Pakistan's Taliban play

Atlanta, GA, Aug. 26 (UPI) -- Afghanistan is at a critical crossroads today. The Hamid Karzai-led Afghan Transitional Authority, which currently governs Afghanistan will be replaced by a new democratically elected administration following the proposed elections on Oct. 9. The U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan as well as Afghan and international election personnel have been working hard to finish voter registration and other legwork needed for a successful completion of elections, but their efforts have been significantly hit by violence from Taliban remnants.

The simple but unpalatable truth for U.S. policymakers is that the Pakistani establishment's goals for Afghanistan are exactly the opposite of what the United States wants to happen to that strife-torn nation. The sooner this is realized, the better.

Welcome to FR, Saberwielder.

Not to rain on your first post too much, but the premise the author advances, namely, that the "efforts [in Afghanistan] have been significantly hit by violence from Taliban remnants" and that there has been a Taliban "resurgence", is the kind of doomsayer predictions not uncommon among such self-styled "terrorism experts" and "Central Asian experts", as Kaushik Kapisthalam claims to be.

The first clue that something was amiss with this story was that the source was UPI, a source which is only marginally more credible and authoritative than NewsMax.com.

The second clue was that the author started off by stooping to the use of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, in order to stifle critical thinking by the reader. Any author that begins a paragraph with: "To a casual observer it may seem..." and ends it with: "But regional experts know that...", is saying to you: "Look, I'm the expert here, just accept what I'm saying and stop making such a fuss."

In order to reinforce his shaky premise, author Kapisthalam employs a number of factual distortions and outright errors in his editorial.

For instance he claims that one of the Taliban leaders now living in Pakistan is Maulvi Noor Mohammad Saquib, former chief justice of the Taliban. What he neglects to tell you is that after a falling out with the Taliban, Maulvi Noor took up arms against the Taliban regime, before becoming a refugee in Pakistan.

Another example is that of Maulvi Abdul Qadir, former finance minister of the Taliban, who he points out, is living Miram Shah. So when the author goes on to decry the Pakistani military operations in the tribal areas as "largely a smokescreen" to avoid going after the Taliban, what he fails to disclose is that Miram Shah is in the very heart of those same Tribal areas, and in fact that Miram Shah is the current focus of a major Pakistani military operation to capture or kill these terrorists, Taliban and al-Qa'ida, alike.

A further example of the authors errors can be found when the author claims that "Pakistan has not arrested even a single middle or top Taliban leader". This is patently false. In the most recent and most dramatic example to the contrary, Nek Mohammed, a top level Taliban commander was blown to kingdom come with what appear to be a Hellfire missile fired from a Predator UAV. More than just taking a top Taliban leader out of circulation, Nek Mohammad was also a prominent tribal leader in the Tribal Areas, the same area that author Kapisthalam tells us is a "smokescreen" for failing to capture or kill the Taliban.

Kapisthalam asserts that "if Gen. Musharraf were serious about cracking down on the Taliban, his focus should have been Baluchistan, not the tribal areas", but then candidly point out that "the Taliban's cadres are young madrassa-educated students from Baluchistan". LOL, who cares where they were trained? From a military point of view, the only question is where are their base of operations located now? And the answer to where, is in the tribal areas of Pakistan, the same place that author Kapisthalam expertly advises us to ignore as being a "smokescreen". And the same place that Mushi has committed nearly 100,000 Paki troops!

Author Kapisthalam is so far out of touch with the subject he writes about, that at one point in the article he quotes from the book, "Imperial Hubris", and claims it to have been written by "an anonymous CIA official". But any so-called terrorism expert worth his salt (or maybe even one of Kapisthalam's "casual observers"!) has long been aware that the "anonymous" author of Imperial Hubris was none other than CIA analyst Michael Scheuer.

But perhaps most egregious though, is that author Kapisthalam fails to disclose how his own credentials as an impartial expert are compromised by his Indian nationality, whose culture is steeped in a deeply embedded distrust of anything Pakistani. Going to Kapisthalam to get an unbiased expert opinion about Pakistan, is sort of like going to John Kerry to get an unbiased expert opinion about the Vietnam war.

DO NOT let my criticisms of Kapisthalam's article discourage you from posting further on this topic. This article was well worth posting and discussing, even though I disagreed with it strongly .

--Boot Hill

Boot Hill

Thank you for your reply. Some points:

1. The "Doomsdayer" prediction is not just from Kapistalam but from the U.N, U.S and Afghan officials themselves. Heck they even postponed the elections twice due to the Taliban violence.

2. Secondly, I don't know about Kapistlam's nationality, but the name sounds Indian, though he/she could be an American of Asian descent. Besides, if being of Indian origin disqualifies a person from commenting on Pakistan, 99% of Free republic posters, inluding myself will have to stop commenting on liberals or John Kerry. I do not care what your nationality/origin is, but only about what you say.

3. UPI, though losing my regular attention since they stopped doing the college football polls, is still very credible IMO.

4. You did not even address the fact that American and British journalists have seen top Taliban leaders openly operate from baluchistan, while the Paks deny their existence. Heck they even openly recruit and train fighters don't they?

5. I disagree with your "appeal to authority" claim because Kapistalam points out quotes from Barnett Rubin and David Isby, two solid experts on Afghanistan. I know Mr. Isby and he is one of the world's best on the Afghan mujahideen factions. During the Soviet occupation, Mr. Isby was kicked out by the Ruskies for his fearless exposing of Communist Russian atrocities.

6. I'm not sure about Maulvi Noor but you ignore the other leaders, as already pointed out, who live in Baluchistan and Peshawar.

7. Nek Mohammed was likely killed by a U.S missile strike. He was given a pardon by the Paks.

8. Other than Nek Mohammed, there ahve been ZERO top Al Qaeda/Taliban leaders arrested in the tribal areas. There has been nothing gained from there. Nada, Zippo, Bupkus.

9. I'm not sure what's wrong about asking for a crackdown in Baluchistan. Kapistalam says that that's where the camps are. See: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/08/05/qaeda.camps/

August 5 Intelligence indicates some al Qaeda training camps have been reactivated along Pakistan's border with southeastern Afghanistan, defense and intelligence sources told CNN. Overhead surveillance imagery gathered in the past month seems to show vehicles and people recently moving into areas known to be training sites for al Qaeda, they said. The official said the United States prefers that Pakistani military forces move against the camps, situated west and southwest of Quetta.

I also looked up the Time magazine report quoted by Kapistalam. It says:

Afghan security officials complain that their Pakistani counterparts continue to tolerate--and even encourage--militancy by the Taliban, which Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI, helped create in the mid-1990s in a bid to make Afghanistan a client state. At the highest levels, Pakistan's Establishment remains "nostalgic" for the Taliban, says a Western diplomat. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has cooperated in the hunt for al-Qaeda's top officials but has shown less enthusiasm for rooting out the Taliban. Until Pakistan's security services stop sheltering Taliban leaders, U.S. officials say, Afghanistan will never be free from the threat of their return. U.S. intelligence officials in Washington told TIME that the U.S. possesses satellite photos that purportedly show Pakistani army trucks picking up Taliban troops fleeing back across the border after a failed attack. After the U.S. confronted Pakistani officials with the photographs, signs of visible Pakistani aid to the rebels ceased.

10. I'm not sure that the UPI or any reputed new agency would reveal the identity of Michael Scheuer, een if it's common knowledge. I'd not draw any conclusions from that.

• “The "Doomsdayer" [sic] prediction is not just from Kapistalam [sic] but from the U.N, U.S and Afghan officials themselves.”

Good grief, did you actually mean to cite the UN as a credible authority on anything? Are you sure you're on the right forum? You're talking about the same organization whose leadership secretly profited from the "Oil For Food" scam by lining their pockets with millions of dollars of Saddam's bribes and blood money. The UN is nearly as much a part of the problem as is al-Qa'ida.

And as for your claimed (yet unnamed) "U.S. officials", I guess it all depends on what your definition of a "U.S. official" is. I know of no official of the administration, especially the military, that even suggests that there is any "resurgence" of the Taliban in Afghanistan, but that the current attacks represent a last-ditch effort by the Taliban to thwart the elections and the inevitable change in the Afghani government.

• “I don't know about Kapistlam's [sic] nationality...”

Kaushik Kapisthalam is a freelance journalist, born an raised in India, and currently resides in Atlanta, Georgia.

• “Besides, if being of Indian origin disqualifies a person from commenting on Pakistan, 99% of Free republic posters, inluding myself will have to stop commenting on liberals or John Kerry.”

Incorrect, it would only disqualify you from framing your comments as that of an unbiased expert. Kapisthalam claims such expertise, but doesn't disclose to the reader key facts that could lead one to reasonably question his impartiality.

• “UPI...is still very credible IMO.”

Just one "very credible" UPI headline story for you to consider...

BAGHDAD, July 21 (UPI) -- Iraqi security reportedly discovered three missiles carrying nuclear heads concealed in a concrete trench northwest of Baghdad, official sources said Wednesday.

• “Heck they even openly recruit and train fighters don't they?”

And the Paki government has been cracking down on this activity with raids and arrests in the hotbeds of this activity, in Quetta, Peshawar and Karachi.

• “I disagree with your "appeal to authority" claim...”

I'm not sure that a poster that begins a FR post with, "I'm sorry to see that none of you guys know what you're talking about", would have the slightest clue as to the meaning of an "appeal to authority".

• “I know Mr. Isby and he is one of the world's best...”

Hmmmmm...

• “I'm not sure about Maulvi Noor...”

“Maulvi Noor Mohammad, former chief justice in Afghanistan's vanquished Taliban government, later fought against the Taliban but has fallen out with the current administration led by President Hamid Karzai, the report said.” source

• “Nek Mohammed was likely killed by a U.S missile strike.”

That's obvious, but analyze what that means. Mushi allowed an armed U.S. warplane to operate and attack Taliban targets inside sovereign Pakistan, yet the author of the thread article wants us to believe that Mushi is soft on the Taliban. I believe the correct term for the author's contradiction here is, "cognitive dissonance".

• “[Nek Mohammed] was given a pardon by the Paks.”

That is incorrect. Nek was offered a pardon, if he would lay down his arms, cease his cross-border attacks (that were originating from the tribal areas, btw, not Baluchistan) and turn over the "foreign fighters" (al-Qa'ida) that he was hiding. Nek refused and Mushi went after him. That Mushi availed himself of U.S. assets operating inside Pakistan, only underscores that he is not soft on the Taliban.

• “There has been nothing gained from there. Nada, Zippo, Bupkus.”

(Bupkus: Yiddish slang more commonly heard among Europeans than Americans, hmmmmm....)

Nothing gained? Not unless you count hundreds of dead terrorists and some of the biggest al-Qa'ida busts of the war.

• “I'm not sure what's wrong about asking for a crackdown in Baluchistan.”

What's wrong with it is this: (1.)dime-a-dozen armchair quarterbacks, with "bupkus" military skills and experience, and lacking the intelligence resources available to our government, are demanding to set strategic and tactical goals in the War on Terror, (2.)the Tribal Areas are the most important goal, based not on Paki desires, but by demands from U.S. forces operating inside Afghanistan, along the Paki border, and who know where the major problem lies, (3.)Pakistan's military resources and political capital are currently being stretched to the breaking point just trying to clean up the nest of vipers in the Tribal Areas. When that campaign has been rolled up, resources can be moved on to other important areas.

These same armchair quarterbacks would scream bloody murder, and accuse the U.S. of failure in the Tribal Areas, should we suddenly change are primary focus to Baluchistan. And when Mushi's forces do eventually begin to shift forces to Baluchistan (and he will), you can be sure that these same AQB's will be first to scream, "If Mushi were serious, we'd be in Sindh and Karachi (or NWFP, or the Northern Areas, or...)."

• “I'm not sure that the UPI or any reputed new agency would reveal the identity of Michael Scheuer...”

Then once more, you'd be incorrect. Google "Imperial Hubris" + "Michael Scheuer" and you will find over 700 hits. Those reporting this fact included such "reputed new agencies" as the Christian Science Monitor and the Guardian.

--Boot Hill

Boot Hill,

I'm not interested in sophistry or pointing out typos. If you feel like making fun of typos, feel free to do so. I'll stick to substance. ;)

To say that the U.N is "is nearly as much a part of the problem as is al-Qa'ida." would render you as a purveyor of hyperbole even by your own standards. I don't like the U.N. to fix our security problems, but since we cannot run the Afghan elections, we have to take the words of those who are putting their lives on the line bringing democracy to the Afghans at face value.

The UN has been trusted by the ISAF and the U.S to conduct the elections. Besides, Lt. Gen. Barno, Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, both Americans, have raised alarm at the Taliban resurgence and so has Deputy Secretary Armitage. When the U.N and U.S both AGREE on an issue, it usually means there is something to it. In addition, I suggest you take a look at the testimony of Peter Rodman, assistant secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, to a couple of House committees as well as the recent Senate hearing on Pakistan in July, where it was made clear that Afgahnistan is in a precarious state.

Also do check the news today ;)

2. I'm not aware of Kapisthalam's nationality as it was not mentioned in the article. How do you know he was born and raised in India? I presume you used Google to look it up. Also, I did not see anywhere on that piece where Kapisthalam claims to be "unbiased" or claims "expertise." Besides, will any of the underlying facts in that piece change were Kapisthalam turn out to be an Eskimo or a New Zealander?

Finally, for a person so interested on nationality/race of people espousing views, would you be willing to reveal yours so that we can appreciate your unusual sympathy/understanding of Musharraf?

3. I see you looked up a wire report from the UPI that turned out to be bogus. I also remember bogus reports from Associated Press and Reuters recently including a "missile test" over Seattle that turned out to be wrong. Using one report to tarnish an entire news agency is silly. That way we cannot accept one single claim from the CIA today or forever, can we? I disdain the attempts to blacken the news outlet, individuals and such. Let's stick to discussing the underlying facts.

And the Paki government has been cracking down on this activity with raids and arrests in the hotbeds of this activity, in Quetta, Peshawar and Karachi.

Can you please back this up with the names/dates of such "crackdowns" with details of who was arrested and whether they have been handed over to the U.S or tried in Pakistan? I don't mean some low level mooks, but some mid to top level Taliban or AQ people. Do you know if the Paks have arrested the people listed in Kapisthalam's article or have shut down the camps near Quetta? BTW, I'll accept UPI, AP or Reuters as sources. I'm not picky :)

I believe this claim of yours is bogus, but will be glad to change my mind if you give specifics. A word of advise - "Paki" is a racial slur to many Pakistanis. I'd avoid using it (consciously) if I were you.

I'm not sure that a poster that begins a FR post with, "I'm sorry to see that none of you guys know what you're talking about", would have the slightest clue as to the meaning of an "appeal to authority".

I'd rather not respond to ad hominem attacks. The context of those comments said it all, IMO.

5. I do know David Isby. Feel free to believe what you choose to.

Bupkus: Yiddish slang more commonly heard among Europeans than Americans, hmmmmm

So what? I grew up in a largely Jewish neighborhood. Does that make me a Mossad agent? Jeez...

Nek refused and Mushi went after him

(Mushi - A shortening of the name Musharraf typically used within Pakistan. Hmm....) Sorry, I couldn't resist!

That's obvious, but analyze what that means. Mushi allowed an armed U.S. warplane to operate and attack Taliban targets inside sovereign Pakistan, yet the author of the thread article wants us to believe that Mushi is soft on the Taliban

There is no evidence that the U.S took some permission from Musharraf to attack Nek Mohammed. My read is that Moahmmed was traced at a place close enough to the border that the U.S took him out, knowing that the Paks will only appease him and his ilk. Besides, one case of successful U.S strike along the border does not excuse Musharraf of inaction on the Taliban deep inside Pakistan, does it?

Nothing gained? Not unless you count hundreds of dead terrorists and some of the biggest al-Qa'ida busts of the war.

The number of people who were killed was in the dozens, not hundreds. There is no evidence that barring a handful, there were any "foreigners" or AQ men. None of these people have been handed over or identified yet.

dime-a-dozen armchair quarterbacks, with "bupkus" military skills and experience, and lacking the intelligence resources available to our government, are demanding to set strategic and tactical goals in the War on Terror

Barnett Rubin is perhaps the #1 expert on Afghanistan in the world. David Isby is not far behind. Zalmay Khalilzad is our Ambassador in Kabul.The Afghan defense minister, deputy defense minister and President all have more at stake - their lives. Every one of these men, who cannot be classified as "armchair quarterbacks" can be rubbished easily, like you are doing. Try again.

You are doing a nice job sidestepping the main points by the way.Your link for Maulvi Noor doesn't work and is irrelevant, BTW. He IS a wanted man and is living openly in Pakistan. You refused to address the CNN and Time reports quoting the U.S troops who are laying it on the line for us. You did not talk about why American troops would confide to reporters that they want to invade Pakistan and prevent the terrorists from escaping their pursuit. You have not provided one source to back up your claims on Baluchistan or Peshawar. Instead we see suspicion and sly comments on Kapisthalam's race/ethnicity and even mine.

I suggest you stick to facts going forward and leave race/religion/ethnicity/nationality out of it.

• “If you feel like making fun of typos, feel free to do so.”

Everyone make spelling errors, so no one was making fun of yours. I was highlighting the rich irony that even though you've posted four threads by this author, you couldn't even correctly spell the name of this so-called great "expert" that you've been hyping on FR.

• “...we have to take the words of those who are putting their lives on the line bringing democracy to the Afghans...”

ROTFLMAO, when did the UN ever put their life on the line?! The U.S. military, yes, but the UN? Never!

• “Also do check the news today ;)”

Until you've been on FR long enough to know the depth and quality of knowledge and background research done by the core group here that follows the activities in Central Asia, you should consider checking that attitude at the door (newbie).

• “I'm not aware of Kapisthalam's nationality as it was not mentioned in the article.”

Not much of an excuse, since as I've already noted, this is the fourth thread in which you've posted articles by Kaushik Kapisthalam in your short two month history on this forum.

• “Besides, will any of the underlying facts in that piece change were Kapisthalam turn out to be an Eskimo or a New Zealander?”

The facts are only half the story, the other half is the author's analysis of what those facts mean and how they support his thesis. An author's bias can slant that analysis, and that appears to be the case with Kapisthalam.

• “A word of advise - "Paki" is a racial slur to many Pakistanis.”

So you're saying then, that when President Bush says: "...we are working hard to convince both the Indians and the Pakis there's a way to deal with their problems without going to war...", that tells you that he is a racist? Maybe you should offer the President some of your sage "advise". (Yes, now I am making fun of you!)

• “I'd rather not respond to ad hominem attacks.”

LOL, if that was an ad hominem attack, it was a self-inflicted one! That was a direct quote of yours and a pretty outrageous one at that!

• “I do know David Isby. Feel free to believe what you choose to.”

And I never suggested otherwise. You need to thicken up that skin a bit if you're going to be a "Saberwielder".

• “So what? I grew up in a largely Jewish neighborhood. Does that make me a Mossad agent? Jeez...”

Nobody raised the issue of Jewishness and the Mossad but you. I only raised the question as to whether a person using the Yiddish slang term, "Bupkus", would be more likely to be European or American. Again, you need to thicken up that skin a bit.

• “There is no evidence that the U.S took some permission from Musharraf to attack Nek Mohammed.”

No evidence other than common sense and my lying eyes. Every other time there's been an American incursion, it has created a very public diplomatic incident. After the attack on Nek Mohammed the silence from Islamabad was deafening. Please tell me you're not suggesting that the U.S. military commanders would have risked such an incident by launching that attack inside Pakistan with out explicit approval?

• “I suggest you stick to facts going forward and leave race/religion/ethnicity/nationality out of it.”

The only person who brought race, religion and ethnicity into this discussion was yourself, by jumping to the unwarranted conclusions noted above. The question of nationality, on the other hand, plays a legitimate part in this discussion. So perhaps you could take a helping of your own advice?

--Boot Hill

Suggesting that operations in Waziristan have been unproductive is flat ill-informed. The attack on the Pak Army Corps Commander in Karachi was in direct retaliation for the military offensive southeast of the Shawal.

The investigation into the originators of that attack was probably the most significant Al Qaeda arrest to date, not due to seniority but due to the sheer volume of information in Khan's possession, some 1250 CD's. Even this intelligence treasure trove pales beside the volume of information already collected that the encryption data Khan's arrest unlocks.

Ghaliani, at the very least a Regional Commander and quite possibly Khalid Sheik Mohammad's successor as Military Commander for all Al Qaeda, answerable only to Bin Laden and Zawahiri was both a direct result of the Khan capture, ultimately traceable back to OMS in Waziristan, and additionally, Ghailani was forced out of the pocket by those same operations.

If Ghailani was the senior AQ person present in the Shawal, then why do the attacks on Pak military columns and installations continue to this day, a month after his capture?

Has Al Qaeda changed it's doctrine after 16 years of fighting infidels and now prefers to fight set piece battles with no hope of victory?

Unlikely.

In fact, I cannot help but agree with Boot Hill that any such claims of Waziristan operational irrelevence signifies such incredible ignorance that a concealed political motivation becomes orders of magnitude more likely.

That said, I have no doubt that future military operations will center on Balochistan, especially the NW corner of same.

North of Khyber the returns for insurgents are largely negated by terrain and climate conditions. From Khyber to Thal, for whatever reason, the bad guys just aren't active. Could be the ease of encirclement against the White Range, could be US presence south of Jalalabad and the stronghold at Khost, could be AQ saw no need to spread thin and Waziristan met their needs.

Late last fall, certain agencies intercepted a call to Al Jazeera playing a new Zawahiri tape for publication. This call was made from a location somewhere in a 40 mile long strip of ground running east and west through Wana.

Agree or disagree, this is where both the US and Pakistan governments choose to concentrate their efforts this year. I happen to agree.

Al Qaeda has a longer reach than the Taliban, and rates a higher priority. The taliban's interests are centered on regaining control of Afghanistan, something they have never achieved to date, and with even a small US presence in country, something that is about as likely as Benazir Bhutto sitting down to a game of checkers with Gulbudden Hekmatyr.

A big part of the problem in Baluchistan can be resolved by military negagements......elsewhere....but regardless of future developments outside that theater, some degree of cleanup in Quetta and its surrounding Tribal Area remains inevitable.

Not going to happen this year though.

I'd be very interested in seeing any direct and substantiated quotes by top Pak leadership denying the presence of Taliban in that area. I have seen many a quote denying any ongoing military operations against Taliban or anyone else there, and if anyone needs that explained to them, ask.

No major objections to a need for ultimately gaining control of the last border province between Pakistan and Afghanistan, I doubt anyone needs to have that pointed out to them. But downplaying the significance of the Waziristan operations only casts aspersion on the credibility of the author.

ROTFLMAO, when did the UN ever put their life on the line?! The U.S. military, yes, but the UN? Never!

Twelve UN workers lost lives in the last few weeks because they were registering Afghan voters and three dozen have been injured. So please do not make fun of their efforts. As I said, we have chosen to let them run the elections, so let's pay attention to the facts. If they are useless, why did we leave the critical job of running the elections to them?

Until you've been on FR long enough to know the depth and quality of knowledge and background research done by the core group here that follows the activities in Central Asia, you should consider checking that attitude at the door (newbie).

Yes I'm a newbie here in terms of posting. But I have been following the discussions here for a long time and they are mostly world class, but not always. Your posts on this thread are an example of the latter case, IMO.

Not much of an excuse, since as I've already noted, this is the fourth thread in which you've posted articles by Kaushik Kapisthalam in your short two month history on this forum. I was highlighting the rich irony that even though you've posted four threads by this author, you couldn't even correctly spell the name of this so-called great "expert" that you've been hyping on FR.

I'm part of a mailing list where these articles are forwarded. I decided to share them with FR for discussion if they are not already posted here. I'm not in the business of hyping or tarnishing anyone in particular. Don't read too much into my inability to spell names with consistency. There are other articles that I get from my lists but they are usually posted here already.

The facts are only half the story, the other half is the author's analysis of what those facts mean and how they support his thesis. An author's bias can slant that analysis, and that appears to be the case with Kapisthalam.

So do we ask for everyone praising or criticizing a particular viewpoint of their ethnicity/race/nationality so that we can get a good idea of their inbuilt biases? I must admit this line of thinking is new to me. I do not always look for people's race/origin when I hear controversial opinions.

So you're saying then, that when President Bush says: "...we are working hard to convince both the Indians and the Pakis there's a way to deal with their problems without going to war...", that tells you that he is a racist? Maybe you should offer the President some of your sage "advise". (Yes, now I am making fun of you!)

Yes, President Bush made a mistake. I have worked in Pakistan and know that "Paki" is a pejorative. I suggest you check again. Just ask the Pakistanis.

After the attack on Nek Mohammed the silence from Islamabad was deafening. Please tell me you're not suggesting that the U.S. military commanders would have risked such an incident by launching that attack inside Pakistan with out explicit approval?

This is hilarious. The Pakistanis furiously deny that the attack was done by U.S forces. So why would they discredit their own claims by protesting an American "incursion." Your past posts have indicated that you claim some awareness of American "operations" inside Pakistani territory. You should know that there have been examples of coalition forces taking the attack into Pakistan without permission - more than a few times.

Also, some quick quips - 1. "Bupkus" is also typically used as a slang in Jewish communities in New York and elsewhere in Northeastern US. 2. I find it ironic that in a site dedicated to individual rights, an armchair quarterback such as yourself have chosen to point out to an armchair quarterback like myself that no armchair quarterback should ask that American foreign policy goals be changed because they all lack "the intelligence resources available to our government." IOW, "Government knows best." Delicious irony.

Finally - I note with interest that you have chosen not to answer the questions about sources for your claims. Specifically: Question 1 -

Not unless you count hundreds of dead terrorists and some of the biggest al-Qa'ida busts of the war.

What terrorists? Do we have any independent confirmation of the fact that there were any people of interest to the U.S killed? Any names? All I see is tall claims by the Paks who have a vested interest in hyping this up.

Question 2 - Can you please back up with the names/dates of such "crackdowns" in your claim of Pakistani "raids and arrests in the hotbeds of this activity, in Quetta, Peshawar and Karachi." with details of who was arrested and whether they have been handed over to the U.S or tried in Pakistan? I don't mean some low level mooks, but some mid to top level Taliban or AQ people. Do you know if the Paks have arrested the people listed in Kapisthalam's article or have shut down the camps near Quetta?

Question 3 - Why have you chosen to ignore the pointed references that I made to claims by Ambassador Khalilzad, Gen. Barno and Afghan officials who clearly state that the Taliban resurgence is not necessarily in the tribal areas but in Baluchistan. There have been claims by American officials too that Taliban/AQ camps in Baluchistan have been reactivated recently.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.