Quote:
Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan
Well, one huge difference....Bush was talking about invading a country and taking out the government of said country. Obama is talking about taking military action inside a country, not against that country, and without notification or permission.
The fear here is that such a scenario could destabilize the Pakistani government and that it could be replaced with one that is more supportive of Al-Qaeda.
I think the point is that we need to work with Musharaf and not around him.
The two situations are really very different.
|
From a logistical perspective, I agree 100%. However, I'm not sure that the majority of the populace is going to be thinking about destabilizing a key partner. This is something that was said as part of an attempt to try to correct a perception that he's soft on foreign policy. He needs to look strong and defiant towards America's enemies, so he comes up with this sound bite. There are people who are smart enough to understand that such an assault is completely unrealistic both in terms of what the US military can accomplish and what is in the best interests of the US. Those people are probably also smart enough to realize that Obama is doing some political grandstanding here and has no real intent of unilaterally persuing military options inside Pakistan.