- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,719
- Reaction score
- 35,498
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
For myself, I'd be leaning towards yes. I'd prefer Pakistani support for this to happen though and would be requiring a great deal of intelligence data to do it without their consent
At the present time, absolutely not. The benefit of killing a few Taliban commanders and grunts is nowhere close to the cost of destabilizing nuclear-armed Pakistan.
I don't think most people realize how close Pakistan is to total collapse. The Taliban is about 65 miles outside of Islamabad and getting closer. The United States should do everything it can to prevent a collapse. Anything that further radicalizes the population and destabilizes the country should be scrupulously avoided at this time.
With that said, I think Pakistan probably WILL completely collapse in a matter of weeks or months. When it does, I think the US military should bomb the **** out of every known Taliban stronghold along the Afghan border...and I hope the US military has a damn good contingency plan for a full-blown invasion as well.
It would help, if the international community had the stones to contribute some boots for the cause, but I seriously doubt both their capabilites and their desire at this point.
I've often thought that some kind of collapse might actually be useful, because it would the government to take full action in one swift blow.
I don't think that Pakistan is just a place where a local populace is being radicalized, I think it's also a place where significant Al Qaeda members from around the globe are able to take refuge.
Now, I'm treading closely to Bush "all those who harbor terrorists" rhetoric, but I think there's a certain utility in the idea. It's not just about serving potential terrorist harboring countries a threat, it's about allowing yourself to take advantage of concentrations of terrorists. A Taliban government in Pakistan would mean for a real target to bomb.
I think the US has proved that it's pretty good at destroying nations, it's just poor at fighting insurgencies.
So what would a Taliban government in Pakistan pose to use other then an easy target? It'd make them come out hills and out into the open, where we can bomb them.
Simple question.
Would you approve of an attack ordered by President Obama against the Taliban within Pakistan with or without the consent of the Pakistani government? Why?
I would ask those that if you post in this thread that you at least spent the majority of your post explaining YOUR position before attacking anyone elses position. If you don't intent to give your own views on this action and your own stance on it and simply wish to attack others for potentially being hypocritical on EITHER side, please don't participate. Its unfair to everyone debating if you're going to attack them for their views without giving your own to begin with.
This is spurred from the fact Clinton recently said they were a mortal danger.
I remember during the debates, when Obama was asked about crossing the border into Pakistan to fight the Taliban, and I was suprised that he essentially answered yes, in an unequivocal manner. I supported both Iraq and Afghanistan, and would support this as well so long as it gets carried out properly. Just lobbing some bombs and doing some flyover airstrikes isn't going to be enough. It will take a serious concentrated effort, with boots on the ground, to make any progress against the Taliban and retain or create any stability for Pakistan.
It would help, if the international community had the stones to contribute some boots for the cause, but I seriously doubt both their capabilites and their desire at this point.
Simple question.
Would you approve of an attack ordered by President Obama against the Taliban within Pakistan with or without the consent of the Pakistani government? Why?
The Taliban is who I hold responsable for 9/11 and it appears they've not truly been "beaten" but relocated.
As I understand it, much of the Taliban was displeased with OBL and Al Qaeda's provocative acts. It's when the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Sadr's Shiite militia are all conflated into one jumbled mess by uninformed (not claiming you're uninformed) "analysts" with no regard for critical distinctions between these groups that we lack the ability to comprehend intelligent analysis.
You should remember the Taliban is a very loose term these days. Only something like 20-40% of those labeled Taliban by the media should actually be considered such. The others have their relations to that organisation certainly but often these aren't even too strong and they are far from the same organisation.government wise, The Taliban is who I hold responsable for 9/11 and it appears they've not truly been "beaten" but relocated.
I remember during the debates, when Obama was asked about crossing the border into Pakistan to fight the Taliban, and I was suprised that he essentially answered yes, in an unequivocal manner. I supported both Iraq and Afghanistan, and would support this as well so long as it gets carried out properly. Just lobbing some bombs and doing some flyover airstrikes isn't going to be enough. It will take a serious concentrated effort, with boots on the ground, to make any progress against the Taliban and retain or create any stability for Pakistan.
It would help, if the international community had the stones to contribute some boots for the cause, but I seriously doubt both their capabilites and their desire at this point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?