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

[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]

Live Mint: There are no good Taliban and bad Taliban: Condoleezza Rice
by Elizabeth Roche

There are no good Taliban and bad Taliban: Condoleezza Rice

Pakistan is complicated, Iran is still a problem internationally, opines former US secretary of state



Former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice has voiced doubts about the readiness of Taliban to join a reconciliation process.
Photo: Ramesh Pathania/Mint

As the US and the international community prepare to scale down their military involvement in Afghanistan in 2014 and the Obama administration seeks talks with the Taliban to stabilize the war-torn country, former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice has voiced doubts about the readiness of the group to join a reconciliation process. In an interview, Rice said she was "sceptical whether the Taliban can be brought into a peace process". Rice, currently a professor of political science at Stanford University, was in New Delhi last week for the 11th Hindustan Times Leadership Summit. Edited excerpts:

This is a critical time for the US in Afghanistan in the context of the transition in 2014. How do you see US-Afghanistan and US-Pakistan relations against the backdrop of this?

The US-Afghan relations is difficult because it is a difficult set of circumstances. It's a relationship of partnership first of all. We have had to do a whole lot of hard things in Afghanistan. We had an apology from our military for innocent civilian deaths in Afghanistan. It's not like the American military would have it that way, but unfortunately it happens. We have pressed the Afghans on the drug trade, we have pressed them on corruption, sometimes the relationship can be difficult, but I think it's a long-term relationship and we will remain engaged there. I hope we will keep a military presence there. I think that would help. But we are in this relationship for the long term. We are not going to leave like we did after the Soviet Union was defeated there (in 1989), leaving then the kind of chaos that led to the Taliban and ultimately the Al Qaeda setting up home base there. With Pakistan again, it's not easy. It takes patience on our part just as it takes patience on the part of India.

If you were secretary of state, would you have thought of opening a line of communication with the Taliban given what happened on 9/11?

I guess you have to think about it and I am not on the inside, and I am always careful because I know that you don't always know all of the factors (involved). I think you have to be extremely careful. I don't think there are good Taliban and bad Taliban. I don't think there are Taliban who are in favour of the stability of Afghanistan. And so I am sceptical whether the Taliban can be brought into a peace process. Eventually there will have to be reconciliation of the Afghan people and I don't doubt there are some who were Afghan people who fought on the wrong side. Everybody has to have reconciliation at some point. But people have to be ready for reconciliation and I don't know the degree to which the Taliban is ready for reconciliation.

There was this recent agreement between the international community and Iran on its controversial nuclear programme. What are the opportunities that this deal throws up for the US in Afghanistan for example?

Well I don't know if it would open up opportunities in the geo-strategic issues. It seems sometimes to me that the Iranian government is in two minds - it wants to have a nuclear deal and it wants to have better relations with the United States, and it wants to reshape the Middle East in ways that are antithetical to our interests and I don't see that changing, frankly, in the short term. Now it may be on Afghanistan because to a certain extent terrorism in Afghanistan is a problem for the Iranians; there would be some small opening there. But I would not generalize from what happens in the nuclear deal to a stronger, better relationship with the Iranians. I think that takes work on other kinds of issues like Iran's interference in the Persian Gulf.

So Pakistan will still have primacy in any Afghan calculations?

Pakistan has to be part of the calculations. Instability in Pakistan is a problem for Afghanistan and instability in Afghanistan is a problem for Pakistan. So those two are forever linked in that way. And I do hope that the Pakistanis will recognize that the Taliban in Pakistan is a real problem for Pakistan, not just for Afghanistan. As long as you have extremism in Pakistan, Pakistan will be a large part of the equation. You will have to pay a lot of attention to it.

Read more in Rice for President Yahoo Group, message 2278

Thank you Condi once again for trying to save those who will listen from the hell on earth, the sacrifice of our cherished values, the dishonour to all that we hold dear, that would be surrendered in any peace deal with the Taliban.

The AfPak Mission

The AfPak Mission (YouTube)

The AfPak Mission on the internet is about war on terror military and security strategy for NATO and allied countries with ground forces in action in Afghanistan and air and airborne forces including drones and special force raids in action over Pakistan.

The AfPak Mission helps implementation of the Bush Doctrine versus state sponsors of terror and is inspired by the leadership of Condoleezza Rice.

The AfPak Mission approach to the Taliban is uncompromising.

• There should be no peace with the Taliban.
• The only "good" Taliban is a dead Taliban.
• Arrest all Taliban political leaders and media spokesmen.
• Capture or kill all Taliban fighters.

The AfPak Mission identifies useful content across multiple websites.

On YouTube, the AfPak Mission channel presents playlists of useful videos.

The AfPak Mission forum offers structured on-line written discussion facilities and the forum is the rallying and reference centre of the AfPak Mission, linking to all other AfPak Mission content on the internet.

The AfPak Mission has a Twitter, a Flickr and a wordpress Blog too.
You are invited to subscribe to the channel, register with the forum and follow on twitter, flickr and the blog.

[Peter Dow]

A couple of new videos in my AfPak Mission channel.

Susan Rice loves US Forces in Afghanistan!

Global War On Terror - Final Duel (Video allegory)

Soon ...

[Peter Dow]

Obama's 3 options for Afghanistan

1. Fight to win,
2. Retreat,
3. Surrender

Obama Weighs All Afghanistan Options in Meeting Generals
Bloomberg Politics
By Gopal Ratnam and David Lerman Feb 4, 2014 7:54 PM GM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...-generals.html

The Obama administration is considering its options to withdraw some or all U.S. forces from Afghanistan as time runs out for a new security agreement, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said.

“They’re planning for all options,” Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said after a closed-door briefing today with defense officials at the Capitol. “They have to.”

1. Fight to win

See above

The AfPak Mission

AfPak Mission Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/AfpakMission
Forum http://scot.tk/forum/viewforum.php?f=26
Twitter http://twitter.com/AfPakMission
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/afpakmission/
Blog http://afpakmission.wordpress.com/

2. Retreat
Americans dropping dead to terrorist attacks after 'Drop-Dead Date'

‘Drop-Dead Date’

Several senators today said they’ve concluded that Karzai will never sign the agreement and are looking past him toward a successor. Levin said waiting for the next president would give the U.S. and NATO allies enough time to plan for a limited military presence after this year.

“Really, the drop-dead date is the next president,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican member of the Armed Services Committee.

American city nuked after the so-called 'Drop-Dead Date'

What Senator Lindsey Graham doesn't realise is that he and President Obama if they agree with a "drop-dead date" policy may be condemning Americans in American cities to be the ones who are dropping dead after the 'drop-dead date'.

Why should American civilians in cities like New York be the ones to drop dead?

That's not what Senator Graham has in mind. He thinks the ones to drop dead would be Afghans. Not so. It would be Americans.

How could this be?

Well for example, if the Pakistani military give a nuclear weapon to an Al-Qaeda terrorist to set off in an American city then it will be American civilians dropping dead from a nuclear blast.

Plenty of Americans dropped dead on 9/11.

Plenty of Americans would drop dead in a terrorist nuclear attack on an American city.

Now that is the danger that Senator Graham and his "drop-dead date" policy are heading Americans into.

So before anyone thinks that a "drop dead date" policy is clever and a good sound bite then we first need to look at why the danger is to American civilians in American cities dropping dead.

Senator Graham is the Senator from South Carolina and the largest metro in that state is Greenville with a population of more than 800,000.

Now if Greenville is unlucky and Al-Qaeda terrorists choose Greenville to set off a terrorist nuclear bomb in then very many of those 800,000 American citizens of Greenville will be dropping dead.

Now I am sure that Senator Graham does not have in mind the good citizens of Greenville would be the ones to be dropping dead after his "drop-dead date" policy had gone in to operation.

Nevertheless Senator Graham and other Senators really ought to think of that scenario or some other American metro being destroyed by a terrorist nuclear weapon before he goes to the media boasting about his "drop-dead date" policy.

Someone needs to explain to the good Senator that all those in the Oval Office who think a "drop-dead date" is a good policy may be condemning American civilians in American cities to be dropping dead some time after their much flaunted "drop-dead date".

Why?

Because if we pull our forces out of Afghanistan, retreat, after a "drop-dead Date" then the Pakistani military will believe that their terrorists are winning the war on terror, that the US is weak and on the retreat, doesn't have the will to win, will pay billions of dollars to Pakistan and then go home.

The Pakistani military will see that as a green light to intensify terrorist attacks in America with which to make further blackmail and extortion demands on the USA.

The Pakistani military got $10 billion in military aid after 9/11 and if they get away with that, if the USA retreats from Pakistan having done nothing but give money to the USA's enemies in the Pakistani military then the next terrorist attack will be bigger and more damaging with a view to get even more than $10 billion.

I do not know how much the Pakistani military will be looking to get from the USA after their nuclear attack on an American city but I would expect that they would be expecting a great deal more than $10 billion - maybe $100 billion or more. I don't know.

But if the USA is weak and paying up to terrorists then they will terrorise the USA even more to get as much money as they can get.

We need to keep the Afghan bases to wage war on our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan - both the terrorists sponsored by the ISI of the Pakistani military and we need to wage war on the ISI itself and all Pakistani generals and former generals who are dictating policy to sponsor terrorism.

We need to keep the Afghan bases without paying Afghanistan anything or giving any ground whatsoever in the war on terror.

Keep the bases as an act of war against our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

That is the best way to be make sure that our enemies in Pakistan know that we are not retreating, that we are still at war with our enemies in Pakistan and that we will hold them accountable one day for 9/11 and certainly even more so if there are any further big terrorist attacks on the USA like that.

We must teach Pakistan accountability for their terrorists and if we withdraw our forces after a drop dead date then Pakistan will have escaped accountability for 9/11 and our enemies in Pakistan will believe that they can escape accountability for another such massive terrorist attack on America, perhaps next time with nuclear weapons.

So don't use the phrase "drop-dead date" except to explain how stupid and dangerous such a policy is because it will be Americans dropping dead.

Don't abandon our Afghan bases. Keep them even if the next Afghan president doesn't sign the BSA.

That's the way to win the war on terror.

Retreating after a 'drop-dead date' is not the way to win.

3. Surrender
Obama going soft on war on Al Qaeda

WSJ: U.S. to Curb Pakistan Drone Program

The CIA has long added new targets to a longer "kill list" on a rolling basis as old targets are hit.

Now, U.S. officials say, the "kill list" is not self-replenishing, a change long sought by Islamabad. "By taking one off, we're not automatically putting one on," a senior U.S. official said. As a result, the number of targets on the list are decreasing as the CIA's drones focus on a more limited number of high-level targets that "will enable us to conclude the program," the official said.

And here are the headlines of the next few years (maybe)

• US stops adding al Qaeda leaders to 'kill list'
• US announces peace talks with Al-Qaeda.
• US president signs peace treaty with Al-Qaeda.
• Pentagon purges military to quell dissent against Al-Qaeda treaty.
• Rump US military stages joint exercises with Al-Qaeda.
• Obama appointed senior Al-Qaeda commander in America.
• US military joins Al-Qaeda renamed as "Al-Qaeda in America".
• Al-Qaeda in America occupies Congress and the Supreme court.
• US Congress members and Supreme Court judges beheaded.
• Al-Qaeda in America defeats National Rifle Association in last stand.
• Al-Qaeda declares Sharia Law in America.
• Barack Obama gets his 2nd Nobel Peace Prize.

Yes he can?

[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