Bush vs. Obama on Pakistan Posted by Patrick Barry

William Saletan addresses an important topic in the wake of the revelation in today's New York Times that the Bush Administration has reigned in its ground raids into Pakistan, and has instead chosen to rely primarily on air strikes to eliminate militants operating along the Af-Pak border.  Saletan concludes from the article that there's not much difference between Barack Obama's stated position and the Bush Administration's, and that consequently, the vigorous debate between McCain and Obama on this subject is a "charade."  Here's more from Saletan:

Last year, Obama declared that under his presidency, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." John McCain criticized Obama's policy as rash, suggesting it would undermine the Pakistani government. The United States should try covert action in Pakistan "before we declare that we're going to bomb the daylights out of them," said McCain. A month ago, in their first debate, McCain again condemned Obama's position, arguing that the next president should "work with the Pakistani government," not "attack them."

Today, the New York Times reports what's actually going on along the Pakistani border. The report, based on interviews with U.S. and Pakistani officials, exposes the Obama-McCain debate as a charade. We're already getting actionable intelligence about terrorist targets in Pakistan. We're already blasting them. And the Pakistani government is working with us to facilitate these attacks. The covert action, the cooperation, and the aerial assaults aren't competing options. They're the same thing.

There may be similarities between the more moderate positions taken by the Bush Administration and those proposed by Senator Obama, but on Pakistan, there is a real difference between the two, a difference that Saletan's piece does not recognize. The critical distinction here has to do with the meaning of "high-value." Last August, Obama said he would strike at "high-value" al-Qaeda targets, whether the Pakistanis would act or not.  This means that Obama would not shrink from authorizing targeted strikes at people like Osama Bin Laden, or Ayman al-Zawahiri - the highest echelon of al-Qaeda's leadership. But, if you look at the New York Times piece, there's every indication that what the Bush Administration is doing in Pakistan is anything but targeted at senior al-Qaeda members:

Once largely reserved for missions to kill senior Arab Qaeda operatives, the Predator is increasingly being used to strike Pakistani militants and even trucks carrying rockets to resupply fighters in Afghanistan. Many of the Predator strikes are taking place as deep as 25 miles into Pakistani territory. …

Given the frequency of strikes in Pakistan, and given that many of the victims of the attacks are purported to be not just mid-level Taliban or al-Qaeda but also civilians, it seems fair to question just how discriminate the Bush Administration is being. You could argue that collateral damage and mission creep are intrinsic to air operations, and that Obama will likely face this sort of thing if he becomes President, but that isn't exactly true.  By limiting strikes to only al-Qaeda's senior leadership, instead of conducting counter-insurgency from the skies, Obama would likely limit damaging side-effects like the kind you see complicating our mission in Afghanistan, while leaving open the possibility of an ammenable agreement on a more effective strategy.  To give an example, robust counterinsurgency operations, conducted jointly by U.S. and Pakistani forces might have been a real possibility in a context not poisoned by accusations of indiscrimate bombings.  But because the Bush administration wanted to open things up a bit, we're faced with a more limited set of options going forward.

Comments

[Peace]

It appears that McCain is still living in the early nineteen eighties with his wanting a new Cold War with Russia, war with Iran, and now treating Pakistan like it is a loyal ally. Obama realizes that the present threats that we face originate in Pakistan, and that the Pakistani government cannot be relied upon to deal with Osama Bin Laden.

[Peace]

Sorry, I meant Bush instead of McCain in my previous reply, but their policies are so similiar that it is easy to get confused.

[cheap Perfect World Gold]

If you want to buy gw gold.This site is the best.
Thet supply cheapestGuildWars Gold. I like to buy
Guild Wars Gold from them.
GuildWars moneyThey give you the best customer service.

[rohan online gold]

I get a lot of rohan crone and the rohan gold is very important for anyone who wants to play the net game. Most of the rohan online croneis the access to the net game. If you have the rohan online gold, you can make good use of them to enjoy yourself in the game.

[cheap Final Fantasy XI Gold]

Yesterday, my boyfriend gave me a lot of FFXI Giland he told me that the FFXI gold is useful for me to go into the net game. At the same time, the Final Fantasy XI gold is the gift for my birthday and I will buy FFXI Gil to thank him because it is not free for him.

[dd]

I hope i can get twelve sky Gold in low price,
Yesterday i want to buy 12sky gold for my friend.

[potbs gold]

Do want to know the magic of online games, and here you can get more Pirates of the Burning Sea Gold. Do you want to have a try? Come on and potbs gold can make you happy.

[ou smart and buy Sword of the New World Vis]

Do want to know the magic of online games, and here you can get more Pirates of the Burning Sea Gold

[Links of London replica Jewelry]

Do want to know the magic of online games, and here you can get more Pirates of the Burning Sea Gold

[luxury watches]

I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch

[luxury watches]

I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch

[sohbet odaları]

sonra bedava chat
burasıda var bedava sohbet