The train wreck in Pakistan; Update: Rumors of Musharraf under house arrest denied; Update: Bush to speak around 1:15pm Eastern; Update: Elections to proceed; Update: Bush’s advice
Update 5:00pm 11/5 Eastern. Vid from BP and an observation:
When a US ally declares a state of emergency at least in part to deal with a real existential threat (and a judicial threat to his own power, to be sure), we all go ballistic and the Democrats seem to be out in front and the State Department gears up to bring a hammer down on him. But when a US enemy like Hugo Chavez who has allied himself with other US enemies like Iran gets his rubber-stamp legislature to grant him dictatorial powers, and he has been ramping up the anti-US rhetoric for years, just about the only place you’ll find much discussion of that is on the right. We may be sending the dangerous message that we’re tougher on our allies than on our enemies. That strikes me as unwise.
Update 3:15pm 11/5 Eastern. President Bush speaks…
President Bush on Monday exhorted Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to hold elections and relinquish his army post “as soon as possible.” He said he instructed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to deliver that message in a telephone call with Musharraf.
Bush made his comments in the Oval Office of the White House after a meeting with Turkey’s visiting Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. It was Bush’s first public comment on the political crisis in Pakistan since Musharraf imposed a state of emergency over the weekend.
Bush would not discuss what action he might take—for example, how much U.S. aid to Pakistan would be cut—if Musharraf ignores his request.
“It’s a hypothetical,” he said. “I certainly hope he does take my advice.”
Update 11/5 3:00pm Eastern. Pakistan’s PM says elections will proceed:
Pakistan’s prime minister says national elections will be held as scheduled, despite President Pervez Musharraf’s declaration of emergency rule.
Elections are due by mid-January, but there were fears they might be abandoned because of the crisis.
Update 11/5 12:40pm Eastern. PJM correspondent Ghaila Aymen reports from inside Pakistan.
Update 11/5 11:15am Eastern. President Bush will address the Pakistan situation at around 1:15pm Eastern today at a press conference after meeting with Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
The White House comments…
President Bush’s top national security aides say U.S. financial backing for Pakistan’s counterterrorism efforts likely will go uninterrupted despite the administration’s unhappiness with President Pervev Musharraf’s declaration of a state of emergency. The White House said Bush would comment Monday on the crisis. “The best option is for Pakistan to get back on its path to democracy,” press secretary Dana Perino told reporters, echoing statements that administration officials had made throughout the weekend.
Update 11/5 8:40apm Eastern. Pakistan denies rumours Musharraf under house arrest.
Update 11/5 8:20am Eastern. Over 1,500 held.
***
It’s deja vu all over again (via Dawn):
Here’s the latest on the declaration of emergency in Pakistan. (The text of the declaration is here.) Dozens of leading activists and lawyers against military rule have now been detained:
Across Pakistan, police arrested political activists and lawyers at the forefront of a campaign against military rule.
Among those detained were Javed Hashmi, the acting president of the party of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif; Asma Jehangir, chairman of the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan; and Hamid Gul, former chief of the country’s main intelligence agency and a staunch critic of Musharraf’s support of the U.S.-led war on terror.
“It’s a big blow to the country,” said Gul, as a dozen officers took him away in a police van near the parliament in the capital, Islamabad. Hashmi said the army general would not “not survive the people’s outrage.”
Up to 40 activists were hauled in when police raided the office of the Human Right Commission of Pakistan, including its director, I.A. Rahman, a harsh Musharraf critic, said Mohammed Yousaf, a guard at the office in the eastern city of Lahore.
The White House response:
The White House called emergency rule “very disappointing.”
“President Musharraf needs to stand by his pledges to have free and fair elections in January and step down as chief of army staff before retaking the presidential oath of office,” spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.
The United States however said there was no plan to suspend military aid to Pakistan.
China, one of Pakistan’s closest allies, expressed concern and said it hoped stability could be maintained. Pakistan’s neighbour and nuclear rival India expressed “regrets”.
More than $10 billion in US aid, mostly to Pakistan’s military, since 2001.
In a televised speech last night, Musharraf tried to liken himself to Abe Lincoln during the Civil War. Benazir Bhutto wasn’t having it:
“I request you all to bear with us,” he said. “Please don’t demand and expect your level of human rights and democracy you learnt over the centuries. Please give us time.”
In a reference which will anger his American allies, he compared himself to Abraham Lincoln, citing the latter’s suspension of habeas corpus and other fundamental rights during the American civil war to save his nation.
“Abraham Lincoln usurped rights to preserve the union, and Pakistan comes first. Whatever I do is for Pakistan, and whatever anyone else thinks is secondary,” he warned.
However, Bhutto insisted: “He says that he is acting for the good of Pakistan but he is acting for the good of General Musharraf.”
Jeffrey Imm at the Counterterrorism Blog has the best, link-filled rundown and analysis of the situation. I’ll leave you with his conclusion:
While the US State Department and US military have objected to Musharraf’s emergency declaration, the Taliban continue their efforts of enforcing Islamism throughout Pakistan unchecked. On Friday, a bomb blast destroyed 14 shops in Peshawar market selling selling CDs, TV sets and music albums. Bombing of non-Islamist businesses and threatening the lives of non-Muslims if they do not cover to Islam is becoming a relatively routine occurrence in Swat and other parts of the NWFP in Pakistan.
The failure of American leadership to have a policy on Islamism has prevented the ability to provide a pro-active coherent policy in Pakistan that addresses both the strategic issues of pro-Islamist Pakistani public sentiment along with support in areas of the government and public for the Taliban, as well as the tactical issues of fighting “extremists” in Afghanistan who have found safe haven in NWFP in Pakistan.
While U.S. Admiral William J. Fallon has told Pakistan President Musharraf that an emergency rule order would risk U.S. support to his military, the U.S. military support to Pakistan has limited long-term impact without addressing the Islamist public opinion and support in Pakistan for the Taliban and other Islamist organizations. The current situation in Pakistan illustrates the train wreck of pursuing tactical operations in fighting “extremists” without a strategy to clearly define the enemy and to define a U.S. policy on Jihad and Islamism.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Dinocrat » Blog Archive » Out of control
- Rhymes With Right
- Flopping Aces
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » UPDATED: The train wreck in Pakistan…..Musharraf declares emergency rule in Pakistan
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » UPDATED: The train wreck in Pakistan…..Musharraf declares emergency rule in Pakistan
- Pakistan’s emergency | BitsBlog
- Blue Star Chronicles
- PAXALLES
- Publius Pundit
- Webloggin - Blog Archive » The Problem With Pakistan
- Musharraf on Borrowed Time « Foehammer’s Anvil
- The Jawa Report
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: War
Doug Ross @ Journal
» Barney Frank on the Rule of Law
Doug Ross @ Journal
» Stupak: the Sanctity of Life is Important to Us, Which is Why We Will Slash Care for Old People and Further Enslave Children to Massive DeficitsLegal Insurrection
» David Frum Says We're To BlameStop The ACLU
» Dan Benishek: the alternative to Bart Sell-out Stupak
We sure as hell did support Stalin against Hitler. Ever hear of the phrase “Lend-lease?”
More importantly, the question now arises, do we have a plan, either acting alone or with allies, to secure Pakistan’s nukes in case of a civil war?
#89:
“The Allies did not support the Soviets during WWII.”
Really?
Gee, I Googled “world war 2 allied support soviet union murmansk” and on the first page came up with a few hits of the Allies’ supporting of the Soviet Union, which confirmed what I had read 30 YEARS AGO.
I guess those historians (including Churchill) got it all wrong.
Until we understand that this is really Islam versus the West there will be confusion, questionable alliances, ill advised collaboration with enemy elements and so forth. All of this is obvious to most of us or at least to those of us who understand that Islam’s only goal (by any and all means) is to dominate the entire world.
I did write more than that one sentence.
People use the phrase “taken out of context” all the time, but I think I fits here. Particularly the second paragraph.
I should have been more clear with my wording. Fine.
What????
Great news! This is the kind of stability we all look for in nuclear powers.
The bottom line: it’s just a matter of time before those nukes go ‘lost’.
Basically, I’m not saying we should fight Musharref, as your post #87 says. You were creating a false dichotomy; either we support whatever he chooses to do or we invade Pakistan.
Benevolent dictator – Lee Kwan Yew – Singapore. Maybe he didn’t call himself a dictator – but for all practical intents and purposes, that is what he was.
On Alexander, his contribution was the unifying of a large, central part of the world under Hellenistic culture.
I don’t consider right or wrong as we now understand it about ATG’s conquest. Just that the results were exceedingly prosperous for Western civilization. Of course, the current culture rejects that war ever has any results whatsoever. Hello. History calling.
On Pakistan’s news, I like the way the left says at one point that you can’t and shouldn’t try to democratize the Muslim world, and now complains that Pakistan isn’t succeeding as planned in democracy.
Let’s win the war on Islamist terror first, and clean up the mess when that’s done.
The Soviet/Nazi example works well in several perspectives- for the sake of my position in this discussion, it fits as a good choice (Soviets over Nazis) because 1) Soviets were willing to go house to house throughout Europe killing the enemy (not negotiating or brokering prisoner rights deals); and, 2)the Cold War bought the US time to defeat the Soviets economically, which has led to the disintegration of their military threat.
Pakistan is a wholly different kettle of fish. Rice’s diplomacy package is a boondoggle based on her academic myopia. The woman should have been fired after 9/11 along with the tools at Langley. She actually believes the extremists should be negotiated with- instead of putting her efforts into African states where Muslim majorities actually like Americans.
As for those who would say that the people of these dicatorship countries “hate our guts”- I say look at the emigration rates from these nations to the United States.
Compare them to Europes stats. Then compare what is happening in Europe and what is happening in America.
At least, as one major recent author has pointed out more eloquently than I could ever deign to, when they emigrate to America they do so with the belief they can become Americans. Are they every going to be anything in Europe besides immigrants?
That speaks volumes about how much we are not hated in the world. And it slso explains to some extent why we back dictators in lands where Europe’s random border creations have separated people who belong together and clumped together people who should not be (e.g. Kurds, etc.)
Hate has a history. But when push comes to shove, people would more gladly slaughter their neighbors than Americans. Iraq is a case in point.
What will happen when the gloves come off in Pakistan? Who would we rather back in that fight?
And are we really of the belief that “free elections” is going to do anything but give radical Islamists lambs for their slaughter?
KCK: Bravo! Nicely done. The biggest intellectual problem in Washington is that so many people in leadership believe history ended when the Vietnam war stopped.
Once again, nicely done.
ConservativeRus,
Having breifly read about Lee, and from Wikipedia of all sources, I agree that he was in fact effective. Benevolent though? Not even from his own persective(having been confirmed saying that he’d “rather be feared than loved”). Also, the whole Operation Coldstore was heavy handed and oppressive. Dictators, by definiton, have to oppress the opposition. That’s what makes the dictators for the most part.
Again, dictators always seem benevolent to those that gain from their actions.
#96
“false dichotomy”????
So, what do we do?
Watch?
Talk?
We have an expression in medicine,
“Don’t just do something…stand there.”, when action for action’s sake might make the situation worse.
But, this does not appear to be a situation where we should just stand there.
How much worse could it get than sitting around watching al Quaeda and the Taliban possibly get their hands on nukes?
Again, I ask, whattaya gonna do?
Watch?
Talk?
Negotiate?
mpchops #88
Alexander’s example of a benevolent dictator is surely arguable… basically anyone who benefits froma dictator’s dicates would probably consider the leader benevolent.
re: Jeffery Dahmer as tyrant… you don’t have to be the leader of a country to be a tyrant, although the word tends to have that connotation… but by definition, anyone who perpetrates evil on his or her fellows and requires submission, etc. is a tyrant…
Bear1909,
As an aside:
The Soviets fighting of the war was ridiculous. They practically helped the Nazis with their suicidal practices and policies. The Battle for Stalingrad and was just insane. They defeated Germany for three reasons: Germany was fighting a war on two fronts, Germany was unprepared for the harshness of Soviet winters, and the Soviet Union simply had the manpower to overwhelm the Germans. I mean, their stragegy was simply to throw more men at the Germans than they could shoot. But that’s just my personal opinion(as is everything I say).
I’m wondering about the back channel story on Turkey and Pakistan.
Are the Allies trying to goad AQ and Hez and Ham to push their agenda against the illusion of “crisis”?
One thing that seems amiss in Pakistan:
if they are teetering on the brink then it suggests Musharraf has lost control of the army- when in fact he has not.
if Turkey is on the verge of attacking Syrian-backed Kurds, what about the Kurdish majority that is not backed by Syria and has been fighting inside Iran for the last 6 months?
Something doesn’t fit and suggests a much different back channel story developing.
And our tax dollars are funding this dictator’s military why…?
I am really disappointed in our President. I hate to say this, but his promise to remove outposts of tyranny was just rhetoric.
Either that or he is taking orders from the State Department. Complex issue my foot; only a fool like Condi Rice would say that. What happened to “you are with us or you are against us”???
God help us. I pray President Bush will suspend all U.S. support and funding for this dictatorship and keep military action on the table as an option.
Max,
I see what you’re saying. Personally, I feel the two are synonymous but I’ll let it go. Substitute tyrant for dictator in my one post(#67). I think it still works.
Yes, some tyrannical dictators are psychopathic killers but not all psychopathic killers are tyrannical dictators.
Granite: I think the globalists/socialists (and there really isn’t much distinction) want us to call the UN together. We all know how many wars, uprisings, and terrorist activities they have stopped. These people fail to (willfully I presume) recognize the evil which lurks in the heart of man.
This is the sentiment that I feel we should guard against. While combating terrorism is a grave and important task, we need to be mindful of the “mess” we’re creating to accomplish that goal. Hell, the “mess” brought us a powerful Bin Ladin in the first place.
#109 conservativesRus:
“These people fail to (willfully I presume) recognize the evil which lurks in the heart of man.”
I agree.
To repeat yet again what I’ve said several times: the globalists/ socialists subscribe to a particular world view.
I would say it is quite likely that, in their worldview, evil is considered to be a figment of the imagination of unsophisticated, simplistic troglodytes.
Granite,
Yeah, we should be doing all those things of course.
Is this really not a situation where we should just blindly support the apparent enemy of our enemy.
Or in English, we should not blindly support the enemy of our enemy because we feel the need to act.
Chops…I understand your sentiment about not being cognizant of future messes created by current actions. I think we need to be aware of those but I also think we have to recognize the future threat of condemning a dictatorship simply because it is a dictatorship. What we are presented with in the present is a choice between “not ideal” and terrible.
Further we have to recognize the war isn’t against terrorism (that is a tool used to fight the war by one side) but rather it’s a war against the spread of Islamic government.
We can fight a tactic (terrorism) and still lose the war (Islamic government takeover “everywhere”. A football analogy – we can fight the tactic of passing to advance the ball – but lose the game because we didn’t understand that the other teams objective was to score points and they had other tactics to accomplish the objective.
So in an islamic country such as Pakistan, is suspending the constitution the same as imposing sharia?
It sounds very similar to me. So what’s the complaint?
In Feb 2001 I sat on a bench at Disneyworld with a family who had gotten out of Pakistan for safety reasons and listened to their hopes of Musharref overcoming the tribal radicals so they would be safe to go back.
I wish him luck in cleaning out the “Intelligence Service.” At least he took the first step. All dictatorships have failure built in. I hope he continues to overcome it and that someday Pakistan will have the peaceful freedom to prosecute him, although if they do it will be because of what he has done for them.
It was interesting to hear the wife, in western dress, speak of the advantages of arranged marriages.
I guess it really emphasizes Iran. Now, we have a nuke country going beserk. Do we really want another one?
Yes, some tyrannical dictators are psychopathic killers but not all psychopathic killers are tyrannical dictators.
hey Bear, nobody said Dahmer was a dictator… get out your dictionary.
On November 5th, 2007 at 1:47 pm, walterc said:
So in an islamic country such as Pakistan, is suspending the constitution the same as imposing sharia?
It sounds very similar to me. So what’s the complaint?
you must be joking…oh, trolling maybe? that is a wholly inapt comparison…
ConservativeRus,
We are(or at least should be) fighting the impossing of Islamic governments on people through terroristic methods.
I think that much needs to be clear. We are not fighting a war on Islam. If we were, our methods are ridiculous. Given the choice to convert or die(which is what a war on Islam boils down to), you’d be surprised to see how many people would choose death. That’s not good, especially if they wouldn’t mind taking out a few crusaders in the process. No, that’s not what we’re doing. So I agree that the war isn’t neccesarily against the tool. (Which is why the slogan makes no freakin sense).
So we’re fighting a group of people who have a specific goal and use a specific tool.
With that in mind, that’s more reason why we can prop up a person who may have the same goal but chooses to use a different tool. If a terrorist blows up a group of people a backpack and a dictator shoots them in a back alley, both to create a subserviant populace to rule, how can we possibly pick one over the other?
(I know I’m going to the extreme with Mushareff, but let’s just say that I wouldn’t be surprised if he had blood on his hands).
#112:
“Is this really not a situation where we should just blindly support the apparent enemy of our enemy.”
I think yiou mean to sya “This is….”
Otherwise, by phrasing it as a question, you seem to be saying that we should be….
And, you certainly do not seem to be advocating that course.
Watch, talk and negotiate does not inspire me with hope.
And who said BLINDLY support?
Sure looks like a straw man to me.
Granite,
I’ll put it like this:
There are two holes in the ground. Down one hole, you can see a bunch of deadly spiders or something. The other hole is pitch black. You can’t see anything. If you jump down the pitch black hole because you don’t want to jump down the hole with spiders, are you not jumping blindly into the wole?
I’m just sayin….
#122:
Again:
What????
What, then, do you recommend should be the reaction of the U.S. to the dangerous situation that is the topic of this thread?
Again:
Watch?
If so, for how long; until what happens?
Talk?
To whom; and say what; until what happens?
Negotiate?
With whom; and use what as perusasion; and yield what; and seriously intend, and plan, to use what as force, to convince the other side that we are dead serious and not fooling around; and, until what happens?
If only it were that simple.
We have to take a side or be considered irrelevant and forego a chance to influence the ultimate course (as opposed to the immediate course- a la Iraq; we are influencing the ultimate course (the destruction of AQI) while foregoing the immediate course (3800 US dead).
Bin Laden might have grown out of the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, but it was worth weakening the Soviets to the point of collapse. While AQ might be powerful it has been dissipated. The real power is in Shi’ism harbored in Iran. AQ overplayed its hand after 9/11, and like Iran, is misjudging us as to what we will do.
The Surge was a ramping up. And the next move will be even stronger.
So although it is true that Al Qaeda emerged strong, the question is, where is it now?
We must keep the focus on the *fact* that the Taliban are being slaughtered in Afghanistan and AQI is being slaughtered in Iraq.
So, is Pakistan the last gasp hope of this arm of the Islamo-Fascist wave against the West. Remember, the only truly victorious and relevant IslamoFascist group under arms right now is Hezbollah.
Back Musharraf and finish the job. He has his problems. But if he overplays his “weakness” he can draw in the enemy. And with the US’ help in NW Pakistan- destroy the AQ/Taliban enemy.
That’s a very organized mess to sort out.
Hey Max! There was a lame comparison being made and i called it.
Keep your commands to yourself.
You missed the point entirely mpChops.
The Soviet army was willing to fight house to house and kill Germans. That is much different than say the situation in Iraq where Shiia in the Iraqi government don’t want to kill Shiia in Muqtada Al Sadr’s fascist militia- but who are more interested in brokering deals with Al Sadr instead of killing him.
Bottom line: once the Germans retreated they received the same treatment as Napoleon- annihilation.
#124 bear1909:
Re your response to the comment:
“Hell, the “mess” brought us a powerful Bin Ladin(sic) in the first place.”
Dead on.
Thank you.
You beat me to it.
The now tired mantra of (to paraphrase), “The U.S. created Bin Laden”, usually chastising the U.S. (whom else?) for supporting and supplying the Soviet Union’s adversaries in Afghanistan…has about the same validity as stating that the U.S. and the U.K. created the Soviet threat after WW2 because the U.S. and U.K. were, like the soviets, fighting against Nazi Germany.
‘Course, what is always left out is discussion of what the consequences would have been of allowing the Soviet Union to take over Afghanistan, and possibly push through Pakistan and/or Iran to get a warm-water Indian ocean port (the “Great Game”, a century later).
And…preview STILL ain’t previewing!
I find it hard to believe that keeping Afghanistan from the Soviets weakened them enough to justify the dominance of Bin Laden.
Granite, are you suggesting that the possibly of the Soviets becoming more powerful with the aquistition on Afghanistan is LESS of a threat than Al Qaida has become?
I completely disagree!
Firstly, unless we come to a consensus that our actions to thwart the Soviet Union empowered what is now known to be Al Qaida, as tired a mantra as it may be, there really can be no debate about this. The starting points will just be way too far.
bear said:
Hey Max! There was a lame comparison being made and i called it.
Keep your commands to yourself.
Fair enough Beark, i guess i was being a bit, er, tyrannical…
just was trying to make the point that that a “tyrant” can be anybody that lords it over someone else, by def. not necessarily a leader of a country, i think the Dahmer analogy is apt… anyway, it’s no biggie and i don’t want to distract from the seriousness of this thread…
on that note, I haven’t heard much of a peep out of any news story I’ve seen about how India is responding to the situation… seems like that is a key element of the story…
Bear1909,
Al Qaida may be being reduced to irrelevant. I support that 100%. But the point I am trying to emphasize is “What cost?” is this occuring. Are we, in fact, setting up the next Saddam regime. A regime that actually does have nuclear weapons. That’s a HUGE mess to clean up, given our inability to clean up our other messes.
I feel that we simply do not have the luxary of worrying about these things later.
#128:
Uhhhh….
Is this an update of (paraphrase), “The Russians aren’t a threat; the cold war is as much, maybe more, our fault as it is theirs” that we used to hear back in the 60s through the 80s?
And, would that the rest of us were able to foresee exactly the consequences of each choice in each particular, necessary decision that has to be made at each particular juncture in history;
…and that we had the luxury of being allowed to foresee them in hindsight!
Yep. I know – foreseeing with the crutch of hindsight makes about as much sense as the ditty:
“One bright day in the middle of the night,
Two dead men got up to fight,
Back to back they faced each other,
Drew their swords and shot each other.”
(I think there may be additional verses, but I don’t remember if my mother [English teacher] would recite them ~40-45 years ago.
They are likely findable on Google.)
Preview’s working now.
Thanks!
There are two costs to consider: the direct cost of US lives, materiele, and
capital; and, the opportunity cost of not having the resources spent on the other cost to do something different.
Having said that, smashing al Qaeda in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan has had a cost attached to the following benefits in our favor
1) it has embroiled AQ in Iraq (their own little vietnam, not ours);
2) we have established a permanent base presence on the Asian subcontinent (a first);
3) we have strengthened our control of the Indian Ocean sea lanes (which indirectly controls China);
4) we have helped Iraq produce more oil than it ever did under Saddam;
5) we have intimidated Iran to the point that it has to import its gasoline;
6) we have set the stage for the Sunni and Shi’a in the region to bloodlet against each other while eliminating the proxy force (Al Qaeda);
7) we have forced both hands of Iran and Syria to reveal themselves as the major mischief makers in the region, leaving them to make the next move– which, if the Israel/US bombing of the Syrian nuke facility is any indication, they have both underestimated the resolve of the Joint Chiefs under Bush’s command to respond militarily.
I reject the notion of any “cost” being assigned to “our standing in the world” because the only people who speak of that are Europhiles who believe Europeans are intelligent about world affairs, despite their record of ethnic cleansing, fighting wars they cannot finish, and cleaving their colonial relationships with African and Asian nations to leave them to fight each other.
Then there is the matter of the $4 trillion payday from Caspian Oil fields.
The US is in a position to run the table in the Middle East, plus wipe out Hamas and Hezbollah. The military is ready to do the necessary killing and alliance building to get it done.
To whom will the nation listen: Code Stink or The Commander In Chief under advice of the new CENTCOM commander?
My money rides on the latter because the people with property and capital invested from this country are on board.
They aren’t currency focused surrender monkies like Soros. They make stuff and bring stuff out of the ground. That is what this war is about.
The key is ROI vs. risk. IslamoFascism is ill equipped to sustain a war of attrition. They resemble the Confederacy in that way. Our strategy then like now is simple: turn the war into a mathematical equation by forcing the enemy to fight on ground of our choosing.
A river of blood? For us, so far, no.
No one has addressed that. As far as dollar cost? Chicken feed compared to the spoils.
Out.
#132…
nicely done!
#132:
I agree with #133.
Good post!
I am also out.
Al Qaeda became a force after Afghanistan. And it is specious to say that the result of us supporting the defeat of the Soviet in Afghanistan was “Al Qaeda” in its 9/11 potency.
The ten years of war in Afghanistan weakened the Soviet military and contributed to the collapse of the Soviet empire.
That was part of American geopolitical strategy under Breshinski/Carter. Nominal research on your part, mpChops, will reveal that.
As far as it making al Qaeda powerful, it was a drop in the bucket. It seasoned Bin Laden as a force among his terrorist peers in the Arab/Afghan world.
It put him in the supra-national security circuit as an asset who went rogue. And in a certain sense gave him street cred.
But al Qaeda didn’t emerge from the Soviet war in Afghanistan fully formed.
The Clinton years did a lot to nurture it onto its steroidal manifestations up to 9/11 and a little beyond.
Because the Soviet empire fell, Bill Clinton decided it was time to party.
Shame on Bill. On his watch, Al Qaeda became bolder and received more funding to the point of metastisizing out of control.
Did the war in Afghanistan create al Qaeda as the threat we have crushed in Iraq?
The better question is “To what extent did the Soviet war in Afghanistan contribute to the creation, formation, and inception of Al Qaeda as geopolitical player on the world stage?”
granite #131
“A deaf policeman heard the noise,
And shot both of those dead boys.
And if you don’t believe this lie is true,
Just ask the blind man, he saw it too.”
bear 1909 you said it best, summed it up very nicely. i say a great AMEN! to your thread 132 and 135…
Great post, bear1909#132. Mushareff has been sitting on an untenable powderkeg. I believe he is our best bet at the moment and hope he can prevail without our active intervention.
I agree completely bear, and I usually agree with you. But this time I can’t see siding with Musharraf ‘at all costs’ like you seem to want to.
If Musharraf wasn’t doing anything wrong, he would not have needed to censor the media. He censored ALL media except the media he controlled.
OK, you say well maybe he has to do important things and extreme things in order to put down the Islamic rebellion. (Of course I say it’s too late now and he should have gotten extreme last year in the NW provinces where he capitulated). BUT WHY did he feel the need to limit the media?
What purpose does that cause? If they are beating the Taliban and AQ, wouldn’t that be news he would WANT the world (especially the US) to hear? Censoring the press has nothing to do with ‘emergency’ or ‘overthrow of his powers’. Censoring the press is dictatorial meaning he is doing what he wants and he doesn’t want anyone to know what he is doing.
The Indians have shown great restraint in dealing with Pakistan. They have about 200 million muslims in India so siding with them is not a ‘war against Islam’. The Indian government showed AMAZING restraint when their parliament got bombed several years ago by Pakistani nationals. They did nothing because the US asked them to ’show restraint’.
It would be like someone detonating a bomb in DC in the Capital and Russia saying ’show restraint’ and the US does nothing. That was a significant moment and the Indians showed themselves to be trustworthy.
I don’t think we need to be in alliance with Pakistan. I just don’t see the benefit. If Islamists get control, is it worse that we are their ‘friends’ or their ‘enemies’? About 15% of Pakistanis like America so we wouldn’t be ‘losing support’ if we were to switch alliances.
Not only would we not lose support, but we would gain the support of a HUGE military with nuclear weapons in the subcontinent to do our bidding against the Islamists. The Indians hate the Islamists more that the Americans do. . . and CERTAINLY more than the Pakistanis do.
If we are going to fix the situation in Pakistan it is going to have to be through a change in course there. India would be a natural ally. Pakistan would be a natural enemy in the mold of Iran.
We should stop giving Pakistan money and concentrate on our relationship with India for the future. Pakistan is NOT a threat to the USA. They are NOT a threat to Israel because they need their defense to ward off an offensive from India.
Musharraf is a nothing who only cares about his own power. We don’t need to back him anymore. He made his own bed.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons, a shakey government and a large Al Q presence (and sympathizers). If I were a terrorist leader, that’s where I would be focusing most of my attention.
Even if they could win a temporary victory it might be enough to do some historic damage or some historic blackmail.
#136 29Victor:
Thank you!
natch