News Obama comes out swinging - US missile strikes in Pakistan

[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.