Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Crunch Time in Pakistan
Pajamas Media ^ | Oct 22, 2007 | Bill Roggio

Posted on 10/23/2007 9:31:39 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach

Bill Roggio looks at the worsening situation in Pakistan and argues that only a determined effort against the Taliban and al-Qaeda has any hope of succeeding - and that this effort must be led by the Pakistani government itself, however difficult that would be to arrange.

******************************EXCERPT***********************

The assassination attempt on former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, who returned to Pakistan after eight years in exile to reenter politics, serves to highlight the continually deteriorating security situation inside the Pakistan. Al Qaeda, with the help of their Taliban allies, has carved out a mini state in the Northwest Frontier Province, and threaten the very existence of the Pakistani state. The current approach adopted by the Pakistani government — negotiations, limited raids, and abbreviated attacks — has failed, and Pakistan must consider fighting a counterinsurgency campaign to uproot the Taliban and al Qaeda from their havens in the Northwest Frontier Province.

The attack on Bhutto’s procession, which occurred less than 24 hours after she returned to Pakistan, was a coordinated, sophisticated strike consisting of a car bomb, a suicide bomber, a grenade attack, and a sniper team. The attack was carried out by al Qaeda, Taliban, and their Pakistani allies, very likely with help inside the Inter Service Agency, Pakistan’s infamous intelligence service; the military is a possible participant. It resulted in the largest terror toll in the country’s history, with over 136 killed and upwards of 500 wounded.

The Bhutto assassination attempt was but the latest in escalating violence since the North Waziristan Accord, which essentially ceded the tribal agency to the Taliban, was inked September 2006. Within months the North Waziristan Accord was followed by agreements in Bajaur, Swat, and Mohmand agencies. News from the tribal agencies of Kurram, Orakzai, and Khyber has gone dark. These tribal agencies are very likely under Taliban control. Open source reporting indicates all or portions of the settled districts — think of these as counties in the US — of Dera Ismail Khan, Laki Marwat, Tank, Khyber, Bannu, Hangu, Kohat, Charsadda, Dir, Mardan, and even the provincial seat of Peshawar are under Taliban influence to some degree or another.

The Taliban conducted a series of suicide bombings and conventional attacks against civilian and military targets during the winter, spring, and summer of 2007. Hundreds of police and soldiers were killed along with hundreds more civilians. During this time, the Taliban and al Qaeda attempted to assassinate President Musharraf in Rawalpindi, Prime Minister Aziz in Islamabad, and Interior Minister Sherpao in the Northwest Frontier Province, while soldiers were butchered in their barracks and savaged on the streets.

In Islamabad, the government allowed the Taliban-led leaders of the Lal Masjid, or Red Mosque, to kidnap police and civilians while enforcing their radical version of Islamic law in the heart of the city. This occurred for almost a year until the military and police assaulted the mosque in July. The assault resulted in over a dozen soldiers and over 100 civilians killed. Every student of the Lal Masjid was released from custody within weeks after the assault was carried out.

Last week, the Taliban and al Qaeda fought the Pakistani army to a standstill in North Waziristan. In early September 2007, the Taliban captured a company of Pakistani soldiers in South Waziristan without firing a shot. The soldiers are still in Taliban captivity.

Band-aids won’t work

Prior to 2007 the Pakistani military fought a failed and flawed military campaign in North and South Waziristan from 2005 through the spring of 2006. The Pakistani military was neither trained nor prepared for the fight. In the Northwest Frontier Province, they met a determined enemy in the Taliban and al Qaeda. The military was demoralized by the heavy losses in fighting in the province, while some resented fighting their own countrymen. Official estimates place military casualties at about 1,000 killed, but unofficial estimates put them at 3,000 killed or higher.

Since the Pakistani military defeat, the Pakistani government has resorted to negotiations with the Taliban, under the guise of negotiations with tribal leaders, as well as attempts at bribery. The US has contented itself with backing Pakistani policy, despite its ineffectiveness.

“Thus far, American policy toward Pakistan has amounted to unconditional support for Musharraf, coupled with occasional air strikes against high-level al Qaeda targets in the tribal areas,” writes Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, who looks at the policy options for Pakistan. In interviews with national security experts, Gartenstein-Ross notes the suggested way forward in dealing with Pakistan includes incentives tied to the killing or capture of senior al Qaeda leaders, pinprick strikes using special forces, an air campaign, “a campaign of assassins,” or an Anbar Salvation Front model to recruit tribal leaders on the side of the government were proposed. Alone, these solutions will not work.

The problem is that most of these options, other than an Anbar-like tribal engagement, have been tried. And the US has had such success in Anbar because it maintained a permanent, beefed-up military presence in the region to ensure the locals willing to back the US against al Qaeda in Iraq could rely on reinforcements, logistical, financial, and other support.

The Pakistani government, backed by US special operations forces, attempted to halt the rising power of al-Qaeda by conducting precision strikes against camps and high value targets. Between 2006 through 2007, airstrikes hit several handfuls of al Qaeda camps and meeting places including Chingai, Danda Saidgai (twice), Damadola, and Zamazola. The strikes yielded few high-value targets, and the Taliban and al Qaeda’s power and support in the Northwest Frontier Province only grew.

These strikes also came at a political cost to Musharraf. He was attacked politically for bombing his own citizens, while portrayed as an American puppet for allowing US forces to operate inside Pakistan.

The Pakistani government has also tried political solutions to no effect. The “peace accords” were abject failures. The government promised billions of dollars in aid and paid off Taliban leaders to quell the violence and stop cross border raids into Afghanistan. The result was that as the Taliban coffers filled, the attacks in Afghanistan tripled, and the Taliban consolidated its power in the Northwest Frontier Province and struck outward at government and military targets throughout Pakistan.

Despite the Pakistani military and political failures in the Northwest Frontier Province, the problem is inherently a Pakistani problem that needs a Pakistani solution. The government must somehow muster the elements of national power and build real support within the population for a hard and difficult fight. Whether the Pakistani government wants to recognize it or not, it is fighting an insurgency within its borders. A full-scale counterinsurgency campaign must be launched.

The US cannot lead a counterinsurgency campaign inside Pakistan for both military and political limitations. On the military side, US forces are extended to the limit with deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US military was forced to extend tours in Iraq to facilitate the “surge” in forces, and will be forced to draw down in April, despite the fact that al Qaeda could be dealt a death-blow in Iraq if the US maintained or increased forces in theater.

US forces are also stretched in Afghanistan. NATO has failed to live up to its commitments in providing combat troops or has handcuffed troops on the ground with “caveats” that prevent forces from deploying in combat regions. Commitments in the Horn of Africa, South Korea, Europe, and elsewhere tie up the remaining US forces, while the troops returning from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan require time to rest, refit, and train for the next deployment.

Politically, a full-scale deployment of US forces into the harsh terrain of the Northwest Frontier Province to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda is unfeasible at this time. America has shown little will to fight protracted counterinsurgency campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. The over 3,000 combat deaths in Iraq in four years of fighting would likely be child’s play compared to the casualties taken fighting a battle-hardened Taliban and al Qaeda on their home territory where they have real local support.

Pakistan is still a sovereign state, and any US involvement inside Pakistan must have the government’s, and by extension the people’s, approval. Anything short of this constitutes a US invasion of a nuclear-armed state and will only increase al Qaeda’s propaganda and recruiting capacities. The US can and should play a supporting role inside Pakistan, but the Pakistani government and its military must bear the brunt of the fight and the political consequences.

The situation in Pakistan has reached the stage where only drastic solutions hold out any hope of working. While there is a major difference between what is possible and what is practical, there is no other effective means to dislodge the core of al Qaeda’s leadership and their Taliban allies from the Northwest Frontier Province short of a real counterinsurgency campaign.

But how can al Qaeda be dislodged when US forces cannot enter Pakistan? The Pakistani government must come on board. This is easier said than done. The US has thrown about $11 billion at Pakistan so far, has begun transferring F-16s, and has given other diplomatic, political, economic, and military incentives. Despite these incentives, the Pakistani government has failed to meaningfully address the terrorist threat.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alqueda; asia; bhutto; iran; iraq; islamofascism; pakistan; sasia; southasia; taliban
The above is a lengthy EXCERPT....See the source link for the full article...
1 posted on 10/23/2007 9:31:41 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SandRat; NormsRevenge; Grampa Dave; SierraWasp; blam; SunkenCiv; Marine_Uncle; Allegra; onyx; ...

News ping.


2 posted on 10/23/2007 9:32:35 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Good article. The Taliban used to have no better ally than Pakistan. After 9/11 that changed.


3 posted on 10/23/2007 9:35:03 AM PDT by Slapshot68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slapshot68
Somewhat related item...

Newsweek Declares Iraq Unsafe For al-Qaeda, Iraqis See War Deaths Drop Nearly 100%

**************************EXCERPT************************

So I am not sure how to take this commentary from Newsweek, but it seems (as many of us have been saying) that the build up of al-Qaeda in Pakistan is obvious for many clear (and surprising reasons). It seems that Iraq and Afghanistan are so harsh for al-Qaeda it is no surprise they are moving to safe havens in Pakistan

4 posted on 10/23/2007 9:40:52 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Slapshot68
We're buying the "loyalty" of the Pakistani gov't.

But how can al Qaeda be dislodged when US forces cannot enter Pakistan? The Pakistani government must come on board. This is easier said than done. The US has thrown about $11 billion at Pakistan so far, has begun transferring F-16s, and has given other diplomatic, political, economic, and military incentives. Despite these incentives, the Pakistani government has failed to meaningfully address the terrorist threat.
5 posted on 10/23/2007 9:41:06 AM PDT by F15Eagle (1Tim 1:4; Gal 1:6-10; 1Cor 2:2; Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:34-35; 2Thess 2:11; Jude 1:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

What does Al Queda spokesperson Anne Curry have to say regarding this subject? I await her next op-ed video.


6 posted on 10/23/2007 9:41:42 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I am hopeful that the recent assassination attempt will rally the Pak government and people against the terrorists in their country.

Time will tell, I suppose.


7 posted on 10/23/2007 9:43:30 AM PDT by airborne (Proud to be a conservative! Proud to support Duncan Hunter for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
All that money, all that time yet all they really need to do is locate and execute the ISA collaborators. That's how the other side plays it. This what we need to address.

Pretty soon either all our guys or all theirs will be turned or dead. Guess whos winning at this point. The less we meet terrorists on their terms the more they'll push their terms upon us.

8 posted on 10/23/2007 9:46:34 AM PDT by Justa (Politically Correct is morally wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Fred Nerks; KlueLass; ...
Thanks Ernest.
The attack on Bhutto's procession... was a coordinated, sophisticated strike consisting of a car bomb, a suicide bomber, a grenade attack, and a sniper team. The attack was carried out by al Qaeda, Taliban, and their Pakistani allies, very likely with help inside the Inter Service Agency, Pakistan's infamous intelligence service; the military is a possible participant. It resulted in the largest terror toll in the country's history, with over 136 killed and upwards of 500 wounded.
...and not a scratch on Bhutto. Either the car bomber, suicide bomber, grenade attacker(s?), and sniper team were the worst in history (or at least since the multiple attempts made on the Archduke Ferdinand, who was riding in an open car), or the attack was intended to politically further divide Bhutto and Musharraf, undermine Musharraf, and lay the groundwork for public support of the violent, bloody military coup that is coming.
9 posted on 10/23/2007 9:52:43 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Monday, October 22, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justa
From Captain's Quarters:

Imperialist Osama, Losing The War

************************EXCERPT**************************

According to ABC News, Osama has begun singing a different tune in his latest missive to the ummah. Bin Laden's video and audio messages usually contain plenty of triumphalism for Islamists, but in a new message to his fellow terrorists, he sounds a little more desperate about their prospects:

10 posted on 10/23/2007 9:55:49 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Justa

Perhaps we should try pushing OUR terms on the terrorists.

What a novel f*&%$#@ concept!

MV


11 posted on 10/23/2007 9:57:42 AM PDT by madvlad ((Born in the south, raised around the globe and STILL republican))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; SandRat; NormsRevenge; Grampa Dave; SierraWasp; blam; Marine_Uncle; Allegra; onyx; ...
Related :

Bin Laden Sounds the Call of Defeat in Iraq

12 posted on 10/23/2007 10:04:18 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: madvlad

I think Bhutto going back to Pakistan is a move that we are pushing....


13 posted on 10/23/2007 10:07:08 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: madvlad

I was speaking about terms of conduct as opposed to terms of negotiation.


14 posted on 10/23/2007 10:25:29 AM PDT by Justa (Politically Correct is morally wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Justa

As was I.

Ex:

I will take no prisoners; if I do, they will be disposed of after deeemd no
longer useful.
I will kill everything that moves; I will offer NO medical assistance.
I will destroy all property personal or otherwise assoc w/ a raid/attack.
I will NOT respect you or your religious beliefs.
I will hit you at a time & place of MY choosing.
I will hit you early, often and for an extended duration.
Safe havens will not be.
I will facilitate your face-to-face w/ Allah.

In short, in the words of the immortal John Wayne: “Out here,
due process is a bullet!”

MV


15 posted on 10/23/2007 10:36:16 AM PDT by madvlad ((Born in the south, raised around the globe and STILL republican))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; SandRat; NormsRevenge; Grampa Dave; SierraWasp; blam; Marine_Uncle; Allegra; onyx; ...
From National Review:

The Bhutto Attacks

*************************EXCERPT*******************

Cold comfort is the best we can hope for.

By Aaron Mannes

The question of who was behind Friday’s assassination attempt on Benazir Bhutto is the whodunit from hell and, instead of a pistol, the drawing room dénouement will feature Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s October 18 return from a decade of exile was bound to be a pivotal moment in Pakistani politics, and thus, also will likely to be a violent one. Frustrated with President Musharraf’s unending military dictatorship and stagnating living conditions, the people of Karachi turned out in huge numbers to greet Bhutto as their potential savior.

The attack, which struck as Bhutto’s convoy slowly made its way through the city of Karachi, did not injure Bhutto. It did, however, kill 140 people, half of whom were members of Bhutto’s security detail. So far details remain unclear, although security services claim to have identified the heads of two suicide bombers.

At the best of times Pakistan is a society with a penchant for conspiracy theories, and the circumstances of the attack can only fuel this speculation. Despite ample warning that an attack on Bhutto was likely, security was inadequate to control the massive crowds that formed to meet Bhutto. Because of these crowds Bhutto’s convoy took about ten hours to travel about ten miles, while Karachi became a giant street party — and a perfect target for terror. Oddly, streetlights along the convoy’s route were turned off, complicating security efforts to spot possible attackers. In fairness however, Pakistani infrastructure is spotty at best, and these failings may have been due to raw incompetence. The government’s response to Bhutto’s accusations is that Bhutto ignored their security advice and insisted on a massive rally — of course such rallies are central to Pakistani politics.

Bhutto has vowed to fight Pakistan’s Islamists. Reportedly, a Taliban leader in South Waziristan, Baitullah Mehsud, who has been linked to the bombing attacks that were a response to the government’s storming of the Red Mosque earlier this summer, promised to greet Bhutto with suicide bombs. Mehsud has since denied making this statement. Even if this particular band of Islamists had nothing to do with the attacks, there is a vast constellation of Pakistani Islamist groups — most with at least tangential links to al Qaeda - that would object to Bhutto taking power and many would be savvy enough not to advertise their intentions.

However, many Pakistanis, including Bhutto herself, believe that if the Islamists were involved, they did so as cat’s paws for Pakistani intelligence. Pakistani intelligence has supported various Islamist groups to further its interests in Aghanistan, Kashmir, and Pakistan. Bhutto goes further and has stated that while she does not hold Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf responsible; there are three officials, whom she will not name, linked to former President Zia ul-Haq (who overthrew and executed her father), behind the attack. Not surprisingly, there is a great deal of speculation about these individuals. Topping the list is retired General Ejaz Shah, the head of the Intelligence Bureau (and consequently ultimately responsible for Bhutto’s security). Shah was reportedly the intelligence community’s liaison to the Taliban, al Qaeda, and to Omar Sheikh who is in prison for the murder of Daniel Pearl.

Also suspected are Chaudhru Pervez Ellahi and Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain.

************************************snip*********************************

There are other, more harrowing potential motives behind the attempt on Bhutto’s life. In courting Western support for her return to Pakistan, Bhutto promised that the International Atomic Energy Agency would receive access to A. Q. Khan, father of the Pakistani nuclear program and head of an international clandestine nuclear proliferation ring, who is currently under house arrest. The full extent of Khan’s network remains unknown. It is inconceivable that Khan carried out his operations without substantial assistance from figures in Pakistan’s military and intelligence services. This is information that the intelligence services would not like to see revealed. Another player that would prefer that the IAEA not have access to A. Q. Khan would be his leading customer.

**************************************

Khan may be able to reveal critical details about Iran’s nuclear program that would galvanize the international community against the Iranian nuclear program. Iran has launched suicide terror attacks around the world in support of their strategic interests, and there are militant Shia organizations in Pakistan with links to Iran.

*******************************************



Because of the long links between Pakistani intelligence and the Islamists, none of these scenarios are mutually exclusive. The government has refused Bhutto’s request for international participation in the investigation, which will only foster conspiracy theorists. But, in all likelihood, the attack on Bhutto was linked to a Pakistani Islamist organization. However, it is a cold comfort that attributing a massive terror attack to the Islamist “usual suspects” is the least disturbing scenario.

  — Aaron Mannes, editor of TheTerrorWonk, researches international security affairs at the University of Maryland’s Laboratory for Computational Cultural Dynamics and is a Ph.D. student at the University of Maryland.

16 posted on 10/23/2007 10:46:50 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Despite ample warning that an attack on Bhutto was likely, security was inadequate to control the massive crowds that formed to meet Bhutto. Because of these crowds Bhutto's convoy took about ten hours to travel about ten miles, while Karachi became a giant street party -- and a perfect target for terror. Oddly, streetlights along the convoy's route were turned off, complicating security efforts to spot possible attackers. In fairness however, Pakistani infrastructure is spotty at best, and these failings may have been due to raw incompetence. The government's response to Bhutto's accusations is that Bhutto ignored their security advice and insisted on a massive rally...
"... we showed up in huge numbers, and the government didn't send troops to keep us from mobbing the procession, making us targets." That's some Moslem 'thinking' for ya.
17 posted on 10/23/2007 11:09:47 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Monday, October 22, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Slapshot68
Good article. The Taliban used to have no better ally than Pakistan. After 9/11 that changed.

Very little has changed. From Newsweek:

"The safe haven provided by Pakistan has already had dire effects on U.S. and NATO efforts to fight the resurgent Taliban next door in Afghanistan. Taliban fighters now pretty much come and go as they please inside Pakistan. Their sick and injured get patched up in private hospitals there. Guns and supplies are readily available, and in the winter, when fighting traditionally dies down in Afghanistan, thousands retire to the country's thriving madrassas to study the Qur'an. Some of the brainier operatives attend courses in computer technology, video production and even English. Far from keeping a low profile, the visiting fighters attend services at local mosques, where after prayers they speak to the congregation, soliciting donations to support the war against the West. "Pakistan is like your shoulder that supports your RPG," Taliban commander Mullah Momin Ahmed told NEWSWEEK, barely a month before a U.S. airstrike killed him last September in Afghanistan's eastern Ghazni province. "Without it you couldn't fight. Thank God Pakistan is not against us."
18 posted on 10/23/2007 11:17:42 AM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek
Taliban fighters now pretty much come and go as they please inside Pakistan. Their sick and injured get patched up in private hospitals there. Guns and supplies are readily available, and in the winter, when fighting traditionally dies down in Afghanistan, thousands retire to the country's thriving madrassas to study the Qur'an. Some of the brainier operatives attend courses in computer technology, video production and even English

Exactly. Even Newsweek gets it. It's a joke how easily they can operate from Pakistan.
19 posted on 10/23/2007 11:36:37 AM PDT by F15Eagle (1Tim 1:4; Gal 1:6-10; 1Cor 2:2; Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:34-35; 2Thess 2:11; Jude 1:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I am waiting to hear of some purges in the Pakistani military and the ISA. In fairness to their effectiveness in confronting the al Qaeda/Taliban forces we should remember, not all Pakistani support the Musharraf regime.
Each ethnic geopolitical subdivision, each differing in ethnic/ideological mindset,has it's own take on the validity of what should be permitted regarding subduing these Islamofacists organizations, or doing nothing.
Musharraf does not have the support of a large number of Pakistani in his quest to kill off tens of thousands of muslims.
He walks on egg crates.
20 posted on 10/23/2007 12:21:14 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Duncan Hunter for POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Some of the 11 B spent on Pakistan was very well worth the money to keep the nuclear stockpile under Musharref’s hand. However, seeing some of the 11 B spent to bribe Taliban tribal leaders whom used the funds to increase attacks in Afghanistan is VERY disturbing.

President Bush, can you please stop listening to Condi Rice about radical Islam now? Islam is not a religion of peace. We cannot negotiate peace in controlled areas such as Gaza/West Bank, Iran or Northern Wazirihistan. And enough pandering to Saudi Arabia who is STILL funding global jihad.


21 posted on 10/23/2007 1:39:49 PM PDT by quant5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert; DevSix; Cap Huff; AdmSmith; Recon Dad; DrGunsforHands; Jedi Master Pikachu; ...


FReepmail if you want on or off
22 posted on 10/23/2007 3:25:38 PM PDT by G8 Diplomat (Star Wars teaches us a foreboding lesson--evil emperors start out as Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slapshot68
Musharaff is far from being a perfect leader, but would consider him to fall on the 'ally' side of the fence. He's almost definitely more useful for the United States than if Pakistan was allowed to vote an islamofascist government into office.

Just as in the Cold War, sometimes a dictatorship should be supported over a democratic, but hostile, government with the mandate of the people. And Musharaff doesn't seem to be nearly as selfishly corrupt as the the Latin American and other dictators the United States supported in the latter half of last century. He doesn't appear to be grafting the treasury for his own gain.

So, hopefully this Musharaff/Bhutto partnership will work out. Musharaff will serve to stabilize the country while Bhutto hopefully change the nation's outlook on life and slowly lead Pakistan to a safe 'democracy' (representative government).

23 posted on 10/23/2007 3:41:48 PM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Dog

>>this effort must be led by the Pakistani government itself,

LOLOLOL! Delusional thinking.

Best bet is a solid multifaceted civil war, jihadis against secularists, Sunni Vs Shia, and even better, a split in the army with different army corps facing off against each other With Rawalpindi and Lahore resembling Baghdad or Beirut of the 80’s.

Now, it’s been 6 years plus since our vaunted ally has been showered with accolades, money and arms. Sssh, don’t tell anyone, but it’s probably US dollars financing those slick videotapes that we see. Osama’s been getting a nice chunk of money to finance his living - hey you think it’s cheap having an entourage like that? not to mention that effing dialysis machine we hear nothing about now, LOL!

Musharraf is the guy who spearheaded the takeover of Afghanistan by the Talibs.

He’s protected Osama all these years.

Would Vegas even have given odds on 9-12-01 that Osama would be free after 6 years of a war on a tactic? LOL!


24 posted on 10/24/2007 1:00:28 PM PDT by swarthyguy (Day 2235 of Osama's freedom. Nice going, Uncle Sam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson