Obama warns he would attack Al-Qaeda in Pakistan

[adios]

Obama warns he would attack Al-Qaeda in Pakistan

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said in excerpts from the speech released by his 2008 presidential campaign.

"But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans ... if we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Comments on this? Probably just campaign rhetoric but maybe not.

[Nielsio]

Why wouldn't a big party candidate be pro military conflict?

[boracay]

If destroying AQ would be a real goal, that would happen 5 years ago.
Unfortunately, real goals were something else; ironically real goals have even allowed AQ to widespread all around the region.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
If destroying AQ would be a real goal, that would happen 5 years ago.
Unfortunately, real goals were something else; ironically real goals have even allowed AQ to widespread all around the region.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you now support a military action like Obama is saying he would do? I realize it depends on many factors including the level of military involvement in places like Iraq. Let's say that it would be contingent on the readinesss of the military but if the military has the capability would this be a wise course to pursue?

[canis582]

He is saying that for credibility among military contactors.

[elwoodblues]

Likely just campaign rhetoric couched in enough "ifs" that he isn't committing himself to much

IF we have actionable intelligence
and
IF it is about high-value terrorist targets
and
IF
Musharef won't act (in what way we don't know)
THEN
we will act.

LOTS of wiggle room.

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
He is saying that for credibility among military contactors.

[/ QUOTE ]

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
If destroying AQ would be a real goal, that would happen 5 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really.

The main reason we haven't gone after OBL in Pakistan is that we're trying to stay on Pakistan's good side. Musharraf has done a lot to help us in the War On Terror. His government has captured several high level Al-Qaeda operatives including Khalid Shake Mohammed and all of the basing and overflight rights we need. Bush likely feels that we owe it to Musharraf to let him handle his own country.

Also, Bush rightly fears the destabilizing effect an American invasion would have on Musharraf's government. His people hate American and barely tolerate him. If Musharraf's government fell, it would likely be replaced with an islamic fundamentalist government. Throw in nuclear weapons and the ongoing conflict with India and this would be a disaster. Just because destroying Al-Qaeda is a priority doesn't mean it should be the only priority (hello civil liberties).

Also, LOL at saying that we would have crushed Al-Qaeda in months if we wanted to. Governments have been trying and failing to crush insurgencies for centuries and those were concentrated in one country. Al-Qaeda operates in dozens of countries.

[irunnotgood]

I think saying that he would pull the troops out of Iraq and hunt down the Al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan is a winning move politically. In order for him to win the nomination he needs to state that a Hilldog presidency would be a continuation of Bush's policies. He needs to start referring to the war in Iraq, as the Bush/Clinton War and explain how it let Bin Laden off the hook. We have seen glimpses of this offensive in last weeks skirmish with Hillary about talking with leaders of "enemy nations."