Pakistan Will Now Become McCain's Next Flip-Flop
Like the economists who pleaded until hoarse about a coming financial meltdown, foreign policy types have been doing the same with regard to the situation in Pakistan. Indeed, Pakistan is a nation on the verge. You could call it a nuclear version of AIG.
When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, went to Pakistan last week, it was clear that relations between the militaries of Pakistan and the United States were more strained than they had ever been. As it stood, reports indicated that Pakistani troops had recently fired on American forces during a cross-border raid. The hostility between those on both sides of the border was palpable.
That situation has now worsened with scores dead in Saturday night's Marriott Hotel bombing in Islamabad--an event that prompted conservative MSNBC commentator Pat Buchanan to echo what others have previously said by calling Pakistan "the most dangerous country on earth." The reality is that the United States now faces a more precarious relationship with a nuclear-armed, quasi-ally, that houses hordes of violent extremists in its largely ungoverned western provinces.
Strikingly, between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, one of the two has been right on the mark from the beginning--though many heavily criticized him for his stance. The other has been devastatingly wrong, choosing to make Pakistan (and Afghanistan) a low U.S. foreign policy priority, despite the troubling indicators. That senator, John McCain, will now be forced by events to alter his position on Pakistan to come more in line with that of Barack Obama.
This has the potential to become the foreign-policy equivalent of McCain's "fundamentals-of-our-economy-are-strong" moment. When McCain made that remark, his economic ignorance betrayed him and he was forced by unraveling events to completely reverse his stand within a matter of hours. It's about to happen again, though perhaps on a slightly longer timeline. Here's why:
While John McCain has been unfailingly obsessed with the "surge" in Iraq, Barack Obama has always seemed to understand that Pakistan represented the greater threat to the United States than Iraq. In fact, Obama has made this a central theme--often making remarks like the one he made earlier this month:
Barack Obama said a few moments ago that Bush and John McCain don't understand that the central front in the war on terror is not in Iraq but in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
A pretty basic statement, but in contrast to McCain, it's what Obama has been saying for over a year--when he assumed a much more aggressive stance:
In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism Wednesday, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama called not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan -- with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
That last sentence went global--with news organizations around the world gasping at Obama's proposition. But the sentence wasn't really the crux of Obama's proposed strategy in the region:
One of the ways he hopes to achieve this is by pointing out the inherent flaws in the complicated U.S.-Pakistan relationship, an uneasy alliance based in part on U.S. fears of an Islamist government that might replace Musharraf. But Obama proposed in his speech a more aggressive stance with that nuclear nation, making the "hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan."Additionally Obama called for at least two additional brigades to redeploy to Afghanistan to re-enforce U.S. counterterrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. This would be accompanied by political and economic efforts, Obama said, pledging to increase nonmilitary U.S. aid to Afghanistan by a whopping $1 billion.
The shift from Iraq to Afghanistan and possibly even Pakistan is one of five elements he called for in his speech.
But while Obama has promised to make Pakistan a central focus of his of his foreign policy efforts, McCain has continually laughed him off, choosing instead to call Obama "confused" and "inexperienced":
"Will the next president have the experience, the judgment experience informs and the strength of purpose to respond to each of these developments in ways that strengthen our security and advance the global progress of our ideals?" McCain asked. "Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested invading our ally, Pakistan, and sitting down without preconditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons?"
And even there, McCain misconstrued Obama's statement about Pakistan. But that careless disregard for both the truth and the situation in Pakistan was not lost on others who saw the necessity of endorsing an aggressive stance with that country. Joe Klein of TIME Magazine responded:
McCain's loose, inaccurate talk continues a sad pattern he has shown on national security matters, particularly with regard to Iraq, where he is a loose cannon, firing off hot-button words like "victory" and "surrender"--words that his hero General David Petraeus has never and would never use. As it now stands, McCain believes that Iraq, where 150,000 U.S. troops are chasing after 3,500 Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia terrorists, is the "central front" in the war against terrorism--and he is on the record opposed to taking military action against the real Al Qaeda, which is actively working to destabilize Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and may be planning the next 9/11 in the mountains of Waziristan.
It's no surprise then, that, in 2003, McCain was the same guy who proposed "muddling through" Afghanistan as the most prudent course of action. It's just not his focus. He wants to fight the War on Terror in Iraq and, as of yet, no facts to the contrary have been able to drag McCain away from his increasingly misguided focus. And to me, that's a pretty weak stance when it comes to fighting terror.
Christopher Hitchens summed it up best for Slate last Monday:
Pakistan is the problem. And Barack Obama seems to be the only candidate willing to face it.
Unfortunately for McCain, as events like the Marriott bombing, the cross-border incidents, and the influence of the Taliban increase--and as we creep closer to mission failure in neighboring Afghanistan--he will be forced to reconfigure his position on Pakistan. He will flip-flop. He will suddenly say that Pakistan is a U.S. national security priority. And he will fall in line with Barack Obama's way of seeing the situation. Again.
Also available at VetVoice
Follow Brandon Friedman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BrandonF
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
Obama was prescient with regard to Pakistan as a geopolitical disaster waiting to unfold, but it's highly questionable whether his central policy proposal -- to redeploy troops from Iraq to Afghanistan/Pakistan -- is a smart idea.
This follows the stereotype of partisan politics: the Republicans ignore problems until it's too late to do anything about them, and Democrats are eager to solve problems but pursue the wrong solutions.
This isn't a global war on terror, and if we pretend it is, we'll continue to dig ourselves deeper into a hole. This should be a global investigation of terror. Instead of conducting air raids in Pakistan, we should be providing incentives for regimes that investigate and prosecute terrorist activity within their borders.
There should be a U.N.-sanctioned global terrorism court that brings international terrorists to justice. It must be empowered to compel testimony and hand down any sentence up to life without parole for those found in contempt of court. Absolutely no torture or capital punishment shall be tolerated. That would only be more fodder for their recruitment efforts.
Don't think war. Think police.
Something's brewing in the Western Hemisphere. Russian navy is heading to the Caribbean to perform practice exercises with HUGO CHAVEZ.....WHAT ARE THEY PRACTICING FOR?
http://roschellenelson.blogspot.com/2008/09/russian-navy-in-caribbean.html
"The reality is that the United States now faces a more precarious relationship with a nuclear-armed, quasi-ally, that houses hordes of violent extremists in its largely ungoverned western provinces."
Hmmmm....violent extremists...largely ungoverned western provinces. Can we think of another country that could be described thusly?
MCCAIN—UNFIT TO GOVERN
As there so many Americans who are unsure how to vote in this election, now is the time to think hard and decide correctly. McCain has proven to be totally unprincipled and opportunistic in his approach--and believes it doesn't matter . Show him that it does! He uses discredited characters in his campaign and their style of politics (Karl Rove & Co., For instance) and he has injected race into this campaign, by code. And he has suggested in many ways that Obama is not one of us. He has lied frivolously in ads. See what America has become under George Bush? Will we foolishly again elect very bad leaders (temperate, unethical, divisive, belligerent, dishonest, reckless and uncaring). We cannot escape the personal responsibility involved in such a choice nor from the later consequences of our action. It will be irresponsible to elect an egg head for President--a proposition made more real by the Palin emergence at the national stage. This compounds McCain's slim intellectual credentials. Quo vadis America.
See Steve Kettmann's Profile
Great post - it's amazing Obama has not been getting more credit for being right about identifying Afghanistan and Pakistan as the central front in the battle against terrorism. It ought to be highly entertaining in the debates to see McCain keep talking about the surge, even as events on the ground cry out for new thinking.
Geez, just imagine what Barack Obama will be like when he gets some experience!
Experience is irrelevant. Either you understand or you don't , either you have reasoned judgement or you don't.
Leaders are born, not made. You couldn't teach JMC judgement even if you had 100 years to do so.
a question...
From a very early age, did you have a basic concept of right and wrong? Some people are born with a moral compass, and some arent. Those who don't rely on religion and being constantly told what is right and wrong, and still struggle.
I think your snark detector might need new batteries
Absolutely.
McCain's had a long time, almost three decades in the legislative branch of gov't to get it right. He's failed. He's been ideologically wrong. And now he has to lie and say he was for everything his voting record proves he was against, and vice-versa.
You left off the last line of your post: "And McCain will claim it was his idea, and Obama is wrong again."
You're Right, thats what will happen.
McCain -> Change you know is coming regularly in his statements every couple weeks.
The media should get McCain on record on a number of national and international situations. then the flip flop will be self illustrating
Too true - just like the troop withdrawl from Iraq, Obama supported it, McCain called him inexperienced and naive for supporting it, then when the Bush Admin decided to withdrawl some from Iraq, and move in Afghanistan, McCain flipped it around and still called Obama inexperienced and naive, because he'd rather win an election than a war.
There's only one person here who's naive - let's make sure we don't have another 'I don't recall' senior moment in the white house!
I did not agree with Barack in one of his rallies when he said he didn't want McCain to take his slogans, but some of his ideas. I was thinking, "No Barack. He'll change his position to yours, the media as usual won't pretend to notice, he'll lie to you and everybody else and say he came up with it first."
I can only hope that Barack makes such mincemeat of McCain in the foreign policy debate on Friday where it will be no contest as to who has the better judgment.
Is this our October surprise?
As we have watched McCain flounder this past week and Obama's numbers rise in the polls as a direct result of our tunnel vision and inability to focus on more than one thing at a time, I ask what is Bush, his neo con advisors and Republican machine trying to pull in Pakistan? After nearly 6 years of the ill concieved Iraq War, 7 years in forgotton Afghanistan, we turn our attention to the crisis on the homefront and Bush, with a mere 4 months left in his reign of terror, quietly begins an assault on Pakistan.
Is this a carefully plotted ploy to bring the focus full circle back to foreign affairs in the final moments of the election? What possible justification does the Bush Administration have for such action NOW, when Pakistan has a new President, this country has an opportunity to build and improve our relationship with Pakistan and, MOST IMPORTANT, we are about to elect a new Commander in Chief?
Main Street has no power left, except the vote and I fear we are about to be stripped, hoodwinked and caught off guard one last time. WE, the electorate and the media, are asleep in the back seat while the powers that be steer this election. Will we plod along to the finish line, brain dead and staunch in our conviction that McCain, only, has the "judgement" and "experience" in foreign affairs.....despite all evidence to the contrary?
don't you know? Spain is the new front
What does South America have to do with it?
I can see Russia from my back yard.
McCain- Change you can deceive in!
Excellent!
It's interesting to watch McCain turn into a Democrat right before our very eyes!
Even he realizes that Republicans are on a sinking ship.
The GOP like to talk tough but afraid to go after the real terrorist! Prior to the invasion in Iraq they're were no terrorist there. McCain talks about the surge in Iraq meanwhile our troops in Afghan is being ran over. Attacking Iraq destablized the region since Iran & Iraq were enemies now that we weakened Iraq we will have to deal with Iran in the future. GOP idiots! Also an important note 95% of the terrorist were Saudies not one was Iraqi.
Who said the Republican nominee wasn't the candidate of change?
He's changing his positions so often I can't keep up.
That's change you can't believe in.
Invading Pakistan would make Iraq look like a cakewalk. We'd stand a good chance of losing 5,000 soldiers in a few months instead of 6 years.
Invading, en masse, is problematic. I really doubt that's in the mix.
Nonetheless, It looks like Bush is in lock step with Obama's more aggressive stance of acting on "actionable intelligence", a stipulation of Bush's policy in the region from the "get go"
The Pakistanis have taken the dollars that were supposed to go to fighting terrorism and used it to buy fighter planes, etc. to boost their posture against India. I approve of Obama's plan to cut off military aid.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
