Obama Gives India OK to Attack Pakistan

Loading

Q Thank you, Mr. President-elect. During the campaign you said that you thought the U.S. had a right to attack high-value terrorist targets in Pakistan if given actionable intelligence, with or without the Pakistani government’s permission.

…do you think India has that same right?

PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA: I think that sovereign nations obviously have a right to protect themselves. Beyond that, I don’t want to comment on the specific situation that’s taking place in South Asia right now.

I think it is important for us to let the investigators do their jobs and make a determination in terms of who was responsible for carrying out these heinous acts. I can tell you that my administration will remain steadfast in support of India’s efforts to catch the perpetrators of this terrible act and bring them to justice. And I expect that the world community will feel the same way.

[ie here’s my comment, but I don’t want to comment, so I’m gonna comment some more so I can really screw the pooch]
link to transcript

Brilliant piece of diplomacy there Senator. Our key ally in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda leaders (Pakistan), has just been told that if their nuclear neighbor feels justified in attacking our ally, then we have India’s back…not our ally’s. Call me crazy, but if I’m in a bar fight, and the guy next to me says, “I’ve got your back, unless that guy w the big club over there feels like hitting you” well, that’s not an ally I can count on-not even diplomatically let alone in a fight-be it in a bar room or a nuclear neighborhood.

Way to go. Amazing diplomatic skills. Oh well, can’t say Joe Biden didn’t warn us.

EXIT QUESTION: If India conduct air raids in Waziristan against suspected leaders of the group that attacked them in Mubai…does anyone think the Pakistanis won’t go beserk, or should we believe the narrative that they’ll just shrug their shoulders and smile at ?

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

OMG! Not only we do not know who he is, but we do not know what he really thinks. He doesn’t even know himself what he thinks. This guy is not ready to lead and there is no time to train him.

How can a guy with no experience on nothing ended up POTUS? This top manipulator hypnotized half of America. I am stunned! I could do a better job then him and so could many of the people on this site. The First power of the World is in the hand of a novice. Remarkable!

wow, totally freakin wow. the moron just voted present again. maybe he can hand off the 30 grand ring for his wife and pay for a few funerals, he can be “present” then. what an ass wipe.

I am just glad Obama is standing for people like the liberal illuminati made us believe he would. I have a feeling that this next four year is going to be a lot of broken promises.

Simple fact is, that he just doesn’t know what to do.
Any situation that blows up, he will just do a hands off or do something silly that will make the whole thing even worse.

Will india do something??? Probably yes. What, I am not sure.

I think Obama is just enjoying a moment of glory right now. He is not the President elect, he hasn’t been elected yet. The President elected of this country is still Georges W Bush. Obama should be low profile right now, since he is actually nobody… just a plain citizen, not even a Senator anymore.

But since he enjoys the spot lights so much, you see him everyday on Television, radio and newspapers. He always has an announcement to make. He doesn’t care what he says or who he chooses, he just wants to be in the public eyes and enjoy that feeling of power. He probably knows he will never be sworn in on January if the Scotus does their job right. So it doesn’t matter who he chooses for his cabinet, he just wants to impress and feel the power. What a narcissist bozo!

O-Bummer

The CEO of the Office of the President Elect, a non-governmental institution (NGA), has an odd way of speaking that is hard to pick up unless it is seen in print. For example what are the words “in terms” doing in this sentence, or even the words “for us”?
“I think it is important for us to let the investigators do their jobs and make a determination in terms of who was responsible for carrying out these heinous acts.”
I’m afraid we will become weary of these impromptu flourishes or embellishments over time.

Bush Doctrine

The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD.

To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression.

The United States has been launching attacks inside Pakistan for many months, our ally.

I’ve been worried about Obama on not only Pakistan, but Columbia as well. He seems to want to pay more attention to our enemies than our allies.

But India and Pakistan is a delicate situation because both are our allies. One of the many accomplishments the Bush admin has done, and gets no credit for, is expanding our relationship with India… and has been hailed by many as on a par with Nixon and China… tho China’s strategic relationship has been changing.

What India must do is separate state sanctioned traning of terrorists from individual corrupt members of their military and intel agencies. I find it difficult to believe that the Pakistan govt was advocating these Mumbai attacks. But I have no doubts there may be sympathetic members of these agencies, abusing their positions of authority.

blast… yes, the US has been conducting air raids via predator drones even under Musharraf. However most have been done with a tacit nod when Musharraf was in power. He publicly had to cry foul… which he did in order to save face with the population. Since the installation of the PPP and PML-N as majority parties, they have been less apt to give that tacit nod, and instead have been making public comments that these raids must stop.

I can understand not openly giving the blessing in order not to rile the Pakistani population. However I think we’ll find ourselves in a serious pickle if they decide to attach repercussions for these air raids, which have had some success in taking out valuable targets. Unfortunately, the Taliban and AQ are now hiding behind human civilian shields, endangering their lives as well. So “brave” these human cockroaches are…

Actually Scott, under the UN charter, member nations have the right to self defense. Therefore India does not need to ask for permission if attacked by Pakistan. Israel has exercised that right going after terrorists for years. Oh, and on the Bush Doctrine, it was never codified by an act of congress or by the UN.

Oh, your justifications about our attacks into Pakistan seem to minimize them. The Pakistani people protest in the streets and there has been reports of them firing on our drones. Pakistan is an ally on the war on terror and while JCS Chairman Mullins was giving assurances we would not attack again… oops we did it again.

I think we read Obama’s recent statement differently. Plus, when he said during the Dems debates that if he had actionable intelligence of terrorists in Pakistan he would strike (if memory serves me correctly that was before we started hitting them) I was all for it. If Pakistan won’t get Bin Laden and his ilk, then we should.

I don’t see that saying ‘I think that sovereign nations obviously have a right to protect themselves.‘ is much of a gaffe. Even if I were more sympathetic to the Pakistanis I’d take this as an attempt to deflect the question by stating something obvious, not as a green light for India to attack. What would your answer have been?

Scott,

Q Thank you, Mr. President-elect. During the campaign you said that you thought the U.S. had a right to attack high-value terrorist targets in Pakistan if given actionable intelligence, with or without the Pakistani government’s permission.

…do you think India has that same right?

PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA: I think that sovereign nations obviously have a right to protect themselves. [As a general principle, is this true or not?] Beyond that, I don’t want to comment on the specific situation that’s taking place in South Asia right now.

Rather than showing Obama’s alleged tin ear on diplomacy his response to that question, which I heard live on the radio, was a careful attempt to walk a fine line. When the gotcha question came (and sometimes a gotcha question is just what should be asked. Here I think it was a good question), I wondered how Obama would handle it.

Any ideas on how he should of answered it?

“Any ideas on how he should of answered it?”

Should have been “Should have,” not “should of”

Scott, maybe what Obama did say just prior to the portion of the press conference you quoted

Q Thank you, Mr. President-elect. Would India be justified in going after terrorists responsible for the Mumbai attacks if they were on Pakistani soil?

PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think it’s important to reiterate that our condolences, our thoughts and our prayers go out to the people of India, the families that have been affected; and obviously, we’re heart-broken by the deaths of the six Americans that were caught up in this tragedy.

I’ve spoken to Prime Minister Singh and expressed these concerns to him. An investigation is taking place. I was briefed by Secretary Rice throughout the weekend. She’s on her way to the region. We’ve sent FBI to help on the investigation. And I have — this is one of those times where I have to reiterate there’s one president at a time. We’re going to be engaged in some very delicate diplomacy in the next several days and weeks. So I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment.

But what I can say unequivocally is that both myself and the team that stands beside me are absolutely committed to eliminating the threat of terrorism, and that is true wherever it is found. We cannot have — we cannot tolerate a world in which innocents are being killed by extremists based on twisted ideologies. And we’re going to have to bring the full force of our power — not only military, but also diplomatic, economic and political — to deal with those threats, not only to keep America safe, but also to ensure that peace and prosperity can exist around the world.

So I will be monitoring the situation closely. Thus far, I think the administration has done what’s needed in trying to get the details of the situation. And my expectation is that President Zandari (sic\Zardari) of Pakistan, who has already said that he will fully cooperate with the investigation, will follow through with that commitment.

Exactly what he said, Scott. Your turn.

“Dave, I think the big problem is that there are lawless areas on the planet where terrorists find sanctuary. Somalia, Waziristan, and many more. No law=no sovereignty.”

I agree, Scott. That’s why I have argued on this blog for our right to attack terrorists inside Pakistan. Are you saying that India has a right to attack lawless regions inside Pakistan, which because they are lawless do not fall within the ambit of Pakistan’s sovereignty?

India is the victim of the Mumbai attacks. Certainly, they have as much right as we do to protect themselves against terrorist attacks.

Scott,

First, I am not a supporter of the Bush Doctrine, particularly the way it was implemented. It was implemented in Iraq based on a long train of “ifs:” *If* Saddam still has his WMD stockpiles, or reconstitutes them, and *if* he decides to give them to terrorists and *if* they use them against the United States, then effectively Iraq will have attacked the US by proxy. And since that might happen at some time in the future, we are justified in attacking them now. Was Iraq an “imminent threat” or a “gathering threat?” Those are very ambiguous and imprecise terms on which to base a decision to go to war.

India, if it attacked terrorists inside Pakistan, would not be applying the Bush Doctrine. The element of preemptiveness is gone there. India has already been attacked.
Further, the Bush Doctrine applies primarily to sovereign nations. We have agreed that no one has sovereignty in Waziristan. That same conclusion impacts both the United States and India.

“Does India have the right? Good question. I believe they do.” Then why criticize Obama for saying the same thing?

And if Obama’s Pakistan policy is identical to Bush’s, why did the right excoriate him for his statements about Pakistan during the campaign?

Your suggested caveats would have put Obama in the position of giving India a lecture on the proper policy to follow at a very tense and painful time. How would we have felt if someone had done that to us after 9-11. Actually, lawyers (and prudent people in general) avoid answering simplistic hypotheticals, but wait to acquire as much information as possible before giving a detailed answer.

Finally, what we should be doing now is working to avoid a confrontation between two nuclear-armed nations. That is in everyone’s interest.

Scott

than it was fully within the right of the Bush Admin to attack Northern Iraq and the Al Queda forces that fled there from Afghanistan.

huh? did they sprout wings and fly there? AQ fled Afghanistan and into the tribal areas of Pakistan. In the build up for war the administration never said the AQ fled to Iraq. There were plenty of reasons given, but this is the first I have heard that AQ fled Afghanistan to Iraq and that is a reason we invaded.

I reviewed Powell’s speech, you are correct, however it did not state that hundreds fled there. He outlines Zarqawi connection and that he operated mainly in the Kurdish areas outside of Saddam’s control and traveled into Baghdad for medical care and as many as “two dozen” extremists followed him there to begin a base of operations.

Post invasion I was very aware of AQ coming into the country, yeah, in the many hundreds as well as jihadi’s from all over coming to Iraq as well. The “AQ fleeing” to Iraq and that being a component of why we invaded, no.

Scott, no disrespect taken.

Anyway, given that background and the rare Predator shootdown on 911, Bush told Clarke and others to look at Iraq and see if they were behind 911.

What was their answer… was Iraq behind 9/11?

Ironically, this is about the same number of AQ that many say are in the Waziristan area now; between 250-1000 plus UBL.

Do you really think it is that low? We need to kill that mofo.

1992 – Iraqi secret services (ISS) compiled a list of their active members. On the page 14 of the document noted secret signal and dated March 28, figure the name of Osama Bin Laden. The information agency of defense (DIA) is in possession of the document and established its authenticity.

1993 – Saddam and Bin Laden managed a “agreement” which would prevent that the islamist radicals do not tackle the Iraqi mode, in exchange of a not specified assistance, including the development of weapons. This agreement included in the bill of indictment of Bin Laden by the Clinton administration in spring of 1998, was corroborated by many Iraqis and terrorists of Al-qaeda maintaining under American guard.

1994 – Faruq Hijazi, then assistant editor of the Iraqi secret services, Bin Laden face to face met. Bin Laden asked for naval mines and camps of drive in Iraq. In detention, Hijazi detailed the meeting in a maintenance carried out by interrogative American

1995 – according to internal documents of the Iraqi services initially brought back by the New York Times ” on June 25, 2004, “a former director of operations for Directorate 4 of the Iraqi Intelligence met Bin Laden on February 19”. This same Saddam year approved the request of Bin Laden to diffuse Saoudi anti propaganda on the Iraqi television of State.

1997 – Al qaida sent in Iraq an emissary in the name of war of Abdullah Al Iraqi for a drive on the massive weapons of destruction. Colin Powell quoted this proof in its presentation with UNO on February 5, 2003. The senatorial commission on the information concluded quela presentation from Powell on Iraq and terrorism was “reasonable”.

1998 – according to unearthed documents of the HQ of the Iraqi Information in April 2003, Al- qaida sent a tested confidant of Bin Laden to Baghdad for 16 days of meeting beginning on March 5. The Iraqi Information paid for its stay room 414 of the hotel Mansur Al melia and expressed the hope which the envoy would be used as connection between the Iraqi secret services and Bin Laden. The DIA regards these documents as authentic. Al-qaida terrorist had travelled towards Pakistan in 1998 with a member of the Iraqi secret services with for project exploding the embassies American and British with chemical mortar shells.

1999 – an analysis of the Center of Counter-terrorism (CTC) of the CIA makes state on April 13 of four reports/ratios of information which indicates that Saddam Hussein proposed a durable offer of lodging in Iraq. The report/ratio of the CTC is included in the examination of the senatorial commission on the Information of the pre-war period. Osama Bin Laden tried to obtain nuclear weapons for Al-qaida and turned to Saddam Hussein, one of the only sources in position to help him.

2000 – Saudi Arabia started a general alarm in all the kingdom after having learned that Iraq had agreed to help Al-qaida to tackle the US and British interests on the peninsula.

2001- of the satellite images large manpower of Al-qaida terrorists moved after the war in Afghanistan show to be rehoused in camps in the north of Iraq, financed for a share by the mode of Saddam.

2002 – a report/ratio of the NSA reveals that Iraq agreed to provide a sure reception, financing and weapons with the Al-qaida members being rehoused in the north of Iraq.

2003- the Filipino government expelled Hisham Hussein, the secretary as a second of the Iraqi embassy in Manila for its implication in terrorist activities related to Al-qaida. Andrea Domingo, director of immigration in the Filipino government, expressed that “studying the movements and activities” of the actors of the Iraqi information, including islamist radicals, a “establish network” of terrorists directed by Hussein had revealed.

My previous post who is stuck in spam is taken from:

L’IRAK D’AVANT GUERRE
Mélanie Phillips
Mercredi 14 février 2007
http://leblogdrzz.over-blog.com/article-5632473.html

The English translation was done by the “Babel Fish”… so do not be surprise of the language errors in it. But still, it is very precise information on Iraq and Al Quaeda ties.

blast #11

I think we read Obama’s recent statement differently. Plus, when he said during the Dems debates that if he had actionable intelligence of terrorists in Pakistan he would strike (if memory serves me correctly that was before we started hitting them) I was all for it. If Pakistan won’t get Bin Laden and his ilk, then we should.

Not quite. We’ve been using predator drone assaults in Pakistan since as far back as 2005. In Feb 2006, they tried for Zawahiri… who was late to the party. It did get some of his relatives… plus

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, it was apparent that al Zawahiri was late arriving at the dinner meeting. However, the DNA tests did show that at least five foreigners were present. One of them was a close relative of Ayman al Zawahri, while a second was bomb building expert Midhat Mursi, who, like al Zawahri (who has $25 million reward on him), had a $5 million reward on his head. Another of the dead foreigners was Abdul Rehman al-Misri al-Maghribi, a son-in-law of Zawahiri and in charge of the al Qaeda’s Information War operations. Another of dead was Abu Obaidah al Misri, who was in charge of terrorist operations just across the border, in Afghanistan’s Kunar province.

This, of course, means that your memory does not serve you correctly, blast. It also means “that one” (aka the President elect in McCain speak) wasn’t the inspiration for US air missions into Pakistani air space, as he made his Pakistan threats in the Aug 2007 primary debates.

This also applies to Dave Noble’s comment in #20 about why the right “excoriated” Obama for his comments….. the difference between Bush and Obama is that the Pak govt – most especially Musharraf – has been aware of, and formerly (and quietly) approved these endeavors.

Obama, however, promised that we did not need Pak’s approval to target enemy within their borders. Nor did he state to what extent he’d go with his “actionable intelligence”…. boots on the ground? That would never fly.

The increased frequency of the predators’ useage came as this year’s election loomed. The US knew that without Musharraf’s nod of approval (and with the potential of the PPP majority) the opportunity may be slipping away.

According to LongWarJournal these was about 10 strikes between 2006 and 2007. However it wasn’t until this month that any of these strikes were outside the tribal areas, and deeper into Pakistan territory. Five AQ leaders have been killed in these strikes this year alone.

Zardari is proving that, without Musharraf, Pak’s approval isn’t forthcoming as easily. And now they are asking that the US supply the predator technology to them instead.

BTW, blast, even I find it hard to believe this is the first time you’ve ever heard that fighters working with AQ in Afghanistan fled to Iraq pre 2003. And Zarqawi was injured in Afghanistan, fighting with Bin Laden. He fled to Baghdad for treatment and continued alliance operations there until we killed him. And he wasn’t the lone ranger, as Scott has pointed out. In fact many of the jihad movements that lived along the border shadows were useful to Saddam in the 90s.

Craig, I am unaware of any 1993 “agreement” between Bin Laden and Saddam. I am aware of such a relationship between Saddam and Zawahiri tho. I wonder where this Melanie Phillips got the data. Interesting link.

“I am unaware of any 1993 “agreement” between Bin Laden and Saddam. I am aware of such a relationship between Saddam and Zawahiri tho. I wonder where this Melanie Phillips got the data. Interesting link.” (Mata)

Mata,

Melanie Phillips can be reached. Her internet address is on the site at the beginning of her article. I am sure that it would be her pleasure to answer all your questions: melanie@melaniephillips.com

Pakistan is a failed nation ( http://www.indohistory.com/history_of_pakistan.html ) and India has got all rights to protect its soverignity by launching a counter attack on Pakistan. It is very clear from Zardari´s statement that Pakistan is not going to take any actions on the home grown terrorists. All my sympathies for Zardari and the civilian governement in Pakistan. I understand the whip is not in their hands. Its the military of Pakistan which determines the policies and so it leaves India with no choice but to launch a counter attack and clear the Pakistani soil with anti-India activities.
The world is watching. Its time to act. India should attack Pakistan. It needs to.

Scott, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to count Pakistan as an ally in any sense other than utter convenience. You, yourself, followed this article with a Pakistani Army officer naming the Taliban “patriots,” yes?

There is no straightforward way for the US to back either India or Pakistan in their conflict. India has played the ‘non-aligned’ game for decades, and the Pakistani government hasn’t been able to control itself (e.g. the ISI) or its regional leaders (those guys cutting deals with AQ and the Taliban in Waziristan and other areas) for what, going on 10 years now?

So, what did Obama say? He said that, while India has the sovereign right to defend itself, he expect ALL mechanisms–diplomatic, economic and political–to come into play in our government’s decisions. He’s absolutely correct to say this, and he’s hardly writing New Delhi a blank check.

India for long has been a slave country. Every asian country including European countries have invaded India. Its time for india to react to this when the whole world is against terrorism. India has been a cowardice country for a long long time. Even if it would be a nuclear war India should attack pakistan. This would reduce the number of militants in Pakistan from attacking other countries..

http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/07/stories/2008120757500100.htm

I note that Senator McCain, with Senator Lieberman in tow, had some harsh words for Pakistan:

ISLAMABAD: United States Senator John McCain has said there is enough evidence of the involvement of former Inter-Services Intelligence officers in the planning and execution of the Mumbai attacks.

If Pakistan did not act swiftly to arrest the people involved, the Senator said, India would be left with no option but to conduct aerial operations against select targets in Pakistan.

Senator McCain, the Republican presidential candidate who lost to Barack Obama, told a select group of Pakistanis at an informal lunch in Lahore on Saturday that this was conveyed to him by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi.

Ejaz Haider, a senior editor at the Daily Times, who was at the lunch said Mr. McCain told the group that Washington would not be able to do much to stop India, as the Mumbai attacks were its “9/11.”

Exactly, Scott – so why is he speaking for the entire government?

Ejaz Haider, a senior editor at the Daily Times, who was at the lunch said Mr. McCain told the group that Washington would not be able to do much to stop India, as the Mumbai attacks were its “9/11.”

When last I checked, a single Senator didn’t speak for “Washington” on questions of foreign affairs. Neither, of course, does a President-elect; as Obama has said repeatedly, we have but one President at a time.

President-Elect Obama said nothing of the sort, you have taken what you wanted from his statement. He said he believes Sovereign nations should defend themselves, and that we should let the investigators figure out who it is. HE EVEN SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT HE IS NOT COMMENTING ON THE SPECIFIC SITUATION IN SOUTH ASIA NOW!

You think he stated that he supports an attack on India?

HE DIDNT SAY ANYTHING!

This kind of question will damn you if you say yes, and damn you if you say no.

You do understand that IF he did say no, then he would be called a hypocrite.

You also understand that if he said yes, he would, as you said, alienate Pakistan.

AS IT IS HE HAS SAID NOTHING, except some rhetoric.

As it is, it is becoming increasingly clear that Pakistan is NOT our ally.