Quote:
Originally Posted by akv
Dusty,
IMHO, there was a great deal of risk involved considering the ways, means, and political environment. If we assume Obama and his advisors are ultimately pragmatists with re-election in mind, were they ignorant of the following?
We are already at war in two Islamic countries, and openly supporting the opposition in Libya. Pakistan is Islamic and an ally, though one who runs with both the hounds and the hares, a large populous country with a large military and nuclear weapons. The political climate there, and ISI motivation is unstable at best, we currently need their supply routes to conduct ongoing operations in Afghanistan, a card they recently used to bash us with over the Raymond Davis issue, an issue where they jailed someone protected by diplomatic immunity for defending himself from ambush. This is the environment in Pakistan.
Obama ordered US boots to violate sovereign soil, an act of war with a country with the means previously stated, to hit a high value target of national US interest. He didn't just order a missile, drone, or airstrike, or tip the Pakistanis off to do it for us. What if the intelligence was faulty, or the ISI screwed us again, and we sent our troops into an AQ ambush, with the result of numerous choppers shot down, dead Americans, dead civilians, and Pakistani forces left holding Americans for transgressions of their soil? How ugly could things have gotten, wars have started over much, much less?
Whatever his motivations, it was a tough call, the economy is in the gutter, he is perceived as weak on foreign policy, a Blackhawk Down type scenario could have wrecked his ratings even lower. I don't like the guy, he is bad for America, but objectively given the risks, even if you are cynical about his motivations, as if Americans need any excuse other than 9/11 to kill UBL, don't you have to give credit where credit is due? Previous administrations on both sides of the aisle have taken the less risky application of force route, to America's detriment, or for those took great risk, what did Desert One do for Carter?
|
IMHO, there was a great deal of risk involved considering the ways, means, and political environment.
The risk was to get caught avoiding OBL a la BJ Clinton.
If we assume Obama and his advisors are ultimately pragmatists with re-election in mind, were they ignorant of the following?
We are already at war in two Islamic countries, and openly supporting the opposition in Libya.
Yes. We're still in a war he was elected to get us out of, using intelligence techniques he was elected to discontinue to elicit intel from prisoners from a facility he was elected to dissolve. It's called "desperation".
Pakistan is Islamic and an ally, though one who runs with both the hounds and the hares, a large populous country with a large military and nuclear weapons. The political climate there, and ISI motivation is unstable at best, we currently need their supply routes to conduct ongoing operations in Afghanistan, a card they recently used to bash us with over the Raymond Davis issue, an issue where they jailed someone protected by diplomatic immunity for defending himself from ambush. This is the environment in Pakistan.
Obama ordered US boots to violate sovereign soil, an act of war with a country with the means previously stated, to hit a high value target of national US interest. He didn't just order a missile, drone, or airstrike, or tip the Pakistanis off to do it for us. What if the intelligence was faulty, or the ISI screwed us again, and we sent our troops into an AQ ambush, with the result of numerous choppers shot down, dead Americans, dead civilians, and Pakistani forces left holding Americans for transgressions of their soil? How ugly could things have gotten, wars have started over much, much less?
WTF are they gonna do? Deport all the Kwik Shop managers? They live off of our hospitality, dude!
Whatever his motivations, it was a tough call, the economy is in the gutter, he is perceived as weak on foreign policy, a Blackhawk Down type scenario could have wrecked his ratings even lower. I don't like the guy, he is bad for America, but objectively given the risks, even if you are cynical about his motivations, as if Americans need any excuse other than 9/11 to kill UBL, don't you have to give credit where credit is due? Previous administrations on both sides of the aisle have taken the less risky application of force route, to America's detriment, or for those took great risk, what did Desert One do for Carter?
Carter wasn't on that op, either. You are a No Go at the Explanation Station.
Look, you may feel bad about voting for him. He may still have you bamboozled. But don't buy into the "tingle up my leg" shit so easily, Bro.