Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
FORGET IRAN. How about a CIA proxy war in Pakistan? That's what the Washington Post's David Ignatius suggests the United States do to root out al-Qaeda factions in the northwest Pakistani province of Waziristan.
Intervening in another Muslim country is risky, to put it mildly. That's why a successful counterinsurgency program would need Pakistani support and why its economic and social development components would be critical ... The United States can begin to take action now against al-Qaeda's new haven. Or we can wait, and hope that we don't get hit again. The biggest danger in waiting is that if retaliation proves necessary later, it could be ill-planned and heavy-handed -- precisely what got us in trouble in Iraq.But doesn't evidence show that all Bush administration military interventions are ill-planned and heavy-handed? I continue to be amazed by national security experts who would place any trust in this president.
--Dana Goldstein
COMMENTS (4)
"The biggest danger in waiting is that if retaliation proves necessary later, it could be ill-planned and heavy-handed -- precisely what got us in trouble in Iraq."
This guy is as dumb as a box of rocks. Why did "retaliation" ever "prove necessary" in Iraq?
And what got us in trouble in Iraq is precisely what will get us into trouble anywhere we go - violently upsetting the status quo in a foreign country when we don't have the army or the political will to occupy it successfully and stabilize it.
Which, I hope my fellow TAPPED commenters understand, is an arugment against large-scale millitary intervention unless vital to our nation security. I'm not seeing anything like that in Pakistan or Iran at this point.
Posted by: brewmn | July 31, 2007 3:13 PM
"The biggest danger in waiting is that if retaliation proves necessary later, it could be ill-planned and heavy-handed -- precisely what got us in trouble in Iraq."
This guy is as dumb as a box of rocks. Why did "retaliation" ever "prove necessary" in Iraq?
And what got us in trouble in Iraq is precisely what will get us into trouble anywhere we go - violently upsetting the status quo in a foreign country when we don't have the army or the political will to occupy it successfully and stabilize it.
Which, I hope my fellow TAPPED commenters understand, is an arugment against large-scale millitary intervention unless vital to our nation security. I'm not seeing anything like that in Pakistan or Iran at this point.
Posted by: brewmn | July 31, 2007 3:13 PM
There are certainly a lot of details like that to take into consideration. That is a great point to bring up. I offer the thoughts above as general inspiration but clearly there are questions like the one you bring up where the most important thing will be working in honest good faith. I don?t know if best practices have emerged around things like that, but I am sure that your job is clearly identified as a fair game.
Posted by: sbenterprisepacific | January 29, 2010 2:04 AM
Hrmm that was weird, my comment got eaten. Anyway I wanted to say that it's nice to know that someone else also mentioned this as I had trouble finding the same info elsewhere. This was the first place that told me the answer. Thanks.
Posted by: cpcentercity | January 29, 2010 2:05 AM