|
| Posted by: Mattinglyinthehall
- Leader [01629107] Fri, Mar 23, 2007, 22:22
Building on discussion started in this thread (posts 29 through 44 or so) and the questions there regarding just how volitile and dangerous that nation potentially is to the US.
Today this article at the right-wing Front Page Magazine was linked at Daily Dish and is well-worth a read. A few scary excerpts from the various contributers on the expert panel:What we know is that there are elements of Musharraf's government (military and intelligence) that are sympathetic to al-Qaeda and/or the Taliban. We can reasonably surmise that his recent agreements with tribal leaders, such as the Miramshah Agreement in North Waziristan, are in response to his ineffectiveness in the tribal regions. More agreements are coming, for instance in Bajour and potentially the whole of the North-West Frontier Province. These agreements have and will cede control of significant swaths of territory to what I refer to as the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance, different groups with differing objectives and both aided in large part by at least a portion of the ISI, the Pakistani military intelligence service. Yet, even as Musharraf bends to their demands, they hate him no less and disregard agreed-to terms without fear of consequence.
There have been numerous assassination attempts against Musharraf, the last disturbingly included the participation of two the former General's own Air Force commanders. As a friend often reminds, however, Pervez Musharraf is without doubt a shrewd politician and a survivor. Yet, the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance is believed to have amassed combined-forces strength of about 200,000 fighters throughout the FATA and NWFP region.
In the end, one bullet or blast potentially separates the various Islamist groups from the 30 to 50 nuclear warheads in Pakistan's arsenal and the creation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
The question, perhaps academic, is whether Musharraf can survive - whether he leans forward or continues to tolerate Islamist control of the border regions. And, if the US perceives he can survive the latter but not the former, is it willing to cede his relative inaction internally in exchange for his trustworthy stewardship of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal?
Numerous reports indicate that senior al Qaeda officials operate out of the mountainous border region separating Pakistan and Afghanistan. And plots around the world have been traced to their doorsteps.
The most well-known of the plots traced to Pakistani soil are those executed or attempted in England over the last few years, including the July 7, 2005 London bombings.
The Taliban, al Qaeda and their allies are once again resurgent. Their ability to attack coalition forces, who are trying to stabilize the broken nation, has steadily grown. There is no doubt that the safe haven our terrorist enemies enjoy on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan allows them to orchestrate these attacks with increasing efficacy.
Pakistan’s intelligence services have long supported Islamist terrorist operations inside India. It has been a prominent part of Pakistan’s ongoing proxy war. Recently, there has been some rapprochement between senior Indian and Pakistani government officials.
As al Qaeda and its allies continue to operate from northern Pakistan, however, there is a significant possibility that they will undermine any possibility of future progress by continuing to attack Indian civilians.
Potential scenerio presented by one of the panel members:The Pakistan Muslim League (Qaide Azam) created by Musharraf and its allies, who are loyal to him, do badly in the elections due later this year or even lose them. A coalition consisting of Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party, Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League, and the religious political parties is voted to power. Musharraf will have only two options: Either prove his democratic credentials by handing over power to them or refuse to do so or avoid doing so. If he adopts the first option, the world may not have much to worry about. If he adopts the second option, there could be a mass uprising as happened in East Pakistan in 1971 when the Army refused to honour the election verdict. There would be considerable instability of which the beneficaries could be the fundamentalists and the jihadis. [just one reason for why it is terrible idea to trust a military dictator with containing major threats to American security -mith] The danger at present is of Al Qaeda or other organisations getting hold of WMD-capable material from elsewhere and managing to convert them into usable weapons with the knowledge, expertise and experience of serving and retired Pakistani scientists.
Past reports in the Pakistani media had referred to the participation of some unidentified Pakistani scientists in the annual conventions of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET).Documents reportedly recovered by the US troops in Afghanistan in 2001 exposed the contacts of two retired nuclear scientists---Sultan Bashiruddin Mohammad (Canada trained) and Abdul Majid-- even with Al Qaeda. Retired senior officers of the Army and the ISI... are among those actively assisting the Al Qaeda, the Neo Taliban and the jihadi organisations active in India. They share two qualities---a hatred of India and an equally strong hatred of the US. Musharraf is aware of their activities, but is keeping his eyes closed, because they have many supporters among the serving officers of the Army and the ISI. Similarly, there must be many retired scientists who must be in touch with the jihadis---either for money or out of ideological affinity. I am most worried about them. Bashiruddin and Majid were the tip of the iceberg. Neither India nor the US knows much about the jihadi influence on the Pakistani scientific community.
After the US-led coalition intervention in Afghanistan, the ground zero of terrorism has moved to the FATA in Pakistan. Pakistan needs all the support the international community can give to fight both terrorism - but more importantly - extremism.
Musharraf is avoiding confrontation with the likes of Hamid Gul, Javed Nasir, and Mahmood Ahmed because of their influence among army officers and the ISI. These gentlemen have influence not only with high-level officers, but also among the rank-and-file. If these men have enough support that Musharraf feels compelled to back down from a confrontation, we must take seriously their chance of seizing power. Pakistan’s history is replete with examples of swift change at the governmental level, either through assassinations or doctored elections. There’s no reason to believe that this penchant for instability has ended.
Also alarming is Musharraf’s increasing inability to effectively direct his own military. Adnkronos International recently reported that Musharraf was unable to order an air strike on a madrassa in his own capital city because his air force refused to carry out the attack.
The mention of Pakistani nuclear scientists Sultan Bashiruddin Mohammad and Abdul Majid and their jihadi contacts is timely, considering the reports that to two Pakistani nuclear scientists were recently kidnapped from a Pakistani nuclear facility in the North-West Frontier Province by the Taliban and are said to have done so at the behest of al-Qaeda. The veracity of this particular report notwithstanding, its plausibility demonstrates the multi-faceted WMD risk Pakistan presents. It's not just nuclear warheads, though clearly the most dangerous. Pakistan is a state with myriad WMD technological capability and human resources that exists within a spiralling nexus of terrorist activity. Much of the discussion from there shift to the equally important and entirely contradictory necessities of getting Musharef to more aptly address the terrorist threat within his borders while also somehow keeping in power. More dangerous to the US than Iran? I'd sure say so. |
| | |
| | | 2 | Baldwin
ID: 3503618 Wed, Apr 04, 2007, 22:48
|
Has anyone suggested that Pakistan isn't just chock full of taliban sympathizing, Osama cheering death cultists?
The miracle is that Musharef has survived and delivered as much cooperation as he has.
Would you be happier if Bush hadn't managed to accomplish this, PD? Do you think it was a small accomplishment? Do you think Masharef hasn't been helpful?
|
|
| | | 3 | Perm Dude
ID: 453049 Wed, Apr 04, 2007, 22:55
|
I don't think the situation is at all better off, B. I think this is as much a Shah-like propping as anything else.
There should be been serious changes in the relationship when Pakistan started dragging its feet on Osama. And even more when they stole the nuclear secrets.
If Pakistan was a welfare mother, would you be stringing her along with cash like this without requiring (or even requesting) lifestyle changes?
|
|
| | | 4 | Baldwin
ID: 3503618 Wed, Apr 04, 2007, 23:27
|
A) They didn't 'steal' nuclear secrets. Where did you ever get such an idea? They have world class science just as India has, their having sprung from India after all.
B) Where did you get this flaky idea that they have drug their feet on capturing Osama? Pakistan has done more military operations into Taliban-land in the last few years than in all the years previous when they didn't even dare try and exert central govcernment control.
C) Fundamentalist Islamist doctrine puts Pakistan at the heart of their predicted world revolution. Should world leaders listen to no-nothing rants like yours and lose the cooperation we are getting, what you will get afterwards will turn your hair white.
|
|
| | | 5 | Perm Dude
ID: 453049 Wed, Apr 04, 2007, 23:49
|
Riiiight. Abdul Qadeer Khan (who admitted selling secrets himself to Libya, Iran, and North Korea) just came up with this on his own. So the fact that he was convicted in Amsterday of attempted espionage in 1983 was a coincidence?
And we went to war in Iraq despite Pakistan selling nuclear secrets to the two other members of the Axis of Evil.
At least Hussein was contained. And never actually had the bomb.
Tell ne, exactly, what "ccoperation" we're getting from Pakistan?
|
|
| | | 6 | Jag
ID: 14849321 Thu, Apr 05, 2007, 01:45
|
Sometimes Liberals remind me of my ex-girlfriend, no matter what was going on, she would put her hand on her hip and proclaim "That is wrong." I would then ask "How should it be done" and of course the reply was "I don't know, I just know that is wrong."
You guys can be really scarey. You will deny the blantantly obvious threat of Iran and Syria, because Bush says they are the world's main threat and would start an engagement with Pakistan, just to be different.
Here is a bit of common sense. North Korea and Pakistan have the Bomb, lets not get into a cold war with them. Iran does not have the Bomb yet, lets stop them from getting it, before it becomes a cold war. If you can't figure this out, we can start with something simplier. Can you tie your shoes properly?
|
|
| | | 7 | Perm Dude
ID: 453049 Thu, Apr 05, 2007, 01:51
|
"Common sense?" Heh heh.
You're right--let's not get into a cold war. And if anyone ever suggests such a thing we'll make sure to tell them that.
Whew.
Now that that is settled, I don't suppose you want to respond to any of the actual suggestions? No? Didn't think so.
|
|
| | | 8 | Jag
ID: 14849321 Thu, Apr 05, 2007, 03:14
|
PD, Pakistam is a tenuous situation, if go in there demanding a more Western type government, you good cause an uprising. The Pakistan President is teetering on a thin tight rope and you want to jingle the line.
|
|
| | | 9 | Baldwin
ID: 3503618 Thu, Apr 05, 2007, 07:15
|
PD, you've been wrong lots of times and this is one of them.
Pakistan is really two countries in one. They have one half the population in full, living in the dark ages, Taliban mode and half fully modern people. As long as the modern half is cooperating and in charge you are getting the best obtainable outcome.
Yes there were some taliban lovers in the secret service and the nuclear industry. At the highest levels, which makes it even more amazing what Bush's 'either with us or against us' mindset has accomplished which you would appreciate if you were capable.
If this sitation is too complicated for you to understand then shut up.
|
|
| | | 10 | Perm Dude
ID: 353158 Thu, Apr 05, 2007, 10:15
|
Man, you guys are a funny tag team.
Yes there were some ....
Nothing to see here...move right along. These are our friends, you see. Although if they were, say, the "French" or the "UN" or "liberals" it would be different, see.
We've been down this road many times, Baldwin. If you refuse to learn by history you'll turn into the parrot you seem to have become.
|
|
| | | 11 | Pancho Villa
ID: 42231410 Thu, Apr 05, 2007, 10:32
|
The current story in Pakistan is the battle between Pashtun Taliban tribal forces and Al Qaeda allied foreign jihadists, led by Uzbeks.
link
Pakistan’s success in turning some tribal Pashtuns against transnational jihadists has been described as a “significant development”.
In a commentary released on Friday, the well-informed news intelligence service Stratfor noted that Pakistani Taliban commanders on Thursday tried to negotiate a ceasefire between Pashtun fighters linked to tribal Maliks and Uzbek militants linked to Al Qaeda. The negotiations come after several days of fighting in the northwestern tribal “badlands”, which has killed at least 160 people. The fighting began March 19 after former militant commander Mullah Nazir ordered fighters loyal to Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan leader Tahir Yuldashev to disarm. The jirga overseeing the negotiations includes Pakistani Taliban commander Baitullah Mehsud – wanted in connection with a wave of jihadist attacks across the country – and Sirajuddin Haqqani – the son of senior Afghan Taliban leader Jalaluddin Haqqani.
Stratfor said, “The fact that the Taliban are now trying to mediate between the Maliks allied to the government and the jihadists shows that they are worried, which means Islamabad might have had a considerable degree of success in its efforts to drive a wedge between the guests and their hosts. But it remains to be seen whether this is a single event in a limited area of FATA, or whether it will spread across the tribal region. The Taliban’s efforts to end the fighting also indicate their own vulnerability. Since they rely on foreign jihadists in their cause, they cannot afford to see the destruction of these allies; they also need to manage their ties to the Maliks. The Taliban know that some of the Maliks have turned against the foreign jihadists and that these tribal leaders could turn against them as well – the Pakistani Taliban have even challenged the tribal leadership in FATA.”
|
|
| | | 12 | Baldwin
ID: 3503618 Thu, Apr 05, 2007, 14:38
|
These are our friends, you see. Although if they were, say the "French" or the "UN" or "liberals" it would be different, see.
Well at least Pakistan is deliberately helping America.
Who can say to what extent the Musharef faction is a friend and to what extent they are blackmailed into helping? The islamist portion of the country is anything but our friend of course and no one has said anything different.
Your pretending to not see the dichotomy is a tiresome ploy anyone can see thru so give it a rest.
|
|
| | | 13 | Perm Dude
ID: 353158 Thu, Apr 05, 2007, 14:44
|
It isn't that I'm not seeing it, Baldwin. It is that I've seen it before.
Pakistan is a military dictatorship that is being propped up by US taxes, without demonstrating anything more than lip service to the war on terror. You're willing to overlook their clear actions against US interests much as liberals were willing to overlook Palestinian or other Muslim actions simply because their leaders professed "friendship" with the US.
You're as naive as they were.
|
|
| | | 14 | Pancho Villa
ID: 42231410 Thu, Apr 05, 2007, 18:10
|
OK, so Musharaff is our friend. But as even Baldwin admits, the Islamic portion of the country(the overwhelmingly huge majority) is anything but. So, does it make any sense to arm them to the teeth, along with so many other abusive regimes? Well it does when you realize that defense manufacturing is one of our only remaining exports.
But it is the United States that by far remains the top purveyor of high-tech arms to areas where analysts believe the likelihood of armed conflict remains highest. A study last year by the progressive World Policy Institute found that the United States transferred weaponry to 18 of the 25 countries involved in an ongoing war.
"From Angola, Chad, and Ethiopia, to Colombia, Pakistan, and the Philippines, transfers through the two largest US arms sales programs [Foreign Military sales and Commercial Sales] to these conflict nations totaled nearly $1 billion in 2003," the report found.
Meanwhile, more than half of the countries buying US arms -- 13 of the 25 -- were defined as undemocratic by the State Department's annual Human Rights Report, including top recipients Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan.
The agreement last year to sell F-16s to Pakistan underscores the larger trend, according to Wade Bouse , research director at the Arms Control Association.
"F-16s with advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles are not for fighting Al Qaeda," Bouse said. "They are for fighting India."
And India, which has fought three wars with Pakistan, is considering a US offer to sell the country F-16s. "We are creating our own market by selling to both sides of regional conflicts," Bouse said.
With more such lucrative deals in the offing, there is little sign that the United States -- or other major suppliers -- wants a treaty to control the sales.
"The US would be significantly affected if there was an arms treaty that took into account human rights abuses and conflict areas," added William Hartung , director of the Arms Trade Resource Center at the World Policy Institute in New York. "The US government still wants to be able to do covert and semi-covert arms transfers. And a certain amount of it is simply keeping factories running in certain congressional districts."
link
|
|
| | | 15 | Baldwin
ID: 3503618 Thu, Apr 05, 2007, 23:05
|
the Islamic portion of the country(the overwhelmingly huge majority)
Kinda misleading. More useful would be to say what percentage is islamist and what percentage is merely Islamic. I don't think anyone here has a handle on that exactly, certainly not without researching it.
I do know that when crazy islamists do some crazy thing that you and I would consider crazy, the mainstream media in Pakistan will strike a disingenuous shocked posture even tho the public is well aware that that is what islamists do. Does that mean the media represents the majority POV? Does the average or majority Pakistani find Islamists shocking? The MSM certainly doesn't represent the majority here so who knows if they do there?
|
|
| | | 16 | Pancho Villa
ID: 42231410 Thu, Apr 05, 2007, 23:38
|
crazy islamists?
What's crazy is that the democratic movement in Pakistan is headed by Islamists. But then, we've seen what democratic Islamic movements achieved in Iraq and Palestine(and, even Iran to an extent).
Pakistan's Man in the Middle
KARACHI - Pakistan's judicial crisis, highlighted by a mass rally in Islamabad planned for Tuesday, has given the political opposition the opportunity once again to take on the military administration of President General Pervez Musharraf, who has defied all previous efforts since assuming power in a coup in 1999. Spearheading the current campaign is Qazi Hussain Ahmed, head of the Islamist political party Jamaat-i-Islami Pakistan (JI). Qazi is also president of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), a grouping of six religious parties opposed to Musharraf that seeks increased democratization of the country.
Qazi issued the call for Tuesday's rally in front of the Supreme Court to express support for the independence of judiciary, respect for the constitution and to protest against Musharraf.
On March 9, Musharraf told Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry to resign for allegedly abusing his authority. When Chaudhry refused, he was suspended, and is due on Tuesday to appear before the Supreme Judicial Council to answer the charges.
The JI and other parties of the MMA will be joined at the protest by lawyers and the Alliance for Restoration of Democracy, an opposition political group campaigning for a return to civilian rule. Its main parties are the Pakistan Muslim League (N) and the Pakistan People's Party Parliamentarians.
Opposition to Musharraf is not confined to the political parties, though, as militants are also exploiting the unrest set off over Chaudhry in their bid to bring down the general. In this volatile situation, Qazi is in a delicate situation as both political activists and ever-expanding militants see him as a savior because of his conviction against Musharraf's government.
Qazi has been on talking terms with the West; he was once a guest of the US State Department for a month. Yet while he is often invited as a speaker by prominent US think-tanks, he is not prepared to condemn Osama bin Laden.
|
|
| | | 17 | Jag
ID: 14849321 Fri, Apr 06, 2007, 00:46
|
Guys we know Pakistan is F-ed up, but there is nothing that can be done at this time, except hope Musharaff stays in power and do what we can to keep him propped up.
|
|
| | | 18 | R9 Leader
ID: 02624472 Fri, Apr 06, 2007, 01:48
|
You don't think supporting democratic reform would have a better longterm impact on our reputation? When considering the West, which course of action would seem more supportive in the eyes of the average Pakistani?
1) Having clearly supported a military regime, and done everything we could to prop him up (which presumably means crushing democratic sentiment) or 2) Having clearly supported the idea of democratic change, and strived to help those movements propogate.
Would an Islamic democracy in Pakistan be counter to our desires? Probably in the short term. But ask yourself, would you rather that democracy remember our help (or our non-interference) or remember our support for their enemy?
|
|
| | | 19 | Jag
ID: 14849321 Fri, Apr 06, 2007, 02:45
|
R9- There was a time when I thought democracy was the great panacea for the world and it could be if not for people like radical mullahs. They are taught from birth, that non- Muslims are the equivilent of monkeys and have no problem dying for their religion. The danger of a group like this possessing a nuclear bomb is horrifying. You can not compare the thinking of a Islamic Jihadist to that of Western Civilization. Not only would the threat a nuclear war be multipied 10 fold, but what about civil rights. I heard a story recently about an Islamic women, who was asked by her boyfriend to meet him near his college, on her way, she was ganged raped by a group of thugs and when she returned home from this terrorifying experience, she was beaten by her brother for allowing it to happen. This is future you would impose on half the population of a country, not to mention the killing of everyone that was not part of the ruling party's religion. Supporting democratic reform makes for a great sound bite, but like almost every problem that exists, there is no perfect answer that is so incompassing that it can fit any situation.
|
|
| | | 20 | R9 Leader
ID: 02624472 Fri, Apr 06, 2007, 04:34
|
A few points: (pardon the spelling, its late)
"Western Civilization" used to be no less barbaric. From religious lynchings to the complete subjugation of women, we were probably more backwards, as we didn't have another part of the world to look to as comparison. We moved from that philosophy to our current 'tolerant' vision through the liberalization (not to be mistaken with today's use of the word 'liberal' of course) of society. It took a hella long time, but considering that autocracy had over 1000 years to work and didn't, its safe to say that bringing about democratic ideals was a big starting point.
So do we continue to watch a state like Pakistan live the old, backwards way, or do we help (or just stay out of the goddam way) as people inside the country aim for more? Of course they're going to get a whole crapload of things wrong the 1st go around. That doesn't mean they shouldn't start.
On to your fears:
1) It would give the extremists the bomb: Firstly, not every hardcore religious person is dying to drop a nuclear bomb on everyone. Just like all politics, there will be various levels of extremism in all parties and groups. History has shown that the extreme of the extreme rarely succeed in politics anyway. The minute the religious majority party takes time to focus on something like education or healthcare, the extremists will take off and continue their jihad.
Too, as scary as it is, if extremists really want nukes, they'll probably get them at some point. Legitimately obtaining political power is just one of the many ways they can do this.
2) This is future you would impose on half the population of a country (In relation to the girl's story) The reason you heard this story is because its happening now, all the time. Wether democracy takes hold or this dictatorship continues, the ridiculous views of their society towards rape (and women in general) will continue. We had the same problem once upon a time. Again, democracy eventually lead to a change in mentality regarding minorities and women.
3) not to mention the killing of everyone that was not part of the ruling party's religion.
Now this is just hyperbole. Even if it was true, there's no way you could know this for a fact. And if it were to happen, the country would hardly be democratic, now would it?
--------------------------------------------
The bottom line is that people INSIDE the country want to bring about democracy. You can try and suppress that if you wish, but your own damned country's history is proof positive that it doesn't work very well for those who try. Meanwhile, my country's history shows that supporting democracy works alot better for the would-be suppressing overlord country.
|
|
| | | 22 | Baldwin
ID: 3503618 Mon, Apr 16, 2007, 13:59
|
The photo you were waiting for but never really expecting to see...

Moderate muslims marching in protest of Islamism
It was something they put up with in the hinterlands but now when they try to import islamist schools and hardline islamic courts into the big city that's a different story.
Which is why I don't let people get away with no-nothing posts lumping the entire Pak populace into one guilty bag.
|
|
| | | 23 | Perm Dude
ID: 35342167 Mon, Apr 16, 2007, 14:02
|
Good news. Don't make the mistake of saying "Mission Accomplished" however.
|
|
| | | 24 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177 Tue, Apr 17, 2007, 12:50
|
Mission accomplished...funny.
Somewhere between 50-100K Canadian muslims think it would be justified to behead the Prime Minister and blow up Parliament.
|
|
| | | 25 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 19639121 Mon, Jul 02, 2007, 08:55
|
US to hunt the Taliban inside Pakistan
Asia Times Jul 3, 2007
US to hunt the Taliban inside Pakistan
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
KARACHI - Since last September, North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces in Afghanistan have been pressing Islamabad for the right to conduct extensive hot-pursuit operations into Pakistan to target Taliban and al-Qaeda bases.
According to Asia Times Online contacts, NATO and its US backers have gotten their wish: coalition forces will start hitting targets wherever they might be.
Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf is expected to make an important announcement on extremism during an address to the nation in the next day or two.
The ATol contacts in Islamabad say that coalition intelligence has pinpointed at least four centers in the tribal areas of North Waziristan and South Waziristan on the border with Afghanistan from which Taliban operations inside Afghanistan are run. These bases include arms caches and the transfer and raising of money and manpower, the latter in the form of foot-soldiers to fight with the Taliban-led insurgency.
Operations inside Pakistan might be carried out independently by the United States, probably with air power, by Pakistani forces acting alone or as joint offensives. In all cases, though, the US will pull the strings, for instance by providing the Pakistanis with information on targets to hit.
Musharraf has apparently already told his military commanders, the National Security Council and decision-makers in government of the development.
Officially, both NATO and Pakistan deny any agreement on hot-pursuit activities. Major John Thomas, spokesman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force, told Asia Times Online, "The ISAF would not strike any targets across the border. That is not part of our mission. We work with the Pakistani government closely on cross-border issues. The ISAF does not have a counter-terrorism mission that I know of."
Similarly, the director general of the Inter-Services Public Relations of the Pakistani Armed Forces, Major-General Waheed Arshad, said NATO forces would not be allowed to intervene in Pakistani areas. He conceded that Pakistan is wary of growing extremism in the country, but said there is no threat of Talibanization.
"The Taliban are a problem for Afghanistan, not Pakistan. There are a few extremist groups operating in Pakistan and we have our own indigenous mechanism to counter them through law-enforcement agencies, and through paramilitary and military deployment," Waheed said.
Nevertheless, the ATol contacts are adamant that an agreement is in place for increased operations on Pakistani soil, given the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and US fears of al-Qaeda using Pakistan as a base for planning operations in the West. There are precedents.
Last month, US Central Intelligence Agency drones targeted a madrassa in North Waziristan, and 20 people were killed. CIA drones tried to take out al-Qaeda No 2 Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri in January 2006 in Bajur Agency. Zawahiri survived, but 18 people died. In December 2005, al-Qaeda leader Hamza Rabia was killed by a CIA predator aircraft in the town of Mir Ali, North Waziristan.
However, new operations, which could begin within weeks, if not days, are expected to be much larger in scale.
...
|
|
| | | 26 | Perm Dude
ID: 2164428 Mon, Jul 02, 2007, 09:54
|
Yeah! About freaking time.
|
|
| | | 27 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 09:59
|
Pakistan? Dangerous? July 17 — President Bush’s top counterterrorism advisers acknowledged Tuesday that the strategy for fighting Osama bin Laden’s leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan had failed, as the White House released a grim new intelligence assessment that has forced the administration to consider more aggressive measures inside Pakistan.
The intelligence report, the most formal assessment since the Sept. 11 attacks about the terrorist threat facing the United States, concludes that the United States is losing ground on a number of fronts in the fight against Al Qaeda, and describes the terrorist organization as having significantly strengthened over the past two years.
In identifying the main reasons for Al Qaeda’s resurgence, intelligence officials and White House aides pointed the finger squarely at a hands-off approach toward the tribal areas by Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who last year brokered a cease-fire with tribal leaders in an effort to drain support for Islamic extremism in the region.
“It hasn’t worked for Pakistan,” said Frances Fragos Townsend, who heads the Homeland Security Council at the White House. “It hasn’t worked for the United States.”
While Bush administration officials had reluctantly endorsed the cease-fire as part of their effort to prop up the Pakistani leader, they expressed relief on Tuesday that General Musharraf may have to abandon that approach, because the accord seems to have unraveled.
But American officials make little secret of their skepticism that General Musharraf has the capability to be effective in the mountainous territory along the Afghan border, where his troops have been bloodied before by a mix of Qaeda leaders and tribes that view the territory as their own, not part of Pakistan.
“We’ve seen in the past that he’s sent people in and they get wiped out,” said one senior official involved in the internal debate. “You can tell from the language today that we take the threat from the tribal areas incredibly seriously. It has to be dealt with. If he can deal with it, amen. But if he can’t, he’s got to build and borrow the capability.”
Richard A. Boucher, the assistant secretary of state, acknowledged that Al Qaeda had prospered during the cease-fire between the tribal leaders and General Musharraf last September, a period in which “they were able to operate, meet, plan, recruit, and obtain financing in more comfort in the tribal areas than previously.”
But Mr. Boucher also described General Musharraf as America’s best bet, and several administration officials on Tuesday cited his recent aggressive actions against Islamic militants at a mosque in Islamabad.
The growing Qaeda threat in Pakistan has prompted repeated trips to Islamabad by senior administration officials to lean on officials there and calls by lawmakers to make American aid to Pakistan contingent on a sustained counterterrorism effort by General Musharraf’s government.
Some members of Congress argue that concern for the stability of General Musharraf’s government had for too long dominated the White House strategy for dealing with Pakistan, thwarting American counterterrorism efforts.
“We have to change policy,” said Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, a Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee who has long advocated a more aggressive American intelligence campaign in Pakistan
|
|
| | | 28 | walk
ID: 75112114 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 13:46
|
July 18, 2007 Op-Ed Columnist Hey, W! Bin Laden (Still) Determined to Strike in U.S. By MAUREEN DOWD WASHINGTON
Oh, as it turns out, they’re not on the run.
And, oh yeah, they can fight us here even if we fight them there.
And oh, one more thing, after spending hundreds of billions and losing all those lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, we’re more vulnerable to terrorists than ever.
And, um, you know that Dead-or-Alive stuff? We may be the ones who end up dead.
Squirming White House officials had to confront the fact yesterday that everything President Bush has been spouting the last six years about Al Qaeda being on the run, disrupted and weakened was just guff.
Last year, W. called his “personal friend” Gen. Pervez Musharraf “a strong defender of freedom.” Unfortunately, it turned out to be Al Qaeda’s freedom. The White House is pinning the blame on Pervez.
While the administration lavishes billions on Pakistan, including $750 million in a risible attempt to win “hearts and minds” in tribal areas where Al Qaeda leaders are hiding and training, President Musharraf has helped create a quiet mountain retreat, a veritable terrorism spa, for Osama and Ayman al-Zawahiri to refresh themselves and get back in shape.
The administration’s most thorough intelligence assessment since 9/11 is stark and dark. Two pages add up to one message: The Bushies blew it. Al Qaeda has exploded into a worldwide state of mind. Because of what’s going on with Iraq and Iran, Hezbollah may now “be more likely to consider” attacking us. Al Qaeda will try to “put operatives here” — (some news reports say a cell from Pakistan already is en route or has arrived) — and “acquire and employ chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear material in attacks.”
(Democrats on cots are ineffectual, but Al Qaeda in caves gets the job done?)
After 9/11, W. stopped mentioning Osama’s name, calling him “just a person who’s now been marginalized,” and adding “I just don’t spend that much time on him.”
This week, as counterterrorism officials gathered at the White House to frantically brainstorm on covert and overt plans to capture Osama, the president may have regretted his perverse attempt to demote America’s most determined enemy.
W. began to mention Osama and Al Qaeda more recently, but only to assert: “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th.” His conflation is contradicted by the fact that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, as the Sunni terrorist group in Iraq is known, did not exist before 9/11.
Fran Townsend, the president’s homeland security adviser, did her best to put a gloss on the dross but failed. She had to admit that the hands-off approach used by Mr. Musharraf with the tribal leaders in North Waziristan, which always looked like a nutty way to give Al Qaeda room to regroup, was a nutty way to give Al Qaeda room to regroup.
“It hasn’t worked for Pakistan,” she conceded. “It hasn’t worked for the United States.”
Just as we outsourced capturing Osama at Tora Bora to Afghans who had no motive to do it, we outsourced capturing Osama in Pakistan to Mr. Musharraf, who had no motive to do it.
Pressed by reporters on why we haven’t captured Osama, especially if he’s climbing around with a dialysis machine, Ms. Townsend sniffed that she wished “it were that easy.” It’s not easy to launch a trumped-up war to reshape the Middle East into a utopian string of democracies, but that didn’t stop W. from making that audacious gambit.
The Bushies, who once mocked Bill Clinton for doing only “pinprick” bombings on Al Qaeda, now say they can do nothing about Osama because they can’t “pinpoint” him, as Ms. Townsend put it. She assured reporters that they were “harassing” Al Qaeda, making it sound more like a tugging-on-pigtails strategy than a take-no-prisoners strategy.
We’ve had it up the wazir with Waziristan. Surely there are Army Rangers and Navy Seals who can make the trek, even if it’s a no-man’s land. If it were a movie, we’d trace the saline in Osama’s dialysis machine, target it with a laser and blow up the mountain.
W. swaggers about with his cowboy boots and gunslinger stance. But when talking about Waziristan last February, he explained that it was hard to round up the Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders there because: “This is wild country; this is wilder than the Wild West.”
Yes, they shoot with real bullets up there, and they fly into buildings with real planes.
If W. were a real cowboy, instead of somebody who just plays one on TV, he would have cleaned up Dodge by now.
|
|
| | | 29 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 14:00
|
If W. were a real cowboy, instead of somebody who just plays one on TV, he would have cleaned up Dodge by now.
Actually, IMHO, if W were a "real cowboy", he'd have owned up to his own incompetence already, and stepped aside along with his cronies, to allow real solutions to occur.
|
|
| | | 30 | walk
ID: 75112114 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 14:08
|
Right, sarge33rd, but instead, he's a delusional cowboy. David Brooks disagrees, but if he's not macho, not delusional, and not stupid, then what the hell is he? I dunno. I think he thinks he's really really right, and that it's just gonna take time, and that he made some mistakes earlier, but now we are on the right track and cannot pull back. So, I just think he's incompetent and not courageous enough to reflect on his accomplishments and make true change, and not courageous enough to admit failure and move on. I think most leaders at this level have too much ego and outside forces preventing them from admitting failure and quitting, or completely changing course, but Bush seems a bit extreme in this regard.
- walk
|
|
| | | 31 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 14:11
|
shrub is nucking futs. He's on record, as havong "been told by God", that this is his destiny for crying out loud. Anybody else, and he'd be in an asylum, locked up as a looney tunes. But nooooooooooooooooooooooooo, not shrub. Not the great "Decider", the Rep "great white hope".
SOB is so gddmn incompetent, he's backed this country up 50-75 years. Yet there are those, who will defend him.
|
|
| | | 32 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 16:23
|
allow real solutions to occur. and what would those be you seem to think leadership is incomptent then it should be easy to say what those are. You sarge should be the last one to talk about how someone should man up an admit there mistakes and step asside i have seen you make countless arguments were no matter how much evidence is given against your piont you keep coming back saying they are wrong. I guess you W have something in common afterall you are both Human.
|
|
| | |
| | | 34 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 16:46
|
ill agree with that statment on pakistan, they have duped us from the begginning. It is some how ironic how we take out some dictators and not others, then again i guess you are a little slower to throw stones when they have the bomb.
|
|
| | | 35 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 16:47
|
boikin...if I had access to the advisors he does, if I had access to the intel he does, if I had access to the international leaders as he does...I can guaran-gddmn-tee you a better course of action than the one we have been on.
and FWIW..I have admitted when I was wrong. I'm frankly, not all that wrong, all that often.
|
|
| | | 36 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 17:02
|
Restoring stable civilian rule would lessen Pakistan’s obsession with the threat posed by India and focus Pakistan’s energy on its own economic development. - Carnegie...
Wow, Pakistan has a very close balance between the modern secularized educated and hardcore moslems demanding a grab of Kashmir from India and persecution of all non-moslems.
Begging for civilian rule there and assuming it would be stable is ludicrously frought with peril. I am sure these Carnegie 'experts' were also whispering in Jimmy Carter's ear about how nice it would be to backstab the Shah or Iran and turn Iran over to 'stable civilian rule'.
In fact feel free to google the phrase...to progressive Carnegie Endowment President Jessica Mathews, who worked in the Carter and Clinton administrations...
|
|
| | | 37 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 17:19
|
Is it therefore too much of a stretch to call Hamas "The Carnegie Endowment for Peace' gift to the world? Such a smashing success that we should replay it in Al Qeada's backyard.
|
|
| | | 38 | Perm Dude
ID: 286121810 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 17:20
|
They don't assume it will be stable.
They believe, however, that should a a stable civilian rule come about, it would accomplish many things, including moving Pakistan away from the "all things not India" policy which allows them to allow Taliban to use Pakistan as a base of operations. Much of the problems of Pakistan's role in the regiion are mucked up because there is no difference between the Pakistani military and the Pakistani government. Your hatred of the role of diplomacy on the world state notwithstanding, the Pakistani record for taking billions of American dollars while acting at odds with our own best interests is quite clear.
|
|
| | | 39 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 17:34
|
If you intend to promote the ludicrous proposition that Musharraf, who has survived numerous assassination attempts from these salafists, has deliberately "allowed the Taliban to use Pakistan as a base of operations" then I must warn everyone reading that they are losing IQ every time they listen to you.
Are you suggesting that the fact that the western territories are beyond central government control is something Musharif desires?
And they think I am a conspiracy theorist.
|
|
| | | 40 | Perm Dude
ID: 286121810 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 17:42
|
Musharraf is stronger with a weaker Afghanistan. By allowing the Taliban a base from which to harass the Afghanistan central government, he prevents Afghanistan from the opportunity to side with India.
Now, if you don't want to bother even glancing at the report that's fine. You aren't required. But if you are going to throw out points which are directly addressed in the report you're going to look foolish for both your ignorant questions as well as your unwillingness to look up the answers linked in this very same thread.
Let me boil it all down for you: Pakistan's military is deathly afraid of India and the possibility of India gaining any additional influence anywhere. Once you understand this you can see why Pakistan would have unguarded borders, so refuse to seek Bin Laden, and to act opposite to American interests, all while paying lip service to the "coalition."
|
|
| | | 41 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 18:11
|
Let me boil it all down for you: Pakistan's military is deathly afraid of India and the possibility of India gaining any additional influence anywhere. - PD
Let ME boil it down for you. Half of Pakistan holds the religious belief that their country has a religious obligation to return any area which has ever been in muslim hands, militarily dragged back into dar al-Islam and many of them feel that includes all of India, not just Kashmir. Hostility to India is not some manufactured creation of Musharif, puhleeze.
Anyone in power in Pakistan must sit on the fence seperating modern Pakistan and salafist Pakistan and talk out of both sides of their mouth convincing everyone that he more or less holds their values.
|
|
| | | 42 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 18:15
|
"Looking foolish" is an institute which screwed up Iran back in the days of the Shah, offering to solve Pakistan.
|
|
| | | 43 | Perm Dude
ID: 286121810 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 21:20
|
Hostility to India is not some manufactured creation of Musharif
Uh, if you find where I said this I'll give you five bucks.
We seem to be talking past each other here. I'm either unwilling or unable (take your pick) to respond to biased-based (as opposed to reality-based) points.
You want to believe that Pakistan is radical Muslim and still holds US interests in-hand, while having no anti-India bias, by all means good luck with that.
All I can do is lead you to the information. I can't force you to read it.
|
|
| | |
| | | 45 | Mötley Crüe Dude
ID: 439372011 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 23:56
|
Wow. 400 missing people in a country with a population of 165 million.
In other words, less than .0002% of the population is 'missing'. I'd venture to guess that we here in the USA (land where my fathers died) experience a higher rate of missing persons, some of which 'disappear' due to sundry reasons such as (1) mental illness, (2) not wanting to be found, (3) foul play (on the part of someone other than a government entity), (4) mental illness, (5)unexplained phenomena (which all of us know are real--just ask the people of Roswell), (6)etc.
Thanks for playing the Match Game. Please come again.
|
|
| | | 46 | Perm Dude
ID: 286121810 Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 00:12
|
Uh, right, MC. These people, who were picked up by the police, were actually released and just got lost on their way home. And the ones who did arrive actually tortured themselves. Or fell down by themselves, the stupid bitch. Can't take a punch.
My my my. I'm curious: What is an acceptable highest number of people to get picked up by the military and never be seen again? Seems like you'd like to play the percentage angle, which gives countries like the US a lot more leeway here.
|
|
| | | 47 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177 Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 02:52
|
My reading is just fine, it's your gullibility that is on display as usual.
This Carnegie proposition is the most patently absurd and agenda driven distortion of reality I have ever seen a think tank deliver.
I never denied there was hostility between Pakistan and India, as would naturally be true between a Hindu and a Moslem country who had just fought a religious and civil war within living memory. What is absurd is the idea that Musharif finds it in his interest to not quell the people who are trying mightily to assassinate him. The report you cite accuses Musharif and his military of not only exagerating the jihadi extremist threat but of enabling it.Hostility to India is not some manufactured creation of Musharif - B
Uh, if you find where I said this I'll give you five bucks. - PD
"Pakistan’s military is complicit in...resurgence of the Taliban, terrorism in Kashmir, and the growth of jihadi extremism and capabilities, says a new report from the Carnegie Endowment." Accusing Pakistan of enabling a resurgent taliban stronghold and bolstering jihadi extremism is manufacturing hostility to India within their borders. [which element within their society sees a religious imperative to attack Kashmir and India?]
Expecting your 5 bucks...
David Helson 2006 Pine st Peru, Il 61354
|
|
| | | 48 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177 Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 03:14
|
Had the paper tried to make the point that the Pak military/national security agencies were riddled with taliban sympathizers who genuinely work against Musharif and his anti-salafist policies I would have agreed with them but that is not at all what they are saying. They are accusing Musharif of a hidden cynical realpolitik siding with al qeada supporters in Pakistan.
|
|
| | | 49 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177 Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 03:24
|
One tidbit I found while researching this was that a prominant Pak secular politician accused the central government of trying to divide Pashtuns by their promoting mining the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
You would think that mining the border was pretty straightforward evidence that the Carnegie position was bullocks...but I must admit political motives usually lead down a twisted path as does balancing on the political fence for a Pak president.
|
|
| | | 50 | Perm Dude
ID: 25658198 Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 09:58
|
B: You seriously believe that Pakistan's hostility to India is "manufactured by Musharif?" Are you even aware of the actual armed hostilities between Pakistan and India, for decades?
|
|
| | | 51 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 11:52
|
What is absurd is the idea that Musharif finds it in his interest to not quell the people... The report you cite accuses Musharif and his military of not only exagerating the jihadi extremist threat but of enabling it.
The charge is that Musharraf's attempts to quell those who threaten him do in fact enable them.
It's been plainly obvious for some tyime now that he is playing on both sides of the fence. His supporters in the west contend that such a balancing act is necessary for his survival. The honest question (which Baldwin refuses to acknowledge) is what this dictator's priorities really are.
As we sat back and trusted Musharraf to do his best to root out the Taliban and al Qaeda from within his borders while we created for ourselves a distraction from those enemies in Iraq, we see that they have now reconstituted under Musharraf's watch, thanks to his complacency.
This should not be acceptable.
|
|
| | | 52 | Boxman
ID: 136161615 Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 13:45
|
And what would you do about it?
|
|
| | | 53 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 14:40
|
The recent rhetoric from the administration is a welcome turnaround from the unabashed glowing praise of Musharraf we've repeatedly heard since the start of the Iraq war.
Its a start.
But the scary, stark reality is the possibility that American military involvement might be necessary to once again disrupt the risk of terrorist attacks in the US from al Qaeda. Musharraf could be assassinated or fall from power or stall on us or ultimately decide that acting in our best interest works contrary to his own priorities.
The ongoing committment in Iraq of course severely hampers our military capabilities elsewhere. Should a campaign in Pakistan lead to broader civil unrest anything like we see in Iraq, our military in its current status will not be capable of adequately running both wars.
It will also be very difficult for the (current or next) Commander In Chief to build support for such a committment. Internationally, the US has lost much credibility. At home, recruitment is way down and another war won't help, and Bush's tripping over himself to glorify Musharraf over the years (surely due in part to help defend the Iraq war) will also leave many skeptical.
|
|
| | | 54 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177 Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 15:50
|
B: You seriously believe that Pakistan's hostility to India is "manufactured by Musharif?" -PD
What do I do with you? You are either very confused or actually descending into troll territory.
You are the one whose own link charges that Musharraf is enabling the forces most hostile to India and the very forces demanding ongoing aggressive acts against India. You have read my posts clearly showing me to be conversant with the Kashmir problem and the history of hostilities with India.
Stop ascribing to me the very thing your own silly think tank is espousing and then pretending it isn't your own present to the forum.
|
|
| | | 55 | Boxman
ID: 296471217 Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 18:40
|
The ongoing committment in Iraq of course severely hampers our military capabilities elsewhere. Should a campaign in Pakistan lead to broader civil unrest anything like we see in Iraq, our military in its current status will not be capable of adequately running both wars.
So if we weren't in Iraq, would you support action in Pakistan? If so, to what degree?
I don't see any full blown invastion of Pakistan being successful. A special forces led incursion into the northwest regions with air support would do rather well I think.
Our goal in Pakistan should be to rout the Al Qaeda leadership in the northwest regions and that type of force could be successful. It's a matter of does this administration or a future administration want to do it.
When, and I think it's a matter of when, Pakistan falls completely into the hands of the whack-jobs then we need to consider more heavy handed matters, but right now I wouldn't support it.
|
|
| | | 56 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 19:20
|
So if we weren't in Iraq, would you support action in Pakistan? If so, to what degree?
Like you, I'm sure, I'd support any military endeavor necessary to disrupt the risk of terrorist attacks in the US from al Qaeda.
A special forces led incursion into the northwest regions with air support would do rather well I think.
Not currently, according to the administrtion. Even American special forces need an actionable target in order to accomplish anything.Q Fran, I think a lot of Americans watching this will have two very simple questions: Where is Osama bin Laden? And why, nearly six years after the President said we would get him, dead or alive, do we not have him? How has he possibly eluded our grasp?
MS. TOWNSEND: Well, there is no question that we have put extraordinary resources against finding him. If I could answer directly, with a pinpoint on a map where he was, he wouldn't be there. So the question is, does he -- it presumes, frankly, that he sits in a single place with an address, a street address and a phone number, so it should be easy for us to go and get him. I wish, Sheryl, that it were that easy. It's not.
You can assume, just based on sort of operational security behavior, that he's moving around, he doesn't make it easy, he doesn't have a lot of contact, and he is in a very remote area that is not easily accessed certainly by Americans, and frankly, by the Pakistanis, themselves.
And so the President has made perfectly clear, we will be relentless. He will be captured or killed. And it is a huge priority for us, for our intelligence and military. And we will continue until we're successful.
Q Can you talk about the extraordinary resources? What kind of resources?
MS. TOWNSEND: Military, intelligence and law enforcement resources.
Q -- operations you can share with us?
MS. TOWNSEND: No.
Q Fran, do you know if Osama bin Laden is still on a dialysis machine, is he still ill? What? I mean, could you tell us about that? I mean, because -- it might be laughable, but people are finding it hard, six years this man is sick, moving around from cave to cave, and can't be found -- with a dialysis machine?
MS. TOWNSEND: Have you ever been to the tribal areas? I suspect not.
Q No, I haven't, but I've seen some great pictures from Ken Herman as to the rough terrain over that way. (Laughter.)
MS. TOWNSEND: It's not exactly easy. If it were easy he'd be dead.
Q But it's not easy for him to travel around with medics and machinery if he's sick. I mean, is he -- do you know from your intelligence if he's still sick? What do you know about that?
MS. TOWNSEND: I'm not going to talk about that.
Thank you. 6 years of depending on Musharraf to root out the organization that attacked us on 9/11 and not only has the group flourished in that time, but we don't even know how to find them.
|
|
| | | 57 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 19:24
|
When, and I think it's a matter of when, Pakistan falls completely into the hands of the whack-jobs then we need to consider more heavy handed matters,
If and when that happens, there might not be any choice. The risk of approaching such circumstances (or ebven the current one we see now) with a severely overdeployed military is a terrible gamble to take on an entirely unnecessary war.
|
|
| | | 58 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016 Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 21:12
|
When, and I think it's a matter of when, Pakistan falls completely into the hands of the whack-jobs
So, it's Iran all over again is what you're saying. We give a dictator billions in cash and weapons which end up in the hands of whack-jobs who hate America. Except this time it will be hard to blame Jimmy Carter.
|
|
| | | 59 | Perm Dude
ID: 25658198 Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 21:15
|
Oh, I'm sure he'll come up in their justifications, PV.
|
|
| | | 60 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 21:34
|
Re my post 56, we have not been depending on Musharraf to root out al Qaeda for 6 years. More like 4 1/2. Point doesn't change.
|
|
| | | 61 | walk
ID: 75112114 Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 12:42
|
July 23, 2007 Op-Ed Contributor Where Less Is More By RORY STEWART Kabul, Afghanistan
AMERICA and its allies are in danger of repeating the mistakes of Iraq in Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and even some Republicans are insisting on withdrawing from Iraq and sending more troops and resources to southern Afghanistan. The Bush administration’s gloomy National Intelligence Estimate last week on the fight against Al Qaeda will only lead others to make such calls.
But they should think again. The intervention in Afghanistan has gone far better than that in Iraq largely because the American-led coalition has limited its ambitions and kept a light footprint, leaving the Afghans to run their own affairs.
Much has been made lately of setbacks and the resilience of the Taliban. But given its history, Afghanistan is doing relatively well. International terrorist training camps have been eliminated (or at least pushed across the border to Pakistan); national wealth has nearly doubled in the last five years; Kabul’s population has expanded from less than a million in 2001 to almost four million today.
It seems ground is broken on another huge blue-glass commercial building every week. The wage for an unskilled laborer in Kabul is now $4 a day, four times that in neighboring Pakistan and Uzbekistan. Millions of Afghan refugees have returned home at a time when Iraqis are fleeing Iraq. The central regions of Afghanistan are safe enough for foreigners to travel alone unharmed.
There are, however, serious problems in the south and east of the country. Taliban forces raid villages and military posts before retreating to safety across the Pakistan border. In Helmand Province, the government is associated with kidnapping, murder and theft. Thirty-five highway policemen were arrested this month, accused of robbing vehicles. This province alone produces 50 percent of Europe’s heroin. Afghans in such areas are justifiably angry.
NATO has tried to solve the problems of the south with more troops. This has only added to the problem. For example, Britain decided in 2005 to bring good government, security, rule of law and economic growth to Helmand Province. At the time, there were few Taliban attacks in the area. The British deployed some 4,000 soldiers last year and more civilian advisers to replace a few hundred international troops who had been in the province since the fall of the Taliban.
The British effort failed. A year and a half later, with 7,000 British troops in Helmand, the provincial government is more corrupt, the streets less safe for citizens, the poppy crop larger and the legal economy and infrastructure more eroded. Worst of all, the foreign presence has provoked a wide Taliban insurgency. Dutch troops in Uruzgan Province and the Canadians in Kandahar have had similar experiences.
NATO’s failures in the south should serve as warnings to those who would intensify Western efforts here; the results were inevitable for fundamental structural reasons. Many Afghan officials are simply not committed to state-building in southern Afghanistan, and many are connected to the drug trade. Narcotics makes up more than half of Afghanistan’s gross domestic product and there is no sufficiently appealing alternative crop for farmers.
Most important, none of the factors that led to success in history’s classic counterinsurgency campaigns are present in the fight against the Taliban. In British Malaya in the 1950s, for example, success depended on direct imperial control of the government, a powerful and cooperative local administration, large numbers of troops, active support from much of the population, a detailed understanding of local culture and politics, control of the borders and strong political support at home.
In Afghanistan, by contrast, the American-led coalition is not the government and has to operate in tandem with an Afghan civil service, military and police force that are at best ineffective and at worst actively undermine coalition operations.
The dominant Pashtun tribes in the south and east are suspicious of foreign troops and are reluctant to side with them against the Taliban, who are from their own ethnic group. Coalition-backed governments have been unable to prevent the insurgents from taking sanctuary and receiving armaments and money from across the porous borders with Pakistan and Iran. American and European voters will not send the hundreds of thousands of troops the counterinsurgency textbooks recommend, and have no wish to support decades of fighting.
Worst of all, an increased foreign troop presence will help the Taliban, who are unable to deliver government services and often live parasitically off the people, and whose best selling point is that they are fighting for Afghanistan and Islam against a foreign occupation. If we commit more troops we will find it very difficult to withdraw them later without losing credibility.
Our best hope in Afghanistan is to continue to manage the country through a light civil and military presence. Southern Afghanistan will remain unstable for some time to come. Although we cannot change this, we can contain the situation. We can prevent Qaeda units from using the area as a base from which to attack the United States, and we can prevent the Taliban from again mobilizing conventional forces or capturing major northern cities like Kabul and Mazar-i-Sharif.
This will not require large numbers of troops. If the Taliban tried to raise another conventional army, it would be an easy target for coalition forces and air power. The most efficient and sustainable way to protect American soil from a terrorist attack is not to deploy tens of thousands of troops to occupy rural areas of Afghanistan, but to invest in intelligence to identify the few radicals who want to attack Western targets, and use special forces operations to eliminate them.
We can do much more to show people the benefit of cooperating with the coalition. Projects in hostile areas, where the local population is not working with us and where a minority wants to attack us, are not a constructive use of our limited resources. Our best hope is rather to focus on the many secure and welcoming parts of Afghanistan’s center and north. Efforts to jumpstart local economies led by members of those communities are more effective, more relevant and more sustainable than those dictated by outsiders. We have a great opportunity in the north, center and west of Afghanistan to lead development projects for which Afghans will still be grateful 50 years from now.
This does not mean that we should withdraw and partition the country, or that the Pashtun south is doomed. But only the Afghans have the power to end the insurgency and create a stable and democratic south. It will not be easy. Residents have not yet mobilized effectively against the Taliban. Other Afghan ethnic groups still see the insurgency as a Pashtun problem and would rather not be involved. Twenty-five years of war has left a power vacuum. Politicians concerned with Afghanistan continue to underestimate the power and autonomy of provincial groups and the appeal of tribe and religion.
Stabilizing southern Afghanistan will require uncomfortable compromises. It will certainly take 20 years for Afghanistan to develop an economy to match even Bangladesh, or a civil service or military to match that of Pakistan. In the meantime, the Pashtun areas may remain as wild and unstable as the tribal areas of Pakistan. But Afghanistan on the whole can become more stable, more humane and more prosperous than it is today.
American-led military occupations and counterinsurgency campaigns are unsustainable and counterproductive, not just in Iraq or Afghanistan but in all nationalist Muslim countries. But this is not a call for disengagement.
We need a new strategy that can be applied not only in Iraq but also in Pakistan and wherever else these threats emerge. It should not rely on large amounts of troops and money but on intelligence, pragmatic politics, savvy use of our development assistance and on special forces operations. Rather than throwing more troops at Afghanistan and turning it into a second Iraq, we should use it as a model for a lighter, smarter approach.
Rory Stewart is the author of “The Places in Between” and “The Prince of the Marshes.”
|
|
| | | 62 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Sun, Jul 29, 2007, 09:03
|
UK Telegraph: Musharraf Agrees to Cede Some Power President Pervez Musharraf and Pakistan’s exiled former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, have struck an outline power-sharing deal to run Pakistan, ministers said.
Under the reported agreement, struck late on Friday night, Gen Musharraf would step down as commander in chief of the country’s armed forces but would be able to retain the presidency.
Mrs Bhutto would be permitted to return to the country to stand in parliamentary elections, and the constitution would be changed to allow her to become prime minister for a third term.
However, after two rounds of hard-fought negotiations the two sides remain divided on who should hold the post of prime minister meanwhile.
Mrs Bhutto, leader of the main opposition Pakistan People’s Party, is unhappy with the current incumbent, Shaukat Aziz, whom she regards as too close to Gen Musharraf. She has made it clear that she wants an impartial alternative to ensure free and fair elections and has proposed Hamid Nasir Chatta, a senior politician who has served as speaker of the national assembly.
Gen Musharraf, however, favours Iftikhar Shah, Pakistan’s ambassador to Turkey.
[Sher Afghan Niazi, a minister in Musharraf's cabinet] said the pair had decided that presidential elections should be held in September, during the current parliament, and that if Mrs Bhutto’s party won the subsequent parliamentary elections due in November, she would become prime minister.
However, General Musharraf, a key western ally, still faces an uphill battle to be reelected by the current parliament. The country’s chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, is expected to rule any such attempt unconstitutional.
Facing one of the worst crises of his eight year rule, Gen Musharraf has been weakened by his unsuccessful attempt to remove Mr Chaudhry from office, a decision which was overturned by Pakistan’s supreme court. Ed Morrissey:The "present crisis of religious militancy" has forced the hand of Musharraf. A supporter of the Taliban during his first years in power, 9/11 forced Musharraf to reverse his earlier alliances. That has led to various short truces, notoriously in Waziristan over the past two years. However, the Red Mosque standoffs show that Musharraf has gained nothing from his attempts to rekindle his political alliances with the jihadis.
Bhutto's return will prompt a return to democracy in Pakistan as well. She will insist on presidential elections in September. Bhutto has also insisted that Musharraf resign as head of the armed forces, a particularly tough condition for Musharraf at this point. In any case, it seems unlikely that Musharraf will get elected back into power in a fair poll, so he may opt to retire from politics and remain at the head of the military in the long run.
This presents both a crisis and an opportunity for the US. Losing Musharraf could mean losing Pakistan as a partner against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, if the elections go badly. However, it could also mean gaining a stronger partner, one with a real mandate from the Pakistani electorate. It could also help discredit the radicals in Pakistan if they lose a general election badly enough.
|
|
| | | 63 | nerveclinic proxy
ID: 071461 Mon, Aug 06, 2007, 02:14
|
MITH
However, the Red Mosque standoffs show that Musharraf has gained nothing from his attempts to rekindle his political alliances with the jihadis.
MITH the above statement, at the time you posted it, was either outdated or uniformed. Musharraf invaded the mosque, ended the stand off and killed scores of the extremists who were inside. It included battles that took several days.
While he may have been overly patient with the mosque inhabitants in some peoples eyes (waiting 6 months to act) He used the time to build a concensus against them in his country and the middle east. By the time he attacked he had a lot of sympathy on his side, something that may not of been the case if he hadn't been patient.
Even so he did this at great political risk.
I can't link to it so here is a piece from the Gulf News which is a mouth piece paper of the Dubai government.
Several thousand Pakistanis rallied yesterday to denounce the government for ordering an army crackdown on a radical mosque in the capital, Islamabad.
Protests were held in several towns and cities across the country after Friday prayers but there were no reports of trouble.
At least 75 supporters of hardline clerics were killed in Tuesday's commando assault on Islamabad's Lal Masjid, or Red Mosque, which ended a week-long standoff between militants and security forces. Ten soldiers were also killed.
"This chapter has not ended here. The bloodshed at Lal Masjid will lead to an Islamist revolution in Pakistan," Liaqat Baloch, central leader of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) alliance of religious parties, told a rally of about 300 people in Lahore.
Protesters burned effigies of President Pervez Musharraf and US President George W. Bush and shouted "Long live the martyrs of Lal Masjid" and "Musharraf Killer".
These protesters are not the majority in Pakistan (notice there were only 300 people at the rally) but it shows what Musharraf is up against.
|
|
| | | 64 | Mötley Crüe Dude
ID: 439372011 Mon, Aug 06, 2007, 23:20
|
Why has this not appeared anywhere in the American media?
Pakistani Army kicks a little ass
80,000 troops deployed in Waziristan ...
80 thousand?
Hopefully this is a sign. I'm taking it as one.
|
|
| | | 65 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016 Mon, Aug 06, 2007, 23:56
|
Hopefully this is a sign.
It's a sign, but is it a good one? Is it necessary to engulf the entire region in warfare, or is it better to maximize intelligence efforts to find the high profile targets? I fear that a full blown military assault will bog down into a long and bloody guerilla war with increased violence to be expected throughout Pakistani cities.
|
|
| | | 66 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 00:14
|
The job has to be done. And sadly, I have no faith in the Bush adminstration's ability to accomplish it any more more cleanly.
|
|
| | | 67 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 00:50
|
The job has to be done
Define the job.
Our objective should be to eliminate the heirarchy of Al Qaeda. The fact that we haven't been able to pinpoint this location, given the resources available and the gobs of money we've thrown at Pakistan is unsettling.
If the job is to change the demographic and cultural makeup of Waziristan and the Northwest Province, then Musharaff is deluded. Not only will a new regional war front be opened(arms makers can only hope), but Pakistan faces incredible internal pressures as sympathy for the locals grows with every report of a farmer and his family blown up by a Pakistan army mortar.
|
|
| | | 68 | Boxman
ID: 211139621 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 05:56
|
PV: I fear that a full blown military assault will bog down into a long and bloody guerilla war with increased violence to be expected throughout Pakistani cities.
The problem is does the Pak military have an to use elite special forces like we do? I'm sure they have some sort of unit like that, but I doubt they're on our level. With that amount of territory to patrol, in their territory, maybe its best for the Paks to police their own property.
Mith: The job has to be done. And sadly, I have no faith in the Bush adminstration's ability to accomplish it any more more cleanly.
Then I guess it's a good thing for you that he's not in charge of the Pakistani army.
|
|
| | | 69 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 07:39
|
PV
That's the price we pay for dealing with a dictator.
I don't believe Musharraf aims to change the demographic and cultural makeup of tribal pakistan. He's well aware of his tenuous hold on on his position and dictators like him are survivors above all else. It's why he begged us to pull out of there back in 2002 - for the purpose of avoiding a bloody uprising against him. After 5 years of sitting back and watching him allow al Qaeda to reconstitute, the objective is far more complicated than prior to the start of the Iraq war.
Whether it's 80,000 Pakistani troops or an American bombing campaign followed by the infusion of some smaller number of American troops, the risks for Pakistan are largely the same.
|
|
| | | 70 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 08:05
|
Our objective should be to eliminate the heirarchy of Al Qaeda
So you are pro WoT then? Or just when it suits your debating purpose? Or just long enuff to start it but not long enuff to finish it?
I don't mean to pick on you, but I think the candidates debating at KOS and trying to out-macho Pres Bush regarding Al Qaeda and Pakistan ought to be pinned down on this.
And the liberal think tank who came up with this meme regarding Pakistan's footdragging should be pinned down on whether they are also macho WoT supporters and if so, maybe break that news to the Move On folks and Sarge.
|
|
| | | 71 | Perm Dude
ID: 1871978 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 09:28
|
Why, exactly? Because you don't take Obama at his word?
Take more than a few minutes and you'll see that the Democrats are actively debating this question internally, mostly revolving around Obama's foreign policy speech just before the YearlyKos event.
On the Republican side, other than Ron Paul, we see a strange combination of "wait and see" and "I'm not like Bush at all but I can't bring myself to not support him."
|
|
| | | 72 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 09:29
|
Believe it or not, Baldwin, there is no necessarily a discrepency in the Dem candidates' Iraq pullout plans and effectively continuing the WoT.
the liberal think tank who came up with this meme regarding Pakistan's footdragging
Do you think for a second that we'd be seeing any movement into the tribal areas now if it weren't for the pressure put on the White House to lean into Musharraf?
|
|
| | | 73 | Perm Dude
ID: 1871978 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 10:02
|
Pakistan ambassador: No safe havens here. Compounds maybe. Training camps? Sure.
Depends upon your definition of "liar" I think.
I find his reference to the NIE and Iraq to be kinda funny. You might recall that Bush & Cheney selectively leaked portions of the NIE to back up their claims to go into Iraq in early 2003. The fuller NIE from which they were excerpting was much more cautious about Iraq and were not at all conclusive about the WMD and WMD programs in Iraq.
pd
|
|
| | | 74 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 10:05
|
Do you think for a second that we'd be seeing any movement into the tribal areas now if it weren't for the pressure put on the White House to lean into Musharraf?
I think Algore or Kerry, if given 2 terms, would still be filing criminal charges against Al Qeada figures in between terrorist strikes in DC, not chasing thru Waziristan.
These are just 'criminal acts' we were told by these men.
|
|
| | | 75 | Perm Dude
ID: 1871978 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 10:14
|
So we must guard against the possibility of Democrats having won the presidency in the past?
How about joining us here in the real world, where we try to critique actual actions in real-time?
|
|
| | | 76 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 10:23
|
I think Algore or Kerry, if given 2 terms, would still be filing criminal charges against Al Qeada figures in between terrorist strikes in DC, not chasing thru Waziristan.
Who's chasing through Waziristan? Not the US. The only incursion into Waziristan by the US was a botched CIA bombing of a few families as they ate dinner.
As for criminal charges against Al Qeada figures, yes, I would like to see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tried in an open court with all the evidence properly presented and cross-examined. Somehow I find that preferable to holding him incognito for years, using his interrogation(hearsay) as a basis for the 9/11 commission and Moussaoui trial, then using him as a high profile propoganda case by transferring him to Gitmo - if the person they're parading around is even Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Call me a cynic, but when the CIA and the Bush administration says, "Trust us on this", my reaction is trust, but verify.
|
|
| | | 77 | walk
ID: 596182512 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 10:47
|
PV, always posting with substance. Another good one.
|
|
| | | 78 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 10:47
|
How about joining us here in the real world, where we try to critique actual actions in real-time?
You mean like when I point out phony posturing in real time?
BTW will Cindy Sheehan be leading the charge into western Pakistan?
|
|
| | | 79 | Perm Dude
ID: 1871978 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 10:50
|
Is Cindy Sheehan running for President?
Are you unable or just unwilling to critique Administration and the Democratic candidates on their actions & words on Pakistan?
|
|
| | | 80 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 11:08
|
These are just 'criminal acts' we were told by these men.
That Baldwin, is PRECISELY what terrorism is...criminal.
|
|
| | | 81 | Tree
ID: 3533298 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 11:32
|
BTW will Cindy Sheehan be leading the charge into western Pakistan?
because this is EXACTLY what Bush has been doing for the last half decade!?!?!??!
*my* city was attacked almost six years ago, and quite frankly, my government hasn't done $hit to capture the man responsible for murdering 3000 of my brethren.
i am sick and tired of some pricks in the midwest being all smart ass and cynical about what someone else might do, when the man they put in charge of this nation has quite possibly managed to do less than nothing.
|
|
| | | 82 | walk
ID: 596182512 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 11:53
|
Hey, he's done a lot, Tree, he effectively deflected attention on the lack of work done in Afghanistan and Pakistan to capture Bin Laden and associates by starting a war in Iraq ... that led to even more terror (just over there, unless you count England)...but alas, that deflection is now wearing off. So, we got a bargain, two wars for the price of ... time to move on. Nothing to see around here.
|
|
| | | 83 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 13:01
|
Question for the libs:
How exactly does it mess with your minds, that all your anti-war hysteria has brought you is a troop surge in Iraq and the Dems leading us into a war in Pakistan?
|
|
| | | 84 | Tree
ID: 3533298 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 13:17
|
How exactly does it mess with your minds, that all your anti-war hysteria has brought you is a troop surge in Iraq and the Dems leading us into a war in Pakistan?
As i pointed out earlier today in a different thread, there were many of us on the left who had no problem with waging war against Al-Queda in Afghanistan and hunting for Osama, as they were responsible for 9/11.
It's not that some of us are anti-war, it's that we are anti-Iraq war.
oh, and the troop-surge has nothing to do with being anti-Iraq war. that's a silly link if there ever was one.
If we had gone after Osama to begin with, this country might not be in the $hitty situation it is right now.
|
|
| | | 85 | Perm Dude
ID: 1871978 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 13:19
|
It's called "eyes on the prize" Baldwin.
|
|
| | | 86 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 13:25
|
Baldwin I'll respond to that question if you want but it (and the pathetic cheap shot it attempts) really doesn't apply to me.
But I'd love to know how it messes with your mind that it turns out that the Democrats were exactly right that the War in Iraq would only hamper, compound and distract us from our fight against the enemy who attacked us on 9/11.
OBL goes to bed every night thanking Allah for Bush's Iraq invasion and the time it afforded him to rebuild his terrorist network and go back to planning the mass murder of Americans.
|
|
| | | 87 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 13:55
|
the Democrats were exactly right
Someone call the stupid post hall of fame committee.
Yeah, President Kerry would have managed to haul OBL off to jail in a Pakistani squad car with his 'criminal justice' approach or the new and improved Dem candidates who have suddenly grown balls, will not only locate OBL but foster international respect for the USA and build an international consensus by unilaterally attacking Pakistan.
Miracle workers all.
|
|
| | | 88 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 14:01
|
...unilaterally attacking Pakistan.
Please demonstrate where ANYONE has advocated an attack against the Pakistani Military/Govt. A SF incursion into the mountains to root out OBL and an "attack upon Pakistan" are not the same. (Admittedly, there are those in the radical Muslim world who wouold do all in their power to portray it as such. Should we be counting you amongst those persons Baldwin?)
|
|
| | | 89 | Perm Dude
ID: 1871978 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 14:02
|
Again with the alternative universe, Baldwin. We're going to just call you AUB from now on.
How about less fantasy political reflection and more actual, eh?
And surely you aren't, at this point, saying that our anti-terrorism actions shouldn't be law-and-order oriented?
|
|
| | | 90 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 14:08
|
Someone call the stupid post hall of fame committee.
Yeah, President Kerry would have...
I'm quite sure everyone else noticed that I didn't offer any suggestions on Kerry's ability to successfully execute foreign policy. If you're going to call my points stupid, at least do yourself the service of responding to them and not some nonsense you invented in your own head.
Again, how does it make you feel that regarding the issue I raised in post 86, Kerry and the Dems were exactly right.
Prediction: if B responds at all it will once again be to a point that is distinctly different from this.
|
|
| | | 91 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 18:53
|
Al Qeada has been plenty involved in Iraq so how Kerry was right and Bush was wrong about that flypaper strat is beyond me.
*I must be honest and admit that this whole terrorism thing has an orchestrated feel to it that makes me uncomfortable taking it at face value. Maybe the power elite really hate OBL and company as much as they hated Nazis back when they invited them over for tea and crumpets in operation paperclip. Maybe Bush and Musharif are only play acting. But if people are going to propose that Musharif is play-acting and really doesn't want to kill the people trying to kill him, I want them to admit that they have joined me in conspiracy theory land.
|
|
| | | 92 | Tree
ID: 39732718 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 19:35
|
Al Qeada has been plenty involved in Iraq so how Kerry was right and Bush was wrong about that flypaper strat is beyond me.
only after we destabilized Iraq. Their presence there was minimal, at best, when Saddam was around.
But if people are going to propose that Musharif is play-acting and really doesn't want to kill the people trying to kill him,
well, he really doesn't want us going after them, that's for sure...
Musharraf rejects US strikes in Pakistan
|
|
| | | 93 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 19:43
|
Name a world leader, especially in a putatively democratic country who could say otherwise?
"Oh sure, attack my country if you feel like it, in fact let's just make that standard operating procedure."
|
|
| | | 94 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 21:35
|
91 Al Qeada has been plenty involved in Iraq so how Kerry was right and Bush was wrong about that flypaper strat is beyond me.
1. Al Qaeda's Pakistani headquarters has reconstituted. Thanks to President "I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned" Bush's calling off the chase just before the spot they now thrive in, they are stronger, better funded, better manned, better equipped, better networked and more dangerous today than they were in March 2003. Duh.
2. In Iraq we have instead created yet another operational extension of the al Qaeda network, seperate from the Pakistani base. This means that the military committment to Iraq essential, not only for Iraq's well being, but for the well being of the US, all our allies and anyone else who happens to be in al Qaeda's sights. If Musharraf fails in Waziristan or (worse) is overthrown by elements sympathetic to Islamist terrorists, the Iraq committment will be a terrible drain on our ability to react.
3. The whole point of the flypaper strategy is to fight the enemy in a place of our choosing (you know, the enemy that already existed, not a new extension of that enemy that our chosen battlefield created), in order to prevent coalition civilians from having to deal with terrorist attacks at home. Tell me, what do you think residents of Riyadh, Istanbul, Madrid, London, Sharm el-Sheikh, Amman and Algiers think about the effectiveness of America's flypaper strategy?
93 Pakistan is a putatively democratic country?
You have devolved into Jag.
|
|
| | | 95 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 23:14
|
they are stronger, better funded, better manned, better equipped, better networked and more dangerous today than they were in March 2003.
The word allegedly belongs after "they are." Think about it. The more funded, the more operatives, the more equipment and the more networking they obtain, the more they expose themselves to detection, given that our CIA has a $45 billion annual budget(along with other budgets to draw from), the most sophisticated surveillance equipment in the history of man, and at least some level of cooperation from various other national intelligence services, primarily the Pakistani ISI.
So, who is telling us about this resurgence of Al Qaeda, and how dangerous it is?
From the July NIE report:
We assess that al-Qai'da's homeland plotting is likely to continue to focus on prominent political, economic, and infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the U.S. population. The group is proficient with conventional small arms and improvised explosive devices, and is innovative in creating new capabilities and overcoming security obstacles.
We assess that al-Qai'da will continue to try to acquire and employ chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material in attacks and would not hesitate to use them if it develops what it deems is sufficient capability.
link
FBI Director Mueller talks to NewsMax in May:
Osama bin Laden and his terrorist group desperately want to obtain nuclear devices and explode them in American cities, especially New York and Washington, D.C., FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III tells NewsMax.
In an exclusive interview, Mueller also acknowledged that bin Laden is still active, though isolated. The director revealed that the Bureau believes the terrorist leader continues to communicate with al-Qaida cells, some of which remain in the U.S.
Mueller declined to say how often bin Laden communicates or to elaborate on the substance of his communications.
Other intelligence sources tell NewsMax that U.S. security efforts have forced bin Laden to return to "horse-and-buggy days" — avoiding electronic communications in favor of using trusted couriers.
But Mueller says though hemmed in, al-Qaida's paramount goal is clear: to detonate a nuclear device that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.
OK, stop. First, why is the FBI director giving an exclusive interview to NewsMax? Next, how does he have so much meticulous information about Al Qaeda(Osama bin Laden and his terrorist group desperately want ) , but not know where they are? Finally, why is he saying these things? Isn't it weird how the government will avoid releasing how many doughnuts are served at a miltary mess hall for reasons of national security, but is more than happy to spill the beans that Al Qaeda is likely to nuke our cities any day?
More from
NewsMax
Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey tells NewsMax in an exclusive interview that terrorists could strike the American homeland — possibly with a weapon of mass destruction — this summer or early fall.
He also warns that if Iran fails to comply with international efforts to stop its nuclear weapons program, the U.S. will have no other option than to bomb it.
"I think the threat of a serious attack in the next few months is very real," Woolsey said. A terrorist strike with a dirty bomb or with biological weapons was "a real possibility." [Editor's Note: Special: 6 Days of Hell - The Coming War With Iran. Click here for more.]
Woolsey's comments echo those of FBI Director Robert Mueller, who told NewsMax in May that al-Qaida's paramount goal is clear: to detonate a nuclear device that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans. Sense a pattern here? Lots of speculation, lots of warnings, lots of fearful predictions, but where is the supporting evidence that Al Qaeda, from an unknown and apparently unknowable location in the mountains of Pakistan is growing its network and capabilities?
On one hand the intelligence services are made to look completely inept, yet they want us to trust them that they have all this information that will ultimately lead to bigger budgets to keep America safe.
|
|
| | | 96 | Building 7
ID: 536342220 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 23:54
|
They have a secret informant....the boogeyman. If there is a terrorist attack in this country, I would suspect this administration before Al-CIA-da. What's the best thing that could happen to this administration? A terrorist attack. Not good for the country though. Think about it. "The war on terror is a bumper sticker." How would that statement look? It would be savaged by Cheney et al. Unless there is another terrorist attack (and I'm being generous in using the word another), the Republicans will be smoked in the next elections. In fact, it's scary that they are not worried. And what is the best way to insure a terrorist attack of happening. Do it yourself and blame it on terrorists, or find about it and allow it to happen. I'm sorry to be so cynical, but the federal government has lost all credibility with me. Do you really think Rove has no plan other than to hope Iraq improves. The other alternative is to blame something on Iran and attack them. They are passing continuity of governnment stuff, more Motherland Security bills. Executive Orders. Scary stuff IMO. And it all stems from the day the Pentagon blew up. Re: the war on terror. How do we know when we have won? How does the other side go about surrendering? How can a cease fire be arranged? Exactly where and who are the enemy? It's the boogeyman syndrome and it's getting old. I used to like Fox news. I find myself watching it less and less. Well that's my rant, I have to get ready for my fantasy football draft now.
|
|
| | | 97 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Sat, Nov 03, 2007, 16:42
|
Musharraf Declares Emergency Rule
NY Times article
|
|
| | | 98 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 04:21
|
I loved how the NY Times article turned this immediately to a trash job on the Bush administation. I can not believe the bias of that rag. How about reporting the how and why of calling for Emergency Rule and leave the BS editorials out.
|
|
| | | 99 | Perm Dude
ID: 51101737 Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 08:54
|
"Turning quicky to the truth, the Times pisses Jag off..."
|
|
| | | 100 | bibA Leader
ID: 261028117 Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 11:39
|
LOL Jag - In reading the fairly long article I only see a couple of references to the U.S. A couple times there are statements indicating that the U.S. is urging Musharraf to move toward democracy, and that the administration has been put into a position where it must publicly castigate a leader who it has backed with $10 billion.
Am I missing something here? This qualifies as editorializing and bias reporting?
|
|
| | | 101 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 16:07
|
I assume Jag is offended that the Times describes it as a setback for US policy in Pakistan.
|
|
| | |
| | | 103 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 17:22
|
At least Bush is reviewing our relationship, in light of it all. Can Jag do the same?
Objectively? No.
|
|
| | | 104 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 20:20
|
You can speak the truth and still propagandize, which is what the NY Times excels at. Just like with TASS, Liberals need propaganda to help prop a failing socialist agenda. Luckily, even with all their media domination, they have failed to turn America into Cuba.
|
|
| | | 105 | Perm Dude
ID: 51101737 Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 21:35
|
"failing socialist agenda" ROFL! Maybe the reason America is not Cuba is because, for the vast majority of people (incliging the Times) turning American into Cuba was never the goal.
pd
|
|
| | | 106 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 21:44
|
Jag you can lay out your gripe or not. What are the offending excerpts and why? I certainly don't know what your issue with the article is. Does anyone?
Hey Boxman, do you know exactly what parts of the article he takes issue with as 'propaganda'?
|
|
| | | 107 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 21:56
|
Washington has generously backed the general, sending him more than $10 billion in aid since 2001, mostly for the military. Now the administration finds itself in the bind of having to publicly castigate the man it has described as one of its closest allies in fighting terrorism.
This is the equivilent of every time Kim sword waved and tested missiles, a newspaper started the 3rd paragraph on how Clinton tempted to payoff a madman and how embarassed he should be about such a moronic policy.
|
|
| | | 108 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 22:01
|
So you think the Time's pointing out the money Bush has sent to Pakistan is unnecsessary propaganda in an item about this weekend's events there?
|
|
| | | 109 | Perm Dude
ID: 51101737 Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 22:10
|
Is that what happened, Jag? North Korea agreed to a treaty which George Bush specifically repudiated. North Korea then fired up its enrichment process.
The latest agreement, after years of Kim's "sword waving" gives North Korea huge amounts of fuel oil and other susidies before North Korea has to turn over anything.
And this is something the Times should point out as Clinton's fault?
|
|
| | | 110 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 22:33
|
For a comparison with a news source less biased than the Times, I checked foxnews.com for their coverege of the event. From the article on their front page:The Bush administration said it was deeply disturbed by the emergency and urged a swift return to democracy. But the Pentagon said Musharraf's declaration does not affect U.S. military support of Pakistan, suggesting to many here it will be business as usual.
Washington has provided billions of dollars in military and economic assistance since it suspended sanctions on military aid to Islamabad after 9/11.
|
|
| | | 111 | Doug
ID: 53937413 Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 04:10
|
Come on MITH, it's been well established on these forums that Fox is secretly part of the left-wing MSM, stealthily operating under the guise of a conservative news outlet.
Kinda like how Obama's been serving as a sleeper cell agent for Muslim extremists for over 40 years now.
|
|
| | | 112 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 10:37
|
MITH, your link shows how news should be reported, 15 paragraphs on the subject and then how it affects the president.
I can give you example of every NY Times article for the last 7 years.
First paragraph on the the subject. Second paragraph on why it is Bush's fault. Third paragraph on why Bush sux.
Kinda like the majority of the posts on this forum.
|
|
| | | 113 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 11:06
|
I see. So the placing of relevant and accurate information in the beginning or near the end of an article make's the difference between responsible news reporting and a "trash job". Got it.
|
|
| | | 114 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Tue, Nov 06, 2007, 04:19
|
Kinda like the majority of the posts on this forum.
Coming from someone who has the reputation as the most erudite, lucid, intellectual poster on the forum, that one really hurts.
|
|
| | | 115 | walk
ID: 7952415 Tue, Nov 06, 2007, 10:44
|
Shakes his head...
Jag, one could argue that it's really YOU, not the NY Times, that has a biased and slanted view to propagandize everything...naaaaaaaa.
Socialists rule! (oy yoi yoi).
|
|
| | | 116 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418 Tue, Nov 06, 2007, 11:59
|
|
|
| | | 117 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418 Tue, Nov 06, 2007, 12:05
|

In a telephone address to lawyers in Pakistan’s capital, the ousted chief justice of the Supreme Court urged them today to continue to defy the state of emergency imposed by the president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
“The lawyers should convey my message to the people to rise up and restore the Constitution,” the chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, told dozens of lawyers on speakerphone at a meeting of the Islamabad Bar Association before his cellphone line was cut. “I am under arrest now, but soon I will also join you in your struggle.” I, for one, am very proud that the attorneys in Pakistan are putting their lives on the line protesting Musharraf's trashing of the Constitution. I certainly know that I'd take to the streets if any US president pulled the same stunt.
If you want your child to become a hero, forget firefighting, send him or her to law school!
|
|
| | | 118 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923 Tue, Nov 06, 2007, 12:56
|
Too bad Venezuela doesn't have a similar Bar
|
|
| | | 119 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923 Tue, Nov 06, 2007, 12:56
|
Too bad Venezuela doesn't have a similar Bar
|
|
| | | 120 | Perm Dude
ID: 501016612 Tue, Nov 06, 2007, 13:16
|
Don't they have an exchange program with the State of Washington?
:)
|
|
| | | 121 | Boxman
ID: 337352111 Tue, Nov 06, 2007, 13:42
|
Yes please. Send Zen there to get his ass kicked.
|
|
| | | 122 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418 Tue, Nov 06, 2007, 16:37
|
Yeah, I'm not the slightest bit surprised that you side with the jackbooted thugs of a dictator. I'm sure you view attorneys with the same disdain as teachers and other individuals of intellect.
|
|
| | |
| | | 124 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Wed, Nov 07, 2007, 11:50
|
The buzz over here is that Musharraf is on very shaky ground and getting desperate.
|
|
| | |
| | | 126 | Perm Dude
ID: 3101888 Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 00:34
|
The headline of this article is "Pakistan sets election under US pressure" but the bigger news, IMO, is:
But he showed no sign of ending a political crack down, sending police to surround the home of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto and detaining thousands ahead of a major protest.
|
|
| | | 127 | Perm Dude
ID: 3101888 Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 00:49
|
Of course, maybe keeping a crook under house arrest isn't altogether a bad thing.
|
|
| | |
| | | 129 | nerve proxy
ID: 5510102015 Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 16:10
|
I was in a cab a couple weeks ago. I asked the driver
ME: "Are you from Pakistan?"
TD: "yes and you?"
ME: USA...It's getting pretty crazy in Pakistan now isn't it?
TD: "Yes, Musharraf, Bushes friend, the USA dictator is causing lots of problems..."
true story...
|
|
| | |
| | | 131 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Tue, Feb 19, 2008, 14:48
|
I look at the photo in post 117 and I was actually laughing out loud.
I'm around Pakis everyday, I've met many, had Paki drivers, most cab drivers are Paki etc. So I have really gotten to know them, their style, their personalities.
So I look at the photo in post 117 and I laugh out loud.
It's like they are trying to riot, but they haven't quite got the hang of it.
The guy in the middle left in white almost looks like he is laughing.
The police have "clubs" but they are more like thin sticks. It looks like a riot you could stand 5 feet away from and just do a little dodging here and there and come out no worse for wear.
The whole thing looks like a staged Bollywood move (Yeah I know wrong country but darn hard to tell them apart at first 8-} )
Probably not as funny if you haven't been immersed in the culture the last year and a half.
I don't mean the above in any insulting way, I've had very good experiences with Pakis here in Dubai.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | 136 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Sun, Jun 14, 2009, 05:59
|
Do you suppose the Western Frontier of Pakistan is a tourest destination for arabs?
Al Qeada means 'the base' and as far as I remember they consider that region of Pakistan as prophesied to be the base from which Islam will conquere the world in the end-times.
So don't be so sure these are 'random' arabs. There are stone age natives and al qeada migrants there. No practical reason anyone else would be there.
|
|
| | | 137 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Sun, Jun 14, 2009, 06:04
|
The presense of foreign arabs is not innocent in Afghanistan and Iraq either.
Iraq would have been lost if not for the fact that the natives hated foreign arabs lopping off their kids heads for minor moslem infractions even more than they hated americans.
|
|
| | |
| | |
|
|