Death From Above
Posted on 09/22/2006 5:00:14 AM PDT by NonLinear
>>sharply increasing tensions between the US and one of its closest allies in the war on terrorism. <<
Why the heck do you think they (a muslim nation) BECAME one of our closest allies you silly reporter person? It wasn't our close ties with India, that's for sure.
Musharraf needs to get his forces back into the field in N. & S. Waziristan. What makes him look weak is his army's inability to defeat a few tribal militias.
I know I would recall Armitage saying this; I can't recall him saying this. But I do recall RUSH saying something "bomb them back to the 11th century". I don't think he was talking about Pakistan.
Pervez? Is that you?
I'm sorry, are we talking about Iraq or Pakistan? Defeating 'a few tribal militias' can be tricker work that you'd think. Especially when you're sitting on a powderkeg of ethnic and religious tension, like Musharraf (and we) are.
My point is if it was so upsetting (and if it really happened), wouldn't he have been crying about it to the UN 5 years ago?
Wouldn't take much off an effort to accomplish that. They are still living in the 9th Century.
Also a snip from the WorldTribune, March 29, 2004:
---snip
The International Atomic Energy Agency has also been seeking to determine whether Egypt received Pakistani nuclear weapons designs, including that for nuclear warheads, Middle East Newsline reported. A Chinese-origin nuclear warhead design sold by Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan was found in Libya.
--end snip
For Musharraf to be bringing this alleged quote by Armitage to the table, NOW? Tells me there's something going on which isn't appearing in the news, yet, that I've seen. Something bigger. Yahoo news just reporting that President Bush is "taken aback" by Musharraf's comment.
My, oh my.. "taken aback". When the President says words like these.. Oh my.
I feel upstaged by that rat Chavez. And India's getting all the "GOOD" business. And y'all royally peeved me good when I said we thought we'd had AQ cornered, and then we didn't. Like, man, where's your faith? We'll get him. We just need more money for some landing strips here, if ya can help me out.
Ol' Darth is a softie? OK, I plead guilty. I don't believe that we need or will have all out war against the world's muslims. The real fight, which may lead to millions of deaths, will be between modern muslims and fundamentalists. We are in a world wide guerilla war against a subset of muslims. When I studied guerilla war at West Point I came to the conclusion that the best warriors to fight guerillas are local boys who understand the language, culture, and the enemy. We are now allied with the modern muslims from Morocco to Jordan to Turkey to Indonesia (Musharraf in the middle there somewhere) who will lead the fight for the future of the islamic countries. Obviously, I am not from the school of "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out". Genocide is not our forte.
What for?
A post 9/11 America comes charging over the hill like Godzilla, and delivers the "come to Jesus or I'll send you to him personally" message. What's the UN going to do? They didn't say sh#^ after 9/11 when we went after Afghanistan, and every bad guy on the planet was doing the duck and cover. There was no 'let diplomacy work' cry from the U.N. The only crying going on was from the delegates hiding under their desks, hoping they weren't next.
What would the benefit have been, back then, to crying foul? Musharraf's back was against the wall; his government was one of only 3 that even recognized the Taliban. They were only one hop away from what an enraged American public might consider support to al-Qai'da. Would we bomb him? Start a coup? He didn't really know who we have in his government that might turn on him. It's hard for a man to sleep at night knowing that the full power of the U.S. military is heading towards your backyard, and will flatten your house to get there if you don't open the door for them.
That was 5 years ago, though. Things have changed. Now, Musharraf is back to the same old game of balancing out the triggerhappy thugs in his military versus the terrorist supporting ISI versus the Islamist whackjobs that populate his country. We can't just casually throw out comments about raiding Pakistan, comments that put his viability, both literally and politically, into question. He can't be seen as a U.S. puppet, or his own people will eat him alive.
They understood that in October, 2001, Pakistan nearly got run over by an America on the warpath, and Musharraf did the expedient thing by helping us. That reasoning won't fly in October of 2006. Times have changed.
It's not really about the US elections. He has a book coming out. He needs some press hype to generate sales.
What Armitage really said was, "Plame sent Wilson to Niger."
Afghanistan is a land-locked country blocked in by Iran and Pakistan. If Pakistan had not cooperated and not granted us overflight rights, or worse had fired on American aircraft headed towards Afghanistan, how should we have responded?
I take your point. But there is a difference between the US taking casualties from IED's and the Pak Army being defeated in standup combat & chased from a province that is nominally within THEIR country.
Musharraf appears to be switching sides. But to return to an earlier point that you made: Bush should have avoided the blunt statement about sending US troops over the boarder in pursuit of OBL -- even if that is the policy.
The strategic goal is to prevent Iran, or any other radical Muslim regime, from getting the Bomb. If Pakistan flips, our worst nightmare will be realized.
Why not? Tough times call for tough measures. I don't doubt it for a minute.
Nor do I care.
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.