Obama Softens Tone on Pakistan

[jsamuel]

Earlier today I criticized Obama's comments, trying to do so outside the context of a political campaign as much as possible.

Disclaimers:
1. My support for another candidate has nothing to do with my opinion here.
2. If Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, or Gravel had said this, I would be saying the same thing.
3. I don't mean for this to be an attack on Obama, rather a criticism of the wording of his speech (don't take it personal).
4. I am simply trying to discuss the issue.
5. I know my position may not be popular, but that is exactly why I feel compelled to express it.


That is why I am glad that Obama seems to soften tone on Pakistan

Obama Talks of Pakistan As 'Constructive Ally,' Expresses Sympathy for Musharraf
Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said Wednesday it's critical for Pakistan to be a constructive ally in fighting al-Qaida, one week after his hard-line pledge to hunt down terrorists in that country even without consulting President Pervez Musharraf.

At first I was misinformed by reading MSM stories about how Obama wanted to unilaterally invade Pakistan. However, after having read his speech and reading posts from others online, I saw that he was not advocating for any such thing. But I wanted to see what it was that set everyone off. So I looked into his speech and saw what it was that got everyone so hyper.

It is the same line that he is not repeating now.

Obama did not repeat the most incendiary line from his foreign policy speech last Wednesday, when he promised: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

When I saw this line I thought, that there was a possible miscommunication or misstep on Obama's or his speech writer's part (does Obama write his own speeches???). The reason I cited online and put in several comments was one of semantics, but in my opinion, vitally important.

Instead of saying that if Pakistan won't act, he should have said if Pakistan cannot act. One suggests, however inappropriately, that Pakistan is defying the United States by not going after terrorists while the other suggests that Pakistan is simply incapable of doing so. Others have said very similar things to what Obama said and did not get this firestorm because they used the word can't. Amazing how important one word can be in politics.

With the use of "won't", it suggests that the use of force in Pakistan would be against Pakistan's will while the use of "can't" does not suggest that at all, but doesn't close the door on it.

Then there is the question of, "why does it matter if he did suggest that Pakistan was defying or would defy us?" The reason is because of the current instability of Pakistan. There are many stories out about that in current news. Just lookup Pakistan in google news. I'll just say that I think it would be better to not abrade Pakistan at this delicate time.

I was also happy to see Obama state just this at the debate on Tuesday night. What did he say? (starts about 2:30 in)

http://www.youtube.com/v/B1ahvTc_aNo

...

If we have actionable intelligence on Al Qaeda operatives including Bin-Laden and President Musharraf cannot act, then we should.

...

I said we have to work with Muscharraf...

He went on to criticize the bad position of supporting the Iraq War and how he is getting criticized by people who did. Well, I was against the Iraq War and I disagreed with him here.

However, Obama seems to have refined what he meant, ever so slightly, but that change is all that is required for me.

[NYCGirl]

1. As I said when someone posted this same AP piece yesterday, his position is the same.

The wires just "misinterpreted" it:

From his earlier speech:

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

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.

And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

[Windy]

2. Thank you for posting that! That line was taken totally out of context

Of course the mainstream media grabbed the line as opposed to the entire point of what he was trying to say, as have his opponents campaigns...