The spin cycle in politics and journalism now whirs at such speed that recent, still classified, events are rapidly subject to hindsight analysis. For example: aborted 2005 U.S. plan to strike Al Qaeda leaders in North Pakistan. In July, 2007, the non-event was scrutinized on the front page of the New York Times
The military explores—and scraps—potential plans on a regular basis. What makes this one special is the reason given: the U.S. feared damaging political relationships with Pakistan, whose position as an ally in the war on terrorism has been complex. The Bush Administration's political reluctance to approve military action, in this instance, against Al Qaeda is sure to be compared to similar reluctance during the Clinton administration (as indeed it already has been by officials quoted on the second page of the article.
The comparison actually provides a fruitful opportunity for dropping the lens of partisanship that stymies real analysis, and taking a closer look. Both a Democratic and a Republican president have been challenged by the complexity of pursuing non-state militants in foreign sovereign territory. The pursuit of non-state actors like Al Qaeda inevitably will pit military opportunities to effectively strike adversaries against political necessity of maintaining a system of alliances with other states. This is a puzzle worth thinking about, since the president elected in 2008, regardless of party, will face exactly the same issue.
Also of interest: How Militancy is Made: the Case of the Pakistan Bombings | Afghanistan and Pakistan Bicker over Who Does Less to Stop Terrorism
