FREE PRE-TEEN GIRL IN PAKISTAN ACCUSED OF ACT DENIGRATING RELIGION

Free the pre-teen girl in Pakistan's tribal areas accused of burning sacred books.  There are many backward societies in the world that have never experienced an enlightenment.  This poor girl's hometown is one of them.

STOP AMERICAN DRONE STRIKES IN PAKISTAN

Stop the American drone strikes in Pakistan.

I don't understand how Pres. Barack Obama can order these non-judicial killings.  Obama is at once the judge, jury and executioner.

How many men, women and children in rural Pakistani villages have been incinerated by American drones?  This is against international law—one country firing missiles across another's borders and killing the target country's people.

These drone strikes are making everyone hate the Americans.  Chris Woods in The Guardian reports that it is radicalizing ordinary Pakistanis.  Writes Woods:

"One of Islamabad's most senior diplomats is warning that CIA drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas are weakening democracy and risk pushing people towards extremist groups.
Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the high commissioner to London and one of Pakistan's top ambassadors, also accuses the US of "talking in miles" when it comes to democracy but "moving in inches"."

MAY ONE COUNTRY CROSS ANOTHER'S BORDERS TO ATTACK MILITANTS?

What do you think?  Is it in accord with the laws of nations for one country (the United States) to send unmanned aircraft across the borders of another (Pakistan) and attack militants and jihadists?  And can the U.S. do this without the permission of the second country, Pakistan?

Suppose it were in the opposite direction?  Suppose it were Pakistan that was sending armed drones into U.S. airspace?

The second question takes no little reflection. Most Americans would see it as a violation of national sovereignty and an illegal incursion.  It probably would precipitate an immediate counter-strike.

So why does Obama and Panetta think that they are justified in sending drones into Pakistan?  Is there any clearer violation of international laws?  I don't think so.

STOP ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN

Good for Pakistan in signing a deal for a gas pipeline with Iran!

The United States has no business imposing an economic blockade on Iran and its people.  Economic sanctions are just a form of collective punishment, punishing the people for the "sins" of their leaders.  While this collective punishment does not make use of bombs and bullets, it still imposes harsh economic punishment on ordinary Iranian men, women and children.

I call upon Pres. Barack Obama and Sec. Hillary Clinton to stop the economic warfare waged against the Iranian people and end the sanctions.

PAKISTANIS DISCLOSE BRITAIN COMPLICIT IN TORTURE OF SUSPECTS

Common expectations would say that civilized countries like the United States and United Kingdom don't torture suspects. We all know about George W. Bush's sordid policy of waterboarding and other forms of torture for people suspected of terrorism. Now Ian Cobain reports for The Guardian that Britain outsourced its torture to the Pakistanis.

Writes Cobain:

"Researchers from the New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) say several Pakistani officials have corroborated accounts of torture given by several victims. The officials not only made clear that their counterparts in British intelligence were fully aware of the methods they were employing during interrogations but claim the British agents were "grateful" it was happening."

Of course, just as George Bush, Dick Cheney and the others always denied that the U.S. government used "torture," and that the "U.S. does not torture," so did officials of the British government, including Tony Blair and Jack Straw, insist over and over that the U.K. did not engage in torture.

Corbain reports:

"HRW said there was now a compelling case for a judicial inquiry into Britain's role in torture in Pakistan. Brad Adams, HRW's Asia director, said: "The prime minister, the foreign secretary, former prime minister Tony Blair and others have repeatedly said that the UK opposes torture. They repeatedly deny allegations that the UK has encouraged torture by Pakistan's intelligence agencies. But saying this over and over again doesn't make it true. There is now sufficient evidence in the public domain to warrant a judicial inquiry.""

NO MORE U.S. MISSILES INTO PAKISTANI VILLAGES

The BBC reports that a U.S. unmanned drone fired missiles into a house in South Waziristan, killing 20 people.

As I wrote several times before, this illegal U.S. incursion into Pakistan must stop.

First, it is a severe violation of human rights. Each of those 20 people deserved to live and to live in peace and without fear of being blown to bits by an American bomb.

Second. Whoever in the White House thinks that the U.S. has a right to attack an agrarian village in Pakistan has no knowledge or concept of international law. Such an attack violates Pakistan sovereignty and is an insult to all Pakistanis.

Third. A military strike like this one killing ordinary Pakistani peasants does severe damage to the fight against militant Islamism and forever destroys any Pakistani goodwill towards the U.S., at least in the surrounding Pakistan areas. Military action cannot accomplish peace or uproot "terrorism." All it can do is exacerbate ill will between Pakistani Islamists and Americans.

So again I say, ground all U.S. war planes, whether manned or unmanned. Cease firing missiles into Pakistan. Stop the killing of civilians.

U.S. AIRSTRIKE KILLS 8 MADRASSA STUDENTS IN PAKISTAN

Another military fiasco by the U.S. in Waziristan. American drones fired two missiles into a village madrassa, killing eight students.

The BBC reports on its web site:

"The school, in North Waziristan, is close to the residence of a fugitive Taleban leader, Jalaluddin Haqqani, witnesses told the BBC Urdu Service. At least two missiles, reportedly fired by pilotless US drones, hit the school early on Thursday."

Perhaps the U.S. was aiming the missiles at the Taliban leader but that is no consolation to the families of the dead students.

This whole military set of tactics that relies on the use of manned and unmanned aircraft needs to stop. It does more harm than good, and has made ordinary Pakistani villagers into allies of the jihadists and Talibanis.

When Obama is elected, I am hoping that he will put an end to the use of American war planes in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The dropping of bombs or the firing of missiles from aircraft is notoriously imprecise, and almost always leads to unintended and cruel civilian casualties. It is totally unacceptable.

Writes the BBC:

"Witnesses told the BBC that the missiles destroyed nearly half of the school building in the Dande Darpakhel area near Miranshah, the main town in the North Waziristan tribal region.

"At least six people were injured in the attack, witnesses say. It is still not clear whether there were any foreign fighters among the dead students or whether it is linked to Mr Haqqani or his son, Sirajuddin.

"Local people have said that most of the injured were local students at the seminary. . . "

"In recent weeks the United States has launched many missile strikes against suspected militant targets in the Afghan border region.

"Washington says the strikes are used against militant targets, but correspondents say that intelligence failures have sometimes led to civilian casualties.

"Figures compiled by the BBC Urdu service show that some 80 people have been killed in a number of suspected US missile strikes in South and North Waziristan region over the past month.

"Earlier in October a suspected pilotless American drone fired missiles in North Waziristan, killing at least six people, Pakistani intelligence officials said."

TRUCK BOMBING OF MARRIOTT HOTEL IN ISLAMABAD POINTS TO BAD U.S. POLICY IN VIOLATING PAKISTANI BORDERS

Today's massive truck bombing in front of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad is tragic for the large loss of life and destruction.

But one thing it shows - how misplaced and wrong the U.S. policy is towards unilaterally attacking villages and their mainly civilian populations in the North-Western tribal areas of Pakistan. Over the last several weeks, the U.S. has entered Pakistan multiple times without approval from the government of Pakistan. The incursions happened either with U.S. special forces or with American unmanned drones.

These attacks and breaches of Pakistan sovereignty and territoriality are sure to incite the Pakistani street into more acute hatred and dislike for the Americans. Not to mention the effect on the more conservative and close-minded Pakistani jihadists.

Today's bombing seems the work of deranged and sick minds, yet Pakistani nationalism and hatred for foreign invaders surely added fuel to the fire for those desiring revenge against the United States.

BUSH ORDERS SECRET RAIDS INTO PAKISTAN

Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti write in today's The New York Times that President Bush has given secret orders allowing American incursions and attacks on the tribal areas in northwestern Pakistan.

This is outrageous and another example of Bush's flouting of principles of international law. Bush may have the authorization under American law by virtue of the AUMF passed in October 2001, but it is an affront to the rule of law in Pakistan, and will have the certain effect of creating even more animosity of Pakistanis towards Americans.

Report Schmitt and Mazzetti:

"The classified orders signal a watershed for the Bush administration after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and after months of high-level stalemate about how to challenge the militants’ increasingly secure base in Pakistan’s tribal areas. "

No country is allowed to enter another sovereign country without permission or conduct military raids against nationals living in that country. I don't care whether it is done for a good purpose or not. This simply violates all the provisions of international law and the rules of the United Nations.

The alternative is the dark world of Bush and Cheney where everything goes and international law evaporates into just another meaningless platitude. And no, the argument that the world is different after September 11 is not sufficient to create a lawless violent world where the "forces of good" are aligned against the "forces of evil, and the "good guys" can do anything they want outside the realm of law to the "bad guys."

Mazzetti and Schmitt write:

"Pakistan’s top army officer said Wednesday that his forces would not tolerate American incursions like the one that took place last week and that the army would defend the country’s sovereignty “at all costs.” . . ."

"Unilateral action by the American forces does not help the war against terror because it only enrages public opinion,” said Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington, during a speech on Friday. “In this particular incident, nothing was gained by the action of the troops.”"

U.S. FIRES MISSILE INTO PAKISTAN, KILLS 11 PAKISTANI SOLDIERS

The BBC reports today that it was an American missile shot from across the border in Afghanistan that killed 11 Pakistani soldiers.

"Pakistan's military has condemned an air strike by Afghanistan-based US forces that killed 11 of its troops as a "cowardly attack".

"The incident happened inside Pakistan, near the border with Afghanistan, as US-led forces tackled pro-Taleban militants.

"The US military confirmed it had used artillery and air strikes after coming under fire from "anti-Afghan" forces."

On what basis is the United States allowed or permitted under international law to fire a missile into another sovereign country like Pakistan? The answer is such military cross-border attacks are illegal, and the U.S. is playing the role of the aggressor-bully in interfering in the internal affairs of another sovereign country.

The situation is very much like the attack by Colombia on March 1st against members of the FARC inside of neighboring Ecuador. There is no justification for mounting an attack against people in other countries. Colombia was not justified, and neither is the United States under George Bush.

Pakistan has every right to strongly complain against the illegal operations of U.S. forces. George Bush is constantly singing odes to democracy, yet here we see the U.S. indirectly attacking the democratically elected government of Pakistan because it has given signals that it will not cooperate with or tolerate U.S. raids against Pakistani tribesmen suspected of harboring the Taliban inside Pakistan.

U.S. FIRES MISSILES INTO PAKISTAN VILLAGE, KILLS AT LEAST 16

We get reports today that the U.S. has fired several missiles into some village in South Waziristan, killing at least 16 people. The question is, how many of these killed were children? How many were women? How many were unsuspecting civilians just going about their daily lives?

The BBC reports:

"At least 16 people have been killed in a missile strike on a building near Pakistan's northern border with Afghanistan, state television has said. The attack took place in the South Waziristan region, where tribal militants are based, Reuters news agency reported residents as saying. The Pakistani state TV report said several missiles destroyed the house of a suspected militant leader. . . ."

The BBC reports that the Pakistan military says at least nine were civilians. It quotes Reuters:

"Reuters reported the military saying seven militants were among the dead.

""Initial reports suggest militants were hiding there and seven of them were killed and several wounded," an unnamed military official told the news agency."

This seems to be the modus operandi of Bush and his U.S. military. Shoot missiles, drop bombs and send in war planes. The heck with how many civilians die.

This raid is illegal on at least two counts.

First, under international law, the United States is not allowed to strike another country or violate another country's sovereignty. Firing a missile into some rural village in Pakistan clearly clearly violates this law.

Second. Under the Geneva Convention, the U.S. is not allowed to directly kill civilians in its attempt to kill militants. Here shooting a missile into someone's home is bound to kill civilians, especially children. This is just as illegal and immoral as the U.S. carpet-bombing Dresden in 1945, killing over 100,000 civilians.

No wonder the people in South Waziristan as well as most other people throughout the world detest the United States and its militaristic foreign policy.

CONFLICTING REPORTS ON DEATH OF BENAZIR BHUTTO

I heard on BBC Radio this morning that a close aide to the assassinated Benazir Bhutto said that Ms. Bhutto had definitely been shot. There was blood all over Bhutto's SUV and then when she was transferred to the aide's car, there was blood all over the second vehicle. The aide also said that Bhutto had a two wounds in her neck, one corresponding to a bullet's entry point and the other an exit wound.

But Musharraf's government is trying to lay blame on Al Qaeda, Carlotta Gall reports in today's The New York Times. It claims that it has intercepted a telephone conversation between two Al Qaeda members congratulating each other on the apparent success in assassinating Ms. Bhutto. Also the physician treating the injured Ms. Bhutto claims there were no gunshot wounds.

Writes Carlotta Gall:

"The government identified a militant leader with links to Al Qaeda, Baitullah Mehsud, who holds sway in tribal areas near the Afghanistan border, as the chief suspect behind the attack.

"“We have an intercept from this morning in which he congratulated his people for carrying out this act,” Brig. Javed Iqbal Cheema, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry, said in a briefing to reporters.

"“We have irrefutable evidence that Al Qaeda and its networks are trying to destabilize the government,” he added. “They have been systematically attacking our government, and now a political icon.” Ms. Bhutto, he said, was on the hit list of Al Qaeda and other terrorists."

But Ms. Bhutto's supporters deny anyone other than the government was responsible. See this account on BBC.com:

" . . . Ms Bhutto's associates disputed the official account, saying the government was trying to abdicate its responsibility for her security.

""To hear that Ms Bhutto fell from an impact from a bump on a sun roof is absolutely rubbish. It is dangerous nonsense, because it implies there was no assassination attempt," a spokeswoman for Ms Bhutto's PPP party, Sherry Rehman, told the BBC.

""There was a clear bullet wound at the back of the neck. It went in one direction and came out another... My entire car is coated with her blood, my clothes, everybody - so she did not concuss her head against the sun roof."

My inclination is always disbelieve governmental authorities, whether American or Pakistani. They always have political and personal motives for avoiding the truth.

FOREIGN POLICY OF BUSH/CHENEY/RICE NOW OUT OF OPTIONS FOR PAKISTAN

We all know that Bush, Cheney and Condoleeza Rice have been pushing for Benazir Bhutto to return to Pakistan from exile and participate in the forthcoming elections, so that she could add some legitimacy to the Pervez Musharraf regime, perhaps even sharing power with dictator Musharraf. Today Benazir Bhutto was assassinated.

Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler report on today's web page of The Washington Post:

"The assassination today of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto is a major blow to the U.S. goal of stabilizing Pakistan, a volatile ally with nuclear weapons that has served as a frontline against extremism since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to former U.S. policymakers and experts.

"The abrupt loss of a leading pro-U.S. political figure threatens the transition to democracy in Pakistan and leaves both Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Bush administration strategies vulnerable, they said."

Instead of opposing Musharraf for what he has done against the rule of law in Pakistan and the mockery he has made of civil liberties by beating and locking up lawyers and judges, Bush/Cheney/Rice are seeking to support him in his quest to remain in power. That's why they urged the unfortunate Benazir Bhutto to return to Pakistan and seek elected office. They thought she would stabilize and support Musharraf.

Write Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler:

"The administration was clearly taken aback by Bhutto's death, despite earlier assassination attempts and ongoing threats against her. . . .

"The United States is particularly concerned about the potential for initial demonstrations to become open-ended protests against the Musharraf government. U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson is also reaching out to other opposition parties and civil society groups to urge calm, U.S. officials said."

The assassination of Ms. Bhutto again brings into sharp focus the shallowness of U.S. foreign policy under the Bush gang. Instead of supporting the Pakistani middle class in their uprising against Musharraf, Bush & Co. can think of nothing but plugging the dike against Pakistani Islamists. Their plan to install Bhutto has now come to a tragic denouement. The Pakistani lawyers, judges and middle class are now solidly anti-American and anti- United States. And Bush/Cheney/Rice have no alternative policy for Pakistan. In their quest to make the world do their bidding, the American "leaders" have run out of options.

WHERE IS BUSH'S OUTRAGE OVER MUSHARRAF'S KICKING OUT PAKISTAN'S SUPREME COURT?

The New York Times runs an article today written by Jane Perlez on the mess in Pakistan.

Talking about Musharraf's illegal and unjustified firing of the Chief Justice of the Pakistan Supreme Court because the court would not go along with Musharraf's bid to remain in power in violation of the Pakistan Constitution, Perlez writes:

"Three other leading lawyers remain under house arrest, including Aitzaz Ahsan, the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
"Sixty of about 100 judges who served on the Supreme Court and four provincial high courts have been ordered to remain in their homes because they have refused to take the new oath of office under emergency rule, according to Wajihuddin Ahmed, a former Supreme Court judge.
"The chief justice and his court were the centerpiece of Mr. Musharraf’s emergency decree. The president accused the court, and Mr. Chaudhry in particular, of being ready to block his re-election, and dismissed the entire bench."

Chief Justice Chaudhry let it be known that the court would not agree with Musharraf's power grab, and that the court would rule against him. So Musharraf kicked out the members of the court and replaced them with his own people.

Yet Bush and Rice and the government of the United States has remained oddly quiet about this destruction of the rule of law in Pakistan. I thought Bush was the great proponent of "freedom" and "democracy"? Here when it comes to a supposed "ally," Bush says not one word of protest.

Writes Perlez:

"The United States and other Western governments have stopped short of calling for the restoration of the Supreme Court, even as they have pressed Mr. Musharraf to lift emergency rule in time for the elections.
"The Western governments have been reluctant to insist on the return of the old Supreme Court because, like Mr. Musharraf, they say Mr. Chaudhry was interfering in the executive branch, a Western diplomat said."

Wait! Where is Perlez getting her information? She writes that western governments have not insisted on Chaudhry's re-instatement because "they say Mr. Chaudhry was interfering in the executive branch . . ."

There is absolutely no credible evidence presented so far to show that Chief Justice Chaudhry was "interfering in the executive branch." Furthermore, who is this western diplomat who Ms. Perlez uses as a source for this statement? And how come Perlez does not offer any challenge to this charge?

MUSHARRAF SAYS HE WILL LIFT MARTIAL LAW, BUT WHERE ARE THE LAWYERS AND JUDGES HE THREW IN JAIL?

Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf has agreed to rescind his emergency rule order on December 16th, reports Pamela Constable for The Washington Post today.

"Musharraf stepped down as army chief on Wednesday, meeting a key demand of opposition groups and Western allies. As he was sworn in to a new five-year term on Thursday, he pledged to seek reconciliation with opponents and move the country toward the "complete essence of democracy." But he also lashed out at the West for its "obsession" with a version of democracy and human rights that he said does not fit Pakistani society."

Oh, is it "western obsession" to object to the firing of the Chief Justice of the Pakistan Supreme Court when he disagrees with allowing you Musharraf to run for president at the same time as you are head of the army? And I wonder how Pakistani lawyers will understand a "version of democracy" that says there should not be free speech and free association? Or how about the lawyers and judges now in incarceration because they dared to disagree with Musharraf's stunted understanding of "democracy" - how will they understand Musharraf's version of democracy?

BHUTTO CALLS FOR RELEASE OF JUDGES, LAWYERS - IT'S ABOUT TIME

It is about time that Benazir Bhutto has come out with an appeal to free Pakistani Supreme Court Justice Chaudhry and the other Pakistani judges and lawyers who have been arrested by that dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Bhutto has been back in Pakistan for several weeks, yet only today did I read on the website of the BBC where she calls for the jurists' release. Without the freeing of the judges, Pakistan will exist without the rule of law.

This whole sordid affair shows the shallowness of U.S. foreign policy towards Musharraf and Pakistan. The U.S. policy centers on Musharraf whereas it should center on Pakistan and its people. Instead of arming Musharraf and the Pakistan army, the U.S. should be assisting the hoi polloi, the common peoeple, with roads, schools and hospitals.

SEN. BIDEN PROPOSES NEW FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS PAKISTAN

Sen. Joe Biden has released his new policy towards Pakistan. What I like about it is that it avoids helping Pakistan militarize, and instead it concentrates on non-military aid to help the people of Pakistan in their everyday needs. It is not a Musharraf policy but a Pakistan policy. It is focused on the people, not merely on its leader.

For purposes of disclosure, I have contributed to Sen. Biden's campaign, as well as to that of Sen. Obama, Dodd and Edwards.

Sen. Biden describes the elements of his plan:

"Here are the four elements of this new strategy.

"First, triple non-security aid, to $1.5 billion annually. For at least a decade. This aid would be unconditioned: it's our pledge to the Pakistani people. Instead of funding military hardware, it would build schools, clinics, and roads.

"Second, condition security aid on performance. We should base our security aid on clear results. We're now spending well over $1 billion annually, and it's not clear we're getting our money's worth. I'd spend more if we get better returns--and less if we don't.

"Third, help Pakistan enjoy a "democracy dividend." The first year of democratic rule should bring an additional $1 billion -- above the $1.5 billion non-security aid baseline. And I would tie future non-security aid -- again, above the guaranteed baseline -- to Pakistan's progress in developing democratic institutions and meeting good-governance norms.

"Fourth, engage the Pakistani people, not just their rulers. This will involve everything from improved public diplomacy and educational exchanges to high impact projects that actually change people's lives."

What I like is the emphasis on schools, clinics and roads. Also educational exchanges and high impact projects that change people's lives.

Instead of more Bush/Cheney militarism and threats of bombs and missiles, Biden has come up with an alternative using friendship and diplomacy.

PAKISTAN STILL REELING OVER BARACK OBAMA'S RASH WORDS

At this early point in the 2008 presidential elections, I favor on balance Barack Obama. But I am still puzzled by his gratuitous statement that he would have U.S. forces go after Qaeda types in Pakistan if Pakistan itself took no action.

Assuming President Musharraf said the same about the U.S., i.e., that Pakistani forces would enter the U.S. to chase after some American terrorist threatening Pakistan, why the whole American people would rise up and react with anger and insult. So we can understand Musharraf's annoyance at Obama's gaffe.

In celebration of Pakistan's 60th anniversary of independence from British-ruled India, Musharraf again bristled at Obama's American moralistic unilateralism. Writes the BBC:

"President Musharraf marked the anniversary by staunchly defending sovereignty and calling on the nation to unite against terrorism . . .

"Both President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz launched strong defences of national sovereignty to mark the day.

"In comments released by the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan, President Musharraf fiercely rejected allegations that his anti-terrorism platform was for the benefit of the US.

""We are not confronting terrorism for America, we are doing it for ourselves," he said.
"I see everything from Pakistan's point of view. Now if Pakistan's point of view suits America, all right." "

Here we see the results of the American heavy handed diplomatic (?) approach to Pakistan and Musharraf. "If you're not with us, your against us," as Richard Armitage, then deputy Secretary of State, was reported by Musharraf to have told the Pakistan government after 9/11. In other words, do what we Americans tell you to do.

No awareness of what the Pakistanis think. No awareness of how Pakistanis view extremists jihadists. No respect for the sovereignty of Pakistan.

Add to this Barack Obama's unilateralism and we are on the verge of making a friendly nation into a hostile one.

PLEASE BARACK OBAMA, SAY IT AIN'T SO

I am still reeling over Barack Obama's declaration that he would unilaterally use force to pursue terrorists in Pakistan if Pervez Musharraf and other Pakistani authorities did not cooperate. Imagine if some other foreign leader made a similar declaration that his country would use force to pursue some criminal or terrorist operating within the United States! How would Americans feel about that? Not kindly, to be sure.

So Munir Ahmad writes for the Associate Press today:

"Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country.

"Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.

""It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News."

As I have indicated in a previous post, I have contributed to Obama's campaign. But after this gaffe, I need to take a hard look at why I felt Obama was my candidate. Making a statement like this is almost inexcusable, something akin to foolishly saying that Iran is the "enemy."

Juan Cole writes today in his Informed Comment:

"It is highly undesirable for a presidential candidate to spark this sort of reaction in a country allied with the US. In my view, the episode derives from inexperience on foreign policy and from bad advice from campaign managers and speech writers.

"The question is, can Obama repair the damage or was this the moment when the Democratic grassroots decided he is not ready for prime time?"

WHAT IS BARACK OBAMA SAYING ABOUT USING FORCE AGAINST PAKISTAN?

I don't understand Barack Obama. Now he wants to strike inside Pakistan. Has he ever heard of international law? Pakistan is a sovereign country. No other country, and that means the United States, has a legal right to send bombs and war planes crashing down into Pakistan without the permission of the sovereign.

I confess, I have contributed to Obama's campaign, just today, and now I am totally besides myself for contributing to someone who thinks that the problem of Islamic terrorism can be solved by mounting a "war" against the terrorists. This is Bush-think, and I still cannot understand or approve of Obama for being in favor of it.

Jeff Zeleny writes in The New York Times:

"Senator Barack Obama said today that the United States should shift its focus from the war in Iraq to a fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He said that if the Pakistani government fails to eradicate terror operations inside its borders, the United States should withhold aid and should strike Al Qaeda targets there itself.

"Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is seeking his party’s presidential nomination, said the Bush administration’s Iraq policy has made America more vulnerable to attack, and has weakened the country’s position in pressing the president of Pakistan, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to close down terrorist training camps.

"“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act,” Mr. Obama said today, “we will.”"

Obama has gone off on the road on this one. How about getting the United Nations involved instead of antagonizing some 100 million Pakistanis by threatening their nation with U.S. armed action? If I want someone who recklessly makes use of American military power, I might as well support Bush. Obama needs to retract this uncalled-for and thoughtless threat against another sovereign nation.