Thread: Welcome To Pakistan

Originally Posted by S-2

I think that macherjhol is suggesting what I'm also suggesting- shift the target and fight the war as we best know how.

What we can afford to do is admit abject failure, withdraw from the "graveyard of empires", allow our enemies momentary ascendancy, and- when arrogantly visible, smack the ever-living sh!t out of them in a meaningful manner that will retain an indelible and near-permanent impression where it matters most- in the hearths and homes of our enemies.

Long, then, may we finally revel in facing our enemies in manly combat and reliving these tales of final victory in the campfires of our people. Long, then, may they tell the tales of much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the tribal campfires of their people.

I'm tired of a kinder, gentler war and wish to make the experience so unbearable to my enemies that they never again have the means nor inclination to wage cowardly proxy wars on us from behind the skirts of their women and children.

Fcuk 'em.

Those words above by that Pakistani are as starkly clear as I need.

"Aid?

Try BOMBS."

S-2, above are the two quotes that first struck my interest about this post. If I can sum up your position in these two posts, you say to "shift the target" [to Pakistan]. Once we have shifted we should not use "aid" but "bombs." Specifically, you said you "wish to make the experience so unbearable" that your enemies will not want to wage war again.

I have say your response to my response is extremely reasonable and doesn't have the fire or bombast, in my opinion, of those earlier posts on this thread. So my main question is, where is the disconnect?

As to your reply to my reply, I have some thoughts.

First, I refuse to believe a population in its entirety hates our nation. That said, even if an entire population hates us, that can change with positive action on our behalf. My example is Japan and Germany. Following WWII who could dispute our countries despised each other? But, within a few years we were staunch allies. Opinions can change, I refuse to hate another nation.

Second, I dispute the sanctuary in Pakistan is the largest obstacle to peace. I don't deny it is one of the most important factors in successful insurgency, but it too can be overcome. Unfortunately, the solution is more soldiers (CF and Afghan) on the ground, but it can be overcome, I have been there. I argued this on another thread either here or on the SWJ.

As to your specific recommendations, I have to say I appreciate another thinker who actually puts what they are arguing for out there. Too many people argue against current policy, but don't provide the alternative.

But, "embargo all trade with Pakistan's #1 global trading partner" by whom you mean China? That will never happen. It is impossible and a horrible idea. It would turn a recession into one of the greatest depressions of all time and diplomatically it could never happen. I support free trade too much to let one diplomatic issue ruin all trade.

Finally, and I could say much more but don't want to go too long, I really avoid making predictions, and am very skeptical of making them or agreeing with them. You say the Taliban will take over in Afghanistan. I have heard this in the news media constantly as well, but I am skeptical. The Taliban could certainly take over, I don't dispute that, but is it 100% certainty? No way. GIRoA has been stockpiling weapons since we arrived. If we do a precipitous withdrawal, we take our ROE with us. Then essentially GIRoA or Northern Alliance death squads will roam the countryside looking for Taliban. Remember, Uzbeks, Tajiks and Hezaras all hate the Taliban and the Pashtuns. You have interesting predictions, but they are far from certain.

I enjoyed reading your proposal, even though I doubt it will succeed.

"I appreciate another thinker who actually puts what they are arguing for out there. Too many people argue against current policy, but don't provide the alternative."

Putting my thoughts out there is easy. They come quick and cheap so those that don't stick can be discarded. I'm not writing position papers nor casting votes.

"where is the disconnect?"

Don't know that there is one. You addressed my more reasonable posts. I'm certain that those reasonable thoughts sit on the far end of an escalation continuum. That said, bombing sits on the other end.

THAT SAID, my continuum is a non-factor in our current pathway so I'm obviously an outlier in every respect as we currently reward bad behavior-not penalize nor punish it. Altogether different approach which neuters all my proposals.

"But, 'embargo all trade with Pakistan's #1 global trading partner' by whom you mean China?"

Last I checked that's America purchasing Pakistani commercial goods and services by a serious margin over the next nearest purchaser of such. From Pakistan's Federal Bureau of Statistics-

Cumulative Exports By Country-Pakistan Federal Bureau of Statistics 2009

"The Taliban could certainly take over, I don't dispute that, but is it 100% certainty? No way."

One never says never. Still, you're in the decided minority if you don't believe our withdrawal will collapse the GoA but then...

"I have been there..."

I haven't but don't believe that you gained special insight from a platoon COP or company/battalion FOB on this sort of macro issue. Not a slam but I don't believe it lends any strategic insight that defeats my premise. I personally think that the Soviets left a more stable and prepared government than we currently deal with. If so, I've every reason to think that the Karzai regime would fold like a house of cards in our absence.

"Then essentially GIRoA or Northern Alliance death squads will roam the countryside looking for Taliban."

Michael, the taliban won't be terribly hard to find and, based upon what I've viewed of the GoA, I like the taliban's odds better.

"Remember, Uzbeks, Tajiks and Hezaras all hate the Taliban and the Pashtuns."

And their love for one another among your aforementioned? Guarantee the pashtu possess some identifying elements that offset a slight gross majority among the others. Think of it as interior lines of a unified defense. They are a solid entity mobilized around pashtunwali. I'm not certain of the others.

"I enjoyed reading your proposal, even though I doubt it will succeed."

Call me when something else there does. You know what Churchill said, right?

"Americans will always do the right thing...after all else fails."

Might be that I'm more precient than most.)

"First, I refuse to believe a population in its entirety hates our nation. That said, even if an entire population hates us, that can change with positive action on our behalf. My example is Japan and Germany. Following WWII who could dispute our countries despised each other? But, within a few years we were staunch allies. Opinions can change, I refuse to hate another nation."

I don't know what Japanese and Germans thought of us following W.W.II. I DO know that both were utterly beaten, submissive, and scared sh!tless of a complete Soviet takeover. Both.

That may have helped to clarify their thinking while accelerating the pathway towards "staunch allies" In fact, I'm certain of such.

"Second, I dispute the sanctuary in Pakistan is the largest obstacle to peace. I don't deny it is one of the most important factors in successful insurgency, but it too can be overcome. Unfortunately, the solution is more soldiers (CF and Afghan) on the ground, but it can be overcome, I have been there. I argued this on another thread either here or on the SWJ."

Well if sanctuary for an externally-directed afghan insurgency isn't, please advise me what is? I'll consider inherent afghan corruption, brigandry/thievery right in there but personally believe those elements differ little from most third-world countries. What separates this, though, are lands to which they can retire as necessary to avoid us while replenishing themselves both with moral, human and material resources.

Watch the litany of comments that finish up OBAMA'S WAR on FRONTLINE from about the 48:00 minute mark. Damning. We aid the allies of our enemies. Steve Coll's words not mine.

"I have to hold my nose when dealing with the Pakistanis"

Mr. "Learning To Eat Soup With A Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons From Malaya to Vietnam COIN EXPERT" John Nagl. What's soured his kinder, gentler perspectives, if I may ask?

You can McChrystal this war with troops all day long but sanctuary allows the same for them. That border will never be closed and there are a good couple of million afghan refugees still living around Quetta from which to draw upon. Moreover, McChrystal has no intention of sealing that border in any case.

Sorry but I forgot to address these issues and would feel remiss had I not done so.

Originally Posted by S-2

"I have been there..."

I haven't but don't believe that you gained special insight from a platoon COP or company/battalion FOB on this sort of macro issue. Not a slam but I don't believe it lends any strategic insight that defeats my premise. I personally think that the Soviets left a more stable and prepared government than we currently deal with. If so, I've every reason to think that the Karzai regime would fold like a house of cards in our absence.

To be clear, the comment, "I have been there..." referred to the situation with the sanctuary and the border. It is a mistaken belief that to be successful we have to block 100% of the goods passing through from Pakistan to Afghanistan. In this situation, I do have some experience because my mission in Afghanistan to was to roughly patrol this border.

There was no way I could stop everything, in fact there was no way I could stop most things. But, we could make life just a few iotas harder for the people smuggling men, weapons and equipment, and we smuggling lumber (this was the eastern part). I did the job that an entire company plus now does. We didn't win the war by any means, but through our battalions efforts the price of bullets and AKs rose significantly.

My argument on this issue, and I posted it somewhere else but can't find the thread, is essentially that the border offers the perfect example to wage war on our terms. We could regain the initiative if we choose to start heavily blocking the border. Even if we can't stop everything, but only a lot, then we will force insurgents and Taliban forces to move operations from rural areas in the heart of the country back to the border.

Now, it would be great if Pakistan could take charge and run effective COIN in their own backyard, but as you said, that's not going to happen. However, we don't have to invade Pakistan or pull out of Afghanistan because they have sanctuary. It is one of the biggest issues to success in that area, but it is not a deal breaker.

As to GIRoA's chances if we pull out of their country? Obviously not great, especially as a democracy. But a Taliban victory is in no way ensured. And I know I am in a minority when I say this.

Also, if we did pull out of Afghanistan, I believe Al Qaeda would move right back in the way they were before. They would also expand operations throughout other failed states in the Islamic world.

Final question: When would the bombing of civilian targets in Pakistan be warranted by the US under your escalation continuum? My main question is, what would cause you decide that America should make war unbearable on Pakistan?

Yes I recall your argument to attrite 10% versus 1%. Unfortunately, McChrystal has no such plans and intends to allocate those troops AWAY from the border reaches to "population protection".

My question for you- will we have the troops to protect anything BELOW 20,000 people in an afghan city? You DO realize how many small villages of 1,000 or less there are, don't you?

Do you acknowledge the distances commonly found between them? If so, how will you assure me that those G.I/Marines out there with their afghan "partners" won't be vulnerable to defeat in detail, one lonely lil' platoon COP at a time?

Why do you trust the ANA? WHEN will they be fully trustworthy to share such responsibility, much less take it on altogether by themselves?

Thanks.

"Also, if we did pull out of Afghanistan, I believe Al Qaeda would move right back in the way they were before."

Absolutely. I failed to mention it only because it is patently obvious. We will ABSOLUTELY be attacked again, if so.

"They would also expand operations throughout other failed states in the Islamic world..."

I don't know. Maybe. I've read of Yemen/Somalia options there but they seem to have a sentimental predilection to the border reaches and have symbolically planted their stakes inside the accomodation offered by paktunwali.

Their new homes, wives, kiddies. It's all there. Attack the west? Yes. CONQUER PAKISTAN though will be their near objective.

"Final question: When would the bombing of civilian targets in Pakistan be warranted by the US under your escalation continuum? My main question is, what would cause you decide that America should make war unbearable on Pakistan?"

This question of yours makes me angry and here's why- I wonder,

Did it come from your pacifist brother or yourself.

I ask this because, first, you disappoint me that I had to alert you to the fact that AMERICA is the primary recipient of Pakistani commercial goods and services by over 100% from their next nearest purchaser. No impact whatsoever upon you at THAT end of my continuum. Instead, you rhetorically wish to paint me into the box of "blood-thirsty, fang-drippin', drooling neanderthal".

NOW, to answer your question I can easily see the need to drop a 50kt nuke right on the top of a Pakistani hospital the day I believe that their gov't has A.) collapsed altogether to a taliban/A.Q. takeover or, B.) chosen as an alternative to co-opt such by tossing the towel in with the taliban/A.Q. AND decided to disperse their nuclear arsenal in those areas that would make the likes of you squemish-like the basement of a hospital.

If it comes to that (far end of the escalation continuum, remember), I'll endorse the open blood-letting of their entire society to save India's, Russia's, and (most of all) OUR society.

Fair enough? Until then, I can easily imagine that there would be all the MILITARY targets I crave to satiate my love of death, destruction, and really big boom-booms.

Thanks.

No I asked the question. My brother doesn't post regularly on the WAB. I really did not mean offense. You put very early on this thread the idea of insteading of giving aid to the Pakistanis, which we do now, to try bombs. Those are your words. Your earlier threads did not say, "if their gov't has A.) collapsed altogether to a taliban/A.Q. takeover" then we should end aid and use bombs. You said we should try bombs. Your language was aggressive and I wanted to know what terms to use it for.

First, as to an American embargo of Pakistani goods. It won't happen and it would be economic suicide if we attempted it. It would further exacerbate the global economic crisis. Other countries would readily fill the void and unlike a small economy like Cuba this would be a bad precedent. It would weaken us in the long term. Not to mention, this is very unlikely to ever pass in congress. I have never claimed to be a Pakistan expert. I am not even an Afghan expert, just a guy who has been there.

Second, these are your criteria for using the far end of the spectrum: their gov't has A.) collapsed altogether to a taliban/A.Q. takeover or, B.) chosen as an alternative to co-opt such by tossing the towel in with the taliban/A.Q. AND decided to disperse their nuclear arsenal Unless people from Pakistan have used a nuclear weapon on American soil, I don't see us conducting nuclear strikes. But I wouldn't disagree, if AQ and TB have gained the use of nuclear weapons.

You put this scenario in your answer to my question:

Other variants? Our withdrawal leads to the destruction of the N.A. elements in Afghanistan and the complete capture of such by the taliban/A.Q. They will (again), as sure as the sun rises in the east, ATTACK Pakistan, lending their considerable heretofore unfelt weight to the TTP (bad taliban). This, by itself, will quite likely lead to either GoP/P.A. accomodation with the irhabists or the outright destruction of the present Pakistani state as we know it. Either requires the immediate destruction of Pakistani nuclear assets. We can be assured that if we don't, the Indians and Israelis will.

It seems that if we pulled out of Afghanistan then we would further AQ getting their hands on nuclear weapons, if your analysis is correct. That would require our action in invading Pakistan at least to some degree. In that regard, isn't it better to spend the money now making a healthy Afghanistan then waiting for Pakistan to crumble?

"You put very early on this thread the idea of insteading of giving aid to the Pakistanis, which we do now, to try bombs."

Yeah. So? My continuum starts by stopping our commercial exchanges, IIRC, then denying aid (please note difference between purchases of goods and services and freely-offered aid) and goes from there.

"It won't happen and it would be economic suicide if we attempted it. It would further exacerbate the global economic crisis. Other countries would readily fill the void"

Excuse me but did you understand that data? We purchase their goods at better than two to one the next highest nation. What country will step up to replace that.

If demand for their goods and services was so high why hasn't that driven greater growth in their economy? Are you suggesting that demand exceeds capacity and supply and that we've cornered the market on their primary exports-bluejeans?

Economic suicide? WHOSE economic suicide? Ours?...

or theirs?)

If their's, isn't that the idea behind an embargo of their goods and services? They are welcome, if so, to reconsider their perspectives.

"It would weaken us in the long term."

It would barely register on our economic radar.

"Not to mention, this is very unlikely to ever pass in congress."

You didn't ask what I thought my chances were but I've made clear a couple of times that my views aren't ascendant. Doesn't mean I'm wrong.

"Unless people from Pakistan have used a nuclear weapon on American soil, I don't see us conducting nuclear strikes. But I wouldn't disagree, if AQ and TB have gained the use of nuclear weapons."

No. Actually, IIRC, you asked what would justify attacking CIVILIAN targets. I gave the most extremely perverse example I could imagine-nukes in the basement of a hospital.

I'm justified in my view IAW the conditions I established that precede such.

"It seems that if we pulled out of Afghanistan then we would further AQ getting their hands on nuclear weapons, if your analysis is correct."

I think that our withdrawal would accelerate the process towards that. The S-2 plan entails the timely pre-emption of such. They get close to the cookie jar, expose themselves openly in so doing, and get squashed for the k0ckroaches they are.

End of two, maybe three problems if the P.A. chooses to abet this advance instead of resisting it.

Withdrawal doesn't mean WITHDRAWAL. It means bide our time, allow our enemies the sense/perception of ascendancy, permit and encourage arrogance and hubris to set in among them, remove the veils behind which they hide, expose them for their evil/duplicitous selves, and hit them...

...but certainly hit their nukes.

Hope that helps.

You need to address why McChrystal's population plan will work with an additional 40,000 yanks, bearing in mind the corrosive effects of the current GoA, the trickling home of most of our allies and the aforementioned onerous demographics.

Hope you're not counting on the long-term stay of the Italians, Germans, Canadians, Dutch, Spanish, etc.

Looks like the Brits are in. N.Z. and Australia, yup-though, what, two companies apiece. Their SAS are very, very good though. That helps. Beyond that, five years from now it'll be our show.

Finally, unity of command...

...the hard way. So much for coalition warfare.

.

Originally Posted by S-2

[B]"

Hope you're not counting on the long-term stay of the Italians, Germans, Canadians, Dutch, Spanish, etc.
.

I count on our politicians that we will be there enough for me lead a platoon in Zabul).Unless you guys drop the towel in the next 3 years.

Sirs,putting myself in AQ chief of operations shoes,I won't touch the West with a flower after the supposed retreat of NATO from A-stan.I'll build the Caliphate instead.Pakistan would be only one stage.
I disagree with S-2 when he proposes a tactical retreat.Once US goes it goes for good.It will be a second Vietnam,from many pov's.I'm not particularly worried about Pak nukes.They can be dealt with either by the West or the Chinese.I'm worried about Islamic revolutions in every ME country.

Mihais,

Call me when you become the Romanian Army Chief of Staff about the moral arouser job. Sounds cool if I've a large enough audience to hold my attention and keep me busy.

"I'm worried about Islamic revolutions in every ME country."

Yes. That's a possibility, I suppose.

Then again, the test case outcome may have a decisive influence elsewhere and I disagree with you-once the threat clarifies, we'll be back.

We'll see...

Yes Sir,I will.

What I liked about Pres. Bush(I'm of course among the 1-2 dozens in 20 millions that thinks like that) is that the man wanted a comprehensive approach for the ME.As much as we may hate it,the West is disliked at best (you are of course the Great Satan)from Atlantic to Chinese and Indian borders.
Fact is that no major power retreated(and was perceived as defeated) from a long guerilla war in the 20th century,only to return a couple of years later.NATO going back in A-stan,Pak area would be a new thing.Unless we start the whole Crusade thing(which I think can happen but at a later stage)
Fact 2:you have a bigger fish to fry in the coming decades-the Pacific area.How much time can you waste in the wilderness?