Article

2004-10-08 Afghanistan/South Asia

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 Paul Moloney 2004-10-08 1:24:59 AM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Prior to 9-11, there was a major Sindh separatist movement, against Punjabi domination. After Bush decided to subsidize the terror state of Pakistan, jihadis moved into Sindh. Currently the MQM and PPP parties are in a state of siege, as a result of Musharaf's free hand to the MMA Islamofascists, with whom his party - PML (Q) - shares power in Balochistan. US taxpayers also subsidize jihad-terror from North West Frontier Province, which is totally run by the MMA, who have banned films and music. NWFP terrorists get 8.4% of all US aid to Pakistan, under the constitutional distribution formula. After the decision to whitewash Saudi government complicity in the 9-11 terror, Bush's second stupidest decision was to ally with the terror entity of Pakistan.

Machiavell says: vote Kerry, then force the hard secular line on him, that Bush-Halliburton won't implement in deference to their slave-masters in Riyadh.

Posted by Anonymous4336 2004-10-08 5:35:11 AM|| 2004-10-08 5:35:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 One step at a time, Anon4336. Afghanistan was the prime necessity after 9/11,and Iraq the low-hanging fruit because of the 1991 ceasefire violations.

Bush can't go after Saudi Arabia until a replacement supply of oil is secured (ie Iraq is pumping consistently at a much higher level than historically), else the economy of the entire world will go belly up -- Saudi only supplies about 20% or thereabout of U.S. oil, but is the major supplier to much of the rest of the world.

And Pakistan, with its tribal regions and barely accessable mountain ranges riddled with tiny valleys full of Taliban cousins, will be a good deal less easy to pacify than Afghanistan or Iraq. Certainly the British never managed it, and they owned that part of the world for centuries. That's why the Tribal Regions were established in the first place, after all.

Merely cutting off funds won't do it, nor dropping a few Daisy Cutters -- this is a major, long-term, Special Forces operation, and I can't imagine we have nearly enough trained manpower for such a thing. Remember, we had eight years of a "peace dividend" under Clinton, and I imagine the SF guys are pretty high cost to get trained up right.

Machiavelli would be wrong anyway, Anon Troll; Kerry wants to be loved by his internationalist Tranzi friends -- the UN/NGO/EU types who want nothing less than that American forces only be employed for UN goals, never in American interests. He won't be amenable to being forced to extend a war that to him is only another Viet Nam -- secularizing or no. And, while you may think Bush responds to the Saudis, the Saudis most emphatically do not. In fact, they hate Bush about as much as you do, although for opposite reasons.

You seem to know a geat deal about Pakistan, but you need to learn a great deal more about the Muslim world and the rest of the world, so that the next time you spout off you don't sound like an undereducated fool. Or like the typical PhD candidate, who knows more and more about less and less, until he knows everything about nothing at all.

At least that's the opinion of this little housewife.

Posted by trailing wife 2004-10-08 6:25:00 AM|| 2004-10-08 6:25:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 You go, girl! Fisking with style!

Posted by SR-71 2004-10-08 8:15:18 AM|| 2004-10-08 8:15:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 God Job TW. And so early in the morning!

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-08 8:22:51 AM|| 2004-10-08 8:22:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Nice, TW.

The only thing I would quibble with is that I think Iraq was more than "low-hanging fruit" in that it is our foothold in the region. One of the things we've always lacked in dealing with the growing menace of Islamic fanaticism is a large land base for our military forces.

And now we've got one, right next door to Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. We may not use military force on any of these countries, but the fact that we now have the option of doing so is a BIG improvement over what we had before, which was nada.

Let's hope we don't elect to throw away that advantage on November 2nd.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-10-08 8:45:08 AM|| 2004-10-08 8:45:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#6
Re #1 (Anon4336 aka Dog Bites Man aka Dog Bites Trolls): ... the terror state of Pakistan .... the terror entity of Pakistan

After 9/11 the Musharaf government declared that it would collaborate with the USA in our war against Al-Qaeda. After that declaration and after the collaboration began, the USA helped the Musharaf government by removing various sanctions and by providing various benefits. The USA could not have attacked Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan without the collaboration of the Musharaf government.

To characterize Pakistan as a "terror state" is to mischaracterize it. Pakistan indeed has supported terrorist warfare, but those efforts targeted only 1) the Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan and 2) what it considers to be the Indian occupation of Kashmir. The first effort has certainly ended, and the second effort probably has ended, as far as government support is concerned.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-10-08 8:59:34 AM|| 2004-10-08 8:59:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Mike,

Musharaf is and always will be a dictator. He came to be president, through a military coop. We canât pick and choose our dictators. A dictator is a dictator. Just because a dictator is on our side doesnât mean we should coddle him. The U.S has moral standing in the world and if we were to continue that standing, we cannot pick and choose dictatorâs that we like. We can no longer allow anyone throw our morals down the gutter. As far as your statement about not being able to attack Afghanistan without permission from the Musharaf government, you couldnât be more DEAD wrong. After 9/11 attack, the U.S. wanted blood and when the American people are that pissed, NO country in this world can stop us.

"what it considers to be the Indian occupation of Kashmir"
Pakistan has forgotten their history and in essence has their head in their proverbial ASS.
For those that are blathering about Indo-Pak without researching any history, I am here to help. Here is a small nugget from the link below.
India and Pakistan

"Great Britain, after negotiating with the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League, eventually agreed to divide India. The parties agreed to establish borders making the northeast and northwest corners of India into a single country with two territories âEast Pakistan and West Pakistanâ located one thousand miles apart. The process of division itself, called âpartition,â was an extraordinarily disruptive and destructive event. Millions of people found themselves on the âwrongâ side of hastily drawn borders between India and Pakistan. Ten million people moved from one new nation to another. Mob violence accompanying the refugee movement and resettlementâcaused by religious conflict that was often stoked by politicians spreading stories of atrocitiesâcost an estimated one million lives.

India and Pakistan immediately went to war in 1947 over the disputed territory of Kashmir, a thinly populated province between the two nations. The local Hindu maharaj (ruler) of Kashmir, given the choice to join either Pakistan or India, chose India despite the fact that its population was mostly Muslim."

Posted by Poison Reverse 2004-10-08 9:43:50 AM|| 2004-10-08 9:43:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 *bows* I thank you for your generous approval. But I have sat at the feet of masters (and mistresses, should they so choose to characterize themselves) and hope always to reflect favoribly upon your teaching.

Mrs. D, I thought he might be a troll because he coughed up "Halliburton" and "slave-masters in Riyadh". Am I getting better?

Dave, I quite agree that Iraq is not merely low-hanging fruit, but it really was too early in the morning. The kids are still young enough that I need to be around when they get ready for school, but old enough that I needn't supervise closely. Hence, Rantburg!

Mike, how clever of you to realize my Anon is Dog Bites Man. Must be one of those non-end user abilities. But I think Pakistan is one of those places that has to be approached with nuance ;-)

Pakistan is still partnered with Saudi Arabia in weapons development, and there are many in the government/army still hoping to form the Caliphate on Pakistani nukes and weapons fodder coupled with Saudi financing. As another article posted today reports, Pakistanis are moving up in the Al Quaeda management structure as the original Arabs have been captured/killed. And this is supported by entirely too much of the society, regardless of where Musharraf himself actually stands (or wriggles as he tries to balance internal and external pressures).

Posted by trailing wife 2004-10-08 9:57:06 AM|| 2004-10-08 9:57:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#9
#7 (Poison Reverse):
Please tell me how we could have attacked Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan without the collaboration of Pakistan? Through which country would we have attacked, if not through Pakistan?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-10-08 12:03:26 PM|| 2004-10-08 12:03:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 OK, who's going to make the "peccavi" joke? I got nothin'.

Posted by Angie Schultz 2004-10-08 12:52:54 PM|| [http://darkblogules.blogspot.com] 2004-10-08 12:52:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Mike,
You are right in the sense that Pakistan is better route in attacking Afghanistan. But, that is not what I am talking about. The impression that you are leaving is that we had to SUCK up to Pakistan, to get fly over permission. Do you really think that if Pakistan were to deny flyover permission, the U.S Government is going inform the American people that we canât attack the country that was involved in killing 3000 Americans, because Pakistan wonât give us flyover permission? No way in Hell. If Pakistan were to say no, they would pay a heavy price, one way or another. In other words, Pakistan had choice but to say, yes.

Now, getting back to your question, if you look at the map below, there are several other places in the north of Afghanistan to attack from. Most of the fire power came from B1âs, B2âs, and B52âs, which were deployed from the base(s) in Diego Garcia and U.S. If memory serves me right, I believe the ground assault was deployed from one of the âistanâ countries to the north of Afghanistan e.g. Uzbekistan.

Afghanistan region map

Posted by Poison Reverse 2004-10-08 2:27:39 PM|| 2004-10-08 2:27:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#12
Poison Reverse, to bomb Afghanistan from Diego Garcia, we have to fly over Pakistan or Iran. The countries north of Afghanistan would not allow us to attack from their bases -- they would allow us only to fly humanitarian and rescue flights. Besides, they are no less dictatorial than Pakistan is.

Why are you so eager to make an enemy out of Pakistan? Pakistan was our ally throughout the Cold War, and it's our ally now. We have a lot of disagreements with Pakistan and we would like Pakistan to be a more democratic society, but it seems to me that our current collaboration is morally acceptable and strategically advantageous.

If the USA adopted your proposed policies toward Pakistan, then what do you think would be the major advantages? I suppose we would give Pakistan less foreign aide, but I think we would eventually pay more money on the alternatives.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-10-08 4:04:56 PM|| 2004-10-08 4:04:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Are we working with countries with savage interpretations of Islam, pressuring such countries to change or else, or are we hostile to them and just biding our time? It seems to me Pakistan could have been a lot worse in its dealings with us, but it is still infused with forms of radical Islam every bit as ugly as those within Saudi Arabia.

Posted by jules 187 2004-10-08 4:20:07 PM|| 2004-10-08 4:20:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Mike,
I don't know what else to tell you. The relationship that you see on TV between Bush and Musharaf is just a smoke screen, marriage of convenience. Pakistan WAS (past tense) our ally, Bush is just playing a political game with Musharaf, so Musharaf will command his troops to help find Osama Bin Laden. Once Osama, Zawahiri and a couple of others are found or killed, Bushâs relationship with Pakistan will come to an immediate termination. Why? Because Bush knows that Pakistan is a breeding ground for Islamofascists. Also, Bush knows that the Saudiâs has put forth large amounts of money into the Pakistani Madrasses, a breeding ground for Islamist killers. The Saudiâs do not like Bush. The Pakistanis are fighting a proxy war, using Egyptians, Syrians, Palestinians, Jordanians, and Sudanese, in Kashmir, killing Christians and Hindus.

The U.S has already has and have scheduled future live war games with India. The relationship between India and Israel is getting deeper and deeper. The last time I checked the U.S and Israel are allies. After Bush gets what he wants from Pakistan, he can pursue an open and deeper relationship with India and other democracies. Mark my words, currently; you are witnessing the last stages of a dying relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan. The Cold War Day relationships are flickering and eventually will die out. This is a war about the future of civilization. Pick your friends carefully.

Posted by Poison Reverse 2004-10-08 5:20:59 PM|| 2004-10-08 5:20:59 PM|| Front Page Top

13:52 Uleque Glavise4887
19:42 just another victim
10:41 Ptah
07:17 2b
07:01 2b
00:40 Super Hose
23:56 ex-lib
23:45 Alaska Paul Having a Guinness
23:25 Frank G
23:25 Frank G
20:23 John (Q. Citizen)
20:20 John (Q. Citizen)
20:19 Three Monkies
20:18 Old Patriot
20:15 Old Patriot
20:12 Old Patriot
20:03 John (Q. Citizen)
19:50 Old Patriot
19:41 Barbara Skolaut
19:39 RWV
19:36 Phil Fraering
19:36 RWV
19:34 Phil Fraering
19:32 Steve