Pakistani Troops Will Fire If U.S. Raids

By  | 

This is not good news…

Surprisingly enough, Christopher Hitchens thinks Obama has the right plan when it comes to Pakistan…

Sen. Barack Obama has, if anything, been the more militant of the two presidential candidates in stressing the danger here and the need to act without too much sentiment about our so-called Islamabad ally. He began using this rhetoric when it was much simpler to counterpose the “good” war in Afghanistan with the “bad” one in Iraq. Never mind that now; he is committed in advance to a serious projection of American power into the heartland of our deadliest enemy. And that, I think, is another reason why so many people are reluctant to employ truthful descriptions for the emerging Afghan-Pakistan confrontation: American liberals can’t quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he’s ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less.

This is a good point. If Obama is true to his word about going into Pakistan to fight al Qaeda, and if that could lead to a deeper conflict with Pakistan, does he risk it? Especially since Pakistan is a nuclear power?

  • http://thegauchopolitico.blogspot.com/ Gaucho Politico

    i think he would probably end up following through on the strikes. Obama has not ever stood for the total end to war. no one should come to that conclusion based on his rhetoric. it has been fairly obvious that he considers afghanistan very, very important in terms of terrorist fighting. He has always been committed to fighting there. that fighting might ultimately be unsuccessful but his rationale and underpinning is that it is worth the fight because that is where bin laden is and that is where the strong hold of al queda is.

    Part of dealing with this is dealing with the idea that these people use pakistan as a base of operations. pakistan has not exerted consistent authority in that part of the country, southern waziristan etc and i think obama believes that pakistan has far more to gain from cooperating with us than in fighting against us. At least they would if we had a functioning economy.

    Also, is pakistan going to nuke us? no. no one is pulling out the nukes over this.

  • http://across-the-grain.com BenG


    Don’t fall into that false logic of what Obama had said about taking a harder look at the problem in Afghanistan and extrapolating that into ” It means more war – and more bitter and protracted war at that” The point Obama was making was that we shouldn’t have taken our eye off the ball where our true enemies were and that has since proven to be true.

    Bush went down the wrong road into Iraq, and the more we find out about it the more we see how wrong his incentives were. But what matters here is that Republican Senator McCain was a leader in a Republican Senate that enabled the whole debacle and that is certain. And if McCain lives up to his word we’ll be in Iraq another hundred years if that’s what it takes to get it right!

  • http://across-the-grain.com BenG

    BTW, I forgot to mention it was a very good article and shared some important things about Pakistan history that were new to me and very interesting, although quite depressing to learn about another ‘ally’ on the WOT that we actually know very little about.

  • http://www.warning1938alert.ytmnd.com Jimmy the Dhimmi

    If Obama is true to his word about going into Pakistan to fight al Qaeda, and if that could lead to a deeper conflict with Pakistan, does he risk it?


  • Avinash_Tyagi

    Pakistan would never risk a Nuclear war with the US over some raids, and Pakistani conventional forces aren’t strong enough to prevent our special forces from completing their missions into Pakistani territory. This is saber rattling by the Pakistanis to save face, nothing more, nothing less