US military may escalate 'war on terror' by striking deeper into Pakistan

[ginge51]

US military may escalate 'war on terror' by striking deeper into Pakistan

Foreign ministry warns against 'counterproductive' air strikes and commando raids

Washington is considering expanding its controversial policy of missile strikes and commando raids deeper inside Pakistan, according to reports this morning.

In what would be a major escalation of the "war on terror", the New York Times reported that the US may push its firepower into Pakistan's vast, economically backward, Baluchistan province.

Washington has so far targeted militants based in Pakistan's semi-autonomous tribal areas, which run along Afghanistan's eastern border. Baluchistan, however, is a "settled" region and considered a regular part of the country. However, the province, and especially its capital, Quetta, has long been considered the home of the Afghan Taliban and an important sanctuary for al-Qaida.

This morning's reports drew a sharp reaction inside Pakistan.

"The United States would be pouring petrol on the 'war on terror' by these methods," said Munawar Hassan, secretary general of Jamaat-i-Islami, the biggest mainstream religious party. "The United States has no message of peace for the world, they can only talk through arms and armaments."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...or-air-strikes

[Martin N]

I think thats been obvious for a while, we cant afford any more wars, hell we can bareley afford the current one, i know lets invade pakistan!

[Zephyrus]

I think thats been obvious for a while, we cant afford any more wars, hell we can bareley afford the current one, i know lets invade pakistan!

I'm having my fingers crossed for a draft soon!

I used to feel that way but the more you look into it you begin to realize that all the lesson's learned in Vietnam should have been applied in Afganistan and Iraq.

Namely

Not to have ever gotten involved. Neither the Taliban nor Saddam Hussein nor even Osama Bin Laden were ever proven to have helped to plan or provided funds to help the 911 terrorists.

Saddam Hussein was convicted and hanged for crimes against his own people. Not 911.

You can't shoot holes in the walls (attack national governments) to kill the roaches (terrorist). You have to use bug spray or bait (covert operatons) to kill the roaches.

The Jews conducted a very successful and relentless pursuit of Nazi war criminals (unofficially) post WW2. Some were brought to trial, others were executed on the spot.

. Break the rules to get the bad guys because they don't follow rules either.

In my opinion if we had to pick a fight it should have been Iraq and not Afganistan. I think Afganistan is going to break us.

At least with Iraq we were able to cut some oil trading deals. Afganistan has nothing except Heroin plantations.

I heartily agree with your ideas, VC. You should take the bad guy out of the house, instead of bombing both the bad guy and the house.

[Quadratus]

Good. I'm glad that we are going to stick the enemy on there turf rather than ours.

[Farnan]

Interesting as the US military doesn't make those decisions.

[Valiant Champion]

Yes by all means insult Pakistan even more.

How are we gonna get supplies to our people?

It is way too expensive flying all the supplies in for, not 30k but now over 60k troops. Plus we would still have to go over someones airspace to get there and Pakistani airspace is the only option now that the Russians have pressured the closing down of the US base in the North.

Actually I am a bit afraid of what might happen if Pakistan aggressively decided isolate our troops in Afganistan from resupply. Would we find our troops in a Stalingrad?

Our war effort in Afganistan is at Pakistan's mercy.

Only Obama would be so stupid to take this kind of a risk.

[Martin N]

Dont forget VC the average cost of 1 soldier out there is $75k a year, times that by 60,000, and how other many troops we got in iraq/afghan, and were going down the drain im afraid.

[Barry Goldwater]

Dammit, not another front in the 'War on Terror', not so soon at least...

[Mikelus Trento]

Yes by all means insult Pakistan even more.

How are we gonna get supplies to our people?

It is way too expensive flying all the supplies in for, not 30k but now over 60k troops. Plus we would still have to go over someones airspace to get there and Pakistani airspace is the only option now that the Russians have pressured the closing down of the US base in the North.

Actually I am a bit afraid of what might happen if Pakistan aggressively decided isolate our troops in Afganistan from resupply. Would we find our troops in a Stalingrad?

Our war effort in Afganistan is at Pakistan's mercy.

Only Obama would be so stupid to take this kind of a risk.

And Pakistan existing after Mumbai is at the USA's mercy by holding back India.

Let's face it, if India ever REALLY invaded Pakistan, they would cease to exist within a matter of days.

And there goes the supply line problem.

[Admiral Piett]

Well we've had success with it so far. If it weren't for Pakistan's incompetence, we would probably be drawing down our war in Afghanistan as well.

[Zephyrus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...or-air-strikes

Shouldn't we wait until we withdraw some troops from iraq, first?

[Admiral Piett]

Shouldn't we wait until we withdraw some troops from iraq, first?

Well Obama is going to be doing that over the course of this year.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

Vietnam, 1969. The foreign occupiers are losing ground. Casualties are on the rise. The 'insurgency' is growing.

Nixon+Kissinger: "Hey, how about if we bomb Cambodia?"

And we know what happened with that. Cambodia became highly destabilized and eventually, the Khmer got into power. It's also important to note that bombing the "safe-havens" in Cambodia didn't have an iota of effect on the Vietnam war.


Either way, if you actually believe that South Waziristan, which is roughly the size of Kabul, can be responsible for the failure of NATO in all of Afghanistan (which is, let's say, 50 times the size of Kabul), then you might as well bomb the already disenfranchised Balochistan. If anything, Predator strikes kill civilians and make life difficult for the Pakistani government.

[Zephyrus]

Vietnam, 1969. The foreign occupiers are losing ground. Casualties are on the rise. The 'insurgency' is growing.

Nixon+Kissinger: "Hey, how about if we bomb Cambodia?"

And we know what happened with that. Cambodia became highly destabilized and eventually, the Khmer got into power. It's also important to note that bombing the "safe-havens" in Cambodia didn't have an iota of effect on the Vietnam war.


Either way, if you actually believe that South Waziristan, which is roughly the size of Kabul, can be responsible for the failure of NATO in all of Afghanistan (which is, let's say, 50 times the size of Kabul), then you might as well bomb the already disenfranchised Balochistan. If anything, Predator strikes kill civilians and make life difficult for the Pakistani government.

History's a , isn't it?

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

History's a , isn't it?

Yeah and the wisest are those who learn from it.

[Quadratus]

Comparing the Vietnam Conflict to today's conflict is irrelevant. Stop rationalizing.

[Valiant Champion]

Comparing the Vietnam Conflict to today's conflict is irrelevant. Stop rationalizing.

I used to feel that way but the more you look into it you begin to realize that all the lesson's learned in Vietnam should have been applied in Afganistan and Iraq.

Namely

Not to have ever gotten involved. Neither the Taliban nor Saddam Hussein nor even Osama Bin Laden were ever proven to have helped to plan or provided funds to help the 911 terrorists.

Saddam Hussein was convicted and hanged for crimes against his own people. Not 911.

You can't shoot holes in the walls (attack national governments) to kill the roaches (terrorist). You have to use bug spray or bait (covert operatons) to kill the roaches.

The Jews conducted a very successful and relentless pursuit of Nazi war criminals (unofficially) post WW2. Some were brought to trial, others were executed on the spot.

. Break the rules to get the bad guys because they don't follow rules either.

In my opinion if we had to pick a fight it should have been Iraq and not Afganistan. I think Afganistan is going to break us.

At least with Iraq we were able to cut some oil trading deals. Afganistan has nothing except Heroin plantations.

[Admiral Piett]

Well the Cambodia thing is different from Pakistan. This time around there is clearly roots for the insurgency in Northern Pakistan.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

Well the Cambodia thing is different from Pakistan. This time around there is clearly roots for the insurgency in Northern Pakistan.

I'll quote myself:

If you actually believe that South Waziristan, which is roughly the size of Kabul, can be responsible for the failure of NATO in all of Afghanistan (which is, let's say, 50 times the size of Kabul), then you might as well bomb the already disenfranchised Balochistan. If anything, Predator strikes kill civilians and make life difficult for the Pakistani government.

Comparing the Vietnam Conflict to today's conflict is irrelevant. Stop rationalizing.

That's like saying, "comparing Napoleon's failure in Russia to Hitler's is irrelevant".

Nice way to debate, by the way. You posted your opinion but you didn't really back it up.

[Quadratus]

That's like saying, "comparing Napoleon's failure in Russia to Hitler's is irrelevant".

That would be relevant, but the subject in hand and what it's being compared to is irrelevant.

Nice way to debate, by the way. You posted your opinion but you didn't really back it up

Why thank you. You want to know something? I don't have to back up what I say nor do I really care what you think.