| Submit your comments on this article | |||||
| India-Pakistan | |||||
| Pakistan â final frontier in âwar on terrorâ? | |||||
| 2004-02-08 | |||||
Is the United States planning to attack Al Qaeda remnants allegedly hiding in the northwest of Pakistan? A highly respected geopolitical and intelligence organisation believes that it is. In a recent analysis on US war on terror, STRATFOR claims that the question is when, not if, Washington will take on the Qaeda operatives in Pakistan. The organisation believes President Bush will launch the offensive after he gets re-elected. âUntil then,â STRATFOR maintains, âthe task of General John Abizaid, head of Central Command, will be to focus on developing a plan for moving into Al Qaedaâs homeland [Pakistan], if you will, and terminating the war by liquidating the final command centres [of the terrorist group]. Assuming that the preference is not to launch this campaign during the winter â not necessarily a fixed principle â the offensive would take place in Spring 2005.â
| |||||
| Posted by:Fred Pruitt |
| #6 What this country needs is a good third party - one that will choose a strong leader, provide an outline on what they will do in Washington, and how they will handle foreign affairs. That agenda needs to include cutting the size and scope of the federal government, securing the borders, continuing to wage strong war against terrorism and all its sponsors, ending "subsidies" to EVERYONE, pushing truly free trade - as long as BOTH parties get the "free" part, dismissing the United Nations as a worthless debating society that the United States will no longer support, and strengthening the dollar, both here and abroad. It should call things as they are - that the entire "global warming" debate is strictly an underhanded attack on the United States and its productivity, that "conservation" that results in millions of acres of land burned to cinders is stupidity, and that trial lawyers, judges, and the entire legal system is broken and needs fixing badly. We need a party that calls for a 2-million man army, a 500 ship fleet, and sufficient aircraft, tanks, trucks, and rifles to arm that military with the best equipment in the world. That third party would have to provide candidates for every public office in every district in the United States, and stand by its guns. Anyone failing to live up to the requirements of the party would be dumped. Unfortunately, politics in the United States is no longer "service to the people", but bought and paid for by special interests, such as the trial lawyers, the welfare plantation, the education and other unions, and the just plain sick, lame, and lazy of the world. It'll take more than just another kick in the face by the islamonuts to get us to wake up - we'll have to suffer some really NASTY hurt before we're willing to give up the gravy train and do what's right. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2004-2-8 5:51:50 PM |
| #5 Dan---you point about the Dems harming national security with their WMD fixation has been bugging me ever since they decided to play with this little dagger. Will the people of the US need another hit to realize the seriousness of the 9-11 attacks? I hope not. Our bringing the war to the enemy has been like good preventative maintenance: there are an absence of breakdowns so it looks like things are running themselves and every thing is cool---chill out and coast. People are just too complacent now. The thing that really disturbs me is democratic leaders are willing to put the lives of our citizens in harms way in order to attempt to defeat George Bush due to this all consuming hatred of the man. It is totally irrational. The republicans can have the country in their hands if the JUST LEAD, but no, they act like a bunch of spineless pussies that pander and dump money on everything like DEMS. So where do we get the leadership in the country to set a moral course? *sips camomile tea* *feels better* |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-2-8 3:55:34 PM |
| #4 #1 Much as I like the prospect of this operation, any timing which depends on GWB's re-election concerns me greatly. Faster please. Posted by: PBMcL Yes I to would like to see this now - but we must understand the realities of american politics. Its makes perfect sense to wait. The average american is not as well informed as the lot that rants here. Just look at the current situation in regards to wmd. The dems are taking this issue full tilt and at the same time doing great harm to American security. The syrians, sods, nkor's and especially the goddam mulla's in iran here this debate and know perfectly well that the heat will be off till november is history. It is sad that american security takes a back seat to democratic politics but that is what is happening. This issue of wmd is being used as tool to the white house is a disgrace, regardless of the damage the democrats are causing. It is destroying our diplomatic crediblity, but as long as Bush is in office countries will thick three times before confronting us. These regimes do hope that Bush is defeated so they can carry on their war agaisnt the US. Just remember what we did in iraq was not all about wmd - it was about changing mentallity. The mentallity that you could hit the US and have no fear of retribution. Remember all roads in the Middle East go through Bagdad, and it was a good place to start our process of reshaping the Middle East. Right in the middle of our enemies! |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-2-8 11:45:01 AM |
| #3 Anonymous - If you aren't a troll, you need to pick and use a posting nym and then read the StratFor Weekly for 30 January in which they summarize their view of the US - Saudi situation. If you are a troll, well, you know the routine... If you don't have access, here's the section that seems to answer your question. Just remember that what you know is never the full story - much happens behind the scenes and much is never reported anywhere - so none of us ever has the full picture... But as the Saudi government tries to balance its international relations and maintain internal cohesion, Washington continues to remind the regime of U.S. goals in the war against terrorism, and the desired assistance from Riyadh. In a clear message to Riyadh, Washington revoked the diplomatic status of 16 Saudis and asked them to leave the United States. The Saudis reportedly were not working on the embassy grounds, but instead "teaching Islam outside the embassy and therefore not entitled to diplomatic status," a U.S. State Department official told AFP on Jan. 28. In the past, such issues would be quietly ignored or quietly discussed. Instead, Washington publicized the issue, complete with declaring the 16 Saudis persona non grata. The message from Washington is that the window of acceptable activity by the Saudi government is narrowing, and previously overlooked infractions are now inexcusable. While this was a minor diplomatic incident, it clearly has deeper significance given the current state of relations between the two nations. As Iraq nears a state of nominal stability, Washington will begin to set its sights farther afield to maintain the offensive in the fight against al Qaeda. Already there is talk of a new offensive in Afghanistan, perhaps to pre-empt an expected offensive by the Taliban and keep the militants on the defensive during the upcoming elections. But other locations, from the Horn of Africa to Syria to Saudi Arabia could fall under U.S. sights, and Riyadh will carefully gauge its reaction to the diplomatic dustup to remain just outside the U.S. area of operations. It's carefully couched in neutral terms, but there are serious threats and implications here. In Saudi diplomacy, nuance is the norm - this is full of blunt-trauma, relatively speaking. FWIW, I don't believe everything StratFor peddles, but this strikes me as farily accurate. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-2-8 11:12:45 AM |
| #2 What is this "US intervention" in Saudi Arabia supposed to be? |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2004-2-8 9:22:55 AM |
| #1 Much as I like the prospect of this operation, any timing which depends on GWB's re-election concerns me greatly. Faster please. |
| Posted by: PBMcL 2004-2-8 12:28:21 AM |