Obama might send troops into Pakistan

[Ron Burgundy]

AP - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted — an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "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-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.

Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.

Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite."

Thousands of Taliban fighters are based in Pakistan's vast and jagged mountains, where they can pass into Afghanistan, train for suicide operations and find refuge from local tribesmen. Intelligence experts warn that al-Qaida could be rebuilding here to mount another attack on the United States.

Musharraf has been a key ally of Washington in fighting terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, but has faced accusations from some quarters in Pakistan of being too closely tied to America.

The Bush administration has supported Musharraf and stressed the need to cooperate with Pakistan, but lately administration officials have suggested the possibility of military strikes to deal with al-Qaida and its leader, Osama bin Laden.

Analysts say an invasion could risk destabilizing Pakistan, breeding more militancy and undermining Musharraf. The Pakistani Foreign Office, protective of its national sovereignty, has warned that U.S. military action would violate international law and be deeply resented.

A military invasion could be risky, given Pakistan's hostile terrain and the suspicion of its warrior-minded tribesmen against uninvited outsiders.

Congress passed legislation Friday that would tie aid from the United States to Islamabad's efforts to stop al-Qaida and the Taliban from operating in its territory. President Bush has yet to sign it.

Obama's speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.

"He confuses our mission," Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. "By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.

He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa.

___

On the Net:

http://www.barackobama.com

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_el_pr/obama_terrorism [link]

[Stylerod]

He is willing to invade a relatively friendly country? That's interesting.

[DosEquis]

I agree with this part 100%.

"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "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-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

[Stylerod]

I don't disagree. But I am surprised he is willing to do it. What happens if the intelligence is bad and he ends up wiping out a wedding or something? Will he get crucified in the press for it do you think?

[avsp]

If anyone feels that this should be in "The Floor" Forums then please contact either one of the admins or one of the Election 08 mods

Thanks
News Mod

--------
VIVA RON!

[Scrum]

Finally someone wants to attack the real threat.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

He is willing to invade a relatively friendly country? That's interesting.

So friendly that they let Osama stay there without having to worry about us.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I don't disagree. But I am surprised he is willing to do it. What happens if the intelligence is bad and he ends up wiping out a wedding or something? Will he get crucified in the press for it do you think?

The press and his opponents in government would be all over it, no doubt about it. I find that kind of flack more acceptable and justified though, because we are actually going after the person who coordinated these attacks against us.

Screwing up in Iraq has far less leniency.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

The press and his opponents in government would be all over it, no doubt about it. I find that kind of flack more acceptable and justified though, because we are actually going after the person who coordinated these attacks against us.

Screwing up in Iraq has far less leniency.

[avsp]

Analysts say an invasion could risk destabilizing Pakistan, breeding more militancy and undermining Musharraf. The Pakistani Foreign Office, protective of its national sovereignty, has warned that U.S. military action would violate international law and be deeply resented.

A military invasion could be risky, given Pakistan's hostile terrain and the suspicion of its warrior-minded tribesmen against uninvited outsiders.

These I think are the key things to consider.

It already too late to anything like this.

Musharraf's position domestically is far from strong. Destabilising a nuke equipped power is the very last thing the world needs

Hunting in that terrain has historicially proved the undoing of many a 'super-power'

If there was anyway to assemble a special ops force with plausible denibility, (ie they were Asian mercs?) then it might make sense.

How large would OBL's bounty have to be for this to happen?

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I don't disagree. But I am surprised he is willing to do it. What happens if the intelligence is bad and he ends up wiping out a wedding or something? Will he get crucified in the press for it do you think?

you care about that NOW?!?!?!

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

you care about that NOW?!?!?!

Remember Pakistan has the nuclear option. They don't have to go looking for the bomb they have them. I can't understand this aggressive talk from Obama a great deal of his support comes from the anti war crowd.

[DosEquis]

According to Joe Biden, who was just on hardball, that has been our policy already and we just are not public about when it happens that we go on their territory.

So Barack Hussein Obama is still bin laden with al qaeda problems.

[kinggovernor]

I agree with it, but invading pakistan with nukes could be very bad

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by Scrum

So friendly that they let Osama stay there without having to worry about us.

i thought you were an enemy of ours if you harbored terrorists?

[Donkey®]

Good decision. 4 years too late though.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I agree with it, but invading pakistan with nukes could be very bad

I don't think he is suggesting fighting the pakistani's. Just operating across their border.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I don't think he is suggesting fighting the pakistani's. Just operating across their border.

I think Osama and his crowd have a great deal of support in Pakistan especially in the mountians near the Afgan border. We could easily if we don't watch it turn the whole country against us. There have been large anti US demonstrations before.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I don't think he is suggesting fighting the pakistani's. Just operating across their border.

they might get pissed if we start overtly operating in their country

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

they might get pissed if we start overtly operating in their country

If they can't control the warlords and criminals in that region, they have no right to bitch.