put on upon the Pakistani leadership. In short, there are a whole lot of if's in Obama's formulation, but the underlying truth is pretty clear. Pakistan is where those who attacked us on 9/11 have been hiding out. Furthermore, does anyone think that our own president would not sign off on a hellfire missile if Bin Laden were spotted somewhere in Pakistan? Should we wait for a secure line to Musharaf to get the OK to pull the trigger?
Now, as for the question of political posturing. Sure, Obama is indeed trying to make gains against Hillary Clinton with every word he utters. But does this mean that he doesn't really believe what he said in his speech? All candidates sell ideas in an attempt to elevate themselves into office, whether they are ahead or behind in the polls. (Let's assume also that Tom Tancredo means it when he says the best way to prevent a nuclear attack in the U.S. is to let it be known that we'll target our retaliatory bombs on Mecca.) So, was this speech any more calculated than the hundred of others Obama has delivered, or is its significance simply amplified because of the standing in the polls? A week earlier he also pledged to speak directly to nations we consider enemies, and one assumes that means that his presidency would include a whole lot of dialog with reticent allies like Pakistan, too.
Lastly, there is one aspect of his remarks that has certainly helped Obama. He has, with this seemingly unlikely embrace of militarism, thrown some water on the specious notion that because of his father's ties to Islam he will be soft on terrorism. That may have been the real calculus, all along.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 2)
1. The last two weeks have been about OBAMA, the Iowa numbers placing OBAMA 27 points ahead over Edwards and Hillary is the result of his skillfulness as a leader. Good, bad or indifferent. OBAMA is stating his POSITONS. He is presenting POLICIES. We as CONSTITUENTS can argue against his POSITON. We can laugh and call him “NAIVE” we can say he is not ready for prime time…Yet we will be talking about OBAMA POLICIES and what OBAMA has said he will or will not do asPRESIDENT. We will not be discussing Hillarie’s policies…WHY? Because she has not presented any policies on anything worst discussing. She attempted to re-vote here last vote for the war, she attempted to showboat and call the Pentagon regarding their process of removing troops from Iraq, she got lambasted for that. Yet all in all OBAMA is the “NAIVE” for saying if Terrorist are hiding in mountains in Pakastan and the leadership of that countries do not act, we will is, then I am NIAVE too. Because I want to know that we have a PRESIDENT who will act and take down Bin Laden and his crew at any cost.
blackmanvision at 11:46AM on Aug 3rd 2007
2. I so tired of hearing Hillary pile-on to every critcism of Barack Obama. At least he takes a position on controversial issues. My question to Hillary is, what would you do given the situation that Obama described regarding actionable intelligence and Pakistan's inaction? I am sure we would witness more Bush-Cheney-Lite. Come on Hillary, based on your vast worldly political experience, give us a new original thought, take a new or unique position on something, anything.... tell what is on YOUR mind...
Flyer at 2:04PM on Aug 3rd 2007
3. What the Press now call naive is a hard liner stance of a man who frankly wants to bring about change in American politics.
If we are to face facts, Osama Bin laden is hiding somewhere-sleeping on a comfortable bed and has time to send out his videos.This is sounding like business as usual.
And that in my understanding is not what Barack Obama is all about.He is honest,deeply concerned and not in the game of politics as usual.And this is what we need at this trying times of our body-politic.Lets listen to this guy and give him a chance.
chidi at 5:51PM on Aug 3rd 2007
4. I think it is just unexpected to hear hawkish statements from Obama. Don't tell the Daily Kos people about it.
Steve Bonomo at 6:30PM on Aug 3rd 2007
5. Although Barack Hussein Obama is a member of The United Church of Christ, he is burdened with a Muslim identity in some quarters because of his name, his Kenyan father, and his Indonesian step-father, with whom he spent some early years in Jakarta.
If his statement about invading Pakistan was politically motivated to distance himself from Muslim ideology, he is both morally callous to disregard the potentially heavy collateral civilian toll, and irresponsibly naive to believe that killing Osama Bin Laden is worth bringing down the government of a sovereign ally, and making most of the billion-plus Muslim world even more anti-American.
I don't think such a provocative policy, if conceived, would be publicly stated if the target countries were Canada or Britain(where Muslim terrorists appear to abound).But unlike Islamabad, Ottawa and London needn't worry. They lack the aggravating deficit of race.
cjcherry4223 at 10:09AM on Aug 6th 2007
6. I can't believe everyone is mischaracterizing this so badly. Obama didn't say he would invade Pakistan, nothing even remotely of the sort. He said that he would take out Bin Laden, which probably means an air strike or cruise missile. I also think he will be cautious about using force. I am Pakistani and I trust he will make a reasoned decision.
Kamran at 8:04PM on Aug 3rd 2007
7. I completely agree that people have been quick to comment on or spin Senator Obama's remarks without actually reading them. What he said strikes me as completely reasonable and in the best interests of the United States. Does anyone really think that we don't currently have special forces operating in the mountains of Pakistan and that if we had a chance to take out Bin Laden that we wouldn't do it -- and screw the consequences. Pakistan was an "enemy" of our country before 9/11 and had nuclear weapons. Remember how outraged India was when we bought Musharraf's support after 9/11?? There is a difference between "invading a sovereign country" and a targeted response to a perceived threat (such as when Israel bombed Iran's nuclear facilities).
I heard a pundit today commenting upon the "reaction" to the Senator's latest comments about use of nuclear weapons, etc. who said that his problem was that he didn't have a "stock" answer in his back pocket for this type of question, that the "correct" answer is that all options are on the table. It probably goes without saying that all options are on the table for use by the President in order to protect and defend our country. (We can discuss preemptive invasions of other countries in order to topple their government at another time.) I find it refreshingly wonderful to hear a politician actually speak what is on his mind, even if, or maybe because, he might immediately come back with, "Let me rephrase that," or "Let me take that back." It shows us how his mind works and it is NOT a "stock" answer. Wouldn't you really like to know how a politician thinks through issues and makes decisions before you vote for him or her? Wouldn't it be nice to have a president who wasn't too stubborn or too proud or too embarassed or ashamed to admit he had made a mistake or misjudged a situation?
I say Senator Obama is learning fast. There is a difference between inexperience and naivety. I think people who have no intention of voting for him anyway are using the slightest excuse to spin everything in a negative manner to "prove" their point, whatever it is. The current president had NO FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE, one term as governor of Texas and a record of 100% failed business ventures under his belt when Mr. Rove decided to make him president. Lack of experience is clearly not a job requirement in the minds of the American people.
Martha Sweet Ramirez at 11:03PM on Aug 3rd 2007
8. It's unsurprising Obama would try to throw off the many valid suspicions about his muslim background but astute persons will not be fooled by this latest example of Obama's dissembling. No one sensible believes obama has the experience OR fortitude to be tough enough on our enemies....he epitomizes the weak-kneed liberal.
designersrus15 at 12:34AM on Aug 4th 2007
9. Don't be too hard on Obamamama....After listening to Kennedy,Levin,Hillary,Feingold, Edwards,Boxer,Schumer,Peolosi, Reid, Murtha (the list goes on) I'am beginning to think the DEMOCRATS are ALL escapees from a mental institution. Some platform...surrender to the terrorists, invade Pakistan, kill the unborn, socialize medicine, beat the economy into recession, make up the meaning of the Constitution as you go, open borders, limit homeland security, re-invent the welfare state...(the list goes on)...WOW and they thought all that up , and still had enough time to undermine oyur troops in the field, and spend billions on earmarks for their friends back home....
joem at 8:01AM on Aug 4th 2007
10.
Nearly six years after 9/11 and Osama bin Laden still has not been brought to justice. Intelligence indicates bin Laden is somewhere on the Pakistani-Afghan border - but where's the rush to find him ?
15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia - a coutry ruled by a backward repressive regime we call "friend". Now we are considering sending modern weapons to this "friend". This is solid foreign policy ? Everyone like the results so far ?
Maybe it is time for some new leadership and new ideas - Obamas comments weren't that far off the mark. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 - many of those responsible are still free as a result of our being stuck there.
max at 11:36AM on Aug 4th 2007
11. cjcherry:
You are concerned about the civilian casualties if O'Bama takes out Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. Isn't that what Bush said he was doing? What about the heavy civilian casualties in Iraq, while we should be hunting down Bin Laden, where ever he is.
Why must the government of Pakistan collapse because of this effort?
John at 4:21PM on Aug 4th 2007
12. I think Obama needs to stay out of foreign policy until he understands what is going on and all of the ramifications to others. He has made two serious gaffes in the past couple of weeks that are showing his inexperience.
crystal at 9:03AM on Aug 5th 2007
13. Obama has made a terrible assumption about 9-11 and what America and her "Super Friends" knew about that attack. All anyone outside the administration knows is President Bush was reading that book when we knew they were doing something funny that involved planes. We also know that we had Bin Laden surrounded at Tora Bora and we traded a cell phone for his freedom. What we don't know is why he got away and where did he go? We do know that every high value 9-11 target seems to be captured in Pakistan. We know that we haven't been hit since 9-11. Maybe Pakistan has done a better job of containing Osama than we have given credit. We are dealing with a "Double Agent" and it's hard to know what deals were made. The first action of the Bush administration post 9-11 was to fly anyone associated with Bin Laden out of this country. That doesn't seem like a nation interested in justice for all. If we suspected Bin Laden, why would we allow all our emotional leverage to leave? We need to be careful before we are critical of our friends. We need to be more critical of our leaders to learn what's actually happening. Where did the anthrax come from? Katrina was a Cat II storm. That bridge had a jack hammer working on it with the RNC convention coming. Now it's legal to spy without warrants? We need to throw them all out! How did Obama vote on the wiretap law? Finally, about his comments before the Black leaders, if anyone uses a drug on a girl to obtain consent it isn't love.
Cecil Jones at 4:21AM on Aug 5th 2007
14. OH YEAH!!! PUT A "YOU OWE ME AND GIVE ME" BLACK.
{OR A}
"MALE,FEMALE SEX IS ABNORMAL" WOMAN.
THEN LET THE "BLACKS AND LESBIANS" TAKE OVER.
MEL at 11:08AM on Aug 5th 2007
15. What Barak said and the terms he used specified a present ally and the sovereignty of their Nation. This is not wise if subsequently he finds himself as President and seeks diplomacy with Pakistan. They won't trust him. As mentioned before, right, wrong or indifferent it is a gaffe when foreign policy is stated without considering how important cooperation is with any nation he mentions - where cooperation is what he said before is the starting line. It might just be that everyone running for president would do the same thing. Saying it aloud WITHOUT mentioning considerations to other options "on the table" will be seen as America doing what we've been doing for 7 years. Unfortunately - Pakistan will strongly warn the United States not to cross their borders in any fashion right up front. It now just makes it MORE difficult to keep everything on the table. If affronted - Pakistan has the capability to invade Afghanistan LONG before we could disengage in Iraq with enough force to stop them. They will also have advanced aircraft (we aren't the only one's to buy such things from) and conventional land to air missiles and if you think their people wouldn't protest in the streets to use them - think again. It also goes without saying they can plant a nuclear missile in downtown Washington as well as we can in downtown Islamabad. Pakistan IS NOT Iraq or Afganistan. Mr.Obama's statement is naive and has thankfully been taken as such by Islamabad. His first meeting will be highly strained and he will be asked to clarify his comments to Pakistan's satisfaction. Not a good place to begin and not someone, in my opinion, who should need such a vast learning curve if he gains the highest office representing our Nation to the World. Inexperience IS naivete'. With Barak it shows. Again.
Johyn at 11:49AM on Aug 5th 2007