Pakistan tribal elders shot dead

[BuckNaked]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7174425.stm

Pakistan tribal elders shot dead
BBC breaking news graphic
Gunmen in Pakistan have shot dead eight pro-government tribal leaders in the troubled South Waziristan region on Afghanistan's border, officials say.

The tribesmen were killed in two separate attacks on Sunday night and early Monday, a security official said.

Three of the men died in a market in Wana, the region's main town, while the others were shot dead at their homes in Shkai, a town north of Wana, he said.

South Waziristan is a known stronghold of Taleban and al-Qaeda militants.

The region has been at the centre of fighting between the army and the militants in recent months.

Troubling signs of growing instability in Pakistan... If things continue to deteriorate, it will be interesting to see what kind of effects it will have on the political race for president here in the states...

A somewhat timely and related article is this NY Times story on increasing interest/pressure by Washington to step up military/CIA actions in Pakistan...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01...MYWAY&pagewanted=print

 

[Jaskalas]

The Supremacists purge the Moderates, when will the Moderates purge the Supremacists? Perhaps this is only a one way slide down into the ruin that the Islamists dream of.

The world certainly cannot say it has done s*** to stop it. Or even slow it down.

 

[bugsysiegel]

Ahhh, Islam, the religion of peace.

 

[palehorse]

and then there's this in the WashPost this morning...

Pakistan says won't let foreign troops on its soil
By Zeeshan Haider
Reuters
Monday, January 7, 2008; 1:14 AM

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan will not allow any country to conduct military operations on its territory, officials said on Monday, rejecting a report that said the United States was considering authorizing its forces to act in Pakistan.

The New York Times said on Sunday the U.S. government was considering expanding the authority of the CIA and the military to conduct far more aggressive covert operations in Pakistan.

The U.S. officials considering the move were concerned over intelligence reports that al Qaeda and the Taliban were more intent on destabilizing Pakistan, the newspaper said.

Pakistani government and military officials dismissed the report and said Pakistan would not permit any such action.

"Pakistan's position in the war on terror has been very clear -- that any action on Pakistani soil will be taken only by Pakistani forces and Pakistani security agencies," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Sadiq.

"No other country will be allowed to carry out operations in Pakistan. This has been conveyed at the highest level," he said.

Military spokesman Major-General Waheed Arshad rejected the report as baseless, saying no U.S. military operations, overt of covert, were allowed.

Pakistan's lawless tribal belt on the Afghan border is a haven for al Qaeda and Taliban members who fled from Afghanistan when U.S.-led forces overthrew the Taliban weeks after the September 11 attacks on the United States.

Pakistan's security forces have been fighting the militants since then, but its alliance with the United States is deeply unpopular among many Pakistanis.

Some Pakistanis support al Qaeda and the Taliban while others, while not supporting militancy, object to what they see as Pakistan doing the bidding of the United States.

Pakistan fears allowing foreign troops to operate on its territory along the Afghan border would incite a backlash among the fiercely independent Pashtun tribes living there.

The New York Times, citing senior Bush administration sources, said U.S. officials met in the United States on Friday.

While no decision was made at the meeting, options under discussion included the CIA working with the U.S. military's Special Operations forces.

Among those reported at the meeting were Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the Times said.

Several participants argued that the threat to President Pervez Musharraf's government was so acute that he and Pakistan's military leaders were likely to grant Washington more latitude, the Times said.

U.S. spokesmen declined to discuss the meeting but one official said the discussion reflected concern that a new al Qaeda haven was solidifying in parts of Pakistan and needed to be countered, the paper said.

While no new options had been formally presented by Washington to Musharraf, the newspaper said officials from the White House to the Pentagon saw an opening in Pakistan's changing political structure for Washington's expanding authority in the nuclear-armed country.

Bush administration aides said that Pakistani and U.S. officials shared concerns about a resurgent al Qaeda, and that U.S. diplomats and senior military officers had been working closely with Pakistani officials to strengthen Pakistan's counterterrorism operations, the newspaper said.

New options for expanded covert operations under consideration included loosening reins on the CIA so it could strike at targets in Pakistan, officials told the newspaper.

If the CIA were given wider latitude, it could call in military help or charge Special Operations forces to act under its authority, the Times said.

Any expanded U.S. operations by the CIA or Special Operations forces would be small and specifically tailored, military officials said.

So we'll have to wait and see who is actually serious about taking on AQ and the Taliban... I sincerely hope that Obama makes good on his promise to all SOF to enter Pakistan if it's deemed necessary -- which, of course, it is...

 

[Lemon law]

Its apparent that palehorse74 has been itching for----So we'll have to wait and see who is actually serious about taking on AQ and the Taliban... I sincerely hope that Obama makes good on his promise to all SOF to enter Pakistan if it's deemed necessary -- which, of course, it is...

And these special forces will be like ghosts and with surgical precision only take out the cancer of Al-Quida thereby healing Pakistan.

It all looks good on paper, but it just never works out that way in the real world. All it will do is increase Pakistani instability, energize its extremists, and minimize the moderates. Rice's
little brainfart already got Bhutto assassinated and if the US keeps on pushing, you militaristic Aholes are going to get Musharrif assassinated also. And cause a nice little civil war in Pakistan that will spin out of control. Widening the war is the stupidest thing possible and it will only play into Al-Quida hands.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: bugsysiegel
Ahhh, Islam, the religion of peace.

Because Christianity doesn't have a history of torturing and killing non believers!

 

[RightIsWrong]

To be fair to Rice, she didn't tell Bhutto to go sticking her head outside of the Bhutto-mobile. If she would have kept her arms and head inside the vehicle, she would probably be bruised but still alive today.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: bugsysiegel
Ahhh, Islam, the religion of peace.

ban

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: bugsysiegel
Ahhh, Islam, the religion of peace.

Because Christianity doesn't have a history of torturing and killing non believers!

History being the key word there.

When is the last time a major Christian leader called for the deaths of all non-believers?
When is the last time the Pope proclaimed that all lands once ruled by Christians needs to be ruled by Christians again?
When is the last time a mob of Christians called for the death of someone because they named their teddy bear Jesus?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: bugsysiegel
Ahhh, Islam, the religion of peace.

Because Christianity doesn't have a history of torturing and killing non believers!

History being the key word there.

When is the last time a major Christian leader called for the deaths of all non-believers?
When is the last time the Pope proclaimed that all lands once ruled by Christians needs to be ruled by Christians again?
When is the last time a mob of Christians called for the death of someone because they named their teddy bear Jesus?

The KKK is a bunch of "good christians" who lynch, hang and threaten just about everyone else of every other race or religion.

The pope is the recognized worldwide leader of 1 billion catholics. What he says is not comparable to Osama. If the Caliph ever returns and all muslims recognize him, we'll see whether he preaches peace or is an extremist.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its apparent that palehorse74 has been itching for----So we'll have to wait and see who is actually serious about taking on AQ and the Taliban... I sincerely hope that Obama makes good on his promise to all SOF to enter Pakistan if it's deemed necessary -- which, of course, it is...

And these special forces will be like ghosts and with surgical precision only take out the cancer of Al-Quida thereby healing Pakistan.

It all looks good on paper, but it just never works out that way in the real world. All it will do is increase Pakistani instability, energize its extremists, and minimize the moderates. Rice's
little brainfart already got Bhutto assassinated and if the US keeps on pushing, you militaristic Aholes are going to get Musharrif assassinated also. And cause a nice little civil war in Pakistan that will spin out of control. Widening the war is the stupidest thing possible and it will only play into Al-Quida hands.

I believe that allowing AQ to train, plan, and execute attacks from a safe haven, of any sort, is "the stupidest thing possible."

But hey, I'm sure AQ appreciates your sympathy to their plight...

By the way, my interest has nothing to do with "healing Pakistan." I'll leave that up to the UN, the State Department, and the "Coalition" of nations who will send the billions of dollars needed to make that happen -- You know, the OTHER two prongs in the complete solution I've explained to you on too many occasions to count.

In the meantime, I'm going to encourage closing with and destroying the enemies of my country who currently have free reign throughout the mountains of NW Pakistan -- all because some POOOSIES won't let us go in and clean them out! Instead, I'm forced to stare at them through binoculars when they run back across the border after killing MY fvcking friends!

bah... "healing Pakistan" is a genuine and legitimate concern, but it sure as hell isn't my first priority -- and preventing us from being "allowed" to destroy AQ should be a fvcking crime.

EDIT: Did you know that members of the Taliban are absolutely baffled by our apparent "inability" to follow them?! When questioned, they often ask why we don't follow them to their bases. They certainly appreciate it, and have even said so; but it has still confused the hell out of most of them for years... (But I'm damn sure they appreciate it! DOH!)

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: bugsysiegel
Ahhh, Islam, the religion of peace.

Because Christianity doesn't have a history of torturing and killing non believers!

"History" is the operative word in your sentence.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
The KKK is a bunch of "good christians" who lynch, hang and threaten just about everyone else of every other race or religion.

And that's why we clearly embraced them and gave them complete control of our government and why we killed every non-white person who ever spoke up. Oh wait, I don't live in your world.

America universally condemns the KKK, Pakistan is 30-40% in favor of Al'Qaeda and the Taliban, with 60% wanting Sharia law further enforced in all of Pakistan. Islamic Supremacy enjoys a lot of popularity there, and you want to mention the KKK as if it even compares.

That diversion you place is nothing but dishonesty, and for whose agenda does it favor?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its apparent that palehorse74 has been itching for----So we'll have to wait and see who is actually serious about taking on AQ and the Taliban... I sincerely hope that Obama makes good on his promise to all SOF to enter Pakistan if it's deemed necessary -- which, of course, it is...

And these special forces will be like ghosts and with surgical precision only take out the cancer of Al-Quida thereby healing Pakistan.

It all looks good on paper, but it just never works out that way in the real world. All it will do is increase Pakistani instability, energize its extremists, and minimize the moderates. Rice's
little brainfart already got Bhutto assassinated and if the US keeps on pushing, you militaristic Aholes are going to get Musharrif assassinated also. And cause a nice little civil war in Pakistan that will spin out of control. Widening the war is the stupidest thing possible and it will only play into Al-Quida hands.

I believe that allowing AQ to train, plan, and execute attacks from a safe haven, of any sort, is "the stupidest thing possible."

But hey, I'm sure AQ appreciates your sympathy to their plight...

By the way, my interest has nothing to do with "healing Pakistan." I'll leave that up to the UN, the State Department, and the "Coalition" of nations who will send the billions of dollars needed to make that happen -- You know, the OTHER two prongs in the complete solution I've explained to you on too many occasions to count.

In the meantime, I'm going to encourage closing with and destroying the enemies of my country who currently have free reign throughout the mountains of NW Pakistan -- all because POOSIES like you won't let us go in and clean them out! Instead, I'm forced to stare at them through binoculars when they run back across the border after killing MY fvcking friends!

bah... "healing Pakistan" is a genuine and legitimate concern, but it sure as hell isn't my first priority.

Both of you are right and wrong, as often happens.

Choice 1)
Stay out
We are continually frustrated by Al Qaeda but don't attack. Mushariff survives another day which means the government doesn't fall into those who like Al Queda and get nukes.

Choice 2)
We go in and kick the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the ass. Mushariff falls, and Bin Laden gets an islamic republic with nukes.

Which is the good choice?

 

[Moonbeam]

Palehorse: So we'll have to wait and see who is actually serious about taking on AQ and the Taliban... I sincerely hope that Obama makes good on his promise to all SOF to enter Pakistan if it's deemed necessary -- which, of course, it is...

------------------

You are entitled to any opinion you want. Your job is to support the opinion of the President and those charged by the voters to make such decisions. You get to vote for who you like and maybe even input your opinion somewhere in the government opinion generating machine, but you are not entitled to act alone on what you believe because that would basically amount to subversion, no? Just checking....

 

[Jaskalas]

Hayabusa Rider,

You assume the results of Choice 2 are exclusive to us attacking. That can happen regardless and given recent polls in the past year, if Pakistan were a Democracy it would have already happened.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its apparent that palehorse74 has been itching for----So we'll have to wait and see who is actually serious about taking on AQ and the Taliban... I sincerely hope that Obama makes good on his promise to all SOF to enter Pakistan if it's deemed necessary -- which, of course, it is...

And these special forces will be like ghosts and with surgical precision only take out the cancer of Al-Quida thereby healing Pakistan.

It all looks good on paper, but it just never works out that way in the real world. All it will do is increase Pakistani instability, energize its extremists, and minimize the moderates. Rice's
little brainfart already got Bhutto assassinated and if the US keeps on pushing, you militaristic Aholes are going to get Musharrif assassinated also. And cause a nice little civil war in Pakistan that will spin out of control. Widening the war is the stupidest thing possible and it will only play into Al-Quida hands.

I believe that allowing AQ to train, plan, and execute attacks from a safe haven, of any sort, is "the stupidest thing possible."

But hey, I'm sure AQ appreciates your sympathy to their plight...

By the way, my interest has nothing to do with "healing Pakistan." I'll leave that up to the UN, the State Department, and the "Coalition" of nations who will send the billions of dollars needed to make that happen -- You know, the OTHER two prongs in the complete solution I've explained to you on too many occasions to count.

In the meantime, I'm going to encourage closing with and destroying the enemies of my country who currently have free reign throughout the mountains of NW Pakistan -- all because POOSIES like you won't let us go in and clean them out! Instead, I'm forced to stare at them through binoculars when they run back across the border after killing MY fvcking friends!

bah... "healing Pakistan" is a genuine and legitimate concern, but it sure as hell isn't my first priority.

Both of you are right and wrong, as often happens.

Choice 1)
Stay out
We are continually frustrated by Al Qaeda but don't attack. Mushariff survives another day which means the government doesn't fall into those who like Al Queda and get nukes.

Choice 2)
We go in and kick the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the ass. Mushariff falls, and Bin Laden gets an islamic republic with nukes.

Which is the good choice?

I disagree with your analystic predictions for Choice #2. Most actual experts believe that the remoteness of the region, combined with the miniscule footprint our SOF would leave as they operated with USAF air support, would have very little impact on the politics in Islamabad.

1) Mushie himself claims that most Pakistanis dont care what the tribes in the NW frontier are doing.

2) Most residents in the NW frontier do not abide by, or even recognize, the international borders drawn by the British. Please see the edit to my last long post wherein I describe the shock most Taliban members had when they first learned about our inability to pursue them. It boggles their minds that we don't chase them all the way back to their home bases! (not that they're complaining, of course).

Many also believe that the results you mentioned in #2 may occur regardless of any actions on the part of the US.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Palehorse: So we'll have to wait and see who is actually serious about taking on AQ and the Taliban... I sincerely hope that Obama makes good on his promise to all SOF to enter Pakistan if it's deemed necessary -- which, of course, it is...

------------------

You are entitled to any opinion you want. Your job is to support the opinion of the President and those charged by the voters to make such decisions. You get to vote for who you like and maybe even input your opinion somewhere in the government opinion generating machine, but you are not entitled to act alone on what you believe because that would basically amount to subversion, no? Just checking....

Why would I "act alone" in anything? What ever gave you any indication that I would?

By the way, my job is not to "support the opinion of the President" -- it's to abide by his orders. Period.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: bugsysiegel
Ahhh, Islam, the religion of peace.

Because Christianity doesn't have a history of torturing and killing non believers!

History being the key word there.

When is the last time a major Christian leader called for the deaths of all non-believers?
When is the last time the Pope proclaimed that all lands once ruled by Christians needs to be ruled by Christians again?
When is the last time a mob of Christians called for the death of someone because they named their teddy bear Jesus?

If you want to play this game...I won't

Stop with the blatant generalizations. You realize that almost all Muslims probably don't care about secretly plotting against the US. They are simply out to live their own lives - much like we have our own people who barely know anything of the outside world.

Your examples mean nothing. I've been in Churches where the pastors refer to how it is necessary to send "missions" to the Middle East to "re christianize" what was once theirs. Does that count? This isn't even limited to Christianity - India has movements that seeks to "Re Hindu-ize" (is that is what it is called?) its populations - including Muslims- since they were originally Hindus before Muslims.
Most of these "movements" are not from religion, but for people seeking POWER.

In these days, people regretfully only listen to the extremists because it is extremism that only really gathers anyone's attention. If someone is being moderate about something - or simply doesn't care no one will listen because it is nothing out of the ordinary. but if you can have people who say radical things and make lofty claims, it will be given more attention even if we don't agree because it is something out of the ordinary.
You allude to the "mobs" of Muslims seeking the death of a teacher during the "Mohammed Teddy Bear" incident while ignoring everyone else in Sudan who thought it was an overblown issue. Even many who were offended ultimately agree that it wasn't out of malice and simply a misunderstanding. go people's blogs, and if you don't have that time BBC has a nifty option to view "Reader comments". For every one that actually advocated punishment, there are 60 that thought "...you guys gotta be kidding me" and 39 who thought "she broke a lot and its absolutely wrong, but i don't think she meant any harm". Of course statistics are meaningless - but it clearly shows where the opinion of the average person falls.

Of course there will always be people pushing the extreme point of view and I've read them, but MANY MANY more simply take a moderate view...a pratical one that makes more SENSE.


and when it comes to ratings, I guarantee you that someone calling for the death of half the world is going to bring in greenbacks as opposed to someone who does not. Not not look at our media and see that its content is driven by fear, extremism, radicalism (and this can even be obsessing about britney spears shaving her head) is to not see past one's nose.

These PN forums are a PERFECT example themselves (which is why I've been trying hard to avoid them, but I guess I broke down when I saw this...which is suprsing considering how much sh|t gets posted here).
Every time a decent post or response appears, more often than not it is ignored. It may get quoted a few times with :thumbsup: but it quickly gets ignored. The threads that are bordering pure flame bait, push a extreme idea, talk about something radical that happened are the ones that go for days and degenerate into name calling fests. Of course any idiot knows that the average american is nowhere near polarized to the degree that we see here...of course at the same time I don't expect the avg american to know anything about it - and most likely they wouldn't give two shits so as long as could feed their family and live their lives...just like any average family.

So before we automatically assume that the Quran calls for the death of Pakistani Tribal Elders....lets be a little rational. This killing - for those not lacking basic comprehension skills (which several of you are clearly missing) - is probably POWER motivated relating to who can control the region and who is in power.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: sirjonk
The KKK is a bunch of "good christians" who lynch, hang and threaten just about everyone else of every other race or religion.

And that's why we clearly embraced them and gave them complete control of our government and why we killed every non-white person who ever spoke up. Oh wait, I don't live in your world.

America universally condemns the KKK, Pakistan is 30-40% in favor of Al'Qaeda and the Taliban, with 60% wanting Sharia law further enforced in all of Pakistan. Islamic Supremacy enjoys a lot of popularity there, and you want to mention the KKK as if it even compares.

That diversion you place is nothing but dishonesty, and for whose agenda does it favor?

We don't have to go back far (what...50 years?) to see that we did try to do this. Of course WE changed things on our OWN without having to have anyone else interfere in our affairs.

One thing I've learned is that it we should not care about how others want to live their lives. Let the Pakistani people sort out their own situations.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: magomago
One thing I've learned is that it we should not care about how others want to live their lives. Let the Pakistani people sort out their own situations.

That would be great, and I'd support a non-interventionist policy...IF one of their little "situations" wasn't causing real deaths in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Pakistan's pesky little Al Qaeda "situation" doesn't seem to be very high on their own priority list, so we can't just sit back and expect them to fix the problem for us, can we?!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its apparent that palehorse74 has been itching for----So we'll have to wait and see who is actually serious about taking on AQ and the Taliban... I sincerely hope that Obama makes good on his promise to all SOF to enter Pakistan if it's deemed necessary -- which, of course, it is...

And these special forces will be like ghosts and with surgical precision only take out the cancer of Al-Quida thereby healing Pakistan.

It all looks good on paper, but it just never works out that way in the real world. All it will do is increase Pakistani instability, energize its extremists, and minimize the moderates. Rice's
little brainfart already got Bhutto assassinated and if the US keeps on pushing, you militaristic Aholes are going to get Musharrif assassinated also. And cause a nice little civil war in Pakistan that will spin out of control. Widening the war is the stupidest thing possible and it will only play into Al-Quida hands.

I believe that allowing AQ to train, plan, and execute attacks from a safe haven, of any sort, is "the stupidest thing possible."

But hey, I'm sure AQ appreciates your sympathy to their plight...

By the way, my interest has nothing to do with "healing Pakistan." I'll leave that up to the UN, the State Department, and the "Coalition" of nations who will send the billions of dollars needed to make that happen -- You know, the OTHER two prongs in the complete solution I've explained to you on too many occasions to count.

In the meantime, I'm going to encourage closing with and destroying the enemies of my country who currently have free reign throughout the mountains of NW Pakistan -- all because POOSIES like you won't let us go in and clean them out! Instead, I'm forced to stare at them through binoculars when they run back across the border after killing MY fvcking friends!

bah... "healing Pakistan" is a genuine and legitimate concern, but it sure as hell isn't my first priority.

Both of you are right and wrong, as often happens.

Choice 1)
Stay out
We are continually frustrated by Al Qaeda but don't attack. Mushariff survives another day which means the government doesn't fall into those who like Al Queda and get nukes.

Choice 2)
We go in and kick the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the ass. Mushariff falls, and Bin Laden gets an islamic republic with nukes.

Which is the good choice?

I disagree with your analystic predictions for Choice #2. Most actual experts believe that the remoteness of the region, combined with the miniscule footprint our SOF would leave as they operated with USAF air support, would have very little impact on the politics in Islamabad.

1) Mushie himself claims that most Pakistanis dont care what the tribes in the NW frontier are doing.

2) Most residents in the NW frontier do not abide by, or even recognize, the international borders drawn by the British. Please see the edit to my last long post wherein I describe the shock most Taliban members had when they first learned about our inability to pursue them. It boggles their minds that we don't chase them all the way back to their home bases! (not that they're complaining, of course).

Many also believe that the results you mentioned in #2 may occur regardless of any actions on the part of the US.

What I didn't include is a third option, which would be a limited and discreet incursion. I didn't do so because we don't have a track record of doing limited actions recently. We could have done the like in Iraq, but we didn't. The current adminstration frankly likes to show off it's e-penis.

I agree that Mushariff will eventually fall. What matters is how hard and who takes his place and the mood of the governing and governed.

Residents the NW do not matter at all in this calculation. What matters is that Mushariff is standing on a platform of political instability. While the NW may not care what those in Islamabad think, the one with the most direct influence reside in or near there. People do NOT like having their country invaded. That's what matters. If Mushie (I like that ) is perceived as supporting the invaders, it won't go well at all.

What is the risk vs benefit here?

Question:
What threat IN FACT does Al Qaeda in Pakistan represent to the US? I do not mean how good would it feel to get them. I'm looking at US interests here, and at the risk of appearing heartless (those who really make these determinations must be) not your friends. Don't take me wrong. I am NOT unsympathetic. Far from it. I don't want you or any soldier risking his life for nothing. I've lost friends too. It would feel nice to go full bore after Al Qaeda, just as it felt great for the Brits to go after the Boers and I think you know how that went. Would a wholesale rout of Al Qaeda offset the consequences of turning the whole country into a post Shaw Iran?

That's what's at stake here.

What would I support?
I don't know what the current rules of engagement are, but I'd allow incursions into Pakistan ONLY for the pursuit of attackers. I would NOT allow establishment of camps or bases. That would be too provocative right now.

I would support SOF activities in select cases with well defined goals. Mission creep strongly discouraged.

Identification and utilization of friendlies in sensitive situations, with material support and intel.

In the meantime I would also encourage establishing a strong intelligence gathering program country wide, including friendlies and potential problem groups. We need eyes and ears. I hope this a thing already done, but with you-know-who, it's hard to say.

No massive operations. No.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
What would I support?
I don't know what the current rules of engagement are, but I'd allow incursions into Pakistan ONLY for the pursuit of attackers. I would NOT allow establishment of camps or bases. That would be too provocative right now.

I would support SOF activities in select cases with well defined goals. Mission creep strongly discouraged.

Identification and utilization of friendlies in sensitive situations, with material support and intel.

In the meantime I would also encourage establishing a strong intelligence gathering program country wide, including friendlies and potential problem groups. We need eyes and ears. I hope this a thing already done, but with you-know-who, it's hard to say.

No massive operations. No.

I would support the same -- in every way!

It's a volatile siutation in Pakistan, for sure; but, so is the situation in Afghanistan. If the Karai government - and, by extension, the NATO mission - is to succeed, then the Taliban and AQ must be completely routed from the entire border region.

Allowing them to recruit, plot, train, and attack from a safe haven is simply criminal!

So yes, I would personally support very limited SMU activity in Pakistan. Small teams to collect intelligence and paint targets. Sounds great to me!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
What would I support?
I don't know what the current rules of engagement are, but I'd allow incursions into Pakistan ONLY for the pursuit of attackers. I would NOT allow establishment of camps or bases. That would be too provocative right now.

I would support SOF activities in select cases with well defined goals. Mission creep strongly discouraged.

Identification and utilization of friendlies in sensitive situations, with material support and intel.

In the meantime I would also encourage establishing a strong intelligence gathering program country wide, including friendlies and potential problem groups. We need eyes and ears. I hope this a thing already done, but with you-know-who, it's hard to say.

No massive operations. No.

I would support the same -- in every way!

It's a volatile siutation in Pakistan, for sure; but, so is the situation in Afghanistan. If the Karai government - and, by extension, the NATO mission - is to succeed, then the Taliban and AQ must be completely routed from the entire border region.

Allowing them a real safe haven is borderlin criminal...

So yes, I would personally support very limited SMU activity in Pakistan. Small teams to collect intelligence and paint targets. Sounds great to me!

I'm out of the loop. What's the current rules of engagement as far as pursuit of attacking forces?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
What would I support?
I don't know what the current rules of engagement are, but I'd allow incursions into Pakistan ONLY for the pursuit of attackers. I would NOT allow establishment of camps or bases. That would be too provocative right now.

I would support SOF activities in select cases with well defined goals. Mission creep strongly discouraged.

Identification and utilization of friendlies in sensitive situations, with material support and intel.

In the meantime I would also encourage establishing a strong intelligence gathering program country wide, including friendlies and potential problem groups. We need eyes and ears. I hope this a thing already done, but with you-know-who, it's hard to say.

No massive operations. No.

I would support the same -- in every way!

It's a volatile siutation in Pakistan, for sure; but, so is the situation in Afghanistan. If the Karai government - and, by extension, the NATO mission - is to succeed, then the Taliban and AQ must be completely routed from the entire border region.

Allowing them a real safe haven is borderlin criminal...

So yes, I would personally support very limited SMU activity in Pakistan. Small teams to collect intelligence and paint targets. Sounds great to me!

I'm out of the loop. What's the current rules of engagement as far as pursuit of attacking forces?

I just can't answer that.