On the Question of Taking Out Bin Laden in Pakistan

McCain and other "conservatives" have ridiculed Obama for saying that he would be willing to unilaterally use force to take out bin Laden if the Pakistan Government was unwilling or unable to do so. Now, setting aside the discussion of international law and violating Pakistani sovereignty, is this really where the right wing wants to go on this issue? Surely what Obama is saying is hardly revolutionary in any way. Is there a single person in the whole world who doubts that the U.S. would launch a cruise missile at bin Laden the second America knows where he is, regardless of what country he's in? If you were to predict world outrage at yet another example of American unilateralism, would you pick this issue as a cause célèbre?

But, of course, that is not the crux of their objection. McCain, rather cutely, says: We will do it if we must, but we should not advertise this in advance. Why? Because bin Laden has been deluded into thinking that he was safe across the border? Or that Pakistan didn't think the U.S. would do such a thing?

So, we arrive at the last objection: that this language unnecessarily antagonizes our ally (Pakistan). This is a valid criticism, but does anyone besides me find this newfound concern for our country's image hilarious coming from the right wing? Moreover, since the two candidates are fighting for American votes, which party's base would you expect to be more offended by bellicose rhetoric? Is McCain really spending precious time arguing that Obama is the hawkish one? And this is supposed to win over which types of voters? Call me naïve, but I do not think the Republicans should be wasting their time on this topic.