I've expressed concern in the past that Barack Obama's Pakistan policy may be identical to George Bush's. While Obama has said he would go after high-level terrorist targets in Pakistan without the Pakistani government's approval, for the past few weeks instances in which American troops have entered into Pakistan have been a disaster, with Pakistani troops actually opening fire on American soldiers.
Spencer Ackerman tries to parse the difference between Obama's and Bush's approaches and discern if there is in fact a difference. At least one expert says no but that the question of Pakistan's approval is not entirely straightforward:
“Each attack blamed on us makes us more unpopular,” said Ronald Neumann, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan from 2005 to 2007. Yet, Neumann added, “If you had a clear high-value target or no collateral damage, what would be the difference in the order Obama proposes to give than what [Bush is] doing now? I don’t see it.”
The retired ambassador suggested that a likely scenario would have Obama reaching an “understanding” with the Zardari and Kayani that would never be put on paper. “Something really has to be worked out over time with the Pakistanis,” Neumann said. “It’s not something one can structure, purely theoretically, in Washington. There will probably be pushing back and forth both ways.”
There isn't any politically tenable way for Zardari or any potential Pakistani leader to publicly approve American incursions into Pakistan. They are deeply unpopular and they gin up sympathy for the very radicals Americans are trying to eliminate.
While certain high-level targets might be worth the side-effects, it is probably best for American interests that, should Obama win, he be far more discreet about taking such action than the Bush administration has been so far. It's still not so clear that he would be. The benefits of this approach are limited at best. As Ackerman points out, in the long run, the U.S. needs to find a way to convince Pakistan to fight the radicals themselves; there's only so much the U.S. military can do on its own.
--A. Serwer