When Rob Power mentioned Barack Obama advocating war with Pakistan at last night's LPSF chat, I was a bit disbelieving. But I am on the Obama campaign's email list by virtue of having done a bit of satirical blogging for the candidate (see http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/power ), and just got the following email from him in which he does call, sure enough, if not for war with Pakistan, at least for sending U.S. government troops there:
"The first step to making America safer is getting our troops out of Iraq and onto the right battlefields in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But that's not enough.
We must develop the military and intelligence capabilities to neutralize terrorist networks and secure the world's most deadly weapons.
Recruiting, training, and equipping our forces to fight more targeted and agile counter-terrorism missions are central to our success."
Now not being a knee-jerk anti-interventionist myself, I don't *necessarily* disagree with the idea of U.S. government (USgov) troops being sent to Pakistan to root out Al Qaeda. But surely many left-wing Democrats will object to this, not to mention to Obama's implicit calls for using military and intelligence means to prevent the wrong people from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and for strengthening USgov's military (i.e. pouring even more resources into the world's largest and most powerful armed organization).
It's amusing that Obama's prescription for a more "agile" military capability sounds suspiciously similar to the Rumsfeld strategy employed in Iraq of using numerically smaller but supposedly more agile troop deployments (see http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/03/con06112.html ). I think such a strategy actually does have much to recommend it and that the failure in Iraq was due to other causes, but Obama seems blind to the familiarity of his "new chapter in American history."
It is also very difficult to see how his call for using more diplomacy squares with his call to "pressure Pakistan to root out al Qaeda once and for all" and to "secure the world's most deadly weapons." It is precisely because the relevant powers have through abundant evidence shown themselves unwilling to voluntarily go along with such plans that the Bush administration has often spurned diplomatic negotiations in favor of unilateral action. And Obama seems to recognize this when he says "If Pakistan or any other nation won't act against bin Ladin and his cohorts, we will." What he doesn't acknowledge is how much his approach has in common with the Bush approach.
If you have Democrat friends who are supporting Obama, especially those who like him because they think Hilary Clinton is too supportive of war, you might forward them this email with the suggestion that a vote for Ron Paul or a Libertarian candidate would be a more effective way to advance their vision of peace.
Love & Liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
(Attachment obama08_header2.jpg is missing)
(Attachment terrorism_email.jpg is missing)
(Attachment action_footer.gif is missing)
(Attachment obama_sig.gif is missing)
(Attachment action_footer.gif is missing)
(Attachment obama08_footer.jpg is missing)
(Attachment yEXVuc.gif is missing)