Pakistan, not Afghanistan, the central threat
On the campaign trail, Barack Obama warned that Afghanistan, not Iraq, should be treated as the true “central front” in the war on Islamic extremism. As president, he has begun to translate that approach into action, announcing a slow withdrawal from Iraq while committing more troops and resources to Afghanistan.
But quietly, Obama has redefined and broadened the problem in a profound way. When he and others in his administration discuss the issue, they no longer describe the central front as Afghanistan; now, they tend to talk of Afghanistan and Pakistan, together, as a single problem.
“The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan,” Obama said last month in announcing a new policy in the region. “In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al-Qaida and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes al-Qaida’s leadership: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. … For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world.”
The evolving recognition of Pakistan’s importance is also laid out starkly in a new “white paper” issued by the administration on policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan. Among other things, it stresses the importance of “disrupting terrorist networks in Afghanistan and especially Pakistan,” with the emphasis quite clearly on Pakistan. According to the report, “The core goal of the U.S. must be to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida and its safe havens in Pakistan, and to prevent their return to Pakistan or Afghanistan.”
That language tells you a lot about the thinking of the president and his advisers and generals. Pakistan is no longer considered important just because of its impact on events on Afghanistan; Pakistan itself has become the central focus, with Afghanistan increasingly secondary. Two things have driven that reassessment:
— The stability of Pakistan itself is increasingly threatened. In testimony last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gen. David Petraeus warned that “the Pakistani state faces a rising —indeed, an existential -— threat from Islamist extremists such as al-Qaida and other transnational terrorist organizations.” Pakistan’s elected civilian government is weak and divided, unable to act to protect itself or its people. It is ceding more and more territory — and more and more of its citizenry — to rule by the Taliban. As Obama described the threat, “al-Qaida and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within.”
— Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal estimated roughly at 100 warheads. And while there is no immediate danger of Islamic militants gaining control of either the government or the warheads, the trend line is worrisome. If Pakistan falls, Petraeus warned Congress, it “would provide transnational terrorist groups and other extremist organizations an opportunity to acquire nuclear weapons and a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks.”
It is in Pakistan, in other words, that the nightmare scenario woven by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney is most likely to play out. All the ingredients are there: nuclear weapons, a government so far lacking the means and will to defend itself, and a rising tide of Islamic extremism. In fact, the situation has deteriorated to such a degree that before Obama’s first term ends, it is conceivable U.S. troops may be fighting on the ground in Pakistan itself.
U.S. officials of course deny any such plan, as they should. “There is no intention for us to be conducting operations in there, certainly on the ground,” Petraeus said last week, “and there is every intention by the Pakistani military and their other forces to conduct those operations.”
Again, that language is revealing. It is no doubt true that at the moment, the U.S. has no intention of conducting ground operations in Pakistan. Doing so would mark a dangerous escalation of our commitment in that region. But the general’s choice of words leaves the door open should the situation change.
The most likely areas for such an intervention are the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan. They are technically part of Pakistan, but the Pakistani government has no presence there. The conditions that might force such an intervention are purely speculative. On a smaller scale, hit-and-run operations against specific targets inside the tribal areas could be launched under the same ground rules already in effect for missile strikes. Those strikes — by some reports launched from within Pakistan itself — occur with private permission but public condemnation from the Pakistani government. Ground raids, rare in the past, are likely to increase in number and scale as the summer fighting season opens.
At some future point, it is even conceivable that a Pakistani government will feel so threatened by Islamic extremists that it requests more direct and extensive U.S. military assistance. In light of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, it would be hard for Obama or any other president to deny that request.
Furthermore, if for some reason the United States chose not to intervene while Pakistan’s government fell to extremists, others in the region — most notably India — would almost certainly feel compelled to act, with potentially disastrous consequences.
The “AfPak” policy laid out by the Obama administration is clearly designed against that calamity. It attempts to bolster the will of Pakistan’s government to defend itself and to give Pakistani forces the training and resources they need to do so. The U.S. government is also working with India to lower tensions with Pakistan, so the Pakistani military can feel free to concentrate on the extremist threat.
India’s restrained reaction to the terror attack on Mumbai — an attack clearly launched from Pakistan, with possible support from elements in the Pakistani government — was an important if temporary success in that effort. It also suggests that India very much shares U.S. apprehension about that trend line in its neighbor.
What makes the problem truly difficult is there’s no short-term or mid-term answer, no chance of anything we might call victory. For a variety of reasons, including a failure to commit enough resources or attention years ago, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan has become a condition that can at best be managed but maybe not cured.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2010 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
131 comments Add your comment
Corporal
April 4th, 2009
9:59 am
Jay:
Blaming Bush for Pakistan (as opposed to the terrorists) is really quite pathetic but I do agree with you on one thing …. EVIL (for the time being) can only be managed … not cured.
OFF TOPIC:
As we approach the Easter Season:
“It is good that Jesus was a carpenter, for he had to make a ladder that should reach from earth to heaven.”
Author unknown
I Report/ You Whine
April 4th, 2009
10:26 am
The “AfPak” policy laid out by the Obama administration is clearly designed against that calamity. It attempts to bolster the will of Pakistan’s government to defend itself and to give Pakistani forces the training and resources they need to do so. The U.S. government is also working with India to lower tensions with Pakistan, so the Pakistani military can feel free to concentrate on the extremist threat.</i.
Oh, so now we get a synopsis of the exact same Bush policy that you libs whined about for 6 years, hahaha.
O’Bushie The Second.
Sarapathi Kumaran
April 4th, 2009
10:28 am
Many readers have felt that Jay Bookman should do his stories when his head is clear. But, this is impossible. Being a non-curable drug-addict it is almost rare that he ever writes without taking hard drugs like cocaine, heroine, pure opium, crack, and marijuana. This article was also written when he was dangerously ‘high’ with such a large dose. Its incoherence is the proof of our judgement.
Donovan
April 4th, 2009
10:39 am
Well now, let’s see…Jay and his buddies thought that Pappa Bush should have finished the job in Gulf I and brought down Hussein when we had the troops over there. Then, when W went in there in Gulf II it was “ill conceived and unwarranted”. Jay and the boys thought that the invasion had no exit strategy and it only promoted Islamic extremist recruitment. Now it is ok with Jay and the boys to ramp up troops in Afghanistan and play possible invader for Pakistan. It sounds like they are endorsing a bigger cowboy who also has no apparent exit strategy. Hmmm…could this new ideology about fighting evil be as simple as who backs who in their political philosophy? It’s ok for liberals who support a liberal Obama to wage war, but it is not ok for their conservative political opponents to wage war on evil. Oh…let’s not forget that Jay and the boys voiced their opposition to the war in Iraq at the expense of denegrating America and her Commander-in-Chief. Jay and the boys made sure that this country had no resolve in winning Iraq, but now wants to make a case whereby “we all” are needed in this new struggle against Islamic fascism.
SuperDave
April 4th, 2009
10:39 am
“non-curable drug addict”
Apparently it takes one to know one.
Have great weekend!!!
TnGelding
April 4th, 2009
10:43 am
When do the B-52s start rumbling down the runways?
RW-(the original)
April 4th, 2009
10:45 am
Let’s say Bush had expanded the war in Afghanistan to include major troop involvement in Pakistan rather than go to Iraq. Would we be reading a Jay B story that told us how Obama would now have to deal with the looming threat of Iraq because Bush had been distracted with his Pakistan folly and taken his eye off the real hot spot?
I’d say the likelihood is about 99.999999% yes.
SuperDave
April 4th, 2009
10:46 am
Donovan 10:39
I think there is at least a slight difference between invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and where the terrorists had no presence, and concentrating on an area where OBL and the terrorists are actually operating. Which, by the way, is exactly what Obama had promised to do during the campaign.
SuperDave
April 4th, 2009
10:48 am
RW 10:45
Pure speculation
Curious Observer
April 4th, 2009
10:52 am
The more likely scenario is another Pakistani army coup once the existing government grows so weak that it can no longer defend itself against the insurgents. In any case, India would never allow an insurgent government to be installed. We would see nuclear war between the countries first.
Taxpayer
April 4th, 2009
10:52 am
Sarapathi Kumaran
April 4th, 2009
10:28 am
Many readers have felt that Jay Bookman should do his stories when his head is clear. But, this is impossible. Being a non-curable drug-addict it is almost rare that he ever writes without taking hard drugs like cocaine, heroine, pure opium, crack, and marijuana. This article was also written when he was dangerously ‘high’ with such a large dose. Its incoherence is the proof of our judgement.
Jay,
Why don’t you expose the poster of that trash for what it really is. I cannot imagine any real person objecting.
RW-(the original)
April 4th, 2009
10:53 am
SD 10:48,
What was your first clue, Sherlock?
Perhaps the beginning where it said Let’s say?
Taxpayer
April 4th, 2009
11:03 am
Let’s say Reagan never sent Rumsfeld over to shake hands with Saddam. Oh well. Just another in a long list of Republican failures.
I Report/ You Whine
April 4th, 2009
11:06 am
Hahahaha, yeah, the “world” “loves” our little Special Olympian, sure thing-
Barack Obama fails to win Nato troops he wants for Afghanistan-Reuters
Smile for the camera, bozo.
RW-(the original)
April 4th, 2009
11:09 am
Even the Guardian is making fun of our stuttering dunce.
The question that flummoxed the great orator
I Report/ You Whine
April 4th, 2009
11:09 am
Let’s say Reagan never sent Rumsfeld over to shake hands with Saddam. Oh well. Just another in a long list of Republican failures.</i.
See Saddam shake hands. See Saddam receive gifts from the United States, not Chia Pets like you would get now, but instead he got honest to goodness American made heavy weapons. See Saddam point his new heavy weapons at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. See the Revolutionary Guard fly through the air in pieces. See Reagan smile. See Taxpayer fetch, fetch Taxpayer, fetch.
Dusty
April 4th, 2009
11:13 am
Dear RW,@10:45
You got that right! There’s little speculation about the way liberals think. Just say “Bush” and they are against it. Been going on now for over eight years. You’d think liberals would outgrow it at some point and act like adults.
No sign of it yet. Liberals are too busy gushing over Obama. They did not notice that he is getting no help in Afghanistan from NATO nations but ..oohohhhh…didn’t Michelle look so good in a little black dress? Better than Mrs. Sarkozy!! Anybody worrying about NATO? Afghanistan? Nawwwwwwww…
Bosch
April 4th, 2009
11:13 am
Paul,
If you should show up here -
RE: last night’s thread -
Yeah, DB definitely said American bands – so of course I had to leave ABBA out.
Did you mean “Twilight” as in Stephanie Myers?
Corporal
April 4th, 2009
11:15 am
Taxpayer:
Didn’t Roosevelt shake hands with Stalin (how many millions did he murder) ?
Bosch
April 4th, 2009
11:15 am
Curious Observer,
Good point. Yes, India has more at stake in this particular scenario than we do, and they’ve already suffered a recent terrorist attack due in part to the Pakistani’s loss of control over certain factions.
Corporal
April 4th, 2009
11:19 am
To SuperDave (from yesterday):
SuperDave:
Excellent points you have made ……… but we differ a little.
Here are my thoughts ….
1) A federal district judge has just ruled these “combatants” in Afghanistan have full Constitutional rights. This is absurd of course on its face and even the Obama administration (for now) thinks so.
The point is, should an out of control Supreme Court eventually agree, I revert to my “fall back” position …….. #2
2) The terrorists are absolutely NOT criminals. They are involved in war! We treat this as a law enforcement function at our peril. They ARE “enemy combatants” and they choose not to wear a uniform because they are cowards. A simple visible “patch” worn 24/7 would suffice.
Therefore, the should be treated no better (and in my opinion worse) than a “soldier” caught out of uniform on the field of battle. The simple “Eisenhower” method will suffice.
Taxpayer
April 4th, 2009
11:22 am
See Andie continue with his expected displays of stupidity. See Andie welch, again.
Bosch
April 4th, 2009
11:30 am
Dusty,
The only problem with your theory is that we base our opinions about Bush on things he actually did as opposed to your problem with Obama which is based on things you think he might do in the future, and the only person to bring up Michelle’s wardrobe so far has been you.
AmVet
April 4th, 2009
11:30 am
Let’s say certain bloggers weren’t lobotomy candidates…
Last night there was a “discussion” about the five ways a batter can reach first base. For you supposed baseball fans, there are actually eight:
1. Hit
2. Walk
3. Hit by Pitch
4. Fielder’s Choice
5. Reached on Error (includes MLB Official Rule 7.05 i)
6. Dropped Third Strike
7. Catcher’s Interference (hindering the batter while in the batter’s box)
8. Fielder’s Obstruction (hindering the batter while he is running to first base)
My bold baseball prediction for 2009 — the Texas Rangers will not win the World Series!
The current 4 week “rally” in the stock market is due to:
a) Sunspots, volcanoes and wobbles in the earth’s orbit
b) Mission Accomplished
c) Trickle Down Your Thigh economics
d) Jesus, Yahweh and Allah
e) Holes in the fossil record
If you answered f, you are correct…
Bosch
April 4th, 2009
11:32 am
RW,
Well considering that AQ wasn’t in Iraq until we went there, I say your speculative numbers are a bit off – sure anything could have happened, AQ goes where we go.
Bosch
April 4th, 2009
11:34 am
RW,
And whose to say that we MIGHT have to be worrying about any of the other ME countries if we’d concentrated on Afghanistan back in the day.
fearless fosdick
April 4th, 2009
11:36 am
AmVet .. Actually the question was WITHOUT hitting the ball..So that would eliminate your #1,#4,#5!
Just saying
RW-(the original)
April 4th, 2009
11:38 am
amvet
The discussion was reaching first base WITHOUT hitting the ball.
Bosch,
That’s the great thing about speculation.
/and there’s no freaking way there was no AQ in Iraq before we went there. Clinton knew it, Bush knew it, Richard Clarke knew it, and anybody with a drop of common sense knows they couldn’t have come in after we were there and established communication lines and a network of safe houses completely undetected and with no previous contact.
fearless fosdick
April 4th, 2009
11:39 am
Bosch on your recommendation I picked up a 12 pak of Yuengling traditional lager this morning while at Kroger….Your beer savy is on the line…I hope it is as good as you say!
mighty casey
April 4th, 2009
11:41 am
RW 10:48/11:38
Did you not know the rule on speculation?
Please, don’t confuse the Monday Morning Quarterbacks.
RW-(the original)
April 4th, 2009
11:43 am
Good point, mc.
Bosch
April 4th, 2009
11:47 am
RW,
That may be so, I certainly have to access to NSA or CIA intelligence, but I don’t think it was enough to justify a full scale invasion, and apparently it wasn’t much of a bother to any other nation in the world to help us – except for the Brits.
Bosch
April 4th, 2009
11:50 am
fearless fosdick,
I hope I don’t disappoint, but I think it’s good – I think it’s also trendy, kind of like when Coors started being sold over on this part of the Mississippi. But it certainly has been very popular in my neck of the woods – Floyd’s having a hard time keeping it in stock.
And also thank rcs, he’s the one who brought it up last night!
But, in my opinion, any sunny Saturday with a cold six/twelve pack of good beer is an excellent day indeed! Enjoy it!!!
RW-(the original)
April 4th, 2009
11:51 am
Bosch,
Haven’t we sufficiently beaten this dead horse over the last few years? We’re never going to agree and you certainly didn’t need classified information to listen to what the various players said in public statements going back into the 1990’s. Furthermore the invasion of Iraq was never based on going after AQ.
Bosch
April 4th, 2009
11:52 am
RW,
The interesting player in this particular game will be India – and see how they react. They certainly have more at stake at this point in time. I mentioned earlier that they had suffered a terrorist attack directly related to what’s going on now, and that certainly doesn’t discount our horrible terrorist attack – but at this point in time, they are more at risk by simple geography as they always have been.
Do you know – I don’t, but does India have nukes?
RW-(the original)
April 4th, 2009
11:53 am
I’m beginning to think the Refresh Gremlins were deliberately placed here to run us off. I’ve had all of them I can take for today.
Later y’all. Try not to waste this beautiful Saturday since global warming is getting ready to bring us April snow showers.
Bosch
April 4th, 2009
11:54 am
RW,
Yes, I think this horse has been beaten to death, and that’s cool with me to agree to disagree.
Again, do you know if India has nukes?
RW-(the original)
April 4th, 2009
12:01 pm
Bosch,
Yes India has nukes.
Later!
NRB
April 4th, 2009
12:11 pm
Jay, where’s your column detailing how the surge in Afghanistan won’t work, and that Obama should’nt be sending out poor minorities to die for oil in a white-man’s war? Huhhhhh?
AmVet
April 4th, 2009
12:14 pm
Sadly, some apparently will never, ever stop justifying and apologizing for BushCo’s Big Botched Adventure in Iraq.
The Republiconned – lied to and loving it…
NRB
April 4th, 2009
12:22 pm
Sadly, some apparently will never, ever stop whining about the Iraq war either. Even as President Whats-His-Name, a chickenhawk who never fought in a war, sends 20,000 troops to Afghanasta-Bananastand to die for oil. THE SURGE WON’T WORK! IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! NO JUSTICE NO PEACE! ETc.
AmVet
April 4th, 2009
12:29 pm
And some of the never-served, never-will will never stop cheerleading for the real chickenhawks and deadly f&ckups who have the blood of 4600+ American GIs on their hands.
Disgusting and gutless little people…
Dusty
April 4th, 2009
12:32 pm
Dear bosch,
Perhaps you don’t read the home page of AJC.com.
First..a large picture of Michelle plus a big discussion printup of her outfits, etc. etc. etc. and a yes or no selection for readers to “vote”.
Second…the Democratic budget of over three trillion dollars just passed in the Democratic-led Congress. It was Obama’s baby and he gets all the credit.
.
Corporal
April 4th, 2009
12:34 pm
AmVet:
And don’t forget the 58,000 ………………..
“If there was immorality in the war in Vietnam, it was that a democratic nation called her citizens to war, had them killed by the tens of thousands, and then, like a faithless lover, turned and scorned the survivors. Oh, perfidious nation!” David Donovan
Jesus
April 4th, 2009
12:36 pm
Impeach Obama now!
AmVet
April 4th, 2009
12:43 pm
Corporal, one of the many unanswerable mysteries to me regarding BushCo is how the “leaders” of this country could ignore the lessons of that clustrf&ck in such a shockingly short period of time.
And were absolutely thrilled to create a second one.
Along with the support of the fools who elected them in the first place.
An American tragedy and the neo-conned “faithful’ here still joyously shuck and grin for it…
Dusty
April 4th, 2009
12:56 pm
Oh dear, where is our hall & word monitor this morning? There is a brainwashed one amongst us who is calling Republicans all kinds of unpleasant names he cannot even spell out in full. Is that OK?
OH, I see. That ONE is not well and isn’t housebroken yet. Besides that, he is a liberal. OK……
Bud Wiser
April 4th, 2009
12:57 pm
It’s really Pakistan vs India here.
Border.
Disputed land.
Or, as an Indian flight attaendant once told me, “They eat cows, we don’t.”
NRB
April 4th, 2009
1:04 pm
The surge won’t work! Impeach Obama! No blood for oil!
I Report/ You Whine
April 4th, 2009
1:08 pm
Where’s bin Laden at, huh, huh?
Paul
April 4th, 2009
1:13 pm
First things first.
Yes, Bosch, that Twilight.
Jay,
What a difference a few months makes in progress. From General Betrayus to a valued advisor who’s been promoted. From greeting his remarks with a suspension of disbelief (Clinton) to seeking his advice. From questioning his representation of events (VP Biden) to confirming them. From doubt and skepticism to giving weight to the ideas. Progress.
(Sidenote: I see MoveOn’s Moulitsas blasted Code Pink in Politico on Apr 2. Code Pink’s the group who’s for getting out (as in ‘out’) of Iraq. From attacking General Petraeus to attacking Code Pink. I’m shocked….)
It’s also interesting that as the President was defining this approach, his VP was against the more heavily military aspects. Pres Obama went more…. Bush in his approach. Understandable. Such is the difference between candidate and President.
I believe the Bush Administration attempted to stave off extremist influence in Pakistan by granting billions in aid. Am I mistaken, or did Bush opponents paint this aid as exclusively for Musharraf (I do think we tied ourselves to him way too much) and call for a cutoff of aid?
[[The most likely areas for such an intervention are the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan. They are technically part of Pakistan, but the Pakistani government has no presence there.]]
That phrase caused a chill (not like Chris Matthews’ thrill up his leg) – rather, a chill of apprehension. I hope this does not turn into the eventual justification for greatly expanded operations there. “Well, it is in Pakistan, but it’s not really Pakistan).
[[The “AfPak” policy laid out by the Obama administration is clearly designed against that calamity. It attempts to bolster the will of Pakistan’s government to defend itself and to give Pakistani forces the training and resources they need to do so. The U.S. government is also working with India to lower tensions with Pakistan, so the Pakistani military can feel free to concentrate on the extremist threat.]]
And this is significantly different from Bush Administration policy, how, exactly?
[[What makes the problem truly difficult is there’s no short-term or mid-term answer, no chance of anything we might call victory. For a variety of reasons, including a failure to commit enough resources or attention years ago, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan has become a condition that can at best be managed but maybe not cured.]]
This is a takeoff on Iraq criticism: so we’re likely expanding war in a country and we can’t tell how to define victory? And a Democratic Administration and Congress is doing this? (I wonder when the Left will call for Congress to declare war or leave will occur? Is it too much to ask for consistency?).
I think part of this goes back a few years to discussions on how to defeat an ideology. ‘Course, there were many who argued there was no threatening ideology to fight, and if there were extremists, they were so few and didn’t have a navy or aircraft so they couldn’t be a threat.
But the ideology lives, it has a following, it has a vision of the future and it may go from a nonstate movement to a nonstate movement in control of a state.
Throwaway question: if the Pakistani government feels its existence is threatened, are 100 nukes enough to blanket the tribal areas? Or will they go down in a conventional fight? Israel parallels, anyone?
fearless fosdick
April 4th, 2009
1:16 pm
I Report/ You Whine.. whiner you might want to ask McCain. Isn’t he the one who proclaimed he knew how to win wars and he knew how to capture Bin Laden, and was going to do it!
Is McCain holding back information that could lead to the capture of Bin Laden..If so he’s not much of a patriot, now is he? On the other hand was he just blowing smoke?
@@
April 4th, 2009
1:16 pm
…for all the outrage that liberals directed towards Musharraf’s “dictatorship” — just wait until this guy resumes power
Osama Bin Laden’s BFF.
just wait until this guy gains a political stronghold
I Report/ You Whine
April 4th, 2009
1:20 pm
McCain is commander in chief now?
Wait, that means Palin is VP!
Oh happy day!
This long, idiotic nightmare is over!
mighty casey
April 4th, 2009
1:26 pm
front page ajc!
Michelle Obama’s sense of style continues to attract attention on the first couple’s European trip
Hillbilly Deluxe
April 4th, 2009
1:26 pm
If the time comes when Obama feels it is necessary for us to go into Pakistan, he better be prepared to go it alone. Given past history I wouldn’t count on any help from any other country.
Dusty
April 4th, 2009
1:45 pm
Paul,
You really enjoy exploring these journalistic ventures of Bookman. Fortunately, you know what you are talking about but love a debate.
As to your question, I don’t think the Pakis will ever use wmds on their own citizens, even if they are unreachable fanatics in the highest mountains around. Pakis will keep overthrowing their government until they have a muslim dictator who is indistinguishable from terrorists. Other muslim controlled countries will back him. Turkey will try to act indifferent but it won’t last. Iran will be producing wmds like a chicken house full of hens. (Excuse the colloquialism. I KINDA like ‘em.)
Israel will have things hot on the stove in case they need to serve them. So will India. The United States will not have enough capital to help anybody. They will still be paying off the 2009 budget.
Maybe isolationism might work here after all. Just get those antimissile projects working and withdraw our troops from South Korea and Afghanistan. We’ll get along with South America ’cause we need their drug trade.
OK…skip that last one. I am going to eat lunch. Did you finish reading about the lady and the vampire? Just a replacement for BSG I guess.
Corporal
April 4th, 2009
1:54 pm
AmVet:
I hear you but I think we may agree on tactics but disagree on strategy.
Vietnam utilized the wrong tactics.
The First Gulf War utilized the correct tactics.
The Second Gulf War utilized poor tactics (at least at the beginning).
I think we are still making some of the same tactical errors in Afghanistan as we made in V.N.
Just one man’s opinion who was there for one of them.
Thanks for your input.
ByteMe
April 4th, 2009
2:00 pm
Too funny. CommieAJC is over on Bob Barr’s blog trying to get Bob to send messages to Jay. Not kidding.
Bosch
April 4th, 2009
2:02 pm
Paul,
So how’d ya’ like it?
Bosch
April 4th, 2009
2:03 pm
ByteMe,
Poor Commie. He misses us I guess.
ByteMe
April 4th, 2009
2:07 pm
I don’t think he misses you or I at all.
Bosch
April 4th, 2009
2:12 pm
ByteMe,
Oh, I think he misses us the most! Who else does he have to argue with? We were the only ones who paid attention to him beyond calling him a moron.
Paul
April 4th, 2009
2:19 pm
Dusty
You are correct, I do love exploring ideas. I know I make more than a few jabs at those who excuse inconsistencies because of party affiliation, but perhaps I’m not obvious enough in saying “look, that was said for political advantage, now the shoe’s on the other foot, can we just admit it and move forward?”
I think Jay asks some very good questions. From what I’ve read he starts with a what is; maybe a brief background, but essentially it’s like a new hand in a poker game (I hope that isn’t a sports analogy) and the implications of what can be done with the hand; many like to default to “when you had the same hand this is how you bet.” Is that unclear?
I do not know if I will ever understand why some people have the positions they do. I trust you know, as I’ve said, asking a question doesn’t mean advocating a position or attacking one. Sometimes I get some really good insights – sometimes I get “defend my guy/gal/party at all costs.” Nothing’s perfect – some very intelligent people can do some pretty unfortunate things with the best of intentions. That doesn’t mean the person’s evil. Maybe in over their head, but not evil.
Yeah, I think the same about the nuke thing. Sometimes those thoughts just occur and I like to explore them more for the parallels to other situations, like the Israeli situation.
I can see where you may interpret some of what I’ve said as isolationism but I do not mean it that way. We are and will be a leader in the world. But…. we will be that even if we do not have a military presence in the mideast or use their products. In fact, I’ll offer up that we may have even more economic power if Pres Obama’s plans to develop technologies that will supplant oil come to bear. Then again, in a couple decades our alternate energy development could mean static countries with reduced demand for their source of wealth with young populations frustrated by economic stagnation leading to outward adventurism…. nothing’s ever easy, is it?
Way too philosophical on a Saturday. Just came in from getting my veggie bed ready. Moving the herbs around. Now it’s off to a kiddie flag football game.
Paul
April 4th, 2009
2:20 pm
Bosch
Very much. Very very much. Quite a different style (the movie captured the author). And I liked the mood in the Pacific northwest.
Off to the game – later -
Bosch
April 4th, 2009
2:29 pm
Paul,
The second book is sad, and the third and fourth are pretty intense. Ya’ remember a couple months ago when I said I’d just got through reading a book that would get me laughed off the blog if I’d admitted to reading it? Well……….I’ll admit it now that you have. Your my blog hero (and Mrs. G).
I’m off to my daughter’s play – that’s why I read the books – ya’ know, just being a good parent and to see if they were appropriate.
Lulu
April 4th, 2009
2:47 pm
Bottom line off the top of my head: (cop out for didn’t read throughly so mostly responding to the headline writer. Hope there’s a connection to the article because TOO OFTEN there isn’t)Why is it, no matter where the US choses to concentrate the fight on terrorism, an element of wtiters always says we’re fighting in the wrong place??? Some, like the reporters of WWII and even that pseudo Korean conflict, would have labeled such as the enemy is retreating. Apparently retreat is not an vocabulary option for some writers.
Then there is another view of mine that like everything else in today’s world the enemy is more mobile.
Neither means the US is fighting in the wrong place. It may mean, to quote an apparently archaic hymn: we will fight our country’s battles on the land and on the sea… which translates into wherever we come upon the enemy.
Dale Gribble's GOP
April 4th, 2009
3:03 pm
Did you guys know that Commie has an MBA from Duke, a hot doctor wife and works on a 22nd floor on Michigan avenue? Word has it he’s also a scratch handicap and the world’s most artful lover. Go easy on him.
Corporal
April 4th, 2009
3:12 pm
LuLu:
Excellent points ……… we fight terrorism at our place of choosing, when and how we want to. It doesn’t have to make sense to anyone else and it sure shouldn’t to the terrorists.
Hillbilly Deluxe
April 4th, 2009
3:18 pm
To Lulu @2:47
Maybe the enemy (Al-Qaida) will go wherever we go, so why not fight them on ground of our own choosing?
Hillbilly Deluxe
April 4th, 2009
3:19 pm
Corporal:
Your post wasn’t up when I was typing mine. Didn’t mean to steal your line.
fearless fosdick
April 4th, 2009
3:27 pm
Dale, I understand that his number was called by the coach for the shot that beat Kentucky. He’s still Po’d at Laettner for stealing the ball.
ByteMe
April 4th, 2009
3:30 pm
HD and Corporal: except we’re not really choosing the place. The battle location was chosen by them as well as us. Northern Pakistan, Southern Afghanistan. If we were going to really choose the place, don’t you think we’re choose someplace a little less far away and inhospitable… like Cuba?? Wouldn’t that be a better place for us to fight?
But we really don’t get first choice here. We go where they are. They aren’t following us anywhere, although we have certainly been attracting the psychotic fireflies in places like Iraq. But that’s not where they really are. They’re in a place where big bombs aren’t going to work and we aren’t as intimate with the terrain.
So be it. Just don’t say that it’s really the place we’d choose for it.
Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme
April 4th, 2009
3:33 pm
obama: hey. let’s talk trash about invading pakistan.
obama ought naught write checks he can’t cash, no?
Corporal
April 4th, 2009
3:38 pm
Hillbilly Deluxe: Good to know there are some like minds out there.
ByteMe: Disagree. Afghanistan is as good as any because there are “less” civilian populated areas.
I just wish we had the guts to do it like Israel does ………. there are terrorists who “disappear”, or have “accidents”, or have “heart attacks” all over the world and you seldom even read about it.
Remember the Munich Olympics? They hunted every last one of them down. None survived.
Remember the Raid on Entebbe? They killed every last one of them, sat them all up at the terminal building and left a sign “Never Again”.
That’s the only way to deal with these people. NEVER let them rest ………..
ByteMe
April 4th, 2009
3:53 pm
Corporal: the area AQ has picked is hard to get to; moutainous; we don’t have a good base of operations nearby from which to launch serious attacks; it’s an area with two different sovereign nations, one of which publicly says they don’t want us launching attacks in their country; has harsh winters; the people speak languages for which we don’t have enough translators; and so on.
Cuba? A few mountains, lovely winters, speak Spanish that many of our armed forces can speak, one country to invade, and so on.
As for “populated areas”, many of AQ may indeed be hiding in populated areas in Northern Pakistan. The mountains are good for moving people back and forth, but the cities are better for raising money and buying weapons.
I don’t disagree on your intended point about Israel, except that it really hasn’t provided them with security either. Even living behind a tall wall hasn’t helped as much as they’d like.
I Report/ You Whine
April 4th, 2009
4:34 pm
These liberals are like little children, they can’t even undertake the awesome and profound task of sending men to die on the battlefield without tossing out two bit, immature kampaign slogans-
Our brave troops successfully toppled the Taliban, but the Bush administration soon turned its attention elsewhere. Distracted by Iraq, that administration allowed efforts in Afghanistan to languish while al Qaeda and Taliban leaders found safe haven in the western part of Pakistan.-Feingold, HuffandPuff
So I take it you libs are ignoring the major as-s whooping we put on al Qaeda in Iraq, remember them, the terrorists you wanted to surrender to?
And it’s good you spineless wonders summoned enough courage to set some milestones, that being that we have to attack Pakistan so that it does not become a haven for al Qaeda to plan and attack our country from. Keep up your mealy mouth little snide remarks about Iraq, maybe you can lose control of it to the terrorists too.
That’s the kind of things you get when the toddlers try to play grown up.
Dusty
April 4th, 2009
4:43 pm
Dear Paul of the herb garden,
I did not think you suggested isolationism. I did. Just a thought as conflicts seem to arise around the world. I wonder if that is new or we just did not hear about it as in the “old days”?
Just think where our troops are in force, Afghanistan & Iraq with Iran, Pakistan & India in a fidget. Then there’s the rest of the unrsponsive MidEast, and not far away unattended Darfur in Sudan, pirates off Somalia, Ethiopia vs Eritrea, Congo killers, shaky Liberia, crazy North Korea, unsettled Madagascar, Indonesia the giant muslim enclave, Asia’s Georgia and on and on. Are we to assume we really ARE the world’s police? I don’t think it is possible.
Unfortunately, I do not think Obama has enough worldly experience to know where to go and when to stop. He seems like a child trying to please and impress one and all with any measure needed.
Did we not hear him degrading the USA in a European speech? Yes we did. He thought that was what Europeans wanted to hear and he gave it to them. Without being bothered in the least, I might add.
Isolationism may be a necessity whether we want it or not. We neither want nor aim for world domination. We should not be asked to do it by everyone failing.
But, I realize the question that remains. Will some other “power” decide to dominate the world, and then another 100 year war will be upon us?
George Bush saw the future and tried to stop it in its tracks. He protected us and kept us safe. Slowed the spread of terrorism. How long it will last is questionable.
Obama may be many things but none of them indicates strength.
________
Off to a merry evening of dining on delights (that I did not have to cook!!) You can have your kitchen joy. I’ll get my joy elsewhere.
DB, Gwinnettian
April 4th, 2009
4:45 pm
What makes the problem truly difficult is there’s no short-term or mid-term answer, no chance of anything we might call victory.
Which sucks, to be sure, but at least we no longer have a President (or a fool attempting to succeed him) continuing to prattle on about “victory.”
There’s no winning this kind of battle–it’s really about cutting everyone’s losses, IMHO.
DB, Gwinnettian
April 4th, 2009
4:55 pm
Yesterday evening after I left, Paul asked: “Who are the Velvets.”
I guess I shouldn’t assume all that many people are familiar with the Velvet Underground, but they were a mid-late 60s band. As Brian Eno is said to have opined about them, “they never sold many records, but anyone who ever bought a Velvet Underground album went on to form a band.”
Wiki page link here.
If you’re interested in hearing what they sounded like live in ‘69, there’s a podcast available here although I can’t vouch for it (I’m waiting for the thing to download myself.)
@@
April 4th, 2009
4:55 pm
April 4, 2009 1722 GMT — Pakistan Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud claimed responsibility for the April 3 shootings at a U.S. immigration center in New York state, Reuters reported April 4. Speaking by telephone, Mehsud accepted responsibility for the attack, in which a gunman — reportedly an immigrant from Vietnam — killed 13 people. “They were my men. I gave them orders in reaction to U.S. drone attacks,” Mehsud said.
That ^^^ one strikes me as a “weebit” desperate. There was only one man.
But this one:
April 4, 2009 1623 GMT — An explosion was reported April 4 in an elite residential area in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, Pakistani media reported. The blast was in the E-7 area, where foreigners reside, near a naval compound. Five people reportedly were killed. There were also reports of an ongoing gunbattle in the area.
Bud Wiser
April 4th, 2009
5:03 pm
Yeah, why don’t you left wing America haters line up behind BO and cheer a little louder while he trashes our country out, while overseas.
The little pea brain doesn’t even have the cajones to say something like that inside our shores, but he sure is bold and beautiful at trashing America from afar.
One term coward.
Oh, and he’s going to bankrupt us as well, as if the no work entitlement crowd would know the difference.
DB, Gwinnettian
April 4th, 2009
5:06 pm
One term coward.
I sure wish he were brave like an anonymous Internet cross-burner. Boyhowdy, we’d be in good hands if our “Bud” were runnin’ things!
Taxpayer
April 4th, 2009
5:15 pm
It looks like our master plan is working. We Democrats have taken over all of government and all of the financial institutions and all of the auto makers and all of the power companies and we’re working on the oil companies. We’re raising taxes on all the wealthy Republicans and giving it to the Democrats and then we will make the newly poor Republicans shine our shoes for the rest of their miserable lives while we tell them stories of how the evil terrorists are right out side their rented houses at night waiting to takes their little children and trun them all into suicide bombers. Boo! Ahahahaha.
mighth casey
April 4th, 2009
5:39 pm
nice fantasy world you live in there taxpayer.
now, prepare for reality and bend over
Taxpayer
April 4th, 2009
5:41 pm
I bend over to scrape you worthless corpse up off the floor and deposit it in the toilet, mighth mouth.
mighth casey
April 4th, 2009
5:44 pm
ouch
Taxpayer
April 4th, 2009
5:47 pm
What’d you expect. Us Democrats are taking over and re-making it into a socialist-fascist-communist-alien state. It’s tough love.
DjshT
April 4th, 2009
5:49 pm
Obama Adviser Paid Millions as Hedge Fund Director
Obama adviser Summers earned millions as hedge fund director, Axelrod sold firms
mighth casey
April 4th, 2009
5:50 pm
hey taxpayer (going back to the pakistani thang), why don’t you tell us how obama should have handled Tora Bora back in ‘01 (you know before we invaded iraq and abandoned the war on terrorism?)
maybe march a couple of brigades in straight lines through the mountainside?
Corporal
April 4th, 2009
5:58 pm
ByteMe:
Agree to disagree. Thanks for tne input.
Taxpayer:
The sad thing is what your grandchildren are going to think of all this. They are going to ask, “why did you let this happen to our country?”
Taxpayer
April 4th, 2009
6:02 pm
I’ll just have to tell my grandchildren the truth — Bush was a failure. What else is there to tell. Now that we have an intelligent man in the White House, Obama, and his rational thought process, we can expect to see our military focus on the terrorists instead of those old salt-filled wounds that Saddam inflicted on the Bush family and their minions.
Corporal
April 4th, 2009
6:04 pm
Taxpayer:
They won’t buy it.
HEADLINE: “Protesters disrupt first lady’s trip …”
Hummmm ….., isn’t this just “community organizing”?
Corporal
April 4th, 2009
6:06 pm
P.S. to Taxpayer:
Seems like NATO doesn’t totally agree with him.
Bud Wiser
April 4th, 2009
6:10 pm
There won’t be anything left for me to run, DB. One term PLOTUS will have destroyed it all.
You know, the Italians just loooooved Mussolini. The Germans looooved Hitler. We now have our very own fascist in Obama.
How very European.
Taxpayer
April 4th, 2009
6:14 pm
What’s there to buy. Wait ’til you hear the rest of our master plan. It’s guaranteed to work. We’re going to start up a new fair draft, a draft that requires all conservative (Republicans) to enlist, regardless of age, for just one (hehehe) tour in AfPak. Then, while they are away fighting to protect us weak helpless socialist-fascist-communist-muslim-aliens, we are going to confiscate all their worldly belongings, including their women, and auction them off on the courthouse steps, once a week, on Monday, before prayer service. Democrats make the rules now. Just ask your leaders, Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Steele, Gingrich and Boehner. They’ll tell you the truth. Fear us. You are ours to do with as we please. They’ll tell you. Just ask them. We are the masters of the universe. Hahahaha.
@@
April 4th, 2009
7:00 pm
Words matter! Blackwater Worldwide is now Triple Canopy.
BAGHDAD — Late last month Blackwater Worldwide lost its billion-dollar contract to protect American diplomats here, but by next month many if not most of its private security guards will be back on the job in Iraq.
Despite the torrent of public criticism against Blackwater, American officials say they are relieved that the old guards will stay on.
Corporal
April 4th, 2009
7:03 pm
Taxpayer:
I think you have been hitting the juice this afternoon but here’s what you have to fear:
Your own kind ………..
Just try instituting a “fair draft” where a liberal has to go into the Army and don’t forget the unwashed masses who are going to be more and more upset the longer you delay making their house and car payments.
We warned you!
Republicans/conservatives don’t burn and pillage their own communities but Democrats/liberals do ……………
Corporal
April 4th, 2009
7:12 pm
To @@:
You may disagree with me on this one but as you know “I call ‘em like I see ‘em”.
I have friends who were in the old “Blackwater”. Obviously, this is just the same people under a new name. I will tell you what I told them. DO NOT, repeat DO NOT, be a “knucklehead” for the money and go over there. Your service will not be appreciated by our military, the American public, Congress, the President or the Supreme Court. You are asking to get yourself killed or prosecuted on some “trumped up charge” for nothing. You have no legal protection in that foreign country for what you do ………… and that was before our government agreed to those new rules.
Having to use these people is really a disgrace. This should be the job of the military – period.
As I have said before:
When Clinton came into office there were 20 Army infantry Divisions. When Clinton left office there were 10. DISGRACEFUL!
When Bush came into office there were 10 Army infantry Divisions. When Bush left office there were still only 10. DISGRACEFUL!
When Obama came into office there were 10 Army infantry Divisions …………………. I know of no move to add any. DISGRACEFUL!
One man’s opinion ………….
Taxpayer
April 4th, 2009
7:16 pm
Silly Corporal. I said that conservatives (Republicans) would be drafted. Not Democrats. Why would we want to fight when we have you guys.