Where is the Outrage Over Obama's Stikes on Pakistan?

[tekisui]

When chimpy did this, it was roundly slammed. There is no authorization of war from Congress in Pakistan. Why are we suddenly defending missile strikes within the border of a sovereign nation that has not attacked us? When did this become something we cheerlead?

It was wrong when chimpy did it. It is wrong when Obama does it.

Here are some reactions to chimpy's actions. Compare how DUers felt then to the reactions Yesterday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[liberalmuse]

1. I'm not happy about it.

I don't know. I was sad when I heard that. Then again, I do not know what President Obama was told, and I highly doubt he would allow them without good cause. I just don't know.

[tekisui]

3. It is ironic that no one defended the actions when chimpy did it.

But, now, many are defending Obama's approval of it, or at least accepting it.

[Bonobo]

7. No. it is entirely understandable.

Obama has our trust. Bush did not.

It is THAT simple.

I trust that Obama has sound judgment and knows more about what is happening on the ground than you or I.

[tekisui]

9. He has my trust as well.

But, that doesn't change the fact that I think this is a dangerous and wrong-headed approach.

[Bonobo]

14. Be more specific.

What if, just imagine for a second here, what if they were really "bad guys" and we knew it. What if we knew they were our true enemies?

Would it then have been justified?

For all we know, he just saved lives...

I don't fucking know. I am generally against this kind of shit, but that is in large part because I have never trusted a leader as I do Obama.

At some point, we have to admit that we don't have a command of what is happening and must rely on the judgment of our leaders, whom we trust, and whom have a larger picture of what is going on.

Just my opinion.

[tekisui]

20. I accept that.

It is a continuation of the previous policy. One that chimpy approved, but was likely developed by the military/CIA. Just because chimpy allowed it, doesn't make it wrong.

I don't like these types of actions for the potential destabilizing effect they can have, even if they are successful in hitting a high valued target.

Hopefully it is a message and will not be needed often. The big stick to go with tough diplomacy.

[ZombieHorde]

117. So now it was good when Bush did it? I am just trying to understand, not trying to put words in your

mouth.

[marshall]

148. It remnds me of when Clinton bombed those targets in Africa

Conservatives supported the bombing of terrorist sites, but they screamed bloody murder because it coincided with the Lewinsky business. People tend to separate the action and the intent.

[kywildcat]

145. well said-thank you for articulating this. nt

[Political Heretic]

132. Wow that is scary. I didn't realize anyone on our side was that stupid.

You sound exactly like bush lovers.

I don't need any facts I just trust my Prez-a-dunt.

[Thickasabrick]

156. Agreed and would rec your comment if I could

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. That's your premise

I think it is incorrect.

I think probably many people here tacitly support these strikes when they are properly targeted at militants, especially given the way Pakistan has given the wink and nod to groups who are obviously involved in the further destabilization of Afghanistan. It's not a simple issue, and I think the positions here are likely complex, and certainly more complex than your premise accounts for.

[Phx_Dem]

37. Bush only started doing this in August, after Obama stated

he would do it. Obama was criticized by Dems for his statement, but guess what. It worked. Bush's strikes killed several Al Queada(?) terrorists, and now Obama's have killed several more. I didn't criticize Bush for doing it and I won't criticize Obama. I think it's the right thing to do if they have "actionable intelligence."

[hileeopnyn8d]

62. I'm with you

I remember thinking how interesting the timing was of the strikes back in August. I also didn't criticize Bush for it either. Basically, I agree with your entire post.

[tekisui]

71. To what end?

Are we going to set up permanent bases in Afghanistan to perpetually strike would-be terrorists in Pakistan? When do we decide we have done enough? When do we achieve success?

The 'actionable intelligence' is not always accurate. We have bombed weddings, funerals and families. Is that to be ignored, swept under the rug, because there are 'bad guys' that we need to hit for years on end?

I just want to know where this is going and how the end or the win is defined. Like Iraq, we are wading through a quagmire, with no clear point of 'success'.

[Phx_Dem]

103. Yeah, we should just forget about those pesky terrorists

and let them hide whereever they want. Which is probably exactly what we would do if Dennis Kucinich was President, but thankfully, he isn't.

[tekisui]

107. How long do think is approriate to devote our resources and soldiers

to the cause of bombing terrorists in hide-outs? And, when will we know that we have them all?

I have no idea why you mentioned Kucinich. I am just asking you what the endgame is. When we will know that we have succeeded in Afghanistan? And, what is success?

[snake in the grass]

138. Unfortunately...

...the U.S. still isn't evolved enough for someone of Kucinich's calibre. Your snark is a perfect illustration of the fact.

[MilesColtrane]

149. In this particular case, I think a "win" occurs when Pakistan really does decide to...

...police it's own territory, and rousts out the members of it's military and intelligence forces who have actively been assisting and training Al Qaeda for years.

That may not happen for a long time.

Afghanistan may take even longer, as it just barely has a government of any kind at all.

The only alternative is to withdraw and let things return to the way they were in that country, allowing it to once again become a center for training young men willing to strap on bombs and seek out American targets.

[Thrill]

2. Under the Program in place. Obama doesn't have to authorize it

Having said that. If you listened to him throughout the campaign. He said he would do this several times. Why are you surprised?

[tekisui]

4. Did I say I was surprised?

Not at all. I knew it was coming, too. That doesn't make it right, and I think Obama is wrong on this. I would hope that there would be voices of disapproval and that more diplomatic heads would prevail.

He is the President now, and should be pressured when acting in the wrong.

[babylonsister]

5. Do you think President Obama authorized these strikes?

He's been kind of busy, so I do wonder.

[Skinner]

11. I sure hope he did.

If the US Military is making military strikes in a foreign country without getting authorization from the president, that would be a real problem.

[underpants]

12. The most likely scenarios here are

Of course they consulted him. He okays it and then they can show the world that the NEW GUY is listening to them and willing to throw a punch. Pentagon also gets to float the "Did he know?" meme and Obama goes along with it allowing them clout.

This apparently is normal SOP-about 30 such strikes last year alone.

[tekisui]

17. 30-38 strikes, starting in August.

I agree with your assessment. It shows he isn't afraid to throw a punch, at the same time commits a high level peace envoy to the region. I hope for the best.

[underpants]

32. Thomas Ricks in "Fiasco" states that the Pentagon see political guys as "temporary help"

THEY have to get re-elected. The brass doesn't.

Obama doesn't want to pick a fight with them. He can't have any dissention in the ranks or even the appearance of such.

Andrea Mitchell was on Morning Joe and she made a point to change the discussion to say that the brass appreciate and like the respect and honor Obama had shown them to that point (he started at Arlington with a wreath, etc. ). Whatever you think of her-she IS the DC conventional wisdom. The message was "He's okay".

The Pentagon got blindsided by Rummy and they did not like it one bit. Obama and his staff are so wonderfully prepared that it is more than reassuring.

[babylonsister]

16. Good point. What if he didn't? I guess we'll hear about it.

Or not. Doesn't sound so diplomatic to me, and that's discouraging.

[TayTay]

51. It is possible these were planned before 1/20/09

But it is difficult to believe that Pres. Obama did not authorize these strikes. He is the Commander in Chief now and should have oversight on this.

The decision may well be a sort of legacy from the Bush Admin. The personnel from planning at Defense and the Pentagon may have advanced this and come up with the plans under the Bush Admin, but Pres Obama has the power to veto these if he wants.

This is his strike, though, as with the Bay of Pigs under JFK, it may be a legacy plan. (Or not. I don't know the details.)

[rug]

30. Yeah, but are they acting under Bush's standing orders or new orders from Obama?

It's a distinction with a difference.

[hulka38]

58. What's the difference. I think it's safe to say that Obama was made aware that strikes

were going to happen well ahead of time. That he didn't stop them is a green light to bomb.

[rug]

59. The difference is whether he's going to buy into Bush's doctrine of preemption

and war on terror or simply leave standing orders until he can change them.

[hulka38]

63. He's the CIC with the kind of capital no one has seen since just after 9/11.

He can change the orders. If he needed to buy time to get policy and politics in place he could've ordered the bombers to stand down until further notice.

[rug]

64. If you're right he's wrong.

[hulka38]

66. I love the guy, but let's all be honest - he clearly has the authority.

Who's gonna stop him? He would pay an enormous political price if he was to suspend targeting of Qaeda in Pak especially if he did a 180 after campaigning that given actionable intel he would strike them there. I think he believes the policy is correct. I'm going to question it in the practical terms of is this going to enhance our overall security or hurt it?

[Thrill]

44. The current CIA Program doesn't call for Presidential Authorization on these targets

[hulka38]

60. If President Obama is aware that these targets may be bombed without

his explicit approval of the specific action, and if the U.S. military acts, then as CIC he owns that action. We've got to own up to this.

[Parker CA]

99. MSNBC reported yesterday that this was a drone mission the CIA had control over

that did not require Presidential approval although Obama was briefed on the situation and mission. I didn't get anymore info than that, but it sounds as if the CIA can launch these attacks when they feel they have a viable target in range and that they do not necessarily have to received approval in advance.

[tekisui]

13. Some media outlets are saying that he did give approval.

Of course, that doesn't make it so. I hope that it is just to show Pakistan we are serious, and that the diplomacy will be productive.

[pecwae]

50. Uh, who else would have?

[indimuse]

157. ???

??? hmmm... c'mon.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. Obama said clearly that he would pursue into Pakistan

I agree with that. The Pakistani government refuses to police the border areas, for various domestic reasons. Now, you might argue that these strikes are counter-productive, and that's even likely true. But I have no problem with them in principle, and never did with Bushie either.

[tekisui]

8. I appreciate your consistency.

I hated them under chimpy, and hate them under Obama. And, think they are counter productive.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. There's a good argument to be made that they are counter-productive

It's a policy that needs to be reviewed. But simply chirping about so-called hypocrisy on a message board is not a way forward on this issue. Perhaps a more extensive, informed, and well-reasoned post about why they are counter-productive would be more helpful and grown up than the usual "AHA! You're a HYPOCRITE!" nonsense that passes for reasoned discussion in Our Dumb Discourse.

[tekisui]

21. I have posted several reasonable articles about the actions,

and with little reaction. This post got people into this thread to talk about it, including you. It has been the most well reasoned discussion on the issue I have found so far.

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. "It has been the most well reasoned discussion on the issue I have found so far.'

That's sad.

[tekisui]

26. I agree!

[Rydz777]

31. I agree they are counter-productive, and I think that

Afghanistan is a morass, potentially as bad or worse than Iraq.

[treestar]

24. Especially if it is in that tribal area not under Pakistani control

That's where Al Qaeda has gone.

[Honeycombe8]

15. What's a stike? Just kidding. Seriously, Obama said during campaign he'd do this...

He'd go after terrorists hiding in the mountain areas of Pakistan, if Pakistan didn't do it.

Ba-da-bing. No surprises here. I agreed with it, when he said it. I agree with it now.

[Enrique]

19. can't you at least wait until he's inaugurated?

[treestar]

22. Obama inherited these wars

Chimpy started them.

[tekisui]

25. Indeed.

I do believe that Obama will run them smarted, and I hope this was more of a warning shot to show he is serious, rather than a regular operation.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

27. Don't understand why you are upset. Chimpy is allowing Pakistan get away with harboring

al-Qaeda. The government knows where Osama bin Laden and members of the resurgent Taliban are. Biden has been right all along. The problem is Pakistan, along the border of Afghanistan where Osama is believed to be. I don't have any problem with the strikes. I want Osama and those that harbor him brought to justice. And I'm saying this as a peace-loving liberal.

[tekisui]

29. I don't think that these types of actions bring increased security to

us. They may hit some very bad people, but at the risk of increased angst towards us. I don't claim to have the answer, but I don't think this way is necessarily productive.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

47. So how do we get Osama? How do we bring the Taliban to its knees?

[tekisui]

52. Osama who?

I think it is best to marginalize and declare Osama insignificant. As for the Taliban, I have no idea. Is that what we need to be spending our resources and soldier's lives on. I don't know, honestly.

[bvar22]

65. They "may" hit some bad people.

These strikes will certainly KILL and MAIM innocent civilians, you know "collateral damage".

[stray cat]

28. I never had trouble with trying to prevent Al Queda from operating from Pakistan

I'm not crazy about Al Queda living a protected life in Pakistan from which to strike the US without having to worry about being attacked in return. No country can be an absolute safe haven.

[Mika]

33. It seems America has accepted the "generational" aspect of the GWOT concept.

Keeps the military/industrial simplex complex well funded.

[Occam Bandage]

34. I never had a problem with strikes in Pakistan.

I'm not one of the "everything Bush does is automatically blameworthy" people.

[Phx_Dem]

35. Why would there be an outrage? He stated quite clearly during

the campaign (in the debates) he would do this. If I get actionable intelligence, I will strike at terrorist targets in the mountain of Pakistan. (paraphrased). This is not a surprise.

God forbid we kill terrorists. I strongly support these actions.

[tekisui]

36. These actions are against the wishes of the Pakistani government

and kill innocent people. I know Obama planned to do things like this, it does not make it right.

[Zynx]

48. The Pakistani government is not the greatest litmus test here.

They have extremely poor internal control over their own affairs. This is a difficult concept to grasp in a country like ours or, say, Japan. However, when a government cannot exercise its control over its own country, that raises serious questions.

[hack89]

83. How do you know that the Pakistani government really objects?

the Taliban/ Al-Qaeda has in essence declared war on the Pakistani government and has been implicated in several attacks in Pakistan. I would think that was sufficient motivation for Pakistan to secretly aid American attacks.

[tekisui]

87. If Zardari is publicly denouncing the strikes and privately condoning them

then he is weak, ineffective and walking a knifes edge. He can't keep all sides content for long.

[hack89]

95. I agree

part of the problem in that region is weak governments that don't completely control their territories - that leaves lots of room for groups like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to operate.

[Phx_Dem]

102. So what. They refuse to do anything about terrorists

taking refuge in their country. I haven't heard that any innocent people were killed. But the fact is, when terrorists are allowed to hide among civilians and be protected by them, some of those civilians just might be caught in the cross-fire. But it's not like we dropped a bomb in the middle of a populated city.

Terorists are famous for hiding behind civilians, just like Hamas does. That doesn't mean we'll just forget about them and let them be.

[tekisui]

110. 3 chidren were reported killed in the strike.

In the second attack, missiles struck a house near the village of Wana in South Waziristan, killing seven people, according to local accounts and Pakistani news reports. The reports said three of the dead were children.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/world/asia/24pstan.ht...

[prostock69]

38. Let's not forget what happened in Mumbai because of Pakistan's

unwillingness to deal with the terrorist camps within their boundaries. What do not know is the intelligence that was gathered that allowed these strikes to happen. The strike was probably done to prevent an imminent terror attack probably in India. It is too easy for all of us to be judgmental by second guessing the President's decisions. We are not privy to the info he has. We have to trust him that he knows what he is doing.

[CitizenPatriot]

39. are you suggestion that there is NO difference between the two?

Here's what I'm taking into account right now:

Obama is dealing with a war started illegally by our previous president.
WE knew tensions were growing in Pakistan and he told us exactly how he intended to deal with it.
While I am not happy about this, I am not sure I have all of the info, so I'm waiting to hear from Obama. I have every faith that he will talk to us and explain his policy thoughts. If the DoD acted without his knowledge, we may not discover that -- but this is a move that is highly unlike Obama's other actions -- thus, my common sense tells me to wait until all the info is in.

remember that yesterday everyone was pitching a fit re the stimulus plan-- based on a report leaked by the republicans-- which turns out to have been complete crap.

We should know enough to know we aren't being told the truth by msm by now.

Wait and see a few days is my new policy.

[Demi_Babe]

40. Obama = TRUST Bush = NO TRUST period!

[tekisui]

53. That may be the best way to approach these actions, for now.

If they produce results without causing greater insecurity, it will be easier to accept.

[harun]

41. I do not support him authorizing these strikes, I feel it is unconstitutional and

unlawful to just start shooting anywhere we want.

[MilesColtrane]

152. Hopefully, there will be a review by the new Attorney General of...

...this policy.
I'm pretty sure he would come down on the side of it's legality due to precedent.

The U.S. hasn't declared war on anybody in almost seventy years yet there have been numerous times that a President has ordered the U.S. military into action, sometimes with Congressional authority, sometimes without.

I happen to believe that this is a necessary temporary solution until Pakistan can gain the political will to actually police itself.

[MadBadger]

42. I didnt think it was wrong when Chimpy did it, and I didnt criticize him for it.

[JSK]

43. There outrage from Roseanne

www.roseanneworld.com

That's where I first heard about it.

[supernova]

45. I can't say I disapprove of the air strikes in Pakistan

I would feel differently if they were a fully functional country with proper borders that they police themselves. But they are not. And there is evidence to suggest that the Pakistani army elite encourages this mayhem for their own reasons. These are also the people who killed Benazhir Bhutto.

If all of this strife remained within Pakistan, that might be one thing. They could be free to sort out their own violence issues for as long as their bloodlust would allow. But it doesn't. They harass and kill Afghan citizens (some of whom are sympathetic, some not), the harass and kill Indians (Mumbai?), and they harass and kill their own citizens.

If Obama is continuing the air strikes, then that means he has reason to believe there is something worth destroying. Not every target is right, and that's sorrowfully regrettable, but not every target is an innocent "wedding party" either.

[Zynx]

46. I never criticized them. Pakistan has little internal control. If we can't trust them

to take care of our enemies, we must do so.

[Still Sensible]

49. Help me out here

A number of people in this thread have posted that they believe these strikes are counter productive. I would like to know why they believe that.

[tekisui]

55. They potentially further distabilize the region.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Since the strikes started, and some ground troops even went into Pakistan, there is a risk of open conflict with(or within) Pakistan. This is not something that would benefit us here or our troops in Afghanistan.

[Pavulon]

57. Pakistan is on the tit

they will not start an open war. I would bet they are fully aware of what is going on and bitching only to keep their fundies appeased.

[tekisui]

72. Pakistan most certainly does not want open war.

But, many of the fundies in Pakistan do. If these strikes go on unanswered by the Pakistani government, then the extremists in Pakistan will start gunning for their government. The overall outcome is destabilization.

[Pavulon]

75. The government will kill them

like the Muslim Brotherhood in egypt. They dont play nice there. Pakistan needs to fix the problem so we dont have to.

[Freddie Stubbs]

54. Obama promised during the campaign that he would do this

[tekisui]

56. I know.

That doesn't make it right.

[Freddie Stubbs]

179. Nor does that make it wrong

[budkin]

61. He said through the entire campaign that he was going to go after Pakistan

We've given them billions and gotten nothing in return. Those days are over.

[terisan]

67. Political candidates often lie. The anti-war movement was co-opted. Worse is yet to come

imho.

[MadBadger]

68. What did Obama lie about?

[jenmito]

78. That poster is constantly defending Bush and bashing Obama. n/t

[tekisui]

74. Obama didn't lie. This is exactly what he said he would do.

It is a strategy that he believes is the best approach to deal with the Afghanistan/Pakistan tribal extremists.

I just happen to disagree with it as a viable path to peace and stability for the region or the US.

[anonymous171]

137. Obama IS NOT ANTI-WAR AND HAS NEVER BEEN ANTI-WAR

[LittleBlue]

69. If civilians were killed, I say prosecute for war crimes

If he knew about it, and if he authorized it, then treat him the same as Chimpy.

I'm tired of civilian casualties, and I'm tired of the "progressives" who would rationalize those casualties. Civilian casualties are not excusable under any circumstances. The life of a Pakistani is worth the same as an American life; if the military had killed an American, heads would roll.

[MadBadger]

70. Let me get this straight...you are all for prosecuting Obama for war crimes now?

OMFG.

[LittleBlue]

73. No

Only if there were civilian casualties, and Obama authorized the attack

[Pavulon]

76. Please..

this is a war, not even a big one. Civilians will die, that is part of war. The last time we played war for real we burned tokyo down and killed 300 - 500 people a SECOND for 8 hours. That is still debated on criminality.

The President will authorize strikes where innocent people die, or will delegate the power to make that call. That is not a crime, that is called war. It is what it is.

[LittleBlue]

77. Wait a sec... but we were so ready to send Bush to the Hague

for killing civilians. We made whole threads about it!

What happened?

[Pavulon]

79. Not me. My position has been clear and unchanged

the war in Iraq is a mess, we need to leave. The war in Afganistan is priority. The people who brought us 9/11, the USS Cole, etc need to die. No matter where they are or who they are. That means ex-judicial killings of military targets OUTSIDE of the US.

Those blabbering war crime have zero concept of what the reality is, how it is prosecuted, or how the US deals with criminal actions by military personnel. If we are going to fight wars people will die. Some of the dead will by noncombatants. This is a given.

The question is does the outcome justify the action? Is the strategy capable of creating the outcome we want.

The rest is pretty much the same shit since we started sharpening sticks.

[LittleBlue]

82. My position is also unchanged

because I agreed with those threads.

I choose not to fight wars, therefore I have no moral responsibility for civilian casualties. All the US wars since WW2 have been unnecessary conflicts.

I really don't think hunting terrorists in foreign countries is effective. Police methods work better than wars.

[Pavulon]

85. I have respect for your position

and am not saying we should be careless in taking life. War is organized killing and it goes the wrong way at times, should be avoided.

I do not have respect for any person here who has different rules for Obama than Bush. The law and office are the same.

That is not support I am talking about but assessment of actions taken.

Regards,
pav

[verges]

178. I mostly agree.

Afghanistan/Pakistan is still a direct result of 9/11, and that is why we should finish there. But Iraq was a completely unneccesary war, unconnected in any way to 9/11. We went there only because W wanted to. That's why it's an illegal war and why W should be prosecuted.

[TTUBatfan2008]

84. Nothing "happened"

Obama proposed doing this around a year ago. The Republicans CRITICIZED him for it, then they turned around and authorized the CIA to do it a few months later. And sure enough, they took out a top al-Qaeda leader soon after the strikes began. Obama has always said he's not opposed to all wars, only the dumb ones. Well, our real terrorist threat was always in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bush fucked up when he decided to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

[independentpiney]

86. There's alot of valid reasons bush admin officials and maybe bush himself

himself could be sent to the Hague,with preemptive war, torture and collective punishment tops on my list. unavoidable collateral civilian deaths are not one of those reasons. As another poster said, those are a reality of war.They don't constitute a war crime under international law. It'd be nice if war itself was an international crime, but that's not reality.

[LittleBlue]

90. Well, one can argue whether or not they're avoidable

As Israel has found out over the last 30 years, killing a terrorist does not actually improve security.

What justice can be derived from killing Pakistani tribesmen? Will that bring back the 3k killed on 9/11, or the hundreds of thousands killed since to sate our barbaric desires? The only justice worth having is to bring back all those dead since 9/11, and we can't have that so we should settle for preventative measures.

We've greatly reduced the risk associated with airplane hijacks. Now we need to focus on train track monitoring, import screening, and toxic/food factory protection. Forget the wars, they have gained us nothing.

IMO

[independentpiney]

98. I think if there's war, they are unavoidable

Even the romanticized view of two opposing armies meeting in an empty field of battle during pre-modern warfare is a myth. Innocent civilians have always died in war.

I fully agree with the rest of your thoughts.

[jenmito]

88. We were ready to prosecute Bush for lying us into a war in IRAQ when the people who

attacked us were on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border.

[janx]

154. WE?

?

[MadBadger]

97. So the answer is yes then, you want war crimes charges against Obama.

[Stardust]

120. Sorry to say this, but there are always going to be civilian casualties.

The bad guys will always be among civilians. It's not like the old wars where the bad guys wore uniforms and fought together as a unit.

I hate it that innocents die, too, but it's a harsh reality, if we're going to go after terrorists.

[alcibiades_mystery]

146. Authorizing an attack in which civilians are killed is not a war crime

Under any definition of the term accepted by sane people.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Hippo_Tron]

118. Civilian casualties do not inherently constitute war crimes

Intentionally targeting civilians is a war crime. Targeting a military target and unintentionally killing civilians in the process does not constitute a war crime. Thus there is no justification to prosecute for war crimes. If you don't like that then work to change international law.

[LittleBlue]

131. I do not believe that is the law

Reckless disregard is also prohibited.

Bush has always denied he targeted civilians, despite his airstrikes killing civilians every time. That is an international game. We know he did not care to avoid civilian deaths, just as the Israelis do not take measures against civilian deaths when they fire on a UN school.

[Sultana]

176. Oh wow

[hack89]

80. Why do you assume Pakistan does not approve?

Governments say one thing publicly while doing something else in secret all the time. I can see why Pakistan would want to help the US destroy the Taliban - I can also see why they would want to keep such a deal secret.

[tekisui]

92. I can see that,

but I still don't see that it will necessarily bring success.

What I see happening in Afghanistan/Pakistan is another quagmire. No real defined 'success', just years of fighting and instability indefinitely. When will these strikes, and the larger operations in Afghanistan be recognizable as a success? We are escalating in Afghanistan this year, to what end?

[independentpiney]

100. Afghanistan is THE quagmire

It's bogged down and chewed up every foreign army that has tried to control it going back to the Macedonians and Alexander the Great. I'd really hoped that after the Taliban were toppled we would have gotten an internationally funded Marshall type plan together to help them lift themselves out of the chaos it had become since the Soviet invasion.

[MilesColtrane]

153. Kipling's advice:

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!

[tekisui]

116. Check this out. Petraeus met with Zardari on Tuesday.

Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president, and General Ashfaq Kayani, the chief of Pakistan's military, met David Petraeus, the US Central Command chief, in Islamabad on Tuesday to discuss ways that the US could assist the country in combating extremism.

US and Afghan officials have said Pakistan is not doing enough to combat fighters in the region, who have crossed over from Afghanistan to attack US and Nato troops.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/01/20091231...


I would be willing to bet Zardari had full knowledge what would be coming, and likely knows what is coming next.

[jenmito]

81. He's just doing what he SAID he'd do. n/t

[tekisui]

89. Yuh, I know.

Good god, I never said this was a surprise. Why does everyone keep saying that. I knew this was coming, I was against it, I am against, I will be against it tomorrow, and knowing it was coming 6 months ago doesn't make it right.

[jenmito]

96. Your OP asks where the outrage is. Maybe there's no outrage because we knew he would do this.

If he said he wouldn't do this and then he did, THEN I'm sure there would be LOTS of outrage. This has been U.S.'s policy. I don't know who slammed Bush for going after al Qaeda targets in Pakistan. It's his unnecessary invasion of Iraq we're mad about.

[cbc5g]

91. I think you've touched on something important

Many times we cheerlead things just because they are "on our side". Anything Bush did was seen through blood red lenses, Obama is seen through rose colored ones.


Now, that being said..I doubt Obama "ordered" it, but I assume he was told of what was going to happen in advance. But perhaps the program that is in place lets them bomb whoever without the presidents authorization.

[TTUBatfan2008]

93. This is an incorrect assumption...

I supported Bush's war in Afghanistan. I believe, just as the intelligence suggests, that many of the terrorists have moved to Pakistan. I have no problem with us fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If Bush hadn't distracted our military by cranking up a stupid war with Iraq, we likely would not have to worry about the terrorists going into Pakistan. They would likely still be in Afghanistan where we could continue fighting them.

[w4rma]

94. Nah, Obama campaigned that he would "pursue the terrorists into Pakistan".

Bush refused to, for the most part.

[Abq_Sarah]

140. If there is a program in place

That allows the military to bomb whoever they want without authorization, that would suggest we do not have civilian control of the military. I find it impossible to believe President Obama would tolerate that for one minute.

[earth mom]

101. There's little outrage about it because there are so many Obama cheerleaders on DU

who are in denial about politics and politicians. They have Obama on a pedestal and think he can do no wrong.

The people who have been honest about Obama from Day 1 are not around DU much anymore or they have been T.S for speaking the truth.

As for me, I refuse to cheerlead war and the killing of innocents.

Not only that but I don't believe there is such a thing as Al Qaeda and all this terra terra terra crap is nothing bunch of b.s. to justify endless war by the powers that be who really control the world.

[leftstreet]

104. Terra Terra opium Terra Terra arms sales Terra Terra drugs Terra Terra bomb$

Wash, rinse, repeat

[jenmito]

105. We're not "cheerleaders." We're supporters who believed him when he said, over and over again,

that he'd strike within Pakistan to go after al Qaeda if Pakistan's government wouldn't. You really have some nerve claiming, "The people who have been honest about Obama from Day 1 are not around DU much anymore or they have been T.S for speaking the truth." If YOU were honest you'd know Obama made his position clear throughout his entire campaign. Maybe you weren't a supporter and you were so filled with hatred for him that you weren't listening to him. The rest of us knew his position all along.

[earth mom]

106. FYI-I don't hate Obama. I just want him to do the right thing & there is NOTHING wrong with that.

So tell me, is killing innocents okay with you? How would you feel if Pakistan was bombing your neighborhood for non existent terra-ists?

[jenmito]

109. FYI-You're totally wrong when you called his knowledgeable supporters "cheerleaders" and said

"The people who have been honest about Obama from Day 1 are not around DU much anymore or they have been T.S for speaking the truth."

Did you vote for him? Didn't you know what he campaigned on? Going after those who attacked us instead of invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 is ok with me AND it's what he said he'd do. That's NOT cheerleading. Killing innocents isn't ok, but it may be necessary in order to get the people we're supposed to get. Sorry Obama's doing what he promised he'd do.

[earth mom]

139. Bullshit. You Obama cheerleaders have chased away a lot of great DUers this past year.

That is a fact that I've seen with my own eyes.

Those people left and let it be known on other political forums exactly why they left-because they weren't allowed to express themselves honestly here on DU.

Me, I'd rather have honesty & truth than a bunch of rah rah cheerleading which is EXACTLY what you are doing by saying Obama can do no wrong and by not condemning the killing of innocents in Pakistan.

Sorry to tell ya, but nobody deserves to die like that-especially in the name of the fake terrorism that * & Co created.

[jenmito]

163. That's bull. We're SUPPORTERS. Not "cheerleaders." And if things people say here

"have chased away" anyone, that's THEIR problem. If people are unable to debate others and they run away, that says more about them than anyone else. NOBODY stopped ANYONE from expressing themselves. That's ridiculous. It's impossible unless we're physically stopping people from typing. Get real.

If you see people pointing out Obama's long-held policies as "cheerleading," YOU'RE the one who's not being honest. I challenge you to find ONE poster who has said Obama can do know wrong. I've been challenged over and over again to name something I disagreed with Obama on and I have.

Sorry to tell ya, but Obama's position on striking within Pakistan has always been his position and he's trying to actually get the people who attacked us on 9/11. Unfortunately, some innocent people will die in the process. Of COURSE they don't deserve to die. But terrorists DO exist-in Pakistan where he was striking.

[earth mom]

171. There is absolutely no way to catch all the so called "terrorists" on this planet.

So for the Obama administration to say they are going after "terrorists" in the middle east is simply just an exercise in futility as * & Co have already proven in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Sorry, but I simply don't believe in the booga booga terra terra bullshit.

It is nothing more than stale and leftover * & Co propaganda.



You can choose to buy into the bullshit and defend it until the cows come home, but for me, this discussion with you is OVER-Buh bye.

[tekisui]

108. I quit being afraid of the al-qaeda boogey man long ago.

[jenmito]

111. You're not the one responsible for going after those who attacked us on 9/11.

[tekisui]

112. The ones who attacked us on 9/11 died in plane crashes.

The leadership has been marginalized and isolated. Is revenge what we are after?

How about we secure our country from here? Why not pour resources into protection rather than offensive actions?

[jenmito]

113. So you were against us going into Afghanistan after 9/11?

If so, I see why you're upset. But you still shouldn't be surprised.

[tekisui]

114. I'm not surprised.

I was torn on going into Afghanistan. I was against the long term occupation of it, for sure. So many mistakes were made, and now we are still suffering the consequences. I don't see any good options, but expanding operations don't seem productive to me.

[jenmito]

115. If you were not against it, then you should've known there would be

civilian deaths. The consequences we're suffering are for invading IRAQ-and killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of people for a lie. Almost everyone was with us when we went into Afghanistan. Obama was always against taking our eye OFF Afghanistan and invading Iraq. He said he'd get us out of Iraq and concentrate on going after those who attacked us on 9/11 (their networks, obviously, since the people who were on the planes were killed, of course). He's just keeping his word.

[MilesColtrane]

155. I don't buy that Al Qaeda leadership has been crippled.

That would mean my accepting something that has come out of Bush's mouth as the truth.

The fact is that the ongoing Iraq fiasco, and Bush's "free reign" policy with Israel has created tens of thousands of recruits for any terrorist organization seeking American targets.

Even if there is a leadership vacuum in Al Qaeda, thanks in part to U.S. policy for the past 8+ years, there's an endless supply of people willing to ascend to those roles.

[IndianaGreen]

119. These strikes are on automatic control until orders are changed

Obama has been President less than a week.

[PurityOfEssence]

121. Um...it's important

It's one of the big three: the economy, Israel/Pakistan and the mideast military expeditions simply HAVE to be the most important things facing the new President. "Automatic" death-dealing isn't good policy. If he's remiss in controlling his combat forces at time of war, that's not an excuse, that's an admission of abject failure.

Now the rest of the world can seriously claim that he has the same flippant attitude about sovereignty as the previous assholes. Didn't even take a week. The correct answer is that he authorized it and he can then explain it however he pleases, but to say it's "automatic" shows serious lack of leadership and a cavalier attitude toward human life and our foreign policy. The AP article that says "Obama has not commented on the missile policy" is damning. I hope he's corrected this by now. This is HIS responsibility, and this is a BIG responsibility. To have a backhanded attitude about it is seemingly reckless and callous.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMx...

[dbmk]

160. The rest of the world sees the situation on the Pakistani border for what it is.

You will find little outrage over this. Almost everyone recognises that those regions are only Pakistan by name. They are completely uncontrolled by Pakistan and used as a safe haven by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

The war in Afghanistan is not the same as the war in Iraq when it comes to world opinion. It is, largely, seen as justified, and I think it is too. The people being fought there are the bad guys.

So if the US chooses to make pinpointed strikes in the unpoliced border regions in Pakistan to strike at them, there will be little outrage. Most people will understand and agree that an inconsequential line on a map should not give the enemy rest.

[PurityOfEssence]

167. Do the Pakistanis?

They're the ones who really count here. Yes, your point is well taken, but I'm not so concerned about what Belgians think, I'm concerned about the Muslim world.

War is a litmus test for many things, and sense, perspective, decency and protocol are among them.

Not only to I not think this war is sensible, I don't think seeming disregard for foreign sovereignty is the wisest of the bad courses to take when fighting it.

Little things mean lots, and borders are not little things.

[deadlyaj]

122. Kill the bastards

kill the bastards!

[ShortnFiery]

181. OMG! You should consider signing-up for THE INFANTRY and go kill us some "evildoers."

[deadlyaj]

123. Kill the bastards

kill the bastards!

[ClayZ]

124. Here

I emailed the WhiteHouse everyday for months on SHOCK AN AWE day and afterwords.
Each email said, "STOP BOMBING, You are killing babies!! STOP! STOP! STOP!"



I am having to bite my fingers not to do the same thing now! I am hoping for some explanation.

[jenmito]

126. The explanation can be found in every answer he gave throughout every debate,

every interview, and every speech he talked about his foreign policy. He has repeatedly said we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because it took our eye off the ball (of those who attacked us on 9/11) and he always said he'd strike within Pakistan to get al Qaeda/Taliban targets if their government won't. He's keeping his word.

[ClayZ]

128. I heard him. I just never think of children as TARGETS!

When we have likened children to "Targets" (even if they are COLLATERAL DAMAGE) we are no better than the terrorists! To the family of that child, we are terrorists.

That is what I think, and there is NO USE in arguing with me!

I am, and always have been a "Bleeding Heart LIBERAL"...

I thought WE would be ratcheting up the KUNG FU*! (I know we have....)


Think of the HELL caused in the media by ex vice president cheney accidentaly shooting his hunting friend.

We then turn around and accidental bomb children and say what? OH WELL? Those kids lives are not worth mourning?

I just can't make myself accept that.

Not much consequence to what I think. I do march in PROTESTS. I do not want to march in one against Obama POLICY! It makes me sick to think of it.

I worked hard for his campaign. I have watched most of his speeches and Rallies. I believe him to be an ANTI WAR person.

The killing must end!

Who will be the last person to remotely control a drone airplane that drops bombs on children?

[jenmito]

164. "I believe him to be an ANTI WAR person."

Well then you didn't listen very carefully to him. He made his position VERY clear that he is NOT "anti-war," but against what he calls "dumb wars" like the one in Iraq that Bush lied us into. They were not a threat to us and they didn't attack us.

Sorry that you didn't pay attention to him all these years since he's been saying the same thing since 2002. If you worked hard for him because you thought he was an "anti-war person," then you didn't know who you were working for. Don't you remember he was called "naive" for saying he'd strike within Pakistan to go after al Qaeda targets if their govt. WOULDN'T??? NOBODY likes deaths of innocent people-children AND adults. But we were attacked on 9/11 and Obama always said we should've KEPT going after THEM instead of going into Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11.

[ClayZ]

172. The people who flew the planes into the WTC died.

How can you justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents in RETALIATION?

"NOBODY LIKES IT"... you say. Then stop doing it! Wabi Sabi Simple!


Are you saying the children who were killed two days ago in PAKISTAN are for PAY BACK?

If not, then what did they die for?

Again, I warn you, you will NEVER win this argument with me.

I did listen to OBAMA. He never said "I WILL ORDER SOMEONE TO KILL CHILDREN" in one world of his campaign. If you know when he did say that, please supply a link.

[jenmito]

174. You claimed Obama's anti-war. He NEVER SAID HE WAS ANTI-WAR.

I'm not gonna TRY to win this argument with you. You're uninformed-living in a dream-world. But if you'd like to read up on some of his statements, you can learn something: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[sampsonblk]

125. I am not outraged yet, but Obama has to meet with them about this...

and many other issues. He can't keep doing this as long-term strategy. At some point it will be just as wrong for him as it was for Bush. But that time has not come yet.

[stillcool]

127. It didn't start with Bush..

and it's not going to end with Bush. I wish it was that simple, but we have been doing this shit since WWII. Let's not forget it was the Carter Doctrine that first declared oil in the Middle east a "National Security Issue" and that military intervention be used as a means to protect our interests.

[MilesColtrane]

158. Sadly it was also under Carter that we began supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan...

...after the Soviet invasion. Of course, funding for that didn't really take off until Reagan stepped into office.

[windbreeze]

129. What's to say....

that Obama didn't have a thing to do with this?....what did I read somewhere about there still being people who were loyal to * in charge of some things, or how there was a certain program already in the makings...reminds me a little of the Bay of Pigs incident...how even though there was NO presidential approval...it happened anyway...or like the killing of S.Vietnam's president in 63...and how Pres. Kennedy was so furious he stomped out of the meeting when he was told..I can see something similar happening here...did Obama say he approved...did he sign the papers saying to do it??? does anyone even know??..wb

[crimsonblue]

130. I support the strikes

I supported them when they occurred while Bush was in office. I supported them when Obama reiterated during the campaign that this option would remain on the table. I support the strikes now.

[Captain Lance Bass]

I say don't stop till u find Bin Laden

Do the work Bush would not.

They are animals that need to be hunted down and exterminated.

[ShortnFiery]

182. Psst! Bin Laden is DEAD. Much of the funding comes from his Home of Record = Saudi Arabia.

[Captain Lance Bass]

133. I say don't stop till u find Bin Laden

Do the work Bush would not.

They are animals that need to be hunted down and exterminated.

[Captain Lance Bass]

134. I say don't stop till u find Bin Laden

Do the work Bush would not.

They are animals that need to be hunted down and exterminated.

[Captain Lance Bass]

135. Triple post????wtf N/t

[MrSlayer]

136. I don't think anyone ever had a problem with killing actual terrorists.

And President Obama said he would do this sort of thing throughout the campaign. We have to kill the actual terrorists. It isn't all a PNAC false front. I had no problem with Chimpy doing this and I have no problem with President Obama doing it.

[alwysdrunk]

141. Sorry, but most people were paying attention during the campaign

You know, the two year long presidential campaign that wrapped in November? Yeah, all during the campaign Obama said that he would do this. The world including Pakistan knew about it. That's why there is no outrage.

[dcindian]

142. Mr. President has done some wonderful things so far.

This is not one of those things. But it is one of those things that show even the Democratic party is moving too far to the right.

[quaker bill]

143. I do not support

violence anywhere. However, President Obama (I liked typing that) always stated that he would be doing this.

[FlaGranny]

144. Some people really

need to get a grip. Are you and others really saying we should have just ignored the attacks on NY and Washington? Gone on about our way and said "Oh well, that's life?" There are actually people in the US that don't want to get these terrorists? Just sit around and wait for the next 3000, 4000, or 10,000 deaths from terrorist attacks? I can't believe my eyes when I read posts that say we should forget about al Queda. I think Bush's miniscule refocusing on al Queda was one of the only things he has done right since he became president.

Bush is a criminal because he invaded a country that was no threat to us while he more or less ignored the real threat. He wasted 4000 American and 100's of thousands of Iraqis lives, when he might have just gotten al Queda to begin with at a much lower cost in human terms.

US policies of the past 50 or 100 years are a big part of the cause of terrorism and I'm hopeful those policies will start to change under our new president.

[Fozzledick]

147. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[citizen snips]

150. Obama just fulfilling his campaign promises

no surprise really. If Pakistan can not give us Bin Laden then other military actions are necessary.

[Vattel]

151. Cowards may disagree,

but I don't want the foundation of my security against terrorism to be the graves of innocent Pakastani children. Bombing in this way foreseeably kills the innocent. And for what? Because maybe they will reduce terrorism (as opposed to increasing it by breeding hatred)? Not good enough.

[ClayZ]

173. BINGO!

You are exactly Right ON!

[Life Long Dem]

159. Flamebait.

Who said Chimpy was wrong? Not me. And I looked at your links. Not one reply about civilian causalities in any link you post.

[tekisui]

161. Not flamebait.

Honest question. Interestingly, many here do support a policy of striking a sovereign country. The outrage is lacking, because so many support it. I think is wrong, but I appear to be in the minority.

[barb162]

166. How is this flamebait. If it's right when Obama does it, then it's right when Bush did it.

[Balbus]

162. Because people are fucking hypocrites.

[Sultana]

177. cute gif

[Imagevision]

165. Is this freeper day?

[tekisui]

170. What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

[LWolf]

168. Right here.

No surprise, since I actually paid attention to what he said and wrote during the primaries and the general election.

But I've been outraged all along. This is just one more piece of evidence that proves that I was correct.

[DailyGrind51]

169. Because they're OUR bombs now, damn it!

[greguganus]

175. Yeah!! Democrat bombs are better than Republican bombs!! n/t

[ShortnFiery]

180. I'm 100% against airstrikes, in general - they kill far too many INNOCENTS.