What to do about Pakistan?

Admiral Mike Mullen, the outgoing Joint Chiefs chairman, told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee: "With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted that truck bomb attack, as well as the assault on our embassy. We also have credible evidence that they were behind the June 28th attack against the Inter-Continental Hotel in Kabul and a host of other smaller but effective operations." In short, he said, "the Haqqani network acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency."
The ISI is Pakistan's powerful spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence. The Haqqani network forms one of the most lethal parts of the insurgency attacking US forces in Afghanistan.
The truck bomb attack occurred at a NATO outpost south of Kabul on Sept. 10, killing at least 5 people and wounded 77 coalition troops. The injury total was one of the worst for foreign forces in a single episode in the 10 yr. war.
"The Pakistan nation will not allow the boots on our ground, never," Rehman Malik, Pakistan's interior minister, said. In a meeting in Islamabad on Wednesday with the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, Malik said the Haqqani network was not present in Pakistan, a statement US officials found disingenuous. He also said if the US provided information on the whereabouts of the Haqqani network in Pakistan, Pakistani "law enforcement" would go after them."

This isn't news. It's been known by just about everyone that the ISI has been heavily infiltrated by Islamists for years, crowding out secular muslims. They have been far less successful in infiltrating the military, and secular types are in control of the nation's nuclear capacity.

It's always been a problem, potential solutions are complex.

Pakistan is not going to get sandwiched between India and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is the easier side to "influence," obviously. Secondly, Pakistan needs "access" (aka "ingress" and "egress") across Afghanistan. Whoever is "in charge" will deal with Pakistan, and Pakistan will "deal" with them.

Pakistan plays two sides in the middle. They've never been a true Ally. They play us off the Chinese.
I for one would cut off all aid to the Paks and force them to relay on China.
China would not tolerate a Nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan.
China is not as PC in toleration of Islamic extremist as the West and have dealt harshly with them in the past. I cold go on and on but I'm tired.

"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."
- Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1980

The only overland line of supply for the NATO forces committed in Afghanistan passes through Pakistan. That's a reality that politicians and generals must constantly come to grips with.

Pakistan plays two sides in the middle. They've never been a true Ally. They play us off the Chinese.
I for one would cut off all aid to the Paks and force them to relay on China.
China would not tolerate a Nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan.
China is not as PC in toleration of Islamic extremist as the West and have dealt harshly with them in the past. I cold go on and on but I'm tired. Originally Posted by nktatc

I know this is a complex issue but I am getting tired of dealing with the assholes over there. I think we need to let them be. If they actually think China gives a damn about them then let them go to China for help. We should have a policy of persueing people that attack us anywhere they go. If the host country does not like it - tough. Do this a few times and let countries find out harboring people that attack the US is liable to be expensive and or deadly and maybe they will start to tell these terrorists they are not welcome. The bombs that kill a terrorist also kills anyone around them.

Proabably to simplistic but I am pissed.

"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."
- Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1980

The only overland line of supply for the NATO forces committed in Afghanistan passes through Pakistan. That's a reality that politicians and generals must constantly come to grips with. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Well yes, but if we had previous major goals in Afghanistan we would have dealt directly with the Lion of Peshwar prior to 9/11, and if we had goals of actually fostering democracy in the region we would have conducted our diplomatic relations differently and fostered a very different relationship with the Afghan central government. We don't really need to be there at this point.

"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."
- Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1980

The only overland line of supply for the NATO forces committed in Afghanistan passes through Pakistan. That's a reality that politicians and generals must constantly come to grips with. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Agreed

Well, here's what Rick Perry would do if al Quaida got one of Pakistans nukes and somebody called him at 3:00 a.m.

“Well, obviously, before you ever get to that point, you have to build a relationship in that region. And that’s one of the things that this administration has not done. Just yesterday we found out through Admiral Mullen that Haqqani has been involved with — and that’s the terrorist group directly associated with the Pakistani country — so to have a relationship with India, to make sure that India knows that they are an ally of the United States.”

I certainly feel safer. At least he didn't lie and say he'd say a prayer!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/op...-night.html?hp

... if we had previous major goals in Afghanistan ... Originally Posted by Tellsoftly

"We" did, beginning with the Carter administration which (without public knowledge) established the training camps for the terrorists (who at that time were opposed to the Soviet "invasion") and even set up a "train-the-trainer" facility in Virginia ...

the effort and policy of supplying weapons (including Stingers [which complicated US operations in the region later]) continued throughout the Reagan and Bush administrations ..... and

"we" had a "major goal" during the Clinton administration of assisting Enron, et al, with obtaining the "rights" to a gas pipeline across the country ... and Pakistan .. to feed the electrical plant in India ... (which is why the Taliban were meeting in Surgland in the late 1990's with the Enron folks).

The Soviets, the Europeans, and the U.S. all recognized the value of what is now Afghanistan as a "trading" route, which it had been for 100's of years, if not 1,000's, and controlling the "route" controlled commerce in the area. Pakistan is a link in that chain.

Well, here's what Rick Perry would do if al Quaida got one of Pakistans nukes and somebody called him at 3:00 a.m.

“Well, obviously, before you ever get to that point, you have to build a relationship in that region. And that’s one of the things that this administration has not done. Just yesterday we found out through Admiral Mullen that Haqqani has been involved with — and that’s the terrorist group directly associated with the Pakistani country — so to have a relationship with India, to make sure that India knows that they are an ally of the United States.”

I certainly feel safer. At least he didn't lie and say he'd say a prayer!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/op...-night.html?hp Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Thankfully, I think Rick Perry lost the election in that debate. He was bad.

"We" did, beginning with the Carter administration which (without public knowledge) established the training camps for the terrorists (who at that time were opposed to the Soviet "invasion") and even set up a "train-the-trainer" facility in Virginia ...

the effort and policy of supplying weapons (including Stingers [which complicated US operations in the region later]) continued throughout the Reagan and Bush administrations ..... and

"we" had a "major goal" during the Clinton administration of assisting Enron, et al, with obtaining the "rights" to a gas pipeline across the country ... and Pakistan .. to feed the electrical plant in India ... (which is why the Taliban were meeting in Surgland in the late 1990's with the Enron folks).

The Soviets, the Europeans, and the U.S. all recognized the value of what is now Afghanistan as a "trading" route, which it had been for 100's of years, if not 1,000's, and controlling the "route" controlled commerce in the area. Pakistan is a link in that chain. Originally Posted by LexusLover

You're talking about during the cold war, prior to the rise of the Taliban. That's when we basically stopped giving a shit, except for when Clinton took a few pot shots at Bin Laden here and there.

Also, that bit about Stingers is a misunderstanding on your part: the battery life on one of those is maybe two years. They are buying the current crop from someone else, perhaps part of the military industrial complex that doesn't mind selling on the black market, or maybe the Russians or Chinese.

And "trading route"?

You're talking about during the cold war, prior to the rise of the Taliban.

Also, that bit about Stingers is a misunderstanding on your part:

And "trading route"? Originally Posted by Tellsoftly

No, I am talking about the training of persons in camps and the u.s., the Taliban meeting (and negotiating) with Enron in Sugarland, and Clinton putting economic pressure on India to get the electric plant up and running with a pipeline across Afghan and Paki territory. .... and the sale of Stingers to Afghans and others who entered the country to fight the soviets is documented.

No, I am talking about the training of persons in camps and the u.s., the Taliban meeting (and negotiating) with Enron in Sugarland, and Clinton putting economic pressure on India to get the electric plant up and running with a pipeline across Afghan and Paki territory. .... and the sale of Stingers to Afghans and others who entered the country to fight the soviets is documented. Originally Posted by LexusLover

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.

Enron was an evil corporation, yep.

Oil and resource extraction, okay, sure.

None of that has much relevance to why we need to remain in Afghanistan or continue dealings with Pakistan.

Thankfully, I think Rick Perry lost the election in that debate. He was bad. Originally Posted by Laz

He's always been bad. He's just never had a public that paid attention or a press corps that didn't give him a pass.