New report on what everyone already knew - Pakistan is our enemy

[PeshakJang]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/0...iban-afghanistan-report-says/?test=latestnews

KABUL -- Pakistani military intelligence not only funds and trains Taliban fighters in Afghanistan but is officially represented on the movement's leadership council, giving it significant influence over operations, a report said.
The report, published by the London School of Economics, a leading British institution, on Sunday, said research strongly suggested support for the Taliban was the "official policy" of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI).

So something that has already been widely reported, proven, and accepted by everyone, for over a decade, but never acknowledged on a political scale, is reported again at a time when violence is increasing in Afghanistan.

When will Obama confront Pakistan about this? Or will it simply be too "sensitive" to call Pakistan a terrorist state because, after all, they pretend to help us...

 

[bamacre]

I'm going to make foreign policy decisions based on articles I read on foxnews.com.

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm going to make foreign policy decisions based on articles I read on foxnews.com.

Attacking the messenger even though the message is quite obvious.

 

[nageov3t]

I'm going to make foreign policy decisions based on articles I read on foxnews.com.

better?

 

[grebe925]

I'm going to make foreign policy decisions based on articles I read on foxnews.com.

AP is reporting the same story. And the research report is from the London School of Economics.

It never ceases to amaze me as to how the Pakistani weasels have managed to chump the Americans for well over three decades. The latter even bought the fairy tale from the army that Mr. Sam "A. Q. Khan" Walton who ran a nuclear Wal-Mart acted alone in proliferating nukes. In Pakistan, a fly can't f*rt without the army knowing about it.

 

[Lemon law]

First of all, the Taliban WAS in the past tense all good for Pakistan. An entity that could bring peace to a Afghanistan in anarchy after the Russians left. And even better, the Taliban believed in law and order, which meant trade routes for Pakistan could open up through Afghanistan into the Stans to the north, without those Pakistani trade goods being looted every step of the way in transit through Afghanistan.

And even though the brutal Taliban tactics and its total disenfranchisement of females did not fit with a more modern and enlightened Pakistan, Pakistan did not have to live with that Taliban garbage they would not tolerate.

Then 911 happened, and suddenly Uncle Sammy needed to fix Afghanistan. And to do that economically, the USA needed a land route into Afghanistan, and the list was short.
Either Iran or Pakistan. Since Iran was not exactly friendly, GWB went to Mushariff and said, just lease us a land route in, we the USA pledge to not mess in Pakistani internal affairs, put troops on your soil, we will give you megabillions in military aid, and faster than you can I miss the Taliban, we will have Afghanistan all fixed up, democratic, and your trade routes into the stans will be up and running even better than before.

And so Mushie said yes, Nato proved totally incompetent at running the military occupation, and worse yet, Nato chased the Taliban and Al-Quida into the formerly stable tribal regions of Pakistan. And now various idiots in the USA want to somehow claim what amounts to nothing but a leased land route into Pakistan obligates Pakistan to be a slave to a US policy that has failed.

Well duh, the US has a foreign policy designed to promote its interests, and when US foreign policy stinks for Pakistan, yes they have a right to question what amounts to a clusterfuck failure that the US has brought to Pakistan.

And the Pakistani ISI does has factions, not all loyal to the central government.

 

[Veramocor]

I never understood why India wasn't our big ally in the region. Large population, democratic, former British colony, the country's people like the US and send many mart students here some of whom stay and they deal with a lot of the same terrorism issues.

 

[bamacre]

Attacking the messenger even though the message is quite obvious.

It was a bit of a joke.

We shouldn't even be in Afghanistan. It's a no-win war, and we simply can't afford it, we can no longer afford our empire. What the hell do you want to do about Pakistan? Where are we going to get the money to do anything about Pakistan? Weren't you in other threads complaining about the deficits?

 

[Jaskalas]

That joke is a normally held view on P&N.

Don't jump to conclusions about taking action in Pakistan when I've mentioned nothing of the sort.

No, we shouldn't be in Afghanistan.

Yes, (large) deficits matter.

 

[PeshakJang]

First of all, the Taliban WAS in the past tense all good for Pakistan. An entity that could bring peace to a Afghanistan in anarchy after the Russians left. And even better, the Taliban believed in law and order, which meant trade routes for Pakistan could open up through Afghanistan into the Stans to the north, without those Pakistani trade goods being looted every step of the way in transit through Afghanistan.

And even though the brutal Taliban tactics and its total disenfranchisement of females did not fit with a more modern and enlightened Pakistan, Pakistan did not have to live with that Taliban garbage they would not tolerate.

Then 911 happened, and suddenly Uncle Sammy needed to fix Afghanistan. And to do that economically, the USA needed a land route into Afghanistan, and the list was short.
Either Iran or Pakistan. Since Iran was not exactly friendly, GWB went to Mushariff and said, just lease us a land route in, we the USA pledge to not mess in Pakistani internal affairs, put troops on your soil, we will give you megabillions in military aid, and faster than you can I miss the Taliban, we will have Afghanistan all fixed up, democratic, and your trade routes into the stans will be up and running even better than before.

And so Mushie said yes, Nato proved totally incompetent at running the military occupation, and worse yet, Nato chased the Taliban and Al-Quida into the formerly stable tribal regions of Pakistan. And now various idiots in the USA want to somehow claim what amounts to nothing but a leased land route into Pakistan obligates Pakistan to be a slave to a US policy that has failed.

Well duh, the US has a foreign policy designed to promote its interests, and when US foreign policy stinks for Pakistan, yes they have a right to question what amounts to a clusterfuck failure that the US has brought to Pakistan.

And the Pakistani ISI does has factions, not all loyal to the central government.

So if the CIA meddles in another country's affairs, the left screams for decades about how we supported regimes and militant groups that murder billions of people... there are still yearly protests of the former School of the Americas, and we never created anything like the Taliban. Yet when Pakistan creates the Taliban as a way of exerting control over Afghanistan and the trade mafia, then loses control of them, claims to be fighting them, but in reality supports and shelters them as a way of both pacifying them and fighting their own war against the west without appearing to be an enemy, it's still the fault of the US and NATO. Got it.

 

[Lemon law]

PeshakJang says,"Yet when Pakistan creates the Taliban as a way of exerting control over Afghanistan and the trade mafia, then loses control of them, claims to be fighting them, but in reality supports and shelters them as a way of both pacifying them and fighting their own war against the west without appearing to be an enemy, it's still the fault of the US and NATO. Got it. "

Sadly, I think ole Perhak just grasped nothing, lots of idiot in lots of countries embrace short term goals, do not think them through, and then wonder why it blows up in everyone's face later.

We could also cite uncle Reagan who got this bright idea of arming Afghan terrorists, strike that freedom fighters, to chase the Russians out of Afghanistan, and in so doing helped create Al-Quida and 911.

In short, the road to hell is paved with good attentions.

Nor can we have just one view of Pakistan, the Pakistani army is actively fighting the Taliban in their tribal areas, and have arrested far many more Al-Quida operatives than Nato has.

 

[PeshakJang]

Nor can we have just one view of Pakistan, the Pakistani army is actively fighting the Taliban in their tribal areas, and have arrested far many more Al-Quida operatives than Nato has.

No, that is where you are wrong. Anything they do is just a diversion, to show people that "hey, we are doing something". Half of the beloved patriot regular army is Taliban by night and actively support of shelter their fighters. There are published, advertised Taliban conventions in Miram Shah on a regular basis where hundreds of leaders meet, weapons are traded, bombs are made, and orders are issued, and Pakistan hasn't done a thing about it. The Pakistan army regularly fired rockets, mortars, and whatever else they can get at US posts on the border, and allows Taliban fighters to cross unchallenged, ofted aiding them in sneaking across undetected. Pakistan created the Taliban, watched them get out of control, and now they continue to support them because the enemy of their enemies is their friend, and because the ISI is still made of the same KGB-like fools that created them int he first place.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

First of all, the Taliban WAS in the past tense all good for Pakistan. An entity that could bring peace to a Afghanistan in anarchy after the Russians left. And even better, the Taliban believed in law and order, which meant trade routes for Pakistan could open up through Afghanistan into the Stans to the north, without those Pakistani trade goods being looted every step of the way in transit through Afghanistan.

And even though the brutal Taliban tactics and its total disenfranchisement of females did not fit with a more modern and enlightened Pakistan, Pakistan did not have to live with that Taliban garbage they would not tolerate.

Then 911 happened, and suddenly Uncle Sammy needed to fix Afghanistan. And to do that economically, the USA needed a land route into Afghanistan, and the list was short.
Either Iran or Pakistan. Since Iran was not exactly friendly, GWB went to Mushariff and said, just lease us a land route in, we the USA pledge to not mess in Pakistani internal affairs, put troops on your soil, we will give you megabillions in military aid, and faster than you can I miss the Taliban, we will have Afghanistan all fixed up, democratic, and your trade routes into the stans will be up and running even better than before.

And so Mushie said yes, Nato proved totally incompetent at running the military occupation, and worse yet, Nato chased the Taliban and Al-Quida into the formerly stable tribal regions of Pakistan. And now various idiots in the USA want to somehow claim what amounts to nothing but a leased land route into Pakistan obligates Pakistan to be a slave to a US policy that has failed.

Well duh, the US has a foreign policy designed to promote its interests, and when US foreign policy stinks for Pakistan, yes they have a right to question what amounts to a clusterfuck failure that the US has brought to Pakistan.

And the Pakistani ISI does has factions, not all loyal to the central government.

The Taliban is indeed a great organization. Look at how well they discipline the youth to become productive citizens.

As thousands of American troops pour into southern Afghanistan, insurgents have launched a vicious offensive against the Afghans supporting the surge. In the last day a suicide bomber blew himself up inside a wedding hosted by an anti-Taliban tribal leader, and insurgents publicly hanged someone who they labeled a spy for local troops.

Men stand around coffins of blast victims outside a hospital in Kandahar city, Afghanistan,...
Men stand around coffins of blast victims outside a hospital in Kandahar city, Afghanistan, Thursday, June 10, 2010. A suicide attack ripped through a wedding party in full swing in the Taliban's heartland in southern Afghanistan late Wednesday, killing 40 people and wounding dozens more, officials said.
(Allauddin Khan/AP Photo)

The Afghan accused of spying was a 7-year-old boy.
He was hanged from a tree in front of a crowd in Helmand's Sangin district, where more than a thousand British troops are based. He was the son and grandson of prominent tribal leaders, one of whom had recently spoken out against the Taliban, according to local journalists.
"A 7-year-old boy cannot be a spy," President Hamid Karzai said in a press conference in Kabul. "A 7-year-old boy cannot be anything but a 7-year-old boy, and therefore hanging or shooting to kill a 7-year-old boy ... is a crime against humanity."

Yeah they are a hoot.

 

[Lemon law]

Yes Haybasusa, you can site anecdotal incidents of Taliban brutality all day long, but the Taliban can site cases of anecdotal evidence of Nato brutality, and if you just look at a few individual trees in a forest, you will miss the larger picture of what reality really is.

That Taliban did not drive out corrupt war lords and corrupt drug lords out of Afghanistan by being boy scouts. But when the Taliban become more acceptable to the Afghan people than Nato ineptness, we have to realize how badly Nato is blowing it to win that even lower place.

In short, its been my one dominant point in writing about Afghanistan, if the USA wants to win in Afghanistan, we can't control the Taliban, we must change and improve our tactics in winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. We have not done even doodly squat in that department and we continue to lose.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes Haybasusa, you can site anecdotal incidents of Taliban brutality all day long, but the Taliban can site cases of anecdotal evidence of Nato brutality, and if you just look at a few individual trees in a forest, you will miss the larger picture of what reality really is.

That Taliban did not drive out corrupt war lords and corrupt drug lords out of Afghanistan by being boy scouts. But when the Taliban become more acceptable to the Afghan people than Nato ineptness, we have to realize how badly Nato is blowing it to win that even lower place.

In short, its been my one dominant point in writing about Afghanistan, if the USA wants to win in Afghanistan, we can't control the Taliban, we must change and improve our tactics in winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. We have not done even doodly squat in that department and we continue to lose.

I'm sorry, what about that hanging is "anecdotal"? Yeah in the same sense that the war itself is anecdotal perhaps.

I have a solution for all this. If you hop a one-way to Kabul (on July 4, how patriotic), you'll have enough time to get your things together and explain to the the parents of that kid (assuming they are alive) how the Taliban are really victims and they need to be sympathetic. Then you can get everyone together and buy them a Coke.

They'll make a statue of you for posterity.

Oh, BTW the cost of the ticket from LA to Kabul is about $1700 on American Airlines (we'll paint over "American" since I'm sure it's offensive).

You can bill the UN whom will no doubt be glad to reimburse you for your heroic efforts.

 

[Lemon law]

Your delusion Hayabusa in saying, "I have a solution for all this. If you hop a one-way to Kabul (on July 4, how patriotic), you'll have enough time to get your things together and explain to the the parents of that kid (assuming they are alive) how the Taliban are really victims and they need to be sympathetic. Then you can get everyone together and buy them a Coke. ", is making the assumption that I am a Taliban fan or a Taliban sympathizer.

I am not, and as an American, I want to win in Afghanistan. But maybe unlike you, I realize the Taliban has some appeal to the Afghan people, they are at least maybe better than the total anarchy Nato has re imported into Afghanistan. And when we in the USA believe only our own propaganda without bothering to learn what the Afghan people need and want, its a sure way to get the stinking results we have gotten for nine out of nine years of effort.

If believing only the USA version of the truth were a magic wand, we would have won in Afghanistan by 2002, and when we are instead undeniably losing, maybe its time to ask why? Instead of jumping up and down ever higher proclaiming the Taliban stinks, the Taliban is rotten, the Taliban is evil. You get no argument from me there, but why are they beating Nato? And if you think that answer is because the Afghan people love evil, you are nuttier than a fruitcake.

Don't you think its time to start asking what Nato is doing wrong? So it can improve and start winning.

 

[Lemon law]

Sorry accidental double post.

 

[Sclamoz]

In short, its been my one dominant point in writing about Afghanistan, if the USA wants to win in Afghanistan, we can't control the Taliban, we must change and improve our tactics in winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. We have not done even doodly squat in that department and we continue to lose.

Winning hearts and minds has been a key focus for a while now but it doesn't matter. You can't win hearts and minds when the Taliban attack a village everytime our soldiers visit. Or when the Taliban threaten to execute anyone who talks to a coalition soldier. No security = No hearts and minds.

 

[Nemesis 1]

WE DON"T HAVE ENEMIES we make them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Er, when did I ever say I though the Afghan people as a whole was evil?

Nope.

When did I ever say the Bush went about handling this in an acceptable way?

Never.

Oh in the beginning there was a chance, but that was squandered because we took a hard left out of there and into Iraq.

Nevertheless, the Taliban hung that boy. Why? Because they could. That is a reminder that they won't stand for opposition any more than Hitler (and call Godwin if you like) or Stalin or Mao.

So at the end of the day you point to the sort of people listed above and say make peace with them. As I said, go for it, however don't expect that having that type in power is acceptable. We may have to pull up and leave at some point (and I think that's going to be necessary) since we've already blown it, but don't expect heart felt support for people who ARE thugs.

 

[nick1985]

I love when Lemon law compares NATO to the Taliban.

lol, what a joke

 

[Lemon law]

Winning hearts and minds has been a key focus for a while now but it doesn't matter. You can't win hearts and minds when the Taliban attack a village everytime our soldiers visit. Or when the Taliban threaten to execute anyone who talks to a coalition soldier. No security = No hearts and minds.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now there is a possibly productive idea we have never properly implemented.

As it is we say catch 22, we can't make progress in Afghanistan until we kill the last Taliban rascal, but we have a too small Nato occupation on the cheap to accomplish that lofty goal. So we jump all over Afghanistan, putting out wackimole fires, never staying in one place long enough to secure anything. Rinse and repeat for nine long years as Afghan anarchy becomes the the Afghan people's reality. It never occurs to anyone that if we want Nato to win, we need 620,000 troops or we are just pissing into the wackomole wind while consigning the Afghan people to the worst of all possible world's, perpetual anarchy inside of a shooting gallery. But we have that catch 22 excuse, gotta kill the Taliban first.

Well, if we are not willing to put up the troops and development money to secure all of Afghanistan, maybe saving a part of Afghanistan is better than nothing at all. Pick a part of Afghanistan, any part, flood the zone with Nato troops, chase the Taliban out, then do the harder part, chase the corrupt Afghan Government out and establish a government that works for the Afghan locals. And then commit the development dollars to modernize the place, roads, schools, hospitals, modern technology, while keeping our troops in place.

Do it right for a few years, then our troops can move on to secure other areas while even the Taliban will give up and realize that is the better idea for Afghanistan. After all, the Taliban ideology is just an idea, and to some extent a natural adaptive response to prior conditions, and ideas and minds can be changed.

 

[PeshakJang]

chase the corrupt Afghan Government out and establish a government that works for the Afghan locals.

If we did that, you and half the world would be screaming about how we are doing nothing but supporting a puppet, pro-US government in Afghanistan... how all we do is meddle in another country's politics and governance, we have no right to interfere in another democracy, etc., etc....

 

[Lemon law]

If we did that, you and half the world would be screaming about how we are doing nothing but supporting a puppet, pro-US government in Afghanistan... how all we do is meddle in another country's politics and governance, we have no right to interfere in another democracy, etc., etc....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Pershak, you manage to be totally wrong on two out of two counts.

1. What I advocate does involve throwing the umber corrupt Afghan government under the bus, the entity GWB embraced is incompatible with Nato success.

2. Yes we might get dumped on by half the world for meddling in Afghan affairs, but it beats the hell out of being dumped on by ALL the world for running an totally inept military occupation.

Nor do you remember world history, after 911 the international community practically begged the USA to fix Afghanistan, yet when GWB&co who lied their ass off asked the same world community for permission to fix Iraq, at the very best they got a uncommitted maybe if you feel froggie at best.

 

[Narmer]

AP is reporting the same story. And the research report is from the London School of Economics.

It never ceases to amaze me as to how the Pakistani weasels have managed to chump the Americans for well over three decades. The latter even bought the fairy tale from the army that Mr. Sam "A. Q. Khan" Walton who ran a nuclear Wal-Mart acted alone in proliferating nukes. In Pakistan, a fly can't f*rt without the army knowing about it.

Who says we don't already know all this and haven't known for decades? The ISI also nurtured Al Qaeda and its head tried to blame other peoples for 9/11 as well. Remember, they have their own interests and they live in that neighborhood. We're just visiting.