Pakistani Protests against Obama;
Clinton leaves Nukes on the Table;
Tancredo an Inspiration to the Criminally Insane that They, Too, Could run for President
I'm going to hear Senator Barack Obama on Saturday afternoon at the Yearly Kos convention. Will report back on Sunday about his remarks.
On Thursday, he said he would not use nuclear weapons against al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, then backed up and said "scratch that," there had been no discussion of nuclear weapons.
Hillary Clinton criticized Obama for (initially?) ruling out the use of nuclear weapons, saying that a president should not take any weapon in the arsenal off the table.
I really think the Democrats are misunderstanding the mood of the American people. Is Senator Clinton saying she would entertain the option of nuking Pakistan or Afghanistan? Wouldn't that kill a lot of innocents and spread radioactive materials around on the grass that cows eat, putting it into milk and thence into local children, increasing their chances of contracting cancer? Isn't Obama absolutely right that this is one instance in which nukes are useless for tactical purposes?
Pakistan, by the way, is a) an ally, b) a nuclear power in its own right, c) a major Muslim country of 160 million, the population of which will soon equal that of the United States, and d) an opinion leader among other Muslim states. Most Pakistanis are not fundamentalists but rather Sufis, traditionalists, mild reformists or secularists. Or at least that is the case now. If US presidential candidates push them to the wall, they can after all decide to turn radical.
(The certifiable Tom Tancredo is talking about holding Islamic holy sites Mecca and Medina hostage to nuclear blackmail. Can't one of Tancredo's family members have him committed, sign the papers and get rich off his estate while he is in a padded room for a few years?)
As for the mostly sane Democrats, could we please stop talking about whether we are going to nuke our allies? I mean, I know that Obama and Clinton are afraid that their Republican rivals will talk tougher than they and will depict them as soft on terrorism. But I can't imagine that the electorate wants to hear that nukes are on the table with regard to the tribes of northern Pakistan!
And if you were Iranian and heard the Clinton and Tancredo remarks, wouldn't you tell your nuclear scientists to start putting in overtime? Wouldn't such talk actually spur nuclear proliferation in the Muslim world?
Ironically, Mitt Romney and John McCain are making hay with charges that Obama is too gung ho and his remarks would interfere with US attempts to build coalitions against terror groups in the region!
It is early in the campaign, and it is not too late for Obama to recover, but it seems obvious that he made a serious error in his speech on Wednesday regarding northern Pakistan.
Reactions from Pakistan continue to roll in regarding the remarks of US Democratic presidential hopeful Obama that he would order unilateral military action in northern Pakistan if there were actionable intelligence on al-Qaeda and the Pakistani government refused to act on it.
The governor of Baluchistan province, Owais Ahmed Ghani, said that Obama's remarks hindered the war on terror. Ghani pointed out that Pakistani troops are the ones doing the hard fighting against extremists in the north (Pakistan has captured over 700 al-Qaeda operatives, more than any other US ally). Dawn writes, 'The governor said the Pakistanis watched their soldiers being killed in the fight against militants, and they say “if that is the sort of signal that is coming out of Washington, why bother? . . Nothing must be said or done which will undermine the vital public support that Pakistan needs, the world needs."
Earlier, about 1,000 tribesmen rallied in Miranshah in the north, pledging to defend themselves if attacked by foreigners. "Hundreds" demonstrated in the capital, Islamabad, against Obama. A small demonstration of 150 was held in Karachi.
Pakistan's foreign minister, Khursheed Kasuri, told AP, "It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say . . . As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."
It is highly undesirable for a presidential candidate to spark this sort of reaction in a country allied with the US. In my view, the episode derives from inexperience on foreign policy and from bad advice from campaign managers and speech writers.
The question is, can Obama repair the damage or was this the moment when the Democratic grassroots decided he is not ready for prime time?
Labels: Pakistan
posted by Juan Cole @ 8/04/2007 12:31:00 AM
|
Facebook
30 Comments:
I am sorry to say this, but you and the others are giving credibility to those politicians by getting involved with them rather than fully dismissing them after a threshold is passed.
The richest nation in history with 300 million citizens surely can do much better than the garbage in Washington. By getting involved with their hideous debates they get credibility, and get more by the razzmatazz and showbiz/carnival called the Elections that seem to fully absorb the people for two years out of every four!
These blood-thirsty lunatics are not only a danger to the other nations, they are destroying the USA too. When they talk about US prestige they really mean their own personal prestige. You can see the lust in the eyes of Rice and others when they make threats and 'pangs' declarations.
Why are the stupid American people prepared to prop these loonies up? What do they get out of it? Are there any better Americans, or are these your best?
I think there's no mystery. Obama and Clinton, especially Clinton, are devoid of honor, of any willingness to tell the truth if it might jeopardize their chances of getting the job. And this kind of amoral thinking always makes people stupid, which is one reason it's self-defeating.
It's idle to hope in politicians. If the American people will humble themselves - in the words of the Dixie Chicks, "Let's learn from our history, and do it differently" - the politicians will follow. And if not, preferring delusion, the politicians will provide it.
I see no hope except in the army turning against the war, as happened in Germany and Russia to end WW1, and in the rest of the world developing the resolve to stand against and contain the American empire until the madness passes. The Russians and the Chinese appear to get it, which I find hopeful. But in view of climate change, the madness of the American people which has them ready to entertain politicians who want to drop nuclear bombs on innocent people, and other factors, I think we're in for a dreadful time. Learning and speaking the truth, howver unpleasant, is where we must begin, and the likes of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will never do that.
Dear Professor Cole
Thank you for your very sensible comments on Nuking Pakistan.
Please can I ask a favour?
As you will have access to the candidate at Kos would you ask her as a matter of urgency to declare a moratorium on discussion of such subjects in general open and uninformed fora.
The media is read worldwide and I dread to think of the effect that Obamas and Clinton's remarks are having in Bradford in UK with 25% Asian population.
Now you start to understand why young people try and kill us in our airports and underground railways.
By now the British Ambassador will be on the phone jumping up and down with fury.
I agree with you about the padded cell for Tom Tancredo.
What he is talking about is the plot of this book which has been doing the rounds for the last six years.
Wild Fire
Like Tom Clancy's books, this is not the basis of a responsible foreign policy.
What candidates say now can be used against them after primaries. They cannot simply address only the wishes of their parties' audience. I believe that is why democrats have expressed such hard line attitudes. Come general elections, you don't need the added specter of being weak on "security" or the label of being a flip-flopper.
Finally, Hillary is politically savvy enough to know not to admit to taking off the arsenal things wanted by certain powerful lobbies. Reading Israeli papers, it seems that AIPAC wants all options left on the table for fighting Islamic terrorism. Removing this option could lose the support of a very powerful lobby, and possibly causing her candidacy to suffer.
Juan,
From an AFP article released on
August 3: "But Bush's administration has also ramped up the pressure. Senior US troubleshooter Nicholas Burns said last week that Washington would retain the option of targeting Al-Qaeda in the Pakistan-Afghan border areas in some circumstances.
A few days earlier, the White House's counter-terrorism official
Frances Townsend caused a stir by refusing to rule out a similar military incursion."
As far as I know, no one has accused either Burns or Townsend as being inexperienced or acting on bad advice. Don't fall into the trap being set by the multitude of two bit Republican media shills who disparage Obama while concurrently praising the "experience" of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate they want to run against and who will automatically mobilize the dispirited Republican base.
Initially interested in Obama, this incident certainly convinced me that he is not the right person for the job. Along with Hillery's comments the whole thing is very discouraging. What can we expect from the future with people like this in positions of power and control?
Saying that one would not use nuclear weapons against al-Qaeda in Pakistan or Afgahanistan - does that upset anyone (besides Tancredo)?
If there is actionable intellegence pin pointing al-Qaeda leadership and the government of the country refuses to act then we will-is that a statement from which Obama needs to "recover"?
I'm a liberal Democrat and a Clinton supporter and I think Obama is correct and how this hinders the war on terror is beyond me.
But maybe I'm not "nuanced" enough.
reminds me of wes clark's moment of daftness in the last cycle when he said he'd hand the problem (policing the autonomous tribal areas) over to the saudis.
the partisan problem is that both (first-term) senators are profoundly wrong, which leaves us with edwards or dodd -- candidates i favor but most of the money, media, and memes have not favored.
Obama is looking for a way to circunvent AIPAC's control.
Professor Cole:
"Wouldn't that kill a lot of innocents and spread radioactive materials around on the grass that cows eat, putting it into milk and thence into local children, increasing their chances of contracting cancer?"
I'm not sure the Democrats really care about such things, as the 'fallout'(sic) would most likely be 'manageable' via the Western media, and spoon-fed to the American & European populations as a vital action in the 'War On Terror'.
The response from the rest of the world might be problematic [giggle].... But a little saber-rattling at that point should put the rest of the provincial pissants in their place.
I mean, they're committing genocide in Baghdad at this very moment, and the U.S. media hardly gives it a column-inch:
See: For The Past 24 Hours The People of Baghdad Have Had No Water
--30--
I've never understood some thinking from the Democrats in Congress, and now especially Hillary Clinton puzzles me.
If we "can't take nukes off the table", as she says, then WHY DO THEY KEEP TAKING IMPEACHMENT OFF THE TABLE? It seems, to me, like the exact same scenario. Doesn't it?
At 11:02 AM, eurofrank said...
Dear Professor Cole
Thank you for your very sensible comments on Nuking Pakistan.
Please can I ask a favour?
As you will have access to the candidate at Kos would you ask her as a matter of urgency to declare a moratorium on discussion of such subjects in general open and uninformed fora.
Just say NO to PC self-censorship...
Juan, I think you misread what Obama said about nucs. According to reports, he said:
"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama said, with a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly added, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table." When he says "scratch that", it seems to me he he dropping the qualifier "involving civililians", which actually makes it a stronger statement against any use of nucs. That, rather than backtracking, seems to be what he is trying to say....
As I argue at my blog, the problem here isn't Obama's or Clinton's actual policy, but the misuse of that specific phrase. That phrase refers to whether we're officially considering these options. But the warhawks have altered the phrase to refer to the possibility of considering these options, and the "Foreign Policy Community" now accepts that altered meaning as the correct one. But that's not what the phrase means and isn't how Pakistan and others are taking it.
I'm sure that Clinton and Obama don't really consider nuking Pakistan to be "on the table". They're just jumping through the warhawks' hoops. But by doing so, they're harming our foreign policy by making threats they really weren't trying to make.
But as I said, I wrote more about it:
Taking the Serious Person Award Off the Table
"......The richest nation in history with 300 million citizens surely can do much better than the garbage in Washington......"
Actually the country is bankrupt and living on borrowed money and time. Robbing own citizens and other nations as well.
Yeah, Obama and Clinton are really a good specimen of those 300 millions you mentioned, in fact a good specimen. Otherwise, why on earth, if there is any better and smarter have he /she not became President?
It took me 35 years to realize those 2 facts.
Re: Obama's mal mot.
We wonder why they hate us? They hate us because we use the possibility of inflicting terror upon them merely for political gain.
They hate us because our leaders are stupid.
We wonder why they hate us because we are too stupid to see the obvious.
They despise us because we are too stupid to see the obvious and we elect people who reflect our attitudes.
Maybe Tancredo should read Malcolm X's letter from Mecca.
"Never have I witnessed such sincere hospitality and the overwhelming spirit of true brotherhood as practiced by people of all colors and races here in this Ancient Holy Land, the home of Abraham, Muhammad and all other prophets of the Holy Scriptures.
I have been blessed to visit the Holy City of Mecca. There were tens of thousands of pilgrims, from all over the world. They were of all colors, from blue eyed blonds to black skin Africans. But we were all participating in the same rituals, displaying a spirit of unity and brotherhood that my experiences in America had lead me to believe never could exist between the white and non-white.
America needs to understand Islam, because this is the one religion that erases from its society the race problem. Throughout my travels in the Muslim world, I have met, talked to, and even eaten with people who in America would have considered 'white' -- but the 'white' attitude was removed from their minds by the religion of Islam. I have never before seen sincere and true brotherhood practiced by all colors together, irrespective of their color.
I could see from this, that perhaps if white Americans could accept the Oneness of God, then perhaps, too, they could accept in reality the Oneness of Man -- and cease to measure, and hinder, and harm others in terms of their differences in color.
With racism plaguing America like an incurable cancer, the so-called 'Christian' white American heart should be more receptive to a proven solution to such a destructive problem. Perhaps it could be in time to save America from imminent disaster -- the same destruction brought upon Germany by racism that eventually destroyed the Germans themselves."
Dear Buffalo in the Midst
Cross posted from Helena Cobban's place
I am going to propose that we impose a moratorium on discussion of the use of WMD against identified targets in public because of the effect on young minds in places like Leeds or Bradford Yorkshire and becasue we are accustoming people to thinking the unthinkable.
If I were a young man listening to the theoretical discussion of attacking my cousins in Pakistan with overwhelming force, or as Juan Cole reports today some Barking Mad Lunatic Congressman proposing to target Mecca and Medina, then I might feel inclined to think about striking back at civilian infrastructure in any way I could.
As I might have died in London two years ago if the bombs had gone off on Saturday when I go to SOAS for lessons instead of Wednesday, I am not going to gratuitously offend peoples religeous, national, family and ethnic sensibilities. I used to get off the Tube at Russell Square where 21 died and we all spent the day trying to find out if our friends and teachers were still in one piece.
There is a place for discussion of these issues but I suspect that you need to have read some basic texts on the concepts of deterrence and the effects and persistence of the weapons before making sweeping statements about using them.
Gruinard Island was uninhabitable for fifty years and you might have died rather horribly if you landed.
I have never been accused of being PC before. It is just basic self preservation, brought on by standing in queues at checkin in UK airports and wondering if a blazing 4 x 4 is going to come whistling through the roof, and how I get out alive if it does.
What we found in Belfast is that the more you discuss and explain to people who dont share a fundamental core understanding, the more they reinforce their fundamental myth.
Juan,
I don't fault Hillary's position.
I believe, by the way, that she was responding to a reporter's question about nuclear policy. She said that she didn't know exactly what Obama said, so she wouldn't respond to it, and then reiterated the standard position on use of nuclear weapons. I see no problem. By the way, the arena of nuclear war is where foreign policy wonks have had a success. It is a very worthy achievement that there have been no nuclear attacks since WWII. Obama is trying to upset the apple cart and get everyone talking about using nukes. I think this irresponsible in the extreme. OFr Obama to do this is much worse than Tancredo: everyone knows that Tancredo has no chance, but Obama really could be our next President. I hope he drops out of the race soon---he could do a lot of damage before he's even elected, at this rate.
Obama and his team are the ones at fault though. His adviser Samantha Powers hinted that other candidates would consider nuking terrorist training camps.
While the Democratic leaders argue about how best to continue George Bush's failed strategy in Iraq, Bill Richardson offers peace. See www.richardsonforpresident.com for the winning strategy for our nation.
Interesting Slate article a few days back over Obama's "naivete" (according to Biden) in answering hypotheticals.
Barack Obama is trying hard to show that he's willing to challenge the so-called conventional wisdom but ended up with egg on his face. His comment that he would order unilateral military action in northern Pakistan if there were actionable intelligence on al-Qaeda and the Pakistani government refused to act on it exposed his ignorance, not his toughness.
Obama is the most inexperienced candidate running for president. Too bad that two terms of George W Bush have left the American people so starved for leadership that they're willing to vote for someone based on a simple "trust me."
I have posted a comment on the International blog as to why the US should not be annoying the Pakistanis.
I expect there will be some belly laughs in Bishkek this month at the US penchant for shooting itself in the foot.
More Great Game
"War is too important to be left to generals.."
War is too important to be left to the civilians who wich to run this country. Who -or what- is left? Maybe some high technology company can get build a computer to 'generate' some kind of rational foreign and military policies.
Listening to these candidates makes me wonder what sort of drugs they are taking....
Please add Rep. Tom Lantos to your list of certifiables.
I think that we at least owe the candidates the respect to accurately portray their comments. Clinton did not in anyway suggest nuclear sabre-rattling in her answer.
The full text was:
"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons. Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace.
"Everyone agrees that our goal should be to capture or kill Bin Laden and his lieutenants, but how we do it should not be telegraphed and discussed for obvious reasons.
"And I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. But I think we’ll leave it at that, because I don’t know the circumstances in which he was responding."
----------------
I would point out that nuclear deterrence has been THE most fundamental principle of national security policy for more than half a century. Nuclear deterrence kept us out of a shooting war with the Soviet Union. Lord knows, I studied enough books about deterrence in foreign policy and Soviet Politics courses in college back in the 70s. With nine nuclear countries and no use of the weapons since 1945, it is difficult to argue that the doctrine of deterrence has not been effective. Of course, the whole point of deterrence is that nuclear weapons as retaliation is specifically left on the table in order to deter pre-emptive strikes by a non-suicidal country.
A president who took nuclear deterrence off the table in reference to one of the worlds most unstable declared nuclear powers (Pakistan) would be changing long-standing US security doctrine in a breathtaking way. Off-hand comments on the campaign trail are probably not the place for that kind of formulation.
"When he says "scratch that", it seems to me he he dropping the qualifier "involving civililians", which actually makes it a stronger statement against any use of nucs."
What Obama actually said was, "Let me scratch ALL OF that."
He cancelled whole statement and went with the "we've had no discussions of nukes...." comment. The AP reporter misquoted him. The ALL OF THAT part made the retraction more clear.
I don't know why he didn't just quit while he was ahead. His campaign then released a long memo that seemed to restate the policy that he had retracted. That's becoming a habit.
He did the same thing with the "meet with any dictator" gaffe. His campaign issued a simple clarification after the debate ("of course, meetings would only follow proper groundwork"). End of story. Until Obama then went back to his his original statement and trumpeted it was some new breakthrough in diplomacy.
The whole episode only confirms my sense that both Hillary Clinton and Obama are soulless opportunists who aren't the least bit troubled by how their tough talk only serves to embolden our crazy president and frighten people all over the world that we are a whole country gone mad.
In one of the early debates Mike Gravel said "these [candidates] scare me." He was right-- but what concerns me more is how the democratic rank and file seem to have aquiesced to the notion that we have to accept that a viable democratic candidate has to seem like a bloodthirsty loon to be credible.
I've written an analysis of why American intervention in Pakistan would be stupid and here, developed in comments and here.
As for use of nuclear weapons against civilian populations, this is what we claim that only terrorists would do. And, in that, we're right.
My dear anonymous #1. I agree with Juanito. Furthermore, let me say this:
Senator Obama must make sure to secure the Democratic Party Nomination for I fear that the Democratic Party runs the risk of another schism such as the past two. He must be able to foresee Republican Senators seeking to covertly, or otherwise, ally themselves with Senator Clinton. Such a conundrum may inevitably lead Senator Obama to vie as an Independent Candidate. This would be disastrous, for We would now have to further contend with the recurring, ghastly specter that we cannot end.
Iraq.
Pakistani Tribes. Ay no.
Iran (I spilled coffee on my question mark sign key). X5.
The Republican Agenda is dangerous, "Gold", (black) "is the reason for the wars we wage". Thank you Bono.
Post a Comment
<< Home