News Obama comes out swinging - US missile strikes in Pakistan

[Ivan Seeking]

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

At least five victims of the strike, launched at two districts known to harbour members of al-Qaeda, were identified as foreign militants, an intelligence officer told the Associated Press...

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

 

[misgfool]

What is your opinion on this matter?

 

[BobG]

I presume they mean UAVs (usually Predators) instead of spy planes. Those have been going on for some time and there's no reason to stop them as long as Pakistan is a base for fighters coming into Afghanistan.

It's probably more accurate to say Obama hasn't changed US policy in this regard rather than implying he's taking some new action.

 

[skeptic2]

Are we at war with Pakistan?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's probably more accurate to say Obama hasn't changed US policy in this regard rather than implying he's taking some new action.

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.

 

[drankin]

Are we at war with Pakistan?

Uh, no we are not.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

Could you provide evidence to support the implied claim that Obama ordered the strike or even merely signed off on someone else's request? If there is an existing policy/ROE in place, Obama might not have necessarily even known about it ahead of time. He's a busy man right now - there is no way to know if he even made a decision on the policy yet. Heck, it could have been on his to-do list for this week!

I'm not saying he didn't, but I'll need support for the claim that he did.

It is way too early to determine whether he will be weak or strong on defense.

 

[chemisttree]

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 believe that during the election Obama had something to say about pursuing terrorists inside the borders of Pakistan. Just what "ammunition" are your referring to? Where in the record have you seen that an "Obama hater" suggested that he would not pursue terrorists inside the borders of Pakistan?

 

[Art]

If Obama is to continue the policy of missile strikes against an ally's sovereign territory he should insist the military double check the addresses of their targets first.

The second attack was aimed at the house of a Taleban commander about 10km (six miles) from the town of Wanna, local reports said.

But officials told the BBC that the drone actually hit the house of a pro-government tribal leader, killing him and four members of his family, including a five-year-old child.

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Russ, do you think a military strike can be made without the approval of the President? It was reported that Obama was briefed on the policy earlier this week, which he clearly didn't revoke. The policy requires the approval of the President, but he doesn't have to be informed ahead of a strike if it is a time critical target. As yet the print stories haven't caught up, but I will post a link later if no one else does.

Chemisttree, you are correct in your observation that Obama is doing exactly what he promised, again. But as for your request, that isn't what I said. Please read what has been posted before commenting. I said that it shows he isn't weak - that he isn't afraid to use military power when needed.

Indeed this has been a favorite worn-out claim for the right against probably every Democratic nominee in my lifetime.

AMERICA THE WEAK
US RISKS TURMOIL UNDER PREZ O

IF Sen. Barack Obama is elected president, our re public will survive, but our international strategy and some of our allies may not. His first year in office would conjure globe-spanning challenges as our enemies piled on to exploit his weakness...

Sen. John McCain's campaign has allowed a great man to be maligned as a mere successor to George W. Bush. The truth is that an Obama administration would be a second Carter presidency - only far worse.

Think Bush weakened America? Just wait.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/1020200/postopinion/opedcolumnists/america_the_weak_134398.htm

 

[LowlyPion]

This account says he ordered it.

President orders air strikes on villages in tribal area

Ewen MacAskill in Washington
The Guardian, Saturday 24 January 2009

Barack Obama gave the go-ahead for his first military action yesterday, missile strikes against suspected militants in Pakistan which killed at least 18 people.

Four days after assuming the presidency, he was consulted by US commanders before they launched the two attacks. Although Obama has abandoned many of the "war on terror" policies of George Bush while he was president, he is not retreating from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders.

The US believes they are hiding in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan, and made 30 strikes last year in which more than 200 people were killed. In the election, Obama hinted at increased operations in Pakistan, saying he thought Bush had made a mistake in switching to Iraq before completing the job against al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/24/pakistan-barack-obama-air-strike

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If Obama is to continue the policy of missile strikes against an ally's sovereign territory he should insist the military double check the addresses of their targets first.

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

this was the sort of thing I was worried about with his statements regarding the afghanistan situation. I should hope that an intelligent man like Obama would be aware of history and the previous attempts at securing that region.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I should hope that an intelligent man like Obama would be aware of history and the previous attempts at securing that region.

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.

 

[phyzmatix]

I don't particularly feel like commenting on the Pakistan issue, but the "Obama comes out swinging" part of this thread's heading attracted my attention.

It looks like the man is really going for it. Already two controversial issues Dealt With (note the capital letters):

Obama orders Guantanamo closure

Obama lifts ban on abortion funds

It's ridiculous to comment on the man's style less than a week into his (first) term in office but man, it looks promising.

 

[drankin]

I didn't vote for him but I'm glad he's got cohonas and isn't the pacifist so many people thought he might be. He seems to acknowledge that we are in a war of idealogies and as THE MAN in charge, isn't going to compromise our position as Americans. (Or Ameericans, depending on your leaning :)

As a conservative, I'm not disappointed in him regarding his position regarding defending our ideals. Basically, calling an enemy an enemy. He isn't wishy-washy in that respect so far. I've always been on the fence on the Gitmo deal. But if he has a plan on how to put down those responsible for 9-11, then I don't care how he goes about it.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, do you think a military strike can be made without the approval of the President?

Absolutely! It is a bad idea for a President to have complete tactical control over a war (see: Vietnam). And most don't - they just don't have time to be a general (why have generals at all, if the President is going to play one?). Obama is certainly smart enough to know he can't micromanage a war.

Obama was briefed on the policy earlier this week, which he clearly didn't revoke.

Right. And you want to give him credit for not revoking a policy three days after taking office (with one day lost to the inauguration). He's a busy man and policy changes take time. It took Clinton about 10 months to bungle Somalia, lose his nerve, and pull our troops out. Obama certainly can't be judged on one action that he may or may not have even ordered. We have no idea at all what he has planned for Afghanistan moving forward. From the quote you linked:

His first year in office would conjure globe-spanning challenges as our enemies piled on to exploit his weakness... [emphasis added]

I'll reserve my judgement - positive or negative - until he's had a chance to prove himself. The idea that you can know in two days how he's going to deal with terrorism is just plain silly.

 

[russ_watters]

This account says he ordered it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/24/pakistan-barack-obama-air-strike

That's very odd - it includes no quotes from the President of his press secretary to back that up. Did they just assume (as Ivan did) that he must directly order every military strike? And their subtraction is wrong: Tuesday noon to Friday noon is 3 days, not 4. And since Obama did no actual Presidenting on Tuesday, the strike was carried out roughly two days after he started work.

 

[Gokul43201]

That's very odd - it includes no quotes from the President of his press secretary to back that up. Did they just assume (as Ivan did) that he must directly order every military strike?

I think they did. As far as I am aware, Robert Gibbs (Press Sec) specifically refused to answer any questions about the missile strike during the presser on Friday. I guess/hope we will get a clearer picture next week.

 

[OmCheeto]

I'm not surprised:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801"
Wed Aug 1, 2007 7:26pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy.

Although growing up in Hawaii may have given him a soft external appearance, his years in Chicago politics probably toughened him up on the inside. With the popularity of the president at the moment, and America's historical willingness to follow a popular president into troubled waters, al Qaeda might want to consider unclenching it's collective fist in the near future.

expletives regarding my support of Prez O kicking the excrement out of lowly pond scum removed. My apologies to Ivan and those of us who see pond scum as a viable alternative energy source, and therefore should not have been used as a measure of the lowness of a group who claim to belong to the human race.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Absolutely! It is a bad idea for a President to have complete tactical control over a war (see: Vietnam).

Uh, the last time I checked we were not at war with Pakistan. No operation like this can proceed without the approval of the President. Obama had to give his blessing to either the general operation or this specific strike. If he had wanted it stopped, it would have been stopped.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's very odd - it includes no quotes from the President of his press secretary to back that up. Did they just assume (as Ivan did) that he must directly order every military strike?

Russ, that is yet another direct misquote of what I said.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think they did. As far as I am aware, Robert Gibbs (Press Sec) specifically refused to answer any questions about the missile strike during the presser on Friday. I guess/hope we will get a clearer picture next week.

Either the Guardian report was false or they had inside information.

Four days after assuming the presidency, he was consulted by US commanders before they launched the two attacks

CNN reported that he was briefed on the operation three days ago. They did not state whether he approved this particular strike or simply gave the go-ahead in advance to strikes that meet the required criteria.

 

[Hurkyl]

This account says he ordered it.

And it's not possible that guardian jumped to the same conclusion that Ivan did? Or even just chose poor phrasing?

 

[LowlyPion]

My guess is that for the moment the US is on sound footing in striking along the Afghan border. Pakistan is clenching their sphincters and trying to appease India over Mumbai strike that originated from there, and all they need is their partner and all those aid dollars to get po'ed with them for strikes originating from their western border.

The option of taming the Taliban in western Pakistan with their own resources is likely much less appealing than diplomatically posturing and grumbling.

 

[LowlyPion]

And it's not possible that guardian jumped to the same conclusion that Ivan did? Or even just chose poor phrasing?

Anything is possible.

Even Fox occasionally gets it right sometimes.

 

[OmCheeto]

CNN reported that he was briefed on the operation three days ago. They did not state whether he approved this particular strike or simply gave the go-ahead in advance to strikes that meet the required criteria.

Given the following:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/01/2009123144715473921.html"
Friday, January 23, 2009
Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president, and General Ashfaq Kayani, the chief of Pakistan's military, met David Petraeus, the US Central Command chief, in Islamabad on Tuesday to discuss ways that the US could assist the country in combating extremism.

My guess is he gave the go ahead. I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall in that Petraeus meeting. Pakistan is kind of unique in it's military/political structure from what I hear.

 

[Hurkyl]

Anything is possible.

How about reasonably likely? It very much resembles an incidental remark to provide a lead-in to the topic of the article. Right or wrong, it isn't really the sort of thing I would cite as convincing evidence.

 

[tanker]

Why do I get the feeling that if Bush had been in office when these attacks happened, it would mean more accusations of enforcing the Bush doctrine, or worse. But when Obama does it, he's being strong? It makes me wonder if Obama's worship status really does make him immune from criticisms like that. After all ordering <whatever> strikes was Bush's thing, and the thing he was most criticized for.

 

[OmCheeto]

Wouldn't it be ironic if Obama got Osama on his first time up at the plate.
I wonder how long it would take al-Qaida to admit he was dead.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/11/18/bin_laden/"
Nov. 18, 2008

...I think capturing or killing bin Laden is a critical aspect of stamping out al-Qaida.

Sure would be nice to see our boys come home.

 

[Gokul43201]

Why do I get the feeling that if Bush had been in office when these attacks happened, it would mean more accusations of enforcing the Bush doctrine, or worse.

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

 

[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?