Now that's a chickenhawk statement if I ever heard one!

Obama never used the word invade. He simply said he would have let the targeted operation go forward that Bush aborted.

First, there is a world of difference between a targeted strike and an invasion. Second, you really are being uncreative and knee-jerk in your response. This is obviously an implicit attack on the Clintons, as the Clintons refused to take out Osama by missile when they had him in their crosshairs because Sandy Berger suspected they lacked proper authorization. Playing up the invasion spin just misses the point.

Obama would flee Iraq and invade Pakistan. What a fool. Americans should learn lessons from their military failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You Need To Read, I'm not one for fully trusting anything the AP reports, but, that aside, they do have something from Obama in quotes:

"... It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Obama may have implied what you say he said, but he certainly didn't say what you assert he did. Now maybe you have a transcript; please provide it, then.

As for your assertion that Obama never used the word "invade", CY used the word "invasion" which AP also uses in a summary of a specific portion of his speech:

"The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid."

You need to read again and again until you see it.

As I said, the AP is notorious for getting things wrong, so I did check Obama's Campaign website. Guess what? He didn't actually say what I excerpted from the AP story. Not even close.

So, CY is right in questioning Obama about this if the AP is right. AP might be still be right if it was in the excerpts that Obama provided to AP before the speech, and AP publishing it should be necessary. I'd suggest reading the actual transcript of his speech (or watching the video) but that doesn't guarantee that it is not in what was provided to AP, so again the AP should release the press release they received.

Its pretty clear to me AP is trying to tank Obama...which is unnecessary actually, since he's fully capable of tanking himself without their "help"

With the caveat that what Obama sent AP might still have been reported accurately by AP, I would tend to agree with you Purple. There hundreds of examples where AP could just report what was said by someone. They prefer, instead, to flavor it with how the reporter "heard" it.

That AP is pretty much a population that tends to "hear" things the same thing every time, all the time, I have great doubts that AP is accurate in reporting on anything at all that doesn't have quotes around it and still quite skeptical of any that do.

More grist for the mill:

In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan — with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

The last I checked, the redeployment of troops to a foreign nation, without the blessing of that nation's government, is an invasion.

Reuters, NDTV (India), Guardian (U.K) and other outlets around the globe also recognize this basic bit of fact, that when you send your soldiers into another nation uninvited, it is an invasion.

Quite frankly, whether he used the word invasion is irrelevant.

He either meant he would invade--as the world's media seems to have interpreted his if they "...won't act, we will" comment--or he's incompetent in discussing foreign policy, perhaps proving Hillary correct (and yes, it pains me to utter that phrase).

"The last I checked, the redeployment of troops to a foreign nation, without the blessing of that nation's government, is an invasion."

LOL. So true.

Of course, if we bombed the 2005 "leadership meeting" (like we did in 2006, with poor results) and killed a bunch of civilians w/no leadership, Obama would be complaining about how we are creating more terrorists and we need diplomacy and a smarter war on terror and bla bla lie bla lie fraud bla

Since he was a supporter of the Webb Amendment which would require all those troops being pulled out of Iraq to stay home for an extended period of time I think it is a fair question to ask where he would get the forces for the invasion.

Since when has any recent conservative been so concerned about technically invading a foreign country with a real plan?

Obama desperately needs to look at a topographical map of Afghanistan. He's sounding like a fool. All those armor units we have in Iraq are just targets in Afghanistan.

This is good news for all the 'hawks' on the left that keep on saying we're fighting the wrong war in Iraq. I guess they will all enlist after Obama gets elected, pulls the troops out of Iraq and puts them all in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unless, of course, they are chicken.

Hmmm.

@ Jon Bryan

"Since when has any recent conservative been so concerned about technically invading a foreign country with a real plan?"

That was a **real plan**?

Let's review it shall we?

1. If good intel on presence of AQ leaders
2. Then send in troops.

That's a **real plan**?

I'd suggest that perhaps, just perhaps, your personal threshold for the phrase "real plan" needs to be raised just a tad.

Hmmmm.

@

"Obama desperately needs to look at a topographical map of Afghanistan."

In more ways than one.

Afghanistan is completely landlocked and supplying forces there is a serious issue. And that's considering that the number of forces involved is much smaller than in Iraq.

From Beans to Bullets, Joint Forces
Command Keeps Supplies Moving

The problem with the use of troops in Afghanistan has always been a logistical one. Which is why we used small units of Special Forces combined with local warlords and rebels to overthrow the Taliban. People like to scream about Tora Bora but the reality is that deploying 20,000 American soldiers into the highland mountain regions of Afghanistan would entail tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of tons of supplies. And all of which would have to have been transported and delivered entirely by air transport because in many cases there aren't any roads. And this same dynamic will make operations very difficult in the western part of Pakistan. And that's assuming the Paks won't mind our incursions.

The biggest strength of the modern American military has been it's training, morale and firepower, with an accent on the firepower. But that firepower comes at a significant cost in logistics because it requires enormous amounts of munitions and ammunition all of which will require transportation. And Afghanistan, particularly eastern Afghanistan/western Pakistan, is literally the ass-end of the world where transporting even so much as a candy bar is a time-consuming, expensive and laborious process.

Perhaps Obama could get away with specifically targeted raids by Special Forces, which quite frankly is probably happening now, but any significant number of troops inserted into western Pakistan is going to entail a huge logistical load that will be very vulnerable.

I think the last thing anybody wants is an American version of Paulus's 6th Army at Stalingrad or the French at Dien Bien Phu.

Memomachine:

The other funny thing is where the logistical chain that supplies the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan passes through.

Given the declining relations with Russia (undoubtedly Bush's fault), that makes the 'stans a lot less reliable. I'd guess that we're not running supplies through Iran anytime soon.

So, who has transport connections into Afghanistan?

Any bets on how safe they'll be, once airstrikes, SOF and cruise missiles are going off all over the country?

And if you're outta logistics, you're outta Schlitz.

Brilliant!

Obamas a dill hole.

Pull out of Iraq and hand the place over to Al Qaida, genius. Pull out and give the Baathists a chance to regain control and atart making WMD again, genius. Pull out of Iraq and give nuclear armed, pro terrorist, anti American armed Iran a chance to take over, genius.

The sharp tools of the left seem to think that peasants in the mountains of South Afghanistan are the only targets in the GWOT when it was Saudi Sunnis who learned to fly planes in the US who did 9/11.

Hmmmm.

@ Lurking Observer

*shrug* logistics has always been the Achilles Heel of military operations in that area. If it were easy then those warlords would be so much buzzard bait long ago.

The biggest problem is providing rear-echelon security for the logistical troops. In Iraq the logistical trains are generally kept as short as possible. But in major offensive operations in eastern Afghanistan those chains are going to be pretty long and routed through some desolate terrain. Perfect for raiders.

It's really how the Afghans/Pushtuns have beaten armies in the past. Allow enemy forces to penetrate deeply into the mountainous terrain so the supply chain lengthens to the breaking point and then break that chain. After that they basically wait until the now defensive enemy runs out of ammunition and then they go in for the kill.

Could we do it? Yeah. But it would be extremely ugly, very expensive and is as close to bear-baiting as such things come. Frankly if you're going to do it then you might as well ally with India and then go all out and conquer Pakistan completely.

Don't get me wrong I'm not talking about American invading and conquering Pakistan, I'd leave that to the Army of India. But if you're going to piss off a nuclear power, particularly a nuclear Islamic power, then you aren't going to get any brownie points for going only half-way.

Senator Obama’s voting record on military issues can be found at: http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490&type=category&category=47&go.x=7&go.y=8

Senator Obama’s ratings from special interest groups on military issues can be found at: http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=9490

Project Vote Smart produces the National Political Awareness Test (NPAT), which essentially asks each candidate “Are you willing to tell citizens your positions on the issues you will most likely face on their behalf?” You can find Senator Obama’s responses to the NPAT at: http://votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9490

For more information on Senator Obama’s position on military issues please visit http://www.vote-smart.org or call our hotline at 1-888-VOTE-SMART.

I've been a big advocate of expanding our heavy airlift capacity for quite a while. It has been inadequate for quite a while now. Its also a dual use capability that can be shifted to civilian relief purposes when its not needed.

"I've been a big advocate of expanding our heavy airlift capacity for quite a while."

C-17s are great aircrafts, but there's a reason we're still flying the C-5. If you're flying from Langley AFB to Kuwait via Rota, Spain, I highly recommend flying on plane with a rear facing passenger deck that's older than 95% of the people flying in it. Of course, you truly will not appreciate the rear facing seats unless the auto pilot deciedes to cut out somewhere over the Atlantic, like ours did. Sigh, good times.

I'm not even thinking C5/C17 -- I'm thinking Bill Northrup had the right answer 70 years ago. The structural and aerodynamic advantages of the flying wing are compelling for heavy lift application.

Sadly Obama has no mind to engage.