News Obama comes out swinging - US missile strikes in Pakistan

[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

 

[russ_watters]

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.

Reread, Gokul. I never said that Obama was "never questioned" and I never said that Bush got "all the criticism". Heck, I even said explcitly I didn't think Bush got much criticism. You are reading into my posts something that isn't there.

My opinions differ from tanker's slightly, but my point was that in this forum, people are very quick to catch Obamamania and criticize Bush. Just once, I'd like some of you Obamafans to state explicitly that you like this Bush policy, at least to show there is a little bit of objectivity to be had here.

 

[Gokul43201]

Reread, Gokul. I never said that Obama was "never questioned" and I never said that Bush got "all the criticism". Heck, I even said explcitly I didn't think Bush got much criticism. You are reading into my posts something that isn't there.

My opinions differ from tanker's slightly, but my point was that in this forum, people are very quick to catch Obamamania and criticize Bush. Just once, I'd like some of you Obamafans to state explicitly that you like this Bush policy, at least to show there is a little bit of objectivity to be had here.

Reread. I take that back. But I don't recall seeing any Bush criticism in this thread either. I think the point of the OP was simply to take on the oft repeated assertion that O would be too weak to be a good C-in-C.

As for my opinion of the policy itself, I actually don't much like it, and would like to see Obama et al give it a rethinking. Specifically, I think the administration needs to set a higher threshold than they appear to have set (from my POV) for when a target (in Pakistan) qualifies for a missile strike. Right now I think the returns are rapidly diminishing when the backlash from the locals is factored in. And I think that, whether or not it was expressed with sincerity, Zardari's objections that the strikes weaken the Pakistani Govt's ability to engage in counter-terror operations are not without merit. I think the current strategy sacrifices long term strategic gains for short term tactical wins (that likely also help to constantly remind folks back home that their President is keeping them safe by killing more bad guys every week).

The one good thing about the policy so far, I think, is that it shows Pakistan what the stick looks like. I think before soon, it would be wiser to leverage the pressure exerted thus far, and switch to more of a carrot mode.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think this is about actually fighting the enemy who attacked us. Recall that there was very little resistance to Bush's invasion of Afghanistan. The only criticism that I've heard is that Bush lost focus - the real war on terror was derailed by going into Iraq.

I certainly remember. I also remember the people (not here) who were disgusted with my lack of support for the action. and although I have heard about afghanis who are happy to be rid of the taliban my opinion hasn't much changed.
I think that had bush stayed focus on afghanistan and not gone beyond the pale with iraq many more people would be currently frustrated with the situation in afghanistan. as it is iraq has taken most of the attention away from it.
its quite possible that once obama pulls out of iraq and focuses on afghanistan people will begin to think about the fact that the us is occupying an unstable region where us soldiers are dying for the purpose of hunting down a militia that is harbouring a terrorist group because of a man who is most likely already dead. and they may not be too happy about that.

 

[BobG]

As for my opinion of the policy itself, I actually don't much like it, and would like to see Obama et al give it a rethinking. Specifically, I think the administration needs to set a higher threshold than they appear to have set (from my POV) for when a target (in Pakistan) qualifies for a missile strike. Right now I think the returns are rapidly diminishing when the backlash from the locals is factored in. And I think that, whether or not it was expressed with sincerity, Zardari's objections that the strikes weaken the Pakistani Govt's ability to engage in counter-terror operations are not without merit. I think the current strategy sacrifices long term strategic gains for short term tactical wins (that likely also help to constantly remind folks back home that their President is keeping them safe by killing more bad guys every week).

I'm not sure about how high the threshold is since it's impossible for anyone not involved in the operations to know exactly how the operations are conducted.

However, there's certainly the capability for the threshold to be quite high. These aren't just missile strikes on a remote target. The strikes are conducted by UAVs equipped with TV cameras and/or other sensors. The operator can see exactly what's happening at his target when he decides to fire the UAV's missiles.

I also have trouble taking Zardari's objections at face value. Even among Pakistan's objections, there's a large difference between their objections to UAV strikes and actually having American troops on the ground in Pakistan.

I should also be a little more fair in my assessment of Pakistan's efforts. While the majority of US military aid goes to support the Pakistan-India border, Pakistan has played a supporting role in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region - via their own UAVs (Satuma and Pakistan develops impressive UAV capabilities). The impressive capabilities might be slightly overstated in today's world, as UAV capabilities have increased very rapidly. (FAS - UAVs

Pakistan doesn't currently have UAVs that can carry weapons. Their UAVs are obviously general purpose tools that could be used to fight Al-Qaeda/Taliban or on the Indian border, but would be an example where US military aid to Pakistan does yield benefits - as opposed to F-16's, which, as mentioned, aren't a very effective weapon for the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

The US gets very little for what we're giving Pakistan (which isn't the same as nothing), but I'd tend to agree with chemistree that Zardari probably does give some kind of approval regardless of what he says publicly and regardless of how enthusiastically he gives it. Like I said, we're paying Pakistan to be a weak ally.

A real change between the Bush years and the Obama years would be for Pakistan to contribute more to the fight against Al-Qaeda and Taliban without the side effect of escalating the Pakistan-India border to a more dangerous level; or at least tilt the balance where we're improving one region more than we're worsening the other.

 

[mgb_phys]

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.

Jet fighters are always a good stocking filler for 3rd world deals.
They look cool and expensive and the airforce of most TPLACs is made up of nephews of the president, especially fighter pilots, so it's a nice direct gift.
Most importantly they are pretty useless in the hands of the next regime - without trained pilots and continuing support and spare parts they rapidly becoming unservicable if the next lot aren't so friendly. Much safer than giving your current friends lots of plastic explosive, land mines and shoulder launched missiles - that might come back to haunt you.

 

[mheslep]

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

I don't think Kucinich manages to catch the news much now, he's otherwise occupied sitting by the House door for http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0902/25/acd.01.html" so he meet and greet w/ Obama when he spoke.

 

[MATLABdude]

Jet fighters are always a good stocking filler for 3rd world deals.
They look cool and expensive and the airforce of most TPLACs is made up of nephews of the president, especially fighter pilots, so it's a nice direct gift.
Most importantly they are pretty useless in the hands of the next regime - without trained pilots and continuing support and spare parts they rapidly becoming unservicable if the next lot aren't so friendly. Much safer than giving your current friends lots of plastic explosive, land mines and shoulder launched missiles - that might come back to haunt you.

Didn't the Iranians keep flying their F-14s for a while? (IIRC, the son of the last Shah volunteered to go back and fly for them in the Iraq-Iran War--doubtlessly, there'd be enough pilots / support crew willing to weather the storm, or fight for Shah and Country). I doubt very many of them are usable today, but I seem to remember some huge brouhaha a few years ago when some intermediary got caught trying to export spare F-14 parts to them.