Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 70

Thread: After the Bin Laden op, what is the impact? Not on terrorism. Merged thread

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default After Obama, What?

    Moderator's Note: I have watched this thread 'The ISI' and 'After Obama What?' develop, wary that they were two halves of the question 'After the Bin Laden op, what is the impact?'. There's also another thread 'OBL's death & Terrorism's next move', which could be merged too, but for the moment will be left in place - for the impact on terrorism.

    Apologies if some of the posts appear out of sequence.(Mod ends)


    The following events have taken place in quick succession:

    1. Imran Khan's whipping up of popular dissent against the Pak Govt and the Army for impotence displayed against US Drone attacks, being incapable to stand up to the US pressure and mortgaging Pakistan's governance to the US. The people under Imran Khan blockaded the US and ISAF supply route to Afghanistan through Pakistan for 02 days and gave an ultimatum to the Govt to take action within 30 days or they will march to Islamabad and bring the Govt down!

    2. Consequent to the public unrest and protest, the US is said to be winding up its Drone operations from the Shamsi and other bases in Pakistan and move base to Afghanistan from where the originally used to operate.

    3. The US killed Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad, Pakistan. Pakistan is said to have been kept in the dark about the operations, possibly because the US believes that the Army and the ISI leaks like a sieve.

    Yet, this operation proves/ raises two issues:

    (a) that the US operation once again takes no cognisance of Pakistan's territorial integrity or sovereignty.

    (b) there will be disquiet over and may lead to unrest.

    Given the above, the issues are:

    1. The Pakistan logistic supply route would be seriously compromised and jeopardised.

    Therefore, will the US take the Northern Route through Central Asian Republic and will it be viable, economically and militarily?

    2. Will the US, having moved its Drone operations into Afghanistan, go the whole hog? If so, what will be the Pakistani reactions? What will be the international reaction?

    3. Will the US undertake any ground operations against the Haqqani and other groups in the Khyber Pakhtunkwa to ensure that these groups can no longer affect the ISAF operations and thereafter go at will to clean up Afghanistan? If so, what will be the repercussions?

    4. There are speculations that since Osama is dead, the US in Afghanistan will undertake a drawdown and quit. Will it? Can the US leave without cleansing Afghanistan of the AQ and Taliban, because even if OBL is dead, it does not mean that the AQ or the Taliban is dead and will not be able to go their usual ways?

    5. Given that Obama is up for the second term at the Presidency and he has been able to fulfil one of his promises to the American people - getting Osama, would he not be compelled to drawdown or even quit Afghanistan since that was another of his promises to the American people? Can he quit Afghanistan without cleaning it up of the terrorist influences? If not, what are his options.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 05-07-2011 at 09:34 AM. Reason: Add Mods note

  2. #2
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    I'm not sure you can count the op that killed OBL as a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty. We say we didn't tell them, and I guess they claim they didn't know, but I don't see how that could be so. Both are lying to save face, like two men telling each other how good looking the other guy's wife is.

    Questions 1, 2 and 3, I have no real idea. I can only hope that we would give up the Karachi supply line.

    Questions 4 and 5. If Mr. Obama wants to, he can use that loathsome, cynical phrase "declare victory" and bug out, OBL's death being the victory. That would be even more doable if Zawahiri was killed also and maybe a couple of others. The actual facts of the situation won't matter. What matters is what will sell. If he pushes it, Mr. Obama can sell it as the requisite victory. He will have the enthusiastic support of most of the media, and besides, a lot of people want to believe it. Bugging out will be viewed as doing a lot to get him re-elected in his view.

    It won't matter if Taliban & Co, AQ and various and sundry terrorists are cleaned out of Afghanistan. We will pretend it doesn't matter and we will justify that in three ways. The first will be to demonize the gov side. That will be done by basically saying they aren't worthy of our assistance. We will say they aren't worthy because they are corrupt, they don't fight hard enough, they have had plenty of time to get their act together and if they haven't by now it's not our fault, conflate the gov elites with ordinary Afghans, etc etc.

    The second way will be to build up Taliban & Co. That will be done by highlighting every good thing they ever did and painting them as true representatives of the oppressed.

    The third way will be to deny that anything bad will really happen after we bug out. That will be done by saying Taliban & Co are actually sensitive to world opinion, they've changed since 2001, Afghans will find a way to get together and work things out etc. etc.

    You have read these already in various American outlets, some on this very sight. It all depends on whether Mr. Obama wants to push it. He doesn't have the nerve to just cut and run. He needs a "victory" to justify a bug out. He has that now if he wants to use it. We'll see. It wouldn't be the first time we've bugged out and left innocent millions to their fate.
    Last edited by carl; 05-04-2011 at 05:25 AM.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Carl,

    What you have mentioned is what the average American would love to hear - declare a victory and quit.

    However, from the strategy point of view, why did the US go into Iraq and also Afghanistan?

    The answer lies in the Defence Policy Guidelines and the National Energy policy of the US mentored by Dick Cheney, when he was the Secretary of Defence. They were masterpieces giving the new strategic scenario post Cold War and the US priorities.

    I don't have the copies of the same since my hard disk crashed with all that.

    IIRC, he had stated that the US has to have their presence in areas which were hotspots in the world so that the US could react fast and in the correct timeframe, which was not feasible given the location of the US troops at that time.

    He also mentioned that the oil supply lines and areas had to have US control and US had to deny the same to 'adversaries'.

    He also mentioned that there should be forces at sea to undertake immediate expeditionary actions and on which other forces could build upon.

    Iraq panned out copybook to this theory of Cheney.

    The US being still in Iraq and in Afghanistan, is pushing and containing the Russian underbelly. It is also peeking into China and the Uyghurs.

    Leave Afghanistan and you leave it to the Russian and Chinese.

  4. #4
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    We went into Iraq because we lacked the ability to get a substantial conventional force into Afghanistan at the time, and we had to give them some appropriate target to engage. Saddam was just the poor stupid bastard who walked into the company orderly room when the 1SGT was looking for a volunteer.

    AQ only followed us to Iraq, and we turned that country into a battlefield for AQ to attempt to atrit us upon and break our will to remain in the Middle East.

    As to Afghanistan, we were largely mission complete there, and only retained a presence to have a base of operations for going after AQ. During the course of that we enabled the Northern Alliance to create a government and constitution that made it clear to the exiled Taliban that they were legally banned from any chance at economic or political opportunity in their own country, and thereby gave birth to a growing revolutionary insurgency against GIRoA. As we surged forces to counter the growing violence and pushed Northern Alliance police and army units out into the rural areas it fueled a growing resistance insurgency as well.

    So, to your quesiton, is this a matter of "declaring victory and going home" or rather a matter of recognizing that the primary reason we stayed following the intitial effort to run AQ out of the country is now accomplished. Our very exit will reduce much of the causation for the resistance insurgency in Afghanistan proper; and without our continued protection I suspect that the Northern Alliance will get much more serious about working out a compromise with the Taliban leadership in Pakistan to address the revolution as well.

    Or we can stay and continue to work to CLEAR-HOLD-BUILD our way to "victory."
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  5. #5
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Ray:

    I forgot to mention a fourth reason that would be used to justify a bug out of Afghanistan. It will be said that even if Takfiri terrorists do try to use the place as a base again, it won't matter because we will control that with drones and spec ops strikes. The fact that that couldn't be done because of no bases and no human intel won't matter. It doesn't have to work. It just has to sound good so it will sell. What most Americans know about these things comes from the movies, and in the movies, the guy behind the computer screen knows all and can direct the spec ops guy who can get anywhere at any time. It would sell.

    Robert C. Jones:

    I like Mr. Armitage's explanation for the resurgence of Taliban & Co. better. He said we put the fear of God into the ISI in 2001 and they stayed scared for a few years. Then they figured out that we weren't serious about things and decided to get back into the game. We fouled up some other things too but the main thing is we didn't follow Forrest's rule "Keep up the scare" when it came to the Pak Army/ISI. We've been doing more along the lines of Oprah's rule "They have to like me". Forrest works better.

    I hope your right that a bug out would result in sweet compromise but I suspect the gates of hell would open and things would get worse than we can possibly imagine.

    Ray and Robert C. Jones:

    I saw a Frontline production yesterday about an insurgent group in north central Afghanistan. They didn't walk much, they went everywhere on motorcycles, two to a bike. The tracks they used were easy for a motorcycle but would be impossible for a MATV. They would go on patrol in groups.

    I've read about insurgents use of motorcycles before. How much of a mobility advantage does that give them and what can we do to counter it? (I know this question is off topic but since you guys are both here I figured I'd ask.)
    Last edited by carl; 05-04-2011 at 05:31 PM.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    As the events unfolded, it was Afghanistan which was in the sight of the US where Osama was being hunted (2001).

    The Iraq invasion came in 2003.

    Therefore, there should have been substantial force for Afghanistan, if that force was available later for the Iraq invasion.

    What is most important the swinging to Iraq leaving the principle aim to take on the AQ in Afghanistan violated the Principles of War - Selection and Maintenance of Aim and Concentration of Force. It result was obvious.

    If in Afghanistan one created a constitution that made it clear to the exiled Taliban that they were legally banned from any chance at economic or political opportunity in their own country, then one does not understand Afghanistan. That is surprising since US connection with Afghanistan went way back during the activities to throw USSR out. History, itself, shows that Afghans are lords of what they survey and have no equation to any central body, except in a cosmetic way, their King.

    Given the strategic importance of Afghanistan, if the US quits, which it can, Russia and China will lever their way in and that would not do US much good from a strategic point of view, as also, make the whole effort in Afghanistan a total waste of resources in men, matériel, money et al.

    Do read this link.

    http://cinemarasik.com/2009/10/10/af...o-america.aspx

    Apart from an analysis of the present situation, it also traces the importance of Afghanistan historically.

    Excerpt:

    Chance Favors The Prepared Mind

    The Chinese Leaders are masters of the Prepared Mind concept. China would not have risked going to war with India in 1950s to annex Tibet. But India's prime minister Nehru, is an act of historical stupidity, unilaterally pulled the Indian Army out of Tibet. The Chinese were prepared and they walked in.

    The Chinese are also determined and ambitious. Tibet is gone virtually forever. There is no way China will give it up. Tibet is strategically crucial to China. It provides direct land access to Xinjiang for Eastern China. It gives China control of the top of the world and a direct access to Kashmir.

    America, frankly, lucked out in Afghanistan. The 2001 attacks allowed America the moral ground to remove the Taleban regime in Afghanistan. Now, America is in control of this vital strategic asset, this gateway between Central Asia, China, Iran, Pakistan and India. It boggles our mind that reasonably patriotic Americans can even consider leaving Afghanistan for the next 10-15 years.

    Today, Afghanistan is the land nexus of the World, the World of nearly 3.5 billion people with growing incomes and rising aspirations. America lucked into this nexus position. The question is whether the American mind is prepared to seize this chance the way China did with Tibet.

    Unlike Iraq in 2006, this World wants America to stay in Afghanistan. This is of course the real World - India, Iran, Russia, China, Turkey, the Asian countries of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan & Turkmenistan.

    The only regime that does not want America to stay in Afghanistan is the Pakistani Army and the ISI, the Army's Intelligence service. Notice we do not say Pakistan, the country. Because, the Pakistani people will leave peacefully if American pacifies Afghanistan. But as they say in Pakistan, the Pakistani Army owns the country and not the other way around.

    If America runs away from Afghanistan, it will never be allowed in again. The game for Afghanistan will begin again, this time with China, Pakistan, India & Iran. We would favor the China-Pakistan axis to win this prize. What is the prize? Central Asia, access to the Persian Gulf and Trade with 3.5 billion people.
    Last edited by Ray; 05-04-2011 at 05:47 PM.

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    I've read about insurgents use of motorcycles before. How much of a mobility advantage does that give them and what can we do to counter it? (I know this question is off topic but since you guys are both here I figured I'd ask.)
    Everyone in Afghanistan would have a weapon. It is macho. Therefore, if they were on MCs, they would pass off as any other villager!

    Only way is to stop them and question them. But that would mean many average chap will be harassed and it would not be good for the PR that is so essential for a COIN campaign.

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    After Osama: Why I Still Think America Should Be in Afghanistan

    Peter Bergen

    Link

    a comment on this:

    05/04/2011 - 2:39am EDT | Konstantin

    Somebody’s been reading good ole Small Wars Journal.

    http://smallwarsjournal.com/journal/iss/v7n3.pdf

    The pertinent article by LTC Mann begins on page 4. Check out that Officerese. It is thick, but a careful reader will discern that the paper is an updated description of the Village Stability Operations & affiliated narrative exploitation TTPs to which Peter Bergen refers in this TNR article. Other than references to the Taliban and a cursory mention of the history of Afghan governance principles, the paper appears to be a regurgitated, less formatted min ... view full comment

  9. #9
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    22

    Default The ISI

    Moderator's Note: I have watched this thread 'The ISI' and 'After Obama What?' develop, wary that they were two halves of the question 'After the Bin Laden op, what is the impact?'. There's also another thread 'OBL's death & Terrorism's next move', which could be merged too, but for the moment will be left in place - for the impact on terrorism.

    Apologies if some of the posts appear out of sequence.(Mod ends)


    Osama's death proves that there is cooperation between the Pakistani intelligence agency and the military with Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. It was previously suggested that Pakistan supported the killing of US troops in Afghanistan, and would limit their funding to 'Afghan' Taliban, particularly Maulana Jalaluddin Haqqani. This is false: Pakistan are using all three militant groups as proxies. Pakistan's war with the Pakistani Taliban and capture of random militant leaders, be they Arab, Pakistani or Afghan, is simply part of the double game Hamid Gul and Co. have been playing to ensure their geopolitical standing remains intact, that Afghanistan not become an Indian-clientele state, Kashmir become Pakistani land and US military aid to continue.

    As someone who has seen his fair share of suicide bombings while in Afghanistan, we have also captured bombers who have failed to detonate their explosives. All would confess to having come from Pakistan, and all of them would list their ISI handlers. Our government would launch an official complaint, but nothing would precipitate because the US (under both Bush and Obama) would protect them from scrutiny.

    Osama's death changes nothing but it does raise the troubling issue of how aware were the ISI for the 9/11 attacks. It has been proven by Afghan investigators that Pakistan was involved in the killing of Ahmad Shah Masoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance just two days before 9/11, so there is a definite relation. The US would have to demand a full inquiry and perhaps interview Hamid Gul and Omar Sheikh.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 05-07-2011 at 09:34 AM. Reason: Add Mods note before merging threads x2.

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Taabistan,

    Interesting -- but I'm still not sure how his death is definite proof of Pakistani complicity? Maybe I've not read you correctly.

    Do you mean to say Bin Laden was captured and in Abbottabad under house arrest, courtesy of the ISI? Thanks.

  11. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
    Taabistan,

    Interesting -- but I'm still not sure how his death is definite proof of Pakistani complicity? Maybe I've not read you correctly.

    Do you mean to say Bin Laden was captured and in Abbottabad under house arrest, courtesy of the ISI? Thanks.
    Precisely, although I wouldn't term it as "house arrest" as cars would be coming in and out of the compound. It served more as an ISI safe house. Both Geo TV and DAWN news (media outlets of Pakistan) have reported that over the last five years, Bin Laden received treatment for kidney dialysis in Rawalpindi and Karachi. In order for this to happen, the Pakistani military must have provided protection.

    We are aware from intelligence that ISI members attend Taliban shura councils. Several Pakistani generals have admitted on CNN International (in interviews with Michael Ware) and the BBC that they are in direct communication with the Taliban leadership, promising they can bring them to the table on the condition that the US makes concessions on India.

    Hamid Gul was recently on the Alex Jones radio show, and made a complete mockery of US counter-terrorism efforts, claiming the whole raid was a hoax. He showed this disrespect before, when he claimed the 9/11 attacks were an inside job on Fareed Zakariya's GPS. This behavior is unbecoming of an ex-Intelligence Chief and is aimed in stoking anti-US resentment back home.

    Finally, the recent photos released by Reuters was analyzed by local media here and two of the men have been identified as Pakistani military officers. Were they retired? Were they serving as body guards and/or advisors for OBL? These questions should not only be asked, but done so in public.

    If my assertions are correct, we will see a spate of revenge attacks conducted against US army personnel in Afghanistan, under the direct orders of Gul. The message will be simple: Keep us in the loop, keep the funds flowing and don't breach Pakistani borders.

  12. #12
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taabistan View Post
    Finally, the recent photos released by Reuters was analyzed by local media here and two of the men have been identified as Pakistani military officers. Were they retired? Were they serving as body guards and/or advisors for OBL? These questions should not only be asked, but done so in public.
    Everything about this incident is getting stranger and stranger.

    Quote Originally Posted by taabistan View Post
    If my assertions are correct, we will see a spate of revenge attacks conducted against US army personnel in Afghanistan, under the direct orders of Gul. The message will be simple: Keep us in the loop, keep the funds flowing and don't breach Pakistani borders.
    What form do you think the attacks will take?
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  13. #13
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Most likely a combination of suicide attacks and assault on a US base using small arms fire. They will use members of the Haqqani network, or even Tehreek Taliban to do the job. This will be accompanied by a video with images of OBL, verses of the Qur'an and a message from Ayman Zwahiri as part of a propaganda tool. I wouldn't delve too much into the latter. The question is, what is our next move? Karzai will likely wish to meet Petraeus and discuss pressing further on Pakistan, perhaps force them to give up Mullah Omar or other key members of the insurgency. I don't know how the atmosphere is in Washington or if Obama wants to play game with us.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taabistan View Post
    Finally, the recent photos released by Reuters was analyzed by local media here and two of the men have been identified as Pakistani military officers. Were they retired? Were they serving as body guards and/or advisors for OBL? These questions should not only be asked, but done so in public.
    That would be interesting - is there any English language report on this that you're aware of?

  15. #15
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    861

    Default

    To play devil's advocate here: from the average Pakistani's point of view, the US must have known a lot of this from day one (or before day one). If they let it go on, either they are incompetent or involved.....ISI is not the only people with a credibility problem here.
    I dont mean to imply that this is some vast conspiracy. I personally think things are generally what they appear to be, not some deep dark conspiracy by the elders of Zion. But I must say that in this case "as they appear to be" includes the US turning a blind eye to many activities that were not very hidden, so one can be excused for thinking that motivations may not have been pure as driven snow OR incompetence may be greater than we imagined.

  16. #16
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default We've Been There Before

    All of that was in the Ahmed Rashid book Taliban many years ago. American policymakers put what he had to say into the "Too Hard" boxes on their desks because they didn't know what else to do. It was like the fiction of the peace agreement in Laos during the Vietnam conflict. Within the country were many NVA divisions as well as the Ho Chi Minh trail but we couldn't say much about them because it might have made us go back to square one, planning-wise. No wonder so many guys came home from there saying, "It don't mean nuthin'."

  17. #17
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    861

    Default

    The bull#### is indeed coming home to roost. But I will stick my neck out and say that I expect GHQ to slowly, painfully, incompetently and disgracefully PULL AWAY from jihadism and all this nonsense. They are men of this world and they are property owners and they know those corner plots in defence housing societies will be worth bat#### if they continue on their current course. It wont be pretty, but they will slowly back away, getting one hundred slaps and eating one hundred onions, but still, they will back away...Now, when I say slowly, I mean SLOWLY. It may well be that they push out the Americans and get their chance at using the "good taliban" in Afghanistan, but that won't be the end of the story. Much worse will follow. In the long run, they will fight their own creations. They want to live in this modern world and when push comes to shove, they will make that choice...that is my prediction of the day.
    * One hundred slaps and onions: A man was about to be punished for some minor crime. He was given a choice, eat 100 onions or get slapped 100 times. He thought the onions sound easier, so he asked for that. After 5 onions he was going nuts with watery eyes and nausea, so he changed his mind and wanted 100 slaps instead, but after 5 slaps it was back to onions. He ended up getting both 100 onions and 100 slaps. ISI is eating onions at the hands of the jihadis and getting slaps from uncle sam (and will get slaps from Uncle Ching one day..these things are fated) and cannot make up its mind which one is worse. It will end up getting both in full measure.

  18. #18
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    Well, if there is a major flaw in your assumptions when you plan a foreign war, studiously ignore it. But then proceed with your operational planning, while you pretend the awkard strategic situation regarding the war doesn't exist. Then set up a massive command-and control apparatus to manage the conflict. Senior NCOs in battalions are always there to counsel those motivation cases who fail to get on with the program.

  19. #19
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Posted by taabistan
    the troubling issue of how aware were the ISI for the 9/11 attacks
    First, I don't find it so improbable that UBL "could" have been living under ISI's nose without being detected. If you weren't looking in your neighborhood, then you're not going to find him there unless he steps in front of your car when you're driving home. You may not notice then if you were adjusting our radio station to the best jihad propaganda station. I do think it is possible they didn't know, but...

    I tend to believe it is more probable that ISI did know he was there. Musharif was recently reinforced that perception when he was caught in a flat out lie when he said they searched that compound in 2004, when imagery clearly points out the compound didn't exist then. The ISI are such great liers, I think they're to the point they believe they can't tell truth from fiction, and either can several gullable U.S. leaders (civilian and military); especially those who work in Pakistan and "drink tea" with the enemy. It is impossible to see what you refuse to believe.

    I found taabistan's suggestion of great interest, and frankly never considered it before, but if he is correct (see quote above) and we actually have the moral courage to admit it; then what? If the lines were ever traced back to ISI (not rogue ISI, that ship no longer sails) colluding with AQ on the 9/11 attacks that would present an interesting problem set. How do you respond to attack that happened around 10 years ago after you already got in bed and made love repeatedly to the person who attacked you?

  20. #20
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by omarali50 View Post
    The bull#### is indeed coming home to roost. But I will stick my neck out and say that I expect GHQ to slowly, painfully, incompetently and disgracefully PULL AWAY from jihadism and all this nonsense. They are men of this world and they are property owners and they know those corner plots in defence housing societies will be worth bat#### if they continue on their current course. It wont be pretty, but they will slowly back away, getting one hundred slaps and eating one hundred onions, but still, they will back away...Now, when I say slowly, I mean SLOWLY. It may well be that they push out the Americans and get their chance at using the "good taliban" in Afghanistan, but that won't be the end of the story. Much worse will follow. In the long run, they will fight their own creations. They want to live in this modern world and when push comes to shove, they will make that choice...that is my prediction of the day.
    * One hundred slaps and onions: A man was about to be punished for some minor crime. He was given a choice, eat 100 onions or get slapped 100 times. He thought the onions sound easier, so he asked for that. After 5 onions he was going nuts with watery eyes and nausea, so he changed his mind and wanted 100 slaps instead, but after 5 slaps it was back to onions. He ended up getting both 100 onions and 100 slaps. ISI is eating onions at the hands of the jihadis and getting slaps from uncle sam (and will get slaps from Uncle Ching one day..these things are fated) and cannot make up its mind which one is worse. It will end up getting both in full measure.

    I think this is accurate. Pakistan, like many places, was created with borders that don't match the demographic map. Job one for the central government is to keep the state from breaking up. To do this means doing things they think are imperative, that we think ate abhorrent. Throw in vastly different worldviews/first principles (remember Huntington?) and this is what you get.

Similar Threads

  1. Terrorism in the USA:threat & response
    By SWJED in forum Law Enforcement
    Replies: 486
    Last Post: 11-27-2016, 02:35 PM
  2. Crowdsourcing on AQ and Analysis (new title)
    By CWOT in forum Catch-All, GWOT
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 08-29-2012, 01:36 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •