Obama comes out swinging - US missile strikes in Pakistan

[LowlyPion]

Wouldn't it be ironic if Obama got Osama on his first time up at the plate.

It's my theory that not getting Bin Laden was part of the Bush Cheney plan from the beginning, because as long as he remained loose, he was the poster boy for their arrogant policy of aggression in Iraq and Iran.

 

[mheslep]

A U.S. spy plane killed at least 18 people Friday in two missile attacks in Pakistan near the Afghan border, officials say...

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/23/missiles-pakistan.html

Yesterday the Washington Post boldly put the headline on the front page:
Bush's 'War' On Terror Comes to a Sudden End
Not modified, or gone in a different direction, but brought it to an end did the President "with a stroke of his pen".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012203929.html
Therefore this action in Pakistan could only have been the act of rogue elements in the US Industrial Military Complex. Either that or the Post has gone insane.

My speculation on the administration's role in the recent attack:

Very likely: before taking office the incoming administration was thoroughly briefed on the ongoing 'Operation Bold and Punchy Name' which is a military plan under control of CENTCOM and based out of Afghanistan to seek and destroy AQ/Taliban in the Hindu Kush mountains, to include the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan when the intelligence warrants. During all this the President elect nodded and asked good questions, as this is generally inline with his stated policy during the campaign.

Likely: Since taking office, the President has made no substantial changes in operation Bold and Punchy Name.

Plausible: Since taking office, the President may have taken an action something like ordering senior White House staff be directly informed of all imminent strikes Pakistan, or even made cross border actions contingent on White House approval on a case by case basis, if this wasn't already the policy.

Alien Abduction Story: The President told CENTCOM, 'I see intelligence about some guys in Pakistan that you weren't doing anything about, stop part of what you are doing and hit them on the 4th day of my administration'

 

[Gokul43201]

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/23/missiles-pakistan.html

Yesterday the Washington Post boldly put the headline on the front page:
Bush's 'War' On Terror Comes to a Sudden End
Not modified, or gone in a different direction, but brought it to an end did the President "with a stroke of his pen".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012203929.html
Therefore this action in Pakistan could only have been the act of rogue elements in the US Industrial Military Complex. Either that or the Post has gone insane.

Ahem... Bush's war on terror has indeed come to an end. Now it's Obama's war. :)

 

[mheslep]

Ahem... Bush's war on terror has indeed come to an end. Now it's Obama's war. :)

Indeed

 

[OmCheeto]

Indeed

With his popularity here and abroad, does anyone think that there might be a real worldwide crackdown on terrorism? Or am I just another http://jonimitchell.com/musician/song.cfm?id=ImpossibleDreamer" ?


-------------------------
this shameless promotion of peace on Earth through cooperation, strength, and resolve, was brought to you through the eyes, ears, and weary mind, of an old warrior. good night, and may god bless.(red skelton). ...sorry. I'm old.

 

[tanker]

It was a rather bold move and it certainly makes a strong statement to launch an attack on his third full day in office.

Ummm...Bush had been in office when a dozen or so of these attacks happened.

Here's the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_missile_strikes_in_Pakistan

So how come no one's calling Obama out on ordering one, when they most certainly would if Bush was ordering it (possible destruction of property, possible killing of innocents, the usual)?

 

[drankin]

So how come no one's calling Obama out on ordering one, when they most certainly would if Bush was ordering it (possible destruction of property, possible killing of innocents, the usual)?

You know why. It's something we will have to get used to. I expect to see a lot of this. But, I really don't care. If it takes a different president to get the same job done, then so be it.

 

[ThomasT]

As stated in the article linked, it is a continuation of the existing policy - allegedly a backroom agreement between the US and Pakistan.

My opinion? I think I understand how Obama thinks. If he elected to continue these attacks, then I would probably make the same call. But no matter how one feels about it, the Obama haters have lost yet another piece of ammunition - the claim that he's weak. It was a rather bold move and it certainly makes a strong statement to launch an attack on his third full day in office.

I think Obama is a good man and will do what he considers necessary to defend US interests. What those interests are is a matter of perspective. Obama did and said what he had to in order to get elected, and he'll do what he has to in order to stay in office -- which means, essentially, maintaining the status quo. Unfortunately, his big campaign promise was change. So, as Nader put it, prepare to be disappointed -- unless you think the current state of affairs is basically ok.

One might think that international terrorism was dealt a devastating blow when Bush and Cheney et al were replaced. We'll see. In the meantime, there are the continuing US and Israeli occupations, generally corrupt governmental and political 'systems', and an ignorant and apathetic US population.

I'm rooting for Obama to be an effective agent of the Good Force. But I'm not optimistic about his chances -- especially if he's all that we say we would like him to be

 

[Alfi]

Boom
the whole house including the children.
Blow it all up and maybe kill one suspected murderer.This is acceptable. I sure am glad it doesn't happen in my country.
Too my country, it already has with US forces making an oppps and bombing some good guys awhile back.
I don't really agree with bombs vs. people.
You can't arrest suspects with bombs.

 

[BobG]

So how come no one's calling Obama out on ordering one, when they most certainly would if Bush was ordering it (possible destruction of property, possible killing of innocents, the usual)?

Has there been some adverse reaction to the numerous strikes in Pakistan conducted in the last couple of years (including the ones Gokul listed)?

For the most part, these strikes have barely made it into the news.

 

[Gokul43201]

So how come no one's calling Obama out on ordering one, when they most certainly would if Bush was ordering it (possible destruction of property, possible killing of innocents, the usual)?

1. If you'd read this thread, you will see that so far, there is no knowledge that Obama explicitly ordered anything. As it turns out, this strike was just a continuation of policies put in place by the Bush administration, and Obama met with his National Security team to discuss it only after it had happened.

WASHINGTON, Jan 24: Hours after US missiles killed 22 people in Fata, President Barack Obama convened a meeting of his top national security advisers and endorsed the decision to continue drone strikes into Pakistan.

http://www.dawn.com/2009/01/25/top3.htm

2. If there was so much "calling out" of similar strikes under Bush, how is it that you were not even aware of the existence of said strikes?

3. If there was a "calling out" of Obama, would you be any more aware of that than you have shown to be of the previous strikes?

 

[russ_watters]

Regarding Obama's intentions for Pakistan, here they are from a 2007 speech:

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php

That's a good thing and it is in line with Bush's policy (perhaps even more aggressive?) and Obama's decision to endorse the strike. But this was a layup. The wartime mettle of Presidents is only tested when things get difficult, as they did for Clinton in Somalia.

 

[mheslep]

Boom
the whole house including the children.
Blow it all up and maybe kill one suspected murderer.

What's your source for this? Anything other than the Guardian?

I sure am glad it doesn't happen in my country.
Too my country, it already has with US forces making an oppps and bombing some good guys awhile back.

What's your country? How do we know that it doesn't happen there?

I don't really agree with bombs vs. people.
You can't arrest suspects with bombs.

You can't fight a war with arrests

 

[tanker]

Has there been some adverse reaction to the numerous strikes in Pakistan conducted in the last couple of years (including the ones Gokul listed)?

For the most part, these strikes have barely made it into the news.

I suppose I don't mean these missile strikes in particular, it has been my experience since 2003 (well, and before that) that firing missiles into a foreign country (killing innocents and all that) that hasn't done anything directly to the US is a bad thing. Again, isn't that one of the (if not the biggest) reason Bush is so hated? So, with this hint that Obama is carrying on the pattern, why isn't anyone (on this thread) pointing that out? Because here at least, we have heard it.

1. If you'd read this thread, you will see that so far, there is no knowledge that Obama explicitly ordered anything. As it turns out, this strike was just a continuation of policies put in place by the Bush administration, and Obama met with his National Security team to discuss it only after it had happened.


http://www.dawn.com/2009/01/25/top3.htm

2. If there was so much "calling out" of similar strikes under Bush, how is it that you were not even aware of the existence of said strikes?

3. If there was a "calling out" of Obama, would you be any more aware of that than you have shown to be of the previous strikes?

The creator of this thread believed that Obama ordered these attacks. What's more, he praised him for it, saying it makes Obama look "strong" and "removes ammunition against his detractors." I do realize that we don't know Obama actually ordered these attacks. What I have a problem with is that earlier in the thread it was possible he might have, and at least one person (hell, a very prominent member of these forums) thinks he did, and that it was good. When firing missiles in the Middle East has been bad for the last 5 years (and of course before that, but less so). Don't tell me I didn't read the thread.

You are saying no one has condemned these particular attacks. Well, there have been hundreds and hundreds of similar attacks, be them in Israel, Afghanistan and of course Iraq. Now Bush haters will not condemn those attacks individually. No, they will say "all attacks in which civilians can be killed are war crimes, etc." That's what I mean here. I have lurked at this forum for a while, and there are many, here that could be said hate Bush for similar attacks. So in a thread that started by praising Obama firing missiles in the Middle East (and yes, I realize he did not know if Obama ordered them or not), it was somewhat curious to see how no one pointed out, "well, how is this different from Bush firing missiles?" before the link you gave above.

 

[Averagesupernova]

^^^^^^^^I think you are twisting this into something it isn't. The point of the thread was to point out that Obama is not the whimp some people said he was concerning terrorists. Since you didn't have anything real to whine about you had to start with this BS.

 

[russ_watters]

The OP made has an opinion, which is fine, but for the purpose of this thread, the opinion was backed up mostly by a pretty straightforward assertion which turned out to be wrong. So the thread turned out to be pretty meaningless. I agree with tanker, however, that it highlights a contradiction. Few people here are willing to ever praise Bush for anything, and here we have a case where Obama is being praised for what turns out to be nothing more than not revoking a Bush policy 3 days after taking office. It's laughably silly.

More to the point (my point from earlier), Pakistan is already going after Obama to change this policy. So he's going to have to deal with the issue directly sooner or later - as opposed to just not changing the policy. It has yet to be seen how he will deal with it.

 

[russ_watters]

Regarding criticism of Bush over the issue, no there wasn't that much criticism over this specific issue, but there was some:

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who in October 2002 was the first member of Congress who maintained that Bush was lying to take the country into war, issued the following statement regarding President Bush's authorization of U.S. attacks inside of Pakistan:

"The President is once again violating international law by invading yet another nation which has not attacked the United States. Once again, he places our troops and our reputation at risk. Once again, he creates more enemies for America. Pakistan's objections to the illegal US Predator strikes inside the country's border should be a clear indication of how Pakistan would respond to another illegal attack upon their sovereign nation.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Bush-Ordered-Attacks-in-Pa-by-Dennis-Kucinich-080912-628.html

I'd be very curious to know what he would have to say today - this statement is only 4 months old.

 

[Astronuc]

I condemn the policy that allows missiles to be fired into targets containing innocent civilians, particularly women and children. I'm disappointed that Obama would approve of such a policy. I don't care who is president, the policy is morally wrong.

 

[Gokul43201]

Regarding criticism of Bush over the issue, no there wasn't that much criticism over this specific issue, but there was some:

And Obama faced no criticism when he first announced during the campaign that he would (if elected) authorize military strikes inside Pakistan? Are you kidding? Everyone (from Dems to Reps) was attacking him over that.

 

[mheslep]

I condemn the policy that allows missiles to be fired into targets containing innocent civilians, particularly women and children. I'm disappointed that Obama would approve of such a policy. I don't care who is president, the policy is morally wrong.

On what basis in this instance do you claim knowledge that innocent civilians were attacked? Then, in the general sense, given all warfare brings harm to innocents, what exactly are you recommending? A withdrawal from Afghanistan?

 

[mheslep]

And Obama faced no criticism when he first announced during the campaign that he would (if elected) authorize military strikes inside Pakistan? Are you kidding? Everyone (from Dems to Reps) was attacking him over that.

Not exactly. The criticism was more about his public announcement of a specific policy which causes internal problems for Pakistan.

 

[Alfi]

what exactly are you recommending? A withdrawal from Afghanistan?

I don't see why it can't be on the table. Why can't it be a considered?

 

[mheslep]

I don't see why it can't be on the table. Why can't it be a considered?

It can be. What would you say are the reasons NATO leadership deems it worth being there? The US President has clearly stated some of his reasons, posted above. Again:

But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

A useful discussion has to first deal with that statement.

 

[Gokul43201]

Not exactly. The criticism was more about his public announcement of a specific policy which causes internal problems for Pakistan.

It wasn't just about his shooting his mouth off, there was also a bunch of criticism for "attacking your allies".

 

[chemisttree]

It wasn't just about his shooting his mouth off, there was also a bunch of criticism for "attacking your allies".

Obama was criticized for "attacking your allies" with good reason.

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

Pakistan is our ally and a real help in the war on terror. Bush's attacks inside Pakistan, and now Obama's, were conducted with the approval of the Pakistan government. Obama was rightly criticized for spouting off that he would attack without approval. He was not simply stating that he would authorize military strikes inside Pakistan.

 

[BobG]

Pakistan is our ally and a real help in the war on terror. Bush's attacks inside Pakistan, and now Obama's, were conducted with the approval of the Pakistan government. Obama was rightly criticized for spouting off that he would attack without approval. He was not simply stating that he would authorize military strikes inside Pakistan.

I'm not sure how big a help Pakistan is in the war on terror.

They (and Libya) quickly changed their stance on a lot of things once we invaded Afghanistan. Neither wanted to be the next country invaded.

Pakistan's main contribution to the war on terror has to been to accept money from the US, use it to fortify their border with India, and drag their feet when it comes to Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters in the border region. And, of course, their other contribution has been to only mildly complain about predator strikes in Pakistan.

In spite of their public complaints, they probably have given the US approval for unmanned strikes since they're not in any better position to fight the US than they are the Taliban and Al-Qaeda hiding in the border region - plus we're paying them to be a weak ally.

 

[drankin]

I'm not sure how big a help Pakistan is in the war on terror.

They (and Libya) quickly changed their stance on a lot of things once we invaded Afghanistan. Neither wanted to be the next country invaded.

Pakistan's main contribution to the war on terror has to been to accept money from the US, use it to fortify their border with India, and drag their feet when it comes to Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters in the border region. And, of course, their other contribution has been to only mildly complain about predator strikes in Pakistan.

In spite of their public complaints, they probably have given the US approval for unmanned strikes since they're not in any better position to fight the US than they are the Taliban and Al-Qaeda hiding in the border region - plus we're paying them to be a weak ally.

How are we paying them exactly. Not doubting you are correct but I've never known the specifics of how this is carried out.

 

[Astronuc]

Some references on US assistance to Pakistan.

http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/pakistan.pdf
from U.S. Arms Exports and Military Assistance in the “Global War on Terror”
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4080&from_page=../ind

U.S-Pakistan Military Cooperation
http://www.cfr.org/publication/16644/

US agrees to increase military assistance
http://www.dawn.com/2008/12/21/top15.htm
(DAWN is the leading English newspaper in Pakistan)

 

[Gokul43201]

Obama was criticized for "attacking your allies" with good reason.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

Pakistan is our ally and a real help in the war on terror. Bush's attacks inside Pakistan, and now Obama's, were conducted with the approval of the Pakistan government. Obama was rightly criticized for spouting off that he would attack without approval. He was not simply stating that he would authorize military strikes inside Pakistan.

How sure are you that the current attacks are conducted with the approval of the Pakistan government? Pakistan has been routinely making pleas to the US to stop the attacks. That hardly sounds like they are asking for the US to hit them harder.

Here's the most recent example:

Pakistan calls on US to end attacks

Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president, has called on Barack Obama, his US counterpart, to end American missile attacks in South Asian nation's tribal border regions with Afghanistan.

Zardari's comments were reported in the local media on Saturday, a day after the first US attacks in Pakistan since Obama's inauguration.

Such strikes against Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters are counterproductive, the private NNI news agency quoted Zardari as saying.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/01/2009124203957198804.html

Here's one from before Obama's inauguration:

The US has launched dozens of similar attacks in recent months, mostly targeting Taleban and al-Qaeda militants in Pakistan's tribal regions.

Pakistan has repeatedly protested to Washington about the US strikes, with President Asif Ali Zardari saying that he will not tolerate violations of his country's territory.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7806828.stm

Anyway, we do know that Bush authorized attacks in Pakistan without their approval.

The New York Times reported Thursday that President Bush authorized U.S. forces to conduct raids against Taliban and al-Qaida strongholds inside Pakistan's border region without the approval of Islamabad. Regional and security experts assess the reports.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec08/borderraid_09-11.html

So really, Obama's policy statement seems no different from Bush's execution. The only notable difference appears to be that Obama made his intentions public, while Bush, not unexpectedly, kept it secret.

But, in any case, that's not the argument I was dealing with. The claim made by tanker, and supported by Russ, was that Bush was getting all the criticism and Obama was never questioned. It was this specific claim that I was addressing. Whether the criticism was justified or not was not directly relevant to that claim.

 

[Gokul43201]

How are we paying them exactly. Not doubting you are correct but I've never known the specifics of how this is carried out.

Mostly under the umbrella of foreign aid:

Including current appropriations, Pakistan will receive about $2.64 billion in direct U.S. assistance for FY2002-FY2005. Almost half of this ($1.13 billion) is security-related aid.

www.fas.org/man/crs/IB94041.pdf

This came after seven years of zero USAID presence in Pakistan following sanctions resulting from nuclear proliferation.

But that's not all. Twice, in the last 4 years, Pakistan has received F-16s and/or upgrades to F-16 technology. The Bush administration has claimed this will help in the counter-insurgency effort, but everyone knows that's mostly nonsense. Pakistan wants the fighters primarily to try and stay competitive in an arms race against India. And they're asking for more.

WASHINGTON, Sept 16 (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday sharply questioned a Bush administration plan to reallocate more than $250 million in military aid to Pakistan to help it pay for F-16 fighter aircraft upgrades designed to go after militants' sanctuaries near the Afghan border.
...
Previously, the Bush administration had planned to use the military grants involved on surveillance planes and Cobra helicopters, said by some critics to be more effective.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1641510520080916
http://www.rediff.com/news/2009/jan/16mumterror-pakistan-seeks-f16-jets-from-usa.htm

The somewhat sad thing is that (IMO) Pakistan appears to have come under pressure to show that the F-16s are useful for counter-terrorism operations. In some recent raids Pakistan has indeed used F-16 for airstrikes on border villages controlled by Taliban, resulting in a poorer militant-to-collateral kill ratio than their conventional ground operations supported by attack helicopters.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/18/pakistan.militants/index.html
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jBVscNlqXVfaV_EO8Mwy8hAfzQNg

But of all the prizes Pakistan has won from the US, the biggest is arguably the leniency with which the world's most dangerous nuclear weapons proliferators (AQ Khan and Musharraf) were treated. These two people were collectively responsible for nuclear weapons systems reaching North Korea, Libya and Iran. The US is still fighting a war in Iraq that was supposedly meant to prevent it from using WMD, but the two biggest individual WMD proliferators ever are free men?

From the wiki on AQ Khan:

The Pakistani government's blanket denials became untenable as evidence mounted of illicit nuclear weapons technology transfers. It opened an investigation into Khan's activities, arguing that even if there had been wrongdoing, it had occurred without the Government of Pakistan's knowledge or approval. But critics noted that virtually all of Khan's overseas travels, to Iran, Libya, North Korea, Niger, Mali, and the Middle East, were on official Pakistan government aircraft which he commandeered at will, given the status he enjoyed in Pakistan. Often, he was accompanied by senior members of the Pakistan nuclear establishment.
...
In early February 2004, the Government of Pakistan reported that Khan had signed a confession indicating that he had provided Iran, Libya, and North Korea with designs and technology to aid in nuclear weapons programs, and said that the government had not been complicit in the proliferation activities.
...
On February 5, 2004, the day after Khan's televised confession, he was pardoned by Pakistani President Musharraf. However, Khan remained under house arrest.

The United States government imposed no sanctions on the Pakistani government following the confession and pardon. U.S. government officials said that in the War on Terrorism, it was not their goal to denounce or imprison people but "to get results." ... The U.S. also refrained from applying further direct pressure on Pakistan to disclose more about Khan's activities due to a strategic calculation that such pressure might topple President Musharraf.
...
On July 4th, 2008 [after Musharraf's party lost the general election] he [Khan] in an interview blamed President Musharraf and Pakistan Army for the transfer of nuclear technology, he claimed that Musharraf was aware of all the deals and he was the "Big Boss" for those deals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan

See also: http://www.dawn.com/2008/07/05/top1.htm