| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Ralph Peters: What the generals won't tell the prez |
| 2009-11-19 |
| As our powerless secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, dutifully covers her head to attend the inauguration of an Afghan president so unpopular his ceremony has to be held behind closed doors, our AfPak (Afghanistan/Pakistan) policy isn't merely adrift. It's sinking. President Obama inherited a mess, and promptly made it worse. But let's be fair: There's plenty of blame to go around in the ongoing Afghan nondecision debacle, as well as regarding our follies in Pakistan. And I've been wrong about a fundamental issue. For years, I've insisted that, while the Pakistanis would never give us "their" Taliban (such as the Haqqani faction), they'd deliver Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri if they could. Wrong, wrong, wrong: As the conflict dragged on, I failed to re-examine my conclusion and see what's become obvious: Osama bin Laden is the goose that lays platinum eggs. If we killed or captured Osama and Zawahiri, the Pakistanis might not be able to milk us for more tribute money. We could draw down our troop presence next door. And the Pakistanis would lose the mighty profits squeezed from our supply route into Afghanistan. The Pakistanis don't want us to remain in Afghanistan forever, but they're not ready to hit the brakes on the gravy train, either. They're of two minds -- and the greedy side tends to win in the short term. And as long as we "need" Pakistan, Islamabad will be able to sponsor more terror attacks on India, counting on us to intervene before New Delhi retaliates. Why on earth would they hand over Osama? My mistake became clear with the passage of time: Eight years after 9/11, Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency must know where Osama hangs his turban. The ISI has connections even among the state's most virulent enemies. It's impossible to believe that, after this much time has elapsed, it has no idea where Osama's hiding. He could even be under the ISI's active protection. We're such dupes. For the Pakistani government and the Afghan government. Secretary Clinton will show our support for Karzai in public, nag him a little in private, get a few worthless promises, bother Gen. McChrystal and fly home. Mission accomplished. Our president won't act, our generals won't think and our allies won't help. God help our troops. Peters nails it again. |
| Posted by:Spot |
| #15 I agree w/#s 12-14. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2009-11-19 22:27 |
| #14 There's a lot to be said for gunboat diplomacy. Short, sharp and can be reapplied as required. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2009-11-19 19:06 |
| #13 Something attacks us from that toilet again, we do the same thing only much more brutally. We are wasting the national treasury on this dump and we can't afford it. And if I might add, we've done so with a great many more third world cesspools in years past. "Nation Building" is a figment of some State Department bureaucrat's misplaced longings and imaginations. Pound the hell of them, ruck up, and fly out. Eventually all the other goat buggering bastards will get the bloody message. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-11-19 17:13 |
| #12 Anonymoose, you initial premise is correct...we should never have tried to rebuild that ****** up place. We should have gone in, wiped out the Taliban, set up Karzai and then left. Period. End of story. Something attacks us from that toilet again, we do the same thing only much more brutally. We are wasting the national treasury on this dump and we can't afford it. Iraq is basically over too. We need to draw down there and bring those troops, and the $$$ to sustain them, home. I think we should do that at a lot more bases around the world too. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2009-11-19 17:08 |
| #11 how he missed a very basic fact regarding Pakistan and Bin Laden He's hardly the only one. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-11-19 15:37 |
| #10 As I've pointed out in past, the greatest mistake we made when entering the cancerous tumor that is Afghanistan in the first place, was to look around and say, "How can we respect and rebuild this totally ******-up place?" The point is that not only could we not fix the utterly broken, but that we shouldn't have tried to fix it. It needed replacement, not repair. Don't ask them to write a constitution, give them one, to western standards. Don't help them teach their children crap, send them to western boarding schools to be taught by real, western teachers, in a safe environment. Don't try to revive their crappy economy, build them a new one from scratch. We could have hired close to every unemployed adult male in the country, with their pitifully small wage, and it would have only cost $1B a year. It would have put the WPA to shame. Don't let their current leaders rule, because they are more worthless and corrupt than Chicago aldermen. Pick random people off the street and send them to "government school". Then after they get through that, have them apprentice to real bureaucrats who know how to run cities and countries. Then finally let them do it while the bureaucrat looks over their shoulder. And audit the hell out of everyone while they're doing it. Militarily, we would still be doing what we are doing, but at least their would be something in the background that might someday *work*, instead of the same old crap that got them into this mess in the first place, which is what we have now. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-11-19 15:32 |
| #9 He's dead, Jim. |
| Posted by: KBK 2009-11-19 13:54 |
| #8 Osama bin Laden is the goose that lays platinum eggs. Exactly. US Aid pays for 1/2 the Paki defense budget, shiny new weapons and the exorbitant logistics fees are the keeping the Paki economy afloat. One data point: the Paki stock market rose 15X at one point. No war, no money, so it's in the Paki interest to suck in as many troops as possible. Then, I believe the Sept. 11 atrocities were sponsored by powerful elements in the Paki gov as a Hail Mary pass because the sanctions imposed after the 1998 nuke tests were crippling the Paki economy and miltary. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-11-19 12:08 |
| #7 I just don't think anyone should have to hear a Clinton lecture on the evils of corruption. It overwhelms the BS meter. |
| Posted by: whatadeal 2009-11-19 11:54 |
| #6 Cut him some slack. There are no good options, and never have been, re. this BS made-up pseudo-nation called P.A.K.I.stan |
| Posted by: lex 2009-11-19 11:36 |
| #5 He spends half the article explaining how he missed a very basic fact regarding Pakistan and Bin Laden. On one hand I respect his honesty, on the other it makes it hard to trust his judgement. I feel the same way. I've been reading Rantburg for years, and I've lost track of how many commentors here stated the obvious point that Osama was being protected by elements of the ISI. And yet the experts are surprised. Peters is a smart guy, so I think it was more willful blindness than ignorance on his part. But still... |
| Posted by: charger 2009-11-19 11:16 |
| #4 I respectfully disagree Richard. Peters should continue to speak out. I too repect his honesty. When was the last time we heard anyone in D.C. admit to being 'wrong' about anything? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-11-19 11:01 |
| #3 I really enjoyed Red Army. I think it's time he stopped the articles and wrote another novel. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2009-11-19 10:30 |
| #2 He spends half the article explaining how he missed a very basic fact regarding Pakistan and Bin Laden. On one hand I respect his honesty, on the other it makes it hard to trust his judgement. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2009-11-19 10:29 |
| #1 God help our troops. And God bless them. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2009-11-19 10:09 |