Wherein Juan Cole Loses the Thread

–updated–

Oh, for criminy sakes! President Obama has been in office less than one week, but a notable Middle East scholar, someone very respected, is asking whether Obama delivering on his campaign rhetoric regarding Pakistan (see drone strike last week), well, could it signal “Obama’s Vietnam?” Talk about your wingnut New Years gift, presented on the wings of hyperbole.

On Friday, President Barack Obama ordered an Air Force drone to bomb two separate Pakistani villages, killing what Pakistani officials said were 22 individuals, including between four and seven foreign fighters. Many of Obama’s initiatives in his first few days in office — preparing to depart Iraq, ending torture and closing Guantánamo — were aimed at signaling a sharp turn away from Bush administration policies. In contrast, the headline about the strike in Waziristan could as easily have appeared in December with “President Bush” substituted for “President Obama.” Pundits are already worrying that Obama may be falling into the Lyndon Johnson Vietnam trap, of escalating a predecessor’s halfhearted war into a major quagmire. What does Obama’s first military operation tell us about his administration’s priorities?[...] – Juan Cole

Really? Already? “Lyndon Johnson” and “major quagmire” all at once, with “Vietnam trap” the cherry on top? And from Juan Cole. You expect this crap from Bob Woodward, but Cole? More:

The risk Obama takes in continuing the Bush administration policy of bombing Pakistani territory is provoking further anger in the public of that country against the United States and harming the legitimacy of Zardari’s fragile elected government. A Gallup poll done last summer found that 45 percent of Pakistanis believe that the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan poses a threat to their country. Of Pakistanis who expressed an opinion on the matter, an overwhelming majority believed that the cooperation between the U.S. and the Pakistani military in the “war on terror” has mainly benefited Washington. If a more muscular American policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan sufficiently angers the Pakistani public, they could start voting for religious parties, delivering a nuclear state into the hands of Muslim fundamentalists.

Could? Yeah, and Osama could be caught tomorrow.

Whether President Obama approved continuing these strikes or not, he did, the fundamentalists in Pakistan will continue their work to make an Islamic state independent of what the new American President does or does not do. That’s no reason for U.S. policy to shift away from targeting militants for military strike in FATA, if intelligence proves it worthy. As Cole states at the end of his piece, it’s not like military strikes are the only part of Obama’s Af-Pak strategy:

Obama’s policy toward Pakistan is not solely military. He appointed as his special advisor on Pakistan and Afghanistan veteran diplomat Richard Holbrooke, who played an important role in peace negotiations over Bosnia in the 1990s. The new president, who has praised Pakistan’s return to civilian parliamentary rule, has pledged to triple civilian aid. Opinion polling shows that more civilian development monies and less focus on military equipment are precisely what a majority of the Pakistani public want. Obama also intends to tie the annual amount of military aid released to the actual performance of the Pakistani military in preventing cross-border raids of FATA militants into Afghanistan. Allegations have swirled for the past year that rogue cells in the feared Inter-Services Intelligence of the Pakistani military have been actively sending the militants to hit targets inside Afghanistan, including the Indian embassy at Kabul.

The Jamaat-e-Islami protest picture accompanying Juan Cole’s piece almost seems like a tease. Like if radical Islamists are protesting the drone strike, just how bad could it be? Oh, right, Pakistan is teetering, so one push might do it. Some think the argument should be no military action at all, which includes in Afghanistan, using Iraq, Vietnam… and every other prior military engagement as proof that military engagement isn’t wise, so it cannot work or shouldn’t be done.

Utilizing military scapegoats in order to define engagement commitment and policy shift should not be confused with good debate.

Schake is asking exactly the right question — which many advising Obama seem to not be investigating vigorously. Why are the Taliban succeeding so dramatically in the assessments of Afghans? And what has happened to the residual support that Brzezinski hoped would hold us over? – Steve Clemons

In other words, unlike Bush, who made everything about Anything But What Clinton Did, Obama will approve airstrikes if they are warranted in Pakistan (or elsewhere), not stop them just because it was Bush policy. Obviously some will refuse the distinction, proving that Obama is just like Bush. Ri-ight.

But “Obama’s Vietnam?” This is where esteemed liberals are willing to take the plot line just one week out from Obama’s inauguration? Doesn’t bode well for the upcoming Af-Pak debate, but this is what traditional media sources are talking about when they report about “the antiwar left” going after Obama.

Sean Hannity says thanks. Or who knows, maybe it’s a gift.

UPDATE: Juan Cole responds.

Share