Richardson gave a much better speech on this on 7/27, you should read it. His seasoning as a diplomat really comes through. It's sad that so many so-called progressives appluad this kind of saber rattling so long as it bring down Hillary.

I read the Richardson speech and I didn't find it as impressive as you did. True, it covered a lot of the same ground, but it also was pretty unrealistic in some parts. It didn't acknowledge that we might not be able to get Musharraf to cooperate and I think the insistence on a complete withdrawal is opportunistic and overly simplistic. Obviously reasonable people disagree about that.

It also just isn't nearly as good a speech. It's more hectoring, less unified, and less willing to deal with the inherent difficulty of the issues. That was my reaction anyway.

I am very far left. I am a Kucinch kinda gal. I hate "saber rattling." But I have to say, we should have gotten Bin Laden by now. And even if I end up supporting someone else, I appreciate Obama's attempt to reframe the "war on terror" as a war against our real enemies and not as a war in Iraq. Iraq is a terrible, brutal, costly and deadly distraction.

The most ballyhooed part is the suggestion that Obama might invade tribal areas just across the border from Afghanistan in Pakistan to root out Al Qaeda and even use US troops. Is this a good idea?

No. Here's why:

Musharraf had made a truce with the tribes of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan's northwestern region, where al-Qaida remnants are thought to be hiding out. These vast, rugged regions along the Afghan border have defied central government control throughout history. Even the British Empire at its height never subdued them....

In the best of times, hunting down an individual in Pakistan's tribal areas would be rather like trying to find a person moving among safe houses in Wyoming, Colorado and Nevada. The current unrest would only make the job of any U.S. Special Forces operating in the region that much harder. But the de facto American threat to invade Pakistan also brought an alarmed reaction from the Musharraf regime. On CNN, Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri angrily pointed out that Pakistan had sacrificed 700 troops to the fight against extremists in the tribal areas. He warned that any U.S. incursion would enrage the Pakistani public and defeat any hope of Washington winning local hearts and minds.

The reason AQ is in that particular location are the mountains. Does Obama have any concept of the number of ground troops that would be required and even then, there's no guarantees of success.

This is just muscular rhetoric.

Two weeks ago, Obama was for precondtions.

Last week, he was for kumbaya-ing with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela with no precondtions.

This week, he's for unilaterally attacking/invading an unstable Muslim Middle East nuclearized ally preemptively?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that "progressives" like Sam Boyd and Ezra are aroused by war-mongering. I hope, I really hope, that Edwards comes out with a statement blasting Obama's dangerous posturing. It would fit in nicely with JRE's critique of militarism, in which military force is depicted as the cure that ails us: "if we just attack the right people at the right time, then we'll be safer." Oh, my.

I heard that this speech was authored by Richard Clarke, anti-AQ zealot and hero to liberals cause he went after Bush. Clarke thinks AQ must be gotten at all costs, to hell with international law and good sense, and "progressive" champion Obama does too. Or says he does, in attempt to impress those mainstream outlets like ABC that in turn so impress Sam Boyd. Does the fact that the MSM is showering Obama with praise give Sam Boyd pause. On the contrary, he uses it as suport for his belief that Obama hit a home run!

Can someone tell where I can find some antiwar thinkers? Over to Counterpunch, you guys have disgraced yourselves today.

David, appreciate your view, but anything that hurts Hillary IS a home run, unless we want President Rudy. Win first, do good stuff after Jan. 20, 2009.

The Biden for President Campaign today congratulated Sen. Barack Obama for arriving at a number of Sen. Biden's long-held views on combating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Much of what Senator Obama has proposed Senator Biden has already initiated or accomplished.

As part of the 9/11 bill that passed Congress last week, Senator Biden and Representative Lantos wrote the law that conditions aid to Pakistan on its cooperation with the United States in combating Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Before writing the law, Biden wrote to President Musharraf and Secretary Rice making clear his intent to do so.

Starting in January, Senator Biden has repeatedly called for surging more forces out of Iraq and into Afghanistan.

At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on January 30th, 2007, Sen. Biden discussed the need for a surge in Afghanistan at Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing.

At this same hearing, Sen. Obama asked two questions - he did not address Afghanistan or Al Qaeda or Taliban. The first was on the topic of Iran; the second was on an issue that he admitted "seems somewhat parochial, but I think, as you'll see, is of concern across the world." Obama discussed the "stunning level of mercury in fish" and asked about a proposal for the U.S. adopt a ban on mercury sales abroad?

http://www.joebiden.com/home

Obama boasted last week that he has the best foreign policy judgment of ANY candidate.

If his all over the place positions in the recent past, including today, are any indication, then we are in big trouble.

Throwing out public ultimatums are not the way to further our goals, in my view.

I don't understand the core of Obama's foreign policy views, which seem at odds sometimes, yet more focused toward greater militarism than I prefer.

The different rhetoric seems, to me, a form of calculation, an attempt to appeal to all sides.

This is not an indication of the best foreign policy judgment by any means.

My guess is that the best way to determine how effective Obama's speech was is to wait for the reaction it gets from the other Democratic candidates.

Over in the Corner,
John Podhoretz is much harsher. He writes:

"If the evil Bushitler Cheney Rumsfeld Monster wouldn't do it [deploy U.S. forces to fight in Pakistan], nobody will do it. And you can bet there isn't a single person in line to run a Democratic State Department or Democratic Defense Department who would give the idea three seconds of thought. Obama is using Pakistan to talk tough, in the full knowledge that he will never actually pull the trigger.

He is trying to put one over on the American people, which is certainly using the "audacity of hope" in an entirely new way."

Pretty harsh. We'll soon see if Hillary, Johnny Boy and the others are just as critical.

"I hope, I really hope, that Edwards comes out with a statement blasting Obama's dangerous posturing."

Edwards or Clinton (even both) should call him on this, emphasizing the importance of international *diplomacy* in such an unstable part of the world.

I think this is a terrible move for Obama. It could turn into an... international incident.

Last week, he was for kumbaya-ing with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela with no precondtions.

This week, he's for unilaterally attacking/invading an unstable Muslim Middle East nuclearized ally preemptively?

let's see. we should attack people who attacked us and talk to people who didn't attack us. is this over your head?

Obama is simply lying in order to win a few votes--but he may lose more than a few others in the bargain. This angry black/white man mode is a major and utterly transparent strategic gaff--it's clear this dude wouldn't fight nothing nohow nowhere.

Hmmmm, seems like we have an infestation of trolls here. Haven't seen the Joe Biden supporter version before though.

Col Bat Guano, anyone who disagrees with Obama is a troll? He is the singularly least vetted candidate I've ever seen run for President.

This does seem unusual, Col Bat, but even campaign partisans are more valuable for discussion than Mackie "this angry black/white man mode" Messer. That's a whole 'nother kind.

""this angry black/white man mode" That was a stupid comment, but I don't see much in the way of trolling.

I really don't get all the Obama-hating in the blogosphere. Especially since Clinton, Edwards, Richards, et al. are pro-Iraq War, DLC retreads.

If all the critics were supporting Kucinich or Gravel, I might get it. At least Obama's track record (what there is of it, to be fair) is way more what i thought the netroots was looking for.

Those hoping for Edwards to denounce this are tilting at windmills. He came out today and said he would not hesitate to use force (his words). Clinton said given actionable intelligence, she would "ensure" bin Laden was captured. Etc etc.

You're recommending political suicide to these candidates.

BTW, if you bother to read the speech in its entirety, you'll see not only does Obama advocate diplomacy in general and in regards to Pakistan in specific, he even describes a particular way of exerting diplomatic pressure: by withdrawing military aid.

What's more, the move to go public with this could actually be very good statecraft, as it both serves as political pressure Musharraf and political cover for Musharraf from potential backlash.

I'm just amused that we're supposed to take J-Pod's opinion on the speech seriously.

He is the singularly least vetted candidate I've ever seen run for President.

Oh, I can think of at least one that got less vetting.

You're recommending political suicide to these candidates.

Bingo

I dont believe Obama understand the ground realities of Pakistani tribal areas, or that using overwhelming force is the primary reason American military has failed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I agree with David Mizner. I am surprised and disappointed at how little attention has been given to the fact that Obama's plan would be illegal and likely disastrous. How can people who oppose the war in Iraq so blindly endorse a strategy that mirrors it? Going after the "right" enemies is not sufficient to guarantee either the justness of the war nor its success.