PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues US Drones and Pakistan: What will Obama do?


patteeu
04-08-2009, 12:25 PM
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/08/pakistan-give-us-the-drones-and-get-out/) links a report from Bridget Johnson of The Hill and says that Pakistan is refusing to give us the assurances that Obama is seeking in connection to the $7.5 billion in aid he has promised to the Pakistanis. Instead, he says the Pakistanis are asking us to give them drone technology and let them take over the drone operation. It's too early to judge, but Obama's diplomatic magic seems to be fizzling in test after test.

From the Bridget Johnson report (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/report-pakistan-rejects-u.s.-plan-wants-drones-2009-04-08.html):

[A]according to a Pakistani newspaper, regional envoy Richard Holbrooke and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen came up empty handed and received a “rude shock” when a proposal for joint operations against Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in the volatile tribal regions was rejected.

Dawn newspaper reported that Pakistan also asked the U.S. to turn over the unmanned drone missions over the territory to them, saying that the drone strikes were fueling extremism.

dirk digler
04-08-2009, 12:28 PM
This is a simple answer. No money to Pakistan and keep doing the drone attacks.

patteeu
04-08-2009, 12:30 PM
This is a simple answer. No money to Pakistan and keep doing the drone attacks.

Is that what you think should be done or what you think Obama will do? Isn't that kind of unilateral?

Donger
04-08-2009, 12:31 PM
I thought Obama said that he'd just invade Pakistan if he decided it was warranted?

dirk digler
04-08-2009, 12:32 PM
Is that what you think should be done or what you think Obama will do? Isn't that kind of unilateral?

That is what I would do. AQ attacked us so I have no problem with it being unilateral. It has been that way for the most part anyway.

alanm
04-08-2009, 12:32 PM
Not only no but HELL NO!!
Or better yet why not just give all our defense technology to the Chinese, Russians and Iranians. :spock:

dirk digler
04-08-2009, 12:34 PM
I thought Obama said that he'd just invade Pakistan if he decided it was warranted?

I don't think he said invade. He said he would attack any AQ in Pakistan even if Pakistan didn't want to help.

mlyonsd
04-08-2009, 12:49 PM
Sounds like Pakistan didn't get the memo.

mlyonsd
04-08-2009, 12:53 PM
I don't think he said invade. He said he would attack any AQ in Pakistan even if Pakistan didn't want to help.

Obama was vague at best about what to do if Pakistan didn't cooperate.

That was one question I brought up here during the campaign but all Obama had to do was bat his eyes and the problem went away for the kool-aid drinkers. :)

Chief Faithful
04-08-2009, 12:55 PM
Pakistan just wants to warn the targets before they fire.

No Drones and no money for you Pakistan.

patteeu
04-08-2009, 12:56 PM
Obama was vague at best about what to do if Pakistan didn't cooperate.

That was one question I brought up here during the campaign but all Obama had to do was bat his eyes and the problem went away for the kool-aid drinkers. :)

He was vague because he was making it up as he went. Judging from his recent display of subservience in front of the Saudi King, he still is.

dirk digler
04-08-2009, 12:59 PM
Obama was vague at best about what to do if Pakistan didn't cooperate.

That was one question I brought up here during the campaign but all Obama had to do was bat his eyes and the problem went away for the kool-aid drinkers. :)

Vague?

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

patteeu
04-08-2009, 01:01 PM
Vague?

Act?

Act = Invade?

Act = Drop a bomb from an aircraft or a drone?

Act = Act outraged?

dirk digler
04-08-2009, 01:04 PM
Here is what the Pakistani President said. This is from today btw. Seems like he is just covering his ass.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/5123339/Asif-Ali-Zardari-Barack-Obama-should-give-us-drones-to-fight-terror.html

Mr Zardari said that he had made clear that Pakistan was willing to "take out high-value targets on our own".

"We welcome the technology and intelligence assistance that will give us the ability to succeed," he said. "President Obama once said that he would act if we weren't willing and able. We certainly are willing and with international support we will become even more able."

His comments came after a rise in the number of US missile attacks, launched by unmanned drones, against suspected terrorists in Pakistan's tribal areas over the past two months.

"I cannot condone violations of our sovereignty, even when they are done by allies and friends," Mr Zardari told The Independent. "We would much prefer that the US shares its intelligence and give us the drones and missiles that will allow us to take care of this problem on our own."

It is thought that Pakistan secretly co-operates with the drone attacks, despite public denials aimed at reassuring the Pakistani public that it opposes them. The government is under pressure to prevent militants making cross-border raids against US troops fighting in Afghanistan.

Pakistan has been struck by a fresh wave of suicide bombings in recent weeks. Responsibility for the attacks has been claimed by Baitullah Mehsud, a Taliban commander operating in the country.

Mehsud has said that the assaults, including one last week on a police training centre in Lahore, in which eight cadets were killed, were made in retaliation for the US drone strikes.

He threatened that his next attack would be "not in Afghanistan, but in Washington, which will amaze the entire world.".

dirk digler
04-08-2009, 01:05 PM
Act?

Act = Invade?

Act = Drop a bomb from an aircraft or a drone?

Act = Act outraged?

Act = All of the above :p

blaise
04-08-2009, 01:05 PM
Act?

Act = Invade?

Act = Drop a bomb from an aircraft or a drone?

Act = Act outraged?

He meant he'll pose for People magazine and they can write an article about his White House decor. Problem solved!

patteeu
04-08-2009, 01:06 PM
Here is what the Pakistani President said. This is from today btw. Seems like he is just covering his ass.

Seems like he's trying to get the US to give him advanced tech that would piss off the Indians to me.

dirk digler
04-08-2009, 01:08 PM
He meant he'll pose for People magazine and they can write an article about his White House decor. Problem solved!

Player hater

patteeu
04-08-2009, 01:08 PM
He meant he'll pose for People magazine and they can write an article about his White House decor. Problem solved!

Sometimes it's invaluable to have a "go to" move!

dirk digler
04-08-2009, 01:08 PM
Seems like he's trying to get the US to give him advanced tech that would piss off the Indians to me.

Probably that too

mlyonsd
04-08-2009, 01:13 PM
Vague?

When it comes to war if you don't think that's vague I don't know what to tell you.

vailpass
04-08-2009, 01:19 PM
Tiger Woods better handle this one with strength and conviction. The rest of the ME will walk all over him if he gets played by Pakistan.

dirk digler
04-08-2009, 01:21 PM
When it comes to war if you don't think that's vague I don't know what to tell you.

What do you want him to say? Give troop and base locations, strategy, etc before he is even POTUS?

LMAO

patteeu
04-08-2009, 01:22 PM
Tiger Woods better handle this one with strength and conviction. The rest of the ME will walk all over him if he gets played by Pakistan.

I think they're already lining up.

patteeu
04-08-2009, 01:23 PM
What do you want him to say? Give troop and base locations, strategy, etc before he is even POTUS?

LMAO

He shouldn't have said as much as he did say, but that doesn't change the fact that what he said was vague (except for the threat to disrespect Pakistani sovereignty).

dirk digler
04-08-2009, 01:23 PM
Tiger Woods better handle this one with strength and conviction. The rest of the ME will walk all over him if he gets played by Pakistan.

Tiger Woods LMAO

Tiger btw is the best golfer in the world so does that mean Obama will be the best president in the world?

patteeu
04-08-2009, 01:25 PM
Tiger Woods LMAO

Tiger btw is the best golfer in the world so does that mean Obama will be the best president in the world?

He's the best half-black, socialist president in American history!

dirk digler
04-08-2009, 01:27 PM
He shouldn't have said as much as he did say, but that doesn't change the fact that what he said was vague (except for the threat to disrespect Pakistani sovereignty).

Vague: 1 a: not clearly expressed : stated in indefinite terms <vague accusations> b: not having a precise meaning <a vague term of abuse>


"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will,"

To me that isn't vague that is pretty direct.

But hey what do I know, not much apparently. :D

blaise
04-08-2009, 01:33 PM
Player hater

People actually still say that?

mlyonsd
04-08-2009, 01:37 PM
What do you want him to say? Give troop and base locations, strategy, etc before he is even POTUS?

LMAO

I see where Obama is going with this now.

Bush was as clear as could be when it came to Iraq. There was no pussy footing around, a clear line in the sand date was kept, it was made clear to the world what would happen if Saddam didn't abide by UN rules, and he made it stick.

Bush wasn't vague at all and most democrats went with him on it. Of course after that they somehow lost site of that fact and used it as a political weapon later. Those tricky Bush/Cheney fellows, they pulled a fast one on everyone by doing exactly what they said they would.

Obama learned from that and has obviously decided that playing the vague card when it comes to attacking a soveriegn nation that holds nukes the best option available, because that way his loyal followers won't question the fact he really doesn't know what to do with Pakistan. And you're proof he can get away with it.

Direckshun
04-08-2009, 02:00 PM
patteeu,

I honestly don't know what you expect, pat. Obama has never said that Pakistan would fold to its whims, and we Obamaniacs here on the board have never insisted that Obama's fairy dust would, in the first 100 days of his administration, be able to reverse the poisonous political trends in Pakistan that must be addressed in order for Afghanistan to succeed.

The Pakistanis were eventually going to want to take control of drone attacks. They were eventually going to bitch about the drones actually having the intended effect of wreaking havoc in the Taliban-centric locales in Waziristan. They were eventually going to want to take more money from the United States and have to do less to earn it.

That was going to happen if Obama, McCain, Clinton, Bush III, Palin, Biden, Mr. Kotter, or your mother were President. This is the dynamics of the region; they are difficult and they will never guarantee success, but they are absolutely crucial to address.

The fact that you are trying to pin these inevitable shortcomings, which this will certainly not be the last during the Obama administration or the next, on Obama only proves that you are the very definition of a demogogue.

It amuses me to no end that you claim now, of all times, that Obama's diplomacy fizzles after every test when he just finished a popular and powerful trip across Europe and Turkey in which he was generally hailed as a positive, helpful, emotionally inciteful presense.

patteeu
04-08-2009, 02:21 PM
patteeu,

I honestly don't know what you expect, pat. Obama has never said that Pakistan would fold to its whims, and we Obamaniacs here on the board have never insisted that Obama's fairy dust would, in the first 100 days of his administration, be able to reverse the poisonous political trends in Pakistan that must be addressed in order for Afghanistan to succeed.

The Pakistanis were eventually going to want to take control of drone attacks. They were eventually going to bitch about the drones actually having the intended effect of wreaking havoc in the Taliban-centric locales in Waziristan. They were eventually going to want to take more money from the United States and have to do less to earn it.

That was going to happen if Obama, McCain, Clinton, Bush III, Palin, Biden, Mr. Kotter, or your mother were President. This is the dynamics of the region; they are difficult and they will never guarantee success, but they are absolutely crucial to address.

The fact that you are trying to pin these inevitable shortcomings, which this will certainly not be the last during the Obama administration or the next, on Obama only proves that you are the very definition of a demogogue.

It amuses me to no end that you claim now, of all times, that Obama's diplomacy fizzles after every test when he just finished a popular and powerful trip across Europe and Turkey in which he was generally hailed as a positive, helpful, emotionally inciteful presense.

Did you make all these excuses for the challenges that GWBush faced in Pakistan or have you adopted them as a defense for your Obama after painting Bush as a foreign policy failure and Obama as a breath of fresh air? I don't really remember where you stood, but I assure you that there are plenty of people who have unclean hands on this point. I'm judging Obama on the Bush baseline. Just based on the fact that Bush has laid the groundwork after starting from scratch, I'd expect Obama to be able to improve the situation. If the situation degrades, that's on your guy, IMO. Bush had the good sense to keep our discussions with Pakistan quiet and to avoid embarrassing them by letting the cat out of the bag that they were complicit in our drone operation (although in fairness to Obama, this one probably wasn't his fault). It's too early to tell, but so far Obama hasn't been able to accomplish anything that Bush wasn't able to accomplish and in some respects our relationship with Pakistan seems to have taken a small step backward.

Just what is it that Obama accomplished on his great trip to Europe? Here are some of the things I've seen from him. He sternly warned NK not to launch it's rocket just before they did. He seems to have lost interest in the Iranian nuclear program after failing to get any support from Russia and just as evidence surfaces that the Iranians have been working on a nuclear weapons program all along (contrary to the over-broad interpretations of the CIA's NIE from a couple of years ago). He seems prepared to turn our backs on eastern European allies who wanted to be a part of a ballistic missile shield under pressure from the Russians. He's bowing to foreign kings and insulting our closest allies because of his failure to field a competent protocol operation. And his most popular move seems to be apologizing for how bad America is. What's not to like?

dirk digler
04-08-2009, 02:30 PM
I see where Obama is going with this now.

Bush was as clear as could be when it came to Iraq. There was no pussy footing around, a clear line in the sand date was kept, it was made clear to the world what would happen if Saddam didn't abide by UN rules, and he made it stick.

Bush wasn't vague at all and most democrats went with him on it. Of course after that they somehow lost site of that fact and used it as a political weapon later. Those tricky Bush/Cheney fellows, they pulled a fast one on everyone by doing exactly what they said they would.

Obama learned from that and has obviously decided that playing the vague card when it comes to attacking a soveriegn nation that holds nukes the best option available, because that way his loyal followers won't question the fact he really doesn't know what to do with Pakistan. And you're proof he can get away with it.

I ask again what do you want him to say? Drone attacks have been way up since he has taken office. So he is doing exactly what he said he was going to do.

Hence the reason why the Pakistani President is bitching about it.

mlyonsd
04-08-2009, 02:32 PM
I ask again what do you want him to say? Drone attacks have been way up since he has taken office. So he is doing exactly what he said he was going to do.

I'm not sure you know that for a fact but in any case you're not going to get rid of the problem with just drone attacks.

dirk digler
04-08-2009, 02:35 PM
I'm not sure you know that for a fact but in any case you're not going to get rid of the problem with just drone attacks.

It is a fact and in fairness to Bush they were rising before he left office.

And I agree with you that drone only attacks will only go so far there needs to be more done.

dirk digler
04-08-2009, 02:36 PM
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan urged President Barack Obama to halt U.S. missile strikes on al-Qaida strongholds near the Afghan border, saying Saturday that civilians were killed the previous day in the first attacks since Obama's inauguration.

Pakistani security officials said eight suspected foreign militants, including an Egyptian al-Qaida operative, were among 22 people killed in Friday's twin strikes in the Waziristan region.

But the Foreign Ministry said that the attacks by unmanned aircraft also killed an unspecified number of civilians and that it had informed U.S. officials of its "great concern."

"With the advent of the new U.S. administration, it is Pakistan's sincere hope that the United States will review its policy and adopt a more holistic and integrated approach toward dealing with the issue of terrorism and extremism," a ministry statement said.
"We maintain that these attacks are counterproductive and should be discontinued," it said.

Pakistani leaders complain that stepped-up missile strikes _ there have been more than 30 since August _ fan anti-American sentiment and undermine the government's own efforts to counter Islamist militants.

Iowanian
04-08-2009, 04:04 PM
Maybe an unmanned "minuteman" would send the proper message....

patteeu
04-08-2009, 04:19 PM
I ask again what do you want him to say? Drone attacks have been way up since he has taken office. So he is doing exactly what he said he was going to do.

Hence the reason why the Pakistani President is bitching about it.

Drone attacks picked up late last year. But one thing that *has* changed since he took office is that Diane Feinstein let it slip that the US drones were being launched from a base within Pakistan. It's not the location of the launches that has changed, it's the public awareness of it.

patteeu
04-08-2009, 05:04 PM
Just what is it that Obama accomplished on his great trip to Europe?

More on this from Ralph Peters:

O'S AMATEUR HOUR (http://www.nypost.com/seven/04082009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_amateur_hour_163368.htm?page=0)
APPEASING ISLAMISTS IN TURKEY

By RALPH PETERS

THE real climax of President Obama's Spring Apologies Tour wasn't his photo op with our troops in Baghdad or even his "American Guilt" concerts in Western Europe.

While fans in the press cheered wildly at every venue, the real performance came in Turkey. And it was a turkey.

Obama means well. Just as Jimmy Carter, his policy godfather, meant well. But the road to embassy takeovers and strategic humiliation is paved with good intentions -- coupled with distressing naivete.

On every stage, Obama draped Lady Liberty in sackcloth and ashes, drawing plentiful applause but no serious economic or security cooperation in return. Then, in Turkey, he surrendered our national pride, undercut our interests and interfered in matters that aren't his business.

On the latter point: Suppose the European Union president went to Cuba and insisted that the world's sunniest concentration camp should be welcomed into NAFTA? That's the equivalent of what our president did in Ankara on Monday when he declared that he supports Turkey's bid for EU membership.

The Europeans don't want Turkey in their club. Because Turkey isn't a European state, nor is its culture European. And it isn't our business to press Europe to embrace a huge, truculent Muslim country suffering a creeping Islamist coup.

The Europeans were appalled by Turkey's neo-Taliban tantrum on-stage at last week's NATO summit. The Turks fought to derail the appointment of a great Dane, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, as the new NATO secretary general. Why? Because he didn't stone to death the Danish cartoonist who caricatured Mohammed.

Which brings us to the even bigger problem: Obama has no idea what's going on in Turkey. By going to Ankara on his knees, he gave his seal of approval to a pungently anti-American Islamist government bent on overturning Mustapha Kemal's legacy of the separation of mosque and state.

Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party, the AKP, means headscarves, Korans, censorship and stacked elections. The country's alarmed middle class opposes the effort to turn the country into an Islamic state. Obama's gushing praise for the AKP's bosses left them aghast.

Obama's embrace of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (now orchestrating show trials of his opponents) was one step short of going to Tehran and smooching President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

What was Obama thinking? He wasn't. He relied on advice from State Department appeasement artists who understand neither Turkey, Islam nor the crises raging between the Bosporus and the Indus. State's answer is always "More love, more humility, more aid."

Well, I, for one, don't think our country has anything to apologize for, either to Turkey or to Europe.

Insisting that America's always guilty, Obama omitted any mention of Turkey's wartime betrayals of our troops, its continuing oppression of its Kurd minority or the AKP's determination to turn a state with a secular constitution into a Wahhabi playground.

When it came to the Armenian genocide, Obama bravely ducked: He never dared use the g-word.

And Obama's disdainful remarks about President Bush were just shabby.

After those overpriced tour T-shirts have shrunk in the wash (trust me -- they will), what will we have gained from Obama's superstar act?

He told the Europeans that the global economic crisis is all our fault. No mention of European greed, overleveraged governments, destructive Euro-loans or Chinese currency manipulation. We did it. Whip us, please.

In return, the Europeans gave him . . . nothing.

Even though Obama was right when he said that Europe faces a greater terror threat than we do, the entire continent only ponied up 2,500 short-term non-combat troops for Afghanistan. The Europeans know we'll do the heavy lifting.

He gave the Russians yet another blank check, too. (Meanwhile, in Moscow, Putin's thugs beat an aging pro-democracy dissident to a pulp.) In return, the Russians promised to . . . well, actually, they didn't promise anything.

Then Obama went to Turkey, undercut secular political parties, infuriated the Europeans -- and disclaimed our country's Judeo-Christian heritage. (Did Turkey's leaders respond by denying Islam's importance to them? Naw.)

In Turkey, Obama got . . . nothing we didn't already have.

Then he went to Iraq and told its prime minister that Iraq would get nothing.

I believe that our president wants to do the right thing. But he doesn't have a clue how. For now, he's enraptured by the applause. But he hasn't tried to charge his fans for their tickets. And they've already made up their minds they won't have to pay.