>>>>These seem to be getting much more common over the last few weeks.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe a departing gift from George to Obama, a nicely mixed up Pakistan.
>>>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7702679.stm
>>>
>>>Airstrikes in Pakistan, raids in Syria....
>>>
>>>I'm beginning to think seriously that the hidden detention camps Bush built are for his own citizens. What else will he do when the entire country rebels against his actions?
>>>
>>>Sheesh, this is getting absolutely ridiculous and dangerous and scary. If Obama wasn't a shoe in already (I believe he was some time ago), he definitely is now.
>>
>>I had to doublecheck to see this was really a message from you. Do you really have a problem with attacking 'safe havens' in Waziristan (given that Pakistan has neither the will nor the means) and do you really see this as any change in policy ?
>>
>>I expect to see a lot more of this in the next 3 months - not to limit Obama's options but to leave him with a more manageable situation.
>>
>>As to those who are talking about Bush doing whatever for his own legacy,that seems to be a pretty big misreading of the man and the situation. If that were his primary concern the last 5 years would have been done very differently. Right or wrong, isn't there just a chance a President might be doing what he thinks is best for the country in a given set of circumstances?
>
>Given the new government in Pakistan, I don't think bombing or airstrikes inside their border when they explicitly forbid it is a good idea for international relations. They do have nukes afterall. Now, I have no idea what type of diplomatic talks went on before the strike. I know of some very strange agreements between countries in the past (you do this and we will publicly denounce it but go no further, etc), but the rest of the muslim world will see it as another example of the U.S. running willy nilly over the world. It may even have been an example of showing the new government in Pakistan who is in charge. If they had valid intelligence that the entire area was a haven for al qaeda then I could see it (and I don't know about that of course). I think more effort (I don't know what if any has been done so far) to work out joint operations with Pakistan makes more sense. The govt is not doing a good job of justifying their actions. Add to that Syria and it becomes a pattern. The question is, a pattern of what? What military or political gain was made?
>
>I should admit that I do know of incidents in the past where strikes were made or actions taken that looked horrible to an outsider. Those who knew of the strategic reasons were comfortable with it given the alternatives and other options. This may be one of those situations, I don't know. I just know from the world's view there was not sufficient justification to basically ignore another country's sovereignity.
>......
>.....
>....
>...
>..
>.
>Besides, can't I play devil's advocate once in a while? :o)

Sure, but remember Bush and Cheney are the Devil {s}

I'd say the activities in Waziristan fall into the category of the US doing what it needs to do with PR or 'World Opinion' being among the least of our worries, and Pakistan being far less upset about it than they pretend - given that the area is more of a threat to the Pakistani gov't than the US gov't. but for internal reasons the Pakistanis cannot move on the tribal areas and need to buy them off or keep them contained.

As to Syria, there is a lot of message-sending involved. Remember, in Syria even the Baathist party is not so much the issue as a very tight group of Alaawites ( headed by the Assads) who run the place like a Mafia fiefdom. Their primary motivation is not ideology but survival. They need to be more afraid of us than they are of either Iraqi Sunnis or Arab al-Queda (and of course the complicating factor is to the Takfiri of Al-Queda the Syrian gov't is even more evil than the Saudi royal family. The only thing that keeps either the US or the Israelis from taking them out (they are much more vulnerable personally than Sadam was for a lot of reasons) is that the Muslim Brotherhood is poised to take the place the minute the Assads show weakness.

That car bomb in Damascus a couple of months ago and the Israeli airstrike near the Turkish border in Sept 07 were a horse's head in the bed. This strike by the US was public. But some day a history will be written of everything that has happened on the Iraq / Syria border and in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon in the last 6 years and I think that is going to put a lot of both the Iraq conflict and Syria into perspective.