PDA

View Full Version : Pakistan



rockypatel14
01-25-11, 04:40 PM
Why can't we destroy pakistan? This piece of **** country is harboring our enemies and providing them with weapons and recruits. I want to know why we give this country money and aid when all they do is use it to kill our soldiers. Why can't our generals command these wars instead of politicians? Why aren't we going after pakistan!

R Landry
01-25-11, 04:55 PM
Where have we heard this before? Why in Cambodia and Laos, that's where, during the Vietnam War. Frustrated US commanders expanded the war into Cambodia and Laos to go after Communist base camps. The war spread; these two small nations were largely destroyed, but the war was ultimately lost.

Victory in war is achieved by concentration of forces, not spreading them ever thinner and wider.

But our imperial generals seem determined to blunder into a nation of 175 million hostile people without any clear strategy. Unable to subdue the Pashtun tribes of Afghanistan, they are now attacking the Pashtun tribes of Pakistan. America does not need more enemies.

R Landry
01-25-11, 05:07 PM
The Case for Considering Invasion Khalilzad writes in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/opinion/20khalilzad.html?ref=opinion), "The U.S. has tried to soften Pakistan’s support of extremist militants through enhanced engagement as well as humanitarian, economic and military assistance; indeed, Congress last year approved a five-year, $7.5 billion package of nonmilitary aid, and among the options being discussed by American and Pakistani officials this week is a security pact that would mean billions of dollars more. But such efforts have led to only the most incremental shifts in Pakistan’s policy. To induce quicker and more significant changes, Washington must offer Islamabad a stark choice between positive incentives and negative consequences. ... Arguments that [invading] would cause Pakistan to disintegrate are overstated. Pakistan’s institutions, particularly the country’s security organs, are sufficiently strong to preclude such an outcome." Khalilzad even suggests how the U.S. can prepare for the blowback to invasion by re-routing supply routes through Central Asia.



Invading Not a Viable Option or Sincere Threat Commentary's Max Boot sighs (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/boot/375941), "That is, in fact, pretty much what the U.S. has been threatening since 2001. By now such threats ring hollow because we haven’t carried them out — and for good reason. How are we to suppose to clear out 'insurgent havens' without Pakistani consent? Are we going to send tens of thousands of troops into the Federally Administered Tribal Areas? Not likely. Maybe step up drone strikes? That we can do, but Predators would hardly clear out the terrorists. And in return for violating Pakistani sovereignty, we would be vulnerable to Pakistani counter-pressure, from closing the supply routes for U.S. forces in Afghanistan to ending cooperation with the drone strikes against al-Qaeda."

R Landry
01-25-11, 05:15 PM
Invading Pakistan: An idea whose time has come
Abid Ullah Jan

Under the pretext of training and supporting indigenous counter-insurgency forces and clandestine counter-terrorism units – read Pakistan’s mercenary forces, fighting and dying for the neocons designs in the region - US special forces are expected to vastly expand their presence in Pakistan early next year. According to Washington Post, this was revealed by the American defence officials involved with the planning.

Good luck Pakistan. Musharraf, the compulsive gambler sold another chunk of its sovereignty and independence only to show he can do it better than what Benazir had promised to the warlords in Washington. Musharraf must have told the US officials, Benazir is mere promises, conditional on her success, I can sign a deal right now. Hence the report was published by the Washington Post the day Benazir was assassinated. It means the deal between Mush and the US official was inked days before that.

These Pakistan-centric operations will mark a shift for the US military and for US-Pakistan relations. In the aftermath of Sept 11, the US used Pakistani military bases to stage illegal and illegitimate attacks into Afghanistan, which resulted in the butchery of thousands of innocent civilian and innocent lives. According to the reports, once the US deposed the Taliban government and established its main operating base at Bagram, north of Kabul, US forces left Pakistan almost entirely. This however doesn’t make sense in the light of the present revelations that troops level “will be increased,” which means there is already some presence of the US forces in Pakistan. Although the pro-regime reports say that Pakistan has restricted US involvement in cross-border military operations as well as paramilitary operations on its soil. But the evidence of events since 2001 and the US sustained attacks on Pakistan, any time it wanted to attack, tells a story to the contrary.

Despite that the Pentagon pretends that it has been frustrated by the inability of Pakistani forces to control the borders or the frontier area. Pakistan’s political instability is further used as a ruse to express heightened US concern about “extremists” there. These are all part of the bigger plan. The objective is to pave the way for the impending surge of US troops within Pakistan – which has been presenting itself a nuclear power and an independent, sovereign state. Now it has to face the second stage of direct US occupation.

According to Pentagon sources, reaching a different agreement with Pakistan became a priority for the new head of the US Special Operations Command, Adm Eric T Olson.

Olson visited Pakistan in August, November and again this month, meeting with the self-imposed president Pervez Musharraf, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Gen Tariq Majid and Lt Gen Muhammad Masood Aslam, commander of the military and paramilitary troops in northwest Pakistan. Olson also visited the headquarters of the Frontier Corps, a separate paramilitary force recruited from Pakistan’s border tribes.

Now, a new agreement, reported when it was still being negotiated last month, has been finalised. And the first US personnel could be on the ground in Pakistan by early in the new year, according to Pentagon sources. Thanks to General Musharraf, his ambition to remain in power and his nature as a compulsive gambler, which forces him to surrender almost anything in order to secure his stay in power.

US Central Command Commander Adm William Fallon alluded to the agreement and spoke approvingly of Pakistan’s recent so-called counter-terrorism efforts in a recent interview.

“What we’ve seen in the last several months is more of a willingness to use their regular army units,” along the Afghan border, Fallon said. “And this is where, I think, we can help a lot from the US in providing the kind of training, assistance and mentoring based on our experience with insurgencies recently and with the terrorist problem in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we share a lot with them, and we’ll look forward to doing that.”

In fact, this is the initial phase of finding a niche within Pakistan army for the pro-US elements in preparation of the bigger struggle. Chaos is being manufactured on the other hand for unfolding the next phases of the plan neutralize Pakistan. As chaos deepens and the situation escalates to a civil war, the US forces will already be on the ground in Pakistan to support in invading and attacking forces. The already present US forces on the ground will stand by those elements of the Pakistan army which will be resisting the break away factions as was indicated by Frederick W. Kegan and Michael O’Hanlon in the New York Times on November 18, 2007.

The theme of attacking or, at least, temporarily occupying Pakistan is not new. This idea has been part of the necons-Zionist lobby for quite some time. David Albright wrote a paper, “Securing Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Complex” in 2001. The paper was commissioned and sponsored by the Stanley Foundation for the 42nd Strategy for Peace Conference from October 25-27, 2001. The paper pointed out:

“a special concern is that Pakistan will suffer another coup. A new leadership can be expected to place a high priority on seizing the country's nuclear assets…In the most extreme case, a coup takes place and the new regime attempts to gain control of the nuclear complex. Foreign governments may intervene to prevent hostile forces from seizing the strategic nuclear assets.”

A realistic look on the unfolding situation clearly suggest that the “extreme situation” pointed out in the said paper is being created with undue support to all the illegal and outright criminal moves by Musharraf. This US-UK support to the tyrant only exacerbate the situation.

David Albright, Kevin O'Neill and Corey Hinderstein, conclude in their proposal, “Securing Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal: Principles for Assistance," (ISIS Issue Brief, October 4, 2001):

“Several observers have suggested that if Pakistan suffers a coup by forces hostile to the United States, the US military should be ready to provide security over the nuclear weapons (or even to take the weapons out of Pakistan entirely) without the permission of the Pakistani authorities.”

Neocons-Zionists and other warlords in Washington and UK believe that time has come to invade and strip Pakistan of its nuclear weapons. That’s how the US got a green light from Islamabad to consolidate its position on the ground within Pakistan and in return Musharraf only maintained his indispensability and rule only for the time being.

As usual, the Neocons-Zionists are paying no attention to the consequences of their totalitarian designs. They hardly care if Iraq and Afghanistan are in total chaos and millions of innocent lives have been lost. What is chaos to us is a success to them. Without such a vast turmoil, they believe it is not easy to redraw the maps in the Middle-East (including South Asia) and permanently tame the Muslim world in favour of Israel’s expansionist drive.

R Landry
01-25-11, 05:17 PM
5 Reasons Why We Won’t Invade Pakistan

By MICHAEL PECK
http://trueslant.com/michaelpeck/files/2009/04/464723956_6d7bf7f7fb1.jpg
The rumors of war have already begun. With the Pakistani government seeming to cower before the advance of the Taliban, there are mutterings that the U.S. might have to invade Pakistan. This isn’t news to Barack Obama. He warned in 2007 that he would unilaterally send U.S. troops (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html) into Pakistan if the government didn’t clamp down on the Taliban.
It seemed like empty talk from a candidate desperate to convince voters that he could be tough on terror. But let’s hope it was just talk. Because invading Pakistan would be a really, really bad idea. Here are five reasons why it would be a Bungle in Baluchistan:
Reason 1: If they don’t like us in Afghanistan, why would their cousins like us any better in Pakistan?
Reason 2: Invading Pakistan would be like the teaser on an adjustable-rate mortgage. Cheap at first, and then the monthly bill goes way, way up. Occupying Northwest Pakistan along the Afghan border would vastly expand the Afghan theater of operations. Occupy all of Pakistan? Not a chance. Even if they welcomed us with flowers and kisses, that’s 165 million people to govern in a nation that barely functions in the best of times. Surgical strikes using special forces and aircraft would only be pinpricks of temporary effect. And if U.S. forces aren’t going to stay in Pakistan, then what’s the point? The insurgents will follow the Golden Rule of Insurgency: Lay low until the enemy leaves.
Reason 3: We’re already fighting two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. ground force are overstretched and worn-out. Britain is contributing about as much it can, and the rest of NATO is pretty much useless. Withdrawal from Iraq will free up troops, but this assumes that withdrawal will be smooth and on schedule, with no other crises in the Middle East or elsewhere that will drain our resources.
Reason 4: The American people aren’t in the mood for another war. Barack Obama doesn’t want to go down in history as a wartime president.
Reason 5: Pakistan has nukes. This really, really sucks. It’s even worse than North Korea, because say what you want about Kim Jong-il, at least you know the finger on the button belongs to a strong leader. The reason why nations like Pakistan and Iran develop nukes is their belief that no one would dare invade a nuclear-armed power. How badly do we want to test this theory? And even if U.S. special forces and aircraft could capture or destroy Pakistani nuclear bombs, we could never be sure that every bomb or bit of nuclear material had been neutralized. Maybe they would hand them to the Taliban. Maybe they would nuke India just to settle old scores.
But can you see the really scary part here? All of this is rational thinking. Yup. If we’re rational, we won’t invade Pakistan. Now excuse me while I bang my head against the desk.