Obama, McCain underline policy differences on Pakistan

September 27, 2008

Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain stressed important differences in approach to Pakistan in their first debate.

d1.jpg

On the surface, Obama advocated a tougher line, as he has done since the start of his campaign. “If the United States has al Qaeda, (Osama) bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out,” he said. He talked about the $10 billion Washington had given to Pakistan in aid over the last seven years, saying it had failed to rid the border region of al Qaeda and the Taliban

“You have got to deal with Pakistan,” the Illinois senator said, and I coudn’t help thinking how those words will play out in a nation already under immense pressure from both the militants  and the United States.

McCain was more considered, saying he would work with the Pakistan government and that new President Asif Ali Zardari’s  (whose name he seemed to have mis-pronounced) had his plate  full. And he accused his rival of threatening Pakistan with military strikes. “You don’t say that aloud. If you have to do things, you have  to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government,” he  said.

Victims of a hotel bombing in Islamabad

As the New York Times said, Obama’s position is closer to President George W. Bush who this summer is reported to have authorised American special forces to cross the Afghan-Pakistan border into Pakistan’s tribal areas that al Qaeda and the Taliban have used as a sanctuary.

At its core, the candidates’ argument was about the “central front” in the war on terror. Obama said it was, and always has been, Pakistan’s tribal areas and the neighboring areas of Afghanistan. Iraq, he argued, was a dangerous distraction. McCain made the case that Iraq was the central front, noting that bin Laden himself had declared it the battle ground with America.

But Obama isn’t about to be attacking Pakistan and it would be a mischaracterisation to say he was advocating that position, says Changing up Pakistan blog. During the debate the Democrat made no mention of an attack on Pakistan’s sovereignty, on its people, or on the government, it said.

So how much is the difference between Obama and McCain’s positions on Pakistan one of presentation rather than substance? And equally importantly, would Obama’s strong words on Pakistan come back to haunt him if he were elected president and then compelled to carry through on his threat?
 
 
 

7 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Although I feel Obama is more younger better candidate for President, given the fact Joe Biden has better opinion of providing assistance to Pakistan in social sector. But, on Pakistan policy in wider context I think what John McCain said in the 1st debate of doing things in a particular manner and working with Pakistan is a better strategy. Given Obama’s inexperience and given the tense situation on Afghan-Pakistan border where already there is cross-fire between Pakistan and US troops and US spy planes are crashing their is a growing danger of clash between Pakistan Army and US forces in Iraq. We need cool heads and good hearts in Washington to save this region from the atrocities like those in Iraq.

Posted by Umair | Report as abusive

sorry for typo,
read above there is a growing danger of clash between Pakistan Army and US forces in Afghanistan.

Posted by Umair | Report as abusive

Obama made many mistakes last night including stating that as president he would bomb Pakistan. This is not the kind of President we need to run this country, one that would make a friend into an enemy. I wonder how many Pakistan People we have in this country that would beg to differ with this decision.

Posted by Cynthia | Report as abusive

c’mon Obama go get Osama! boooommmmmb Pak boooommmmmb….

Posted by Indian | Report as abusive

F*uck you Indian.

Posted by Umair | Report as abusive

Umair

lol

Posted by Indian | Report as abusive

Looks like dead end to pakistan..with both the US president candidates wanting to hit pakistan..with one with a little exp screaming “i want to hit them” the grown up man saying ” hit them hard but just dont talk about it “..I like both the candidates.there is no much difference between them on what to do..but the difference is just how to do.

Posted by Om | Report as abusive

[...] course, McCain had criticized rival Barack Obama during Friday’s debate for that (McCain is pro-negotiation, whereas Obama is more hawkish, especially if al Qaeda were “in [...]

[...] McCain – do you even recall who his V.P. running-mate was, Sarah (?) –  stated that he (McCain) would not violate Pakistan’s sovereignty by going after terrorists in it’s t….  In deep contrast to that “coddle your friends” policy, President Obama made it clear [...]

[...] it being deserved. But like you said, without specifics, it's little more than conjecture. Eh? LINK [...]