Keep the satellites and the drones in place. Watch the Taliban.
I can find little to disagree with what Dr. Steve has to say, below, until that prescription. He has laid out the situation squarely for our review. That said, please go read his piece first; mine will make more sense afterward.
The only point I would add is that while the government of Pakistan, such as it is, does not wish to be at war with us, and while Pakistan's Army of the Pure does not want us to think they are at war with us, the People of the Land of the Pure are mostly in full support of the hard jihad of the sword against the Crusaders and the Jews, and against the Hindus and the non-conformists who live down the street between times. The few who openly disagree are very careful to write about it in English; we've been reading their increasingly impassioned op-eds here at Rantburg for years, their cris de coeur for common sense, reason, and the rule of law instead of favours and bribes given and received by a religion-mad populace.
Like the countries of the Arab Spring, bad as the rulers are, on average the people of Pakistan -- as a group noun -- are worse. Once upon a time this was perhaps not so. But the generations have been carefully taught, and have learnt even more on their own. Pakistan once had Anglo-Indians and Jews, Ahmadis were as Muslim as Shiites and Sunnis, covered women were scorned as ignorant and old-fashioned. But then the land shed its English overcoat, and the worm emerged from its first molt.
There have been several more molts since then, and each time the worm has emerged larger and grosser, acquiring nuclear weapons and ever more jihadi groups that the ISI put to ever more specific purposes. Meanwhile, out on the street a riot can be raised to lynch a man and destroy part of a city merely because he threw out a business card with the name of Muhammed on it, somehow profaning the name of the holy prophet himself.
Because the thing is, Afghanistan is the place where the chess pieces of Pakistan play out only some of their moves. The game -- continuing the Great Game of Britain, they fondly flatter themselves -- is half played and all plotted on the Pakistan side of the border. Brave as the people of Afghanistan have been this past decade, with their new schools, new roads and wells and household biogas power plants, new East Point officers for their new army, the border provinces of Afghanistan stand against the need for jihad of all of Pakistan. Even much of the leadership of the Afghan Taliban are comfortably ensconced in Pakistan -- in Quetta, if I recall correctly.
It is not merely a bedraggled remnant we leave behind when we pull out of Afghanistan, to keep close watch on from a distance. It is the Pakistani worm, somewhat reduced to be sure, but with the full-throated faith of the people in their war of choice, quietly supported by Saudi money as well as Taliban opium, that we have been fighting. They are not so reduced that we can safely watch from above against future outbreaks, trusting that our shadows will have a deterrent effect.
So now to my counter proposal:
I can agree to pulling out the main body of troops. They aren't being allowed to do their work, and have become targets of opportunity for every posturing boob in the region.
BUT, I believe we should keep satellites, armed drones, and the ghosts of the night in place, killing off as many Taliban, Haqqani, Hizb-ut-Tahrir and everyone else associated with jihad on both sides of the border as we can. I want it to be bred into the DNA of the Pashtuns and Punjabis -- and by example to the rest of the Ummah -- that to act on the hard jihad of the sword is to die. Anything less, in my ignorant and sheltered opinion, will lead to an explosion of jihad upward from Pakistan to Afghanistan to the world, like an antibiotic resistant desease once the threshold of infectious cases is crossed.
I am not a soldier. I do not treat the wounded. I am not aware of having any relatives actively involved in the fight. Those who are or do may well be justifiably angered that I would put them further at risk, and I cannot defend myself against the charge. I have no answer except that I believe the drive to violent jihad cannot be contained; it must be eradicated, like smallpox or polio or all the diseases that spring back into life as soon as enough people stop inoculating their children.
Our current president appears unconcerned about such issues, I realize. And our senior generals and admirals and such do not appear to have succeeded in convincing him otherwise. Nor has the new head of the CIA, the much-lauded General Petraeus, Ret'd, though the CIA appears to be doing a very nice job indeed of reducing the number of bad guys on both sides of the Af-Pak border. As, apparently, are the ghosts in the night, while all attention is on our brave troops attempting to be hammer and anvil, ink spots, and whatever other concepts the strategists come up with while having two hands and one foot tied behind their backs by whoever it is that makes such decisions far from the scene of the action.
Soon, I hope, we will have a new president. And backing him, both Houses of Congress with Republican majorities beholden to the Tea parties, who understand what is at stake, and understand that extending an open hand to such people is a good way to get your arm cut off at the neck.
#1
I can't argue well against your prescription, TW, except to note that our current administration and indeed, our current political class, has not the stones to make it work.
In a modestly better America our administration would ensure that the special forces had what they needed to carry out such a mission, including support at home and clear, concise rules of engagement. But they do not and will not, and hence asking them to stay in Afghanistan to go after the Taliban simply puts them at risk.
Is it any reason why our current administration is so in love with drone-zaps? It is precisely because it is so Terminator-like; you push a button and a man dies. It is (to use a word) clinical. It is like chess; no one in Washington has soiled hands.
That is not the kind of operation that will succeed long-term.
At this point I do not care if the people of Afghanistan live in the tenth century, AD or BC. I used to care but the Afghanis clearly prefer their clans, tribes and moon-god. So be it.
All they must do now is leave us in peace. Don't kill Americans; don't let their country be used to kill Americans. We should maintain an overwatch and a warning: if we have to come back, it won't be pretty.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/26/2012 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
All they must do now is leave us in peace
They already don't leave us in peace, Dr. Steve. How many arrests have been reported in Rantburg in the last year or so? In the last six months? David Headly comes to mind...
Based in Chicago, he scouted out the Mumbai attack and was putting together something in Sweden or Norway when he was picked up. Ties to the ISI and Lashkar-I-Taiba, if I recall, and that Kashmiri fellow.
Watching with satellites from above would have done nothing to stop him. Didn't do anything, actually. He flew under the radar until we started tracing things backward after the Mumbai massacre.
Of course this administration loves drone zaps. Cutting edge cool video games, with a great big boom to fill the screen at the end. And the bad guys hate them: there you are, minding your own business and doing your bad guy thing when you suddenly realize you and your friends have just kissed a missile you didn't even realize was on its way.
They don't want to die, no matter how much they blither on about the joys of martyrdom and the further disgusting joys of their Paradise to follow. If they really wanted to die, human waves of suicides would have overwhelmed all unbelievers everywhere a thousand years ago, continuing until today without pause for breath. Instead, they have to brainwash the emotionally fragile, isolate them, dose them repeatedly with drugs, and even then ride herd in them until the moment of impact to ensure they don't change their minds,
And then there's this. It's not Afghanistan, but it's of a piece.
You don't get thought-provoking stuff like this at the mainstream rags.
Posted by: Bobby ||
02/26/2012 14:27 Comments ||
Top||
#6
When we did not act decisively, with overwhelming force in the beginning of this sad affair after 9-11, we won battles but we lost the war.
We put our finest men and women in harm's way without the overwhelming support of the Congress, and in many ways, the American people. I am sure that many Rantburgers have read that watershed work, "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" by Lt. Col.Dave Grossman. There is the potential of a severe psychological and physical price on sending your troops into battle. Leaders had better have the plan squared away before they put our finest in harm's way. There is a high price to pay, for even a "good" war.
But we have been fighting our battles with one hand tied behind our back of our own choosing. We had originally gone into Afghanistan to deny the enemy a training ground and base of operations for terrorist attacks against the United States. Then we got into nation building, then we continued playing footsie with Pakistan, who were the enablers of the whole thing, except for one omission, and that was that the Saudis were providing much of the funds for Pakistan.
They financed and are financing thousands of madrases, where Jihadi Bots are developed from an early age. And so it goes on. We still pay Pakistan billions to screw us. We never went after Saudi Arabia with their record of supporting Wahhabi and Jihadi enterprises.
Why did we not do something about that??? It is because enough people in key leadership positions were bought off by Saudi money. Too many of our leaders have sold this country out. That is what has happened and why it really hurts.
Af-Pak should have been resolved and completed in a year or less with overwhelming force. A lesson to all potential aggressors. We have spent 10 years mucking about there and have poured personnel and treasure into a rathole. So what do we do from here?
Supporting the afghan effort is not sustainable. We are being screwed by the paks and our alternate logistical routes are long, expensive and tenuous.
We need to end our effort in Afghanistan and withdraw in an orderly fashion that is not a rout.
We then need to cut off all types of aid to the Paks.
If possible we need to neutralize their nuke assets.
We need to get our domestic energy house in order.
We need to get into the Saudi's faces.
We need to let our potential enemies know that we will destroy them utterly if they pull any sh*t on us. We will not invade. We will decapitate the country's leadership and infrastructure.
We do have some allies. We need to lead by example. We have to clean our own house. WASHINGTON, DC is the biggest threat to our constitutional republic. It is a huge den of parasites and self serving individuals. It needs to be cleaned up constitutionally or the rot will kill us just like what happened to Rome. I hope that we can do it. It's going to be down to the wire.
Actually, it is not an impossible task, but it just needs true leadership. And THAT is what is lacking now.
As far as Petraeus goes in the CIA, I believe that he and others are trying to hold things together to outlast the O administration's efforts in destroying our institutions. Like I said, it will be down to the wire.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/26/2012 18:21 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Excellent and informative points, TW. Excising the tumor is a must wherever they are found--and I mean not just in Afg-Pak. Track and hunt them down in a covert war and keep following all tangents until the web is dismantled worldwide. I am so glad Petraus is at CIA but we need allies--and keep them guessing who is on board the Orient Express. "Do unto evildoers before they do unto you" is about the only way to deal with WMD blackmail by Iran, Syria, or any of their proxies with all the defense cuts.
#8
AP, if we had a bipartisan leadership that could do that, and get the American people behind them, I'd go for it in a New York minute. I don't see that leadership in Washington in either party right now.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/26/2012 19:45 Comments ||
Top||
#9
You are right, Dr. Steve. The leadership crisis is the main existential threat we have in this country.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/26/2012 20:00 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I am forced to conclude that your way will win out, Dr. Steve, at least until we have a new president. George W. Bush surprised everyone after 9/11, though his best was not nearly as good as we would have liked, in the end. So there is hope for hidden depths in his Republican successors.
I strongly supported George W. Bush's leadership and our entry into Afghanistan after 9/11. We had been attacked by a terrorist group that used a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan to train and plan. Al-Qaeda killed thousands of my countrymen and women. We had to go get them, and Afghanistan is where they were.
George Bush, that misunderestimated man, articulated our goals for our operations in Afghanistan in late 2001 --
First, to destroy as much of al-Qaeda as we could and deny them the use of Afghanistan as a base of operations for their large-scale terror and insurgency campaigns.
Second, to remove the Taliban from power as a punishment for supporting al-Qaeda.
It was the right thing to do. Using air power, special forces and Marines, we cleaned out most of al-Qaeda, liberated much of Afghanistan from Taliban control, and set the stage whereby al-Qaeda could not return in any strength without our knowing it and fixing it. We were not perfect but we achieved both goals.
Then we blew it by insisting on nation-building.
I understand how it happened. Mr. Bush listened to the Europeans, and that's usually a mistake. It was the professional hand-wringers who invoked Colin Powell's 'Pottery Barn' rule: you break it, you own it. Supposedly it was the U.S. who 'broke' Afghanistan so we had to 'fix' it, not withstanding the facts that there had rarely ever been a functional Afghanistan, and whatever there was in the past had been broken by the Soviets and the Taliban.
We tried. We brought in tens of thousands of soldiers and Marines. We brought in reconstruction advisors, military advisors, and diplomats. We worked to fix the country. Perhaps if the Pashtuns and the Pakistanis (but I repeat myself) had behaved it would have succeeded. But the ISI, supported quietly by the Saudis, could not allow us to beat the Taliban and thereby remove the Pashtun lands from their influence, and so we continue to bleed.
Worse than the ISI has been our own failure to recognize, in Afghanistan today as in other countries in past generations, that 'nation building', particularly done by outsiders, generally does not work. Afghanistan is firmly rooted in the 10th Century (AD or BC is a fair question) with the thinnest veneer of 20th century life in the larger cities. The people there are more tribal than on just about any patch of land on the planet. There is no nation to build. If building a single Afghan republic within the current borders is our goal, we have already failed and will continue to fail for the next century. Having gone through our own nation-building in the Americas and Europe over the last five centuries we many times fail to understand that large swaths of Asia simply are not, and will not be for a long time, inhabited by people with a sense of national identity.
Some point to a defeated, post World War II Germany and Japan as examples of successful nation building. But we did not 'build' nations there, we rebuilt them from the rubble of what were, prior to hostilities, successful nations. Germany had been a leading power in Europe. Japan had been the strongest nation in East Asia. After bombing them flat and occupying them it was a matter of removing the evil political class, re-educating the people and reconstructing the physical plant. Both Germany and Japan had a national self-identity. They were not built, they were reassembled.
What's more, we had no external power in either of these countries that interfered with our reconstruction. We failed in nation-building in Vietnam in large part (besides never understanding the Vietnamese people) because the Soviet Union, China and North Vietnam never let us go forward. Today we are failing in Iraq because Iran continues to meddle, and we are failing in Afghanistan because of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Just as the price of confronting the Soviet Union over its meddling was too high to contemplate, today the price of confronting those who interfere with us is one that we will not pay. Simply watch the long dance of 'sanctions', negotiations and rhetoric with the Islamic Republic of Iran: no nation besides Israel will confront them, and the West is working to constrain the Israelis, not the Iranians.
We have not been able to solve the problem of tribalism. We are not able to change Pakistan. We have not been able to persuade the ISI to leave us alone. And we won't, because of the oil, remove the House of Saud.
An alternative approach would be to remove the heavy presence in Afghanistan and return to the original light footprint of late 2001. Keep Bagram airbase, and use our air power and special forces to suppress al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Make the logistics as simple as we can so that we do not have to depend on Pakistan. We could arm the Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara tribes in the north and west. We could try to split and co-opt the Pashtun tribes.
All that would require a compliant central government in Kabul, and we have no evidence that Hamid Karzai or his successors would be willing to let us stay. Karzai doesn't see the Taliban as an existential threat; they're just one more local, Pashtun sub-tribe to him. Worse yet, arming the other tribes might allow them to fight each other as much or more than they fight the Taliban.
The result of a 'light war' (or light kinetic action if you prefer) is simply a slower bleed on our resources and our brave military people. We could suppress the Taliban, at least for a time, but we would not solve the problem. It also rankles our own sense of how the world should be and puts us in the position of favoring one tribe over another with the resulting bloodshed on our hands. Tribal favoritism was a favored strategy of European colonial powers, perfected in places like the Congo, Rwanda, Burma and the Ivory Coast. We would simply be implementing a 21st century imperialism. Is that who we are? Most Americans would say, 'no', and they would be right.
We have tried nation building. We have tried to help. We have fought with one hand tied behind our backs. None of that has worked.
Pack it up and bring our people home.
Keep the satellites and the drones in place. Watch the Taliban. Make it very, very clear to them that the next time they allow a terrorist group to use their land to come at the United States, there will not be a next time ever again.
It is time to go.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/26/2012 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It really is. Not because the enemy there is formidable, not even because we would lose, because we do not have to.
The Commander of all the troops is worse than the enemy. Straight up.
I rather a Soldier have to put up with fire from the front than from fire from behind from their CINC.
Faster please....
Forget offensive OPS. We are stabbed in the back at home by our own petty king.
#2
After posting this another mod pointed out to me that Drew M at Ace of Spades has written something similar. I wrote my piece Saturday afternoon and wasn't aware of Drew's post at the time, though I should be checking in at Ace more than I do.
But I'm gratified to see that my thinking is similar to Drew's.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/26/2012 0:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I figured Bush's people recognized that (it's time to go) from the very beginning, which was why they took the first opportunity to 'declare victory' and move the war to Iraq. But no, all the 'brilliant minds' insisted the Iraq War was wrong and Afghanistan was the 'good' war, so back we went to the unwinnable war.
#4
And so, Obama takes the credit, unjistly, and Bush the blame.
Just in time for elections, So rememver people, OBAMA DIDN'T DO IT, JUST CLAIMED IT.
Another Kie.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
02/26/2012 0:54 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Hell, I first said this a couple years ago when the elections were stolen. Someone advocated my banning from Rantburg.
Glad to see that common sense is sweeping the land.
#6
I do believe that precipitous withdrawal is the least bad option that is also politically realistic.
However we should keep in mind just how terribly bad this option is.
There was a mass fatality attack on the CONUS that in itself constituted a war crime.
The POTUS set an ultimatum to the state sponsors: 'Deliver the terrorists, or we will make you share in their fate!'
After more than ten years of an expensive but half-hearted war effort the US withdraws, the state sponsors return to power (in all likelihood.)
Lesson for potential adversaries: "A POTUS' statements concerning issues of life and death need not be taken seriously."
Just as any Soviet leader rationally took into account the precedent of America's reaction to Pearl Harbor, any adversary in the future will assess the US in light of the 9/11 war and its outcome.
This is very, very dangerous.
I came out of Afghanistan last month following a very frustrating 13 months of attempting to mitigate the effectiveness of the IED threat. You will find very, very few people on the ground in Afghanistan below the rank of Colonel who will agree that we are making any difference or that conditions will be better following our departure. It is simply not so. I do not "hate to say it" it is indeed time to leave Afghanistan. The effort put forth has been a collosal and tragic disaster.
Wars and insurgencies are not won by announcing one's withdrawl schedule whilst permitting cross-border enemy sancuaries to flourish and levying restrictive, non-permissive Rules of Engagement (ROE) upon friendly forces. Insurgencies are not won by the introduction of culturally offensive Female Engagement Teams (FETS) who attempt to target uneducated and oppressed women for conversion to western notions of human rights and decency. Insurgencies are not won through the 'buying' of NATO's reluctant participation. Insurgencies are not won by the monitoring of regional atmospherics through mosque sermons and madrassa activity while openly denying the Islamic threat. The Taliban Senior Leadership are simply waiting us out, training their cadres, and laughing at our nauseating apologies and claims of provincial successes.
At the end of the last Spring Offensive the Taliban Senior Leadership in Quetta, Pakistan issued guidance that their efforts would continue through the winter months with the targeting and assassination of Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA) and ISAF key figures. Clearly, this is what is taking place today and with devastating effects.
Yes, it is time to leave, and it is time to study strategic lessons learned in both Iraq and Afghanistan as well. We should not continue to repeat the senseless mistakes of the past. We should think very hard about future foreign military engagements and costly entanglements. Attempting to bring primitive, Islamic cultures into the 21st century is simply a bridge too far. We owe it to our fighting forces. We owe it to all Americans.
#9
It is time to go; well past time. I have been saying this for years. I have long been of the opinion that we cannot drag these people out of their barbarism. They like it; we will not change them (NGO-think) and should not bother.
I fully supported our going into Afghanistan after 9-11. I was unhappy with the nation-building efforts both there and in Iraq; naive and arrogant, wasteful of our people and our treasure. We owe them nothing, except to flatten their 'societies' whenever they constitute a threat to us. Rinse and repeat as required. Oderint dum metuant.
There have been some upsides; Turkey and Pakistan were unmasked as enemies, and now Egypt has been as well (like it wasn't obvious before). So be it. Avoid future Libya-like idiocy (Syria, anyone?); involve ourselves only when we are directly threatened. Take note that the Europeans (and need I add, the Saudis?) are not our friends; they will use us to their advantage whenever they see it as beneficial to themselves, and laugh up their sleeves while we spend our lives.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
02/26/2012 7:33 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Whiskey Mike,
As a Brit i would point out that the common man in UK is alot closer to the US than the Europeans who hate us.(Cultural and history reasons)
What sticks in my throat is Obama saying France is your closet ally.He hates us also.
Saudi and Pakistan have undermined us in Afghanistan and every ally?in the Middle East undermined us in Iraq.
People in US need to know who their True allies are(UK,Canada,Australia,NZ) not put us down just because we are not the power we used to be.Thanks to Labour and its workshy multiculture views.
Posted by: Paul D ||
02/26/2012 8:45 Comments ||
Top||
#11
or we could favor one faction, say the Northern Alliance which has long been pro American or at least America friendly
let them have the $$ and keep the drone assets there
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
02/26/2012 8:46 Comments ||
Top||
#12
What sticks in my throat is Obama saying France is your closet ally.He hates us also.
So does he hate France, Paul D. But saying the other way is an easy two fingers to you lot, whom he hates for the sake of the father who is a wholly invented figment of his imagination, though Barack, Sr. was real enough to others.
#14
It's funny, I don't think of England as being European. A blind spot of mine, probably. Sounds like you don't consider yourselves European either. All good. I count as our true, few allies just those you listed. I would add a few more, but not many.
France, ...France is odd. I like their troops, I despise their elites. French society is very stratified. Liberté, égalité, fraternité; lived by many, but merely mouthed by most of the elite. I understand how what Obama says sticks in your craw; I think he says it only in spite, to injure. Obama does not represent the majority of the US. This will pass. I think. I hope.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
02/26/2012 9:44 Comments ||
Top||
#15
I shudder to think it costs us all that we have spent and lost in Afghanistan just to kill Osama bin Laden. But we screwed it up from the very beginning. When reports came that Binny was crossing the border into Pakistan we should have pursued him and if the Pakis didn't like it we'd just have to see what they were able to do about it. Even before that, when Clinton lobbed a cruise missile into Binny's training camp after telling the Pakis so they could pass the word to Binny. Don't we have stealth bombers that could have attacked that compound without any need to tell the Pakis? Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda. But at least we learned who our real enemies are. Now can we please stop giving them money?
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
02/26/2012 10:58 Comments ||
Top||
#16
This ought to be in the newspapers. I'm old enough (55) to remember when the gummint lost overall popular support for Vietnam. It wasn't so much when Cronkite declared it unwinnable after we'd actually won a smashing victory in the field during Tet '68 - it was more of a slow movement toward the realization that the politicians had no intention of winning the war. At that point, your average Joe Lunchbucket (who was likely a WWII vet) said "the hell with it, if we aren't going to win, we should cut our losses and bail."
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
02/26/2012 11:13 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Oh, we'll be back. Of course it will require another smack in the face with casualties that shouldn't be. Hopefully, by that time the ruling elite who know how to screw up everything but fix nothing will have passed on, voluntarily or involuntarily.
#18
Some point to a defeated, post World War II Germany and Japan as examples of successful nation building. But we did not 'build' nations there, we rebuilt them from the rubble of what were, prior to hostilities, successful nations.
Bingo again. There was also the fact that in each case, the country's executive authority was vested in guys wearing U.S. uniforms, backed by large forces of occupation troops. The underlying message was "become a peaceful, liberal democracy or we'll kill you."
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
02/26/2012 11:19 Comments ||
Top||
#19
"The underlying message was 'become a peaceful, liberal democracy or we'll kill you.'"
I'm getting fed up waiting for the first part (which is not likely to happen), Ricky, and more than ready for the second. :-(
Posted by: Barbara ||
02/26/2012 12:18 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Obama does not represent the majority of the US. This will pass. I think. I hope.
Posted by Whiskey Mike
Ring me up early on the morning of 5 Nov. I will be able to confirm or deny this statement with some degree of accuracy.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
02/26/2012 13:44 Comments ||
Top||
#23
I hate to say it also ... and to look at the Koran-burning and the murder of two officers (by an Afghan security officer no less) as a Walter Cronkheit moment, but there you go. Perhaps Afghanistan might yet be 'fixable', by interdicting the Talibunnies, and keeping a couple of small safe enclaves, arming and supporting the non-Pashtuns ... but not with Obama and Crew at the top. The instant apology to Karzai is the last straw.
We gave it our best shot, but if the Afghans and the Paks prefer the 7th century, then so be it.
#24
How bout make the 7th century something they can aspire to again in a millenium or so?
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
02/26/2012 14:12 Comments ||
Top||
#25
I think that was an excellent assessment of Afghanistan. I have one concern: Taliban victims; ie. defenseless women and children. Years of chaos left many widows without the ability to protect themselves from the barbarous and actually hate the Taliban. Like Viet Nam, we should offer an airlift out for those who want to flee and relocate them. Teachers and others willing to leave the rez have an opportunity to adapt to reality. Using the Northern Alliance as a base for drones, the region could also host refugee camps, letting them work out their own ethnic bigotries. Containment seems like the way to go to me.
#28
Drill deep holes and plant lots of big remote control nukes. Fill holes with concrete. Inform the world publicly of what we have done and that the deadman switch is in the Pentagon.
Explain that from now on they have to tiptoe.
FOAD on them.
Posted by: Water Modem ||
02/26/2012 15:13 Comments ||
Top||
#29
#26 It's almost as if we are at war with Islam, not just "extremists", ya know? That couldn't possibly be, could it?
Nearly from the get-go, our government bent over backwards about making a distinction between the good muslims and the bad muslims. It's becoming clearer and clearer that nearly? all of them hate us.
#30
Defenseless Taliban victims admitted to Western nations will demand submission to Sharia from their benefactors. And if that isn't forthcoming they will attack and kill.
Afghanistan is not Viet Nam. Southern Vietnamese boat people weren't fanatical communists. Afghan refugees would be fanatical islamofascists.
Our 'ally' aka the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is officially demanding Sharia restrictions for non-Muslims in the West.
Did the South Vietnamese government demand the adoption of Marxist-Leninist laws?
#31
Current US foreign policy is simple in principle: Do that which will help get BO re-elected. The schwerpunkt is Ohio, not Afghanistan or Pakistan.
Posted by: Matt ||
02/26/2012 17:02 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Destroy the major airfields and roads going in and out of the place and start to take visas seriously. If you travel to an Islamic nation you should have additional security.
#33
I thank everyone for their comments. This one was hard for me to write.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/26/2012 19:46 Comments ||
Top||
#34
If we can't take it with us, destroy it. Power stations, cell towers, water treatment, everything. After all, Mo didn't have any of that infidel shit. You wanna live like The Prophet, here's your chance, troglodytes.
Also, tell the caped restauranteer and his corrupt buddies that there's no room on the plane for them. Wish 'em luck and tell them to don't even think about moving over here.
I remember after 9/11 some people talked about nuking Afghanistan. I thought they were lunatics. I don't think that way anymore.
#35
Watch the Taliban Make it very, very clear to them that the next time they allow a terrorist group to use their land to come at the United States, there will not be a next time ever again..
Threats like that won't make a difference to them. You are assuming they are rational actors. They're JIHADIS, for goodness sake.
Noam Chomsky ...intellectual and political theorist of a socialist persuasion. He is noted for being so far out in left field he can't see the shortstop on every issue he pushes... , one of the greatest Jewish American scholars wrote a masterpiece named, "Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Paleostinians" after the Israeli invasion of Leb. This extra-ordinary book gives vivid details of the horrors of occupation of Paleostinian lands by the Jewish state of Israel. Today, we witness a new alliance on the horizon being forged in the global politics to challenge or undo Iran's nuclear program. Soddy Arabia, United States and Israel have created an alliance to bomb Iran. These strange political bed-fellows may be termed as the new 'Fateful Triangle', which may ultimately catalyze the stage for Armageddon.
The clarion call by the Saudis to bomb Iran is sending shockwaves throughout the Mohammedan world. It is also strange to accept the Israeli stance on their nuclear policy. Israel says that it has the right to own hundreds of nuclear bombs, but other regional governments in the Middle East are not entitled to even enriching uranium. According to Wikileaks, King Abdullah of Soddy Arabia has repeatedly asked the US to destroy Iran's nuclear capability. He has also garnered support from Gulf monarchs of Bahrain and Abu Dhabi to teach Iran a lesson on their nuclear program.
Soddy Arabia and Iran are the biggest oil producers and each country has significant areas of political influence in the Mohammedan world. As such, this would be a 'clash of the oil titans' which would bring extraordinary suffering to the already fragile Middle East Peace Process. Soddy Arabia is a strong ally of the US and has been the biggest consumer of US arms. It is also said to have a state policy driven by Wahabi theocracy which supports extremism to strengthen their religious and political monopoly in the Mohammedan world. In his book 'The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Saud from Tradition to Terror', American scholar, Stephen Schwartz details the vigorous program of ideological export of Wahabism financed and directed by the Saudis. Akbar Ganji, a revolutionary guard at the time of Iranian Revolution, and who later became the strongest voice of dissent, refutes the claims of the Western media that Ahmadinejad is the main culprit of Iran's ills today. It is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has tremendous authority over all major state institutions, and is the head of state, commander in chief, and top ideologue. Khamenei is the Sultan of Shiite theocracy and a key individual behind all repressive operations existing in Iran.
According to the latest ABC news, Gen Dempsey's visit to Israel this week centered on Iran's nuclear program and there is a growing fear that Israel may soon strike Iran. Mitt Romney ...whose real first name is actually, no kidding, Willard, was governor of Massachussetts and is currently the front-runner for president on the Publican ticket. He is the son of the former governor of Michigan, George Romney, who himself ran for president after saving American Motors from failure, though not permanently. Romney's foot is in an ideological bucket because of Romneycare, a state-level experiment that should have been a warning against Obamacare if anyone had been paying attention. Romney's charisma is best defined as soporific, which is probably why he is leading the Publican field... , a Republican nominee for the 2012 Presidential race, was interviewed by a conservative and a hawkish talk show host O'Reilly of Fox News. During the interview, he warned Romney that bombing Iran could escalate to World War III and result in the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, which links Iran and Soddy Arabia. It is surprising that Republican candidates are ignoring the work of a renowned conservative scholar and historian, Niall Ferguson. In "Civilization: The West and the Rest", Ferguson argues that 500 years of Western domination is over after the huge economic meltdown. Any act to trigger the war, will raise the oil prices and further destabilize the world economy. If American arrogance continues and Saudi prayers answered, the price of war will destroy the American Empire.
The two key players in this developing conflict, Soddy Arabia and Iran have roots in religious theocracy. It is the Shia/Sunni divide and the repressive nature of the regimes which has become central in the oil politics of the Middle East. Soddy Arabia has treated its minority Shia population as second class citizens and similar treatments have been inflicted on Sunnis by the Iranian regime. Shias have long faced discrimination in Sunni-majority Soddy Arabia which follows a very conservative Wahhabi interpretation of the religion, in which Shia are considered heretics. Conversely, as Sunni Mohammedans, the Baluch people in Iran, experience marginalization and discrimination in a country where Shia Islam is the official state religion and holds political power. In the recent Arab uprising in the streets of Manama-Bahrain, Soddy Arabia supported the brutal crackdown of Sunni Bahraini monarch on the majority Shia population. It is also reported that the Saudis financed the NATO ...the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It's headquartered in Belgium. That sez it all.... alliance in liberating Libya from Qadaffy's wicked rule and also supporting Syrian rebels to defeat Basher Asaad. The ouster of Asaad is to undo the influence of Iran in Syria. These two countries are another example of strange political bed-fellows. Syria's Baa'thist ideology is strictly secular and socialist, whereas, Iran's ideology is rigidly religious. They are both authoritarian, Iran is predominantly Shiite, but Syria is predominantly Sunni with a ruling Alawite family for several decades, a Shiite sect.
It is understandable that Pakistain could be easily caught in this political and religious inferno. Due to the present crisis in Pakistain brought about by American occupation in Afghanistan, Pakistain should avoid this conflict and find an avenue to come out of this abyss. Iran and Soddy Arabia have their own interest in the Sunni/Shia divide in Afghanistan and Pakistain. The Islamist forces in Pakistain should refrain from igniting this religious inferno by supporting the Wahabi doctrine of Soddy Arabia. It is important for the Mohammedan world to know the history, politics and religious divide between Soddy Arabia and Iran to condemn or support Iran's nuclear race. If other Mohammedan countries and Pakistain take a neutral stand on this war-mongering, the tide of war will soon wither away. If sanity does not prevail, the planet Earth cannot be saved from a devastating catastrophe. According to the Mayan prophesy and predictions of Nostradamus, the year 2012 has been termed as end of the world-The Armageddon. The followers of all three Semitic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam should seriously read their scripture and embrace "Shalom and Salaam", the symbol of Peace in their political lives. The Christians and Jews should wait for the 'Second Coming of the Christ' and the Mohammedans wait for 'Mahdi' to appear.
Continued on Page 49
#1
You gotta luv the "Catch 22" at play here - efensive-oriented Iran may not officially declare its State intentions as per NucWeaps until it possesses the covert ability to quickly produce large quantities of same, at least on the TacNuke + MBM, IRBM level(s). AMAP ALAP Iran wants to deny the US-Allies or UNSC use the any "Iran has NucBombs" premise for UN-sanctioned war. OTOH, IRAN [+ by extens Radical Islam] NEEDS NUCWEAPONS IN ORDER TO MAKE THE ISLAMIST-DESIRED OWG/GLOBAL CALIPHATE CREDIBLE, AS WELL AS MILPOL POTENT.
However, the mostly SUNNI GCC + ME STATES FEAR A NUCLEAR SHIA IRAN, REAL OR OTHER. YET IMO RECOGNIZE THAT NUCWEAPS IS LIKELY REQUIRED FOR A CREDIBLE, MILPOL POTENT CALIPHATE.
The Saudis have said they will not go nuclear or dev NUcWeaps unless Iran does.
THE ISLAMIST CALIPHATE CANNOT BE PAR, SUPERIOR OR DOMINANT, TO THE NON-ISLAMIC WORLD + MAJOR NUCLEAR POWERS UNLESS IT HAS ADVANCED WEAPONS TO MATCH - NUCLEAR WEAPONS, THEN, EXISTENTIALLY
"MAKES-OR-BREAKS" THE ISLAMIST CONCEPT OF OWG/GLOBAL CALIPHATE.
#2
Chomsky needs to be remembered as having done more to "keep the black man down" then even Jefferson Davis. By his actions, Chomsky has impoverished and left destitute millions of black Americans.
Rehman Malik Pak politician, current Interior Minister under the Gilani administration. Malik is a former Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) intelligence officer who rose to head the FIA during Benazir Bhutto's second tenure. He later joined the Pak Peoples Party and was chief security officer to Bhutto. Malik was tossed from his FIA job in 1998 after documenting the breath-taking corruption of the Sharif family. By unhappy coincidence Nawaz Sharif became PM at just that moment and Malik moved to London one step ahead of the button men. has finally, and rather dramatically, aired the Joint Investigation Team's report on the liquidation of Benazir Bhutto ... 11th Prime Minister of Pakistain in two non-consecutive terms from 1988 until 1990 and 1993 until 1996. She was the daughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, founder of the Pakistain People's Party, who was murdered at the instigation of General Ayub Khan. She was murdered in her turn by person or persons unknown while campaigning in late 2007. Suspects include, to note just a few, Baitullah Mehsud, General Pervez Musharraf, the ISI, al-Qaeda in Pakistain, and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, who shows remarkably little curiosity about who done her in... . But we are already privy to much of what he has revealed, partly because of media dribs and ministerial drabs in the last four years, and partly because of the inquiry reports of Scotland Yard and the UN, on the matter. Nor are we surprised by the choice of the venue - the Sindh Assembly represents the arena of Sindhi "nationalism and anti-Punjabi-establishmentism"; it is the burial province of three martyred Bhuttos and it is the source of a parliamentary resolution on the subject. The timing of the surprise is also understandable: in the run-up to general elections later this year, the theme of martyrdom will doubtless figure prominently.
Some facts are now established. Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pak Taliban (who was killed in a Drone strike subsequently), gave the order to kill Ms Bhutto. Several Afghan, Pak Taliban and former Jehadi groups played a role in the chain of command and action. Most of the assassins had been schooled at the Darul Uloom Haqqania, an Islamic radical Deobandi seminary in Akora Khattak whose "Vice-Chancellor" Maulana Sami-ul Haq is the leader of his own faction of the Jamaat Ulema e Islam and currently leader of the firebrand ...firebrands are noted more for audio volume and the quantity of spittle generated than for any actual logic in their arguments... Defense Council of Pakistain floated by the military establishment.
It is confirmed that senior military leaders ordered the civil administration to hose down the scene of crime within hours of Ms Bhutto's liquidation. Significantly, the DG-ISI and DG-MI refused to appear before the three commissions of inquiry. Nor is there a shred of doubt about the unwillingness and inability of the Musharraf regime to provide requisite security to Ms Bhutto - who was constitutionally entitled to it as a twice-elected prime minister - after her return to Pakistain.
The background to the "deal" between General Musharraf and Ms Bhutto brokered by the Americans is also well-established. The Bush and Mush administrations were getting along like a house on fire. But, in the run up to general elections in 2007, General Musharraf was looking politically frail in the aftermath of the lawyers' movement and alienation from the mass media. The Americans proposed to prop him up by extending the populist hand of Ms Bhutto in a power-sharing arrangement for the next five years. General Musharraf and Ms Bhutto disliked the scheme but clutched at its potential utility. Musharraf thought he would be able to keep a tight rein on her by denying the PPP an outright majority in parliament and compelling a coalition with his King's PMLQ League. Ms Bhutto believed she would be able to manoeuver after she got a toehold in power. He wanted her to stay away from Pakistain until after the elections so that he could manipulate them. She demanded an even playing field to make a dent. He offered her the NRO as a face-saving device when she sought an amendment in the law barring third-term prime ministership.
As D-Day neared, the existing trust deficit yawned and both backtracked from their commitments. When she firmly declared her intent to return before elections, he cunningly raised the specter of security threats to her life. Conveniently enough, that's when Baitullah Masud publicly threatened to send over 100 jacket wallahs to stop Ms Bhutto in her tracks. When she remained undaunted, General Musharraf warned he wouldn't extend security to her. When she got the US administration to propose sending Blackwater guards to Pakistain for her private security, he refused permission. His hostility peaked when Nawaz Sharif ... served two non-consecutive terms as prime minister, heads the Pakistain Moslem League (Nawaz). Noted for his spectacular corruption, the 1998 Pak nuclear test, border war with India, and for being tossed by General Musharraf... 's Saudi hosts insisted that their guest would also return to Pakistain to "balance" the concession to Ms Bhutto. That is when General Musharraf's carefully laid plans seemed to go awry and all seemed lost because of Ms Bhutto's intransigence. Consequently, if anyone had a powerful personal and political motive for stopping her in her tracks, it was General Musharraf, his military coterie and his political cabal in the Q league. Significantly, on the eve of her departure for Pakistain, Ms Bhutto released a letter naming those in such circles who constituted a threat to her life.
Mr Malik insists he will extradite General Musharraf to face charges in Pakistain. That's a hope in hell. The military has stopped him from establishing any nexus between the assassins and those who facilitated them in the establishment. And it will not allow a former chief of army staff, whose commanders are either still in power or retired at home in Pakistain, to be dragged through the courts and tried by the "bloody civilians".
The thunderous rhetoric of martyrdom, rather than proof and convictions, will therefore have to suffice for the heirs of Benazir Bhutto. That is the formula they have followed to win three elections in the past three decades. And that is the formula they are most likely to follow in the future.
#2
Zerohedge and foreign policy commentary do not go together.
LOL. All foreign policy is about economics, or rather self interest. Did I emphasis ALL? Well I'll emphasis it again.
#3
Excellent article. 'Nice job of integrating game theory - the "iterated prisoner's dilemma."
What was new to me was the close tie-in of Iranian oil exports to the continued functioning of Greece. If there were two pending calamities that I would want to keep clearly unentangled, they would be the Iranian "cruising for a bruising" situation, and the slow meltdown of Greece.
#4
Foreign policy IS about national economies and national interest, but Zerohedge has a blind spot for areas where US self-interest meshes with its foreign policy. At least Rantburg regularly discusses these issues.
Unlike Iraq, POST-INVASION IRAN = NEW, GIANT OR SUPER-SIZED "AFPAK", wid ARMED BASIJ + IRGC + LOYALIST MILFORS + OTHER ALIGNED MOVING BACK-N-FORTH INTO OCCUPIED IRAN ACROSS "NEUTRAL" SOVEREIGN BORDERS FOR THE CONDUCT OF ANTI-US/NATO/COALITION "RESISTANCE" = TERROR OPS = MIL OPS???
* DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > IRAN: TROUBLE BREWING, domestically + politically, + likely to worsen or explode once the new EU Embargo goes into effect this coming July 2012.
* SAME > FULL-BLOWN "PERSIAN AUTUMN" [Spring?] EXPECTED IN IRAN | [Gulf News] IRAN: THE WAR WITHIN. ANALYSTS EXPECT RESENTMENT FROM SANCTIONS-HIT PEOPLE TO EXPLODE INTO "PERSIAN AUTUMN".
versus
* WORLD NEWS > [Foreign Policy] "IT IS NOT IN THE US NATIONAL INTEREST TO GO TO WAR WID IRAN ANYTIME SOON".
* SAME > US COULD BE PULLED INTO WAR IFF ISRAEL STRIKES/HITS IRAN, EXPERTS SAY.
* SAME > {Times of Indjuh] BRITAIN DRAWING UP IRAN BATTLE PLANS, SAYS REPORT, in case it gets "sucked" into a Mil Conflict agz Iran.
00's of Troops + a Nuke Sub - repor may base Troops in BFF UAE, its strongest Gulf ally.
versus
* RUSSIA TODAY > {Patrick Young] "GREECE IN DEATH SPIRAL".
ARTIC > YOUNG = Greece should've left the EU + EUroDollar three years ago.
* SAME > IRAN DENIES GREECE 500,000 BARRELS OF OIL SHIPMENT, which Debt, EuroDollar-troubled Greece sorely needs.
Is Iran attempting to foment or spark GREEK REVOLUTION + AEGEAN, BALKAN CHAOS, i.e. FIGHTING THE US "OVER THERE" IN EUROPE'S BACKYARD, NOT THE GULF???
#6
OOOOPSIES, forgot POSTERS = opine that the THE COUNTDOWN TO DE FACTO US-ALLIED-VS-IRAN WAR BEGAN WHEN IRAN DECIDED TO CUT OFF OIL SUPPLIES TO SEVERAL EU COUNTRIES, as the US-West take oil cutoffs most seriously.
* "JULY 2012" = either IRAN BLINKS, OR THE US WILL BLINK IN "NUCLEAR GAME OF CHICKEN"???
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Noam 
Nawaz Sharif
