Two remote U.S. missile strikes that killed at least 20 people at suspected terrorist hideouts in northwestern Pakistan yesterday offered the first tangible sign of President Obama's commitment to sustained military pressure on the terrorist groups there, even though Pakistanis broadly oppose such unilateral U.S. actions. Full Story »
Posted by Derek Hawkins
This is the level of analysis we need to see right now on the Obama Administration's first foreign policy and military moves. While this is light on primary sources, the Post connected other recent events and comments from appropriate officials to help us deduce what the two missile strikes say about Obama's approach to terrorism in Pakistan and his relations with Islamabad.
Very well presented article, researched, good sourcing, coupled with historical and political context. The article also highlightss the weakness of the sagging and perhaps failed Government of today's Pakistan.
Lets hope Pakistan can get a handle on its problems, before it does fall to the control of the Taliban. Should this regeon continue it's decay in stability, a nuclear confrontation will, I think, be more likely than at any time since the Cuban Missle Crissis and perhaps more than then as well. Perhaps Pakistan's leaders can drag this element of Islam into the 21st century.
With the Taliban training and crossing into Afghan to kill American's, what's a man to to. At least in this article no women and children were killed.
With the U.S. giving billions of dollars to Pakistan, They should control their own borders, so we do not have to turn some 18 year old kid into a Killer.
Yes, because the reporters not only wrote about the event—the military strike—but also gave it context. The reporter gave broad background to the incident: Bush's administration has been ramping up attacks in Pakistan, Pakistanis are hoping for more peaceful negotiations, Clinton and other high-profile senators are pushing for more humanitarian aid and transparency in its spending. One thing I thought was a little misleading was the headline and lead. Although this occurred under Obama's presidency, we later find out that Obama might have had little to no involvement in the strike.
Last time I checked Pakistan is a sovereign nation. I am unconvinced the US MILITARY as any legitimate business in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Why are these reporters cheerleading?
This is an excellent piece. The writer's collaborated well and some of the information came from a reporter on the ground in Islamabad. The piece feels like it is really meant to inform the reader and not show off the writer(s) in any way. It also seems to not be too constrained by secrecy or evasion as we have seen in recent times.
Dealing with Afghanistan and with Pakistan is going to be tough for the Obama administration. It has been tough for everyone from Alexander, the British, the Russians and any who dare. Obama can't ignore that, but he seems very aware.
Retrieving Comments
