>>>>>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?
>>
>>I agree. Surgical airstrikes are a good thing, and personally, I think Bush is doing what he thinks is right.
>
>Thats surgical as in we wanted to remove your appendix so we disembowelled you just to make sure .

It looks like more a surgical strike in the reports:

Your original link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7702679.stm
Some others:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/31/pakistan.missile.strike/index.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=177795
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2008/10/20081031152157392689.html

They were very small targets and Syria and Pakistan targets were very tightly contained. Were the strikes a military target and were they a military success? We may never know. I've known other incidents that took out very dangerous people but were totally denied on all sides.

Other than the assumption that innocents were killed (we must assume that and it is tragic), what's concerning is that the strikes in Pakistan were shortly after Pakistan’s parliament unanimously passed a resolution on “combating terrorism' I think. Wasn't that on the 23rd or around then?