| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| StrategyPage: Blowback in Pakistan |
| 2006-01-22 |
| The recent attempt to kill al Qaedaâs number two guy, Ayman al Zawahiri, in Pakistan, is threatening to damage intelligence operations in Pakistan. It all began when good intel was received that Ayman al Zawahiri, and some of his staff, were going to have dinner at the compound of some Pakistani tribal supporters. Al Zawahiri was late, but the Hellfire missiles from the Predator UAVs overhead were not. While several al Qaeda officials were killed, so were some Pakistani civilians. Pakistani Islamic radicals, who are a potent political force in the country, promptly made this Hellfire attack into a major political issue. Many Pakistani military and intelligence officials support the Taliban, and some even back al Qaeda. The Islamic radicals in Pakistan have enough clout to turn the al Zawahiri into a political issue, not so much because civilians were killed, but because Americans were operating on Pakistani soil. This has not been a secret, but there were, until now, few obvious examples of this American presence. Now there is, and the Pakistani government is under a lot of pressure to âexpel the foreignersâ (not al Qaeda, but the Americans.) How about the sqeeky wheel gets the Hellfire? That wonât happen, because president Musharraf needs U.S. support to stay in power. While Musharraf is the latest in a long line of Pakistani military dictators, he is not, like some of his predecessors, into Islamic fundamentalism. This has put Musharrafâs life in danger, from Islamist Pakistanis as well as al Qaeda foreigners. In self-defense, Musharraf may curb some American intel activities. This would hurt Musharraf, as U.S. UAVs and intel agents have been a major assist in keeping local Islamic militants from causing more damage. But in the short term, surviving an outraged public may become a higher priority. Long term, the U.S. intel operations will continue in Pakistan, and more Hellfire attacks are likely. |
| Posted by:ed |
| #9 perhaps we need to tell them to save both public and private motions. They are irrelevant at best when it comes to OUR national security, including defending the only democracy in the ME with a track record (Iraq may be #2). Europe needs to learn their place. Without our overwhelmingly (cost/men/materials) expensive shield they'd have been Soviet. Now, they bite that hand. F*&k them. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-01-22 18:07 |
| #8 Actually Old Patriot, Europe would do in your scenario what they have always done : Condemn us in public, while kissing us in private afterwards. Look how much Europe screamed about the Israelis taking out Saddam's nuclear plant in the 1980s, and how much has come out recently about how glad they were that the Israelis did their thing. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-01-22 17:53 |
| #7 The one thing that all Muslims understand, and that we've failed to articulate, is raw power. We need to show Waziristan that WE are the most powerful, meanest, nastiest, brutish, hellish power on the face of the planet. We need to schedule some 3000 aircraft over Waziristan within a 24-hour period, each with a maximum load of iron bombs, and show them what POWER is. The friends of my enemies is my enemy. We need to show them that if they want to make nice with Taliban, we'll make nasty to them, in a way they cannot refute. Screw "world opinion". It's time to wage WAR, not an externally-controlled parlor game. If "Europe" doesn't like it, we can follow up with a strike on Brussels. I think they'll get the message THEN. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-01-22 16:27 |
| #6 Ed - I'm OK with that. I get pissed at the pussyfooting around the seething and outrage of those who are avowedly our enemies. If your enemies aren't pissed, you're not doing your job. A bunch of tribal rustics are handling the Pak forces deployed? Let the clusterbombs fall. Who's to say who's innocent when an entire tribal area is your enemy? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-01-22 15:41 |
| #5 Perv is the real fool here. Instead of trying to triangulate his fundie enemies, he should be slowly and methodically eliminating them. First he needs a brigade equivalent of a death squad, that is totally loyal and secular, and then he needs to scheme and execute a program of extermination scheduled for many years. Start with the most radical, disloyal and dangerous, and work their way to the least troublesome. His assassins need to use tools that make death look natural or accidental. No anger here, just cold-blooded killing. There are many readily available poisons and pathogens that wouldn't raise suspicions outside of a top laboratory in the US. If done properly, hundreds could be exterminated every year. And since there is a limited supply of really dangerous villains, in a decade Pakistan would be as peaceful as all get out. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-01-22 15:07 |
| #4 Deat = Death |
| Posted by: ed 2006-01-22 15:00 |
| #3 Frank, It not the US that worries about it. It's Musharraf and the Pakis who are willing to cooperate with us. The Pakis gov has already said the US must get approval from them before any more strikes. Of course that is for the consumption of the peasants since the Pakistanis were informed before the Damadola hit. Instead of worrying about aggrieved Pakistani sensitivities, I think the US should assassinate the Pakistani islamist and jihadist leaders. When they should Deat to Infidels, Deat to America, they should be the first to pay with the their lives. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-01-22 14:59 |
| #2 the mere fact that ISI and MMA support terrorists means we should worry about blowback? What a handwringing load of crap. I expect better from Strategypage. We need to support Perv, and taking out foreigners, welcomed among tribesmen who are clearly not Perv supporters, is an illumination on the ISI/MMA/tribal links to terrorists that they can't stand. Keep the spotlight (or UAV infrared...heh heh) on! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-01-22 14:14 |
| #1 Article implies that an Islamic leader who is "into fundamentalism" is somehow safer than one who isn't. Not so -- every Muslim (no matter how fundamentalist) is an apostate (therefore deserving of the death penalty) to some other Muslims. It all depends on who wants to grasp for power. |
| Posted by: Whutch Threth6418 2006-01-22 13:55 |