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.”
While Afghanistan is where our efforts should be, are we once again going about this the wrong way? Or is there no right way? What do the candidates think about all this, or is lipstick on pigs more important?
0
#31
Germanys arsenal was far superior to that of the US. Their tanks were better, they had jet fighters, etc and many wonder weapons like the ballistic missile. But they still couldn’t win the war. I’m not saying that technology can’t help win a war. I’m just saying is it can’t win a war on it’s own.
Sa shame the US doesn’t do like the imperialists, and just take the resources they need to pay for their wars, from all those lucky people they’re ‘liberating’. Maybe that way they could avoid economic crisis at home.
But seriously folks, wouldn’t it be a lot cheaper to make america safer at home and let the rest of the world solve their own problems.
#32 “I’m not saying that technology can’t help win a war. I’m just saying is it can’t win a war on it’s own.”
See Gulf war I. Out manned, outnumbered in tanks, etc. Almost totally a tech victory.
#30 “More US hypocrisy. I thought we don’t cross international recognized borders and kill people in the 21 century ”
Actually, we got rid of 20th century stupidity.
If someone attacks us they can’t run to the other side of the line on the playground and yell, SAFE!
#34
Ya, you won that battle with superior numbers and tech, but you’re still fighting a lost war.
So, its ok for the US to cross the line but, if Russia does it, it’s wrong. Big bad Russia.
That’s US hypocrisy .
#32 Jim – The Germans were defeated when they RAN OUT OF GAS for their tanks and planes !!! The US Bombed the oil fields in Romania and then the Soviets cut them off altogether, and even Coal Gassification couldn’t provide enough fuel. So, if we were to learn anyting from this, it would be to GET OFF PETROLEUM AS SOON AS WE CAN !!! Added to this mix, is of course, the NEED TO STOP BURNING FOSSILE FUELS THAT ARE KILLING THE PLANET WITH A BLANKET OF C02 !!!
Pakistan is a toilet. Time to scrub.
#35 “So, its ok for the US to cross the line but, if Russia does it, it’s wrong. Big bad Russia.”
Who recently launched an attack against Russia?
#38
There’s a rabbit hole
#38
Oh jesus, just go back to watching American idol or what ever you call it.
#40 “Oh jesus, …”
Why, because you got caught posting something stupid?
Pakistan says, bring it on. Then Iran will jump in the war, the Chinese will not sit idle as they are Pakistans best allies. The Russia will see this as a fit chance to take revenge for their defeat in Afghan war in the 80’s. Then we will see who will get its ass cut to mince meat. Come on USA, we are waiting for you. Man my fingers are just itching for US to come to us. Time to Rock baby! Go Pakistan!
I’m sure India would love it.
->#28
The A-bomb allowed us to get unconditional surrender from Japan and have full control of Japan. The Soviets were planning on attacking Japan; the peace negotiations were a ruse and stalling tactic so that the Soviets could invade and control parts of Japan. So, the A-bomb did indeed end the war in the Pacific.
#42 – zorkor
No worries… President Palin will flatten Pakistan.
#44 – Jägermeister
Not so much flatten as turn to glass.
#44 #45
We will see who flattens who now. Already the US economy has gone full flat and with just a little more push, everything in America will go flat, just like your brains.
Land of the free ,my foot.