PDA

View Full Version : In Pakistan, pro-American sentiment is rare



astralis
26 Jun 11,, 06:31
i wish there were something we could do to help Mr Afridi.

----

In Pakistan, a rethinking of the U.S. alliance - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/in-pakistan-pro-american-expressions-are-are/2011/06/22/AGdj5shH_story_1.html)

In Pakistan, pro-American sentiment is rare


By Griff Witte, Published: June 23 | Updated: Friday, June 24, 8:45 PM

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — Ali Khan Afridi is a wanted man.

Militants come to his house in this frontier city and menace his family. Men claiming to be from Pakistan’s intelligence services call at 2 a.m. and tell him to watch his back.


Afridi accepts all this as the price of his radical views: In a country where the vast majority of people believe the United States is an enemy, Afridi is unabashedly pro-American.

“I believe that America is the only power that can defeat these monsters, these terrorists,” said Afridi, a clean-shaven 36-year-old who leads a consortium of non-governmental groups. “And that means my life is in permanent danger.”

The United States and Pakistan have been allies for decades, but it has rarely been easy to be pro-American here. Now, after the killing early last month of Osama bin Laden by U.S. Navy SEALs, speaking out on behalf of the United States requires a degree of boldness that verges on a death wish.

While bin Laden was held in low regard by most Pakistanis and there have been few public displays of anger at his death, the impact on attitudes toward the United States has been profound. Critics of Pakistani ties with Washington are ascendant on the streets, in the media and, crucially, at Pakistan’s military headquarters in Rawalpindi. Backers of the relationship, the few who remain, have been cowed into silence or are reconsidering their stands.

“The U.S. doesn’t realize it, but the damage done is huge. This is a deep hurt that is not going to go away,” said Riaz Khokar, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United States who advocates a dramatic downgrading of the relationship. “We have placed all our eggs in the U.S. basket. And the eggs turned out to be rotten.”

What Khokar and others object to is not that the United States killed bin Laden. It’s the fact that after a decade of partnership in battling extremists, the Obama administration decided to carry out the raid in the northern city of Abbottabad without informing Pakistan.

U.S. officials have said they were concerned about tipping off bin Laden and did not want to risk confiding in Pakistani security services that have not always proved trustworthy. Since bin Laden was killed in early May, U.S. policymakers have openly wondered whether elements of the Pakistani military or intelligence services knew about bin Laden’s presence.

Such statements have deepened the mistrust here and the sense of betrayal.

“In this part of the world, public humiliation is a very serious matter. And the U.S. has humiliated the armed forces of Pakistan,” said Khokar, who has met recently with Pakistan’s powerful top general, Ashfaq Kayani.

Perhaps no other Pakistani backer of the U.S. alliance has come under more scrutiny, or pressure, than Kayani. The army chief had been tightly aligned with the United States and had forged a particularly strong relationship with Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

But after bin Laden’s death, Kayani “almost went into a state of shock. He could never imagine in his wildest dreams that after all the coordination with Mike, this would be the outcome,” according to retired Maj. Gen. Mahmud Ali Durrani, a former ambassador to the United States who is considered close to Kayani.

In his public statements since the bin Laden raid, Kayani has been frequently critical of the United States. He is facing pressure from his corps commanders to go beyond rhetoric and take a far tougher policy line, including forcing an end to the U.S. campaign of drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal belt.

Despite growing anti-Americanism within the public in recent years, the army’s top leadership had long been a bastion of belief that the U.S. alliance was too important to risk losing. But that has changed.

“The army is very, very sensitive to public opinion,” Durrani said. “Right now there’s a rethinking because there’s been a failure in the old strategy of so-called cooperation with the U.S. Anyone in their position would rethink.”

‘Abusing America’

On Pakistani television screens, the rethinking plays out nightly. The airwaves are filled with prime-time anchors who attack the United States and go after even the Pakistani generals who support the alliance. “If you are a journalist and you want high ratings, start verbally abusing America,” said Saleem Safi, host of a popular show on the privately run Geo network. “If you abuse the Taliban, al-Qaeda or the Pakistani establishment, you face threats to your life — people say you are a non-Muslim. If you are talking against America, you become a hero.”

Advocates of downgrading the U.S. relationship point to the estimated 35,000 Pakistanis who have been killed in extremist violence since Pakistan partnered with the United States after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The billions of dollars in aid supplied by Washington, they say, hardly compensate for the economic devastation wrought by a war with militants that has never been accepted as Pakistan’s own.

In Peshawar, the teeming capital of Pakistan’s northwest that has suffered a disproportionate share of attacks, a massive billboard memorializes a police official assassinated by the Taliban last year. Streets are named after other soldiers and officers who have died. But by and large, “people have not owned this war. They say it is the war of the U.S. that has been imposed on us,” said Shaheed Soherwordi, an international relations professor at Peshawar University.

Soherwordi spoke from a desk in the Lincoln Corner, a section of the university library co-sponsored by the U.S. government that gives Pakistanis a place to read American books and magazines — everything from thick biographies of presidents to Entertainment Weekly.

It is one of the few places in the city that is openly associated with the United States. Another, the U.S. consulate, is considered such a prime target for attack that Soherwordi recently pulled his daughter from a school that he felt was situated too close to the fortress-like compound.

“Every thing and every person associated with the U.S. is a target,” Soherwordi said.

That includes Afridi, whose work takes him into the neighboring tribal areas. He insists he does not have a death wish but is well aware of the risks of speaking out so strongly in favor of the United States. In recent days, a known militant visited the Afridi home and told Afridi to stay quiet.

Afridi said he has no intention of doing so. The real threat to his native tribal lands is not the United States, he said, but the Arab, Chechen and Uzbek extremists who have moved in and taken over. He believes others agree with him but are too afraid to say so.

“There are millions like me,” Afridi said. “But they are terrified. And they are silent.”

S2
26 Jun 11,, 08:46
There's nothing to be done. We're on a collision course. Our friend here, IHM, is in grave danger for his views.

"If you abuse the Taliban, al-Qaeda or the Pakistani establishment, you face threats to your life — people say you are a non-Muslim. If you are talking against America, you become a hero.”

Pakistanis believe it's America's responsibility to prove our worth by providing a nuke deal IAW our Indian pact...as though the rest of the Nuclear Suppliers Group would permit it. Oddly, they won't ask the Chinese for their sponsorship. They know the PRC wouldn't back them.

Pakistanis believe we should resolve for them, favorably, Kashmir. They refuse to acknowledge it's a bilateral issue much of their own making and, moreover, carry their own tainted legacy in the suppression of POK.

Pakistanis believe we should appoint their government as trustee to Afghanistan as though it's their private sandbox. They've no interest in the afghan people beyond how they might serve Pakistan.

Pakistanis believe they've sacrificed more than anybody else in the war on terror. They refuse to acknowledge that not once has a soldier of Pakistan died fighting ANYBODY but their own home-grown insurgency. Nor that this insurgency would have no legs but for their active sponsorship and sanctuary to the afghan taliban.

Were we of sound mind, America would cease all aid to Pakistan, embargo all trade and declare war. Pakistan has LONG been in the business of killing American troops with one hand while accepting our money with the other. That is an incontrovertible fact.

Withdraw our troops from Afghanistan, anchor a counter-terror strike force in the Indian Ocean and then call a spade "a spade".

Plain language written here.

astralis
26 Jun 11,, 22:13
There's nothing to be done. We're on a collision course. Our friend here, IHM, is in grave danger for his views.

i meant in a slightly more personal sense: is there anything anybody here can offer that would strengthen those few pro-American/pro-Western voices in Pakistan.


Were we of sound mind, America would cease all aid to Pakistan, embargo all trade and declare war. Pakistan has LONG been in the business of killing American troops with one hand while accepting our money with the other. That is an incontrovertible fact.

we'll be in a much better position to do so after 2014. as it is, we should stop all military aid NOW and transfer it all to civilian aid.

as american troops withdraw, there's less people in the shooting gallery, and fewer supplies that need to be trucked over. far less need for the farce of a friendship with the PA. i'd open up far larger sections of pakistan to our UAVs-- which by then will be far more numerous, with better sensors, and more analysts/targeteers at the other end.

as for declaring war, that will not happen (and i think it's highly unlikely the pakistanis will declare war on the US) absent a major terrorist attack that can directly attributable to pakistan.

for the short-term, we should encourage behavior that seriously encourages pakistanis to rethink their belief in the PA/ISI. that's the first step in getting them to change their idiotic worldview and what passes for strategy over there.

Double Edge
27 Jun 11,, 00:32
for the short-term, we should encourage behavior that seriously encourages pakistanis to rethink their belief in the PA/ISI. that's the first step in getting them to change their idiotic worldview and what passes for strategy over there.
Wouldn't this also involve changing how they think about the US as well ?

As PA/ISI woks with the US which is guilty by association.

JAD_333
27 Jun 11,, 00:52
There's nothing to be done. We're on a collision course.

One wonders if the prospect of getting OBL blinded the Administration to the wider implications of openly stepping on Pakistan's sovereignty, or if it predicted the backlash but felt the prize was worth the price.

I was as glad as anyone that we had finally gotten OBL and even argued that we had to do it solo because we didn't know who we could trust in Pakistan to collaborate with us. But there is something to be said for trust.

Eugene McCarthy, who ran for president in 1968, had a favorite line he often used in his stump speeches: It is better to err on the side of trust than it is to err on the side of distrust. I've thought about that maxim for years and even applied it in life and business. I wonder what would have happened if we had done so on the get-OBL mission. If elements of the Pak gov had queered the mission, what would have been the reaction of the Pak public? If they had cooperated with us and OLB was got, what would US-Pak relations be today? The answer to the last question is easy. The answer to the first is open.


Pakistanis believe they've sacrificed more than anybody else in the war on terror. They refuse to acknowledge that not once has a soldier of Pakistan died fighting ANYBODY but their own home-grown insurgency. Nor that this insurgency would have no legs but for their active sponsorship and sanctuary to the afghan taliban.

You are right, but what does that have to do with Pak's reaction to our demeaning their military and violating their sovereignty?


Were we of sound mind, America would cease all aid to Pakistan, embargo all trade and declare war. Pakistan has LONG been in the business of killing American troops with one hand while accepting our money with the other. That is an incontrovertible fact.

Your first point is worth considering. As for declaring war, double-dealing isn't a reason to go to war. Why widen the WOT when we don't have to? And besides, we're broke.



Withdraw our troops from Afghanistan, anchor a counter-terror strike force in the Indian Ocean and then call a spade "a spade".

Would anyone be surprised if that is where we are come 2014?

1980s
27 Jun 11,, 01:19
You are right, but what does that have to do with Pak's reaction to our demeaning their military and violating their sovereignty?

They have demeaned themselves and have reneged on their own sovereign responsibilities more than enough to warrant unilateral action against terrorist targets and sanctuaries within their so-called sovereign borders. The Pakistani reaction to such 'violations' is an exercise in posturing and face-saving. If they truly gave a damn about their so-called sovereignty there should have been outrage during all those times the Pakistani establishment signed 'peace deals' with various Taliban groups in FATA and Swat etc that effectively ceded sovereignty in these places to the Taliban. But was there any outrage to these? No. Actually these 'peace deals' were applauded by Pakistanis while the local Pashtuns of those regions were made to suffer the fate of abandonment to Taliban rule and their arbitrary 'justice'.

Wasnt it just 2 short years ago this summer that an entire 'division' called Malakand had been effectively ceded to Taliban control through such a 'peace deal' whereby 'Sharia' law was implemented and capital punishment in the town-square and elsewhere became the norm? If i remember correctly it took a video of a girl being publicly whipped by the Taliban infront of dozens of onlookers coupled with much American pressure for the Pakistanis to finally act and send in the army to drive the Taliban out of Swat and re-assert their 'sovereignty' there.

And what did the Pakistani public make of that military operation that could have been averted in the first place had the Pakistanis lived-up to their sovereign responsibilities? Heap criticism onto the US...

JAD_333
27 Jun 11,, 13:59
They have demeaned themselves and have reneged on their own sovereign responsibilities more than enough to warrant unilateral action against terrorist targets and sanctuaries within their so-called sovereign borders. The Pakistani reaction to such 'violations' is an exercise in posturing and face-saving. If they truly gave a damn about their so-called sovereignty there should have been outrage during all those times the Pakistani establishment signed 'peace deals' with various Taliban groups in FATA and Swat etc that effectively ceded sovereignty in these places to the Taliban. But was there any outrage to these? No. Actually these 'peace deals' were applauded by Pakistanis while the local Pashtuns of those regions were made to suffer the fate of abandonment to Taliban rule and their arbitrary 'justice'.

Wasnt it just 2 short years ago this summer that an entire 'division' called Malakand had been effectively ceded to Taliban control through such a 'peace deal' whereby 'Sharia' law was implemented and capital punishment in the town-square and elsewhere became the norm? If i remember correctly it took a video of a girl being publicly whipped by the Taliban infront of dozens of onlookers coupled with much American pressure for the Pakistanis to finally act and send in the army to drive the Taliban out of Swat and re-assert their 'sovereignty' there.

And what did the Pakistani public make of that military operation that could have been averted in the first place had the Pakistanis lived-up to their sovereign responsibilities? Heap criticism onto the US...


Powerful argument for sure, and I don't disagree with it. My question, however, --if it can be called a question--has to do with public perception in and the sensibilities of the PA. How they see it governs our relationship. Their high horse attitude may be hypocritical, but however you characterize it, it's a reality we have to recognize in our relationship.

Furthermore, you're justifying our violation of Pak's sovereignty on the basis that the Taliban do it. Then why didn't we invade the Taliban's Pak sanctuaries all these years? The fact is our restraint was tied to the notion of sovereignty.

Getting OBL himself was in our best national interests. No question we should have acted. The question is, did we choose the right means? Did we err in not trusting the PA to be a reliable partner in the mission?

astralis
27 Jun 11,, 18:56
JAD,


The question is, did we choose the right means? Did we err in not trusting the PA to be a reliable partner in the mission?

given the leaking of the intel the US shared re: bomb making facilities that happened shortly after the OBL raid, i'd say that this was no error.

i'd also say that given how the PA is acting under a supposedly pro-American COAS, it's high time for the US to look at other means of weakening the institution-- particularly if the PA is going to choose an islamist sympathizer as a COAS.

S2
28 Jun 11,, 03:17
"Furthermore, you're justifying our violation of Pak's sovereignty on the basis that the Taliban do it."

This is extremely worrisome. It appears you believe we ARE violating their sovereignty. I'd argue that a government has sovereign obligations incurred with rights. When those obligations aren't met either as a function of inability or by policy choice then sovereign authority and rights therein have been aborgated.

Our troops are murdered daily by the direction of an ousted afghan taliban government living in sanctuary upon Pakistani lands. Their forces fighting in Afghanistan routinely return to these same areas to reconstitute, recruit, recreate, rehabilitate and refit for battle. These forces and their leadership have stood in the way of our efforts to meet mission obligations to U.N.A.M.A. as part of ISAF. They've killed the vast majority of afghan civilians in this war-often by targeted intent.

And it is as Pakistan's leadership desires. Not once has the Pakistani military conducted combat operations against this foreign government and their forces escounced rather comfortably on Pakistani lands. That presence, btw JAD, precedes our first drone attack by nearly two years (late 2001).

Simply on the basis of a right to self-defense our attacks, however limited and precise given the daily onslaught we face from Pakistan, is entirely justified.

I hope you'll revisit your profoundly flawed thinking here to assure you're not providing unintentional aid and comfort to these enemies of our troops and the afghan people. This war promised to be plenty hard enough without the added burden of a proxy army shielded though sanctuary from an ostensible ally.

As such it's proving to be unwinnable. I abhore the American government's enabling of this and believe George Bush and Barak Obama owe each American soldier an apology for our inexcusable conduct with respect to Pakistan.

JAD_333
28 Jun 11,, 03:52
JAD,



given the leaking of the intel the US shared re: bomb making facilities that happened shortly after the OBL raid, i'd say that this was no error.

i'd also say that given how the PA is acting under a supposedly pro-American COAS, it's high time for the US to look at other means of weakening the institution-- particularly if the PA is going to choose an islamist sympathizer as a COAS.

The error in not trusting is that it destroys or severely damages a relationship such that whatever is gained at the moment may be outweighed by future losses in the international arena brought about as a direct result of it.

It might have been good to let the PA in on the mission. It was win-win. They go along--OBL is dead or captured; they tip OBL--they face an international firestorm and a massive internal upheaval out of which comes greater cooperation with the US, which leads to shutting down the Taliban sanctuaries and hastening the end of the war.

Tronic
28 Jun 11,, 04:51
and a massive internal upheaval out of which comes greater cooperation with the US, which leads to shutting down the Taliban sanctuaries and hastening the end of the war.

What makes you say that? Why would they face an internal upheaval?

JAD_333
28 Jun 11,, 05:32
"Furthermore, you're justifying our violation of Pak's sovereignty on the basis that the Taliban do it."

This is extremely worrisome. It appears you believe we ARE violating their sovereignty.

What I said in not so many words is that it APPEARS to them that we are violating their sovereignty. What I believe is that we gave them that perception and it has become powerful ammo for our most ardent enemies in Pak. Where that leads us in terms of future cooperation is unknown. Right now the relationship is in a melt-down.


I'd argue that a government has sovereign obligations incurred with rights. When those obligations aren't met either as a function of inability or by policy choice then sovereign authority and rights therein have been aborgated.

That's a tough case to make. A nation doesn't forfeit its sovereignty because it acts badly. At the same time, its sovereignty is not an absolute protection against retaliation, e.g. sanctions, invasions, etc. I would take half your case, the part that suggests we should always act in our vital interests, sovereignty be damned.



Our troops are murdered daily by the direction of an ousted afghan taliban government living in sanctuary upon Pakistani lands. Their forces fighting in Afghanistan routinely return to these same areas to reconstitute, recruit, recreate, rehabilitate and refit for battle. These forces and their leadership have stood in the way of our efforts to meet mission obligations to U.N.A.M.A. as part of ISAF. They've killed the vast majority of afghan civilians in this war-often by targeted intent.

And it is as Pakistan's leadership desires. Not once has the Pakistani military conducted combat operations against this foreign government and their forces escounced rather comfortably on Pakistani lands. That presence, btw JAD, precedes our first drone attack by nearly two years (late 2001).

Simply on the basis of a right to self-defense our attacks, however limited and precise given the daily onslaught we face from Pakistan, is entirely justified.

Those facts support what argument? I am not saying that we do nothing about them. Our objective is to put out the fire, and I am not excluding stomping on Pak's sovereignty to get the job done. I am just questioning how our actions will play out from a historical perspective. I have look at rejected alternatives to actions taken to find the answers.


I hope you'll revisit your profoundly flawed thinking here to assure you're not providing unintentional aid and comfort to these enemies of our troops and the afghan people. This war promised to be plenty hard enough without the added burden of a proxy army shielded though sanctuary from an ostensible ally.

Steve, I don't think you're following me. I've been looking at the alternative--what if we trusted the PA in the OBL mission--and asking whether or not that would have been a smarter move. I am working on the thesis that it could have spelled the end of the sanctuaries and brought a quick end to the war. I'll take it elsewhere.


As such it's proving to be unwinnable. I abhore the American government's enabling of this and believe George Bush and Barak Obama owe each American soldier an apology for our inexcusable conduct with respect to Pakistan.

Could it have been avoided?

JAD_333
28 Jun 11,, 05:48
What makes you say that? Why would they face an internal upheaval?

Imagine we ask Pak to join in the mission to get OBL; someone in the ISI tips off OBL; the mission fails; the world learns of it; Pak faces sure international condemnation; elements of the PA that acted in good faith will feel betrayed from within; US is about to cut off aid; an internal battle begins within Pak gov between pro US and anti US elements and major changes result.

S2
28 Jun 11,, 06:42
"...what if we trusted the PA in the OBL mission--and asking whether or not that would have been a smarter move. I am working on the thesis that it could have spelled the end of the sanctuaries and brought a quick end to the war."

I think Astralis has highlighted it would quite likely be a mission failure. The blowback within Pakistani society would have been minimal. The ISPR would have assured the public message within Pakistan is that failure was America's doing.

You're speculating an outcome. So, therefore, shall I. The reality is that POTUS, in his accrued wisdom, saw nothing but bad by doing so and avoided their inclusion. I'm glad.

All evidence-from ten years of complicity with the Afghan taliban to the most wanted man on earth living within earshot of daily formations at the Pakistani military academy for FIVE years to a failure to execute raids on IED factories with alacrity in the aftermath of such indicate that your wandering down the wrong path.

Another chance, in effect, is what you're suggesting. YET another chance...with OBL no less. Silly, sir. The narrative within Pakistan has long been established otherwise and it's too late, by far, for them to attempt backtracking now.

They've, foremost, no compelling reason to do so. As of today their regime is still enabled in too many ways by our government. Victory (defeat in the long term) is at hand in Afghanistan for Pakistan. They'll have their way and it'll prove their undoing IMV.

S2
28 Jun 11,, 06:54
"...What I said in not so many words is that it APPEARS to them that we are violating their sovereignty..."

I didn't see that within your comments. OTOH, if you suggest as much it would seem they could only believe so by willfully ignoring the presence of a foreign government and army (the Afghan taliban government) upon their soil.

Heard any outcry from Pakistan about THAT violation of their sovereignty? Rather selective application I do say so myself.

"What I believe is that we gave them that perception and it has become powerful ammo for our most ardent enemies in Pak..."

Those most "ardent" enemies of ours happen to be the very military leadership whom we've annointed with the highly misguided title of "ally". They're also the most powerful. No element in Pakistani society is more powerful nor prepared to exercise that power.

"...That's a tough case to make. A nation doesn't forfeit its sovereignty because it acts badly..."

Ummm...yes it does if it "acts badly" includes making proxy war upon its neighbor(s) and killing our troops in the process. We've chosen the least intrusive, most precise means we've available to defend ourselves and the Afghan people. Measures of self-defense only get worse beyond PREDATOR.

The case is rather easily and compellingly made that Pakistan by choice of policy has freely aborgated vast tracts of its tribal lands to the afghan taliban and their associates for nearly a decade. The evidence has been put before you-most notably that the fifth largest army in the world seems content with the sovereign violation of its territory by a defeated and ousted afghan taliban government.

Not a stir. Not a peep of protest. Not a whimper of pain. Nada.

Vinod2070
28 Jun 11,, 07:53
If anything, the anti American sentiment is only rising in Pakistan. It seems to permeate the whole society, even sections of it that benefit the most from USA.

In fact there is little choice today for those who consider themselves Pakistani patriots. The only ray of hope they see would be either the army or Imran. Both are avowedly anti US at present.

Double Edge
28 Jun 11,, 08:15
Imagine we ask Pak to join in the mission to get OBL; someone in the ISI tips off OBL; the mission fails; the world learns of it; Pak faces sure international condemnation; elements of the PA that acted in good faith will feel betrayed from within; US is about to cut off aid; an internal battle begins within Pak gov between pro US and anti US elements and major changes result.
That would be one hell of a gamble to take. That too at this juncture when there already exists a tangible amount of distrust between the two parties. At this late date, is the key distinction here. If we were in 2005, you may have had a point. It would have been a terrible call, the GOP would have had a field day over it.

Since when does the US allow intl. opinion to do the job it could do herself ? Isn't that what everybody else does and what makes you different. Oh no, there goes Obama bowing to world opinion again, how much of a bow was it this time :biggrin:

If it failed you'd be in the same position as now but with nothing to show for it except 'world opinion'.

Your president needs deliverables. He was not going to risk his re-election over it. If your economy does not tank between now & next Nov, he is a shoo-in for a second term. Oh, they say this did not give him too much of a bump in the approval ratings but the opposite would certainly have done damage. So it stemmed the backslide.

And your relationship with Pakistan is NOT in meltdown. All i'm seeing & hearing are noises, not one concrete step yet that would actually substantiate this assertion.

We are seeing their reaction to what you're saying, that is all. Worldwide cable news phenomenon makes things happen quicker. They know what you say at home & vice versa and more ppl see it than before.

Both parties are in face saving mode. How long for ?

Double Edge
28 Jun 11,, 08:50
given the leaking of the intel the US shared re: bomb making facilities that happened shortly after the OBL raid, i'd say that this was no error.
Exactly, and this is what makes me think this bomb making story was just a little too convenient -- it reinforces the OBL decison and is perhaps suspect coming so soon after the OBL op.


i'd also say that given how the PA is acting under a supposedly pro-American COAS, it's high time for the US to look at other means of weakening the institution-- particularly if the PA is going to choose an islamist sympathizer as a COAS.
Ah, you're hinting at a upcoming succession of a head of COAS here, one that will be an islamist syphatiser no less.

snapper
28 Jun 11,, 12:36
This is extremely worrisome. It appears you believe we ARE violating their sovereignty. I'd argue that a government has sovereign obligations incurred with rights. When those obligations aren't met either as a function of inability or by policy choice then sovereign authority and rights therein have been aborgated.

I find that opinion "extremely worrisome". You appear to argue that if a soverign Government decides to act or not act according to your wishes then "sovereign authority and rights therein have been aborgated." Presumably this would give you the right intervene... How far would this go? Suppose I didn't like another countries interest rates? Or perhaps it's train ticket pricing? Does this sublime theory of sovereign authority apply also to citizens within a soverign nation? I think your theory gives Tankie, Dave and myself grounds for revolution in the UK as we all oppose the defence cuts...

I understand the jist of your message is aimed as Pakistani collusion with Taliban etc but the brush you use to apply to one (albeit important) theatre should not be made into a global theory of sovereignty.

There is no doubt that the OBL raid and the drone strikes ARE breaches of Pakistani terrritorial sovereignty. They may perhaps be justifiable (I would argue they are) and even have the tacit support of elements within the Pakistani Government. I merely point out that by reductio ad absurdam your justification for these breaches is somewhat overly aggravated.

Double Edge
28 Jun 11,, 13:00
I find that opinion "extremely worrisome". You appear to argue that if a soverign Government decides to act or not act according to your wishes then "sovereign authority and rights therein have been aborgated." Presumably this would give you the right intervene... How far would this go? Suppose I didn't like another countries interest rates? Or perhaps it's train ticket pricing? Does this sublime theory of sovereign authority apply also to citizens within a soverign nation?
Take two countries, Denmark & Sweden.

Danes charge more for alcohol than the Swedes.

Some independently minded Danes decide this is not on and so hop on the ferry to Sweden Friday night to get smashed for less and come back on Sunday. This goes on for some time where some equally independently minded swedes decide to sort the problem out. They increase the cost of alcohol over that of Denmark.

Now its the Swedes that go off to Denmark for laughs on the weekend :biggrin:

Am not sure how the story ends but its sorta balanced out that way.

snapper
28 Jun 11,, 13:24
Ahh but by S2's criteria one side is ignoring its 'sovereign obligations' and has 'abrogated its sovereign authority'. Thus the country charging less (and perhaps that charging more also!) in entitled to breach the others soeverign territorial rights, perhpas meaning that those who go on such 'booze cruises' need no passports but justifying military intervention! I merely point out the absurdity of this wide sweeping justification.

Tronic
28 Jun 11,, 18:13
I find that opinion "extremely worrisome". You appear to argue that if a soverign Government decides to act or not act according to your wishes then "sovereign authority and rights therein have been aborgated." Presumably this would give you the right intervene... How far would this go? Suppose I didn't like another countries interest rates? Or perhaps it's train ticket pricing? Does this sublime theory of sovereign authority apply also to citizens within a soverign nation? I think your theory gives Tankie, Dave and myself grounds for revolution in the UK as we all oppose the defence cuts...

I understand the jist of your message is aimed as Pakistani collusion with Taliban etc but the brush you use to apply to one (albeit important) theatre should not be made into a global theory of sovereignty.

There is no doubt that the OBL raid and the drone strikes ARE breaches of Pakistani terrritorial sovereignty. They may perhaps be justifiable (I would argue they are) and even have the tacit support of elements within the Pakistani Government. I merely point out that by reductio ad absurdam your justification for these breaches is somewhat overly aggravated.

By international law, those drones are perfectly legal, Pakistani support or not. Its pure self defence. As for sovereign government, are we talking the Afghan Taliban or Pakistan? The drones hit areas governed by the Afghan Taliban, not Pakistani government. Or is it now safe to call them both parallel governments of a sovereign Pakistan? If so, does this not make the entire country culpible and open to strikes?

snapper
28 Jun 11,, 18:47
By international law invading and bombing another soverign nations territory without "explicit and demostaratable proof of compliance" is a breach of soverign rights. Self defence of USA? What? Self defence of troops in Afghanistan I would argue is a justifiable exemption of Pakistani sovereign rights and rights should be (and almost certainly) are applied on this basis.

"The drones hit areas governed by the Afghan Taliban, not Pakistani government." I understand that and sympathise, however legaly they Pakistani sovereign soil and therefore a breach of their territorial integrity. I do not say that they not justifiable breaches - I believe they are - however the law is an ass breaches they are.

"If so, does this not make the entire country culpible and open to strikes?" By S2's definition yes.

The problem is that international law does not deal with all scenarios - thus the infractions of Pakistani territory are illegal but justifiable.

Tronic
28 Jun 11,, 19:18
elements of the PA that acted in good faith will feel betrayed from within; US is about to cut off aid; an internal battle begins within Pak gov between pro US and anti US elements and major changes result.

JAD, Being pro-US does not mean that Pakistan's and America's interests converge. Support for the Afghan Taliban comes from the most pro-US and westernized quarters of the Pakistan army. They are seen as a tool to vassalize Afghanistan. Gen Kiyani is one of those staunchly pro-US elements of the PA. As astralis said, if this is how they are acting under pro-US leaders, how will they act with actual extremist leaders?


By international law invading and bombing another soverign nations territory without "explicit and demostaratable proof of compliance" is a breach of soverign rights. Self defence of USA? What? Self defence of troops in Afghanistan I would argue is a justifiable exemption of Pakistani sovereign rights and rights should be (and almost certainly) are applied on this basis.

"The drones hit areas governed by the Afghan Taliban, not Pakistani government." I understand that and sympathise, however legaly they Pakistani sovereign soil and therefore a breach of their territorial integrity. I do not say that they not justifiable breaches - I believe they are - however the law is an ass breaches they are.

"If so, does this not make the entire country culpible and open to strikes?" By S2's definition yes.

The problem is that international law does not deal with all scenarios - thus the infractions of Pakistani territory are illegal but justifiable.

Snapper, only thing is that the US has enough "explicit and demostaratable proof of compliance". If Pakistan feels violated, they can go to the UNSC for a resolution; but they know it will not stand. Simply terming all Pakistani compliance as "low level rogue elements" does not shake off all culpability from Pakistan. Especially when this has gone on for more than a decade. I mean, how much more proof of compliance is needed than the Konduz airlift? Ofcourse, that is but a small grain of the compiled evidence over the years. From direct compliance with Haqqani and Afghan Taliban to ISI fingerprints over bomb blasts in Kabul.

snapper
28 Jun 11,, 21:04
Umm proof of "demonstrable compliance" in the terms I quoted mean the soveriegn nations agreement to breaking its territorial boundaries, not compliance with the enemy. The infringements are strictly speaking illegal and there is no getting around the wording.

S2
29 Jun 11,, 02:57
"You appear to argue that if a soverign Government decides to act or not act according to your wishes then 'sovereign authority and rights therein have been aborgated.'"

Wrong. I argue that when a state, by virtue of a conscious policy decision or inability to maintain control of lands ostensibly their's, becomes the source of attacks which threaten our forces, allies and host nation civilians while preventing the execution of the mandate under which we operate then those forces upon their land executing such attacks become subject to retaliation as a matter of self-defense.

There's nearly ten years of evidence supporting my position. This is not some hastily-reached conclusion.

"...Umm proof of "demonstrable compliance" in the terms I quoted mean the soveriegn nations agreement to breaking its territorial boundaries, not compliance with the enemy."

Nonsense. America doesn't need Pakistan's permission to defend itself. In the utter absence of Pakistan's military to take responsibility for the actions of the afghan taliban upon their land, they've aborgated any right to demand we desist from defending ourselves.

Pakistan is welcome to attempt preventing us from such, of course. Doing so, however, would make crystalline their overarching objective to retain the afghan taliban as a proxy force-in-being aimed at the nascent state of Afghanistan.

cirrrocco
29 Jun 11,, 23:43
Imagine we ask Pak to join in the mission to get OBL; someone in the ISI tips off OBL; the mission fails; the world learns of it; Pak faces sure international condemnation; elements of the PA that acted in good faith will feel betrayed from within; US is about to cut off aid; an internal battle begins within Pak gov between pro US and anti US elements and major changes result.

JAD, they have boiler plate responses to everything. It will be the same type of response to the leads about the bomb making factories. "some low level spook / army person" leaked the news.

I mean this has been their standard response to any event

if someone from their country commits a terrorist attack - Answer is Non State actors
Nuclear weapons transported on Army plans to Noko/ Libya - Answer is One man operation
Pakistani troops attacked Kargil / Kashmir - Answer is Mujahideen, there is no state involvement
Terrorist camps in POK / NWFP - Answer is there are no terrorist camps in pakistan. The terrorists camps are in afghanistan.
Question about drones - answer is they are coming from afghanistan, even though they know it is from their own air fields.
Flooding - India is letting water to destroy Pakistan
Bomb Blasts - CIA/RAW/MOSSAD


I mean when you have a state that has been continously lying about everything , every day, why would you want to respect their soverginity. Yes I would and the world should respect a helpless nation, but not one that gets billions of dollars of aid a year / and is involved in killing thousands of american Kids / Afghan Men women and children.

I remmeber many Indians told right on this board that OBL will be found in Pakistan. Many of us were laughed away or even worse asked to prove that that was the case, and for some of them given a vacation for trolling. What is even more galling to India and Indians is "why the hell are the americans so blind. Can they not see the Pakistanis are robbing them blind and even worse killing the most patriotic of her sons and daughters. "

I mean I have asked this questions so many times, and many of my american friends just tell me that I am talking stuff because I have blinders on and it is because of my hatred for the Pakistani establishment. I hope the US now realizes that the blinders are covering their own eyes.

Kansas Bear
30 Jun 11,, 03:22
"You appear to argue that if a soverign Government decides to act or not act according to your wishes then 'sovereign authority and rights therein have been aborgated.'"

Wrong. I argue that when a state, by virtue of a conscious policy decision or inability to maintain control of lands ostensibly their's, becomes the source of attacks which threaten our forces, allies and host nation civilians while preventing the execution of the mandate under which we operate then those forces upon their land executing such attacks become subject to retaliation as a matter of self-defense.

There's nearly ten years of evidence supporting my position. This is not some hastily-reached conclusion.


Forgive me if I missed this, but are you saying that OBL expected not to be discovered/attacked due to our agreement with Pakistan, ie. meaning OBL was aware of this "lapse"?

S2
30 Jun 11,, 03:56
Forgive me but I don't understand your question. Please amplify.

Kansas Bear
30 Jun 11,, 05:34
Forgive me but I don't understand your question. Please amplify.

Aren't you saying that Pakistan was allowing OBL "safe haven", per this, "virtue of a conscious policy decision or inability to maintain control of lands ostensibly their's"

Are you saying in a round about way that OBL knew/thought he would not be found in Pakistan, due in part because of their inability to control their lands?

Or did I read your statement wrong? :confused:

Tronic
30 Jun 11,, 07:11
Aren't you saying that Pakistan was allowing OBL "safe haven", per this, "virtue of a conscious policy decision or inability to maintain control of lands ostensibly their's"

Are you saying in a round about way that OBL knew/thought he would not be found in Pakistan, due in part because of their inability to control their lands?

Or did I read your statement wrong? :confused:

Kansas, I believe S2 is referring to Afghan Taliban and their associate's safe havens in Pakistan, not OBL's. Afghan Taliban, Haqqani and other anti-Afghan insurgents have enjoyed Pakistani hospitality since 2001. OBL is very recent news; though what you say can be extended onto OBL aswell; from all the evidence, it seems he felt pretty safe living where he was.

S2
30 Jun 11,, 09:16
"Aren't you saying that Pakistan was allowing OBL "safe haven", per this, "virtue of a conscious policy decision or inability to maintain control of lands ostensibly their's"

Are you saying in a round about way that OBL knew/thought he would not be found in Pakistan, due in part because of their inability to control their lands?"

The long answer is that "...inability to maintain control of lands ostensibly their's..." is a charitable figleaf on my part WRT the afghan taliban. I don't deny the difficulty presented by the tribal terrain coupled with local pashtun warlords sympathetic to the afghan taliban. That's a difficult reality somewhat shared with the Afghan government along the border reaches.

OTOH, it is exacerbated by what appears to be a firm state policy by Pakistan to retain the afghan taliban and Haqqani network as a proxy force-in-being threatening the current Afghan government now and upon our departure.

It's my belief that no such policy decision exists WRT Al Qaeda. I believe the Pakistani government recognizes Al Qaeda as an existential threat to their existance. Nonetheless, I also entertain the liklihood that there are legitimate rogue elements within their governmental and military administrations whom sympathize with Al Qaeda and Terek-i-Taliban's objectives inside Pakistan.

I believe the Pakistani military leadership was legitimately embarassed by the presence of OBL so close to their military academy. However forthrightly they may have argued, though, that OBL's threat to their state is sufficiently real I could not be assured that intelligence sharing with them would not have led to our assassination effort going awry. Just recently a Pakistani brigadier was arrested for espionage activities while on assignment somewhere within GHQ, Rawalpindi.

He may not be the only one. Typically men of that rank entail responsibilities to execute the policies of their leaders. They also carry detailed knowledge regarding the security procedures and plans of the state. If some have serious islamist inclinations then it's indicative of how the state's dabbling with radical islamism has actually morphed into an infection among some (how many?) within their own ranks.

Hope that helps clarify my views.

snapper
30 Jun 11,, 15:49
"You appear to argue that if a soverign Government decides to act or not act according to your wishes then 'sovereign authority and rights therein have been aborgated.'"

Wrong. I argue that when a state, by virtue of a conscious policy decision or inability to maintain control of lands ostensibly their's, becomes the source of attacks which threaten our forces, allies and host nation civilians while preventing the execution of the mandate under which we operate then those forces upon their land executing such attacks become subject to retaliation as a matter of self-defense.

There's nearly ten years of evidence supporting my position. This is not some hastily-reached conclusion.

"...Umm proof of "demonstrable compliance" in the terms I quoted mean the soveriegn nations agreement to breaking its territorial boundaries, not compliance with the enemy."

Nonsense. America doesn't need Pakistan's permission to defend itself. In the utter absence of Pakistan's military to take responsibility for the actions of the afghan taliban upon their land, they've aborgated any right to demand we desist from defending ourselves.

Pakistan is welcome to attempt preventing us from such, of course. Doing so, however, would make crystalline their overarching objective to retain the afghan taliban as a proxy force-in-being aimed at the nascent state of Afghanistan.

Aah you are changing the earlier definition! First you said "I'd argue that a government has sovereign obligations incurred with rights. When those obligations aren't met either as a function of inability or by policy choice then sovereign authority and rights therein have been aborgated." Now their obligations are concerned with their land: "by virtue of a conscious policy decision or inability to maintain control of lands ostensibly their's".

The first definition was a 'carte blanche' for lunacy because it did not ANY qualifications. Yet even in this redefined theory by mentioning "lands ostensibly their's", which I would argue translates as "lands legaly theirs" you admit that these lands are theirs so again legaly speaking you are in breach... Let me suggest a wording of "allied territory occupied by enemy forces" and you are free to bomb away. Forgive me sqaubbling over wording, sorry.

I do naturaly agree that the drone strikes in the wild areas of Pakistan are justified and I certainly would not have trusted the Pakistanis with an OBL operation. I understand that the Pakistani has to publicly moan about such things as it cannot be seen to clearly admit that can't control it's own territory. The simple fact is that the writ of the Pakistani Government has never reached the frontier areas, nor did that of the British Raj for that matter. I seem to remember Kims old Holy Man died there in Kipling book. It has always been a no mans land.

The problem though is that Afghanistan is essentialy unwinnable without a. making a deal with with the frontier tribes or b. going in there and staying. The second being unrealistic politicaly, the first, and oldest, policy would seem the only way out.

You talk alot about Pakistan wanting to have it's cake and eat it so to speak - to keep both the West and Taliban on side with a view to the future of Afghanistan. Firstly it is well known that Pakistan sponsored the origional Taliban but there again the US sponsored the Mujahedin via Pakistan during the Soviet intervention. The difference between a Mujahedin and a Taliban is miminal - they both fight for religious reasons and todays Tim Talibani is yesterdays Max Mujahedin.

Secondly, I have never been to Afganistan personaly but have met alot of bedouins in Sinai and elsewhere. Native people such as bedouins and I suspect Pashtuns etc do not give a hoot about borders. They look at us fighting and laugh knowing all too well that we will be gone soon and there lives will continue much the same as they always have for generations. A border is an anethema to a tribe. I remember a Sinai bedouin telling me once he was off to visit his Uncle in the Negev (Isreal) the next day. "But aren't you Egyptian?" asked I,
"I am Bedu"
"How will get across the border?"
"on my fathers camel"
Well the logic is flawless but my point is that to natives borders and visitors and fighting and principles and world trade centres, even Governments in their own supposed 'country' are all essentialy fleeting and not their business, they just carry on the way they always have. They know almost geneticly the fate of Ozymandias.

Doktor
30 Jun 11,, 15:59
Take two countries, Denmark & Sweden.

Danes charge more for alcohol than the Swedes.

Some independently minded Danes decide this is not on and so hop on the ferry to Sweden Friday night to get smashed for less and come back on Sunday. This goes on for some time where some equally independently minded swedes decide to sort the problem out. They increase the cost of alcohol over that of Denmark.

Now its the Swedes that go off to Denmark for laughs on the weekend :biggrin:

Am not sure how the story ends but its sorta balanced out that way.

The story ends with Danes and Swedes going to Finland to catch a farry to St. Petersburg.

S2
01 Jul 11,, 03:11
"...Yet even in this redefined theory by mentioning "lands ostensibly their's", which I would argue translates as "lands legaly theirs" you admit that these lands are theirs so again legaly speaking you are in breach..."

Argue away but here are a couple of definitions and neither remotely suggest LEGAL.

os·ten·si·ble
   [o-sten-suh-buhl] Show IPA

–adjective
1.
outwardly appearing as such; professed; pretended: an ostensible cheerfulness concealing sadness.

2.
apparent, evident, or conspicuous: the ostensible truth of their theories.

os·ten·si·ble (-stns-bl)
adj.
Represented or appearing as such; ostensive: His ostensible purpose was charity, but his real goal was popularity.

You seem to have some hard-on for my contention that Pakistan holds no sovereign authority where failing to meet their sovereign obligations.

"...there again the US sponsored the Mujahedin via Pakistan during the Soviet intervention..."

Your memory is as selective as the Pakistani application of sovereign obligation. You seem to forget the coalition of willing whom actually sponsored the mujahideen-KSA, PRC, Great Britain, Pakistan, W. Germany, France and more. A rather extensive list of nations besides America profited by support for the afghan mujahideen against the Soviet Union.

"...The difference between a Mujahedin and a Taliban is miminal - they both fight for religious reasons and todays Tim Talibani is yesterdays Max Mujahedin..."

Child-like analogy. Tell that to the associates of Ahmad Shah Masoud. They fought the Soviets as mujahideen also and would deeply resent being characterized as taliban. The taliban, unlike the afghan mujahideen hold no broad-base ethnic support within Afghanistan. They are almost exclusively a pashtun-based movement.

You've proven out of your depth already. More reading and less writing would better serve you. You seem to have much to learn.

Kansas Bear
01 Jul 11,, 05:37
From your statement, "...recently a Pakistani brigadier was arrested for espionage activities.."

S2, not to be a conspiracy nut(or off topic), but are there any known ties between the FSB and Pakistani military?

Also, given that OBL was found in Pakistan, what are the latest "educated guesses" as to where his #2, al-Zawahiri is located?

S2
01 Jul 11,, 10:32
"...are there any known ties between the FSB and Pakistani military?..."

I'm unaware of any. Needless to say, that wouldn't mean they don't exist. OTOH, considering the closeness of the former Soviet Union with India it's unlikely that such ties would be very close or formalized.

"...Also, given that OBL was found in Pakistan, what are the latest "educated guesses" as to where his #2, al-Zawahiri is located?"

You seem educated. What's your guess? Not to toss this back in your lap but I obtain my information from open sources. Speculation, I believe, remains centered on Damadola in the Bajaur area.

snapper
01 Jul 11,, 19:10
S2 Sir, The basis of your definition of Pakistani sovereignty upon which you base your justification for breaches of that sovereignty is legaly wrong and logicaly flawed.

A. Legaly: Where in international law does it proclaim your inferred 'obligations'? There is no such thing legaly speaking. Does the Somali Government have the same obligations? These would be 'legal obligations' n'existe pas but are a military inferrence at best. Legaly speaking Pakistan is an ally of NATOs in fulfilling our Afghan mandate. I too doubt if Pakistan is a fully cooperative partner but that has NOTHING to do with the legality of the case and your inferred 'obligations' have no legal basis. Please excuse me being pedantic but this the legal reality. You admit that inferrence is your own in first definition "I'd argue that..."

B. Logicaly: Your first definition "I'd argue that a government has sovereign obligations incurred with rights. When those obligations aren't met either as a function of inability or by policy choice then sovereign authority and rights therein have been aborgated." is a carte blanche for intervention wherever one might disagree with another Governments policy. The addition of the territorial qualification "lands ostensibly their's" refines this a little but not alot unless you define what makes a piece of territory 'ostensibly theirs'. Legaly the borders of Pakistan are clearly defined but I presumed their ability to control their territory was intended. By that definition I have already agree that Northern regions are not under the control of the Pakistani Government but are "allied territory occupied by enemy forces". The only thing that makes the region 'ostensibly theirs' therefore is the legaly defined borders, otherwise it wouldn't 'ostensibly' be anyones.

"Your memory is as selective as the Pakistani application of sovereign obligation. You seem to forget the coalition of willing whom actually sponsored the mujahideen-KSA, PRC, Great Britain, Pakistan, W. Germany, France and more. A rather extensive list of nations besides America profited by support for the afghan mujahideen against the Soviet Union.". I will accept that point.

"Child-like analogy. Tell that to the associates of Ahmad Shah Masoud. They fought the Soviets as mujahideen also and would deeply resent being characterized as taliban. The taliban, unlike the afghan mujahideen hold no broad-base ethnic support within Afghanistan. They are almost exclusively a pashtun-based movement." Again agreed on the Pashtun majority of Taliban but this does not answer my point about tribes and borders.

S2 I am not trying to pick a fight with you. I agree we have justification for infringing Pakistani sovereignty and I believe the Pakistani Government tacitly endoreses drone strikes etc. However your self defined 'Sovereign obligations' remain yours and are not a legal justification. The very basis of your arguement is "I would argue that..." fine; but that does not make you legaly correct until your definition is international law.

S2
02 Jul 11,, 05:42
Read your comment carefully, please-

"...Yet even in this redefined theory by mentioning 'lands ostensibly their's', which I would argue translates as "lands legaly theirs" you admit that these lands are theirs so again legaly speaking you are in breach..."

1. I did not concur with your re-interpretation of my view. To that end, I've provided you with various definitions of "ostensibly" including pretend.

2. I don't argue the legal basis of sovereignty. Pakistan exists as an entity drawn on maps for all to see. Within its confines it is obligated by the conventions of state to exert authority over its domain and people therein.

3. Where it fails to exert authority over its land and people, either by commission (policy) or omission (weakness) such that a threat eminates upon other nat'l entities, self defense is entirely justified.

Snapper, I don't expect my government to go before the U.N. and ask that article 51 be invoked as justification for PREDATOR. Perhaps you might. I DO expect my government to take all reasonable measures to protect our forces and allies when engaged in either combat or peace-keeping operations.

In the case of Afghanistan, we are engaged in both-OEF as an exclusively American operation and ISAF as a component of U.N.A.M.A.'s mandate for stabilization. Both are threatened by the Afghan Taliban from sanctuary within Pakistan. That sanctuary has either been established from inherent weakness within the Pakistani government, thus an inability to eject the Afghan Taliban violators of its sovereignty, or as a matter of GoP policy decisions.

Whatever the basis, the existence of this sanctuary is unacceptable to our forces, allies, and the afghan citizenry whom we are committed to assist. However bad it is, left undisturbed, it could only be worse. The right of self-defense is an inherent concept and fundamental to the system of states.

Pakistan possesses the same rights of self-defense should they choose to exercise them. In their case they could either 1.) engage the foreign violators of their soil and people-the ousted Afghan Taliban government or, alternatively, 2.) engage American PREDATOR aircraft.

For the present, they choose neither.

This is a matter of practical concern for the Pakistani government. Attacking the Afghan taliban would likely widen the war within Pakistan while reducing or removing their proxy options inside Afghanistan at a later date. Attacking American PREDATOR UAVs would make clear their opposition to the U.N. stabilization effort, likely cause a cessation of U.S. and other nations' military/civil aid, and create an open breach with the rest of mankind.

"Your first definition 'I'd argue that a government has sovereign obligations incurred with rights. When those obligations aren't met either as a function of inability or by policy choice then sovereign authority and rights therein have been aborgated.' is a carte blanche for intervention wherever one might disagree with another Governments policy."

Hardly. It IS carte blanche for intervention of various means as determined necessary where the policies or inaction of another government endangers the lives of its neighbors. This is rather more specifically tied to those sovereign obligations of which I mention than you seem prepared to grasp.

"Where in international law does it proclaim your inferred 'obligations'?"

You are correct, so far as I know, that those obligations are "...inferred...". As such, they've no need for codification. A state exists, therefore it IS. It ceases to exist when it violates the contract between it and its citizens, it and its neighbors or both.

The citizenry and state mutually determine and agree to the contract between each other. A state and its neighbors more vaguely determine the boundaries of acceptable conduct defining their mutual co-existence. It is the law of the street in the former case and the law of the jungle in the latter where these notions can be found.

...or, at least, that's my view.

You may enjoy this short treatise by John Stuart Mill written in 1859- A Few Words On Non-Intervention

A Few Words On Non-Intervention-John Stuart Mills (http://international-political-theory.net/texts/Mill-Non-Intervention.pdf)

Kansas Bear
02 Jul 11,, 15:05
You seem educated. What's your guess? Not to toss this back in your lap but I obtain my information from open sources. Speculation, I believe, remains centered on Damadola in the Bajaur area.


Just wanting an opinion, since I believe Zawahiri would not stray too far from his FSB connections....

S2
02 Jul 11,, 20:09
"...I believe Zawahiri would not stray too far from his FSB connections.... "

I know little of this. Can you elaborate or provide a link?

Tronic
02 Jul 11,, 22:05
"...I believe Zawahiri would not stray too far from his FSB connections.... "

I know little of this. Can you elaborate or provide a link?

S2, There is no evidence as such. It was Litvinenko, the Russian spy who was poisoned in London, who had alleged that Zawahiri was trained by the Russians in Dagestan, and that his arrest and release by the Russians in '96 was a farce. But than he was also the one to allege that the Russian apartment bombings in '99 which killed almost 300 Russians were also a false flag operation carried out by the FSB. So too the 2002 Moscow Theatre Crisis which killed more than 150. I would take it with a pinch of salt since the man had an axe to grind.

Though, even if it were true, as there could be a possible convergence of interest against the than Egyptian regime, it is hard to imagine that the FSB would continue to foster links with a man whose primary goal is to revive a global Jihad, and one who has included Chechnya in his purview.

Double Edge
02 Jul 11,, 23:02
Not to mention Zawahiri would have been with the side actively fighting the Russians in the 80s.

Kansas Bear
03 Jul 11,, 02:37
"...I believe Zawahiri would not stray too far from his FSB connections.... "

I know little of this. Can you elaborate or provide a link?

Litvinenko, Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy and some other published sources that state Zawahiri was held for 6 months by the KGB and then let go....


Granted this sounds questionable, but I will say this; It will be quite interesting to see where Zawahiri is found.

Tronic
05 Jul 11,, 01:33
Granted this sounds questionable, but I will say this; It will be quite interesting to see where Zawahiri is found.

I think we all know where he will be found. Still don't see what that'll have to do with the FSB?

S2
05 Jul 11,, 04:40
"...I believe Zawahiri would not stray too far from his FSB connections.... "

Does this mean that you therefore believe he'd likely be found in Chechnya, one of the CAR states, Kazakhstan or Russia itself? Certainly you don't seem to be suggesting that he'll be found in Pakistan.

Kansas Bear
09 Jul 11,, 18:06
I know I am just an ignorant civilian and have no knowledge/concept of military or intelligence operations.


However, this is how I see it:
OBL was found within Pakistan's borders living "comfortably"/"safe" within shooting distance of their military academy.

Zawahiri was not found with OBL. Therefore, OBL should have had a way to contact Zawahiri(cell phone, sat phone, etc).

Given the speed in which OBL's death was reported, would this indicate that nothing else was found which would have led them to Zawahiri? Since once OBL's death became public, Zawahiri(assuming he had contact with OBL) would have moved from where he was previously hiding.



Now given where OBL was hiding. Using the same logic, Zawahiri should be hiding where he would feel "safe". Where that is, is anyone's guess. BUT, if Zawahiri did have ties to the FSB, where should/could he be hiding?


As for Chechnya, I am not sure how he would get there. :confused:

S2
09 Jul 11,, 18:30
"...Therefore, OBL should have had a way to contact Zawahiri(cell phone, sat phone, etc)...."

He might have. We've established that OBL rejected electronic comms as unsafe despite reliability, speed and convenience. He evidently used human couriers.

"...Given the speed in which OBL's death was reported, would this indicate that nothing else was found which would have led them to Zawahiri? Since once OBL's death became public, Zawahiri(assuming he had contact with OBL) would have moved from where he was previously hiding..."

Moved? Tactically? Operationally? Strategically? Ilyas Kashmiri was killed nearly four weeks after OBL. We don't know if this was based upon intel derived from OBL's safehouse or from other means.

Further, there's no certainty that Zawahiri feared communications with OBL as a means of revealing his locale. We don't actually even know how often they've been in communication nor necessarily the state of their organization and the respective roles now played nearly ten years removed from their days in Afghanistan together. Much has changed.

This is all very speculative.

"...Now given where OBL was hiding. Using the same logic, Zawahiri should be hiding where he would feel "safe". Where that is, is anyone's guess. BUT, if Zawahiri did have ties to the FSB, where should/could he be hiding..?"

You presume possible past ties. That's not assured. You presume that those past ties (if true) would automatically mean a continuing relationship and one where Zawahiri entrusted his safety today to the FSB.

I think you're out on a limb here.

"...As for Chechnya, I am not sure how he would get there..."

I offered, given your speculation, a variety of possible locations for Zawahiri. You chose none of them. Why?

Kansas Bear
09 Jul 11,, 21:57
You presume possible past ties. That's not assured. You presume that those past ties (if true) would automatically mean a continuing relationship and one where Zawahiri entrusted his safety today to the FSB.

I did say "IF". :biggrin:

"...BUT, if Zawahiri did have ties to the FSB, where should/could he be hiding..?"





[B]"...As for Chechnya, I am not sure how he would get there..."

I offered, given your speculation, a variety of possible locations for Zawahiri. You chose none of them. Why?


I did not know I was supposed to choose one of them. Chechnya is quite a distance to travel from Afghanistan, compared to some CAR state, which would require less effort(at least in my mind).


Seeing how OBL was NOT found in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan. Where should we expect to find Zawahiri? In Afghanistan? In Pakistan? Given that OBL felt the need to "hide" in Pakistan for reasons of "safety" and/or security, why wouldn't Zawahiri "hide" there as well? As you said OBL used human couriers, being in a country, supported by its rogue elements would have helped his communication, especially if Zawahiri was in Pakistan. Yes?