Worse Than a Nightmare
By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 25, 2010
...
Those who are so fascinated with counterinsurgency, from its chief advocate, Gen. David Petraeus, all the way down to the cocktail-hour kibitzers inside the Beltway, seem to have lost sight of a fundamental aspect of warfare: You don’t go to war half-stepping. You go to war to crush the enemy. You do this ferociously and as quickly as possible. If you don’t want to do it, if you have qualms about it, or don’t know how to do it, don’t go to war.
The men who stormed the beaches at Normandy weren’t trying to win the hearts and minds of anyone.
In Afghanistan, we are playing a dangerous, half-hearted game in which President Obama tells the America people that this is a war of necessity and that he will do whatever is necessary to succeed. Then, with the very next breath, he soothingly assures us that the withdrawal of U.S. troops will begin on schedule, like a Greyhound leaving the terminal, a year from now.
Originally posted by zeeblebot http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/opinion/26herbert.html?src=me&ref=general
Worse Than a Nightmare
By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 25, 2010
...
Those who are so fascinated with counterinsurgency, from its chief advocate, Gen. David Petraeus, all the way down to the cocktail-hour kibitzers inside the Beltway, seem to have lost sight of a fundament ...[text shortened]... chedule, like a Greyhound leaving the terminal, a year from now.
no1.:Herbert's solution is to get out; what's yours?
Originally posted by zeeblebot take on the Taliban and Pakistan intelligence with enough force and diplomacy for a reasonable chance of success, or get out.
zeeblebot carefully sets out his stall: he's both for staying AND for getting out, the difference being neatly obfuscated with words like "enough" and "reasonable chance" and "soft-handling" and the definitionless "success". The point being, later Obama can be condemned for withdrawing ["why didn't he take on the Taliban?"] and Obama can be condemned for not withdrawing ["why did he take on the Taliban?"]. We shall see.
Originally posted by FMF zeeblebot carefully sets out his stall: he's both for staying AND for getting out, the difference being neatly obfuscated with words like "enough" and "reasonable chance" and "soft-handling" and the definitionless "success". The point being, later Obama can be condemned [b]for withdrawing ["why didn't he take on the Taliban?"] and Obama can be condemned for not withdrawing ["why did he take on the Taliban?"]. We shall see.[/b]
Originally posted by zeeblebot take on the Taliban and Pakistan intelligence with enough force and diplomacy for a reasonable chance of success, or get out.
not soft-handing it while Pakistan continues playing games.
It seems clear that Pakistan is unwilling to provoke a full scale civil war to serve what the US elite perceive as American interests. Pakistan stability has already been seriously compromised because of measures they have undertaken due to US pressure.
Keep pushing and the result might be a another, far bloodier and more problematic war we'll have to fight in Pakistan.
track back the Taliban and the Mumbai attacks and they both lead to Pakistani intelligence. Pakistan has been harboring Taliban leaders and institutions.
Originally posted by zeeblebot track back the Taliban and the Mumbai attacks and they both lead to Pakistani intelligence. Pakistan has been harboring Taliban leaders and institutions.
So you want to go to war with Pakistan in order to win the war in Afghanistan?
Originally posted by zeeblebot i doubt it would take war. but apparently the US has brought no pressure at all against Pakistan, judging by the results.
What "pressure" do you think would be sufficient to force Pakistan to get rid of their present Intelligence apparatus and replace it with one more acceptable to the US government?
war. but they'd probably stop short of needing an invasion of Karachi. or even the initialization of hostilities. if the US said, "we can occupy Waziristan, or we can take out your entire air force and air defense network and then occupy Waziristan. which do you want?" the Pakistans would probably choose the former. the latter opens them up to Indian opportunism.
Belligerents may not invade neutral territory,[3] and a neutral power's resisting any such attempt does not compromise its neutrality.[4] A neutral power must intern belligerent troops who reach its territory,[5] but not escaped prisoners of war.[6] Belligerent armies may not recruit its citizens,[7] but they may go abroad to enlist.[8] Belligerent armies' men and material may not be transported across neutral territory,[9] but the wounded may be.[10] A neutral power may supply communication facilities to belligerents,[11] but not war material,[12] although it need not prevent export of such material.[13]
Belligerent naval vessels may use neutral ports for a maximum of 24 hours, though neutrals may impose different restrictions.[14] Exceptions are to make repairs — only the minimum necessary to put back to sea[15] — or if an opposing belligerent's vessel is already in port, in which case it must have a 24-hour head start.[16] A prize ship captured by a belligerent in the territorial waters of a neutral power must be surrendered by the belligerent to the neutral, which must intern its crew.[17]
Originally posted by zeeblebot war. but they'd probably stop short of needing an invasion of Karachi. or even the initialization of hostilities. if the US said, "we can occupy Waziristan, or we can take out your entire air force and air defense network and then occupy Waziristan. which do you want?" the Pakistans would probably choose the former. the latter opens them up to Indian opportunism.
Good luck with that. Suppose they said we'll incinerate Bagram AFB with a nuclear missile if you try?
Bob Herbert calls it, on Afghanistan
26 Jun '10 21:15
Back to Top