>>So now, just because a Democrat reaffirms a key principle of the Bush doctrine, we’re going to disavow it?
Nobody is saying any such thing. If you read the OP you would know that I argue it is perfectly possible that the West might have to go in to Pakistan without the government’s support. We might have to go to war with Pakistan. There are any number of things that might happen.
What is grossly irresponsible is for a credible candidate for President to go round saying things that make this more likely. Undermining Musharraf’s authority is exactly such a thing.
It is far better to quietly and effectively take out al-Qaeda operatives with the co-operation of the Pakistani government than to create a situation where the pro-Western government might fall, and we might find ourselves in a regime change situation. This is a country with three times the population of Iraq and Afghanistan combined and with nuclear weapons. You want to put a Taleban lookalike in power there? You want to have to engineer regime change?
Since Obama’s speech, Musharraf had to postpone his trip to Kabul to speek to the Loya Jirga about joint operations to take more effective control of tribal regions. Well-sourced media outlets suggested he was close to declaring a state of emergency. This would have brought an end to his (apparent) agreement with Benazir Bhutto to form a pro-Western modernising alliance against the Islamists.
Obama’s speech was specifically condemned by both government and opposition figures in Pakistan as describing a situation which would be likely to push Pakistan into the Islamist camp.
Do I think that Obama’s speech was the only, or even the main, factor which destabilised Musharraf’s government this week? No, of course not? Was it mind-bogglingly irresponsible and incredibly badly timed? Oh yeah!