Major Good News from Pakistan!
For a long time now I have been worried that war with Pakistan, which for most of the War on Terror was offering de facto shelter to the Taliban and hence behaving as a hostile Power, was becoming inevitable. Such a war would, of course, be a Very Bad Thing for America: Pakistan is a traditional American ally, and its defection to the enemy would
( Read more... )
Comments 29
Reply
Reply
Reply
Yeah, I think it's been obvious to any alert observer that Pakistan just never really was that wound up about fighting the Taliban, and likely viewed the war as an opportunity to get US support that could be leveraged against India.
Also, the media that portrayed Musharraf as an ally who wanted to do more, but was hamstrung by political considerations. I personally always had doubts about that, it just seemed to come across as a lack of interest. As though Musharraf simply wanted to do the bare minimum required to appear as though he was on our side.
The rapid turnaround (which so far as I know has gone generally unreported in the press) is proof of that.
Reply
I always knew that Pakistan seemed remarkably unwilling to fight the Taliban or Al Qaeda, and was slowly coming to the conclusion that we might have to go to war -- or at least terminate the alliance with -- Pakistan for this reason. What I wasn't getting, until I read this article, was the reason -- mostly because I'm aware that the fighting quality of the Taliban and Al Qaeda are close to nil, and hence the notion of pissing off America to preserve them for use against India would have struck me as utterly insane.
I'm not exaggerating when I say that if this article is correct, Musharref is insane on the topic of India, because his Brilliant Plan had virtually no chance of working. Having a few tens of thousands of poorly-armed, poorly-trained lunatics on Pakistan's side wouldn't tip the balance ( ... )
Reply
What amazes me is how slowly the rest of the globe is to catch on to this "leadership syndrome." Perhaps the sychophants should be sent to the front, to prove their commitment to the cause?
Reply
It's worse than that. The Indo-Pakistani matchup isn't like the US-Soviet matchup of, say, the 1970's or 1980's. If it came to a total war, India would win. Pakistan is that much weaker.
Furthermore, the most that the Pakistanis could hope for, if they built up their offensive strength a lot while the Indians put no resources into defensive weapons, would be to change that to a situation in which both would be annihilated.
In other words, Musharraf's quest was unachievable. Inherently so, due to demographics and geography.
Reply
Back when Reagan was President, I used to have knock-down-drag-outs with Social Justice Activists on that very subject. (Just like today, the most rabid neo-Marxist-Leninist-Castroists were Yuppie Puppies from the most Exclusive Gated Communities.)
Every time they chanted their mantra "Nobody Can Win A Nuclear War; Nuclear War Is Unwinnable", I came back with "That doesn't matter. What matters is somebody with nukes who THINKS it's winnable and goes for it."
They would condescendingly pat me on the head for my narrow-mindedness and lack of understanding. Just like they did the Cuban woman who'd fled Castro's Paradise with her (surviving) family.
Reply
They've always trotted out that line, and firmly believe it. Since they've never had to suffer in any way (other than lack of some luxury), they've this carefully-constructed equation of "How The World Works." Unfortunately, it doesn't add up )pun intended). The world isn't a manageable equation. They've yet to learn that.
The same as their kin from Prep schools during Vietnam. No real idea of what difficulty is.
Reply
I'm glad that the Pakistanis are coming 'round to being real allies again, as well. Especially since, if we did go to war, we'd be fighting the Navy with which my father the United States helpfully provided them.
(In my father's defense, this was before Musharraf seized power in his coup.)
Reply
I'd stop short of calling it a slaughter, but only because one would hope the first exchange would be sufficient cause to stop.
Reply
The utter stupidity of the Bush administration has demonstrated to the various factions in the region that they need to "hang together lest they hang separately". USA seems to have laid the foundation for an alliance from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan and from Syria to Iran, an alliance that may well get the backing of Russia and China.
Still interested in invading Iran? You and whose army, btw? The US army isn't exactly known for its ability to win wars on its own, and your arrogance seems to have turned most of your allies away by now.
Reply
Wrong again, Foibos. With Musharraf out, the Pakistani military is showing its superiority to the Taliban. The Taliban military capability is, and always has been, a joke -- the only thing keeping it alive has been the unwillingness of Musharraf to sanction its destruction.
As the Talibani insurrection in Afghanistan is nearing and possibly surpassing the capacity of the Coalition Forces, it seems more likely that the Talibans will eventually take over in Pakistan as well.
Quite the opposite. With the loss of its Pakistani sponsor, the Taliban in Afghanistan now finds its supply line from Pakistan endangered. And with the growing Coalition victory in Iraq, veteran Coalition forces (especially the Americans, who are not fighting under restrictive ROE) now become available for deployment into Afghanistan.
The utter stupidity of the Bush administration has demonstrated to the various factions in the region that they need to " ( ... )
Reply
Name one *war* where the US armed forces have
1) fought without allies
2) fought an enemy of comparable military capability, and
3) achieved victory.
(Well, the Civil War obviously, but apart from that.)
Reply
Name one *war* where the US armed forces have
1) fought without allies
2) fought an enemy of comparable military capability, and
3) achieved victory.
There are none, because America is very good at
(1) recruiting allies,
(2) military quality, and
(3) military strategy.
You look at these as accidents: instead, they stem from our nature. For instance, our ability to recruit allies comes from our generally-benevolent international behavior toward the peaceful; our military quality from our open society which allows free criticism of mistakes allowing us to learn from themIf we went to war with Iran, we would try to recruit allies; failing this, we might very well limit the war to an air campaign. Iran is also not in our league regarding military quality (or quantity ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment