|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 5:50 pm Post subject: The War in Pakistan |
 |
|
This seems to represent a controversial pseudoissue in the presidential campaigns.
| Quote: |
U.S. military forces launched airstrikes on a Pakistani village early Wednesday morning, two Pakistani military sources told CNN.
The strikes occurred about 1 a.m. in a village in North Waziristan, a mountainous region of northwest Pakistan near the Afghanistan border, a Pakistani military source said.
U.S. military sources could not immediately be reached for comment.
The sources said the U.S. military launched two or three missiles that struck at least one home. The sources did not have any information on casualties or injuries.
U.S. attacks in Pakistan have become a controversial issue in recent weeks.
In July, President Bush approved U.S. incursions in Pakistan to go after insurgents without consulting first with Islamabad... |
I submit that J. McCain, B. Obama, and S. Palin do not disagree at all on this issue. The war has spilled into Pakistan, and has probably been spilling into Pakistan for some time, just as the Soviets once brought their counterinsurgency war over this border. Save-havens conveniently located across nation-states' boundaries tend to become targets as wars progress -- see Cambodia and Laos for other examples.
The differences in the campaign seem to come from J. McCain's wanting to punish B. Obama for openly suggesting and supporting this, thus breaching official "plausible deniability." He is correct to do so.
However, B. Obama also seems to be pursuing a good election-year strategy in bringing it up -- comparable, indeed, to JFK's putting R. Nixon in an uncomfortable position re: the Bay of Pigs in 1960.
CNN Reports |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:10 pm Post subject: Re: The War in Pakistan |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
The differences in the campaign seem to come from J. McCain's wanting to punish B. Obama for openly suggesting and supporting this, thus breaching official "plausible deniability." He is correct to do so. |
Hrmmm. It seems that Obama's gaffe back over a year ago was worthy of censure. But McCain's criticism was sure awkward. "Yes, of course we'd bomb Pakistan, but we don't SAY THAT IN PUBLIC! Right, America?"
Er . . . ?
There was a better way to phrase that. "Obama doesn't understand that we don't speak so loosely about bombing other countries . . ."
*remembers Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Iran*
Actually, nevermind.
Anyway, I find it funny that the US enforces the peace in Waziristan.
Hrmm, I wonder if John McCain has ever been to Waziristan?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Correct. Govts do not admit to perpetrating acts of war -- i.e., combat operations -- in other govts' juristictions, govts with whom they are at peace and not at war.
No-brainer, really.
What sort of position do you think America's not only being in a de facto state of war with segments of Pakistan's population, but also openly advertising it, puts the Pakistani govt in, especially where the Pakistani govt understands that significant parts of its own professional officer corps and its troops sympathize with that population? I do not get the impression that B. Obama gets that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Correct. Govts do not admit to perpetrating acts of war -- i.e., combat operations -- in other govts' juristictions, govts with whom they are at peace and not at war.
No-brainer, really.
What sort of position do you think America's not only being in a de facto state of war with segments of Pakistan's population, but also openly advertising it, puts the Pakistani govt in, especially where the Pakistani govt understands that significant parts of its own professional officer corps and its troops sympathize with that population? I do not get the impression that B. Obama gets that. |
In other words, would you say that B. Obama just doesn't understand? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I am not sure that he does. His advisors probably do, however. Also, State would brief him, as president, and that would be that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I have to agree with Gopher on this. He makes a good point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:41 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Hrmmm. It seems that Obama's gaffe back over a year ago was worthy of censure. But McCain's criticism was sure awkward. "Yes, of course we'd bomb Pakistan, but we don't SAY THAT IN PUBLIC! Right, America?" |
If he'd said otherwise, he'd be getting the "weak on security" talking point hurled at him. Kind of hard to call him weak on security and a loose gun at the same time. It scores points in the battle for the middle, and I'm not aware of his comments riling Pakistan. He, after all, was talking about attacking Al Quaeda, not Pakistani forces.
Finally, I'm pretty sure that he made the statement in consultation with his advisors. Overall, a shrewd political decision.
It won't affect the outcome at this point, so it's pretty much moot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The biggest point that should be made is that the Prime Minister of Pakistan has repeatedly said that if the U.S. DOES make unannounced attacks at random on the their border without permission/consultation/etc.... then Pakistan will be forced to re-evaluate it's relationship with the United States (meaning it would seriously strain their relationship and putting it into peril).
Last edited by Tiger Beer on Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:07 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| He was talking about American military forces invading Pakistani territory to fight Pakistani citizens to get at Al Qaeda's leadership, especially Osama bin Laden. |
| Quote: |
| �There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won�t act, we will.� |
Where is the part about Pakistani citizens? Now, if he said he was going to attack the citizens of Pakistan, that's pretty outrageous.
| Quote: |
| And Pakistan's Foreign Ministry implied B. Obama's campaign promise was "irresponsible." |
Fair enough.
| Quote: |
That generally favorable impression was echoed in Pakistan where Obama's speech in St. Paul, Minnesota, came on television at 9 a.m. Wednesday morning.
"It should bring a good change in relations with Pakistan" should he win the presidency, said Munaway Akhtar, a prominent lawyer specializing in international arbitration in the capital, Islamabad. "Pakistan has always been friendly to the United States but the people have never benefited, the rulers have always benefited. Hopefully, that would change with Obama."
Wamiq Zuberi, the editor of The Business Recorder, the biggest business-oriented newspaper, said he believed Pakistanis were pleased. "Everyone is in fact impressed with the historical moment, that it is the first time an AfricanAmerican has won the nomination of a party."
There was a prevailing sentiment, he said, that Obama would better serve Pakistan's interests. "If Obama would become president there would be a push for democracy in Pakistan." |
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/04/america/05react.php
Considering his interest in expanding diplomacy, I don't think he's done anything at this time that severely affects relations, especially considering Musharraf, a dictator at least partly propped up by Bush, is out. I highly doubt Pakistanis want more of the GOP.
But again, if those statements have damaged him (and I don't think they have), the damage happened a long time ago. It's not going to change the outcome at this point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are no neat little lines dividing Al Qaeda from Pakistanis in that densely-populated border region. Where do you think these guerrillas' information, supplies, and security comes from? In any case, B. Obama probably failed to mention Pakistani citizens because, again, he probably does not understand the full consequences of what he is advocating here. We cannot hit Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan without hitting Pakistani targets at the same time; they are simply intertwined.
Do not take my word for it. Note this story's first line, for example: "U.S. military forces launched airstrikes on a Pakistani village early Wednesday morning." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:42 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| There are no neat little lines dividing Al Qaeda from Pakistanis... |
Depends on the nature of the target.
Consider that:
| Quote: |
Correct. Govts do not admit to perpetrating acts of war -- i.e., combat operations -- in other govts' juristictions, govts with whom they are at peace and not at war. |
In light of this:
| Quote: |
| Do not take my word for it. Note this story's first line, for example: "U.S. military forces launched airstrikes on a Pakistani village early Wednesday morning." |
So, we're already attacking citizens in a govt.-with-whom-we-are-at-peace's jurisdiction. All while being commanded by that vast pool of foreign policy experience that surrounds W.
Kind of makes it a non-issue. It's not going to affect the outcome of the election. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Originally, Obama's suggestion of attacking Pakistan was less about actually attacking Pakistan, and a lot more of going after Osama Bin Ladin if he was indeed just being harbored on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border as most people assume.
This is in contrast to the ignore Bin Ladin plan and spend all the time and energy trying to create a democracy in Iraq which instead became Bush's seemingly MAIN & ONLY goal of his 'war on terrorism' (outside of those lonely smaller set of American troops in Afghanistan being ignored for the most part). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
| Originally, Obama's suggestion of attacking Pakistan was... |
among other things, in line with the Bush Doctrine. Unilateral, preemptive military action, etc., etc.
B. Obama mentioned it, without truly grasping it, because he wanted to sound tough to American voters. Now he, J. McCain, S. Palin, and the press are discussing it, aiming to interpret or spin it to their advantage. No more no less. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fishead soup
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| I am not sure that he does. His advisors probably do, however. Also, State would brief him, as president, and that would be that. |
Sounds like Macnamar and LB Johnson all over again |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
