So if the Afgan War & Iraq War costing us ~$10 billion a month in tax dollar, and the economy is heading into a depression…… why would invading a THIRD country be smart?
Yes, I understand they think Bin Laden is hiding there. But honestly, I think America’s obsession with capturing Bin Laden has caused way more damage than he ever hoped to achieve. Because of this, Bin Laden has indirectly killed more Americans than he could have ever imagined. Besides, we invade Afghanistan… he goes to Iraq. We invade Iraq, he goes to Pakistan. If we invade, who says he doesn’t get up and walk to the next country? Are we to invade every country in the Persian Gulf just to please the obsession of capturing one man…
I just don’t see how invading Pakistan will benefit us in anyway. Why not spend those ~$10 to 15 billion on terrorist attack prevention and creating more jobs on the process rather than hunting the globe for one man…
I don’t know.. shed some light on it please. Am I the only one frustrated and confused?
Nov 27
November 26th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
No one is saying “invade Pakistan”. The message is if we hear Osama bin Laden is there, we go get him and only him. With or without Pakistani assistance (preferably with). It’s not war.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Invading Pakistan would be an even bigger disaster than Iraq. It would start an even bigger war – the U.S has very few allies there and 50-60 million Muslims that would be VERY p***ed off if the U.S went in. It would be INSANE.
The Pakistani government has a very tenuous hold on power there, and it would be a disaster. There would be a civil war, with America caught in the middle. There’s a LOT of nukes in the area, and India would end up going in as well.
What are these people thinking?
November 26th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
the only person talking about invading Pakistan is McCain, he’s been trying to twist Obama’s words around and he’s horrible at it. Obama was implying that if we had to cross the border for say an air-strike or missile attack, etc, with out the permission of the Pakistan government then that’s would be be done to get Bin Laden.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
No one is talking about invading Pakistan like we did Iraq or Afghanistan. The talk of Pakistan only pertains to going after Bin Laden if we have specific actionable intelligence – in other words, running a specific mission for a specific purpose. Neither candidate has even suggested the possibility of actually invading Pakistan.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
The people we were trying to get rid of in Afghanistan have simply pulled up stakes and crossed the border into Pakistan. From there, they’re launching attacks into Afghanistan, and they’re killing American soldiers. Bin Laden is not the main event.
And no one is proposing a full-scale invasion. Even the central government in Islamabad doesn’t really control what happens in the frontier areas.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Obama seems to expose a selective agenda in him firm diplomacy policy when he state’s he will attack (not invade) Pakistan. McCain got him on it twice and he can’t dispute it.
By the way, Bush did exactly what he said he would do, go on the offense to keep terrorism off US soil. 7 years success.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
You summed it up quite well, you’d make a good Ron Paul fan.
I will say Osama should be a priority, but we could do it at much less of a cost and invest that money like you suggest.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
No one is talking about invading Pakistan.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Obama will NOT invade Pakistan, only bomb Osama with or without their permission
November 26th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
uh, he was never in Iraq.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Don’t listen to McCain and it makes perfect sense.
The obama plan is to pull most of the troops out of Iraq over a 16 month period (hopefully) and redeploying a lot of them ASAP to Afganistan.
$10B is the cost of bribing Iraqi’s not to attack us, paying for rebuilding infastructure in Iraq, paying Haliburton to take our money, maintaining bases in Iraq and Afganistan, and maintaining 140,000 troops in Iraq and 32,000 troops in Afganistan.
Now if we pull say 130,000 troops out of Iraq in the next say 18 months, closing down say all but a base or two in Kurdish Iraq and redeploy say 30,000 of those troops (appropriate specialists — less national guard) to reinforce our troops in Afganistan, we could clean up a LOT of the al-Quida forces in the area while cutting the budget immensely. (The 30K number is totally a guess on my part.)
Going to no bribes to keep our troops safe in Iraq — the Kurds like us — and a total of say 70,000 troops in those ME states would likely cut our monthly costs…in half? …A third? Dunno. A lot.
Regarding Pakistan, like Iran, McCain doesn’t get it. Pakistan doesn’t like us bombing their cities, that is very true, but their real gripe is the fact that we backed Musharref who stifled their democracy. A strong pro-Democracy showing by us could easily turn public opinion for us. Pakistani’s are not too thrilled with religious extremists associated with the Taliban and al-Quida blowing up things in their major cities either.
Obama can swing that where McCain just doesn’t seem to see it.
It is possible with this kind of plan that we might be able to ALSO get out of Afganistan in that timeframe.
And with regards to Osama Bin Ladin moving to another country, remember three things. No one wants to be the next Afganistan. If Iran lets Bin Ladin in, we drop everything and bomb them. They know this. Every middle eastern country gets that the ONLY reason we haven’t overrun Pakistan is because they have Nukes.
No one else likes Bin Ladin and al-Quida as they are too willing to “sacrifice” the people around them as sheilds, and remember the geography. Afganistan and Pakistan share a border. Iraq does not. They are on the other side of Iran. Iran talks a good game, but the reality is they know they can get away with it because our forces are overstretched. If we pull out of Iraq, the playing field changes.