Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Pakistan has Replaced Afghanistan
#1
Not surprising. Now,forget the debate about Iraq. Let's go back to 9-11. We're outraged,something must be done. Pakistan has 200 million citizens. Afghanistan can be overthrown reasonably easily initially. 24 million folks,northern half is not the problem.

You're the CentCom General. Advise me how we handle this problem permanently.


http//billroggio.com/archives/2006/10/pakistan_under_press.php
Reply
#2
Well, Pakistan should have been the country invaded instead of Iraq.
Reply
#3
Anon,

Get serious. 200 million people. What a joke. We can't handle what we have,let alone Pakistan.

Bad advice. Here's the only good advice Bush could have received knowing America circa 2001.

Ignore the attacks.

You wanted to invade Pakistan and Afghanistan instead of Iraq? Pakistan had been a cold war ally of strong rapport! How on earth could you have recommended that in 2001?????
Reply
#4
I agree with Anon. Not that we neccesarily should have gone right in and invaded, but it should have at least been above Iraq on the list.

I'm not sure in 2002 or 2003 during the run up to the Iraq we would have had quite as much perspective as we do now, but not having a complete grasp on a situation is a perfectly good reason to oppose a war. The Iraq conflict has diminished our capability to respond to new threats, and our larger perspective on things, which would have helped for a Pakistan invasion.

Pakistan may have been a Cold War ally, but the Cold War's long gone...
Reply
#5
I think its pretty simple:

1) al-Qaeda is the organization that attacked us
2) al-Qaeda was being supported by three countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia
3) therefore, those are the countries we need to go after

Now, it seems Saudi Arabia got their act together without our intervention. But Pakistan hasn't.

I think the invasion of Iraq was done for more long-term geopolitical reasons than 'fighting terror' - such as converting the most geo-strategically placed country in the most crucial area of the world into a U.S. military base. It was a deeply dishonest invasion.

That being said, I would not now support an invasion of Pakistan. If you ask me, I think the terrorism problem is under control. We haven't had an attack since 9/11. 9/11 itself was more the result of a massive intelligence oversight thats largely been fixed. We should focus on rebuilding Afghanistan so that it doesn't again become the type of country where terrorists can find safe-haven - the one thing we haven't done.
Reply
#6
However,I think you 2 gents are smart enough to understand what a disaster it would have been had we invaded Pakistan. Casualties would be 10X what they have been with the same 10X the problems of "troops"(we definitely would have had a draft for example) and 10X the casualties.

You just compounded our current problems 10X. Think we would see a Pakistan government after say 5 years that would be better than Musharrafs? I don't,I think we'd have about 50-70 K dead on our side al qaeda just waiting us out to take power when we abandoned the Pakis.

Note to lefties,Saudis only changed tack after we got in Baghdad.
Reply
#7
You're right, we should have invaded no country but Afghanistan and focused on establishing a stable government there.
Reply
#8
Anonymous24 Wrote:You're right, we should have invaded no country but Afghanistan and focused on establishing a stable government there.

Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world and of about zero strategic importance. Why should we want a stable government there, even if such a thing is possible?
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#9
MV,


I think stability in Afghanistan would be good if it was neutral and not stable jihadist,but I agree,it may be the single least significant geography on earth.

Anon

I did NOT suggest we should have invaded Afghanistan and stuck with that. We should have won this war already by using the force advantages we have and that is not mixing it up with 1.2 billion people with 500K infantry soldiers. That's nonsense.

The only common sense responses to 9-11 were ignore it or kill so many Muslims so fast it would shock them into a re-evaluation of their evil warlord paradigm like we did in WWII.

Since no one wants to do option B,we should have ignored the attacks.
Reply
#10
mv: Because they were really teh only country we were justified in invading, besides Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and those two were out of the question for a variety of reasons. That being said, we have a responsibility to rebuild the governments of the countries we invade. It is an American tradition, and insures we don't have to invade them again.

Whether or not Afghanistan is of strategic importance doesn't matter. What matters is that they were the enemy government that attacked us. If we don't destroy that goverment and build a new one, we've failed and they'll attack us again. And we *have* failed, because there are Taliban running around controlling everything outside of Kabul.

I think thinking in terms of strategic importance is what got us into the mess in Iraq. The American tradition is to not bother ourselves with other countries, unless they attack us. If they do, we destroy their governments and build a new, democratic government that will not attack us again.
Reply
#11
Anon,

You know what? we really don't have the first clue if Bin laden apprised Omar of 9-11 do we? I never read we did.

Afghanistan most likely no more attacked us that any Muslim state that has men inside it planning harm to us. That would be all of them wouldn't it? Honestly?
Reply
#12
Palladin: Pakistan would certainly have been more of a bite to chew off than Iraq. And Iraq wouldn't have been possible with the Kosovo model either - according to those troop proportions, we would have needed like 750K troops just for Iraq. What Pakistan would need is an even more long term commitment than Iraq, and it probably would be bloodier, even if we had a more hands-off approach.

On the other hand, you have to balance the costs with your goals, and ultimately your goals are more important. We're fighting jihadi terror, and ironically enough they have about the same attitude towards illegitimate dictators as we do. The Saddam problem would have eventually resolved itself, while a Taliban-like theocracy in Pakistan (and it's coming) would have their full support.

Saudi Arabia is still the hotbed of Islamic extremism, and the government (which isn't even that important, and has little legitimacy) has budged a tiny little bit. What movements it has made can be attributed more to themselves being a target of Al-qaeda than anything the Americans did.
Reply
#13
Anonymous24 Wrote:mv: Because they were really teh only country we were justified in invading, besides Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and those two were out of the question for a variety of reasons. That being said, we have a responsibility to rebuild the governments of the countries we invade. It is an American tradition, and insures we don't have to invade them again.

There is never a responsibility to rebuild a country that attacked you.

In some cases, it made good business sense to do so, like post-WWII Germany and Japan -- they made useful allies this way.
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#14
b5b,

Yet,al qaeda did not target the Saudi regime openly until after we arrived in Baghdad. Heretofore they both operated under the unspoken agreement,"do it elsewhere and we're cool".

20 years now and this is still ongoing,it will be time enough to forget Bush and Iraq. Then,I wonder what "the answer" is?

I honestly don't see this thing going away right now.

Check this out,Afghanistan is a bad place to be right now in many areas far worse than Iraq. Note the comments,doesn't that last one tear at your heartstrings?

http//www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=407830&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5
Reply
#15
What is the answer then? Invade *no* country?
Reply
#16
Anon,

Probably. That's not an ideal response by any means,but considering that we do not intend to use necessary destructive force to strategically win this thing,why lose the soldier's lives and trillions of dollars and still have the problem?

We could have had the problem,lost no soldiers and saved all the cash it seems to me because it's clear the people of the USA are not ready to win a war against this bunch. Not mentally prepared for it ,not yet anyway.

Forget Iraq,it's actually closer to success than Afghanistan. What use was it to do what we did? Think fanatics can't sit down and make plans in Afghanistan or Pakistan right now to repeat 9-11?
Reply
#17
Palladin Wrote:Yet,al qaeda did not target the Saudi regime openly until after we arrived in Baghdad. Heretofore they both operated under the unspoken agreement,"do it elsewhere and we're cool".

Um, do I need to remind you that before that was 9/11?
Reply
#18
b5b,

I'm confused,what was before 9-11 or did you have a typo here?
Reply
#19
No, the Saudi Arabia attacks were after 9/11. You were saying that before we attacked Iraq, Al-qaeda mostly minded its own business, but 9/11 shows that definitely wasn't true.
Reply
#20
b5b,

I meant al qaeda and Saudi Arabia had an unwritten agreement to avoid each other and it changed after we invaded Baghdad,not before.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)