On US Missles and Military in Pakistan
by Jerome Armstrong, Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:44:12 AM EDT
Obama fans have been posting that John Edwards advocates for the unilateral military adventure in Pakistan as does Obama:
Adding Pakistan to the list of countries that the US does unilateral military action in isn't going to solve a damn thing. The only real solution for our role in their region is to get off their oil, get out of their countries, and work with other nations to promote global accord.
The diplomatic tone of Bill Richardson seems more conducive to gaining peace in the region than does the 'a different war' rhetoric of Obama. The talk about dropping bombs and/or invading another country as a "last resort" is less bellicose than the "I will" Obama message. I've begun to believe that Richardson is gaining traction in Iowa at the expense of Obama, and this might provide a further opening.
Chris Dodd was the only Democrat who leveled onto Obama, saying "it is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power." Good for him. Who knows if it will move him beyond 1% nationally, but he's been saying all the right things.
Some complain about equating the unilateral action that Obama and others are advocating for with the Bush preemption doctrine. There's a lot of re-framing and rationalizing the Pakistan issue as one of going after Osama for 9/11 (which somehow over-rides the constitutional necessity of having congressional approval for acts of war), but even granting the "target" characterization of the unilateral act, the act of military strikes and possibly invading Pakistan is likely to make things worse:
"Once you have made that kind of operation, everything connected to the United States, even more than before, is believed to be the enemy," Schaffer said. "You've probably created a safe haven that works even better than before."