- Joined
- May 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,595
- Reaction score
- 2,739
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
The neoconservatives in Washington and their media allies again claim Pakistan is a grave threat to US interests and to Israel. Pakistan must be declawed and dismembered, insist the neocons. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is reportedly being targeted for seizure or elimination by US Special Forces.
There is also talk in Washington of dividing Afghanistan into Pashtun, Tajik and Uzbek mini-states, as the US has done in Iraq. Could Pakistan be next for this divide and conquer treatment? Little states are easier to rule or intimidate than big ones. Many Pakistanis believe the United States is bent on dismembering their nation. Some polls show Pakistanis now regard the United States as a greater enemy than India.
Now that America is in full mid-term election frenzy, expect more calls for tougher US military action in "AfPak." Already unpopular politicians are terrified of being branded "soft on terrorism" and failing to maximally support US military campaigns. Flag waving replaces sober thought.
We are not going to invade Pakistan. The war in Afghanistan is irrelevant compared to the danger of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. It would infinitely safer to do something moronic like invade Iran as a supply route rather than attack someone who already has the WMDs.
Will There Be a Second Revolution?
Eric Margolis on France's Coffee Party.
Will the US Invade Pakistan?
It could be the empire's final mistake.
A Secret Army of Common Criminals
Eric Margolis on federal death squads.
Is the US Stimulating Nuclear War?
Eric Margolis on Pakistan, India, Kashmir, and the atomic poisoning of the earth.
We Know Only 7 Things About 9/11/01
Meanwhile, questions mount, says Eric Margolis.
Another Mideast Fraud
Four US puppet states "negotiate."
A War of Giants
Eric Margolis on China, India, and another dangerous border thanks to British imperialism.
Will the US Really Leave Iraq?
No. Iraqi oil is coveted by the US's Pax Oiliana.
WikiGate
Eric Margolis on the truth about US killings and imperialism, revealed.
The Ugly Truth About US Wars
It's finally emerging, says Eric Margolis.
Obama Owes Americans the Truth
Why is the Pentagon killing people in Afghanistan?
More Debt!
Eric Margolis on the Obama-bankster order to the world.
The Greatest US War Crime of WWII
Eric Margolis on Yalta.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis-arch.html
I stopped reading after the first 4 words. No respectable piece of journalism starts off that way.
We are not going to invade Pakistan. The war in Afghanistan is irrelevant compared to the danger of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. It would infinitely safer to do something moronic like invade Iran as a supply route rather than attack someone who already has the WMDs.
et al,
I believe that "RATHI" is probably correct here.
(COMMENT)
While it is true that Pakistan probably isn't the ideal ally, our invasion of Pakistan, based on our demonstrated successful invasions in the recent past, would be a disaster.
The destabilization of the Pakistani Government would all but assure that radical elements would gain control of a ready made arsenal. And that would present unintended consequences that we are not capable of dealing with in that Region of the world. It would also create an unacceptable risk to the other Regional Powers. We should leave well enough alone. Neither our Political or Military Leadership is competent enough to deal with this situation, and our National Security Decision Making Process is completely corrupted from within the IC infrastructure and the branches of government which exercise the process. It is totally unreliable to help the decision makers.
Most Respectfully,
R
. . . and if anybody did that to the United States, we'd use words like "war" and "invasion" to describe it.
Many of us considered 9/11 to be an act of war, and that was 19 people taking a shot at three very specific targets.
Sure, but that's not the case. Nobody is set to "invade" Pakistan. It's not necessary. We only need the capability to attack specific locales as we need to, which is what we do already.
MSgt, et al,
I agree.
(COMMENT)
My only concern is that we "might" (jury is still out) be creating more radicals faster then we can neutralize them, protracting the outcome.
The US can only participate in the fight for so long. Eventually, the NATO Allies will gradually start reducing its commitment and we are going to be left the lone gunman on the field. Politically and economically, that is unsustainable.
Most Respectfully,
R
. . . and if anybody did that to the United States, we'd use words like "war" and "invasion" to describe it.
Many of us considered 9/11 to be an act of war, and that was 19 people taking a shot at three very specific targets.
My only concern is that we "might" (jury is still out) be creating more radicals faster then we can neutralize them, protracting the outcome.
The US can only participate in the fight for so long. Eventually, the NATO Allies will gradually start reducing its commitment and we are going to be left the lone gunman on the field. Politically and economically, that is unsustainable.
Most Respectfully,
R
Very true. The rhetoric used in the aftermath [of 9/11] fed this thought process. Bush using terms like 'Crusade' and 'Blair' suggesting Good Vs Evil etc framed the conflict, and set out the path there after...
Paul
This was always a myth (among others). One the analysts and commentators safely assumed because it was easier than actually understanding the problem. This was the argumnent used for Iraq as well. Very few radicals were created and given that the wave of radicals throughout the region began to come to a halt well before we left Iraq, the evidence is clear. There is no end to the recruitment pool inside the Middle East because the enemy of Allah and the duty of a Muslim was presented in the 1950s and has been a solid piece of propoganda ever since. They only need an excuse (and any will do in a society where the after life represents the only level of success one can achieve) to pick up a weapon. But as Iraq proved, Al-Queda could not sustain their religious duty via the slaughter of fellow Muslims. Iraqis grew tired of the self induced slaughter and even the "created" radicals stopped coming.
True. And we have seen this before.
The 'radicals' came to end in Iraq due to the change in strategy. As you are aware, more than most, Petraeus implemented the change that led to the turning off of the 'radical hose pipe'. That is not to suggest we solved 'the problem' just moved the fight.
Iraq is still precarious, hopefully with time, and minimal interference [very unlikely] we may see a semblance of order.
Paul
"Framed" it for who? No one in the West saw this as some sort of Crusade and our enemies already have their mission framed for themselves.
The point is that we do not and have not ever "created" radicals like the myth suggests. The supporters of the myth never understood the nature of the enemy. Radicals no longer had a base of support with the Sunni turning on Al-Queda. They stopped coming. This stopped happening before the Surge. But they did not cease to exist. They are still throughout the region. The Surge dealt with the Al-Queda and Sunni radicals still in the fight. And with the Sunni and the Shia working together to move (a miracle if it lasts), the radicals haven't a base unless they join an organization.
What is going on in Afghanistan is merely tapping into the radical base in Pakistan. They will support the radicals from Afghanistan. And as we fight them and kill a few of these Pakistani supporters, some of them will pick up rifles and join the fight. The argument will be (and apparently is) that we "created" them. But the fact is that they are already in the fight without the rifles. As in Iraq, the more than come to the fight, the better. Weeds kill the grass. It would be easier if the weeds showed up at the porch for a quick mow.
George Bush termed it a crusade this then framed it in the context desired by the administration. It helps legitimize a course of action, the response to the terrorists aggression.
Paul
I was under the impression the 'paying off' of radicals was part of the surge action, when i refer to the surge i use it more as a 'generic term', not meaning just the increase in troop levels. Sorry i thought it was a Petraeus initiative.
Radicals need a cause to be able to morph from a passive rhetorical stance into an active participant. Creating conflicts, Iraq and Afghanistan for explanation purposes provide the arena, i accept a place of our choosing. But, that's not to suggest radicals were not radicalised to the point of active rather passive support for their cause.
Conversely, these conflicts have acted as [in the UK at least] an excellent recruiting tool for the armed forces, why is that? for very similar reasons and this links back to how our leaders framed the conflict into ideological terms.
Paul
The world's just unfair. It's a good thing America's boss.
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?