The Times of India reports that US policy makers are having second thoughts about whether Pakistan is in the main, friend and not foe.
The United States is dusting off a long-discarded proposal to declare Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism. But with the Bush administration now in its final six weeks in office, a decision in this regard is being left to the incoming Obama government, sources said, contingent on corrective actions taken in the meantime by Islamabad to the satisfaction of India, US and other countries affected by Pakistan’s toxic export of death. …
“I think this event looks a lot more like a classical Special Forces or commando-style raid than it does like any terrorist attack we’ve seen before,” David Kilcullen, a counter insurgency military analyst who served as an advisor to Gen. Davis Petraeus tells Fareed Zakaria in the upcoming edition of his program GPS, articulating what US officials are saying in private. “No al-Qaida-linked terrorist group and certainly never Lashkar-e-Taiba has mounted a maritime raid of this type or complexity.” …
A few months later a US commander, Lieutenant Colonel Chris Nash, who worked with the Afghan police, made a widely discussed slide presentation on his return to Washington, saying “ISI involved in direct support to many enemy operations … classification prevents further discussion of this point.” The support included “training, funding, [and] logistics,” he added.
But the most damning, and most recent, piece of evidence came after the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul when US intercepted communications between Pakistani intelligence officers and militants who carried out the attack. The messages, US officials said later, indicated that the ISI officers involved in the bombings were not “renegades,” or “stateless actors,” and “their actions might have been authorized by superiors.”
Washington now believes that is also the case with Mumbai, which is why, notwithstanding a soft public stance, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has conveyed to President Zardari what her predecessor Baker told Nawaz Sharif: Pakistan is on track to being declared a state sponsor of terrorism if it does not act.
It was because of this long history of Pakistan’s corrosive terrorist record that an outraged Rice dismissed Islamabad’s request for evidence this time, saying, there is a “lot of information about what happened here, a lot of information… And so this isn’t an issue of sharing evidence.”
Whatever the American attitude towards the Government of Pakistan will be, the US already openly believes that certain former (thanks for spotting the difference, readers) Pakistani officials are in fact, terrorists. Bill Roggio reports that “the US wants the United Nations Security Council to designate several senior former officers of Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence agency as international terrorists.”
Included on the list of former Pakistani intelligence officers being submitted to the UNSC are Hamid Gul, Javid Nasir, and Zahirul Islam Abbasi, as well as Aslam Beg, a senior Army officer, the intelligence official said.
The placement of the former Pakistani officers on the United Nations list would open their international accounts up to scrutiny and eventual seizure, the US official said. “We could do some major damage” to the officers’ “slush funds” in international bank accounts. The US will also seek to place the officers on INTERPOL’s wanted list.
News of the US move broke after Gul spoke to the Pakistani press about being added to the list. Gul “was informed of this by a highly responsible person, who had personally seen the written US request,” The News reported.
The US intelligence official expressed concern that Gul still has access to such sensitive information. Gul’s knowledge of the effort “is indicative that he still has friends in very high places.”
Translation: parts of the Pakistani government are rotten and nobody is sure how far the rot goes. However the fact remains that the US will need allies — individual allies at least — within Pakistan if it is to have any hope of combating al-Qaeda. This implies that the process of “engagement” with Pakistan not only has an open, diplomatic dimension — the world of ambassadors, conferences, treaties and international law — but probably involves a twilight struggle between our guys and their guys within Pakistani political and military circles. Success in such struggles often revolves around what balance has been struck between the two worlds and what deals have been made as much as how good and daring the men in the field are. The second greatest fear of field operatives is not who they may run into in the bazaar, but who their report may run into in back in the capital.
The question of who you can trust is an ancient one. Tennyson had some fine words for trust, but the flowers he had in mind probably did not run to wreaths.
In Love, if Love be Love, if Love be ours,
Faith and unfaith can ne’er be equal powers:
Unfaith in aught is want of faith in all.It is the little rift within the lute,
That by and by will make the music mute,
And ever widening slowly silence all.The little rift within the lover’s lute,
Or little pitted speck in garner’d fruit,
That rotting inward slowly moulders all.It is not worth the keeping: let it go:
But shall it? answer, darling, answer, no.
And trust me not at all or all in all.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
92 Comments
1. Gordon:Yes, who told Gul about the list? Ultimately someone from the US leaked the information, typical of how we operate these days. Or, perhaps they wanted him to know, make him wonder if others on the list might throw him over to save their own skins (wait!! what’s that UAV doing up there?)
Dec 6, 2008 - 5:44 pm 2. trangbang68:Declaring Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism better have a corollary of how to supply our troops in Afghanistan. Maybe Mrs. Clinton will mobilize Limbaugh’s All Amazon Lesbian Brigade for deployment. A sticky wicket at any rate.
Dec 6, 2008 - 5:48 pm 3. reliapundit:FORMER MEMBERS. NOT CURRENT. AND NOT SANCTIONED BY THE GOVT, IMHO.
MAYBE THIS IS DELIBERATE: TO CREATE SOME PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY FOR PAKISTAN’S GOV’T.
BUT ARE WE TO BELIEVE THAT MUSHARRAF AND HIS ENEMIES ARE ALL ALLIES OF THE “ROGUE” ELEMENTS OF THE ISI, OR THAT THERE ARE ROGUE ELEMENTS?
IF WE AGREE THAT THERE ARE REAL ROGUES, THEN WE MUST ARREST OR ASSASSINATE THE ROGUES WITHOUT BESMIRCHING THE ENTIRE PAKISTANI GOVT.
Dec 6, 2008 - 6:25 pm 4. NahnCee:“The US intelligence official expressed concern that Gul still has access to such sensitive information. Gul’s knowledge of the effort “is indicative that he still has friends in very high places.”
Of course it was leaked deliberately. It’s poker, and sometimes a bluff is all you need (see Libya shutting down its nuclear program).
If these bozo’s do have slush funds, the writing on the Pakistani wall is that they’d better access them and hie themselves off to asylum in France or they’ll be suffering the fate of Saddam and his merry crew. The world would then be able to observe whether Pakistani’s can tie a noose better than Iraqi’s, and avoid that tacky head-popping thing.
Khan the “disgraced” nuclear scientist, too, and BTW, where’s Musharref hunkered down these days?
The other thing Pakistan needs to do NOW is to shut down every single one of those damned madrassah schools. I can’t believe that seven years after 9/11, they are still in the process of recruiting, teaching and raising suicide terrorists, under the guise of Koran memorization.
I sincerely hope that we’re about to be very mean, indeed, to Pakistan for a quite an extended period of time. Very mean.
Dec 6, 2008 - 6:26 pm 5. whiskey:Which is exactly why our present stance is not politically supportable. Westerners are not comfortable Wretchard with this stuff … which is likely why the fairly ugly aspect of your Three Conjectures are likely to happen.
I don’t think there is any political will to “work” with elements of Pakistan while other elements kill US citizens and soldiers, and support Osama.
The pressure to simply “solve” the problem by nuking Pakistan and it’s people out of existence is going to be unstoppable, particularly after more of these attacks happen here in the US. Lose a US city, eventually someone in the US will rise to power by advocating a way to simply “solve” the problem the way LeMay did — kill enough of the enemy, he stops fighting.
We’ve always known this tragedy.
Dec 6, 2008 - 6:28 pm 6. vanderleun:Where else on the entire internet, I ask you, can you get nukes, Pakistan, and Tennyson in just one stop?
Dec 6, 2008 - 7:38 pm 7. mezzrow:‘Tis true, Mr. V. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
BC is a treasure.
Dec 6, 2008 - 8:21 pm 8. a Duoist:There are not less than 30,000, and perhaps as many as 80,000 new madrassas in Pakistan, constructed since the collapse of the Soviet Union. They are politically invioable in Pakistan, as is the Army.
The indigenous Deobandi puritanical creed of Islam, the radical Mawdudi puritanical revolutionary Islam, and ultra-puritanical Wahabbism from Saudi Arabia, are the main curriculum choices in the madrassas in Pakistan, since the state refuses to provide public education.
The problem in Pakistan will never be solved by going after a few rogue army or ISI generals, or instituting some kind of propaganda campaign, or even of ’solving’ the Kashmir situation. Pakistan is a ‘bomb-a-month’ country, for entirely obvious reasons.
Dec 6, 2008 - 9:21 pm 9. Alaska Paul:Follow the money. Pakistan and the Frontier provinces survive on:
*US Money
*Saudi Money
*Chicom resources
*Drug Money
*Maybe a little honest money somewhere
I think that Pakistan is a hopeless pit of a country. We do not have the resources to fix this broken country. What we need is for Pakistan to cease to be a terrorist base. We have serious logistical issues, but I think that what we need is to dry up the money flow. And irregular warefare and covert means is where we need to start. You cannot hope to reform a terrorist and criminal harboring country until you kill the terrorists and criminals and/or break their will.
Dec 6, 2008 - 10:24 pm 10. fred:Since Moscow is an ally of Iran, the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and helps to arm Iran and helps Iran’s nuclear weapons development program, would Moscow step in to help Pakistan if we declare Pakistan persona non grata? The Soviet Union/Russia has been and continues to be the enablers of the scummy regimes of the Muslim world, and so we can see the pattern of proxies emerging.
Are there any other Belmont Club members out there who are reading Robert Chandler’s “Shadow World: Resurgent Russia, The Global New Left, and Radical Islam” ?
Dec 6, 2008 - 10:41 pm 11. Tom Holsinger:The only way to eliminate Pakistani state support for terrorism is to eliminate the Pakistani state.
Pakistan Delenda Est.
Dec 6, 2008 - 10:57 pm 12. NahnCee:You don’t think Moscow would feel a little faint and fluttery about the prospect of re-entering that part of the world after the way they were humiliated and drummed out of Afghanistan?
Dec 6, 2008 - 11:39 pm 13. jay stevens:No. It’s more important to Moscow that they be anti-American than anti-Muslim.
Dec 7, 2008 - 4:28 am 14. lewy14:Tom, you say “the only way to eliminate Pakistani state support for terrorism is to eliminate the Pakistani state.”
And replace it with what, exactly? And how?
I say this not because I reflexively reject this kind of solution, but in spite of the fact that I reflexively like it.
I’ve just been given to question those reflexes lately.
Regime change can be made to work, but at a price. With respect to Pakistan I can’t help but think that price would be dear indeed.
Of course you might counter by pointing out the lack of good alternatives. I’d agree.
I just don’t think the way forward is in any way obvious right now.
Dec 7, 2008 - 4:58 am 15. Fletcher Christian:lewy14 – We had better find a replacement, and fast; otherwise, the Pakistani state will be replaced permanently. By a crater-strewn graveyard that glows in the dark.
Short term solutions start, possibly, by ceasing to give any visas to Pakistani citizens (possibly other than accredited diplomats). Medium term; find and expel any Pakistani citizens already here. Long term; announce that any child born to parents of Pakistani descent is a non-citizen and will be deported forthwith; if the parents wish to go with them fine, but make it clear they will not be allowed back – ever.
Along with this, eliminate any and all special treatment for Muslims, such as allowing Friday as a day off, prayer facilities at work, exceptions to animal welfare regulations associated with halal slaughter. And at the same time, make it clear that no new mosques will be permitted and that their status as a place of worship will not be respected; examples of this would include not having the police ask permission or take off their shoes when entring a mosque. It might also be a good idea to require a suitable delay (more than that prescribed by the Koran) between death and funeral, if that funeral is accompanied by a Muslim service.
We need to make it known that Muslims in general and Pakistanis in particular are not welcome in civilised countries. If the neck-choppers and suicide bombers wish to kill each other, that’s no problem to us, as long as they don’t do it here.
The only alternative to getting more than a little nasty to Muslims was set out by Wretchard. And that is a LOT nastier.
Dec 7, 2008 - 6:39 am 16. John Bibb:Musharriff fired or moved some of his ISI officials a few years ago during the runup to the Afghanistan invasion. He knows who is working against him. However, long term his country is toast–the wahabbis and their many madrassahs will take over the country–and its nukes unless the Army fails to support them and takes them out King Hussein I of Jordan style.
Dec 7, 2008 - 7:31 am 17. Dennis D:***
We–or India–will have to take over or bomb the Pakistan nuke sites then–or we will have to wait for the failed state to bring them to us. I don’t think some O’Bummer talk will help much–but this is coming soon.
***
Rocketman
The majority in Pakistan must reclaim their nation. Most are not extremist muslim fanatics as evidenced by the election of Benazir Bhutto to the Presidency in the 90s. The US has yet to elect a female to President or VP..
Dec 7, 2008 - 7:54 am 18. Wadeusaf:Wasn’t it Col. Austin Bay who described the situation in Pakistan as being a civil war.
Dec 7, 2008 - 8:00 am 19. bigger diggler:War within the government for control of the ISI and security forces. War without the government for control of all those way so many madrasa’s. Really, who can you trust?
Pakistan is a country founded on radical Islam. It was founded on the idea that muslims could not get along with Hindus.
Could someone please explain how this is the basis for a functioning state?
Dec 7, 2008 - 9:17 am 20. Dan D:Dennis D, no relation! First, is Pakistan a nation? Not really, it was created in partition as a Muslim country with several ethnic and tribal groupings, and has never had a national identity. Half of its lifetime it has been under corrupt military rule.
The remainder of the time it has been under corrupt civilian rule, with dark underpinnings behind the facade of democracy. Benazir Bhutto was like Michael taking over from Don Vito, just another cleptocrat front person. In no way shape or form was she democratic, liberal, or Western, just another vile elite thug.
Pakistan is perhaps the world’s most dangerous problem, a non-state in state form, with weapons of mass destruction, treacherous intelligence services, a useful tool to China’s ambitions, a mortal threat to Afghanistan and India, a nuclear proliferator, a drug trading powerhouse, a demographic/educational disaster, and an economic basket case. Other than that, just another cool country that has to be nasty because they can’t be seen as doing the bidding of the West in any way.
Dec 7, 2008 - 9:31 am 21. James:Several of the comments here and elsewhere assume that a solution exists to the Pakistan problems.
Dec 7, 2008 - 9:59 am 22. Alexis:Suppose there isn’t a solution. Suppose that the price of “pacification” is more than we want to pay, and that the chance of Pakistan reforming is slightly less than a snowball’s chance in hell.
That means that various of the groups that make up the “country” of Pakistan are going to be thorns in the sides of their neighbors for the foreseeable future. From time to time they’ll get a smackdown, and when we want something we’ll make nice, and they’ll never stop being trouble. We’ll take away their nukes, of course, which will rile up factions that might have been neutral–but that’s life.
And they’ve been trouble to everybody for thousands of years now, so we’re not talking about anything new.
Imagine what would happen if India tried to exterminate a few troublesome Pak tribes, as suggested in various places. (I’m not sure either side cares about Christian ethics.) With nothing to lose the tribes fight harder, and the tribes get plenty of support from co-religionists, and within India the fifth column gets even bigger and more dangerous. You may say “so what?” but _lots_ of extra dead soldiers and terrorist attacks and riots are part of the price India would have to pay, and they may judge it to be too high. Around half a million died during the Partition, and I’d expect more to die this time (the populations are larger). They’d probably decide that the integrated cost in blood and treasure will be less with small punitive wars than with scorched-earth.
Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t mean to say we sit back and take it forever. When they use deniable forces to attack us we can respond with deniable accidents. But we may have to make nice publicly for the sake of the great game, and give up hope of any sort of final peace.
Apparently, a major convoy of 96 trucks has been set on fire by the Taliban in the Northwest Frontier Province.
Either (1) this attack happened with the foreknowledge of the Pakistani government in which case it is an act of war or (2) Pakistan does not control the Northwest Frontier, in which case all foreign countries should regard Pakistani sovereignty over the Northwest Frontier as null and void. One or the other.
It appears that Pakistan is heading straight into a two-fronted war against the United States and India. The question is whether such a war will be with heavy guns blazing or whether it will be fought primarily in the twilight. In any case, the Islamists think they can win any war against us. They have apparently never considered the consequences of their defeat.
Dec 7, 2008 - 10:19 am 23. Tom Holsinger:lewy,
The concept here is that the Pakistani state fosters terrorism by providing it with funds, secure bases, secure communications, training and whatnot.
Basically the Pakistani state is far more effective in supporting terrorism than mere anarchy. That is why Al Qaeda does not use Somalia as a base. The price of doing business there is too high.
So eliminate the Pakistani state. Replace it with howling anarchy. It would still pose a significant terrorist threat, but less so than as an organized government.
As for how to do this, there is only one possible means – use of nuclear weapons. Lots and lots of nuclear weapons. Preferably by surprise. Given that the Pakistani state HAS nuclear weapons, use of less drastic means of eliminating the Pakistani state would give it an opportunity to use its nuclear weapons.
Use of nuclear weapons on a sufficiently large scale would certainly eliminate the Pakistani state. India does not presently have that capability. It will sometime.
Or we will.
Dec 7, 2008 - 10:33 am 24. John:Pakistan was a US ally during the cold war and will lkely be an ally during the resurgent cold war with the USSR.
India sided with the communists. The communists could have destroyed the United States, Al Queda can’t.
Has India materially assisted the US in the war on terror? I don’t know but I would assume that has to be part of the calculus.
Dec 7, 2008 - 10:52 am 25. Herb:That the Paks have nukes is bad, because they lack a normal state to control them.
This works two ways because they cant be dispersed due to the risk of hijacking by “rogue” elements. They have to be concentrated where the “reliable” troops are so they are less vulnerable to a first strike.
India has some of the aspects of a viable state and is in the position of having a well trained military with substantial Brit Heritage (which shouldn’t be sneered at) I have no personal knowledge of the Indian Forces but suspect they are several orders better than their counterparts across the Kush. I therefore assume that the Indian nukes would be harder to one-strike.
There could be a boom and a lot of squawking and resolutions and maybe even some sanctions, but the problem would be solved.
Now, if you were India, what would be the first goal of your intelligence community?
Dec 7, 2008 - 10:56 am 26. Pajamas Media » Pakistan: Friend or Foe?:[...] Read the entire piece here. [...]
Dec 7, 2008 - 11:04 am 27. The Historian:PAY ATTENTION BARACK: MISSILE DEFENSE IS DO OR DIE
There are no second chances if we get this one wrong:
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2008/12/missle-defense-do-or-die.html
Dec 7, 2008 - 11:07 am 28. Pakistan In The News » The Ethereal Voice:[...] figure that the US needs a reminder given the pressure that the US has started to put on Pakistan. From the Belmont Club…. Whatever the American attitude towards the Government of Pakistan will be, the US already openly [...]
Dec 7, 2008 - 11:21 am 29. NahnCee:Alexis – I like your calculus. My question is, who was guarding the trucks that got burnt-up?
My second question is, who is currently in charge of the red button that fires off Pakistan’s nukes? Who physically is in charge of making the decision to arm them and fire them off?
In other words, does the same ISI / army as is blowing up Mumbai and burning up allied trucks have the physical capability of setting off a Pakistani nuclear bomb?
(My third question is, where is Osama bin Laden and who’s protecting him?)
Dec 7, 2008 - 12:07 pm 30. voyeur:The nukes have to be controlled. Before the situation lifts off.
Remember also this is where UK terrorists go for training etc.
Dec 7, 2008 - 12:31 pm 31. Scott M:Pakistan should be destroyed. The sooner the better. It will continue to make a display of taking half-measures in fighting “extremist.” Not until Pakistan understands it’s choice is utter destruction or full cooperation will they even consider doing the right thing.
The fact that the Islamist have a sanctuary along the border is grounds enough to destroy Pakistan today. We must stop allowing ourselves and our “allies” to take the easier choice even when that leaves the US vulnerable. If Pakistan wants to support Islamists, it must be destroyed. If Pakistan can’t stop the Islamists, it must be destroyed.
“Paging Gen Curtis LeMay, please pick up the red courtesy phone.”
Dec 7, 2008 - 1:02 pm 32. Ms Attitude:Oh man…I wish I could go drink the Obama Kool-aid and sit back and smile and believe he will fix it all…but, I can’t because I know better. It is my understanding that Osama bin Laden has been hiding in Pakistan. Just like NahnCee, I would like to know who’s protecting him!
Dec 7, 2008 - 1:03 pm 33. sean birnie:Pakistan, friend or foe?
Aw, c’mawn, that’s jus’ too easypeasy.
Fiend is the correct answer.
Dec 7, 2008 - 1:13 pm 34. sean birnie:Well, there are undoubtedly a lot of smart commenters here who seem to understand the dire straits we are in as well as the serious responses that are needed to get us out of this mess.
One small problem though. Obama will be your Pres and he ain’t about to do doodly-squat (sorry PJM morality-censor is that allowed?)cos he supports America’s enemies, ya feel me, yo?
So, any other suggestions?
Dec 7, 2008 - 1:30 pm 35. Faisal:Lets see, Pakistani state finished would mean the loss of access to Central Asian Oil, which is the new American dream. Can you guys afford that. Without plundering the wealth of other nations, you will see Americans on the streets begging for food.
Dec 7, 2008 - 1:56 pm 36. Faisal:Ms. Attitude, Osama bin laden has been on the CIA payroll ever since the Afghan war started. Need anymore hints to who is protecting him right now?
Dec 7, 2008 - 1:58 pm 37. Faisal:The American nation is relying on Osama and Obama to make thier future so bright that they will have to wear shades.
Dec 7, 2008 - 2:03 pm 38. “Stateless” Terrorism Isn’t « 36 Chambers - The Legendary Journeys: Execution to the max!:[...] that intelligence agency. In addition, Wretchard notes that the US believes that the attack looks more like a commando raid than a terrorist attack as such. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Jooooooos!!!Tamil Tigers sold Norwegian passports [...]
Dec 7, 2008 - 2:14 pm 39. sean birnie:“The American nation is relying on Osama and Obama to make thier future so bright that they will have to wear shades.”
Well Faisal amongst your other BS, you got that one 50% right, old bean. I’m talking about Barry. Your other points are also unfortunately correct since our kid Bazza isn’t planning to protect America at all.
Count your lucky stars mate. You have at least four years grace. Go ahead, do your worst. It will be pathetically inadequate, just like everything your civilisation (if I may call it that) does.
Dec 7, 2008 - 2:25 pm 40. Jim in Virginia:Faisal: “Americans on the streets begging for food.”
Dec 7, 2008 - 2:35 pm 41. fred:Geez, guy, I know it’s easy to be narrowminded and insular when you’re sitting on $150 a barrel oil but have you ever been to the American Midwest?
We can feed the world if we ever need to. And want to bother.
Since the assertion of authority in a context of strict Islam involves a more or less continual fight for succession among brutal, ruthless Alpha males, a country like Pakistan fits the bill. It is totally failed state, since even democratically-elected figures are deposed or, if they survive, they dispense with formal rule of law and name themselves dictators. Including that vain and over rated woman Benazir Bhutto.
There are many centers of power in Pakistan, all vying to be the Big Cheese. And even a Western-backed figure or faction will not endure for long. The mob and their clerics will wear them down and either kill them or make them leave.
It’s an impossible situation.
Dec 7, 2008 - 2:41 pm 42. NahnCee:People named Faisal are notoriously ill-educated and therefore overly-arrogant in their ignorance.
Or, he might have been reading Russian Pravda which is currently feeding its poor little Russians stories about America being too poor to be able to bury all the dead people who perished from starvation.
Which is why I really don’t have any fear of either Arabs nor Russians as enemies.
Dec 7, 2008 - 3:00 pm 43. NahnCee:BTW, Faisal — who do you think invented shades? Americans, or your bunch of sand monkeys born and raised in the glaring sunshine?
Dec 7, 2008 - 3:02 pm 44. Faisal:Friends, Romans Countrymen, (this speech is for the future when Pakistan will rule the world),
Dec 7, 2008 - 3:26 pm 45. Faisal:We the nation of Pakistan have agreed to give the poor measly weakly Americans 2.5 kgs of grain per year per person as they have already eaten up the farmers of the mid-west …………..
(More to come)
Dont worry we are allies in the WAR ON TERROR
Dec 7, 2008 - 3:30 pm 46. Faisal:Lets TERRORIZE
Dec 7, 2008 - 3:33 pm 47. fred:I appeal to wretchard as to how pests like the one above should be treated on this site. It (whatever it is) adds nothing to the discussion. It prevaricates stupidly and wastes bandwidth. Kick the bot to the curb or throw it under the bus. Drown it. Whatever it takes. Just dispose of it.
Dec 7, 2008 - 3:38 pm 48. whiskey:THere is no political will to do anything that might stop the march towards disaster.
Therefore, either India or the US or both will be the targets of even greater atrocities, done by Muslims for Muslims, with Muslim help, inside their countries. The worst being nuclear of course but the Bombay “plus” style of attack with more gunmen and casualties. There is no feedback mechanism to stop more attacks. By attacking back with greater force.
Therefore, a tipping point will be reached, when forces in either/both countries decide the PAKISTANI PEOPLE (and Muslims generally) are the source of the problem and the target thus of retaliation. On the mode of Curtis LeMay. Who argued that killing enough of the enemy will stop them fighting. Massive US or Indian nuclear strikes on Pakistan could kill about 40-50% of the population, easily, leave an object lesson to the rest of the Muslim world, and “solve” the Pakistani supply crisis (by making most of the hostile forces dead, and thus the people too weak to fight, and scaring the hell out of the rest).
That is the tragedy of where we are headed. It would have been wise to let India “teach Pakistan a lesson” by hitting say the capitol in air raids that killed a lot of people. But far less than nuclear war.
There exists NO mechanism to restrain terror attacks, therefore they will only intensify until the wave of mass killing of Muslims in retaliation-preservation is the only way for survival.
Dec 7, 2008 - 3:44 pm 49. Unsk:Perhaps a way to ratchet up the pressure on the Pakis would be deploy our missile defense to India and tip the nuclear balance in India’s favor- although neither Obama or India’s left wing Congress party would probably go for it.
Dec 7, 2008 - 4:16 pm 50. oMan:If you nuke Pak and take out the infrastructure (power, telcom, highways, ports) you may inflict low casualties and yet end up killing almost all. Because like us (I surmise) they depend now on a complex and vulnerable logistics train/matrix. If interrupted, for even a few weeks, they will starve or die of cholera and similar.
Are we ready for that? The PR war will need to be won before we hit the button, otherwise the media will do the big hand-wringing thing forever. Me, I hardly want this to happen but when it comes to them or me, I gots no prob deciding.
Dec 7, 2008 - 4:34 pm 51. Art Lopatin:The British East India Company — specifically political officers/agents sent to royal courts on the borders of Company-ruled territory — had extensive experience dealing with byzantine intriques in crumbling/corrupt South Asian durbars. No doubt, there are strong contemporary similarities, and I don’t doubt that our military is learning from the British experience. For the rest of us, I highly recommend some of the enormously entertaining novels in George McDonald Fraser’s Flashman series. The world has changed enormously since then, but history’s often a spiral, not a straight line.
Dec 7, 2008 - 4:50 pm 52. Ledger:I agree with Scott M, Fred, Whiskey and others. Pakistan is been involved in killing our guys and our friends all the while feeding us taqiyya. They have supported the Taliban in Afghanistan and carried out many terrorist attacks.
Now, senior Paki military leaders have burned our vital equipment and shown that they can shut down our supply lines.
I have a feeling that the LeMay Treatment maybe the only thing to modify Pakistan’s behavior.
It should be noted that LeMay “soften up” Japan by burning over 60 cities and mining its main harbors. The atomic bombs were just the Coup de Grace to finish the job.
It’s possible that destroying Pakistan’s main cities may do the job. But, I have my doubts. We may have to do the full Gen. LeMay Treatment.
Now, I don’t see anyone like Gen. LeMay in our Air Force at this time. We probably have the equipment to do the job but not the man. If I am wrong I am sure you guys will let me know.
Dec 7, 2008 - 4:53 pm 53. NahnCee:We could start off just by destroying the cities / depots they stash their nukes in. Leave the rest of it alone to see if they heard Jesus or not.
Dec 7, 2008 - 5:42 pm 54. NahnCee:Faisal is prolly Rose / Theresita / Ruby “goofing” again.
Tee hee. Good one.
Dec 7, 2008 - 5:47 pm 55. Judy, NYC:#50 cholera sounds good.
Dec 7, 2008 - 5:49 pm 56. Tom Holsinger:It is not possible for outsiders to influence Pakistan’s behavior while Pakistan still exists as a country. It is possible for outsiders to eliminate Pakistan’s existence as a country, by use of lots and lots of nuclear weapons.
This will not eliminate the problem of Pakistani support for terrorism elsewhere. It would, however, reduce that significantly, and certainly eliminate support by the Pakistani state for terrorism elsewhere.
Dec 7, 2008 - 7:21 pm 57. Tom Holsinger:whiskey,
Lee Harris put it this way in his Civilization and Its Enemies: The Next Stage of History:
“This gives a sense of Greek tragedy, with its dialectic of hubris and nemesis, to what has been unfolding in the Islamic world. If they continue to use terror against the West, their very success will destroy them. If they succeed in terrorizing the West, they will discover that they have in fact only ended by brutalizing it. And if subjected to enough stress, the liberal system will be set aside and the Hobbesian world will return – and with its return, the Islamic world will be crushed. Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. And the only way to avoid this horrendous end is to bring the Islamic world back to sanity sooner rather than latter.”
Dec 7, 2008 - 7:26 pm 58. fred:Tom @57
So what is holding back the political and cultural leadership of the West from jolting the Islamic world into sanity? I actually don’t have a hard time understanding the mindset of the enemy and what he wants. With some variation, it’s pretty cut and dried.
It’s us that presents a vexing miasma of confusion and pigheadedness.
Dec 7, 2008 - 7:31 pm 59. Tom Holsinger:fred,
What is holding us back is that we haven’t been nuked yet. That will change.
Dec 7, 2008 - 7:55 pm 60. wGraves:Some sort of a threshold has already been crossed. Note that we’re using hellfires, smart bombs, or whatever with some degree of impunity in their tribal territories. This is going to escalate until they may be too busy to bother India. By all means, Pakistan, pull your armies off of the Afghan borders. Ours are waiting to act.
Dec 7, 2008 - 7:59 pm 61. Tcobb:Tools come in all sizes and methods. One geo-political tool that we have used for decades is taking Pakistan’s side against India’s–a relic of the cold war. India is not happy with Pakistan–and is especially wary of them since they have acquired nuclear weapons. One of the better levers we have is to tell Pakistan that unless things take a much better course in regards to stamping out Islamic terrorists we just might break off all support for them and tell India that if they want to eat Pakistan that that would be fine with us.
Dec 7, 2008 - 9:06 pm 62. Faisal:To eat may cause indigestion. Sometimes, even thinking of eating something or someone can cause severe indigestion.
When the average hindu goes to the loo to pee, he gets scared of the pressure with which the pee is coming out. This report can be verified by independent UN sources.
Dec 7, 2008 - 9:44 pm 63. Faisal:You are betting on the wrong horse. This horse aint worth its dung.
Dec 7, 2008 - 9:46 pm 64. Ledger:To put it bluntly, Pakistan has poked a stick in our eye. Destroying 150+ American military vehicles with military weapons is akin to an act of war.
It is a clear way of the Pakistani military saying “We can cut your vital supply lines anytime we desire.”
We need those vehicles to keep our guys safe and to keep operations against the Taliban and al Qaeda going.
[Black Five commenter Haole_Wahine notes the rouge ISI Gen Hamid Gul indicates we are the enemy in a CNN interview]
Fareed Zakari introduced him as the
“former head of Pakistan’s elusive intellignece service, the man who is said to have created the Taliban, Hamid Gul . . .
his name is one of the 4 names US has given to United Nations of ISI officers they would like to place on an international terrorist list.”
Gen Gul’s position on Afghanistan — “… my position is that Americans have aggresses in Afghanistan. And who ever is resisting, the resistance there is justifiable.”
[read the whole thing]
See Black Five comments:
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/12/our-vulnerable.html#comments
Further it is not clear who is in charge of the Pakistani military – or if anybody is in charge except the warlords.
For all we know Gen. Gul is pulling the strings behind the curtain and possibly has control over Paki nukes and other heavy weapons.
I believe “negotiating” with the Paki government is futile and will be met with doses of utter taqiyya.
Sooner or later these guys like Gen Hamid Gul must be liquidated. The sooner the better. But, I doubt it can be done with Predators or Special Ops. They will be dug in deep. It will take the heavy weapons to dislodge them. To keep them from re-grouping will take even more.
Dec 7, 2008 - 9:48 pm 65. The Historian:WEAKNESS INVITES WAR NOT PEACE
People naturally favor strength and disdain weakness:
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2008/12/peace-comes-through-strength.html
Dec 7, 2008 - 10:26 pm 66. Tom Holsinger:Faisal,
Pakistan’s nuclear weapons avail it nothing against enemies who are similarly armed, and stronger. Pakistan’s internal weakness – its inability to restrain its fanatics – turns its nuclear weapons into poison which dooms all of Pakistan.
Pakistan shall see the light of a thousand suns many times over.
Dec 7, 2008 - 10:35 pm 67. Alexis:It is rather interesting how Pushtun men, Saudi mutawwain, and Inter Services Intelligence agents like boys so much. They don’t even want normal sex with their prostitutes, for they desire such sex they way they would have it with their boys. Up the rectum, doggy style.
Islamabad dogs may gloat over a mirage of American starvation. After all, their corrupt rule has put half of Pakistan on the brink of starvation, so obviously they think they can starve the rest of humanity under their reign of buggery.
Hey, Islamabadi dogs, do you really think Americans won’t learn about how little boys get raped in your madrassas, instilling them with a feeling of hate that seeks expression in a fool’s death? Do you really think that word wouldn’t ever leak out? Have you perhaps repressed memories of what happened to you in school?
Look, Islamabadi dogs of the ISI, you get laughed at even by the belly dancers of the civilized half of Pakistan. You think you have manners. Have you actually learned how to use a fork at the dinner table yet? Civilized men prefer women, but the dogs of the ISI and their Saudi masters prefer the rectums of boys. So, it should not be surprise that not even the rest of the Islamic world likes you.
Dogs from Islamabad may think they are being clever in their psychological operations, but they are alone, alone with their cowardice.
Dec 7, 2008 - 10:45 pm 68. Alexis:Ledger:
General Hamid Gul is complacent. You could mail him a letter if you would like and he would almost certainly receive it. Chances are, either he or one of his servants would answer his telephone if you try to call him!
Dec 7, 2008 - 10:50 pm 69. NahnCee:I wish cute little savages like Faisal would make up their minds. In one post, they’re berating Americans for being fat, lazy and out of shape, and then in the next post, they’re babbling about American starvation. Of course, we are the only country in the world with a population of overweight homeless people, but does Faisal really understand how that is possible?
Dec 7, 2008 - 10:55 pm 70. Rob Jack:I think bio warfare is the way to go on Wazirstan. It’s isoloated enough to contain outbreaks of cholera, Dengue and Ebola. A wasting of tens of millions of tribal pakis may have the required “wake up and smell the coffee” effect we’re asking for. If not, lather, rinse repeat.
Dec 7, 2008 - 10:59 pm 71. rob:Just a post to compliment Faisal, the man seems to know his stuff, among other things, he appears to be familiar with horse dung, indigestion, Hindu habits, Oil, Osama’s financiers and terrorism.
Faisal,
Dec 8, 2008 - 12:49 am 72. sean birnie:Have you ever contemplated writing a book titled, The world according to Faisal?
I’m not convinced that Faisal is a true follower of the psychopathic pedophile prophet Mohammed and his epilepsy induced deity, Allah. I suspect he/she/it is just some confused early-teenage moonbat who’s trying, with moderate success, to wind you all up.
Wonder if I can get a way with a non-pc joke (is there any other kind)?
What do you call a Muslim with a piece of bacon on his head?
Ham’ed
And with two pieces of bacon?
Mohamm’ed
Two pieces of bacon and a vibrator up his rear end?
Shake Mohamm’ed
Boom Boom. It’s the way I tellz ‘em.
Dec 8, 2008 - 4:23 am 73. downtowndubai:hey:
first, are we all aware that the Paki’s have just opened and embassy in Havana.correctamundo the pricks that get 6 billion every 5 years in AID now go pimping nukes to Raul. or is that just me thinking we got hosed ???
the problem is simple…restrict access. here in the uae all pakis are under scutiny and even in the midst of a property meltdown, pakis cash need not apply.
if we upthe paperwork for pakis to get visas…mother vaccination certificates, fathers secondary school transcripts…then maybe we would get results. the brits are cooked…internal violence by paki 5th column is a given…when not ”if”.
if you want more info on indian forces read tom clancy…in brief, its all russian air doctrine…big russian aircraft…no supply chain or maintenance management. don’t forget…during the attack, to get the water flowing neart the most famous hotel in ”INJAAAA” it took three hours.
india—all show—no go—or balls for that matter.
Dec 8, 2008 - 4:37 am 74. Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Monday Highlights:[...] India, US and Pakistan considered. [...]
Dec 8, 2008 - 7:12 am 75. Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e44v1:[...] India, US and Pakistan considered. [...]
Dec 8, 2008 - 7:13 am 76. dan:FINALLY they get Gul. I remember talking about this guy three years ago when he’d just given a public interview calmly predicting the eventual victory of the Taliban, messengers of Allah, and the routing and withdrawl of the USA. For some reason, there was an argument that he wasn’t supporting these people. Idiocy! When are they going to talk about Nawaz Sharif? When are they going to talk about ISI’s real patrimony?
Ask yourself: how could an intelligence organization competent enough to run significant parts of South Asian military-political realities be so brazen as to endanger not only the US project in Afghanistan but the Pak-Indian strategic peace? Especially when it was quite evident that Musharaff’s major turn toward the USA occurred when Armitage directly threatened to bomb Pakistan to sh*t if they didn’t help us?
Please. These pathetic little post-Mogul states, with their British infrastructures and barbarian venality, could not possibly engage in this kind of enterprise – exposing that very enterprise to attack by a USA *already in-theater* and with *a reasonable political mandate* – without serious sponsorship.
Ask yourself: who is the concentration camp country sitting invulnerable behind endless “Strategic Rockets?” What country is the Death Star?
What country orchestrated and accomplished the transformation of East Pakistan into Bangladesh, at the time described as a “grassroots Islamic revolution”?
Eh? What is not obvious about this whole scenario? What – does something have to be on tv a certain minimal number of hours before it becomes credible to some of you guys?
Dec 8, 2008 - 8:00 am 77. dan:All this is to say: Paksitan is not a country, it is a host that certain vital and evil forces use like a large malaria-enervated elephant to launch sorties throughout the region. Come on! 170,000,000 people my ass. The Baloch don’t like it, the tribals (30,000,000) don’t like it, the Punjabi are their own thing, the feudals are the lords, subject to the sophistication of the ISI and military, who maintain a judicial system and electoral system to maintain a certain minimal UN (anglo-saxon) compliant credibility – so that the relevant parties can continue looting the place.
well it looks like the ISI is winning the battle of the aristocracies there because ISI is endangering the minimal symbiosis required between host and parasite.
and everyone knows this. maybe the slowness, the Asiatic slowness, of this situation will eventually allow us to avoid world war, but folks there may be something very bad coming down the line. now is not the time to reduce the investment in a large conventional army.
Dec 8, 2008 - 8:06 am 78. dan:i agree completely with rob jack. of course, that would allow ISI’s sponsors to claim it was a US attack, give some to “al Qaeda” and have them loose it here too – but hey, this is the conflict they chose. 20,000,000 fewer unreconstructable pashtunwali useful idiots cannot – I’m sorry to say this on this chronological side of Hitler, Stalin and Mao – be a bad thing. The difference here is that these people are *actually* horrible.
Wait wait wait. That can’t be. But what else can be the answer? What is the answer to Russia? Damn these Asiatic hordes! The plague of civilization since man first left Africa.
Dec 8, 2008 - 8:17 am 79. US Wants Former ISI Director on Terror List » The Aviation Nation:[...] Richard Fernandez has an interesting piece here. [...]
Dec 8, 2008 - 8:52 am 80. givePeaceAChance:what else do we need to decide that Pakistan is the nurturing ground of all these attacks?
Give Peace A Chance, Distroy Pakistan!!
Dec 8, 2008 - 2:29 pm 81. Konyok:Jeez, Louise
I come to BC hoping to find some rational discussion about the attack on our logistical staging area and find nothing but silly, sterile, pointless bombast.
This is really, really, really bad. Just when we are about to significantly increase our mission in Afghanistan the bad guys dramatically compromise our ability to keep the troops supplied.
With one small unit action they have rendered our strategic position in Afghanistan nearly untenable. At least the Soviets had secure railheads on the Afghan border. We are dependent on Pakistani road and rail to the Khyber pass. Using WMD on Pakistan won’t ease the vulnerability of our troops.
As one whose stepson will be deployed within a month, I am getting scared. The specter of Elphinstone beckons …
Dec 8, 2008 - 3:50 pm 82. Old Blue:The Taliban and Al Qaeda have finally truly realized our main vulnerability in Afghanistan, and that is our logistical tail. Discussions with the Russians and northern ’stans are going well, though. But it will take some time to build the railway that is proposed. Still, that could have a quicker impact than would be immediately apparent. The logistical tail in Pakistan is a weakness, though.
One point that I do not see noted above is that shortly after the new Pakistani administration took control of the government, there was an announcement about realligning the ISI to put it under the control of the civilian government. Shortly after that there was a conflicting statement from the ISI.
It turned out that the ISI statement was accurate. There was no reallignment.
In Afghanistan, it was common knowledge that the ISI were active and supportive of the Taliban. Pro-government or anti-Taliban Afghans have nothing but hatred for the ISI, and many are not too warm on the issue of Pakistan in general.
The point is that the ISI are not under the control of the civilian government of Pakistan. They are a rogue organization, set apart and operating without genuine oversight. It is entirely possible, if not likely, that the ISI was directly involved in the Mumbai attack.
Pakistan is caught in the middle of the war on terror, and they are now finding that failing to actually choose sides has left them open to reprisals from both sides. The Taliban claim that they can take over Pakistan, and we are on the brink of punishing them for the activities of the ISI. India is another element altogether, and the instigation is probably engineered to muddy the waters by starting a saber-rattling contest between the Indians and Pakistanis.
Pakistan supports terrorism where it suits them. The ISI is not entirely under control of the elected government there, and as a rogue organization is extremely dangerous. The ISI is where the fuzzy link between the Pakistani government and international terrorism is made. Yes, Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism due to this link, but they are not in control of the link between their state and the terrorist organizations.
People like Gul are. Non-state actors with a state organization under their sway.
Don’t worry about your stepson, Konyok. The Taliban will not be allowed to starve us in Afghanistan. He may not eat as well, but he will eat.
Dec 8, 2008 - 4:38 pm 83. Cannoneer No. 4:This conversation I had with Feral Jundi may be of interest to many on this thread.
The main issue is geography and lack of alternate land routes. The enemy knows this, and we do to. What we should be doing is taking advantage of this, and look at this as an opportunity to kill these guys, as they try to attack the convoys.
Dec 8, 2008 - 4:58 pm 84. Tak'hirn'hirn'hir:Pakistan has played several simultaneous double games for 60 years. The Mumbai attack likely had several messages each for many different players.
Like many poverty stricken areas, Pakistan would respond best on the street level to the old adage: “If the mobs are getting unruly, hire half of them to shoot the other half”.
In strategic planning, overthrow the mullahs in Tehran, supply Afghanistan via their common border with Iran. As an afterthought, Iran has a common border with Pakistan. Arm and train Indian forces up to a fairly modern level and impose a total blockade of bribe money and oil against Pakistan and Pakistani nationals worldwide. Then start whacking some of the most corrupt and extreme Islamist nutjobs in the ISI as a warning of what is in store for all of them. Start planning a joint action with India to reunite the subcontinent.
Dec 8, 2008 - 5:11 pm 85. NahnCee:I’m seeing where the trucks that were blowed up are being described as “NATO and American”. That makes me think that perhaps who-ever was supposed to be guarding them might have also been NATO.
I have seen absolutely no news that anyone was killed on either side in the arson attack. So the terrorists just waltzed merrily in, said “excuse me, please” to the NATO soldiers who were supposed to be guarding the depot (I have to believe if they were American soldiers, some bullets would have been used), whereupon the NATO soldiers gracefully stood back, the trucks were blowed up, and everyone returned to their corners to sip tea with not a shot fired in anger.
Ooooooo-kay. Tell me again what good does it do to stay in NATO?
Dec 8, 2008 - 7:46 pm 86. dan:except the enemy cannot “just” have realized that the supply line from Karachi through Peshawar into Afghanistan is tenuous. We’ve been there for 7 years. There must be something propitious about the current circumstances that has led to this direct confrontation. I’ve seen speculation that the Mumbai attack was in the works for 1 year. Isn’t it reasonable to infer that they would not pursue these direct supply-line attacks, in concert with a strategic (from their regional perspective), melodramatic provocation in Mumbai? It certainly isn’t a coincidence. And doesn’t the combination of events suggest that some actor – not just Lashkar, not just ISI + Lashkar – views the exposure the attack was sure to result in would be worth it to achieve another – some *other* – result?
Dec 8, 2008 - 7:48 pm 87. Alexis:We cannot supply our forces in Afghanistan through Pakistan.
We must supply our forces from the north, not the south.
There are many ways to supply our forces.
1. Russian rail system
2. Trans-Caucasus route into Afghanistan
3. Russian black market munitions
4. Build arsenal in Afghanistan
4a. Build munitions factories in Tajik, Uzbek, and Hazara regions of Afghanistan
4b. Buy all of Afghanistan’s opium, convert 90% into biodiesel, convert 10% into morphine.
4c. Buy Afghan wheat crop, use it to feed our troops
[5. In theory, if Iran ever gets liberated, it may be possible to supply our troops in Afghanistan through Iran. However, this possibility is very unlikely for the time being.]
We need to reconfigure our logistics into Afghanistan. I have said this so often in the last few months that I am probably sounding like a broken record by now.
We are in for a long siege. As long as we keep a level head about all of this and make sure we keep our forces well supplied, there is little chance of any major military disaster. Those are big ifs though, given America’s domestic political situation.
As it is, a naval blockade against Pakistan would probably turn out the lights on the Pakistani economy. Invading Pakistan itself might not even be necessary to bring it to its knees.
Dec 8, 2008 - 7:55 pm 88. Cannoneer No. 4:Take the war to the enemy
To defend the taxpayer’s millions of dollars invested in Afghanistan reconstruction program, move two integrated divisions with substantial air element in the area, in consultation with Kabul. Let Indian pressures build up from East and West on Pakistan so that our embassy or similar establishments are not targeted in future.
Two divisions worth of Indian boots on Afghan ground in Pakistan’s “strategic depth” is America’s ticket out of there.
Dec 8, 2008 - 9:05 pm 89. Dave:@Alexis #87: Keep it up! Yours is the kind of out-of-the-box logistical thinking that too few people are capable of.
Bio-diesel has been discussed before. But paying locals to grow a portion of our side’s rations is something that I had not thought of but it sure makes good sense.
Not only does this kind of market-based endeavor help out Afghanistan, it also clobbers ISI et al right between the eyes.
Their influence, along with that of the Taliban, requires economic dependency. Productivity is poison to them.
Good show!
Dec 8, 2008 - 10:42 pm 90. lipstick on my pig:Pakistan is probably about 20 per cent enemy, 60 per cent friend. Trouble is the 20 per cent can make a lot of trouble and the undecideds are too big an unknown.
I wouldn’t like to be involved in trying to sort any of that out.
Dec 9, 2008 - 5:27 am 91. Wadeusaf:The biggest stumbling block to any of these plans is the locals, the folks who live there, will have to live with whomever is left behind when we leave. The folks in Afghanistan will put up with the Taliban for one reason, they bring a sense of order and a sense of security despite their very draconian rules and measures. We have not been able to sustain the levels of security and thus a sense of order necessary to allow for Afghanistan to thrive. The Taliban, Al Qaeda and the anti foreigner anything different, Pashtun Tribes in the NW of Pakistan have made certain of that.
The perception remains, we instituted certain measures and have not been able to deliver. We came really close, but not having the ability to confront extreme Islamist tribes and Taliban in Pakistan, doomed our efforts. As long as the blood was being spilt on the Afgani side of the border there was no trouble for our convoys, but now with the pressure on the Pakistani government to shut down the terrorists and act as a responsible nation, the convoys are at risk. Perhaps in the struggle to maintain his government, the President of Pakistan will be forced to engage the renegade Pashtun tribes. Then we will see who rules Pakistan.
Dec 9, 2008 - 8:42 am 92. Steynian 295 « Free Canuckistan!:[...] THE TIMES OF INDIA reports that US policy makers are having second thoughts about whether Pakistan is in the main, [...]
Dec 10, 2008 - 1:52 pmSorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.