Matt "Angel" Duss vs. Michael "Titty Boy" Goldfarb on the question of taking on al-Qaeda where it is. We’ve seen the right run this play in 2004: Kerry attacked Bush for disinterest in al-Qaeda; Bush and friends rejoindered that the war on terrorism is bigger than al-Qaeda. It was a massively effective argument, politically. The right sounds bold, decisive, world-beating, take-on-all-comers, while substantively being so fucking stupid it might as well consist of active agents of al-Qaeda.
What McCain is refusing to do is assent to the idea that al-Qaeda must be destroyed where it actually exists. It isn’t a trivial thing when the senior U.S. intelligence analyst for transnational threats reports that al-Qaeda has strengthened its Pakistani safe haven. The U.S. has a first-order security interest in eliminating — I mean, noneuphemistically, killing or capturing — al-Qaeda’s senior leadership (to use the intelligence parlance) in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. These are people with a proven capability to strike the U.S. and a vow to do so again. To decline to go after them while we see them getting stronger while prolonging an occupation that isn’t in our interests and degrades our financial, military and intelligence capabilities ought to be a disqualification for being president. Maybe the ad Obama should cut ought to be titled McCain Has Forgotten 9/11.



3 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
How are we to go after the Taliban/al-Qaeda in Pakistan without the agreement of the Pakistani government?
Seems like no more than a couple of days ago you were calling for close ties with the Pakistanis. At present, whoever might be running Pakistan is not going to allow US troops to cross into the something-or-other Tribal Area. They’ll barely be quiet about us lobbing rounds over the border or dropping the occasional Hellfire.
So I’m unclear as to what you’re suggesting we do over there.
I’m pretty sure that over here you want us to vote for Obama and and scorn that snide yet stupid fuck Goldfarb even if he’s right about what Obama said and meant.
Please feel free to reply.
Perhaps it’s possible to create a compact with the next Pakistani government along the lines of trading a whole host of aid programs for a tacit consent to pursue al-Qaeda to the gates of hell in the FATA. What I want from the next administration is a relentless focus on doing that. You’re trapped in the frame that Bush has told you the war on terror exists within, and it inhibits creative policymaking.
But perhaps it’s not possible to get inside the FATA without Islamabad’s approval. In that case, sometimes you face a threat dire enough to justify doing something you’d ordinarily find unsavory, like violating the sovereignty of a sovereign and mostly-allied country. It would be possible to clean up the mess that results afterward, I’d guess; but I’d further guess that if the U.S. made it really really really clear that it wanted AQSL wiped off the face of the earth, we’d be able to get tacit Pakistani support. Clear enough for you?
Then this says you’ll either be disappointed by that not happening or it happening and failing miserably…
afghanconflictmonitor.org/2008/06/pakistanis-supp.html