News from both sides of the Durrand Line

Some of the greatest decisions and creations of mankind belong to the insane. But that's off-topic.

And not a single one involved the pointless, disproportionate deaths of millions.

There is only one situation I can concieve of where a Nuke should even be plausibly used. This isn't it.

However, Pakistan is becoming an issue. My thinking is that eventually, Pakistan will collapse. They are not getting anymore functional, and Baluchistan (and also Sindh, maybe?) are restive.

Eventually, there will probably have to be a UN Occupation of what is right now Pakistan.

However, this would have been more easily solved after 9/11. India and Russia were at the same alert status as we were by the time WTC 7 fell, and Iran would later help us during the Sack of Herat.

On 9/12, a meeting should have been called for by all the NATO States, plus the CIS States, India, and Iran. The topic should have been the AFPAK area. After some haggling over zones and such, there should have been an actual declaration of war against Pakistan and its puppet regime in Afghanistan. Different nations would invade through different routes. At this time, Pakistan had only a few nukes that were much more intercept-able than now.

@Tom - Take into consideration all the bullshit we do to Pakistan. Whatever threats they do only come because we've been an ass to them in the past, so there goes whatever moral reasoning about not taking their threats. Then there is the practical issues that a first strike nuclear war on them would ensure the US would never gain any leverage ever again anywhere else in the world. If you want to go to war, instead of pay taxes and drag the rest of us along, grab your gear and go hunting on your lonesome. You really need to learn that no, the US can't do whatever it wants simply because the statistics say so. Policy, politics, and war all take more than that.

Anyway, Carney is denying the NYT piece that White House refuses to offer condolences. Not the same as an apology, but thats fine since its still under investigation.

http://www.dawn.com/2011/12/02/white-house-offers-%E2%80%98sincere%E2%80%99-condolences-over-nato-strike.html

Just my opinion, but from all this, it seems Russia will get the most out of this. There is no way US troops will withdraw southwards after this.

EDIT-

According to the experts, such as Stephen Cohen at Brookings, Pakistan won't collapse in the next 5 years, but after that (due to several factors, including the generals in power, the end of the US presence, the collapse of the major industries, etc.) it is very much in danger of doing so.

There are nationalist movements in every province except Punjab. However, neither the UN nor anyone else (including the United States) can occupy Pakistan at this time. The obvious reason of course is that a war would have to be fought, against one of the largest armies in the world, which requires a great deal of time, money, and blood very few are willing to pay. They suck at offenses, but they've always played good defence when it comes to their own turf, so they won't be pushovers. After such a war, there is also the hostile 180 million people to secure. Done multilaterally (like Afghanistan or perhaps even more dynamically) it MIGHT work. Done unilaterally, they're doomed.

edited 2nd Dec '11 6:15:15 PM by FFShinra

Ah, fuck.

I haven't found an English source yet, but according to the Spiegel (site in German), the common intelligence staffs of the ISAF nations (the socalled Fusion Cells), and the French intelligence, have extensive evidence for Pakistan (or rather, ISI) supporting the Taleban in cooperation with Iran. In particular, Pakistan and Iran seem to plan a common training centre for the Taleban, and offer financial and logistical aid. Furthermore, they help Pakistani and Chechenian (!) terror slip into the country. Warnings about Chechenian units are in particular given for North Afghanistan.

Also, Iran seems to have several members of the Afghan security forces and several "high ranking local politicians" on their payroll, while Pakistan maintains concentrated efforts to infilrtate the Afghan Army, even supplying their men with reconstructions of American guns for that aim.

I can't decide if that's good news or not...

It's not. It means we're that much closer to US troops in Pakistan....against Pakistan.

Oh fuck that, we're not going to war with Pakistan unless they literally start actually fighting US troops systematically. Nobody will go for it, and for good reason.

I'd rather just strip all economic aid from Pakistan, cut diplomatic ties, and make nice with India. They want Afghanistan, they can have the hellhole; they're doomed in good time anyhow.

In effect they are. Supporting Al Qaeda and the Taliban, hiding Bin Laden COMFORTABLY for years, hell some news reports suggest that raid last week was initiated by Pakistani military firing first.

Pakistan is so much our enemy right now it is no longer funny.

edited 3rd Dec '11 3:49:07 PM by MajorTom

I meant—and you know I meant—if the actual Pakistani Army starts attacking the US Army.

In which case I might be tempted to let the neocons have their fun. I don't think Pakistan is quite that stupid, though.

Pakistan isn't that stupid. Like it or not, the moves of infiltrating the Afghan Army have less to do with the US and more to do with its own endgame. The US stops being Pakistan's enemy the moment they leave Afghanistan (which is a bad thing for its own reasons of course, but it isn't Pakistan trying to pick a war with the US...if so they would have done it under Musharraf's time, when he ACTUALLY CONSIDERED going to war with the US when he recieved the infamous ultimatum. Little has changed since then in terms of capability, so no. The Pakistan Army is not trying to go to war with us, though they are our enemy in the context of Afghanistan.

As for the training center, I'll wait until there is a little more info on that before I believe the Shia and the Sunnis are working together in such a fashion. Iran tolerates the Taliban so long as they go after the US. Once the US is gone, Tehran will be after them as much as everyone else is. The people they support in Afghanistan that are in the government, they're probably Hazara (Persian-descended folk).

Anyway, news. That scandal I mentioned at the beginning of the thread? Well now Mansour Ijaz is trying (I say trying because the man is not trustworthy as anyone who has seen him on Fox News back in the day would agree) to implicate President Zardari in it. Considering the Ambassador has already been sacked over this, this may be a dangerous time for the civillian government.

[1]

Pakistan is moving out of two of the three liason centers between itself and ISAF. This will, obviously, make it more difficult to liase between the two. As to WHY, I can only imagine it removes the "it was an accident" excuse should another incident occur...of which there is now quite a possibility unless the US decides to forego the border area entirely.

Hell of a gamble, this.

EDIT -

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/06/world/asia/afghanistan-violence/?hpt=hp_t3

Huge explosion in Kabul. One of the largest attacks on Shiites in years.

edited 6th Dec '11 7:02:49 AM by FFShinra

Huge news coming out that the Pakistani president may resign soon. What initially was reported to be a minor checkup with his doctors in Dubai has later been reported as him suffering a heart attack and NOW reports stating that its even worse...that he suffered a stroke and has facial paralysis.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/pakistan-president-asif-ali-zardari-had-stroke-facial-paralysis-report/articleshow/11042975.cms

Some people are thinking the military is "leaking" this information and is trying to oust the president through these stories but isn't doing anything concrete, others think Zardari's health is a cover and that the army has made actual concrete moves to make him the victim of a "soft coup" in that he goes but his party can choose someone else to take his place rather than all of them getting axed. Then there is the literal view that perhaps Zardari did suffer an episode regarding his health but that it won't affect his standing in the government in any way.

In other news, AP is reporting that Pakistan is considering moving air defense units to the border region.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iuM_RQAL1LwZl3qgpL_rkiNlx60w?docId=c7493374ba964dc985a03b19979625b4

Tom, you disappoint me to be honest. I thought you of all people would know Real Politik when you saw it.

Pakistan believed the Tabilian would stabilise (as in there isn't a flood of refugees crossing the border into Pakistan) Afghanistan after 1994 and they were right so they probably believe history will repeat itself.

If they believe history will repeat itself, they'll realize that if NATO runs away and the Taliban comes back into power it becomes only a matter of time until we go back because of terrorism.

History will repeat all right if we cut and run, just not in a positive way.

And yet the economy and public opinion ensures that we can't stay indefinately. The problem comes from the fact that the US didn't invest as much as it should have in the beginning, having been distracted by Iraq. Now its too late and they're at the whim of Pakistan and the rest of the powers in the region. We fucked up and now we have to make the best of it. Cut and run has become inevitable since about 2007. Thats when everything went to shit there.

Speaking of which, we really shouldn't chastise Russia on elections right now, when its airspace and rail network is making up for the current Pakistani blockade.

There is no such thing in war unless you are already defeated. They have not defeated us, they will not defeat us.

There IS a such thing as too late. All conflicts and all politics are games of opportunity. Once squandered, it makes it difficult if not impossible to win, since both are based on public sentiment in some form. The people of Afghanistan were grateful until we stopped caring. Now they don't want us there either, and its that sense of nationalism the Taliban feeds off of and grows stronger with, slowly bleeding us out of our treasure and any good sentiments we earned by kicking them out.Our actions have slowly turned the locals who supported us into hostiles. We've turned traditional (Pakistan) and new (Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan) allies in the region into hostiles. The state's infrastructure is not getting any progress due to the government we installed being so corrupt and antithetical to their tribal or traditional customs. I could go on.

I suggest you bring a cogent argument rather than say something so inanely simplistic as "its never too late and we will never lose". That doesn't actually address the point.

edited 10th Dec '11 8:37:53 AM by FFShinra

I do want to say that, although this might sound strange, I think of the Taliban as a Colonialist Organization of Pakistan's in Afghanistan.

This assertion may sound odd, however, I think history shows I'm not far off the mark.

You'd be right in the sense that it is empowered by Pakistan to serve its interests strategic interests vis a vis India, but the Taliban have their own agenda too (including the reunion of all Pashtun peoples...its the reason why even they didn't recognize the still-unrecognized Durrand Line). I think if they ever went overly colonial with the Taliban, Pakistan would end up in the Imperial Trashbin (tm) along with all the other powers in history who tried, including the US.

Also, I think the war has fundamentally transformed the Taliban. They initially came into existance as a sort of neighborhood watch to give order within the chaos of the warlordism (this was before the ISI hijacked them), then they became the extremist militia we know and love...but I think the presence of foreign military forces have added on a very powerful nationalist strain to the Islamist ideology that did not exist before. I think this strain will be what makes it very difficult for Pakistan to control once the US and ISAF leave the area.

^ Given the military record against the Taliban Pakistan would be facing a losing war against them without us in the region. Then you have two nations under a terrorist regime with nuclear weapons to boot!

Now do you see why we cannot be allowed to fail? If we fail, there is no way in hell to prevent Pakistan's nukes from falling into the hands of the Taliban.

And then you will wish we had never left.

So, wait - Taleban resurge in Afghanistan -> Terrorist regime in Pakistan?

Allll right then...

The Taliban use Pakistan as a base, recruit from Pakistan (and elsewhere), and launch attacks into Afghanistan. They also are doing a bit of an unreported underground war against Pakistan (a war that is not going very well for Pakistan itself).

If we leave and the Taliban are intact while they don't yet have the strength to knock out the US/NATO trained Afghan National Army in a direct engagement or guerrilla war, they are very experienced in dealing with the shoddy tactics and equipment of the Pakistani Army. Meaning in the long run it's very possible they may fail to take Afghanistan back but will win the vastly superior consolation prize of a nuclear armed Pakistan. (And they are free from the spectre of nuclear attack by India since India has a no-first-use policy.)

Yeah, no way the Taleban would ever manage to get Punjab or Sindh under control. You know those parts of Pakistan actually mattering.

Not today anyways.