[Plantagenet]

OH NO NOT AGAIN I CANNOT BELIEVE IT PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS NOT HAPPENING AGAIN

There. That feels better. Thanks. I shall go away now. Bye.

JP

No no no. Its all different this time. Now its the liberal democrats who are discussing plans to invade Pakistan. That makes it a "good war".

[mattduke]

We're going to need a new deck of playing cards.

[JPL]

OH NO NOT AGAIN I CANNOT BELIEVE IT PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS NOT HAPPENING AGAIN

There. That feels better. Thanks. I shall go away now. Bye.

JP

No no no. Its all different this time. Now its the liberal democrats who are discussing plans to invade Pakistan. That makes it a "good war".

Pakistan is a nation-state with no plans or threats against America, no territorial ambitions against NA, if you look at the history of the country it has had a lot of hard times - which is why it now posseses nuclear weapons. The same might be said for, say Britain or France, if you want to put it into perspective.

I won't labour the point further but Americans need to look at themselves, - take a long hard look at what you've become.

JP

[wisconsin_cur]

Reminder: the plan we are talking about a set of circumstances when the state is effectively dead and nuclear weapons are about to fall into the hands of a movement which has acted against the United States and has continued to make threats to do so and is, in fact, involved in a military conflict with the United States.

[mattduke]

Reminder: the plan we are talking about a set of circumstances when the state is effectively dead and nuclear weapons are about to fall into the hands of a movement which has acted against the United States and has continued to make threats to do so and is, in fact, involved in a military conflict with the United States.

The Bush Doctrine rears its head.

[JPL]

Reminder: the plan we are talking about a set of circumstances when the state is effectively dead and nuclear weapons are about to fall into the hands of a movement which has acted against the United States and has continued to make threats to do so and is, in fact, involved in a military conflict with the United States.

Which is the exact attitude that got us into this mess in the first place!

It's not american intentions that have driven half the world into a carpet-eating frenzy in recent years, it's the unilateralism. The Taliban are everyone's problem & ignoring that fact is only going to make things much, much worse.

JP

[wisconsin_cur]

Reminder: the plan we are talking about a set of circumstances when the state is effectively dead and nuclear weapons are about to fall into the hands of a movement which has acted against the United States and has continued to make threats to do so and is, in fact, involved in a military conflict with the United States.

Which is the exact attitude that got us into this mess in the first place!

It's not american intentions that have driven half the world into a carpet-eating frenzy in recent years, it's the unilateralism. The Taliban are everyone's problem & ignoring that fact is only going to make things much, much worse.

JP

And as I recall many of the "everyone" who is willing to do anything puts so many restrictions on the use of their troops that the troops are useless. Europe has hid behind the American skirt for 60 years. I think America can be forgiven if it feels that since we are the only ones willing to risk young people for "our" problem that we get to have a bigger say.

Europe does a great job talking about problems but does little about them. Even when it is right on its border.

You're welcome for the Balkans.

[Plantagenet]

I don't think the Obamites are being entirely logical or else they aren't very well informed about the Taliban.

The BOers have adopted a new view that Afghanistan and Pakistan are a single military theatre and a single problem that they call "Afpak" and they view "the Taliban" as their single enemy. Not so--- The Obamites are being overly simplistic----the Taliban in Afghanistan is not the same as the Taliban in Pakistan....the Taliban is a religous movement within Islam, and in Pakistan there are leaders of different factions of the Taliban movement. The Taliban in Afghanistan are led by Mullah Omar. Different Mullahs run other groups of Taliban in Pakistan.

If the "Taliban" take over Pakistan, it will not be Mullah Omar and the same Taliban we are at war with in Afghanistan.

[JPL]

And as I recall many of the "everyone" who is willing to do anything puts so many restrictions on the use of their troops that the troops are useless. Europe has hid behind the American skirt for 60 years. I think America can be forgiven if it feels that since we are the only ones willing to risk young people for "our" problem that we get to have a bigger say.

Europe does a great job talking about problems but does little about them. Even when it is right on its border.

You're welcome for the Balkans.

This is completely incorrect. I'm going to quote from Ahmed Rashis's 'Descent Into Chaos' (pub 2008) p132 talking about one particular incident (amongst many) during the aftermath of the invasion of Afganistan:

Washington refused to allow any ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] expansion, however, claiming it would interfer with the hunt for al Qaeda leaders. Rumsfelf quickly cut MuColl [the British commander of the newly-arrived force] out of all decision making and refused to meet with him. The biggest obstacle to peacekeeping was now not just warlords such as Fahim but also those in Washington such as Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld

It's a very interesting account - worth reading...

JP

[Plantagenet]

So all the troops, the tanks, the mines, the thousands of miles of barbed wire, the nukes, the countries cut in half, the constant fear of 'invasion' that was blanket coverage on the media for decades, that was all for our own protection was it? Nothing to with american paranoia at all then?
JP

Yes. Of course you are right, JP. It was America who totally controlled your media. It was America who built the Berlin Wall. It was America who cut Germany in half. We controlled your media so it appeared to be the communists who buiilt the Berlin Wall and threatened invasion but it was us all along! And those confusing Russian military interventions and the suppression of revolts in East Germany and Poland and Czechslovokia? All those students and workers fighting against the military invasions were actually secret American agents who had cleverly infiltrated into those societies to create discord between the Russian Overlords protectors and the people of eastern Europe. You are very perceptive indeed to realized the paranoia of the USA was the ultimate reason for all these events.

[Tyler_JC]

I think this qualifies as a threat under the Powell Doctrine, not just the Bush Doctrine.

The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

I think we get a check mark on every single one of those in the event that the Pakistani government should fall to the Taliban (Allah forbid!).

[JPL]

So all the troops, the tanks, the mines, the thousands of miles of barbed wire, the nukes, the countries cut in half, the constant fear of 'invasion' that was blanket coverage on the media for decades, that was all for our own protection was it? Nothing to with american paranoia at all then?
JP

Yes. Of course you are right, JP. It was America who totally controlled your media. It was America who built the Berlin Wall. It was America who cut Germany in half. We controlled your media so it appeared to be the communists who buiilt the Berlin Wall and threatened invasion but it was us all along! And those confusing Russian military suppression of revolts in East Germany and Poland and Czechslovokia? All those students and workers fighting against the military invasions were actually secret American agents who had cleverly infiltrated into those societies to create discord between the Russian Overlords protectors and the people of eastern Europe. You are very perceptive indeed to have seen through the mist of American paranoia.

Hey - I just deleted that bit!

Anyhow - OK, so the Russians were paranoid & we weren't. No-one on our side was. I must have dreamed it all up. Life on 'the other side' was terrible and there was no Socialism in Western Europe.

Consensus trance back in place again? Happy now???

JP

[JPL]

I think this qualifies as a threat under the Powell Doctrine, not just the Bush Doctrine.

The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

I think we get a check mark on every single one of those in the event that the Pakistani government should fall to the Taliban (Allah forbid!).

Not on number 8. - no.

As if it matters...

JP

[wisconsin_cur]

This is completely incorrect. I'm going to quote from Ahmed Rashis's 'Descent Into Chaos' (pub 2008) p132 talking about one particular incident (amongst many) during the aftermath of the invasion of Afganistan:

That page is about the initial invasion, I am talking about the (many) years since and the present. In case you had not noticed Rummy has been gone a while now and the same with Wolfy.

I am only on the first chapter even though I picked it up at the library a few weeks ago... it is a busy time of the year but yes it does look like a good read. I picked it up because I saw a video with Rashid and in the course of his talk he talks about how NATO is ineffective, in part, because the commanding general has a large chart behind his desk to inform him what European units can do (or can not do) what. Rashid makes my point for me. It is a good video. A very interesting account and worth the time to watch it.

NyTimes blog points to Ahmed Rashid as someone who has the ear of Washington regarding the causes behind the descent of Pakistan. I ordered his book from the library and look forward to watching this video after the kids go to sleep for the night tonight.

link

Europe is still "your welcome" for the Balkans... too bad America did not act unilaterally earlier there. We could have saved a lot of lives from the attempted genocides that Europe was unwilling to do anything about. I am not one to ruminate too much on the past, except the Balkans is the perfect example at European unwillingness to suffer for others, even when there are genocides being attempted just across the border. I mean really, if not then, are they going to ever be willing?

[Tyler_JC]

JPL,

Would we have international support if it looked like the Taliban were about to capture a nuclear weapon?

I think we would, at least among the suspected targets of that weapon (London, Berlin, etc.).

The Saudis might not like it, but screw'em we have bigger priorities.

But you're right. We don't really care about world opinion anymore. I guess number 8 is off the list, permanently.

[Voice_du_More]

The US is going to have to invade itself to secure it's own nukes within five years.

[rangerone314]

The US is going to have to invade itself to secure it's own nukes within five years.

Good point... what happens if things collapse & factions rise up here, each with nukes... Faction A has big army and Faction B gest invaded... Faction B detonates nuke.

Could get real messy. Anarchy and nukes don't mix.

[Plantagenet]

Where do the Taliban get their weapons? Apparently they get their nice modern weapons from the US ..... US weapons are being lost or stolen or diverted to the Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan

Taliban armed with US weapons

[threadbear]

Well researched article from Anti-War--2005:

"In May 2004, an intricate multinational scheme for smuggling in nuclear parts was documented by the L.A. Times. The case, which began with an anonymous tip from someone in South Africa in July 2003, "offers a rare glimpse into what authorities say is an international bazaar teeming with entrepreneurs, transporters, scientists, manufacturers, government agents, organized-crime syndicates, and, perhaps, terrorists."

The case centered around an Israeli, Asher Karni, who was caught trying to sell 200 triggered spark gaps that can be used for medical purposes – as well as for nuclear weapons – to Humayun Khan, a Pakistani with military and radical Islamist links, whose father had been a supplier to Pakistan's Atomic Energy Commission in the 1970s. The Pakistani government was thus suspected to be the final recipient.

Some two months before the L.A. Times piece, the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh had provided detailed information on Pakistan's "nuclear godfather," A.Q. Khan (no relation to Humayun Khan), who had been forced to admit to a long career of black-market nuclear trafficking that helped arm various volatile states. The revelations came when Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi voluntarily gave up his nuclear program, ushering in UN inspectors and casting light on the complex and far-flung network of dealers, suppliers, and clients from Malaysia to Dubai. This in turn implicated Khan, who was pardoned by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, despite being regarded as a hero for his role in developing the bomb. Official Washington said little about the pardon, though the investigations picked up. For successive American administrations that had held up Pakistan as a stellar ally, the disclosure was an embarrassment, to say the least.

**************

In the present context, nothing illustrates the old adage that the more things change, the more they stay the same better than this comprehensive 1993 report from the New Yorker's archive. Seymour Hersh chronicled how a desire to maintain certain foreign relations and prolong the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, as well as to cash in on lucrative military deals, inspired the Reagan and Bush I regimes to help Pakistan develop its nuclear arsenal – something that brought the volatile Southeast Asian state to the brink of Armageddon with neighboring adversary India in 1990. The Pakistanis, led by the aforementioned A.Q. Khan and radical Islamist generals, were able to develop a nuclear program "with the aid of many millions of dollars' worth of restricted, high-tech materials bought inside the United States."

http://antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=8091