# Pakistan?



## Si modo (Sep 29, 2009)

Many of us lack confidence BHO&#8217;s having a definitive strategy in Afghanistan, especially given recent revelations.

Pakistan is complicated.  We need them for our our basing supply to NATO efforts in Afghanistan.  The bulk of the money we supply to Pakistan is for their assistance in the WOT and as BHO has said, they are an integral player in the WOT/whatever it&#8217;s called now as a Major Non-NATO Ally (VOA News - Obama Says Afghanistan, Pakistan Stability Key to His Goals).  Yet, the FATA and now other areas, are out of control with more establishment of Al queda and/or Taliban operations (Al-Qaeda allies build huge Pakistan base).  Not only that, Pakistan has its own prioties with paranoia (founded or otherwise) about India.  In fact, US funds were diverted to strengthen defense against India, according to Mussaref in a recent interview.

We know that BHO will not hesitate to OK the crossing of the Pakistan border to hit strategic targets and I agree wholeheartedly with that.  Even if it does piss of the Pakistanis, it&#8217;s a good gamble that is _all_ it will do as Pakistan doesn&#8217;t want to lose the money we give them.

And, about two weeks ago, the Senate voted to triple aid to Pakistan.

So, I am eager to see some strategy gel for our security efforts in this part of the world.  Personally, I would like to see McCrystal get more troops to improve Afghanistan, and I would like to see some sort of Pakistan strategy that does not just include more money to them, expecially considering the additional complication of recent unrest.

Any speculation about what will change, if anything, with respect to Pakistan as part of the overall strategy?


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 29, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Yet, the FATA and now other areas, are out of control with more establishment of Al queda and/or Taliban operations



The FATA always has and always will be out of control.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 29, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Yet, the FATA and now other areas, are out of control with more establishment of Al queda and/or Taliban operations
> ...


Any other thoughts on a complicated situation?


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 30, 2009)

I have full confidence that whatever Obama does it will be the wrong thing.  Sometimes in a life filled with uncertainty it's good to be able to bank on something.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 30, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> I have full confidence that whatever Obama does it will be the wrong thing.  Sometimes in a life filled with uncertainty it's good to be able to bank on something.


I'm having trouble finding what the wrong or right thing would be, though.  I do think just more money to them, as has been the case in the past for the most part, is not the right strategy.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 30, 2009)

The Pak security service (is it ISS?) has been a fan of the taliban for some time.  The two countries are historically enemies.  The wrong thing would be to support a policy that enables the ISS to put their man in office and basically reduce their effort to a talking war.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 30, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> The Pak security service (is it ISS?) has been a fan of the taliban for some time.  The two countries are historically enemies.  The wrong thing would be to support a policy that enables the ISS to put their man in office and basically reduce their effort to a talking war.


Yup.  It's the ISS, a main supporter of both the Taliban and Al qaeda.  Excellent point.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 30, 2009)

Si modo said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Yes, and it doesn't involve more troops.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 30, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


As I doubt we'll be sending troops into Pakistan, care to share what those thoughts are?


----------



## Shorebreak (Sep 30, 2009)

According to Obama, he plans to be successful where Bush was not. That means that Obama needs to use terror as a justification to eliminate sovereign loyalists throughout Pakistan. 

If you look at a map of the region you can quickly see how Pakistan and India are both critical from a perspective of regional trade. Pakistan resides within the MEFTA region (Middle East Free Trade Area established in 2003 by Bush Administration, with Jerusalem as it's head), and India resides within the ASEAN region. Neither countries are full members yet of their respective regional trade area, but India has a Free Trade Agreement in place with ASEAN members, and Pakistan is working towards the World Bank, World Trade Organization, IMF, and UN commitments that it needs to meet in order to join MEFTA as organized by the Bush Administration.

In other words, in the grand scheme of geopolitics as planned by global finance, there can be no free flow of goods and services between a fully organized MEFTA and a fully organized ASEAN until local nations with independent leaderships and with soveriegnty-oriented population groups have been brought into full submission. 

Afghanistan was an obvious first target for the same reasons that it was a target of the Soviet Union - it is strategically placed at the crossroads between the Middle East and the Orient, between Africa and the Orient, and between the Orient and most of Europe. Obama's most senior foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wrote in 1997 that if the United States can control Central Asia, we can then control the future of trade for much of the rest of the world. He lamented that the American people would never support such an initiative unless we were conveinced that we faced a dire external threat. 

His book "The Grand Chessboard" actually lays out in diagram format his recommendations for establishing geostrategic predominance of the entire region. When you read the book, you see that the Bush Administration achieved about half of the goals that Brzezinski established. They were the easy half. Obama committed in his campaign to finish what the Bush Administration had started in Central Asia. Those who follow the news rather than the policy believed that Obama meant he was going to stop the wars. Those of us who follow policy (and policy makers) rather than listening to news lies knew that Obama was telling the world that he was going to continue the plan to establish geostrategic predominance over the entire region.

The empire (global finance and regional global government) is on the march now more than ever. Obama is turning up the volume. We're fighting a proxy war in Yemen, we have boots on the ground in Somalia, we're increasing deployment sizes to Afghanistan, we're conducting ground activities in Pakistan, we're solidifying our permanent military presence in Iraq, we're expanding our activities in Georgia, and these are only the well-known activities. Obama is even increasing the size of active duty troop deployments in the US that were begun by the Bush Administration.

So I fully expect increased activity in Pakistan. Look at the size of the embassy that we're building there. The next closest example is in Baghdad. The empire is going to do everything it can to trick us into continuing to support US wars overseas by committing our tax dollars and the lives of our children, until we either wake up and put a stop to it, or until the work is complete and regional global government is solidly in place. The UN is currently talking about a global currency as a response to the economic crisis, so we're probably only a few years away from their expected completion date.


----------



## geauxtohell (Oct 1, 2009)

Si modo said:


> As I doubt we'll be sending troops into Pakistan, care to share what those thoughts are?



Sending conventional troops into Pakistan would be a disaster.  I meant more troops in Afghanistan.

I think the problem is economic in nature.  We need to reduce our footprint and start dumping money into Afghanistan to build up it's own economic infrastructure.  

Local provinces should be held accountable for their own security.  If they can't provide security, they shouldn't receive funding.  You'd be amazed how fast the tribes will cooperate if they are missing out on a cut of some money that a rival tribe is getting.  

If Pakistan really wanted to help, it would allow Afghanistan to ship out of Lahore without leveling a tariff.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 1, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > As I doubt we'll be sending troops into Pakistan, care to share what those thoughts are?
> ...


As the insurgency is currently growing in Afghanistan and corruption is rampant, I think the worst thing we could do is just give the government money.  According to the recent assessment, the corruption is currently more common than not.  The growing insurgency arises from the civilian population where there is a common impression that the insurgents can provide more protection for civilians than can the NATO forces. And apparently that is relatively true, according to the assessment.  So, like you, the assessment is focusing on the population of Afghanistan - to increase the size and effectiveness of the Afghan National Security Forces, to assist in improving Afghan governance at all levels, to gain the initiative and counter the insurgency's growing momentum, and to focus resources on critical areas where the local population is most vulnerable.

He says that the campaign in Afghanistan has always been under-resourced - a lesson learned - and to remain so will allow this insurgency to entrench itself in Afghanistan.

So, I am not convinced at all that dumping money into Afghanistan without more personnel is a wise.

Lahore is not all that secure and is more focused on India.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 2, 2009)

As Obama has yet to set a strategy for Afghanistan even after getting the assessment and recommendations from the command, I am hoping that the reason for that delay is that he has a more definitive and joint strategy for Pakistan will be included in setting strategy for the area.  He did allude to more attention to Pakistan during his campaign.  But the needs for Afghanistan cannot take second fiddle, IMO.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 2, 2009)

During his campaign he promised to invade Pakistan.  So I wouldnt hold too much hope.
He is voting present on this one, waiting for some magic easy answer to appear.


----------



## geauxtohell (Oct 2, 2009)

Si modo said:


> As the insurgency is currently growing in Afghanistan and corruption is rampant, I think the worst thing we could do is just give the government money.  According to the recent assessment, the corruption is currently more common than not.  The growing insurgency arises from the civilian population where there is a common impression that the insurgents can provide more protection for civilians than can the NATO forces.



1.)  Insurgencies are always tied to the civilian population.  That's how they work.

2.)  Afghanistan always has, and always will be, corrupt.  



> And apparently that is relatively true, according to the assessment.  So, like you, the assessment is focusing on the population of Afghanistan - to increase the size and effectiveness of the Afghan National Security Forces, to assist in improving Afghan governance at all levels, to gain the initiative and counter the insurgency's growing momentum, and to focus resources on critical areas where the local population is most vulnerable.



That's been the plan since '04.  It's not like we just decided to stand up the ANA.  The problem is that, without an economic infrastructure, the government will not be able to support itself.  

Extending the reach of the central government has also been the goal since '04.  It's not been terribly successful.  It's hard to impress the merits of federalism on a tribal society.  

I don't really agree that the insurgency is growing.  A couple of provinces have become septic (i.e. Konar).  I have my own belief as to why that happened (at least in Konar), but I'd just as soon keep it to myself.  

At any rate, money is what will ultimately drive the train in Afghanistan.  Life is too cheap there to win on the battlefield.  



> He says that the campaign in Afghanistan has always been under-resourced - a lesson learned - and to remain so will allow this insurgency to entrench itself in Afghanistan.



That's true, but I don't think troops are the resources we need.



> So, I am not convinced at all that dumping money into Afghanistan without more personnel is a wise.



It makes more sense than what we are doing now.



> Lahore is not all that secure and is more focused on India.



It's irrelevant.  Pakistan is only interested in keeping Afghanistan only stable enough so that it's not a bad neighbor.  They don't want to create another rival.

Afghans and Pakis don't like each other that much.


----------



## geauxtohell (Oct 2, 2009)

Si modo said:


> As Obama has yet to set a strategy for Afghanistan even after getting the assessment and recommendations from the command, I am hoping that the reason for that delay is that he has a more definitive and joint strategy for Pakistan will be included in setting strategy for the area.  He did allude to more attention to Pakistan during his campaign.  But the needs for Afghanistan cannot take second fiddle, IMO.



Obama hasn't changed strategies in Afghanistan.  He's basically preserved the status quo.  So he has set a strategy, it's just not anything unique.


----------



## namvet (Oct 3, 2009)

Afghanistan...............Afghanistan........... right next to Chicago !!!!!


----------



## Si modo (Oct 3, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > As Obama has yet to set a strategy for Afghanistan even after getting the assessment and recommendations from the command, I am hoping that the reason for that delay is that he has a more definitive and joint strategy for Pakistan will be included in setting strategy for the area.  He did allude to more attention to Pakistan during his campaign.  But the needs for Afghanistan cannot take second fiddle, IMO.
> ...


As during the campaign he said he was going to focus more on new strategies with Pakistan and that was very appealing rhetoric to me, I was hoping for more from him on this once he won.  I am pleased with the UAV attacks, though.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 3, 2009)

I am very curious as to what course he is going to choose this week regarding McCrystal's advice for 40,000 more troops.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 3, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> I am very curious as to what course he is going to choose this week regarding McCrystal's advice for 40,000 more troops.


I hope he actually _chooses_ some course this week.  He's had the recs since Labor Day.  I'm hoping the delay was due to some sort of more integrated strategy involving Pakistan as well.


----------



## Shorebreak (Oct 3, 2009)

Si modo said:


> I am pleased with the UAV attacks, though.



Oh isn't that special ....the ones that kill more civilian women and children than actual fighters? 

Winning hearts and minds, right?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 3, 2009)

Shorebreak said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > I am pleased with the UAV attacks, though.
> ...


That's not the reason for my pleasure, but I bet you already knew that.


----------



## Shorebreak (Oct 3, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Shorebreak said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



In all honesty, based on your comment I thought you were pleased that we're using UAV's to conduct attacks. 

Since we know that more women and children are killed by UAV's than actual fighters, what am I to assume? You're pleased that we're using them but not pleased with who gets killed? 

Based on your response, I'm either misreading you, or you have a value system that discounts human life (aka collateral damage) when your politics get in the way. Since that is radical evil, I simply cannot relate and I will never understand.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 6, 2009)

Honestly, I would like to see us take action *within *Pakistan, or just get out of the Afghani/Pakistani situation entirely.

We will never win in Afghanistan if we cannot strike targets within Pakistan, and I don't mean with UAV's, I mean full-on combat.

People keep talking about the repercussions of actually striking targets in northern Pakistan.  In my mind, those repercussions could not be worse than to stay involved in an everlasting war in Afghanistan, while Pakistani intelligence supplies and trains guerrilla forces to keep on attacking our troops.

Besides, what is Pakistan going to do exactly?  They have India on their border, itching to attack them.  If we send troops into northern Pakistan, and they try to take us on, they'll be pincered between our forces and India.  If Pakistan even thought about using nukes, we'd wipe their country off the face of the planet.

Pakistan is the prime example of all the original justifications for the War on Terror:

They are training terrorist/taliban forces.

They are harboring Al Qaeda.

And they have WMDs and have provided our enemies with nuclear secrets.

Everything that Iraq was supposed to be, Pakistan IS.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 6, 2009)

And if we can get the WoT focused back on actually taking out Al Qaeda again, I think I may see if I can re-up.  No joke.

I'm 39, I think I might still be eligible.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> And if we can get the WoT focused back on actually taking out Al Qaeda again, I think I may see if I can re-up.  No joke.
> 
> I'm 39, I think I might still be eligible.



Talk to your local recruiter.  You are eligible, I believe.  

If you are being serious, I tip my hat to you.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 7, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > And if we can get the WoT focused back on actually taking out Al Qaeda again, I think I may see if I can re-up.  No joke.
> ...



I just want to see if we are going to actually do something _logical_ about Al Qaeda first.  

I don't want to risk my life for another Iraq.

I am going to call my recruiter to find out about what my options are though.


----------

