I am definitely a Democrat and definitely voting for Obama, not that it would make much of a difference what with me living in NY.

But the comments made last night about "taking out" Osama bin Laden if he were in Pakistan make me very nervous. He said he's basically in favor of cross-border surgical strikes to take out high ranking targets, i.e.: bin Laden, if they're on the Pakistan side of the border, if Pakistan couldn't or wouldn't do it.

So apparently, his views on state sovereignty are pretty similar to the "Bush Doctrine". He's in favor of invading nations unilaterally when it strikes our fancy, now? State sovereignty is not something you casually dismiss when your partner allies feel a military strike inside their territory is unwarranted.

Say, for example, that one of those ruthlessly violent Mexican drug lords that have been wreaking havoc down south of the border manages to cross into the US past our impenetrable "border fence". Are you telling me the US wouldn't have any problem with the Mexican authorities conducting military/police operations inside the US without the government's authority???

This is one point I agree with McCain on, taking liberties with the sovereignty of nations we're supposedly friends with is yet another reason American influence and respect has taken a nosedive in the last 8 years. Yes, our unwavering support for Musharraf over the last decade hasn't helped win friends in Pakistan, but comments like this aren't doing much to repair the damage in the next administration.

The humanitarian intervention question was another one that touched on sovereignty issues, and reinforced the comments made earlier. Neither answer made the crucial point that we must first work with the governments in power in these respective areas through negotiation, then sanctions, before finally resorting to a military solution. Props to Obama for pointing out that we can only attempt such an intervention with the logistical help and moral support of allies in the international community.

He's not talking about an invasion of Pakistan. He's talking about a surgical strike in a very specific circumstance. McCain has supported the very same idea in the past -- as did Palin last week before he quickly shut her up. He's only harping on it now in order to bludgeon Obama with it.

I know he's not talking about an outright invasion of Pakistan, but a surgical strike has the same impact in the public eye: it says "America doesn't respect our borders, or us as an ally."

I know McCain has supported it in the past, as have others. That doesn't make it the right thing to do, no matter how popular "we'll git 'em" type comments are with undecided voters.

Obama tries to mock McCain over the silly "bomb iran" song (which no-one believes is McCain's foreign policy) and then announces that he's going to invade an ally and nuclear power to create a martyr that will energize Al Quada in a whole new and previously unseen way.

Can Obama really be this stupid? Apparently, yes.

But it isn't much of a border. Pakistan doesn't control that area. Its not much different that chasing down a criminal thats holed up in a pirate haven in the Caribbean, even though nominally its under some European countries sovernity.

Obama only said that crap to try to sound tough on terrorism so he could get elected. It was his version of Michael Dukakis riding in a tank with a too-big helmet on. He is very lucky it hasn't haunted him as much. He'll probably win, despite his stupidity and he'll probably figure out a reasonable way to deal with bin laden and Pakistan once in office.

Again, I just don't see what's so "stupid" or scary about taking out bin Laden if he's in the Pakistan border region. Pakistan itself has no control over it, so how could this be considered an invasion of Pakistan?

It's a not-very-well kept secret that (shhh) we're already making incursions into this area. Many in Pakistan are unhappy about it, but it's not an "invasion" of Pakistan.

It's an invasion because he's said he'd be willing to do it if the Pakistanis are unable or unwilling to do so.

If the Pakistanis are unwilling to do the job in their own territory, they certainly don't want the US barging across the border to do the job without their permission, either.

Unauthorized military incursions into Pakistan's sovereign territory, however badly controlled by Pakistan it may be, constitutes an invasion in my book.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

What you fear so much is already occurring. In the last two months the US has taken military action inside Pakistan four different times without informing the Pakistani government or getting their consent. Pakistan has protested strongly and has even declared that if it happens again their military is to engage the US forces - and in fact they have already had a skirmish.

Just something to bear in mind.

So we're supposed to sit on our hands if we have Al Qaeda in our sights? I don't understand your line of argument here, fink. Are you saying we never should have invaded Afghanistan in the first place? That was sovereign territory, wasn't it?

I agree that we need to tread very lightly and do whatever we can not to antagonize the Pakistani people and the world as a whole. Going into Iraq, for instance, definitely wasn't worth it. But if we venture into this uncontrolled border region to take out the mastermind of 9/11, I believe it would be more than justifiable, and world opinion as a whole would be with us.

Marcus:

Thanks, I was aware of those incursions, as well as Pakistan's less than enthused response. Just because we're doing it now doesn't mean we should be doing it, or that it's in our long term interests. Or are we using the very low bar set by the Bush administration as our standard these days?

dgl:

Essentially, yes, we need to be able to show restraint and trust. Pakistan purport to be allies of the US in the "GWOT". We should not be invading our allies without their consent, and as allies Pakistan should be able to handle affairs on their side of the border. At least if they are unable to, they should trust us enough to request our assistance in an operation, and we should trust that they would do so. Following on from this, Pakistan withholding consent for engagement suggests that they have judged it untenable to pursue engagement at this time, and we should trust that their assessment is correct.

Going into Afghanistan was OK since there was a clear objective, with the Taliban government openly harboring bin Laden, and there was clear international support for the action. It was an invasion of sovereign territory, but our objectives and actions were transparent; an open war. We cannot pretend that we are allies and partners with Pakistan and at the same time repeatedly violate their sovereignty against the wishes of their government and people.

We may be allies with Pakistan, but there is a significant dearth of trust on both sides of the border. Unauthorized incursions by our military are not the way to build up that trust.

I respect your restraint. But I think you take it too far. What are we there for in the first place? To defeat Al Qaeda. If Pakistan is unable OR unwilling to control the border region, then that means they're, essentially, harboring terrorists.

That's not to say we go to war with Pakistan -- God forbid -- but we can't just sit on our hands and say, no cross-border incursions under ANY circumstances lest it ruffle some feathers internationally...

That they may be, but war with Pakistan is even less advisable than war with Iran. With the progress the US has made diplomatically with India over the last few years, now is not the time to piss off our Pakistani allies.

In the Cold War era, India had definitely been in the Soviet column with Pakistan for the US. We're finally at a stage where we have similar influence with two of the most unstable nuclear powers in the world, who just happen to hate each other. We should be trying to use that influence to push for stability, and not risk it for the chance to go after some zealot running for cover in the mountains.

There are other conflicts in the world that we have to be cognizant of besides the War on Terror.

I agree with your larger point re. India, and I appreciate your point of view -- how weird is it to actually have a civil debate on these message boards?

I just don't think you can have "stability" in the region if al Qaeda is still operating out of those mountains.

Very weird, indeed!

True, we are there now because of the Taliban and al Qaeda. But we can't allow ourselves to be held hostage by the idea that al Qaeda is the be all and end all.

There are lots of relatively stable regions in the world with militant groups operating in and around them. For example, ETA in the Basque country, FARC in Colombia, the various groups in the Niger Delta region, or the IRA in Northern Ireland until quite recently. There are also groups that don't lend themselves to stability and are instead fighting civil wars in all but name, like the Tamils in Sri Lanka, or Hamas, Fatah, and Hizballah.

It's a question of minimizing the impact these groups have on the region they operate in. With all the disillusionment experienced recently by some former members of al Qaeda, they seem to be a waning force, politically. Maybe it's time to just keep them on the run rather than continually press for extermination, a self defeating strategy when dealing with insurgent groups. Focus on helping the good guys (reconstruction efforts, etc...) instead of hunting the bad guys.