What is wrong with fighting terrorists in Pakistan?

Question

Obama said that if there is evidence that there are major terrorists in Pakistan, then we will invade. Not that we will invade definately, just if we need to go there to do what we are supposedly doing.

Last info about Bin Laden from the CIA said he was in Pakistan. The Pakistani gov't refuses to enter certain areas of their country that are rumored to house terrorist training camps. There have been other reports of terrorist in the same area-again no Pakistani involvement.

By its nature, terrorism does not respect national borders. If we are unable to enter an unpoliced land just because it is owned by allies, we are neutered.

If you truly support the "War on Terror" this would be a good thing as it means he's willing to go the distance where Bush got sidetracked and decided Bin Laden was no longer important.

Sounds to me like Obama plans to actually tackle terrorism, not use it as a scape goat to remove the rights of citizens and to install puppet gov't

I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. His evidence was wrong though and he was warned before the invasion of what might happen (by the CIA). Obama is offering a solution to finish was Bush claims to have started-why dont Bush supporters want it finished? Obviously invading Iraq has done nothing to combat terorrism, its time for a change of strategy, perhaps this time it can be one based on facts?

C.S: Thankyou, I ran out of room so I simplified it to invading, figured anyone who was going to give it actual thought wouldnt be bothered by it too much.

Answer 1

"then we will invade."

This isn't actually what Obama said/meant. He simply said that we need a fresh perspective that may include troops inside of Pakistan. This would probably not entail attacking allies, like Romney said in the debate. Instead, it would entail exactly what you find in the end: that Obama plans to restabilize Afghanistan (which will have a record opium harvest this year!) and that may entail some military presence in the border region involving Pakistan. Why haven't we gone into Pakistan already? Who knows? It definately makes sense as a front in the war on terrorism.

What is the best thing about Obama's statement (once again, not the misreading that Romney commits) is that it shows a refocus in the war against terrorism. This refocus has been needed since 2002 and hasn't even been discussed.

EDITED ANSWER: Since many of the respondants choose to commit the Romney Fallacy, I'm gonna take it head on. Pakistan is not a good ally for the U.S.! Musharraf is an authoritarian dictator that has suspended the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Why did he do this? Because that Chief Justice was investigating and demanding answers in the disappearances of hundreds of Pakistani citizens under Musharraf's tenure: including human rights workers and other NGOs. Even Dick Cheney (who I don't think is working on the Obama campaign, but could be wrong) called on Muscharraf a few weeks ago and warned that Pakistan may lose favor as an ally if it doesn't crack down on Al Qaeda and the Taliban operating in Pakistan.

The summary of all this leads to one conclusion: Pakistan is not a good ally for the U.S. Musharraf is not pushing for a democratic Pakistan, is not helping the U.S. secure Afghanistan, does not allow U.S. troops to go into his territory to track and capture known al Qaeda operatives. The fact is the current administration wants to send troops into Pakistan, but our "ally" won't let us. A fresh perspective, hopefully one that says our allies must be democracies, is desperately needed. The only fresh perspective so far regarding the Pakistan issue so far has been Obamas. I hope that there are other ideas, but saying Pakistan is an ally is just naive.

Answer 2

They're not.. They're giving the United Nations lip service.. They're allowing several terrorists groups to exist within their country and then turn around and tell the world that they're 'anti-terrorism'.. Pakistan harbors islamic extremists until they fall out of favor with their terror cell or run out of money to pay for 'protection' and suddenly there's a 'mid-level terrorist' captured in their midst. I would rank Pakistan third on the list behind Iran and Syria of threats to world security..

Answer 3

It's a cost/benefit issue. It would create more problems to invade Pakistan than to allow those terrorists to hide there. We need all the allies we can get in that part of the world. They might be crooked but it's better than a full out enemy. We're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard spot there.

Answer 4

Bush is finally deciding to use intel and covert means to go after the terrorist leaders, something he has ignored for a very long time.
It usually takes a democrat to use it as an election platform, before Bush decides to do what makes sense.
Personally, I haven't listened much to what Romney stated, because I expect them to twist words and bash people on the twisted nonsense they themselves create.
Is this what higher moral standards of religious people are all about??!
Romney isn't only a disgrace to his party, but a disgrace to his church.

Answer 5

Fighting terrorists in Pakistan is fine if you are comfortable with the idea that the Russians may want to fight Chechneyan terrorists who have sought asylum here and are sending money to their compatriots.
If you don't have a problem with Uniformed Russian Troops wandering around Brooklyn flushing out their definition of terrorists, hey, I'm with ya dude.

Answer 6

Sovereign nation ring a bell here? An Islamic Nuclear power with a frantic Muslim population makes no sense to you?

Just think about China sending ships, tanks, men to invade your city because someone wrote anti communist papers which would be considered terrorism in China.

Yes, it’s true; they can do the same thing if we start it first.

USA USA USA :P

Answer 7

Pakistan's government (the one with whom we are allied by neccessity) is not very strong and is NOT democratic, and is not popular. If we invade it is likely that the people will revolt and it will fall. Then we will be fighting a whole new war with a whole new country, one with nukes. Obama's words have made him a potential enemy to Pakistan, if he becomes president they will be remembered. They were probably unwise, though who really knows.

Answer 8

The fear is that launching an operation in Pakistan would rouse such ire with the populace as to unseat the current regime, which is a US ally, replacing it with a pro-Taliban/pro-Al Qaeda Islamist regime. Since Pakistan has nuclear weapons, that'd be a bad thing.

Answer 9

Conservatives are doing the same thing with Obama that they do all the time. They misquote what a democrat has said then criticize the dem based on the misquote. It's intentional and it's lie.

Answer 10

Well, maybe the fact that we are the terrorists!! 911 was "just a test, this is only a test, should there be a real terrorist attack,....."our own government staged all of it, and the owner of the twin towers took off with the billions in gold, plus the insurance money(kind of funny how those buildings fell just like a planned demolition isnt it?), and our dear president ran with the ball, to get revenge on the man who threatened his daddy!!!