Bush Embraces 'Obama Doctrine' to Bomb Pakistan

By authorizing U.S. strikes against terrorists and Taliban rebels in Pakistan, President Bush has firmly embraced the Obama Doctrine. The Illinois senator laid out his views on the matter last fall, when he said he would authorize strikes--if supplied with actionable intelligence--against Pakistan if President Musharraf failed to rein in terrorist activity on his territory. He was pounced on by pundits--but his views on the subject put Obama squarely in the same camp as neocons in Washington and the Wall Street Journal Editorial board.

Obama's views on this subject were forward-thinking and out-of-the-box. But they are dead wrong and dangerous. By justifying cross-border incursions under the mantle of "hot pursuit" of non-state actors--which remember, is an aberration of international law, a bastardized form of maritime law governing ships on the high seas--Obama is opening up a dangerous legal can of worms that would make the world a much messier place.

It would provide a legal justification for any twitchy country with a hyperventilating military nervous about a non-state actor on its borders to invade with impunity--international legal norms or collateral damage be damned. It would remove the brakes on Turkey to go guns-a-blazing into Iraq to stamp out the PKK. Ditto Colombia and the FARC, whose camps are in Ecuador and Venezuela. Israel might use similar logic to take the fight to Tehran, Damascus, or Beirut. China might bomb its western-most provinces to root out Uighur separatists. Russia would re-invade the Caucasus. And so forth and so on.

These conflicts would likely not stay localized but run the risk of escalating into region-wide conflagrations. Moreover, they would lead to untold civilian casualties and turn hearts and minds against the aggressor, as has been evident in Pakistan.

This does not mean that we--or the Turks, Colombians, or Israelis--should sit on our hands and do nothing in the face of terrorism. But preemptively violating another state's sovereignty is serious business and risks widening previously contained conflicts. Instead we must coerce states that harbor terrorists to cooperate--using legal mechanisms like extradition treaties, pressure from the UN Security Council, sanctions, withholding aid (i.e. Pakistan), etc.--rather than just crossing borders willy-nilly.

Obama has lots of good ideas about improving U.S. foreign policy and restoring our image in the world. This is not one of them.

Comments

[nomobull]

YOU LEFT OUT some details about Obama's plan like having proven intelligence that he's there. and asking pakistan to go after him first. and only upon their refusal would he take action.

[Indieguy]

I've been wondering for years why we haven't been sending small covert units into Pakistan on search and destroy missions to eliminate Al-qaida. The actual perpetrators of 911. Since 911 we've been giving Pakistan $10B/year in military aid with very little return on investment. Instead we get an unjustified war in Iraq. Mr. Bumble (AKA bush) really screwed the pooch to the tune of $500B so far in his dirty little war in Iraq. Pakistan has never and will never fully cooperate in bringing the Al-qaida leadership to justice.

[ohboynotagain]

So anyone can plan attacks and run hide behind the Pakistini border and we can't tough them? Reminds me of the much filmed high speed chase that ends at the county line with the other guy yelling "you can't touch me". I figure we will deal with Pakistan. My feeling is just that, if you see Osama take him out, that will let the other masterminds out there know that you can't hide behind a line or country that really isn't serious about catching you. International whatever, I live in NYC ok, I saw the towers fall. If you see Osama, take him out, deal with Pakistan later. I have a funny feeling they need us so they can scream and holler for a while then they will calm down.

[joshuahmcdonald]

Take Heart!

Do you see all of the anger in here? The hate? The lies? The doublethink? They claim that we are desperate. And they are right. Desperate for CHANGE!

The opposition has been fed a steady diet of fear for 8 long years...they will fight back the only way they know how. They will call you a liar. They will say that you are desperate. DO NOT LISTEN!

They will use the Rovian tactics of distortion and manipulation and attacking strength from weakness. DO NOT LISTEN!

Remember that they are doublethinkers (I implore you to re-read 1984, at least Chapter IX, so that you can truly understand what they are doing). DO NOT LISTEN!

When they say you are a liar it is because they are lying. When they claim that you are desperate it is because they are desperate. When they assert that Obama CAN'T win it is because they know that he WILL.

The increase in their numbers and volume is a GOOD thing. Their anger is illustrative of their fear. They have no issues to discuss. So, instead, they rant and rave in a constant diatribe of fear and hate.

NOW is the time to display the true courage of our convictions. NOW is the time to show those who mindlessly chant of honor and freedom and patriotism what these words really mean. NOW is the time to stand strong...to be the better man. NOW is the time to take our country back!

[myrddin]

Get your facts straight. Obama said he would act only if he had actionable intelligence on the whereabouts of Osama Bin Ladin and Pakistan would not which means he would ask them to act first. If they refused or were unable then he would take it upon himself.

[za2008]

Exactly!

There's a huge difference between landing a hellfire missile on Bin Laden or al Zawahiri's camels (Obama's implication) and the almost daily reported bombings in Waziristan and the implication that ground troops are waiting on the Afghan border or conducting nightly raids (Bush's actions). One is measured and appropriate given the opponent; the other seriously weakens the already unstable government of a nuclear armed Pakistan.

[degenerate1991]

Waziristan is meaningless to the Pakistani government; it hasn't been truly governed since Alexander the Great.

[nomobull]

THANK GOD I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE TO REALIZE A FEW FACTS WERE MISSING.

[mattheweste]

Don't be silly.

"an aberration of international law"

No it's not. It's a BREACH of international law. Plain and simple. It's not a precedent for anything but criminal warmongering of which the US is already well known. Obama, merely by SUGGESTING this, committed a war crime under international law. Plain and simple.

[Zoolie]

The way Bush executed this isn't even close to the way Obama would have handled it.

[JinChicago]

and yet if he said 'i would do nothing' you would harp on that

let him play the role he needs to in certain instances, and pick on his views when put into practice. on paper, obama is the best we got since ive been voting (bubba first election)

[PixelMarx]

I disagree with you strongly on this. First, you should be more accurate as to what Obama suggested. He spoke specifically about Osama Bin Laden. He also said that it would only act "if" Pakistan refused to act, and if the evidence was actionable. The stark difference between Bush and Obama on this plan is the fact that Obama is not clouding his perspective with greed for oil - as Bush and the neocons have - and is not saying give me intelligence, regardless if you have to make it up, so that I can act. While the end goals are the same - fight terrorism - the integrity and honesty behind the two is starkly different.

[sammyscout]

I guess lets brace ourselves for WW3, with either camps, Obama or McSame. I support Obama but this will not do at all. I believe Hillary lost general support after she displayed her instant willingness to nuke Iran. Obama's stance on bombing Pakistan will not go down well with many either. Im with Bill Maher on this one; How many bad guys will we chase and till where and when and to what cost?

We already have hit such a low point in our history that we are a much hated nation around the world. Canada has a better econony than us and Mexico will be catching up soon, Venezuela is showing us its claws and now Pakistan, a tin pot little country is now standing up to us. Consider this, Maybe we have messed up in the last 20 years that led to this day? Can we afford to outrage more nations against us. How many more? how much will they take before they break away ? As we debate mute points, are we conscious to the fact that our military is now working against the constitution and not upholding the decisions by the supreme court (regarding the 'enemy combatants'). So what are we fighting for and now who is the enemy.

Lastly, is there any lesson we can learn from the mistakes of the USSR. Corrupt politicians with lobbyists writing out big checks for favors to Big corps. Increasing divide between rich and poor. Followed by economy collapse??!!

[JayHorus]

Obama did say: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," on Aug 1, 2007.
However, he also mentioned that he would have serious talks FIRST with Pakistan before implementing that decision if he was President. As far as I can tell Pres. Bush didn't have any talks with Pakistan before these cross-border incursions that has happened recently. So...The difference between the Obama Doctrine and the Bush Doctrine is that the Bush Doctrine is preemptive, without any Diplomacy attempts being made. Everyone knows that Bush is desperately trying to get Osama Bin Laden now because that will 1) Directly affect the Presidential Race and 2) He needs something more positive to boost his horrible Legacy.

Let me ask a question. If an Ally of the US is knowingly hiding a terrorist within their borders that attacked us and that ally doesn"t help us to find them or they refuse us access are they really an ally? Just my opinion...your mileage may vary!

[boonjava]

There is no easy way to deal with a rogue nation. I support Obama's approach, but Bush's execution of it displays the same kind of reckless leadership that has plagued this country for the last 8 years. It is too sensitive a time in Pakistan for the U.S to ignore that country's sovereignty. No new leader wants to appear like he/she cannot stand up to a foreign power. Pakistan tolerated it once or twice before the realization that it's opinion in this whole matter wasn't on Bush's radar.

[SamThornton]

Just because I'm an Obama supporter doesn't mean I'm blind and deaf. Sen. Obama's "hot pursuit" statements with regard to Pakistan were not only a mistake, they were ill founded and ill-considered. They show Obama has bought into the idea that terrorism can be quelled by military action, an idea counter-terrorism experts reject. They also helped light a match in both the Pakistan military and political establishments, both of whom are now outraged at the U.S. for current cross-border military ops. The Pakistan military, backed by the civil government, today announced they will attack any U.S. or coalition forces who engage in cross-border operations, including aircraft overflights. This is a road we don't want to go down.

[wadda]

The actions of a desperate president and the hypothetical statement of a presidential candidate are not the same...particularly when the conditions 'on the ground' have changed and/or preconditions have not been met.

In other words, what Bush did and what Obama said are not the same thing unless you make gross generalizations.

[SpoxLogic]

I don't think that this so called "Obama Doctrine" meant that the US could just keep crossing the Pakistani border at will. The criteria was that if there were HIGH profile targets and if Pakistan refused to help, then Obama said he'd cross the border.
Seems Bush was having our guys cross willy-nilly into Pakistan, probably without even attempting to give the Pakistanis a chance to refuse to help.

[BBackSoon]

I agree with your comment. Bush will do this in such a way to "Show the World." That Obama was wrong. I would imagine that Obama would be in talks with Pakistan and offer our help. If they refuse the help and refuse to do the job themselves then it would be time for other measures.

Perhaps the time to do all of this was 5 or 6 years ago when everyone was still willing to help us, now not so much.