'US missiles' hit Pakistan town

[westerby]

Now what do you suggest we do?

Decide on what you want the end result to be because I think the US and the Europeans within NATO are looking at AFG from two different perspectives. These nations are in AFG for different reasons.

Tighten up on what's said to the Press so we maintain a united front.

Inform Pakistan that it's time to get off the fence and pick a side.

Put a plan in place on how the country remains stabilised once the enemy has been beaten.

Be under no illusions that these people are not going to go away and they will stage another 911 or Bali given half the chance.

Westers climbs off soap box

[saint]

ive also seen on the news today that as well as the chinese building the nuclear plants , that pakistan is applying to the I M F for an emergency financial bail out , surely that could give the west some leverage over the present problems. maybe they want the money to pay the chinese , it wasnt clear , but i doubt it . i would think the chinese will lock them into a long term loan agreement .

[Khun Paul]

What we all want is peace, but that is viewed by different people with different viewpoints etc etc etc.
no-one asks the peole in the middle if they did they would I think be very surprised.
Al Quaeda, Taliban and the islamists all have different agendas, whatever we do will in some way upset the other.
personally I favour sealing off AFG to the outside world by any means possible when all fighting has ended go in and sort out what if anything is left.
They are to some extent architects of their own problems, and as for the Chinese helping pakistan that i fell will end badly too, but then the Chinese are new to this game.

[RALPHCUSENS]

For those of you that think that the firing of missiles on Pakistani territory, will achieve anything other than alienate the residents of the area being targeted, I suggest that you are wrong, how would you feel, if members of your family were maimed or killed in this way? Would you not fight to the death, if a foreign power were to invade your homeland????????????????????????

History shows, that when a foreign power attempts to interfere in tribal or cultural disputes, its doomed to failure;

For example,; France - Vietnam. America - Vietnam. United Nations - Korea. Britain - Malaya. Russia - Afghanistan.
Those are a few in modern history, but its been the same throughout history.

IMO, it was wrong to go into Iraq, (False intelligence!), and it was wrong to interfere in Afghanistan, OK, there will be those that advocate that the west is fighting an all out war against terrorism after 9/11, but there again, there are many people that advocate that 9/11 was an act of conspiracy by the American Government. (I personally do not think that the conspiracy theory holds any water)

My answer would be, leave them to fight out thier own sectarian differences, and the billions & billions saved, spent on sorting out the finacial crisis that the American Sub Prime market has caused :-" :-"

[WBU ALUM]

A few years ago, Margaret Thatcher, who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979-1990, described an often-overlooked previous pattern for what we are now witnessing.

Writing in 2002, she said:
“Perhaps the best parallel is with early communism. Islamic extremism today, like bolshevism in the past, is an armed doctrine. It is an aggressive ideology promoted by fanatical, well-armed devotees. And, like communism, it requires an all-embracing long-term strategy to defeat it.”

The Iron Lady nailed it. Though the terms Islamo-fascist and Islamo-nazi are used these days with regularity, perhaps Islamo-bolshevik should become part of our vocabulary. Though Islam and communism as ideologies bear little resemblance to each other, beyond a mutual affinity for subduing and controlling others, they do have much in common methodologically.

It is a mistake to think of terror as the only weapon in the Islamist arsenal. It is a very public one, indeed – and horrifying. But behind the ugliness of terrorism lies a persistent and pernicious pattern of deceit and manipulation. The term taqiyya refers to the practice of deliberate deceit in the service of Islamist goals. The ends justify the means, in other words - lying, fraud, stealing, cheating, all things that most religions commonly consider sins, are perfectly appropriate in the pursuit of jihad.

The Bolshevik regime was a conspiracy come to power. The Soviet Union in practice was a seventy-one-year old counterintelligence operation raised to the level of a state system.

Organic to such a counterintelligence system is the widespread practice of provocations, diversion, deception, disinformation, ‘maskirovka’ (military focused deception), penetration, and other active measures of a highly aggressive nature.

From its earliest history Islam has practiced what westerners label stratagem, deception, dissimulation, concealment, etc., in its dealings with not only the Infidel but with other Muslims, as well.

History reveals very clearly that the apathetic give way to the passionate, and the complacent are subdued by the committed.

“The Project,” as it has come to be known, outlines a century long plan “to dominate the West and establish an Islamic government on earth.” It is a 14-page “How To” manual about infiltrating a society en route to eventually subjugating it. Among its instructions are such motivational nuggets as:

* Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation.”
* Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them toward the Muslim Brotherhood’s collective goals.
* Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, so long as it doesn’t conflict with Sharia law.
* Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations, and labor unions.
* Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into the service of Islam.
* Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world.

Lenin could not have said it any better.

When generals publicly denounce their mission, they further the propaganda goals of the enemy.

[westerby]

History shows, that when a foreign power attempts to interfere in tribal or cultural disputes, its doomed to failure;
For example,; France - Vietnam. America - Vietnam. United Nations - Korea. Britain - Malaya. Russia - Afghanistan.
Those are a few in modern history, but its been the same throughout history.

All the examples that you cite have nothing to do with tribal or cultural disputes, they were all political.

French Indo China was a bid by Communists to oust the colonial power.
America in Vietnam was a bid to contain Communism in the same theatre.
The UN in Korea checked a North Korean and Chinese Communist invasion.
The British fought Chinese Communists in Malaya.
The Russians invaded Afghanistan in their bid to secure a warm water port into the Indian Ocean (I know it's landlocked).

I argue that the 12 year British campaign in Malaya was successful as well as the UN campaign (led by Mac Arthur) in Korea. Korea has had relative peace since 1953 and Malaysia is a relatively successful Asian economic power.

There are more appropriate examples to use.

The West eventually deployed troops in the Former Yugoslavia in the 1990s stopping further ethnic slaughter.

Kosovo is now a sovereign nation recognised by at least twelve other nations and Serbia now has to decide whether to pursue the Kosovo question or come into the fold and join the EU (money talks doesn't it).

The British deployed to Sierra Leone in 2000 to successfully check rebel insurgency (the Nigerians will tell you that they led the UN effort to successfully stop the civil war but I dispute that).

After over 30 years of terrorism, the issue of Northern Ireland has been resolved (note I say resolved and not won).

Islamic militancy will not go away if you bury your head in the sand, it's got to be faced down. That effort can be made easier if NATO nations in AFG work together instead of pursuing their own interests.

Westerby climbs off his soap box - again.

[BobHelm]

Communism was not defeated by war - America tried that a couple of times at least, Korea & Vietnam and failed- it was defeated by practicality. Socialism could not generate the wealth necessary to compete & so slowly fell apart. Oh & Russia was an ideal place to live in the world before the terrible communists destroyed it???
A Muslim "grand plan" get real, there are 100s (probably 1,000s) of different factions within the Muslim world. Totally different in ideology, race and culture. If they at all look united today it is because they perceive themselves to be threatened by Western military power. Realistically who can blame them. Iraq & Afghanistan invaded, Iran & Syria threatened with "actions".

The final comment I would like to make is that you make much of Islam's use of deception, yet, in your very last statement you call for Western generals to use the self same technique. Talk about pot calling kettle black...

[WBU ALUM]

Communism was not defeated by war - America tried that a couple of times at least, Korea & Vietnam and failed- it was defeated by practicality.

First, the Korean War was a UN action. Second, Soviet communism had nothing to do with Vietnam. The Chinese communists are still alive and well.

Socialism could not generate the wealth necessary to compete & so slowly fell apart.

I'm happy that you've noted this.

A Muslim "grand plan" get real, there are 100s (probably 1,000s) of different factions within the Muslim world. Totally different in ideology, race and culture. If they at all look united today it is because they perceive themselves to be threatened by Western military power.

You have undoubtedly never heard Muslims place their religion above citizenship as has been the case in the US with Muslims here.

The final comment I would like to make is that you make much of Islam's use of deception, yet, in your very last statement you call for Western generals to use the self same technique. Talk about pot calling kettle black...

Generals who publicly denounce their mission in the theater of war are speaking for the enemy.

[BobHelm]

No people who, when asked a question, LIE instead of answering TRUTHFULLY are practising deceit. Just what you complain about in the Muslim Grand Plan.
Muslims from Northern Pakistan regularly kill Pakistani solders, Shiite Muslims in Iraq regularly kill Sunni Muslims in Iraq (& visa versa), Hamas in Palestine regularly kill Fatah (& visa versa) yes, they are a real united group.

[WBU ALUM]

No people who, when asked a question, LIE instead of answering TRUTHFULLY are practising deceit. Just what you complain about in the Muslim Grand Plan.

I never said they should lie. You assumed that because that is what you might do. I didn't complain about the tactics of the Muslims. I described the tactics.

Military personnel should refer questions regarding the mission's failure or success to those above them. It is not their position to determine the course of the action. They are soldiers with a mission.

Generals who publicly denounce their mission in the theater of war are speaking for the enemy.

[BobHelm]

Generals in charge of the lives of their troops should not have an opinion about the situation that they are being put into. If they see that they are being asked to perform an impossible task then they should keep quiet and let their troops die for no purpose. I think the British army had enough of that after World War 1.
Sounds like more of the old Bush "you are for us or against us" crap. If a commander in charge on the front cannot say "we must do something different" then who the hell can? Some prat sat at a desk at home or politicians?? To say something isn't working when it plainly is not working isn't treason it is common sense.
This is my last post on this thread as you plainly cannot come to terms with the obvious, that the current plan of campaign in Afghanistan will never lead to a "victory" & it is easier for you to criticise an honourable man than accept that truth.

[WBU ALUM]

Have you ever served in the military, Bob?

[tigerryan]

Bob your quitting to easy. That General-Duchebag is a quiter. Give me 3rd Ranger Batt and a few ball on nose spinners (so they can see how its done) toss the media out and Im sure you would not be hearing much of anything very well organized coming out of the al Quida in the tribal lands. Your might be right about the beneficial effects not lasting long but you just keep doing it agian and again plus in terms of something to do it beats painting the barracks.

[Aardvark]

No people who, when asked a question, LIE instead of answering TRUTHFULLY are practising deceit. Just what you complain about in the Muslim Grand Plan.

I never said they should lie. You assumed that because that is what you might do. I didn't complain about the tactics of the Muslims. I described the tactics.

Military personnel should refer questions regarding the mission's failure or success to those above them. It is not their position to determine the course of the action. They are soldiers with a mission.

Generals who publicly denounce their mission in the theater of war are speaking for the enemy.

WBU, who do you think makes these decisions about tactics and missions. Not GWB or any of his cronies, its the Generals who come up with the plans and Ideas not the Pollies. The Generals at home get their info from the Officers on the ground in order to make their stratagies and offensive or defensive moves, therefor any General on the ground who has an opinion has it from first hand experience and should be heard, and may I say have credebility far beyond those at home !

[Khun Paul]

I do really fell that we have discussed this to death. Excuse the pun, this conflict will give us no winners no losers only the living and the dead,more dead then as of now.
We are all right and wrong at the same time.
Maggie was right, so are all the people who say we cannot win, those who say we can are not from this planet, they are in a world where the percieved might is right attitude has got them where they are today. absolutely nowhere.
End

[spaul]

slightly off subject, but the taliban have just claimed responsibility for shooting dead a young english woman on her way to work this morning. she was a christian aid worker helping the locals in afghanistan. the taliban have stated that her religion is the reason.

[rick]

ok, let's look at this from a different viewpoint. What is required to 'win'?

In Southern Afghanistan (just a general concept, basically the area where the taliban are significant) the people resent intruders and probably have family with the taleban, even if they do not approve of it. These people have literally little fear of death, expect it in the long run. If you kill a relative, it is a blood feud. So basically, we will probably have to kill 50% of the male population in each generation until something changes.

A lot of help for the Taleban comes from Pakistan. Wether the government likes it or not, it will find it hard to mount any significant offensive because of lack of public support for it. I think the government does enough to keep USA off its back, thats all. So to end logistic support to taleban USA and any allies it has in Afghanistan will need to carry the war to the enemy (i.e. bomb and invade North Pakistan) on a bigger scale than present. This would tip hostility in Pakistan further against USA and probably bring down government. UK would NOT take part in any such action, I think, because 1. it is a former part of British Empire and would sour relations with many other former members and 2. because a substantial part of our population comes from there - we would have our own war at home.

Conclusion. USA to win will need to kill millions in Afghanistan and millions in Pakistan to win. Either you invade both countries totally or fight a vietnam style operation (bomb all those mountain passes every week to stop the Pakistani volunteers coming over, kill the survivors when they arrive). There will be little help from elsewhere. or you continue the current tactics for another 50 years plus (sounds like Uk, the raj and Afghanistan from Victorian days).

That is why a political solution is the only sensible answer.

[BKKSTAN]

So the question is:Bin Laden is located in the tribal region of Pakistan,should the USA attack his position or not??

[tigerryan]

Look politics and the outcome of politics aside The US Army has won an enoremus amount. The US Army of today is nothing like the Army I left in 91. The technology and the leaders that have developed is unimaginable of a peace time Army. I am a hugh supporter of what is going on in the Stans and would support an ongoing effort of pummeling mud huts for decades to come. The US losses sustained in Afganistan are somthing less then the drunk driving deaths of these units. I beleive an Army needs a mission and if these TAli crazies want to justify the mission by being crazies I would support its continuance. If Osama feels the same way thats fine lets the games continue.

[rick]

If anyone knows where Bin Laden is, take him out. Then the war on terror can say that the end maybe is here. Remember, the taleban do not consider themselves terrorists and do not fight outside of Afghanistan/Pakistan (so far). They just got in the way. But fight the Taleban and you will still be there in 20 years. It's called mission creep. To be honest, do we really care about what happens in Afghanistan? Our governments did not until Bin Laden took up residense.