The "Right War" Escalates, Huge Risks for Obama

For the first time, American forces based in Afghanistan have acknowledged crossing the border into Pakistan to attack Queda militants there. The attack carries a bundle of grave risks, as nuclear-armed Pakistan is already in the midst of a political crisis that seems to worsen by the day. It is also a step that has been forcefully advocated by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said way back in August 2007. He has repeated this position ever since, most recently during his highly publicized trip abroad. At the recent Democratic National Convention, there were repeated barbs thrown at Republican candidate John McCain from promising to follow Osama bin Laden "to the gates of hell" but not into Pakistan.

With yesterday's cross-border airborne assault, it seems that Obama's position has now become official US policy. This follows the Bush administration accepting, in at least some sense, the idea of a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, another idea pushed early and hard by Obama and the Democrats.

Since the very start of his campaign, Senator Obama has sought to provide political cover to his opposition to the war in Iraq by being explicitly hawkish on Afghanistan. It is not that he is against war, he insists, just the "wrong" war. Iraq is the "wrong" war, Afghanistan the "right" war.

Long forgotten is the debate in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 over whether the World Trade Center attack was an "act of war" at all, or a "crime against humanity." The distinction was crucial. The "war" framework called for an invasion of Afghanistan and carting off "enemy combatants" to Guantánamo. The "crime" framework called for a coordinated international police effort to capture Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants and put them on trial in an international court for crimes against humanity. (You can see the debate at the time here and here, just for starters.)

That is all ancient history now. The gradual alignment of the Obama campaign and the Bush administration on Iraq and Afghanistan illustrates how the Bush wars have painted the US into a corner where there are precious few options, all of them fraught with peril. Bush has left us with a playing field in which opposing war and favoring international law no longer appears as a realistic option. We "free worlders" get to exercise our freedom by choosing between supporting a blanket "war on terror," and trying to distinguish the "right" foreign wars from the "wrong."

And the "good" war is even more dangerous that the "bad" one. President Musharraf was recently ousted from power in Pakistan, leaving a tinderbox of competing parties and interests attempting to govern the increasingly chaotic country. Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated at a political rally in December. Current Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani was the target of an assassination attempt just yesterday. This is a country with, at best guess, between 50 and 100 nuclear warheads.

None of this is Obama's doing, but it may soon become his inheritance. Candidate Obama frequently looks to the legacy of JFK for inspiration and symbolism. With the American military now going into combat in yet another country, it might be a good time for the candidate to consider those parts of the JFK legacy that Democrats would rather forget: the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and, of course, the Vietnam war. After all, JFK was another young president, a Democrat anxious to establish his national security cred, surrounded by a brain trust of self-confident go-getters who thought they could handle Cuba and Vietnam by being more competent than those they replaced.

Comments

[RockySoldier]

i think obama is right. if bin laden and his operations managers are in pakistan and pakistan isn't going after them full-heartedly, we shouldn't ask their permission. we should target them and take them out before they plan and execute another operation in the US.

don't back off, barack- you're right. draw down iraq, get us out of that needless, useless, stupid war and start the finishing touches on al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan.

[ValueMeal]

Ideology. There will always be conflict as long as social and religious differences are in place. No panacea will end the envy, the distrust, the disagreements, or the violence.
Obama will handle the issues of the world with it's inhabitants in mind, first and foremost, as McCain would seek short term capital gain over lives, human being's lives, in general. Just as Bush has done.
I am for everyone having a chance at living. I look at Obama and feel that at the very least, people's lives will come first. I look at McCain and see a Bush that has been denied his due for, in his mind, far too long- a very dangerous combination for a soldier or an innocent abroad. So McBush is not the choice for Humanity. Obama is.
Just my thoughts.

[Bobrobert]

roflmao

If you can't beat them you gotta join them!!!

Pakistan has nukes... guess what the next push from the Bush people will be - you guessed it - we have to invade Pakistan so that we can "secure' the nukes...

War with Pakistan - Afghan - Iraq - seems our destiny is set to become a has been nation because brother we ain't got the power to invade Pakistan to keep those nukes out of terrorist hands.

Life is so sweet.

Is there any wonder why Bush is so loved.

[realpolitic]

A military under Obama would not kill civilians as indiscriminately when making minor incursions into Pakistan as under Bush. Avoiding civilian casualties would be greatly elevated in our policy under Obama.

[obamaluv]

When did you serve. Sounds so easy. Oh yea - and lolipops will fall from the sky
Do not put Obama in an imposible position.

[JimR]

The problem here is that al Qaida has declared war on Americans, has repeatedly said they would kill Americans, and in fact killed thousands of Americans on Sept. 11. They are clearly a threat. Perhaps a reduced one at this point, but we have witnessed what can happen when they are allowed to regroup and develop their plans.

The war on terror is a ridiculously general and ambiguous concept that has clearly been abused. And we should be as specific as possible about who it is we are fighting. But whether you want to call it a war or some other type of pursuit against criminals, we are currently engaged in conflict with al Qaida. And I would expect either Obama or McCain to vigorously pursue them.

Obama never said he would not work with other nations in pursuit of al Qaida and the Taliban. Just the opposite, in fact. He was responding to a specific question about a specific hypothetical situation involving terrorists that meet specific criteria.

[ajax2]

I believe U.S. attacks on the Pakistan frontier happened well before any Obama pronouncement, in fact I'm sure of it. It has always been U.S. policy.

[raskolnikov72]

Thank you. We were too busy watching the Repbulican soap opera play out to really care ... they distracted us while implementing Obama's policy. They've done it all year. Bush is trying to catch Bin Laden so he can somewhat repair his legacy. Maybe he should have kept his eye on the ball 5 years ago. Point this out please .. stay on him.

[djarvis]

Interesting take on the Pakistan situation. Still, doesn't it make sense to go after Osama bin Laden, instead of miring ourselves in Iraq's civil war?

[SeanGardner]

You've had it in for Obama since he supported the FISA compromise. Post after post of yours about Obama have been less steller and definitely not positive.

[WorkingClass]

There is nothing worthwhile that the United States military can achieve in Afghanistan. Obama wants to expand the war about nothing. He is wrong.

[ZaneC]

Unfortunately, it looks like the country will continue heading in down a path of endless war even with an Obama presidency. McCain would not be any better, but, on this issue, at least, he would not be that much worse, either.

This election, at least, we will have to make due with one of the two for president, though I still suggest voting for a third party were you can. To my knowledge, McKinney, Nader, and Barr all support withdrawal from Afghanistan, and McKinney even goes so far as to include something that declares an end to all American militarism on her platform.

[fairwitness]

Very, very good advice, sir, thank you. It is way too easy for Democrats to channel their natural anger and frustration at the Iraq debacle into Bushian, unquestioned hyper-aggression against another faceless, vaguely-defined enemy and an unspoken entitlement to occupy and control another Islamic country. That way lies perpetual war and endless terrorism.

[PATina]

The irony... this is EXACTLY what Sen O said he would do as president... and yet the repubs will use this attack to "prove" why Mc Cain should be president.

[Bryanedwardhill]

I don't Obama as anxious to establish national security cred as I see the right anxious to make us believe that he can't handle the job. I'm only 32, so I don't personally remember JFK, but I have the feeling that while Kennedy may have been more charismatic at the podium, Obama seems more disciplined on the job.

You make great points here and that's why I think Obama is the president America needs. John McCain simply does not have the personal discipline to remain calm during the growing turbulence. Watching Obama remain calm and steadfast in the face of personal attacks, and watching McCain wage a war on the media because he picked a stranger (apparently without vetting her) is all I need to see how these men would handle a crisis.

Great post. Thanks for writing it.

Cheers,

BH