Pakistan angered by US requests to widen offensive

[BlackPirate]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/wo...i.html?_r=2&hp

US reguest for Pakistan to hunt Haqqani who has created big troubles in eastern Afghanistan are met with anger by Pakistan officials.Haqqani is a warlord who has around 10.000 men and operates in eastern Afghanistan.He is responsible for some of the bloodiest assaults against US troops and his army captured a US soldier some months ago.Pakistani officials denied a claim by US government to widen offensive against his fighters.To me this is a clear sign that Pakistan still does not want to cooperate with NATO and waits the day were NATO troops are going to withdraw from Afghanistan to boost its own interests in the region.In the meantime Pakistani government continues offensives against some local warlords who support Afghan Taliban but are not a direct threat for NATO

[Admiral Piett]

We really need to just move onto their borders. And I'm being dead serious about it. Just warn them, we're coming in now whether you like it or not cause this war needs to end.

[Mikelus Trento]

We really need to just move onto their borders. And I'm being dead serious about it. Just warn them, we're coming in now whether you like it or not cause this war needs to end.

I agree with this. And until it is done the war will drag on.

[Nietzsche]

We really need to just move onto their borders. And I'm being dead serious about it. Just warn them, we're coming in now whether you like it or not cause this war needs to end.

Yeah, to hell with sovereignty. Let's just invade every country in the region and destabilize the entire continent. That's definitely in our strategic national interest.

[skag]

LOL !!

that's just what I'll say

[Admiral Piett]

Yeah, to hell with sovereignty. Let's just invade every country in the region and destabilize the entire continent. That's definitely in our strategic national interest.

Do you want the war to continue on for 10 more years? If you'd have us sit like ducks and wait for the enemy to cross the Pakistani border, be my guest. But I'd much rather us end this war as you typically do in a way. You pursue the enemy. If the Pakistanis aren't willing to turn their blind eyes to the problem at hand (as well as continue to fund even more serious terror cells than al-Qeada) then their out of luck. This isn't Nam or Korea where we had China to worry about.

[Farnan]

Yeah, to hell with sovereignty. Let's just invade every country in the region and destabilize the entire continent. That's definitely in our strategic national interest.

Too late. Been destabilized since 1992.

[Nietzsche]

Too late. Been destabilized since 1992.

Not a justification.

@Future Film: So, the reasoning is by invading another country and perhaps causing a conflagration and more conflict we will be avoiding war? Cognitive dissonance at it's finest. A-Stan is lost in it's own selfish purposes. Nation building is a failure. Get out now before more troops are hopelessly thrown away on a conflict that means nothing to American security.

[husker9.2]

Too late. Been destabilized since 1992.

was it really ever stable?

[bleach]

Yeah, to hell with sovereignty. Let's just invade every country in the region and destabilize the entire continent. That's definitely in our strategic national interest.

Pakistan has supported the Taliban for over a decade and will continue to do so until they regain control of Afg, to have an ally-vassal against India.

Conflicted nations does not magically become 'stabilized' because the hacks in American media stop paying attention after the U.S. military leaves.

[danzig]

Yeah, to hell with sovereignty. Let's just invade every country in the region and destabilize the entire continent. That's definitely in our strategic national interest.

First off Pakistan isnt stable anyway so arguing degrees of stability here and yes unfortunately when a country cant even exert its control over parts of its own country and that part is used for acts against other nations sovereignty goes out the window. Pakistan's inability or unwillingness to control parts of its own country imo basically is an neglecting its control over the area anyway so tough for them.

[Nietzsche]

First off Pakistan isnt stable anyway so arguing degrees of stability here and yes unfortunately when a country cant even exert its control over parts of its own country and that part is used for acts against other nations sovereignty goes out the window. Pakistan's inability or unwillingness to control parts of its own country imo basically is an neglecting its control over the area anyway so tough for them.

Sure, why let political borders, sovereign rights, and a host of treaties get in the way of killing a few militants? Let the bombs rain down. So what if a few innocents get killed and it creates an anti-American revolution in a nuclear power. Not our problem right? I mean, these militants hiding in a hole in the mountains of some god-forsaken wasteland are true threats to our internal security.

[Farnan]

Sure, why let political borders, sovereign rights, and a host of treaties get in the way of killing a few militants? Let the bombs rain down. So what if a few innocents get killed and it creates an anti-American revolution in a nuclear power. Not our problem right? I mean, these militants hiding in a hole in the mountains of some god-forsaken wasteland are true threats to our internal security.

And the sky will turn green, and Godzilla will destroy Tokyo. Then Monaco will win the Olympic games and a turtle flu will wipe out humanity.

[danzig]

Sure, why let political borders, sovereign rights, and a host of treaties get in the way of killing a few militants? Let the bombs rain down. So what if a few innocents get killed and it creates an anti-American revolution in a nuclear power. Not our problem right? I mean, these militants hiding in a hole in the mountains of some god-forsaken wasteland are true threats to our internal security.

Yes they are and if you doubt otherwise then I suggest you pay attention to past 15 years. Taliban with it allowing extremist to use their land when controlling Afganistan and the fact they are mix and matched where you cant tell where one ends at a Taliban and begins as a terrorist means they are indeed a threat. How many more people should die in terrorist attacks? And dont give me this oh the taliban had nothing to do with it, there is a reason this region is spawning all these guys, there is a reason why anytime some idiotic young muslim decides to pull an angry at the world attitude they seek to go this region to dish out some jihad on someone. The taliban are very much a part of that, of that way of thinking, of supporting and allowing itand to think otherwise is not only naive but insanely stupid.

[Barry Goldwater]

We really need to just move onto their borders. And I'm being dead serious about it. Just warn them, we're coming in now whether you like it or not cause this war needs to end.

Indeed. They have been given more than enough time to get their together IMHO.

[mrmouth]

US military and intelligence officials said Pakistan's military brass also fears that acting against the Haqqanis and Mullah Omar will fracture the services.

"Even if he wanted to moved against Haqqani, I think General Kiyani is concerned the move will spark the nationalist elements of the Army and ISI [the Inter-Services Intelligence] to side with the pro-Islamists, and spark a civil war within the military," said a senior US intelligence official contacted by The Long War Journal.

There is already a low-grade conflict within the military and intelligence services over the Pakistani Army's move against the Mehsud branch of the Taliban in South Waziristan and the tribal areas.

"The reality is the Taliban have been able to successfully conduct attacks against secured targets, particularly GHQ [Army General headquarters] in Rawalpindi, because they've had inside help," the official continued. "The military at least can say the TTP [the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan led by Hakeemullah Mehsud] is conducting attacks against Pakistan; Kiyani can't make that argument with the Haqqanis or the Quetta Shura. It would be a bridge too far."

[Nietzsche]

I just want to be clear here... You are all advocating the invasion of YET ANOTHER DAMN COUNTRY. Is that right? Let's not let REASON get in the way of our ridiculous crusade to execute every Taliban on EARTH. Because we all know that will make us all more secure. Enemies are everywhere when you make every effort to create them. Where does the killing finally stop? What is the possible justification? Preemptive? Please. The Taliban was never a threat to us and its connection to Al Qaeda was tenuous at best. There is no conceivable argument for invading yet another country to pursue a few thousand starving militants with no international reach. This is complete and utter MADNESS.

[danzig]

Maybe read your own links (which btw thanks Im well read on Afganistan issue from Brits and Russian adventures there as well) since nothing in there that disputes the fact that the Taliban are a threat. So in future when linking something how about linking something that actually supports your hands off approach instead of stuff that actually supports views you seem to be disagreeing with. Hilarious really thanks for the laugh.

Btw did you just magically ignore the part where I said Im not proposing charging across the border but the fact is diplomatic pressure on Pakistan has amounted to squat mainly because the government itself is incompetent and corrupt. So the option if doing it should remain open and a "border" is a meaningless argument against keeping it open. Only so long you can allow a problem to exist before attempting to take care of it yourself.



*edit* bleh Future Redleg Officer was quicker to the punch so to speak*

[Nietzsche]

“The Afghan Taliban is a nationalist movement, and they repeatedly say they're a nationalist movement. When they look at what they've gained from their association with al-Qaeda, [it's] pretty much heavy on the negative side rather than on the positive side. They got kicked out in October 2001. Maybe if al-Qaeda hadn't attacked the United States in September 2001, they'd still be in Kabul, they'd be the recognized government. Now they're still fiddling about, trying to get back. So although they are perfectly friendly and the al-Qaeda leaders say, "Yes, Mullah Omar is our leader," operationally, it's not so strong. And in reality, if the Taliban were engaged in government in Kabul, they wouldn't necessarily have al-Qaeda right behind them.”

“Where there have been problems, an issue that could perhaps be exploited further, is that the Afghan Taliban resented people like Ayman al-Zawahiri and his Egyptian brigade. Al-Zawahiri was very overbearing in the relationship between al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and it created problems in the relationship.”

“This idea that if the Taliban comes back, al-Qaeda either doesn't come with them--or is controllable or isn't a threat--is a very speculative theoretical foundation. This seems to me a very speculative basis, which has no real solid evidence to support it, on which to take a very large national security risk…
So in fact the prima facie evidence on the ground is for a tightening of the link. That's not a hard, fast, final piece of evidence. But if you look at what is physically happening, it belies the theory of separation.”
Which indicates the reason they are together is because of our presence. As I’ve already said. Then again, it’s all speculation.

“The Afghan Taliban were never that much in sympathy with al-Qaeda and the Afghan Arabs, and if you look at what happened in Afghanistan pre-9/11, you realize that the relationship was never very comfortable. If it came to be that the Taliban [was] able to recover all or part of Afghanistan, I think it improbable that [its] first act would be to invite al-Qaeda back in, not least because that would of course bring with it the obvious risk that [it] would continue to be the subject of U.S. and NATO attacks. So I don't think [the leadership] wants that.”
“Al-Qaeda itself doesn't do real operations in Afghanistan--it's not in the position to do so--the most it can hope to be is a kind of force multiplier for the other entities that are already there.”

Looks like supportive evidence to me bud. But hey, don’t let that get in the way of your dogma.

[Admiral Piett]

Nietzche, you do realize we're talking about the war right? War itself is a violation of sovereignty of the highest degree. I'm personally on the fence about the war, but if there ever were a time when victory could be taken, it's now. Do you want this war to end now? I sure as hell do. I'm sick of this crap. Whatever measures need to be done need to be taken. It's not like we're going to be raiding all the Pakistani villages. They're most in the remote areas of Pakistan where civilians will be minimal.