I've been on the fence about him, wanting to hear his policy statements in more detail before I made a decision based on charisma alone. The terrorism speech provided the information about his proposed policies that makes a decision possible. Let me just answer the appropriate parts of his speech, and leave it at that. Crossposting at howme, MLW and dKos.
Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.
We made the same excuses in order to justify our actions against Cambodia. That didn't work out so well now, did it.
This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains.
I sense a summoning of the "taming the Wild West" entitlement to force in the service of America.
There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come and go.
Facts: Borders ARE nothing more than lines on a map. Governments do come and go (just ask the 109th Congress).
There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence.
You mean they have deep-rooted Family Values?
It's a tough place. But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.
What about terrorists who threaten Cuba? Or Hindus? Or women? How about action for a more peaceful world, instead of a more warlike one, that exaggerates the current problems of power and privilege through violence?
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.
You really don't like Musharraf, do you. Though that all seems reasonable to me. The whole evicting foreign fighters thing could be replaced with "arresting" very handily - though the human rights discussion you talk about beginning below would be necessary as well.
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges.
Like the Pakistani intelligence service and a huge chunk of the population of Pakistan. Did I mention that he's practically a dictator who is immensely unpopular?
But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans.
NO THERE ARE NOT. The people who attacked New York and Arlington are DEAD, Osama has vanished (and may be dead), and we don't know for a fact where any of the rest of them are. Money for that operation came from all over the Middle East, and the people who were involved are scattered to the four winds. This is not a job for the military, especially because there is no "he's right there!" target to strike at. This is a job for a class of professional which specializes in long-term operations involving diplomacy, international cooperation, careful, years-long investigations, and a thorough understanding of the law. <snark>Maybe someday someone will come up with such an organization.</snark>*
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.
Just what the hell does that mean? Seriously, what does it have to do with the price of apple butter in Bolivia, as far as justification for unilaterally crossing international boundaries with a warfighting force? That's as creepily Orwellian as "Department of Homeland Security." Seriously, what are you thinking?? So unilateral military action isn't bad, we just picked the wrong targets. Snatch-and-grab operations without the consent of the host government aren't bad, we're just using them on the wrong people. The unilateral application of American military power isn't destructive, it's just misunderstood. Pay no attention to the people vowing eternal revenge against us for violating their homelands.
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism.
This is the creepiest straight-faced delivery of a tautology I've seen in some time. An F-16 does little or nothing to combat extremism, period. It's not made to fight extremism, it's mostly made to fight other planes (yes, there are strike variants - but ground support is not what it is made for) It can exacerbate the hell out of it, though.
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.
So you REALLY don't like Musharraf. That's ok, lots of people don't like him. The problem with what you're saying is that you're willing to support Bush's "bringing democracy to the Middle East" thing - does this mean that you'll respect the choices you don't like? From what you said above, it sounds like you won't.
Beyond Pakistan, there is a core of terrorists -- probably in the tens of thousands -- who have made their choice to attack America.
First, way to pull big numbers out of thin air. Second, if tens of thousands of people have made the decision to attack America, they must be some serious slackers not to have pulled anything off. Yes, I know somebody's going to attack here again sometime, but you're significantly overstating things in order to sound tough on terror. All it does is make you sound like you've had a "Joe Lieberman Special" fever dream.
So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world, and to deny them the world's most dangerous weapons.
Capture or kill? What is this salivating fascination with wanting to take them, dead or alive? What happened to "bring them to justice??" Don't you have any respect at all for the idea that if you enter a place with violence, all you're doing is teaching everyone there that in this world, the people who are violent get what they want?
I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America.
Not military. Law enforcement officers. Say it with me: law enforcement officers. It's really not that scary a concept if you approach it carefully. We have a lot of very dedicated LEOs who are currently being wasted on cracking down on our civil liberties, looking for porn, and protecting the property rights of large corporations from Fair Use excerpts. Why don't we let them do their real jobs?
This requires a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and Marine Corps's new counter-insurgency manual.
Counter-insurgency is generallyl for the purpose of subduing elements of a larger group you wish to control. Are you absolutely sure this is what you want to be talking about?
I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. We need to recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same. This must include a program to bolster our ability to speak different languages, understand different cultures, and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies.
How about use those civilian agencies???
Feh.
<small>* Though how will remain of the FBI's capabilities after the Bush administration is open to question.</small>