“I think things could have been done somewhat differently,” Paul said this week. “I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he’s been in prison. Why can’t we work with the government?”
I don’t agree with Paul on this per se but he is correct that the takedown of KSM was a joint op and this is not a daffy argument he is making. It might be that things have changed since Musharaff left office, or there was evidence the Pakis were actually holding UBL under a house arrest of some sort, or some other wild card fact that dictated the raid be unilateral.
None of us knows everything that went on (except those few who do). But I’d give Paul some lattitude on this comment. It’s a reasonable assetion given what we DO know.
No it is not reasonable. Pakistan is clearly a sketchy ally at best. We barely trust their intelligence services and there is clear evidence that some within the ISI and military actively support terrorists. Here we have a chance to get UBL, the #1 terrorist in the world and responsible for all the death and carnage of 9-11 and Ron Paul thinks we should have worked with the Pakistani's? No thanks Paul. This nation got a good shot at taking Bin Laden down and properly went for it. Sitting around trying to work with the with the ISI and hoping the Paki's don't tip off the targets would have been lunacy. For some low level targets, sure work with the Pakistani's. But for the big enchilada, no way you trust Pakistan.
See, this is the lunacy you get from a libertarian like Ron Paul. Shame too, because he is so right in many areas dealing with the economy. Unfortunately, as a libertarian his nutty foreign and defense policies would be downright disastrous for this country.