Pakistan tribal elders shot dead

[The Green Bean]

don't have much time to read or reply but an operation inside pakistan would mean war.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...1/ap_on_re_as/pakistan

Musharraf warns against unilateral action on militants SINGAPORE, Jan 11 (Reuters) President Musharraf said any unilateral action by U.S.-led coalition forces against militants in Pakistan will be regarded as an invasion, Singapore's The Straits Times reported Friday. He said Islamabad will resist any entry by coalition forces in the tribal areas to hunt down militants, regarding that as a breach of Pakistan's sovereignty. ?I challenge anybody coming into our mountains. They would regret the day,? he told the newspaper in an interview conducted in Rawalpindi. Musharraf also said he would resign if a government that emerged from elections, now scheduled for next month, sought his impeachment. He criticised Hillary Clinton's proposal to deploy a U.S., and possibly a British, team to safeguard Pakistan's nuclear assets. Her statement, Musharraf said, was an ?intrusion into our privacy, into our sensitivity ... She doesn't seem to understand how well-guarded these assets are.? ?If impeachment were their intention and they don't want to go along in a harmonious manner, I would like to quit the scene,? Musharraf said when asked what would happen if Pakistan People?s Party emerged a winner in the elections and mounted a bid to oust him with the support of Sharif's party. ?If that happens, let me assure you that would be leaving office before they would do anything.? (Posted @ 10:45 PST)

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
An interesting peace on the impact of Bhutto's assasination:

After Bhutto?s Murder: A Way Forward for Pakistan (PDF file)
http://www.crisisgroup.org/lib...74_pakistan_bhutto.pdf

VI. CONCLUSION
[...]
Only a genuinely democratically-elected government will have the legitimacy to take the difficult steps needed to tackle extremism. There can be no such government ? and thus no stability in Pakistan ? as long as Musharraf remains president.

I understand such a government would have more legitimacy with the people, but it would be far more extremist than anything we have today. Look at the polls and what laws/people the people of Pakistan readily support. If Osama and Sharia is their idea of democracy then, by all means, you suggest they should have it?

I on the other hand much prefer to deal with Musharraf. Did we not learn our lesson in Iraq?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: palehorse74
None of "the Afghan people prefer AQ and the Taliban over the US military." NONE!.

You obviously lost the argument at this point.

Profound and inaccurate deduction Watson. Did you happen to read past that point? Have your personal experiences with the Afghan people led you to a different conclusion?

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As a somewhat ironic palehorse74 preface we get---An interesting peace on the impact of Bhutto's assasination:

I usually frown on anyone being the grammar police, but I do believe that should an interesting "piece" as in opinion piece rather than an interesting "peace". But between those two words, there is a giant irony gap between what my view are, what palehorse74's view are, what the views of the author of the opinion piece are, even though I think all genuinely want the final outcome to be PEACE.

And I also have to question why palehorse74 cites the article in the first place, because its largely silent on the central question of this thread which is-------Should or should not the US militarily intervene on Pakistani soil over the objections of Pakistan itself because Pakistan is either unwilling or unable to confront AQ and the Taliban.

And what the article is not silent on is exactly how volatile the political situation is in Pakistan. <SNIPPED PORTION FOR FURTHER COMMENT>

I meant to post the article in the thread regarding Bhutto's assasination... but I didn't. So I left it here. And thanks for the lesson in ironic grammar -- that's always a hoot.

It seems Condi Rice got this brainfart that we should force Musharrif to allow Bhutto back from exile, since Bhutto who is willing to support US military intervention onto Pakistan soil, could also broaden the political base of Musharrif in some sort of power sharing deal. Which would then allow Musharrif to cling to power ensuring Pakistani stability and the US would get its its permission to intervene. Another Rice power play script except quite a few of the major players somehow did not bother to follow the script and the whole show did not go on when the leading lady died and there was no replacement "a star is born" broadway show theme happy ending. And further screw things up, we now have this other former PM Sharif
running around complicating things even though he is too corrupt to get any real support.

But we are still left with the central thread question.

I and others say we should not militarily intervene in Pakistan because it will make things worse.

Other people think such an intervention will make things better.

Ultimately its a binary yes no cross the Rubicorn or hold back with no compromise possible.

And it may well be an domestic election issue for 11/2008.

I hope it is! We'll get to see who the smarter candidates are! *cough* Obama *cough*

<snipped>But in terms of near terms history, the assassination of Bhutto is the unintended result of more US meddling into Pakistani affairs.

offffffffffffffffffffffffff course it is. Did you know that AQ is telling its followers the same thing? Perhaps you got their memo?

And no, neither they, or you, are on to something.

 

[Lemon law]

Well, Palehorse74, its seems Musharrif has today shot off his mouth and has quite clearly defined the official Pakistani position. Any US personnel found to be operating on Pakistani soil will be will be regarded as enemies of State and will be resisted by the Pakistani military with deadly force as Musharrif comes down strongly and assertively for Pakistani sovereignty.

I have yet to look for official links but its all over the radio. This from an interview he gave to a Singapore newspaper. I suspect there will be no lack of links forthcoming.

I make this statement with no personal editorial comments other than to state its now gone from a military problem to a political problem.

I will also point out the Nato led occupation of Afghanistan requires a "land Base" to secure the supply lines. Since Pakistan is not proving to be all that sympathetic, maybe you will have better luck with that only other alternative of Iran.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well, Palehorse74, its seems Musharrif has today shot off his mouth and has quite clearly defined the official Pakistani position. Any US personnel found to be operating on Pakistani soil will be will be regarded as enemies of State and will be resisted by the Pakistani military with deadly force as Musharrif comes down strongly and assertively for Pakistani sovereignty.

I have yet to look for official links but its all over the radio. This from an interview he gave to a Singapore newspaper. I suspect there will be no lack of links forthcoming.

I make this statement with no personal editorial comments other than to state its now gone from a military problem to a political problem.

I will also point out the Nato led occupation of Afghanistan requires a "land Base" to secure the supply lines. Since Pakistan is not proving to be all that sympathetic, maybe you will have better luck with that only other alternative of Iran.

gloat much?

<cue batman music>

meanwhile, back in the AQ-Cave, Osama-man prepares his deathrays...

 

[Lemon law]

And the palehorse74 answer is-----gloat much?

Well, I can hardly consider that I won because the tempest in a teapot debate that we have been having on P&N has almost zero to do with the current outcome. You and others have been a strong advocate for your position and I and others have been a strong advocate for our position. Although the debate has degenerated to rude at times, it was still a debatable issue on the best way forward. Nor can I say I am 100% right or that you are 100% wrong.

Nor is it a final answer because the idea of US intervention is far from dead. And if Musharraf falls, the idea may be renewed with renewed vigor. And may still be a campaign issue in the US Presidential election. I might further point out that it also increases the danger that elements inside the Pakistani military may try to depose Musharraf and hope for US support of the coup by allowing that intervention.

But now that the ground rules are better defined, it may help define what the US mission must concentrate on inside of Afghanistan. And if it ends up helping create some political progress inside of Afghanistan, you and I, the USA, and the entire world may end up being the winner.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And the palehorse74 answer is-----gloat much?

Well, I can hardly consider that I won because the tempest in a teapot debate that we have been having on P&N has almost zero to do with the current outcome. You and others have been a strong advocate for your position and I and others have been a strong advocate for our position. Although the debate has degenerated to rude at times, it was still a debatable issue on the best way forward. Nor can I say I am 100% right or that you are 100% wrong.

Nor is it a final answer because the idea of US intervention is far from dead. And if Musharraf falls, the idea may be renewed with renewed vigor. And may still be a campaign issue in the US Presidential election. I might further point out that it also increases the danger that elements inside the Pakistani military may try to depose Musharraf and hope for US support of the coup by allowing that intervention.

But now that the ground rules are better defined, it may help define what the US mission must concentrate on inside of Afghanistan. And if it ends up helping create some political progress inside of Afghanistan, you and I, the USA, and the entire world may end up being the winner.

You just seemed downright giddy at the prospect that Osama & Friends would get to go on living the good life -- making trouble and causing more deaths throughout Pakistan, Afghanistan, Europe, and, gawd forbid, the USA again someday. The thought of their unhindered survival seems to make you smile...

Other than that, at least this last post of yours is something I can finally agree with. GG.

 

[Lemon law]

I hardly smile at the prospect of Ossama and friends continuing unhindered, but our differences still remain over the same basic point.

You seem to think that somehow you can kill Ossama and friends or better put terrorism, and cancer cut out, we will all live happily ever after.

I on the other hand think you cannot kill an idea or a tactic. And that Ossama and friends by themselves are a few nuts that can do little damage by themselves. So its a battle for the hearts and minds of the people. And if Ossama and friends can keep recruiting they win, if they can't recruit, they lose.

And when the behavior of GWB and the US military is Al-Quida's greatest recruiter, I think I have every right to get disturbed about the US military expanding its area to be OFFENSIVE in. And after spending almost a trillion dollars, our own NIE tells us we are creating more terrorists than we are killing.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I on the other hand think you cannot kill an idea or a tactic. And that Ossama and friends by themselves are a few nuts that can do little damage by themselves.

Tell that to the Afghan and Pakistani citizens who are brutally oppressed and terrorized every single day throughout the border region -- or to the families of NATO troops who continue dying in the indefinite game of whack-a-mole you support -- or the families of those killed by the suicide cells who train in NW Pakistan before heading out to Iraq, India, Israel, Europe, Chechnya, or gawd forbid, the USA again.

Pakistan's military is completely impotent in dealing with the Taliban and AQ, and you have essentially condemned NATO and Afghan forces to be the same.

Then again, you never have to look such people directly in the eye, so what would you care!?

GG.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I on the other hand think you cannot kill an idea or a tactic. And that Ossama and friends by themselves are a few nuts that can do little damage by themselves.

Tell that to the Afghan and Pakistani citizens who are brutally oppressed and terrorized every single day throughout the border region -- or to the families of NATO troops who continue dying in the indefinite game of whack-a-mole you support -- or the families of those killed by the suicide cells who train in NW Pakistan before heading out to Iraq, India, Israel, Europe, Chechnya, or gawd forbid, the USA again.

Pakistan's military is completely impotent in dealing with the Taliban and AQ, and you have essentially condemned NATO and Afghan forces to be the same.

Then again, you never have to look such people directly in the eye, so what would you care!?

GG.

I think you're missing the point here. It's not a matter of being indifferent to the problems that Osama and his merry band of murders cause, it's about thinking long term and looking at the big picture. In this case, "looking such people directly in the eye" might be the problem...you're suggesting our strategy should be driven by 3 guys getting blown up by a roadside bomb or the 8 guys killed in an ambush, that our strategy should be to minimize casualties as much as possible by hitting as hard and and often as we possibly can, with no consideration of the long term consequences.

That might be psychically satisfying, but is it REALLY going to stamp out terrorism, or just result in more of it? Sure, Osama and his particular group of assholes can be hunted down and killed, and they should be, but if in the process we end up creating more terrorists, have we really accomplished a whole lot? Lemon law's point is worth considering, I think, and it's that terrorism as a tactic and as a political "strategy" is not going to be stamped out by military force alone. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try and help the people being oppressed by fanatics, or try to prevent as many military deaths as we can, but those are short term goals that MUST be done in the context of the big picture.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Sure, Osama and his particular group of assholes can be hunted down and killed, and they should be, but if in the process we end up creating more terrorists, have we really accomplished a whole lot?

OK then, which is it? Should he, or should he not, be "hunted down and killed"? I respect yours and Lemon's guidance to maintain a level head in the process. But, right there, you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Either we "stay the course" -- that is, we do as we've done for five years now, and we let Osama continue living, untouched, in NW Pakistan -- or, we hunt him and his merrymen down, to the ends of the Earth if we have to, and kill them, as you seem to also suggest we do.

So which will it be? Your statements seemed a bit contradictory...