Juan Cole: "...could we please stop talking about whether we are going to nuke our allies?"

[ProSense]

Saturday, August 04, 2007

Pakistani Protests against Obama;
Clinton leaves Nukes on the Table;
Tancredo an Inspiration to the Criminally Insane that They, Too, Could run for President

I'm going to hear Senator Barack Obama on Saturday afternoon at the Yearly Kos convention. Will report back on Sunday about his remarks.

On Thursday, he said he would not use nuclear weapons against al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, then backed up and said "scratch that," there had been no discussion of nuclear weapons.

Hillary Clinton criticized Obama for (initially?) ruling out the use of nuclear weapons, saying that a president should not take any weapon in the arsenal off the table.

I really think the Democrats are misunderstanding the mood of the American people. Is Senator Clinton saying she would entertain the option of nuking Pakistan or Afghanistan? Wouldn't that kill a lot of innocents and spread radioactive materials around on the grass that cows eat, putting it into milk and thence into local children, increasing their chances of contracting cancer? Isn't Obama absolutely right that this is one instance in which nukes are useless for tactical purposes?

Pakistan, by the way, is a) an ally, b) a nuclear power in its own right, c) a major Muslim country of 160 million, the population of which will soon equal that of the United States, and d) an opinion leader among other Muslim states. Most Pakistanis are not fundamentalists but rather Sufis, traditionalists, mild reformists or secularists. Or at least that is the case now. If US presidential candidates push them to the wall, they can after all decide to turn radical.

(The certifiable Tom Tancredo is talking about holding Islamic holy sites Mecca and Medina hostage to nuclear blackmail. Can't one of Tancredo's family members have him committed, sign the papers and get rich off his estate while he is in a padded room for a few years?)

As for the mostly sane Democrats, could we please stop talking about whether we are going to nuke our allies? I mean, I know that Obama and Clinton are afraid that their Republican rivals will talk tougher than they and will depict them as soft on terrorism. But I can't imagine that the electorate wants to hear that nukes are on the table with regard to the tribes of northern Pakistan!

And if you were Iranian and heard the Clinton and Tancredo remarks, wouldn't you tell your nuclear scientists to start putting in overtime? Wouldn't such talk actually spur nuclear proliferation in the Muslim world?

more

[Zensea]

1. as well as stop talking about nuking anyone?

allies or enemies?
Particularly since our enemies are only a few of the people who would be impacted by nukes.
Most of the people would be innocents.

[Wilber_Stool]

2. Why can't Democrats learn

to control their own campaigns instead of letting the gops and the media lead the way?

[kenny blankenship]

3. I love how they jockey to position themselves as the option of MAXIMUM CONTINUITY WITH BUSH

If I wanted continuity with Bush I would just write in "Dick Cheney".

[Africa1]

4. No difference

I have to say,so far most of these leading dem candidates have shown that they are not much different from the Divine Re pub Chicken hawk King George and his band of immoral Chicken hawk warmongers,McCain is the exception.at least he did not get out of service with frivolous deferments,or joing the air force like the rest of yellow bellied wimps.
Seems like they are trying to out Bush Bush.

And this is from a non believer

[maximusveritas]

5. Kinda misleading - Obama was asked about it in an interview

He didn't just decide to bring it up like Hillary did.

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. reasonable advice indeed from Professor Cole

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. ABSOLUTELY ! -- such comments by ANY politicians are dangerous and irresponsible

And I say this as an American who has spent more than 20 years in the Islamic world.

Just think if it was in reverse. What if, for example, a leading Egyptian politician who was possibly a future president said that he would consider military strikes inside the United States? What if another said they would not rule out using nuclear weapons inside the U.S.? Or perhaps another stating that they would possibly bomb Washington and New York? Would that help progressive American elements or would it strengthen right-wing reactionary forces?

National leaders whether in Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority or elsewhere in the Islamic world walk a very, very tight rope. Irresponsible comments for domestic American electorate consumption get widely reported in the region. And these kind of comments do NOT help! Quite the contrary, just like Presidents Bush's "Axis of Evil" reference to Iran strengthened the reactionary elements in Iran while weakening the more liberal elements -- and almost certainly helped elect Iran's current president - irresponsible comments from presidential candidates or any leading American politician is a strike against liberal and progressive forces in the regions and a boost for hostile elements.

Such comments are dangerous, irresponsible, contrary to America's interest and destabilizing to the region. Of the top-tier I've leaned slightly toward Obama - but his comments on Pakistan were irresponsible and downright dangerous. This also goes for the Nuke comments made by Sen. Clinton to say nothing of the batshit crazy comments about bombing Mecca and Medina made by Rep. Tancredo.

The whole game of American politicians including some liberal Democrats who feel for whatever reasons or are pushed by their advisers (and I am sure against their wiser judgment) to make dangerous and destabilizing statements in order to assure the media and the more naive and simplistic elements of the electorate that they are warmongering enough. Even more dangerous is that once in power politicians have been known to actually take dangerous and destabilizing actions -- not out of necessity but to satisfy a saber rattling media and the more gullible members of the public.

God forbid that someone misunderstands and thinks that we are in danger of having some nut in office who believes in pursuing peace.


Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, in Karachi, Pakistan, Friday. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists.

By Shakil Adil, AP

?
AFP - Fri Aug 3, 3:32 PM ET Pakistani Muslim men shout slogans in front of a burning US flag during a demonstration in Lahore against the controversial statement of US presidential hopeful, Tom Tancredo. The US State Department denounced Friday Tancredo's suggestion to threaten an attack on Islamic holy sites in order to deter a nuclear attack on American soil, saying the idea is "absolutely crazy."(AFP/Arif Ali)
_______________

Sloganeering troubles diplomatic pros By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer -- link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070803/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_politics_diplomacy

snip:"In Pakistan, the country's Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan said Friday he would open debate next week on recent criticism of Pakistan from several quarters in the U.S., including remarks by Sens. Obama and Clinton and Tancredo.

It is a matter of "grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election," he said."

snip:"At the State Department, diplomats fear that Tancredo's remarks, coupled with those of Obama and Clinton, will be seen as a broader trend of animosity by U.S. politicians to Muslims, especially in Pakistan, officials said."