Pakistan

[erpowers]

What do DUers think about the fact that so much information is coming out about how much of a terrorist haven Pakistan seems to be. Have members of DU heard anyone other than Ted Rall asking why Bush chose to invade Iraq which had no Al Queada training camps instead of Pakistan which has numerous Al Queada training camps?

[The Magistrate]

1. Pakistan Is A Damned Hard Place To Invade, Sir

It possesses nuclear weapons. Its populace is sizeable, extremely hostile to the United States, and most martial and combative in its attitude. The topography is nightmarish for military operations, and it has little communications infrastruction over which an expecditionary force could be readily supplied for operations in the interior. Not an easy nut to crack....

[bemildred]

2. Nevertheless, it's worth pointing out that the question is not new.

I remember various posters here asking "Why not Pakistan?" years ago.

[The Magistrate]

5. In My View, Sir

It ought to have been done anyway. The real "axis" of our enemies then ran Afghanistan, as the principal armed concentration, Pakistan, as the leading source of man-power, and Saudi Arabia, as the economic engine. Not much has really changed since, particularly as the exploitaion phase in Afghanistan was botched so unforgiveably.

The soundest approach remains to take advantage of existing regional rivalries and historical trends, and to move India to an invasion of the place from the south, with air and technical support lent the effort.

[bemildred]

8. What ever you do, most likely it would be wrong; however,

you have correctly and precisely identified the past and probable future sources of trouble. It seems clear at this point (IMHO) that we can add Iraq to that list.

[The Magistrate]

11. That Would Depend, Sir

Our departure from Iraq would probably remove it from a list of active enemies. A Shia government there would be rather busy quashing its Sunni former tormentors and Kurdish irridentism, and have little incentive to attack U.S. interests anywhere. Indeed, given the increasing inflamation of Sunni-Shia relations, and not just in Iraq, a Shia giovernment there, even after U.S. withdrawl, would probably continue to be a leading target of Wahhabbi-style jihadists, and could even be drawn into hostile relations with Saudi Arabia.

From our point of view, it seems to me, Iraq was and remains a side-show, that it was extraordinarily foolish to aim the slightest effort at. Our interests, coldly calculated, were probably better served by Hussein in power, as we shared at least a few enemies with the reptile....

[bemildred]

15. True, that.

Although one must be cautious at this point in predicting what will happen next in Iraq. Still, like VietNam, I expect if we leave then that will be that, and they will busy themselves with matters nearer to hand.

Edit: I was mainly thinking that the New Greater Shi'iastan that we have created is likely to prove a large obstacle to having our way in the future in the Middle East. How stable it proves to be remains to be seen, as well, and how it affects the stability of it's neighbors.

[The Magistrate]

16. The Putative "Shiastan", Sir

Would indeed be hostile to us. It would also have ambitions towards the north of the Arabian peninsula, and be involved in hostilities with the "Sunni Confederacy", mostly expressed by private radical elements. All in all, none to stable, but stability has never existed in the region unless under some over-arching imperium or another. Again, coldly calculated, the interests of the U.S. would seem best served by intramural conflicts, likely to appear without even the need to foster them....

[gatorboy]

3. Emphasis on the nukes....

It's the moronic hypocrisy of the current administration. They say they want to fight terrorism. But so far, most of our troubles have come from countries they consider allies (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan).

They'd rather run a selective war on terror....

[Village Idiot]

4. Easy answer - Pakistan can defend itself.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[varun]

7. Situation in Pakistan is hopeless

The country may disintegrate into four parts: NWFP, Punjab, Baluchistan and Sindh....but this will give rise to anarchy and chaos (not to mention the nukes falling in hands of terrorists). There is speculation that US, Israel and India know about the locations of the nukes, and will take them out (if they are already not "secure").

It will be hard to "integrate" most of Pakistan into the global community, given the hold of fundamentalists over that country.

[hexola]

9. Perhaps why Bush is getting cozy with India...(nt)

[Emit]

10. I came across this report the other day you might be interested in

that discusses major jihadists organizations, including info on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The report was commissioned and put forth as a discussion on alternatives to Bush & Co. perpetual war. From the foreward:

"Wherever one comes out on the efficacy of recent policy, different choices are possible and debate is desirable. This volume is premised on the notion that we will be better prepared for the tests ahead if we are a nation armed not just with a powerful military and well-organized intelligence apparatus but also with a deeper public understanding of what we are up against and what we need to do... "" Richard C. Leone

http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=PB&pubid=498

Completed by a task force, of which Richard A. Clarke, is Chairman

From the Summary of the Recommendations:

"Defeating the Jihadists: A Blueprint for Action (Century Foundation Press, 2004), assesses the nation's successes and failures on homeland security and calls for a stronger, more effective strategy for dealing with jihadists, including al Qaeda. The report offers a detailed action plan for neutralizing the international movement at the core of worldwide terrorism. The report also describes the nature of the jihadist threat; provides comprehensive profiles of the various jihadist groups; and offers a rationale for the effort and money that would be needed to make the plan a success..."

<<snip>>

"Significantly, in evaluating U.S. progress in neutralizing the jihadist movement, we need to acknowledge that the war in Iraq has been deeply counter-productive to the greater effort. As a sin of commission, the Iraq war alienated crucial allies in the battle against jihadists, made friendly Muslims into skeptics, made skeptics into radicals, and created a sanctuary for itinerant jihadist insurgents. Iraq had no strong connection to the terror threat facing the United States and Saddam’s removal has done nothing to lessen the threat we face from al Qaeda and the jihadists....

As a sin of omission, the Iraq war diverted massive and much-needed resources from the fight against jihadists. The continued unrest in Iraq will further delay any U.S. effort to create a new international coalition to confront Syria’s and Iran’s support for terrorist activities, a point not lost on Damascus and Tehran. As a result, they may do everything in their power to further bog down U.S. efforts in Iraq. Ironically, the war in Iraq has contributed to creating the breathing room Syria and Iran so desperately needed to avoid a robust international action response to their terrorist activities..."



From the conclusion:

CONCLUSION
"The completion of the presidential campaign, the inauguration of a new administration, and the convening of a new Congress present an opportunity to fundamentally rethink how we have been fighting against the jihadists. Despite the lack of a major terrorist attack within our borders since 2001, evidence is abundant that the ranks of the jihadists have grown significantly. They have been conducting far more attacks worldwide than before 2001—a clear warning sign that our policies are not working and may even be counterproductive in some cases..."

[rman]

12. Guardian : The Pakistan connection (911 funding, CIA, Sibel Edmonds...)

The Guardian
The Pakistan connection
There is evidence of foreign intelligence backing for the 9/11 hijackers. Why is the US government so keen to cover it up?

Michael Meacher
Thursday July 22, 2004
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1266520,00.html

Omar Sheikh, a British-born Islamist militant, is waiting to be hanged in Pakistan for a murder he almost certainly didn't commit - of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002. Both the US government and Pearl's wife have since acknowledged that Sheikh was not responsible. Yet the Pakistani government is refusing to try other suspects newly implicated in Pearl's kidnap and murder for fear the evidence they produce in court might acquit Sheikh and reveal too much.

Significantly, Sheikh is also the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. It is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. Why not?

Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to "retire" by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn't the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?

<snip>

A fourth witness is Sibel Edmonds. She is a 33-year-old Turkish-American former FBI translator of intelligence, fluent in Farsi, the language spoken mainly in Iran and Afghanistan, who had top-secret security clearance. She tried to blow the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, but is now under two gagging orders that forbid her from testifying in court or mentioning the names of the people or the countries involved. She has been quoted as saying: "My translations of the 9/11 intercepts included money laundering, detailed and date-specific information ... if they were to do real investigations, we would see several significant high-level criminal prosecutions in this country ... and believe me, they will do everything to cover this up".

<more>

[sweetheart]

13. The solution is India

Pakistan is a suicide bomber out on the ledge, and india can talk him
down provided we empower her. This is india's neighborhood, and much
is to be gained by empowering regional powers to sort out their own
nutty wanker neighbors.

It does not help that the US has supplied Pakistan with all sorts of
armaments that should NOT (on edit) have been traded with that country... but then
we have to reflect that the US has been sponsoring terrorist states
for some time now which explains why the most dangerous nuclear bunch
of nutters in asia is getting US arms.

[Disturbed]

14. But our fab Sec, of State Condi said...

that Pakistan is our friend and The Glorious Leader once said that Pakistan was a Democracy and a great USA ally. Hear the theme of The Twilight Zone?