Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditRepresentative David Obey, who chairs the House appropriations committee, is comparing the Afghanistan-Pakistan war to Vietnam:
There were new signs of uneasiness on Capitol Hill about United States involvement in the region. The Democratic chairman of the House Appropriations Committee pronounced himself as "very doubtful" that Mr. Obama's plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan could succeed. The chairman, Representative David Obey, of Wisconsin, said he would allow only one year for the White House to show concrete results, and repeatedly likened Mr. Obama's approach to President Richard Nixon's plans for Vietnam in 1969.
And Obey is planning to attach conditions to aid that President Obama wants:
Mr. Obey, whose committee oversees all federal discretionary spending, said Monday that in the supplemental war-funding bill the House Democrats plan to require the White House to report to Congress next year with measurements of progress from Afghanistan and Iraq in five specific areas: political consensus, government corruption, counterinsurgency efforts, intelligence cooperation and border security.
He added: "I am not going to be looking at those standards like I am the permanent president of the optimists' club." At stake is at least $1 billion in immediate funding for Pakistan's war and for economic aid, along with -- potentially -- $1.5 billion a year in additional aid that Obama wants for the next five to ten years.
In a Washington Post op-ed, Pakistan's premier journalist, Ahmed Rashid challenges Obey directly, without mentioning his name:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has asked Congress for $497 million in emergency funds to stabilize Pakistan's economy, strengthen law enforcement and help the refugees. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has asked for $400 million in aid to the army, funds that would be monitored by U.S. Central Command. Lawmakers are hesitating. ... But delays are dangerous.
And Rashid opposes conditions on the aid:
Other legislation before Congress would provide $1.5 billion a year to Pakistan for the next five years. But the extensive conditions -- as varied as improving relations with India, fighting the Afghan Taliban and allowing the U.S. interrogation of Pakistani nuclear scientists -- are too much for any Pakistani government to accept and survive politically. ... Congress should pass the emergency funds quickly and, at minimum, offer the first year of the $1.5 billion without conditions.
On this, I'm with Obey -- and not Rashid. (We're still waiting for the Obama administration to announce the supposed "benchmarks" for its Afghanistan plan, announced in March.)
Rashid makes the argument that Pakistan is deteriorating so fast that it might collapse. He makes an important point, that the Pashtun-based Taliban insurgency in Pakistan is spreading to non-Pashtun areas, including the Punjabi heartland:
Pakistanis are beset by a galloping Taliban insurgency in the north that is based not just among Pashtuns, as in Afghanistan, but that has extensive links to al-Qaeda and jihadist groups in Punjab, Sindh and Baluchistan.That means the Taliban offensive in northern Pakistan has the potential to become a nationwide movement within a few months.
There's other reporting to support Rashid's claim. In yesterday's Post, Karen de Young wrote that the insurgency is forging links with Punjabis:
Security [is] deteriorating rapidly, particularly in the mountains along the Afghan border that harbor al-Qaeda and the Taliban, intelligence chiefs reported, and there were signs that those groups were working with indigenous extremists in Pakistan's populous Punjabi heartland.
But de Young emphasized that the US intelligence community, which is working overtime on the threat in Pakistan, isn't too worried:
In briefings last week, senior officials said, President Obama and his National Security Council were told that neither a Taliban takeover nor a military coup was imminent and that the Pakistani nuclear arsenal was safe.
Certainly, the situation is far from secure. But, by all reports, the Pakistani army has launched a counteroffensive against the Taliban in the provinces north and west of Islamabad, and they seem to be readying an attack into Swat, the valley province where the Taliban has seized control. They've sent paratroops into Buner province and sent ground troops into Buner in several directions. As many observers have pointed out, Pakistan's huge armed forces isn't going to collapse to a rag-tag Islamist threat. Said Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador in Washington: "They're not about to take over Pakistan and overcome a one-million-strong army."
And the future is ominous. As the New York Times reported yesterday, in a brilliant article by Sabrina Tavernese, thousands of madrasas are springing up in Punjab, where they're brainwashing young Pakistanis. If you want to be really scared, read the whole article. (Remember, this is in Punjab, Pakistan's heartland, not the wild-West, Pashtun-dominated areas in the northwest and the tribal region.) Here's an excerpt:
Pakistan's poorest families have turned to madrasas, or Islamic schools, that feed and house the children while pushing a more militant brand of Islam than was traditional here.The concentration of madrasas here in southern Punjab has become an urgent concern in the face of Pakistan's expanding insurgency. The schools offer almost no instruction beyond the memorizing of the Koran, creating a widening pool of young minds that are sympathetic to militancy.
"We are at the beginning of a great storm that is about to sweep the country," said Ibn Abduh Rehman, who directs the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, an independent organization. "It's red alert for Pakistan."
It's ugly, and getting uglier. But I don't think it's panic time yet. And Obey is right to be skeptical. Bring on those conditions, and benchmarks!
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Okay, let's play Dreyfuss Lotto-
Guess how many posts until "Israel" or "AIPAC" is mentioned by a poster (not including THIS one). Winner gets a free trip to the Holy Land provided by Travelocity.
I guess.....four.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2009 @ 10:32am
Israel/Aipac... I win I win!
Posted by Extraneous at 05/05/2009 @ 11:17am
Posted by Extraneous at 05/05/2009 @ 11:17am
HONK! Oh, I'm sorry...you failed to PICK "second post". But we have some lovely parting gifts, including a copy of the home version of "Dreyfuss Lotto"!
(and of course a year's supply of Rice-a-Roni...the San Francisco treat!)
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2009 @ 11:24am
The Taliban know what they are doing. They know that setting up madrasas and brain washing young minds will insure their future. Our and the the Pakistan government response will play right into their hands. We will use military force. We will kill civilians, close schools (while not providing an alternative)resulting in greater recruits for the Taliban and Al Qaeda. If we seriously want to affect this situation, we need to go into these communities and areas, set up schools they way we want to see them, provide economic assistance and news to the locals. We need to give them an alternative, while at the same time using local police and groups to root out taliban leaders. This is a war of ideas and of attrition. Conventional methods will utterly fail.
Posted by Extraneous at 05/05/2009 @ 11:24am
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2009 @ 11:24am
ROTFLMAO
Posted by Extraneous at 05/05/2009 @ 11:26am
No Israel, No AIPAC, no interest, no comments.
Dreyfuss, I apologize. Now I understand the repeated focus of most of your columns.
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 11:36am
Why do you think there's any chance of the US fundamentally changing Afghanistan & Pakistan?
No one has. Not ever. What makes the US so superior to all others?
How many Muslims does the US believe it will have to kill to accomplish US aims? How many is the US willing to kill? How many can the US afford to kill?
Without answers to those Qs, all the rest is hot air.
Posted by sloper at 05/05/2009 @ 11:37am
Given the state of Pakistan's current political situation, Mr. Dreyfuss, I don't see any of our "conditions" or "benchmarks" being very effective.
Do you know if the Congress critters have worked up a mock political scenario should the Taliban reach Islamabad?
Posted by ACook at 05/05/2009 @ 11:39am
Posted by Extraneous at 05/05/2009 @ 11:24am
Those "alternatives" you speak of have beared very little fruit. The Taliban have gone back to loping off heads and hanging anyone suspected of talking with outsiders.
I read an interesting article today regarding a CNN interview between Nic Roberts (I think that's his name), and a spokesman for Taliban, who says they will win this war.
Posted by ACook at 05/05/2009 @ 11:45am
The unfolding situation in the mid-east is a farcical replay of Southeast asia in the 1970s. Not content with driving the Taliban and al-Quada from power, we invaded Iraq which re-energized al-Quada and allowed the Taliban to regroup. Not content with the status quo in Pakistan, we seduced them into being our (unfaithful) surrogate, which resulted in Pakistan becoming the target of Muslim insurgency which has destabilized Pakistan. US bombing of Pakistan has made the situation worse. Iraq will now have a Shiite government which will persecute its Sunni minority, which will infuriate our Sunni allies.
The Chaney legacy.
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 11:47am
(and of course a year's supply of Rice-a-Roni...the San Francisco treat!) Posted by Mask at 05/05/2009 @ 11:24am
Maybe 'Condoleeza Rice-a-Roni'.
Comes with a free diagram of stress positions and a coupon for 10 bucks off your next Walmart shoe purchase.
........................
This is a war of ideas and of attrition. Conventional methods will utterly fail. Posted by Extraneous at 05/05/2009 @ 11:24am
Send Oprah! Send Dr. Phil! Send Tim Gunn! We have the technology! We have it on order from China!
Posted by ficheye at 05/05/2009 @ 11:54am
Posted by ficheye at 05/05/2009 @ 11:54am
Yes...but you can't mention "torture" in front of Coni Rice-a-Roni...or it gets sticky.
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2009 @ 12:18pm
Posted by ACook at 05/05/2009 @ 11:45am
Methods don't work unless they are tried.
Posted by Extraneous at 05/05/2009 @ 12:24pm
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 11:47am
No gren, by not going all out like we should have done in the beginning is the reason the Taliban have regrouped.
That whole area should have been leveled.
Posted by ACook at 05/05/2009 @ 12:25pm
That whole area should have been leveled.----Posted by ACook at 05/05/2009 @ 12:25pm
It's true. ACOOK even makes SJCHER even Larry look like "weaklings on terrorism"!
"I still think we should have given them a nuclear enema."-----Posted by ACook at 03/11/2009 @ 8:23pm
Afghanistan: Hearings Not Escalation posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel on 03/11/2009 @ 6:01pm
(Then you start asking her about all the non-Taliban men, women, and CHILDREN that she'd vaporize...and she starts backpedaling a bit!)
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2009 @ 12:44pm
While I respect Dreyfus's analysis on US foreign policy challenges in Iraq I have to strongly disagree with his analysis on Pakistan. India is considered to be the Israel of South Asia. All small countries such as Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and to a large extent Pakistan have to deal with a lot of internal spying and political and economic domination by India. One cannot talk have any meaningful conversation without mentioning the problem of Kashmir (Indian occupation of a muslim region) or of India's role in the split of East and West Pakistan in the 70's. It is very important to assure the Pakistanis that it is INDIA that needs to play fair and needs to get off their backs. If the US had gone in solved the issue of Kashmir in favor of Kashmiris then the Taliban insurgency would lose half its fuel. In any case read Pepe Escober's analaysis on Asian Times on this issue. He despite being an outside has a far better understanding of the so called threat being played out in western media of the Taliba (still very much a minority). As for AIPAC - well they do have their sights on Pakistan because it is the only nuclear country that has a majority muslim population. I think they are all in favor of magnifying the threat. So there is a connection. They will hold off on Iran for now and go after Pakistan and then they will come back to Iran.
Posted by Shebaearth at 05/05/2009 @ 12:53pm
PS: the link to Escober's analysis:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KE01Df01.html
Posted by Shebaearth at 05/05/2009 @ 12:55pm
Hey, we did it. We tied the worldwide Zionist conspiracy to Pakistan. Only 5 degrees of separation. Now I can die fulfilled.
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 12:57pm
I have read some of the comments to this article. It's the same ole rhetric - Vientnam, Gulf war, Iraq, and now Iran and Pakistan - a warlike mentality that never seeks understanding but always opts for war, war, and more war. One can win hearts and mind with brains nto muscle.
Posted by Shebaearth at 05/05/2009 @ 12:58pm
I humbly suggest that those who think we should 'level the place' might read a little more about the Taliban. They are so obsessed with the subjugation of women that it is truly, truly sick and evil.
By suggesting that we nuke the place or bomb it flat means that you opt for a giant explosion instead of saving all those innocent lives. Bombing would just kill all of those women, and children as well, in your desire to just end the problem with explosives. No pictures, no kites, no music, no videos, no, no, no. Anything remotely fun is ruled out... just read the Koran.
The war is and should be against religious fundamentalism of all types. Of ALL types. It has brought far more misery than joy.
Posted by ficheye at 05/05/2009 @ 1:45pm
While I condemn religious fundamentalism that victimizes those who do not voluntarily submit themselves to the laws and practices of the fundamentalist community, I oppose a war against religious fundamentalism. The war should be limited to securing critical American interests of national security. We cannot and should not attempt to remake other societies, even out of compassion and dedication to liberal democracy.
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 1:53pm
The war is and should be against religious fundamentalism of all types. Of ALL types. It has brought far more misery than joy. ficheye
So the US should wage religious war? Interesting. Might be a violation of intl law there, just a bit.
Perhaps the US could start on a scale smaller than Afghan/Pak, say, and invade the Vatican, bumping off all the mysogonist rightwing clerics there, starting with the pope.
Then Israel, shooting all the rightwing ortho males in Mea Shearim.
Then maybe the US will have had enough practice to take on Muslims wherever they behave in ways Americans would never dream of behaving.
Posted by sloper at 05/05/2009 @ 3:02pm
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 1:53pm Posted by sloper at 05/05/2009 @ 3:02pm
You guys are right. I misspoke.
I got carried away there for a moment. I don't really feel that way. I think what I meant to say is I hate what the Taliban stand for, personally, and that I also have deep philosophical problems with the mindset of religious fundamentalism in general.
I forgot for a moment that I was at a serious political website... I was in comedy Central mode.
Posted by ficheye at 05/05/2009 @ 3:15pm
We cannot and should not attempt to remake other societies, even out of compassion and dedication to liberal democracy.
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 1:53pm
Oh, bring back the days when the U.S. government had its business and the American people had their own. In other words, while the government should not be trying to remake other societies, I have no problem if individual Americans do.
Some historical examples: Irish-American support for the fight against the British; Chinese-American support for Sun Yat-Sen's campaign to forge a Chinese Republic; the Abraham Lincoln Brigade fighting in Spain's civil war; and Afghan-American support for the war against the Soviets.
Whatever one may think of each of these struggles, I'd rather we mobilized ourselves and the groups we belong to in order to effect change overseas than trying to get the government, the Executive Committee of the Ruling Class, to support progressive change around the world. As a first step, at least, we need to stop identifying ourselves with the government.
Posted by cka2nd at 05/05/2009 @ 3:22pm
tell ficheye
the confusion is readily understandable, given many of the posts here. (well, not this thread so much. sigh) Indeed, I prefer the comedy central role myself.
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 3:28pm
occupation breeds "extremism."
Posted by saba at 05/05/2009 @ 3:31pm
I find it interesting how few of the posts in this thread deal with the issue I posed at the start: should we rush aid to Pakistan without strings attached, because it's an emergency, or should we provide some aid with conditions? It's not an easy call, I guess, but I find Obey's views compelling.
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 05/05/2009 @ 4:11pm
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 05/05/2009 @ 4:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You find that interesting? I find that sad.
For my part, I don't think there should be any mass "aid" package to any country anywhere that doesn't have lots of "strings attached" as you put it - concrete, cogent goals behind each line item of the funding, an established time table on which specific metrics will be assessed, etc.
Wrt Pakistan, you put up the key component to the entire short-term issue, which is that Pakistan has an army numbering upwards of a million. Pakistan could take 1/4 of that army, giving each soldier regardless of whatever specialty the soldier has a rifle and one magazine of ammunition, station these soldiers at the various nuclear sites and transport convoys, and the nukes would be safe from the Taliban and related groups through sheer numbers.
The bigger threat from Pakistan would be the electoral system, which allows people under the thumb of the Taliban or under their sway, ultimately, to vote into power figures who then control the army and might be unfriendly to Western interests in Pakistan.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/05/2009 @ 4:48pm
Here is what actually needs to be avoided:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/05/afgha ns-allege-dozens-of-_n_196629.html
" ... KABUL -- Bombing runs by U.S.-led coalition jets killed dozens of civilians taking shelter from a fierce ground battle between Taliban militants and Afghan and international forces, two Afghan officials said Tuesday. The U.S. confirmed fighting Monday in western Afghanistan and said reports of civilian deaths were under investigation ..."
US air power has the potential to make Afghanis and Pakistanis hate us more than ever. The cost of having an air power system that goes so far into reducing the risk to US military personnel that aircraft operators may be bombing in Pakistan or Afghanistan from sites in the US is the cost of an endless trickle of dead innocent people in the two target countries.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/05/2009 @ 5:03pm
Posted by syfriendly at 05/05/2009 @ 5:03pm
Exactly, sy. We need to inspire Pakistanis to get the Taliban under control by strictly controlled incentive.
After doing a lot of research on this group (the Taliban) I find them abhorrent to the nth degree. But America shouldn't be using high tech weaponry that kills a lot of innocent people just to get a few of 'them'. The results up to now have been pretty dismal.
Carrot and stick. Free those women from their Taliban oppressors. But let Pakistan deal with it primarily. The further problem of the madrasas could be something we could take a hand in. I have no suggestions to make, but this strange process of 'reeducation or starve' has got to speak to those who tout the merits of democracy. It may be a more constructive involvement if that's going to be what we're about.
Posted by ficheye at 05/05/2009 @ 5:36pm
Posted by ficheye at 05/05/2009 @ 5:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person
It really may be too much to expect, the idea of transforming the culture in rural Pakistan and Afghanistan - territories that produced the Taliban - to match a culture a lot more to your liking. You cannot create an enlightened modern western culture out of deeply impoverished remote backwaters held together by religious fundamentalism from behind the barrel of a gun.
The goal of the US in Pakistan and Afghanistan should be first and foremost our own security, which means containing the Taliban and reducing them, which means keeping the people in either nation from effectively putting up government or other national leaders who are vehemently against us and our allies in the region. A great place to start on that goal is not killing the people frequently with terrifying aircraft. Normally people don't respond well to having a foreign military power occupy their airspace and strike seemingly at random, causing horror and destruction where they hit.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/05/2009 @ 7:01pm
Good grief Charlie Brown!
The Taliban are a Pashtun gang of thugs. The Pashtun are ONLY just over 15% of all Pakistanis. They have ZERO, ZILCH, NO chance of EVER being a threat to the Pakistani Government.
This is a BS article - and a BS thread.
Posted by Mylegacy at 05/05/2009 @ 7:18pm
Yes there are some of you that think its better to be "Dead" than "Red" or "Taliban". We killed 2 million vietnamese and they still went Red. Is Vietnam a security threat to us?
We could level Afganistan and that would solve the problem for us....WE WIN!!!! It is all about winning isn't it?
Or we give them their freedom to choose whatever culture they want......subjugated women and all....same as Saudi.
We've spent over a hundred billion dollars already killing them. Did we win any hearts and minds?
Get out NOW and leave them the hell alone!
Posted by notsleepy at 05/05/2009 @ 9:14pm
For the 100th time.
LEAVE THEM PEOPLE ALONE!!
damn
Posted by bleedingheart at 05/05/2009 @ 9:39pm
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2009 @ 10:32am :
It only took one post, you did it. :)
Posted by pyeatte at 05/05/2009 @ 11:23pm
At least it is Obama's problem now. Wonder how long it will be before he gets his hands dirty? Since he has shown himself to be a proud member in standing of the Chicago thugocracy, he has a head start.
Posted by pyeatte at 05/05/2009 @ 11:30pm
As to Mr. Dreyfuss' point, I'm in agreement with Obey also. Aid to Pakistan should come with strict conditions that prevent it from being siphoned off to the military elite or Kashmiri rebels as it was during the Bush years. As to other posts, I'm with those opposed to the air war. How can those drones at 7000 feet tell the difference between a roadside bomb and a roadside fruit stand? Every time we blow up part of a family, the rest of the family becomes our enemies if they weren't already. I know I'd want revenge if my child were killed, no matter who did it. With the exception of the true fanatics, people anywhere can be bought. Build schools and clinics; fund economic development that is widely distributed among the people rather than a local elite; allow the people we are trying to conquer to have some peace and dignity without air strikes by foreigners. Mark all that "made in the USA" and we will win them over in the long run. Unfortunately, our policy has always been rooted to the interests of the elites in the subject nation and corporate interests here. Time to change that.
Posted by huntervanv at 05/06/2009 @ 01:00am
Dreyfuss, the choice you note, & that the US is considering, is a false choice, as it assumes the US is the party to be laying down guidelines & benchmarks, essentially dictating others' behavior ... & no other choices exist.
By what right does the US claim this power? Besides might & money.
This:
US Afghan strikes 'killed dozens' The Red Cross says US strikes in western Afghanistan killed dozens of civilians, as President Karzai prepares to meet Barack Obama.
That's the lead piece from the BBC now ... but still not a peep about it on the NYTimes site.
Guidelines & benchmarks for civilized behavior by the US should be laid down by the UN Security Council. It won't happen of course. But the US has certainly not earned any right to be telling Afghanis & Pakistanis how they should live.
Posted by sloper at 05/06/2009 @ 05:11am
Hours later, the Times runs the Red Cross exposé of latest US bombing deaths,well after the BBC et al.
That is to say, US aerial bombardment of a people who have no air force, no armor, no navy, no antiaircraft defenses ... a very primitive people, to be sure ... but, pray tell, who's the barbarian here?
Posted by sloper at 05/06/2009 @ 07:51am
The solution is simple. Obama just needs to go over there and talk to them and everything will be groovy...just gather them all together in the trust tree. A brilliantly teleprompted speech in downtown Karachi will seal the deal. He can also sprinkle some magic pixie dust out of Airforce One on the way out for a little insurance.
Posted by jimmylove at 05/06/2009 @ 12:01pm
The Pakistani Army is massive, compared to any forces the U.S. or NATO are likely to use in Afghanistan. As with the Iraq War in the Arab Middle East, the Pakistani people oppose U.S. intervention in their war with the Taliban and other groups. For that reason alone, as in the Iraq War, I oppose the use of our forces in Pakistan, and we need to do some thinking about Afghanistan. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan are countries that have their own customs, and we are not in Kansas anymore. We need to deal with the facts on the ground and work with these people. We need to work with Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran, along with other countries in the region. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and it is in everybody's interest that a relatively sane Pakistani government controls the weapons. This is a stand alone issue, and those idiots in Congress need to forget about linkage to other issues. We need to shut up and start working with these people!
Posted by pjcasey at 05/06/2009 @ 12:15pm
"Normally people don't respond well to having a foreign military power occupy their airspace and strike seemingly at random, causing horror and destruction where they hit"(syfriendly)
Spot on Sy, but may I add there is an additional reason for Pakistani discontent? According to an article in the UK by Anatol Lieven in Timesonline.com May 4, "the vast majority of people (in Pakistan) believe that the 9/11 attacks were not an act of terrorism by al-Qaeda, but a plot by the Bush Administration or Israel to provide an excuse to invade Afghanistan and dominate the Muslim world". That this idea of the majority of Pakistanis is misguided, is moot,but it does explain the support for the Taliban and why the US policy HAS to change. Their misguided belief may be in fact be fueled by a scientific paper from Copenhagen, also televised in Europe. David Brooks says that Obama doesn't want to prosecute torture because it will boil down to 9/11, but this is a good reason why a full scale impartial investigation needs to be done, if only to dispel the misguiided idea of the Pakistanis.
Posted by mystic at 05/06/2009 @ 1:44pm
Hey mystic
if there is a link to the Copenhagen paper you keep referring to, can you send it to me.
Posted by gren at 05/06/2009 @ 4:49pm
The assasination of Benazir Bhutto in 12/07 appears to have led to more divided factions, and a weak government that won't stand up to anarchists. Hillary Clinton called them out for it last week, rightfully so -- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth
Posted by reg373 at 05/06/2009 @ 5:17pm
Fantastic idea! Let's give Pakistan billions more to prepare for war with India. THAT's gonna help with the Taliban.
This million man army so many comments have referenced: been really kicking Taliban A, have they?
Funny, the way I remember it, they have been winning every conflict and forcing the government into appeasement every time there IS a conflict.
And it is blatantly obvious that the (Pakistani) army hasn't the faintest idea how to fight this war...and, oh,..is it at all clear that they really want to?
What about the ISI - who created the Taliban? Are they on board with that? (defeating the Taliban) Since when?
No strings aid to the Pakistani government is about the stupidest proposal I have heard in some time - especially since that is essentially what we have been doing there for decades. How has that been workin?
Posted by UnEasyOne at 05/06/2009 @ 7:04pm
The first part of my third paragraph should read: "Funny, the way I remember it, they (the Taliban) has won every engagement..."
Would fire my proofreader, but it's me - and I work cheap. Sigh...you get what you pay for.
I would add that beside continuously expanding their territory, ignoring the treaties they have signed - with complete impunity - forcing their own government to treat with them as equals, the Taliban control vital (to the U.S.) supply routes, steal said supplies, burn the trucks and generally play hell with our logistical situation re Afghanistan.
I know that it's heretical to acknowledge this kind of inconvenient fact, but the Pakistani government IS LOSING THIS WAR AND HAS BEEN FOR SOME TIME!
Million man army or not.
They could make peace with India in a heartbeat - then Kashmir could be dealt with - peacefully. They don't want to. They intend to "liberate" and absorb Kashmir by any means necessary. India would probably be happy to be rid of the place - it has been a lot of trouble - but not as a part of it's sworn enemy. Some kind of autonomy might just be possible - if there was any will to negotiate. Or trust.
Only then MIGHT the Pakistani government really turn on the Taliban. This is an incredibly weak government (in Pakistan) to boot. If ever there was a time for strong leadership there, this is it. Does anyone actually see any of that?
It's one melluva hess.
Posted by UnEasyOne at 05/07/2009 @ 01:03am
Gren: you're chomping at the bit. Google the biochemistry department at Copenhagen University and hone in on recent publication of research studies on the steel from the WTC on 9/11. You see the rest of the world knows far more than your rubbishy New York Times allows you to read. There have been televised interviews with one of the biochemists (I think there were five authors altogether) in many places in Europe--not the US. What's happening is that the outsidee world sees Obama waivering and not adhering to his oath to uphold the Constitution and its rule of law, and so outside countries are doing the dirty work instead, because they know Americans like hiding their heads in the sand.Countries like Spain are already investigating Bush war crimes, and Copenhagen has undertaken to study the chemical composition of the steel from the WTC (Guliani tried to hide all the steel very quickly and ship it off to China on the first day, but some bright people saved a few samples and the rest is history. A Japanese parliamentarian has already spoken on unanswered questions from 9/11. Americans like covering things up, but no country will invest in a US which has such contempt for the rule of law.And Obama is backtracking Guantanamo,he says nice things and then retracts them. There are renditions as we speak, despite his pretense at banning torture.If an investigation is finally made to verify the unbelievable findings of the Copenhagen paper, there will be global repercussions, no doubt someone will claim it's a fake, but it sounds authentic.Then there are those two dancing guys who were arrested with something in their truck.Copenhagen may follow through with that also.
Posted by mystic at 05/07/2009 @ 01:36am
Yup.
Better to leave them alone, or plan on waisting the lives of a lot of or fine young soldiers.
And we should also save the money we're giving them. We're going to need it ourselves to rebuild our cities and infrastructure after the Taliban take over Pakistan and begin spreading destruction over the resto of the world.
Don't call me an alarmist! This is a done deal. We can only win by the most radical of means, and we all know we don't have the stomach for that yet. We won't be of right mind for that action until a couple of our cities have burned and a few hundred thousand of our citizens have been roasted.
It's only a matter of time now, so get ready for it.
Posted by Elcobar at 05/07/2009 @ 02:56am
Obama is an interesting, intelligent individual. But he is not demonstrating much intelligence in taking over ownership of Bush's war in Afghanistan. The Taliban seem to reappear in spite of all efforts to kill them off. What is going to happen in Pakistan, if the Taliban gets the upper hand there? Obama needs to negotiate/broker an agreement with the combattants in Afghanistan, get his people out, and get out of the way. As for Pakistan, it is too big for the United States to control. If the Americans cant deal with Afghanistan, how does one expect them to control Pakistan. And what are they doing there anyway, half way 'round the world? Butt out.
Posted by mikhailovich at 05/07/2009 @ 06:10am
Hey Mystic
I thought you were going to give me something to sink my teeth into, but instead it's just another ufo sighting. Please, there have been several "papers" written in the past eight years offering theoretical models of alternative explanations that might be true in an alternative reality.
Do you think the Egyptian pyramids were part of an extraterrestoral navigation system. I've read a couple of papers which prove that to be the case. Unfortunately the mass media is keeping a lid on the truth. And the Zionists are covering up for the aliens by claiming that their anscestors built them while in Egyptian slvery.
Posted by gren at 05/07/2009 @ 09:49am
Mystic -- can you provide URLs for that U of Copenhagen report, pls? Google search turns up no leads. Thanks.
Posted by sloper at 05/07/2009 @ 11:11am
Hey, Elcobar. If we don't stay so much in their face, our perceived enemies won't have so much reason to hate us and we won't need to fear a future where "a couple of our cities have burned and a few hundred thousand of our citizens have been roasted." The US has survived Heavy Metal and Rap (so far, at least :-)), so if we stick to our own business and get our noses out of others', I don't think we have to worry about the Taliban or Al Qaeda.
Posted by raaustin at 05/07/2009 @ 11:56am
so if we stick to our own business and get our noses out of others', I don't think we have to worry about the Taliban or Al Qaeda. - Posted by raaustin
You may be right, RA, and I hope you are. But it's the stated intention of Al Qaeda to destroy the U.S.
You are apparently ready to risk everything on the premise that, if we just withdraw from the area, everything will calm down, and Al Qaeda and the Taliban will put away their weapons and go back to goat herding.
I don't believe that, but I do agree that the only logical course of action at this time is withdrawal. And we will be lucky if we can do that without major losses.
I would advocate the total destruction of the country before we depart, as a measure toward self defense - it's their women and children or ours - but I know that's not the way it will go. Those who govern us now are incapable of acting, and may not even respond to the burning of our cities and the roasting of hundreds of thousands of our citizens.
Posted by Elcobar at 05/07/2009 @ 12:42pm
"I would advocate the total destruction of the country before we depart, as a measure toward self defense - it's their women and children or ours..." - posted by Elcobar
That is pretty extreme paranoia. Which country do you want to destroy, Pakistan or Afghanistan or both? We are talking about a relatively small number of crazies who are as much a threat to our civilization as a few fire ants are to the life of an elephant. Universal literacy can do more that a million bunker busters to ensure our safety.
Posted by raaustin at 05/07/2009 @ 1:01pm
Notwithstanding 9/11, i think that the al-Quada threat is completely overblown. It is a waste of lives, money and effort to try to create an Afghan society that can protect itself from Taliban takeover. american interests are limited to supporting Pakistan from Taliban challenge. The Moslem extremists showed their hand this past week. We should work with Pakistan to pacify the tribal areas and drive the Taliban into Afghanistan.
Posted by gren at 05/07/2009 @ 1:11pm
We should work with Pakistan to pacify the tribal areas and drive the Taliban into Afghanistan.
I don't think Pakistan is interested in pacifying Waziristan etc.they have sent troops there in a vain attempt to control those areas.
it was the US misguided war in afghanistan which drove the Taleban toward Pakistan. so after 8 years of war we wish to be back to the status quo ante.
impossible.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/07/2009 @ 1:55pm
Bush admin. is war criminals for waterboarding three terrorists. Will Obama eventually be tried as war criminal for killing hundreds of civilians? Never know. In several years, Spain might try him.
Posted by kneel at 05/07/2009 @ 1:56pm
by claiming that their anscestors built them while in Egyptian slvery. Posted by gren at 05/07/2009 @ 09:49am | ignore this person | warn this person
there is no historical record of the hebrews egyptian slavery. the egyptians left careful records.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/07/2009 @ 1:57pm
Posted by Elcobar at 05/07/2009 @ 02:56am | ignore this person | warn this person
grrr, kill, kill
Posted by emile duBois at 05/07/2009 @ 1:59pm
Posted by mystic at 05/07/2009 @ 01:36am | ignore this person | warn this person
conspiracy nutcase.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/07/2009 @ 2:01pm
Free those women from their Taliban oppressors.
Posted by ficheye at 05/05/2009 @ 5:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I advise you to read Ted Rall on this issue.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/07/2009 @ 3:58pm
Bring home all troops -- Cut off all funds
Fughting terror is a police action, as one must seperate a terrorist from all freedom fighters, and shoot at a terrorist only when no civilian can get wasted.
What is wrong with us savage animals?
Posted by Alabama.John at 05/07/2009 @ 4:40pm
Free us laboring men from our terrorist wives with their divorce court so deadly.
Us filthy Christians who kill in the name of God, may we keep our ungodly hands out of other religions more righteous then ours.
Posted by Alabama.John at 05/07/2009 @ 4:45pm
Afghanistan is another Vietnam. If only just in the respect that we use a military excuse to maintain control over other peoples.
Please read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman".
We engaged in Afghanistan only because the preferred methods of controlling other people's resources(and people) failed or did not work. It was decided to do it the expensive way.
We will never defeat terrorists or people like the Taliban. Face it. They are here to stay. But we can remove their source of energy and power. Not through military power or coersion. What the powers that be will not acknowledge is that the only way to defeat these people is to cooperate and work with the peoples of the world. To make a justice society where people, corporations or nation do not predate on the weak. But that won't keep power in their hands or money in their pocket.
The war in Afghanistan is unwinnable just as Vietnam was unwinnable. As long as we spit on justice, freedom and equality and act without conscience with the peoples of the world to take what we can from them, we will never have peace. We will always have the repeating cycle of war. A tool of oppression of the people.
Posted by annakis at 05/08/2009 @ 09:00am