Obama's quagmire

Peter Brooks:

IN an "I am too tougher than Hillary" speech, Sen. Barack Obama warned Pakistan yesterday that as commander-in-chief he might act unilaterally if Islamabad didn't do more against the terrorists there.

"Let me make this clear . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, I will," the Democratic presidential candidate told a Washington audience in his first comprehensive speech on terrorism.

There's nothing wrong with Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) talking tough on terrorism - though he's seemingly coming to it a little bit late in the campaign. But there are a couple of things in his proposal that should be addressed.

First, there was little new in Obama's proposition for fighting al Qaeda. In fact, he might be alarmed to learn that he's basically taken a long-standing page from the Bush administration's playbook in the War on Terror.

President Bush has already made it clear on numerous occasions that he'd do what whatever was necessary to kill or capture al Qaeda operatives - especially the likes of Osama bin Laden - if we had actionable intelligence to do so.

But an attack on Pakistan's terrority that isn't unauthorized by that nation's government - which is what Obama seemed to be suggesting - is a pretty risky proposition, especially if it involved a large number of U.S. troops pouring over the Afghan border into Pakistan.

Taking this sort of large-scale action - or any other unilateral action - without prior consultation with Islamabad could easily lead to the downfall of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's government.

Musharraf is already on shaky ground. His government has faced a number of crises in recent months - including the seizure of the Red Mosque, terror attacks and the (now overturned) firing of a the country's top justice - leading to a serious slide in his popularity.

The fall of Musharraf's government might well lead to a takeover by pro-U.S. elements of the Pakistani military - but other possible outcomes are extremely unpleasant, including the ascendance of Islamist factions.

...

The best route for dealing with Pakistan is mild pressure and cooperation - not threats. Musharraf hasn't been a perfect ally, but for the moment he's our best bet for fighting terrorism, especially al Qaeda, in Pakistan.

And we have seen cooperation from Musharraf on al Qaeda. Pakistan has turned over hundreds of al Qaeda operatives to the United States. Indeed, more Qaeda bigs have been captured on joint operations in Pakistan than anywhere else.

...

There have been times when we have not been getting our money's worth out of our investment in Pakistan. The agreement with the tribal leaders was a disaster. However, al Qaeda has helped us out this summer by staging its demonstration at the Red Mosque and threatening the government directly which has caused Musharraf to send the troops bank into the tribal areas.

What may be the most empty aspect of Obama's rhetoric has not been noted elsewhere, but he would not have any troops to send anywhere under the Webb Amendment which he supported as a way of getting the troops out of Iraq. Someone may eventually ask him about this conflict. It is important because it demonstrates just how pernicious the Webb Amendment was.

The NY Post provides this image of Gen. Obama and his plan of attack.