I wonder what this will mean for US - Pakistan relations - I'd be rather disgusted if nothing changes.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
US/Pakistan relations, I suspect, are far too fragile for Obama to make a serious push because of this. He's trying to get them to do ten other things, and his biggest carrot is aid money. Trying to overturn this on top of everything else would be too much.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, at this point I'd be surprised if the Pakistan government can do anything on the US's agenda. I mean, the Swat Valley is about a two-hour drive from the nation's capital, and they've completely lost control of the region.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sad really. I'm not sure there ever was a great answer to the Taliban problem but not it seems to be getting worse and harder to solve. I wish President Obama wisdom, grace, and luck.
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"not altogether unexpected. The militants gained a lot of ground during the Bush years."
First, consider who got rid of them to start with. Personally I think the fact they are coming back is Pakistan's fault. They were never really serious about fighting the Talaban; some wanting to join them.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
We never really finished the job. Yes, we kicked the Taliban out of Kabul, and defeated them there in Afghanistan... but if we'd, for example, used some of the forces we instead ended up using in Iraq to finish the job, and eliminate the Taliban once and for all, or at the very least pin them down way more, what are the chances they'd have returned to a strong position like this?
In a nation with nuclear weapons for crying out loud!
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I wonder how long it'll take before the spindoctors pins this as Obama's fault.
IP: Logged |
posted
Tch, you Americans and your short-sighted view of history. Neither Bush nor Obama have anything to do with this; it's the fault of Truman and Eisenhower, who failed to support the British Empire back in the late forties and early fifties. Extend Lend-Lease by ten years or so and maybe send some aircraft and troops to India, and the Empire would not have fallen. I can assure you that no Viceroy of the British Raj would be putting up with this sort of nonsense! Send in the RAF and gas the confounded tribesmen!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Tch, you Americans and your short-sighted view of history. Neither Bush nor Obama have anything to do with this; it's the fault of Truman and Eisenhower, who failed to support the British Empire back in the late forties and early fifties. Extend Lend-Lease by ten years or so and maybe send some aircraft and troops to India, and the Empire would not have fallen. I can assure you that no Viceroy of the British Raj would be putting up with this sort of nonsense! Send in the RAF and gas the confounded tribesmen!
I like your style. Though the content is a little harsh.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Indeed, that's the crux of the matter.
We never really finished the job. Yes, we kicked the Taliban out of Kabul, and defeated them there in Afghanistan... but if we'd, for example, used some of the forces we instead ended up using in Iraq to finish the job, and eliminate the Taliban once and for all, or at the very least pin them down way more, what are the chances they'd have returned to a strong position like this?
The Taliban fled almost immediately to Pakistan to regroup and rebuild. Aside from the fact that pursuing them across the border would have been a phenomenal diplomatic blunder at the time, the majority of nomadic tribes near the Afghanistan border have are known to be excessively hospitable. They are bound by traditional honor to defend those who seek refuge with them to their dying breath. We would have basically had to commit genocide to root out the Taliban once they made it to that region. Pakistan should have lived up to the alliance they signed and kept that from happening, but they chose not to. Pakistan's alliance with the US has always been more of a show of words than of action. By allowing the Taliban to gain refuge, they allowed the seeds of their destabilization to be sown. There was very little the US military could do to stop it on its own. By the time the Iraq war was gearing up, the Taliban had been in Pakistan for almost a year.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: I like your style. Though the content is a little harsh.
I propose using weapons of mass destruction against insurgents, and you object that I'm a little harsh on American sensibilities? Dude.
(As an aside, my example of gas was not picked at random; the British did use gas from aircraft against rebellious tribesmen in what is now Iraq, and on their Northwest Frontier. Saddam just had better planes and gasses.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
