Obama widens missile strikes inside Pakistan

[G_j]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29310523/

NYT:
Obama widens missile strikes inside Pakistan
Raids aim at militants who play less-direct role in attacks on U.S. troops

By MARK MAZZETTI and DAVID E. SANGER

updated 12:14 a.m. CT, Sat., Feb. 21, 2009
WASHINGTON - With two missile strikes over the past week, the Obama administration has expanded the covert war run by the Central Intelligence Agency inside Pakistan, attacking a militant network seeking to topple the Pakistani government.

The missile strikes on training camps run by Baitullah Mehsud represent a broadening of the American campaign inside Pakistan, which has been largely carried out by drone aircraft. Under President Bush, the United States frequently attacked militants from Al Qaeda and the Taliban involved in cross-border attacks into Afghanistan, but had stopped short of raids aimed at Mr. Mehsud and his followers, who have played less of a direct role in attacks on American troops.

The strikes are another sign that President Obama is continuing, and in some cases extending, Bush administration policy in using American spy agencies against terrorism suspects in Pakistan, as he had promised to do during his presidential campaign. At the same time, Mr. Obama has begun to scale back some of the Bush policies on the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects, which he has criticized as counterproductive.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012102489.html


Calling a Time Out
By George McGovern
Thursday, January 22, 2009; Page

As you settle into the Oval Office, Mr. President, may I offer a suggestion? Please do not try to put Afghanistan aright with the U.S. military. To send our troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan would be a near-perfect example of going from the frying pan into the fire. There is reason to believe some of our top military commanders privately share this view. And so does a broad and growing swath of your party and your supporters.

True, the United States is the world's greatest power -- but so was the British Empire a century ago when it tried to pacify the warlords and tribes of Afghanistan, only to be forced out after excruciating losses. For that matter, the Soviet Union was also a superpower when it poured some 100,000 troops into Afghanistan in 1979. They limped home, broken and defeated, a decade later, having helped pave the way for the collapse of the Soviet Union.

It is logical to conclude that our massive military dominance and supposedly good motives should let us work our will in Afghanistan. But logic does not always prevail in South Asia. With belligerent Afghan warlords sitting atop each mountain glowering at one another, the one factor that could unite them is the invasion of their country by a foreign power, whether British, Russian or American.

I have believed for some time that military power is no solution to terrorism. The hatred of U.S. policies in the Middle East -- our occupation of Iraq, our backing for repressive regimes such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, our support of Israel -- that drives the terrorist impulse against us would better be resolved by ending our military presence throughout the arc of conflict. This means a prudent, carefully directed withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and elsewhere. We also need to close down the imposing U.S. military bases in this section of the globe, which do so little to expand our security and so much to stoke local resentment.

We cannot evade this reckoning. The British thought they could extend their control over Iraq even while pulling out their ground forces by creating a string of bases in remote parts of the country, away from the observation of most Iraqis. It didn't work. No people that desires independence and self-determination wishes to have another nation's military bases in its country. In 1776, remember, 13 little colonies drove the mighty British Empire from American soil.

..more..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/world/africa/20briefs-TUTUURGESOBA_BRF.html?_r=2&ref=world

South Africa: Tutu Urges Obama to Apologize to Iraqis

By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Published: February 19, 2009

Archbishop Desmond Tutu warned Thursday that President Obama risked squandering good will from around the world if he failed to take concrete steps like apologizing for the Iraq war. Archbishop Tutu, 77, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and the retired archbishop of Cape Town, also urged Mr. Obama to support the International Criminal Court and “come down hard” on African dictators. He wrote in an article for the BBC’s Web site that the high hopes surrounding Mr. Obama’s presidency could turn sour. Mr. Obama “could easily squander the good will that his election generated if he disappoints,” Archbishop Tutu wrote. “It would be wonderful if, on behalf of the nation, Obama apologizes to the world, and especially the Iraqis, for an invasion that I believe has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster.”

[anonymous171]

1. Obama needs to be careful. He could suffer the same fate as LBJ. nt

[snappyturtle]

5. It's too bad the President is committing more troops to Afghanistan.

By doing that he is making it his war. I don't really know why we're in Afghanistan any more....and the strikes into Pakistan are only exacerbating the scenario. Time to bring the troops home to save lives, ours and theirs, and $$$. imho

[MADem]

2. Obama is simply doing what Obama said he would do. And he said it in July of last year.

On national television.

He also said it hundreds of times on the stump.

Why didn't people believe him? Why are they surprised now?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5102380&mesg_id=5102425

[G_j]

4. I'm not surprised, but I think it's a horrible policy

yes, I heard him say it, yes, I voted for him. YES, I am committed to opposing such policies.
and NO, Peace Workers will not shut up.!

[MADem]

51. Well, no one has suggested that Peace Workers should "shut up."

I'm simply amazed at the number of people who feel betrayed. There's no betrayal going on here. The man could not have been more up front about his intentions, even if they aren't universally viewed as desirable. That's my only point, here--that the "shocked, shocked" brigade should have paid a bit more attention before November. The guy is a centrist, with a few liberal tendencies, and a couple of conservative ones, too.

[snappyturtle]

6. I heard him too. I hoped that when he got into office and learned more

he would decide against this 'advancement'. I'm not a happy camper of late....this is just one issue I have trouble with.

[MADem]

14. When he gave that speech in July of last year, while a candidate, it was pretty clear which way he

intended to go. He laid it out in that speech, very clearly. It was plain that he'd thought it through, and had no intention of disengaging from the region. All you have to do is look at his campaign donors to realize that. General Dynamics doesn't make refrigerators, and they've been giving him money for years.

As I said in that other thread to which I linked in my previous post, when Obama said CHANGE, people projected their own desires for change on him. When he said HOPE, they painted their own hopes on him. But in his defense, he has never lied, he's never deceived, he's never pretended to be something he isn't, which is a centrist Democrat favoring a robust defense, with a few "social liberal" leaning tendencies (and a few that run in the other direction, particularly with regard to GLBT people).

People who hoped he "didn't really mean it" or he "was just saying that to get elected" are going to be very disappointed, particularly with his approach to Afghanistan. Compared to the relatively few FOBS (forward operating bases) we had in Iraq, Obama plans to pepper Afghanistan with FOBS, manned (and womanned) by "Fobbits"--personnel who are skilled in small unit operations, counterinsurgency techniques, Hearts and Minds efforts, and of course, Ye Good Old Remote Installation Management. His plan is to make the Afghan military the public face of law and order, and they'll be backed up, quietly, so as not to be obvious, by our guys. This isn't a short term plan...this is a plan that, over time, will likely bring home to America a bunch of Afghan war brides (and maybe a few war grooms, too)--rather like the occupations of Japan and Korea did., and make expressions in Pashtun and other dialects enter the American vocabulary.

This Afghan strategy is not intended to be a quick-n-dirty. We're in this for the long haul...fifteen, twenty or more years. That's the game plan, anyway. We'll see if it pans out.

It is unlikely in the extreme that Obama will be dissuaded by calls from the left to abandon this strategy. I'm pretty sure his retort will be "Hey, I drew down out of Iraq, what the hell more do you want?" (of course, he won't be that flippant, but that will be the gist of it). So, too, will a presence in Iraq be maintained, because he wants to counter Iran's efforts to influence their Arab neighbors, particularly those with substantial Shi'ia populations.

The left, you see, has no where to go. Obama is a damned sight better than any Republican politician on the scene nowadays, and the only directions away from Obama are to the right, to the GOP, or further to the left, to "oblivion" parties like the Greens. He's going to have to hose up domestically to be unseated, and if he is unseated, he'll be unseated by a Republican who will continue these same policies, but perhaps strip them of some of the "carrot and stick" diplomatic efforts that Obama intends to include in his overall policy.

[snappyturtle]

23. I still think it's trouble and I don't like it. nt

[MADem]

25. Are you surprised, though? I am not at all surprised. I listened to that speech carefully.

I also heard him say similar things, often enough, on the stump.

[snappyturtle]

45. Once again, I heard what you heard. I hoped the President would change his mind. nt

[leftchick]

7. I believed him

and it still is a horrible decision. We should totally get the fuck out of the MidEast and fix our own fucked up country. But he listens to his neolib advisers so that isn't going to happen.

[scarletwoman]

11. I'm not surprised, nothing's changed. I didn't like it when he said he would do it,

and I don't like it that he's doing it. I think it's WRONG, period. Just because he said he was going to send missiles into Pakistan during the campaign doesn't make it right.

What was I supposed to do, vote for McCain?

sw

[G_j]

15. ever notice how those who truly work for peace ALWAYS

get the cold shoulder?
I'm sure you have..

:hi: :hug: :loveya:

[scarletwoman]

19. I hear that the Left "has nowhere else to go." I think we do. We have the streets -- and it's time

to start hitting them, imho.

You might enjoy Jack Riddler's thread from earlier today: You want change?

:loveya: :hug:
sw

[G_j]

20. I'm ready!

betcha a lot of us are!

[MADem]

27. You're shooting the messenger. That's not terribly helpful to discussion of the issues, now, is it?

It's not my fault that more people didn't listen and gripe BEFORE the election, now, is it? And for speaking a self-evident truth, I catch grief.

Don't blame me--I didn't write or give that speech. And as I have said elsewhere, unless we get casualty-critical over in the Stan, the domestic agenda will hold sway here.

[G_j]

40. I'm sorry

my comments weren't addressing you, but my feelings about Obama, and most all of the candidates for that matter.
But you are correct, I heard the speech.

[MADem]

17. There it is, then.

What was I supposed to do, vote for McCain?


The frank truth is that the administration knows this, that you (and others) are painted into a corner, really.... which is why your objections will likely fall on deaf ears. He's married to this strategy; he's impressed by Petraus, and he's also getting a lot of advice from faculty region experts on the war college circuit. He's very comfortable with this plan of action, and it's unlikely that he'll do an about-face at this stage, particularly with regard to his recent actions vis a vis Pakistan.

I know this isn't what a lot of people want to hear, but it's how it is.

[scarletwoman]

21. "..your objections will likely fall on deaf ears." Then perhaps we'll just have to speak up louder.

I fully intend to turn my own deaf ear on any calls to shut up and fall in line.

sw

[MADem]

26. Well, good luck with that. If I were betting, I will have to say I don't think you will get

much traction. At least not in the near term. If it turns into a casualty-fest over there, that could change, but the plan is to limit US casualties by using the Afghans as fodder front men.

Don't shoot the messenger, now.

[scarletwoman]

29. That's okay. Some of us have had our own plans for sometime.

I've got this plan, see? What I'm gonna do is... work like a sumbitch to get Obama elected and then once that's accomplished I'm gonna turn his life into a living hell, raggin' on him mercilessly to get us out of the war, get a universal healthcare program in place, put money into everything green, restore our missing civil rights, and all that stuff.

I especially like post #8 in that thread:

CUNY Professor Frances Fox Piven on a recent Democracy Now!:

You know, in 1932, FDR didn’t run with a good program; he ran with the same program the Democrats had run with in 1924 and 1928, and that wasn’t a good program. But nevertheless, his rhetoric encouraged people who were suffering as a result of the Depression—working people, the unemployed—and helped to fuel the movements, which then forced FDR to support initiatives which he otherwise would not have supported, including the right to organize...

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/6/super_tuesday_roundtable_with_bill_fletcher

I don't shoot messengers, I don't believe in shooting anyone. :)

sw

[Two Americas]

53. the hope

The hope is that the general public, the common people - the 70% of the population whose voices are never heard and who don't count - don't start listening to us. So long as 70% of the people can be held at bay, kept in confusion and ignorance, the Republican lite polices can continue. If we "radicals" hook up with the people against both flavors of the aristocracy - the "liberal" and the "conservative" - then look out.

The conservatives among us pound on this theme that we are a small fringe minority. So are they. They are siding with wealth and power, and their talking points are amplified by the MSM shills, so they look larger than they are.

If we can reach the people - and we could if we tried and were serious about it - the general public would be with the leftists, in massive and overwhelming numbers.

[AmyCamus]

44. So you were pro-War, and that's why you voted for Obama?

Got a link to any of your pro-War posts?

[MADem]

48. Why are you trying to change the subject, and make this about "me?"

It's not about me. Snarky little "So you were pro-war" comments don't change the facts, here. I simply knew what we were getting when he was elected, and I'm not surprised. Not at all. Whether or not Obama's stand on the issue of Afghanistan was "optimal" is a separate question. I knew what he was planning, well before November. So did anyone else who stopped shrieking HOPE and CHANGE for five brief minutes and actually listened to what the man was saying.

Anyone who voted for him, and didn't know what they were getting, or are surprised now at his actions, and whining about them, are idiots who should probably stay away from the polls in the future because they're too damned dumb to vote. Obama could not have been MORE clear about his intentions for Afghanistan and Pakistan. They were part of the package, a fundamental aspect of his campaign.

It's incumbent on the voter to learn the issues and the candidates' stances on them. And then make the decision: Can I vote for this guy even though he's not doing everything I'd like, or not? If people pull the lever with KNOWLEDGE, that's one thing. But people who are now saying "I didn't think he meant it" or "I didn't know" have only themselves to blame.

No crying after the fact, particularly when the candidate made it overwhelmingly clear.

[ConcernedCanuk]

3. THIS IS NOT GOOD - If indeed it is true that President Obama supports preemptive bombing

.
.
.

and in OTHER sovereign nations without their permission . .

then he is following in Bush's footsteps

and the World will notice . .

some "change"

hmmmm . .

[Occam Bandage]

12. Actually, he proposed cross-border strikes into Pakistan before Bush ever did.

Bush first dismissed and then later adopted Obama's policy there, not the other way around.

[MADem]

24. THIS IS NOT NEWS. though. He has been saying this for well over a year.

It's always a good idea to have a look at the product, and not just the package, before one buys.

He was saying this when he was the underdog, before he overtook Clinton.

Why no one noticed, I've no idea. He was quite clear. No one, apparently, wanted to hear what he was saying. Instead they wanted to paint their own dreams on his canvas.

[bvar22]

39. I heard him saying it.

I opposed it then.
I oppose it now.

So did most of The Left.
No one is "surprised".
Most of The Left agreed to keep our mouths shut during the campaign and vote for the lesser of two evils.


What choice did we have?
I am sick of our One Corporate Party system.

[closeupready]

8. Not good!

:mad:

[bvar22]

9. Meet the new boss....

sigh

All the cheerleaders at DU were singing:
"Don't Worry.
They all run to the RIGHT during the General.
Obama is really a secret Liberal.
Trust Us!"

NOW they sing a new song:
"Why are you all so surprised.
This is exactly what he said he would do."

I am Cursed with a Memory.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[G_j]

10. thanks for the wonderful Wellstone quote!

and pic.

[Occam Bandage]

13. I'm fine with this, but its' a difficult call.

And it is a difficult call. On one hand, these strikes hurt America's reputation in Pakistan and thus makes it more difficult for the Pakistani government to be able to work with us in anti-Taliban actions. On the other hand, if we do nothing about right-wing extremists in Pakistan, they will continue to destabilize the Pakistani government, and if the Pakistani government falls, then we not only lose any hope of ever living up to our promises to the Afghans, and instead will have to deal with a theocratic, militaristic, xenophobic, extreme-right-wing government in Afghanistan, we will have to deal with a theocratic, militaristic, xenophobic, nuclear-armed extreme-right-wing government in Pakistan.

And I'm sure India will just fucking love that. Nothing like taking two bitter, nuclear-armed enemies and replacing the government of one with a bunch of raving religious-nutjob lunatics.

[marksmithfield]

32. Totally agree

The whole region is a problem If Pakistan becomes any more destabilized we will soon see a mushroom cloud sunset.

[rug]

16. The Parrot's Beak worked out well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_Campaign

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. I guess we're all required to be Hawks now that "our" guys are in charge of the killing.

As for me, I'm with this guy.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[MADem]

28. It's not like "Our Guy" didn't declare his intentions, though, well before the lovefest that brought

him to the White House.

Buyer's remorse is one thing; what I'm finding astounding is that so many people didn't hear the man when he said what he was going to do, then said it again, then said it one more time, just to make it clear to those who didn't hear him the first two times.

And that was just in one speech!

I, too, wish everyone in the world would get the "Ghandi spirit." I'm not holding my breath in anticipation of the event, though.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. And, it's not like most of us we're against the war in Afghanistan before the election.

I was, still am.

[MADem]

31. Were you surprised, though? Did you hear what he said in that July speech, and did you

appreciate that he meant it?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. I'm not at all surprised. And, I did believe he meant it.

Just as I believed that most of the candidates, with the exception of Kucinich, would do much the same.

[MADem]

34. You're one of the few. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Assuming that politicians will "do the right thing" is a fool's errand.

One I gave up on long ago.

[MADem]

36. They have interests, agendas, obligations and 'quid pro quos.'

One can only hope that they're more good than bad at the end of the day.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Which is why I've always been a "lesser of two evils" Democrat.

Unfortunately, that line all too often gets so blurred that I have no qualms about voting third party.

[G_j]

41. I know this is sort of a, duh.. but

"the lesser of two evils is still evil."

that is why the concept of "the lesser of two evils" can be sort of scary.

[Two Americas]

54. you think MADem?

I remember during the primaries there were so many warning of this, and talking about Obama's statements. We were shouted down by the Obama supporters, who said we were "lying" about this, and who insisted that Obama was a peace candidate. Now those same people are saying we are stupid for being surprised, and that everything is OK because Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do.

I wasn't surprised. I was opposed to the policy before and I am now, and I knew Obama would do this.

[Runcible Spoon]

57. NO he's NOT one of the few. The vast majority of people knew it.

Stop spreading the vicious lie that there is some huge swath of DUers who are shocked SHOCKED! I tell ya! that Obama is going ahead with the aggression. It just makes people who don't support the war look naive, and that's a disingenuous strategy. For a long time, everyone piping up about not liking this was shouted down: "well go ahead and vote for McCain!". Disgusting strategy to alienate those who don't support these wars.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

22. As promised

Pretty disgusting.

K&R

[defendandprotect]

38. Did Obama replace Bush's Joint Chiefs?

[Thothmes]

42. No. He will nominate replacements when their term on the

Joint Staff expires. Do not recall a case where any President replaced the Joint Staff upon election.

[defendandprotect]

49. You're probably right . .. but I thought Clinton did ...?

These "terms" for the Fed and Joint Chiefs I think are wrong ---

and wherever they exist are problematic.

[MADem]

52. They serve a fixed term.

The present Chairman was actually well liked by Clinton--he got a promotion under his watch.

[AmyCamus]

43. Warmongering is an aquired taste.

It's... "interestsing" to see how many ways DUers who were once against the Bush Wars are now justifying Obama's aggresive ramping up of Bush's war plans.

[Township75]

46. You nailed it

Who here was saying anything nice about Bush's actions here or in Iraq.

Now that a Dem is doing the killing, I am reading that "Hey, he said he would do it."

Great! Now that makes killing seem OK to me. If Bush had said that in 2000,then I guess we wouldn't have had a problem with his wars. :eyes:

[defendandprotect]

50. That is sad . . . !!!

[balantz]

47. Warpig imperialist elite forcing our nation to comply with more murder.

We should not be over there.

[dysfunctional press]

55. the ussr couldn't win or hold afghanistan- and they BORDERED the country...

how the hell do we expect to do ANYTHING from half-way around the world?

afghanistan: where empires go to die.

[KG]

56. change i can make believe in! boy howdy!

[readmoreoften]

58. He's just saying what he has to in order to get elected. Good god, he's not even in office yet.

Everyone voted for him, this must be what the people wanted!!!!
He's a smart guy. He'll handle it. Democracy ends after you pick which of the two guys make the decisions.

Whatta ya gonna do? Wait for it....


Become a REPUBLICAN????

:crazy:

[lonestarnot]

59. He (President Obama) knows the fucking war in Iraq was based on lies, so,

what in the fuck is he doing?