When he was roundly, and rabidly, criticized last summer for his stance on unilateral strikes on terrorists into Pakistan, Senator Obama stuck to is guns about this critical issue in protecting America and American interests. It seems as if the Department of Defense has taken his advise, or at least acted in the vein of his proposed policy, and carried out a strike unilaterally inside Pakistan. This strike, by armed Predator drones, or UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles), was the first successful strike on Al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan in two years(!).
While the Pakistanis are our allies, it isn't clear that their government hasn't, in the past, and perhaps will again in the future, tip off terrorists to our intentions. Their government is compromised and does not even enjoy the support of their people. Perhaps elections there will remake the Pakistani state, and it seems as if the Islamic radical factions have lost big at the hands of the pakistani people. Still, we mustn't cede our ability to track and destroy our enemies abroad, and Senator Obama's statements have supported this critical policy.
12 comments:
Sorry, you're wrong here. There is a difference between acting unilaterally with a cooperative government then acting out against their cooperation.
What obama suggested was to get Pakistan to act (meaning they carry out the attack) and if they did not, we would ignore them and go in, even if against their desire.
What happened here is a unilateral attack under a cooperative understanding. This was not against the will of Pakistan. Big difference.
We might disagree about some things, but killing a major terrorist in a foreign country is always good.
i completely agree with obama, tuozzolo, and travis...
as does bush...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609200010
(watch and note the last 40 or so seconds of the video)
My point is that the attack is something we always have done under the Bush Administration. BUT we have been doing it with cooperation from Pakistan and other governments.
Obama's connotation suggested we go against the will of an ally.
The US has had an open understanding that we will go after Terrorists in Pakistan.
You can thank George W for this... Not Obama.
Either he was suggesting that we go against an ally or that we continue to do what George W does... you cant have it both ways.
A unilateral attack just means that the United States is the one flying the planes and dropping the bombs. (What we do under GWB, under an open understanding with our ally on the war against terrorism)
A unilateral attack against the will of the government, which is how i take obama's statements is an ACT OF WAR...
Do you understand the difference? If im misinterpreting Obama's statmeents, along with thousands of reporters, then thats okay. That means GWB is, and has been, doing the right thing. But which one is it?
Well, it is an act of war if you go to pakistan.. tell them that you have intelligence and ask the to do X .. they say no we dont want that done.. and then the US does it against their will.
However, if you have an open undertanding to combat terrorism and permission to follow through with intelligence, then it is okay.
Are you suggesting we should go in to any country we want and attack a terrorist? You start bombing countries recourses or whatever it may be, and I think that is an act of war under the geneva convention. Do you disagree?
Terrorist don't have their own borders, they operate within other nations, understanding that is important. Is it okay to attack terrorists within the border of any state without cooperation? How about France, or the Uk?
See the difference?
obama's policy = bush's policy
BLITZER: If you had good, actionable intelligence in Pakistan -- where they were -- would you give the order to kill him or capture him and go into Pakistan?
BUSH: Absolutely.
BLITZER: Even though the Pakistanis say that's their sovereign territory?
BUSH: Absolutely. We would take the action necessary to bring him to justice.
Bottom line is that the US works with Pakistan and has let them know they would act on intelligence when there was no time to consult. Obama suggested getting them to act and then if they would not and did not want us to, then we should still go in against their will.
Nonethless, ill concede and say that Obama wants the same thing the Bush Admin has done for the past 7 years.
Post a Comment