First he said he would talk to leaders of North Korea, Iran, and Cuba without any conditions, now he says the US should invade Pakistan, a really dangerous idea since we need Musharraf in power since the person who would replace him should he be overthrown or assassinated would be significantly worse.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
“Let me make this clear,” Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “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-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
Jim Geraghty‘s analysis is right on target:
Look, I’d love to see Zawahiri’s head on a pike. And the day may come when the potential benefits of a massive troop influx across the Pakistani border outweigh the risks. Heck, maybe that day comes tomorrow. But Obama acts like this is a simple call, and doesn’t mention the potential risk to Musharraf’s regime in Pakistan, once the proud, nationalistic Pakistani people learn that Americans have invaded their territory. Is it worth getting Zawahiri if Islamists topple Musharraf from power? Would they get their hands on nuclear weapons under that scenario? Isn’t that going from the frying pan into the fire? Some rival might even call Obama’s failure to acknowledge the risks “irresponsible and naive.”