163355cf3176d5ab07f9…

When are we going to get it?

I sure wish more of the non-anglo countries could get it together and learn how to properly govern themselves at a reasononable standard.

Pakistan is not a threat to us.

???

Pakistan has the potential to be a threat to the entire world if the Islamists manage to wrest control from Musharraf or gain more influence with the generals.

Pakistan is an open powder keg to the nth degree.

If Musharraf asks for troops to support what looks like his dictatorship how do we respond?

Speakup on November 5, 2007 at 9:42 AM

HECK NO! NO WAY, NO HOW, NEVER NOT GONNA HAPPEN! If we go in it will be to the NW territories to clean house. We don’t need Musharraf. Musharraf was the ONLY LEADER IN THE WORLD who recognized the Taliban in Afghanistan before 9/11.

Musharraf, if not Pakistan, has been (and still is) a solid ally against the Taliban.

Lawrence, we usually agree. But I don’t see how signing a treaty a year ago giving the Taliban free reign over the NW territory without fear of the Pakistani military enforcing law there constitutes a ’solid ally against the Taliban’. I also don’t see how demanding that the US forces don’t go into the area to do the job that the Pakistani military won’t constitutes a ’solid ally against the Taliban’. I also don’t see how letting Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora (we used Pakistani forces instead of our own to be PC at that battle where we should have stopped him) equates to them being ‘an ally’.

Musharraf is not an ally. Musharraf is an ally to Musharraf. He gave AQ Khan a pass. He gave the Taliban a pass. He gave Al Qaeda (AQ) a pass.

He’s not the ‘hero’ that people here seem to think he is. We can handle a Pakistan without him. We need to ally ourselves with India and just forget Pakistan.

Pakistan is not a threat to us. They are only a threat to India. That will be where the first nuclear war in the world will be within 10 years anyway. I don’t understand why the US wants to be friends with Pakistan (who gives us nothing internationally) instead of India (who gives us a balance of power against China and Pakistan extremists – and could be a bridge b/t us and Russia).

But I’m not in the state department.

The dysfunctional State Dep’t. should be about the business of furthering reality-based policy, not wishful thinking which is useless at best and potentially dangerous to our national security.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
•
Henry Wallace may refer to:

Henry A. Wallace (1888–1965), U.S. Vice President
Henry Cantwell Wallace (1866–1924), U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, father of Henry A. Wallace
Harry Brookings Wallace, former Chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis
Henry W. Wallace, inventor of the kinemassic field generator, an alleged anti-gravity device
Henry Wallace (Scottish), former president of Mazda and CFO of Ford

gabriel sutherland on November 5, 2007 at 10:01 AM

Wasn’t that George Wallace in ‘64? Henry was back in the ’40s, wasn’t he?

One point I never see anyone talk about is the fact that the military owns a third of the businesses in Pakistan. Musharraf has been buying their loyalty for years with huge contracts expanding their control of the economy. They’re on their way to a Burma/Myanmar situation if they’re not careful.

I say dump Musharraf, hold elections in January (as planned), and then elect a new President. The Vice-chair of the Army can become the new head of the Army and we can work out a new arrangement with the new government. The problem is how to get to that point without sparking a civil war.

They’re pretty fierce when it comes to slaughtering Bangladeshis en masse though.

The Islamic world is one giant Kobayashi Maru.

VinceP1974 on November 5, 2007 at 9:35 AM

So we need to change the rules. This is how Kirk solved it.

Like, nobody saw this coming?

Musharraf, if not Pakistan, has been (and still is) a solid ally against the Taliban. And now that he is trying to save the disintigration of his country to Taliban insurrection the U.S. is ready to throw him under the bus because his actions appear a bit too heavy handed.

What goes around, comes around. We need to start treating our allies as allies instead of making them just another enemy. Thanks State Department. Thanks Condi Rice. You’re doing a Heck’uva Job.

Musharraf can’t push the same old “we need a strongman” political message. It doesn’t work anymore because it’s seen for what it always was, a permanent hold on power regardless of the state of conflict.

Most Pakistanis want the rebels and radicals brought to justice. But this is quite the task. It’s like asking the Alabama National Guard to suppress the Henry Wallace nomination for the Democrat Party in ‘64. The Pakistani Army is pretty good, but it’s not trained to fight a guerrilla war with foreign jihadis that will target women and children FIRST. They can fight an organized Indian Army, but they’re not really pumped for deployment into Waziristan.

The nuke issue is a concern, but I’d be looking for every opportunity to send covert ops into Pakistani tribal territory to flush out any radicals you can find.

fred5678 on November 5, 2007 at 9:49 AM

I dunno……I would think we would be left with only two choices……our nuke or India’s nuke? Their targeting or ours? I question if we have the will to drop one.

If this is correct, wish them luck!

PAK goes radical, India goes knocking heads.

Scary times……very scary times.

Limerick on November 5, 2007 at 9:34 AM

Agreed, but this is what is supposed to happen. India is a balance to Pakistan. This can be India’s play, with US assist. Same with Saudi offer to Iran re. enrichment. We can’t always stop evil, so balance of power is often best we can hope for.

Scary times……very scary times.