Page 18 of 27 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 360 of 521

Thread: Pakistani internal security (catch all)

  1. #341
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Talks with the Taliban in Pakistan?

    An insightful comment IMHO and opens with:
    The two successive attacks last week on pro-Taliban cleric Maulana Fazlur Rahman, who heads Pakistan's largest religious party, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam Fazl (JUI-F), caught many observers by surprise. Yet these attacks against a strong supporter of the Taliban give credence to increasing evidence of rifts among the Taliban factions in Pakistan, whose central leadership - insofar as one can say the movement has a central leadership - is underground, and their organizational structure shattered in face of the increasing number of drone strikes and military operations. Yet this division masks new efforts by Taliban supporters in the Pakistani government to bring some militant groups, including the group Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) back in the fold, as the country's military and security services plan for the future.
    Ends with:
    Indeed, while no one can deny Pakistan's connection with the Taliban and other groups, both local and foreign, analysts and security officials believe some fighters have escaped the grip of the country's intelligence services, leading in part to the rash of recent attacks on government installations and even pro-militant figures. Even as Pakistan re-orients its strategy towards militants as part of their planning for Afghanistan's future, these "splinters" may continue to wreak havoc with the government's best-laid plans.
    On other threads IIRC we have discussed the impact of talks with the Afghan Taliban, including arrests of leaders and Pakistan's relations with others.

    Link:http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts...an_in_pakistan

    I still remain puzzled how serious strategists in Pakistan, overwhelmingly still military-dominated, see a positive national role for "splinters", who might just set off a crisis, even war with India.

    Note I do not dismiss talking to insurgents, which the UK has followed in secret, well sort of secret to the public, in Northern Ireland and of course the much mooted talks with the Afghan Taliban of late.
    davidbfpo

  2. #342
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    861

    Default

    Maybe we should blame the West.
    Our strategic horizon, in the times of the great maharaja Ranjit Singh, was limited to Northern India, Afghanistan and maybe Tibet (which one of Ranjit Singh's generals offered to conquer after he conquered Ladakh). But starting in 1953, our "brightest officers" were sent to study at American institutions of strategic learning. They came back with half-baked theories which they proceeded to teach in their own "National Defence University". From such seeds grew poisonous fruits like "strategic depth" and Shireen Mazari. The rest is history.
    Islamofascism and Islamist extreme and murderous factionalism (exemplified by the Kharijites and now the TTP) have always been present (actually or potentially) in the Islamicate world and were available for use, but without the generous assistance of the University of Nebraska, would we have reached such brilliant heights?
    Now, the genie is out of the bottle. And our Rommels and Guderians have no clue what to do, and more important, no vocabulary with which to construct an alternative. I think (and hope) that the pressure of economic necessity will give birth to alternatives at some point. Until then, we are condemned to more of the same.
    The only rays of hope are that Indian "strategic thinkers" like B Raman seem to have more sense than Shireen Mazari and may actually help rather than hinder the transition. And the Chinese pulitburo (though not necessarily the PLA) is reasonably sane. On such thin threads hangs our fate....

  3. #343
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default A great deal of ruin in a nation

    http://www.economist.com/node/18488344

    The future would look brighter if there were much resistance to the extremists from political leaders. But, because of either fear or opportunism, there isn’t. The failure of virtually the entire political establishment to stand up for Mr Taseer suggests fear; the electioneering tour that the law minister of Punjab took with a leader of Sipah-e-Sahaba last year suggests opportunism. “The Punjab government is hobnobbing with the terrorists,” says the security officer. “This is part of the problem.” A state increasingly under the influence of extremists is not a pleasant idea.
    The Article summed up four troubling threads that have a negative impact on Pakistan:

    1. Pakistan's strategic position
    2. Islam's role in the nation
    3. A useless government
    4. Dominance of the Armed Forces

  4. #344
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    861

  5. #345
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Refining the hypothetical

    by positing two things ("Let's Pretend the Unthinkable 02"):

    1. US withdraws military forces and military aid from South Asia and the Middle East.

    2. US continues trade and commerce and economic aid in South Asia and the Middle East.

    Why would any nation refuse to trade with the US under those circumstances, and elect a "Shut the Door" policy vs the US ?

    Is there any military advantage to the US by continuing military forces and military aid in South Asia and the Middle East - other than to enhance US military operations in South Asia and the Middle East ?

    Let's also be clear: "Never Again, but ..." (re: military force) does provide exceptions for presently-undefined "extreme cases".

    Regards

    Mike

  6. #346
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by omarali50 View Post
    Now, the genie is out of the bottle. And our Rommels and Guderians have no clue what to do, and more important, no vocabulary with which to construct an alternative. I think (and hope) that the pressure of economic necessity will give birth to alternatives at some point. Until then, we are condemned to more of the same.
    The only rays of hope are that Indian "strategic thinkers" like B Raman seem to have more sense than Shireen Mazari and may actually help rather than hinder the transition. And the Chinese pulitburo (though not necessarily the PLA) is reasonably sane. On such thin threads hangs our fate....
    You are more well versed on the subject than me. Nonetheless, if I may play the Devil's Advocate.

    One wonders if the Rommels and Guderians do not have a clue or is it that they are being rutted in the niche that has become sort of a legacy from the very start when Pakistan became a Nation?

    As I see it, the whole issue of the Army vs the Government (or governance) stems from the 'animosity' that was there between the 'sons of the soil' of what became Pakistan and the Mohajirs. This apparently has manifested itself, subtly, if you will, in the flow of Pakistan's short history.

    The 'sons of the soil' of Pakistan, mostly illiterate or of the feudal strain and of the Army, were the inheritors of what became Pakistan. On the other hand, the Mohajirs, being educated and having expertise from their profession in undivided India in the bureaucratic, judicial and commerce realms, usurped the reins of power of what became Pakistan. It was, thus. obvious that this was not to the liking of the macho 'sons of the soil'.

    The Mohajirs, being astute, realised that they were rootless in comparison. And therefore, they had to find ways and mean to establish their relevance to the State of Pakistan. Nothing could be better for ensuring their 'stamp' on Pakistan than having their language, Urdu, as the National Language. And there is no doubt, a National Language plays a major part to smoothen the rough edges and gives an ascendancy apart from subtly suggesting a supremacy of the group (the same is the case in India, where Hindi has been made the Official [note: note National] Language of India).

    That apart, the Mohajirs laid great emphasis on Islam as the raison d'etre for Pakistan. None could dispute that since it would be blasphemous to do otherwise (note how conveniently Jinnah's address to the Constituent Assembly on 11 Aug 1947 was conveniently forgotten as soon as it was given). Thus, it established an anti Indian (read Hindu) psychology, so as to divert the attention from them being the rootless lot who had usurped the rightful place of the 'sons of the soil'.

    Not to be outdone, the 'sons of the soil' made hay in the Kashmir vacillation by sending in tribal hordes, backed by their Army. They, thus, turned the tables on the Mohajir by championing Islam and the anti Indian sentiments churned by the Mohajirs as the cause.

    In the bargain, the Army (read: sons of the soil) established their equal relevance to Pakistan and as a 'power centre' of Pakistan.

    And then the story continued throughout the history of Pakistan with the see saw of civil vs the military in governance and power peddling.

    Zia, went one step further. He incorporated the fundamentalists as the flag bearers of Islam when he unleashed them against the Soviets. Thereafter, he institutionalised these fundamentalists as a 'strategic weapon'.

    However, the 'strategic weapon', became unemployed after the overthrow of the Soviets in Afghanistan. They could have created problems within Pakistan, and so they were vectored into Kashmir.

    OBL ruined the Kashmir roadshow by organising 9/11.

    US came down heavily in Afghanistan and the fundamentalists were on the run.

    The Pakistan Govt, playing ball reluctantly with the US in the WoT, did some damage to the fundamentalists' infrastructure. The fundamentalists, finding their space narrowing, not only struck against the ISAF with vengeance but also against Pakistan. Initially, they targeted the Govt machinery and not finding adequate results or reaction, turned to make Pakistan a total chaos, by splintering into various group with various agendas and started targeting the population and fanning internecine sectarian rifts in the form of bombing Shia, Sufi, Ahmediya etc shrines and prayer places, while whipping up religious frenzy and recruiting 'religious warriors' in their various madrassa, well funded by the Saudis preaching the Wahabi doctrine that brooks no quarters to be given to the 'enemy'.

    In this total internal and external confusion created by the fundamentalists and the fact that the 'strategic weapon' could not be forsaken for future use, the Pakistan governance and the Guderians and Rommels, while having all good intentions to bring in stability, have been reduced to a state of paralysis. They are at sixes and sevens and are not finding a solution how to resolve the contradictions of keeping afloat the bonhomie with the US and at the same, keep the fundamentalists on its right side.

    It is a Catch 22 for them.

  7. #347
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    by positing two things ("Let's Pretend the Unthinkable 02"):

    1. US withdraws military forces and military aid from South Asia and the Middle East.

    2. US continues trade and commerce and economic aid in South Asia and the Middle East.

    Why would any nation refuse to trade with the US under those circumstances, and elect a "Shut the Door" policy vs the US ?

    Is there any military advantage to the US by continuing military forces and military aid in South Asia and the Middle East - other than to enhance US military operations in South Asia and the Middle East ?

    Let's also be clear: "Never Again, but ..." (re: military force) does provide exceptions for presently-undefined "extreme cases".

    Regards

    Mike

    If the US quits ME and South Asia, it will hand it over to Russian and Chinese who will corner the areas under its 'sphere of influence'.

    Already the Chinese are operating in large number in the Gilgit Baltistan area and it has the Gwadar port, next to the Straits of Hormuz, under its influence.

    As per one source, about 15 tankers carrying 16.5 to 17 million barrels of crude oil pass through the strait on an average day, making it one of the world's most strategically important choke points. This represents 40% of the world's seaborne oil shipments, and 20% of all world oil shipments.

    The strategic importance of the Straits of Hormuz is thus established and relinquishing this advantage (US has a naval base in Bahrain) would have serious consequences to the US wanting to remain as the sole superpower.

    If India comes into the Russian 'sphere of influence', then the effect requires no elaboration.

  8. #348
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Hi Ray,

    I'll "bombard" you tomorrow - re: this ...

    from Ray

    If the US quits ME and South Asia, it will hand it over to Russian and Chinese who will corner the areas under its 'sphere of influence'.

    Already the Chinese are operating in large number in the Gilgit Baltistan area and it has the Gwadar port, next to the Straits of Hormuz, under its influence.

    As per one source, about 15 tankers carrying 16.5 to 17 million barrels of crude oil pass through the strait on an average day, making it one of the world's most strategically important choke points. This represents 40% of the world's seaborne oil shipments, and 20% of all world oil shipments.

    The strategic importance of the Straits of Hormuz is thus established and relinquishing this advantage (US has a naval base in Bahrain) would have serious consequences to the US wanting to remain as the sole superpower.

    If India comes into the Russian 'sphere of influence', then the effect requires no elaboration.
    As to the last sentence ("India comes into the Russian 'sphere of influence'"); no way. You (India) cozing up to a Russki is about as likely as you mating with a skunk.

    So, "Nyet": the Indo-Aryans of the Old World and the very mutant Indo-Aryans of the New World still have lot to talk about - and achieve a commonality.

    My reason for not being more explicit is that I spent too much time tonite on this, Field Artillery, Ping and Booze, which may give you some idea of from whence I come.

    In fact, you may want to PM me and see where both of us stand. For me, in summary, a "back woods" regional lawyer (ala Davy Crockett) - as from Rajastan > Delhi > Rajastan (you get the idea, I'm sure).

    Regards

    Mike
    Last edited by jmm99; 04-09-2011 at 06:47 AM.

  9. #349
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Mike:

    Does your refined hypothetical include cutting Israel loose?
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  10. #350
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default To be consistent,

    yes.

    from Carl
    Does your refined hypothetical include cutting Israel loose?
    Putting it as you have makes it look harsh - cutting the rope to someone staying afloat in a life preserver comes to my mind image. That's not a criticism BTW. We do need a change from the suger-coated doubletalk of the Beltway

    But withdrawing military forces and military aid from a region has to mean exactly that - if that is the proposition.

    Continuing with what we (US) have become accustomed to in the Middle East and South Asia (oil, minerals, Israel, etc.) is a major reason why the US is unlikely to withdraw military forces and military aid from the Middle East and South Asia. And, of course, to those who believe that the US must be the sole superpower (e.g., control of Hormuz as Ray points out), that is another major (in fact, probably sufficient) reason not to withdraw.

    I expect what role the US will play in the future will be determined by economics, not by the logic or illogic of futuristic propositions.

    Regards

    Mike

  11. #351
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    861

    Default

    I suspect that a lot of "strategic thinking" basically exists because we employ strategic thinkers. Otherwise, it doesnt really matter who controls the bloody straits of hormuz. Not in the present world system....we COULD move to a situation where it matters, but then so many other things will change and collapse that talking about it as if the rest of the world remains the same and X blocks Y is just meaningless.
    MOre to the point, the best thing the US could do would be to establish a successful pax Americana (which includes buy-in from all powers, including China) without going bankrupt, but that aint gonna happen.
    THe next best thing is to get out and make sure you can pull China into playing superpower in afghanistan. Then sit back with coke and popcorn and watch the #### go down in 3D....

  12. #352
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    Continuing with what we (US) have become accustomed to in the Middle East and South Asia (oil, minerals, Israel, etc.) is a major reason why the US is unlikely to withdraw military forces and military aid from the Middle East and South Asia. And, of course, to those who believe that the US must be the sole superpower (e.g., control of Hormuz as Ray points out), that is another major (in fact, probably sufficient) reason not to withdraw.

    I expect what role the US will play in the future will be determined by economics, not by the logic or illogic of futuristic propositions.

    Regards

    Mike
    This link would give an idea as to whether soft power itself can succeed.

    Contrary to what many politicians and talking heads tell Americans, a false choice exists between what are often referred to as hard and soft power. A country's military resources (its hard power) and the diplomatic tools it uses to persuade others without resorting to coercion (its soft power) operate most efficiently in tandem....
    Link
    Soft power alone cannot determine a country's influence on other countries.

    The US could embark on the Iraq War on the slogan of 'Freedom and Democracy' and WMD, even though it was patently unjustifiable was because the US was militarily and economical strong and thus could mute any serious international uproar. If it had been any other country, there would have been international condemnation and if it were a weak country, then there would be sanctions imposed.

    Therefore, a nation has to be militarily and economically relevant to dictate its terms.

    As I see it, economics cannot be seen to be independent of being a relevant militarily. China may try what it wants, but it is still not militarily relevant and hence cannot make its writ run, even though it is an economic powerhourse.

    The fact that the US is a military power, it is dictating the convertible currency for world trade. notwithstanding the pressure to convert to other currencies.

    Therefore, maybe, the US will have to maintain her supremacy as the world sole global superpower through military and economic might

    Quote Originally Posted by omarali50 View Post
    I suspect that a lot of "strategic thinking" basically exists because we employ strategic thinkers. Otherwise, it doesnt really matter who controls the bloody straits of hormuz. Not in the present world system....we COULD move to a situation where it matters, but then so many other things will change and collapse that talking about it as if the rest of the world remains the same and X blocks Y is just meaningless.
    MOre to the point, the best thing the US could do would be to establish a successful pax Americana (which includes buy-in from all powers, including China) without going bankrupt, but that aint gonna happen.
    THe next best thing is to get out and make sure you can pull China into playing superpower in afghanistan. Then sit back with coke and popcorn and watch the #### go down in 3D....
    I wonder if employing strategists leads to 'strategic thinking'. The whole ball game is as ancient as possibly mankind. In China, there is a strategy game called 'Go'. It is ancient and very interesting.

    The chokepoints of the world are important to 'exert' influence, the same way as sanctions are used to exert influence. While sanctions can be circumvented, choking of a 'chokepoint' carrying essential economic ware for sustenance cannot be. For instance, hypothetically, the Straits of Hormuz is made unpliable, imagine the effect on China's economy. China is aware of the dangers of the chokepoints and hence are feverishly devising alternate routes to ensure the needed oil supply; they being the direct pipeline from the Caspian, the pipeline through Gwadar and the one through Myanmar.

    As far as China entering Afghanistan in any role, she would baulk at such a move for the simple reason that she will have to take sides. She cannot afford to upset any side of Muslim sentiment because of her internal problem in East Turkmenistan where the party whose sentiment has been rubbed, could interfere and cause immense problems for China and may even upset China's attempt to Sinicise the Uyghurs.

  13. #353
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Dime

    I think most folks at SWC endorse DIME. For each, the letters may size differently depending on the time and circumstances (METT-T or METT-TC as one likes). For me, the D really should be a "P", where Diplomacy is only one aspect of the Political Struggle. The Political Struggle has to be executed in co-ordination with the Military Struggle. Both the Military Struggle and Political Struggle have to be driven by the same Policy (Politik per CvC) and be aimed at the same end result required by Policy. So much for theory.

    US diplomacy in general (not all, but much) has looked to me like the nice little puppy dog avatar who appears when I run Windows XP Search. That little mutt just cries out to be liked - "please like me; pretty please". Another aspect of US diplomacy has been its apparent need to make a deal - regardless of future costs to ourselves and others. Those factors, combined with what seems another apparent need to talk too much, incline me to discount US diplomacy.

    Thus, I have a higher degree of confidence in the "M" than in the "D". BTW, as to "M", we have a solid history of "breaking things" (we do that well), regardless of what our current "Political Class" may believe.

    Personally, I don't care if the US is the "sole superpower". I do care that the US has the "M" to destroy all realistic threats to its existence. That being said, from a global standpoint, "I" (broadly defined) and "E" (broadly defined) are more important.

    Heh, I'm a clipper ship guy - with a David Porter in the background.

    Regards

    Mike

  14. #354
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Mike:

    I think that is the US were to pull out of the area, the Saudis and the Iranians would get into a big fight. How quickly I don't know. Each would seek allies which would draw in Pakistan which would then draw in India. It might even draw in Israel since they would make a capable ally and would need the money. Or maybe before they got into their big fight they might cooperate for a little while to put the squeeze on Israel, which we would then respond to, which in turn might lead to oil transport by sea selectively interdicted. All this might lead to the Chinese going into an accelerated panic for fear of the sea lanes being threatened which might lead them to build a really big navy to protect that long and chokepoint strewn route. If they did that it would lead to very nervous countries to include us, India and Japan. And on and on and on.

    It would be a big and very dangerous mess.

    What does DIME mean?
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  15. #355
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    861

    Default

    My point (not made very well) was that the world as it exists (and as we take for granted most of the time) would already have collapsed if X is blocking the straits of Hormuz for Y. And that would be such an awful calamity that it is worth some effort to avoid that. And that China and Russia and India and Iran all understand that at some level. People take advantage of the US because the US lets them take advantage (not necessarily altruistically, but because special interests within the US put their profits ahead of the greater national interest, or because well meaning "good people" misunderstand stuff because they have spent too much time in good Universities)...
    As we leftist hippies used to say "a different world is possible"...its actually the world we already have, with fewer wars and less strategic thinking.

  16. #356
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Carl,

    I'm aware of the worst case scenario. If everyone else, except the US, gets into a Middle Eastern - South Asian brawl, the US should be able to tough it out better than most other countries. Some parts of the US have gone soft; others haven't.

    D = Diplomatic

    I = Information

    M = Military

    E = Economics

    "I" can be more broadly defined as Information in and out with analysis of same (giving us Intelligence). "E" can be more broadly defined to also include Finance, Trade, Commerce, Production. "Legal" cuts across all of these areas; but who cares about that.

    The idea is to take into account and balance "DIME" in considering National Security Policy. There are other acronyms used.

    Good National Security Textbooks (FREE):

    U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Issues, Vol I: Theory of War and Strategy, 4th Edition

    U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Issues, Vol II: National Security Policy and Strategy, 4th Edition

    Regards

    Mike

  17. #357
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Looking back

    Way back in 1968 the UK decided to reduce it's role, in all aspects, 'East of Suez' and withdrew over a short period from a number of bases - such as Aden and Singapore. At the time the UK was the only major power with deployed military forces in the region; much of the effort was multi-lateral, principally with Commonwealth nations and some Persian Gulf nations.

    A variety of suggestions were made about the doom that would follow IIRC. In reality little happened.

    In one key "choke point" the Straits of Hormuz the UK continued to have a direct role, in tandem with Oman; the Gulf of Aden was left alone, although the French were in Djibouti.

    South Asia has seen serious involvement by China (in Pakistan), USA recently and historically Russia (ex-USSR) in India. Other nations, like the USA and Japan, are far behind. Containment to assist peace aside and national advantage, principally in selling weapons, what real national interest has been served?

    Yes times have changed since 1968, just two examples: local nations have a greater role and there is the presence of many more non-local nations.
    davidbfpo

  18. #358
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    I've often thought that fear of what the Russians or Chinese might do is a greater threat to the US than anything the Russians or Chinese might do. Fear is rarely a sound basis for policy.

  19. #359
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Color me fearful.

    In 1968 the Americans still had a gigantic navy. If the British pulled out it didn't make much difference because our huge navy still insured free seas, even with the effort in VN. All the other states in the area were relatively weaker then compared to the USN. Now we have only a relatively big navy that is getting littler and littler. But there is no other navy to take its' place as the USN could take the place of the RN in the old days. (Is there still an RN?)

    If we were to completely pull out of the middle east and south Asia, to include Diego Garcia I presume, I think the states with interests in the area could legitimately conclude that the world had fundamentally changed, the USN wasn't going to guarantee free seas as it had since the end of WWII. People would get very nervous about that and when people get nervous, dangerous things happen.

    If the most dangerous things happened, we would be drawn in. Fortress America can't stand on its own, or won't, if only because of emotional ties to Israel.

    Mike: Parts of the US may not have gone soft, but do those parts have more, or less influence than the parts that have gone soft? If the soft parts have the political power, then the country will be that.
    Last edited by carl; 04-11-2011 at 03:27 PM.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  20. #360
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    These so called 'fears' are actually geostrategic and geopolitical 'scenarios' that could occur.

    And to be ready to face them rather than be surprised and rudderless, 'contingency plans' for all possible scenarios are prepared.

    All countries, big and small, prepare such contingency plans.

    These scenarios may or may not play out, but then forewarned is forearmed.

Similar Threads

  1. Diplomatic security after terrorists kill US Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya
    By Peter Dow in forum Government Agencies & Officials
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 01-19-2014, 07:11 PM
  2. US Internal Security Redux
    By Jack_Gander in forum Global Issues & Threats
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-19-2011, 03:41 AM
  3. UK National Security Strategy
    By Red Rat in forum Europe
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-18-2010, 09:47 PM
  4. Toward Sustainable Security in Iraq and the Endgame
    By Rob Thornton in forum US Policy, Interest, and Endgame
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 06-30-2008, 12:24 PM

Tags for this Thread

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
  •