US Troops to Head to Pakistan

[John Galt]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/12/musharrafs_woes_have_opened_a.html?nav=rss_blog

 

U.S. Troops to Head to Pakistan

 

Beginning early next year, U.S. Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence in Pakistan, as part of an effort to train and support indigenous counter-insurgency forces and clandestine counterterrorism units, according to defense officials involved with the planning.

 

These Pakistan-centric operations will mark a shift for the U.S. military and for U.S. Pakistan relations. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the U.S. used Pakistani bases to stage movements into Afghanistan. Yet once the U.S. deposed the Taliban government and established its main operating base at Bagram, north of Kabul, U.S. forces left Pakistan almost entirely. Since then, Pakistan has restricted U.S. involvement in cross-border military operations as well as paramilitary operations on its soil.

 

But the Pentagon has been frustrated by the inability of Pakistani national forces to control the borders or the frontier area. And Pakistan's political instability has heightened U.S. concern about Islamic extremists there.

 

According to Pentagon sources, reaching a different agreement with Pakistan became a priority for the new head of the U.S. Special Operations Command, Adm. Eric T. Olson. Olson visited Pakistan in August, November and again this month, meeting with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, Pakistani Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Chairman Gen. Tariq Majid and Lt. Gen. Muhammad Masood Aslam, commander of the military and paramilitary troops in northwest Pakistan. Olson also visited the headquarters of the Frontier Corps, a separate paramilitary force recruited from Pakistan's border tribes.

 

Now, a new agreement, reported when it was still being negotiated last month, has been finalized. And the first U.S. personnel could be on the ground in Pakistan by early in the new year, according to Pentagon sources.

 

U.S. Central Command Commander Adm. William Fallon alluded to the agreement and spoke approvingly of Pakistan's recent counterterrorism efforts in an interview with Voice of America last week.

 

"What we've seen in the last several months is more of a willingness to use their regular army units," along the Afghan border, Fallon said. "And this is where, I think, we can help a lot from the U.S. in providing the kind of training and assistance and mentoring based on our experience with insurgencies recently and with the terrorist problem in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we share a lot with them, and we'll look forward to doing that."

 

If Pakistan actually follows through, perhaps 2008 will be a better year.

[EnderWiggin]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/12/musharrafs_woes_have_opened_a.html?nav=rss_blog

 

U.S. Troops to Head to Pakistan

 

{EDITED}

 

 

I'm beginning to think that it's our answer to anything: "Oh.. well, let's just send in the troops."

 

We haven't had such a swell track record recently in helping countries bounce back from disasters/conflicts... And if Musharraf is forcibly removed and replaced by Sharif, who knows if the agreement will continue?

 

_EW_

[SilentScope001]

All I can say is : "{CENSORED}."

 

I was against Obama's suggestion about sending troops to Pakistan. But now everyone's taking it seriously, so who cares now? Woo-hoo, yet another military operation in another country!

[Web Rider]

my dad and I were just discussing how much more touble Bush could get us into in hiw last year....apparently a lot.

[Corinthian]

~snip~ We're dispatching Spec-Ops to train up their forces because Pakistan is failing in it's job.

 

 

 

 

Corinthian, I do not know why you feel the need to be confrontational every time you post in Kavar's, but it won't stand. Please do not take such a tone again, especially when this thread has barely even started.

 

There is nothing wrong with stating your opinion. There is much wrong with stating your opinion in a harsh, confrontational tone. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

 

~9

[JoeDoe 2.0]

I'm beginning to see a pattern here...

[John Galt]

~snip~ We're dispatching Spec-Ops to train up their forces because Pakistan is failing in it's job.

 

Isn't that similar to how US involvement in Vietnam started?

 

Honestly though, I just got off the phone with a USMC recruiter. If they're calling ME for the Marine Corps, they must be pretty stretched in terms of manpower. Of course, re-instating the draft is just a few votes and a signature away; the framework for it still exists.

[Da_Man_2423]

my dad and I were just discussing how much more touble Bush could get us into in hiw last year....apparently a lot.

 

He wants to make the most of the time he has left...I feel really bad for whoever has to clean up his mess.

[SilentScope001]

Of course, re-instating the draft is just a few votes and a signature away; the framework for it still exists.

 

A simple: "Waah, I don't want to go draft, it's against my religious beliefs...waah!" will get a person out.

 

Which is exactly what I will try to do as soon as they call me up to a draft. But it's a political ideology, not a religion, so it might fail. And besides, they could just assign me to medic duty. Gah.

[El Sitherino]

U.S. Special Forces in *stan, to train and support indigenous ... forces

 

 

Familiar?

[JediAthos]

True, our involvment in Viet Nam began with military advisors and attaches in country to assist the South Vietnamese. I think though that the difference is that there was a civil war already in progress in Viet Nam. Pakistan has a terrorism problem just like Iraq and Afghanistan, and their politics are a little different, but I wouldn't call what they have going on a civil war.

 

I don't think this will lead to a full scale military operation in Pakistan. Next to the Saudis they have been one of our strongest allies over in the Middle East, and while our government may not agree with everything he does I don't think Bush is looking to overthrow Musharraff.(sp)

 

Along those same lines we simply can't afford a full scale military operation in yet another country. I mean this in terms of personnel, equipment, and money. Congress would never approve the funding, and Bush might find himself facing more than just a hostile Congress. Congress also has to approve the initiation of a draft which they won't do. So those of you who don't want to be in the military have little to fear.

[John Galt]

Along those same lines we simply can't afford a full scale military operation in yet another country.

 

Kinda like how we can't afford the occupation of Iraq and the nation-building in Afghanistan?

 

Thank god for those Chinese loans... /sarcasm

[JediAthos]

Kinda like how we can't afford the occupation of Iraq and the nation-building in Afghanistan?

 

Thank god for those Chinese loans... /sarcasm

 

 

We don't have a choice in Iraq in Afghanistan...I'm sorry if you don't believe that, but we blew the majority of it up, and we deposed the two governments we ought to put it back together.

[*Don*]

Sending troops in to Pakistan might actually worsen the condition there...

 

I'm just guessing, but if the army doesn't tactfully handle this situation, were gonna have a bigger problem than just Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

I was talking to my cousin who is a journalist posted in Saudi Arabia right now. He said that the people of the Middle East are starting to think of the US as a imperial tryrant bent on getting oil...

[JoeDoe 2.0]

I was talking to my cousin who is a journalist posted in Saudi Arabia right now. He said that the people of the Middle East are starting to think of the US as a imperial tyrant bent on getting oil...

 

I wonder why......

 

 

This is starting to look like a chain reaction, I just hope we don't get too involved in Pakistan, but seeing as how Bush handles things..

[Corinthian]

Isn't that what journalists always say? They say the same thing over in the United States. "War for Oil, Bush is Hitler Reincarnated, etc, etc, etc." Wake me when we start deploying T-51B Power Armor units to Alaska and construct a Poseidon Oil Rig in the middle of the Pacific and I'll start getting worried.

[mimartin]

Honestly though, I just got off the phone with a USMC recruiter. If they're calling ME for the Marine Corps, they must be pretty stretched in terms of manpower.

My mother got a call at her home looking for me over the Christmas holidays (even though I have not lived there in like 22 years, 25 if you count college.) It was a USMC recruiter wanting to speak with me. She informed him that I am a little over their age limit and that my father (who was a Marine) made me promise I’d never join their ranks. Either their data base is severely out dated or our military is in very deep trouble.

[John Galt]

We don't have a choice in Iraq in Afghanistan...I'm sorry if you don't believe that, but we blew the majority of it up, and we deposed the two governments we ought to put it back together.

 

why?

[Tommycat]

Actually by the Geneva conventions we are bound, and must remain until both countries have a stable government. Whether the initial war was legal or not is debatable(and I know someone is going to state that it wasn't, but that is neither what this thread is about nor part of the question I am responding to). Us remaining after removing the government is not debatable. We are stuck there until we fix what we broke, basically.

[EnderWiggin]

I don't understand your response. Are you questioning JediAthos' reasonings behind us needing to stay in Afghanistan / Iraq? I personally think that Iraq will never walk on its own if we always carry it places, metaphorically, but I also think we have some moral obligation to the innocent civilians there to help to rebuild what we so hastily destroyed.

 

_EW_

[JediAthos]

He was responding ot the OP who questioned my statement that we had to fix what we broke.

[John Galt]

I simply do not think we should be obligated to stay in either region. I was under the assumption that the mission had already been accomplished when Bush landed on that aircraft carrier. We invaded under the premise that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Okay, they may or may not have had WMD's, but we didn't find any.

 

Then, the mission changed. Now that we hadn't found any WMD's, we were suddenly there just to get Saddam. Now Saddam's been more or less out of the picture, and we're still there. I would like to think the military's done a fine job over there, considering how badly the odds were stacked against them from the beginning(Rumsfeld Doctrine anyone?). However, I think the politicians have dropped the ball. Without a clear objective in sight, how can the military(a decidedly objective-oriented organization) be expected to do its job. We have become occupiers, and most Iraqis want us out. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html )

 

Besides, violence has declined sharply since British troops left Basra a few months ago, which may be indicative of the entire nation's response to a general pullout. ( http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/middle-east/basra-attacks-down-90-since-british-troops-left-1221511.html ). Of course, some experts say that US withdrawal would cause a bloodbath. But we should notice that those experts are the same who said that Iraq war is going to take a few months only and it is going to be paid by oil. Why should we believe them?

 

Another thing. When people use phrases like "you broke it, you bought it" to describe an entire country, it comes of as extremely arrogant and imperialistic. That mentality works fine in a toystore, but would "breaking" and "paying for" Iraq mean that we owned it? People need to realize that this is the kind of rhetoric that is bankrupting the US. We are over 9 _trillion_ dollars in debt. We simply can't afford to buy Iraq or any other country. Especially Pakistan.

 

According to the 9/11 commission report(an interesting read, by the way) the stated reason that Al Qaeda attacked the US was because there were US troops in Saudi Arabia, and now there are US troops occupying two more Muslim countries, with bases in several more. Now, with pending interventions in Pakistan and (I hope not) Iran, it appears as if we are more than willing to go from the frying pan into the fire, so to speak. The blowback from the CIA operations in Iran(when the Shah was installed) and Afghanistan(in preventing them from forming an Islamic government in the '90's), and the US's carte blanche support of Israel have caused unintended repercussions throughout the world, resulting in a resurgence of anti-Americanism that has largely coincided with projections of American power across the globe.

 

I've got more to say on interventionism, specifically on the Pakistani situation, but I've got to go.

[JediAthos]

I'm not going to argue with you that the politicians dropped the ball, that's a fact.

 

I'm not convinced that the 9/11 Commission revealed anything about the fundamentalist mindset that we didn't already know to be honest.

 

I was simply using the term fix what we broke as a figure of speech. Even if the Geneva Convention wasn't involved I am of the opinion that if your military enters a country, destroys it's infrastructure, and deposes it's government then you ought to be responsible for rebuilding that infrastructure and ensuring it has a government that can stand on it's own if for no other reason than for the sake of the innocent men, women and children that had absolutely nothing to do with the war.

 

Now does that mean that the military has to be there en masse forever? I should hope not, but I think the military commanders on the ground should be making that decision.

 

As far as Pakistan goes...I don't really think this will lead to any large scale military action in Pakistan. The U.S. Special Forces train with troops all over the world instructing them in counter-terrorism techniques and sharing procedures and such with them. I don't see this as being any different.

 

Iran...well...I don't really know what to think about Iran yet to be honest.

[John Galt]

There was one bit that I was unaware of: the fundamentally individualistic nature of the Jihad. Of course, we use the term "Jihad" to generically refer to a holy war. That both is and isn't a proper application of the term, but this is simply due to the convenience of creating a short definition, I think. What's not emphasized enough(or at all) is that Jihad literally means "to struggle," usually used in the idiom "to struggle in the way of God"(al-jihad fi sabil Allah), and it can be used to refer to much more than just a holy war(jihad bis saif). For example, a muslim man who is trying to quit smoking may refer to kicking the habit as a jihad(literally a struggle for faith) against his addiction. I'm kinda rambling here, but it does highlight a fundamental aspect of the Jihad, and by association the Jihadist mindset, that is often ignored, which is the fact that Jihadists are recruited as individuals, not collectively. This means that enough evidence must exist to convince the individual to take up the sword, or the AK-47 as it were, to drive out those who wage war against Islam. Frankly, if no real justification exists, no jihad as-saif is going to recruit any mujahideen.

 

Of course, the continuing presence in the Arabian peninsula was bin Laden's reason for issuing a fatwa calling for attacks against Americans. This is understandable, of course. If a large army of Muslims were to set up bases in Boston, whether invited or uninvited, we Americans would be more than a little distressed. If we were to bring our troops home from Muslim countries, bin Laden would have no justification for continuing his Jihad.

 

Also, I think the ones who should decide whether we stay or leave should be the people of America, and the people of the occupied country. Given that 70% of Americans think it's time to pull out, and most Iraqis also agree that US and Coalition forces should leave, I think that's sending a pretty clear signal. Staying longer than necesary would breed(and has bred) resentment towards the United States, causing more anti-American sentiments with the death of each Mujahid, further fueling the fires of resentment, in a vicious cycle.

 

That being said, I think the clear solution would be to leave Iraq and Afghanistan, abandon our bases in Muslim countries, and refrain from intervening in Pakistan and Iran. This would allow the sectarian strife in that region to resume full-force, and allow anti-Americanism to wither. Intervening in Pakistan and especially Iran, especially with a large-scale conventional military presence, would likely result in a massive backlash throughout the Islamic world against the West, potentially reunifying(at least temporarily) the warring factions for a single cause. That, my friends, is a very scary thought.

[Tommycat]

Like it or not, we cannot leave without the governments being stable. Honestly having several relatives serving over there, I would greatly prefer they return, but what I want, and what I think ought to happen, has very little to do with the legality of leaving an unstable government in place. We, the invading country, are required to provide defense until such time as the governments of those countries can provide for their own defense. Leaving now is not a solution. It would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

 

And please don't go on about the US breaking the Geneva conventions on other things, because quite frankly it doesn't matter, and those violations are debatable. This would not be debatable.