Pakistan?

Discussion in 'Afghanistan' started by Si modo, Sep 29, 2009.

  1. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    Many of us lack confidence BHO’s having a definitive strategy in Afghanistan, especially given recent revelations.

    Pakistan is complicated. We need them for our our basing supply to NATO efforts in Afghanistan. The bulk of the money we supply to Pakistan is for their assistance in the WOT and as BHO has said, they are an integral player in the WOT/whatever it’s called now as a Major Non-NATO Ally (VOA News - Obama Says Afghanistan, Pakistan Stability Key to His Goals). Yet, the FATA and now other areas, are out of control with more establishment of Al queda and/or Taliban operations (Al-Qaeda allies build huge Pakistan base). Not only that, Pakistan has its own prioties with paranoia (founded or otherwise) about India. In fact, US funds were diverted to strengthen defense against India, according to Mussaref in a recent interview.

    We know that BHO will not hesitate to OK the crossing of the Pakistan border to hit strategic targets and I agree wholeheartedly with that. Even if it does piss of the Pakistanis, it’s a good gamble that is all it will do as Pakistan doesn’t want to lose the money we give them.

    And, about two weeks ago, the Senate voted to triple aid to Pakistan.

    So, I am eager to see some strategy gel for our security efforts in this part of the world. Personally, I would like to see McCrystal get more troops to improve Afghanistan, and I would like to see some sort of Pakistan strategy that does not just include more money to them, expecially considering the additional complication of recent unrest.

    Any speculation about what will change, if anything, with respect to Pakistan as part of the overall strategy?
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2009
  2. geauxtohell
    Offline

    geauxtohell Choose your weapon.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Messages:
    15,125
    Thanks Received:
    2,153
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Out here in the middle.
    Ratings:
    +2,155
    The FATA always has and always will be out of control.
     
  3. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    Any other thoughts on a complicated situation?
     
  4. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,620
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,215
    I have full confidence that whatever Obama does it will be the wrong thing. Sometimes in a life filled with uncertainty it's good to be able to bank on something.
     
  5. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    I'm having trouble finding what the wrong or right thing would be, though. I do think just more money to them, as has been the case in the past for the most part, is not the right strategy.
     
  6. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,620
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,215
    The Pak security service (is it ISS?) has been a fan of the taliban for some time. The two countries are historically enemies. The wrong thing would be to support a policy that enables the ISS to put their man in office and basically reduce their effort to a talking war.
     
  7. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    Yup. It's the ISS, a main supporter of both the Taliban and Al qaeda. Excellent point.
     
  8. geauxtohell
    Offline

    geauxtohell Choose your weapon.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Messages:
    15,125
    Thanks Received:
    2,153
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Out here in the middle.
    Ratings:
    +2,155
    Yes, and it doesn't involve more troops.
     
  9. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    As I doubt we'll be sending troops into Pakistan, care to share what those thoughts are?
     
  10. Shorebreak
    Offline

    Shorebreak Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    395
    Thanks Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +102
    According to Obama, he plans to be successful where Bush was not. That means that Obama needs to use terror as a justification to eliminate sovereign loyalists throughout Pakistan.

    If you look at a map of the region you can quickly see how Pakistan and India are both critical from a perspective of regional trade. Pakistan resides within the MEFTA region (Middle East Free Trade Area established in 2003 by Bush Administration, with Jerusalem as it's head), and India resides within the ASEAN region. Neither countries are full members yet of their respective regional trade area, but India has a Free Trade Agreement in place with ASEAN members, and Pakistan is working towards the World Bank, World Trade Organization, IMF, and UN commitments that it needs to meet in order to join MEFTA as organized by the Bush Administration.

    In other words, in the grand scheme of geopolitics as planned by global finance, there can be no free flow of goods and services between a fully organized MEFTA and a fully organized ASEAN until local nations with independent leaderships and with soveriegnty-oriented population groups have been brought into full submission.

    Afghanistan was an obvious first target for the same reasons that it was a target of the Soviet Union - it is strategically placed at the crossroads between the Middle East and the Orient, between Africa and the Orient, and between the Orient and most of Europe. Obama's most senior foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wrote in 1997 that if the United States can control Central Asia, we can then control the future of trade for much of the rest of the world. He lamented that the American people would never support such an initiative unless we were conveinced that we faced a dire external threat.

    His book "The Grand Chessboard" actually lays out in diagram format his recommendations for establishing geostrategic predominance of the entire region. When you read the book, you see that the Bush Administration achieved about half of the goals that Brzezinski established. They were the easy half. Obama committed in his campaign to finish what the Bush Administration had started in Central Asia. Those who follow the news rather than the policy believed that Obama meant he was going to stop the wars. Those of us who follow policy (and policy makers) rather than listening to news lies knew that Obama was telling the world that he was going to continue the plan to establish geostrategic predominance over the entire region.

    The empire (global finance and regional global government) is on the march now more than ever. Obama is turning up the volume. We're fighting a proxy war in Yemen, we have boots on the ground in Somalia, we're increasing deployment sizes to Afghanistan, we're conducting ground activities in Pakistan, we're solidifying our permanent military presence in Iraq, we're expanding our activities in Georgia, and these are only the well-known activities. Obama is even increasing the size of active duty troop deployments in the US that were begun by the Bush Administration.

    So I fully expect increased activity in Pakistan. Look at the size of the embassy that we're building there. The next closest example is in Baghdad. The empire is going to do everything it can to trick us into continuing to support US wars overseas by committing our tax dollars and the lives of our children, until we either wake up and put a stop to it, or until the work is complete and regional global government is solidly in place. The UN is currently talking about a global currency as a response to the economic crisis, so we're probably only a few years away from their expected completion date.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page