That Pakistan Problem
By Steve Hynd Tuesday Sep 16, 2008 3:00pmRachel Maddow covers Pakistan's order to shoot at US troops.
Following reports of a US raid into Pakistan which was turned back by border guards firing into the air, the Pakistani military - which have the vocal backing of their president and prime minister, have issued a statement about any future raids. You don't get much clearer than this.
...Army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas told The Associated Press that after U.S. helicopters ferried troops into a militant stronghold in the South Waziristan tribal region, the military told field commanders to prevent any similar raids.
"The orders are clear," Abbas said in an interview. "In case it happens again in this form, that there is a very significant detection, which is very definite, no ambiguity, across the border, on ground or in the air: open fire."
The Pentagon's entire response - speaking for the Bush administration because no-one higher has made a statement - is to send out a spokesman to tell reporters that Pakistan will be told to change its mind.
In Washington, a Pentagon spokesman said Pakistan would "correct the record" on the latest statement. "We enjoy good cooperation with Pakistan along the border," said the spokesman, Bryan Whitman. "Pakistan is an ally in the global war on terror."
The Bush administration's motto really is "We make our own reality".
Recent reports have it that Bush himself ordered this new belligerence on the part of US forces along the Afghnaistan/Pakistan border - over the objections of his entire intelligence community who said it would destabilize Pakistan's political balance, possibly fatally. Since then, both President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani have both endorsed the stance made by Pakistan's army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, who has stated that Pakistan would not allow foreign troops on its soil and Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity would be defended "at all costs".
Afghanistan, India and NATO allies alike have said for a long time that the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI, controls and directs Islamist extremist groups including the Taliban and groups carrying out attacks inside India. It is also said to have close ties with Al Qaeda. But for domestic political reasons American politicians and pundits have previously tended to ignore those ties. Only recently, following officially orchestrated "leaks" from the Bush administration, have the American establishment media began to suggest the truth - that the Bush administration has been thoroughly played by Pakistan throughout the "war on terror".
... even some Pakistanis said the U.S. government was naive to think that Musharraf or his generals would do much to find bin Laden. They noted that Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency had cultivated ties with the al-Qaeda leader for two decades and that many officers remained sympathetic to his cause.
Afrasiab Khattak, a Pashtun politician based here in the northwestern city of Peshawar, said Pakistani forces would occasionally help the CIA capture second-string al-Qaeda figures, but only to keep the aid money flowing from Washington.
"The Bush administration deceived itself," he said. "From the very beginning, the Pakistani generals were playing a double game. It was an open secret."
Khattak said he has warned U.S. officials since 2000 of bin Laden's close relations with Pakistan's spymasters, adding that he tried to alert Washington after 2002 that al-Qaeda was rebuilding in the tribal areas.
"We kept telling the Americans, 'They are here.' They said:'No, no. This cannot be true. General Musharraf is very committed, he's with us,' " recalled Khattak, president of the Awami National Party in North-West Frontier Province.
The aim of these new raids, and recent strikes by Predator drones, is to strike at Osama bin Laden and top al-Qaida leadership. But if a strike is to kill Bin Laden, or the Taliban's leader Mullah Omar, it will likely do so at a safe house owned by the ISI, which would cause an anti-American explosion in Pakistan's military and convulsions in Pakistani society which would certainly oust anyone willing to back the US. Several former senior intelligence officers went on the record for the Washington Post recently to say that the risks of this new policy outweigh the benefits and former officials from both NATO allies and Pakistan agreed:
"This has become incredibly complicated and messy," said a former senior British intelligence official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "The Americans have been talking about inserting themselves militarily into the tribal areas since 2005, at least. But I think it would just complicate the whole issue by a very significant factor."
... "We thought, and we still think so, that the American strategy should have been to stabilize the area rather than look for a needle in a haystack," said Mahmood Shah, a retired civilian security chief for the tribal regions.
"If you find him now, the problem still won't be resolved," he said of bin Laden. "Maybe you'll get the fish, but you'll poison the pond around him."
Several supporters of Barack Obama have recently noted that Bush's new policy of cross-border raids echoes one part of Obama's stated policy for Pakistan - the part John McCain attacked him for. Their line has been that even Dubya disagrees with McCain on this one. But on this occasion both Obama and Bush are wrong. McCain isn't right though - just clueless. He has no plan at all except to continue what Bush used to do before he started doing what McCain had already condemned Obama for suggesting.
To some, this might look like bad news for Obama's foreign policy - the McCain campaign has characterized his stance as saying Obama would invade Pakistan in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and others - but that would be to only look at soundbytes. Obama's position is actually more nuanced. This is what he wrote:
The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won’t. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.
Make no mistake: we can’t succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It’s time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That’s why I’m cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam.
The first paragraph there, which sounds like it was written by the ZBig contingent of Democratic hawks in Obama's campaign, is the part that has gotten most attention - and was probably intended to do so. It's a hawkish soundbite and, in general, presidential candidates have rarely suffered from sounding hawkish to the American electorate.
Even so, it clearly calls for carefully targeted attacks on high-level terrorists, not indiscriminate bombing or shooting of villagers based on fingerpointing for bounty money. One of the problems with Obama's plan, of course, is how to target strikes that well. As Bob Woodward wrote the other day, the US military certainly has the equipment and expertise to carry out extensive real-time integrated electronic intercepts, intelligence gathering and command - what's been called "collaborative warfare" - but all the technology and people to do that are still mired in Iraq chasing Al Qaeda (who wouldn't be there if Bush hadn't invaded).
The other is Pakistani hostility to America which such strikes would only worsen - and that's where the second part of Obama's plan comes in. The second paragraph reads more as something that could have come from a progressive think-tank. It calls for a Marshall Plan of civilian aid to Pakistan, aimed at stabilizing the economy, the government and people's lives. That's far more the kind of thing that's needed - removing the levers by which the Taliban and their ISI handlers manipulate Pakistani politics, making America obviously a friend to the people as well as the feudal military elite, and thus removing their ability to stay safe and hidden. Even SecDef Bob Gates agrees with it.
It's a great plan and in my humble opinion is something Obama should be stressing far more. Especially as a contrast to McCain's policy on Pakistan - which is to continue the Bush administration's transfer of alliance from a dictator in uniform to one of the most corrupt figures in a very slimy political pool while keeping Pakistan's military supplied with F-16 fighters and ship-killing missiles which have little or no use in any battle against the militants but can instead have only one real target - India. Arming both nuclear-armed sides in a Cold War which has boiled over into violence several times over the years - always at Pakistan's instigation - is pure insanity.
From material originally posted in a different form at Newshoggers
Login or Register to post comments.
Many people in Pakistan aren't interested in u.s.
style democracy at all.
Sounds like an un-friendly fire incident coming right up.
the current administration isnt interested in democracy either
"Correct the record", or what? Will we support a coup in favour of someone else who is better on their knees?
I know it's OT but [Deleted. You're right, it is off topic. Please feel free to post it on an Open Thread. Thank you. Site Monitor]
Not often my stomach starts churning when I read a news item. This is one of those times. You just know that Bush will ignore the warning, plunge in, and it will end up in a huge clusterf***. Bet on it.
Pakistan, Russia, Iran, Syria and Latin America are sick of our involvement (US) because they know we are behide all wars in 20th century.
this is what happened when you take your allies for granted and started killing its civilians and expect no retaliation. This shows Bush administration is living in a lala land and going by its "instincts" These cross-border raids have become an issue for the pakistani govt also. All these tribal vilages where civilian deaths have happened, has given birth to more suicide bombers to take revange on pakistani govt since its a US ally in the war on terror. US airfoce and army is constantly targeting villages on the slightest hint of so called intelligence which is usually resulted due to tribal rivalry.
well shit...
The BushCo administration is trying their level best to piss off every country in the world.
Rush to War @ 6:
[Mel Gibson] No, the Jews cause all the wars! [/Mel Gibson]
Seriously though,we are getting in a very bad way right now. We are coming to the point where there is no return to a nice place for us. I bet $5 that we cause a third global war, over this war on
humanityerm I mean "terror", and we lose so badly that we are wiped from the history books for good.I would emphasize it as follows: "And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."
Well.. we haven't had bin Laden in our sights to date. Or at least not since Tora Bora. But the more important "if" is the first one.
Pakistan wants bin Laden dead as well. It's just that they can't/won't start what would amount to a full-blown civil war in the Tribal Areas just to find him. But the question already presupposes that the USA would have reliable evidence of where he was. I see no reason to assume Pakistan would not act in a situation where the USA actually did have reliable evidence.
What's actually going on seems to be this:
USA: Hey Pakistan, some guy told us Bin Laden was in this village. We'd like to bomb the crap out of it. Is that okay?
Pakistan: Hell no!
[USA does it anyway]
Pakistan: F--k you!
I just hope the shit doesn't hit the fan until I finish moving into the mountains of central Mexico. Or maybe South America would be better.
That criminal idiot Bush is so fixated on finding Bin Laden before his term of office ends that he's sure to do something really stupid, like invading Pakistan with ground forces and then getting the aforementioned ground forces massacred by the Pakistani army. Then will come the BushCo lies and Pentagon spin and the escalation of tensions that culminate in US air strikes on Pakistani border villages. And the inevitable collateral damage as yet more hundreds of innocent civilians are killed and maimed. And so it'll go on... ad nauseum... ad infinitum.
hey, no problem...just have John McCain sit them down and tell them to "knock that shit off"!
You have to wonder if Woodward's been snowed about those “collaborative warfare” capabilities, though, because it seems like there's still 150,000 troops in Iraq despite all of that nifty stuff he claims in his book. We've heard the same kinds of claims about "smart" bombs and "intelligent" munitions for decades, and after each breathless announcement, it inevitably turns out that the weapons weren't anywhere near as effective or discriminate as the military's claims.
I have no doubt that "hundreds of suspected terrorists and their supporters" have been "captured and killed" (as the WaPo article claims) but the weasel word there is "suspected." Sort of like how all those guys at Guantanamo were the "worst of the worst" until it was discovered that most of them weren't much of anything at all.
Nick @ 5:
Yeah, I got the same sick feeling as you did. We are playing with rattle snakes who could strike out at any minute. Not a good time to start poking them with sticks.
We are also concerned when we read the Times of India article
US faces the F-16s it supplied Pakistan
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/US_faces_the_F-16s_it_supplied_Pakist...
On the bailouts, I was researching possible connections to the firms.
The only thing I can see is that there are alot of Greenbergs involved.
I imagine though that is a common name.
I cant imagine that they are all related. I dont know.
Maurice Greenberg's AIG
http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromPersonIdPerson...
Alan Greenberg - Bear Sterns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenberg
I also found another Greenberg article
Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg Opens Attack On Spitzer, Allegations
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR200512...
Theres even a florida Greenberg Law Firm that Represented George W. Bush in the Bush-Gore 2000 Florida election vote recount
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Greenberg_Traurig
While I agree with many of the sentiments expressed here, let's not forget that Obama said he would go into Pakistan without advance permission if intelligence warranted it.
Just wondering, how many sovereign countries DO allow other countries to launch raids on their soil? Any? Hypothetically, if Russia determined for example that a Chechen rebel had fled to the US, could they drop a bomb on the US and expect the US to shrug it off? In all honesty, this is getting very, very frightening.
I should clarify my above remark. Obama said that before Pakistan started standing up to these unauthorized (by Pakistan) incursions. Not sure what he would say now.
“Pakistan is an ally in the global war on terror.”
Why yes, yes you are!
How about if we give you our Senior "war criminals", free-of-charge.
Now put away those nukes will ya?
Sigh @ 17:
Then the US Armed forces are no better than Bin Laden, right?
"Making their own reality" is a trait shared by many in the Republican party, including both John McCain and Sarah Palin. Non-Republicans usually refer to this trait as lying.
It might be that the Republicans are attempting to create their own "Matrix", but instead of using technology they use lies, faith, and fear to reshape reality.
The Smiths @ 16:
*snort* Really? Concerned about Pakistan after reading the Indian press?
Does bush have a goal for deaths he has caused and he wants to reach it before he leaves office? I swear to god, the guy is a dangerous lunatic.
And speaking of Bu$h, where is that creepy elitist fucktard these days? On vacation??
Zilam @ 9:
I don't think it's quite THAT bad just yet...damn close though.
Couple of things here:
How can the Pakistani military shoot down US planes and helicopters in an area that they claim that they dont control?
How is this whole episode going to effect the supplies that are trucked through Pakistan to the NATO forces in Afghanistan, and almost all of the supplies for NATO are trucked through Pakistan.
If the ISI is safeguarding Osama and Omar, why in the hell do we still have the CIA embeded with them in the tribal areas? Seems to me that would be a perfect example of the Buish doctrine, doesn't do any good but we are spending money on it.
Many americans are concerned about the level of arms sales around the world.
http://fas.org/programs/ssp/asmp/index.html
Pakistan has been a problem in the GWOT since day one. Bush has backed off going after OBL and kept the Pakistanis happy while breaking his word to go to the ends of the Earth to capture OBL. At least that was the story when OBL was really the mastermind behind 9/11. I don't like war as much as the next guy but have to view it as the "sometimes, only desirable alternative preferably avoided but sometimes necessary which is why WARS shouldn't be elective". That strikes counter to the Bush doctrine. And given that we send a considerable amount of money to Pakistan, one would think that they would actually be willing to help us in the GWOT. They never have, they don't want us to violate their borders to go after al-Qaeda because it would upset deals with tribal leaders in the border region. They can't afford the internal conflict it would cause. Another failure of the Bush doctrine and I believe, unless we totally bail on Afghanistan and the destruction of al-Qaeda, we will have to go to war with Pakistan at some point.
Again, because BushCo took their eyes off the ball in Afghanistan and moved assets to Iraq, because we couldn't convince Pakistan into launching a "pincer" campaign, usa from the west, pakistan from the west (russia from the north and hell, even iran from the south, the GWOT in Afghanistan was lost. Just an observation based on events on the ground; maybe I'm wrong but hindsight is always 20/20.
jeff @ 28:
Because you can have troops in an area without controlling it? Because military control and political control are two completely different things?
The ISI probably isn't safeguarding Osama. The poster is just making unsubstantiated claims that have been floating about, which serve fine to promote the Bush agenda. Paint the Pakistani government as unwilling/unable to act, in order to justify US attacks that violate their soverenity.
"Cultivated ties with Bin Laden for 20 years".. more like: "20 years ago, when Bin Laden was in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets, they supported him". You could just as well claim the same for the CIA.
(Cernig: Were you promoting the idea of an al-Qaeda-Saddam connection before the Iraq War, too?)
why are we even there??
I thought Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino made it very clear that Osama Bin Laden was uninvolved in 9/11.
The Bush administration creates its own reality and the rest of us get to just catch up while they have moved on to creating another one of their 'realities'.... and so on and so forth... Isn't that the hubris filled pablum they've been selling since stealing power in 2000?? Yea, I think it is... Meanwhile in the 'real world' it's become apparent that this administration, so full of big brains and big plans for the world in which they presume they get to call all the shots.... has been punked from the get go.... by some of the very people they thought they could steer and manipulate to their own ends. Man, it's just like the marine D.I. in Full Metal Jacket intoned... 'God plays his games, we play ours'.. And evidently the Pakistanis play theirs too... Check and mate blud... Further, in the REAL world it has become pretty clear that other nations are getting tired of this Bush administration telling them what to do and how to run their own nations....As if sovereignty only counts when its the U.S.'s and only when it serves this administrations purposes to trot it out for consumption.
This so-called war on terrorism, much like it's actually been with the other so-called wars on poverty or drugs which have basically gone nowhere if you look at the track record, (although to be fair the poverty war was making inroads into solving some of that till republicans gutted the programs that were addressing this blight on our nation)... this partcular war, (fiction that it's always been) is starting to come off the rails in a big way... Or maybe when one of your so-called partners is telling you to fuck off and don't come back unless you want your ass shot off.. in so many words... That's not the proper reality and 'that' reality needs its 'record corrected'...Republicans are nothing if not good at creating cute oblique references and benign sounding euphemisms for their huge fuckups.... All I can tell yas is, to borrow and paraphrase a quaint line from Donny (should be in the Hague standing trial) Rumsfeld is; you deal with the reality you have, not the reality you'd like to have cousin..... And that's the real reality sammich... Take a big ol bite of it Georgie, you too Dickie... Savor that shit sammich... You two made it....JD
Hey, they only have 6 wks to finish proving that the world is too dangerous for anyone but a senile neo-con war monger and his wannabe dictator buddy to run the US of A.
So, today I got my copy of "Obsession" the Islamaphobe propaganda movie in the mail, and this week we have Americans being accused of provoking war in South America, and attacking across borders in Pakistan - all under the Bush neo-con regime.
This follows last month's McCain neo-con staff member egging on war between Russia and Georgia.
All to the accompanying sound of Wall St. crashing.
No coincidence, I'm sure.
Sigh @ 18:
your correct and i believe i could be wrong about this. the republicans/NEOCONs said it nonsense and bad strategy.
i see a difference.
whats with the "beep beep beeping" in the background? tis annoying
weren't the republicans against it before they became
for it...?
This post believes that Obama's position is "more nuanced" as when Obama claims that he is "standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistanis people." How, by calling for unilateral action to, if he deems it necessary, invade Pakistan? Judging by Obama's hawkish rhetoric, it is quite doubtful if Obama would rescind Bush's recently reported executive order authorizing U.S. Special Forces in Pakistan. Obama's neoliberal policies sound quite similar to what JFK did when he sent in "advisers" to Vietnam and when LBJ dramatically escalated the war by sending in hundreds of thousands of American soldiers into Vietnam, all in the name of helping the Vietnamese people, which ended up killing between 3 to 5 million of them.
One wonders if true liberals and progressives will ever wake up to the fact that they have been conned by the Democrats. It is very similar when Lucy would hold the football for Charlie Brown. Lucy would tell Charlie that he could trust her to hold the football in place and each time she would whisk it away when Charlie Brown would attempt to kick the ball away. Likewise, every time the Democrats claim to be better than the Republicans when it comes to foreign policy, the Democrats, as this book makes perfectly clear, prove to be just as militaristic and just as bellicose as their political counter parts.
http://www.amazon.com/Savage-Mules-Democrats-Endless-War/dp/1844672654
Should I remind you that these sort of incursions into Pakistan are what Obama has repeatedly called for and what Biden has also proposed?
Erroll beat me to it and did a much better job.
right on! @ 26:
Raising cash for McPalin, after scooping a thimble-full of water back into The gulf of Mexico:
http://cbs11tv.com/local/President.Bush.Galveston.2.818542.html
roooth @ 34:
I got a copy of Obsession in the Palm Beach Post earlier this week. Who mailed you your copy?
Dr. Maddow, You cited a report where Pakistani forces were firing on US
GI"S. First both sides deny it and even if it was
true, what would you do if soldiers from another country (friend or foe) attack your frontier, routinely kill innocent women
children and men and then apologize for the mistake? You did not mention this part on Msnbc last night!
Terry
31 alexdem
The Pakistani army has said that they have withdrawn the military from the tribal areas.
As to Osama and Omar, Omar most assuredly is being helped by the ISI, they are the people that put him charge of Afghanistan in the first place.
I trust the ISI even less than i would trust the CIA, and that is a pretty low bar to crawl under.
Alexdem @ 31
The ISI probably isn’t safeguarding Osama. The poster is just making unsubstantiated claims that have been floating about, which serve fine to promote the Bush agenda. Paint the Pakistani government as unwilling/unable to act, in order to justify US attacks that violate their soverenity.
Umm, no. Those allegations were pervasive and have come from India, the UK, NATO forces in Afghanistan and the Afghan government. They've been based on UK intel leaks, captured ISI agents in Afghanistan, captured Taleban spokesman Muhammad Hanif , catch and release of Taliban bigwigs like Mullah Obaidullah Akhund by Pakistan, the comparable safe haven offered to the likes of Lek leadership and analysis from Jane's Inteligence Review. But all date to the time when Bush was saying Mushie was a staunch ally and wasn't ordering US troops over the border - you've got your causality all back to front there - and were very under-reported in the US media of the time.
"Were you promoting the idea of an al-Qaeda-Saddam connection before the Iraq War, too?" Ummm, no. Again.
Regards, C
Errol and wheyghey,
Should I remind you that the first, belligerent part of his policy is exactly what Obama should walk away from? I mean, you did just read the post, right? That was its entire point.
Regards, C
fastfeat @ 41:
Warning against disaster fatigue. Jesus, the worst disaster in the history of the U.S.(Bush) is warning us about disaster fatigue. Too late, mother f*cker.
jeff @ 44:
Their peace agreement said they would gradually withdraw troops. What's your source of them claiming that they have?
Whatever the claims are, they haven't. They killed 94 militants, losing 14 troops just two weeks ago.
Right. And they probably killed Kennedy too. There may be 'rouge elements' in the ISI that are sympathetic to the Taliban. That hasn't been proven.
But what I'd like to know, is why someone would believe this entire organization, which like everything in Pakistan's government, is dominated by Urdu-speaking Punjabis, would support a Pashtun organization, in particular since Pashto tribesmen have been a royal pain-in-the-ass of Pakistan since the tribal regions elected to join Pakistan in the first place?
I don't trust them either. That doesn't mean I think they'll act against their own best interests.
Cernig @ 45:
India is an extremely close ally to both the UK and the US. NATO's partisanship goes without saying, Afghanistan has a yes man who'll do anything the U.S. tells him to do, especially since he gets a nice fat check every year.
UK intel leaks are not credible enough, just like they weren't credible during the run up to the Iraq invasion. Captured ISI agents and Taliban people could tell you anything you want to hear just to stop the beatings and torture.
Next time, Cernig, try to come up with reliable sources that don't have the same credibility as a Pentagon spokesperson or Dana Perino.
I was there last month . . I was in front of the ordnance factory hit by suicide bombers 12 - 14 hours before the bombs went off. When Musharraf left there was a gneral feeling in Pakistan that of hope that they would now get to chart their own course ... and part of that course is throwing off the ties that have bound them to the US .. besides Musharraf wasting the money the US sent, We have renigged on our trade agreements with Pakistan and they know full good and well that they are pawns in our game ..
it's common knowledge in Pakistan that we had Osama cornered and we let him go - so that the republicans could use him to stay in office .. so you know all those sould being lost to bombs - we are being blamed
Plus we are being blamed for wrecking their economy as they foot the bill for the Afghan refugees - but all the money we sent sure made the military more powerful .. and they are building luxury homes in gated communities in side Pakistan with it.
And they want us to stay out of meddling with their country and their government.
Many said that left to them, they will take care of bin Laden .. some even asking why NWFP isn't cut up into two REAL provinces.
my diary is here http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/16/184616/899/644/569895
I should be writing more I brought back newspapers and had many, many conversations.
RFID @ 49:
More importantly, India is the sworn enemy of Pakistan. How many wars have they fought against eachother? I lost count.
Didn't Obama once say the if he, as commander in cheif, had actionable intelligence about terrorist targets in Pakistan and they refused to act on it that he would send US troops in with or without their permission? Am I remembering that right?
52 shaggles - did you read the whole post or just the title?
RFID, my point is that all of these sources and reports came out back when they didn't support the Bush administration line and so I can hardly be accused of being in the same league as Perino. To be honest, I find that deeply insulting. I've been following this issue for years, reading as much as I can grab from the international press, thinktanks, etc on the subject. I'm trying to be polite about this but come on, don't you understand the "arrow of time"? Do apples fall up in your universe?
Alexdem, four. Pakistan started them all.
BTW -- the UNO (United Nation Observers) are all over Pakistan .. we saw their jeeps every where ... so if the UN suggests that bin Laden is in a ISI safehouse it's because they have some intelligence and boots on the ground.
they aren't just repeating some internet rumor
Pakistan - that's right next door to Iraq, right?
Cernig @ 46:
C
Yes, I did indeed read the entire post in which you did note Obama's hawkish recommendations but you also stated, as I mentioned, that Obama's position is "more nuanced." You did read that part of my comment in which I quoted your words, did you not? Would Obama's desire to send humanitarian aid to Pakistan somehow obscure his advocacy of sending American soldiers into Pakistan? Since I am in agreement with your desire for Obama to place the emphasis upon aid rather than bombs and bullets, I fail to understand why you are complaining.
As far as your hope [to use one of Obama's favorite words] that Obama will become less belligerent, this sounds quite similar to the plea put forth by The Nation magazine a few weeks ago, beseeching Obama not to keep a residual force in Iraq even after his phased [as opposed to immediate] withdrawal would finally take place. It is extremely doubtful if that obsequious letter signed by many prominent liberals and intellectuals would even be read by Obama much less even be acted upon by the so-called agent of change. It is far more likely that Obama will continue to listen to his hawkish advisers, i.e. Madeleine Albright, Warren Christopher, Anthony Lake, and, as you mentioned, Brezinski. The last thing that Obama wishes to do is to appear soft on security and by doing so that would in all likelihood mean the deaths of more innocent Afghans and Pakistanis, if not Iranians, if he decides to also set his sights on Iran.
Has anyone else noticed that everything is all coming undone just as Bush is about to leave office. They held it all together just long enough, didn't they?
Of course, not to say we(people on the left) told ya' so but we did predict everything that's happening. No one wanted to believe us. We were just a "alarmists." What's that sound? Oh shit! It's all the alarms going off at once.
59 Freddy Knuckles
don'
t forget that in prediocting this we were told .. "oh you just want us to fail. you want us to loose"
no we wanted you to be more sane, responsible, and intelligent about our policies and actions overseas, and in our financial markets
Please post the second half of this segment where Maddow explains how the White House is threatening to veto a bill that would allow troops from the first Gulf War to sue those who tortured them when they by the Iraqis in Abu Ghraib. Apparently, Bush is worried about those kinds of suits.
The Fundamentally Strong Rusty Shackleford Says: "Pakistan - that’s right next door to Iraq, right?"
OIn the off chance that you're not kidding, no. Iraq and Pakistan are not neighbors. There are a couple countries in between. Like Afghanistan and Iran.
Pakistan has never stood up to the U.S. in such a blunt way... ever. Basically I see this as Pakistan realizing that the tides are turning and suspect them of making stronger but secret ties with China. We are in shambles politically, don't have the resources, nor the will power to be standing up against the Pakistani government if they show some teeth. Musharraf is gone and that country isn't our puppet any longer. Basically, the next president will have a huge stinky pile of sh*t to deal with.
Great post.
And I agree, Obama's plan is a smart one.
and this is news How??? Pakistani forces have been shooting at us since 2002
Pakistan Border Guard Injures U.S. Soldier in Afghanistan
By Jim Garamone / American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Dec. 31, 2002 — A Pakistani border guard shot and wounded a U.S. soldier Dec. 29 during an incident on the Afghan border with Pakistan, Joint Task Force-180 officials said.The soldier received a grazing wound to the back of the head. He was evacuated to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany and is listed as stable.
The incident occurred near Shkin. U.S. soldiers were observing Pakistani border guards destroy inert missiles found in the area. The border in the region is in dispute, but U.S. officials said the American soldiers were within Afghanistan.
Officials said one of the border guards approached the U.S. patrol. The American soldiers asked him to go back to his side of the boundary. As he walked back, the border guard turned, dropped to one knee, and fired on the Americans. The U.S. soldier was wounded at this time. American officials said the other Pakistani guards in the area helped the U.S. forces.
http://www.defendamerica.mil/archive/2003-01/20030101.html
very short and make it simple dont let pakistan to make nuclear 9-11, be positive about pakistan warnings. this is the hidden enemy of future.
Does anyone else find the second part of this clip just as disturbing as the Pakistan stuff? Our own administration blocking U.S. POW war vets from suing a foreign government for injuries received while being tortured? As Maddow says, "Where does this fall on the 'Support the Troops' scale"?
Truly sad. This should be another attack ad by Obama on Republican hypocrisy and why change is needed.
Gee, I sure cannot understand the Pakistani government's position regarding US military intervention into Pakistani territory. Oh, wait ... something to do with national sovereignty. What a concept! Too bad the Bush administration and most of the politicos on Capital Hill do NOT have such a clearly defined concept about OUR national sovereignty. We have open borders, with 20 to 28 million illegal aliens inside our country, and OUR government doesn't have clue-one just whom we are hosting -- violent international street gangs like MS-13, drug lords, slave-masters, Hezbollah, al Queda, agents and fifth columnist insurgents of hostile foreign governments, and an illegal alien workforce that is DEFINITELY taking citizen's jobs in the time of worsening unemployment.
Our wonderful justice system throws Border Patrol agents into prison for wounding and apprehending a violent Mexican drug kingpin, and (like conservationists) employ a "catch-and-release" policy when processing illegal aliens with fraudulent documentation working in USA factories (as if the illegal aliens are somehow an endangered species, NOT!)
Don't you know, though, that the USA is imperialistically ENTITLED to put its' troops, national or international surrogate troops, clandestine forces, spies and agents ANYWHERE we want to, just because. So while we repeatedly violate Pakistan's territorial sovereignty, we are also doing the same in Iran. Creating turmoil, stirring up violent indigenous opposition, and even destroying infrastructure in places like Bolivia and Venezuela just because we don't like their politics, even though they are democracies. If we do it, we are helping to spread USA-style democracy (which is slipping away), but if the opposing teams do the same thing here, we call it terrorism.
Our CIA, guilty of many decades of interference in other countries' internal affairs, has a special term for unintended consequences, called "blow-back".
After so many foreign assassinations, coup-de-tats, breaking foreign labor movements, and otherwise interfering in other countries' domestic affairs (, not to mention agricultural & industrial sabotage or armed invasions), this country is long overdue for some reprocity.
What a cluster fuck.
The American Dream is failing because the American Dream has become the world's nightmare.
Since world war II, America has invaded Iraq (twice), Haiti, Panama, Grenada, Laos, Cambodia, North Korea, Nicaragua, Lebanon, Somalia, the Dominican Republic and a bunch of other Latin American countries. The US has bombed civilian populations in Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Lebanon (actually, naval shelling) and North Vietnam. I probably missed a few. The US has overthrown or attempted to overthrow numerous countries – “regime change” – and has been involved with coups against democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, Venezuela, Haiti and Chile - (I guess we can add Pakistan to that ever growing list).
Under George W. Bush, the US has dropped the Kyoto treaty, canceled the ABM treaty, refused to join in banning of land mines and biological weapons and has invaded Iraq.
After years of bombardment from the mainstream media, the American population has been dumbed-down and programmed to ignore the substance, realities and the issues of the world around them, and instead focus on the peripheral, pointless and more often than not, irrelevant sideshows created by a news media full of hucksters, corporate bootlickers and suck-ups.
America has become a circus and a nation of voyeurs and peeping Toms. It is slowly devolving into a mindless freak show that millions of simpletons can watch every night on their TV's.
As a result, their media has convinced the American people that they are the good guys. Americans still view themselves as the cavalry and the liberators, but, they are in fact viewed as the hostile invaders, the belligerent occupiers and that which must be resisted.
Until the American people learn this truth, nothing will change in America.
If the world has to deal with John “Dubya II” McCain and his sidekick, Sarah “my god can kick your god’s ass” Palin, we can expect more of the same mindless light on brains, heavy on bombs, forget the economy. Sadly, I don't expect much better from the Democrats.
http://blogoffanddie.wordpress.com
Vote McCain/Palin and build a bomb shelter. Better yet, vote Nader/Gonzales
The War on Terrorism is a Lie
The war on terrorism is a lie because terrorism is not an enemy, it is a strategy.
Terrorism is a strategy employed by weaker states and non-state actors when fighting an asymmetric war against a more powerful opponent.
No state or non-state actor enters a conventional war against an enemy it has no chance of defeating conventionally.
Since the U.S. has declared that it will maintain military superiority without challenge, it has done everything in its power to do just that. The US defense budget for 2008 is some $700 billion. There is no single state or non-state actor on this planet that can defeat the United States in a conventional war.
Therefore, any single state or non-state actor that finds itself at war with the United States will be forced to fight an asymmetric war. That is, it will be forced to employ terrorism.
Therefore the war on terrorism is a war against anyone at war with the United States. Therefore the war on terrorism is a lie. It is not a war on terrorism at all, but a war to promote and defend US imperialism.
This has been all over the news on the other side of the atlantic for some days now.
When the bullets start flying, American soldiers will feel the touch of home because American dollars probably paid for the arms. This government has thought it could buy friends around the globe. We have paid for the weapons that may be leveled against us. One word - Madness.
Thank you Mr. Bush for making us safe.
Obama's wrong on both paragraphs, Cernig.
His first one, you rightly ridiculed. Putting more troops in Afghanistan is not the issue: we should be pulling ALL of our troops out of that nightmare that we went into so a US company could get an exclusive pipeline deal, so that the US could have a military base of operations closer to Russia and China, and so that the CIA could flood the Russian and European heroin markets.
But the second one, about nonmilitary aid, won't do any good in that feudal society. Whether it's Musharraf, Zardari, or Sharif: the rich will always get richer in Pakistan, basking in the mansions on the hill, while the (strong majority of the pop.) illiterate poor will keep slaving away like the serfs that they're forced to be.
God help that country, but it isn't going to get any better through our doing.
Rachel,
Did you really mean "How dare the Pakistani soldiers fire on ours? If so,You've been distracted by lipstick and Mactheknife too much and not bothered with silly things like illegal invasion and jackboot belligerence.
Zilam @ 10:
Dude, I hope not. That would really ruin the view from my front yard.
John Maszka @ 71:
Bingo.
Discover and address the underlying reasons for the desperation that causes people to resort to terrorism and you have some chance of making progress.
Address it with brute military force, and you just cause more blowback and more terrorism. Like opening all the windows when your house is on fire - not a good idea.
send Caribou Barbie, that'll be a real hoot.
Meddy @ 63:
Yup.
The path forward will be an interesting one as US power and influence around the world continues to decline. Things could begin to change quite drastically in relatively short order.
I think we're seeing the beginnings of that now... south america, russia, pakistan. China is probably coming up soon (are people in Taiwan getting nervous?)
this is about to get very ugly;
After vows to respect sovereignty, U.S. strikes in Pakistan By Saeed Shah, McClatchy Newspapers
Wed Sep 17, 5:12 PM ET
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A U.S. missile strike Wednesday in Pakistan further inflamed relations between the two anti-terrorism allies, just hours after the American military chief vowed to "respect Pakistan's sovereignty."
The strike against suspected militants in Pakistan's tribal area, which runs along the Afghan border, is thought to be the sixth such attack this month. It came as Washington is demanding that Islamabad do more to prevent Taliban and al Qaida extremists from using its territory.
Pakistani leaders have condemned the U.S. military interventions, which include the first documented American ground raid in the country earlier this month. The strikes have caused an uproar in Pakistan .
Four missiles were fired from unmanned U.S. aircraft Wednesday at a suspected militant hideout at around 7 p.m. local time in a village in South Waziristan , killing at least six people, according to a local security official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he isn't authorized to talk to journalists.
American strikes were used infrequently in the tribal area in the past, but there's been an intensified bombardment over the last few weeks. Washington thinks that Taliban and al Qaida fighters allied against the coalition in Afghanistan are using Pakistan's tribal territory as a refuge. Some analysts think that the Bush administration is trying to land major al Qaida scalps before the end of his term. Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al Zawahri , are thought to be most likely hiding in the tribal area.
The target of Wednesday's strike is thought to be a compound used by Taliban and the Hezb-i-Islami, a militant group fighting in Afghanistan that's associated with the notorious veteran jihadist Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The previous aerial assaults have killed militants, including senior al Qaida commanders, but also dozens of civilians.
Earlier in the day, U.S. Adm. Mike Mullen , the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was making a surprise visit to Pakistan , said in a statement released by the American Embassy in Islamabad that he "reiterated the U.S. commitment to respect Pakistan's sovereignty and to develop further U.S.-Pakistani cooperation" after talks with his Pakistani counterpart, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani , and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani . A separate statement from the Pentagon made no mention of respecting Pakistani sovereignty.
Mullen's arrival appeared to be a reaction to the furor caused by the American ground incursion.
It was Mullen's fifth trip to Pakistan since he took the top military job last October, not counting a leaked secret meeting at sea with Kayani last month.
"I have been encouraged by what General Kayani and the Pakistani army have been willing to do in the border regions," the Pentagon quoted Mullen as saying. "They recognize the threat they face internal to Pakistan and are improving their counterinsurgency capabilities. This is a critical part of the world."
The Pakistani army has been engaged since early August in what looks like its strongest operation against militants in another part of the tribal area, Bajaur, where it claims that more than 500 extremists have been killed.
" Pakistan would not allow anyone to take action on its soil, as it has capacity to deal with the terrorists," said Pakistan's defense minister, Ahmed Mukhtar , who spoke before the fresh strike. "But we can't pick up guns and say, 'We're coming.' We have to proceed diplomatically."
Without Pakistan's help, U.S. and coalition forces have little hope of stemming supplies and militants crossing into Afghanistan from the tribal area, analysts think. There also are signs that the American assaults could trigger a mass uprising by moderate tribesman living in the tribal territory.
"It's a very fundamental issue of Pakistani sovereignty," said Talat Masood , a retired Pakistani general turned analyst. "This just cannot be tolerated, that there are continued violations and we are still called an ally. I think this will have to be reviewed for the sake of both sides."
The United Nations mandate for Afghanistan , under which U.S. and other international forces operate, doesn't extend to Pakistan . Pakistan has tolerated occasional American missile strikes in its tribal areas for several years, but the scale of the current attacks, along with the first American boots on Pakistani soil, has pushed relations to a crisis point.
(Shah is a McClatchy special correspondent.)
They don't want to be seen as collaborating with the US military.
US troops are a tangible evidence of collusion.
We have been using drones in Pakistan and that is ok with the Pakistani govt.
As long as the Pakistani people do not see American troops, it is ok for us to target and kill with drones.
Of course, drones and their missiles cost a shitload of money and can't be mass produced like Model Ts.
But Congress will fund drone technology and production when Pakistan's Mr Big says "No US troops on the ground."
And producers of weapons and weapon research and technology want to produce more drones. Wouldn't you if you stood to make a fortune?
.
... Because nothing says "Best Ally" like shots fired at you by that "Best Ally"... NO?
.
This is the most absurd comments by her. I think she and many republicans and few democrates still think that the only humans in the world are "them" and they are the only ones who enjoy any rights to live. I hope she understand that there are soverign rights of every nation, and if she does not understand that, then she and people like her are no better than osama. The crazy american military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan has hurt the world and Pakistan in particular. Thousands of innocents, civilians, children, women have been killed by sense and criminal bombings of american troops sanctioned by the bush administration, and has created havoc and terror in the lives of people and created armies for osama to fight the invaders. Is that a service to humanity, or to the world or to americans?? I think she should learn a bit more on humanity.... she still acts as a typical arrogant american living in her bubble of supremacy....
David @ 83:
Very well said. Maddow's comments, unfortunately, would seem to exemplify the notion of American Exceptionalism. It is also instructive to keep in mind that the candidate who is dubbed the agent of change desires, instead of changing, to instead perpetuate Bush's policies in Afghanistan while also reserving the right to send American forces into Pakistan, which would mean more innocent Afghans and Pakistanis being slaughtered by American bombs and bullets.
David @ 83:
I think you are mistaking Ms. Maddow with someone else.
She doesn't strike me at all, as being an American Exceptionalist...Talk about projection, lol!
#85-
I listened carefully to what Ms. Maddow said and she seemed to be aghast at the fact that Pakistani soldiers dared to fire at American soldiers and somehow believes that Pakistan is roiling the waters apparently because they are defending their country against an armed attack. I stand by what I said when I used the term American Exceptionalism since Ms. Maddow seems reluctant, at least in this instance, to lay blame where it rightly belongs and that is at the United States for sending its soldiers into, as she correctly notes, a country which is supposed to be an ally of this country. The obvious lesson that should be learned here is that the more times that the United States foolishly and stupidly decides to illegally invade other countries, the more likely it is that it will be hated and loathed by other nations, which would include sovereign as well as third world countries.
That's all we need, another conflict before the warmonger Bush sails into the sunset.
Alexdem @ 24:
No, you've got it wrong. The Indian press is being perfectly objective about Pakistan. (wink, nudge)
Many Americans this. Many Americans that. The 'sphere is awash with logical fallacies, with "appeal to the majority" being one of the more common missteps. Some people should learn to think/speak for themselves instead of co-opting consensus.
Login or Register to post comments.