Democrats & Liberals: Archives

AP -

Interesting article. It was written by a Frenchman and it’s very…um…French.

Pakistan is an unstable country with a lousy regime. It has a violent strain of Islam, a serious poverty problem, rebellious Baluchi tribes, a festering conflict with India, and president whose only commitment is to his own longevity and power.

And their land can be fairly called the center of world Islamic terrorism.

What else can we do but (a) kiss up to them and (b) bribe them? They have nukes, so attacking is off the table. The opposition is Islamist, so overthrowing Musharraf would be counterproductive.

We have certain allies whose goals we share and whom we sincerely believe we will always get along with. No matter our differences with France, we never have to fear them slipping nukes to terrorists to skewer us. But Pakistan isn’t France, and we don’t see eye to eye. But if we’re going to fight terrorists (and they’ve chosen to fight us, so we don’t have much of a choice in the matter), we need to work with Pakistan as much as we can. If that means trading dollars for terrorists, so be it.

P.S. I just went to your site and voted “No”. :-)

I agree that Pakistan probably knows where Bin Laden is. But that doesn’t mean they’re going to tell us, no matter how many F-16’s we send over (I didn’t agree with sending them either, btw).

If we do find out where he is, I have no problem with sending in a small squad to grab him and get out. It would have to be done in a manner that could not be construed in any way as an attack on Pakistan itself.

AP, reminds me of the old Pest Exterminator scam. Exterminator comes out to treat termites, and leaves a couple rat plants in the basement, knowing that in a few weeks they will be getting a nice profit from being called out again.

Musharraf knows what side his bread is buttered on. Stupid to run out of al-Queda when America is forking over so many billions for assitance, and gets so much PR value out of the capture of the #3 al-Queda operative 3 or 4 times in a row? Al-Queda must have a lot of #3’s lying around :-)

Good article. It seems obvious they are indeed parceling them out whenever they feel they need to. And I agree that the idea of giving them those F16’s is nothing short of madness.

“I’ve got a poll up on my site that absolutely amazes me. Almost 2/3’s of respondents do not believe we should drag bin Laden’s ass out of Pakistan. That’s just crazy! Why not?”

I think we should get him too…
But maybe people feel the US can’t possibly afford to forcibly invade yet another country? Or could it be that they’re terrified that if we go grab him the entire Fundamentalist Muslim World will burst into flames?

Invading Pakistan would be way different from invading Iraq, which had been weakened by years of sanctions. Pakistan is a huge country with a huge army and REAL nukes.

There is no doubt that they are using this for their gain… I know very few countries in their current state that would not. I’m not waying that it is right or wrong but I’m not at all suprised that the are doing it.

The old saying “Keep your friends close and you enemys closer” comes to mind here.

While I don’t believe that they are a direct enemy of the US by any stretch at this point they certainly have many problems and internal issues that make their goals and actions suspect. Diplomacy is by far the best way to deal with this “Ally” and that is exactly the what the administration is doing.

Chops said: “If that means trading dollars for terrorists, so be it.”

As opposed to spending the same money securing our borders from terrorists? As opposed to shoring up our faltering educational system? As opposed to siding with India far more than Pakistan and making a united front against Pakistan work to our advantage? As opposed to saving Soc. Sec., Medicare and investing in our future energy independence?

Man, Chops, there are just so many other priorities to be considered before handing out billions to a dictator who could be replaced by the Jihadists next week and who might actually use all those jets and weapons we are supplying against our military in the region or anywhere else in the Middle East or Eastern Asia.

This subject needs careful and very thorough scrutiny with a mind to the consequences of paying dictators who build ever stronger militaries. Look at N. Korea. We paid them for decades to not make nukes, and they have our government dancing to China’s and Russia’s tune over what to do. It is a keystone cops routine save for the deadly seriousness of it all.

AP,
First, as for the poll, yes, if I thought it was reasonably sure OBL were in the Northwestern province, I’d go in. It would be preferable to have Pakistani cooperation. It would be preferable to do it quietly. But one way or another, I’d send in the troops. It’s a mission I would volunteer to do. If my son enlisted and went into the NW province for OBL, I’d be worried sick, but I’d approve.

Pakistan is a precarious dictatorship. Until a stable government rules, one reflecting a population favoring peaceful relations, until then, I would not trust them for a moment.

The recent report on Global Terrorist Patterns for 2004 showed a huge increase in terrorist incidents, over 600, if I recall. Half of those incidents were in Kashmir.

US foreign policy should view India, a stable democracy, as one of our closest allies. Propping up an unstable government in Pakistan is pointless.

Indeed. We all know BushCo only attack Countries they know have no WMDs.

“They have nukes, so attacking is off the table.”

Man, I wish I could get this straight. When we think they have WMD, we attack them. But when we know they have WMD, we don’t? Is that it?

[Country X] is an unstable country with a lousy regime. It has a violent strain of Islam, a serious poverty problem… and president whose only commitment is to his own longevity and power. And their land can be fairly called the center of world Islamic terrorism.

Hmmm… Last time I heard that it was in reference to Iraq, Chops.

What else can we do but (a) kiss up to them and (b) bribe them?

Yikes!

Pakistan doesn’t even let us fly reconnaisence drones into the country, so I don’t know what would be involved in an action to bag bin Laden. Clinton wanted the Army to send special forces into Afghanistan to get him in the 90s, but Shelton said it was impossible.

BUT, don’t get hung up on the nukes. I’m no expert on nuclear battlefields, but I suspect if you asked one, they’d say the nukes were a concern, but not a deterrent. For one, Pakistan would have to deliver them to the battlefield either by truck or by F-16 (maybe I’m jaded, but I expect air superiority on our side). Two, the effect of any blast would probably be localized by the mountainous terrain. And third, US troops have been training to operate on an nuclear battlefield since the 50s.

Even if the Bush administration gives the world the impression that having a couple nukes will deter the US, it doesn’t. It’s a concern, but not a “game over”.

And really, I don’t consider Pakistan an enemy or “rogue” regime, but they need to hand over bin Laden, and if we’re not forcing the issue - especially if we’re not forcing the issue because we got sidetracked in Iraq - it’s a slap in the face to all those who lost their loved ones on 9/11. Shame.

Here’s another aspect: Today, there are 35-40 countries that could build nukes if they want. That number will only increase and will include countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Indonesia. If, as some Republicans have suggested, our only options are to “(a) kiss up to them and (b) bribe them,” then that is truly terrifying.

Joseph,

When we think they have WMD, we attack them. But when we know they have WMD, we don’t? Is that it?

It’s actually kinda funny if you don’t think too hard about it. But then when you do start thinking about it you just become depressed…

It is very distressing, Zeek, because it so obviously betrays the administration’s real intent to deceive (as opposed to unintentional incompetence), like every other aspect of cognitive dissonance surrounding the Iraq debacle. Our dubious relationship with Pakistan will just continue to add to the comedy. Unfortunately, it’s more of that “milking the stallion” type humor.

I doubt they are sitting on information and not doing anything, just waiting for the right moment to make a raid and an announcement.
It takes time to track people down and catch them.

Even so, - why wouldn’t they do things for a political advantage? - They have a great example to follow - the USA.

This story seems to have gone past unnoticed.

Pakistan holds Briton for al-Qaida links

It takes time to track people down and catch them.

Goin’ on four years now. No, the Pakistani ISI was instrumental in helping train, finance and supply al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan - many of the graduates were sent to Kashmir. They know where he is.

And if a couple nukes are the only thing stopping us from putting pressure on Musharraf, then we’re in trouble.

I don’t know if anyone is going to look at this article so far down the page now, but consider this:

Republicans dog-piled on Clinton because he knew bin Laden was somewhere in Afghanistan, but didn’t invade the country to get him. And that was before 9/11.

We now know that bin Laden is in Pakistan. When al Qaeda sneaks one of the loose nukes that President Bush has been so casual about securing into New York Harbor in one of the 95% of containers that still go unchecked, what will the Bush administration and Republicans say?

Will they claim, “We couldn’t do anything because Pakistan had a couple nukes. Our hands were tied.”?

I completely reject that argument. Pakistan is harboring Bin Laden. They should help us get him, or get out of the way.