Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 10/06/2006 View Thu 10/05/2006 View Wed 10/04/2006 View Tue 10/03/2006 View Mon 10/02/2006 View Sun 10/01/2006 View Sat 09/30/2006
1
2006-10-06 Afghanistan
Noose Tightening Around Perv: NATO Commanders Steaming
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Captain America 2006-10-06 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11139 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Nato is now mapping the entire Taliban support structure in Balochistan, from ISI- run training camps near Quetta to huge ammunition dumps, arrival points for Taliban's new weapons and meeting places of the shura, or leadership council, in Quetta, which is headed by Mullah Mohammed Omar, the group's leader since its creation a dozen years ago.

Posted by RD 2006-10-06 00:15||   2006-10-06 00:15|| Front Page Top

#2 It's long been past time to violate Pakistan's sovereignty.
Posted by Danking70 2006-10-06 00:48||   2006-10-06 00:48|| Front Page Top

#3 Hundreds of Taliban reinforcements in pick-up trucks who crossed over from Quetta – waved on by Pakistani border guards

Start blowing these "border guards" off of the map until there is some semblance of interdiction. Until then, all crossing stations should be targeted when any ISI traffic shows up.

It's long been past time to violate Pakistan's sovereignty.

It's long been past time to violate Perv. Period.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-06 03:39||   2006-10-06 03:39|| Front Page Top

#4 Does Pakistan honestly think they can win a war against the West when they cant beat India?????
Posted by Cheregum Crelet7867 2006-10-06 06:49||   2006-10-06 06:49|| Front Page Top

#5 I wonder if he is is thinning the herd of radicals in his country by shoving then across the border for NATO to kill.
Posted by MDG 2006-10-06 06:51||   2006-10-06 06:51|| Front Page Top

#6 "It is time for an 'either you are with us or against us' delivered bluntly to Musharraf at the highest political level," said one Nato commander.

...I thought that kind of thinking was simplisme' , cowboyish, unilateral..except when THEY'RE getting shot at, apparently.

Mike
Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2006-10-06 07:15||   2006-10-06 07:15|| Front Page Top

#7 Can we all agreee that syria, iran, and pakistan harbor, harm, train and supply the enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq? Okay.

Now please, explain to me (since I'm a little slow to understand) why have we not taken the fight across the border of each of those countries. I have every reason to believe we've asked each of those countries politely to cease and desist. To no avail. Our boys and the boys of our allies are being killed by weapons and enemy coming from syria, iran, and pakistan.

Are we not strong enough to take the fight across these borders? If so, just tell me. But if we are strong enough, then why don't we do it?

As a side note, could things really be siad to be much "worse" in Afghanistan if Perv "wasn't an ally"?

I'm just asking....

Posted by Mark Z 2006-10-06 07:47||   2006-10-06 07:47|| Front Page Top

#8 One reason the fight isn't taken to Pakistan is the logistics of the Afghan operation run through Pakistan. Nothing will happen until, at minimum, Balochistan is separated from Pakistan.
Posted by ed 2006-10-06 08:11||   2006-10-06 08:11|| Front Page Top

#9 Just nuke wazeristain.
Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader  2006-10-06 09:29||   2006-10-06 09:29|| Front Page Top

#10 Does Pakistan honestly think they can win a war against the West when they cant beat India?????

They don't acknowledge that they can't beat India. It is something they pretend isn't true. As far as India is concerned, they might be difficult for even us to beat, short of going nuke.

I certainly wouldn't want to see our ground troops mix it up with theirs. They are some HARD MoFo's used to a lot more privation and hardship. And they do not call in air-support everytime the going gets a little hot.

Posted by NoBeards 2006-10-06 09:57||   2006-10-06 09:57|| Front Page Top

#11 Okay, so we decide that Perv is against us. What do we do?

We aint no way in hell gonna occupy Quetta, say. We attack it from the air with pinpoint strikes on key locations? Weve seen how effective that is in Lebanon, no? No ground presence, means no intell, nothing to keep the opponent from hiding and dispersing. Air plus some spec ops probably doesnt win either. Sure, you'll make it harder for the Taliban to operate, but is that worth the hearts and minds loss all over the place? Not just in Pakistan, where 80% of the country will rally to the ISI (and the remaining 20% will be in very deep doo-doo) but in most of the rest of the Sunni muslim world (apart from Afghanistan). Oh, and now youve got a regime thats gone completely to the AQ side, and has nukes.

If youre gonna do this, it cant be just break with Pakistan, in order to some bombing and spec ops raids over the border. The cost is more than those raids are worth. IF youre gonna do this, you have to have a strategy for completly breaking the ISI-AQKhan-HamidGul regime (cause thats what it will be after the break, even if they leave Perv as a figurehead). And THAT can only involve India, and the Pakistani secular opposition. So its got to be very well coordinated. If youre gonna do it, youd damned well better not shoot from the hip.
Posted by liberalhawk 2006-10-06 09:58||   2006-10-06 09:58|| Front Page Top

#12 I'm no expert in geopolitics, but it apears to me we are at war with Pakistan.
Posted by Uneang Creagum5349 2006-10-06 10:24||   2006-10-06 10:24|| Front Page Top

#13 Bull: Horn
Posted by Berzerkly Bozo">Berzerkly Bozo  2006-10-06 10:25||   2006-10-06 10:25|| Front Page Top

#14 OTOH, from what I can gather Quetta has a population of only about half a million, only about 40% larger than Kandahar. Maybe we CAN occupy Quetta, and with it, other parts of Baluchistan. Id think we need more troops than we currently have in Afghanistan - even if in the long run denying the Taliban sanctuary makes the situation in Afghanistan easier, i doubt it will in the short run.

Note that it would be very helpful to have a strong political relationship with the Baluchi rebels in order to pull this off.
Posted by liberalhawk 2006-10-06 10:26||   2006-10-06 10:26|| Front Page Top

#15 Which is why the ISI killed the most senior Baluchi leader recently.
Posted by lotp 2006-10-06 10:33||   2006-10-06 10:33|| Front Page Top

#16 Were we not recently getting a *I see nothing* from Perv recently when we chased some of these goons in hot pursuit across the border. Maybe, we can get Perv to look the other way again whilst we wipe all of these "mapped out" areas off the map?
Posted by BA 2006-10-06 11:07||   2006-10-06 11:07|| Front Page Top

#17 Partitioning. When Pakistan is broken into 3 - 5 independent (and feuding---with a little help) countries, Pakistan will stop being a problem.
Posted by gromgoru 2006-10-06 11:40||   2006-10-06 11:40|| Front Page Top

#18 Liberalhawk,
You've framed the issue very well. We can't accomplish much by ourselves. We could ruin a lot of territory, but for stability we need India to get aboard and do something. Just like we need Japan to counterweight Chicom + NKors. It is interesting that once in the sandbox, it didn't take NATO group long at all to identify the problem. Pakland has been doing these cross border raids since its inception. Into India, Kashmir,Afghanistan,etc. Will never cease. Whether Pervert is gone really doesn't matter.Only India, with a heavy boot heel, can probably put a stop to the nonsense which is Pakland. So far, they have been far too accomodating.
Posted by SpecOp35 2006-10-06 11:50||   2006-10-06 11:50|| Front Page Top

#19 Good thread into getting into the basic issues. It seems to me that Pak-Land is getting the money to run its sh*tty little country from Saudi Arabia and the US. The US has some *and I mean some* ability to influence events. We are not using our *ahem* influence to rein in the Saudis. It seems that this is just another game of "Follow the money" which leads back to SA. Deny the terrorists in Pak Land the money and it withers on the vine.

The only fly I see in the ointment is how much money the terrorists get from the opium trade. And what fraction of is in the big money scheme of things.
Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul  2006-10-06 12:30||   2006-10-06 12:30|| Front Page Top

#20 Part of the problem with influencing Saudi Arabia is that since the 1970s they've used their oil profits to buy up all sorts of investments, so now they are nicely diversified in European hotel chains, Fox television, etc. Fiscally wise, and it means they always have a nice place to stay when they go abroad, but...
Posted by trailing wife 2006-10-06 13:05||   2006-10-06 13:05|| Front Page Top

#21 Why not just station some air assets at the border checkpoints that have the hospitable (to the terrs anyway) guards; they can loiter there and when the Brave Lions are running away, open up with while still outside Pak borders. that gets the bad guys all concentrated and doesn't violate the PAK's (spit) borders. Perv can keep playing his stupid game and we can honestly say that we never invaded. let the terrs just pile up, or maybe D-9 them over the line.
Posted by USN, ret. 2006-10-06 14:57||   2006-10-06 14:57|| Front Page Top

#22 It's not an impossible problem to solve, but it's not an easy one. It's time to pull Perv's string, HARD. Tell him he has 30 days to bring the ISI under control, or we start taking out his cities. We want to see some dead bodies, not just words, and we want it to be the right dead bodies. In any instance, take their nukes and shut down their production cababilities. Also tell him bluntly that if we don't get the cooperation we demand, we'll split his worthless piece-of-sh$$ country in half, giving one half to Afghanistan and the other half to India.

Nuke Riyadh. That's the only effective way to end the Saudi money. Destroy the entire ruling heierarchy and all their "facilitators". There will be an immediate and deep financial reaction, but one the United States can survive (not sure about Europe... don't really care). Give Iran 30 days to end uranium enrichment, or we mine their harbors and destroy their ports and infrastructure. Tell the United Nations they have 30 days to take a hike, and stand firm. Shoot the liberals that try to stop us.

Increase the size of the US army by 24 Brigade combat teams (16 active, 6 reserve, 2 guard). Increase the size of the Marines by another full division. Add the needed support units and infrastructure. Quit trying to fight a war on the cheap, and start building up US military forces for the long haul ahead.

We'll be pariahs to all the snotty half-baked socialists/communists, but who give a sh$$ - we are already. Give the nod to Japan and Taiwan to build nuclear weapons, and to Japan to create an effective military, with our blessings. Tell Israel we'll back whatever they do on their borders, short of nukes or genocide, and provide PHYSICAL support to show our earnestness.

It's time to end this half-assed muslim "menace" once and for all. If we don't get tough now, we'll only have to put up with a lot of dead bodies and the need to get tough later - at much higher costs both in money and manpower.
Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot  2006-10-06 15:28|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]  2006-10-06 15:28|| Front Page Top

#23 It's time to pull Perv's string, HARD. Tell him he has 30 days to bring the ISI under control, or we start taking out his cities. We want to see some dead bodies, not just words, and we want it to be the right dead bodies. In any instance, take their nukes and shut down their production cababilities. Also tell him bluntly that if we don't get the cooperation we demand, we'll split his worthless piece-of-sh$$ country in half, giving one half to Afghanistan and the other half to India.

Works for me, Old Patriot.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-06 15:38||   2006-10-06 15:38|| Front Page Top

#24 We aint no way in hell gonna occupy Quetta, say. We attack it from the air with pinpoint strikes on key locations? Weve seen how effective that is in Lebanon, no? No ground presence, means no intell

You are ignoring the million Indian soldiers that would be available for action, with their thousands of tanks and hundreds of aircraft.

Right after the parliament attack, when India massed for war, it actually appointed some retired generals as martial law administrators for the Pak cities it intended to occupy.
Posted by john 2006-10-06 16:43||   2006-10-06 16:43|| Front Page Top

#25 If India did that, its own Muslim population might have a contribution to make. Not necessarily positive. How eager would India really be to go to war with Pakistan in the absence of some Pearl Harbor type event?
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-06 16:58||   2006-10-06 16:58|| Front Page Top

#26 Ahhhh....nothing is ever as simple as it seems!
Posted by Bobby 2006-10-06 17:12||   2006-10-06 17:12|| Front Page Top

#27 Can't nuke territory in a low intensity conflict. You could use the paramiltary option and poison the water supply's but till total war is called the western media and the politicos won't accept it.

Solution: an unexplained wave of political assassinations inside whackpacky land and constant military pressure on the ground.

Posted by pihkalbadger 2006-10-06 17:21||   2006-10-06 17:21|| Front Page Top

#28 Does the US/NATO mainline of supply still run through Pak? Has any shifted to the NW and N? If not, can it be moved?
Posted by Shipman 2006-10-06 17:38||   2006-10-06 17:38|| Front Page Top

#29 Afghanistan would be in a world of hurt if things got hot in Pakland. But we've got plenty of airlift capacity. That's why closing the C-17 line down so that we could build F-22s and a new manned bomber makes so much sense.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-06 17:42||   2006-10-06 17:42|| Front Page Top

#30 The only problem with separating Baluchistan from the Paks is that the western part of that new country is currrently part of Iran (Sistan va Baluchistan province in the southeast). That means the Baluchis would also have to liberate that part of Iran.

My, my, what a problem. Don't know how we'd solve that, nope, no sir. [drums fingers ]
Posted by Steve White">Steve White  2006-10-06 17:42||   2006-10-06 17:42|| Front Page Top

#31 How eager would India really be to go to war with Pakistan in the absence of some Pearl Harbor type event?

To finally resolve the Pakistan problem with a knockout blow?
With their strike corps backed by US airpower?

They would be preparing for battle minutes after Bush got off the phone with Manmohan Singh..

Posted by john 2006-10-06 17:52||   2006-10-06 17:52|| Front Page Top

#32 NWFP could go to Afghanistan.
Baluchistan could go to Iran (after regime change)
Sindh and Kashmir could go to India.

India might want the hitorical Sikh regions of the Punjab.. debatable given the islamist infestation.. they'll certainly seize Lahore.

The rest of Punjab could be the rump Pakistan..

Posted by john 2006-10-06 17:55||   2006-10-06 17:55|| Front Page Top

#33 After the shooting stopped, would it be reunited with India?
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-06 18:07||   2006-10-06 18:07|| Front Page Top

#34 A question for the experts:

What would happen in PakiWakiWorld if Saudi money was completely cut off?
Posted by .com 2006-10-06 20:13||   2006-10-06 20:13|| Front Page Top

#35  Also tell him bluntly that if we don't get the cooperation we demand, we'll split his worthless piece-of-sh$$ country in half, giving one half to Afghanistan and the other half to India.

Would either of them WANT it??
Posted by Chinter Flarong 2006-10-06 21:24||   2006-10-06 21:24|| Front Page Top

#36 Such fantasies. Things rarely work as planned look at Iraq and Afghanistan. What about Iran and N Korea. Pak is not on any serious list for action. Deal with S Arabia first they are the source of funding and wahabbi preaching.
Posted by Khan 2006-10-06 21:24||   2006-10-06 21:24|| Front Page Top

#37 SOLUTION

Afghanistan and Balochistan should form a legal team to challenge the illegal occupation of Afghan territories and Balochistan by Pakistan in the International Court of Justice. Once the Durand Line Agreement is declared illegal, it will result in the return of Pakistan-occupied territories back to Afghanistan. Also, Balochistan will be declared a country that was forcibly invaded through use of force by the Pakistanis; and with international assistance, Balochistan can regain its independence. It is the right time to act now because the US and Allied forces in Afghanistan are positioned to facilitate the enforcement of the Court’s judgment.

After Pakistan vacates territories belonging to Afghanistan and Balochistan, a new boarder should be demarked amicably to determine Baloch dominated areas to become the new Balochistan, and Pashtun dominated areas to be merged into Afghanistan. And, with the help of the US and Allied forces, the Afghans and the Baloch forces can flush out members of Al-Qaeda and Talebans from their respective countries.

A wise observer once said, “Pakistan is a completely superfluous and artificially created spot on the world map that has become a breeding ground for extremism, and trouble that would be best done away with.”
http://www.afghanland.com/history/durrand.html
Posted by hutchrun">hutchrun  2006-10-06 23:19||   2006-10-06 23:19|| Front Page Top

19:34 Muhammad Abu-Africa
23:59 anon
23:58 Zenster
23:55 FOTSGreg
23:54 Angie Schultz
23:52 Zenster
23:49 Quana
23:48 anon
23:40 RD
23:39 anon
23:38 RD
23:32 trailing wife
23:26 Zenster
23:19 hutchrun
23:15 Thinemp Whimble2412
23:14 anon
23:09 rjschwarz
23:08 trailing wife
23:08 Thinemp Whimble2412
23:06 wxjames
23:06 anon
23:06 rjschwarz
23:04 hutchrun
23:03 Old Patriot









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com