Subscribe
Notify of
21 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Hmmm… Obama might want to think about getting few more of those F22 and F35’s, huh!?

Never mind, he can go in to Paki and “Community Organize” ’em.

OZero is not having much luck. When does the bombing start?

We have yet to hear from the “moderate” and “maleable” Taliban forces. If I’m not mistaken, there was recently an air drop of some two million copies of the words to Kumbaya; we need to “give peace a chance.”

Jeff V

“Now he sends our top brass to Pakistan and is basically told to drop the meoney and leave.”

There seems to be a lot of that going around- the G20 basically told the turnip to go pound sand in a very nice way, but made sure he dropped about a trillion into the IMF collection plate before he left town.

So glad teleprompter jesus is out there “burnishing” our image.

Mike and the boys, leaning on the bar, beers in hand, calling the game in the bottom of the first.

8 years of Bush’s diplomacy with Pakistan. Over $10 Billion in aid and what does Pakistan do?

They continue to let AQ and the Taliban set up shop in their country. Hell, OBL probably has an apartment in Karachi. They also continue to support the Lashkar e Taiba, their Kashmiri proxies, who are believed responsible for the atrocity in Mumbai.

And you want Obama to turn it around in a less than three months.

You have got to be kidding.

The Europeans do not want to support the Afpak effort with any more troops. Bush had little luck on that front and neither has Obama so far. Do you think he’s a miracle worker? I don’t.

It’s you guys who must think he’s the Messiah. I know he’s just a man.

@Dave Noble: Just how long do you clowns think you can blame BUSH for everything?

At what point do you take responsibility? EVER?

Bush did give Pakistan money and they went and bought jet fighters against India. Other countries sell drones too. Why didn’t buy those drones with the money Bush gave them? Probably because if they did buy drones, they would be used against India or used against NATO and things would have gotten nasty between NATO and Pakistan. The Pakistan government and the Taliban are linked closely at least on the lower levels and with Obama in office and NATO members wanting to leave Pakistan, spying on NATO and India seems a lot more favorable for them politically.

Adding some hot sauce to MikeA’s post is Abe Greenwald a Commentary Mag today. Apparently he’s waiting for Obama’s “listening” and “persistence” methods of rule to catch what should be a “rude awakening”.

It’s a clean sweep. Obama’s proposals have been turned down by every foreign government and international body he’s approached — from Pyongyang to Brussels, and assorted points in between.

The U.S. is out of the superpower business. It didn’t happen because we callously stretched our imperium until it snapped. And we weren’t forced out by the ingenuity of rising challengers. We just called it a day.

A week after being inaugurated, President Obama told Hisham Melheman of Al Arabiya television, “[A]ll too often the United States starts by dictating — in the past on some of these issues — and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved. So let’s listen.” Because, of course, those are the only two options for American statecraft.

The “issues,” in that case, surrounded Middle East peace, but soon enough the president made his more generalized passion for listening sufficiently well known. At the G20 summit in Britain, Obama told reporters that he “came here to put forward ideas but I also came here to listen, not to lecture.” And, so, he listened to European leaders turn down his spending proposals.

He’s listened to Tehran chant death to America. He’s listened to Moscow say no to helping us out with Tehran. He’s listened to the roar of rocket engines in Pyongyang. He’s listened to a stereophonic no, from Beijing and Moscow at the UN Security Council. And, now, he’s listened to Islamabad tell us to get lost.

If only the administration took the latest rebuff as a “rude shock.” That would imply an awakening to reality. But remember, Obama’s theme is “persistence” now; there’s a lot more “no” in our future.

Like so many in the West these days who spend their “adult years” living off their parents’ hard work, the U.S. is going to rest on the accomplishments of preceding generations for a while. Earlier administrations took care of the Nazis, the Soviets, and al Qaeda so that this one can take care of itself, making sure people of the world welcome it kindly and write about it glowingly. Who knows what things we will be listening to over the next four years. Simple “no’s” may sound comforting by comparison. But just as it was juvenile for this administration to think it could come into power and “reset” the motivations and schemes of the rest of the world, it’s folly to think we can hit a reset button on American superpower should we need it in an emergency. There are entities out there making dangerous moves while we content ourselves with listening, and if eventually we have to confront them it won’t be easy making up for lost time

We have yet to hear from the “moderate” and “maleable” Taliban forces. If I’m not mistaken, there was recently an air drop of some two million copies of the words to Kumbaya; we need to “give peace a chance.”

Jeff V
**************************************************
Nope. He will air drop 1 million Ipods.

I would sell them 100 Israeli built drones equipped with hellfire missiles, encoded for Waziristan and every terrorist training camp that shows up on SAT Intel. But then I’m not the Pretender in Chief that just apologized to Islam for American for American Arrogance. What a Putz!

@Mike

Dave’s got a good point there. He’s not blaming Bush for everything – in the same way you don’t blame Clinton for everything but are happy enough to bring him in the frame for such things as 9/11 and the Credit Crunch.

Just comparing records and results so far…

@ Dave:

You miss the point. We were sold a bill of goods. Told that as soon as BHO was elected, we would gain instant respect on the world stage. Not that we would have to regain that respect, it would be immediate by the very presence of BHO. Face it, he’s O-fer.

Aqua,

“Told that as soon as BHO was elected, we would gain instant respect on the world stage.”

Who told you that? Nobody told me that before I pulled the lever. And I wouldn’t have believed them if they had.

@Dave Noble: One of your friends at the Gateway Pundit had this to say about you:

“It’s not our fault that you post like a medieval princess with the vapors. … your posts drip with estrogen.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Our latest generation of UAVs have some very advanced capabilities but you really need to use UAVs where you are dealing with denied air space (and to remove the risk of losing air crew) and that does not apply to the Pakistanis. UAVs are high maintenance and carry small weapons payloads because they are primarily designed to send back full motion video for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance purposes. For this they demand line of sight coms or a satellite link but in either case, there are massive bandwidth limitations. We have tremendous challenges with these issues and the Pakistanis simply cannot manage the systems effectively enough to use UAVs as weapons in the NATA.

Pakistanis could use their existing aircraft in coordination with personnel on the ground at far less cost or even acquire less expensive prop driven air frames that would require less ground crew, fuel, etc., to do the job, but equipment is not the issue.

The UAV request is bogus. Pakistan lacks the will to deal with the autonomous tribal areas and is too fragile internally to deal with the controversy. Couple that with corruption and sympathy for the Taliban and Al Qaeda within the government (particularly the intelligence services) and certain public sectors and you have what you have, a country incapable of eradicating the threat by ANY means. Quite frankly, if we gave them the capability AND they managed to keep the UAVs flying, any effective strike against targets within Pakistan would probably be blamed on the US anyway.

The REAL story here is that as long as we were keeping our own UAV activity quiet – no media – we could act when needed and it did not raise the issue within Pakistan to the point that it created a controversy for the government. Our media exposure embarrassed the Pakistanis across the board so that our “friends”, and I use that term so loosely, are now reacting publicly to save their own skins. I’m not sure if Obama’s electioneering comments raised the heat on the Pakistani government but his warning that he would send troops into Pakistan or take direct action across their border cannot help in a situation where less said is best said.

Obama should work the back channels and allow the Pakistani government to posture to please it’s internal critics so that it can still function enough to help us and maintain the Pakistani version of internal stability. He should not make deals in public or sell materials that create a situation with India. This is an area that Obama can succeed but unfortunately the nature of our politicians and media usually precludes quiet, tactful applications of diplomacy.

@MataHarley: Good article that you excerpted and it hits the mark. But why is Obama so eager to downplay any idea of American exceptionalism? Former Sen. Rick Santorum has the answer:
\
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/42725037.html

Both articles would make a good post.

Obama is destroying the essence of American leadership in the world and there is no other nation willing to fill that vacuum. That’s trouble waiting to happen.

@tfhr: Thanks for your analysis. It was pretty clear that the Pakistani request for the drones really meant they didn’t want them used at all. Apparently the Paks still haven’t decided which side they are on and can’t seem to get a grip on the fact that unless they defeat the extremists the violence in that country will continue.

Dealing with a problem like that may be difficult, painful and deadly. Putting off dealing with a problem like that means that more people will be killed.

Mike,

I haven’t a clue what a blog dripping in estrogen looks like. Apparently you do. Where is effeminacy evident in these three sentences?:

“Who told you that? Nobody told me that before I pulled the lever. And I wouldn’t have believed them if they had.”

BTW, Mike, the vapors was something Victorian, not medieval, ladies suffered from
You, like your dipshit buddy, can’t even get a florid insult right.

@Dave Noble: Oh I don’t know… seems to me you do carry on like some princess with the vapors.

Now, if you don’t mind, we’ll just get back to topic here.

I wasn’t the one who changed the topic, Mike.

Gaffa,

Are you saying that Clinton had no part to play in the financial market collapse, and that the repeal of Glass-Steagal made no difference to how banks changed their business models?

Jeff V

Dave – “Who told you that? Nobody told me that before I pulled the lever. And I wouldn’t have believed them if they had.”

Really? Were you hiding out in a cave?

http://libyamonitor.blogspot.com/2008/10/could-obama-win-restore-americas-global.html

October, 2008 – “One week before Election Day, the world is revising its opinion of America. After a drop of confidence in the United States, presidential candidate Barack Obama has revived the U.S. brand, exporting a vision of American renewal to a world watching the election with unprecedented interest.”

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/08/backers_say_obama_can_regain_worlds_respect_for_us/

January, 2008 – “Backers say Obama can regain world’s respect for US.”

http://www.transnational.org/Columns_Power/2008/9.ObamaForeignPolicy.html

March, 2008 – “Obama’s foreign policy will win the world’s respect.”

I can keep going. The web is full of it. And don’t forget the lady that said an Obama win would mean she wouldn’t have to worry about putting gas in her car or paying her mortgage. Nothing to do with World Respect, just the same delusional thinking.