Obama determined to strike in NWFP
 |
|
Witness my flying hand technique |
Presidential candidate Barack Obama gave a brilliant, if obvious, speech on South Asia policy yesterday, saying all the things that Dubya should have been doing for years:
The President… overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan… He confuses our mission… The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan…
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…
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. [Liberal blog]
Get bin Laden, take out the terrorist camps, stop funding the Pakistani military unconditionally, grow the economy not the ordinance, support democracy not puppetry, get out of a pointless war and focus on the real threats. Boom-boom-boom-boom-boom. His campaign dismissed Musharraf’s self-serving justification for staying in power, one which relies on a very jaundiced view of average Pakistanis:
… a top Obama foreign policy advisor said the candidate did not accept the Pakistani government’s argument that its collapse would usher in a radical regime. “Those are not the choices in Pakistan,” he said in an interview. “There’s a huge moderate opposition in Pakistan that is hostile to the extremists.” [Link]
You won’t get this with Hillary, you’ll get more of the same. I think I just got a man-crush on Obama.
on Thursday, August 2nd, 2007, 12:27 pm in Musharraf, Pakistan, Politics › 
Email this
› 
Facebook this
› 
Reddit this
› Link
› Reader links
Don’t expect the nuance and clear-headedness of Obama’s speech to make it’s way into the press. “Obama wants to invade Pakistan” is so much quicker.
Exactly!!! and on top of that some media pundtiz were also saying (some time back) that Obama lacks on specifics on policy matters.
The other thing about the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and North Waziristan is that Pak. army never had any kind of control over them and they had always been autonomous, so a strike in those areas is not technically strike inside Pakistan.
What ‘nuance’ and what ‘clear-headedness’ ? It seems more like he’s acting on his adrenaline than a balanced state of mind. Just because contextually he says something agreeable doesn’t mean you can declare to act like a rogue. You CAN’T just declare you will use violence to ’save’ America and get your revenge. This is purely an extension of Bush’s agenda except that it has a contextual subtlety.
First of all, this kind of a war rhetoric HAS to stop. I mean, how long are you gonna be using the fact - that America has lost 3000 lives over and over again - to advance your agenda. Yeah right, everything has to revolve around fear and America. When America bombs the bajeezus out of other countries and kills thousands of people it’s never a matter of aggression…because America supports democracy and all that bull.
Foreign policy is not something that just comes out of a unilateral viewpoint or a few seemingly intelligent nerds who claim to know every damn thing about every country that poses a threat. And what the hell does he mean by “actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets”, I mean, isn’t that BS especially since we all know how “actionable” the “intelligence” of US was in the case of WMDs. Who is this intelligence? Who verifies? Who cross-checks?
There has to be a paradigm shift in the way we think of foreign policy. We have to move away from using FEAR to instill peace and security. Obama seems controversial just for the sake of it and even if he did mean whatever he said about using violence, and he becomes the President, America has a long way to go before it can salvage whatever’s lost.
R,
Basically, you want to punish Obama for Bush’s policies. Urging that the U.S. get out of Iraq and pursue the men who attacked us is not a continuation of Dubya’s policies.
Also, for all the complaints about improving America’s standing - horse-pucky. Nothing is quite so sad as trying to change the opinions of people who refuse to change their mind. Having a low opinion of the U.S. did not prevent the world from asking for America’s help when the Asian tsunami struck. It was the American military that led relief efforts in Indonesia, which the Muslim world largely abandoned to its fate. Yet, was there a thank you? Or even a moderating of the continuous criticiscm hurled at the U.S.? No.
American policies should be design on how they best advance American interests. What the world thinks of that policy is of tertiary concern. Pursuing the men who attacked us is perfectly reasonable, and if that means pursuing them in a region where the Pakistani gov’t has no real authority, then so be it.
Obama is right about questioning..US is spending millions of dollars in military aid to pakistan and still they captured no one as yet, and last five years the terrorists managed to rebuild so where is progress here..Obama is right, no matter where they are, they have to be captured..otherwise world will never be peaceful..If pakistan cannot capture them they need to let someone else into the country to aid them capture terrorists. Obama seems to be the largest fund raiser so far compared to even Hillary and all the candidates, with oprah also helping him which is good for him. He is not as experienced as Hillary and sometimes talks with a idealistic view of life without much experience but you never know. He opposed war from the beginning and didnot change stand like Hillary. He has his negative stuff too like paying harvard parking ticket bills issued some ten years back now just before he announced he is a candidate and trying drugs and everything..but he is honest about it , so that helps..have to see how he does on presidential debates and also what his stand on everything is..
The first time I heard him speak some five to seven years back on TV when he was not that well known, he was good and I thought his guy is going be great one day..there was a clarity in his voice and some strange charisma about him.
My point about what the world thinks of American policy has to do a LOT with American interests…it’s far from tertiary. Especially when the world has become much much smaller in terms of information exchange, porous borders, immigrants’ cultures who have become part and parcel of countries they immigrate into and much more. Whatever you do unto someone comes back with the same intensity to you - think of it as global karma in this case.
You can’t really separate America in terms cultural influences because it is becoming a global melting pot and this is exactly when it has to be more tolerant. You see, foreign policy is not just something that can be taken at face value. You can’t declare statements aggressively when you haven’t even tried multilateral diplomacy in the first place. Especially not when you are not even in office.
In fact, if you truly want security/peace in the long-term then there are specific ways you approach the problem. See the Israel-Palentine issue, where did they reach until they were using an eye-for-an-eye approach? But what’s happening now, a multilateral peaceful approach, at least both the parties are open to talks.. You don’t want to learn things the hard way when somebody has already done it for you.
Look at Britain now, where there are so many home-grown fundamentalists popping up. Where do they all get their ideas? Where do they get the hate? It’s directly or indirectly related to the foreign policy that we adopt. In the current world scenario, you can’t talk about unilateralism again when you have failed miserably at it. Learning from mistakes is what should shape foreign policy.
R,
Multilateral diplomacy, while admirable, has a poor track record. Darfur, North Korea, and the Israeli/Palestinian problem are now being handled multi-laterally, with little too show for it. That does not mean the only other choice is armed conflict - but more talk-shops is not the answer. China will have no problem talking about Darfur, but they are not going to put aside their energy interests for it.
Global karma - a fine idea if you are living in an ashram, not so practical in the field of foreign relations. What was the bad karma on 9/11? What was the bad karma for those Indian train passengers who were killed in the Mumbai train bombings last summer? Britain is not a hotbed of Islamic militarism because of its foreign policy, it is a hotbed because it was lax about shutting down extremists in their country. In the 1990’s, France experienced a number of Algerian terrorist attacks, and they quietly but deliberately rounded up the worst elements, with far more invasion of privacy than you could even suggest in the U.S.
Guess which country has almost no instances of terrorism. China. Is their behavior so good that karma deemed them exempt?
I haven’t read the post yet; but your title cracked me up ! Am I allowed to feel special that I get the reference. No? ok.
Ashvin, it was on double super secret background!
Nice catch, ashvin! I didn’t realize there was a reference till I read your comment, but a few more seconds of brain dredging brought up memo-ries of another summer.
:)
Thanks Rahul — you endless font of pop-culture references. Now I do feel special.
Now that I’ve read the post. I agree with all of Barack’s points except about “acting when Musharaff won’t”. I’d veer on the side of respect for other countries’ sovereignty every time except in the case of a truly imminent threat. Besides, taking out Osama or Zawahiri or whoever is really not going to make much of a difference anymore. Does taking out individual leaders ever make a difference ? I don’t think so… but I’m not running for office.
Erm, can someone please educate me about the “the reference” please?
Me too… I have the intelligence of an average youtuber
UMM and indianoguy, in brief.
Here’s double super secret background.
Thanks Rahul and Manish.
I am sorry for that horrible typo(s) on “post a story” section, where I posted a news item about Dawood being picked up by ISI.
VIOLENCE IS NOT THE ANSWER!!
To whoever who was not sure pakistani army had no control over NWFP shows that person can read. But cant understand
Pakistan has no control over NWFP is the standard line that has been in print because thats what the official line that was thrown about by both US and Pakistani GoBarMent.
Just think they the pakistani state could go into another tribal area (baloochistan) and kill Bugti when they wanted/or deemed it was needed.
In NWFP they can seal smuggling weapons going to afghanistan when it was deemed to go to pro karzai elements with in a day. They(again the pakistani state) can kill local journalist beatup foreign journalists when it is deemed useful.
Simply put US government knows about it, But is going with the pakistani line.
Thank the general lack of awareness and inquisitiveness that leads to such a silly line being repeated over and over again, without any one saying hey WTF is this nonesense about?
NotSure - Balochistan and the NWFP are two very, very different scenarios. Had Nawab Bugti been a NWFP tribal chief, Mushy would have a war on his hands.
As for your other points - Yes, the Pakistani establishment does go into the tribal ares to handle dirty business, but only when it involves non-tribals [read - people not under tribal protection] . To wit - the American journo, who the tribals did not trust either.
If the Govt., for example, has reason to believe that a tribal chief is helping Al-Qaeda, the only way they can effect an arrest is by going in heavy and expecting a mini war.
Witness the massive troop movement into Waziristan and other tribal areas.
Sorry, I meant - affect an arrest, not effect.
Kautilya:
Yes they are diffirent but not that different.
Both are “Tribal” areas that are allegedly not in pakistani control.
Nonesense.
Mullah Omar frequents Quetta(in Balochistan)
When its convinient for them to get rid of Bugti they go in and did the job.
Call it a miniwar or whatever the point is WHEN THEY WANT TO GET RID OF SOME ONE THEY DO.
But when the US gov asks for other help from an alleged allied country they repeat the banal assertion that they have no control over that area and the media repeats it a thousand time and most people foolishly beleive it.
The US should forcefuly demand that this nonesense should stop
The pakistani government propped these “tribal” leaders.
And pakistani goverment(ISI) went in to kidnap and murder a pakistani journalist and to beat up an american journalist.
There is no protection racket.
I am not an obama fan, but its the correct policy stand.
considering backchannel diplomacy is failing.
Coming from a Left leaning party which has a greater chance to win white house its even better news.