In John McCain and Sarah Palin's parent teacher conference interview with Katie Couric, both candidates implicitly say that they would cross the border into Pakistan to pursue terrorist targets; they just say you shouldn't talk about it.
U.S. forces have engaged in cross-border raids on militants inside Pakistan in recent weeks which have prompted a violent response from Pakistani armed forces. According to The Economist, even the recent Marriot bombing has failed to turn public opinion against Islamic militants -- most Pakistanis place blame on "government, for its pro-American policies, on India or on America itself." The raids further destabilize the already weak civilian government. Former Lt. Gen. Talat Masood of Pakistan, in an interview with Foreign Policy, pointed out that U.S. raids into Pakistan give the militants there legitimacy by allowing them to claim that they are "resisting a foreign power."
Daniel Larison and others have criticized Obama for pursuing a "Bush-like" policy in Pakistan, and while they're right to raise concerns, I'm not positive that Obama and Bush are following the same path -- although it's not clear that they aren't. Obama has been careful to use the phrase "high value terrorist targets" in justifying the idea of military strikes inside Pakistan, and has often used Osama bin Laden as an example -- a choice that may be for rhetorical purposes or may be an important distinction between Obama's policy and Bush's. It hasn't been clear from the press reports that the targets the U.S. military has pursued into Pakistan have been worth the response.
So it would seem that this approach has some pretty serious drawbacks, if not disqualifying factors. It may be counterproductive, or given certain circumstances, it may even be necessary, but Obama should be clear about whether or not he supports the policy as being pursued by Bush right now, which Blake Hounshell calls "folly."
--A. Serwer
