74 Comments

1. Patriot Front:

Another gruesome consequence of Pakistan’s imploding is the growing futility in neighboring Afghanistan. It growing more likely that the only solution is there is no solution. All we have sacrificed and spent there, was it for nothing?

Nov 9, 2008 - 1:25 pm 2. mika2k1:

“The country, a frontline ally in the US-led campaign against Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants..”
==

LOL!

And Nazi Germany was a frontline ally in the campaign against Italian Fascists.

Nov 9, 2008 - 1:37 pm 3. heather:

Pakistan (Punjab plus Afghanistan plus Kashmir) was from its birth in 1948, Muslim. Compare Pakistan to India (now that the latter has dropped Fabian Socialism).

In my opinion, Islam’s legal system ENABLES tribalism, misogyny, and lack of property rights.

Now, Scotland at one time was clannish/tribal, but women were not a disdained class. Its lack of property rights have resulted in Western Scotland being completely depopulated, in favour of places where that right existed (ie, Canada, Australia, etc).

Islamics have also migrated to places where property rights exists, but they continue with misogyny, and their Islamic laws, and therefore tribalism. I don’t have much sympathy for them, by the way. Their societies are sick with the desire to be ’strong’ by having nuclear weapons. Let them glow in the dark… heroically.

At this point, I will be in strong support of withdrawing Canada’s military from Afghanistan.

Nov 9, 2008 - 1:39 pm 4. wretchard:

Consider whether the current economic crisis will reduce or increase the incidence of terror. It will certainly cut in both directions. The drop in oil prices will mean small donations to terror groups; less money for madrassas, increased pressure to find work among the young, etc.

But there are no real jobs to be had. Many societies don’t know how to produce anything. They’ve made money from politics and religion; religion and politics. If terrorism is a parasite it’s death throes will be particularly gruesome. They will turn in the short term to the only thing they know how to do: make trouble.

The coming years have the makings of a perfect storm.

Nov 9, 2008 - 1:44 pm 5. BT:

Quickly, quickly blame it on Obama. I follow Rush Limbaugh closely and that is what he told me to think.

Seriously though, the problems we face are compounding and reinforcing each other. I really hope that all Americans can suck it up and make the necessary concessions to reality, as they will likely conlfit with political needs.

The inability to build from reality has been a real weakness for conservative politics, and for W in particular. Their theory that they were divorced the reality-based community was essentially a 100% political formulation – They can take actions, tell stories and construct meta-narratives and so on. And the amazing thing is for quite a few election cycles (since Gingrich) elections were won almost exclusively with these ’stories’.

Perhaps W’s downfall is that unlike some of his predecessors, he kept the peddle to metal on his policies and stuck with the stories, right to the bitter end. Even Reagan ended up raising taxes when his self-financing tax cuts did not magically self-finance themselves – remember David Stockman, the one who got in trouble for introducing the reality on that?

Reality is back. Good Luck everyone.

Nov 9, 2008 - 1:45 pm 6. Andrew X:

It is presumptuous of me to ask Wretchard to address an issue, as it is his entirely brilliant blog, and I’m just a random doofus.

But I wonder if someone with military knowledge can set me a little at ease here.

“People shouldn’t talk about (military matters)without a map in front of them.”

Herman Wouk – The Winds of War

Go ahead and open up Google Earth and tell me something…. We have about 40,000 to 50,000 US troops in Afghan, more thousands of NATO troops. If we “lose” Pakistan to a militant anti-Western government, what the hell happens to them?? I don’t even mean supplying, I mean how the hell do we get them out of there alive? Let’s look at our choices: Pakistan – Gone. Iran – Hah. Turkmen or Uzbek or other Stans… to either Russia or the Caspian Sea… then to Aizerbaijan, then to Georgia (Russian Georgia?), then to the Black Sea and Bosporus.. and home free! Right. Next up is Russia. Not. A tiny border with China. Not.

Anything else I am missing? So lets pretend Paks a goner and we got these 50,000 sitting there like the 6th Army at Stalingrad (which went well).

What are we gonna do then? And how is this reality affecting current policy, and a possibly wise choice NOT to increase our Afghan presence, surge-like, even though it seems like we should?

Anyone out there smarter than me (a big stretch, I grant you who wants to chime in? I sleep unwell because of this.

Nov 9, 2008 - 1:53 pm 7. heather:

to continue down this gloomy road: consider the coming pension/Boomer/retirement problems, throughout Europe and North America.

The world has no idea how much it depends on an active American armed force, acting as a municipal policeman. Obama and his Change will have no trouble giving all of that up, in favour of keeping American on a fairly even financial keel.

So, the dominos fall, and the results will be very surprising for the First and the Third worlds.

You know, I was born during WWII, and in my lifetime, my world has become steadily wealthier (a small glitch in 1982 – 87). I am preparing for all sorts of surprises in the rest of my life.

Nov 9, 2008 - 1:55 pm 8. NahnCee:

No more money for Pakistan, unless we want to instiute a bounty policy where we pay individuals $100 per head for Taliban and terrorist heads. If the dead terrorist proves to be an ex-next-door neighbor with a grudge, no big deal.

I’d also put India in charge of handing out the bounty money.

In fact, I’d favor just putting India in charge of Pakistan and washing our hands of that whole benighted country. Also, no further immigration allowed to the U.S. from Pakistan under any circumstances. Nor tourist visa’s.

Nov 9, 2008 - 2:01 pm 9. krontekag:

BT, the urge to continue the fight against the “real enemy”, conservatism, is strong, is it not?

If you and your ilk continue with that rubbish, you’ll be playing from Nero’s songbook before long. Only afterwards will someone tentatively, shyly, suggest that W actually did a good job repelling the hordes for a while. Then they’ll go back to looking for garbage to eat from among the ruins.

Here’s hoping that Obama is smart enough to draw the right conclusions from the information he now has: a) access to and b) responsibility for acting on.

Nov 9, 2008 - 2:02 pm 10. Andrew X:

“they can take actions, tell stories and construct meta-narratives and so on.”

Nice transference BT. That’s right up there with Michael Moore’s statement that it has been Republicans over the past years who have been vociferously hate-filled, not those Bambi-eyed Democrats at Kos and the like.

What happened to the HUGE ‘meta-narrative’ that Iraq was an utterly lost cause? How ’bout the current one that Democrats encouraging and even forcing loans to millions of people that were not able to repay them had NOTHING to do with today’s economic crisis. And that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are the PERFECT people to lead the charge to deal with it. That ‘meta-narrative’ is running strong. And that the drop in oil prices will cause rampant global instability (likely true)… what an awful thing, that drop in oil prices. All Bush’s fault. Unlike the RISE in oil prices…. which, on the other hand, was all Bush’s fault. That ‘meta-narrative’ seems up and running as well.

I could go on for an hour but I have more important things to do… laundry and football and the like.

Nov 9, 2008 - 2:03 pm 11. Alexis:

We may chatter about what would be the best course of action, but it’s Obama’s problem now. The Left has vilified President Bush without mercy, and the Left now has the Presidency. To paraphrase Colin Powell, “You break it, you own it.”

There are no easy solutions to what’s going on in Pakistan. Every possible choice an American president could make about Pakistan is an obvious mistake. If President-Elect Obama is as good as his supporters claim he is, he will deliver miracles in foreign policy. So, we obviously won’t have anything to worry about. (Yeah right…) He should be able to solve our foreign policy dilemma in Pakistan with a wave of his hand (and perhaps a $10 billion slush fund and counting…). Never mind how the President of Pakistan is called “Mr. 10%” for a reason. Never mind how Pakistan’s political establishment is well known as a den of thieves. Yes We Can!

President-Elect Obama, this mess is your problem. You had better be every bit as good as the mythological hero of your campaign literature.

Nov 9, 2008 - 2:10 pm 12. wretchard:

Quickly, quickly blame it on Obama.

It’s the political attitudes which elected Obama — and — Bush that are the problem. Radical Islam was never identified as an ideological enemy. Borders were kept open. Europe never mustered the will to support a convention force adequate for Afghanistan, let alone Iraq or any other place. Entitlements increased. Affordable housing was touted.

But now we’ve learned and the signs are encouraging.

Now we’ve got four more corps: a Classroom Corps, a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. And we’ve got bailouts for Detroit; and rights for terror financiers according to the European courts; and released detainees from Gitmo in America because we can’t send them back to China. But don’t worry, the benefits of a Green Economy are coming.

How long till we run out of fingers and still find there are notes to play? The reason trouble never comes singly is that it cascades.

Nov 9, 2008 - 2:15 pm 13. Fletcher Christian:

One solution, that would probably work but is utterly repulsive – but on the gripping hand might just get used if things get bad enough – is very simple. Turn the entire country into a crater-strewn graveyard that glows in the dark and be done with it. Such action might also stave off the necessity to do such a thing to a certain country next door. Or to the rest of the Dar-al-Islam, for that matter.

Nov 9, 2008 - 2:19 pm 14. mika2k1:

W would rather pay trillion dollar tributes to Jihadis.

Nov 9, 2008 - 2:28 pm 15. mika2k1:

Theirs is the Religion Of Peace™, don’t you know.

Nov 9, 2008 - 2:29 pm 16. sirius_sir:

Alexis, Obama can honestly claim he only inherited this mess. Still, he wanted it and so, inherited or not, it is his problem to deal with. Fortunately he comes into office with India as a counterweight to the Pakistani mess. (I wonder if Bush will get any credit for this development going forward; my guess is little to none.) When push comes to shove I hope the omniscient One knows the difference between a useful ally and one that is not.

Nov 9, 2008 - 2:30 pm 17. wretchard:

One solution, that would probably work but is utterly repulsive – but on the gripping hand might just get used if things get bad enough – is very simple. Turn the entire country into a crater-strewn graveyard that glows in the dark and be done with it. Such action might also stave off the necessity to do such a thing to a certain country next door. Or to the rest of the Dar-al-Islam, for that matter.

This option would be off the table if we had bothered to wage a war of ideas, refused to kowtow to political correctness and sent the clear signal that the West would not surrender. But when we deprive ourselves of every decent means of persuasion and resistance, then our politicians have in effect, decided to put their reliance on what remains. The real problem, which I examined in the Three Conjectures, is what occurs if things cascade out of control into the realm of terror weapons of mass destruction.

It’s really awful to think that Western blitheness is really underwritten by the subconscious knowledge that if push comes to shove, it had inhuman — and cheap — weapons at its disposal; that it didn’t have to bother to persuade or fight with conventional means. If the West ever nukes the Muslims after having failed, through laziness and woolie-headedness, to persuade them or to resist their thugs then I think it stands condemned as a civilization.

Nov 9, 2008 - 2:40 pm 18. cedarford:

The country most concerned with a Pakistan implosion is obviously India. I would advise Obama’s team to listen closely to what India thinks must be done. Follow their lead, when possible, while being on guard for what factions of Hindi fanatics (almost as bad as the Islamoids they hate) wish done..

A Pak collapse resulting in us losing our only logistics path into Afghanistan, would end that fairly useless exercise in playing terrorist whack-a-mole and pretending we are bringing a gift to the “noble, purple-fingered, democracy-loving, burqua-hating, freedom-lovers!” of corrupt, primitive Afghanistan. So much for another Neocon fantasy.

AndrewX – I would not worry about Russia allowing our forces to be trapped there. That would be a hostile act, and Russia is not hostile to the point of overt acts against us. Just plenty pissed off after 13 years of reckless American buyoff on Neocon meddling in their country’s affairs and sphere of influence.

Nov 9, 2008 - 2:45 pm 19. mika2k1:

If the West ever nukes the Muslims after having failed, through laziness and woolie-headedness, to persuade them or to resist their thugs then I think it stands condemned as a civilization.
==

I think the very opposite, but that’s because I know the Jihadis up close and personal. Not having nuked the Jihadis, the West today stands condemned as a civilization.

Nov 9, 2008 - 2:51 pm 20. cedarford:

Oh, and it goes without saying as the Iranian, Pakistani, and Taliban return to power in Afghanistan crises build, we should be heading to Moscow and doing our damnest to bury the hatchet. No NATO for Ukraine and Georgia, pledges the Neocons will be gone in the new Administration. The missile defense stays unless Russia convinces Europe to reconsider. And we support Russia’s 300 year-old claim to Crimea, and the ending of Ukraine discrimination against Russian ethnic minorities.

Nov 9, 2008 - 2:55 pm 21. Andrew X:

RE – “I would not worry about Russia allowing our forces to be trapped there.”

I don’t get it. Why does Russia have to “allow” anything? All they have to do is say, “Hey, not our problem”. Or how about, “Sure, we’ll help you out, but you gotta bring ALL you equipment… and kindly leave it parked and stacked in Chelayabinsk on your way out.”

Russia can ignore or screw us big-time, and they are under no obligations, moral or otherwise, to lift a finger for us. From their standpoint, were I them, I don’t think I would either.

If counting on them is the plan, then we are deep into the Shiite.

Nov 9, 2008 - 2:55 pm 22. MG:

Andrew X,

I have friends who have commanded logistics units in Afghanistan.

Should it become necessary to “impose” a GLOC (Ground Line of Communications) into Afghanistan, we can do it. However, NATO will have to reduce its footprint of non-essential personnel (Bundeswehr, that means YOU), so that the logistics demand shrinks.

This question of logistics, however, is separate from the question of our goals in the two ’stans.

Nov 9, 2008 - 2:56 pm 23. whiskey:

No it does not Wretchard. Every people has a right to survive. No matter what the means. If it comes to that, I would not expect people to do other than shrug.

Moreover, it is the domination of Single Women who want a society structured towards their maximum power that pushes cheap and be done with it nukes as the solution to the problem. A war of ideas would entail loss of political, cultural, and social power from single women and their representatives and more power to police, soldiers, marines, etc. Less money for the Welfare State and the State as Husband/provider and more for the Military.

This is the Sci-Fi legacy of the Condom, the Pill, and social mobility plus much higher living standards and income for women, in anonymous urban centers. It’s almost as if … I’ve blogged on this.

Moreover, Wretchard, it is NOT jobs and income that matters. It is family. Atta was from a middle class family, but like Qutb before him, despaired of ever getting married, and turned to terror in consolation. Polygamy and tribalism combined means that for every man who has four wives, there are three who have none. Moreover, as Mohammed bin Laden’s marital history shows, it’s even worse. Osama’s father had 22 wives. When he tired of one, he’d divorce her and depending on how much he liked her give her to a subordinate in his company. Of higher and lower status depending on how she had pleased him. This is what happened to Osama at age 9. His stepfather, with what amounts to Mohammed bin Laden’s sex-slave, and Osama, had no real family. He had a “used sex slave” and responsibility for looking after the Big Man’s offspring, whom he hated and feared. This is the Muslim world in a nutshell.

It’s ALWAYS about them. Never about us. They attack whoever is weakest to draw men and money. It’s at it’s core — a fight over women. Nothing less.

Nov 9, 2008 - 3:04 pm 24. heather:

I am wondering if the American electorate is sending a strong signal that it favours isolation from the world’s problems (which, as far as most of us know, are almost completely impossible.)

Look at the stock market, the financial implosion, and in the very near future, pension problems (coming up first in Detroit.) The Boomers are restless.

Who needs those awful infidels, and that hard looking Putin, anyway? What business is it of ours if the Middle East blows itself up? Gore has a lot of good ideas on that score. And we can always depend on Joe the Plumber to keep the water pipes cleared….

And then, just like Carthage’s sacrifice of its children, America has excised its Original Sin of Racism, by electing the African Obama!!! Surely all will be well now?

Nov 9, 2008 - 3:13 pm 25. sirius_sir:

So much for another Neocon fantasy.

And so much, it seems, for your previous argument against Iraq. But at least you’ve moved on.

Relative to withdrawing prematurely from Iraq in order to pursue some rather ill-defined course in Afghanistan, many neocons would argue that Afghanistan “is not a mission for which we should have tied down the lion’s share of our deployable forces”. But that understanding goes counter to your rather narrow perception and so probably will not register with you. Can’t say I haven’t tried, though.

Regardless of what you will continue to think, believe and, unfortunately, spout here, neoconservatism remains “the only game in town.”

http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010684

But I wouldn’t really expect you to read, much less understand, the linked article.

Nov 9, 2008 - 3:16 pm 26. steveaz:

Cedarford said:
“A Pak collapse [...] would end that fairly useless exercise of [...] bringing a gift to the”[...]freedom-lovers!” of [...] Afghanistan.”

Aside from the implied chauvinism (as in “Muzzie’z Can’t Vote”), which I must say I totally disagree with, Cedarford has a larger point.

Islamabad’s support for our intervention in Afghanistan is important. Losing it’s validation will hurt.

Nov 9, 2008 - 3:19 pm 27. Andrew X:

MG – I guess that makes me feel a tiny bit better, but I still cannot fathom what that GLOC would look like, given the map.

I do think there is much I do not know, so I guess the experts have a clearer idea of scenarios than I do, and maybe anyone here, and maybe they have quite deliberately shut up about them.

Still unnerving though.

Nov 9, 2008 - 3:25 pm 28. Leo Linbeck III:

The rule of law, unfortunately, is not an event. It is a journey.

It took England hundreds of years – and many twists and turns – before the notion that the law was above the ruler took root. The transference of trust from tribal to legal structures also requires stability. England made its greatest progress when the common folk were left alone. The Wars of the Roses, while bloody, had little impact upon the farmers and shopkeepers of the realm. Lots of Yorks and Lancasters were killed, but material progress continued and by the time the Tudors came to power, the people had come to expect that the Tudors would respect the law. Which they did for the most part, except when it got in the way of Henry VIII’s libido.

Anyway, I find the entire situation in Pakistan hard to follow. What information flows to the West feels unreliable; that’s not a very scientific viewpoint, but it is the result of reading lots of articles that appear to be parts of a meta-narrative, to borrow a popular phrase in this thread.

I had a Pakistani student in my class this fall, and had the opportunity to chat with him in some depth a couple of times. He seemed very pessimistic about the country’s future; his parents had stayed in Pakistan, and toughed it out during the Bhutto-Musharraf period. Now, however, they were seriously thinking about leaving. To do so would be to abandon all of their hard work and net worth, and start over in the West. The sunk-cost fallacy is a powerful force, but even it can be overcome if the future looks bad enough.

My student appeared resigned to the fact that he would have to stay in the West, although he clearly had affection for his native land. His parents encouraged this, perhaps in the hope that they would have a place to go if everything melted down.

When the best, brightest, and most productive citizens decide it’s not worth all the risk and effort, the future is pretty bleak. And that’s before we start thinking about nuclear technology.

This situation, of course, is not Obama’s fault. But it is not Bush’s fault either. Pakistan has been a mess for decades. It has been a popular liberal meme that Bush screwed up in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This meme has been manufactured to alleviate the “reality-based community” from undertaking serious analysis and thinking about the historical, social, and economic constraints that must be faced by any American administration.

The notion that a US President can do anything other than contain the situation as best he can is childish. To survive now that they possess the power after which they have long lusted, the hyper-critical partisans of the RBC will have to grow up.

Faster, please.

L3

Nov 9, 2008 - 3:32 pm 29. Mike Sylwester:

Since I think that the USA should practice some loyalty to its allies, I normally would feel a moral dilemma in Pakistan’s current situation.

I voted for McCain, however, so now I feel no moral dilemma at all. If the Obama Administration decides to abandon Pakistan and Afghanistan to disasterous fates, then I feel no moral responsibility.

The whole world wanted Obama to win the election, so we US Republicans can sit back and watch objectively for the next four years. Let Obama release all the prisoners from Guantanamo and from all our many “black sites” back into Pakistan and Afghanistan or wherever else we captured them. Let Obama remove all the economic sanctions from the terror financiers. Let Obama cut the US Defense Budget drastically.

Let the US stop being the world’s policeman. Instead, let Obama make the UN be the world’s policeman.

Let the entire world watch as the Obama Administration shows us all how this situation should be managed.

Nov 9, 2008 - 3:34 pm 30. mika2k1:

Mike Sylwester
==

Let’s not.

Let’s lineup the Guantanamo Jihadis and shoot them dead, like we ought to have done from day one.
Let’s remove the economic subsidies to the terror financiers and end the importation and reliance on oil.
Let’s start being the world’s moral policeman and end our support and aid to the UN and Jihadis.

Let the entire world watch how this situation should be managed.

Nov 9, 2008 - 3:48 pm 31. Mike Sylwester:

Alexis:
“To paraphrase Colin Powell, ‘You break it, you own it.’”
========

Ha ha ha. Perfect. I’ll use that one many times in the next four to eight years.

Nov 9, 2008 - 3:49 pm 32. BT:

Kronetag:

The really good conservative narratives that I was thinking of were mostly of the culture/character sort. You know, John Kerry as a sissy-man, drinking lattes and so on. He even speaks french!

The stories that work best are often the ones that are most divorced from issues of consequence. These are the stories that convince low-wage rural white folks to vote for people who will deliver tax-cuts to the latte-drinking elites on the coasts who finance the whole operation.

It works, except when reality bites, the voters stop caring about the character issues. McCain handlers were quite honest about that when the election started. Screw the facts, we’ve got a great story for the voters! Imagine how many states Obama would have carried if he were a white guy. I’m just saying.

Nov 9, 2008 - 3:56 pm 33. Andrew X:

“Imagine how many states Obama would have carried if he were a white guy.”

BT, I am utterly convinced that if Obama was a white guy with the EXACT same policies, background, baggage, and lack of experience, he would have been a less-experienced Dennis Kucinich. He would never have been nominated, and I think in this weeks race he would have won less states, not more.

The whole “change for the sake of change” was his platform, and the most visible “change” here is obvious. And how many votes were deliverd by the appalling spectical of “white guilt”, so ably described by Shelby Foote?

I would LOVE to have been able to vote for a black candidate who was not a quasi-socialist, or outright socialist, and had conservative values. But there was no such choice.

Maybe we need Mr. Obama to plant a richly deserved stake in the “white guilt” that is allowing Western Civilization to destroy itself. Should that follow, Mr. Obama have at least that positive virtue. And maybe he will govern to the center and do well, let us hope.

But we now get to wage a forthright, proud, and ferocious war upon the idea that America is some sort of terribly flawed nation whose European descended citizens must live lives of grovelling atonement. To use the French idiom…. Eff that. That is now done. Period. If I have Mr. obama to thank for that, consider my gratitude offered.

Nov 9, 2008 - 4:12 pm 34. Mike Sylwester:

Russia let us bring our military forces through Russia into Afghanistan in 2001 and so Russia will let us withdraw our forces through Russia in 2009. I have no doubt about that.

Let’s leave the Northern Alliance as well armed as we can. The Northern Alliance is Tadzhiks and Uzbeks and other non-Pashtun minorities, and they did us a big favor in 2001. Take everything we can out of the Pashtun regions of Afghanistan and give it to the Northern Alliance as we depart.

Nov 9, 2008 - 4:13 pm 35. BT:

Oh and how could I forget, Freedom Fries, bought to you by that ex-congressperson felon guy from Ohio.

Nov 9, 2008 - 4:13 pm 36. Habu:

We don’t have a thing to worry about.

President elect Obama’s new Internal Security Police along with the outlawing of private gun ownership and the reduction of our Armed forces guarantee us a warm, snuggly nights sleep. Nothing, absolutetly nothing, to worry about.

Nov 9, 2008 - 4:16 pm 37. Unsk:

If one were an optimist, the Paki need for our help should be an opportunity for the US to exert more positive influence over Pakistan.

However, to exert a more positive influence over Pakistan, both Bush and/or the Democrats would have had to do the heavy lifting of defining clearly and realistically what the relationship of the USA should or could be to Pakistan and vice versa. Neither Bush or the Democrats have clearly defined that relationship.

Bush was really poor in defining what needed to be done. The Democrats and Obama don’t even want to define real solutions; they just want to promote illusions and fantasy.

So this opportunity most likely will be lost, and we can add another smoldering issue in the mounting list of crisis to address.

BTW, Obama , the media and the Democrats have had at least as much influence shaping the battlefield versus the Islamists as the Bush Administration the last four years. So they do really own it. They successfully broke down many of our positive endeavors, capabilities and relationships for their own perceived political gain. The full responsibility is theirs now.

PS. A guy wearing a Mc Cain/ Palin shirt, was arrested in Philly today at a Obama Victory Rally for wearing the shirt.

Nov 9, 2008 - 4:20 pm 38. BT:

I’ll say Bush was poor in this area. Could someone explain why we are providing nuclear technology to India?

The Paki’s hate India and we’re shoveling nuclear technology at their biggest enemy, and they are supposed to listen to us about what to do in the pashtun tribal areas? India’s nukes are one of the prime reason the Paki’s wanted the bomb in the first place.

Way to build a winning team there.

Nov 9, 2008 - 4:39 pm 39. Habu:

“”"PS. A guy wearing a Mc Cain/ Palin shirt, was arrested in Philly today at a Obama Victory Rally for wearing the shirt.”"”

That was just as practice exersize for the Internal Security Poice making sure the population doesn’t cause “disruption”

Nov 9, 2008 - 4:39 pm 40. Cannoneer No. 4:

Andrew X

Forcibly reopening the LOC long enough to retrograde down to Karachi will be an epic struggle.

Google Anabasis

Gandamak

Chosin Reservoir

The Germans and others in RC North and RC West will probably make deals with the Uzbeks and Russians. The Luftwaffe has an air base in Termez UZ.

We’ll need a sizeable fleet waiting for them in Karachi.

Nov 9, 2008 - 4:43 pm 41. Cannoneer No. 4:

MG, you can’t logistically support hippopotamus goals with a hummingbird tail.

Nov 9, 2008 - 4:47 pm 42. slade:

Now, however, they [Pakistanis] were seriously thinking about leaving. – Leo

Are they coming here? I am talking to a lot of people stateside who are planning on leaving as well – to Canada or Australia. And I am not being facetious. Southern CA is lost – from Irvine down. Phoenix is divided with the south half very tense. The rest are just fed up – with all of it. The ones I talk to are average middle class people who are getting out – as soon as they can afford it.

The sanity quotient is tough to maintain. The southern border is very very serious – but outside of the perimeter, nobody fully appreciates the venomous admixture of drugs, illegals, street gangs, ethnic tensions, jihadis, and Venezuelans nationals. Another disaster waiting to happen. It’s just a matter of time.

The weight of fatalism and defeatism is becoming onerous, in spite of the salvation promised by Obama and team. The burden of history familiarizes the cycles that have gone before, but nothing mitigates the anxiety of, not just bad times and bad events, but prolonged dysfunction – as systems “reboot”.

Looks like “Mineral Mouth” wasn’t all that far off the mark.

Nov 9, 2008 - 4:48 pm 43. BT:

Venezuelan Nationals? Oh brother.

Thank god we have Chavez to play the boogie man now that Castro is dead (more or less).

Nov 9, 2008 - 6:10 pm 44. slade:

I hope you’re right BT. I am plenty sick of the border crap, with or without Hugo’s loyal forces.

Nov 9, 2008 - 6:17 pm 45. slade:

Yeah, just the Castro boogie man.

Emergency rooms shut down on the weekends because “traffic” exceeds treatment capacity. It goes on.

And on. I have lived here for four years. That was enough to convince me that the alleged “problem” was something more – on the order of serious.

But by all means let’s just keep it cute.

Nov 9, 2008 - 6:24 pm 46. slade:

But it’s interesting, is it not, BT, that both this site and Elephant Bar are being monitored.

Or mined, one might say.

Nov 9, 2008 - 6:40 pm 47. BT:

You all can guess that I am a lib’rel.

But I do think this is an interesting site with very interesting posters and that the main topics that are set out in a very intelligent and thoughtful manner.

If my posts are too glib, please forgive me. I just can’t help myself sometimes.

As for treatment room capacity, that is a whole nother can of worms isn’t it. I believe that the next meltdown will be the medical system. It’s just barely breathing at this point, and the funds that are going into it are not sustainable. Insurance companies are shedding costly customers onto the public sector. Corporations don’t want the obligation. Individuals are essentially screwed. 50% of personal bankruptcies are for people who have gone broke with medical bills. If the economy gets any worse the number of uninsured will really spike and the system will be that much closer to broken. I actually think the insurance companies are in full ‘milk it’ mode right now, with the expectation that some time soon, the government will step in and take steps to ‘regularize’ the market. Regularize seems a nice semantic twist.

That line Obama had about his dying mother getting screwed by the insurance companies really hit the mark out there, don’t you think?

Nov 9, 2008 - 7:00 pm 48. slade:

I don’t even want to go here but reducing treatment room capacity in the southwest to a “health care issue” is Ludakris.

Take it up with somebody else.

Nov 9, 2008 - 7:14 pm 49. Leo Linbeck III:

slade,

Are they coming here?

No idea; I didn’t ask. My student did imply he might have to leave depending upon his job prospects, but I didn’t follow up to find out details. My assumption is that it would be very difficult in the current environment for someone to enter legally from Pakistan, and he was not the sort of guy who would hang around illegally, IMHO.

Cheers.

L3

Nov 9, 2008 - 7:33 pm 50. comatus:

Andrew X, you pose an interesting logistical issue (getting an army out of Afghanistan through hostile territory). There was a fellow who did it once, and when he got home he built a sort of VFW post and wrote a very interesting book about it. Judging by your initial, he may be a relative, so let me recommend Xenophon’s “Anabasis.”

Nov 9, 2008 - 7:49 pm 51. Leo Linbeck III:

BT,

If my posts are too glib, please forgive me. I just can’t help myself sometimes.

No problem, from my standpoint. All are welcome here who engage in productive dialogue. Besides, most of us already understand that lib’rels can’t help themselves.

Could someone explain why we are providing nuclear technology to India?

Well, I’m no foreign policy guru, but it seems to me that there are a few plausible facts that might, taken together, help this policy make sense:

1. They are the second-most-populous country, and the largest democracy.

2. In 30 years or so, they will be the world’s most populous country.

3. After the US, India has the most English-speaking people. It has 50% more than Great Britain.

4. They have a tradition of rule of law that makes them the least-problematic ally in the region (in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king).

5. They are chock-full of gifted engineers. Unlike, say, North Korea, there is a high likelihood they’d be able to develop the technology anyway. At least this way, we can more accurately gauge the status of their capabilities.

6. As you pointed out, they are enemies of Pakistan. If there is a concern with Pakistan’s stability, you sure don’t want India to be left without an effective deterrent.

7. They are, increasingly, a cooperative ally who helps US national interests in a number of spheres

8. India is the birthplace of yoga. Who ever heard of a nuclear yogi?

A few ideas, anyway. I’m sure others have more (and better) ones.

Cheers,

L3

Nov 9, 2008 - 7:54 pm 52. NahnCee:

We’re providing nukes to India for the same reason we’re providing them to Japan and Australia — they’re the designated sheriff in that area. India’s job is to nuke Pakistan when the time comes (perhaps as a counterattack since Pakistan is rumored to have their own stolen nukes). Japan is supposed to check China. And Australia is in charge of Indonesia.

Or that was the plan before B. Hussein bought himself an election and will be racing himself to see whom he can sidle up to faster and give away America’s position: the communist/marxists or the muslim/terrorists.

I guess in the Weatherman cell meetings that BT attends, they don’t teach global politics, but just concentrate on the best way to blow up the local ROTC, picket Marine recruiting offices, and open the internal floodgates of America to illegal Mexicans.

Nov 9, 2008 - 8:24 pm 53. programmer:

L3 states,

8. India is the birthplace of yoga. Who ever heard of a nuclear yogi?

programmer suggests:

Read Fritz Capra’s The Tao of Physics. Also peruse the Mahabharata for references to some interesting mechanisms and discussions.

Nov 9, 2008 - 8:43 pm 54. 3Case:

“Quickly, quickly blame it on Obama. I follow Rush Limbaugh closely and that is what he told me to think.

Leading with a lie…standard lib’rel practice. Prove your statement in order to prove me wrong. I will be happy to learn.

Nov 9, 2008 - 8:54 pm 55. sigintel:

I spent three years providing satellite linked internet from Hawaii to ISP’s in Pakistan, and India. Following 9/11, everyone of the Paki ISP’s stopped paying their bills, the Indian’s on the other hand maintained their accounts. I’ve traveled to both countries frequently (I was in India for the Indo-Pakistan war in 1972 holed up in a cave in Utter Pradesh), and at this point will never return to Pak or to Bangladesh for that matter…just too creepy with the over bearing Islamic religion affecting every aspect of daily life…I imagined that its like life under the Nazi’s…lots of paranoia and trumped up hatred directed towards Jews, western culture and “liberal” ideas. India has its own “Islamic cultural clash” with the millions of Muslims that are Indian, but the majority of the Hindus will never let India be dominated by Islam. It could get very bloody in India if Pakistan fails and AQ and the Wahhabi’s gain control.They’ll infiltrate “south of the border” and bomb (more than they do now) and if it comes to it, it will be the Indians that nuke the Pakis first. An old Indian Air Force major I knew used to joke about why the Pakistani jet pilots where never taught how to land by their USAF trainers…”because the IAF will bring them down”.

Nov 9, 2008 - 9:00 pm 56. heather:

well, you have to admit: the near future is looking even more interesting than the next 4 years.

Barack is combing through Bush’s Executive Orders, planning on cancelling them; and I suppose he will add a lot of his own (in Canada, Trudeau did the same, except they were called “Orders in Council.”) No point in waiting for the Congress to propose something, eh? And Barack has to right a whole lot of wrongs in short order.

I wonder if they will go for ‘reparations.’? We in Canada have done that, it is called “Land Claims”, and has gone on for some 30 years of lawyering…

Nov 9, 2008 - 9:03 pm 57. OldSalt:

Another gruesome consequence of Pakistan’s imploding is the growing futility in neighboring Afghanistan. It growing more likely that the only solution is there is no solution. All we have sacrificed and spent there, was it for nothing?

I don’t know what to say.

When Bush took us to Afghanistan after 9/11, it made sense, though I suspected that little Afghanistan was not alone in sponsoring those who attached America. When Bush took us to Iraq, that made sense too. I didn’t know which of our many enemies were responsible for the attack on American soil, and America had the option of taking the fight where ever it made the most sense for America. Saddam had an army we couldn’t ignore, and Iraq was arguably the geo-strategic center of the middle east. To hold Irag gave the US the ability to take the fight to any country including Iran, as necessary to sustain US security.

When Bush put Bremmer into Iraq and the mission shifted to “national building”, I had real questions. Momentum once last is sometimes lost forever. Then the Democrats decided the country was safe enough to make some hay out of the situation, they turned on the war and the troops fighting it, one of those opportunists ran for President, and the rest is history.

Since there is now no possibility of the US taking the battle to Iran, Syria, or other supporters of Islamic terrorism, there is no reason for us to be in Iraq anymore. And similarly, I know if no valid mission statement now which would justify putting American blood on the line in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Without “victory” some where in that mission statement, it would be invalid.

We have a US Marine staying with us several times a week, one of many who do on occasion. He deploys to Afghanistan in January. We know 3 dozen others who are coming or going. I’d sacrifice them, my son, or return to uniform and go myself in a heartbeat to achieve victory for my country against our enemies. However, I would sacrifice now one drop of blood for a political war in behalf of Obama. If we stay in Afghanistan or Iraq now, it will be for Obama’s political benefit, and not for victory, because Obama has already given that game away. Who wants to die for politics? Who would give up young Americans to provided political power for a “Messiah”.

There is no real choice anymore. The American people have spoken. Obama’s sympathies and goals are clear.

We need to withdraw our troops from forward deployed areas, beef up the Navy and other force-projection tools at the same time preparing to defend America at the Obama-waters-edge.

Nov 9, 2008 - 9:25 pm 58. Triton'sPolarTiger:

OldSalt: I rather suspect that the kids will be voting with their feet pretty soon… and being the very best of men (and women), it will kill them to do so, but now that they are faced with the coming of a CINC who still believes the surge was a mistake, what else is there for them to do? Obama is either massively myopic on this or is the rank opportunist I believe him to be – either way, he’s not someone I’d want deciding where/when to send me into harm’s way.

Triton

Nov 9, 2008 - 9:50 pm 59. krontekag:

BT: “Imagine how many states Obama would have carried if he were a white guy.”

I have to agree with Andrew X. At the very least, Obama got a huge boost from collective white guilt. He will be immune from serious criticism for quite some time for exactly the same reason. As a symbol, it’s not just the man that must be observed and evaluated before any objective opinions can be formed, there’s an entire mythology wrapped around him, obscuring the reality beneath. The media never really tried to hard to part the veils (often they wwere busy spinning more layers), and won’t be inclined to make the effort for the forseeable future.

The US may just have elected an apology.

Try this hypothetical excercise – if Sarah Palin was black, would the liberal media’s gnarled heads have exploded in a catastrophic chain reaction?

Hey, I can smile again!

Nov 9, 2008 - 9:54 pm 60. Triton'sPolarTiger:

Oh, and before I forget, I’ve gotta call bullsh!t on this one:

“Even Reagan ended up raising taxes when his self-financing tax cuts did not magically self-finance themselves”

Heaven help us if such easily-researched-and-debunked myths remain unapprehended by a majority of our fellow citizens!

Reagan’s tax cuts resulted in a doubling of receipts into the treasury – from 500B to 1T as I recall – they self-financed just fine – had he possessed the benefit of the 1994 – 1996 congress instead of Tip & The Boys, he’d have left office with a balanced budget. As it was, congress cut Reagan’s knees out from under him by reneging on promises to cut spending, raising it instead, and throwing in a few tax increases towards the end…

Buddy Larsen, others… please elaborate on this if you feel so inclined. This is all that I have time for tonight, and would appreciate the help!

Next softball, please.

Triton

Nov 9, 2008 - 10:19 pm 61. Andrew X:

By the way kron, as for “the US just elected an apology” –

Probably correct. Now, as my fellow citizens seem so inclined to apologize for things done by other people long before I was born….

How did some recently and so eloquently put it?

“Not In My Name!”

Nov 9, 2008 - 10:26 pm 62. Robohobo:

wretchard -

You said: “If the West ever nukes the Muslims after having failed, through laziness and woolie-headedness, to persuade them or to resist their thugs then I think it stands condemned as a civilization.”

What are we to persuade them of? That we really are the nice guys? I doubt you would forget they know “the one true thing”. Allah is supreme for them and nothing else matters. Let’s put it this way, what would they do should the situation be reversed? My bet is that we would be living in radioactive cities right now. How we avoid your conjectures becoming reality is the really, really tough part. For me, I do not believe we can once nukes become more common in the region. In fact, I think that should the Paks fall to the Taliban it is just a matter of time before one of the Pak nukes ends up in NYC, LA, DC or any of many near port cities.

Nahncee – The Paks have had nukes for years as have the Indians. Where have you been?

Nov 9, 2008 - 11:47 pm 63. Jules Crittenden » What Not To Do (Foreign Edition):

[...] Belmont Club’s Fernandez: Pakistan, nearly bankrupt, looks to the West. Notes that while economic woes may breed terrorism, terrorism breeds economic woes faster. Here’s a thought. Economic aid as an incentive for Pakistan to show a little more enthusiasm for fighting terrorism. [...]

Nov 10, 2008 - 7:41 am 64. cedarford:

Krontetag – Try this hypothetical excercise – if Sarah Palin was black, would the liberal media’s gnarled heads have exploded in a catastrophic chain reaction?
Hey, I can smile again!

No, because then you just have Allan Keyes with tits.

*****************
Robohobo In fact, I think that should the Paks fall to the Taliban it is just a matter of time before one of the Pak nukes ends up in NYC, LA, DC or any of many near port cities.

It is Afghanistan, not Pakistan, that is in danger of falling to the Taliban. Pashtuns are a minority in Pakistan. If Pakistan collapses, it will be the military or a non-Pashtun, non-Talibani Party of Punjabis&Sindhis in charge.
Nor if nukes are lost control of, will India be anything other than the primary target. Knowing this, India will take action to secure or destroy Paki nuclear capacity if this is thought to be imminent. That means a “small” nuclear war and nothing enters or leaves Pakistan.
*********************
Triton’sPolarTiger:
Oh, and before I forget, I’ve gotta call bullsh!t on this one:

“Even Reagan ended up raising taxes when his self-financing tax cuts did not magically self-finance themselves”

Part of the problem of the true believers in voodoo economics had is Saint Reagan was not permitted to fully test his theories. That the “magic” of supply-side economics was not allowed to continue because the noble rich were “punished” in 1986 by having their tax shelters taken away, the AMT, and people had to pay more to make Medicare and Social Security financially solvent.

Fortunately, I guess for economists, if no one else caught in the fiscal wreckage of the Bushie true believers – supply-side economics and tree trage globalism got a full test in the last 8 years.

The result was:

1. Tax cuts for the rich generated 28 cents of new revenue for every dollar borrowed from China to fund US revenue shortfalls to give tax cuts to the wealthy. They tended not to reinvest here, but in invigorating China, or building new McMansions, or themselves taking the money given to them with borrowed dollars into T-Bills to finance Bush giving more tax cuts to them.

The end result was wealth of the nation concentrated further to the rich, the middle class shrunk, the poor made less. And Bush managed to create more national debt from revenue shortfalls than ALL previous Administrations put together, all the way back to the Revolution. 5 Trillion.

2. Bush knew the country was being gutted of good manufacturing jobs and all the support jobs surrounding manufacturing by globalisation and free trade. The only effective ways he had of masking it, make it appear that the US was not a great loser under Reaganomics fully tested was to (A)grow government 40% [more than even LBJ] to create replacement jobs for those lost to free trade; (B)Create another financial bubble like Clinton did, this time in housing and real estate speculation, to create the artificial prosperity he needed to keep in power.

I’d say at this point, supply side economics is about as dead as National Socialism – and screwing America and building up China and India with America’s historical accumulated wealth being transferred to them by unfettered free trade, cheapest bid labor gets the jobs, trillion-dollar trade deficits don’t matter dogma – is also soon to have a rude ending.

Nov 10, 2008 - 8:06 am 65. freetime:

Re: Andrew X: Random doofus. Love it. Don’t we all feel that way on a too-common basis?

I suspect that, still being the strongest (militarily) country in the world, we would fly them out the same way we got them in. What would be left behind would be millions (billions?) of $ of equipment which (if we were wise) would be destroyed.

Nov 10, 2008 - 8:48 am 66. Unsk:

Hallelujah! Our all merciful Messiah’s great gift for “eloquence” has already begun achieving true healing of the world!

Late last week, after a brief chat with the One, the Russians indicated that the Messiah would cede to their demands of eliminating SDI in Eastern Europe.

Then President Kaczynski of Poland, after consultation with the all knowing Messiah, assured us that the Messiah had said ” the missile defense project will continue”.

Now, our all knowing and all caring Messiah has admonished us from on high that he has not made a commitment to missile defense in Eastern Europe.

The great clarity of the Messiah be praised!

It is I, a lowly heretic that is confused. I must study the hadith of our great Messiah further to discover the true “truths” of his message. I mistakenly and wrongly remember an impression made by our glorious Messiah in the first debate that missile defense was important to the defense of Eastern Europe.

Nov 10, 2008 - 9:06 am 67. Alexis:

But it’s interesting, is it not, BT, that both this site and Elephant Bar are being monitored.

Or mined, one might say.

I also see a pattern of remarks by followers in the past year that appear designed to flag websites for closure at some later date. Watch for any self-righteous condemnation against a forum or a blog, possibly combined with some nebulous threat.

As a rule, I am careful about what I say and how I say it. I think it is important to speak out on important issues with measured language.

Nov 10, 2008 - 9:47 am 68. Lamont Cranston:

Of COURSE it’s Obama’s fault.

We have the shining example of “Progressives” over the past 8 years to lead us.

Violence in Iraq because we intervened? Obama’s fault.

Voilence in Darfur because we didn’t intervene? Obama’s fault.

And, most important of all: Obama got elected promising change. He’s been president elect for almost a week, and I’m STILL FAT. It’s Obama’s fault.

Lamont

Nov 10, 2008 - 10:45 am 69. Staring In Disbelief:

For those of you unfamiliar with Cedarford, logic and evidence has no effect on him whatsoever. I have been reading his anti-semitic and “everything you thought you knew is wrong” ravings for 3 years and now just marvel at his posts, simple masterpieces of illogic (kinda like our new ObaBuddy, BT) sprinkled with the occasional sane comment (usually having to do with practical military experience, e.g. logistics) to make you double take on the otherwise unbroken “everything is crap and we’re all doomed” word torrent.

There is one thing to cling to vis Pakistan – it is in NOBODY’S INTEREST for the country to tear itself apart or blow up the region ESPECIALLY the Paki’s themselves. Now, admittedly, in that part of the world the smart, long term play for peace and stability is often ignored (not being as pragmatic-minded a lot as us Westerners), but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. If the “noble, purple fingered” Iraqi’s have proven anything, it’s that by and large, people just want to make a decent living, have families and live their lives in reasonable safety, AND WILL DO WHAT THEY HAVE TO EVENTUALLY. When given a REAL CHOICE, they tend to choose RATIONALLY, even in a Muslim society. Politicians will always do what is in their personal, PERCEIVED self interest, not what is truly in their nations long term best interest. When the perception in Pakistan reaches critical mass that something has to be done to save their miserable lives from wanton cruelty, murder, and/or starvation, I will bet that they will do the MINIMUM it takes, and keep stumbling along. The French Riviera it will never be, but given stark choices, people will choose bread, not religion, and life, not ideology.

Nov 10, 2008 - 12:59 pm 70. slade:

I’m STILL FAT. It’s Obama’s fault. – Lamont

Well of course you are, dear. “O” is universal symbol for obesity or in more polite society – and we are polite – rotund. But don’t despair, the new 12-step Obanomics program is hope for a leaner meaner You.

Or at least your portfolio if not your port-side.

Nov 10, 2008 - 1:42 pm 71. BT:

I’m new here. I must say you are a frisky bunch.

Cedarford must be onto something. Usually when the anti-semite charges are trotted out, you know you’re getting close to the target.

I wish Staring was right about the Pakistanis. One of the problems there is that some of the national boundaries are not really seen as legitimate. The ‘tribal areas’ of Pakistan exist because the demarcation (Durand Line) between Pstan and Astan were largely rejected by the inhabitants themselves. For those (Pashtun) areas, they are rationally fighting their own governments.

Back to Pakistan, it would be nice to site down and re-draw many of the national lines in that part of the world. Won’t happen, but would be nice. Look at Iraq – Kurdistan, and the shiite sections of Iraq should have gone to Iran if you wanted to make a logical nation-state. These are countries that do not have logical foundations, so they do things that seem illogical (quite logically). Israel/Palestine/Jordan/Lebanon is a similarly ill-drawn geopolitical contraption.

And doesn’t Africa seem the same way to anyone? Nations that don’t match tribal / ethnic lines, or natural boundaries are often not usually stable, and war is the result.

Nov 10, 2008 - 1:50 pm 72. NahnCee:

BT – Cedarford is never, ever, right about anything. You’ll do yourself a favor if you just zoom by anything with his name on it.

(At one point, management rearranged the page so that a poster’s name would be at the top of the post, rather than at the end, so you’d know what you could safely skip.)

Nov 10, 2008 - 3:57 pm 73. Beaglescout:

BT, cedarford really is an anti-semite. He’s proved it over many comments, not just this thread.

Also, BT, the problem with Pakistan would remain even if it was broken up into Punjab, Pashtunistan, Balochistan, Kashmir and Sindh. All are tribal societies, and the tribal rivalries and frequent, bloody raids would continue within and across borders even if the ethnic nationalities had their own nation states. Plus, Sindh and Balochistan would be the only pieces of Pakistan with a sea port. The other parts would be land-bound just like Afghanistan, and would soon be just as primitive as Afghanistan. The war against Pakistani Christians and other non-Muslims would get worse, not better. And the breakup of the USSR should provide an instructive example of what happens to nuclear and conventional munitions when a Frankenstein’s monster of a state collapses into rival pieces.

Nov 10, 2008 - 7:48 pm 74. BT:

Beagle:

I agree with you 100% on the nature of those cultures. But here is where the arguments go circular: these places don’t work as they are, yet they don’t seem to work as we might imagine them. They seem to make choices that are baffling to us; their notions of ’self-interest’ are light years away from your and mine.

At some point, America needs to ask itself how much effort we should put in for these people. Look at how happy the Iraqi’s are with our help. Oddly, Hussein was the sort of guy who kept a lid on the some of sort of thing going on in Pstan. There were reasons that we supported Saddam, back in the day – at least he wasn’t a religious nut (just a sadist). The Christians and the few odd jews they had in Iraq have just been trashed since Saddam was removed.

Many options. All bad. Sigh. Maybe we should have left Mosaddeq alone in 1953…

Nov 11, 2008 - 1:45 pm

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.