Pakistani Troops Fire on American Helicopters . . . Again

I remember no too long ago (0.00 / 0)

when some Iranian boats came a little too close to our ships.  There was no firing, no threats, and afterwards we weren't really even sure if they were Iranian.  The right-wing was already screaming for bombs on Tehran.  Yet, the Pakistani government directly aids the Taliban, fires on our troops, issues very clear threats, and no one seems to care.  Not to mention that Pakistan is not working on a nuclear weapon, they already have them.  

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

---

by: Chris LeJeune @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 11:27:57 AM CDT

Too bad you can't see Pakistan from Alaska... (4.00 / 4)

Otherwise I'm sure Governor Palin's expertise would come in handy.  Then again, if there's any restaurant in Wasilla that sells Kebabs and rice, she may indeed have enough foreign policy experience to get us through this mess.  

---

by: Wolverine @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 11:55:33 AM CDT

If a connection to ... (0.00 / 0)

or harboring of members of Al Qaeda were the only criteria for military action in a given country, we would have ops in 80 countries give or take.  

We pounded the Taliban for refusing to cough up OBL -- fine, I was okay with that -- not ecstatic at what the continued chaos has meant to the Afghans vs. targeted operations, but okay.  It's done.  If we'd not gone into Iraq and put a little more effort into public relations in Afghanistan vs. continuing to alternately bomb and neglect their needs for 7 years, I think we'd have been better off by now.  Again, what's done is done.

We've done a lot of damage to AQ (more often than not, it seems by way of highly targeted operations), but it isn't as though we have a chance of getting rid of them or people like them entirely.  It simply isn't possible.  

If the Afghans don't want the Taliban back in power, they need to address it ... with whatever help the Afghan people seek from us, if any.  I'd like to see a national referendum on this though.  

Messing with Pakistani sovereignty without a whole lot more finesse than the Bush administration could ever hope to possess is a mistake too.  There's some hope this will change with an Obama administration.

You cannot eradicate an "extremist problem" (whatever the heck that means, really) by military action.  That's like saying I could kill the Republican ideology.  I'm not clear on why folks stubbornly insist that we can kill our way out of the threat.  It  will never work.  

The "war on terror" has always been doomed to fail, just like the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty".  There's no "victory" to be had.  

---

by: Fxston @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 13:34:27 PM CDT

Exactly. You cannot combat an IDEALOGY, a fundamental (0.00 / 0)

belief system with violence/brute force.  In fact, throughout history that seems to make the believers that much more devoted.  It is a battle of hearts and minds and you must use intellectual and emotional weapons, not real ones.  We will never be able to kill enough people or nations to remove the threats posed to us by islamic extremists, but if we become a more humane, ethical, and tolerant nation, AND a less war-mongering nation, we might eventually discredit some of what the extremists (through our policies and actions) say about us and thus reduce the number of their followers.

"I destroy my enemy when I make him my friend."  Abraham Lincoln.

I was in DC when 9/11 happened, I was stranded, my cell phone didn't work.  A partner in my law firm (of whom I was very fond) died in the plane that hit the Pentagon.  I want to take out bin Laden.  BADLY.  I am not a violent person at all and it scares me when I think of how bloodthirsty I was after 9/11 b/c it is so NOT in my nature.   So it is too late to be friends with bin Laden, but the principle of that quote remains:  violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred, all without any guarantee that you will be successful in destroying your enemy (although you will probably pick up a few new ones in the process).  

Make wars unprofitable and you make them impossible.
~A. Philip Randolph

---

by: CarissaPicard @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 14:02:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree with Carissa's take (4.00 / 1)

but then again, I also agree with Chris.  The U.S. needs to find the right combination of diplomacy, soft power, intelligence and military power to combat groups like Al Qaeda in Pakistan.  Thus far, the Bush Administration has mainly used the blanket "iron fist" approach which continues to backfire.  That approach has done nothing more than force people from many parts of the world to seek revenge.  Al Qaeda's particular religious ideology is only a small part of its overall appeal in my opinion.  Their real appeal comes from their ability to attract to their cause those people who seek some form of pay back for what they view as U.S. aggressions towards them.  Its obvious that many in the Pakistani military and police services also hold these views and because of it those same Pakistani troops assist in Pakistan's once largely pro U.S. Government's downward spiral.  So, how does the U.S. reverse this?  First of all, the U.S. needs to quit proving to many people that Bin Laden was right.  For example, Bin Laden clearly stated years ago that the U.S. intention was to occupy Arab lands.  So what does the Bush Administration continue to do?  They occupy Arab lands like Iraq and have given no indication that they desire to leave anytime soon.   That has always worked towards Al Qaeda's advantage in my opinion.  

The only way to beat Al Qaeda and those like them is to first discredit their cause.  Then, once that is done, eliminate through various means of force those that remain.  True, you can't eliminate all that hold those particular extremist views and you probably never will but you can reduce their numbers and overall effectiveness.  We saw the same thing occur in North Ireland.  The IRA overtime ceased their bombings and other attacks in England and eventually disarmed for the most part.  Why?  The reason are of course many but one main reason that sticks out in my mind is the fact that the British for the most part took away the IRA's rallying cry.  Take away their rallying cry and a terrorist group has little reason to exist.

"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home."

Marcus Tullius Cicero 106 BC-43 BC

---

by: mettycat @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 18:03:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree that military action needs to be just one of many factors (0.00 / 0)

And that diplomacy must always be first.  However, especially in the case of Pakistan, I think military action is warranted where diplomacy fails.

If a connection to or harboring of members of Al Qaeda were the only criteria for military action in a given country, we would have ops in 80 countries give or take.  

Agreed.  But Pakistan takes it many steps further.  For one, they actively aid the Taliban.  To put this in context, look at our own country.  We could not be held responsible for the actions of some kook Montana militia.  However, if our government supplied them, and actively gave aid to them, then we could.

Secondly, Pakistan is a rogue nation with WMD.  Unlike Iran, where they may possibly, someday be working on a nuclear weapon maybe ... Pakistan actually has them.  This fact alone means nothing, several nations have nukes and some of them even got them from us.  But combine their possession of nuclear capabilities with their connection to known terrorist organizations, and this presents a scarier picture.

To make matters worse, Pakistan has a horrible human rights record.  Again, by itself this means nothing.  Many countries have poor human rights records, and the US is definitely not one who has a finger to point in that regard.  However, combine their human rights record, with possession (and possible proliferation) of nuclear weapons, as well as a strong connection to AQ.  This brings in a much more looming threat.  Together, these factors represent the same logic that was sold to the American public for justification of military action in Iraq.  

 

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

---

by: Chris LeJeune @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 14:05:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gotta think that times are a changin' (0.00 / 0)

The Obama/Biden website has removed references to a policy toward Afghanistan-Pakistan.

http://www.barackobama.com/iss...

The Obama policy has been pretty firm since he added Susan Rice to Anthony Lake, both of whom worked in the Clinton administration, as a Sr. foreign policy adviser in Jan. 08. Biden's policy was similar but left out using force across the Afghan border which he stated during his campaign for Pres. in Spring 08.

Still worry about the interruptions of supply routes that go through Pakistan.

---

by: deMeme @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 14:46:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just for reference... (0.00 / 0)

I still support Obama/Biden and think that rethinking policy as events reshape the landscape is a positive.

BigMacBombaran and Armageddon Sarah are just too 'single' purposed and are clueless when it comes to risk assessment or diplomacy. Ya' get the deregulators who have been proved to lead to disaster and the Classmates at Wasilla High for appointees.

---

by: deMeme @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 14:54:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OT but relevant... (0.00 / 0)

McCain is now joining the DEMs  on the 'bail-out' plan for a permanent fix with over-sight, making his conservative base nervous.

What a flip-flop for McKeating5. Last week he was using the Hoover quote that our 'economy was functionally sound', but switched to the bail 'em out immediately without over-sight. Now, again, he's trying to go with the Obama/Biden-DEM stand. Guess it had to do with the outrage from John Q who is tired of getting billed for all those golden parachutes.

---

by: deMeme @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 15:14:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know that ... (0.00 / 0)

we've actually done much in the way of diplomacy; more like "do this or else".  People don't like that.  

"For one, they actively aid the Taliban."

Define "they".  Certain factions within the Pakistani law enforcement and military and even government do so, but we have to be very careful about how to deal with this.  How would we like it if because of George and his toadies arguably terrorist actions folks felt entitled to run whatever ops they liked because we couldn't deal with the "militants" among us?  

"However, if our government supplied them, and actively gave aid to them, then we could."

If the folks in power/in charge can be proven to do so, yes.  But let's say it was just a relatively small percentage of radical Republicans.  What do you do then if you're the country who wants to come after George and his toadies?  

"Secondly, Pakistan is a rogue nation with WMD."

We and many other countries are for all intents and purposes arguably "rogue nation[s] with [one helluva lot more] WMD [than Pakistan could ever dream of]".  

"... Pakistan actually has them."

As is its right.  Sorry, once we got this ball rolling, we kinda lost the right to dictate who may have them and who may not.  Imagine if you were a country being told you may not have the same level of defense/offense as your enemies.  Your response would naturally be "fuck you and your mother."  

"But combine their possession of nuclear capabilities with their connection to known terrorist organizations, and this presents a scarier picture."  

All the more reason not to go in there like cowboys, just as we wouldn't North Korea or Russia.  (Never mind that I don't think Pakistan has any capability to hit us from there.  Couldn't swear to that.)

"However, combine their human rights record, with possession (and possible proliferation) of nuclear weapons, as well as a strong connection to AQ."

You're sounding a whole lot like George, and I'm not at all sure that's what you intended.  Given most of the excuses we used to Iraq were just bullshit marketing vs. the actual reasons, I should think folks would be reclutant to point to non-issues as legitimate arguments.  Pakistan ain't going to nuke us, and we don't give a shit about their human rights record.  SOME of its people have sympathy-ties to AQ.  That doesn't mean it's a good idea to go cowboy, any more than it would be a good idea for someone to declare war on us because of what George, et al. have done ... though they'd have, by now, every right.

---

by: Fxston @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 15:12:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Three Point Shot... (0.00 / 0)

The "war on terror" has always been doomed to fail, just like the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty".  There's no "victory" to be had.  

Good stuff.  Nevertheless, the "war on terrorism" does need to be fought, though wisely.  AQ is itching to blow up more American real estate and (like it or not) we've GOT to keep the oil flowing from the Middle East.  Spending further billion$ in Iraq won't get it done and neither will attacking Pakistan (sorry, Chris).  As you say, I think the problem is the radical fundamentalist Islamic ideology, and its self-actualization won't be realized (and they will keep fighting for it) until the planet is absorbed in their philosophy.

So what to do?  Continuing massive military actions will be futile -- the AQs love to fight and kill, and be killed (the 79 virgins...).  I think that "containment" done smartly could be successful.  Unlike Great Britain, we've got to diminish fundamental Islam from creeping into our society.  Here's a good read:
http://muslimsagainstsharia.bl...
Getting out of Iraq ASAP, getting the UN on board against Akmadinejad while keeping our own rhetoric down, and building lots of goodwill in Afgh and PAK so the governments there can clean their own laundry -- with less aggression by the US and some help from the impotent UN: these should be sought.

Obama can probably get this done better than McCain - we'll see.  But in the end, some form of effective containment should be our goal.  Let AQ alone to mire in their smut within boundaries acceptable to us.  But keeping them out of the U.S. should be the ultimate strategy.  Pipe dreams, huh.

---

by: E. Redding @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 18:37:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't think that a resume like this is going to go over well (0.00 / 0)

in the Muslim world. Palin and her long association with these folks:
http://www.dailykos.com/user/u...

Big MacConfusion just took one in the chops. Keith Olbermann had a vid of him proclaiming Armageddon Sarah's defense creds saying that she was ready because her son just deployed with the AK National Guard. WWWWWWWWhaaaaaaaaat?

---

by: deMeme @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 20:13:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

... (0.00 / 0)

"AQ is itching to blow up more American real estate and (like it or not) we've GOT to keep the oil flowing from the Middle East."

Oil flow ain't the problem except when we, well, invade and destroy an oil-producing country's infrastructure and make the rest of those countries think they might be next.  Cheney and the toadies were dreaming of $10/barrel oil, taking control of and doubling Iraqi production from the get.  Big Oil saw it as a win-win regardless if were FUBAR:  either oil quintuples in price or they divvy up control a huge oil reserve.  What's not to like.  Fortunately, the Iraqis said frack you and revolted, deciding instead to deal with the Russians and the French.  We got what we deserved letting a bunch of good ol' boy corporatists loose in the government.  Question is whether we've learned our lesson.  

"Obama can probably get this done better than McCain - we'll see."

I think there's no "can probably" about it, if one is truly objective.  McCain as President would be a (further) disaster.  You can fix ignorance, but you can't fix stupid (otherwise known as the dude who thinks with his dick).

"But in the end, some form of effective containment should be our goal."

Yep.  

"Pipe dreams, huh."

Maybe so.  Bottom line is no matter which administration is in power, we're gonna get hit again eventually.  (Sorry, we just don't have enough James Bond or Jack Ryans in civil service and government will never be quite so competent as folks would like.  People have seen way too many movies.)  And it's not as though we don't deserve to get hit, if you're truly objective.  

Seeing as how I sit dead center between the two best targets in DC, if I can say "so be it", certainly the sniveling cattle in most of the rest of the country can refrain from the equivalent of falling to its collective knees and crying "Save us!" next time.  "Tell us where to mail our rights; we weren't using them anyway!"  Not all their fault, but it didn't help that many of their legislative reps in Congress didn't feel as though they could survive saying no to the craven toadies who menaced "Do as we say, or everyone dies."  

We just need to suck it up and learn a lesson or two from the Brits and Israelis when it comes to surviving terrorism.  Too bad we have only, thus far, followed them when it comes to addressing the underlying causes ... even though a rational observation would tell you the cowboy/vengeance route didn't do them any good.

---

by: Fxston @ Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 14:16:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just too complicated... (0.00 / 0)

"Gloves off in Pakistan"
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/S...

British Airways pull-out
http://www.gulfnews.com/busine...

India-Pakistan reach agreement on trade route through Kashmir
http://www.gulfnews.com/world/...

While India continues to deal with Mujahideen bombings.

Bush continues to work towards a blockade of Iran with Iran threatening to blockade the Straight of Hormuz. Iran also "has" al Sadr and Maliki saying that they will cut the hands off of anyone who attacks them. The GCC [Gulf Nations] saying leave us out of this one.

Others are calling for the Navy to patrol the Gulf of Aden and around the Horn for pirates.

Both the Brits and Israel along with Japan have 'challenged' leadership,  weakened governments right now along with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan. NATO has internal conflicts and have not been 'over generous' with troops to the point that Bush has requested that they send money if they can't send boots. NGOs, DEA, Pentagon, NATO do not present a coordinated front.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/S...

The world markets are scrambling to stay afloat. Seems that China has the best seat in the house. They are motivated to protect their export business. Bush talked to Hu:
http://www.gulfnews.com/world/...

The most compelling discussion has to focus on the fact the Taliban is being considered by many of the 'people' as a legitimate revolutionary force.

For the History Books: Pakistan does remember its fragile economy getting crippled by sanctions.

http://www.historycommons.org/...

Other hot spots: Philippines, Sri Lanka, Somalia, Yemen, Gaza and others. Like the 80 Fxston refers to.

---

by: deMeme @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 14:25:28 PM CDT

Greek carrier hijacked...that's number 60 off of the Somalian Coast (0.00 / 0)

http://www.somalianews.com

Mean time in the Atlantic, Russian Navy on way to Venezuela to play joint 'war games'.

---

by: deMeme @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 22:39:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pak it in... (0.00 / 0)

Much like Iraq's Anbar awakening, it seems like the Paks want to handle it themselves, well fine, let them.

We should sit back and pop some subsidized corn. We got problems of our own more pressing anyway.

---

by: 911witness @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 15:42:30 PM CDT

Maybe we should (4.00 / 2)

all just leave Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I bet if we were not intent on globalization, elitism, and were actually adhering to the principles of freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, AQ would not pose such a threat to OUR national security.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 17:44:34 PM CDT