Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/update

• escalated the Afghanistan War - perhaps to success when on May 1st he announced that the United States had killed September 11th mastermind and terrorist Osama bin Laden

I'd take issue with this statement. The War on Terror, Afghan & Iraq operations, were alweays preventative in nature, not retribution. Killing bin Laden was pure retribution, and risks (a) further reprisal actions from al qaeda, (b) loss of a key ally in the War on Terror, Pakistan. Further, just as the Iraq operation had nothing to do with War on Terror, as GW Bush critics loudly maintained, what pray tell does an unauthorized invasion of an ally, in this case Pakistan, have to do with the Afghan War? Rob Smith 11:35, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

Hm - I wonder if no part of the War if Afghanistan was retributive, but you're right that even if part was that doesn't make it a success. I'll change the wording (as soon as I think of what to write)--IDuan 11:49, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

The execution of bin Laden marks a policy change in the war on terror: it no longer is to prevent future attacks, but it focal point has been retribution for past actions. And a key ally has been sacrificed for the future. This is a marked change. Rob Smith 12:18, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

I think you might be jumping ahead a little - as of now Pakistan is still an ally, and in fact apologizing for incompetence. Also his execution has been a focal point since President Bush announced that he would be taken "dead or alive", and on bin Laden's computers we found tentative plans for future attacks - so there was some preventative aspect. But we shall see - perhaps the future will prove you correct, but personally I think the bullet to his head could potentially be what is the killing blow to an organization that now finds itself obsolete and without a charismatic leader. But alas, I'm getting off point :)

What would you say your expertise in? I'm not an expert in really any issue, so I can do research and write about whatever, but obviously if you're an expert in his, say, early life, then I'd want to leave that to you.--IDuan 13:07, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

• Although the Obama administration says Pakistan was not involved or given advance warning about the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, top U.S. officials said the al-Qaeda leader never would have been found and killed without the counter-terrorism cooperation between the two countries over the past few years. - CNN, May 2, 2011.
• Pakistan military on Thursday warned that any action similar to the Abbottabad operation, violating the country’s sovereignty, will warrant a review of the level of military and intelligence cooperation with the United States, and demanded it to reduce the strength of its troops in the country to the “minimum essential” levels. - Daily Times of Pakisatan, May 6, 2011.

So, while this may be a victory for Obama's approval ratings and reelection efforts, it's hardly a victory for the war on terror, coalition building, or preventing future attacks. Rob Smith 13:21, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

Hmm, very true - you've convinced me; it will likely hurt U.S.-Pakistani ties. I suppose I'm just unsure this was really a change in policy; I think President Bush (based on reactions of his cabinet and his own reaction) would have made the same call. By the way - I just did a stub section on healthcare (which is a subsection of the economy).--IDuan 13:29, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

Aside, my gut feeling is Bush would not nave violated Pakistan's territorial integrity without consent. Much remains shrouded in secrecy, but a few things are certain, the US knew of his whereabouts for some exteneded period of time beforehand, and his location next to the Pakistan military academy is curious, to put it mildly.

As for experise, historical writing is my first interest, coupled with economics. Rob Smith 13:52, 7 May 2011 (EDT)