Daily Kos: If Pakistan Captures Bin Laden Now, Can Obama Take Credit?

[Pirate Smile]

If Pakistan Captures Bin Laden Now, Can Obama Take Credit?

by Cenk Uygur
Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 06:50:45 PM PDT

The President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf is considering declaring a state of emergency. It's partly because of fighting in northern Pakistan. It's partly the instability he has created by trying to hold on to power and firing a popular judge that might have challenged his claim to that power. But he claims it's also because of Barack Obama.

Musharraf claims that Obama's statements about taking possible unilateral action against Al Qaeda inside Pakistan has created so much instability that he has to declare a state of emergency. That's total rubbish. Musharraf's motivations have nothing to do with Obama, it's just a convenient excuse.

But he is feeling the heat from America for the first time in a long time about the fact that he has done next to nothing about capturing Osama bin Laden.

Cenk Uygur's diary :: ::

Yes, to be fair, in the beginning of our so-called "war on terror" (did you know that George Washington originally called the Revolutionary War a "war on muskets"), Pakistan helped in capturing some very important targets, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But after awhile Musharraf powered down, made a ridiculous "peace deal" with the northern tribes which allowed Al Qaeda free reign in Northern Pakistan and basically gave up pursuing Osama.

Now, all of a sudden the heat is on. And it's partly because of Barack Obama's rhetoric. If Musharraf winds up capturing or killing bin Laden now, whether Senator Obama's tough talk helped to bring that about would be a fair question.

The situation in Pakistan is very complicated. Over all, I agree with Sen. Obama. We should put a lot more pressure on Musharraf. If he's going to take our money and pretend to be an ally, he's got to show us some results. We certainly don't want to bluster and blunder ourselves into a military situation in Pakistan. But Obama has been very careful in saying he would talk to Musharraf before he took any action in Pakistan and would exhaust all diplomatic options. He's no George Bush.

But ultimately, if Pakistan doesn't act against bin Laden and we have him in our sights, you've probably got to pull the trigger. By the way, I love how Republicans are now arguing that we shouldn't go after bin Laden in Pakistan. That the responsible thing to do would be to avoid military conflict. Are they kidding?

Speaking of which, Senator Obama's comments might have had one more positive effect. They have changed the center of military conversations to Pakistan, rather than Iran. This is exactly right. Think about it, why on God's green earth would we consider going into Iran - another country where Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are not, when we full well know they are in Pakistan? If we should take military action anywhere, it should be against Al Qaeda and it should be in Pakistan.

To argue for military strikes against Iran when you're not even willing to take military strikes against the people who attacked us on 9/11 sounds absurd. That's because it is absurd.

The Young Turks

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/8/21445/23963

[obxhead]

1. If only I had more than one vote!

[countmyvote4real]

2. In short it's a matter of belief and trust.

There's not much left for us on either side of the aisle. Screw them all.

[jmp]

3. The problem with Obama's rhetoric ...

... is that he has no plan beyond the rhetoric. If Pakistan decides to quit cooperating with our efforts in Afghanistan, how will Barack deal with that? Has he seen a map of the area? Afghanistan is a landlocked country with no ready access for US forces except via Pakistan or Iran.

You can probably see why Iran would not be eager to allow US forces onto its territory and US warplanes into its airspace.

Threatening to strike inside Pakistan without the blessing of the Pakistani government risks losing us that war too.

[w13rd0]

5. "No plan beyond the rhetoric"...

...ah yes, the plan! The plan! The plan for Iraq! The plan for Iran!

Risks losing us that war too? Which one? Sorry, have such a hard time keeping up. If I threaten you, and tell you that you have to let me park my tankandrapemobile in your driveway so I can keep an eye on your neighbor, then I park it there, give you the keys, and go across town to sit in some other jackasses house, what do you do?

And frankly, if Obama's "planless rhetoric" achieves results, I don't care much that you gripe about it. Especially considering most of the people saying he "doesn't have a plan" are the SAME people that talked about "not talking about hypotheticals" and "not telegraphing plans or intentions". You really DO want to butter your bread on both sides, don't ya?

[jmp]

6. How does Obama plan on rotating and supplying our troops in Afghanistan?

How does Obama plan on rotating and resupplying our troops in Afghanistan without the cooperation of Pakistan?

Through the audacity of hope? :eyes:

[sandnsea]

4. Yikes, I agree with the Young Turks

:scared:

Seriously, this should be the basis for a new focus on terrorism and our goals for national security. As long as we let Bush talk about Iran, we'll never get people to think about where the terrorists really are and what we really should be doing about them, diplomatically and militarily.

[Pirate Smile]

7. I know.

:)