Proof..the truth starts to come about

**Blademaster** · 10 May 11,, 21:28

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

Cost and time....and how do you get the crude to the refineries.

Not to mention the northern neighbors have been cutting back on their support over the past few years.

The crude would come from Russia and come through the northern route.

Another question to ask... Would Russia and her neighbors step up to the plate and fill the void and kill the Taliban or just basically write Afghanistan off? Does Afghanistan offer anything in value?

How can we make sure that Afghanistan doesn't become the haven of terrorists and Al Queda again once USA leaves the region?

Is there anyway that America can establish a sphere of power and influence without requiring an huge armed force in the area?

**gunnut** · 10 May 11,, 21:47

Originally Posted by Cactus

The US has more options than you give it credit. The first and cleanest would be to refuse to play a crooked game: As S-2 and others (incl myself) have argued, the US can always walk away from the whole mess with one irrevokable public promise of unrestrained and indiscriminate retaliation if future events again pulled the US back into the area. Messier options involve radically changing the game's rules such that Pakistan is no longer "the only game in town": political geography is not immutable.

The first option is a PR nightmare. I have no problem with unrestrained and indiscriminate retaliation, but what about the weak and soft socialists of the west? They'll scream RACISM!!!

The 2nd option is even more of a nightmare, and doesn't help our guys in Afghanistan right now.

The most sensible option is keep paying Pakistan for the road, gradually draw down our operations in the area, and promise them harm if we see them get out of line.

Bush tried the 2nd option. That's why we are where we are right now.

**InExile** · 10 May 11,, 22:19

I think the Americans will end up doing what the Soviets did after they withdrew from Afghanistan before the Soviet Union collapsed. Mainly hold onto to the cities with Afghan troops and US air power; to prevent the Taliban from ever massing to overthrow the Kabul regime. An arrangement like that could last for years.

The pro Soviet Government outlasted the Soviet Union by several years.

**Blademaster** · 10 May 11,, 22:21

Originally Posted by gunnut

The first option is a PR nightmare. I have no problem with unrestrained and indiscriminate retaliation, but what about the weak and soft socialists of the west? They'll scream RACISM!!!

Fvck the socialists.

The 2nd option is even more of a nightmare, and doesn't help our guys in Afghanistan right now.

Sure it does. How do you think the British kept control of India with only less than 100,000 British soldiers? They played the locals off each other.

The most sensible option is keep paying Pakistan for the road, gradually draw down our operations in the area, and promise them harm if we see them get out of line.

Bush tried the 2nd option. That's why we are where we are right now.

No he didn't. He just left Afghanistan to its own devices when he went into Iraq.

**calass** · 10 May 11,, 23:52

Originally Posted by Kasrkin

Thats an interesting take. But much the same can be said about India, China can fear it working in concert with Russia or the US. India's smaller neighbors are wary of Indian belligerence driven by an ideology based on ambitions for superpower-hood, closely linked with Hindu nationalism. The point I made is that I've so far come across this view only in an Indian perspective, colored as it is by more than half a century of bitter rivalry and contempt. I won't take the quote about Pakistan wanting to 'rule' India seriously, or about Pakistan being solely a military endeavor, simply because it is baseless and it is not up to me to prove a negative. If it is not forwarded by an Indian, it is definitely inspired by Indian rhetoric.

Er..that would be true if an Indian army chief said something like what Gen Kayani said a week back that the "Pakistan army guards the ideological boundaries of Islam" or something like that.

Seriously,what is the deal with Pakistan and Islam..what makes it special among the 50 odd Islamic countries?..None of the major Islamic cities are located in Pakistan and none of the major schools of Islam have originated from Pakistan(ironically 2 of the major ones are from India).

**gunnut** · 10 May 11,, 23:56

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Fvck the socialists.

You're not thinking like a politician. The first priority of any politician is to stay in office. You want those socialist votes.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Sure it does. How do you think the British kept control of India with only less than 100,000 British soldiers? They played the locals off each other.

No he didn't. He just left Afghanistan to its own devices when he went into Iraq.

I see we have a miscommunication here. I thought by changing the game you meant re-arrange the geopolitical power and boundaries, like what Bush tried to do by spreading democracy to the Middle East. What you meant is to use money and influence to keep any one faction in Pakistan or Afghanistan to gain total control, or even majority control, within the border.

**Kasrkin** · 11 May 11,, 00:36

Er..that would be true if an Indian army chief said something like what Gen Kayani said a week back that the "Pakistan army guards the ideological boundaries of Islam" or something like that.

A link to that would be greatly appreciated, so we'll know if he did say that. And if so, in what context.

Seriously,what is the deal with Pakistan and Islam..what makes it special among the 50 odd Islamic countries?..None of the major Islamic cities are located in Pakistan and none of the major schools of Islam have originated from Pakistan(ironically 2 of the major ones are from India).

Well no Pakistanis I know of claim to be superior to any other Muslim countries based on religion. Your straw-man attack notwithstanding, the point I made holds. It is easy to derive a range of strategic/ideological narratives about any country based on biases and partial perceptions.

**Albany Rifles** · 11 May 11,, 00:56

Originally Posted by Blademaster

The crude would come from Russia and come through the northern route.

Another question to ask... Would Russia and her neighbors step up to the plate and fill the void and kill the Taliban or just basically write Afghanistan off? Does Afghanistan offer anything in value?

How can we make sure that Afghanistan doesn't become the haven of terrorists and Al Queda again once USA leaves the region?

Is there anyway that America can establish a sphere of power and influence without requiring an huge armed force in the area?

1. Russia has to agree to sell...and it is in their best interest to not do that and cause us problem.

2. They can kill the Taliban....but they have their own problems to deal with with restive minorities. They can ill afford to try ANOTHER Afghan adventure....remember how the last one worked out! The Russian military is a long way from a level of professionalism in their conventional forces similar to Western militaries. Their SOF are very good but are probably busy dealign with their own internal issues.

3. US leaving the region? I won't say it won't happen but we have to stick around some way unlike in 1989-1992. But at the same time we have to have a reason. I don't know if India can have a role to play...at the same time we can not just discard Pakistan.

4. If I could answer #4 I would play the lottery!

**calass** · 11 May 11,, 03:55

Originally Posted by Kasrkin

A link to that would be greatly appreciated, so we'll know if he did say that. And if so, in what context.

Read about it in Ayaz Amir's column

Mother of all embarrassments

Barely 24 hours before the Osama assault General Kayani, at a ceremony in General Headquarters in remembrance of our soldiers killed in our Taliban wars, was describing the army as the defender of the country’s ideological and geographical frontiers. For the time being, I think, we should concentrate on ideology and leave geography well alone, the Abbottabad assault having made a mockery of our geographical frontiers.

Every other country in the world is happy if its armed forces can defend geography. We are the only country in the world which waxes lyrical about ideological frontiers. To us alone belongs the distinction of calling ourselves a fortress of Islam

Well no Pakistanis I know of claim to be superior to any other Muslim countries based on religion. Your straw-man attack notwithstanding, the point I made holds. It is easy to derive a range of strategic/ideological narratives about any country based on biases and partial perceptions.

Superior no..more bothered for some reason about reasons involving Islam..yes. Take any hot button Muslim issue today,the Facebook protests,the Mohammed cartoons etc etc. Guess which country has the most violent protests always...for some reason Pakistan!!

**~~vsdoc~~** · 11 May 11,, 05:49

Originally Posted by gunnut

Who's to the north of Afghanistan? They are all under Russian's sphere of influence. The closest seaport going north is in the Black Sea, owned by the Russians, and is much farther away than Karachi.

Like it or not, Pakistan is the only game in town. A few billion dollars a year is cheap for renting the land route. Plus we can bully the Pakistanis. Try bullying the Russians.

Sir, the US will realise over time, if it has not done so yet, that were you in need of a muslim ally, with geographical/logistical payoffs, you would have done way better in holding on to and nurturing your hold over Iran than bet on Pakistan. In the days to come, you will realise than alienating Iran was and will continue to be a major error in judgment of your think tank. But then, I do realise that there were other interests at work in that decision, that were not wholly American.

**Julie** · 11 May 11,, 05:57

I don't see us holding on to and nurturing Iran....not in my lifetime anyway. We hold our nose and cross our fingers with Pakistan.

**~~vsdoc~~** · 11 May 11,, 06:33

Originally Posted by Julie

I don't see us holding on to and nurturing Iran....not in my lifetime anyway. We hold our nose and cross our fingers with Pakistan.

Crossing your fingers is not going to help. Not when dealing with a people who are increasingly radicalizing against the cross. And who they see as leading the the crusade against their faith. A faith which they have (unilaterally) taken upon themselves to be the self-proclaimed protectors of, across the muslim world. The more you cross, the more you alienate them, and the deeper your country sinks into the mire. To you it is the war on terror. To them it is the holy war. Its a classic failed marriage, as both parties refuse to let go, locked in the destructive grip of this vicious cycle.

They take your dollar, your alms and arms, yet they strike against you, as their own particular hue of perception management amongst the fundamentals of their world to somehow rationalize away and/or assuage the feeling of impotence and shame that comes from living off this ghairat from the kafir shaitan. You may think this mindset is that of only the radical loonies. But that neat "western" segregation has no meaning on the ground in Pakistan. You would be surprised at how all-pervasive this mindset is in the general populance of your so-called ally. And it is growing by the day. And your dollar only fuels it.

**~~vsdoc~~** · 11 May 11,, 10:46

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Whether we like it or not, Pakistan does offer something in value, at least in the short term, as long as the Americans stay in Afghanistan, Americans need a reliable land route to Afghanistan. I do not understand. To avoid the nightmare of logistics, why can't US set up shop in the neighboring countries bordering on the north, i.e., set up refineries, munition factories, supplies factories tailored to NATO needs. The cost of setting up those factories and training local people to be reliable trustworthy workers would be far outweighed by the cost of bringing supplies through the land route offered by Pakistan.

Like it or not, America in the days to come will need a strong Shia partner in the muslim world to offset their strong Sunni lean. They already have the Arabs in their pocket. They did not need Pakistan. Pakistan convinced them to believe that they needed them. For decades now. Iran would have always been a much stronger and more stable bet. But the Israeli lobby would foam at the mouth at the very thought. As would the Arab protectorates. So America chose what they thought was the path of least resistance. For what they thought, as you correctly put it, the short term. The part that escapes no one though, least of all the American public today, is that this "short term" has spanned more than a generation now.

S2 · 11 May 11,, 12:53

Some interesting but false assumptions offered by you underpinning your thesis. I'll try to find time later this evening to address some of them. Of course, you bring your own bias to the offered perspective.

**~~vsdoc~~** · 11 May 11,, 12:59

Originally Posted by S2

Some interesting but false assumptions offered by you underpinning your thesis. I'll try to find time later this evening to address some of them. Of course, you bring your own bias to the offered perspective.

Of course I do. As does everyone. There are no Mother Teresas here S2. But you will no doubt concede that we know the Pakistanis better than you ever could. We share blood - both in our veins, and that spilt down the decades. I will look forward to hearing your side based on your assumptions and theories.