Well I just read today that the Taliban has officially taken over part of Pakistan, and the government has signed a peace treaty with them. I don't think it will be long before we are at war there. The U.S. can put all the boots on the ground in afghanistan it wants, but unless you put an end to the bullshit in Pakistan, its all for nothing.
Little tougher for us in Pakistan, and a few other ramifications. Like, uh, they have nuclear weapons. No country we've ever fought has.
Well, one of our senators already is in hot water for this statement. I imagine it won't be long before the administration bungles this situation by completely pushing Musharaff off of a cliff.
That's ridiculous. It's putting Pakistanis who are on our side in a nearly impossible situation... Ed O.
Common knowledge. I've read it several times, maybe every time I've seen drones mentioned, that they are based in Pakistan, as are many of our troops, planes, and tanks. This is news to nobody involved in the war.
Then why did Pakistan issue an instant denial today? Perhaps because you've "read it" in a newspapre and had not 'heard it" from the mouth of the chair of the Senate Intel Committee. This is the problem with the average voter.
Pakistan issues denials every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Lying about one's obvious guilt is a cherished part of their culture: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/pakistan_denies.html http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\02\17\story_17-2-2009_pg7_21 http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-01-28-voa21.cfm http://in.reuters.com/article/southAsiaNews/idINIndia-38050020090216 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pakistan-india7-2009jan07,0,3856473.story http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4577044.stm http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=85840§ionid=351020401 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/20/AR2007012001533.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7537868.stm http://news.antiwar.com/2008/11/04/pakistan-denies-secret-understanding-on-us-strikes/ http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6609562 http://www.groundreport.com/Arts_and_Culture/Pakistan-denies-the-26-11-evidence-is-not-enough_1 http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1559151.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jan/07/libya.pakistan http://archive.gulfnews.com/indepth/bhutto/more_stories/10156241.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...aden-is-hiding-inside-its-borders-431865.html
I don't understand what any of your links have to do with the chair of the Senate Intel Committee verifying that the Predator bases are in fact in Pakistan. Or do you not understand the concept of "disinformation" in the world of intelligence? Feinstein basically just sold out a vital ally in fighting the Taliban.
I'm not saying they'll launch a LRBM and hit LA, but saying that there's a whole new can of worms opened up once the public hears the word "nuke". Doesn't matter if it's tactical or strategic; if it's a bomb or a missile...the average CNN watcher is going to think about the 24 episode and see a huge mushroom cloud on their screen.
Leaving aside the PR issues, what are the military issues here? If we decided to go in and get the bad guys out of Pakistan with force, what's your projection for what happens? barfo
IMO it's going to be tough if we don't have the gov't backing. Up until now there's been tacit agreement with some of the more moderate elements of their leadership to do limited, targeted, engagements with specifically-approved military objectives (following a person of interest across the border to a cave in Kashmir, for instance). So it's been either missile attacks or special-forces stuff...guys who are trained to do the hairy stuff. From everything I've heard, much of the army occupation of Iraq force will be transferring to Afghanistan (and Pakistan if it flares up). Northwestern Pakistan is barely (if you can call it that) controlled by the central government. If there's any public outcry to "keep the Americans out", you can expect guys with pitchforks and shepherd's crooks fighting next to the guys with Kalashnikovs against us. If they go to martial law for some reason, or the military just goes under the control of the bad guys and takes possession of their nuclear capability, then it's bad juju. You have our soldiers who've been trained for the last few years for house-to-house urban fighting and patrolling, in a new environment, even more spread out forces in unfamiliar and rough terrain, with the uncertainty of nukes (a possibility we always have trained for, but would make me apprehensive). Bottom line, though? If we can do unlimited air strikes and UAV reconnaissance, it gets a lot easier to meet the objectives. We'll have almost overwhelming force levels for what we'll be trying to do (a lot of the same stakeout-and-takeout of the Bad Guy Upper Echelon we did in Iraq), that could only possibly be affected if they go nuclear. At that point, I can't even speculate....except it'll be much worse for them than us.
I might be wrong about this, but it seems to me if they decide to go nuclear, they might well go nuclear against India rather than us? Because we are more difficult to nuke, and we'll be hurt if India is hurt? Are the guys with pitchforks and shepherds crooks a problem? It almost seems (from my safe seat here in the US) that if everyone is against you, that makes it easier than if the enemy is mixed in with friendlies. Where are the nukes in Pakistan? Do we need to actually take control of the civilized portion of Pakistan first in order to neutralize the nukes, before going after the frontier issues? barfo
Pitchforks are a problem insomuch as they're going to be called martyrs by their side (psychological advantage) and slaughter victims by anyone with a camera. I don't know if Pakistan's nukes are spread around the country (as ours are), but they're generally centrally controlled (i.e., base commanders don't have control of the nukes on or near a certain base). The political leadership of the country is the trigger for their use; but if a junta takes over, r)there probably won't be a good transfer of power (and the codes or whatever). However, if a Taliban-sympathetic legitimate gov't takes over, they'll have both the political ability to use them as they want and potentially the world's opinion that they're just "defending themselves" against the invading hordes. Bringing India into it right now doesn't help with their objectives, it would seem. They can't look like they're in it for their own greed/land grab or whatever. If I was them, I'd try to hang on long enough to get UN and the American public opinion on their side, and allow the freedom to keep a similar-to-Hamas "legit" gov't in control after a phased withdrawal with concessions. Then they can go after India whenever they want, all the more experienced and hardened from their fight with us. War is quite Darwinian.
I may be having a failure of imagination here, but I don't see a big chance of the American public getting excited about being on Pakistan's side. If anything, I'd think that the public has never understood our friendship with the Pakistani government, given our closer cultural and economic ties with India and the stories about the Taliban hiding in Pakistan. barfo
The thing I look at is that Pakistan mostly has nukes to prevent India from nuking them. If the US had to send troops intot he region, there would be one of two scenarios: 1. The Pakistani troops would be helping us. 2. Pakistani troops would be fighting us. Either way, they are not going to use tactical nukes on their own territory. Using nukes on your own homeland for the small pockets of troops that would be present is highly unlikely. From what I have seen, the Taliban are in an area right next to the area that is important for US supply shipments. They will start moving into that area to try and stop the supply runs, and probably try to over run it at some point. When that happens, the US will have no choice but to go in because otherwise our overland supply lines will be cut off.
Pakistan, like every nation, wants nuclear arms because it confers power. The deterrent aspect is always nice, but Pakistan didn't develop them out of fear of Indian "nuking them." India is no more likely to use nuclear weapons than any democracy in the world. In fact, they've been remarkably non-aggressive toward Pakistan despite Pakistan's aggression over Kashmir and the occasional terrorism out of Pakistan. They wouldn't nuke their own nation but the US would presumably have bases outside Pakistan but in the region. Also, are ICBMs harder to get ahold of or develop than nuclear warheads? That's a real question...I have no idea. I wouldn't have thought so, but people talk about "delivery systems" like that's the real trick. For a terrorist organization, I can see that, but I'd think for a nation, ICBMs would be easier than nuclear warheads.
Rocket science is actually pretty tough compared to nuclear warheads. For years the US was no afraid of Soviet missiles as much because they could be off target by up to several hundred miles. Until they got much better at it. I just look at several things that happened over the last month and wonder if they are adding up. The Nuclear Scientist who developed nuclear weapons for Pakistan and then shared nuclear secrets with multiple other countries who hate us, is released. The Taliban are given control of a province. What more could the government of Pakistan do to give the US the finger? Don't answer that.
Well welcome to your first week of "peace" http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/18/pakistan.journalist/index.html
