So what's up with "that one"?
I know John McCain is a little old and nutty, but it was such an odd moment.
Another odd moment happened in the discussion of Pakistan. Obama takes the reasonable view that we will pursue al Qaeda into Pakistan, with Pakistani assistance if possible and without it if necessary. John McCain considers that willingness to track down the perpetrators of 9/11 "remarkable," because, he explains, "You know, if you are a country and you're trying to gain the support of another country, then you want to do everything you can that they would act in a cooperative fashion. When you announce that you're going to launch an attack into another country, it's pretty obvious that you have the effect that it had in Pakistan: It turns public opinion against us."
Later, when asked why he sang "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of a Beach Boys song, McCain insisted that he "was joking with an old veteran friend, who joked with me, about [bombing] Iran." That seems at odds with his earlier claims about the risks of telegraphing such a destabilizing move. And indeed, if the goal of our diplomacy is to "do everything you can that they would act in a cooperative fashion," I fail to see how it makes sense to refuse to negotiate with Iran. Indeed, McCain's plan of "imposing significant, tough sanctions to modify their behavior" without negotiating to give them a chance to meet our demands first seems to be in direct conflict with his insistence that the goal is to strengthen our position by influencing public opinion in other countries. Sanctions hurt the public, usually more than they hurt the leadership.
Finally, what kind of sociopath jokes about bombing a country with whom we are not at war, especially one that is central to a deeply unstable region?
That one:
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I'm no McCain fan, but Obama's position that he would have US Troops pursue militants into Pakistan is NOT reasonable. The US Congress is the body that decides whether or not American troops can invade ("move into") another country. This is not a decision the President is supposed to make on his own.
I'm no McCain fan, but Obama's position that he would have US Troops pursue militants into Pakistan is NOT reasonable. The US Congress is the body that decides whether or not American troops can invade ("move into") another country. This is not a decision the President is supposed to make on his own.
It may not be reasonable, but it was McCain's position before it was Obama's (which is probably part of why it's not McCain's any more).
And McCain quite clearly has no desire whatsoever for Russia to work with us.
Surgical strikes into the mountains of Pakistan based on solid intelligence does not require a declaration of war. We are not invading or conquering Pakistan. We are not bombing cities or attacking populous areas. We are pursuing terrorists who are smart enough to cross borders to attack NATO forces and plan future attacks. It is a perfectly reasonable position.
In fairness, I do not think McCain is "telegraphing" his intent with the "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran" bit. Since I usually encounter the world "telegraphing" in context of my martial arts, allow me to indulge in an analogy:
Sparring with Obama- you can see the jump spinning crescent kick to the head, but it's still too fast to get out of the way (if you are Osama bin Laden at least)
Sparring with McCain- you don't know if there's going to be a right jab followed by a left hook, or a right jab followed by a game of duck-duck-goose, or a right jab followed pulling the pin on a granade.
CBBB: Check the AUMF, the President has the necessary Congressional authority to pursue the perpetrators of 9/11 wherever he likes. It is perfectly fair to argue about whether that broad authorization remains prudent, but it is on the books until and unless Congress amends that authorization:
Josh, the President may have congressional authority to scour the world for Osama, but there are little things like international law and national sovereignty once you get outside the United States. This is something that seems to disappear from the debate at times.
If you decry Bush's breaking the rules in the US itself (ie the Constitution), it might be a good idea to pay attention to international rules as well.
John, that's a fair point, but NATO and the UN have both granted pretty broad rights to target al Qaeda. Based on a quick Googling, I see no clear treaties or conventions regarding how nations may respond to other nations which refuse to arrest terrorists taking refuge. There are various conventions, but they all assume such cooperation.
The AUMF is the functional equivalent of a declaration of war on any nation which shelters the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. I don't see any argument that such a declaration would be unacceptable under any UN rules, nor under the general principles of just war. We were attacked, and remain under the threat of attack, and are entitled to pursue our attackers. The legal status of transnational groups like al Qaeda is unresolved, so references to international law are ambiguous at best.
And the issue of sovereignty in Waziristan is complex at best. The tribal areas operate under substantial autonomy, such that troops or law enforcement cannot enter those areas without tribal approval. If the government wants to help, but can't are we violating their sovereignty by assisting their efforts? Are we going to let that territorial bickering stand in the way of our righteous efforts against al Qaeda?
Look, I'm not a hawk by any means, and am cautious about the use of force. But going into Afghanistan was a legitimate exercise of our rights under international law. If Pakistan or the autonomous areas within it give the same shelter to al Qaeda that the Taliban gave, why shouldn't they fear the same fate as the Taliban? And why shouldn't we use that fear to compel their assistance?
I'm not a lawyer of course, but it seems to me that breaching Pakistan's sovereignty pretty clearly infringes international norms.
You only enter another nation's territory with permission, usually granted very grudgingly.
Anyway, the declaration was not against Pakistan (was it?), which I thought was a US ally. The idea of charging into Pakistani territory (even if indeed it is only nominally controlled by Islamabad) raises issues of whether there is any right of hot pursuit - highly disputable.
Deliberate incursions into Pakistani territory may not be successful anyway, will alienate Pakistan and won't help the moderates there. If such incursions were conducted by a President Obama in a blaze of publicity, consider the likely reactions in the third world, after all the hopes pinned on him internationally. It will help to make him look like an anti-Muslim Bush clone (Kennedy or Nixon, does it make any difference?)
I dream (not too hopefully) that Obama did not really mean his hawkish statements on this point. Maybe as you say, the point was to give the Wazirs the impression that they could be "next".
I do wonder how significant the beleaguered group in the mountains really is. What would happen if the McCains of this world actually did capture or kill Osama? Would terrorism end? The publicity given to Osama in the west has only given him star status.
I know it's annoying to have these constraints when fighting a war against ruthless bastards like this (Australia too just lost another soldier in Afghanistan), but frankly the behaviour of the US in recent years has led to considerable distrust internationally (fortunately less so in Australia), which will take a long time to live down.
These incursions are already happening. And Pakistan isn't treating them as acts of war.
The AUMF, which is functionally a declaration of war, authorizes "the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
Congress didn't single out Afghanistan, but at the time, that was the main state which was harboring al Qaeda. Now it's Pakistan/Waziristan. I agree that America's reputation is nothing to write home about, but there does seem to be a global consensus that al Qaeda is bad news, and shouldn't get shelter anywhere.
I suspect that one could make a good case that chasing al Qaeda into Pakistan doesn't go beyond Article 52 of the UN Charter:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."
There was certainly an armed attack, and the AUMF cites self-defense as a principal justification. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that the legality isn't the issue. The broader points you raise about America's perception, and the morality and diplomatic wisdom of the action, are important. But rattling the saber doesn't obligate you to draw it. Obama is not known for bellicosity, so I don't think this can be seen as militarist, but as keeping all options on the table.