If America was attacked again, would Pres. Obama consider Pakistan responsible

[bigtree]

. . . and then stage wider military assaults against their nation, as if at war?

President Obama today: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/03/prepared_remarks_of_president_barack_obama_a_new_s.php

"If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it - too - is likely to have ties to al Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake."

[Swede]

1. no

[bigtree]

4. Consider the extent to which he's committed to military action in Afghanistan

. . . and ask yourself, to what degree he would consider a politically unstable Pakistan enough of a threat, in that instance, to act militarily in a similar manner to which he's committed in Afghanistan?

[Brazenly Liberal]

2. He would consider them responsible if they were responsible.

Obama is not George Bush. He doesn't make up the answer he wants and then go looking for/creating evidence to support it. While he feels any major attack in the near future is likely to have ties to AQ in Pakistan, it would be completely out of character for him to assume that's the case if/when it actually happens.

[Taverner]

3. I hope not

His trend towards Neoconservativism is troubling.

First he attacks Pakistan, then goes back on his word vis a vis Med Marijuana, then keeps handing out cash to the banks and AIG, and now this....

[bigtree]

6. I think his 'trend' is a bit more complicated than that

I think he has genuine progressive instincts and beliefs, but I don't think he's secure enough in those liberal points of view to make decisions in their perspective alone. Whether for political reasons or pragmatic ones, Mr. Obama has demonstrated his progressiveness as a compromise between his liberal instincts and the insistence of the more conservative opposition and the Pentagon holdovers he's retained from the recalcitrant administration which preceded him.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. I suspect he'd consider Al Queda to be at fault, and insist on Pakistan

doing more - under threat of losing US support and funding - against them. (While covertly sending in predator drones and maybe special ops team in to target AQ.)

He would not consider Pakistan to be complicit, and open hostilities against them.

[elocs]

7. Ahh, the "if" game. It's a web of many strands that is endless.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. What if, what if, what if..........?

[bigtree]

9. funny that

. . . all of this militarism's main justifications rest with an endless web of 'what ifs'.

[Canuckistanian]

8. One thing's for sure - he won't attack Morocco or Syria or Egypt or...

or Iran or Sudan or Tunisia or Burkina Faso.

He'll use his intelligence services to find the source of the attack and convince other countries to participate in hunting them down.

If it comes down to Pakistan, he should hold them accountable. Pakistan has been a rogue nation masquerading as an ally for too long.