Gibson, Obama and his Pakistani ‘Bush Doctrine’
09 January 2008 3:44 pm by Taylor Marsh
Going over some important territory we haven’t covered in the furor of the primaries includes my regular foreign policy posts. From the
debate last Saturday night, Charles Gibson talking to Barack Obama:
GIBSON: And let me start with you, Senator Obama, because it was you who
said in your foreign policy speech that you would go into western Pakistan
if you had actionable intelligence to go after it, whether or not the Pakistani
government agreed. Do you stand by that?OBAMA: I absolutely do stand by it, Charlie. What I said was that we should
do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government
in taking on Al Qaida, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what
we know from our national intelligence estimates is that Al Qaida is stronger
now than at any time since 2001. And so, back in August, I said we should
work with the Pakistani government, first of all to encourage democracy in
Pakistan so you’ve got a legitimate government that we’re working with, and
secondly that we have to press them to do more to take on Al Qaida in their
territory. What I said was, if they could not or would not do so, and we had
actionable intelligence, then I would strike.MR. GIBSON: I’m going to go to the others in a moment, but what you just
outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine: we can attack if we want to, no
matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis. … .. read
on…
Labeling any Democrat with a “Bush Doctrine” label is absurd, but moving into Pakistan as it stands today based on “actionable intelligence” means you’d better be willing to risk the whole region on a military incursion. Here’s tape on Obama. I don’t want any part of that party.
When it came to Clinton, she pointedly drew warnings about the power of “actionable
intelligence”:
CLINTON: Well, I think it’s important to get back to your question, because
obviously that’s the most direct threat to the United States. We did take
action similar to what has been described about 10 years ago, based on what
was thought to be actionable intelligence, sending in missiles to try to target
bin Laden and his top leadership who were thought to be at a certain meeting
place. They were not taken out at the time. So we have to be very conscious
of all the consequences. Now, as far as I know, there are, like, five things
quickly that we should be looking at. … .. read
on…
What was missed in a jam-packed debate, except
by Marc Ambinder, is that Clinton is actually distancing herself from what
happened during her husband’s Administration. Interesting to note, I’d say.
The New Hampshire primary took all the energy out of the atmosphere. Usually,
we focus quite a bit on what’s going on in foreign policy, but there are only
so many hours in the day. Our foreign policy Tuesdays on my radio show will
get back on track soon. I’m especially interested to hear you make the case that while Mr. Obama’s 2002 speech against the war was indeed the correct choice, what he’s done in the Senate does not distinguish himself at all from Hillary Clinton. Their votes are exactly the same. With both she and Obama wanting out of Iraq, as does Edwards, how will Obama draw a distinction, if that’s territory he moves on.
Considering he hasn’t held one hearing in the Subcommittee on European Affairs for the Senate Foreign Relations committee, of which he is the chairman, I can’t wait for Clinton or the press to open up this foreign policy vein. Skipping Kyl-Lieberman, not calling hearings on a committee that handles some of our NATO involvement?
“U.S. involvement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), relations with the European Union (EU), and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Matters relating to Greenland and the northern polar region are also the responsibility of this subcommittee.”
Congressional Quarterly broke this story, with Steve Clemons, as well as SusanUnPC drawing it out. With Obama’s emphasis on Afghanistan, where NATO troops reside, you’d think he’d want to be more involved. Consider this a target rich environment for Clinton, or for that matter, the Republicans.
Recently, I also got an email containing
a post by Tom
Hayden that is worth reading:
The US government is considering direct military intervention in the tribal
areas of Pakistan, risking an escalated conflict with Pashtun nationalism
in the name of crushing al Qaeda. An essay in last week’s Washington Post,
a front page story in today’s New York Times and reports from the
Real News Network all confirm that a decision to intervene is near. The Times
confirms that as many as 50 American personnel, whether special forces or
CIA, already operate clandestinely inside the Pakistani border.Democrats have called no hearings nor raised significant voices of opposition
to the unfolding plan. In New Hampshire last night, Sen. Barack Obama
repeated his endorsement of unilateral US military intervention in Pakistan
if “actionable intelligence” exists. His Democratic rivals did not
dissent.The consequences of the possible escalation are extremely unpredictable.
The alleged al-Qaeda militants are embedded in complex tribal networks in
a remote mountainous area. Military action could inflict severe casualties
and damage to these traditional communities and inflame anti-American sentiment
across Muslim Pakistan. It might accelerate the disintegration of the US-backed
Musharraf dictatorship which currently possesses nuclear weapons. Musharraf
and the Pakistani military have steadfastly opposed direct American intervention
for the past five years. .. … .. read
the rest
On a not altogether unrelated note, Hillary Mann Leverett and I got into a
discussion on my radio show about incrementalism in foreign policy in December.
She thinks bold moves are required. I do too, especially in diplomacy and on Iraq, but being
intensely involved in media and knowing the reality of wingnut radio,
it’s important to note that bold moves that don’t succeed can cost us more and
set progress back quicker and actually lose us ground than a steady, sure footed and realistic approach. Public opinion
through the noise machine, especially once the wingnuts get started, can stop
a new president in his/her tracks. And as much as I respect the experts’ push
for urgency and bold moves in our foreign policy, I definitely don’t think Obama’s idea of military
intervention into Pakistan should be considered, especially as things stand
today. Actionable intelligence or not, Pakistan and the surrounding area could not withstand our incursion right now. As a foreign policy student, I always enjoy dialogue with the experts. I wonder if Obama has asked the experts about his idea?
Also, my friend A.J.
over at Americablog, a former military man and one of my trusted
foreign policy voices, has introduced a “new and better foreign policy voice”
blogging series. Matthew Duss is first up. One
post from Duss is on Sadr’s savvy political strategy — and how it’s largely misinterpreted
by American observers; the other is on “Bush’s
democracy agenda.” Interesting stuff.
