Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

In Pakistan, pro-American sentiment is rare

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Kansas Bear View Post
    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?
    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.
    Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
    -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

    Comment


    • #32
      Kansas Bear Reply

      "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.
      "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
      "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by S2 View Post
        "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.
        Last edited by snapper; 30 Jun 11,, 14:52.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
          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

          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.
          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

          Comment


          • #35
            Snapper Reply

            "...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.
            "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
            "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

            Comment


            • #36
              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?
              Last edited by Kansas Bear; 01 Jul 11,, 04:42.

              Comment


              • #37
                Kansas Bear Reply

                "...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.
                "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                Comment


                • #38
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Snapper Reply

                    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
                    Last edited by S2; 02 Jul 11,, 06:21.
                    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by S2 View Post
                      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....

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Kansas Bear Reply

                        "...I believe Zawahiri would not stray too far from his FSB connections.... "

                        I know little of this. Can you elaborate or provide a link?
                        "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                        "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by S2 View Post
                          "...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.
                          Last edited by Tronic; 02 Jul 11,, 21:10.
                          Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
                          -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Not to mention Zawahiri would have been with the side actively fighting the Russians in the 80s.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by S2 View Post
                              "...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.
                              Last edited by Kansas Bear; 03 Jul 11,, 23:37.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Kansas Bear View Post
                                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?
                                Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
                                -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X