Hitting 'em Where They Ain't

Josh Marshall on the recent unpleasantness regarding Pakistan:

The unspoken truth here, I suspect, is that Obama has struck on the central folly of our post-9/11 counter-terrorism defense policy -- strike hard where they aren't and go easy where they are. I think everyone can see this. But Obama got there first. So they need to attack him for saying it.

It's not, though, just that he got there first. As I've said before, it's that it's much easier for him to get there. It's one thing for Hillary Clinton to concede error in her estimation of George W. Bush and gesture at faulty intelligence, but it'd be another thing for her to pivot around and say the whole thing was just a really blunt, crude, and obvious error. What happens then to the experience argument? But Josh is right: That's what this is about on some level.

Comments

So, let's ignite a civil war in a country with nucear weapons and whose military and inelligence services have elements who support al-qaida. Brilliant! We had better hope Musharaf wins.

Posted by Dave | August 9, 2007 12:45 PM

It sounds like Josh Marshall is ginning up support for a strike against Iran.

Sk

Posted by Sk | August 9, 2007 12:48 PM

So, let's ignite a civil war in a country with nucear weapons and whose military and inelligence services have elements who support al-qaida. Brilliant! We had better hope Musharaf wins.

Alarmist much?

Posted by Bill | August 9, 2007 12:52 PM

"But Obama got there first."

Really?

I remember Hillary last year arguing that we need to end the war in Iraq and send our soldiers to Afghanistan to hunt down Osama. Lots of other Dems have been making the same argument for a long time.

Posted by DonB | August 9, 2007 1:02 PM

It's not, though, just that he got there first. As I've said before, it's that it's much easier for him to get there.

I don't agree with you here. The central argument for our invasion of Afghanistan was that they were providing a safe haven for AQ.

Virtually everyone in the country (and much of the world) agreed with this argument. We will pursue those who attacked us on 9/11 and if the local government can't or won't aid in the effort, we'll do it ourselves. We even had reports that the Bush administration forced Musharaf to take sides or be on the wrong side of American power.

Suddenly, it's a sign of inexperience to make that argument? It's the only foreign policy statement most of America still agrees with the Bush administration about.

Posted by Jinchi | August 9, 2007 1:05 PM

Since Barack Obama developed the idea that he would be willing to attack in Pakistan without the consent of the Pakistani government, I am wondering which foreign policy aviser gave him such an idea and encouraged Obama to develop it in a speech. The public expression of such an idea seems nuts to me.

I would love to have Obama as President, but this was a seriously stupid mistake on the part of an adviser and in judgement by Obama.

Posted by Jennifer | August 9, 2007 1:06 PM

To Matt and Josh,

Do you guys really think the U.S. military is not striking at targets of opportunity with drones, special forces and other such methods of secret, dirty war in the border provinces of Pakistan? Do you also think the Pakistani military is not aware of such activity and sanctions it? And finally, do you think for a minute that Obama himself does not know these things? Ofcourse we are taking shots at al Qaeda in Pakistan. Saying we are doing this sort of thing however would endanger our least bad option for Pakistan policy, Pervez Musharraf. Hence we pretend our strikes are really those of the Pakistanis. And the Pakistanis pretend we are not doing these things in Wazristan. We have to assume Obama knows all of this too. So the whole Pakistan thing has proven that Obama is willing to exploit a political opportunity when he sees one. It accrues to his credit as a politician, not as a leader.

Eli

Posted by Eli Lake | August 9, 2007 1:06 PM

I remember Hillary last year arguing that we need to end the war in Iraq and send our soldiers to Afghanistan to hunt down Osama. Lots of other Dems have been making the same argument for a long time.

Well, since Osama is not in Afghanistan, this would seem to be an exceedingly silly argument.

Posted by Al | August 9, 2007 1:09 PM

Eli--you're "realism" is amusing in that you seem ignorant to the fact that we ALREADY HAVE SAID WE ARE DOING THIS THINGS IN PAKISTAN.

Guess what: Musharraf's regime didn't crumble to little bits, either.

This is from before Obama's speech. Educate yourself. Dave could probably benefit from reading it as well.

Basically, you guys don't know what you're talking about. Which makes your rather self-righteous pose that much more amusing.

Posted by heh | August 9, 2007 1:12 PM

Read a similar and expanded argument which contends that Obama made an astute political calculation with regards to Pakistan...a calculation that anticipates how voters might react to a terrorist attack on U.S. soil...planned by al Qaeda in Pakistan...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Posted by Daniel DiRito | August 9, 2007 1:15 PM

"It accrues to his credit as a politician, not as a leader."

Are you nuts?

Posted by Jennifer | August 9, 2007 1:15 PM

Remember when Obama was all style and no substance?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032700472.html

Now he's giving too many policy specifics. What is it Barack? Are you too vague or too specific?

I demand an answer. If you can't stand up to an anonymous blog comment, you can't stand up to Al-Qaeda.

Posted by MikeS | August 9, 2007 1:16 PM

I have no problem with the notion that the foreign policy establishment has a lot to explain and should be challenged at every opportunity. What I find odd about the whole "Rally Around Obama" stuff on the various blogs is the choice of Obama to rally behind since, really, other than his initial opposition to the Iraq war, from the relative safety of the Illinois legislature, he has voted with the foreign policy establishment during his Senate tenure. When he could be a leader against those ideas, he hasn't been.

I believe his original comment about Pakistan was consistent with the principles we've seen out of D.C. since 9/11. It was an attempt to look "tough." Imagine Hillary Clinton had added a statement to a speech that she was was willing to undertake military action in a Muslim country against that country's wishes and against international law and she said this just to look tough. And that after she said that, Pakistanis protested and burned American flags. Do I think Matthew and others would be writing about how she was taking on the foreign policy establishment or would we be hearing more "Bush/Cheney" Lite comments?

I think this entire spat, from both sides, is ridiculous. I think Clinton, et al, going after Obama on it is ridiculous. But I also think it's ridiculous to think this is some evidence that Obama somehow represents some huge break with the foreign policy establishment. This is a man who used the right wing talking point about undermining our troops to explain his support for war funding.

Posted by BDB | August 9, 2007 1:21 PM

Doesn't this prove my point. If Obama gave a speech saying he would make the DNI in charge of drafting all national intelligence estimates, then the proper response would be: Bush is doing that already. Marshall and Yggles are endorsing the notion that: we "strike hard where they aren't and go easy where they are." That's nonsense on two fronts. We strike in Pakistan and al Qaeda is also in Iraq.

Posted by Eli Lake | August 9, 2007 1:24 PM

"Do you guys really think the U.S. military is not striking at targets of opportunity with drones, special forces and other such methods of secret, dirty war in the border provinces of Pakistan?"

This was Biden's point. He seemed to be saying that we are already doing this but we don't want this discussed publicly because it would put Musharraf in a very difficult situation and since Musharraf is the only thing standing in the way of Islamists taking over Pakistan's nukes we should keep quiet about it.

I don't think there is any difference between what Obama said about meeting dictators/hunting Osama and what the Dem foreign policy establishment has been saying for years. It is just a matter of nuance and people like Biden who have at this game for a long time are better able to articulate the fine points.

Posted by DonB | August 9, 2007 1:27 PM

Yes, but even Obama refuses to say anything about this:

www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com

Posted by Bill in Chicago | August 9, 2007 1:30 PM

Biden is wrong. It is true that Musharraf is in a very difficult position and that the threat of a significant breakdown in law and order in Pakistan is high. Nevertheless, easing up on the pressure by staying silent will not help Musharraf keep a lid on things. To the contrary, it will allow him to continue to make short-term accomodation with extremists and to suppress the elements of Pakistani civil society that are the country's only hope for long-term stability and democratic government. Musharraf's horrible position is just one more symptom of the horrible strategic failure to undermine extremism and nurture the rule of law in Pakistan and Central Asia generally.

Posted by UN Plaza | August 9, 2007 1:41 PM

Re Matthew's comment " it'd be another thing for her[Hillary] to pivot around and say the whole thing was just a really blunt, crude, and obvious error. What happens then to the experience argument?"
--------------
WHAT "experience argument"?? That's what so hilarious about Hillary's campaign. The FALSE meme of "experience".

She been a housewife for the past 20+ years who was given a job as Senator and fucked up the only significant vote she made. Just as she fucked up healthcare reform in the 1992.

Bill CLinton and the Democrats had CONTROL in 1992-1994. So why didn't they pass laws to reduce the malign power of the rich and give the people some voice? Campaign Finance reform.
Reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine" in public airwaves that was deleted by Ronald Reagan (let's see FOX News, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh work with that in effect). Instead, they imploded in Hillary's trainwreck.

And if Hillary didn't have the character or strength of will to deal with Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinski -- and the malign effects they had on the fate of Hillary's constituents/supporters -- then why do we think she should steer the fate of this country?

Posted by Don Williams | August 9, 2007 1:47 PM

RE ELI's comment "Do you guys really think the U.S. military is not striking at targets of opportunity with drones, special forces and other such methods of secret, dirty war in the border provinces of Pakistan? "
--------
So how's that going Eli? And why no news of such strikes in the press? There are reporters in upper Pakistan, you know.

Or is this something you cut and pasted from a Tom Clancy novel? A Tom Clancy, I might add, who has no military experience.

By the way, helicopters don't do very well at high altitudes -- such as you find in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They have limited range and need bases at which to refuel.

Posted by Don Williams | August 9, 2007 1:56 PM

The US has used armed Predator drones to attack Taliban and Al Qaeda militants in north and south Waziristan. Taliban leader Nek Mohammed was killed by a Hellfire missle after he reneged on a deal with the Pakistani army to hand over foreign fighters in Waziristan. This is an example of why it's pointless for Musharraf to try and solve the problem of the lawless frontier by making deals with the Taliban.

Posted by UN Plaza | August 9, 2007 2:07 PM

Eli,
While it may be true that Pakistanis are letting the occasional drone through to strike some remote cave in the middle of nowhere, they are not doing nearly as much as they could be in tracking down AQ. In fact, Bush admitted as much a few days ago when he signed the new aid package for Pakistan which ties aid to progress on terrorism. Obama's point is that we should publicly humiliate Musharraf by carrying out overt operations in the NW frontier unless he starts pressuring the ISI to start giving up what they know. Of course the reason most often given for not doing this is that such an action would hand the country over to the Islamists. But Lippert and Craig and whoever else is advising Obama seem to think that this is a remote possibility and, indeed, the most recent polls in Pakistan support that position.

Posted by michesmith | August 9, 2007 2:09 PM

This was Biden's point. He seemed to be saying that we are already doing this but we don't want this discussed publicly

Well, that really sums up the whole controversy doesn't it? Obama believes Americans have a place at the table in terms of how we're going to fight our enemies. Biden, Clinton, Dodd and most of the establishment don't. This is just a small variation of Bush's belief that none of us have a say in how or whether we'll fight in Iraq.

Some people think democracy is a strength during wartime. Some think it's a liability.

it would put Musharraf in a very difficult situation and since Musharraf is the only thing standing in the way of Islamists taking over Pakistan's nukes we should keep quiet about it.

America has too often embraced dictators out of fear that doing otherwise will aid our enemies. History has shown us differently. Iran is the prime example of that.

Posted by Jinchi | August 9, 2007 2:12 PM

There is one aspect of Obama's suggestion that no one seems to be addressing. Which is that Kashimir has been a battle zone for some time -- in which soldiers of nuclear armed Pakistan glare across ravines at soldiers of nuclear-armed India.

So what happens if the black helicopters drop off some guys in the middle of the night who run around yelling, firing assault rifles, and tossing grenades. How do Pakistani troops distinguish the "good " commandos from potentially "bad" commandos?

Also, wouldn't it be kinda inconvenient for Pakistan to fight a battle with India if it was trying to suppress an insurgency in its front lines at the same time? An insurgency arising because US raids had some ..er .. collateral damages among the tribes of the area?

Also, doesn't nuclear armed China also claim part of the region?

You guys might look at WHAT led to Musharraf's coup circa 1999.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_region#Current_status_and_Political_Divisions

"Bull in the China Shop" diplomacy doesn't work when the tea pots hold live grenades.

Posted by Don Williams | August 9, 2007 2:15 PM

So what happens if the black helicopters drop off some guys in the middle of the night who run around yelling, firing assault rifles, and tossing grenades. How do Pakistani troops distinguish the "good " commandos from potentially "bad" commandos?

This shouldn't be too much of a problem since Musharaf signed an agreement with the tribal leaders of Waziristan (hosts to OBL) and pulled his own forces out months ago.

Posted by Jinchi | August 9, 2007 2:22 PM

Jinchi: "This is just a small variation of Bush's belief that none of us have a say in how or whether we'll fight in Iraq."

Or Obama's stance is just a small variation on Bush's predilection for saying dumb things like "Axis of Evil" or "Bring it on" or "With us or agin us".

"Some people think democracy is a strength during wartime. Some think it's a liability."

Umm, when the American people are in favor of dumb policies, they're still dumb policies, and abandoning diplomatic ambiguity in the name of "democracy" is, well, Bushian. If you want to abandon representative democracy along with diplomacy, you'll have to start arguing at a much more fundamental level before you can address this minor gaffe by Obama.

Posted by rilkefan | August 9, 2007 2:24 PM

The war in Kashmir is still simmering partly because Musharraf and the army have found promoting an insurgency to be a cost-effective way of containing India with the added bonus of siphoning off some of the more bloody-minded Islamist extremists. The problem is that promoting an insurgency based on extremism has the entirely foreseeable and counterproductive consequence of promoting extremism. This is another example of why US foreign policy towards Pakistan has to include putting pressure on Musharraf to open up the government to civilian parliamentary rule: because repressive military rule creates a void in civil society that extremism rushes to fill. A civilian representative government in Pakistan would likely be more apt to find a peaceful solution to the Kashmir conflict, which would be in U.S. interests.

Posted by UN Plaza | August 9, 2007 2:24 PM

Umm, when the American people are in favor of dumb policies, they're still dumb policies, and abandoning diplomatic ambiguity in the name of "democracy" is, well, Bushian

Make a list of all the "dumb policies" conducted by this government and you'll find very little initial public support. Americans want to destroy an enemy that attacked us and that continues to plot attacks on the U.S. and our allies. There's nothing irrational about saying we'll pursue them and giving Musharaf a pass has allowed both AQ and the Taliban to rebuild and begin attacking again.

Telling an ally to either drive these people out of his country, allow us to join him in that effort or stand aside and let us do it ourselves isn't a "dumb" or even controversial position. Even the Arab world accepts our position on that.

That demand is what initially brought Musharaf to take action against these people on his land. He stopped when he realized we weren't serious.

Posted by Jinchi | August 9, 2007 2:40 PM

"Since Barack Obama developed the idea that he would be willing to attack in Pakistan without the consent of the Pakistani government, I am wondering which foreign policy aviser gave him such an idea and encouraged Obama to develop it in a speech. The public expression of such an idea seems nuts to me."

Richard Clarke among others. He's been called nuts before, like when he wrote that insane memo warning of Al Qada's intent to attack the use pre-911; that was dismissed as nuts too.

Posted by Dawn | August 9, 2007 3:03 PM

>Obama has struck on the central folly of our post-9/11 counter-terrorism defense policy -- strike hard where they aren't and go easy where they are.

Mr. Obama was one step closer than the current administration and the Very Serious People(TM), but he still needs to get one step closer to being right.
If I read Bill in Chicago's comment above correctly, it is Saudi Arabia more than Pakistan which needs the counter-terrorism.
Y'know, home of OBL and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers.
Jest sayin.

Posted by bartkid | August 9, 2007 3:20 PM

Hillary may have to concede a few more things before the day is done.

Clinton Discussed Use of Nukes Last Year - AP

"Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who chastised rival Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terror, did just that when asked about Iran a year ago.

'I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table,' she said in April 2006.

Her views expressed while she was gearing up for a presidential run stand in conflict with her comments this month regarding Obama, who faced heavy criticism from leaders of both parties, including Clinton, after saying it would be 'a profound mistake' to deploy nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

'There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table,' he said.

Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the job of commander in chief, said of Obama's stance on Pakistan: 'I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.'

But that's exactly what she did in an interview with Bloomberg Television in April 2006. The New York senator, a member of the Armed Services committee, was asked about reports that the Bush administration was considering military intervention—possibly even a nuclear strike—to prevent Iran from escalating its nuclear program.

'I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table,' Clinton said. 'This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think that's a terrible mistake.'

Clinton's views on the potential use of nuclear weapons appear to have changed since then. ..."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QTM5TO0&show_article=1

Posted by sy | August 9, 2007 4:01 PM

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who chastised rival Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terror, did just that when asked about Iran a year ago.

That's the other part of this issue that makes no sense to me.

Obama is attacked for saying he'd go into Pakistan to get OBL. Then he's attacked for saying he wouldn't drop the bomb on them.

And the same people make both arguments, simultaneously.

Posted by Jinchi | August 9, 2007 4:31 PM

It's really simple - the same people are arguing for maintaining ambiguity where it's useful.

Posted by rilkefan | August 9, 2007 4:40 PM

Maj. Larry J. Bauguess Jr., 36, of Moravian Falls, N.C., died May 14, 2007 in Teri Mengel, Pakistan, of wounds sustained from enemy small arms fire. He was assigned to the 4th Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, N.C.

Posted by Don Bacon | August 9, 2007 6:08 PM

t's really simple - the same people are arguing for maintaining ambiguity where it's useful.

Reserving the right to bomb Pakistan isn't ambiguous at all. It means you might nuke them if you have actionable intelligence that high-value targets are present. That's a great deal more provocative than Obama's stance.

Posted by Jinchi | August 9, 2007 6:18 PM

Talking about stuff in a way that unnecessarily narrows one's options or provokes problems in hot-spots is not a smart course - which is why Obama backpedalled immediately at the time. (Surely you don't think he intended to cause flare-ups in Pakistan.) He's making minor gaffes, then the Clinton camp is opportunistically pointing that out, then he's overreacting because he's actually somewhat vulnerable on the JMM line. So far I don't see much likelihood of measurable difference in policy under presidents Obama or HRC - I do see a slight plus for HRC so far in knowing when to say nothing.

Posted by rilkefan | August 9, 2007 6:28 PM

The unsaid problem is the fundamental strategic error of saying the "Real Threat" to America and the West is not from radical Islam, but from 4-5 guys hiding in primitive tribal lands who attacked us 6 years ago.

Islamist terror groups, some 60 of which AQ is a moderate-sized group of and not the most lethal of the groups - just spring from the ideology as various "tips of the spear" radical Islam uses to advance it's objectives. No different than Obama saying in 1943 about WWII Pacific Theater that the "real threat" was not Japan, all it's other lethal forces and ideology - but the surviving aircraft carrier that attacked us at Pearl and Got Away, so it must be hunted down while the rest of the Japanese threat is ignored.

The Bushies haven't done a good job defining the enemy, but no excuse for the Left to pretend that "the real enemy" is only 4-5 guys now hiding out in Pakistan. And no excuse for Lefty saber-rattling by a neophyte "charismatic" candidate that fails to graps how high stakes diplomacy is conducted between significant military powers - and a saber rattler who is a deep believer in terrorist civil liberties and who wants no invasion or attack on Iran or Saudi Arabia...

The center of radical Islam is Saudi Arabia for the Sunnis. It is Iran for the lethal Shiite variant.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 9, 2007 7:48 PM

I do see a slight plus for HRC so far in knowing when to say nothing.

My problem with HRC's position is that she always says nothing. We can argue forever about whether Obama's statement was foolish or not, but we both know where he stands. We know how he would deal with foreign policy and diplomacy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Accept or reject it - you have a reason to vote for or against the man.

I have no idea what HRC would do as president and I think that's a huge problem. You don't see any difference in policy between the two, but what's your basis for that other than your gut feeling?

HRC could've made an extremely diplomatic and substantive response to Obama's comment like: "As president I would team up with our friends in the Pakistani government to hunt down and capture OBL and dismantle AQ". But she didn't.

Posted by Jinchi | August 9, 2007 7:48 PM

I gotta laugh at all of this. There are so many elements of total confusion here I don't know where to start.

First of all, we don't even know if OBL is even alive or dead. A lot of people believe he died years ago. But leave that aside for a minute.

Second, people are confusing OBL, AQ, and the tribes in Waziristan. These are three separate problems.

Yes, you could probably send in a black ops team to pick up OBL - IF you knew where he was.

Taking out AQ as a GROUP is an entirely different matter. For that, you need MORE than a black ops team - you need a significant presence of forces. And those forces had better be native forces - meaning Pakistanis - or you run into the next problem: the tribes. And in fact, you STILL have a problem even if the forces are native.

And THAT is related to the fact that the tribes in Waziristan are perfectly willing to provide cover for both the Taliban and AQ. The tribes don't like the central government - ANY central government - never have, and never will. The notion that the US "can partner with our friends the Pakistanis" and clean up Waziristan is as dumb as the idea that we can "clean up" Afghanistan - or Iraq. It's all the same sort of situation.

So we can't take out AQ there either, because they are covered by the tribes.

So ANY discussion of cleaning out AQ in Pakistan and/or the Taliban in Afghanistan OR Pakistan is whistling in the wind. It can't be done by any combination of forces short of what a lot of people assume Obama meant: full-scale invasion. And that in itself would fail for the same reasons every other invasion of that part of the world has failed - which are the same reasons you can't take out AQ or the Taliban with any lesser forces.

What CAN be done is nailing OBL - IF he is still alive - or his successor in AQ (who of course will be immediately replaced by somebody else.)

There are TWO and ONLY TWO ways to stop a terrorist group:

1) Kill them all. Only works if they're small, localized and locatable, e.g., Che Guevara's group in Boliva. This CANNOT work in the case of Al Qaeda - except possibly to behead a certain percentage of the group's leadership and possibly thin out the ranks of the lesser members. As soon as the group is sufficiently threatened, they will bug out and regroup elsewhere and else when.

And even if you did, as numerous experts have pointed out, "Al Qaeda" is basically a "franchise" with as many as 18,000 or more adherents worldwide. No way you will get them all, and if you don't, you just amplify their intention to hurt the US in retaliation. All you do is create more "blowback" motivation.

2) "Drain the swamp" - eliminate the motivation of most people in the relevant demographic to join the organization. There should be no need to reiterate this basic concept to the crowd here at Matt's site, although most of the US population probably has no clue about this.

Of course, "drain the swamp" is an option not being seriously considered by ANYBODY on EITHER side of the political aisle. Clinton is a hawk on Iran and a die-hard supporter of Israel. Obama may not be quite such a hawk, but he will do the bidding of the "Very Serious People" and the end result will be the same - meddling in the Middle East, support for Zionist Israel, support for the oil companies, and more hatred of the US as a result.

Now I'll end with my standard offer:

Pay me one billion dollars in advance and I will deliver OBL to you alive or dead - your choice! but dead is easier - within ninety days.

And I'll probably make a nine hundred million dollar profit on the deal.

No takers? How much has the US spent on the war in Afghanistan? How much has the US spent (supposedly) trying to find OBL? Obviously I'm much cheaper. Such a deal I offer you!

No takers? Why? Because nobody really wants to find OBL - at least nobody in the current Administration. He's too valuable as a "boogey man" to scare the citizens with. Which is why nobody even knows - or will admit - whether he is alive or dead.

The only reason Obama would like to capture OBL is to prove his "foreign policy" and "military" credentials and curry favor with the people who want to see OBL captured or killed. Most of those people, however, don't control the US economy, the oil companies, or the campaign contributions to the Republican and Democratic parties. Neither are they represented in the foreign policy community, or the military-industrial-security complex that is profiting from the "War on Terror".

Basically, capturing OBL would be a "publicity stunt" of no significance to the overall problem.

Furthermore, even TRYING to capture OBL would probably bog down due to the incompetence of the authorities charged with the task, the problems of doing the project with the "cooperation" of the Pakistani intelligence services (who support OBL and the Taliban and who probably paid for 9/11 in the first place), and the likelihood that those in charge of the project would prefer, for the reasons stated, to keep him at large.

Which is why I made my offer. I don't care about anything but the money. So I will not fail.

In the meantime, neither Clinton nor Obama have anything useful to say about Pakistan, Al Qaeda or OBL. It's all ruminant evacuation for political effect on the clueless masses, nothing more.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 9, 2007 8:30 PM

No offense, but the notion that political leaders have some incentive for keeping OBL around is idiotic. Just about everyone in America, including the leadership and aspiring leadership, would love to nail Osama to the wall just for the visceral pleasure of it. That's before we get into the credibility that would be gained by accomplishing a task that has eluded the current Administration for years. Bush isn't such a forward thinking creature that it would even occur to him to keep OBL around for whatever Orwellian reasons you imagine he would. To believe such a thing is to take certain pessimistic principles regarding the intentions of our current power holders to an indefensible extreme.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 9, 2007 9:56 PM

It looks like it's time for an Eli Lake/Matthew Yglesias throw down on BloggingHeads.tv. I would like to see a discussion about this played out, anyway.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 9, 2007 10:07 PM

RE "Bush isn't such a forward thinking creature that it would even occur to him to keep OBL around for whatever Orwellian reasons you imagine he would."
-------
No, but Dick Cheney is. Dick spent a bit of time in the Caspian Sea area when CEO of Halliburton. But the problem with going after the oil there was how to get the US military deployed onto bases in the region to deter the other claimants -- Russia, Iran --plus China as the big customer.

The "war on terror" , by the merest coincidence, has provided a perfect excuse. See
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1066570,00.html

Posted by Don Williams | August 9, 2007 10:28 PM

Richard Steven Hack - great logic up to the end. As someone familiar with military strategy, you know that anything other than a few hopefully lucky hellfire missiles directed at only a couple of people will require invading Pak land with a very large force of US soldiers. For "taking out" either AQ, Jammu al-Lakshi, Jammu al-Kashmir, Kashmir Islamic Brigade, Jammu Holy War Front, the Taliban --and all the tribal people that dumb Obama hasn't figured will kill any outsider coming in to protect their guests and tribal honor.

Which brings up your 1st miscalculation - that people in the Mountains with a "to the death" honor code will be persuaded to dishonor themselves, their village, their tribe and bar the gates of Paradise to all - when you and your bribe money or hired mercs show up. The higher the "wanted dead or alive" reward is, the more dishonor would affix to betrayal of protected tribal guests.

Your 2nd miscalculation is in believing that "sinister Oil, Zionist, Bushie, Democrat Party whores" all want OBL kept alive as a useful boogeyman. Zionists want him dead so they can undercut the Lefty argument that the "real danger" is limited to 4-5 survivors guilty of being in on one terrorist plot that happened 6 years ago - so the Zionists can get the American media back to Israel's enemy#1 - Iran. Dem Party whores would love to see Bush fail to whack OBL then get him themselves and kill him one way or the other so the danger of the American legal system involvemnt never occurs. Because Dems know that "American justice" would result in fucking up any expectation the American people have of "justice", as OBL would be a 5 year long dog and pony trial of ACLU lawyers, meddling activist judges, OBL speeches delivered courtesy of America media for a couple of years like Slobbos were, then 7-15 years of death penalty appeals if he was convicted.

Bush wants OBL's head because he knows that is the only thing that will remove him from "A Warren Harding/Jimmy Carter-like failed President" category to a "bumbler who did a few things right" like Gerry Ford..
Big Oil profits mainly on Rising China and the simple fact that oil demand exceeds supply. OBL and the minor terror gang of Al Qaeda is far less important to their business than the dangers from radical Islam and America's being Israel's catspaw driving them out of business in most Muslim lands, and Chavez, Iran, and the dear old Saudis..

PS - One solution that might be quite effective at preventing the Taliban and AQ from disrupting Afghanistan, killing our troops, and showing the Pashtuns that their harboring foreign terrorists comes with a horrific price is:

Mining all the mountain passes. Allowing people in only if they have been checked by Afghan and Pak security and customs. Also would hugely mess up the 100's of millions in drug money from Afghan heroin - which would go out other paths to non-Pashtuns.

Of course, while mining would not infringe on Pak sovereignity and could be by orders of Afghanistan's government - the Pashtun smugglers and "Human Rights" NGOs would have a holy shit-fit on mostly sealing off the Border with landmines. It would be only days after the NGO do-gooders finished shitting and pissing in their panties for AQ, the Taliban, or Pashtuns to march some poor kids up to have their legs blown off in a marked minefield so they could get the hot AP photos the Lefties would love like they love filled American coffins for photo ops....

Posted by Chris Ford | August 9, 2007 11:36 PM

A lot of smart comments on this thread. I think it is pretty clear that Obama's comments were pretty stupid, which should be clear to just about anyone familiar with Pakistani politics, society and ethnic relations. At the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, Pakistani liberals were sympathetic to our cause, but once bombs (possibly accidentally) crossed the border into Pakistan in the early days of the war, their understanding disappeared. As for hoping that parliamentary democracy would cure Pakistan's problems in at least the medium term, even activists like Muktar Mai have severe doubts about that working. The Pakistani military and the combination of the history of American, Soviet/Russian, Chinese and Indian foreign policy towards Pakistan have created a catch-22.

On the one hand, parliamentary democracy has always failed in Pakistan leaving only the military as a viable option, but on the other hand this is because the military has always subverted democracy. The perverse result is that we are currently stuck trying to keep the least worst military leader in power so that 1) the government doesn't collapse without a viable successor, thus leaving Pakistan's nukes ready to be stolen 2) the radical Islamists in the ISI and the military don't take over those institutions and 3) that such groups don't end up taking over the government. I doubt Pakistan's voters would vote in Islamist radicals, but they have little way to prevent a coup if there is no Musharraff figure there in charge of the military in the medium term.

Posted by Reality Man | August 9, 2007 11:59 PM

Jinchi: "I have no idea what HRC would do as president"

That can only be because you haven't paid any attention or you've been listening to VRWC agit-prop about her. She's a mainstream liberal interventionist with some cautious tendencies balanced by some pressure to show that a woman can be an active president - and Bill Clinton at her side. It's harder to guess what Obama will do. Of course whoever is president (in my view very likely HRC given their current performances and the deep problems on the R side) will spend many years doing little but cleaning up after Bush (ignoring disasters which will further reduce our freedom of decision).

"You don't see any difference in policy between the two, but what's your basis for that other than your gut feeling?"

Well, there's the data. Plus, if Obama wants to separate himself from HRC, he's got a platform.

If you're depending on these little spats (where Obama says a few things, gets quoted on one, and has to stick with it for strategic campaign reasons if he or Axelrod doesn't manage to reposition first) to believe there are significant differences discernible at this point, I can't be bothered to continue the discussion.

Posted by rilkefan | August 10, 2007 12:15 AM

That can only be because you haven't paid any attention or you've been listening to VRWC agit-prop about her.

Actually, I read her speeches, and position papers and have a hard time getting a sense of her. For example, does she now think the Iraq war was fundamentally a bad idea, or does she just think GW bungled the execution of a good policy? If you can answer that question I'd be happy to hear it.

She's a mainstream liberal interventionist with some cautious tendencies

Again, what the heck does that mean?

Well, there's the data.

Links, references, anything to back up your statement would be nice.

If you're depending on these little spats

I'm relying on their statements, columns and past votes. The spats have just brought media attention to their differences. You say Obama "has to stick with it for strategic campaign reasons" but he wrote a very detailed outline of his foreign policy views in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan (in Foreign Affairs) long before this story hit the news.

Posted by Jinchi | August 10, 2007 1:19 AM

Chris Ford:

Ah, no, you are misinterpreting my intentions. I wouldn't be using the billion as bribe money. Well, on occasion, I might use some of it as such. Yes, there are tribesmen who WILL "dishonor" themselves AND their families AND their tribes where money is concerned. We've seen that in Iraq recently and elsewhere throughout human history. However, that is a minor element. My plan would entail using "false flag" approaches, which are very effective, to get the necessary information. People will tell anybody anything if they think that person is on their side - whether it's true or not is another question.

Beyond that, "torture" - or more precisely, the threat of death - really does work on many people IF they are convinced you will KILL them - NOT just torture them - unless they tell you what you want to know. And they need to believe that only by telling you what you want to know will they survive - even if it isn't true.

I'm opposed to torture as government policy, of course. But I'm not a government.

In any event, it shouldn't be all that hard - and hopefully not all that time-consuming given my ninety-day deadline - to pin down WHO knows where OBL is. Someone DOES know, and someone else knows that person.

It's that simple - unless of course you're some CIA or military idiot that thinks arresting a bunch of people and questioning them (even with torture) is likely to be effective. My approach would be far more effective.

My second "miscalculation" really isn't. The Israelis don't need OBL killed. It's likely that OBL got the plan for 9/11 from a Mossad double agent in the first place. Certainly we know the Mossad were carefully following the 9/11 actors around to make sure nothing happened to the plan too early. As of now, Israel has plenty of opportunity to push the US at Iran, and plenty of help from Dick Cheney and the US Congress (see Steny Hoyer's comments to the Israelis today about tightening sanctions on Iran to prevent "the development of a nuclear weapon" - which doesn't exist.)

They don't need OBL one way or the other anymore. If "Al Qaeda" isn't around and they need them, they'll simply "fake it" as they did in the Palestinian territories a while back - Palestinian police arrested a Mossad cell trying to recruit Palestinians into "Al Qaeda".

The oil companies don't care about OBL - that's true. The primary actors who need OBL around are Bush, Cheney, and those in the military-industrial-security complex who are directly profiting from the "War on Terror".

Keep in mind that Bush doesn't care about being considered a "loser President". First, he doesn't believe it. Second, he doesn't care because the real issue is money and power. And even if he did, the people behind him don't care about his reputation - just that he gets done what they want done - which is more war, more oil, more power over US citizens. Once he's out of office, they couldn't care less about him.

The Dems MIGHT want to catch OBL - but only if it helped them win the elections. Since they don't control the CIA and Pentagon now to make that possible, they're not relevant. And once they're in power, they'll want him staying out there as THEIR "boogey-man". So the policy will continue.

Nobody wants OBL found except the 9/11 relatives and the rest of a clueless US citizenry - and me, for the profit. Otherwise, I couldn't care less, either.

As for mining mountain passes, I really doubt that would be even remotely effective. What's to prevent anybody from simply exploding the mines when there are no troops there to watch them?

Minefields are basically useless when the opponent doesn't have to worry about being attacked while dealing with them. They're only good against a conventional military force moving in formations. They're useless against a guerrilla force that will be informed of every mine placement by the locals.

The Pashtuns can sit up there and trigger mines all day and night faster than we can plant them.

Not to mention conducting attacks against the mine layers if you try laying them from the ground. Laying them from the air would be the only feasible approach - and again, it would then fail because nobody is on the ground to protect the mines from being deliberately exploded.

Of course, planting that many millions of mines will do wonders for the revenue of whatever military contractor you work for...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 10, 2007 3:11 AM

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=47732

Dawn (Pakistan's leading English daily)
Saturday, June 17, 2006

Despite being assured by the government and intelligence agencies that the family of the missing journalist Hayatullah Khan would hear something about his whereabouts by June 15, the discovery of his bullet-riddled body on Friday is staggering. Mr Khan "disappeared" in Waziristan in December last year but his family has always maintained that he was picked up by intelligence agencies after he released pictures of remnants of US missiles used in an operation that killed Al-Qaeda leader Hamza Rabia last year. Mr Khan's photographs clearly refuted the Pakistan army's claims that Mr Rabia was killed in a blast inside his home. The local Taliban, who were first thought to have been behind Mr Khan's disappearance, denied that they had any hand in it. Since Mr Khan's photographs corroborated what the Taliban believed -- that US forces were behind Mr Rabia's death -- there is no reason to suspect that local militants would have anything to gain from holding Mr Khan. This is not to say that militants have not posed a threat to journalists covering the situation in tribal areas since the war on terror first began. In February this year, two journalists were killed in an ambush by masked men in Wana -- an act many journalists believed was meant to intimidate the press.......

Posted by Arun | August 10, 2007 3:57 AM

At the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, Pakistani liberals were sympathetic to our cause, but once bombs (possibly accidentally) crossed the border into Pakistan in the early days of the war, their understanding disappeared.

http://politicalpakistan.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-most-moderate-pakistanis-now.html
Why Most Moderate Pakistanis Now Dislike America

Worth quoting in full. Anyway, with English language Pakistan press on the Internet and blogs available, I don't know why you need to treat Pakistan as some distant theoretical concept.

Begin quote:
Okay Americans, you have a democracy, a constitution that guarantees your rights of liberty, free speech and a rule of law. Simply put, no government official in your country can crash through your door in the early hours of morning to beat you up, kidnap you to be tortured at length or more simply, put a bullet through your head.

Okay, so you have an incompetent for a president, but then you have no else to blame but yourselves, as a majority of you elected him. Fine, you might have made a human mistake, but then at least you are saved by a political system that gets rid of him once he serves his term (or gets impeached).

Yes, it was extremely tragic that some 2973 people died during the September 11, 2001, attacks. Many of us were devastated by the loss of these hundreds of innocent civilian lives.

(By the way, we are also emotionally distraught by the estimated 64,500 innocent Iraqi civilian men, women and children who have died so far in the aftermath to the war aimed at eradicating those never-to-be-discovered WMDs)

But here is my question:

We in Pakistan also want to have liberty, freedom of speech and a rule of law. Why is it that the US Administration persists in supporting a despot who is denying us our basic rights as human beings?

In today’s Pakistan, a country where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is illegally held in confinement, then physically manhandled and then put on trial on mendacious charges, can any ordinary citizen hope for a modicum of justice? The clear answer is no.

For example, we have hundreds of people ‘missing’, that is they have been picked up by mysterious ‘agency’ personnel who refuse to be answerable in any court of law. Why? Because they act for Musharraf. And no, these missing people are not typically religious extremists - a large number of them happen to be Musharraf’s political opponents from the provinces of Sindh and Balochistan who have been labelled as ‘enemies of the state’.

Reality states that Bush’s so-called ‘War on Terror’ has allowed his supporting cast to create their own Guantanamos all over the place.

Right now a majority of the civilians in Pakistan are demanding their basic fundamental rights. And what are these? An independent judiciary, a free press, a rule of law, and free and fair elections. Not really much for 165 million people on this God’s earth to ask for, is it?

So then is why the US opposing the people of Pakistan by propping up Musharraf?

The answer might be simple as this: Bush has blundered badly in his ‘War on Terror’; Iraq has been a complete debacle and Afghanistan is shaping to be that way. The US had been counting on Musharraf without any ‘Plan B’ or ‘Plan C’. So the US Administration has foolishly decided to cling onto him as if he offers some kind of life boat to a sinking ship.

The problem is that Musharraf has been 1st mate on Bush’s ship from the day it set forth and is no position to provide a miracle rescue. In fact, the situation is often the reverse; he has been counting on US support and largesse to protect him during his times of crisis.

So the basic point is Bush-Cheney & Co have goofed up badly and there is no earthly reason why 165 million Pakistanis should be made to pay for someone else’s wilful blunders. But by continually propping up Musharraf, Washington is behaving towards 165 million Pakistanis as if we are of no consequence – in other words relegating us to a level of collateral human fodder.

That is why we are coming to despise the USA.

Posted by Arun | August 10, 2007 4:04 AM

Some Pakistani opinion for you:
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/20061011.htm

(after the 2006 elections)

"Courtesy the Brookings Institution, I got a chance to meet some Democrats, a few of them important, at a seminar in Qatar in December 2003, nine months after the Iraq invasion. A more sorry bunch of wimps would be hard to imagine, waxing eloquent about extremism but reacting in horror to any suggestion that not only were the policies of the Bush administration themselves an example of extremism, they were also feeding it. President Clinton was there too, delivering what I thought was a stunning speech during which he mentioned every subject under the sun except Iraq.

Richard Holbrooke, former US ambassador to the UN, actually said that speaking about Palestine and Iraq would be a waste of time. We would be much better off discussing education and healthcare. It was a funny gathering almost meant to show that some of Americas best and brightest, putting on blinkers, were in a world of their own.

Now these guys are dressed up as the apostles of change. The test of their zeal will be Iraq and we’ll have to see how much of a stomach for real change they have there. In Nancy Pelosi, however, the Democrats have a good leader — sound head, attractive personality, a flair for politics and, perhaps more important, sincerity. Someone who can call Bush “incompetent, a liar and...dangerous” is to be admired. There is abuse in American politics but plain speaking — seeing a lie and calling it one — is a bit out of fashion."

Posted by Arun | August 10, 2007 4:10 AM

Thanks , Arun.

Posted by Don Williams | August 10, 2007 9:12 AM

Don,
I found an older mention of Ayaz Amir about the Brookings Qatar meeting.

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/20040305.htm

Enjoy!

Posted by Arun | August 10, 2007 11:32 AM

Finally, Clinton's speech Qatar, Jan 2004
http://www.brook.edu/fp/research/projects/islam/clinton20040112.pdf

Posted by Arun | August 10, 2007 11:39 AM

Jinchi: "Actually, I read her speeches, and position papers and have a hard time getting a sense of her. For example, does she now think the Iraq war was fundamentally a bad idea, or does she just think GW bungled the execution of a good policy? If you can answer that question I'd be happy to hear it."

Sheesh - at the time of the AUMF she said the evidence did not support invading. Then immediately post-invasion she said it had set a bad precedent, that "new doctrines and actions by the Bush Administration undermine these core democratic principles - both at home and abroad. I believe they do so at a severe cost. In our efforts abroad, we now go to war as a first resort against perceived threats, not as a necessary final resort." For over a year she's said that we never would have gotten to the AUMF stage if the admin hadn't manipulated the intel.

Posted by rilkefan | August 10, 2007 6:41 PM

at the time of the AUMF she said the evidence did not support invading.

Then she should have voted against it.

Here she is in 2002:

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort.

If she believed Bush was really planning to use the AUMF to pressure the U.N. or Saddam then she's got no political sense at all. Virtually everyone in the country knew he'd go to war if given the option.

And here she was a year later (2003):

I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after.

... with regard to both Iraq and Afghanistan, we need more of something that is often in short supply here in our country: patience. I was struck, during our briefing at the embassy in Kabul, by a comment made by one of our U.S. aid workers, who had recently returned from the Southeast and had met with a number of former Taliban, so-called former Taliban. And one of these former Taliban said, "Americans may have all the watches, but we have all the time." I think it's a lesson that we forget at our peril. This will not be an easy undertaking. It will require patience, and it will require the continuing support of the American people.

... it took 10 years to create a stable, sovereign government, and we still have troops in Germany, as we do in Japan, as we do in South Korea, as we do in Bosnia, as we do in Kosovo. So the idea that we can somehow bring about dramatic transformational change in either a short period of time or with a relatively limited financial commitment is contradicted by our own history. And therefore we have not only the need for patience but a sense that we are going to be involved over the long run, or we will not guarantee or create the conditions for potential success.

Now who can look back and second-guess history? I'm -- I certainly can't. But I think it was in American interest and in German interest and in the eventual interests of our defeating Soviet communism that we retained troops in Germany.

Posted by Jinchi | August 10, 2007 7:19 PM

"at the time of the AUMF she said the evidence did not support invading."

'Then she should have voted against it.'

Sure, but there was a long list of reasons why it made sense for her to do so. I was a war opponent, but I understand the not-that-complicated political difficulties faced by Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, etc. in casting a vote. As I recall, Obama is on record passing up a chance to affirm he would have voted against - presumably because he understands that calculus too.

As for the rest, I'm entirely comfortable with a major political figure not advocating in 2003 for abandoning Iraq to chaos after the invasion - that would have been political suicide.

The bottom line for me is that the answer to your question is trivially obvious to anyone who has paid any attention (modulo the VRWC-infected), that Clinton's policy analysis of the data was correct, that she will be in a different political position as president, and that she will of course benefit from the experience of the last years.

Posted by rilkefan | August 10, 2007 8:05 PM