As I’m sure many already know, especially if they read Ghost Wars, what happens on Pakistan’s "western front" (Afghanistan) and on its "eastern front" (Kashmir, India) are closely related. Maybe if we had actually stuck around to take care of that western front before pulling out most of our military to fight an unrelated war of choice, things would be a bit different. It’s highly likely that such a decision would have strengthened the position of Pakistan’s secular elements vis as vis its Islamist elements that infest ISI, and therefore also somewhat likely that there would be less support for Kashmir-related violence. Thus, this potential trigger for WW3 might not have happened.
That’s not just hindsight either. It’s not blaming the Bush administration after the fact. Responsible people have been saying for years that we should take care of al Qaeda and the madrassas in that part of Pakistan and have been forthrightly advocating to that end, only to be ignored or attacked themselves. Thanks to the blinker wearers, we have effectively outsourced yet another thing to India - the carnage that results from terrorism. I’m sure they’ll be very grateful for the business. |
| |
Written By:
Platypus
URL:
http://pl.atyp.us
|
Maybe if we had actually stuck around to take care of that western front before pulling out most of our military to fight an unrelated war of choice, things would be a bit different...
Responsible people have been saying for years that we should take care of al Qaeda and the madrassas in that part of Pakistan Just to be clear, Platypus, you’re asserting we should’ve invaded Pakistan from the West right after the Taliban fell, correct? |
| |
Written By:
Jody
URL:
http://
|
|
No, but we should have sent in our forces to shut the madrassas...(sarcasm) |
| |
Written By:
Harun
URL:
http://
|
"No, but we should have sent in our forces to shut the madrassas...(sarcasm)" Yeah. With that 1 million man army we don’t have.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp |
| |
Written By:
Tom Perkins
URL:
http://
|
Yes, attack Pakistan instead of Iraq, that would have made quite an effect on the Muslim world wouldn’t it?
Platypus, you know if the US did that it couldn’t have been one of those limited Clintonian bomb a camel in the desert things. It would have been truly biblical (Iraq++++).
I don’t think that was ever in the cards. The US would have had a battle against a large number of countries including Iran and Iraq (since it was still around and rattling the saber) and many others.
However if you guys entertain something like that then a Den Bestian solution is the only one that would be close to working (fight 2 conventional wars and 8 nuclear ones). I don’t think anyone has the cojones to do anything like that. |
| |
Written By:
capt joe
URL:
http://
|
Perhaps we could redeploy our forces to Pakistan.
What possible motive could the ISI have for instigationg these bombings? Starting a war with a larger enemy while engaged in a campaign on its western border? Not particularly rational. Perhaps the Indians are looking for a scapegoat. I do not think that synchronizing multiple bombs is as difficult as they claim, nor unique to ISI, nor is it beyond the capabilities of terrorist groups. |
| |
Written By:
timactual
URL:
http://
|
What possible motive could the ISI have for instigationg these bombings? Starting a war with a larger enemy while engaged in a campaign on its western border? Not particularly rational. Dude Pakistan is hugely outnumbered by India AND THAT HAS NOT STOPPED THE PAKISTANIS FROM STARTING NUMEROUS WARS WITH INDIA. "Rationality" can be in short supply in Islamabad, from time to time.
Yeah I agree it is "Convenient" that ISI gets the blame so quickly, BUT no terrorists are not always able to time blasts and mount complex operations, because they are lacking in "Field Craft." Their operations are penetrated and defeated PRIOR to launch. This forces smaller scale groups into more crude and small attacks, perpetrated by a limited number of individuals, PLUS the Mumbai attacks may have involved Semtex-C4 and complex timers, usually not something that Bob or Apu sitting around their ghetto dwelling have access to. So the details of the attack and the materials used can point to outside agencies providing training and material support. |
| |
Written By:
Joe
URL:
http://
|
Maybe if we had actually stuck around to take care of that western front before pulling out most of our military to fight an unrelated war of choice, things would be a bit different...
Responsible people have been saying for years that we should take care of al Qaeda and the madrassas in that part of Pakistan Yeah, then you’d be yelling QUAGMIRE QUAGMIRE WITHDRAW NOW VIETNAM about that instead of Iraq. (At least the "war for oil" meme would presumably be dropped)
There’s no winning with you people. |
| |
Written By:
SHARK
URL:
http://
|
|
Did I say actually invade Pakistan? No, I didn’t. I see the strawman is still a favorite tactic here. |
| |
Written By:
Platypus
URL:
http://pl.atyp.us
|
we should take care of al Qaeda and the madrassas in that part of Pakistan We? As in the United States?
In, um, ’that part of Pakistan’.
Sure sounds like US boots, tires and treads on the ground IN Pakistan to me.
Maybe you’re thinking they’d invite us, so it wouldn’t really be an invasion?
(and would be viewed by the Arab world just like the Soviets being ’invited’ into Kabul was) |
| |
Written By:
looker
URL:
http://
|
"Maybe if we had actually stuck around to take care of that western front before pulling out most of our military to fight an unrelated war of choice, things would be a bit different. It’s highly likely that such a decision would have strengthened the position of Pakistan’s secular elements vis as vis its Islamist elements that infest ISI, and therefore also somewhat likely that there would be less support for Kashmir-related violence."
Could even 1 million troops have secured that border soon enough to suit anyone? Would the troops who were in fact available have been able to reach across the border like the toy "Stretch Armstrong" to fetch Osama from Afghani side of the border? Would putting troops into Afghanistan’s "tribal" regions alone have been more profitable? Wouldn’t that have made supporting us politically impossible for Musharraf?
We don’t need to have assumed you meant invading Pakistan en masse and in its entirety to know you were proposing pipedreams and idiocy.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp |
| |
Written By:
Tom Perkins
URL:
http://
|
|
I would like to point out that the ISI has often been accused of acting independently of the rest of the government. In fact it has often been claimed they are a threat to Musharraf, so I think it may make sense regardless of Musharraf’s desires. Doesn’t mean they are guilty, it just means Pakistan does not have a unified policy on this kind of things and it is possible. |
| |
Written By:
Lance
URL:
http://
|
I think Platypus’ argument is fairly typical of the current crop of "critics." It is OPPOSITION. IF Bush did "A" we OUGHT to have done "B". Not Iraq, Pakistan, even if they were a nominal ally. And when quesioned, "You mean we ought to have invaded Pakistan?" "No where did I ever say ’invade?’". When you begin to try to pin them down on the SPECIFICS of policy alternatives, thinkgs get fuzzy. What Platypus means is that the US should have done SOMETHING in Pakistan, rather than Iraq. The "something" is vague and amorphous, it’s not really an alternative, it’s simply an OPPOSING narative. Back to "we oppose" not that "We oppose and this is what we OUGHT to do." No simply, "We oppose."
Had the US inserted troops into Pakistan, an ally, which now we have alienated and tied ourselves down in years of inconclusive fighting, We "ought" to have done something about that murderous regime in Baghdad that has done so much to destablize the Middle East and which we still are fighting in a desultory fashion in the "No Fly Zones", in fact the US has allies in the Shi’i and Kurdish populations, "WHY are we in Pakistan, doing the work of India?" Which is btw, stealing US jobs. Typical we carry the water for India AND enrich them with out-sourcing, all in the name of corporate greed. Anyone want to make book that had we done as Platypus suggests that this wuld have been Platypus’ response? |
| |
Written By:
Joe
URL:
http://
|
Platypus wrote:As I’m sure many already know, especially if they read Ghost Wars, what happens on Pakistan’s "western front" (Afghanistan) and on its "eastern front" (Kashmir, India) are closely related. Maybe if we had actually stuck around to take care of that western front before pulling out most of our military to fight an unrelated war of choice, things would be a bit different. Hate to break it to you, but we did not pull out most of our military from Afghanistan. Between 2001 and now we have increased the number of troops there, from over 4000 US troops in Jan, 2002, to about 11000 in 2003 and nearly 20000 in 2004.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/intro.htm |
| |
Written By:
ABC
URL:
http://
|
ABC, the Army is stretched too thin! IF ONLY we’d done what we needed to in Pakistan we would be back in Okinawa by now, instead of having to ratchet up our troop strength, whilst spinning our wheels in Iraq....
Man I am changing sides, this stuff is so EASY. All facts prove whatever you want and when they don’t change paradigms or move the goal posts. Does Cindy Sheehan need some help? And let’s not even get started on the "fasting for Peace" programs that have been developed...I’d have to get a new wardrobe to accomodate the weight increase. |
| |
Written By:
Joe
URL:
http://
|
"Sure sounds like US boots, tires and treads on the ground IN Pakistan to me."
Only if you automatically jump from "take care of" to "invade with a large force in broad daylight" but not all of us make that leap. There are all sorts of options, from smaller-scale military operations to diplomacy to propaganda to humanitarian methods.
"I think Platypus’ argument is fairly typical of the current crop of "critics." It is OPPOSITION. "
You missed the part where I pointed out that people have been saying this for years, didn’t you? This isn’t opposition for the sake of opposition, nor is it second-guessing. It’s stuff that people far more qualified than any of us were proposing at the time, only to be overruled. The "something" we should have done in Pakistan is no more vague and amorphous than the "something" we thought we’d do in Iraq. Yes, it’s opposition in the sense that it’s not 100% meek and mindless agreement that whatever the administration does must have been right because they did it, but there’s nothing wrong with that. I’ll take an honorable opponent over a sarcastic revisionist any day . . . if I could find one. |
| |
Written By:
Platypus
URL:
http://pl.atyp.us
|
|
Oh, I forgot one other point. I’ve seen hawks propose a preemptive invasion of Iran or North Korea, against US policy. Is that "just opposition" too? Why are those great ideas, but cleaning up Waziristan while we still had the support of the world wouldn’t have been? Hypocrisy is the only reason that seems apparent. That is opposition for its own sake. That’s the "you have no ideas" whiners having no ideas of their own, just a propensity for criticizing anyone’s but Bush’s. Projection is an ugly habit. |
| |
Written By:
Platypus
URL:
http://pl.atyp.us
|
|
just one Q: is it time to re-calibrate the doomsday clock? |
| |
Written By:
window licker
URL:
http://
|
Oh, I forgot one other point. I’ve seen hawks propose a preemptive invasion of Iran or North Korea, against US policy. Is that "just opposition" too? Why are those great ideas, but cleaning up Waziristan while we still had the support of the world wouldn’t have been? Hypocrisy is the only reason that seems apparent. That is opposition for its own sake. That’s the "you have no ideas" whiners having no ideas of their own, just a propensity for criticizing anyone’s but Bush’s. Projection is an ugly habit. As to Iran OK, in re; invasion. As to North Korea, w/o South Korea it’s stoopit... Stoopit policy is stoopit policy whether it’s proposed by Pat Buchanan or Platypus. It’s not hypocrisy, it’s called reason...I don’t citicize Bush, ovreseas, because by-and-large I agree with him, babee.
Note when asked about the SPECIFICS of doing something, you become very vague... plus movement into Pakistan was well nigh IMPOSSIBLE because of logistics. Our policy preferences, and options matched well in Afghanistan. To have as little foreign footprint as possible on the ground. That was also a NECESSITY, the US could not supply a large force in Afghanistan, Platypus. We deployed a Marine Battalion and an Army brigade because that’s about all we could sustain there. You’re "Something" in Pakistan would have meant a larger war, with an ally, that they US could not sustain. In short not only was it diplomatically stoopit, militarily it was stoopit too. Just as those who suggested we bomb the PRC over the EP-3 Aries they brought down or those who suggest we invade No. Korea, btw who are these putative Right-wing Hawks, are wrong because they advocate stoopit policy.
So for Pat Buchanan I’d say, "Thank you for your suggestion, but it is flawed in this manner." To Platypus I just say, "Bzzzzzzt. Wrong answer. Try again. I know you will."
|
| |
Written By:
Joe
URL:
http://
|
Shark,
You really need to turn off Fox news and do some reading.
Liberals and our European allies supported the US in Afghanistan. The ISI has strong links to the Taliban and even now are suspected of providing them with aid. The Taliban and Osama are an acknowledged by consensus to be an enemy. We could have provided our special forces to Pakistan to continue the Hunt for Osama and his ISI friends. We sent them to Iraq instead. Those who argue that is not what we have done really need to stop advertising their ignorance.
The goal of the ISI is to start a conflict with India. In their view, that is the best way to get rid of the pro US puppet, Musharraf. Keep in mind that the ISI/Taliban believe that God is on their side. They are not afraid of Indian Nukes.
|
| |
Written By:
cindyb
URL:
http://
|
CindyB,Liberals and our European allies supported the US in Afghanistan.
Well mayhap the Europeans. I keep recalling that this was all a dark conspiracy invovlving a natural gas pipeline, and that we needed to go to COURT not war, and that any way this was Afghanistan, "Boneyard of Empires" or something... anyway the "Brutal Afghan" Winter would soon put paid to us. And that there was going to be a humanitarian crisis of BIBLICAL proportions if we went to Afghanistan. Chomsky, Moore, Moveon, ANSWER, all opposed the war, I believe. Or do they not get counted as "Liberals" any more?We could have provided our special forces to Pakistan to continue the Hunt for Osama and his ISI friends. Well yes we could have hunted down servants of Pakistan, his ISI friends are a PART OF THE PAKISTANI GOVERNMENT. Tell me CindyB, since this would not have taken all of the US forces, after all you DID mention Special Forces, why couldn’t we also invade Iraq? After all, the Green Berets were not the prime fighters in Iraq? In short, we could have done both....IF the Pakistani government had agreed, that is. You see you need to stand for a MASSIVE intervention in Afghanistan/Pakistan otherwise well the US Army has the troops to DO both. Your "narrative" lacks "purchase." Again thank you for your input and please come again.
CindyB you really need to keep abreast of past events and not lecture folks on them, because with very little effort your "history" stands revealed as the whatever Cindy thinks will fly well in that particular forum. |
| |
Written By:
Joe
URL:
http://
|
Pakistan got NoKo its nukes, Pakistan inserted the Taliban, Pakistan trained the London bombers, Pakistan arranged the deaths of 300 Indians a few days ago and Pakistan is allied to America. India will have everything from commandos to megaton nukes aimed at Pakistan right now, awaiting go command.
Should India launch? Will America act to defend it’s ally? |
| |
Written By:
unaha-closp
URL:
http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
|
|
Unahop, SHOULD India launch, what and lose Mubai nad New Delhi? |
| |
Written By:
Joe
URL:
http://
|
, "BUT no terrorists are not always able to time blasts and mount complex operations"
Not always?
"Their operations are penetrated and defeated"
Not always.
"perpetrated by a limited number of individuals, PLUS the Mumbai attacks may have involved Semtex-C4 and complex timers"
How many individuals does it take?
"may have"?
How complex does a timer have to be?
Building bombs is not exactly rocket science. Planting them is even less so. |
| |
Written By:
timactual
URL:
http://
|
