If you have "no place to go," come here!

The bombings of Pakistan will continue

LostClown's picture

So yeah, I'm happy about Gitmo and the lifting of the Global Gag Rule. BUT

Obama is going to continue Bush's policy of bombing Pakistan.

The Pakistan military's top spokesman called the attacks, which he said were by pilotless drones, "counterproductive," because they undercut his country's efforts to oust militants from the ungoverned tribal areas.

I mean, for anyone paying attention this shouldn't come as a shock as he told us that he would use military action against Pakistan. But he's anti-war, right? (Is this where I apologise for being prematurely correct?)

17 people were killed today, 3 of them children. Since the bombings began in August we have apparently killed 2 terrorist leaders. I guess everyone else who lives in the region is a terrorist by default since there are no numbers for how many *actual* terrorists we've killed.

Great policy. It worked so well when Clinton was bombing Iraq in the 90's, didn't it?

"We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace."

No votes yet


Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

Like you said, he promised it would, but I was not suspecting it so soon. I heard the Villagers, today, arguing that he didn't directly order this (as if it matters), as it was in the pipeline from the old administration. Fact is, when the Pentagon called him, he could have simply said no if he wanted to stop it.

Welcome to "change"; who wants to place a bet on when the "hope" dies?

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

Obama said he wasn't against war, but "dumb" wars. How is fucking with Pakistan smart? Doesn't it just spread the Afghan war, and to a nuclear-armed Muslim state teetering on the edge no less? All these strikes seem to do is provoke outrage amongst the very people whose "hearts and minds" we're trying to win over.

Here's a must-read article by Tariq Ali, "Has the U.S. Invasion of Pakistan Begun?" written back in September:

The decision to make public a presidential order of last July authorizing American strikes inside Pakistan without seeking the approval of the Pakistani government ends a long debate within, and on the periphery of, the Bush administration. Senator Barack Obama, aware of this ongoing debate during his own long battle with Hillary Clinton, tried to outflank her by supporting a policy of U.S. strikes into Pakistan [Forward to 1:47]. Senator John McCain and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin have now echoed this view and so it has become, by consensus, official U.S. policy.

Its effects on Pakistan could be catastrophic, creating a severe crisis within the army and in the country at large. The overwhelming majority of Pakistanis are opposed to the U.S. presence in the region, viewing it as the most serious threat to peace.

Also from September, "Facing up to the 'war' in Pakistan:"

“The Americans are probably right in claiming that Al-Qaeda and the Taleban have regrouped and using bases in Pakistan to launch cross-border raids into Afghanistan,” says Saudi-based Arab News. “They are certainly right in thinking that there will be no peace in Afghanistan while that remains the case. But they have to let the Pakistanis deal with this. If they continue the raids, they risk not merely losing what dwindling support they have in Pakistan but, far worse, alienating the country so thoroughly than no government even vaguely sympathetic to the US and the West can survive there.”

Pakistan’s Daily Times takes this argument further by suggesting that if public opinion turns even more against the United States, “the country will become more vulnerable to Al Qaeda and we will face unpredictable odds. According to nuclear theory, Pakistan is a nuclear power and cannot be attacked. If the US attacks Pakistani territory, battles with the Pakistan army, stops military assistance to Pakistan, and thus ends up making Al Qaeda supreme in Pakistan, the nuclear theory might then apply to Al Qaeda.”