This might be a world record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ski
Musharaff is able to keep the radicals somewhat at bay, but it is just a matter of time until he overthrown and assassinated. I think he's survived 8 assassanition attemps since he's been in power.
Even a cat is only allowed 9 lives. I wonder if fate is catching up with Musharaff?
This remarkable statistic is usually just glosed over. Can anybody think of a head of state who has survived this many attempts on his life? That's more than the reported amount of attempts on Castro by the CIA, I think. I checked the guinness book of world records website, but couldn't find a category for "survival of assassination attempts."
Perhaps he graduated from this course in Vegas?
http://www.crisisresponseint.com/sur..._execution.htm
Strike by U.S. in Pakistan Is an Option, Officials Say
26 July Washington Post - Strike by U.S. in Pakistan Is an Option, Officials Say by Walter Pincus and Joby Warrick.
Quote:
Top Pentagon and State Department officials said yesterday that U.S. Special Forces would enter Pakistan if they had specific intelligence about an impending terrorist strike against the United States, despite warnings from the Pakistani government that it would not accept U.S. troops operating independently inside its borders.
The statements were the clearest assertion yet of the Bush administration's willingness to act unilaterally inside tribal areas in northwestern Pakistan where al-Qaeda's top commanders are believed to have taken refuge. But the officials also voiced strong support for President Pervez Musharraf, who they said has repeatedly backed U.S. anti-terrorism efforts in the region at great political cost...
US and Pakistan Military Cooperation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pragmatic Thinker
[R]eal issues need to be addressed and the first one is defining who really is our enemy? If Usama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are the leaders of the enemy organization we wish to defeat then why do we allow them sanctuary in Pakistan?
For the US to cross into Pakistan unilaterally would be perceived (rightly, I think) as an overt act of aggression and would lose us even more of the little international public support we have for our anti-AQ efforts. It would also undercut the internal support Musharraf has in his own country. Do we really want a nuclear-armed Pakistan to lose his rule? His replacement may be far worse.
Quote:
Why do we ally ourselves with Musharraf after he publically states, 1) he believes Al Qaeda's top leaders are in his country but he claims he is supposedly powerless to do anything about it, and 2) he would rather see anyone else BUT the United States be the ones that capture/kill Usama Bin Laden within Pakistan should he be found....
Musharraf (or his handlers) is pretty astute IMHO. Regarding your question 1), see my point above--he at least provides some stability in the government of a predominantly Islamic nation state member of the "nuclear club."
Regarding 2), I submit that having any nation other than the "Great Satan US" capture/kill UBL would lessen UBL's future "Martyr" status. Were the forces of a Moslem nation to effect the kill/capture, I believe that could be used to send a strong message to show that the efforts of the terrorists are wrong in the eyes of Allah and the Prophet.
Quote:
I am no genius (militarily or otherwise) but there lacks basic logic in our policies and actions that I find too easily dismissed by the people who are supposedly "great leaders" and "no nonsense types"....
Logic has very little real play in the world of international diplomatic affairs. If you want to discuss whether we need more consistency in our policies and actions, that might very well be a topic worth exploring more fully.