Things blow up

"Something", well, two things, blew up in Pakistan today and it seems like it was a UAV launched missile attack. President Obama seems to be going after al Qeada on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. I would say he is going after bin Laden, but you can't kill someone who is already dead.

I think bin Laden has left us for the hereafter. With most al Qeada tapes, you get fairly new video footage and speeches. With bin Laden, you get recycled footage of him walking around some rocks while someone claiming to be him does a voice over. And in some cases, the voice over is just speaking in generalities, they rarely mention Obama by name or talk about specific current events.

Bin Laden is either dead (my guess) or in really bad shape. I think he died in such a way that no one will ever be sure (for example he died in a cave collapse thanks to a bunker buster). He is just a few wisps of DNA under 100,000 tons of rock.

It was never really about him, and it was a mistake to make it about him.

Anyway, I have looked around at some of the left side blogs to see how this is playing. For the most part, it has been seen positively.

The Huffington Post for a while had this as their main news item with the headline:

COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF
FIRST MISSILE STRIKES LAUNCHED SINCE OBAMA TOOK OATH

The site had a split picture, President Obama on one side wagging his finger and looking all stern and serious and Islamic Rage Boy's idiot Pakistani cousin on the other side acting all, well, full of rage (other than soccer balls and rage, does Pakistan actually produce anything?). I tried wadding through the comments to see how this was playing to HP's fans, but it is useless. I think 3/4s of the commenters there are trolls (of both left and right).

In any event, I understand why it is being done. When Bush was president I was uneasy about these attacks in Pakistan. That country is barely a country and I worry that these attacks might take down the government and lead to anarchy. By the same token, Waziristan is where the bad guys are, and the Pakistani government barley has any authority there.

I also believe that these attacks take place with a wink and a nod from the Pakistani government. They get to act all enraged to placate domestic audiences while getting rid of bad guys.

On Taylor Marsh's site one of the commenters wonders if President Obama knew about this before hand, or if this was simply a carryover of Bush's ROE. I can understand why some on the left would feel angry at these attacks continuing (though, from my quick view, it is positive, including from Marsh herself).

It is hard to believe now, but back in 2000, Bush promised a "more humble" foreign policy and I remember being annoyed that a day or so after his inauguration, the Air Force bombed some site in Iraq. I remember thinking that it must have been simply a continuation of Clinton's ROE and that Bush knew nothing of it beforehand (ah, those innocent days!) and that he would change the ROE.*

By the same token, this is the policy that President Obama said he would pursue.

Now you see why I pray for the president? Who would want this job?


* Yes -- to preempt the comments, I supported the invasion of Iraq, I supported the surge and I hope that our troops can now leave Iraq, and that Iraq will be mostly stable and most democratic. If you asked me at 8:58 a.m. on September 11, 2001 what my thoughts on Iraq were, I would have said end US enforcement of the no fly zone and come up with a sanction regime that allowed Iraq to buy and sell everything except weapon programs. 9/11 temporarily stopped the drift toward non-interventionism that I started around 1992.

Pakistan gets worse

Bhutto is now back under house arrest and opposition marches have been banned, though President Musharraf promises to hold elections in January. With Bhutto essentially under house arrest, and her rival Sharif still out of the country, any elections would be a farce.

President bush needs to make it clear now -- unless Musharraf resigns from the army and ends the emergency, there will be real repercussions.

It will not happen of course.

My E-Mail to the President on Pakistan

I e-mailed the president earlier today on Pakistan. It will not do any good, but it will make me feel better.

Subject: Pakistan
To: comments@whitehouse.gov
CC: vice_president@whitehouse.gov

Dear Mister President:

I am writing to express hope that you will speak out forcefully and quickly against the declaration of emergency in Pakistan. According to press reports, you have called President Musharraf and pushed for elections. You must go further. On places like Lebanon, Ukraine and most recently Burma, you have spoken out eloquently in defense of liberalization and democracy. Pakistan's struggle is no different. While realpolitik might call for continued support of the Pakistani regime in the fight against terrorism and to help Afghanistan, that is short sighted thinking.

No matter what course is taken, Pakistan is going to explode. Speak out against the emergency and in support of those demonstrating for the return of the constitutional order. They are not only fighting for democracy against a military government, they are also under threat of Islamic terrorists who wish to turn Pakistan into a rerun of Taliban run Afghanistan. They need and deserve our support. Their fight is our fight, both short term and long term.

I know you face difficult choices each day I can only imagine. Please know that my prayers are with you.

Pakistan

General Musharraf has called a state of emergency and Pakistan is under marital law. Thousands have been arrested, including lawyers protesting the declaration. Musharraf claims he is trying to fight terrorism.

Stephen Green asks the important question -- as both India and what is now Pakistan were long under the control of the British Raj, why is India a democracy and Pakistan on the verge of disintegration?

We have seen this all before. In 1999, Musharraf gained power in much the same way and for the same purpose. Back then, the choice was as follows:

Musharraf who was an authoritarian general
Sharif who was allied to Islamists
Bhutto who was a somewhat corrupt democrat

Which basically are the same choices today. So if we are supposed to be in the new world of "realistic" foreign policy (as opposed to idealistically pushing for democratization) is this a good thing or a bad thing?

I think the reliance on "stability" is partly how we got into this situation (and not just Pakistan and the North West Frontier Province, but the entire Middle East). We support the Taliban to bring "stability" and get 9/11. We supported Musharraf to get stability and we got nothing.

Given the choices, I say go with the somewhat corrupt democrat. Throw the dice. Every result is generally a bad one, so let's go for once with one that at least is the least cynical for a change. Bhutto is back in Pakistan. Throw the dice.

More on Obama and Pakistan

San from Shadow Warrior wonders about differing treatment between Obama and Clinton regarding Pakistan and Iraq.

I believe the problem with Pakistan is that no matter what we do (we being the US, the West and every non Pakistani) is that it will be the "wrong" answer. It seems at times the outrage industry is the main industry in that country. If I wanted to find a Pakistani flag, it would take some time. Yet, there are always American flags to burn there. And not just US flags -- when the Danish cartoon crisis hit, there were demonstrations burning Danish flags.

But I do not think Obama's comments help matters. My concern about Obama goes back to the 2004 Senate race when he was talking about "surgical strikes" -- there is no such thing. I do think he is a bit too naive for the presidency. Also, with respect to Pakistan, I do worry about the inflaming Islamist opinion. I do not think that Pakistan is about to turn Islamist -- in the last election, the Islamists did not do all that well. And it is a country that in the 1980s freely elected a woman to be Prime Minister.

So in short, I have no idea really what to do about Pakistan. But threatening to launch attacks there is probably not a good idea. However, Obama is not a pacifist and it is good to remember that.

Obama and Pakistan

The blogsphere and the mainstream media has been abuzz by Senator Obama seeming to state that he would invade Pakistan. While that is not quite what he said, he did state that he would strike inside Pakistan without the approval of the Pakistani government if there was a high priority target.

This is not entirely new for Obama. He had in his 2004 Senate race discussed the possible need for "surgical strikes" against Iran to stop their nuclear program. This has set off the usual rioting in Pakistan complete with burning American flags.