ISI chief implicated in 9/11

[zraver]

Again, I was not referring to Pakistani military capabilities nor her ability to hold off a US military invasion - what I was pointing out was that your comment of 'Pakistan having a US backed transitional government instead of Iraq' displayed the naivete and shallow thinking that one has come to expect from US policy making circles.

Its a policy backed by centuries of use and dozens of applications among some of the most fanactic peoples the world has ever seen.

Since you completely missed the point, let me try again - an Iraq or Afghanistan style transitional government would simply not work because Pakistan did not (in 2001), and certainly does not now, have a 'regime' that a significant majority or plurality could rally around (or silently support), like the Taliban or Saddam. Musharraf was a 'popular dictator' and his popularity, outside of the religious extremist constituency, was pretty high in 2001.

Pakistan has multiple separatist/ tribal movements. An imposed government is all these groups have ever had. At the end of the day who ever controls the guns, food and power grid controls the government.

All this stuff about 'internal Pakistani fissures' ignores the ground realities - the most violent protests in Pakistan against the anti-Islam film in the US were in fact led by two Shia religious groups, the same sect that the Indians would have you believe are going to 'jump right on board the US bandwagon'.

Immaterial, there are always people willing to step up.

Bhutto might have tried to help but the fact that the US had imposed sanctions in Pakistan after her nuclear tests and had invaded Afghanistan would have meant that any public cooperation with US was a 'death sentence', and would have had minimal support in the face of a US attack on Pakistan.

She or whoever would have come in under an international standard, not the US and have been backed by NATO, IMF and World Bank.

The problem with US thinking is that too many of you have this 'God/hero complex' - 'The US will ally with XYZ and be welcomed as liberators' - it barely worked in Iraq and Afghanistan and it would have failed right off the bat in Pakistan. A US backed Bhutto in Islamabad after a US invasion would make Karzai's 'Mayor of Kabul' title look good.

No the problem is liver lillied politicians not willing enforce peace via liberally applied summary execution. In 1945 Eisenhower issued a public proclamation- any Geramn civilian caught under arms would be summarily executed. Not one US or UK soldier was killed by SS holdouts or Nazi dead enders (though those groups did kill numerous Germans)

Have you paid any attention to Zardari's poll numbers of late?

Why would i he is just an army puppet.

[Double Edge]

If the US had reasonable suspicion that Pakistan was in on 9-11 in late 2001, the world may well have seen its first nuclear weapons release since WWII with B-2's and stealthed cruise missiles hitting Pakistani nuke storage sites and air fields prior to a massive conventional air and sea campaign that would destroy the Pakistani military and then a ruthless blockade until all the major players were dead or in custody.

Would an intercept be sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion ?

Suspicion by itself sure, just the fact that the two were talking to each other is in itself damning and sufficient to get a lot of people jumpy. It implicates the ISI chief as having had communications with the 9/11 plotters. The extent of the chief's knowledge about the 9/11 operation then becomes an open question. Not a smoking gun but no smoke without fire sort of thing.

This question would then have to be further investigated to see whether additional corroborating evidence comes to light. Now if that is forthcoming then the case gets stronger and closer to reasonable suspicion. You would then start to hear the intercept on your local news channels and the case would slowly & surely be built to attack Pakistan.

Otherwise its just an intercept. yes, its dodgy, but no better than circumstantial.

The larger point i wanted to establish with this thread is that if ever such a link came to light it would be impossible for the US to ignore even if not adequately clinching. The media there would be busy talking about it and it would be documented.

[zraver]

Would an intercept be sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion ?

Suspicion by itself sure, just the fact that the two were talking to each other is in itself damning and sufficient to get a lot of people jumpy. It implicates the ISI chief as having had communications with the 9/11 plotters. The extent of the chief's knowledge about the 9/11 operation then becomes an open question. Not a smoking gun but no smoke without fire sort of thing.

This question would then have to be further investigated to see whether additional corroborating evidence comes to light. Now if that is forthcoming then the case gets stronger and closer to reasonable suspicion. You would then start to hear the intercept on your local news channels and the case would slowly & surely be built to attack Pakistan.

Otherwise its just an intercept. yes, its dodgy, but no better than circumstantial.

The larger point i wanted to establish with this thread is that if ever such a link came to light it would be impossible for the US to ignore even if not adequately clinching. The media there would be busy talking about it and it would be documented.

But with the passage of time the imperative to act goes away.

[Agnostic Muslim]

Its a policy backed by centuries of use and dozens of applications among some of the most fanactic peoples the world has ever seen.

Yet it has largely failed in Afghanistan and the only reason there is even a semblance of order in Iraq is because the majority community in the country found common cause with the US in overthrowing Saddam and fighting back against AQ - the US does not and will not have common cause with anything but an insignificant minority of Pakistanis were it to attempt to pull yet another 'I am God Almighty come to heal your peoples and lead you to the righteous path' act ala Iraq and Afghanistan.

Pakistan has multiple separatist/ tribal movements. An imposed government is all these groups have ever had. At the end of the day who ever controls the guns, food and power grid controls the government.

Outside of the Baloch and Sindhi groups (that even put together cannot do much in Pakistan as is) there would be no groups to have common cause with the US - this is yet more evidence of the la la land many analysts in the US live in when it comes to analyzing Pakistan and its internal dynamics.

Immaterial, there are always people willing to step up.

Of course, but there have to be enough of them to prevent those that do step up from experiencing the 'Najibullah treatment'. The Shia and Kurds in Iraq and the non-Pakhtun in Afghanistan offered the US that 'significant number of people willing to step up' in order to have some modicum of stability - there would be nothing remotely close to that support base in Pakistan.

She or whoever would have come in under an international standard, not the US and have been backed by NATO, IMF and World Bank.

Doesn't matter who she would have been backed by internationally - given that your hypothetical scenario includes decimating the Pakistani military through military strikes before installing a puppet government in Islamabad, the puppets would have no disciplined and strong domestic security institution to actually defend them and allow them to exert control over the country.

No the problem is liver lillied politicians not willing enforce peace via liberally applied summary execution. In 1945 Eisenhower issued a public proclamation- any Geramn civilian caught under arms would be summarily executed. Not one US or UK soldier was killed by SS holdouts or Nazi dead enders (though those groups did kill numerous Germans)

Whatever excuse you want to come up with, let me know when the US successfully implements your 'solution' in the clusterf*** it has already created.

Why would i he is just an army puppet.

Hardly, his weakness is of his own making - he presides over a corrupt, incompetent, US boot licking regime in Pakistan and therefore has insignificant domestic support. Many of the positions he ends up taking, that are projected as being 'pushed by the Army' are positions that he has to take if he wants to remain relevant to any degree in Pakistani politics. There is broad public support in Pakistan for many of the positions/policies attributed to the Army.

The only reason his party/coalition might actually win a significant number of seats in the coming election is because of the feudal/biradri system of politics in Pakistan.

[zraver]

Yet it has largely failed in Afghanistan and the only reason there is even a semblance of order in Iraq is because the majority community in the country found common cause with the US in overthrowing Saddam and fighting back against AQ - the US does not and will not have common cause with anything but an insignificant minority of Pakistanis were it to attempt to pull yet another 'I am God Almighty come to heal your peoples and lead you to the righteous path' act ala Iraq and Afghanistan.

based on how quickly Pakistan folds when the chips are down, doubt it.

Outside of the Baloch and Sindhi groups (that even put together cannot do much in Pakistan as is) there would be no groups to have common cause with the US - this is yet more evidence of the la la land many analysts in the US live in when it comes to analyzing Pakistan and its internal dynamics.

Really, how about all the people employed in the textiles industry- no access to US markets no jobs. The truck drivers- no fuel, no work.... there are many ways to get cooperation.

Of course, but there have to be enough of them to prevent those that do step up from experiencing the 'Najibullah treatment'. The Shia and Kurds in Iraq and the non-Pakhtun in Afghanistan offered the US that 'significant number of people willing to step up' in order to have some modicum of stability - there would be nothing remotely close to that support base in Pakistan.

When was the last time the people now know as Pakistanis rebelled against a foreign invader?

Doesn't matter who she would have been backed by internationally - given that your hypothetical scenario includes decimating the Pakistani military through military strikes before installing a puppet government in Islamabad, the puppets would have no disciplined and strong domestic security institution to actually defend them and allow them to exert control over the country.

The PA decimated (1 in 10) would still be large enough.

Whatever excuse you want to come up with, let me know when the US successfully implements your 'solution' in the clusterf*** it has already created.

The Pentagon didn't let history write its policies, if it did, things would be far different. BTW the US has battled a lot of Islamic insurgencies, the Taliban might pull off the first win, but the others failed.

[quote]Hardly, his weakness is of his own making - he presides over a corrupt, incompetent, US boot licking regime in Pakistan and therefore has insignificant domestic support. Many of the positions he ends up taking, that are projected as being 'pushed by the Army' are positions that he has to take if he wants to remain relevant to any degree in Pakistani politics. There is broad public support in Pakistan for many of the positions/policies attributed to the Army. [quote]

is weakness is because of people like you who support mass murdering terrorist in your desire to be worthy enough to lick the dust off the feet of Arab jihadist.

The only reason his party/coalition might actually win a significant number of seats in the coming election is because of the feudal/biradri system of politics in Pakistan.

A win is a win...

[Agnostic Muslim]

based on how quickly Pakistan folds when the chips are down, doubt it.

You doubt what? The ability of the US to succeed in Pakistan where it has failed in Afghanistan?

Really, how about all the people employed in the textiles industry- no access to US markets no jobs. The truck drivers- no fuel, no work.... there are many ways to get cooperation.

Then why has that not worked in Afghanistan?

When was the last time the people now know as Pakistanis rebelled against a foreign invader?

The Pakistan of today and the people of Pakistan today are not the same as those centuries ago ...

The PA decimated (1 in 10) would still be large enough.

What was left of the PA (it would stand for Puppet Army at that point, if it chose to support US goals and US puppet regime) would probably fare worse than the ANP. Large scale desertions, insider sources for any insurgency, and subsequently a very large number of well trained recruits for the insurgency against US occupation and US puppets.

The Pentagon didn't let history write its policies, if it did, things would be far different. BTW the US has battled a lot of Islamic insurgencies, the Taliban might pull off the first win, but the others failed.

Again, Iraq is barely successful because two major communities in the country, the Shia and the Kurds, found common cause with the US in taking control of governance after years of being massacred and brutalized by Saddam. In Afghanistan it was the non-Pashtun tribes that did so and provide the little stability we see today. The US would not have anywhere close to the kind of support it did in the two invasions and occupations above, Generalized statements of 'The US has done this or that in the past' are meaningless - every war has its own dynamics, and you have offered nothing other than silly talking points from a child's COIN textbook to try and argue in favor of your argument.

Hardly, his weakness is of his own making - he presides over a corrupt, incompetent, US boot licking regime in Pakistan and therefore has insignificant domestic support. Many of the positions he ends up taking, that are projected as being 'pushed by the Army' are positions that he has to take if he wants to remain relevant to any degree in Pakistani politics. There is broad public support in Pakistan for many of the positions/policies attributed to the Army.

is weakness is because of people like you who support mass murdering terrorist in your desire to be worthy enough to lick the dust off the feet of Arab jihadist.

Typical - resort to personal attacks and abuse when we have no arguments left- Where did I support a 'mass murdering terrorist'? Where did I express any support or respect for 'Arab Jihadists?

A win is a win...

Sure, but doesn't mean it'll prevent unrest in the country if the PPP does not start governing.

[zraver]

You doubt what? The ability of the US to succeed in Pakistan where it has failed in Afghanistan?

No I doubt the Pakistanis have the heart for it, they haven't shown it so far in their history.

Then why has that not worked in Afghanistan?

Because Afghanistan didn't have an economy to start with.

The Pakistan of today and the people of Pakistan today are not the same as those centuries ago ...

What, a secret population transfer? Other than forcing put the religious minorities the people are the same.

What was left of the PA (it would stand for Puppet Army at that point, if it chose to support US goals and US puppet regime) would probably fare worse than the ANP. Large scale desertions, insider sources for any insurgency, and subsequently a very large number of well trained recruits for the insurgency against US occupation and US puppets.

Uh huh, sure...... So your admitting the PA is basically training jihadists....

Again, Iraq is barely successful because two major communities in the country, the Shia and the Kurds, found common cause with the US in taking control of governance after years of being massacred and brutalized by Saddam. In Afghanistan it was the non-Pashtun tribes that did so and provide the little stability we see today.

A win is a win

The US would not have anywhere close to the kind of support it did in the two invasions and occupations above, Generalized statements of 'The US has done this or that in the past' are meaningless - every war has its own dynamics, and you have offered nothing other than silly talking points from a child's COIN textbook to try and argue in favor of your argument.

vs your claim of Pakistani might despite the fact that as the battles in SWAT show, Pakistan has failed to kick anyone's ass even its own....

Typical - resort to personal attacks and abuse when we have no arguments left- Where did I support a 'mass murdering terrorist'? Where did I express any support or respect for 'Arab Jihadists?

When you condemmed the US and those who helped the US for tracking down and killing Bin Laden, when you twist yourself like a pretzel to defend the ISI and when you critize your civilian leadership rather than blame the ISI for the evils befalling Pakistan. We all know the tune your singing.

[Agnostic Muslim]

No I doubt the Pakistanis have the heart for it, they haven't shown it so far in their history.

It might be for the wrong reasons, but the current violent Islamist movements in North, West and Central Pakistan negate your assertion.

Because Afghanistan didn't have an economy to start with.

The lack of an economy 'to start with' should have only made it easier after 10 plus years to incentive a significant number of locals to latch onto the bandwagon of the local US puppet in chief.

What, a secret population transfer? Other than forcing put the religious minorities the people are the same.

Ideology changes attitudes and reactions, not genetics. Genetically all humans are theorized to descend from the same tribe in Africa after all.

Uh huh, sure...... So your admitting the PA is basically training jihadists....

Not anymore than the Americans fighting the British during the American War of Independence were terrorists, thugs and criminals.

A win is a win

Sure, but your inability to comprehend WHY the win actually occurred is the point I am making.

vs your claim of Pakistani might despite the fact that as the battles in SWAT show, Pakistan has failed to kick anyone's ass even its own....

- The TTP got its 'ass kicked' in Swat, only an ill informed fool would argue otherwise - Mullah FM and his band of thugs now find sanctuary in, and operate out of, NATO occupied Afghanistan. That said, most Pakistanis, including myself, would argue that PPP/ANP government has failed to implement the follow-up civilian components of a COIN campaign in providing basic governance and law enforcement.

When you condemmed the US and those who helped the US for tracking down and killing Bin Laden, when you twist yourself like a pretzel to defend the ISI and when you critize your civilian leadership rather than blame the ISI for the evils befalling Pakistan. We all know the tune your singing.

Actions by the US that are in violation of international law and endanger the lives of innocent people (and in many cases kill innocent people) should be condemned - I fail to see why you would criticize me, or anyone else, for doing so unless of of course you are blinded by your patriotism.

On the subject of defending the ISI, I don't have to twist myself into a pretzel - I merely have to point out that the allegations against the ISI are essentially based on unsubstantiated speculation and rumors, propagated by sources with a vested interest in maligning Pakistan. We are in fact discussing these allegations against the ISI in other threads, so perhaps you should participate in those discussions and explain why you thing the arguments I have raised in defence of the ISI are invalid, rather than making generalized statements such as the one quoted above.