Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Why is Syria to be treated differently from Pakistan

Noah Pollak raises a good point about Obama's foreign policy. Several of Obama's advisers, including Nancy Pelosi, have indicated that a Democratic foreign policy would include engaging in more conversations with Syria. In light of the story that we have gained a lot of intelligence about how Syria has been supporting Al Qaeda attacks from their territory into Iraq and our attack five miles into Syria to get one Al Qaeda's leaders, what indication is there that Syria is ready to give up its support of terrorism?
The task of understanding Barack Obama’s stance on Syria and al Qaeda becomes yet more difficult. He says that defeating al Qaeda will be a top foreign policy priority. Yet Dennis Ross, an adviser to his campaign, said just a few days ago that he would like to see the opening of diplomatic talks with Syria, a conviction shared by Obama’s other foreign policy advisers, in order to “probe and test” Syria’s intentions.

Those intentions have been probed and tested for decades, and every time we discover that Syria intends to continue supporting terrorists. Our diplomatic consternation never seems to make a difference. What might actually affect Syria’s atrocious behavior is if the regime was forced to pay a price for it — such as by having its sovereignty violated and the terrorists it harbors killed by U.S. commandos.

Now we get to the truly puzzling part: Obama says that the United States should strike at al Qaeda in Pakistan without the consent of the Pakistani government. So, he favors attacking al Qaeda in Pakistan, but presumably not in Syria, even though al Qaeda thrives in Syria not because of lawlessness (as in Pakistan) but because the group enjoys the hospitality of the Syrian government. Maybe if the Pakistani government began openly collaborating with al Qaeda, Obama would withdraw his support for military strikes.


Skay said...

Obama's friends have ties to Syria.

"Tony Rezko still has ties to Syria - [ABC-10/12/06]

Law enforcement sources believe that Rezko may be in his native Syria. He is know to have investments, real estate holdings and relatives in metro Damascus, the capital of the Middle Eastern nation where Tony Rezko was born.
Item #4: Barack Obama's foreign policy adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski traveled to Damascus, Syria last Tuesday.

A foreign policy adviser to Senator Obama is scheduled to arrive in Syria today as the leader of a RAND Corp. delegation.
Zbigniew Brzezinski will travel to Damascus for meetings as part of a trip Syria's official Cham News agency described as an "important sign that the end of official dialogue between Washington and Damascus has not prevented dialogue with important American intellectuals and politicians."

Jaw Bone said...

"Obama says that the United States should strike at al Qaeda in Pakistan without the consent of the Pakistani government."

That statement is completely false.

You should be ashamed of yourself for repeating a lie. Particularly a lie that has been pointed out to you before.

What Obama has said is something much more measured: "If we have irrefutable evidence of an Al Qaeda base in Pakistan, AND THE PAKISTAN GOVERNMENT IS UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO ACT ON IT, then we should do so ourselves."

When you are reduced to spreading lies about your political opponent, your philosophy becomes exactly like the Bush economy - bankrupt and washed up.

Pat Patterson said...

The quote offered by jaw bone basically says the same thing as the paraphrase provided by skay. We, the United States, will strike into Pakistan with or without Pakistan's approval. Unless of course it's all political boilerplate and the Democrats will fall back the need for al Qaeda officials to appear on TV yelling neener, neener, neener, hanging BA's while speed dialing on their cell phones.

Sen. Obama also said, "But if they[Pakistan] don't, we shouldn't need permission to go after folks tha killed 3,000 Americans." They argument should be over whether this is a good idea, note that no one has addressed the "hot pursuit" dilemma, not on whether the Senator called for unilateral action against enemies within Pakistan, which obviously he did.

Plus jaw bone has fudged the quote a bit considering Sen. Obama used "actionable" instead of "irrefutible." Which means that the threshold for action is much lower and not all that different then the current ROE.