Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Unilateral Strike in Pakistan

  1. Feb 20, 2008 #1

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Some months ago Obama stated that he would, as President, strike terrorists in Pakistan without getting Pakistan's permission.

    Obama: "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. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama2aug02,1,3583988.story

    He took a lot of flak for that position. In fact, his words were misinterpreted (by GWB, no less) as an intention to invade Pakistan.

    Bush: "I certainly don't know what he believes in. The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad, which — I think I commented that in a press conference when I was asked about it."

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/350/

    Turns out, we've been doing unilateral strikes into Pakistan all along.

    Officials say the incident was a model of how Washington often scores its rare victories these days in the fight against al-Qaeda inside Pakistan's national borders: It acts with assistance from well-paid sympathizers inside the country, but without getting the government's formal permission beforehand.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802500.html?hpid=topnews

    This sounds EXACTLY like what Obama said he would do as President!
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 20, 2008 #2

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    There should be no safe haven for terrorists, so long as America understands that ,and would not mind if a terrorist was assassinated by another country on its soil, then there should be no problem.

    I sure would not have minded if any government assassinated an IRA terrorist were he ever he/she was.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2008
  4. Feb 20, 2008 #3

    chemisttree

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    What do you think this means:
    Perhaps the CIA has been granted permission to perform some operations within Pakistan borders? Why else allow a base for these weapons to be established? Has the Pakistan Government condemned the attack? It has been three weeks now since the attack.

    What does Pakistan say about it?
     
  5. Feb 20, 2008 #4

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    From the same source,

    "Publicly, reaction to the strike among U.S. and Pakistani leaders has been muted, with neither side appearing eager to call attention to an awkward, albeit successful, unilateral U.S. military operation. Some Pakistani government spokesmen have even questioned whether the terrorist leader was killed."

    I'm not surprised to learn that there are cloak-and-dagger operations going on in that part of the world. You know, and I know, there's a whole lot more going on beneath the surface, things that we might only find out about when we're very old, if ever.

    My point is the MSP widely misinterpreted Obama's statements, and even ridiculed him for being naive.
     
  6. Feb 21, 2008 #5

    chemisttree

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    But my point was that we don't know that some form of agreement already exists between Pakistan and the US at this time. They have authorized the establishment of bases to launch these types of missions, after all. That is very different than what Obama suggested last August. He suggested that if we approached Musharraf with actionable intelligence and he refused to act that we would.
    That is clearly an adversarial condition. Nothing is publicly known about the Pakistan government's acquiescence in this matter by blanket authority granted to the US (as suggested by the placement of the airfield on Pakistan soil). Pakistan's muted response actually reinforces the notion that some agreement already exists.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Unilateral Strike in Pakistan
  1. Pakistan earthquake (Replies: 23)

  2. Developments in Pakistan (Replies: 46)

  3. Pakistan is the problem (Replies: 22)

Loading...