Pakistan tipping off militants...again

[yllus]

The key to stabilizing Iraq was in the Iraq people. They have a strong sense of nationalistic pride, and they have been a great country in the past. They had to move past their squabbles over power, and events like the Sunni Awakening contributed significantly to the stability and security we see today. In short, Iraq is nothing like Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a no win situation, and I don't know anyone in the grade of O-4 or lower (ground level commanders) that thinks it's winnable after doing a tour there.

It tends to come down to literacy and community. A nationalistic people who are generally well-educated enough to make a sophisticated system like democracy work will succeed.

A nation made out of half a dozen separate ethnicities like Afghanistan or Pakistan with terrible literacy rates... Almost certainly a lost cause. Frankly both countries would probably spend a lot more time nation-building and less time warring if they were both broken up into many smaller states.

 

[The Green Bean]

How come nobody says anything when the Americans start talking to the Taliban? When Pakistan does it they are with the enemy, but when the Americans do it, they're just negotiating. Face the fact: you have lost the war. Now leave the region before things get worse.

 

[Nebor]

How come nobody says anything when the Americans start talking to the Taliban? When Pakistan does it they are with the enemy, but when the Americans do it, they're just negotiating. Face the fact: you have lost the war. Now leave the region before things get worse.

We will. Enjoy all those weapons and ammunition we're leaving behind.

 

[EagleKeeper]

How come nobody says anything when the Americans start talking to the Taliban? When Pakistan does it they are with the enemy, but when the Americans do it, they're just negotiating. Face the fact: you have lost the war. Now leave the region before things get worse.

Talking and aiding are two different words.

Aiding the Taliban in the fight against Nato by supplying them with logistics, intelligence and freedom of movement.

A little different than trying to end the conflict via peace talks.

Now I do not believe that the Taliban will hold up any bargin; they jsut are staling for time to get Nato out of the picture.

Nato went in because the Taliban would not hand over Bin Laden.

If Nato pulls out, I would expect that the existing Kabul gov will fold quickly (see South Vietnam) and Nato will not go back in.

What Pakistan will do when there is no US aid coming in...
will the Taliban and militants see an opportunity to expand their control given the lack of support from the US and inside the Paksitan goverment/military

Use the threat of insecure nukes as blackmail?

 

[The Green Bean]

Talking and aiding are two different words.

Aiding the Taliban in the fight against Nato by supplying them with logistics, intelligence and freedom of movement.

A little different than trying to end the conflict via peace talks.

Now I do not believe that the Taliban will hold up any bargin; they jsut are staling for time to get Nato out of the picture.

Nato went in because the Taliban would not hand over Bin Laden.

If Nato pulls out, I would expect that the existing Kabul gov will fold quickly (see South Vietnam) and Nato will not go back in.

What Pakistan will do when there is no US aid coming in...
will the Taliban and militants see an opportunity to expand their control given the lack of support from the US and inside the Paksitan goverment/military

Use the threat of insecure nukes as blackmail?

haha are you contemplating that the Taliban will take over Pakistan? It's dumb to think the Taliban ideology can get any strong foothold within any Pakistani establishment. The religious parties (and they are moderate compared to the Taliban) only won 2.2% of the vote in the last election. Even in Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa, only 14% of the seats were won by the religious parties.

95% of Pakistanis want nothing to with the religious practices of the Taliban. However, it is in our national interest to get some stability in Afghanistan and get a foothold in Afghanistan and that is the only reason we support the Taliban there. If Afghanistan was a stable country, we half of the energy resources in the region would be routed through Pakistan which would mean riches and power. Afghanistan was a place 100 times better as far as Pakistan is concerned before the NATO invasion. Now all we get from there is terrorists and heroin.

The insecure nukes issue is nothing more than propaganda. If it was a real threat, the world would have actually done something about it by now. Nukes are strategic assets and they give us leverage in the long term. Most Pakistanis believe that if we did not have nukes, we would have had American troops roaming our cities.

What do you have to say about aiding OBL against the Soviets? Or was that okay because it was against communist occupation and not "freedom."

 

[Jhhnn]

Nato went in because the Taliban would not hand over Bin Laden.

Nato entered only later in support of unilateral US action. Not to mention that supporters of Bush policy seem to think that the Taliban somehow had the power to do what neither the US nor the current govts of Afghanistan or Pakistan could accomplish- give up Bin Laden on demand. Hell- they couldn't even pacify the remnants of the Northern Alliance, a ragtag outfit if ever there was one. Bin Laden picked Afghanistan for good reason, a near total lack of govt influence (let alone control) in the hinterlands.

As the unfolding of events should tell us, Afghanistan wasn't so much an objective as a springboard for the invasion of Iraq. Once the initial invasion was complete, the Bushistas didn't really try to pacify the place, given that troop levels were below 40K for several years as the insurgency grew. They just let it fester into what we have today.

 

[EagleKeeper]

haha are you contemplating that the Taliban will take over Pakistan? It's dumb to think the Taliban ideology can get any strong foothold within any Pakistani establishment. The religious parties (and they are moderate compared to the Taliban) only won 2.2% of the vote in the last election. Even in Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa, only 14% of the seats were won by the religious parties.

95% of Pakistanis want nothing to with the religious practices of the Taliban. However, it is in our national interest to get some stability in Afghanistan and get a foothold in Afghanistan and that is the only reason we support the Taliban there. If Afghanistan was a stable country, we half of the energy resources in the region would be routed through Pakistan which would mean riches and power. Afghanistan was a place 100 times better as far as Pakistan is concerned before the NATO invasion. Now all we get from there is terrorists and heroin.

The insecure nukes issue is nothing more than propaganda. If it was a real threat, the world would have actually done something about it by now. Nukes are strategic assets and they give us leverage in the long term. Most Pakistanis believe that if we did not have nukes, we would have had American troops roaming our cities.

What do you have to say about aiding OBL against the Soviets? Or was that okay because it was against communist occupation and not "freedom."

The Taliban/militants already control part of Pakistani territory.

If they did not have a second front; they could turn their attentions toward Pakistan. It has nothing to do with elections/religion. It has to do with subjugation. They have shown that they can take over control of provinces. within Pakistan. And that is with some of thire resources tied up in Afghanistan.

It will take a stable economic minded government in Afghanistan to convince investment in the ability to remove resources via Pakistan. Without that stability, no company will invest in what is a fragmented warlord control country.

the Taliban had the strength before the conflict; but had no economic interest in allowing development. Development means opening up their world to outsiders. You can easily see what happened in the Middle East when the Arab countries turned to the West for assistance in oil resource development; it "corrupted" their cultures.

As to support of OBL; when he was fighting our enemies; then it was fine. When he turned against us, he made himself a prime target. He had the choice of staying neutral after the Russians were gone; he did not.

 

[The Green Bean]

As to support of OBL; when he was fighting our enemies; then it was fine. When he turned against us, he made himself a prime target. He had the choice of staying neutral after the Russians were gone; he did not.

So the Taliban are fighting our enemies now, so it's fine.

What part of Pakistan do the Taliban control--the same Taliban that is fighting in Afghanistan? I could call my self America and start killing people too... There are many Taliban and the ones in Afghanistan have no interest in fighting Pakistan. They were our allies before the Americans and they are today.

You are being dumb if you think the Taliban took over a whole province.

Too bad you've been fed bullshit and you sound pretty dumb too. I guess that makes for an easy target.

 

[The Green Bean]

Nato entered only later in support of unilateral US action. Not to mention that supporters of Bush policy seem to think that the Taliban somehow had the power to do what neither the US nor the current govts of Afghanistan or Pakistan could accomplish- give up Bin Laden on demand. Hell- they couldn't even pacify the remnants of the Northern Alliance, a ragtag outfit if ever there was one. Bin Laden picked Afghanistan for good reason, a near total lack of govt influence (let alone control) in the hinterlands.

As the unfolding of events should tell us, Afghanistan wasn't so much an objective as a springboard for the invasion of Iraq. Once the initial invasion was complete, the Bushistas didn't really try to pacify the place, given that troop levels were below 40K for several years as the insurgency grew. They just let it fester into what we have today.

I agree with you. The Taliban didn't want to sound weak by saying that the would not be able to find OBL. They probably underestimated the Americans, or may be not. Would the Taliban have been worse off fighting AlQaeeda or America?

 

[Lemon law]

For what its worth, Obama is supposed to address the nation tomorrow and lay out his future Afghan strategy. Its widely expected up to 5000 troops will be send back maybe this month with another 30,000 more to follow.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_af...Ec2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDb2JhbWF0b21vdmV1

While at the same time reality suggests we can't have a prayer of winning in Afghanistan without like 400,000 more troops. So if we are going to withdraw troops we have admitted our own defeat, why sugar coat it with flowery language, just admit we got our asses kicked and get everyone in Nato out of Afghanistan.

 

[tvarad]

For what its worth, Obama is supposed to address the nation tomorrow and lay out his future Afghan strategy. Its widely expected up to 5000 troops will be send back maybe this month with another 30,000 more to follow.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_af...Ec2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDb2JhbWF0b21vdmV1

While at the same time reality suggests we can't have a prayer of winning in Afghanistan without like 400,000 more troops. So if we are going to withdraw troops we have admitted our own defeat, why sugar coat it with flowery language, just admit we got our asses kicked and get everyone in Nato out of Afghanistan.

Lemon Law, Afghanistan is a shvthole that's been brutalized for more than three decades. It's not so much NATO got it's ass kicked than Obama has realized that dealing with both the beloved patriot army and karzai is like dealing with pimps who have whored Pakistan and Afghanistan to line their pockets. Their only "bargaining" chip was that a U.S. withdrawal without bagging bin Laden would be tantamount to a defeat. Now that he's been knocked out and Leon Panetta has established a CIA network that bypasses both the beloved patriot army and Karzai (which is why they are both frothing in the mouth), NATO can leave tomorrow and tell both the pakis and afghans to go fvck themselves.

 

[Lemon law]

tvarad, while I agree Afghanistan is been in anarchy for way more than 30 years, I will not call it a shithole but rather a land time forgot. Eventually progress and modernity will come to Afghanistan too, but we can't expect it to come tomorrow. Meanwhile we must deal with the Afghan people as what they are now and not what we would like them to become.

As for the rest of your rant about how rotten Pakistan is, I have to take it with a grain of salt because you are a pro-India fan clubber with an axe to grind about Pakistan. But its still looks like Nato is about the throw in the towel and prepare to leave, so maybe these threads regarding the subject must shift to future consideration about how to repair the damages anarchy has brought to both Afghanistan and the Tribal regions of Pakistan.

As for India and Pakistan, I see a far better future for both nations if some final resolution and settlement of the disputed Kashmir questions. India is doing many things right in trying to modernize, but ethnic divisions can only hold India back.

 

[EagleKeeper]

So the Taliban are fighting our enemies now, so it's fine.

What part of Pakistan do the Taliban control--the same Taliban that is fighting in Afghanistan? I could call my self America and start killing people too... There are many Taliban and the ones in Afghanistan have no interest in fighting Pakistan. They were our allies before the Americans and they are today.

You are being dumb if you think the Taliban took over a whole province.

Too bad you've been fed bullshit and you sound pretty dumb too. I guess that makes for an easy target.

I am tying the Taliban and Pakistani militants into the same bundle. If you choose separate out one vs the other.You have post threads on how the Taliban is dangerous to PakistanSwat

Previously you had posted multiple threads on how provinces and cities were taken over and the military was unable to do anything about it.
Bajaur, FATA, Bajaur

If you want to state the America is your enemy that is fine. When Pakistan converts words into actions; then look out.

As already been shown; Pakistan has a problem securing its own military installations from a few peopleNaval air Station; it can not even "officially" keep track of who is living next door to its premier military academy.

 

[piasabird]

We could cut off all their aid, but they have nukes and they could fall into the wrong hands. However, this is just as likely to happen anyway. We might be better off if the Russians were helping them instead. I think giving pakistan money is like throwing it in a fire.

 

[Lemon law]

I think TGB is closer to being right, Pakistani foreign policy and US foreign policy are driven by completely different concerns, its naive to assume Pakistan will be driven by US foreign policy goals.

Nor can the USA be in a position to get on its shiny white horse of moral superiority when it has totally bungled the Afghan military occupation from the word go. Making an already bad situation much much worse for not only Afghanistan and the entire region.

 

[The Green Bean]

I am tying the Taliban and Pakistani militants into the same bundle. If you choose separate out one vs the other.You have post threads on how the Taliban is dangerous to PakistanSwat

Previously you had posted multiple threads on how provinces and cities were taken over and the military was unable to do anything about it.
Bajaur, FATA, Bajaur

The two entities are different just like Britain and America are different. Besides, the government now claims they let the militants take over those areas for tactical purposes. 1) To show the people how brutal they are. 2) To prove that they could not keep their pacts. 3) To drive their leaders into the cities so they could be captured--and they were.

If you want to state the America is your enemy that is fine. When Pakistan converts words into actions; then look out.

We are getting free aid. Why should we not take it? But our national interests come first. I don't know how long the local public will allow the drone strikes before coming to the streets which they say are killing innocents. I also don't think the USA will be able to win a war against Pakistan. Sure they have superior tech and may be able to destroy our assets within days, but they will never be able to meet their objectives. Our goals will be so much easier to achieve.

As already been shown; Pakistan has a problem securing its own military installations from a few peopleNaval air Station; it can not even "officially" keep track of who is living next door to its premier military academy.

The Americans failed to secure the Pentagon against a few people... Isn't that supposed to be the main base headquarters of the most powerful military in the world that spends 100 times more on it's army than us?

 

[Zebo]

Don't worry we'll have to nuke Pakistan one day. Prolly after militants take over do a couple suitcase bombs in NYC. Like I always say this war is just getting started. You'll see.

 

[Zebo]

Because we are fighting ideas, and ideas simply can't be killed.

lol. We killed nazi ideas. Course we forgot to ID the enemy and forgot how to fight since then.

FDR not only bombed women and children about 2 million, Eisenhower killed about 1 million nazis in interment camps after the war was over. Banned all nazi symbols, mein kampf, etc etc. Oh it's possible but you need to start killing and re-indoctrinating.

 

[Jhhnn]

Eisenhower killed about 1 million nazis in interment camps after the war was over.

Source?

 

[EagleKeeper]

I am tying the Taliban and Pakistani militants into the same bundle. If you choose separate out one vs the other.You have post threads on how the Taliban is dangerous to PakistanSwat

Previously you had posted multiple threads on how provinces and cities were taken over and the military was unable to do anything about it.
Bajaur, FATA, Bajaur

The two entities are different just like Britain and America are different. Besides, the government now claims they let the militants take over those areas for tactical purposes. 1) To show the people how brutal they are. 2) To prove that they could not keep their pacts. 3) To drive their leaders into the cities so they could be captured--and they were.

Great story with excellent spin. Only after the fact could they say that; panic existed prior to the reversal of the situation. Links to such stories please?

If you want to state the America is your enemy that is fine. When Pakistan converts words into actions; then look out.

We are getting free aid. Why should we not take it? But our national interests come first. I don't know how long the local public will allow the drone strikes before coming to the streets which they say are killing innocents. I also don't think the USA will be able to win a war against Pakistan. Sure they have superior tech and may be able to destroy our assets within days, but they will never be able to meet their objectives. Our goals will be so much easier to achieve.

The US does not need to try to occupy Pakistan. The only concern after a decision if made with respect to Afghanistan is how stable the Pakistani government is and are the nukes controlled by reasonable people.

As already been shown; Pakistan has a problem securing its own military installations from a few peopleNaval air Station; it can not even "officially" keep track of who is living next door to its premier military academy.

The Americans failed to secure the Pentagon against a few people... Isn't that supposed to be the main base headquarters of the most powerful military in the world that spends 100 times more on it's army than us?

There is a difference with people entering the installation and taking control of it vs tossing a rocket at it. Unless you have been fed a different story of what happened that day in DC or what actually happened at the Naval station.

..

 

[EagleKeeper]

Eisenhower killed about 1 million nazis in interment camps after the war was over.

Source?

Zebo

That is a broad statement and should be backed up with evidence

Eagle Keeper
Admin

 

[tvarad]

.....
I also don't think the USA will be able to win a war against Pakistan.....

How do you win a war against a country that turns around and offers it's ass the minute you threaten it with dire consequences if it doesn't fall in line? All it took was one phone call from Colin Powell in 2001 for Musharaff to become an "ally" in the war on terror.

 

[JTsyo]

We need real counter-terrorism. They do something horrible, we do something exponentially more horrifying to them.

That's not counter-terrorism. That's just terrorism.