Our War On Terrorism Is Going SOOOO Well…

October 3, 2007 at 8:18 am | Posted in Bush Administration, corruption, Iran, Iraq, Military, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, War, War on Terror | 16 Comments

that Pakistan, a country that has several nukes, is losing the fight against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Um, er, uh, what are we doing in Iraq again? The same thing that Bin Laden apparently sent some of his goons into Iraq for…

Heck’v’a job, Bushie!

Oh, and instead of preparing Americans to go into Pakistan WHERE WE SHOULD BE ALREADY, Bush and Cheney are preparing Americans to go into Iran! Huh?

Advertisements

16 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. I’d be careful what you wish for. I’ve spent a fair chunk of time in Pakistan over the years, to “go into Pakistan” is a dicey proposal that would be greeted with the same (exploding) candy and flowers that were witnessed in Baghdad.

  2. Non-Arab Arab,

    I don’t like it anymore than you do, but that’s where our enemy, our REAL enemy is. Letting them take Pakistan is not acceptable.

  3. yes but Iraq is the blue print for western success in the middle east ..

    *tongue firmly in cheek*

  4. Just saying that while I agree with you the problems there are real and the resources currently badly misdirected, we should absolutely not transfer the same type of action blueprint we’ve used to date in Iraq or Afghanistan to Pakistan. One thing I think the past 6 years have taught us is that the Rambo style of doing things is a recipe for failure. We need a lot more subtlety in how we approach the problem. And above all for every million dollars we spend on bullets and bombs we need to have 10 million dollars for investment in roads, water, electricity, education, agriculture, target industries, etc. And at the same time we have to find a way to do it that doesn’t turn us into a colonial power. Laos in the Vietnam War is a good negative example – we basically created a parallel government under USAID, all the capable people flocked to it, and when we bugged out they all did too leaving a Lao government lacking expertise and resources. It’s a tough problem, one that the Bush Administration not only hasn’t addressed, it’s scoffed at it and is now reaping the fruits thereof.

    All I’m saying is, I think the Barack Obama “we need to get Pakistan instead” line needs a lot more thought behind it even if it does reflect some genuinely correct issues.

  5. Non-Arab,

    Certainly I don’t want a repeat of Iraq, and I’m totally agreeing with you on that point. But I think we’re both agree that our efforts (whatever they may be) should be focused on Pakistan and Afghanistan at the moment.

  6. Can I ask what focusing our efforts on Pakistan means? When you say you don’t want a repeat of Iraq, I take that to mean armed forces entering the country… What exactly are you proposing we do?

  7. Templar,

    Not necessarily. We just wouldn’t enter in to refashion Pakistan into some fantasy non-existent dream.

  8. So you would be in favor of going into pakistan, with our military, to wage war on the terrorists there?

  9. Templar,

    You don’t defeat these guys with a military. Using a military has counter effects that actually undermine your overall mission. Take for instance, Afghanistan. We should have “won” in Afghanistan long ago, but we’re still at it. The Taliban are still attacking us, and in fact, Afghanistan is at its worst since we went in.

    You want to know what will work in a place like Pakistan? Democratizing the country. Stopping our stupid support of Musharraf, the oppressive military dictator. Letting the people decide for themselves. Right now they’d rather go to extremists, because at least those extremists are anti-Musharraf. Remove Musharraf and watch as the locals turn on the extremists within their midst.

    In other words siphon off supporters of Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and get them to turn against them. You can only do this if you offer them something better. You cannot offer them something better as long as Musharraf is in power. You get it?

  10. “You want to know what will work in a place like Pakistan? Democratizing the country.”

    Aren’t you going to heed your own words…

    “We just wouldn’t enter in to refashion Pakistan into some fantasy non-existent dream.”

  11. Remove Musharraf

    That’s none of our business.

    Pakistan is a sovereign nation, and we have absolutely no right to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations.

    Are we going to create our own “His Majesty’s Secret Service” and send a bunch of American licensed-to-kill double-0 Bond-style agents out there to take out the leaders of nations who have managed to make it onto the latest Axis-of-Evil list?

    Or are you going to credit the Bush administration for having had the right idea about invading Iraq in the first place?

    We can’t “democratize” other nations. Only they can do that, when they are good and ready to do so on their own. Our nation was ready for it 231 years ago. Some nations still aren’t ready for it, and we can’t force it upon them.

  12. Templar,

    Um, I am heeding my own words. The way to “democratize Pakistan” is by removing our support of the dictator Musharraf and letting the people of Pakistan remove him from power.

    So don’t worry, Mark, I’m not advocating regime change in Pakistan. I am advocating that we remove the crutches and let Musharraf try to stand on his own with his baggage.

  13. “But I think we’re both agree that our efforts (whatever they may be) should be focused on Pakistan and Afghanistan at the moment.”

    So by focusing our efforts on pakistan, you mean that we should back completely away from pakistan. Interesting…

  14. Templar, I don’t think you understand the complexities of international relations.

  15. I don’t understand the complexities of Daniel’s foreign policy…

    You start off suggesting our troops would be of better use in pakistan than elsewhere:
    “Oh, and instead of preparing Americans to go into Pakistan WHERE WE SHOULD BE ALREADY, Bush and Cheney are preparing Americans to go into Iran”

    Then you change your position and say that we shouldn’t send troops to pakistan
    “You don’t defeat these guys with a military.”

    Hmmm…

  16. I guess my point is that your idea for democratizing Pakistan can be accomplished regardless of what our military is doing, or where they are. Which makes your comment at the beggining of this post, um, incorrect. Actually it is funny that you get so mad at him, but you have no idea what you are saying. I think your emotions get the best of you sometimes.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: