This attack specifically targeted American citizens and killed some of them. ISI wouldn’t do that. Al Qaeda would and without hesitation.

to gather an after action intel report.

Badabingo!

What’s amazing is the willingness of the Indian Left to buy into these transparently phony Pakistani overtures for ‘peace’. You’d think nearly a millenium of Islamic warfare against Indian Hindus (mostly) — including mountains of human heads — an estimated 70 million killed — would make them a bit more educated.

I am somewhat optimistic that the extremists are overplaying their hand in Pakistan. There is not much room for an awakening to take hold there right now, but I have to suspect that the number of supporters for the Taliban and their fellow travelers in the Army Officer Corps is shrinking rather than growing. That is positive for the long term.

If the newly elected Democratic government becomes popular with the general public, attacks on it by extremists will further move the Army and ISI into aligning against the violent radicals.

AQ, the Taliban and Indian radicals have something to gain from a war between Pakistan and India. The Pakistani army does not. Military-minded people cannot hope that Pakistan would win a war with India and right now they are struggling with an insurgency in the western part of the country. For this reason, I doubt if anyone at the top of the army or ISI knew about this operation let alone approved it.

The transition back to a civilian government in Islamabad raised hopes that tensions between Pakistan and India could cool, allowing for a peaceful resolution to the disputes over Kashmir and other open issues between the two nations.

Mr Morrissey, I respect you as a political analyst, but on this one issue you are dead wrong. The only people who thought a transition to ‘democracy’ in Pakistan would help improve the situation were the US and EU. Nobody in India believed that crap. Here’s why.

There is ONE power center in Pakistan – the Pakistan Army. The ISI is staffed by officers and men from the Army, Police forces etc. on deputation. It is controlled by the Army.

Pakistan’s economy is controlled by the army through front companies owned by retired generals and trusts. Most of the land is controlled by them too.

The current, democratically elected government of Pakistan exists at the pleasure of the nation’s army. The political wing of the ISI that you referred to in your article existed to fix elections so that the army’s preferred candidates won.

A transition to democracy happened because the army felt it aligned well with their interests. That does not mean that the army’s grip on the nation or its government has weakened at all.

Consider that the ISI chief will not be visiting India after all. Pakistan has done a volte face.

Would be nice though, if Israel teamed up with India. Guess that is asking to much though.

sheebe on November 28, 2008 at 12:15 PM

Israel is the largest Arms exporter to India. Indian and Israeli SFs have been training with each other since the 70s, sub rosa of course.

How will the next President do?

MrLynn on November 28, 2008 at 9:58 PM

I’m scared to even think about it.

My review of his prosecution of this war is harsh but that is largely due to my feeling that he lost most of his nerve in his second term, though I do understand how much it must have taken out of him just to keep Iraq from falling prey to the domestic left and the press. I also do think that his attempt to give Iraq self-rule with individual liberty is futile, though the payoff, if it works, is large enough to make it worth having tried it. I hope that Bush proves to be right in this one. I would have just taken the oil fields and the gulf access, and let Iraqis sort itself out with some help from us, if they requested.

For a long time, I have wished that on September 12, 2001, President Bush had asked Congress for a formal Declaration of War, with all that implies. The failure to do so left the door open for the Left to rally in opposition to even the most modest measures (e.g. electronic surveillance, Gitmo, military tribunals, etc., etc.) that should have been accepted and welcomed as part and parcel of a wartime effort.

MrLynn on November 28, 2008 at 9:58 PM

Yes, but declaring war seems to be something that has also been banned (though not officially, obviously) in the post-WWII period. Everyone, it seems, likes to maintain the illusion of an easy exit. You make an excellent point about the Left using that non-declaration, but I don’t think that was the main thing. The left kept themselves pretty quiet from 9/11 until the day Saddam was yanked out of that spider hole. Then, the left felt safe, again, and the seditionist talk started spewing out of their mouths. At least, that’s how I remember it.

I figured that Bush was a victim of his own success in making Americans feel safe enough to treat terrorism as something unthreatening and, for many, unimportant. The last polls showed fears of terrorism down around the bottom of most people’s lists. But that’s why I say that he had to go much harder, to begin with, because now we’ve gotten locked into our current stance until something allows us to move, again.

My biggest problem with Bush, though, was that he never tried to defend himself or explain the real situation. I mean, even in the whole WMD area, the Iraq War ended up netting more WMD than anyone had imagined, since he scared the nukes out of Qadaffi and, through that, got the whole open picture into the extent of the AQ Khan ring, which was far more important than just finding some WMD in Iraq. But Bush never bothered talking about this (or had any of his people defend him, and us, on this). Things like this also allowed the left to run wild with their hate-America shpiel.

I have always considered Bush to be a good and decent person, a mensch, who felt that he was doing the right thing for the country. But he has some policies, and has taken some positions, that just drive me up a wall.

After two days of jihadist mayhem in the Indian financial center of Mumbai, things are finally coming to a close there, at least a far as combat is concerned, with Indian commandos still searching for one crazed Muslim gunman in……

13times on November 28, 2008 at 2:20 PM

For the life of me, I never understood why America allowed herself to be fooled into abolishing the neutron bomb. It is the ultimate deterrent.

. . . Bush was on the offensive, enough, in his first term to scare the nukes out of Libya, but his second term has been a full-out capitulation – in everything except his attempt to make Iraq a nation of self-rule with individual liberties (which will never last past a US drawdown) and which no muslim country has ever shown itself capable of doing … and that includes Turkey, for which the military is the supreme force (as Ataturk understood islam and muslims).

progressoverpeace on November 28, 2008 at 6:39 PM

PoP, you make a number of salient points, most of which I agree with. But they are only part of the story. It’s a longer discussion than I have time for tonight, but the main point I would make in reply is this:

President Bush has been constantly hamstrung by a recalcitrant if not openly rebellious bureaucracy, by the viciously partisan media, and by a Congress that, while initially supportive, by his second term was only nominally so.

Behind the scenes, there has been a largely covert war underway which, despite the initial affirmations that Islam is “a religion of peace,” and the ham-handed title of “the War on Terror,” has really been aimed at the Islamic terror networks.

For a long time, I have wished that on September 12, 2001, President Bush had asked Congress for a formal Declaration of War, with all that implies. The failure to do so left the door open for the Left to rally in opposition to even the most modest measures (e.g. electronic surveillance, Gitmo, military tribunals, etc., etc.) that should have been accepted and welcomed as part and parcel of a wartime effort.

The result was that the Global War on (Islamic) Terror was undermined from the get-go. But despite all that, the President’s accomplishments are still impressive: he took the fight to our enemies, and he is winning.

How will the next President do?

The freedom fighters better lawyer up quickly.

*Ban people from the U.S. going over to India now.*

good thinking dude

i mean it’s not like we have billions of dollars invested there. forget that india’s a democracy in good standing(the only one in the region, i might add) and a great friend to the u.s.,innit

last but not least—let’s leave it to the indians to suss out where the munitions originated from…

MrLynn on November 28, 2008 at 6:00 PM

Sorry, but Bush has not gone on the offensive, since 9/11, in even 1/10th the amount required. That’s why Iran kept pursuing its nukes over that whole time, the Palestinians ramped up their attacks, …

Bush has done more to go on the offensive than anyone else has done in a long time, but he hasn’t done nearly enough and he has made more than a few giant missteps (though any democrat would have done far worse).

Bush’s insistence on decrying “terrorism”, instead of identifying that these people are, simply, enemies of the US and US interests, is idiotic and dangerous. It doesn’t matter if our enemies attack our military or our civilians – the fact that they are attacking us is all that is salient. The methods that they use in their attacks on us only serve to show us what methods are going to be required to stop them. But, all Bush could do about Russia and the Chechens was berate Russia for doing what they had every right to do. If you took Bush’s words about “terrorism” and how killing civilians is such a terrible thing and translated them to WWII, you know where we would all be.

Then, we have Bush’s insistence on keeping the UN empowered, which is one of the most dangerous paths we might take. I don’t know what’s in the Bush family water, but their love of the UN is destructive to all of us. This is an anti-offensive move (it isn’t even defensive, but just stupid).

Then, we have Bush’s insistence on shaping individualistic self-rule in tribal cultures. ….

I have a great deal of respect for Bush, but he fell far short in this war and never seemed to understand what war really is. That’s why we have our own military people sitting in front of courts martial while Gitmo scumbags are running legal battles all through our federal courts … and winning, whie our esteemed SCOTUS ruminates about the 4th Geneva Conventions and other idiotic peices of post-WWII fantasy land. Just as WWI was “The War To End All Wars”, the UN, 4th Geneva, and other idiocies came pouring out of the end of WWII. But WWI was nothing close to the last war (not even close to the biggest!) and the scraps of toilet paper on which the plans emerged for naive treaties and impossible institutions from WWII will someday have to be acknowledged as such. 9/11 was a time to do that … but we didn’t. Instead, we set out on some silly desire to have every single country in the world in our coalition (except for Israel, of course, which prompted the worst attacks inside Israel in its history). We even invited Iran and the Taliban into our grand “coalition”. Sheesh.

Bush has done well to keep our own soil free of these attacks since 9/11, but that cannot go on forever and we have long stopped moving forward in our fight. That’s what happens when windows of opportunity are passed. We end up waiting for another big attack, so that we can take the window we previously missed, change our ROE and mindset, and take the fight to the enemy in the ruthless manner that will be required.

I won’t even go into the whole “islam is a religion of peace” mantra that made me sick everytime I heard it. If we can’t be honest about the enemy, then we are lost, no matter how good our defenses are.

Bush was on the offensive, enough, in his first term to scare the nukes out of Libya, but his second term has been a full-out capitulation – in everything except his attempt to make Iraq a nation of self-rule with individual liberties (which will never last past a US drawdown) and which no muslim country has ever shown itself capable of doing … and that includes Turkey, for which the military is the supreme force (as Ataturk understood islam and muslims).

. . . If we keep giving people a chance to kill us, eventually they will – if just by luck. This war CANNOT be fought defensively, and we have never really gone on offense, except for going into Iraq. . .

progressoverpeace on November 28, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Not true. The Bush administration has taken the fight to Islamist terrorists all over the globe, from the Sudan to the Philippines, and to everywhere in between. Iraq may have been the central front, but the American military and intelligence agencies have been fighting unheralded in many corners of the world ever since September 11th, 2001.

The big question is: Will President Obambi pull the plug on The Long War? If he does, expect attacks on American soil within the next three years.

johnnyU on November 28, 2008 at 5:23 PM

If OBL isn’t dead then he’s been replaced by the next generation of ambitious jihadi zealots. Why does everyone buy into the absurd notion of a special map of terrorism now that Bush is leaving office? Most of our intelligence is outsourced, and the daily presidential briefings will still whistle through our CIC’s ears, anyway.

this sort of All Violence Is Bad mentality is what is allowing a half assed band of pirates to paralyze the great powers of today into helplessness. War does not beget War, WEAKNESS, real or perceived… begets War. .

johngalt on November 28, 2008 at 2:52 PM

I hope the Indian subcontinent does not experience a nuclear exchange, but that hardly makes me guilty of subscribing to an “All Violence Is Bad mentality”.

It’s uh… “great”… that you and a few others here are willing to sacrifice millions of innocent Indians in order to get back at the jihadis.

But did you ever consider the blowback from such an occurance? Figuratively and literally? Hey-wouldn’t it be easier for Al Qaeda to obtain a nuke in the chaos that would follow an India-Pakistan nuclear exchange? Ya think?

this sort of All Violence Is Bad mentality is what is allowing a half assed band of pirates to paralyze the great powers of today into helplessness. War does not beget War, WEAKNESS, real or perceived… begets War.

johngalt on November 28, 2008 at 2:52 PM

So a person who thinks a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would be a bad thing is guilty of subscribing to an “All Violence Is Bad mentality”?!?? That’s an absurd stretch.

Big of you and a few others here to be willing to sacrifice untold millions of innocent Indians and leave an entire subcontinent in smoldering, radioactive ruins in order to fight global jihad.

To say nothing of the blowback worldwide.

Hey, would be it easier for Al Qaeda to steal a nuke in the chaos that would inevitably follow an Indian nuclear strike on Pakistan? Ya think?

Unbelievable.

13times on November 28, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Thank you for a sane take on this.

Clear Pakistani fingerprints on the attacks would chill relations between the nuclear-armed rivals and could wreck U.S. hopes of persuading Islamabad to focus on battling the Taliban and al-Qaida near the Afghan border.

Yes, that would be terrible. The Pakistanis have had nukes forever, and of course, they waited until another Carter type POTUS was taking office to taunt their arch-enemy India into full-scale nuclear war.