Missile Strikes in Pakistan

[Donkey]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7847423.stm

Well I guess nobody should be surprised by this. I'm certainly not, but I am still disappointed. If Obama escalates conflict in/with Pakistan militants it will be a huge black mark on his presidency; I can't see it turning out well for anybody.

In the meantime, every missle that goes over the border is a reason for me to be mad at him.

(Mind you, I'm still entirely confident he's better than what we would have gotten.)

[Multiplum]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7847423.stm

Well I guess nobody should be surprised by this. I'm certainly not, but I am still disappointed. If Obama escalates conflict in/with Pakistan militants it will be a huge black mark on his presidency; I can't see it turning out well for anybody.

In the meantime, every missle that goes over the border is a reason for me to be mad at him.

(Mind you, I'm still entirely confident he's better than what we would have gotten.)


I would be pretty pissed if some foreign country did that here, killing, say, my five-year-old nephew.

Just an example. Part of the problem.

[wphelan]

For me, that was the problem with the "choice" in this last election. We had Obama who seemed more than willing to engage Pakistan, and we had McCain who seemed more than willing to engage Iran. Technically, I guess that is a choice. Which country do you want to go into first? Wow, thanks for the options.

For as much "change" as Obama has promised, I don't see his foreign policy being much different than what we've had in this country for the last 50 some years. Closing Guantanamo is great, but it's this kind of thing with Pakistan that really bothers me.

[Michael]

I think it should be obvious to everyone by now (except the US Government) that cruise missiles aimed at residential areas don't eliminate terrorism.

If anything, US cruise missile attacks like this tend to provoke more anti-US terrorism.

Indeed, the US is starting to act like Israel - using lethal force over and over again due to a complete lack of any other policy, plan or idea or hope for victory. They feel they need to just "do something" and killing civilians is about the only easy thing to do - so that's what they end up doing. And just making the original problem worse.

[Americano]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7847423.stm

Well I guess nobody should be surprised by this. I'm certainly not, but I am still disappointed. If Obama escalates conflict in/with Pakistan militants it will be a huge black mark on his presidency; I can't see it turning out well for anybody.

In the meantime, every missle that goes over the border is a reason for me to be mad at him.

(Mind you, I'm still entirely confident he's better than what we would have gotten.)

If Obama is cowed by the military-industrial complex to the point of escalating conflict with Pakistan to include ground forces, those militants are for all practical purposes ungovernable by Pakistan itself, the Iraq war will look like child's play. If Obama makes the decision to go to war with Pakistan, that will be the day I begin working against him and all congressional members who support such a decision.

[Michael]

It is possible that this operation was just another in a planned sequence of operations that was already underway. Certainly Obama has the 'responsiblity' for giving ultimate permission for any such strike that violates the sovereignty of another nation, but it is likey this operation was 'pushed' onto him by the Pentagon - perhaps challenging/daring him to veto it.

There have been many disturbing signs that the MIC has been gearing up to pin Obama down in agreeing to a continuation of the 'warhawk' policy. This could be just the opening round to get Obama to commit to some 'hawkish' action that can be leveraged in the future to push for more hawkish actions.

It is long rumoured that the Pentagon is going to push hard asking for major budget increases this year - which the Republicans will frame as "defense budget cuts" and "soft on security" if they don't get it. This is designed to frame the present level of defense spending as the 'moderate-centerist' position in upcoming budget negotiations (the trillion-plus deficit that is coming up is going to scream 'budget-cuts').

The MIC is nervous about Obama and is likely going to push hard to pin him down as a good liberal warhawk. Certainly Obama has been hawkish on Pakistan in the past, so this is clearly the ground Obama has chosen himself to fight the battle (and Zbiggy's obsession - control of central Asia!).

This is not an auspicious beginning for Obama's foreign & defense policies (which are the largest responsibilities of the Presidential office - the only area he has real power and control over).

[Americano]

I didn't see any news about his first formal meeting with Gates and the Chiefs, which makes me nervous.

[Michael]

Speaking of US missile strikes in Pakistan... they are a constant event, roughly 2 or 3 times per week (in case anyone is curious). US news doesn't seem to report about this long running US policy.