Steady "Talibanization" of Pakistan

[TheArtist]

Keep hearing stories of how ineffective the Pakistani army is, and its troubling. Just how far inside Pakistan can we shoot, from Afghanistan, if the Taliban keeps expanding and moving farther into Pakistan? Are we really doing anything positive in either place? Can we really afford to be in Afghanistan for 20 or 30 or 50 more years? If things were contained to just within Afghanistan, perhaps I could see some sort of stability happening there. But, with the Taliban in Pakistan and able to reach back into Afghanistan... and Pakistan unable to even staunch the growth of the Taliban... and lets look at the generations of the history of them not being able to control the Kashmiri area as example. The Taliban is not going anywhere in Pakistan. Whether they are actually the Taliban as we originally "knew" them, they are trouble for the area regardless.

At this point, IMO this area is closer to some Vietnam/Korea quagmire than Iraq ever was, and we need to get out now. 2020 hindsight says we should have gone in full throttle, squashed the Taliban (even if knowing they would be right back) and gotten Bin Laden if possible, and even if not, then immediately gotten out. Made it a quick, punishing, military operation. Not a long protracted war where we are looking for a way to get out and not be "surrendering". Then used positive means to shift the situation in that country towards a direction we would like.

Just my 2 cents worth.


Here is the latest article that started this rant lol.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7708935.stm

[tim huntzinger]

Too bad O'bama is dedicated to increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan, to keeping 55,000 troops in Iraq, and has openly advocated unilateral action against Pakistanis planning terrorist attacks.

We need to have Congress declare war on Iran, and we should secure every nucular site in Pakistan.

Screw your peace.

[we vs us]

It's definitely a good question.  Is Afghanistan past winning?  

The problem is that if we get out Afghanistan will revert right back to Failed Statesville, which is how Al Qaeda blossomed in the first place.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Then used positive means to shift the situation in that country towards a direction we would like.

I'd be interested in some of your ideas.
I agree that blasting the crap out of a place doesn't win many friends. Everything tried so far hasn't met with much success.

Edit: add word "win"

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Then used positive means to shift the situation in that country towards a direction we would like.

I'd be interested in some of your ideas.
I agree that blasting the crap out of a place doesn't many friends. Everything tried so far hasn't met with much success.

Right. Germany: Fail. Mexico: Fail. Japan: Fail. Vietnam: Fail. And for all you stupid Iraqis joining the IPD and INA: Fail.

Problem with A$$crackistan is the lucrative drug trade.  By definition it is a criminal state and so as long as heroin is in demand and illegal will be a failed state.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger


Right. Germany: Fail. Mexico: Fail. Japan: Fail. Vietnam: Fail. And for all you stupid Iraqis joining the IPD and INA: Fail.

Japan and Germany were blasted into total submission and unconditional surrender.  They had no choice but to accept us.  Then they found out that maybe we were actually OK and that it was their government that was unacceptable to us, not the people themselves. There were some notable exceptions, of course.

For a while the best thing a country could do was declare war on the US and quickly loose.  We would then go in and rebuild their country.

Vietnam, more than 20 years after the war. There are people old enough to vote now that were born 15 years after we pulled out of 'Nam.  20 years from now, who knows.  People in the Middle East seem to be able to hold a grudge for centuries.

I don't remember enough from History class about how much we beat up on Mexico.

We are at war in Iraq and Afgh..stan and the dead and wounded have sacrificed just as much as any other war. The difference is that we are after selected targets and trying to appease the rest of the world.  We are not trying to bring them down like we did Germany and Japan.

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger


Right. Germany: Fail. Mexico: Fail. Japan: Fail. Vietnam: Fail. And for all you stupid Iraqis joining the IPD and INA: Fail.

Japan and Germany were blasted into total submission and unconditional surrender.  They had no choice but to accept us.  Then they found out that maybe we were actually OK and that it was their government that was unacceptable to us, not the people themselves. There were some notable exceptions, of course.

For a while the best thing a country could do was declare war on the US and quickly loose.  We would then go in and rebuild their country.

Vietnam, more than 20 years after the war. There are people old enough to vote now that were born 15 years after we pulled out of 'Nam.  20 years from now, who knows.  People in the Middle East seem to be able to hold a grudge for centuries.

I don't remember enough from History class about how much we beat up on Mexico.

We are at war in Iraq and Afgh..stan and the dead and wounded have sacrificed just as much as any other war. The difference is that we are after selected targets and trying to appease the rest of the world.  We are not trying to bring them down like we did Germany and Japan.

Appease the rest of the world? Huh? Not trying to bring them down? Huh?  War works when done right.  Good thing O'bama will continue to hold 55K military in Iraq and has vowed to raise the troop levels in A$$crackistan and to unilaterally attack targets in Pakistan.  Course, talk is cheap.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

 War works when done right.

We evidently aren't willing to do the total devestation thing.  I've seen pictures of Germany shortly after WWII.  Nothing like Iraq. Why/why not?

[USRufnex]

Problem is, we're not at war with a country........ we're at war with a movement.

If there was any country that deserved "total devastation,"  it should have been Saudi Arabia -- since that's where the majority of the 9/11 terrorists came from... but the Saudi government is still one of our "allies," btw....

If Al Caida were a country rather than a movement, it'd be different...... and Obama is not anti-war... he's anti-dumb-war...

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

"After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

-------------------------------------------------

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

------------------------------------------------

"You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain."

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Problem is, we're not at war with a country........ we're at war with a movement.

I agree.  It makes it even tougher when we can't chase the bad guys across a political border.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

 War works when done right.

We evidently aren't willing to do the total devestation thing.  I've seen pictures of Germany shortly after WWII.  Nothing like Iraq. Why/why not?

Well, Germany already put the world through WWI, and Nazi Germany invaded many other countries....

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/media_nm.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005181&MediaId=363

Germany defeated and occupied Poland (attacked in September 1939), Denmark (April 1940), Norway (April 1940), Belgium (May 1940), the Netherlands (May 1940), Luxembourg (May 1940), France (May 1940), Yugoslavia (April 1941), and Greece (April 1941). Yet Germany did not defeat Great Britain, which was protected from German ground attack by the English Channel and the Royal Navy. On June 22, 1941, German forces suddenly invaded the Soviet Union.

Hitler and the Nazis were in power for far longer into WWII than Saddam Hussein... it didn't take long for us to topple the Iraqi army and the secular dictator running it...

We WON the war militarily in 2003... anybody remember "shock and awe" ? ...so, who are we going to be targeting for this "total devastation"???  

Civilians?

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

We WON the war militarily in 2003... anybody remember "shock and awe" ? ...so, who are we going to be targeting for this "total devastation"???  

Civilians?

When we won in WWII, I don't think there was continued armed resistance.  At least there wasn't to the degree as in Iraq. In 2003, we beat the members of the Iraqi army that didn't just leave to come back and fight another day.

I don't believe it can be justified (even by the evil Bush) but, yes, one option would be to start saturation bombing of anyplace that didn't fall into line. The local populace must get rid of the "bad" guys. Militants, foreign fighters, civilians... kill them all.  If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then the friend of my enemy must be my enemy. I repeat, I do NOT find this to be an acceptable option.

[Chicken Little]

Seeing as it's Friday afternoon, you slackers might like watching this Frontline episode from two weeks ago.

The teaser is on this page, but you can follow the link at the bottom to watch the whole thing.

It's a very matter-of-fact description of current events, politically and militarily.  Also, there are some scenes where the Frontline crew is on patrol with soldiers and they start taking fire.  It's terrifying and grim, but I'm not a war porn type.  I just think it's important to try and understand what these exceptionally brave men are doing for our country.