Why the American War on Terror is Failing Miserably

Re: # 169 HP
Gosh! you sound real worried. Being a Jeay sindh activist, shouldn't you be drooling at the prospect of the break up of Pakistan?

Asadi,Tahmed and other please read this report and especially see the maps that go with that.

http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/publications/Afghanistan_on_the_br ink/documents/Afghanistan_on_the_brink

See the maps on page 7 and 25
The NATO plus solution is in the works and the report recommends:
Recommendation 1: “NATO Plus”: Double the NATO forces in the area, double the ground troops; Caveat-free, MOVE IN TO PAKISTAN” and this is the real game in which the stupid Generals are willing partners.

However, what's most intriguing is the Council's support for a very hawkish policy of the kind being pushed by the bipartisan politicians in the US Houses of Congress. The proposal is simple: given that there is no intention of withdrawing, a huge boost in troop commitment has to be demanded of all NATO members, and the war has to be expanded into Pakistan. The Taliban is known to operate across borders, and the Pakistani army is reluctant to engage in battle with them for a variety of reasons. Clearly, part of the US pressure on Musharraf is aimed at his inability to be a reliable puppet, while Benazir Bhutto's rhetoric about 'extremists' is clearly intended to capture that vital Washington constituency. There have already been cross-border attacks, but would Bhutto or any future Pakistani government permit the US to operate extensively in Pakistan? Would such actions hinder or boost the popular movement resisting Musharraf's dictatorship? The report doesn't ponder on such questions, or the obvious answers.

Perhaps most importantly, the report states that 'foreign fighters' from across what Brzezinski calls the "global Balkans" including Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Xinjiang, are acting as force-multipliers for the Taliban insurgency. How much of this is real information and how much is 'intelligence' obtained through torture, or straightforward propaganda? Unlike other parts of the report, which comprises some independent research, much of this appears to be distilled from think-tanks and Western newspapers. At any rate, though the report strikes a technocratic note, the context makes clear that the "Nato+" solution would constitute an aggressive strike to bring south Asia under US control. When both Obama and Clinton make noises about potential aggression in Pakistan, we have to take it as a warning sign. This war may send the whole region up in flames.

#97 Posted by tahmed32
"On the bigger issue, I of course fully agree. The military in Pakistan has to be put in its place - it's job is to serve the Pakistani people, not rule over them. The central question is How?"

There can be many answers to that but sure most of them require strong will on the part of the Pakistani middleclass and others in the urban centers to understand that the army rule is not in Pakistan’s interest.

The first thing is for the politicians to take a stand and the politicians will only take that stand when they know that the people are steadfastly against the army rule.

Just look at Benazir. She almost signed a blank check but when she got to Pakistan the first thing she learned was that her own party workers will not support her association with the army. What no one reported from her Karachi procession that was bombed by the intelligence that most of the slogans during the procession were anti Musharaf and anti America. She quickly began to back away from her support to Musharaf. She is not in a position now to make a deal with the army because the public pressure has forced her to take a stand. She may not like it but she has to listen to her party workers. We can say that both BB and Nawaz at some point of time will make the deal with the army and the US but so far the public pressure has prevented them to make that deal. This certainly provides a ray of hope.

What I gather from Pakistan is that whole society at large is disgusted with the army shenanigans. Army can still keep the power because it has the guns. But the public pressure eventually will force the army to back off. We have seen the Junta rules in South America, they are all pretty much history now. Even the worst of the worst junta rule in Chile ended when people did not let up.

No doubt things are complicated in Pakistan. With the WOT, the US interests in the area and the oil politics in the region, things are not going to be easy but often a way is found in some very complicated situations. I think if Pakistanis are able to remove the current CAOS Musharaf, it is highly likely that next COAS will have to repeat the Chile of 1973 to get to the power. We saw Nawaz standing up to the army in 1999 and I feel that the next time the army may have to kill the PM in the PM house to get the power again. They may have to kill the Pakistani intelligentsia in the stadiums to maintain the forcible acquisition of power.

bulleya#143
Don't be fooled by appearance.
Imran Khan is alternative to whatever first dispensation is for Army and America on paper. (I cannot speak on behalf of Allah). Unfortunately he is too different to accomodate within current or any political dispensation. And he has a big baggage of Sita Whites and their children. At best he can make happy a few people, but alienate a lot in the process. He is probably worse than BB in this regard. Moreover he has a Huqqa Party (party of five people) and apart from nuisance value to different parties or group, I am not much optimistic about him. Moreover apart from playing cricket (which he does no more) and womanizing (which is concealed), he has no brains but rhetorics (that is precisely the reason for him being alternative ).
Personally I think he might have a shot in 1999 when he was propped up by a certain group of PSEUDOISLAMIC PSEUDOREVOLUTANARIES in the Army as a face to fulfill their agenda.

Naqshbandi:
Does that mean we are going to witness another killing of Tajiks, Uzbuks. Another closing of education on women. And last but not least balding for wearing shorts in football match by Pakistani team.
It looks like People have short memory span and long avenging span.
I don't think, Army rule or not, Pakistanis will accept to go back to stone age (even without American bombing).
A lot of Pakistanis have family abroad and they are much aware of development and its advantage.

hamidm: You are just jealous of Romair because he is so well connected and so knowledgeable about military matters.

Re: # 162

Come to think of it I almost invited you out for drink bcos you were after gopinath's grandson!!!! I guess it will have to be Salim only.

giani

Re: # 162

Come to think of it I almost invited you out for drink bcos you were after gopinath's grandson!!!! I guess it will have to be Salim only.

giani

Re: # 160

tahmed,

....... i resent romair because he makes all us pakis look bad in front of these horrible hindoo hyenas (not that most of us are not capable of doing it ourselves) ....... and then he confuses the shite out of me ... first he says that he was in the airforce, now he turns around and tells us that one of his 'course mates' with the initials 'nh' is going to take over the army ..... i am confused - we need to do some research on this guy .......... you know anybody in the ms branch?

Re: # 156

naqshbandi,

... i think that will be just fine - when mahmud gahzni II marches comes through rawalpindi on his way to conquer hindustan, i will join him like my grandpa gopinath joined his grandpappy ......... the only people who should worry are the horrible hindoos and virgin sheep ......

hamidm #159 You need to focus on the positives.

Romair is an amiable enough person who does not fly of the handle at the drop of a hat (these are phrases I learnt in school which I need to use sometimes even if as mixed metaphors).

Also, even though he is a military boy, Romair has not sacked even one judge let alone a Chief Justice.

absolute truths

romair mian,

....... it is nice to know that zeemax agrees with me, arjun and tahmed that you are the ultimate idiot ........ doesn't it scare you that such a diverse group of people agrees on this? ...... i guess there are some universal truths that everyone recognizes ........

#129 Posted by bulleya on November 21, 2007 6:11:18 am


....musharraf has many things in common with hosni.


not to mention that they're dictators of countries whose existence is based on denial.

#153 Posted by mohar11 on November 21, 2007 10:53:44 am

bombing short dark rice eating bingos is kosher..

so there..

The Taliban has a permanent presence in 54% of Afghanistan and the country is in serious danger of falling into the group's hands...

excellent article...The war IS being lost...

Read this today from the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2214813,00.html

A fghanistan 'falling into Taliban hands'


Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday November 21, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Taliban fighter
A Taliban fighter

The Taliban has a permanent presence in 54% of Afghanistan and the country is in serious danger of falling into the group's hands, according to a report by an independent thinktank with long experience in the area.

Despite the presence of tens of thousands of Nato-led troops and billions of dollars in aid, the insurgents, driven out by the US invasion in 2001, now control "vast swaths of unchallenged territory, including rural areas, some district centres, and important road arteries," the Senlis Council says in a report released today.

On the basis of what it calls exclusive research, it warns that the insurgency is also exercising a "significant amount of psychological control, gaining more and more political legitimacy in the minds of the Afghan people, who have a long history of shifting alliances and regime change".

It says that the frontline is getting ever closer to Kabul - a warning echoed by the UN, which says more and more of the country is becoming a "no go" area for western aid and development workers.

The council goes as far as to state: "It is a sad indictment of the current state of Afghanistan that the question now appears to be not if the Taliban will return to Kabul, but when this will happen and in what form. The oft-stated aim of reaching the city in 2008 appears more viable than ever and it is incumbent upon the international community to implement a new strategic paradigm for Afghanistan before time runs out".

Its 110-page report coincides with an equally severe warning from Oxfam. In a report for the House of Commons international development committee, the humanitarian and aid agency warns that the security situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating significantly with the country's problems exacerbated by corruption in central and local government.

The report warns that urgent action is needed to avert a humanitarian disaster in which millions of Afghans face "severe hardship comparable with sub-Saharan Africa". Though the country has received more than $15bn in aid since 2001, the money is not getting to the people who need it most or to projects that could lead to sustained improvements in their lives, Oxfam says.

At least 1,200 civilians have been killed so far this year, it adds - half in operations by international or Afghan forces. There are four times as many air strikes by international forces in Afghanistan than in Iraq, Oxfam notes.

Senior British and US military commanders privately agree despite their public emphasis on short-term successes against Taliban fighters.

The insurgency is divided into a largely poverty-driven "grassroots" component and a concentrated group of "hardcore militant Islamists", says the Senlis Council, which has an office in Kabul and field researchers based in Helmand and Kandahar provinces in southern Afghanistan.

It says that the Nato-led International Security Force, Isaf, should have double the current number of 40,000 troops and should include forces from Muslim countries as well as those Nato states which have refused to send troops to the country or insist, like France and Germany, that they must not be involved in combat operations.

There is no sign, despite pressure from the US and Britain, of any move within Nato to send reinforcements to Afghanistan.

While western governments, like the Senlis Council and Oxfam, are increasingly concerned about the lack of effectiveness of President Hamid Karzai's government, there is no agreement about how to solve the problems.

While the Senlis Council wants Nato forces' provincial reconstruction teams to take on a bigger role distributing aid, Oxfam says the military should stick to providing security. And while the council says opium poppies should be bought by the international community and used licitly for medical purposes, Oxfam argues that such a project would be impossible given the current state of Afghanistan.


People like hamidm...put THAT in your pipe and smoke it! You just can NOT force people to become like you want them to.
No matter how much you bomb them...