[WMCoolmon]

Hmm.

[karajorma]

Excellent!

I think Bush's strategy seems to be, piss off your biggest Muslim ally in the War on Terror since you know you won't be around to have to deal with the fallout.

[Uchuujinsan]

Thats the way we all learned to love Bush Jr.
Are there any reactions from Obama or McCain on this issue?

[WMCoolmon]

From this site:

Obama accused Bush and McCain of failing to grasp that “the central front in the war on terror is not in Iraq, and it never was—the central front is in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the terrorists who hit us on 9/11 are still plotting attacks seven years later.”

The Democratic presidential candidate said that his own strategy would include “responsibly removing our combat brigades” from Iraq and redeploying US forces “to finish the job in Afghanistan.” This would involve, he added, “more focus on eliminating the Taliban and Al Qaeda sanctuary along the Pakistan border.”

Referring to the Bush administration’s decision to make a limited redeployment and, implicitly, to the recent US strikes across the Pakistani border, Obama said, “I am glad that the president is moving in the direction of the policy that I have advocated for years.”

However I don't recognize the source, and the Pakistani attacks hasn't become a major issue yet. I'd predict that Obama is going to wait a little while longer and see how people react to the news before taking a definite stand on the issue. This is also an issue where Biden could influence the direction he takes - the issue might even be deferred to Biden so as to not risk Obama's image this late in the campaign.

I'd predict that if Obama does choose to go ahead and endorse ground strikes in Pakistan, he'll take advantage of the animosity caused by Bush's unilateral strikes to emphasize the importance of bringing people to the table, and say that it's important that we work with the government of Pakistan. That way he distances himself from Bush and Bush's reputation for acting unilaterally, and also scores points on the "experience" front. It's also a pretty safe thing to say, since he doesn't have any commitment to live up to those words until well after the current conflict has mutated into something completely different, whatever that might be, and he scores points with Pakistan for at least appearing to be on their side in this issue against Bush.

It might even help him in the Muslim-name department, too, since he would be endorsing attacks against/within a Muslim country. (That seems vaguely wrong, but it is politics)

As for McCain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkt0LO3CE3I

Somewhat slanted, but it does touch upon the issue (OK, I just remembered it because I thought it was funny). I don't think McCain has a definite stance yet, either. McCain seems to be taking a back seat to Palin recently, and letting the media take her in, which gives him the opportunity to also wait and see what becomes of the Pakistan strikes issue. The news has only really broken today and it's not really that big of an issue, so there's no sense in either candidate taking a strong stance on the issue that might hurt them in the long run.

EDIT: When I say "it's not really that big of an issue", I mean as an election thing, not as an impact-on-the-world thing.

[MP-Ryan]

Excellent!

I think Bush's strategy seems to be, piss off your biggest Muslim ally in the War on Terror since you know you won't be around to have to deal with the fallout.

Pakistan is the largest source of terror-related funding and logistical support in the region.  While their government may be technically allied with Western interests, there have been numerous [reliable] reports of affiliation of their primary Intelligence service (the ISI) with both the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

In short, Bush ain't far off the mark this time.  Pakistan never should have been considered "trusted."  Hell, the Taliban originated in Pakistan.  Frankly, I'm surprised its taken this long for the American government to figure out that they didn't pick the best of allies in the first place.

[Mars]

Still... I'd wait until we're safely out of Iraq before we piss Pakistan off too badly.

The funny thing is that a while back they droned a number of people who ambushed American forces on the Afghan side... and apparently they turned out to work for some branch of Pakistan. IIRC... I can't seem to find the BBC article.

[TrashMan]

I don't believe in anything ANY intelligence service reports.

Pakistan my the by the breeding ground and central exporter of terrorism, or it may just sell candy.
I know jack s*** about Pakistan, and I admitt it.

[Nuclear1]

Thanks for the contribution.

[Mongoose]

I'm with Ryan.  Whatever Pakistan's intentions, if they're going to continue to do essentially nothing to take out Taliban/Al-Qaeda cells that we know exist along their borders, they're essentially implicitly endorsing their existence.  Government permission is all well and good, but when your forces are continuously attacked from groups that keep retreating over a rather ill-defined border region, you do what you have to do.  If we ever want Afghanistan to have a shot at stability or prosperity, this is the sort of thing that has to happen.

[Uchuujinsan]

Another question, iirc the first attack on Pakistan was 9/3/2008, one and a half weeks ago (Afaik atm 3 attacks in total)
You only heard about that in the news yesterday? oO

@Mongoose
So, if an armed extremist force in the USA is travelling over the Border, killing a few Mexicans, and Mexico retaliates with an assault to an american village and a few civilians are (also) killed, than thats ok? You wont mind it at all? Everything is right that way?
I really wonder if you would feel like that....

[Mars]

What worries me is that none of the canadates or their VPs seem to have any problem with it.

[karajorma]

So, if an armed extremist force in the USA is travelling over the Border, killing a few Mexicans, and Mexico retaliates with an assault to an american village and a few civilians are (also) killed, than thats ok? You wont mind it at all? Everything is right that way?
I really wonder if you would feel like that....

And answer carefully. Cause you've justified the Cuban invasion of America if you say yes.

[Mongoose]

You're gonna have to 'splain that one to me, Lucy, if this is as conditional as you're conditioning me to believe.  If it's what I think you're thinking of, that particular move wasn't one I would have agreed with in any sense of the word had I existed at that time.  Wordplay aside, I would like to know what alternate solution you would propose to the topic of discussion.  You have extremist cells attacking one sovereign country from another that's doing nothing to stop them themselves...yet won't allow anyone else to come in and stop them either.  Do you just sit back and accept the status quo as the situation in Afghanistan continues to degrade?

[karajorma]

Of course the Taliban originated in Pakistan. The US were fine with the Taliban ruling the country right up until 9/11 because they figured that they could control them through Pakistan.

As for the rest of this discussion it's worth remembering that Pakistan is a nuclear power before we go any further with this. We're not dealing with a nation like Iraq or Afghanistan here. America can't expect to just roll in like they did with those two.

[TrashMan]

I see many people fault Pakistan for not stopping the terrorists. If only stopping terrorists was that easy.
The US secret agencies failed to stop 9/11, how do you expect any security services in Pakistan to do any better, especially given all the circumstances.

[BlackDove]

Gotta look at the big picture.

[Water]

You have extremist cells attacking one sovereign country from another that's doing nothing to stop them themselves...

You can't call Afghanistan or Iraq soverign until they call the shots for themselves.

I'm guessing this isn't what you mean.
You have extremist cells (US forces)  attacking one sovereign country (Pakistan)  from another that's doing nothing to stop them themselves... ( Afghanistan)

[Mongoose]

I'm guessing this isn't what you mean.
You have extremist cells (US forces)  attacking one sovereign country (Pakistan)  from another that's doing nothing to stop them themselves... ( Afghanistan)

Yes, because "uniformed, declared troops" totally equates to "guys with rocket launchers hiding in caves."  C'mon, let's not obfuscate the issue here.  We have a scenario where ground troops are being hindered in their ability to protect both themselves and Afghan citizens by a neighboring government that seems unwilling and/or unable to control the insurgent cells active within its borders.  Nuclear power or not, Pakistan has the responsibility of ensuring that criminals

Uchuujinsan (there's a name for you ) and karajorma collectively posed the somewhat-trappish scenario of a similar situation occurring across the border of the US and Mexico.  I feel at least semi-comfortable in stating that, in the limited scenario of a group of American terrorists conducting attacks on Mexican soil, in a case where either the federal or state governments were taking no discernible action to stop them, I would support the right of the Mexican government to defend their sovereignty and respond to the attackers.  (Hope that emphasis manages to cover my ass. ) If said response happened to cause the deaths of innocent American citizens, would I be outraged?  Undoubtedly, but I would also consider whether or not those actions were a result of an act of over-zealousness or tragically mistaken friendly fire.  There's a pointed difference between having no concern for bystanders and having a targeted attack miss its specific target.

(The case of Pancho Villa has a few similarities to this hypothetical, interestingly enough.)

[TrashMan]

Governments have a long history of ignoring the laws of other countries, and in general ignoring morals completely.

Funding the opposition of the government, spreading lies trough informational warfare, training guerilla, assasinating individuals - just the tip of the iceberg. Not doing anything, while someone else makes the life of your opponent hard is no big deal in comparison.

[MP-Ryan]

Of course the Taliban originated in Pakistan. The US were fine with the Taliban ruling the country right up until 9/11 because they figured that they could control them through Pakistan.

As for the rest of this discussion it's worth remembering that Pakistan is a nuclear power before we go any further with this. We're not dealing with a nation like Iraq or Afghanistan here. America can't expect to just roll in like they did with those two.

It's also worth remembering that the strikes that have been conducted have been small in nature and are designed to root out combative elements which are giving Pakistan just as much trouble as they're giving NATO.

The recent Parliamentary elections in Pakistan are what really brought the focus down on the ISI and their links to organized terrorism and insurgent support.  Newly-elected MPs stood up to say they weren't going to take the blackmail and bull**** that keeps them traditionally silent.  I think you'll find that the Pakistani government will ignore if not tacitly support strikes into their territory to hit the areas providing funding and logistical support to the insurgency (particularly in Afghanistan).  The fact of the matter is that no one actually has meaningful control of northern Pakistan and the American strikes into the region may well be doing the Pakistani government a favour.

Moreover, no Pakistani leader is going to play the nuclear card, especially with a very testy India right next door.