How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)

[jmm99]

what is meant by your usage of "to hold Pakistan accountable" ? Are you suggesting that the US use armed force (pursuant to the 2001 AUMF) against Pakistan ? If so, from where and by what means ?

Regards

Mike

[Peter Dow]

Peter,

what is meant by your usage of "to hold Pakistan accountable" ?

Thanks for your questions Mike.

I mean our governments ought to face up to the evidence that the Pakistani state has secretly been waging war against us by secretly employing Al Qaeda terrorists and the Taliban to wage Pakistan's secret war against us.

I mean our governments ought to respond to the revelation of Pakistan's acts of war against us by declaring that a state of war now exists between us and Pakistan and accordingly command our forces to confront the aggressor, Pakistan, with retaliatory acts of war of our own against Pakistan, in our own self-defence, with a view to bringing Pakistan's secret war to an end and to compel Pakistan to agree and to deliver peace terms which would satisfy our need for security into the future.

I mean it is war with Pakistan, Mike. There's no point in sugar-coating what needs to be done.

Are you suggesting that the US use armed force (pursuant to the 2001 AUMF) against Pakistan ?

Yes.

If so, from where and by what means ?

Regards

Mike

That's a very good question Mike. I am glad you asked that. It's really very important that we find the best answers to those sorts of questions.

I have been attempting to provide some answers to those difficult but critical questions in this topic thread.

I would ask you to review my 4-point plan in my OP and my suggested approach to managing Pakistan in post #2.

I don't however believe that a large-scale ground invasion of Pakistan would be a good option to pick in order to prosecute this war to a speedy and successful conclusion any time soon.

So attack Pakistan, sure but "invade Pakistan", I don't think so.

PS. We have many non-military methods as well we can use to apply pressure to Pakistan to bring them to terms - financial sanctions, for example.

[jmm99]

You deserve the same candor from me.

My worldview is very different from yours; but also very different from that of the Bush II and Obama admins (one might as well also include the Bush I and Clinton admins). I don't believe in the New World Order or in US global hegemony; and I would limit US force projection out to our Atlantic and Pacific far littorals, except in exigent circumstances.

UBL was an "exigent circumstance", whose death (and those of his subordinates who happened to be caught in the net) were justified for reasons of retribution, reprobation and specific deterrence. No doubt, one can go far beyond UBL and his immediate associates to argue that a number of groups and nations are "worthy" of inclusion within the scope of the 2001 AUMF because of their support of AQ and associated groups (e.g., the Taliban).

I believe that the US has achieved militarily what it can achieve in the Muslim World. So, I'd leave Eurasia and Africa to those who live there. Hence, no point exists for you and me to argue about operational and tactical military details - as to which I have no particular expertise anyway.

Regards

Mike

[omarali50]

Peter, i was being facetious.
I am not sanguine about the prospects of "our" victory in Afghanistan http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksd...if-we-win.html

[Peter Dow]

Peter, i was being facetious.
I am not sanguine about the prospects of "our" victory in Afghanistan http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksd...if-we-win.html

No but you do make an entirely inappropriate distinction between "the imperialist powers or Pakistan".

Whereas in fact it is imperial Pakistan that wants Afghanistan back as its vassal Taliban state, Kashmir from India, Bangladesh back as East Pakistan and perhaps another bits and pieces of Asia which the global jihad can grab for Pakistan.

Though I do note that it is somewhat of a cowardly imperialism that prefers to grab territory via proxy irregular forces and terrorist groups such as the Taliban, controlled by the ISI, no doubt because the generals can't persuade the regular army nor the people of Pakistan to serve in such imperialist wars of expansion.

Oh no, the USA and NATO allies are not "imperialists". We are simply defending our homeland by removing terrorism which threatens us at source.

[Peter Dow]

Condi Rice to India: Pakistan a "state sponsor of terror"

State sponsors of terror have to clean up their act, says Condoleezza

The leadership of countries that practice “embedded terrorism” – state sponsored terrorism – have to be told they must “clean up”, said former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice at the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit. The US policy towards state sponsors of terrorism, she said, which includes Pakistan, has been to say “you don’t have an option” about dealing with this terrorism.


Former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice speaks during the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit 2013 in New Delhi.

Rice, who delivered the keynote address at the summit’s second day, said one has to be nuanced in responding to state-sponsored terror. Pakistan is a country that turns a blind eye to groups within its borders who practice terrorism, Rice noted. But their system can be mobilised to take action against terrorists with the right pressure and persuasion.

“I came here after the Mumbai attacks and then told (former) Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari: what has happened here is clearly unacceptable and Pakistan is responsible,” said Rice. She admitted this does not work quickly. “This is a long-term problem, it can’t be turned around quickly but over decades.”

Rice, one of the authors of the Indo-US nuclear deal, said that the Indo-US relationship “was without limits” because the two countries shared both common interests and values.

She listed some of the interests she saw shared by India and the US: a world safe from terrorism, stability in South and Central Asia, energy security, preserving an international system based on rule of law.

For the full story visit the Hindustan Times website via this link
http://tinyurl.com/CondiToIndia

Video recalling the visit of Condoleezza Rice to India after the Mumbai terrorist attack.

Condoleezza Rice is like a provost of the whole world! Condi handed over the provost job at Stanford University to one of her helpers long ago, though she still works as a professor at Stanford.

I do wish Condi would not be so patient with Pakistan though. I don't think the world can afford to wait decades for Pakistan to put its own house in order. I don't think the Pakistani politicians are strong enough when faced with an obstinate Pakistani state which sees some purpose in sponsoring terrorism.

I would like in future to hear of Condi recommending that the world take a much tougher approach with Pakistan, an "iron fist" approach, so to speak, led by the US and its NATO allies, and hopefully with India's support, to force Pakistan more quickly to confront the state sponsors of terrorism - generals and former generals of the Pakistani military who dictate military policy behind the scenes in Pakistan.

This could involve suspending aid to Pakistan, international arrest warrants for those state-sponsors of terror Pakistani generals and former generals, raids like the raid to get Bin Laden but against those in the Pakistani state who were sheltering Bin Laden, assassination missions against those terror generals and former generals, more drone attacks, targeted missile or bombing air raids, seizing control over Pakistan's satellite broadcasting to call for the arrest of all involved in sponsoring terror and so on.

I would not heed any complaints from the Pakistani state which is not putting its own house in order. I would not be impressed by any threats Pakistan made about blocking supplies into Afghanistan. We would like the honest people in the Pakistan military to take action against those in the Pakistani military, such as the ISI, who have long been dishonest sponsors of terrorism.

The world needs to pressure Pakistan to make the reality that for the honest Pakistani military it will be an easier course of action to confront their dishonest comrades than daring to confront the rest of the world about any actions we take to raise the pressure on Pakistan.

I would even be prepared to raise military tensions to a level that was last seen in the Cuban missile crisis with US forces on high military alert.

No I would not like to see a nuclear war which would hurt many Pakistani civilians. We love the people of Pakistan but it is in their interests for someone to take a tough stance against the state sponsors of terrorism in Pakistan because that terrorism is, as often as not, turned against the people of Pakistan with their own politicians and leaders being targeted.

The exact measures to be taken are not really my point. Those are up for discussion and modification as required.

My real point is the pressure on Pakistan needs to be stepped up 100 fold by the West led by the US and NATO and with the support of India. No more softly, softly.

This would be my advice to our dearly beloved Condoleezza Rice. No-one inspires me more than she. No-one is better placed to decide on what is good advice and what is not. I trust her judgement but I want her to hear my advice.

AfPak Mission links


AfPak Mission logo - the AfPak Mission is inspired by the leadership of Condoleezza Rice

AfPak Mission channel http://www.youtube.com/user/AfpakMission

AfPak Mission twitter http://twitter.com/AfPakMission

AfPak Mission forum http://scot.tk/forum/viewforum.php?f=26

AfPak Mission flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/afpakmission/

AfPak Mission blog http://peterdow.wordpress.com/category/afghanistan/

[jmm99]

An Americas-centric map;



also showing the US pivot to the Pacific which is more than a century old (shown more clearly in the larger version); and showing Astan, Pstan and India to the edge of the radar screen.

An Eurasia-centric map:



based on Mackinder's 1904 Heartland and Geographical Pivot of History, who left us this 1919 ditty:

Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
who rules the World-Island controls the world.
(Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, p. 106)

I believe it fair to assert that Mackinder's worldview has been accepted (in variants) by Huntington, Kissenger, Brzezinski and Rice; as well as by most of the American political elite.

Mackinder's basic concept is very well-accepted in Eurasia, though in particular versions in state geopolitics (British, French, German, Russian, etc.).

In fact, there is even a Pakistani version by Brig. Nadir Mir, Pakistan and Geopolitics and User:Nadir Mir, which appears to me an attempt to make the case for a larger Pakistani regional presence (hegemony ?). It may be of more interest to others here than to me.

Regards

Mike

[Peter Dow]

You deserve the same candor from me.

My worldview is very different from yours; but also very different from that of the Bush II and Obama admins (one might as well also include the Bush I and Clinton admins). I don't believe in the New World Order or in US global hegemony; and I would limit US force projection out to our Atlantic and Pacific far littorals, except in exigent circumstances.

From sea to shining sea and leave empires like the British, Japanese, German, Russian to fight for global domination, huh?

That's a very different worldview from FDR too.

It's not a good plan Mike because the empire that finally achieves hegemony over the rest of the world would eventually come for the USA and then you'd be on your own.

UBL was an "exigent circumstance", whose death (and those of his subordinates who happened to be caught in the net) were justified for reasons of retribution, reprobation and specific deterrence. No doubt, one can go far beyond UBL and his immediate associates to argue that a number of groups and nations are "worthy" of inclusion within the scope of the 2001 AUMF because of their support of AQ and associated groups (e.g., the Taliban).

One can and one should. Otherwise there's no "specific deterrence" to those groups etc.

On the contrary there is specific payment to such groups in the order of $18 billion in US aid paid to Pakistan after groups there supported the 9/11 attacks and another $1.6 billion promised.

It's not like the generous US Marshall plan to invest in the recovery of Germany and Europe after world war 2. There, the Nazis could not claim credit for the Marshall plan since the top Nazi leaders had been executed and others jailed.

With Pakistan, the generals who supported 9/11 and Taliban attacks on the US can still claim their part in extorting or blackmailing the aid from the US and other countries they've threatened with their state sponsored terrorism.

So it looks to the Pakistani people like the US is weak, can be bullied, blackmailed, extorted. So there's no deterrent. There's an open invitation - who else wants a piece of the USA's wealth and is prepared to kill Americans to get it?

I believe that the US has achieved militarily what it can achieve in the Muslim World. So, I'd leave Eurasia and Africa to those who live there. Hence, no point exists for you and me to argue about operational and tactical military details - as to which I have no particular expertise anyway.

Regards

Mike

It doesn't take a particular expertise to understand that the USA and its global allies constitute the dominant military power in the world and can beat anyone else if we go about the business of war in a militarily efficient way, instead of like fools.

[jmm99]

From sea to shining sea and leave empires like the British, Japanese, German, Russian to fight for global domination, huh?

That's a very different worldview from FDR too.

It's not a good plan because the empire that finally achieves hegemony over the rest of the world would eventually come for the USA in due course and then you'd be on our own.

As to the third point, there's a lot of ifs both ways. As I said, we've very different worldviews.

Regards

Mike