Pakistan: Now or Never? — Facing up to “the war in Pakistan”
There has been much hesitation in the world’s media about how to label U.S. military action inside Pakistan’s borders, including a reported ground raid and a series of missile strikes. Do you call it an “invasion”? Or use the more innocuous-sounding “intervention”? In an editorial, the Washington Post gives it a name which is rather striking in its directness. It calls it quite simply, The War in Pakistan.
President George W. Bush’s reported decision in July to step up attacks by U.S. forces in Pakistan’s tribal areas, the newspaper says, was both necessary and long overdue. It acknowledges there is a risk the strikes might prompt a breach between the U.S. and Pakistani armies, or destabilize the new civilian government in Pakistan. But, it says, ”no risk to Pakistan’s political system or its U.S. relations is greater than that of a second 9/11 staged from the tribal territories. U.S. missile and commando attacks must be backed by the best intelligence and must minimize civilian casualties. But they must continue.”
Others are lining up to condemn the new U.S. strategy in Pakistan.
Protesting against U.S. strikes“The Americans are probably right in claiming that Al-Qaeda and the Taleban have regrouped and using bases in Pakistan to launch cross-border raids into Afghanistan,” says Saudi-based Arab News. “They are certainly right in thinking that there will be no peace in Afghanistan while that remains the case. But they have to let the Pakistanis deal with this. If they continue the raids, they risk not merely losing what dwindling support they have in Pakistan but, far worse, alienating the country so thoroughly than no government even vaguely sympathetic to the US and the West can survive there.”
[…]
In the Huffington Post, Shuja Nawaz writes that “the next time the US physically invades Pakistani territory to take out suspected militants, it may meet the Pakistan army head on. Or it may face a complete cut-off of war supplies and fuel in Afghanistan via Pakistan. With only two weeks supply of fuel available to its forces inside Afghanistan and no alternative route currently available, the war in Afghanistan may come to a screeching halt.”
I’d like to ask Uncle Dave or the rest of the left-liberals on this forum a question: why do you consider Iraq the “bad” war and Afghanistan the “good” war?
“But they have to let the Pakistanis deal with this”
Ha! HA! HA! HA! (Wiping tear from eye)
That was a good one!
The Pakistanis have had decades to solve this problem. It’s not likely they have either the resolve or ability to clean up their own act.
Not to mention they are also in a proxy war with India!
#1 – More important in your own (sort of) mind than dealing with the topic. Right?
Why do neocon nutballs always run and hide from political reality? There’s a question to match yours.
I’d like to ask Springheel Jack or the rest of the right-conservatives on this forum a question: why do you consider Afghanistan the “bad” war and Iraq the “good” war?
War with/in Pakistan?
Who the hell knows? It’s a goddamn trillion dollar cluster.
Inability to answer the question is no cause for incivility.
Iraq is the “bad” war because we invaded under false premises and our administration KNEW it. Afghanistan is not the “good” war. It is the stupid war. Has any invading army ever taken and held Afghanistan? Ever? Back into the dawn of history armies have broken their teeth in that inhospitable piece of ground. Remember Soviet Russia’s attempt?
Improbus, not only the Russians but the British, too.
SO why do the leftist-liberals think we can succeed in Afghanistan where the Russians and the British failed?
Obama says we need to send more troops to Afghanistan. He must have a plan, eh, a plan for success?
I wonder what it is.
How is Bush’s ordering Troops into Paki any different from Nixon ordering Troops into Cambodia ??? NOT A BIT OF DIFFERENCE !!! ***IMPEACH AT ONCE*** !!!
We can’t do what we did in Vietnam. If the enemy knows all they have to do to escape is step over the border they win.
#1
I’m about as right leaning as anyone here and I consider the Afghan war more of a just war than Iraq. The why is pretty simple. We were directly attacked. We knew the guys that masterminded the attack were there. We told that the Afghan government to hand them over or we were coming in. They didn’t, we did.
We now need to tell Pakistan that we will press they fight into their country they can help or get the hell out of the way.
#8: It won’t be easy by any means, but we have the tech to find the enemy that didn’t exist when the other countries fought there, so the possibility we could win exists. I can’t find the link to the article I read this weekend describing the tech Bob Woodward was probably talking about in his latest book that is working in Iraq, but it sounded like it should work just as well there.
The point isn’t that Afghanistan is a ‘good’ war and Iraq is a ‘bad’ war, it’s that the reasons we went into both are such. Whether we could win or not is a different issue.
#1–Springheel==I think that is a very fair question not fairly responded to by other questions.
I grimanced when Obama first said he was going to send more troops to Afghanistan. I figure if he was going to show “weakness” in Iraq, he had to show “strength” somewhere else?
Stated Goal? Exit Strategy? Powell Doctrine? (note to self–ask Palin what the Powell Doctrine is!).
So, while your question is “fair,” it is inartful. NO WAR is a good war. Some are necessary by evolving circumstances such as WW2 ((note Pat Buchannan calling it “The Unnecessary War” but that imagines other circumstances)).
Seems to me the original purpose of the WAR in Pakistan has been met–the removal of the Taliban, just as the WAR in Iraq has been met, the removal of Sadam. Absent a national will to rebuild 12th Century Cultures, seems to me the time is well past to come home from these foreign adventures==or to at least require payment from the countries that benefit from our mercenary activities. Why free Kuwait without a 50 year contract for oil delivery? Stupid in my book to trade what we have a monopoly on ((military)) for what another country has a monopoly on (oil) and not do an equal swap for what each needs from the other. How do the Neo-Con Businessmen figure that one out?
Um, Obama has been advocating this for two years. Glad to see we’re finally taking the fight to the real terrorists in Pakistan!
What!?!? It’as not that simple? I wish someone had told Obama that…
“Afghan war more of a just war than Iraq. The why is pretty simple. We were directly attacked. We knew the guys that masterminded the attack were there. We told that the Afghan government to hand them over or we were coming in. They didn’t, so we” invaded Iraq.
#6 Exactly
#8 and 11
Obama is not a “leftist-liberal. If anything he is a hawk. Leftist or right-wing, it’s two sides of the same coin when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. Going to war with Iraq, Pakistan, possibly Iran and also poking a stick at the Russian bear is just pure stupid madness. Thats why things continue to go so badly.
Oh, and Uncle Dave tech will not win these wars. Tech has never won a war. People will always adapted and find ways to get around technology.
American learned nothing from Vietnam. WHY?
#12 “Seems to me the original purpose of the WAR in Pakistan has been met–the removal of the Taliban, just as the WAR in Iraq has been met, the removal of Sadam. Absent a national will to rebuild 12th Century Cultures, seems to me the time is well past to come home from these foreign adventures”
I agree. Although I don’t think we should have gone into Iraq.
#16, Jim -“American learned nothing from Vietnam. WHY?”
Jim, it’s not Americans that didn’t learn, it’s the Military/Industrial/Congressional Complex that DOESN’T WANT TO LEARN !!! They WANT WAR, AND IF WE DON’T HAVE ANY, THEY WILL ***START ONE*** OR ***MANY WARS*** – THE MORE THE MERRIER – FOR THEM !!! The SADDER AND POORER FOR THE REST OF US !!!
#16 Tech has never won a war.
Ever hear of the Manhattan Project? Pretty Hi-tech stuff. Stopped WWII pretty quickly. Not advocating nukes here but that techy stuff seemed to work pretty well.
#16 “Tech has never won a war.”
That’s why we didn’t win back S Korea from the N Koreans. We had a lower tech military. Ya know, aircraft carriers and the like…
Obama’s desire to go after the terrorists and Osama can ONLY be accomplished by invading Pakistan. Why doesn’t the press pin him down on this? Why doesn’t the left threaten to impeach him.
#16: The problem with Afghanistan is finding the enemy. The tech allows us to do that in ways that were not possible before by the Russians, etc. It negates or at least lessens the advantage the Taliban has because of the terrain. Find the enemy, kill him, we win.
And we did learn from Vietnam. We fought the wrong kind of war there. In spite of Bush, we know how to fight the wars we get into now. As I said before, whether we should be fighting them is a different question.
The real question is. Are these wars going to end? Or are these type of wars never ending conflicts?
Can we afford to lose 4100 plus men and woman of the US and our allies in order to fight these kinds of wars??
Palin knows how to fire a gun, maybe she should suit up and catch the next plane to Iraq??
NW Pakistan is not under the control of Pakistan. It hasn’t been for a long time, and Pakistan itself withdrew from the region last year giving control back to the local militants.
The NW Pakistan frontier is clearly being used as a safe haven for Islamic terrorist to attack Afghanistan. If Terrorist based in northern Mexican states were attacking the US, do you think we would hesitate for one minute from attacking sovereign Mexican territory? No!
It is also clear that Pakistan lacks the will to bring their own territory under control. They are far too obsessed with Kashmir and India. They just spent a shit load of cash we sent them to fight these Islamic nutters in the NW territories on state-of-the-art jet fighters designed to combat India. So it shows where their priorities are.
I hope these attacks inside Pakistan force Pakistan to take this seriously and actually go in there and take control. A change must be made. We can not allow the situation to continue as it was. Otherwise, it becomes another Vietnam.
The cold hard fact is that in order to bring peace to Afghanistan, we have to seal the border with Pakistan. We can not allow the militants who attack Afghanistan free refuge anywhere on the planet.
Pakistan may not survive this. They have their heads so far up their asses for so long that they have lost control. They have allowed the lunatics to run the asylum for far too long now.
@jescott418
These military adventures will end when we can longer pay the bills. I give it a couple more years max. Then the entire thing (empire, military industrial complex, 700+ military bases) will come falling down.
Are you kidding?
Lipstick on pigs is far, far more important.
signed,
John W. McCain campaign
#19
The “bomb” didn’t end WW2. Japan was finished by 1945. They were in secret talks with the Russians to end the War with the US prier to the “bomb” being dropped. Americas industrial might is what won that war.
#20
The Korean war was not won. There is a cease fire sill in effect.
#22
Uncle Dave, how can this technology tell the difference between civilians and the enemy?
Were they using this tech when those 90 civilians were killed last month.
#28 “The Korean war was not won. There is a cease fire sill in effect.”
South Korea is still in the hands of the North?
Wow! Talk about a shocker! LOL
#24
More US hypocrisy. I thought we don’t cross international recognized borders and kill people in the 21 century
This is a quote from the king of hypocrisy
“Recent occurrences in Georgia, beginning with the military invasion by Russia, have been flatly contrary to some of our most deeply held beliefs. Russian forces crossed an internationally recognized border into a sovereign state; fueled and fomented an internal conflict; conducted acts of war without regard for innocent life, killing civilians and causing the displacement of tens of thousands.”
#28 “Americas industrial might is what won that war.”
Had nothing to do with our superior, radar, sonar, code breaking, proximity fuses, aircraft tech, fire control systems…
Wow!