by Frank James
There are reports from Pakistan that missiles, presumably from a U.S. unmanned aerial vehicle or UAV, have killed 10 people in that nation's tribal region across the border from Afghanistan.
If these missiles were indeed fired from a U.S. aircraft, they would represent the first such strikes (that we know about) of President Barack Obama's new administration.
Some Pakistanis had hoped the new U.S. president would halt those attacks started during the Bush Administration in which the CIA targets suspected al Qaeda and Taliban leaders. The strikes have reportedly sometimes killed innocent civilians, outraging many Pakistanis and prompting continual protests from the government.
The Obama Administration has clearly decided the UAV-launched missile attacks are one aspect of Bush's war on terror that it wants to continue.
During the campaign, Obama said he would launch attacks into Pakistan against terrorist leaders like Osama bin Ladin if he had the intelligence to support such missions.
This brought criticism from his Republican presidential rival Sen. John McCain who said a president should not telegraph such actions. Still, the campaign promise to strike at terrorists within Pakistan's borders is apparently one Obama aims to keep.
Here's an excerpt from an Associated Press story:
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- Missiles fired from a suspected U.S. spy plane killed 10 people Friday in Pakistan just east of the Afghan border, security officials said, the first such strike since the inauguration of President Barack Obama.
At least five of the dead were identified as foreign militants, an intelligence officer said.
The missile strike on the lawless region where al-Qaida militants are known to hide out is the latest in a barrage of more than 30 since the middle of last year.
Pakistan's pro-U.S. leaders had expressed hope Obama would halt the attacks, which have reportedly killed several top al-Qaida operatives but triggered anger at the government by nationalist and Muslim critics.
Islamabad routinely protests the strikes in the northwest as a violation of the country's sovereignty, but most observers speculate it has an unwritten agreement allowing them to take place, noting it would be highly damaging to be seen as colluding with Washington in attacks on its people.
Comments
Well imagine that, another campaign promise that President Obama is keeping. Let's hear from all the chicken little pugs that want to say Obama will be soft on foreign policy.
Posted by: Xcellentform | January 23, 2009 12:15 PM
Hope he keeps the missles strikes going.
Posted by: Inky | January 23, 2009 12:33 PM
"At least 5" means "probably killed at least 5 innocent civilians". Some "change"
Posted by: Mike | January 23, 2009 12:45 PM
It’s official. Obama is now a war criminal.
Posted by: Jeff Kolakowski | January 23, 2009 1:04 PM
I can't believe this war monger Bush...I mean, Obama is killing terrorists!
IMPEACH HIM NOW!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | January 23, 2009 1:19 PM
Posted by: Xcellentform | January 23, 2009 12:15 PM
.
As I recall it, the standard complaint was not that he would be soft, but that he's inexperienced. I also remember many people (like McCain) questioning the wisdom of his campaign bluster about striking Pakistan. Again that's hardly a complaint about being soft, is it?
.
Speaking for myself, I think Pakistan is a powder keg: It has Nukes and Taliban/al Quada types waiting in the wings to seize power. I pray that this administration knows what it's doing there.
.
And by the way, just yesterday there was crowing in The Swamp about a new era of diplomacy (not militarism) in foreign relations. I guess these were diplomatic missiles.
Posted by: MJ | January 23, 2009 1:29 PM
Have you ever seen anything so pathetic then those against the "real" war on terror? Is there another country you would like to invade as to distract us from our goal?
Posted by: bill r. | January 23, 2009 1:37 PM
And by the way, just yesterday there was crowing in The Swamp about a new era of diplomacy (not militarism) in foreign relations. I guess these were diplomatic missiles.
Posted by: MJ | January 23, 2009 1:29 PM
And as I remember there was crowing in the Swamp yesterday about being soft on the terrorists and Gitmo. Should they have been milk and cookie missles?
Posted by: bill r. | January 23, 2009 1:50 PM
Robert Gibbs got pummelled in another press conference today. A reporter asked him if the administration had any comment on the missile strikes in Pakistan. His answer: "No, next question."
Remember that open and transparent government? Even an MSNBC reporter got frustrated and said "every other nation in the world is releasing statements about the missile strikes and you won't tell us anything about them?" Gibbs: silence.
I never thought I'd see a press secretary that made Scott McClellan look good.
Posted by: Jeff | January 23, 2009 1:50 PM
"Where's the Obama Plan for Pakistan?"
I mean, liberals primary complaint with Bush was "he had no plan". Let's see Obama's plan, BEFORE he sets out to attack a nuclear power.
Posted by: Mike | January 23, 2009 1:56 PM
Asked about the suspected U.S. missile strikes in Pakistan today and whether the president was consulted beforehand, Gibbs says he'll take the question and then says "I'm not going to comment on those matters." That leads to some laughter and questions from the reporters about why he would take a question and then say he won't answer it. Is he saying he'll never talk about U.S. military operations?
"I'm not going to speak about these matters today," Gibbs then says. "My answer was I wasn't going to talk about it."
Somewhere up in heaven Tony Snow is laughing at this buffoon.
Posted by: Jeff | January 23, 2009 2:14 PM
A reporter asked him if the administration had any comment on the missile strikes in Pakistan. His answer: "No, next question."
Posted by: Jeff | January 23, 2009 1:50 PM
Funny how you parade for McCain who said don't talk about it....and now you cry about this.
Posted by: bill r. | January 23, 2009 2:23 PM
Somewhere up in heaven Tony Snow is laughing at this buffoon.
Posted by: Jeff | January 23, 2009 2:14 PM
Are you sure of the direction of that laugh?
Posted by: bill r. | January 23, 2009 2:25 PM
Posted by: Jeff | January 23, 2009 1:50 PM
He's just taking John McCain's advice from the election. McCain said you should bomb like crazy, but just not talk about it. As we all know John McCain is infallible, so clearly Gibbs acted perfectly.
Posted by: I worship McCain! | January 23, 2009 2:26 PM
Why are the Republicans like Jeff so intent on protecting Osama Bin Ladin from harm? Why do they continually fight against any attempt to get at him? They let him go at Tora Bora. They trumped up the War in Iraq rather than to finish him off. They strongly support allowing him a safe haven in Pakistan. Who's side are they on? They are giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States. They attack our fine military for attempting to get at the people who attacked us on 9/11/01. I really wonder why someone like Jeff would hate this nation so much that he would side with our enemies and work to protect them. It's interesting how he pretends to be a hyper patriot, while siding with a man who attacked us.
Posted by: Kendle | January 23, 2009 2:42 PM
If Gibbs was really just following McCain's advice why'd he say he'd take the question and then say he wasn't going to talk about? The reporters rightfully laughed about it. Which is it?
I see you're all still in sore winner mode, and trying to deflect attention from Gibbs' miserable performance. Even MSNBC was getting frustrated with him.
Just so you know, Bill, Tony Snow was liked in Washington by the press, democrats, and republicans. Anyone who knew the man would tell you which direction his laughter would come from. However, since you're willing to take cheap shots at a deceased cancer victim, it's pretty obvious that your ticket is already punched when your day comes. Enjoy the ride down.
Posted by: Jeff | January 23, 2009 2:54 PM
Posted by: Kendle | January 23, 2009 2:42 PM
Spot on Kendle. For years Jeff would call everyone who claimed Iraq a mistake and distraction and took our eye off the real war on terror, all sorts of names. Unpatriotic,coward, unamerican........but seems to be a wuss when it comes to finishing the job he allowed his party to sidetrack us from. Should we return the favor of the names?
Posted by: bill r. | January 23, 2009 2:54 PM
Kendle, you have an active, healthy imagination. Since when is laughing at Gibbs' amateur hour press conferences "protecting Osama bin Ladin from harm?" or "attacking our fine military?" Read the post and you'll see it had nothing to do with the actual strikes, just the non-answers given for them. They need people like you who can make up improbable scenarios in the movie business.
Posted by: Jeff | January 23, 2009 2:57 PM
"They let him go at Tora Bora."
WRONG! Clinton let him go on his watch, and it was "liberals" who let it happen.
I guess you suffer from selective memory.
Posted by: Mike | January 23, 2009 3:01 PM
This is a slap in the face to the victims familes of 9/11.
Posted by: Jeff | January 22, 2009 12:36 PM
Posted by: bill r. | January 23, 2009 3:14 PM
I can't believe this war monger Bush...I mean, Obama is killing terrorists!
IMPEACH HIM NOW!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | January 23, 2009 1:19 PM
You are correct Paula, Bush is a war monger. And he should have been impeached.
Posted by: Doug R. | January 23, 2009 3:32 PM
Posted by: Mike | January 23, 2009 3:01 PM
Refresh my memory, when did George W. Bush catch him on his watch? When did the conservatives track him down and bring him to justice?
Posted by: Kendle | January 23, 2009 3:57 PM
Well the President surely deserves a high five,Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Paul | January 23, 2009 4:41 PM
I applaud the effort, although I question whether the method employed wasn’t, well, wrong. If such a strike kills ten people and only five are identified as terrorists, then who were the other five? Were they innocent civilians? If they were civilian bystanders, is killing them “consistent with our values and our ideals”? I don’t think so, and I don’t think the Pakistanis think so either. We apparently haven’t learned that the death of every innocent civilian is just another good argument for recruiting others to the cause of our enemy. What’s worse, we put the Pakistani government in an impossible position of staying allied with us in the teeth of complaints from its own citizens, and we offer ourselves again to the negative scrutiny of the rest of the world. I frankly don’t see the upside in this.
Posted by: John W. | January 23, 2009 6:44 PM
As I said quite some time ago, you'll find Obama has a will of iron and is a tough as nails.
Just remember that as he's disarming you with his charm.
Posted by: ornery | January 23, 2009 11:26 PM
Why was this not mentioned in either of Gibb's press conferences? Read the London papers--they usually tell more about the truth in the USA than our leaders will tell our MSM. It seems like Gen. Betrayus informed our new president very well. What happened to statesmanship carrying more of the load for the military? What's it to be--more words or more bombs?
Posted by: Vivian | January 24, 2009 12:06 AM
Great call on the strike, I mean lets not cause "discomfort" to captured terror suspects just kill them along with a few "women and
children" as collateral damage. Perplexing values?
Posted by: Bubba Porter | January 24, 2009 9:15 AM
OH MY GOD. I am heart sick. When we chose Barack to rule us, I thought war was ended. What happened to our blessed BARACK
Posted by: Sancho | January 24, 2009 4:48 PM
Why do I feel so betrayed by our new President whom I voted for to initiate peace efforts in the world instead of continuing the assaults which includes innocents. Why are we not looking to proceed in a much more excellent manner at the outset of a new administration and see how that works first? Somebody explain that to me, PLEASE! Continuing ANYTHING that Bus started is probably an awful mistake and is opposite to the concept of CHANGE!
Posted by: Marelliz | January 25, 2009 8:40 AM
Northwest Pakistan/Afghanistan is a tough area to deal with. The people who live there are both A) sympathetic to the Taliban, and B) (my opinion - scared of the repercussions of opposing these extremists).
Pakistan has been two-facing the US and the world when it comes to dealing with its Northwest territory, and if they won't deal with it, then our policy has been to strike.
Suggestions:
1) Pakistan abandons this territory and allows it to be annexed by Afghanistan - perhaps for the time being until the job is done
2) Pakistan gets serious about clearing out the extremists.
Unfortunately, this territory is poor and uneducated, and easily swayed by extremist propoganda. They already feel attacked. The US strikes only embolden these sentiments in this area and make the job of selling extremism that much easier. They're already ignored by their own people, now they're attacked by the "West".
What is sad, and should be of warning is that even the PAKISTANIS leave these people and this section of their country alone and let this extremism fester. They figure better in the NW than at home in Islamabad. It will eventually come to bite them, but the whole religion is too stubborn to accept the responsibility to address this issue and always has been.
Posted by: karl | January 25, 2009 9:21 AM
Wouldn't it just be a lot handier if the US didn't poke its nose in where it isn't wanted, be it Bill Gates or Barney Gumble in charge?
Notice they didn't bother to intervene in Sudan or Congo;No oil!!!
Or for that matter, Ireland, despite all those people claiming Irish heritage there......in the supposed 'Land of the Free'!
Posted by: Mark McCoy | January 25, 2009 6:00 PM