Obama and Pakistan

There was a story in today's Washington Post headlined "Unilateral Strike Called a Model For U.S. Operations in Pakistan"

In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.

The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.

That made it a pretty weird day for John McCain to attack Obama for being willing to order such strikes. Is McCain against the al-Libi operation?

Comments

Another instance of the growing McCain-Hillary convergence:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/sparks-fly-over.html

For the second presidential debate in a row, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., came under fire for an Aug. 1 speech in which he said he would go after high-value Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan if the country's president was not willing to act.

"You can think big but remember you shouldn't always say everything you think when you're running for president because it could have consequences across the world and we don't need that right now," said Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 19, 2008 10:07 PM

Is McCain against the al-Libi operation?

McCain shows initial signs of dementia and seems not to know what he says often times. Scary.

Posted by Karen | February 19, 2008 10:11 PM

I thought that was a very odd argument for McCain to make.

If I got him straight, he's for launching a pre-emptive war against a country that poses no threat to us and continuing that war for hundreds of years, but is opposed to launching strikes at Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan? Really???

Posted by Mike | February 19, 2008 10:12 PM

It does seem a little odd for McCain to be using Clinton's playbook, in light of how things have turned out.

But I do look forward to McCain accusing Obama of not supporting universal health care.

Posted by DTM | February 19, 2008 10:37 PM

Isn't this just a straight copy of the Goldberg post?

Posted by burning flock | February 19, 2008 10:54 PM

Perhaps McCain wishes to face Hillary? In his shoes, I would.

Anyways: is McCain out to lunch? Magic 8-Ball says: 'YES!' Will he say anything on any given day? YES! Are reporters intelligent enough to sit down and come to have empathy for a man who keeps changing his mind and engaging in rank political dishonesty, and then turn around and tell the truth anyways? Um, no?

max
['McCain '08: For the Desperate, Unprincipled People of the United States.']

Posted by max | February 19, 2008 10:58 PM

Obama's proposal turned out to be the official (but unstated up until that time) U.S. policy. When that came out a week or two later, all the Dems from Hillary to Biden fell in line with the "oh, of course I would go after Bin Laden."

So now we're to assume that McCain is against official U.S. policy? Is he going to turn against the Surge next?

Or are Hillary and McCain just trying to score cheap political points and don't really believe anything they're saying? Nah, that would be too cynical of us to believe.

Posted by Ryan | February 19, 2008 11:09 PM

Here's what Obama said:

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. 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.

Someone should ask John McCain what part of that he disagrees with.

Seriously.

Posted by southpaw | February 19, 2008 11:31 PM

Maybe the problem is more in the saying it than in the doing it. But point taken.

Posted by Tim_G | February 19, 2008 11:40 PM

Yep, I think this is a great opening for the Obama campaign to seize upon right now. It takes the focus of all the petty attacks on him and puts it back on the issues, which is where he has the advantage.

By the way, anyone else find it interesting that whenever Obama talks about McCain, he brings up specific policy disagreements. Whenever McCain talks about Obama, he just focuses on Obama's rhetoric. Where's the beef, McCain?

Posted by Mike | February 19, 2008 11:45 PM

Apparently McCain is willing to follow Osama bin Laden "to the gates of hell" but for any other Al Qaeda operative he's stopping at the Pakistan border.

Posted by Dungheap | February 19, 2008 11:46 PM

If I got him straight, he's for launching a pre-emptive war against a country that poses no threat to us and continuing that war for hundreds of years, but is opposed to launching strikes at Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan? Really???
Posted by Mike

Lefty revisionism that bears no resemblance to reality.

1. Iraq was not "pure as the driven snow, no threat" as the lefty narrative holds.

a. It violated 17 UN Security Council Resolutions, was shooting at US pilots and others in UN no-Fly zones. It offered 25,000 bounty for suicide bombers, 35,000 if the bomber succeeded in killing Jews. We not only had legitimate provocation to invade on the UN Resolutions and final resolution defied - we had legal cause to launch war from our pilots being attacked...

b. Iraq under Saddam had corrupted the UN, officials of France, Russia, Arab countries.

c. Saddam, in interrogations, said he had refused to declare abandonment of WMD and thrown the UN inspectors out because he thought a giant bluff to convince all the world's intelligence agencies that he had WMD was the way to keep Iran and the USA off him. He said that he was on track to end all Sanctions by late 2002 and go fullbore for substantial nerve gas, anthrax, missile capacity before Bush and 9/11 ruined his plans.

d. On top of reconstituting his actual WMDs, Saddam said he had a top priority of getting the nukes before Iran did...and never believed that the bribed UN officials, the FRench, Russians and brother Arab nations would fail to stop the US invasion. When they did, Saddam said he wept because all was lost and he was a dead man - and his insurgency was a way to shed US blood for helping the Iraqi Shiite heretics and the Persians..

2. No one, not even McCain, especially McCain, is opposed to strikes in Pakistan as long as we do not violate Pakistan's sovereignity, enrage the population, and cut off our troops in Afghanistan.

a. Obama, the idiot, was saying that he wished to take the war into the Tribal Lands to find his Moby Dick. A whole different thing than a Predator strike approved of by Pakistan's government.

b. Eric Rudolph hid out in the US for 8 years on the FBI's most wanted list in a hundred square mile area where a considerable part of the population opposed his actions. Bin Laden is hiding out in a 7800-8400 square mile area where almost all the local Muslims approve of him and have committed their honor to giving him sanctuary. Good luck to Obama's invasion force!

c. Playing terrorist whack-a-mole in the most mountanous, hostile, and remote area on the planet I'm sure would be great Lefty fun. It is surprising that so few Lefties seem to want to risk their asses. Where are the brigades of Lefties volunteering to go to Pashtun lands and fight for justice, as they did in the Spanish Civil War for the communist cause? If only Binnie had bombed Havana instead of NYC, maybe they would be mad enough to line up behind the Black Messiah and invade into Pakistan in a pre-emptive war to find a half dozen guys - and to be slaughtered like the Soviets were in Afghanistan.

Posted by chris ford | February 19, 2008 11:48 PM

John McCain wants to coddle al-Qaeda holed up in Pakistan. Obama wants to take them out.

Tora fucking Bora.

why do Republicans want to coddle the terrorists, rather than confront them?

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | February 19, 2008 11:51 PM

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

One can argue over this a couple ways.

The first problem is that unilateral US actions - especially ones that may result in civilian casualties - are just going to further radicalize the local population and further destabilize the Pakistani government.

The second is that, as, amazingly, Chris Ford says, playing "whack-a-mole" with individual members of a terrorist group is not a very efficient way to deal with a world-wide terrorist franchise operation, which is Al Qaeda.

Third, Ford, again, amazingly (I can't believe I'm saying this) is correct in his points a and b. Obama's policy statement about "taking the fight to Al Qaeda" in Pakistan is a recipe for massive failure and a quagmire worse than Iraq. So is his policy statement about "ending the fight in Afghanistan" - which the US cannot do.

That said, I have no particular problem with knocking off individual ranking members of terrorist groups. I just think the Predator method is clumsy, expensive and prone to cause more problems than it solves. It would be far more effective to deal with individual Al Qaeda members outside of Pakistan - in their operational areas in the West, using standard law enforcement, counterintelligence, and occasionally assassination, methods. Meanwhile, efforts to infiltrate the organization and destabilize it from within would be equally effective. You can be sure the Mossad is using such methods - when it isn't faking "Al Qaeda" cells in Palestine for its own ends or spying on the US.

Ultimately, the only way to deal with Al Qaeda is changes in US foreign policy that remove the US as a target. This is the only practical method of dealing with terrorism on a large scale. And I haven't heard WORD ONE from Obama about that, nor Clinton, let alone that nitwit, McCain.

Just to be clear, naturally everything else Ford says in his post about Iraq is irrelevant drivel.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 20, 2008 12:00 AM

McCain is taking cheap shots while he can to build up his far right base. He, like the Clintons, keep forgetting that EVERY word they utter is committed in writing somewhere on the internet and will be dragged out later to turn them back around again.

It's old -v- new and the old school pols just don't get it....yet.

Posted by G Davis | February 20, 2008 12:09 AM

Richard, if we had an ounce of the ability of Mossad, I have no doubt that the gaping hole on my island would still be filled with buildings.

Otherwise, I tend towards complete agreement with your post, since regardless of any ideological differences, I think you would acknowledge I do have some little understanding of 4GW, etc.

Anyway, I have an Econometrics problem set that's been sitting on my desk all day, so I'll just second what Mr. Hack said in full.

Posted by Greg | February 20, 2008 12:19 AM

Eric Rudolph hid out in the US for 8 years on the FBI's most wanted list in a hundred square mile area where a considerable part of the population opposed his actions. Bin Laden is hiding out in a 7800-8400 square mile area where almost all the local Muslims approve of him and have committed their honor to giving him sanctuary. Good luck to Obama's invasion force!

You must have a very bizarre understanding of the term "actionable intelligence," Chris.

To clarify, Obama is not proposing to cordon and search the entire Northwest Frontier Province. And the idea that Obama intends to mass troops on the Pakistan border and invade is profoundly implausible.

Posted by southpaw | February 20, 2008 12:27 AM

U-G-L-Y! You ain't got no al-Libi...

Posted by Alex | February 20, 2008 12:29 AM

Both Chris Ford and Richard Steven Hack are ignoring the plain meaning of Obama's words and are instead assigning their own worst fears to them.

How does the al-Libi strike not fall perfectly under what Obama said?
1. US forces had actionable intelligence of a high priority terrorist target.
2. That target was within Pakistan's borders, in an area that the Pakistani government does not control.
3. Past attempts at getting President Musharaff to commit a military strike against such targets had been repeatedly rebuffed.
4. The U.S. predator launched two missiles into Pakistani territory that killed the al Qaeda target.

Now according to Ford and Hack, we'll be seeing the implosion of the Pakistani government any day now. Oh wait, they just had democratic elections and Musharaff's party is getting their butt kicked. There must be a causal connection. I guess you were right, guys!

Posted by Ryan | February 20, 2008 12:45 AM

According to our own Army of Northern Virginia veteran, the "lefty narrative" was that Iraq was "pure as the driven snow".

This is the same person who insists that liberals cannot be taken seriously on national security questions.

I think what McCain is stating is that it would be a bad idea for Democrats to have anything to do with foreign policy whatsoever, but Republicans may do anything with their typical levels of performance excellence, and as long as they possess sufficient resolve and guts and gumption, it will all work out for the best.

Posted by El Cid | February 20, 2008 1:04 AM

I never said anything about the Pakistani government "imploding any day now".

What I said is that sooner or later this is going to backfire.

Apparently I'm not alone, as the article referenced by Matt contains this quote:

"A U.S. military official familiar with operations in the tribal areas, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the operations, said: "We'll get these one-off flukes once every eight months or so, but that's still not a strategy -- it's not a plan. Every now and then something will come together. What that serves to do [is] it tamps down discussion about whether there is a better way to do it."

Precisely.

As for the results of the elections, try this one on:

Pakistan Victors Want Dialogue With Militants
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/world/asia/20pstan.html?ex=1361163600&en=805cebe5bfa67a01&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Money Quotes:

"The winners of Pakistan’s parliamentary elections said Tuesday that they would take a new approach to fighting Islamic militants by pursuing more dialogue than military confrontation, and that they would undo the crackdown on the media and restore independence to the judiciary."

"Although the resounding victory of the two parties was broadly welcomed in Pakistan, there were immediate memories of the failings of civilian governments here in the 1990s. American officials were particularly skeptical of Mr. Zardari, who has faced corruption charges in Pakistan and abroad and has come to his current position of leadership only through his wife’s death.

Mr. Sharif was twice prime minister in the 1990s and faced numerous corruption charges himself after being ousted by Mr. Musharraf in a coup."

"The two opposition parties share similar views of how to tackle the terrorism problem. The new approach is more likely to be responsive to the consensus of the Pakistani public than was Mr. Musharraf’s and is more likely to shun a heavy hand by the military and rely on dialogue with the militants.

Mr. Zardari said his party would seek talks with the militants in the tribal areas along the Afghan border, where the Taliban and Al Qaeda have carved out a stronghold, as well as with the nationalist militants who have battled the Pakistani Army in Baluchistan Province.

Many in Pakistan, including several parties that boycotted the elections, have been strongly opposed to Mr. Musharraf’s use of the army to battle tribesmen in the name of the campaign against terrorism, which is seen as an American agenda.

'We will have a dialogue with those who are up in the mountains and those who are not in Parliament,' Mr. Zardari said. 'We want to take all those along who are against Pakistan and working against Pakistan.'"

"But the results left the Bush administration, which has leaned heavily on Mr. Musharraf, scrambling to find new partners in the campaign against Islamic militants in the region. The election of a hostile Parliament is expected to further marginalize the president, or even push him out, in a country where power traditionally lies with elected prime ministers or the military chiefs who have overthrown them.

Mr. Musharraf was re-elected to another five-year term by national and provincial assemblies in October, but the constitutionality of his standing for office was vigorously contested. The new Parliament could revive that challenge and even impeach him."

In other words, it's likely that things aren't going to go the "Predator" way...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 20, 2008 2:06 AM

Hmm, last I checked Pakistan is still a sovereign country, so allow me to feel slightly uncomfortable with Obama's proposals.

Please, just for 10 seconds, imagine a foreign secret service conducting violent missions on US territory without prior warning and permission.

Thanks

Posted by novakant | February 20, 2008 4:52 AM

Both Ford and Hack present relevant, and for the most part accurate, information about Iraq and Afghanistan. On Pakistan, I for one don't think anyone posting here, and damned few going to the office every day in Langley, has/have anything remotely resembling a handle on the situation. Them that say don't know; them that know don't say.

Given the fact that we have for years periodically flattened things in Pakistan when we thought a high-value target was inside, this has always seemed more like show business than a serious policy debate. Of course we will find a way to kill these guys, whether they're in Waziristan or Wimbleton. But why do we need to be shooting our mouths off about it on tv?

Posted by Robert Powell | February 20, 2008 7:57 AM

Please, just for 10 seconds, imagine a foreign secret service conducting violent missions on US territory without prior warning and permission.

Actually, there is a precedent; the assassination of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt in Washington DC in 1976 by the Chilean intelligence service DINA. The US government failed to react violently (or, really, in any other significant way) against Chile. So it's perfectly rational for the CIA to assume that the same would be true of other countries...

Posted by ajay | February 20, 2008 8:59 AM

Ajay, there was also the Mossad assassination in Lillehammer, where they killed a Moroccan waiter who had been mistakenly identified as a high-ranking member of the PLO. A huge embarrassment for Israel, and I believe several members of Mossad ended up serving jail time in Norway, but it's not like Norway declared war or had its government collapse. (These analogies are all somewhat inapt anyway, but I thought I'd throw that one out there.)

Posted by Steve | February 20, 2008 9:28 AM

"...I believe several members of Mossad ended up serving jail time..."

Do you know how common it is for anyone in Mossad to serve jail time? Ever? That is an enormously big deal.

Posted by Greg | February 20, 2008 9:58 AM

Steve: true, and the Rainbow Warrior bomb planted by the DGECE in New Zealand, and the London assassinations of Georgi Markov by the Bulgarian secret service, and (presumably) Alexander Litvinenko by the Russian secret service... I was just trying to think of specifically US examples.

Posted by ajay | February 20, 2008 10:19 AM

"allow me to feel slightly uncomfortable with Obama's proposals"

I thought that he didn't have any proposals, that all he did was give nifty speeches?

Posted by zaleriana | February 20, 2008 10:51 AM

Both Chris Ford and Richard Steven Hack are ignoring the plain meaning of Obama's words and are instead assigning their own worst fears to them.

Ah, but they do so at length, for effect. It's a sort of C-Factor Paradox for wingnut dementia. We used to play whack-a-mole with their talking points, but now no one cares.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | February 20, 2008 12:09 PM

This is the same person who insists that liberals cannot be taken seriously on national security questions.

How are we supposed to take him seriously if he waves around silly talking points that got fisked five freaking years ago?

Sad, really.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | February 20, 2008 12:15 PM

Sure, McCain wildly mischaracterized Obama's remarks. But to what end?

Let's stipulate that this particular talking point becomes part of the media narrative: "Obama wants to bomb Pakistan". Is there any group of potential swing voters that will be turned off by that and be driven into the arms of McCain? Can't think of one.

OTOH, I can think of a sizeable block of historically unaffiliated voters who might be attracted by the idea of a candidate willing to bomb Pakistan: Indian-Americans.

Posted by Knecht Ruprecht | February 20, 2008 5:46 PM

Thanks to Knecht Ruprecht for reasserting the actual subject here--campaign rhetoric and spin.

I doubt if any one of the three potential presidents are going to make any substantive policy changes in terms of Pakistan. First, we would need to have substantive policies.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 21, 2008 4:43 AM

Well Obama can talk about going into Pakistan .

Which

1 ) The US was already doing

2) Which made put pressure on Musharif and made him look bad.

Tell me what was he thinking when he made such a comment. Maybe it was that he didn't know or perhaps wasn't interested enough in the subject to find out.

That was real smart of him wasn't it?

Posted by jon | February 21, 2008 5:16 AM

I think Obama's remark was real dumb, jon.

But no dumber than most of the other remarks made on this subject by other candidates, and lots of Congressional loud-mouths as well.

I don't have the same incredible ability to intuit the inner thoughts of national leaders as some posters here profess to, but my guess is that Obama has painted himself into a corner with the Afghanistan vs Iraq meme. Needing to balance his "end-the-war" rhetoric in Iraq with some toughness, it's a natural to go for the old "took their eye off the ball, all our real enemies are in Afghanistan, I'd double down in Kabul" riff. It's a sign of his inexperience. But he's certainly learning fast.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 21, 2008 10:54 AM

Sending american troops into pakistan would be the same as declaring war against a ally, who's to say american troops wouldn't get bogged down in another conflict, sen.obama policy is stupid and irresponsible.

Posted by Ron | February 27, 2008 7:45 PM