What to do about Pakistan?

The sale of stingers is documented... so is the fact that the battery life is two years. Those stingers aren't being used against us and never have been.


None of that has much relevance to why we need to remain in Afghanistan or continue dealingOil and s with Pakistan. Originally Posted by Tellsoftly

You are missing the point of the providing of materiel and training, and the "function" of the territory that is now Afghanistan and Pakistan is relevant, now 1,000's of years ago and today.

When "we" had the Shah on "our side" not so important to us perhaps. Until the Iranian "issue" is resolved, IMO we need access to both Afghanistan and Iraq. That was an "issue" when we were moving into Iraq in 2003.

In fact "strained" relations with Pakistan was a purported frustration during the Clinton administration in dealing with the Afghan situation, and an impediment to a broader, more productive strike.....accoding to administration sources.

Unfortunately, Afghanistan is a place that we cannot ignore (no matter how irrelevant and frustrating it may seem to the world at large). The old Silk Road trade route that linked East to West passed right through that area. In fact, trade and armies heading east-west, north-south would pass through Afghanistan. Afghanistan continues being a convenient overland trade route (when the fighting does not disrupt it). In addition, Afghanistan has an estimated $3 trillion in mineral wealth that could be tapped by its neighbors if they can gain control.

Afghanistan sits right in the middle of Asia. To the east is Pakistan and China. To the south is India. To the west is the Middle East and ultimately Europe. To the north is Russia and the former Soviet Republics.

Whoever controls Afghanistan has a powerful position in the middle of Asia. Of course, anyone claiming control of Afghanistan would have the horrible headache of dealing with a populous that is uncooperative and thinking only in the short-term.

Our efforts to "modernize" Afghanistan are a huge expenditure of resources, time and lives. We will not be able to change the current or upcoming generation that lives there now. It would take a couple of generations of our presence (and our influence) to change the mind set of the population. Ten years isn't enough to make a lasting impression. And, of course, we would be dealing with others (Iran, Pakistan, China, Russia) who oppose an American-friendly country in central Asia and would take every effort to disrupt us.

Can we ignore Afghanistan? Not really, I think. And, if we have to deal with Afghanistan, we'll have to deal with Pakistan. It's damned if you do and damned if you don't. I would definitely limit the amount of money and resources we have committed to the area. But we do need a presence there, we do have to deal with countries like Pakistan and China in that area, if for no other reason than to keep from being blind-sided by an entrenched enemy we didn't realize was gunning for us.

@ Lexus

You are aware of the history of the Iranian incident, yes?

A brief history lesson:

-Iran is torn between Britain and Russia
-A democratic council called the Duma exploits the situation and gains power
-The British and Russians cooperate to keep them down
-Distractions elsewhere allows the Duma the opportunity to eat away and erode the Shah's power
-The Duma appeals to the US, then highly popular in the region for being the only friendly western power, for support for their democracy
-Britain petitions us to help them check Russia and secure British oil supplies
-Operation Ajax commences, and for the first time in history the US helps to overthrow a democratic regime and put a dictator back into power
-The Shah goes a little too far with weapons development, and we look away and do nothing when he is overthrown (common speculation in the intelligence community is that we gave them a pass)
-We now have to deal with a quasi-theocratic dictatorship because we just had to fuck around and play games.

We've never been interested in fostering democracy abroad. Never been a goal.

-The Shah goes a little too far with weapons development, and we look away and do nothing when he is overthrown (common speculation in the intelligence community is that we gave them a pass) Originally Posted by Tellsoftly

Or he caved to Carter's public demands to allow civil liberties: the other side of the same coin.

We've never been interested in fostering democracy abroad. Never been a goal. Originally Posted by Tellsoftly

Perhaps you've forgotten about S. Korea, Germany, and Japan.

Or he caved to Carter's public demands to allow civil liberties: the other side of the same coin.


Perhaps you've forgotten about S. Korea, Germany, and Japan. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Not necessarily, the Shah wasn't about to step aside and let the Duma or his enemies amongst the clergy step back in.

As to Korea, that was a matter of our policy of containment. The other two were a matter settled upon during the Bretton Woods agreement: at the close of any major conflict it is usually settled upon what caused the last conflict and the nations involved make some attempt at preventing the next one. We taught the Japanese how to run elections, and we taught a single political party how to win in order to induce stability. We helped the Germans rebuild to prevent the emergence of another Revisionist State and because we suspected we might need them guarding Europe along with us.

So in those cases the policy of containment or rebuilding via the marshal plan and Bretton Woods were our primary causes for fostering democracy.

Not necessarily, the Shah wasn't about to step aside and let the Duma or his enemies amongst the clergy step back in. Originally Posted by Tellsoftly

The fact remains, the Shah did not employ the full strength of Savak to repress rebellion for fear of being publicly censored and sanctioned by the Carter administration. It's exactly the same situation Mubarak found himself faced with recently. Both had the force to repress rebellion, but to do so would mean losing the "public" support of the U.S. government.

As to Korea, that was a matter of our policy of containment. The other two were a matter settled upon during the Bretton Woods agreement: at the close of any major conflict it is usually settled upon what caused the last conflict and the nations involved make some attempt at preventing the next one. We taught the Japanese how to run elections, and we taught a single political party how to win in order to induce stability. We helped the Germans rebuild to prevent the emergence of another Revisionist State and because we suspected we might need them guarding Europe along with us.

So in those cases the policy of containment or rebuilding via the marshal plan and Bretton Woods were our primary causes for fostering democracy. Originally Posted by Tellsoftly

Notice how that contradicts your original statement?

We've never been interested in fostering democracy abroad. Never been a goal. Originally Posted by Tellsoftly

The fact remains, the Shah did not employ the full strength of Savak to repress rebellion for fear of being publicly censored and sanctioned by the Carter administration. It's exactly the same situation Mubarak found himself faced with recently. Both had the force to repress rebellion, but to do so would mean losing the "public" support of the U.S. government.

Notice how that contradicts your original statement? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The two are not actually contradictory: fostering democracy in those particular countries were a means to an end, and in Japan it is debatable just how democratic the system we set up was to begin with.

That said, the Shah's capacity to maintain his hold over his own country was in many ways contingent upon his relationship with foreign powers, but you ignore my main point: had we been interested in having a truly democratic ally in the region, other avenues were and always have been open to us.

The two are not actually contradictory: fostering democracy in those particular countries were a means to an end, and in Japan it is debatable just how democratic the system we set up was to begin with. Originally Posted by Tellsoftly

Fostering democracy in those particular countries were a means to an end. True, it's in the best interests of the U.S. for those nations to have democratic governments in hopes of avoiding future conflicts. That lesson was learned after WWI. Another question: Is Japan's government more or less democratic than before?

That said, the Shah's capacity to maintain his hold over his own country was in many ways contingent upon his relationship with foreign powers, but you ignore my main point: had we been interested in having a truly democratic ally in the region, other avenues were and always have been open to us. Originally Posted by Tellsoftly

The Shah was a dictator, but he was also a U.S. ally. As such, the U.S. wasn't interested in a democratic ally in Iran, until the Carter administration pushed for greater democratization. The Shah acquiesced to Carter's coercion, and did not use Savak as he could have - that cost him his throne and the U.S. a strong ally in the region.

Fostering democracy in those particular countries were a means to an end. True, it's in the best interests of the U.S. for those nations to have democratic governments in hopes of avoiding future conflicts. That lesson was learned after WWI. Another question: Is Japan's government more or less democratic than before?

The Shah was a dictator, but he was also a U.S. ally. As such, the U.S. wasn't interested in a democratic ally in Iran, until the Carter administration pushed for greater democratization. The Shah acquiesced to Carter's coercion, and did not use Savak as he could have - that cost him his throne and the U.S. a strong ally in the region. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are familiar with the origin of the term "Banana Republic", yes? We're more into allies than we are into democracies.

Also, if we wanted a democratic ally in that specific region, why did we never help out The Lion of Peshwar in his fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda?

You are familiar with the origin of the term "Banana Republic", yes? We're more into allies than we are into democracies. Originally Posted by Tellsoftly

No doubt achieving both is an ideal situation. Failure to achieve both evry time or even most of the time, does not negate the fact that the U.S. has helped establish viable democracies in other instances.

Also, if we wanted a democratic ally in that specific region, Originally Posted by Tellsoftly

Point of fact, the U.S. did not seek a democratic ally in that region. U.S. involvement in that region was predicated on appeasing a powerful U.S. ally in Europe: the U.K.

why did we never help out The Lion of Peshwar in his fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda? Originally Posted by Tellsoftly

Poor, short-sighted diplomacy.