Obama Pushes Aggressive Stance Toward Pakistan

[John317]

Obama REALLY IS ABOUT CHANGE. He is proving it. WHY?

Obama Delivers Bold Speech About War on Terror

Presidential Candidate Pushes Aggressive Stance Toward Pakistan

By JAKE TAPPER

Aug. 1, 2007

In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism Wednesday, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama called not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan — with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama hits the re-known Apollo Theatre for a campaign fundraiser.

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Obama's mention of an "al Qaeda leadership meeting" refers to a classified military operation planned in early 2005 to kill al Qaeda leaders including Osama bin Laden's top deputy Ayman al-Zawahri in Pakistan's tribal regions. First reported in The New York Times earlier this month, the mission was "aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials."

In many ways, the speech is counterintuitive; Obama, one of the more liberal candidates in the race, is proposing a geopolitical posture that is more aggressive than that of President Bush. It comes at a time in Obama's campaign when the freshman senator is drawing more financial support from more voters than any other candidate, though he has yet to vault from his second-place position in the polls. One of the reasons for that is that the Democratic front-runner, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, is seen as more experienced and in some ways stronger, a perspective Obama wishes to change.

The speech, delivered at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., seems an attempt by Obama to ramp up his campaign to the next phase, where he hopes to seem not only a youthful idealist, but a president who would pursue a muscular foreign policy and protect the United States from terrorist attack.

[Neil D]

So how does this set with you, John? Is Obama one who is tough on global terrorism?

[Dr. Shane]

This news is a year old but as far as I know Obama hasn't changed his position. This is the comical line "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets..." It was our failed intelligence that stopped us from preventing 9/11 and our failed intelligence that got us into Iraq. Yet Obama will let our intelligence take us to war with Pakistan - a nuclear power?

[John317]

So how does this set with you, John? Is Obama one who is tough on global terrorism?

It's hard to tell if Obama is for real about some of these things he's saying because he changes so much. According to him, he would be very tough in the war on terror, especially regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan.

He seems like he's getting tough but if you follow his changes and his current stands, he comes across as someone who is confused and doesn't know what he wants. Compare what he is saying now with what he was saying a year or so ago.

It seems obvious to me that McCain has been right on these matters and Obama totally wrong.

For instance, see the following news account:

Quote:

Wed., July 16, 2008

The Illinois senator says the central front of war is not Iraq and a major goal of his ‘new strategy’ would be to fight the al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Washington: Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday said the United States cannot succeed in its mission in Afghanistan and on the home-front unless there is a change in the country's policy on Pakistan.

The Illinois senator said the central front of war is not Iraq and a major goal of his "new strategy" would be to fight the al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In his major foreign policy speech, Obama not only outlined his framework on withdrawal of forces from Iraq but also how an administration led by him would fight the al-Qaida dens in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"...As President, I will make the fight against al-Qaida and Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win," Obama said.

"It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror," Obama said.

Taliban controls some parts of Afghanistan and al- Qaida has an expanding base in Pakistan, Obama said, adding if another attack on our homeland comes, it will be likely from the same region where the 9\11 was planned.

"Al-Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia," Obama said.

"...And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan," the Presidential nominee said.

Obama said unless the US changes its Pakistan policy, it cannot succeed in Afghanistan or secure "our homeland". "We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank cheque to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It's time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people," Obama said.

The section below does not make sense to me at all. Our success in Iraq is extremely important, at least if not more important than our success in Afghanistan, yet only a few months ago, Obama was calling for us to abandon Iraq and leave it in the hands of the terrorists and their allies. Now of course he has changed his view on Iraq, yet he is saying that he would vote against the surge and against being there at this time.

What a confused man he is. Can you imagine him leading the military or determining policy?

Quote:

The 47-year-old Senator from Illinois, who hopes to be the first black-American president, also accused President George W Bush of pursuing a strategy for staying in Iraq.

"George Bush and John McCain don't have a strategy for success in Iraq -- they have a strategy for staying in Iraq. They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down," Obama said.

"They refuse to press the Iraqis to make tough choices, and they label any timetable to redeploy our troops 'surrender', even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government -- not to a terrorist enemy. Their's is an endless focus on tactics inside Iraq, with no consideration of our strategy to face threats beyond Iraq's borders," he said.

The democratic presidential nominee said the greatest threat to security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan.

"We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents," Obama said.

"We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region," Obama added.

So, what would Obama do if the terrorists make a sanctuary in Iraq? Would he go back in after we pull all of our troops out and have to start the war there all over again, after the enemy has been able to get established? It seems to me that it would be much wiser to keep enough US troops there to make sure that the terrorists don't get back in there to begin with.