![]() |
Pakistan
While the military operations continue in Afghanistan,
the border regions with Pakistan have become a major issue. The US does not formally admit to military actions inside Pakistan, but is widely believed to exist. Here are two news articles from the Voice of America and the The Wall Street Journal, I believe describe the frustration of the situation. VOA US Demands More Progress by Pakistan in Afghan War Quote:
Quote:
CIA Station Chief, His Cover Blown, Departs Pakistan Quote:
Quote:
|
Sounds very similar to Vietnam when we were working over in Laos and Cambodia disrupting their rat lines.
|
Quote:
|
We still have little idea how much ISI is supporting the Taliban. We know some of that is happening. And we know why. First Pakistan must hedge all bets. Second, no country is monolithic. For the same reason that most support for the Irish Republican Army and against the British came from America.
For the Pakistani army to win any offensive means they must have a reason to do so. Currently they do not for what should be obvious reasons. |
Hee hee ... cellar search for "Pakistan" in titles reveals this: http://cellar.org/search.php?searchid=2886590
|
MasterCharge has disconnected all links with Wikileaks and TheCellar
|
Saving search doesn't work that way I suppose
|
And so it begins (or continues)... as predictable as a lunar eclipse
NY Times U.S. Military Seeks to Expand Raids in Pakistan By MARK MAZZETTI and DEXTER FILKINS Published: December 20, 2010 Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Sounds like a great idea.
|
What is that old Arab proverb: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" ( for now )
Here's another one: "It is good to strike the serpent's head with your enemy's hand." Here's another one: "For every action there's a reaction" Our US leadership should not ignore the direction of the current military surge, and should break up Gen. Petreus' "Not-on-my-watch" chain of command. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/wo...lines&emc=tha2 Insurgents Set Aside Rivalries on Afghan Border By THOM SHANKER Published: December 28, 2010 Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
I say we decrease the troop levels and significantly increase the frequency of drone strikes guided by smaller groups of special forces who go into Pakistan and id the targets.
|
This event seems important and illustrative to me as to what the US is facing in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
We continue to hear news of US interactions with the Pakistani government leaders, but it's the religious leaders behind the scenes who are truly running the show. In my mind, military actions in Pakistan should be based on it being a religious, not a political, war. NY Times Assassination Deepens Divide in Pakistan By CARLOTTA GALL Published: January 5, 2011 Quote:
Quote:
|
That killing is a great tragedy. He was that rare and precious thing, a brave outspoken moderate.
Shortly before this, the Government of Pakistan lost it's majority when a coalition partner split from them and joined the opposition. Parliament has yet to return, but if the govt cannot cobble together a new coalition, Pakistan could see either legislative deadlock or a no confidence motion, leading to the fall of the government and an election. Lord knows who would win that just now, probably no majority but various political and religious groups in rivalry and coalition. The other possibility is government paralysis leading to a military take-over. You know, the same military that provided the bodyguard mentioned above. Take your pick. Me no like. |
This article surprised me because just a few years ago these young attorneys
seemed to be a stabilizing force in the Pakistani government. The tone of the article reminds me of the "student demonstrations" in Japan in the 60's when younger generations of professionals took over the universities, and prevented older members from even entering their offices or classrooms. Quote:
Pakistan Faces a Divide of Age on Muslim Law By CARLOTTA GALL Published: January 10, 2011 Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
The Threat of Civil Unrest in Pakistan and the Davis Case
Quote:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110...d9e579ab94944b |
Its amazing how it has taken the professional US foreign policy and military to finally grasp what pretty much everyone else has known for thirty odd years - that Pakistan and Afghanistan have to be treated as a single unit and, as far as many of the groups in the region are concerned, the Durand Line is just a sketch on a map.
Tommy Franks seemed to think that the Taliban would suddenly start respecting Pakistani territorial integrity once the bombing raids on Afghanistan started, for instance. That is the only reasonable conclusion one can take from his refusal to deploy US troops on the border in sufficient numbers. Dick Cheney seemed to think that the ISI were straight shooters who only worked with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda because they were told to, and not for ideological reasons. That's the only reason I can see why Cheney allowed flights out of Kunduz after the war started, flights which the ISI used to smuggle out major Taliban commanders and who knows how many terrorists. Even a cursory investigation into the Taliban's campaign in Afghanistan 1994-2000 would have shown how the border regions acted as recruiting grounds for the Taliban, after suffering defeats at the hands of the Tajik and Uzbek militias. How they danced between the borders during hard times. How Khandahar, much closer to the border than Kabul, was the centre of Taliban power in the region and how the Deobandi schools in the FATA churned out thousands of Pashtun soldiers. The drugs grown in Afghanistan are smuggled down through routes established by the National Logistics Cell, an Army/ISI unit who used to smuggle arms into Afghanistan, in the 80s. The drug profits mostly accrue in Pakistan, where they are invested in factories, political parties and private armies. The Army are likely still behind most of the smuggling, and use it to control politicians through campaign contributions and outright bribery. Highly unpopular Islamist parties are the main recipients, parties whose loyalty is constantly affirmed by their tight adherence to the military's line on every issue, and their legitimizing of the coups and power grabs within the Pakistani state by their patrons. And their schools, teaching a debased and facile history, with heavy doses of Islamist radicalism, continue to provide a steady stream of ideologically correct fighters for the military. The Pakistani Taliban acts as a dagger at the throat of the civilian government, forcing their cooperation with the real rulers of Pakistan. When the military want something, they throw inexperienced troops and those of uncertain loyalty against the militants, forcing the government to activate emergency laws, shovel more funding in their direction. The international community also coughs up. And then, when it looks like their proxies may slip the leash, they send in the stormtroopers, the death squads. Swat Valley ran red with the blood of tortured and mutiliated Taliban once the military were done with the area. Plus their idiocy of "strategic depth". The military are convinced that so long as Afghanistan is dependable, that is, run by Islamist nutcases whom they are "advising", then it can act as a counterweight to India. Because a nation of a billion, with a decent sized nuclear arsenal, is going to fear a nation of twenty million allying with a state as dysfunctional as Pakistan? Hardly. Afghanistan may be a useful place to train Islamist terrorists before they infiltrate Kashmir to fight the Indian Army, but terrorists and insurgents alone will never win the war there. Pakistan's efforts would be better spent on repairing relations with India, but they insist on needling them with their state-sponsored terrorism and then claiming they need their proxies to overrun over countries to "protect their security". Yeah, and how's that working out for you so far? All roads lead back to the Islamist cells in the ISI and military. They sponsored terrorism over Central Asia and the Caucasus for a decade or more, and now we apparently expect them to fight the same terrorism they helped create. And people wonder why the war is going nowhere. |
China Gives Pakistan 50 Fighter Jets
Quote:
|
China will teach them how to deal with dissidents. :rolleyes:
|
|
We need to immediately suspend all funds going into that shit hole of Pakistan. This kind of shit make me want to become a cold blooded assassin.
Pakistan lets China see US helicopter http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/09700...#axzz1V2DybmUQ |
I saw that. Fuckers piss me off.
|
Calm down, I'm sure they'll let the Americans see a Chinese one too. That'd be OK, yes?
|
Quote:
Our country and it's stupidity will be it's own downfall someday. |
Quote:
|
Also ...
Pakistan shuts US out of drone base Pakistan arrests five ‘CIA informants’ |
Time to fold em...
|
We can kill two birds with one stone by rounding up British rioters and sending them to Pakistan for community service.
|
Don't worry about the helicopter. The Chinese had already downloaded the plans, and originally built half the components. :right:
|
^^^Really sad, but mostly true ^^^
|
Quote:
|
Indeed. Wrong thread, but I think if the louts of London got to see real poverty and real police repression, they'd go home and make a nice cup of tea for the good Mr Plod.
|
Pakistan ignored warnings about massive truck bomb that injured 77 U.S soldiers on 9/11 anniversary
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/09/pa...niversary.html |
And this.... not like we didn't know but at least they are finally calling them out on it in public. I think some errant drones would be in order...
U.S. Joint Chiefs chair: "The Haqqani network ... acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency," and backed Kabul embassy attack http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/09/us...es-intell.html |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:17 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.