Thread: $10 Billion and Getting Worse

Originally Posted by Cactus

One can be done quite easily, and will probably return good results; the other will require a lot of effort with unclear end results.

Which goes back to my last post of how easy you think its going to be. I don't think they'll accept too many visible strings. Nor can they be seen to.

It is a fluid environment. Do we need to go over all of last 8 years? Once upon a time President Putin was an ally and guest at Crawford, TX. Once upon a time the military plan called for a light logistical footprint necessary for bare CT objectives (probably achievable through air alone). Situations change. Approaches also must change.

Really? I was under the impression that troop levels in Afghanistan were never that light. Was stabilizing Afghanistan not part of the plan before?

I don't think Russia ever allowed you to ship arms through. They continue to allow other stuff as far as I know. So no real change there.

Originally Posted by S-2

Armitage has denied this comment was ever made.

So quote aside you think it was willing co-operation then? Not made under threat or coercion?

Here's some leverage to contemplate. Nat'l gas and oil pipes. If Afghanistani, I say CAR energy that needs piped access through my nation will be centrally routed and distributed from Afghanistan to three pipe systems accomodating crude and gas-Karachi, Gwadar, and Chabahar. Guess who's driving that bus?

CAR may not like that. Cool. They'll buy off on afghani routes while developing more that extend west through the Caspian, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, north to Russia and east to China. More leverage and an even better competitive distribution.

CAR doesn't hold ALL the cards, however. Piss-poor with the Russians and Chinese breathing down their necks, they'll work every edge possible to stay afloat. Further, if A-stan is land-locked, what are they? Thus goods travelling to them will use these routes as well-more or less.

How does all this translate to US leverage on Pakistan? Pakistan can get all its energy needs met with piped supplies from Iran or shipped through the Arabian Sea,

India isn't building roads in the west for kicks n' grins.

This is a good point. What did India build that road for? It would provide India and anyone else interested a way to bypass Pakistan on the way to Afghanistan.

Does it seem likely that the Iranians would allow shipments to NATO/US troops while at the same time being threatened about the Nuclear program? I don't see it happening. That said, President Obama seems to be making reconciliatory noises so who knows what's brewing. China and the US were strange bedfellows during the Cold War so I guess anything is possible.

Yeah, well you can say we had all the time in the world to plan Iraq but that really took some close calls to sharpen our focus and bring our assets to bear. Afghanistan was a necessary action that still reflects GLOBAL support. Nothing wrong with the mission. Everything wrong with not stomping the issue while well in hand.

Hubris AFTER-THE-FACT, not generally in the conduct of the initial mission nor it's objectives. Had those objectives been pursued ruthlessly by ourselves despite the P.A. NOT investing FATA in late 2001 and early 2002 when the taliban/A.Q. were vulnerable, this would still quite likely be a far more minor issue. 2002-2005. Four years inclusive that we DROPPED the ball.

By the spring of 2006-game on.

I'm not disputing anything you're saying. I was just wondering why the supply problem didn't seem to have been a big deal during the initial planning. To me it seems like Afghanistan is surrounded by states that aren't too friendly with the US or at the least that relations with states like Russia would inevitably be rough.

Of course this is all in hindsight.

EXCUSE ME? Let's start with your speculation postured as "fact". Thanks but no thanks, generally, as to objective "fact". Secondly, what "investment"?

They were your allies for a really long time. You worked very closely with them on Afghanistan and as those recently released state department archives(By the way, Thank you for the link) show atleast during the '71 time frame you used/thought of them as a hedge against the commies. Were members of CENTO and SEATO too. So they did have a part to play in your world view and to that end you supported them.

Oh, we're their largest trade partner, by far. All one-way. They buy Chinese. Go figure. Short of that, isn't Pakistan that sink-hole of American dollars when it isn't embargoed for some nefarious reason or another.

Well if you don't really need them or have a use for them then why pour all that money in? And if the money is poured for some use then you could call it an investment.

I've read or heard that's they've cost you about 30,000 KIA over the years anyway...or is it more?

Tell me when you last ran an air-strike on a camp in Pakistan?

Can't wait to see that air-battle.

True but if we did in the future then those f-16s certainly would make life harder. No, we're not the US. Our mainland is very much in sight and range of Pakistani nukes. Nor do we possess an overwhelming military superiority over them. Or perhaps we don't wish to set our economy back by a decade (conventional war) at least.

Still I fail to see how lack of our action justifies your arming a sponsor of terrorism(I assume someone is bound to question this. Even discarding the mound of evidence of state support for terrorists, allowing what is or should be sovereign territory to be used to plan attacks and train terrorists makes a state culpable IMO).

What do you care? Most Indians here can't stop gushing about those SU-30MKI's anyway.

Edit: I got a bit bent here when I first posted because I originally read it to mean that you were questioning why I cared about my compatriots dying to Pakistani spawned terrorists.

To reply to the original: Hey, we're supposed to be evaluating it(F-16) for the MMRCA. How bad can it be?

Originally Posted by chankya

Really? I was under the impression that troop levels in Afghanistan were never that light. Was stabilizing Afghanistan not part of the plan before?

Yes, really. And no.

Originally Posted by chankya

I don't think Russia ever allowed you to ship arms through. They continue to allow other stuff as far as I know. So no real change there.

Russia determined the environment in the CAR: Where do you think the Northern Alliance's push southwards was initially launched from? Even if only all the non-combatant logistics were routed from elsewhere, that would be a HUGE lightening of the load on Khyber. But as it stands Khyber is the cheapest and most straightforward route in, and geopolitical situation elsewhere has changed.

Originally Posted by chankya

So quote aside you think it was willing co-operation then? Not made under threat or coercion?

All situations present a stick-and-a-carrot: Is offering services under the fear that "if we don't do it, the Indians will" coerced, or is it voluntary? In the real world the stick is never far from the carrot.

Originally Posted by chankya

Still I fail to see how lack of our action justifies your arming a sponsor of terrorism(I assume someone is bound to question this. Even discarding the mound of evidence of state support for terrorists, allowing what is or should be sovereign territory to be used to plan attacks and train terrorists makes a state culpable IMO).

Back up for a moment and try to ask what and how the US would/should plan to arm and restructure the Pakistani forces, if it does go the way of making it an all-military aid and assistance package. You may be surprised how much good a carefully planned overhaul can do to Pakistan AND the US and India and rest of the world.

Originally Posted by Cactus

All situations present a stick-and-a-carrot: Is offering services under the fear that "if we don't do it, the Indians will" coerced, or is it voluntary? In the real world the stick is never far from the carrot.

India doesn't share a border with Afghanistan. Most other nations that do are ambivalent or hostile to the US. Hence the question.

Pakistan really joined under coercion and possibly hoping to atleast gain some leverage in the post-invasion phase(Leverage being the only carrot I can see and I don't see it being offered really). In that you have to admire them. Lousy as they maybe as an Army they've been brilliant in exploiting the geographical location of the place itself.