| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Pakistan, S Arabia may pose bigger problems than Iraq, Afghanistan |
| 2007-05-16 |
| Security collapse in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia could pose far greater problems for the west than either Iraq or Afghanistan, a former US general said on Tuesday, according to the Australian Associated Press news agency. General John Abizaid, who headed US Central Command from 2003 until retiring in 2007, said the problem was that Pakistan had nuclear weapons while Saudi Arabia had about a quarter of the world’s oil reserves. Speaking at an Australian Defence College and Royal United Services Institute security seminar, he said the two biggest problems were not necessarily Afghanistan and Iraq. “They may very well be Pakistan and Saudi Arabia,” he said. “The two countries are struggling with the security implications that they have to deal with in regard to their external and internal security problems and, in the case of Pakistan, with the fact that they happen to be a nuclear state.” “A meltdown in the security apparatus of those two countries could have implications for us that make the current situation look easy.” General Abizaid said both countries’ administrations were now much more resilient against the extremist threat than they were a few years ago. “The challenge now is to figure out how to move the campaign against terror forward in a way that does not inadvertently embolden, enhance or empower the extremist cause,” he said. “One of the reasons that the ideology of Bin Laden isn’t growing in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is because it doesn’t offer anybody anything. It’s very dark, very narrow and very negative and people understand that.” General Abizaid said he had great respect for the valour, professionalism and competence of Australia’s small but highly trained defence forces. “You should make sure you understand that you do matter and that we can’t continue to operate without our friends,” he said. “We need friends like you and hope you understand that this fight we are engaged in means that in the long run you need to invest in your own security and invest in the professionalism of your security forces.” |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #11 Stay the course does seem to be piecemeal. Maybe support for counter-terrorism would be restored if we started to think wholesale. Flatten Qom and the Ayatollahs will be hanged by their own people. Flatten "Sadr Slum" and Baghdad belligerents would consolidate at a status quo. If we think of 9-11 as "Pearl Harbor" then we might look for some variant of "Hiroshima." Gosh, Sneaze, wouldn't that be mass murder or genocide? Yesterday, I mentioned how a series of limited nuclear attacks on Cairo, Damascus, Tehran, Riyadh and Islamabad would reducde global terrorism by a huge margin and was accused of the same thing. Of course, my stated preference that we instead pursue a campaign of targeted killings against Islam's top tier leadership was simultaneously ignored. You are absolutely right that we need to implement measures which make ordinary Muslims seek to slit the throats of jihadist imams and ayatollahs. I'm glad you appreciated what I meant to convey by mentioning how we need to make it so that "our military's "dialogue" matches Islam's own understood high context vocabulary". As yet, we are not tailoring our responses to Islam's narrow scope of comprehension. Our refusal or inability to do so only increases the likelihood of being forced to use less desirable options like a series of nuclear attacks upon Middle East terrorist centers. I still oppose first use of nuclear weapons by America. We have sufficient conventional firepower to achieve many of the required goals that confront us. While Islam's "vocabulary" is one of almost unmitigated bloodshed and mayhem, all of our replies need not consist of the same ilk. However, it is crucial for us to abandon the "hearts and minds" approach that clearly is not working". While some portions of Iraq may have benign regard for America's liberating presence, far too many continue to embrace the clannish, tribal high context mentality that still regards us as Crusading occupiers. This will not be overcome with any benevolent policies. In the short time we have left before escalating nuclear proliferation finally enables terrorist nuclear attacks upon American soil, we need to establish a firm track record of making life incredibly miserable for those who seek to do us harm. We have other ways of doing this than solely with military invasions. Selective disruption of economic infrastructure is one of them. Iran could be toppled with several very minor stand-off attacks upon its limited gasoline refining capacity and petroleum off-loading facilities. This, combined with pinpoint destruction of their known nuclear facilities could easily destabilize their mullahcracy and bring down the Iranian house of cards. The more we resist using such leveraged methods, the more likely it becomes that gruesome wholesale slaughter will arise as our sole option. To hell with being loved, to hell with spreading democracy in nations whose soil is so parched by theocratic tyranny that such fragile seeds will never take root in our lifetimes. To hell with anything that does not inspire fear and dread of America's wrath. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-05-16 16:23 |
| #10 What Zen said. You have to smack these people hard every time they make a move until they understand that they better sit still. So far we have failed to do so in places like Kosovo, Thailand and the Phillipines. Hell, we had an ally in Serbia and we bombed him instead of the enemy. This is plain and simple a failure to understand the enemy. And it's going to be far more complicated trying to secure the Pak nukes if we don't deal with Iran first. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-05-16 12:11 |
| #9 “One of the reasons that the ideology of Bin Laden isn’t growing in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is because it doesn’t offer anybody anything. It’s very dark, very narrow and very negative and people understand that.” I love that quote too. I believe that the reason these countries and others who are muslim but not terrorists, is that these people don't believe the bullshit dogma of Islam. They just go through the ceremonies to appear to be religious, but in fact, they are into power, money, golf, or something. They tolerate Islam to keep the masses from focusing on their extreme wealth in the midst of poverty. It's a verbal shell game to hide a better life from the common folk. But as long as the common folk are kept stupid, it works. Much like the MSM and the donks. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-05-16 10:41 |
| #8 Pakistan, S Arabia may pose bigger problems than Iraq, Afghanistan Of course they do -- now. But that's because the rather more immediate problems that Iraq and Afghanistan posed a few years ago have been removed. We're now in the mopping up stage with both, and in both a large part of the remaining problems are caused by .... (drum roll, please!) Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. With a great deal of help from Iran, Russia, quite probably China in the deep background, etc. The problems are being attacked in order of priority, which is as it should be when key resources (troops, funding) are limited. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-05-16 08:08 |
| #7 "One of the reasons that the ideology of Bin Laden isnÂ’t growing in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is because it doesnÂ’t offer anybody anything. ItÂ’s very dark, very narrow and very negative and people understand that." It's hard to expand a business when you already dominate the market. |
| Posted by: Sonar 2007-05-16 07:33 |
| #6 Zenster: Stay the course does seem to be piecemeal. Maybe support for counter-terrorism would be restored if we started to think wholesale. Flatten Qom and the Ayatollahs will be hanged by their own people. Flatten "Sadr Slum" and Baghdad belligerents would consolidate at a status quo. If we think of 9-11 as "Pearl Harbor" then we might look for some variant of "Hiroshima." |
| Posted by: Sneaze 2007-05-16 06:03 |
| #5 No support for al-Qaeda in the Saud entity? One post 911 poll found 95% admiration for Osama bin Laden. That terrorist has massive support there and in Pakistan. In Karachi he is despised on Sindhi nationalist grounds. In Peshawar he is a saint. |
| Posted by: Sneaze 2007-05-16 05:58 |
| #4 Both countries are connected by the same ideology-Global islamic dominated world funded by the Saudi Government!!!!! |
| Posted by: Paul 2007-05-16 05:05 |
| #3 Very good points but all of them are a day late and a dollar short. “One of the reasons that the ideology of Bin Laden isn’t growing in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is because it doesn’t offer anybody anything. It’s very dark, very narrow and very negative and people understand that.” Unfortunately, this changes not one whit Islam's obsession with global shari'a law, which is every bit as fatal as bin Laden's scheme. Back to square one. Iran still remains our top priority. Both its pursuit of nuclear weapons and, of equal importance, its standing as an Islamic Theocratic regime demand immediate action. Theocratic Islam simply must be prohibited by the West. Shari'a law's direct contradiction and violent assault upon constitutional government make it a primary target. Islam must be taught that its aspiration for global shari'a law will be met at all turns with military response and physical extinction where needed. The West has yet to learn the precise military argot which will render a successful strategy against Islam. Lack of sufficiently violent retaliation is one of several phrasings that currently elude us. Western politicians, and to a lesser extent, our military both exhibit a fatal unawareness regarding the machinations of high context cultures. This garbles our message and distorts the intended results that we obtain or convey through our our military actions. Until our military's "dialogue" matches Islam's own understood high context vocabulary, any return we see for the continuing loss of our soldier's lives and stupendous financial drain will never match the desired results. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-05-16 04:12 |
| #2 I thought they were posing these problems now? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-05-16 00:22 |
| #1 No kidding. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2007-05-16 00:10 |