Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Bush Adopts Obama's "Naive" Foreign Policy
Last year, Barack Obama had the right smirking with glee when he made the sensible suggestion that if the U.S. gets intelligence that there are Al Qaeda cells operating in Pakistan, we should go in and get them, with or without permission of the Pakistani government. If Pakistan won't root out Al Qaeda, Obama said, his administration would. I never quite understood the controversy in that statement, which by the way, is the position of many in the U.S. military.
Nevertheless, Obama was roundly ridiculed. John McCain said the statement showed Obama's naivete. Mitt Romney called him "Dr. Strangelove." Conservative blogs mischaracterized his position as wanting to "invade" or "bomb" Pakistan. Obama's critics at the time apparently believed that it's fine to invade an occupy a country whose government had virtually no ties to Al Qaeda, but suggesting we cross the border into a country whose government may be actively or passively harboring large numbers of Al Qaeda and Taliban forces is foolish.
It looks like the Bush administration didn't find Obama's position all that naive, because they've adopted it to the letter:
President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, according to senior American officials.
The new orders reflect concern about safe havens for Al Qaeda and the Taliban inside Pakistan, as well as an American view that Pakistan lacks the will and ability to combat militants. They also illustrate lingering distrust of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies and a belief that some American operations had been compromised once Pakistanis were advised of the details.
Will McCain now condemn the Bush administration's decision to go into Pakistan? Or was this idea only naive ten months ago? Was it only naive because it came from Obama?
The Obama campaign should be making a much bigger deal about this.
|9.11.08 @ 10:18AM|#
I never quite understood the controversy in that statement,
which by the way, is the position of many in the U.S.
military.
Nobody actually disagreed with that statement. It's just the rules
of the game among the political elite that you don't say things
like that in public.
I think the squabble goes more to the issue of government
transparancy and the relationship between the government and the
people in a democracy, than to actual military policy.
|9.11.08 @ 10:20AM|#
The politics of the issue aside, launching raids inside Pakistan
is not just naive, it's incredibly stupid -- and if you find
yourself on the same side of an issue as the Bush administration,
it's probably time to start reexamining your assumptions.
Whatever gains the U.S. thinks it might be making in killing a
Taliban member or two in the Pashtun tribal regions are immediately
squashed when their heavy-handed approach -- bombing the village in
order to save it -- kills a bunch of innocent people, thus ensuring
that terrorist groups in the region never suffer for a lack of
recruits.
What's disheartening is that a Reason writer and avowed libertarian
can't see the foolishness in attacking a sovereign -- and unstable
-- nuclear power in order to further a failing military occupation
in Afghanistan.
Radley Balko|9.11.08 @ 10:25AM|#
I have no interest in furthering the occupation in Afghanistan.
I thought we should have removed the Taliban, then gotten
out.
I do have an interest in rooting out and eliminating Al Qaeda
cells, no matter where they are.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 10:29AM|#
Yeah I wouldn't brag that Bush endorsed my policy, even if it happens to be the right one.
|9.11.08 @ 10:37AM|#
It has nothing to do with occupying Afghanistan, it is about
destroying the group that attacked us. According to libertarian
philosophy, this would be completely justified as one of the
functions of government, in fact one of the main functions, is to
protect the citizenry. Whether or not this would be the best
approach to protect the citizenry, I am not so sure. However, at
least ideologically, this passes the test as a justified
move.
Pakistan, by being passive, implicitly supports Al Qaeda. Either
they could actively help and oust the cells on their own, or they
could passively help by letting us in to do it.
The one thing that is an issue here is the question "Why aren't
they letting us in". I, frankly, don't know enough about the issues
over there to know the answer to that question. I could see there
being an interest in not letting in foreign forces to run around
your country hunting terrists. You never know what might happen to
some of your citizens during some raid, conflict, or whatever. If
Pakistan truly cannot combat Al Qaeda, but does not want to have
foreign military forces running amok in their country, does that
give us the right to go in an do what we want anyway?
I think I still fall squarely in the "I don't know" column on this
one.
|9.11.08 @ 10:37AM|#
I do have an interest in rooting out and eliminating Al
Qaeda cells, no matter where they are.
Are you claiming we have the right to just violate another
country's sovereignty because we want to kill someone?
BDB|9.11.08 @ 10:38AM|#
"Are you claiming we have the right to just violate another
country's sovereignty because we want to kill someone?"
If that country won't hand over the leader of a terrorist group
responsible for attack our soil...yeah.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 10:40AM|#
But nation building? That's a worthless exercise. Find the bastards, kill them, get the hell out. Make the experience painful enough that they won't want to shelter them again.
|9.11.08 @ 10:41AM|#
They also illustrate lingering distrust of the Pakistani
military and intelligence agencies and a belief that some American
operations had been compromised once Pakistanis were advised of the
details.
I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling harboring
terrorists/insurgents is going on in here! Seriously, it's tough to
win a fight when the other guy gets to call time out whenever he
wants. The next politician or pundit who calls Pakistan "our ally
in the war on terror", should be horse whipped in the public
square.
Will McCain now condemn the Bush administration's decision to
go into Pakistan? Or was this idea only naive ten months ago? Was
it only naive because it came from Obama?
The Obama campaign should be making a much bigger deal
about this.
QFT. Emphasis added = QFMFT!
|9.11.08 @ 10:41AM|#
Balko says:
"I do have an interest in rooting out and eliminating Al Qaeda
cells, no matter where they are."
I agree and with widespread reprots of a blue eyed blond haired Al
CIADA being recruited to destroy our freedom in america(link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBO7xBpJtoc) it is imperative that
we increase domestic spying capabilities, pass Patriot ACt 3,
complete the construction of our FEMA camps and then look for the
leading signature of Al Ciada members: people who bring up
innappropriate questions about WTC 7 or who try to poke holes in
the official story of 9/11. People who speak too much about "their
first amendment rights" or "the ideals of the countries
founders"
(Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcGpjc-fR8E)
JMR|9.11.08 @ 10:42AM|#
I wonder if Obama's plans included all the accidental friendly fire issues currently winning all those hearts & minds?
|9.11.08 @ 10:45AM|#
Pakistan, by being passive, implicitly supports Al
Qaeda.
The same was said of Cambodia and the NVA, and the US Army and Air
Force attacked sites in Cambodia with little regard for its
sovereignty, and neither the Cambodians nor the NVA had ever
attacked American soil (setting aside embassies I guess). I am with
Epsiarch, I question the decision to violate Pakistan's sovereignty
without some degree of communication with the government, but that
may have happened for all I know.
Invisible Finger|9.11.08 @ 10:46AM|#
the sensible suggestion that if the U.S. gets intelligence
that there are Al Qaeda cells operating in Pakistan, we should go
in and get them, with or without permission
And if the US gets intelligence that there is WMD development we
should go in and get them, with or without permission.
And if the police get intelligence that there is a bag of pot in
someone's house, they should go in and get them, with or without
permission.
|9.11.08 @ 10:47AM|#
If that country won't hand over the leader of a terrorist
group responsible for attack our soil...yeah
So declare war and do it the correct way. We only do this to
Pakistan because we can. Do you think we would do it to China? No
way in hell.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 10:48AM|#
China wouldn't be stupid enough to shelter a terrorist group that would attack American soil. That's not what responsible powers do.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 10:49AM|#
If a group from China DID attack American soil, I'm pretty sure the Chinese government would hand them over rather quickly if we requested it.
Juan|9.11.08 @ 10:51AM|#
We need to just go in and kill all the Iraqi terrorists that are hiding in Pakistan.
|9.11.08 @ 10:54AM|#
Al Qaeda is a symptom afflicting us, not the underlying disease.
Al Qaeda isn't some unique and unreproducible phenomenon plowing
ahead independent of larger forces in the world. Destroy it and
something else will take its place.
Expending vast efforts, breaking the rules of international order
and peace, and generally letting ends (destroying Al Qaeda) justify
means might destroy Al Qaeda, but it won't do anything to diminish
terrorism. Put Al Qaeda on the list of pointless crusades against
the symptoms of bad policy along with people smugglers, pimps, drug
cartels, and juvenile gangs.
|9.11.08 @ 10:55AM|#
Nitpicking about what China would do is avoiding the question: why is it OK to do this to Pakistan?
BDB|9.11.08 @ 10:56AM|#
"Nitpicking about what China would do is avoiding the question:
why is it OK to do this to Pakistan?"
Because nobody of any importance in the world objects to it. That's
why.
|9.11.08 @ 10:57AM|#
If the NYTimes and George Bush agree then it must be true. In
spite of our best efforts Al Qaeda is growing stronger with the
help of Pakistan and we must invade. Who are we to disagree?
In any case my biggest fear is the growing swarm of blue eyed blond
hair Al Qaeda that is about to invade. It is a miracle of god that
we haven't already been hit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBO7xBpJtoc
BDB|9.11.08 @ 10:58AM|#
Also, the expound on that, Pakistan doesn't govern the areas where Al Qaeda is. If you can't demonstrate effective government control over territory you claim, you don't have any rights of sovereignty over it, no matter what the colors on the map say.
Duh-bya|9.11.08 @ 10:58AM|#
The Obama campaign should be making a much bigger deal about
this.
Why the fuck would they want to do something that stupid? It's the
exact same policy we've had the last 8 years. What kind of "change"
is that?
|9.11.08 @ 11:02AM|#
I thought we should have removed the Taliban, then gotten
out.
Power vacuums in that part of the world are generally filled by the
most brutal group handy. Not a recipe for long-term success.
I think our real mistake, the millstone that keeps Afghanistan from
turning the corner, is the War on Poppies.
|9.11.08 @ 11:05AM|#
Because nobody of any importance in the world objects to it.
That's why.
Excellent, operate on the attitude that if we're powerful enough,
and nobody "important" objects, it's OK. This causes many rainbows
to shine and people all across the world to love us. Good
policy.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 11:06AM|#
Episiarch-
International relations is amoral. Sorry if that makes your stomach
turn, but international anarchy is like that.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 11:06AM|#
I think the policy should be:
Negotiate with Pakistan a policy that says...
"We can attack Al Q inside your borders and will be responsible for
collateral damage. We will notify you ahead of time when possible
and encourage your participation whenever possible. We will not
house troops on your soil or otherwise violate your
sovereignty."
Or something along those lines.
Obama would need to be very careful in how he frames "They are
using my ideas" while trying to press a change message. He could do
it, but it would need to be done with precision. It has to be some
variation of "Once again I was right way back when, and now they
are coming around to my perspective."
BDB|9.11.08 @ 11:06AM|#
Unless you want the U.N. to have actual power to enforce it's rules. Which means global governance, something that I think you don't want.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 11:09AM|#
RC Dean,
I think our real mistake, the millstone that keeps Afghanistan
from turning the corner, is the War on Poppies.
Poppycock. Our real mistake was to put our attention and resources
into Iraq. Anyone with even a little knowledge of history would
have known the Afghanistan is the hardest place in the world.
Harder than 50 Cent.
TallDave|9.11.08 @ 11:09AM|#
Nevertheless, Obama was roundly ridiculed.
As well he should have been. Doing it covertly is one thing,
announcing it ahead of time as part of a political campaign is
quite another.
Now the NYT has once again compromised national security by
disclosing a secret program that targets terrorists. No doubt the
perpetrators will be pursued as vigorously as those who leaked the
ultra-important fact Joe Wilson was sent to Nigeria by his CIA desk
jockey wife and not Dick Cheney as he claimed.
And then presumably they'll get around to investigating the other
dozen or so leaks that actually hurt national security. And I'm
sure the press will be cheerleading for that just as
vigorously.
I think our real mistake, the millstone that keeps Afghanistan
from turning the corner, is the War on Poppies.
Definitely.
|9.11.08 @ 11:10AM|#
The one thing that is an issue here is the question "Why
aren't they letting us in".
Local politics - the Pakistanis are big on national pride, and
allowing our force access to "their country" for purposes of
killing Pakistanis, even murderous thug Pakistanis who have been
killing Afghanis, offends their sensibilities.
Eyeroll|9.11.08 @ 11:11AM|#
Negotiate with Pakistan a policy that says... "We can attack
Al Q inside your borders
Yeah, I'm sure they'll sign right up for that.
|9.11.08 @ 11:12AM|#
Nitpicking about what China would do is avoiding the
question: why is it OK to do this to Pakistan?
Because our professed ally Pakistan is unwilling or unable to
maintain basic security in the tribal mountain regions in the west
of their country.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 11:12AM|#
So the way it would work is this.
Pakistan, we are going to attack Al Q/Taliban when we find them in
your territory. We will provide you with political cover by
pointing to this negotiated arrangement that says you gave us
permission. We will notify you prior to attacks whenever possible.
etc...
I don't see how this can't be part of being our "partner in the war
on terror."
BDB|9.11.08 @ 11:12AM|#
If they actually controlled the tribal areas (they don't) we would ask for permission. Or just ask their law enforcement/military to capture them for us. But they don't control them, except on paper.
|9.11.08 @ 11:12AM|#
Invading Pakistan, or even seriously _suggesting_ invading
Pakistan, will destroy the arguments and organization of peaceful
civil society while emboldening both jingoists and religious
fundamentalists. This is the surest way to promote either war or
terrorism.
Why do people come up with these ideas just after Musharaf resigns?
It's like people _want_ the place to collapse.
|9.11.08 @ 11:12AM|#
International relations is amoral. Sorry if that makes your
stomach turn, but international anarchy is like that.
Yes, it is. But making raids into countries that say "hey, don't do
that" is part of our international relations problem. We
might want to reconsider.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 11:13AM|#
Episiarch-
Again, you would have a point if Pakistan actually, in reality,
controlled the areas where Al Qaeda is. They don't.
Invading the "Federally Administered" Tribal Areas (notice the
sarcasm quotes) is not the same thing as invading Islamabad or
Karachi. The latter really is Pakistan, the former is Paper
Pakistan.
Eyeroll|9.11.08 @ 11:15AM|#
So the way it would work is this. Pakistan, we are going to
attack Al Q/Taliban when we find them in your territory. We will
provide you with political cover by pointing to this negotiated
arrangement that says you gave us permission. We will notify you
prior to attacks whenever possible. etc...
Yeah, great idea, you've only neglected the fact 90%+ of Pakistanis
oppose this plan, many to the point of violently overthrowing a
government that agreed to such a thing.
Aside from that small detail, brilliant.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 11:17AM|#
Where'd this stupid meme start that 90% of Pakistanis are extremist morons who want to start the apocalypse? The people you see burning flags in the streets are a loud, stupid minority.
|9.11.08 @ 11:18AM|#
Invading the "Federally Administered" Tribal Areas (notice
the sarcasm quotes) is not the same thing as invading Islamabad or
Karachi
You know what? Fuck it. Take off and nuke the place from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 11:18AM|#
eyeroll,
Yeah, great idea, you've only neglected the fact 90%+ of
Pakistanis oppose this plan, many to the point of violently
overthrowing a government that agreed to such a thing.
90%+, you've taken a poll on in Pakistan about the idea of
partnering with the US to fight terrorism and found 90%+ were
opposed to the idea.
Politics is about selling ideas to people...any plan would involve
working to sell the idea to the public in a way that gets them to
support it. It takes work.
I am pretty sure that the terrorists and thugs are not generally
supported in Pakistan.
Eyeroll|9.11.08 @ 11:22AM|#
90%+, you've taken a poll on in Pakistan about the idea of
partnering with the US to fight terrorism and found 90%+ were
opposed to the idea.
It's not exactly a secret Pakis are opposed to being invaded.
Politics is about selling ideas to people...any plan would
involve working to sell the idea to the public in a way that gets
them to support it. It takes work.
Sure, just need a little elbow grease. Any day now they'll change
their minds, if we just get our backs into it!
BDB|9.11.08 @ 11:23AM|#
Episiarch--
To take the China analogy further, if the federal government was
actively sheltering a Tibetan nationalist group that brought down
two skyscrapers in Shanghai and seriously damaged the Forbidden
City, could you blame China if they went to war with us if we
refused to turn them over when they request it?
The More You Know|9.11.08 @ 11:25AM|#
Where'd this stupid meme start that 90% of Pakistanis are
extremist morons
Hmmm...
Two recent polls of Pakistanis show that between 60 and 76
percent of those polled seek the growth of Sharia throughout
Pakistan, which is a key principle in political
Islamism.
Other results of the Terror Free Tomorrow Pakistan poll showed:
(a) 74 percent opposing US pursuing Al Qaeda or Taliban in
Pakistan, (b) 37 to 49 percent approving local Pakistani Jihadi
groups, and (c) half of those responding approving of the
Taliban.
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/11/pakistan_and_islamism.php
It's a mystery where people get these impressions. I blame
racism.
Nick|9.11.08 @ 11:25AM|#
First the announcement about drawing down troops in Iraq (relocating 8000 to Afghanistan) and now this. I can't tell whether Bush is finally following a sounder foreign policy (which happens to match Obama's) or whether Bush is maneuvering to attach Obama's policies to his so he either takes the wind out of his sails or looks better historically. Or both.
Russ 2000|9.11.08 @ 11:26AM|#
As well he should have been. Doing it covertly is one thing,
announcing it ahead of time as part of a political campaign is
quite another.
Exactly. Announcing it ahead of time also gives Al Qaeda plenty of
time to recruit more Pakistanis and a nice little selling
point.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 11:27AM|#
Here is an opinion poll in Pakistan.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-08-22-Pakistan-opinion_N.htm
It shows that any plan would require a good deal of work on the
political side. Unilateral action will only erode support.
Negotiated agreements that include efforts to reduce violence in
Pakistan would need to be part of any plan.
The Pakistani people do not support the violence. They want an end
to it. The fact that they blame us and are (wisely) suspicious of
our motives argues for the need for any military actions to be seen
as the US partnering with Pakistan. For that to work, we actually
have to be partnering with Pakistan.
This will be one of the toughest challenges for the next few
decades. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be pursued.
Negotiated military partnerships will be a required element.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 11:27AM|#
I'd really like to know why the Islamist parties only get 15% or
so of the vote, then.
BUT THAT'S A BIG NUMBER! Well, 10% of Americans think we didn't
land on the moon, and a good deal more think 9/11 was an inside
job.
Russ 2000|9.11.08 @ 11:28AM|#
Politics is about selling ideas to people
No, politics is about selling BAD ideas to people. Good ideas don't
need much selling.
|9.11.08 @ 11:29AM|#
So if Bush adopted Obama's plan, and Obama says McCain is just like Bush, then that means McCain is just like Obama and "change" is just a bunch of bullshit because they're all the same.
|9.11.08 @ 11:31AM|#
if the federal government was actively sheltering a Tibetan
nationalist group that brought down two skyscrapers in Shanghai and
seriously damaged the Forbidden City, could you blame China if they
went to war with us if we refused to turn them over when they
request it?
So declare war. You are advocating not declaring war and
invading Pakistan's territory at will.
Gilbert Martin|9.11.08 @ 11:34AM|#
"No, politics is about selling BAD ideas to people"
Partly, it's also about stealing huge amounts of money from some
people to use in bribing other people for votes.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 11:34AM|#
Here's the makeup in the Pakistani National Assembly per
Wikipedia:
Pakistan Peoples Party (Bhutto's party, pro-western) 121
seats
Pakistan Muslim League N (Musharraf's Party,
militarist/nationalist) 91 seats
Pakistan Muslim League Q (center-right) 54 seats
Muttahida Qaumi Movement (Ethnic minority party) 25 seats
Awami National Party (Marxist) 13 seats
Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal Pakistan (Islamist) 6 seats
The remaining parties have less than five.
|9.11.08 @ 11:35AM|#
Neu,
Libertarianism is not a good idea to most people. It is a tough
sell. Asking people to give up their favorite past-time--telling
other people what to do--will never be popular.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 11:37AM|#
So, "The More You Know" fucking Marxism is more popular in Pakistan than Islamist parties. The biggest party is pro-western.
|9.11.08 @ 11:37AM|#
Why don't they LOVE us?
Because they've never really got a good look at our exquisite
cocks.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 11:37AM|#
Sugarfree,
Many good ideas are a tough sell.
I was mocking the idea that good ideas sell themselves.
bubba|9.11.08 @ 11:40AM|#
It's just the rules of the game among the political elite
that you don't say things like that in public.
I will say that I agree with joe, simply because that never
happens. Secret missions in Pakistan are one thing. Open
declarations of war are another.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 11:41AM|#
BDB,
From the link I posted above:
Pakistani voters have traditionally rejected fundamentalist Islamic parties at the polls - and routed them again in February's parliamentary elections.
Moreover, 61% of Pakistanis polled by the International Republican Institute agreed that religious extremism is a serious problem for Pakistan.
And anti-American sentiment goes only so far: Middle-class Pakistanis still line up for visas at the U.S. embassy and want to send their children to U.S. universities, Rafique says.
But Pakistanis are deeply suspicious of U.S. motives. The Terror Free Tomorrow poll found that 52% of Pakistanis hold the United States responsible for the violence in their country; just 11% blame hated next-door neighbor India; and 4% blame the Pakistani Taliban themselves.
|9.11.08 @ 11:41AM|#
Because they've never really got a good look at our
exquisite cocks.
I don't know how they couldn't have; I show mine to
everyone.
|9.11.08 @ 11:42AM|#
BDB,
Note this is the Parliament's makeup before the US
announces a policy of freely invading the country when it suits the
US. Do you seriously believe the pro-western and centrist elements
are going to gain seats after the US implements such a policy?
BDB|9.11.08 @ 11:42AM|#
But Neu Mejican! Little Green Footballs sez they all hate us for our freedoms and want to KILL US!/snark
|9.11.08 @ 11:43AM|#
Neu,
Just an echo of an old argument we had. They run around my brain
occasionally.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 11:44AM|#
"
Note this is the Parliament's makeup before the US announces a
policy of freely invading the country when it suits the US. Do you
seriously believe the pro-western and centrist elements are going
to gain seats after the US implements such a policy?"
Maybe not, but the threat is more likely to come from the
militarist/nationalist faction than from Islamists who, despite
preconceptions, are a tiny minority.
I don't like the militarists, but they aren't suicidal nuts.
jkp|9.11.08 @ 11:45AM|#
Of course there is a difference, the main one being that
Pakistan at the time this little argument took place was run by a
pro-U.S. strongman dictator whose position was increasingly shaky.
There was no sense, politically, in speeding the demise of Mush by
undertaking unilateral action in Pakistan at that time. GWB was
just playing the best of a weak hand at that moment.
Pakistan is currently not really being run by anyone. Therefore,
you're damned right it's appropriate to take direct unilateral
action at this time.
Of course, if Obama had a clue about foreign policy (and had a real
F.P. advisor instead of "Xerox" Biden,) he might understand those
points.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 11:47AM|#
some fed,
You are on point.
That is why any actions like this need to be done in a way that
provides political cover for the Pakistani government and makes it
clear that we are partnering with Pakistan to deal with a common
interest.
This is a good idea, but a tough sell.
Unilateral actions are not a good idea.
Negotiations for the kinds of actions that Obama and the military
are advocating look worse when they are covert and just increase
suspicion.
The Pakistani people are our most valuable allies in the war on
terror...much more than the Pakistani military.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 11:50AM|#
BTW, I notice know it's changed from "90% of the people violently overthrowing the government!" to "the pro-western party would lose seats in the next election".
Russ 2000|9.11.08 @ 11:51AM|#
Libertarianism is not a good idea to most people. It is a
tough sell. Asking people to give up their favorite
past-time--telling other people what to do--will never be
popular.
Libertarianism is tough sell because if you're trying to sell it,
you're violaing the first tenet of libertarianism which is to leave
people alone.
Once people are sold on bullshit, they spend a lot of time
re-selling the bullshit to themselves because they have buyer's
remorse.
|9.11.08 @ 11:53AM|#
Oh hell, in international diplomacy, lies are what holds
agreements and coalitions together.
How about these?
Oops. Our maps were wrong.
Oops. Our GPS receivers were malfunctioning.
Oops. It was foggy. Everbody gets lost in the fog.
Oops. Sandstorm.
Oops. Training problems. We're working on it.
We pretend it not bullshit and Mushareff (sp?) and Bhutto do the
same. The average Pakistani still hates (read envies) the west but
can skip the riot because everybody makes a boo boo once in a
while.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 11:56AM|#
Libertarianism is tough sell because if you're trying to
sell it, you're violaing the first tenet of libertarianism which is
to leave people alone.
That is not the first tenet of libertarianism.
Persuasion is not the same as coercion.
Hell, persuasion is required is libertopia is to work.
Everyone needs to be persuaded to leave others to their own
devices.
|9.11.08 @ 11:56AM|#
Episiarch said:
"I don't know how they couldn't have; I show mine to
everyone."
Not me! I haven't seen it! I feel so left out. Come on, Epi, post a
pic! :)
|9.11.08 @ 11:56AM|#
Russ 2000,
Asking people to leave me alone (promoting libertarianism) is only
a counter-punch to their initial aggression of not leaving me
alone. I refuse to be an intellectual pacifist nor do I think it
violates libertarian principles to defend yourself.
|9.11.08 @ 11:56AM|#
"""'Was it only naive because it came from Obama?""
Yes, of course. Politics as usual. Just like it was wrong for Obama
to get rock star status until McCain found a rock star of his
own.
The whole world should know we want OBL and if OBL might be in your
area, we'll do something about it. If Pakistan really gives a shit
they will move heaven and earth to make sure OBL is not in their
country or capture/kill him if he is. Wasn't part of the point of
ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban, to show the world we will not
tolerate giving OBL or AQ a place to live? Once Pakistan made peace
deals with the Taliban, they made their bed. They should have known
right then and there that the deal puts them in our gun
sights.
"""I question the decision to violate Pakistan's sovereignty
without some degree of communication with the government, but that
may have happened for all I know."""
If you remotely believe that Pakistan's intel agency is tipping
them off, you don't communicate your intentions to the government.
You might as well drop leaflets to the enemy. In a perfect world
Pakistan would not aide the enemy and sincerely work with us. Their
commitment against those who harbor AQ is not as strong as it
should be. It seems Pakistan is trying to play both ends. They
don't want war with the Taliban but they don't want war with us.
One day, and probably soon, Pakistan must choose a side, else we'll
choose it for them.
If the people of Pakistan don't want us invading their country,
they should pressure their governemnt to solve the problem without
our intervention.
"""The Pakistani people do not support the violence. They want an
end to it. The fact that they blame us and are (wisely) suspicious
of our motives argues for the need for any military actions to be
seen as the US partnering with Pakistan. For that to work, we
actually have to be partnering with Pakistan. """
They don't support the violence yet they don't have a big enough
problem supporting peace plans for those actively commiting
violence. Isn't that a form of supporting violence?
Sure, there would be nothing better than joint US/Pakistan efforts.
But that's not working very well. Maybe the new Pakistan President
will change things and make joint efforts more effective.
"""Now the NYT has once again compromised national security by
disclosing a secret program that targets terrorists"""
So shoot the messenger? They NYT got a story an they ran it, that's
what newspapers do. How about blaiming the ex-intel officer for
giving they NYT the information. We've already had one leak
investigation, it didn't work out for the Whitehouse very well.
|9.11.08 @ 11:58AM|#
Not me! I haven't seen it! I feel so left out. Come on, Epi,
post a pic! :)
No, no, I only show it in person.
Gilbert Martin|9.11.08 @ 11:59AM|#
"Of course, if Obama had a clue about foreign policy (and had a
real F.P. advisor instead of "Xerox" Biden,) he might understand
those points."
As I recall, Biden was one of those who wanted to partition Iraq. I
don't hear him playing up that particular example of his foreign
policy "wisdom" now.
|9.11.08 @ 12:02PM|#
No, no, I only show it in person.
It's like a vampire. It won't reproduce on film or reflect in a
mirror. IT HAS NO SOUL!
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 12:02PM|#
Gilbert Martin,
As I recall, Biden was one of those who wanted to partition
Iraq.
That was not Biden's plan.
He wanted a weaker central government and greater regional
control.
|9.11.08 @ 12:05PM|#
"""But Pakistanis are deeply suspicious of U.S. motives. The
Terror Free Tomorrow poll found that 52% of Pakistanis hold the
United States responsible for the violence in their country; just
11% blame hated next-door neighbor India; and 4% blame the
Pakistani Taliban themselves."""
Only 4% of Pakistini's believe the Taliban is responsible for
violence says a lot. They fail to grap the basic concept the
trouble the Taliban is causing in Afghanistan will follow them back
across the border. In other words, It's ok for the Taliban to do
their deeds, and it's wrong for us to fight back.
Eyeroll|9.11.08 @ 12:09PM|#
It shows that any plan would require a good deal of work on
the political side.
It's a pipe dream. Sheltering the Taliban is more popular than
letting the Americans chase them, and no amount of "work" is going
to change that.
Biden was one of those who wanted to partition Iraq....That was
not Biden's plan.
Yes, it was. Your grasp of U.S. politics is worse than your grasp
of Pakistan's.
"Biden proposes partitioning Iraq into 3 regions
WASHINGTON - The senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee proposed Monday that Iraq be divided into three separate
regions - Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni - with a central government in
Baghdad."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12572371/
The plan was notable mostly for the fact it was rejected by pretty
much all Iraqis.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 12:12PM|#
Eyeroll-
Would you say the USA is partitioned into fifty states with a
central government in Washington?
Gilbert Martin|9.11.08 @ 12:12PM|#
"The plan was notable mostly for the fact it was rejected by
pretty much all Iraqis."
Indeed - heres a Reuter's story about it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLN9698420080823?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10112
The Iraqis certainly viewed it as a partitioning plan.
|9.11.08 @ 12:13PM|#
"For what is a man profited, if he shall screw the whole world, and lose his penis' soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his penis' soul?"
The More You Know|9.11.08 @ 12:17PM|#
Over 90% of Pakistanis don't even want us in
Afghanistan, according to Gallup:
Just 9% say they think U.S. military action in Afghanistan is
morally justified. The least supportive: people in Morocco,
Indonesia and Pakistan.
And 80% don't believe Arabs carried out 9.11:
Although U.S. officials say all 19 of the Sept. 11 hijackers
were Arab men, only 18% of those polled in six Islamic
countries say they believe Arabs carried out the attacks;
61% say Arabs were not responsible; and 21% say they don't
know.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 12:18PM|#
eyeroll,
I was going to refute your assertion, but I see it is
self-refuting...
As for Iraqi support for the plan...it is pretty much the reality
on the ground in Iraq that strong regional leaders have stabilized
the country, and that the central government is allowed to operate
at the behest of those regional leaders. Biden's plan was simply to
formalize the reality on the ground.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 12:18PM|#
Who gives a fuck? They elected a pro western party, with the Islamists holding a grand total of five seats--less than the Marxist party. seems to be a more accurate result than your polls.
|9.11.08 @ 12:19PM|#
NutraSweet, you made me work for that one. Bible quotes? I don't think I've ever even cracked one open.
Senator Biden|9.11.08 @ 12:20PM|#
Would you say the USA is partitioned into fifty states with
a central government in Washington?
What we need is to partition the country into autonomous regions:
one for the blacks, one for the Muslims, one for the Hispanics, one
for the Chinese...
Only then will this country have peace!
BDB|9.11.08 @ 12:21PM|#
If blacks and whites were literally slaughtering one another wantonly in the street that might be the best option.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 12:21PM|#
The more you know,
Your numbers and your assertions don't line up.
That is 9% or who? Morocco, Indonesia, and Pakistan combined? All
Muslims surveyed worldwide?
Please clarify or provide a link.
Happy Jack|9.11.08 @ 12:23PM|#
Secret missions in Pakistan are one thing.
They might be a secret to the American public, but I suspect that
when the killing commences, the cat is out of the bag as far as
Pakistanis are concerned.
Eyeroll|9.11.08 @ 12:25PM|#
I was going to refute your assertion, but I see it is
self-refuting...
That's just the kind of delusional thinking I'd expect from someone
advocating the idea "work" is going to make Pakistanis welcome U.S.
invasion.
it is pretty much the reality on the ground in Iraq that strong
regional leaders have stabilized the country, and that the central
government is allowed to operate at the behest of those regional
leaders. Biden's plan was simply to formalize the reality on the
ground.
Wow, and I thought your other comments were ill-informed!
Explain again how the Iraqi Army, last seen stomping both Shia
militias and Sunni extremists, is a "regional leader." Or how the
central government, with $7B a month in oil revenue and all the
troops, is being "allowed" to govern by anyone.
|9.11.08 @ 12:27PM|#
"""Over 90% of Pakistanis don't even want us in Afghanistan,
according to Gallup:"""
It didn't take long for me to understand the concept that for
muslims, only a muslim can hurt another muslim. That's sort of like
picking on your little brother but not letting anyone else pick on
him. I can understand it, but I don't have to agree with it, and I
shouldn't want to formulate foreign policy around it.
Senator Joe Biden|9.11.08 @ 12:28PM|#
If blacks and whites were literally slaughtering one another
wantonly in the street that might be the best option.
Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 12:29PM|#
Eyeroll,
Clearly we have different perspectives on the facts.
E.G., Are you under the impression that Anbar was pacified by the
Iraqi army? Or was it a shift in perspective by local leaders?
Kurdistan has remained relatively stable due to the central
government and the army?
Do you really see it that way?
|9.11.08 @ 12:31PM|#
I don't hear him playing up that particular example of his
foreign policy "wisdom" now.
Actually, he just claimed
on national TV that his strategy has been implemented and is
responsible for the success in Iraq.
He never quite uses the word "partition", but he does claim that
Anbar could be turned over because there are no Shiites and no
Iraqi national forces there, which is what he had called for.
He also claims that the surge was just the implementation of his
previous call for more special forces, a comment so divorced from
reality it really makes you wonder about his mental health.
And this is supposed to be one of the big foreign policy brains in
the Senate. God help us all.
The More You Know|9.11.08 @ 12:33PM|#
http://www.historiae.org/obama.asp
Yes, Biden was for partition. Unsurprisingly, his supporters would
like us to forget that.
Arguably, the addition of Joe Biden to the Obama ticket might
aggravate these tendencies, because in the past Biden has been a
leading American voice in promoting an interpretation of Iraq as a
country of three mutually hostile and internally stable population
blocks. His various "plans for Iraq", while frequently
misunderstood, in different ways reinforce the view that the main
problem in Iraq has to do with a centralised state structure and
coexistence issues. Like many others in American politics, Biden
has failed to acknowledge the emerging non-sectarian trends in
Iraq, seeking instead to push ideas about "Sunni federalism" during
his visit to the Anbar governorate. Remarkably, however, it seems
that Biden may have cleaned up his Iraq rhetoric as part of his VP
bid. At least, it is quite conspicuous how every trace of his "plan
for Iraq" now appears to have been erased from his website at
joebiden.com, where he now instead supports Barrack Obama's more
general argument about shifting the focus to Afghanistan. Also, at
some point between April 2008 and today, Biden's website
specifically devoted to his soft partition schemes,
www.planforiraq.com, was quietly shut down - at this site, Biden's
rhetoric had consistently focused on a tripartite Iraq to the very
end. Only on his Senate website traces of his Iraq policy remain,
but even there a more toned-down version appears, with the emphasis
on a general push for federalisation
BDB|9.11.08 @ 12:34PM|#
Yes, they ethnically cleansed themselves.
Arabs aren't allowed north of Kirkuk.
Shias don't exist in Anbar, Sunnis don't exist in the south.
In Baghdad, the neighborhoods are homogenous.
Yugoslavian|9.11.08 @ 12:35PM|#
Clearly the morons don't know what finally ended the
Yugoslav Wars.
Ummmm... when are they ending?
BDB|9.11.08 @ 12:35PM|#
SIV or TallDave or whoever you are, did you get a time machine and go back to 1994? They're over.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 12:37PM|#
The Yugoslav Wars were a series of violent conflicts in the
territory of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(SFRY) that took place between 1991 and 2001
Again, I'd really like to take a look at your Time Machine
TallDave.
|9.11.08 @ 12:38PM|#
The principal behind this is that these right wing hypocrites Republican, they are so fast to criticize.But when they do it ,it is the right thing to do, GOD SEND US.America wake up
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 12:38PM|#
The more you know,
Biden is the VP pick, of course his website would morph towards
Obama's policies.
But, again, "partion" = local control with a weak central
government. Are you arguing against that as a basically good plan
for Iraqis to implement?
|9.11.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Would you say the USA is partitioned into fifty states with
a central government in Washington?
Not in any meaningful way, no. At least not anymore.
E.G., Are you under the impression that Anbar was pacified by
the Iraqi army?
Anbar was pacified by the American surge, by the coopting of the
Sunni militias by the Iraqi central government. I suspect that the
spectacle of Shiite hard boys filling ditches after crossing the
Americans and the Iraqi army was, um, instrumental as well.
Or was it a shift in perspective by local leaders?
A shift in perspective by local leaders is perfectly consistent
with the national government demonstrating that it can exercise
real control, and provide real rewards for cooperation. See, above,
hard lessons learned by Shiite militias.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 12:42PM|#
The plan would have had a structure similar to what exists in
Belgium. There's a Walloon region, a Flemmish region, and a very
small German region with extensive local control. Brussels is a
federal city.
I await TallDave to compare this to segregation..
adrian|9.11.08 @ 12:43PM|#
OK after Pakistan the government should go after the FARC in
Colombia for sending drugs here that kill our citizens. The
government of Colombia can't take them out so we will. Then on to
Mexico to take out the marijuana trade that is harming our youth
and that the Mexican government can't take care of itself. Fuck
sovereignity(sp? no spell check on Chrome) if you can't police your
own borders. Our children are at stake.
You fucking warmongers are so shortsighted it's unbelievable.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 12:45PM|#
RC Dean,
I saw that interview.
What problem do you have with Biden's statements?
Did he advocate for increased local control?
Has that become the reality?
Is that working?
Did the surge help to get Iraq to a point that looks more like what
Biden was advocating?
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 12:49PM|#
RC Dean,
Your timeline is off on Anbar.
You are right, however, that leaders in Anbar needed to see that
cooperation was good for their area. One of the signals that was
sent was that they would be allowed to maintain control of their
own region without excessive meddling from the middle.
|9.11.08 @ 12:49PM|#
But, again, "partion" = local control with a weak central
government. Are you arguing against that as a basically good plan
for Iraqis to implement?
Hell, I think that's a good plan for anyone to implement.
But that's not what won the war in Iraq - that was won by policies
opposed by Biden - the surge, and building up the Iraqi central
government and army. Co-opting local militias (or gunning them down
if they don't play nice) is not the same, at all, as giving them
the autonomy envisioned by even soft partition.
|9.11.08 @ 12:56PM|#
Your timeline is off on Anbar.
How so?
What problem do you have with Biden's statements?
Just to pick one that can be falsified in short order, he claims
that the surge represented the implementation of his call for
different kinds of troops. It did not. The surge involved putting
more of the usual kinds of troops in country, but more importantly,
using them in a different way.
Biden opposed the surge. Its a little late now to pretend it was
all his idea.
I also take issue that what we have now is de facto soft partition
of Iraq as called for by Biden. For him to characterize his plan as
just "more local control" is ingenuous in the extreme. I don't
think there is anything on the ground in Iraq right now that looks
like Biden's three semi-autonomous regions. Various degrees of
local control around the country does not equal soft partition into
three semi-autonomous ethnically-based regions.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 12:56PM|#
RC Dean
The war in Iraq has been won.
Alright, we can go home now!
Co-opting?
What does that involve?
How was that implemented?
FWIW, I am not arguing against the surge being an important element
in the success we are seeing currently. And Biden was not either in
his interview on Sunday.
It is unknown whether we would have gotten to the same/a similar
place we are in now without the surge.
I do think that Anbar in particular is a success largely because Al
Qaeda mismanaged their war efforts even worse than the US has its
efforts.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 1:00PM|#
I don't think there is anything on the ground in Iraq right
now that looks like Biden's three semi-autonomous
regions.
Surely there are at least two.
No?
The change in Anbar started prior to the surge...causal arrows have
a habit of moving forward in time.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 1:03PM|#
The surge involved putting more of the usual kinds of troops
in country, but more importantly, using them in a different
way.
Hmmm... that doesn't quite seem right, but at worst is picking
nits.
It seemed to me that Biden was talking about "using them in
different ways" as much as anything, but whatever.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 1:13PM|#
"I do think that Anbar in particular is a success largely
because Al Qaeda mismanaged their war efforts even worse than the
US has its efforts."
Bingo. They made the same mistakes Germans did when invading the
USSR in WWII--instead of treating them well so they would work with
them and against Stalin, they treated them EVEN WORSE than
Stalin.
Just as in Anbar the sunnis realized that whatever problems they
had with a US-backed government it was much much superior to living
under a psychotic regime like Al Qaeda.
Yugoslavian|9.11.08 @ 1:21PM|#
SIV or TallDave or whoever you are, did you get a time
machine and go back to 1994? They're over.
After 18 years, the borders still aren't defined. The parties are
still at war, and onlu prevented from active hostilities by
peacekeeping forces.
1998 Fighting breaks out between Serbian forces and ethnic
Albanians in Kosovo.
2001 Brief Conflict in Southern Serbia between Albanian militants
and Serbian security forces
2006 Death of Ibrahim Rugova in Priština Kosovo Republic of Serbia,
State Union of Serbia and Montenegro
Montenegro dissolves the union with Serbia becoming an independent
republic.
2008 Kosovo declares independence on 17 February 2008. The UN is
still divided over the recognition of the state. The UN is still
divided over the recognition of the state.
Not exactly a model of success. The Iraqi "civil war" took about
1/10 as long.
|9.11.08 @ 1:25PM|#
So if Bush adopted Obama's plan, and Obama says McCain is
just like Bush, then that means McCain is just like Obama and
"change" is just a bunch of bullshit because they're all the
same.
Yes, BUT, if the Bush administration and the McCain campaign are
working together, then this may be a trap for Obama. If Obama
stands up and takes credit for this, Bush can have the operation
cocked up so that both he and Obama look like idiots, which McCain
can then seize on. If Obama downplays it, or ignores it, and then,
WOO!, OCTOBER SURPRISE!, OSAMA BIN LADEN CAPTURED! Then Bush can
thank McCain (like he did for the G.I. Bill) and the McCain
campaign can show us that only Republicans can bring our enemies to
justice.
Ain't politics great!
BDB|9.11.08 @ 1:29PM|#
Mike E. I head the October Surprise bullshit brandied about in 2004. It's still bullshit.
Eyeroll|9.11.08 @ 1:30PM|#
Neu, you can dishonestly spin it all you like, but what Biden
advocated wasn't "local control." It was partition by
ethnosectarian identity, and then withdrawal. It was a recipe for
an endless civil war.
What succeeded was exactly the opposite: a nonsectarian Iraqi Army
and a multisectarian central government. The Awakening movements
were local, but a condition of U.S. support was they be very
explicitly nonsectarian.
It was when the Sunni Awakening groups began welcoming and
protecting Shia that they knew the strategy was working. The model
was then expanded to Shia areas, and the sectarian groups that
Biden wanted to hand control to were crushed by the Iraqi Army and
their own Awakening movement.
|9.11.08 @ 1:31PM|#
How many American troops died in the Yugoslav Wars? I
forgot.
Owen Wilson almost died. Does that count?
|9.11.08 @ 1:33PM|#
Mike E. I head the October Surprise bullshit brandied about
in 2004. It's still bullshit.
No, it's not! I will explain.....wait....are those black
helicopters?!
Sorry, I gotta......................
Eyeroll|9.11.08 @ 1:33PM|#
How many American troops died in the Yugoslav Wars? I
forgot.
I guess by this definition, the Congo and Rwanda are big
successes.
You're seriously telling me that there's still a war in
Yugoslavia?
You're seriously holding up Yugoslavia as an argument for
partition? Partition is was the wars were about! And you're arguing
this ven after we've already seen the opposite work in Iraq?
BDB|9.11.08 @ 1:35PM|#
"Eyeroll"--
I don't think you get it. Read about what ended the war *within*
Bosnia, not the war *between* say Serbia and Croatia or Serbia and
Slovenia.
Bosnia ended it's part in the war by being divided into three
autonomous areas with a weak central government. That agreement
exists to this day.
That wasn't partition, anymore than Belgium is partitioned.
|9.11.08 @ 1:37PM|#
But what about the first season of 24? Serbians are
Dennis Hopper-level Eeevil!
By the way, I once read that the worst things that ever happened to
thriller novelists and screenwriters were the invention of the cell
phone and the fall of the USSR. Think of all the situations in
pre-cellphone thrillers they would immediately solve. Think of
having to invent ethnic criminals with out the convenient Soviet
crutch.
Eyeroll|9.11.08 @ 1:39PM|#
Read about what ended the war *within* Bosnia, not the war
*between* say Serbia and Croatia or Serbia and Slovenia.
NATO bombing and 10 years (and counting) of peacekeepers?
I thought you guys wanted to leave Iraq someday.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 1:39PM|#
Of course today it's impossible for an Arab to enter Kurdistan,
and even illegal to fly the Iraqi flag without special permission
in the same region.
But hey, at least it's not autonomous! Oh wait.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 1:46PM|#
There are around 2,000 troops left in Bosnia, mostly non-combat,
and almost entirely European.
If we left a few hundered American troops in Iraq among a force of
2,000 Arabs, with no fighting for over a decade, that'd be a big
success. It also wouldn't cost $10 billion/month.
Let me know when we get there.
Eyeroll|9.11.08 @ 1:47PM|#
Of course today it's impossible for an Arab to enter
Kurdistan,
Bullhooey. They import Arab labor.
The U.N. Peacekeeping mission in Bosnia was completed in
2002.
Oh goody, someone should tell the NATO troops they don't need to be
in Yugoslavia anymore, since that was such a success.
Eyeroll|9.11.08 @ 1:49PM|#
Let me know when we get there.
Since the Iraqi government has agreed to take over by 2011, I bet
it takes a lot less than 18+ years.
Let me when all those borders in Yugoslavia get worked out.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 1:52PM|#
Bosnia has been stable since 1995, and was stabilized from the
moment U.N. troops got on the ground and the Dayton Accords were
signed.
Iraq was a wreck until early 2008 even with the presence of
American troops, and has been peaceful for a grand total of one
year if you want to be generous.
Eyeroll|9.11.08 @ 1:55PM|#
Bosnia has been stable since 1995
So? The rest of Yugoslavia hasn't.
Iraq was a wreck until early 2008
Ooh, all of four years. Let's see how they're doing in 14 more. I
bet they aren't still arguing over borders.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 1:59PM|#
Since when has Bosnia argued over it's borders with Serbia or
Croatia?
Slovenia has joined the EU and NATO, Croatia and Bosnia are next.
One of the conditions of joining either organization is for the
country to accept it's borders.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 2:03PM|#
Eyeroll,
Neu, you can dishonestly spin it all you like, but what Biden
advocated wasn't "local control." It was partition by
ethnosectarian identity, and then withdrawal. It was a recipe for
an endless civil war.
So the difference in our perspective means I am being dishonest
while you are a paragon of virtue?
I see it differently than you do.
There are enough complex facts available that reasonable people may
see an entirely different set of facts as the essential ones, while
de-emphasizing the ones another reasonable person sees as
essential.
Regional partition was what Biden advocated, with a non-sectarian
central government. Very similar to where I think we will end up
once the Iraqi's are in charge.
The main fuel for the civil war was a sense that the Shia were
going to be placed in charge of a strong central government that
would not sufficiently represent the Sunni interests. The success
of the country will remain hinged on a sense that all parties will
have their interests served. If the Shia overplay their hand in
exerting centralized control, we will be back where we were a
couple of years ago.
Eyeroll|9.11.08 @ 2:05PM|#
Since when has Bosnia argued over it's borders with Serbia
or Croatia?
Uhh, Serbia only agreed on its borders two years ago.
Following Montenegro's vote for full independence in the
plebiscite of May 21, 2006 (55.4% YES 44.6% NO),[4] Montenegro
declared independence on June 3, 2006.[5] This was followed on June
5, 2006 by Serbia's declaration of independence, marking the final
dissolution of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, and the
re-emergence of Serbia as an independent state, under its own name,
for the first time since 1918
And then there's this little problem:
On February 17, 2008, Kosovo proclaimed independence from
Serbia.
Eyeroll|9.11.08 @ 2:07PM|#
So the difference in our perspective means I am being
dishonest while you are a paragon of virtue?
Yes, thank you. When a million articles say "Biden argues for
partition" and you say "it's not partition!" you are being
dishonest.
Regional partition was what Biden advocated, with a
non-sectarian central government. Very similar to where I think we
will end up once the Iraqi's are in charge.
I give up. You're either too stupid or too dishonest to be worth
talking to.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 2:12PM|#
I was talking about Bosnia. Now you're switching the subject to
Montenegro. I wonder why?
How much violence was there between Montenegro and Serbia in recent
years, btw?
BDB|9.11.08 @ 2:12PM|#
"I give up. You're either too stupid or too dishonest to be
worth talking to."
Translation: My talking points aren't working. PURPLE FINGERS!
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 2:14PM|#
Biden's own words:
"The idea, as in Bosnia, is to maintain a united Iraq by
decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group - Kurd, Sunni
Arab and Shiite Arab - room to run its own affairs, while leaving
the central government in charge of common interests," Biden and
Gelb wrote in their opinion piece on May 1, 2006. "We could drive
this in place with irresistible sweeteners for the Sunnis to join
in, a plan designed by the military for withdrawing and redeploying
American forces, and a regional nonaggression pact."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/30/asia/letter.php?page=1
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 2:18PM|#
Yes, thank you. When a million articles say "Biden argues
for partition" and you say "it's not partition!" you are being
dishonest.
You clearly don't understand the concept of polysemy.
When you say "partition" you are pretending that Biden was
advocating breaking the country up. He was not. In fact, as is
clear from all those millions of articles, is that he was arguing
for more decentralization within the country, which would have a
weaker centralized government.
So he didn't mean "partition" he meant "partition."
Two different senses of the word.
Nuance is clearly not your strong suit.
BDB|9.11.08 @ 2:20PM|#
"So he didn't mean "partition" he meant "partition."
Neu, you're probably talking to a person who thinks "torture"
doesn't mean "torture". You're not going to get far.
Gilbert Martin|9.11.08 @ 2:22PM|#
"Biden is the VP pick, of course his website would morph towards
Obama's policies."
Biden should do a better job of comparing notes with Obama then,
since Biden is trying to claim the surge was really his idea and
Obama was stridently opposed to it and stubbornly refused to
acknowledge it had achieved any success until very recently.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 2:24PM|#
BTW,
Polysemy can lead to ambiguity.
This is avoided in discourse with modifiers.
In my post above..."regional partition" is used to emphasize that
the partitioning that Biden was advocating would have been based on
geography. Geographic regions may have been designed to be as
ethnically homogeneous as possible, but the actual partitions would
have been geographic sub-divisions of Iraq. Iraq would not have
been "broken up."
Again, I predict this will be where the "reconciliation" currently
underway ends up.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 2:29PM|#
Gilbert Martin,
I don't see Obama "stubbornly" refusing to acknowledge "any
success." He has made a consistent point to highlight that the
surge had several goals and that not all of them have been
met.
As for Biden claiming the surge as his own.
That is just a distortion of his claim.
He claimed that the element of the surge that is responsible for it
success (which he acknowledges) was a change in tactics that looks
like what he advocated.
The problem is trying to lump a complex web of policies under a
single syllable word "surge."
It does allow politicians to be for it and against it at the same
time. This can be done honestly or disingenuously.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 2:36PM|#
What this discussion on Iraq emphasizes in my mind is that no matter what military actions we take in Pakistan, we do not by any stretch want to get ourselves involved in invading and occupying even the smallest region of Pakistan.
Gilbert Martin|9.11.08 @ 2:38PM|#
"I don't see Obama "stubbornly" refusing to acknowledge "any
success."
What a surprise.
|9.11.08 @ 2:40PM|#
Getting back to the subject of the post, a lot of people are
noting that air strikes tend to kill a lot of innocent
people.
Read the post again. This is about sending special forces teams
into Pakistan. Boots on the ground. Eyeball confirmation from our
our troops before a shot is fired, much more accurate fire, and
much less actual firepower expended.
This is an alternative to air strikes to hit al Qaeda targets in
Pakistan.
Of course, if Obama had a clue about foreign policy (and had a
real F.P. advisor instead of "Xerox" Biden,) he might understand
those points.
Obama seemed to undertand that Musharrif was a dead end, a weak
hand not worth betting on, a lot sooner than Bush and McCain.
JMR|9.11.08 @ 2:45PM|#
What's ironic about promoting Large-L Libertarianism is that it generally involves trying to get people (who want to be left alone, and who you'd really rather leave alone) to sign something. Somehow, judges, who sign crap all day for a living, don't seem to see the difficulty in all this, but I assure you it's not an easy task. In fact, it's so hard to get on the ballot that I'm inclined to support ANY effort towards it, even by those who totally disagree with me.
adrian|9.11.08 @ 2:59PM|#
joe: I nominate Pat Tillman to lead the special forces
operation. What could go wrong?
too soon?
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 3:00PM|#
joe,
Obama seemed to undertand that Musharrif was a dead end, a weak
hand not worth betting on, a lot sooner than Bush and
McCain.
Only if you call a year "a lot sooner."
;^)
The point about reducing collateral damage with boots on the ground
is an important one.
I believe the last few years have really demonstrated the
limitations of air power.
Sure we can blow shit up at will, but it doesn't really do us any
good.
Golem|9.11.08 @ 6:30PM|#
McCain did not criticize Obama's plan. He criticized Obama for
wanting to make it public:
"Well, the best idea is to not broadcast what you're going to do.
That's naive," McCain told reporters in Columbus, Ohio.
|9.11.08 @ 7:09PM|#
Nuclear war in the fertile crescent? It's more likely then you think. Want proof it's bad idea? BUSH DID IT! You don't get a much better proof something isn't smart. Remember when Bush Sr. chose not to opt for regime change in Iraq citing the cost in human lives and money but his advisors disagreed? How many "i told you so"s has he handed out since 2002?
|9.11.08 @ 7:13PM|#
NM,
The point about reducing collateral damage with boots on the
ground is an important one.
One that applies to Afghanistan as well.
"Well, the best idea is to not broadcast what you're going to
do. That's naive," McCain told reporters in Columbus, Ohio.
That would be a fine argument, if Obama was talking about a
specific operation, tactic, or even strategy.
|9.11.08 @ 7:22PM|#
One big difference now is that Musharraf recently stopped actively fighting the Taliban and friends, and indeed Musharraf is now no longer in charge. While the Pakistani gov't was actually fighting the Taliban (which is when Obama made his comment), you could make the argument that any unauthorized strike within Pakistan's territory was a bad idea. Now that they're not fighting, and indeed have largely conceded control over the Northwest, the situation is different.
|9.11.08 @ 7:34PM|#
The United States is alone in this world, and whether the rest
of the world says they love us or hate us, they hate us. The Arabs
have been waging Jihad against the West for centuries; they just
haven't been very effective until now.
Carter was weak and they took advantage of him to build strength.
Reagan hammered them a little, but they used that to build their
resolve. Bush 1 hammered them a little more but his love of oil
made them rich. Clinton was pathetic and the Arabs got cocky and
used their strength, resolve, and wealth to attck the United
States. Bush 2 beat them badly and we need to continue to beat them
badly until they are gone, ferreted out and killed in their own
countries and removed from ours. Liberal Americans and Eurpoeans;
you guilt-ridden, fat, lazy, parasites, can self-destruct if you
want to, but I'm not going with you.
|9.11.08 @ 7:36PM|#
Wow, Phil, did you get Liberal Americans and Eurpoeans; you
guilt-ridden, fat, lazy, parasites, can self-destruct if you want
to, but I'm not going with you directly from an Osama bin
Laden tape, or what?
You all sound alike to me.
|9.11.08 @ 7:40PM|#
Also, it might not be a good idea to announce in advance that you'll be engaging in secret attacks, as Obama did.
|9.11.08 @ 8:16PM|#
That would be a fine argument, if Obama was talking about a
specific operation, tactic, or even strategy.
WTF? He is talking about strategy, joe. He's
talking about major operations in CENTCOM...if that's not strategy,
I don't know what is.
|9.11.08 @ 8:21PM|#
Hmm....maybe Bush is on to something. If he carries out Obama's plan, everyone will love it...because Obama thought of it and nobody will be criticizing Obama! Only praise for Americas Savior.
|9.12.08 @ 1:20AM|#
There aren't any friendly civvies in these so-called villages; most of them are Taleban who fled from Afghanistan when things got nasty, and they sit in their mountain hidey-holes pummeling the good guys with rockets and mortars. Our military, surely sick of Pakistan not doing anything about it, finally got the green light to fight back regardless of political borders. As is common knowledge among Afghan refugees I've spoken to, lots of people in that region have been indoctrinated through religious schools to be mindless wacko fighters ever since the CIA started supplying the Mujahideen with propaganda materials in 1980 (or earlier: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html ), so it's no surprise they're still fighting; it's the only life they know. My friend told me his cousin had a textbook, printed in the US, teaching math with grenades and ammo.
|9.12.08 @ 4:28AM|#
Crossing the border without official permission from the Pakistani government undermines that government - a dangerous policy considering Pakistan is probably the closest thing that exists today to a democratic secular country with a muslim majority. The world does have rules, just because it may be seem to be in our interest to break them - in the long term it is not. There has to be some sort of policy - secret or not between Pakistan and the US before crossing their border - to openly do so without such an agreement puts the US in the same category as those who would do us harm. Clandestine operations usually follow rules that if the parties are caught they disavow any relationship with their sponsor - they will probably continue unabated. But deploying regular troops should never be an official policy without official consent from Pakistan. For Obama to publicly declare such a policy removes it from the clandestine realm to officially sanctioned - a very naive move.
|9.12.08 @ 4:53AM|#
In addition - you failed to draw the distinction between Obama's public declaration and President Bush's secret orders. For those still missing the boat here - clandestine = secret = not officially sponsored. If we don't have permission and still want to go after them - we should do so under the radar. To publicly disregard another nation's borders is naive and Bush did not do that. BTW - how is this reporter privileged to divulge secret information? Don't think it is covered by the right to free speech.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245