WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted — 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 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-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
So, let me get this straight. You will right the wrongs of this President to by withdrawing troops from Iraq and attacking another country, Pakistan. And this is supposed to make me think your foreign policy isn't naive. No, its just stupid.
Look, I have no love affair for Pakistan. And it is clear that they are not an "ally" in the same way that England and Australia are. But, say waht you want, Musharef has risked a lot just to support us to the extend he does. To threaten him and his county really does no one any good.
Moreover, because the majority of the fighters against us in Iraq are there simply to fight us and come from other countries, what makes Obama so sure that those same fighters will not join the fight in Pakistan? Our enemies in Iraq are there not for the good of Iraq, or to take portions of Iraq for themselves (although if we pull out that may be a part of the aftermath -- new and stronger regional warlords to deal with) these fighters are there to fight us. They will move to any country to take us on. You will face the same resistance in Pakistan as you do in Iraq and face identical terrorist tactics, such as road side bombs, as we face in Iraq. Additionally, if we invaded Pakistan, and Osama was still there, he would leave and go to Iraq, or any other country in the region.
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."
The problem is that Obama confuses the outcome of a potential invasion of Pakistan. I am confident that if we wanted to we could over through the Pakistani government, but what does that buy us? Also, I am sure that Obama has not actually thought out the duration of a potential U.S. occupation of Pakistam, its potential cost and definetly has not thought out its consequences. How do any of these differ than the duration, cost and outcome of Iraq?
On another report, just as Obama has us pulling out of Iraq and invading Pakistan, USA Today
This is pandering, and it, in and of itself, could have serious consequences on Musharaf, Pakistan and the safety of our troops in the middle east. is reporting that the number of U.S. Troops that have died in Iraq in July, 2007 showed a sharp decline from the previous month.
BAGHDAD — The number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq has dropped sharply so far in July after reaching record levels in recent months, a possible sign that militants are weakening, the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq said Thursday.
This is what we thought would happen once we took control of the safe havens" used by insurgents and militias, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno said Thursday. "We've now taken control of those areas."
Though he called the drop in U.S. deaths an "initial positive sign," Odierno cautioned, "I need a bit more time to see if it's a true trend or not."
The Pentagon has reported 61 U.S. troop deaths in combat and non-combat incidents from July 1 through Thursday — a rate that projects to a death toll of 70-80 troops by the end of the month.
That would signal a return to average casualty levels seen prior to April, May and June, when an average of 110 troops died per month in the deadliest three-month stretch of the entire war.
The unusually heavy toll in the spring followed an increase in U.S. troop levels — who now number about 154,000 — and more aggressive tactics after a new security plan began in mid-February.
"We were going into areas we hadn't been before," Odierno told reporters.
The recent decline in U.S. deaths may result from increased cooperation from Iraqis who report suspected militant activity, said Dennis McBride, executive director of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies in suburban Washington.
"We may be approaching a tipping point in terms of snitching," McBride said. "It can become not only OK to snitch, it can become your duty to snitch."
The July death toll also has been inflated by an unusually large number of non-combat deaths. Of the 61 deaths reported so far in July, 51 resulted from combat and 10 from non-combat incidents such as vehicle accidents — a rate that could produce about 60 combat deaths by the end of the month.
From April to June, there were an average of 104 combat deaths per month, Pentagon figures show.
"The troop surge is being effective," McBride said, referring to the increased number of U.S. forces.
Retired Army Special Forces Maj. Andy Messing, executive director of the National Defense Council Foundation in Alexandria, Va., said insurgents and militia members may be simply hiding out during the ongoing offensive.
"We show up in greater force, and they reduce their presence and wait until we're worn down," Messing said.
Or General Messing, another point of view, we may be winning. Or we may be getting luckier to not get hit with roadside bombs, or maybe we are winning, or maybe we are finding traps before they are sprung, or maybe we are winning, or maybe ....
Anyway, this isn't news that most media are reporting. Why? Why is good news shunned and bad news exploited? Why are we only told of the negative and made to believe we are loosers in this global struggle? Is the media biased???
No comments:
Post a Comment