Over the weekend, David Freddoso and Andy McCarthy discussed Barack Obama’s views toward Pakistan, and what types of military action in that country are appropriate.
It’s worth going back and looking at what Obama has actually said; much of the discussion has been in the, “Obama said he would invade Pakistan”/”No he didn’t” variety.
Back in July 2007, the New York Times reported:
Officials said one reason Mr. Rumsfeld called off the 2005 operation was that the number of troops involved in the mission had grown to several hundred, including Army Rangers, members of the Navy Seals and C.I.A. operatives, and he determined that the United States could no longer carry out the mission without General Musharraf’s permission. It is unlikely that the Pakistani president would have approved an operation of that size, officials said…
In early 2005, after learning about the Qaeda meeting, the military developed a plan for a small Navy Seals unit to parachute into Pakistan to carry out a quick operation, former officials said.
But as the operation moved up the military chain of command, officials said, various planners bulked up the force’s size to provide security for the Special Operations forces.
’’The whole thing turned into the invasion of Pakistan,’’ said the former senior intelligence official involved in the planning. Still, he said he thought the mission was worth the risk. ‘’We were frustrated because we wanted to take a shot,’’ he said.
The official is speaking metaphorically, but clearly sending several hundred troops into Pakistan without permission would be a major provocation. How would the Pakistani military react if they encountered the U.S. troops during the mission? Spurred by this Times article, Obama said in his major foreign policy address:
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.
From that statement, it seems clear that Obama contends that if he had been President in 2005, he would have sent hundreds of U.S. troops into Pakistan, and if similar circumstances appear during his presidency, he will authorize the action.
Now, here’s the thing: it would be lovely to see a lawmaker, or even a blogger, acknowledge that these decisions are always going to require balancing the risk vs. the likelihood of success. And despite the table-pounding of partisans, it rarely looks like an easy call.
There’s an upside to this type of operation (capturing or killing Zawahiri, sending a message to al-Qaeda we can get them anywhere). There’s a downside to this operation (casualties, failure to kill or capture Zawahiri, causing outrage in Paksitan, destabilizing Pakistan’s government, perhaps even effectively creating a state of war with Pakistan). Do it right, and you’ve got one of the biggest wins in the war on terror. Do it wrong, and you’ve got the sequel to Desert One, or worse. (The Times article features disagreement among high-ranking military officials.)
So what do we do? Well, from time to time, the U.S. can use Predator drones and hellfire missiles. The Pakistanis seem to look the other way on that.
I trust those on the inside – the brass, the CIA, DoD, who have access to a lot more information than I do to balance the risk vs. reward. I’m not sure why I should believe that an Illinois senator with no military experience would balance it better.