Three facts to keep in mind on Obama’s pledge to send U.S. forces into Pakistan if “actionable intelligence” suggests when and where an al-Qaeda leader will be…

1) Hillary’s previous comment on sending troops into Pakistan:

US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has said if America sends its troops to the tribal region, they should go with Pakistani troops and not on their own.
At a fund-raising dinner arranged for her by the National Association of Pakistani-Americans, she rejected the suggestion by some US officials and lawmakers that the United States should conduct unilateral military operations in the tribal region to destroy alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban safe havens.
Such a move, she said, would not produce the desired results and would create new problems. Only a combined effort by the Pakistani and US troops could destroy militant hideouts in the area, she added.

2) We have used unmanned predator drones over Pakistani airspace in the past. According to the Post, “The CIA and U.S. military Special Operations forces have been operating inside Pakistan for more than two years with the knowledge of Pakistani authorities. But the U.S. presence is highly controversial with the largely Muslim Pakistani public, which is generally sympathetic to bin Laden and al Qaeda. For that reason, Pakistani officials routinely play down U.S.-Pakistani cooperation.”

3) So we would like the ability to pack a bit more punch than a predator drone or tomahawk missile, one that won’t need a special platform like a submarine or nearby air base. We’re researching a non-nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit a target and destroy it, but without the radioactive fallout. Having said that, lobbing something that would look like an incoming nuclear ICBM at Pakistan sounds like a formula for a nuclear response.

And here’s a bonus fourth one: Lefty blogger Jerome Armstrong describes Obama’s policy as, “Basically, a continuation of the Bush doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive attacks in the mid-east, with Obama adding Pakistan to the list.”

UPDATE: Richardson offers this bowl of oatmeal of a response:

“I consistently have said that we need to focus on Al Qaeda and the Taliban, including in a major policy address I delivered last week on this very subject. I am glad that Senator Obama agrees with me, although I disagree with his plan to leave troops in Iraq indefinitely. We still would be militarily overextended. “The problem here is that the Bush-Cheney Administration has acceded to General Musharraf’s deal that has given Al Qaeda and the Taliban a safe haven in Pakistan. We need to reverse the Bush-Cheney policy of appeasement and make sure Musharraf knows his deal with the terrorists is completely unacceptable to the U.S. “My international experience tells me that we should address this problem with tough diplomacy with General Musharraf first, leaving the military as a last resort. It is important to reach out to moderate Muslim states and allies to ensure we do not unnecessarily inflame the Muslim world.” Come on, man. You could have gone one of two ways – “Obama’s wrong, Hillary’s right, you don’t go in without Pakistani approval”; or “I’m with him, Musharraf gets one more warning and then we deal with this our way.” With this mush of an answer, we know (surprise!) Richardson likes diplomacy. Yawn.

By the way, if ARG is right — and I want to see other polls confirm this — Richardson is within two points of John Edwards in Iowa.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Kevin Drum pretty much concurs with John Podhoretz. Short of dropping a big bomb on the target, the success of the operation would most likely require a lot of troops, and as a result there’s no way Pakistan’s government could look the other way and pretend not to notice. Some Obama defenders are contending this is a “raid”, not an “invasion,” because the idea would be, go in, kill the bad guys, and get out, but good luck explaining that to the Pakistani public.