Ed

You are too generous.

We are never going to resolve this as long as we labor under the illusion that Mohammedans can be our allies, whether it’s here, Iraq, PA, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, et al.

infidelpride on May 16, 2008 at 10:56 AM

A man with tact and clarity. I like that. You must be English.

We better have a plan to secure those nukes. Hoping on Islamic(ist) goodwill ain’t working out.

Maquis on May 16, 2008 at 12:09 PM

We do, it is called a bunch of empty missile tubes on an Ohio class boomer.

We better have a plan to secure those nukes. Hoping on Islamic(ist) goodwill ain’t working out.

Maquis on May 16, 2008 at 12:09 PM

We do, it’s called a bunch of empty missile tubes on an Ohio class boomer. Insh’Allah!

Sovereign enough to export their people to the Middle East for remittance economy, or providing ISI sponsored “missionaries” through out SE Asia.

Soldiering like painting rocks in Somalia and using your military as a UNDPKO sponsored senior army officer retirement fund? Or like doing the “Ole’ passage of friendly lines” when the Afghani/Pakistani Jihadis make a beeline for Waziristan?

Would we be having this “dialogue” with the South Asian neo imperialists if we had followed up with Armitage’s “stone age” threat? Maybe we ought to control complete access to the port side of Pakistan…Better yet, maybe we ought facilitate India’s Blue Water Navy to do similar…

This not only forces us to work with Pakistan, it is also going to limit that “troop build up” in Afghanistan that the Democrats promise once we surrender in Iraq.

There is simply no way to supply an Iraq sized military force without a seaport. And since Iran is unlikely to accommodate us, that leaves Pakistan

“Captains study tactics, Generals (and, I guess, Majors) study logistics”

America’s mistakes??? Pakistan’s sovereignty??? There is no, repeat, no sovereignty in Pakistan’s FATA.

HELLO: Earth to Pak-i-stan! Heard of the agreement Musharraf signed with the tribes in 2007?

FYI, Pakistan created the Taliban too, remember??? That wasn’t our mistake, either!!!

Mr. Ghani, a key architect of the pending peace accord, believes along with many other Pakistani leaders that the United States is floundering in the war in Afghanistan. Pakistan, he said, should not be saddled with America’s mistakes, especially if a solution involved breaching Pakistan’s sovereignty, a delicate matter in a nation where sentiment against the Bush administration runs high

The real question is what is the ground reality. The Pak govt is trying to keep its domestic powder keg unlit. Toward that end it might be construed in their best interest to create some distance from the US, particularly in front of US elections which might bring in an administation that is less aggressive at fighting Islamic terrorist. In addition, the political and social climate is uneasy.

Having said that, we seem to be getting pretty good intel from within Pakistan that has allowed us to go after bad guys.

From the Pak perspective it might make sense to talk down cooperation with NATO/US while going forward with solid intel that allows us to kill people. They get to deny associations with the killings, tamps down domestic charges of cooperation while killing the very same people who have actively sought to topple the govt. This would be a logical approach in a time of added perceived risk.

Just a thought.

Pakistan is following its own national interest in avoiding a costly civil war. We need to follow our interests and make sure that Afghanistan is not lost. This may involve new radical thinking like purchasing the opium crops directly and cutting out the AQ funding markups and redoubling efforts to create a viable central government. It would be nice to see more focus from the media and the political leadership here. I’m hoping that some of Patreus’s nuance makes it over to this vital theatre.

lexhamfox on May 16, 2008 at 12:07 PM

This is correct. No external power can control the hills tribes of Afghanistan for long, and neither we nor NATA nor Pakistan have the will for the ruthless, extended campaign that it would take to do so even for a short time.

We have two main worries: a resurgence of the Taliban and al Qaida, and the future of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. As to the second, our military aid and cooperation help us keep an eye on the nukes, and (we hope) keep the military more or less aligned with us.

As to the first, we need a new approach. Replacing al Qaida and the Taliban as the chief purchasers of the main crop of Afghanistan, opium, would help align the tribesmen with us, would deprive al Qaeda of a major source of funds and influence, and would give us an opportunity to get lots of cash and infrastructure assistance into the hills (schools, roads, hospitals, etc.).

There are a lot of legitimate uses for opiates, mainly medical, and we can probably find more. A steady, legal supply would work to our benefit, too. Patrick H above is right that the incentive would be to grow more. But the incentive is there right now. We can put the stuff to much better use. I’d tell them, “Grow all you can. We’ll not only pay you well, we’ll get you all the goodies that the West can provide: TVs, cars, iPods, you name it.”

Better to simply take whatever cross border actions are necessary. If Pakistan has ceded sovereignty, then they shouldn’t mind too much if Coalition air power is routinely employed in the three province area….

Why should NATO and the US cross Pakistan’s borders in hot pursuit from time to time? Because Pakistan has the bomb.

I guess we haven’t to encourage a pre-emptive strike by India to cancel out that capability.

Either fight to win or don’t fight. Fighting to win means attacking the bases IN PAKISTAN.

ThackerAgency on May 16, 2008 at 9:45 AM

Amen to that my friend, wars should never be fought half-azzed or by committee, it should be fought with overwhelming force until your enemy is defeated and they surrender unconditionally!

That wouldn’t work. Whatever we subsidize will expand. If we pay for opium, they’ll grow even more opium. It’s no different than an ethanol subsidy.

The CIA Factbook says there are 8,900,000 men aged 15 to 64 in Afghanistan. On a straight scale that, that would be 4,100,000 men of ages 18 to 40.

Last I read, the built out goal for the Afghan military was 70,000, ready by 2009. I suppose there is the NP component which might be double that, but who goes to war thinking their police force is a component. We’ve certainly never done so and if we had run our previous wars the way this one is being run, we’d probably be putting the invasion of Normandy on hold for another ten years because General George B. McClellan, VI, in charge of perpetually training the troops on the plains of the Georgetown Mall parking lot, died of old age advising Abraham Lincoln, VI to muster a sufficient number of troops so the North could use the word battalion.

I don’t know who decided on that 70,000 number, or when, but it is long past time the number should be changed to “less than a million” and keep training Afghans at six week intervals and 1000 at a time, then moving them farther south until every hamlet, village and road in Afghanistan is bristling with soldiers willing, if not fully and completely ready by 21st century American standards, to make the enemy die for their cause.

You may go to war with the army you have but that is no reason to continue fighting with the army you planned seven years ago if you still haven’t built it and you have no idea when you might win with it. And let me tell you, 70,000 Afghan troops will just guarantee it will be another seven and another seven and another seven of NATO.

The new government of Pakistan has made clear their disinterest in fighting radical Islamists on their own soil, preferring to offer appeasement to rebels rather than

Ed

You are too generous. The new Paki government isn’t appeasing anyone – they are on the same side as the Jihadis, and the PPP part of the alliance is merely practicing taquiyya – the art of deception in the defense of Islam, as mandated by Islam.

Never forget – it was Benazir Bhutto who first backed the Taliban, shifting support from Gulbuddin Heqmatyar (a thug in his own right, but supported by Benazir’s arch enemy Zia ul Haq.) Neither Nawaz Sharief nor Gilani/Zardari have any interest in fighting the Jihadis: their main goal is to get the US off their backs.

We are never going to resolve this as long as we labor under the illusion that Mohammedans can be our allies, whether it’s here, Iraq, PA, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, et al.

We need to do like Turkey did in northern Iraq with the Kurds. Same situation. If they don’t like it, too freaking bad. We aren’t appeasing those who are killing us, our ‘allies’ are. This is the problem with ‘coalition diplomacy’. It was always dumb for us to consider Pakistan a ‘friend’. It has cost us more time and money and lives than if we considered them an enemy just like Afghanistan and the Taliban. The State Department messed up this war just like they messed up the Iraq war in the beginning.

Either fight to win or don’t fight. Fighting to win means attacking the bases IN PAKISTAN.

Chakra Hammer on May 16, 2008 at 9:39 AM

Thats mt opinion.

Those “tribal areas” are rogue states nobody controls them, they are NOR part of Pakistan nor part of Afghanistan. thats my take

What now makes PAK any different then 2001 Afghanistan?