Feb 19, 2008
McCain Attacks Obama on Pakistan; Unilateral U.S. Attacks in Pakistan Could Increase
In his Wisconsin victory speech, likely Republican presidential nominee John McCain attacked probable Democratic nominee Barack Obama as being weak on foreign policy and Pakistan played a bit of a role.
McCain’s eyes are now set on the general election and part of his campaign strategy is to present himself as having the “judgment,” “experience”, and “strength of purpose” to defend national security and the spread of American ideals. He describes “radical Islamic extremism” as “the greatest evil, probably, that this nation has ever faced.” McCain’s early offensive could put Obama on the defensive, bringing foreign policy and national security back to the forefront.
Just minutes ago, McCain stated that “political change in Pakistan is occurring that might effect our relationship with a nuclear armed nation that is indispensable to our success in combating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere.” A vote for Obama, said McCain, can push into office “the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally Pakistan.”
Over a week ago, President Bush made a similar attack on Obama, stating, “The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he’s going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmedinejad.”
In reality, Obama never proposed attacking the state of Pakistan. He said, “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” In other words, Obama would attack terrorists on Pakistani soil–a serious violation of Pakistani sovereignty, but not an attack targeting the state of Pakistan.
Moreover, both Bush and McCain criticize Obama for proposing something the Bush administration is already doing: attacking al-Qaeda and Taliban targets without the approval of the Pakistani government.
Robin Wright and Joby Warrick report in today’s Washington Post:
“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.”
aye, what happened to the format? i feel like i’m reading the love child of kermit the frog and an albino.
is this an experiment or a permanent shift?
I appreciated your well informed post regarding the attack on Sen. Obama’s foreign policy by Sen. McCain in an attempt to go on the offensive and attack the a large issue that is at the forefront of the 2008 Presidential election. I enjoy the way in which you show the comment by President Bush and Sen. McCain and rebut their comments not with your own words but with the words of Sen. Obama himself. I agree with your analysis of the situation when it comes to the way in which Sen. McCain and President Bush handled the situation in their attempt to solidify Sen. McCain’s foreign policy when conversely compared to that of Sen. Obama. My thoughts however are that this kind of behavior can be harmful to the United States globally. Since Pakistan is one of our allies, I don’t think that it plays favorably in the interest of the nation to accuse a possible Presidential candidate of attacking a country with which the United States is currently in good graces. I believe this kind of an attack goes beyond differentiating between the foreign policies of a few candidates who are vying for the Presidency. I think that it is hard to motivate a country to come together and vote for who they think will be the best leader for the country, when those leaders are bickering amongst each other over a few false statements that are made in order to bolster a campaign. Overall, I believe that the Presidential campaign is a time for the country to come together and in order for that to happen, I think that the candidates should be careful which parts of the campaign which they choose attack.
Perhaps better than a kermit and miss piggy love child? Changed it a bit since you commented. What do you think now?
the colors are just a bit jarring, but i suppose i’ll be used to them soon enough.
[...] This plan follows her January statement calling for the joint British-American oversight of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Also, in recent weeks, Clinton has appropriated the Republican talking points accusing Obama of threatening to attack Pakis…. [...]
[...] to Obama would accuse the latter of threatening to violate the sovereignty of an ally. But, as I have written earlier, Obama’s threats are consistent with the Bush administration’s policy. The debate is, [...]