Posted on 05/15/2009 7:11:35 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Back in 2007, commentators were sounding the alarm that Pakistan was approaching a precipice. A lot has changed in two years. Pakistan's problems then -- protesters clogging the streets of Islamabad demanding President Musharraf's resignation, and sporadic Taliban raids on coalition forces in Afghanistan -- were but a glimpse of the danger ahead. No one could have imagined the speed and intensity with which the Taliban and their allies have since spread east from their sanctuary in the Hindu Kush mountains to threaten an invasion of the Pakistani capital.
Pakistan's deepening disorder coincides with the release of the Obama administration's new "Af-Pak" strategy. Unfortunately, President Barack Obama's "new" approach is wholly inadequate -- at least as regards Pakistan. Its drafters have attempted to approach an intractable problem by marginally improving a strategy -- providing billions of dollars of aid -- that has proved ineffective for the better part of seven years. Part of this dissonance may be attributed to an insufficient appreciation of the gravity of the threat. Part is due to a poor understanding of the strategic priorities of the Pakistani state itself. After all, in the words of United States' Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, "If Afghanistan had the best government on earth, a drug-free culture and no corruption it would still be unstable if the situation in Pakistan remained as today."
Everyone is familiar with Pakistan's combustible mix of nuclear weapons, underhanded intelligence services and terrorist safe-havens. It's long been clear that al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban have been using Pakistani territory as a safe-haven to conduct attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
So what is the recommended way that this Administration (or any other for that matter) should “get tough with Pakistan”??
What does the author recommend?? Invasion?? Pre-emptive nuclear strikes??
Most of the problem areas in Pakistan don’t read the same maps we do, and they certainly order their priorities much differently. Simply advocating a get tough stance is one thing, especially when done from the safety of the WSJ editorial page.
Coming up with practical solutions is quite another....
The time to get tough in this theater was years ago.
Time to figure out how to help them fix what we broke by conducting a half-assed war on their border. JMO.
There is no way to stop the fanatical religious mob mentality in Pakistan.
Absolutely, like on September 12 2001.
We allowed the sanctuaries to develop greatly in Pakistan in the interim, and now, the whirlwind.
>.No one could have imagined the speed and intensity
You gotta love the arrogance and asinine ignorance contained in statements like this.
Imagined, people were documenting it for years.
Of course, they may not have been officially approved USG approved government sources or their handmaidens in the TV media.
But lots of outlets have detailed the Talib’s advance with great accuracy.
Sucks. We need a stable Pakistan on our side. We’ll be lucky if they’re not an Iranian satellite state 5 years from now.
Pak has never been 'stable'. Pak never will be 'stable'. We need to reduce it to ashes.
L
>>an Iranian satellite state
The Pakistanis? Their Sunnism, akin to the Saudi version, positively makes loathing and hatred of Shias a primary precept of the faith. Shia Pakistanis often are the target of terror attacks.
Pakistan is on its own side, no matter the power of Uncle Sam’s Rose Colored Glasses.
They will take the money and do what they wish.
The Talibs are their brothers, their progeny, their ace in the hole, their proxy army to start trouble in Afghanistan, or in Kashmir.
To enable an economic zone, granted, pretty much a pipe dream now, of a Kabul to Kulkutta axis requires relegating Pakistan to maps of former world in history books.
To further the goal of negating jihad as a threat and enable America’s national security, Pakistan is now a major hindrance rather than an ambivalent partner.
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.