Where Obama fears to tread…

Loading

H/T for the heads up to KURU Lounge!

While the hopeful POTUS DNC candidate jets around Europe and the Middle East to meet with leaders he will be “dealing with for the next eight to 10 years,” – along with an adoring media circus in tow – it’s amazing how all reports of his “tour of duty” manage to ellude the gaping hole in Obama’s Middle East foreign policy strategy. Were he serious about his transfer of the battle against the Global Islamic Jihad Movement to Afghanistan, his first stop should have been Pakistan.

Instead, that is the one place Obama fears to tread. He has not laid the groundwork well for US relations with the Pakistani allied government, and they have noticed. It started back in August 2007, when Obama announced his cowboy policy towards Pakistan, saying:

Back in August, I said we should work with the Pakistani government, first of all to encourage democracy in Pakistan, and secondly, that we have to press them to do more to take on al Qaeda in their territory,” the Illinois Democrat, who now threatens to strike at Senator Hillary Rodham Hillary in New Hampshire after a stunning performance in Iowa, said.

“What I said was, if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike.”

Pakistan wasted no time in responding to the junior Senator’s threats of invasion.

Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country.

Top Pakistan officials said Obama’s comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.

“It’s a very irresponsible statement, that’s all I can say,” Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. “As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense.”

Obama has not, since that time, backed down on his threats. Instead his “soaring” rhetoric continues to talk tough INRE the Pakistanis… with just a tad of “softening”.

“What I have said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-level al-Qaeda targets and the Pakistani Government was unwilling to go after those targets, then we should. Now my hope is that does not come to that, that, in fact, the Pakistani Government will recognise that we have Osama bin Laden in our sights, then we should fire, that we should capture,” he told CBS in an interview.

Obama who visited neighbouring Afghanistan Sunday, however, told the channel that Washington’s strategy should be that if Pakistan does not take action in the event of having actionable intelligence against high-value terror suspects, the United States should.

It appears the candidate of “hope” now merely “hopes” that he doesn’t have to order an invasion of a US ally.

Obama offered some other thinly veiled threats while next door in Afghanistan:

KABUL: United States Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Sunday he would not tolerate militant sanctuaries in Pakistan, which NATO blames for the spike in violence inside eastern Afghanistan. “I will push Pakistan very hard to make sure that we act against such training camps,” he said, adding, “I think it’s absolutely vital to the security interests of both the United States and Pakistan.”

There’s at least one Pakistani official responding to Obama… and he’s not mincing his words at the prospect of a cowboy president from Chicago – one who uses the US military might against allies, and not jihad movements. NWFP Governor Owais Ghani said BHO’s irresponsible rhetoric is undermining the Islamabad government:

Any incursion into Pakistan’s mountainous northwestern tribal belt bordering Afghanistan would spark “disastrous” consequences for the whole world, he said. “Candidate Obama gave these statements. I come out openly and say such statements undermine support, don’t do it,” Ghani said.

A spate of US missile strikes in Pakistan on Al-Qaeda and Taliban hideouts in the tribal areas had also inflamed public sentiment against Islamabad’s role in the US-led “war on terror,” said Ghani, who oversees anti-militancy policies in NWFP and the adjoining Federally Administered Tribal Areas. “I think they are being shortsighted and they are being unrealistic,” said Ghani referring to Obama and other US officials. “What the allies and the world must understand is that no government, whether political or military, can remain involved in this global war on terrorism unless the majority of public sentiment backs it,” he said. “These strikes are undermining that, but even the statements are, too.”

“It would be disastrous,” Ghani said, when asked about the possibility of US action in Pakistan’s tribal belt. “It won’t do any good for anybody, not for the world, not to Afghanistan, not to Pakistan.” He warned that not only would Pakistan defend its sovereignty, but that thousands of ethnic Pashtun tribesmen along the border would rise up to expel any foreign troops. “These are fighters, let me tell you,” the governor said. “Superpowers have underestimated them, the British, the Soviets, and I hope nobody makes the same mistake again.”

Ghani said the best solution remained Pakistan’s long-standing proposal to fence the border. The root causes of the insurgency lay in Afghanistan’s political situation, heroin production and in the continuing presence of foreign troops, Ghani said, adding, however, that an Iraq-style “surge” in Afghanistan could work. “If it is accompanied by a parallel political strategy… yes,” he said. “Once it’s on that path then they can decide how to disengage.”

The governor said Pakistan’s policy of negotiations was working, although he insisted that the government was only talking to tribal elders and not to militants. “I tell our allies, ‘Look, if you have better ideas, put them on the table,’” he said.

As Scott quipped in the thread about Obama’s Willful Ignorance on Iraq:

…the idea that sending more troops to fight Al Queda in Afghanistan makes as much sense as sending more troops to Djibouti to fight Al Queda. Al Queda’s in Pakistan. If ya wanna fight em where they are….prepare to invade a nuclear armed nation that’s 3x the size of Iraq, has areas that have never been conquered in the entire history of mankind, has the worst terrain on the planet, and-oh yeah-has literally tens of millions of wannabe martyrs. Please present your Pakistani invasion plans forthwith.

His point? Until Pakistan and the US come to agreement on the way to weed out the harbored neo-Taliban and AQ there, stop them from crossing the border, you will make no headway in Afghanistan. Instead the added US troops, along side the NATO forces, will merely be on constant defense with regular skirmishes. The Pakistan/Afghanistan border is a revolving door of terrorism. There will be no progress until you slam the door shut with the majority of the bad guys on one side of the door, or the other in order to round them up.

By Obama’s trip to Afghanistan, and overt avoidance of Islamabad, he demonstrates he is clueless as to how to “win” a fight in Afghanistan. Or to put it in liberal-ese… where’s the strategy? Where’s the exit plan? Frankly, Obama’s done nothing but stir the pot with threats against the one country that is integral in the quest for Afghanistan stability. And apparently his way of getting their help is to threaten unilateral invasion.

Obama’s tough talk is not confined only to Pakistan. He has extended his criticisms also to Karzai in Afghanistan, and Maliki and the Iraqi government. Quite frankly, as a quintessential armchair CIC, he’s done nothing but bad mouth the US and allies’ efforts at every turn.

Yet his harsh words are disturbingly absent for the enemy who assails all these countries. Indeed, in his op-ed in the Hyde Park Herald Sept 19th, 2001, he paid more lip service to the terrorists, calling the attack “a failure of empathy”. (from the New York article, via LGFs)

If one looks past the youthful energy, the well delivered speeches, to the core of a potential POTUS and CIC, the vision of a President Obama should make every US citizen wary. He plans on reserving his “negotiations” for enemies (i.e. Iran, Castro and Chavez), and will send the US military do the talking to our allies. For our friends that he doesn’t invade, he’ll have the DNC Congress cut off anti-terrorist funding and reconstruction aid to Iraq and Pakistan to back up his tough talk.

If invading and criticizing friends, and yanking funding, is his idea of winning “hearts and minds”… not to mention his goal of improving the US standing in the int’l community… we are in deep trouble under an Obama administration.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
35 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

BHO,,, is an idiot…

LOL – For a GOP supporter, you spend a lot of time talking about Obama.

Mata,

And you want us to feel sorry for you. Sounds like a partisan problem, my good friend. Sorry, no sympathy here.

And God forbid that Obama should suggest striking the single individual responsible for killing 3,000 plus Americans on 9/11, while disregarding scurples about the sovereignty of our feckless and worthless ally Pakistan.

Further, this post provides a source which has is now OBE given Musharaf’s fall from power.

And yeah, bigpapa gets my vote for informed insightful commentary. I bet it took him about a miilisecond to think that one up. Yes, bigpapa, that goes out to you as well.

I need no sympathy, nor empathy, Mr. Dave. Never ask for it. Wouldn’t know what to do with it if offered. Simply stating a fact. For me, I have no dog in this race. I only have a dog I’d rather see lose. It is too bad the GOP has strayed so far from their principles for so many years. That they did so does not endear me to the DNC, however. That chasm is far too wide.

The past data with Musharraf in power in 2007 was only to document the start of the BHO-Pakistan problems. There are only two older links… both related to his August 2007 statements.

All the rest? Just days or hours old, Dave. So I have no clue what you are talking about INRE source and Musharraf’s current position as only President, and not a popular one at that.

BHO’s wisdom on how to win in Afghanistan, and his cowboy policy towards Pakistan is embarrassingly naive. Yet the media tries to smooth that path for him – in some ways – even now. i.e. his CBS interview with Logan in the past few days:

Logan: Isn’t that the case now? I mean, do you really think that if the U.S. forces had Osama bin Laden in their sights and the Pakistanis said no, that they wouldn’t fire or wouldn’t go after him?

Obama: I think actually this is current doctrine. There was some dispute when I said this last August. Both the administration and some of my opponents suggested, well, you know, you shouldn’t go around saying that. But I don’t think there’s any doubt that that should be our policy, and will continue to be our policy.

Logan: But it is the current policy.

Obama: I believe it is the current policy.

Logan: So there’s no change then.

Obama: I don’t think there is going to be a change there.

Oh yeah… real hard hitting for a lib. Compare BHO to Bush. What they miss is BHO is worse than the POTUS they so despise. Technically, this “current GWB doctrine” of invading Pakistan is utter nonsense. There is communication between the Bush military, the US in Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Please note:

A spate of US missile strikes in Pakistan on Al-Qaeda and Taliban hideouts in the tribal areas had also inflamed public sentiment against Islamabad’s role in the US-led “war on terror,” said Ghani…

Key words? *Islamabad’s role*. That is not without Pakistan approval, as this idiot CBS mouthpiece suggests.

Musharraf has granted many a tacit, behind the scenes nod to predator and air strikes. And this POTUS has never threatened to invade Pakistan if they don’t cooperate.

“Current doctrine” my ass…

But Logan’s lies makes for good fodder for the uninformed…. makes it look like she’s being hard on BHO, further demeans GWB with lies, and he attempts a graceful recovery thru all the BS.

Thanks MataHarley,,,
It’s easy considering the target.
You said the same thing only with the stuff the libs need to see!

I have a question… why would BHO have a hard timeline for Iraq, but not Afghanistan? There is no logical strategic reason for the difference.

Oh yeah… dumb off-topic question… why would Warren Buffet be for more taxation, when he refused to give is own kids any money? Things that make you go “hmmmm”.

I have a question… why would BHO have a hard timeline for Iraq, but not Afghanistan? There is no logical strategic reason for the difference.

Probably because Iraq is a bullsh*t war and Afghanistan isn’t. I’m just guessing–I haven’t asked the man myself, mind you.

(1) So BHO’s idea is not based on strategic or military reality, it is based purely on political gain, i.e. win the presidency at all costs.
(2) Would people be saying that if Iraq didn’t happen?
(3) So all the years that Clinton was in Iraq enforcing the UN Resolutions; the several attacks on Iraq by Clinton; the oil for food scandal; the yellow cake in Iraq; the known ties to terrorist groups; the Congress admitting there was evidence; the overwhelming history and facts of the case, etc., etc., Iraq was a “bullsh*t” war.

Just a reminder to Dim Wit and the other Defeatists lurking: There were more Al Queda in Iraq, that are now dead or captured, than there were in Afghanistan.

And I find it interesting that after the lefties called us bloodthirsty warmongers in Iraq, they are now willing to invade Pakistan.

Funny that Obama couldn’t support a surge in Iraq but can support a surge in Afghanistan.

Seems a bit inconsistent to me, but then I expect that if he’s president he will want to pull out of Afghanistan too.

It is remarkable that Obama is getting away with his contrdiction.

He’s decrying an escalation in Iraq as a failure and proposing another escalation in Afghanistan that he’s suggesting will work.

I can only conclude that the people who profit from war like GE or Boeing or Raytheon have concluded that Obama is the only person left on the political cene who can sell another goddamned war to a stupid ignorant public.

He’s actually even worse that McCain as a warmonger. What would it take to get the public to ever wake up? How can they be manipulated to believe absurdity: first from Bush and then from Obama?

Conservatives can look on the bright side. You did all the heavy political lifing in Iraq and although the slick punk from Harvard Law will take the credit, you may have got it right after all.

being right is it’s own reward.

“Probably because Iraq is a bullsh*t war and Afghanistan isn’t. I’m just guessing–I haven’t asked the man myself, mind you.”

Tell you what DW5000, I’ll ask my friends in the Marines and the Army who have just recently come back from Iraq if it’s a “bullsh*t” war…
Given the conversations I’ve had with them I’ll bet they will disagree…
But then again you have all the facts and know everything I’m sure…

I mean they were only there fighting the fight,, and what do I know I volunteered to go to the first Gulf War…. but wasn’t allowed to go… but at least I tried…
What have you done for your country today???

Big Papa asks Dim Wit: “What have you done for your country today???”

He’s done his best to serve his real master B.P.

His mission in life is to tear down America and make it easier for world socialism to triumph.

Just watch. Next time Mother Russia is attacked he’ll be leading the charge for war!

WHOA! Slow down Mike and listen…

Hello Obamite’s! As you well know, Barrack Who’s-Named Obama, is overseas gallantly serving this undeserving nation of mean people of ours. Barrack is busy securing peace and harmony in the middle-east, just like Jimmy Carter, until Ronald Reagan and George Bush #1 fu*ked that shit all kinds of up. Now, even as I, the Reverend Michelle Obama speak… my sweet-meated Prince of Piece, is in the HOMIE Land, hookin up with the butchers of Iraqistan. You know who they are… General Betrayus, and some other lame ass Generals (I don’t know) in George W. Bush’s army, who have been air-raiding and killing civilians! Our nation’s soul is broken! Barry is here to fix our nation’s soul! Now STFU and let us pray…

…Our Barrack, who’s-Named Obama, so hollow be this lame. Thy kingdom come, Rezko’s will be done, on earth, as it is in the projects. Give us this day our, daily talking points. And lead us not within 10 miles of Jessie Jackson. May we pile up debt and have Hillary supporters pick up the checks, as we are black, and can’t be questioned. And lead us not into the Republican Party (who are all a bunch of scared pussy’s in DC) but deliver us from Karl Rove. For me and mine’s is the kingdom, and the power, and the White House forever. Right on!

Let us now enjoy these songs of worship…

What a wonderful friend we have in Obama ( The Tali-bandsmen))

Draw me to Your (airport) Throne Room (Solo Senator Larry Craig)

We shall gather at the Denver, the beautiful, the beautiful, Denver (Solo Rep. Nancy Pelosi)

There’s Power in the Mud (Solo Rep. Barney Frank)

Faithful (Solo Bill Clinton)

Heads Up (Solo Monica Lewinski)

Who Needs a Boat (Solo Ted Kennedy)

(* I could go on with this shit)

Okay. The service is over, sucka’s! Now go to the Trinity United Church and donate today! If you contribute over $500 you will receive a Joliet State Penitentiary list of “do’s and don’ts” personally autographed by Tony Rezko! For those of you struggling, whitie collar hard-workin’ folk (lawyers), who contribute over $1k, you will receive a Denny’s Menu signed by “The Shake-Down Clowns”…Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton! Remember, brothers and sisters, a minimum donation of only $500 will not only “not” fix your souls, but likely you will find yourself under the wheels of a bus! Give generously or else! And all of you Hillary supporters can kiss my bodacious ass! Cash only, no checks. Vote OBAMA!

Tell you what DW5000, I’ll ask my friends in the Marines and the Army who have just recently come back from Iraq if it’s a “bullsh*t” war…
Given the conversations I’ve had with them I’ll bet they will disagree…
But then again you have all the facts and know everything I’m sure…

Take your stupid hat off, buddy; I didn’t say there wasn’t fighting, but I am saying that it was a bullsh*t decision to go in the first place.

and what do I know I volunteered to go to the first Gulf War…. but wasn’t allowed to go… but at least I tried…

BWA-HA-HA-HA! Classic!! This needs no further commentary!

What have you done for your country today???

A total red herring, but, since you’re such an amazing American and your answer will be better than mine, what–aside from “Oh, shucks, I tried to go to Iraq nearly twenty years ago, but they wouldn’t let me” have you done for your country today?

Mike:

A little heads-up: the Soviet Union hasn’t existed for seventeen years.

Again: totally classic.

Well DW what have you ever done for your country,

I was in the Air Force stationed state side at the time volunteered to switch jobs and our commander wouldn’t let any of us go.
I supported our fighting men and women then as I do now.
Today I do as much as I can to make sure idiot socialists like Nobama aren’t allowed to ruin this great country.

You called the war in Iraq BS and it isn’t and never has been.

The “Soviet Union” ceased to exist but the communism never died and is still growning stronger today..

You freaking socialist/commie wannabes just don’t understand that socialism has never worked and never will..

Dim Wit: Mother Russia is alive and well and so is the dream of world socialism.

But of course you knew that didn’t you?

Now go back and practice singing “The Internationale.” I’m sure that if Obama is elected you and your comrades will be signing it at the Inaugural.

Dim Wit: Mother Russia is alive and well and so is the dream of world socialism.

But of course you knew that didn’t you?

Now go back and practice singing “The Internationale.” I’m sure that if Obama is elected you and your comrades will be signing it at the Inaugural.

Twenty-five years ago, this kind of thing might have stung, but now it’s just funny. You’re trapped in the past, comrade! Join the rest of us in the twenty-first century. Or are you busy sharpening your quill to pen a sharply-worded note to the Times about the latest actions of the Austro-Hungarian Empire?

“Twenty-five years ago, this kind of thing might have stung, but now it’s just funny. You’re trapped in the past, comrade! Join the rest of us in the twenty-first century. Or are you busy sharpening your quill to pen a sharply-worded note to the Times about the latest actions of the Austro-Hungarian Empire?”

why do you think Russia supports and sells/give arms to Iran, Syria and any other country opposed to the United States of Americas war on terrorists ?????

you really are simple aren’t you??? come on admit it… it’s ok,,, confronting the problem is part of the healing process….

it insinuates that the step of socialism/Marxism step, enroute to Communism, is very well accepted and received in American today.

…OR it could mean that the Soviet Union (the flag of which Mike H.’s America used in his post up above) doesn’t even exist any more, and that Communism–at least in its guise as a superpower force for us to fear–moves closer and closer each year to biting the proverbial dust.

Speaking of simple, it seems you are still afraid of the Soviet Union, bigpapa. Are you afraid of dinosaurs, too? Don’t be; like the USSR, they are extinct. They can’t get you.

Also: NEWS FLASH! Germany is all one big chunk now, and we don’t have to worry about the West German judges dumping on our Olympic athletes.

USA! USA! USA!

Mata,
It never ceases to amaze me how many libs are in lock step with the commies…
Nobama is open about it in his history and these idiots just lap it up…
Blows my mind…

And I agree.. a large part of the problem is public education..
I see it everyday at work,, I teach vocational education and I’m treated like the proverbial red headed step child by the rest of the “enlightened ones”…
And I deal with the “gimme gimme” idiots all the time.. there are more everyday..

I think part of the problem is that many of my students ( not the gimme ones) end up making more money than teachers..

I’m sure my Nobama bumper sticker will be a hit at work this year..

Here are a couple of links for you DW…
Communism isn’t dead,,, thanks to people like you..

http://therealcuba.com/index.htm

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

There are many, many more…

You can use the beloved commie google to find them..

Just a primer for you..

I’m not now nor have I ever been afraid of the Soviet Union… which you should note no longer exists…
I was a cold warrior and we won.. Reagan made sure of that….

Your dinosaur reference was just plain childish.. like all libs you have to turn to name calling and childish remarks…
You and BO could be birds of a feather….

Please tell me that you’re joking (emphasis mine):

Communist Goals (1963)

Documention below

Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35

January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, January 10, 1963

And please tell me that you’re joking again (emphasis still mine):

I’m not now nor have I ever been afraid of the Soviet Union… which you should note no longer exists

Did you even read my posts, in the course of which I already made that point more than once? A point which, frankly, makes your posts seem foolish?

It’s unfortunate to see that you live in mortal fear of Venezuela and Cuba. Just so you know: they’re not much of a threat. As I’ve mentioned at this site before, wingnuts seem to be lost if they don’t have anything to live in terror of.

If anyone is “foolish” here it’s you Dim Wit.

You’re a watermelon through and through:

Green on the outside, red on the inside.

Now, why don’t you just go put on a record and practice that singing.

“It’s unfortunate to see that you live in mortal fear of Venezuela and Cuba. Just so you know: they’re not much of a threat. As I’ve mentioned at this site before, wingnuts seem to be lost if they don’t have anything to live in terror of.”

DW,,, you are such a simpleton… I gave you those links so you could view the results of communism/socialism.. and their stated goals as it applies to this (USA) country..

I don’t live in fear of anyone or anything…
I want what is best for this country and my child…

I’m not joking about this stuff,, it’s real and current… unfortunately I did read your posts…
That’s how I know what an idiot, liberal socialist wannabe you are…

Fortunately for you the newest form of anti-capatilism is the “green” movement … started by the same dope smoking commie hippies from the 60’s..
It’s supported by communists just like the muslims are supported by the commies….
But many otherwise intelligent people jump on that tired old bandwagon.

You can try to taunt me,,, that’s fine… it just shows you really have no facts to back up your “argument”…

One last thing.,, do you understand the difference between the “Soviet Union” and Russia????
Obviously you don’t,,, the Soviet UNION was the conglomeration of countries forced to live under communist rule,,, Russia is a country that existed before WWII and after the fall of the Berlin wall.

So,,, oh foolish one,, the “Soviet Union” no longer exists but Russia and their communist masters most certainly do… you freaking moron…

Senator Obama is a dangerous man. Moving the war on terror to Pakistan could have disastrous consequences on both the political stability in the region, and in the broader balance of power. Scholars such as Richard Betts accurately point out that beyond Iran or North Korea, “Pakistan may harbor the greatest potential danger of all.” With the current instability in Pakistan, Betts points to the danger that a pro-Taliban government would pose in a nuclear Pakistan. This is no minor point to be made. While the Shi’a in Iran are highly unlikely to proliferate WMD to their Sunni enemies, the Pakistanis harbor no such enmity toward Sunni terrorist organizations. Should a pro-Taliban or other similar type of government come to power in Pakistan, Al-Qaeda’s chances of gaining access to nuclear weapons would dramatically increase overnight.

There are, of course, two sides to every argument; and this argument is no exception. On the one hand, some insist that American forces are needed in order to maintain political stability and to prevent such a government from rising to power. On the other hand, there are those who believe that a deliberate attack against Pakistan’s state sovereignty will only further enrage its radical population, and serve to radicalize its moderates. I offer the following in support of this latter argument:

Pakistan has approximately 160 million people; better than half of the population of the entire Arab world. Pakistan also has some of the deepest underlying ethnic fissures in the region, which could lead to long-term disintegration of the state if exacerbated. Even with an impressive growth in GDP (second only to China in all of Asia), it could be decades before wide-spread poverty is alleviated and a stable middle class is established in Pakistan.

Furthermore, the absence of a deeply embedded democratic system in Pakistan presents perhaps the greatest danger to stability. In this country, upon which the facade of democracy has been thrust by outside forces and the current regime came to power by coup, the army fulfills the role of “referee within the political boxing ring.” However, this referee demonstrates a “strong personal interest in the outcome of many of the fights and a strong tendency to make up the rules as he goes along.” The Pakistani army “also has a long record of either joining in the fight on one side or the other, or clubbing both boxers to the ground and taking the prize himself” (Lieven, 2006:43).

Pakistan’s army is also unusually large. Thathiah Ravi (2006:119, 121) observes that the army has “outgrown its watchdog role to become the master of this nation state.” Ravi attributes America’s less than dependable alliance with Pakistan to the nature of its army. “Occasionally, it perceives the Pakistan Army as an inescapable ally and at other times as a threat to regional peace and [a] non-proliferation regime.” According to Ravi, India and Afghanistan blame the conflict in Kashmir and the Durand line on the Pakistan Army, accusing it of “inciting, abetting and encouraging terrorism from its soil.” Ravi also blames the “flagrant violations in nuclear proliferation by Pakistan, both as an originator and as a conduit for China and North Korea” on the Pakistan Army, because of its support for terrorists.

The point to be made is that the stability of Pakistan depends upon maintaining the delicate balance of power both within the state of Pakistan, and in the broader region. Pakistan is not an island, it has alliances and enemies. Moving American troops into Pakistan will no doubt not only serve to radicalize its population and fuel the popular call for Jihad, it could also spark a proxy war with China that could have long-lasting economic repercussions. Focusing on the more immediate impact American troops would have on the Pakistani population; let’s consider a few past encounters:

On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid.

On October 30, 2006, the Pakistani military, under pressure from the US, attacked a madrassah in the Northwest Frontier province in Pakistan. Immediately following the attack, local residents, convinced that the US military was behind the attack, burned American flags and effigies of President Bush, and shouted “Death to America!” Outraged over an attack on school children, the local residents viewed the attack as an assault against Islam.
On November 7, 2006, a suicide bomber retaliated. Further outrage ensued when President Bush extended his condolences to the families of the victims of the suicide attack, and President Musharraf did the same, adding that terrorism will be eliminated “with an iron hand.” The point to be driven home is that the attack on the madrassah was kept as quiet as possible, while the suicide bombing was publicized as a tragedy, and one more reason to maintain the war on terror.

Last year trouble escalated when the Pakistani government laid siege to the Red Mosque and more than 100 people were killed. “Even before his soldiers had overrun the Lal Masjid … the retaliations began.” Suicide attacks originating from both Afghan Taliban and Pakistani tribal militants targeted military convoys and a police recruiting center. Guerrilla attacks that demonstrated a shocking degree of organization and speed-not to mention strategic cunning revealed that they were orchestrated by none other than al-Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman Al-Zawahiri; a fact confirmed by Pakistani and Taliban officials. One such attack occurred on July 15, 2007, when a suicide bomber killed 24 Pakistani troops and injured some 30 others in the village of Daznaray (20 miles to the north of Miran Shah, in North Waziristan). Musharraf ordered thousands of troops into the region to attempt to restore order. But radical groups swore to retaliate against the government for its siege of the mosque and its cooperation with the United States.

A July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concludes that “al Qaeda is resurgent in Pakistan- and more centrally organized than it has been at any time since 9/11.” The NIE reports that al-Qaeda now enjoys sanctuary in Bajaur and North Waziristan, from which they operate “a complex command, control, training and recruitment base” with an “intact hierarchy of top leadership and operational lieutenants.”

In September 2006 Musharraf signed a peace deal with Pashtun tribal elders in North Waziristan. The deal gave pro-Taliban militants full control of security in the area. Al Qaeda provides funding, training and ideological inspiration, while Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Tribal leaders supply the manpower. These forces are so strong that last year Musharraf sent well over 100,000 trained Pakistani soldiers against them, but they were not able to prevail against them.

The question remains, what does America do when Pakistan no longer has a Musharraf to bridge the gap? While Musharraf claims that President Bush has assured him of Pakistan’s sovereignty, Senator Obama obviously has no intention of honoring such an assurance. As it is, the Pakistanis do just enough to avoid jeopardizing U.S. support. Musharraf, who is caught between Pakistan’s dependence on American aid and loyalty to the Pakistani people, denies being George Bush’s hand-puppet. Musharraf insists that he is “200 percent certain” that the United States will not unilaterally decide to attack terrorists on Pakistani soil. What happens when we begin to do just that?

John I agree with most all of your statements above. Some of the info is dated… ala the truce pacts with Baitulllah Mehsud have long since been breached, and they’ve done two more deals since then… both results in the release of inprisoned Taliban fighters.

However there are some haps in the last couple weeks that I’ve archived, and am planning to post in the next day or so as an update.

But yes… Obama and his naivety of the Taliban/AQ battle front that eminates from Pakistan and plays out in Afghanistan along the borders is a very dangerous man. Yet the anti-war movement in the US are silent on his “cowboy policy” for the arena.

I also agree that while Musharraf is far from perfect, he has been the most effective bridge since 911. The coalition government, majority held by PPP and Nawaz’s party, did not obtain power with a coup, but with the February election. Pakistanis have been consistent in voting down Islamic law and the more radical parties that want to implement that as State rule via elections and legislation. So if the militants of Islami do obtain power, it will not be for elections.

However latest polls out of Pakistan (gawd, I hate polls…. but what the heck…) indicate that the PPP part has experienced a serious fall from favor in the eyes of the electorate. The highest popularity in that country now belongs to yet another dangerous man, and no friend of the US, Nawaz Sharif with over 80% popularity rating. Gilani is down around 3rd or 4th, and Zadari below him.

Pakistan has been quite plain in putting BHO in his place since anouncing his “cowboy policy” in Aug of 2007. He didn’t back down one bit while visiting Afghanistan, as I pointed out in the post above, riling the NWFP governor.

But there are serious haps going on in Pakistan of late that are escaping the eyes of the media. No surprise there. Because none of these haps will end up playing in BHO’s foreign policy favor. But I’ve said over and over to anyone who will listen… Pakistan will be the next POTUS’ largest challenge. And BHO has proven he is not up to the task.