McCain attacks Obama for being willing to take out terror leaders
Interesting critique McCain levelled at Obama last night, AFTER the Washington Post reported this yesterday:
In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone’s operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.
The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA’s dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda’s core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.
Having requested the Pakistani government’s official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.
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.
It is an approach that some U.S. officials say could be used more frequently this year, particularly if a power vacuum results from yesterday’s election and associated political tumult. The administration also feels an increased sense of urgency about undermining al-Qaeda before President Bush leaves office, making it less hesitant, said one official familiar with the incident.
Independent actions by U.S. military forces on another country’s sovereign territory are always controversial, and both U.S. and Pakistani officials have repeatedly sought to obscure operational details that would reveal that key decisions are sometimes made in the United States, not in Islamabad. Some Pentagon operations have been undertaken only after intense disputes with the State Department, which has worried that they might inflame Pakistani public resentment; the CIA itself has sometimes sought to put the brakes on because of anxieties about the consequences for its relationship with Pakistani intelligence officials.
U.S. military officials say, however, that the uneven performance of their Pakistani counterparts increasingly requires that Washington pursue the fight however it can, sometimes following an unorthodox path that leaves in the dark Pakistani military and intelligence officials who at best lack commitment and resolve and at worst lack sympathy for U.S. interests.
Top Bush administration policy officials — who are increasingly worried about al-Qaeda’s use of its sanctuary in remote, tribally ruled areas in northern Pakistan to dispatch trained terrorists to the West — have quietly begun to accept the military’s point of view, according to several sources familiar with the context of the Libi strike.
In light of that, here’s McCain, after winning Wisconsin, in his victory speech, going after Obama:
Obama’s momentum in the Democratic race was apparent in McCain’s remarks, which included criticism of the Illinois senator’s sweeping rhetoric, but no obvious references to Clinton.
“I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change … that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than the people,” McCain said - a clear reference to Obama, whose soaring rhetoric has led critics, including McCain, to question whether he’s all style and no substance.
“Our purpose is to keep this blessed country free, safe, prosperous and proud,” McCain added.
He also keyed in on Obama’s statements about foreign policy and his willingness to meet with leaders of rogue nations, painting him as a novice who would put the country in danger.
“Will the next president have the experience?” he asked. “Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan, and suggested sitting down without preconditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons?”
Last August, Obama had said if the United States had actionable intelligence about top terrorist targets in Pakistan and President Pervez Musharraf wouldn’t act, the U.S. would. That pledge set off ripples of resentment in the relationship between Washington and Islamabad, prompting Pakistani officials to warn against U.S. incursions into their country.
Obama’s statement was conditional: if Musharraf wouldn’t act after receiving actionable intelligence, the US would. Musharraf and his forces in this case DID NOT ACT, so the US did. Why is that different than what Obama suggested?
Also, Obama didn’t even cover whether he’d seek permission. But even if he had said he’d seek that first, what would McCain do if Perv said ‘no’? Would McCain let the target get away or bring him down anyway? Presidents make tough choices like that. Clinton did, while missing the targets.
In essence, yes, that’s what McCain said last night: Obama would take out the target, Bush did, and McCain wouldn’t.
And he claims his experience will keep us safer. Really. He said that with a straight face.
Update: My apologies, though I didn’t plagiarize. I just discovered a TPM reader and David Kurtz, noticed and reported on this very same thing, posting it 5 hours before I did.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:37 am
[…] See, it’s different when a Democrat says we should bomb Pakistan. […]
February 20th, 2008 at 7:31 am
If Pakistan has no ability to enforce its sovereignty in northwestern Pakistan I believe that a good argument can be made under international law to allow NATO or UN troops to secure this region.
Canada and a majoity of canadians would be fully supportive of any action to crush Bin Laden and the Taliban in Pakistan. We are sick and tired of seeing our soldiers being blown up by insurgents armed, supplied and operating out of Pakistan.
If Obama, as President, sought the support of Canada in this mission it is quite possible that he would be well recieved.
Canada went to Pakistan as a NATO ally of the US in the REAL WAR ON TERROR. Any withdrawl of troops from this region without possession of Bin Laden’s corpse to send back to his family for burial must be seen as a failure. Perhaps once the Saudi President Bush leaves office we can finally complete the mission.
As an aside Obama also should ramp up the investigation of all of the pending fraud cases against Halibuton and Brown and Root. The seizure of the national and transnatioal assets of these corporations and thier exefcutives would go a long way towards paying for universal health care.
As for McCain, he is so doddering and out of touch with reality that it would be laughable ifn it weren’t for the fact that he could actually become President.
February 21st, 2008 at 6:32 am
While I agree with you, Jeff, in part I think that the descision to go into the tribal regions with NATO or US troops is not just a touchy one politically. Those areas are autonomous for a reason and have been for hundreds of years. They are desolate, mountainous areas that are basically a deathtrap for invading armies. To go in there one would need a very definite plan and a willingness to fight not just terrorists but locals who simply resent our presence. They know how to fight invaders and are not worried about using their families and villages as a shield. I think anything but limited Special Forces work in those areas would be a bloodbath that would be extremely unsavory politically. So, I support more special forces and CIA work there but I would look askance at anyone who thinks regular ground troops would be able to improve the situation.
February 21st, 2008 at 7:32 am
My major point was simply that Obama was not “naive” in suggesting that some form of action in the “tribal” regions was a valid policy option to pursue. Given the nature of the terrain and the adversaries in question the use of special forces and automated weapon systems is obviously mandated.
I remain concerned that being overly concerned for Pakistani sovereignty or stability is preventing the US, Canada and our allies from effectively interdicting, disrupting and destroying insurgent leaders and supply lines at their root. Normal economic development will not occur in Afgahnistan without the erradication of the Taliban leadership in Pakistan. Lens’ description of the areas they operate out of as “autonomous” is a good reminder that these areas in fact operate outside of the norms of international law and behaviour. McCain trying to turn this into a political issue simply demonstrates how out of touch he is with reality and how unfit he is to be Commander and Chief.
In any event McCain, will be too busy with his own “bimbo erruption” in the New York Times to be worrying his befuddled head about these issues for some time.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:42 am
my previous article was not posted
February 21st, 2008 at 9:14 am
I am surprised to hear Mr. Jeff Rath’s comments. You say that development is not possible in Afghanistan without erradication of Taliban leadership in Pakistan. This is one stupid and dump comment ive ever heard. If you remember Pakistan was the country who helped America eradicate your enemy Russia. Had the Pakistan not helped you then, you might have USA by the size of peanut by now due to the cold war and nuclear standoff with Russia then. It was Pakistani and Afghani people who helped you. Then when your motive was acheived in bringing down Russia you just went away from Afghanistan and Pakistan and left them in ruins. Had you dumb heads paid a little attention then to those friendly countries who helped you become world power, it would not have been, whats happening right now.
Had you made some schools and infrastructure for them, they would have some thing else to do rather than playing with their guns. You gave them nothing other than guns. When your motive was acheived you should have done something to settle them with giving education to them. They had nothing with them. You used them like a condom and then threw it once used.
Pakistan too was left in ruins, they had so much of their own internal political problems, how can dumb heads in Washington thought that Pakistan will take care of Afghanistan. People had nothing to eat in Afghanistan and Pakistani people who are so hospitable allowed them in their country and gave them homes and food. How come we have ever known that they are Taliban or bad people, that was not written on their foreheads. Only after sep 11 we came to know that these people are dangerous and they have already taken control of our border with Afghanistan.
We helped America, We helped Afghanistan, We bread Afghani’s, now you say that you should BOMB Pakistan, SHAME ON YOU. Have you ever been to Pakistan, have you met people from Pakistan, do you know how hospitable and loving they are, do you know that they help people in need even if they dont have any thing to eat themselves. You dont, you are only a CNN or a BBC kinda person.
How many people in USA are there who tell the rest of USA population to go to church or they will kill them. I know you would say “Huh, never heard of it…” This is what we say when you say that Pakistan is a Taliban country, I have lived all my life in Pakistan, I never heard of Taliban or extremism until Sep 11. We used to hear about that in Afghanistan but never in Pakistan. This is another USA gift to Pakistan.
We dont even give any importance to these less than 0.1% people who are trying to play nasty with our country. We know that if we give books to those people they will leave guns, we know that if we give them some infrastucture to work with they will leave fighting, who wants there child to fight with guns. But they have no other choice.
So rather than throwing a million dollar missile on them, help us give them books, help us make infrastucture for them.
We are one of those Nations on earth whose only 0.1% population is portrayed, the rest of the 99.9% who are good people dont get portrayed. You better go to Pakistan and then make a choice of Bombing or Helping.
We believe in the fact that every one has equal right to live peacefully and die peacefully, no one on earth deserves to die ina bomb blast or with a bullet. This is what we believe in. We believe in the best for every country on earth.
America is a world power, it should set an example in bringing nations together in a friendly manner. The more you BOMB nations the more enemies you make. Its not a rocket science, you are making enemiesm MAKE FRIENDS, specially with Nations who helped you become WORLD POWER.
All the best
Umar Bin Irshad
Houston, Texas.
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:41 am
Mr. Bin Irshad’s personal attacks and non sequitors aside, I stand by my previous comments.
Obviously, Mr. Bin Irshad missed the qualifying word “normal” in the phrase “normal economic development” . Not only do I have Pakistani friends but I have friends working on reconstruction teams in Afgahnistan.
They all agree that allowing insurgent combat teams and Taliban units to train and operate out of nortwestern Pakistan not only undermines Pakistani sovereignty and stability but to the extent that these insurgents are not prevented by Pakistan from attacking civilians and NATO troops in Afgahnistan also violates international law.
No one is advocating bombing civilian targets in Pakistan. To the extent that Mr. Bin Irshad so deliberstely ignores the fact that it is the al Queda and Taliban insurgent groups we are talking about who are currently engaged in bombing and blowing up children in Afgahnistan is the extent to which one suspects that Mr. Bin Irshad is the one mired in ignorance. One has to suspect that people who deliberately ignore the evil being perpetrated by strapping bombs onto children and sending them into crowded markets are either entirely amoral or in fact support the Taliban.
The cost of building infrastructure, schools and hospitals becomes entirely uneconomic when reconstruction teams need to be protected on an ongoing basis by combat teams backed up be Leopard II’s. Any examination discussion or examination of the need to interdict the insurgents operating out of Pakistan is both timely and necessary.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
[…] This stance is US policy. In fact, George W. Bush implemented it with a Predator attack on an al-Qaeda leader in Pakistan just a couple of weeks ago, an attack that the Pakistani government declined to authorize. (Kevin Hayden concurs). […]