Is the United States Gearing Up to Go Into Pakistan?
In 2007, Barack Obama attracted controversy during his campaign by declaring that if elected, he would be willing to go into Pakistan if there is "actionable intelligence about high-value targets" in the country, and if the Pakistani government "won't act" against them.
During her three-day visit to Pakistan this week, Hillary Clinton seemed to indicate that those two criteria may now have been fulfilled.
On actionable intelligence about high-value targets, Clinton seemed confident that Al Qaeda's leadership is present in Pakistan: "Al Qaeda has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002 ... it is just a fact that Al Qaeda had sought refuge in Pakistan after the US and our allies went after them because of the attack on 9/11 ... Our best information is that Al Qaeda leadership is somewhere in Pakistan."
On unwillingness to act, she suggested that Pakistani officials know where these terrorists are, but are hesitant to go after them: "I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to. Maybe they're not gettable. I don't know."
Even while commending Pakistan's military efforts in Swat and South Waziristan, she said that it was "not sufficient."
Meanwhile, President Obama has been "dithering" (as Dick Cheney put it) on a decision about how many more troops to send to Afghanistan, if any.
He may be listening closely to his vice president. Newsweek's recent cover story on Joe Biden started off highlighting the veep's concerns about resources and strategy in the region: "So I have a question. Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we're spending in Pakistan, we're spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?"
The question is a good one, and Biden's observations are shared by others, notably National Security Adviser Retd. Gen. James Jones, who said of Afghanistan earlier this month: "The Al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies."
On Friday, the White House stood behind Clinton's blunt comments, calling them "completely appropriate."
While it may be too early to tell whether Obama will follow through on his 2007 campaign pledge, it does seem like his administration is setting the stage.
Follow Ali A. Rizvi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I have yet to offer a firm opinion of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in foreign policy. She is bright and I believe wants to do best for this country, but I am not fully confident ...yet. I don't mean to offend.
Madam Secretary continues a tendency toward hawkish decision-making, which is off-putting to me personally I admit. But Mr. Obama sees the multi-layered value of Clinton. The president has a team, and he is wise in listening to all input.
Mr. Obama also has an exceptional foreign policy expert in Joe Biden, and I have utmost confidence in the vice president. Neither hawk nor dove, Mr. Biden has a unique ability to use his numerous years' experience in foreign policy, visits to foreign lands, and proven relationships with foreign leaders, and see a big picture. The VP considers Americans' heart and opinion...a rare trait in an elected official. Knowing Joe is in the room, I breathe easier.
Your last sentence sounds especially good to me ;-)
Candidate Obama said a few things during the campaign that more experienced foreign policy practioners would have said differently or not at all. Barack Obama had a few things to say about Iraq, too, when he was running for President that had little basis in reality. That's why he has Joe Biden at his side now!
Secretary Clinton, by the way, is no more experienced or knowledgeable in this regard.
As for the possibility that the administration is setting the stage for military intervention in Pakistan, I think you may be reading all of the tea leaves completely wrong.
If you want to find coral reefs you go off the coast of Australia. If you wanna find Mt Fuji you go to Japan. And if you wanna find terrorists you go to Pakistan.
Tasmania or Easter Island next?
Dunno what's in Tasmania, but I think somebody drilled for gold in one of those Easter Island statue heads and found a large repository of the metal...
/ducksforcover
As long as it's for the USA's benefit and not, say, any enemies of Pakistan (or friends of ours, for that matter)...
Then again, we're apparently Israel's lapdog, so whatever.
Or maybe there is a perfectly valid reason.
Time will tell.
I really bloody hope not. Does the US not think it has disrespected enough countries sovereignty?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
