Musharraf is a puppet, a tool. He's too busy placating the pashtun tribal leaders who are sympathetic to Al Quida and the Taliban. He's totally ineffective.

If we have actionable intel and assets that can respond, we should take the shot. Everyone complains that Iran will have nukes. Pakistan already has them.

Obama got it right.

Billary would disuss it endlessly in committee.

Republicans would bomb the wrong country.

They are giving refuge to our enemies and gee wizz boys, Iraq was a sovereign nation too, that DID NOT have OLB and Co. in house I might add. What happend to "You're with us or against us", "Wanted Dead or Alive" and all that jingoist crap that Bush the Lesser has continued to spout?

quote:

Originally posted by Grandjester:
They are giving refuge to our enemies and gee wizz boys, Iraq was a sovereign nation too, that DID NOT have OLB and Co. in house I might add. What happend to "You're with us or against us", "Wanted Dead or Alive" and all that jingoist crap that Bush the Lesser has continued to spout?

The difference is that Afghanistan and Iraq were not nuclear powers. Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal and Musharaf's regime, while not an optimal partner, is the best possible scenario.

Throughout, quite literally, monthly assasintation attempts, Musharaff has stood by the U.S. as much as he can. I really don't envy the guy's position. On the one hand, he's under constant pressure from us to go attack the Waziri provinces. On the other, his own military and police forces really don't like him all that much and he has to be the most wanted man in Pakistan next to Bin Laden.

It's a very delicate situation. An open invasion of Pakistan is CLEARLY not the solution. Low-level special operations assistance to the PA and even some of our own independent operations are.

If Musharaff goes, it's not just another country we can chalk up as being unfriendly... it's one WITH nuclear weapons.

quote:

Originally posted by Joel97:

quote:

Originally posted by Grandjester:
They are giving refuge to our enemies and gee wizz boys, Iraq was a sovereign nation too, that DID NOT have OLB and Co. in house I might add. What happend to "You're with us or against us", "Wanted Dead or Alive" and all that jingoist crap that Bush the Lesser has continued to spout?

The difference is that Afghanistan and Iraq were not nuclear powers. Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal and Musharaf's regime, while not an optimal partner, is the best possible scenario.

Throughout, quite literally, monthly assasintation attempts, Musharaff has stood by the U.S. as much as he can. I really don't envy the guy's position. On the one hand, he's under constant pressure from us to go attack the Waziri provinces. On the other, his own military and police forces really don't like him all that much and he has to be the most wanted man in Pakistan next to Bin Laden.

It's a very delicate situation. An open invasion of Pakistan is CLEARLY not the solution. Low-level special operations assistance to the PA and even some of our own independent operations are.

If Musharaff goes, it's not just another country we can chalk up as being unfriendly... it's one WITH nuclear weapons.

So this absolutely plays into the Iran scenario. Iran sees Afganistan fall, the we take out Saddam who is just another version of the "Strongman" type that Musharaf is. Since we are leaving Pakistan alone, due to the Nuclear issue, doesn't that indicate to Iran that to keep the US off their *** they need Nukes ASAP?

They're going to get nukes for reasons besides that.

I think, personally, it was a mistake to take Saddam out of the equation or to even isolate him as much as we did. While he was a brutal thug and a mass murderer, he served a very important purpose as being a bulwark against Iran.

With him removed from the equation, Iran now reigns as the most powerful country in the region... and they are FAR MORE an enemy than Saddam ever was.

Saddam was, again, a brutal mass murderer... but he was motivated by one interest alone... himself. If he could be an enemy of the U.S. and stay in power, he would. If he could be a friend of the U.S. and stay in power, he would.

Iran has NO desire to be friends with us. They ARE motivated by Islamic fundamentalism. And, in all likelihood, they'll have the bomb soon.

Iran should have been the original target, not Iraq.

But, this is what it is. We play the hand we're dealt (or that we've played into).

I shudder to think what will happen once Musharaf falls. I think then, things will take a turn for the worse.

Fire up the bombers and start making some parking lots over there again in the hills of Afghanistan----------if we cross the border in Pakistan----that's the way it is.

Support Musharaf as the much lesser of the other evils in Pakistan. The areas that he concedes to tribal rule that harbour terrorists have to be actionable by our Special Ops teams. No need for armour, fuel truck convoys and private contractors to be strung up on bridges and reservists that want no part of being away from home for 18 months and then called back. Just send in the best fast action people in history, waste the hard to reach areas with 52s,and get a rival tribe to help us like the Nothern Alliance did in fall 2001, this nest of vipers can be thinned my a great margin. There is a lot going on that we will hear about much later when the ops write their stories. It is frustrating from 9,000 miles away, not looking like anything is getting done, and the terrorists having sanctuaries, like in Cambodia 40 years ago. Where Pakistan fails, we must prevail.

And I think that is (and will be) the COA as things develop there.

"The best way to fight extremism, terrorism and insurgencies is with indigenous forces: They know the streets and the terrain - and have the inside track with the locals on getting intelligence on the bad guys."
OK... where were you in early '03?
"While the United States should keep every option on the table for fighting terrorism, including the use of unilateral action when necessary, it's critical we work with allies in the War on Terror as much as possible."
Of course. Again, where were you in early '03?
And to call you on your apples-to-oranges comparison error, Mr. Brookes... 1) OBL and AQ are the faces on the "Wanted Dead or Alive" poster; 2) why wouldn't a hypothetical "Prez" Obama set up the diplomatic support ASAP after (if not before) inauguration for such an action?; 3) "actionable" has meaning to those who know something about the law, as in Specter vs Gonzales; 4) and BTW... didn't Armitage play a little hardball with Musharaff?

A lot smells of Obama's lack of military strategy. Loose cannon. The worst case scenario of Obama is elected POTUS which I doubt, we might look back on this article. I had just told someone the other day that the most vulnerable problem in the whole war is Pakistan. If we should even pull out, with out our military covering Mushareff's butt he'll be dead quickly....nukes in a war on terror...it's that easy o clustef*** a war that could spiral to something worse very quickly.
Either way the wind blows the President of pakistan has a lot of lasers targeting him.

Musharraf has made a truce with Taliban and other terrorists inside his border, yet Bush does nothing but say what a good ally Musharraf is. Like a previous post mentions, Bush had his chance to finish off Al Quida and the Taliban, but decided to drop bombs in Iraq instead, and leave it up to Karzai to issue taunts to the Taliban from deep inside a bunker underneath Kabul. Now the Taliban control 75% of Afganistan, and Al Quida are entrenched in Iraq, a place off limits to them during the time of Saddam, with a steady stream of new recruits every day. From the looks of it, Osama bin Laden really couldn't have asked for a better friend than in George Bush.

Is this guy really an idiot or does he have his head where the sun don't shine. We sure do not need him with his finger on the button. God Help the USA, we surely need it.