Twice in debates John McCain has attempted to point to Obama's millitary strategic naivity by assailing his call to take out Bin Laden and other terrorist targets in Pakistan with or without the blessing of the Pakistani Government. I believe that Obama's obvious retort should have been to immediately turn that precisie situation on McCain by direct questioning ie, "Senator McCain, if as president you were given solid actionable intelligence that Bin Laden was hold up in a tent camp in Pakistan and the Pakistani leadership refused to act, what would you do?"

I find it difficult to imagine the McCain could answer any other way than to say he would order an immediate US airstrike to take him out...anything less would be irresponsible. This is precisely the action Obama has suggested that he would pursue and thus would put an abrupt end to this persistent and unfounded criticism.

Just what is actionable intelligence? Why, it's intelligence good enough to justify the action taken, obviously. The two can't be separated; better intelligence leads more aggressive action, and bold action requires more thorough intelligence. If the net consequences for an action taken on incorrect intel are insignificant, but the rewards are valuable if the intel got it right, then the required confidence, or solidity, of the intelligence in order to act is low. Unfortunately, this isn't the situation at hand.

Pakistan is a large nation with nuclear weapons. Significant portions of its population are Anti-American and/or support the Taliban. (and surely, some Al Quaida) This is not limited to lawless tribal regions, but extend into the very government of Pakistan itself, which has openly denounced Coalition incurrsions and have fired on our troops, and supported the Taliban until America brought along its big stick.

To get to the point, the required confidence is quite high.

Obama seems to have got it right setting the bar for the solidity of the intelligence so high, but it is high enough that not only his "bold" decision not much of decision at all (as you claim yourself), it is also one that is unlikely to come about. "In our sights" intelligence is fine for movies and thriller novels, but real world decisions are (well, they should be, at least) based on careful analyses of incomplete intelligence weighing the pros and cons of each course of action.

Our current standard for a large number of military incursions or invasions into Pakistan fits the Obama model well. Taliban cross over into Afghanistan, shoot at coalition troops, and we follow them back into Pakistan.

Who knows, maybe we'll get lucky and Osama will join a Taliban raid, or such a raid leads right back to Osama's hiding spot.

Fat chance.

The real issue isn't what to do after getting Osama in our sights, it is how to get him in our sights in the first place without violating the soverignty of Pakistan to the point that they turn from tepid ally into outright foe? How do we vet the authenticity of Pakistan's inability or unwillingness to capture Osama without tipping our hand, allowing elements within the Pakistani government to forewarn Osama? Or, if we decide they're "against us," how do we deal with those nukes?

The how is what matters, otherwise, imho, Obama's words are an essentially meaningless statement belonging right beside "I know how to win wars."

But hey, that's all these political debates and rallies seems to be these days.

PHB:

The real issue isn't what to do after getting Osama in our sights, it is how to get him in our sights in the first place without violating the soverignty of Pakistan to the point that they turn from tepid ally into outright foe? How do we vet the authenticity of Pakistan's inability or unwillingness to capture Osama without tipping our hand, allowing elements within the Pakistani government to forewarn Osama? Or, if we decide they're "against us," how do we deal with those nukes?

Right on, PHB. <link>