# U.S. Troop Killed By Gunmen In Afghan Uniform



## High_Gravity (Aug 7, 2012)

This keeps happening more and more.

U.S. Troop Killed By Gunmen In Afghan Uniform 









> KABUL, Afghanistan  Two gunmen wearing Afghan army uniforms killed a U.S. soldier and wounded two others Tuesday, hours after Afghanistan's defense minister stepped down following a weekend no-confidence vote in parliament.
> 
> The exit of Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak leaves a vacancy at the helm of the ministry that has overseen rapid expansion of the nation's army. Afghan soldiers are increasingly taking their positions on the front lines of the war as foreign combat troops withdraw.
> 
> ...



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/afghanistan-us-troop-killed_n_1752010.htm


----------



## SayMyName (Aug 8, 2012)

Well, we did our best, and for the most part, did what we went there for...kill Osama bin Laden and topple a regime that gave refuge to terrorists.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 9, 2012)

SayMyName said:


> Well, we did our best, and for the most part, did what we went there for...kill Osama bin Laden and topple a regime that gave refuge to terrorists.



Our Troops seem to be getting shot at by their Afghan counter parts every damn day now, and the media are burying these stories.


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 9, 2012)

High_Gravity,  _et al,_

I think this was the point of the earlier thread.



High_Gravity said:


> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> > Well, we did our best, and for the most part, did what we went there for...kill Osama bin Laden and topple a regime that gave refuge to terrorists.
> ...





High_Gravity said:


> We need to get our men and women out of that shit hole.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


​*(COMMENT)*

The Afghani must want an alternative to the Taliban Regime.  Remember, the Taliban is the weaker force.  It has no combat air support, no massive overhead intelligence platform, no surveillance drones, no helicopter, armor, or larger combat vehicles.  It is an inferior force all the way around by any measure you choose to make; yet, after a decade of facing off with the US/NATO (ISAF), it is still around.  And it is strong and dangerous enough to be considered a major threat to the security.

WHY?  Do they know something we don't?  Do they have a secret weapon?  Do they have a superior anything?  No!  But they have a "resolve."  They want to defeat ISAF and the Afghan Security Forces.  And that is the difference.  If the people of Afghanistan really wanted an alternative to the Taliban, and they really were the majority, they could defeat the Taliban with only the same weapons that the Taliban has to use.  But the people of Afghanistan don't have that resolve to become a democracy or an autonomous nation.  So we (US/NATO) try to offset the lack of initiative on the part of the people by trying to equip them the same way we are equipped, and teach them our tactics, and provide them our intelligence, so that they can overcome the Taliban.  We are trying to get them to do the same things, with the same stuff, with the same concepts, that have been so unsuccessful in eradicating the Taliban for a decade.



			
				Albert Einstein said:
			
		

> Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
> Read more at Insanity: doing the same thing... at BrainyQuote



If overwhelming force with superior weapons and knowledge have failed the US/NATO for a decade, why would we think it would work for the Afghani?  And there in is the problem.

Our goal is confounded because we believe we can give the Afghani something the Taliban already has - which has made them so resilient over the last decade:  "resolve to win."  And if the Afghani does not have the resolve to win, no matter how much superior firepower we give them, their nemesis (the Taliban) will never truly be defeated and will ultimately take Afghanistan.

We think we can overcome this lack of resolve by making them mimic US/NATO.  It simply will not work!  The Afghani must want to defeat the Taliban, they must want to cut the support the Taliban receives from the every source, and strangle the movement --- cutting them off from all aid and assistance --- so that they wither and die.  But the people of Afghanistan do not have that resolve, and therefore cannot win politically or militarily.

The Taliban of Afghanistan _[(Taliban AF)most ultra right Pashtun tribesmen and militants under Mullah Mohammed Omar)]_ is not exactly the same as the Taliban of Pakistan _[Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (the TTP) under Hakimullah Mehsud/Maulana Toofan]_; they are not directly related.  The Taliban AF is the Government in Exile of Afghanistan, while the TTP is more of a coalition of various anti-Government (PAK) subversives.  


The Taliban AF has the goal of ousting the US/NATO Occupation to re-establish its leadership and re-institute the extremist practice of the Deobandi model of Islam.  It is a struggle for _(from their view)_ liberation from Western Empires, saving the virtue of the people, and the accumulation of power and influence.


The TTP is a coalition or umbrella alliance of a number of subversive elements with the goal of establishing governance under Shari Law, to openly oppose US/NATO forces operating in Pakistan, and to establish a resistance movement against PAK military forces.  The TTP believes that the citizenry is being victimized by the state via the imposition of military force.

The US has had an extensive amount of experience in combating 4th Generation Warfare (4GW - insurgency) opponents.  And it has recently gained an extensive amount of experience in the evolving 4th GW (organized non-state supported actors) opponents; or quasi-evolving 4GW.  

Some might agree that the US has limited experience fighting in a guerrilla environment.  But that is a misunderstanding on two counts.


The US has extensive experience fighting in a guerrilla environment.  It just believes that the overwhelming application of conventional forces is the better strategy than the use of counter-guerrilla operations that engage in unconventional fashion.


It pre-supposes that what they experience in terms of engagements by the Taliban, is a type of guerrilla operation; as oppose to more stealthy conventional small unit tactics.  While there are some special insurgent tactics applied in the inner-city, typical to insurgent operations, the US leadership believes the correct application of static defenses and roving security is a better use of resources.

The real problem facing US Forces is a leadership that it is principally composed of leaders heavily influenced by 20th Century thinkers, and very slow to evolve with the change in challenges.  The military leadership certainly did not know how to tactfully express shortcomings to the civilian leadership expectations; especially when it came to questions of outcomes on decisions of occupation and counterinsurgency development and containment.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 9, 2012)

RoccoR said:


> High_Gravity,  _et al,_
> 
> I think this was the point of the earlier thread.
> 
> ...



Well you are right, I have a feeling the majority of Afghans would have no problem living under Taliban rule as long as it stopped the fighting, although I am sure the people in the north of the country would feel different. We have been in that country for almost 11 years now and the war was under funded, under manned and just plaine neglected for far too long. I truly believe if we didn't go into Iraq and had stayed the course things in Afghanistan would be different but now its too late, the Taliban are rejuvenated, more confident and have all the manpower, weapons and funding they can ask for, plus they have Pakistan to use for shelter when things get too hot and they definently take advantage of that. Its time to leave this place, I don't know anymore that we can accomplish by being there, Al Qaeda is busy setting up areas of operation in Yemen, Syria, and Mali as we speak.


----------



## ima (Aug 10, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> Well you are right, I have a feeling the majority of Afghans would have no problem living under Taliban rule as long as it stopped the fighting, although I am sure the people in the north of the country would feel different. We have been in that country for almost 11 years now and the war was under funded, under manned and just plaine neglected for far too long. I truly believe if we didn't go into Iraq and had stayed the course things in Afghanistan would be different but now its too late, the Taliban are rejuvenated, more confident and have all the manpower, weapons and funding they can ask for, plus they have Pakistan to use for shelter when things get too hot and they definently take advantage of that. Its time to leave this place, I don't know anymore that we can accomplish by being there, Al Qaeda is busy setting up areas of operation in Yemen, Syria, and Mali as we speak.



Nobody in history has been able to take that area by force. Thinking that WE can is typical American arrogance. Like when we went into Iraq, or Columbia, or Nam, or Korea, or Lebanon, or Somalia, or...


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 10, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> This keeps happening more and more.
> 
> U.S. Troop Killed By Gunmen In Afghan Uniform
> 
> ...



If the media would cover the war the way they did during the Bush years Obama would be history.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 10, 2012)

ima said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Well you are right, I have a feeling the majority of Afghans would have no problem living under Taliban rule as long as it stopped the fighting, although I am sure the people in the north of the country would feel different. We have been in that country for almost 11 years now and the war was under funded, under manned and just plaine neglected for far too long. I truly believe if we didn't go into Iraq and had stayed the course things in Afghanistan would be different but now its too late, the Taliban are rejuvenated, more confident and have all the manpower, weapons and funding they can ask for, plus they have Pakistan to use for shelter when things get too hot and they definently take advantage of that. Its time to leave this place, I don't know anymore that we can accomplish by being there, Al Qaeda is busy setting up areas of operation in Yemen, Syria, and Mali as we speak.
> ...



Afghanistan is different than all those other places you named. We barely stayed around in Lebanon or Somalia, South Korea is a stable democracy thanks to our troops, I don't know why people look at that as a failure. As far as Colombia I don't remember us ever invading it.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 10, 2012)

mudwhistle said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > This keeps happening more and more.
> ...



I have to admit its really not being covered, the other week some Talibans breeched the wall of one of our bases on the Pakistan border and killed 4 troops, the bastards almost got into the fucking dining hall on post. Nobody said a word about this.


----------



## ima (Aug 10, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


We barely stayed around in Lebanon and Somalia because WE GOT OUR BUTTS KICKED AND WE RAN!!!!!!

North korea is a nice stable democracy! 

Columbia is part of our failed war on drugs, just ask Nancy.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 10, 2012)

ima said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



Meh, we could have burned those shit hole countries to the ground if we wanted to. The leadership in the pentagon don't know how to fight wars anymore. North Korea is a communist shit hole, if it wasn't for us the whole penninsula would be like that.


----------



## Caroljo (Aug 10, 2012)

Here's another...just found this on Yahoo news.  3 SF soldiers killed.
We need to get them home, how are they going to fight like this, or know WHO to fight???

"LASHKAR GHAR, Afghanistan (Reuters) - An Afghan police commander and several of his men killed three U.S. soldiers in the southern province of Helmand, turning guns on them after inviting them to a dinner to discuss security, Afghan officials said on Friday."

Three U.S. soldiers killed by Afghan police in Helmand - Yahoo! News


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 10, 2012)

Caroljo said:


> Here's another...just found this on Yahoo news.  3 SF soldiers killed.
> We need to get them home, how are they going to fight like this, or know WHO to fight???
> 
> "LASHKAR GHAR, Afghanistan (Reuters) - An Afghan police commander and several of his men killed three U.S. soldiers in the southern province of Helmand, turning guns on them after inviting them to a dinner to discuss security, Afghan officials said on Friday."
> ...



Wow what the fuck, and nobody is covering this. The Taliban have completely infiltrated the Afghan security forces.


----------



## ima (Aug 13, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> > Here's another...just found this on Yahoo news.  3 SF soldiers killed.
> ...



The Taliban are winning, we can't even beat a bunch of heroin addicts in PJs.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 13, 2012)

ima said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Caroljo said:
> ...



We are there to "win their hearts and minds", we are not there to kill the enemy.


----------



## ima (Aug 13, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Hearts and minds? Sheesh man, they HATE OUR GUTS!!!!!!!!


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 13, 2012)

ima said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



I know, someone needs to tell Washington.


----------



## ima (Aug 15, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



We can't even beat a bunch of heroin addicted losers in PJs. We should surrender, Praise Allah, and go home.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 15, 2012)

ima said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



Um no, we should just leave.


----------



## ima (Aug 15, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Shouldn't we at least pay homage to the victors?


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 15, 2012)

ima said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



You always have some smart ass bullshit to say.


----------



## ima (Aug 15, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



We should build something like the Viet Cong victors wall where we listed all the Americans they killed in their overwhelming victory.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 15, 2012)

ima said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



Go fuck yourself Ima.


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 15, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



"Nuke the place from orbit. 

Only way to be sure." - Aliens


----------



## ima (Aug 15, 2012)

mudwhistle said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



We should nuke everybody we couldn't beat in a war: Nam, Korea, Somalia, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, well, pretty much everyone we've faught since WWII.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 15, 2012)

ima said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



You are in super troll mode today aren't you habibti? besides, alot of the places you listed already look like they have been nuked.


----------



## ima (Aug 15, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Cmon man, somalia kicked our ass. SOMALIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can the US army be any bigger losers?


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 15, 2012)

ima said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



No bitch, 19 soldiers that day died compared to thousands of skinnys, you are just being a hateful anti American bitch as always.


----------



## SayMyName (Aug 15, 2012)

RoccoR said:


> High_Gravity,  _et al,_
> 
> I think this was the point of the earlier thread.
> 
> ...



Excellent synopsis of the situation.


----------



## B. Kidd (Aug 19, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> > Well, we did our best, and for the most part, did what we went there for...kill Osama bin Laden and topple a regime that gave refuge to terrorists.
> ...




The media covers volunteer armed services a helluva lot different then they used to cover a drafted armed service.
I've lived long enough to see the difference.


----------



## laughinReaper (Aug 19, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> This keeps happening more and more.
> 
> U.S. Troop Killed By Gunmen In Afghan Uniform
> 
> ...



We got Bin Laden, so why are we still there again?


----------



## ima (Aug 20, 2012)

laughinReaper said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > This keeps happening more and more.
> ...



Haliburton hasn't gotten its cut yet. There are tons of minerals and probably oil there.


----------



## Indofred (Aug 20, 2012)

The US invaded a country.
The US is losing troops in that country.

I really don't see the big deal.
If you don't want dead troops, don't start wars.


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 20, 2012)

ima,  _et al,_

Hummm,



ima said:


> Haliburton hasn't gotten its cut yet. There are tons of minerals and probably oil there.


*(QUESTION)*

Politically and philosophically, there are a number of reasons for being in Afghanistan.  I certainly don't agree with many of them.  But what "oil" connection do you see and what "resource issues" do you see?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## ima (Aug 20, 2012)

RoccoR said:


> ima,  _et al,_
> 
> Hummm,
> 
> ...


Just that the minerals in Afghanistan are visible from the surface because no one has ever done large scale mining, that's why we'll stay, just like Iraq.

What philosophical reasons do we have to stay?


----------



## Peter Dow (Aug 20, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> This keeps happening more and more.



I hear ya buddy. On the case.  

Afghan forces. Green-on-blue attacks. The solution

The Afghan National Army, the "green" force is rotten, if not to its core then to much of the periphery. Some of the green is more like gangrene (gan-green, get it!   )

The problem I see is in the disconnect between the political control (Karzai) and the funding (mostly from the USA but anyway internationally funded).



> Wikipedia: Afghan National Army
> The new Afghan National Army was founded with the issue of a decree by President Hamid Karzai on December 1, 2002



Karzai as the "duly" (ahem) elected president of Afghanistan is perfectly entitled to run an Afghan national army but Afghans should pay for that themselves.

Afghanistan is a poor nation and could not afford that much of an army but if they paid for it themselves, at least the Afghan national army would likely be honest, accountable to Afghans and take on limited tasks - secure the presidential palace, military headquarters and might be up to defending the capital Kabul and surrounding land, maybe.

Now the issue is this - to secure all of Afghanistan, even to secure our supply routes, we need lots of troops and it makes sense to have some kind of Afghan force to help us - but we need a bigger and better green force than the Afghans can afford to pay for. (Also why would a national Afghan force want to prioritise defending our supply routes? They wouldn't want to.)

So the West, NATO needs to pay for some green Afghan forces - that's a good idea, if, if, if, if and only if, those green forces we are paying for are auxiliary to NATO-ISAF - run by NATO-ISAF - under the control of a NATO general, maybe an American general if you could find a good one to do it.

That way we would only recruit capable Afghans into the green force we pay for and interact with daily. We'd be sure our green troops were loyal - wouldn't shoot our blue troops.

No way would we have any incentive to spend our own money on disloyal incapable Afghans in green uniform so we would not do it, if we had political and military control over our green forces, which we would have if they were called "The NATO-ISAF Afghan auxiliary force" - with no pretence of them being an Afghan national force under Karzai.

However, some idiot has come up with the idea of paying Afghans to have an army funded by us but controlled by Karzai so there is no accountability. The people in charge, deciding who to recruit, can recruit bad soldiers because they get paid more by the US for soldiers, whether they be bad soldiers or not.

Why wouldn't Karzai and this guy





_Lt. Gen. Sher Mohammad Karim, Commander of the Afghan National Army_

recruit junkies, thieves, murderers and agents for the Taliban into the Afghan National Army?

Why wouldn't they recruit anybody they can find into the Afghan national army if, for every soldier they can name, they get paid more US dollars?

Where's the incentive for Karzai and Karim to recruit only good soldiers? There isn't any incentive at all.

Again the US ends up funding corruption.

If a green soldier kills a blue then who gets held responsible in the chain of command?

Nobody gets held responsible.

Who should get held responsible? The US and NATO should. We should blame ourselves for paying anything for an army which we do not have any political control over.

What on earth does Panetta (and what did Gates before him) think he is (was) doing trusting this guy Karzai and his general Karim with billions of US tax-payer dollars to pay for a green army?

Why are NATO defence ministers happy with the poor leadership from NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Stavridis? Shouldn't the NATO leaders have spotted this fatal flaw in green troop organisation and tried to re-organise green forces as I suggest here, if they know what they are doing (which they don't)?

*The competent answer to green on blue attacks is to split up the Afghan army into two distinct forces - *


a national Afghan army which Afghans pay for and is commanded by the Afghan president and whichever general he/she wants to appoint. ("dark green")


a NATO-ISAF auxiliary force of Afghans, funded by the US and other NATO counties and international donors. This would be commanded by our generals. ("light green")

So there should be two green armies - each of a different shade of green so to speak. Karzai's dark green he would use to defend himself and his capital. Our light green we would use to defend our supply routes and to support our operations in Afghanistan generally.

Only when the Afghan economy had grown to the point that they could afford to pay for a big enough army to defend the whole country would we transfer our light green army over to Afghan national control and then we could leave Afghanistan in the hands of Afghans.

So long as we are paying for an Afghan force we must retain political control over it otherwise it fuels corruption and does little or nothing to help to fight the enemy we are trying to defeat and the green-on-blue attacks simply undermine political support for the whole Afghanistan / Pakistan mission.


----------



## SayMyName (Aug 21, 2012)

Peter Dow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > This keeps happening more and more.
> ...



A sound analysis of the situation and proposition. Sadly, no one in the positions of power will go for it.


----------



## Sunni Man (Aug 21, 2012)

The main lesson of our misadventure in Vietnam was, "you can't bomb people back into the stone age - when they are still living in the stone age"

Unfortunately, that costly lesson was forgotten when we invaded Afghanistan.


----------



## Peter Dow (Aug 21, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> The main lesson of our misadventure in Vietnam was, "you can't bomb people back into the stone age - when they are still living in the stone age"
> 
> Unfortunately, that costly lesson was forgotten when we invaded Afghanistan.



In Afghanistan and in the global war on terror, we are fighting a space age enemy - ourselves. We are the ones who created TV satellites and launched them into space. We are the ones who hire satellites out to absolute Arab monarchies so that they can broadcast pro-terror TV to incite the population to war against us.

The advanced countries of the West such as the USA are the ones who sell space-age military technology to the Saudis and pay bounties to the back-stabbing Pakistani state for Al Qaeda small-fry and for protection racket pay-offs to get our supplies through to Afghanistan which allows the Pakistani military an income to spend on building more nuclear weapons.

We need to stop providing our enemies the space-age hi-tech weapons they use or could use against us.

In another topic I posted my

My 4-point plan to beat the Taliban and win the war on terror

and that's the kind of strategic approach we need to be sure that the space-age technology is being used by and for our side in this war, not by and for the Taliban's side.


----------



## Sunni Man (Aug 21, 2012)

Peter Dow said:


> We need to stop providing our enemies the space-age hi-tech weapons they use or could use against us
> 
> and that's the kind of strategic approach we need to be sure that the space-age technology is being used by and for our side in this war, not by and for the Taliban's side.


Yea, those Star Wars light sabers and ray guns the Taliban have been using are deadly weapons for sure.


----------



## ima (Aug 21, 2012)

We should just surrender and then leave. If Ghengis Khan couldn't get the job done...


----------



## Peter Dow (Aug 21, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Peter Dow said:
> 
> 
> > We need to stop providing our enemies the space-age hi-tech weapons they use or could use against us
> ...


"Space-age" is science-fact, not science-fiction.

No sir, the Taliban use very factual guns and bombs but their modern infantry weapons are paid for and supplied by states such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, who do employ satellite TV (beamed to the ground from geostationary orbit don't-ya know?) to beam pro-Taliban propaganda throughout the Middle East.

The Taliban's immediate masters are the Pakistani ISI, military intelligence, as this video explains, 


_This 2-hour video is of a British TV programme which explains in great detail the role of the Pakistani state via the ISI (Inter-services intelligence) has in supporting the Taliban's war against our forces in Afghanistan. _

*VIDEO: BBC Documentary - "SECRET PAKISTAN - Double Cross / Backlash" (2 hours) *
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_SkNUorWhc]Secret BBC - Pakistan Double Cross on Terrorism - Full - YouTube[/ame]

and Pakistan does have nuclear weapons and does have missiles to propel warheads via ballistic sub-orbital paths through space to targets on the ground.

So try ridicule if you like but your claim that the Taliban is merely some kind of stone-age Pashtun tendency won't wash. 

The Taliban are the creatures of serious space-age powers like -


Pakistan used by them to extort money from the USA to fund the expansion of Pakistan's military power and 

Saudi Arabia, used by them to further their global jihadi plans and to lure the USA and NATO away from their valuable oil-fields to the worthless Hindu Kush mountains.

The West's enemies in the war on terror have been rumbled. They've be found out, our intelligence agencies know their game and just watch out Sunni Man because maybe sometime soon we'll get this war won.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 21, 2012)

Peter Dow said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Peter Dow said:
> ...



As long as the Taliban have Pakistan to use a base to regroup, re arm, rest and train this war will keep going. If the Pakistanis ever got serious about taking out the Talibs on their side this war would have been done years ago.


----------



## Peter Dow (Oct 8, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> Peter Dow said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


Well if you spend 2 hours watching the video, you will see that the Pakistani military are serious about arming and training the Taliban and sending them over the border into Afghanistan to kill our soldiers.

So the Pakistani military are serious about waging a terrorist war-by-proxy against us. The question is are we seriously going to fight back against the Pakistani military, or not?

So are we serious, or are we not? That's the real question.

Right now, I am wondering if the answer is _"No, we are not serious, we are pulling out in 2014 so just let the Pakistani military send their terrorists to kill us and we'll turn a blind eye to that fact that it is the Pakistanis who are behind it all"?_


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 9, 2012)

Peter Dow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Peter Dow said:
> ...



Sadly I don't think we are taking this war seriously, and we haven't in a long while. People are afraid to do anything against the Pakistani Military because they fear the people in Pakistan over throwing their government and an Islami theocracy rising in its place armed with nuclear weapons, so Pakistan gets a pass on alot of issues because of their nukes. If they were not nuclear armed I don't think people would deal with them as delicately.


----------



## Peter Dow (Oct 9, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> Peter Dow said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


If the US is afraid of Pakistani nuclear weapons then why is the US government giving Pakistan billions so that they can build more?



> Kansas City Star: ""Pakistan freed of anti-terrorism obligations; U.S. billions flow instead"
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has refused for the first time to declare that Pakistan is making progress toward ending alleged military support for Islamic militant groups or preventing al Qaida, the Afghan Taliban or other extremists from staging attacks in Afghanistan.
> 
> Even so, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has quietly informed Congress that she&#8217;s waived the legal restrictions that would have blocked some $2 billion in U.S. economic and military aid to Pakistan. Disbursing the funds, she said in an official notice, is &#8220;important to the national security interests of the United States.&#8221;



I would have thought economic sanctions, like against Iran, would be more appropriate to cut the Pakistani nuclear threat down to size?

How do American tax-payers feel about paying for Pakistani nuclear weapons which are pointed at them to stop them doing anything about the Pakistani military which is arming, training and sending terrorists to kill Americans, in their own homeland, like on 9/11, and your soldiers in Afghanistan?

Why pay the enemy?

It's not serious and it's not logical.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 9, 2012)

Peter Dow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Peter Dow said:
> ...



Our whole foreign policy is totally fucked, we give billions of dollars a year to countries that hate us. We give cash to countries like Yemen, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and Lebanon which have a foaming at the mouth anti American populace. The money we give to the Lebanese government finds its way to Hezbollah because Hezbollah is a part of that government, and you know that large chunks of the money we give Afghanistan goes to the Taliban as well. We also give cash to the Palestinian territories, so we are funding Hamas too, I don't care whethers its indirectly or whatever, the bottom line is American tax dollars are going in the wallets of some pretty nasty people.

As far as Pakistan goes, that money is basically bribe money for us to bring supplies into Afghanistan using their soil and for covert Military ops there. We also bring Pakistani Military officers into our Military Academies here in the States to train, something I do not agree with.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 9, 2012)

High_Gravity,  _et al,_

To a degree, there are many things here for which I agree.



High_Gravity said:


> ...   ...   ...   we give billions of dollars a year to countries that hate us. We give cash to countries like Yemen, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and Lebanon which have a foaming at the mouth anti American populace. The money we give to the Lebanese government finds its way to Hezbollah because Hezbollah is a part of that government, and you know that large chunks of the money we give Afghanistan goes to the Taliban as well. We also give cash to the Palestinian territories, so we are funding Hamas too, I don't care whethers its indirectly or whatever, the bottom line is American tax dollars are going in the wallets of some pretty nasty people.
> 
> As far as Pakistan goes, that money is basically bribe money for us to bring supplies into Afghanistan using their soil and for covert Military ops there. We also bring Pakistani Military officers into our Military Academies here in the States to train, something I do not agree with.


*(COMMENT)*

Remember, the US needs to "buy" its allies and "pay-off" these Middle East dictators and corrupt officials.  The US simply doesn't know how to promote its diplomacy any other way.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 9, 2012)

RoccoR said:


> High_Gravity,  _et al,_
> 
> To a degree, there are many things here for which I agree.
> 
> ...



Friendships that are bought with money mean nothing.


----------



## Peter Dow (Oct 12, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> As far as Pakistan goes, that money is basically bribe money for us to bring supplies into Afghanistan using their soil


I've not done the complicated sums involved but could it be possible HG, that if 


this money, billions of dollars of aid / bribe money is added to 

the notional transit fees per truck via Pakistan, namely -



> _BBC:_ Pakistan to reopen supply lines to Nato Afghan forces
> 
> US officials say the existing charge of *$250 (£160) per truck* will not change - Washington had baulked at a Pakistani demand for $5,000 per container to let supplies flow again.



and add that to 


the cost of the additional forces we've had to deploy to Afghanistan because the aid money to Pakistan is encouraging the Pakistani state to spend "re-invest" (from their point of view) some of it on re-enforcing the Taliban, in turn forcing us to surge our forces in response

- that all adds up to more than it would cost us to fly all our supplies into Afghanistan, directly, not via Pakistan at all?

In other words, wouldn't it be cheaper to fly supplies in, perhaps bring in some via the Northern Distribution Network, rather than pay bribes to the enemy?







I just don't see how keeping our supplies under the control of the enemy gives us a clean way to win? If Pakistan controls our supplies we can't deal a death blow against the Taliban's masters, the Pakstani military.

If we withdraw in 2014 from Afghanistan, Pakistan will get the Taliban to re-take Afghanistan and use it to base terrorists again or demand huge cash payments not to. Either way, we lose.



High_Gravity said:


> and for covert Military ops there.


The covert ops which found Bin Laden was done without co-operation with the Pakistani authorities. If we would have told them then they would have tipped Bin Laden off and he would have flown the nest, like Al-Zawahiri did when he was cornered.

Really if we need the co-operation of the Pakistani state isn't it more effective to use the stick than offer carrots?

I just don't think there is any amount of cash we can give the Pakistani state that is going to win this war. They are always going to come back asking for more and more. They sense weakness and are pressing a perceived advantage.

I don't think they have an advantage really but paying them makes them think they have an an advantage so they will keep on supporting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to try to screw more and more out of the US in a protection racket.

Now, the US has big pockets and a fat wallet but I am just suggesting that it might be more cost effective long term to seek to win this war outright by crushing the Taliban and their Pakistani military sponsors?

If we seize their satellites and broadcast information about the traitors in the Pakistani military supporting the enemy Taliban terrorists who have been killing Pakistanis, undermining their government etc, we could force a democratic revolt against the Pakistani general staff and ISI and all in league with them in supporting the Taliban.

We can call on our friends in Pakistan to establish political party militias in opposition to the Pakistani ISI and general staff which is disloyal to the people.

If and when it comes to a civil war in Pakistan we can intervene on the side of our friends in Pakistan by bombing our enemies in Pakistan. We'll know friend from foe when the fighting starts.

I think we could win this war that way. Possibly it would be much easier than we think.



High_Gravity said:


> We also bring Pakistani Military officers into our Military Academies here in the States to train, something I do not agree with.


It's routine for countries at peace to exchange officers I think but it's not exactly "peace", nor "war" with Pakistan but maybe a cold war.

But even in a cold war, you don't pay the enemy. We didn't pay the Soviets billions of dollars in the Cold War. If anything we tried to bankrupt them by outspending them on military technology in the arms race.


----------



## ima (Oct 13, 2012)

Stop dreaming about taking out the Paki military, Pakistan has nukes, the US doesn't attack countries with nukes, and anyways, the US army couldn't take shitholes like Nam, Afghanistan, Irak or Somalia. What makes you think they can take Pakistan with their nukes?


----------



## Peter Dow (Oct 13, 2012)

ima said:


> Stop dreaming about taking out the Paki military, Pakistan has nukes, the US doesn't attack countries with nukes, and anyways, the US army couldn't take shitholes like Nam, Afghanistan, Irak or Somalia. What makes you think they can take Pakistan with their nukes?


It's more a question of aiming to take out the Pakistani military as an independent political force, above and beyond the Pakistani government, a state within a state.

There's still a Pakistani military dictatorship element operating under the surface of a democratically elected government of Pakistan which uses the Taliban and assassinations to terrorise the government into deferring to the military.

All we need to do to defeat that element is to identify their leaders, senior officers, arrest or assassinate them. Our intelligence points to the ISI as most implicated. Maybe bombing ISI HQ would be a good start? There must be more senior officers in the Pakistani general staff who support using the ISI to organise terrorism and we need names to target them for arrest or assassination.

For example, one such figure is Pervez Musharraf. He's living in London last I heard. Either way, he is scared to go back to Pakistan because he'd be arrested. So he'd be easy to arrest and whisk off to Guantanamo Bay detention camp. He probably has a very good idea of who in the Pakistani general staff are supporting the Taliban. Maybe he could be "persuaded" to name names? 

And the weapon of choice is not nukes, it's satellite TV. We take over Pakistani state satellite TV and use it to broadcast our propaganda back into Pakistan, calling for a purge of the military who have been supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We broadcast stories of Musharraf in Gitmo, dressed in an orange prisoner outfit, the voice-over saying _"This is what happens to traitors who do harm to the Pakistani people" _etc.

If we do this right, the Pakistanis can win this, bring their own military under democratic control, with a little help from us. If we screw up, we might have to do a lot more bombing of our enemies in Pakistan, hopefully conventional bombs, drones or missiles is all it will take but remember our nukes are bigger and more accurate and of longer range than Pakistan's. I don't think it has to come to nuking Pakistan but better that than letting the Taliban beat us. That's not acceptable.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 15, 2012)

Peter Dow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > As far as Pakistan goes, that money is basically bribe money for us to bring supplies into Afghanistan using their soil
> ...



Me personally I would just bypass the Pakistanis altogether for the supplies, go through countries like Turkmenistan or Tajikstan, although I don't know much about either country but I would think they would like the business. The whole situation is totally fucked with regards to the Pakistanis, the Pakistanis hate America but they love American cash, they are making a shitload of money from these supply routes too. I will tell you this though after we are done in Afghanistan we need to throw our lot in with India, who is a much better ally for us than Pakistan. Our government is scared that the Pakistani government will fall and an Islamic radical regime will arise in Pakistan equipped with nukes, so we keep throwing money at the Pakistanis to keep the current government in power.


----------



## ima (Oct 15, 2012)

Peter Dow said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > Stop dreaming about taking out the Paki military, Pakistan has nukes, the US doesn't attack countries with nukes, and anyways, the US army couldn't take shitholes like Nam, Afghanistan, Irak or Somalia. What makes you think they can take Pakistan with their nukes?
> ...


Bra, you're totally delusional. Assassinate the their top brass? You're kidding, right? And if they figure out it's the US, how sure are you that they won't whack the American army in Afghanistan with nukes? And what if a crazy Jihad party gets elected? Man, you sure haven't thought this through.


----------

