I think it is safe to say that Obama has effectively handed over the Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton after advocating for Operation Pakistani Freedom. Here is why Obama is way off base on this.

Musharaff is playing a delicate balancing act in Pakistan. He would like nothing more than crush the Al Qaida/Taliban in his country after all they have tried to assassinate him multiple times, but he can’t act if it appears he is doing it as a proxy for the US.

Thus he is doing everything possible to give the Taliban/Al Qaida operatives enough rope to hang themselves with. He will not take any bold action against the terrorists until the terrorists do something so extreme that the Pakistani public demands something be done. Then and only then can Musharraf crush the terrorists without looking like a US puppet. People don’t realize how much not looking like a US puppet matters to many countries in the world even when such action is in their best interest.

An American invasion of Pakistan tribal areas would cause outrage with the Pakistan public and demand Musharaff to do something to stop it. He will have to do something because if he doesn’t then he may be toppled. The US needs basing and overflight rights over Pakistan. He may pull these rights which will greatly hamper operations in Afghanistan because all the air support would have to come in from the north. There is plenty more other things he can do as well.

This is why the status quo is what it is now, however you would have to be very naive to think that the US doesn’t secretly have teams in the tribal areas conducting operations of some sort now and naive is what Obama is.

I think Ralph Peters sums up the ridiculousness of this proposal quite well:

Here’s why he’s nuts:

* Pakistan is a nuclear power on the brink of internal collapse. Do we really want to drive it over the edge and see loose nukes in the hands of a radicalized military faction – or terrorists?

* The mountain ranges where the terrorists are holed up are vast. The terrain is some of the toughest in the world. An invasion would suck in hundreds of thousands of troops. And a long occupation would be required.

* Even those tribesmen who don’t support the Taliban or al Qaeda are proud and xenophobic to extremes – they’d rally against us. And all of the senator’s bloggers couldn’t stop them.

* The Pakistani military would fight us. Right now, they’re cooperating, at least to some degree – but they’d fight any invader.

* President Pervez Musharraf’s government would fall – probably overthrown by Islamic nationalists in the military and security services. Welcome to your Islamofascist nuclear power, senator.

* We’d also have to occupy a big corridor through Baluchistan, Pakistan’s vast southwest, since we’d lose our current overflight rights and hush-hush transit privileges on the ground.

An army at war needs a lot of fuel, ammunition, food, water, Band-Aids, replacements, etc. (not the sort of things armchair strategists bother about). Afghanistan is landlocked and surrounded by unfriendly states. Pakistan has been helping us keep our troops supplied. And you couldn’t sustain Operation Obama by air. The senator hasn’t even looked at a map.

* Along with giving away the game in Iraq, an invasion of Pakistan would create a terrorist-recruiting double whammy: The Middle East would mobilize against us – and what could we expect after we invaded a friendly Islamic state?

* Our troops are tired and their gear’s worn out. (Obama wouldn’t know, and he doesn’t care.) They’re fighting on in Iraq because they see progress and they have a sense of duty. But does the senator, who clearly doesn’t know any soldiers and Marines, expect them to surrender Iraq – then plunge into Pakistan without a collapse in morale?

* Even setting aside the nuke issue, what would President Obama do when Pakistan, an Islamic nation of 170 million, broke into bits? Would we also occupy Karachi, Lahore and other megacities, after they turned into urban jungles where the terrorist became the king of beasts?

Go after al Qaeda? You bet. Anywhere, anytime. But we’ve got to do it in a way that makes military sense. A general staff recruited from MoveOn.org isn’t going to enhance our security. (HT: Captain’s Journal)

If you think this gaffe was bad, Obama’s missteps have only gotten worse:

Regarding terrorist targets in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, Obama told The Associated Press Thursday: “I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance.” He then added: “Involving civilians.”

Seeming to think twice about his response, Obama then said, “Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.”

Who is advising this guy? Hillary has got to be loving the Obama meltdown this past week.

So basically in an Obama presidency the only question is going to be is which country to invade first, Sudan or Pakistan? And the left thinks George Bush is a warmonger? Democrats are only anti-war when its not their war. The absurdity of Obama shows this. I never thought I would say this, but Hillary is sounding better and better every day. I’ll take a pragmatic liberal over a naive liberal any day.