24 January 2009

UAV Strike in Pakistan: Yes, We Can! (A PrO-Bama Post)

I support the President's Decision!

Word has leaked that two UAV strikes targeting Al-Qaeda militants have taken place inside Waziristan while Obama has been Commander-in-Chief. From Breitbart:
Missiles fired from a suspected U.S. spy plane killed seven people Friday on the Pakistan side of the Afghan border, a lawless region where al-Qaida militants are known to hide out, officials said.

The strike was the first on Pakistani territory since the inauguration of President Barrack Obama.

Pakistani leaders had expressed hope Obama would halt the attacks, more than 30 of which have been launched since the middle of last year, reportedly killing several senior militants.

The pro-U.S. government routinely protests them as a violation of the country's sovereignty, but most observers speculate it has an unwritten agreement allowing them to take place.
These intelligence-driven, cross-border airstrikes are authorized at the highest level of the chain of command, as seen during the strike in Syria last October, which killed a high-level Al-Qaeda facilitator. There will be some ostentatious criticism of these air strikes, and they alone will not be able to completely eliminate the terrorist presence in the lawless region of Northwestern Pakistan. But consider these facts before you rush off to go protest the President's decision to continue with this controversial strategy:
  • The 36 UAV airstrikes in Pakistan during 2008 killed five senior Al-Qaeda leaders [Long War Journal]
  • Trans-national militants based in the tribal areas are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. and allied troops and thousands of Afghan civilians [NYT]
  • Pakistan's response was to the Mumbai massacre has been weak, and they even moved combat brigades from the Northwestern Provinces onto the border with India [Bloomberg]
  • Pakistan continues to make deals with the Taliban despite that area of the country becoming extremely chaotic
  • Newsweek warned that Pakistan was ground zero for jihadis back in 2007, and it has only gotten worse
  • The Obama administration has vowed to aid Pakistan (like we did during the earthquake in 2005), but "hold them accountable for security in the border region with Afghanistan" [WhiteHouse.Gov]
  • The governor of the Northwest Frontier Province continues a media campaign of lies and says that Afghanistan is really the problem (WTF!) [Tom Ricks]
Understand that I'm a huge critic of the Obama administration, primarily because I believe his economic policies are going to ruin the country and his followers creep me the fuck out. But this is national security we're talking about here! And I'm grateful that we have a leader who understands the importance of Operation Enduring Freedom and balances diplomacy and military assertion to keep the world safe from international terrorists.

Frankly, I was very surprised to see Michelle Malkin vying for Moran of The Day with this awful analysis of the situation which is a form of shameless partisanship:
Reader John has a few questions: “Where are the anti-war liberals? Where are the baby-killer signs? Why [aren't] the major media networks showing pictures of dead children as a result of Pres. Obama’s air strike?”

Hey, haven’t you heard? CHANGE HAS COME TO AMERICA.
IMHO, bipartisanship is no vice when it's a matter of us getting all killed.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Understand that I'm a huge critic of the Obama administration, primarily because I believe his economic policies are going to ruin the country and his followers creep me the fuck out.

Ummm...didn't Bushies policies get us to where we are now? I wouldn't consider the economy doing very well. If you weren;t going to Thailand, you'd have a helluva time finding a job right now. The extreme right-wingers freak me the fuck out.

Lisa said...

LT Nixon,

You should not have been surprised at what Michelle Malkin would say about anything that might reflect well upon a Democrat. All is extreme partisanship today, something we can ill-afford, in the literal sense as you point out.

Ms. Malkin and Mr./Ms. Coulter are vile and angry mouthpieces of the deaf Right. The deaf Left are just as repugnant. "C'mon people now, get it together. . ." (sorry, the guy w/ the do-rag just inspired me.) But, I mean, we are still a republic right?

Shea said...

All this talk about the republic reminds me of Star Wars. Senator Palpatine was seizing power for the good of the people and to stop the wars, only to be found out later that he was instigating all the unrest in order to be freely given these powers, and ultimately becoming the evil emperor we all knew in the first 3 Star Wars movies, which are actually the 4-6 espisodes. There's lots of wisdom in Star Wars. It's always been a wondering to me too why in the dark side of the force there are always two? I think maybe it's the parallel between that and the prophesy of the coming of the AntiChrist that is interesting. The darks side of the force has two, never more, or less, says Yoda. Well, in the prophesy of the AntiChrist there is also two, there's the AntiChrist and there's his false prophet, I know that the prophesy came first, but just thinking about how stuff plays out in Star Wars, .....it's kind of chilling isn't it.

Shea said...

I think Obama will be overall, a good president.

Shea said...

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.2289/pub_detail.asp#
thats a good article about Islam and the hidden dangers in America

rangeragainstwar said...

LT.Nixon,

If there anything we should have learned from the phony WOT it would have been that Drones/bombs are not the solution to Terrorism. Killing individual players doesn't adequately solve any problems - it merely continues the cycle of violence.

And how many civilians have we killed in our hi-tech strikes based on crummy intel?

Let's re-evaluate the threat. The bobos running the tribal regions are not the same as those that conducted the 9-11 operation. they are a concern for Pakistan and Afghanistan, not the U.S.

Of course they're killing western soldiers. It is their country and we are there killing them. Isn't this called war? And really-why are we there?

I hope BHO has the stones to get the US outta Afghanistan.

jim

rangeragainstwar said...

p.s.,

We have reached a state of impossibly divisive partisanship in the U.S., and this insanity is not caused by the Taliban.

This entire war is based on faulty assumptions, and is not making the U.S. safer. Fighting this ill-conceived war is inextricably interwoven with the bankrupting of our economy, a concern that we share.

Darren M said...

Post something new, you dumbass civilian.

cathcatz said...

i creep you the fuck out??

yeep.

subrookie said...

This entire war is based on faulty assumptions, and is not making the U.S. safer. Fighting this ill-conceived war is inextricably interwoven with the bankrupting of our economy, a concern that we share.

There is no doubt that the Taliban sheltered bin Laden for years while he recruited, planned, and carried out his attacks on the US on 9/11. Who are you an apologist for? Would you have the Taliban continue to throw acid on young school children just for going to school? Or, is it ok that they only recently carried out a suicide bombing that killed 14 children at a school?

You can make a reasonable argument that we shouldn't be in Iraq, but if you're against the war in Afghanistan as far as I'm concerned you are for the oppression of education, women and religious freedom. Should we have sat around and not done anything after 9/11? I think that's the argument you're making.

Cath.. you've always creeped me the fuck out :)

Blogger Tips and Tricks

Nixon said...

Ranger,

I suggest that a failed lawless state in Pakistan would be dangerous for America because the transnational terrorist organizations would have the ability to train and conduct attacks on Western powers while having quasi-safe haven. Many Al-Qaeda leaders are holed up in the Northwestern provinces, and this strike reportedly hit "arab" individuals.

Bag Blog said...

So, the question is why was there no public outrage from the anti-war folks for Obama's decision to use UAV strikes in Pakistan? It could be that Obama is just too new and folks are waiting to see how he does in the long run. Or possibly, to admit that their savior could do anything wrong, would be to admit that Bush might have been doing something right, or maybe there is fear of becoming a Joe the Plumber and get yourself attacked from other Lefties if you question the Big O. Who know what evil lurks in the minds of… oh wait, that is from The Shadow and probably way before your time. Anyway, I agree with Lt. Nixon and support Obama's decision.

olgreydog7 said...

I fail to see how Bush had much to do with the current state of the economy. An economy which is based largely on speculation by investors. Now, I guess you could argue that since Bush pissed off alot of media types who then went on to insist we were in a recession 2 years before we actually were, causing confidence to fall, and, therefore, causing the economy to decline in part. But I wouldn't say it was his economic policy that caused this. This is just another ruse to show how evil Bush is. To think that one man has supreme power over a multi-trillion dollar economy is like believe that Santa actually circumnavigates the world delivering toys in one night. Besides all that, show me a war-time US economy that was booming. You can't.

I'm not that surprised by the O's actions. He has been adamant that Afghanistan is important and that controlling the tribal areas in Pakistan are a priority. I am beginning to think that he just jumped on the anti-Iraq bandwagon because it was politically favorable for him to do. Actually, I think anyone with half a brain that knows anything at all about the situation, did the same thing.

Sorry Ranger, but you are wrong. You cannot have such an isolationist view in today's interlinked world. A Jeffersonian republic couldn't work in the late 1700's and it can't work now. It would be nice if you could say "my bad" and go home. You can't. We are in a catch 22. If we did leave, we'd piece off the people who we are trying to make things better for, and that would ultimately be worse. We might appease some of the terrorists if we did what you say, however, I think we would actually strengthen their cause and resolve. Their networks are weakened by taking out key leaders. Most of the group is made up of mindless rubes who are just looking for a way to help the cause. If you take away the leadership, the network will eventually fall apart. This is not a group that will surrender to avoid losing more people. Think about how long WW2 might have lasted without the bomb. The Japanese would have never surrendered if we did not show them we had the capability to annihilate their entire country with a few bombs. There is a similar mentality in Al Qaeda, the Taliban, ect.

rangeragainstwar said...

Subrookie,

Spare me the humanist lingo-we are not there for womens rights or any other rights.Truthfully i don't care one iota for AFGH internal problems-we've got a full plate of problems here at home.Charity begins at home.

Yep the Taliban gave support to AQ but that link is broken. The yahoos in the border regions are not a threat to America-they are a threat to AFG/PAK.

I agree with the LT that PAK security is a key 21st century issue but fighting in Afg.is not solving that conundrum. We're mixing metaphors in political jargon.

And why did the Taliban gain ascendency in AFG? Was it US policy -the oppression occurred when we aided the Russian defeat. Unless you've not noticed our policies are exactly the same as the former Soviet objectives. When we sided with the Taliban we insured a tribal society with all the evils you outline.

There is no reason to continue a PWOT in AFGH.

LT.N- Are you saying our war goals are to secure PAK? Have they become a State?

Old grey dog,

I never espouse appeasing Terrorists but killing religious crazies in AFG does not meet the bar of making America safer and that's the job of the US Administration.

There is absolutely no historical proof that killing T leaders weakens the groups. Show me the beef-you are being emotional rather than factual.It is further a non-truth to compare the Taliban and AQ to the Japs of WW2.

Why don't you pull out the biggie-THEY DON'T VALUE HUMAN LIFE.That's what we always say just before we firebomb or burn them to crispy critters.

All of these reactions are emotional knee-jerk that I could get any day of the week on FOX news. It is not critical thinking.

jim

Nixon said...

Jim,

I dispute the fact that the U.S. alone was key to the Taliban's rise to power. The primarily culprit for that was the ISI to provide a bulwark against India.