You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
India-Pakistan
Fear of losing drove US raid
2008-09-13
The United States decision to mount a ground strike inside Pakistan last week reflected fears that terrorists were winning the war against the US-led forces.
They still haven't caught on: we're not going to lose. If necessary, we'll do more and do it more ruthlessly. They won't like us when we're ruthless. come to think of it, they don't like us now, do they?
A quieter Iraq and a power shift in Islamabad also helped open the way for more US strikes in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan, home to Taliban terrorists and Al Qaeda leaders believed to be plotting new attacks against the West.
We played that game along the Viet-Cambodian and Viet-Lao borders. We didn't like the way it worked. We're not going to play it again. We've been trying to be polite, and the Paks have been misinterpreting.
"There is no doubt the US patience with Pakistan is running short," said Andrew McGregor, terrorism editor at the Jamestown Foundation security think tank.
Our patience running out doesn't mean we're going to leave in frustration.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen said this week, "I'm not convinced we are winning it in Afghanistan. I am convinced we can."
He'd better be convinced we're going to win. Otherwise Bush can find somebody to replace him easily enough.
"Frankly, we're running out of time," he told a congressional committee.
Which means the Paks are running out of time.
Sponsors: A senior US official said that the US military had the right to go after sponsors of cross-border attacks, while a senior Pakistani official suggested the US military had misinterpreted complex rules. "What you're seeing is an increased activity (by) our troops taking our rules of engagement to them (terrorists in Afghanistan)," the US official said on Tuesday.
That's the Hague Convention, if I recall correctly. The precedent goes back to before the Napoleonic Wars. Neutrals are under strict rules as to how long and in what manner they can shelter belligerents. Our Pak "allies" should read up on that, since it's not all that complex. See Hague Convention V, Chapter I, Articles 2, 3, and 4, each of which is a single short paragraph.
However, the Pakistani official said, "There are certain circumstances in which a special operation might be required to go arrest someone, but that can't easily be done in the Tribal Areas."
Posted by:Fred

#15  I'm sure a 20-ship ARCLIGHT strike down through the middle of Rawalpindi/Islamabad would help Phakestan to make up its mind about allowing us to chase Talibunnies on their territory. Send the BUFFS with an F-22 escort. I'm sure the message will be received loud and clear. Do it the day after the elections, if we need to wait that long, but don't delay it any later. Phakestan needs a wake-up call - loud and clear.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2008-09-13 15:26  

#14  In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”
Posted by: Parabellum   2008-09-13 09:19  

#13  Will keep it in mind .5MT. It was a nice shotgun, but it wasn't in working order. The firing pins had been removed (back in the 1940s) out of concern that the barrel was weakened, although there were no visible dents or splits. It was used as a farm gun prior to that.

I must admit, we did not sell that one to the government. We gave it to them. It was donated to an army armourer apprentice school as a training aid.
Posted by: Bunyip   2008-09-13 08:50  

#12  If you want to cripple the drug trade, legalize it. Let the profit potential disappear. Then it won't be a problem.

If we can't keep the drugs out of our prisons, we sure can't keep them out our neighborhoods. And we haven't. There's too much money. I can't begrudge the dirt poor farmer in Afghanistan his cut when my neighbor is getting his just because of our stupid laws.

That would cripple the Taliban.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-09-13 08:17  

#11  Yo Bunyip!

Ima want to talk to you about that double barrel shotgun you sold to your government. Next time please holler at me. It broker my heart to read your post yesterday.
Posted by: .5MT   2008-09-13 08:14  

#10  I don't buy that Mike. Sure, the Afghan farmer feels that his best bet to feed his family is to grow poppies. However, his product hurts people, and the profits help fund a long chain of criminal enterprises.

There are always alternatives they can grow. If poppies will grow, then other crops will as well. They will just be less profitable.

If I started growing poppies at my place, then said I wouldn't stop until I was given an equally profitable alternative, then my local law enforcement community would, I expect, tell me to "Go directly to jail, do not pass go, and definitely don't collect $200".

If I every got out of jail, I would need to find a less profitable, and less damaging way to feed the family.

So why should the Afghans get a moral pass to grow poppies?
Posted by: Bunyip   2008-09-13 08:01  

#9  Recalling my US/New York State history , Fenian Irish of the 1860's who attempted attacks on British forces in Upper Canada were usually turned over to the Brits for proper disposal.

Not always as promptly as Canada would've prefered but even then it was understood a real nation-state doesn't harbor scum unless they want a fight.

Fenian Irish
Posted by: JDB   2008-09-13 04:52  

#8  Its not as easy as just spreading a fungus. The Afghan government then has that many more people with no money and nothing to farm.

What they need is a viable alternative that's at least somewhere near as profitable. A law putting these growers in jail wouldn't hurt either - as long as they have something else to grow.
Posted by: Mike N.   2008-09-13 03:44  

#7  virus or fungus that kills the poppies would be a good start.
Posted by: 3dc   2008-09-13 03:22  

#6  From what I understand a big part of our enemy is criminal enterprise. I think a good cunk of that is based around the opium and we should go after it and destroy it and cut off their cash flow.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2008-09-13 02:13  

#5  The Hague Convention

I would question whether Pakistan is a neutral Power under article 5, but maybe I'm not nuanced enough.

Art. 5. A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory.
Posted by: SteveS   2008-09-13 01:43  

#4  The Surge II. Only this time the donks probably won't say it can't work. They'll have to stick to the 'I told you so' card
Posted by: Mike N.   2008-09-13 00:40  

#3  I hope Petraeus will square it away. We need to get rid of those opium warlords too.
Posted by: Penguin   2008-09-13 00:35  

#2  Apparently we are afraid that unless we systematically exterminate every cockroach in the nest, we will get more cockroaches.

And at the high rate we are taking them out, they will be lucky if they have a poop-stained prayer rug between them by the time we leave.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2008-09-13 00:17  

#1  "the Pakistani official said, 'There are certain circumstances in which a special operation might be required to go kill arrest someone, but that can't easily be done in the Tribal Areas.'"

Not by YOU, maybe....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2008-09-13 00:11  

00:00