Article

2008-01-20 India-Pakistan

US does not have option to abandon Pakistan, says expert

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2008-01-20 00:00|| || Front Page|| [14 views ] Top
File under: Govt of Pakistan

#1 We could give Afghanistan a Sea Coast!

Its just like a suggestion...

Posted by 3dc 2008-01-20 00:49|| 2008-01-20 00:49|| Front Page Top

#2 How long would it take the Pakistani government to fall if the US walked away, or even supported the Taliban/AlQ takeover of the Pakistani "government"?

After that, basically anyone with a plane with sufficient range could fly right over Pakistan with impunity and take care of business in Afghanistan. It may or may not make sense to help them back onto their feet. Of course, the nukes would need to be confiscated for this to work. Maybe this is why they are so testy about the US knowing where they were and what the security arrangements are.

Posted by gorb 2008-01-20 03:23|| 2008-01-20 03:23|| Front Page Top

#3 There is access from Pak Kashmir (which India considers its sovereign territory) and a slice of the NWFP (not under Pak control in normal circumstances). The infrastructure on the Indian side supports hundreds of thousands of troops. And after 9/11, India offered the use of its bases to the US.

So there are simple cartographic adjustments that remedy this dilemma.

Posted by john frum 2008-01-20 08:13|| 2008-01-20 08:13|| Front Page Top

#4 How easily could we resupply the troops via these other areas, as compared to running truck convoys through Pakistan?

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2008-01-20 11:07|| 2008-01-20 11:07|| Front Page Top

#5 And USA has to stay in Afghanistan because?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2008-01-20 12:56|| 2008-01-20 12:56|| Front Page Top

#6 Look at a map. Think about it for a while & I'm sure you'll figure out the value of our being there and in Iraq.

Posted by lotp 2008-01-20 13:36|| 2008-01-20 13:36|| Front Page Top

#7 Value to whom? (especially in Afghanistan?)

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2008-01-20 17:01|| 2008-01-20 17:01|| Front Page Top

#8 Afghanistan just graduated its first class of engineers from the new military academy, which was set up with US help. Pashtuns do NOT dominate the selection process for admission there. They've sent their first two cadets to West Point, as well.

Iraq and Afghanistan break up the potential swath of fundamentalist Islamicists from Egypt and the Saudis through to Pakistan and, with a jump, to Indonesia. The value of having moderate, more or less friendly governments there is obvious to me, as is the value of helping both those countries to adopt more functional economic models. It will take longer in Afghanistan than in Iraq because they're starting with so much less in place.

No guarantees but some promise.

Posted by lotp 2008-01-20 17:30|| 2008-01-20 17:30|| Front Page Top

#9 Story about the Afghan military academy cadets

As the article notes, West Point played a key role in the development of the US. Early cadets formed a national as opposed to state/religious identity and were the primary leaders in building roads etc. that enabled the frontier to be opened and settled.

It will take time, but these cadets will have a transformative impact on Afghanistan if we stay the course and support them for a while.

Posted by lotp 2008-01-20 17:36|| 2008-01-20 17:36|| Front Page Top

#10 There is a thing I don't understand. To wit, why some people can believe both: (a) you can westernize a Muslim country by occupying itto expose it's people to "Western Values"; and (b)Muslim minorities in western countries are implementing Jihad.

p.s. Speaking of the things I don't understand. I don't understand why spending trillions "to assure stability" in ME is economically viable when a 10th of the sum paid as a subsidy to local producers would assure energy independence.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2008-01-20 17:56|| 2008-01-20 17:56|| Front Page Top

#11 The same reason the US suffered through an oil embargo and trillions of dollars of damage to protect "that shitty little country".

Posted by ed 2008-01-20 18:52|| 2008-01-20 18:52|| Front Page Top

#12 BTW, gromguru. This is the first time I have agreed with you in a long time. Legislating a floor on oil prices would have taken away the OPECs weapon to crash prices and bankrupt any energy project. And it have cost the US nothing.

The US could have spent 1/2 of what we do on muslims, and by now, have one nuclear reactor coming on line every week, providing heat and electricity and converting every ton of coal ($10-20) into at least $500 worth of petroleum products. The US could have spent 1/100th of what we do and we could have gotten the arabs fighting among themselves and made a fortune on weapons sales and schadenfreude.

In the end, nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan are not important. They will turn on the infidels as soon as we are no longer useful to their leadership's attainment/maintainment of power.

Posted by ed 2008-01-20 19:07|| 2008-01-20 19:07|| Front Page Top

#13 Umm ... IMO while nation building would be useful, the immediate payoff is US bases in both countries.

The problem is our 'allies' who encouraged the insurgents in Iraq (and kept selling nuclear tech to Iran). Combined with Bremer's idiocy, it meant several years of casualties we arguably could have avoided.

If we're not there, others will be -- to our detriment.

Posted by lotp 2008-01-20 19:23|| 2008-01-20 19:23|| Front Page Top

#14 We don't need bases to arm the Afghan Tadjikhs, Uzbeks and Hazaras to overrun the Pushtoons and steal their wimmen. We didn't need bases to watch Iraq and Iran were slaughter each other, much to our benefit. We didn't need Iraqi bases to have Saddam Hussein check Iranian power. Instead, Iraq is in danger of being run from Tehran. Bases are over rated. We don't need them if we don't care about civilizing these savages.

Posted by ed 2008-01-20 19:44|| 2008-01-20 19:44|| Front Page Top

#15 But ed, without supervision either the Strong Man starts funding his pet jihadis and preparing for regional domination, like Saddam Hussein did, or Al Qaeda types set up shop in a bribable corner and start preparing for world conquest. And then we'd have to invade again. Might as well just stay on hand.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2008-01-20 20:09|| 2008-01-20 20:09|| Front Page Top

#16 The sanctions against Saddam were eroding fast even as our pilots and aircraft were being worn down from enforcing the nofly zones. The food-for-oil program was a corrupt mess and Saddam had bribed many in the UN, the press and Europe.

At the same time the sanctions on nuclear tech to Teheran were also eroding as the Germans and others sought to make money and ensure oil to Europe from Iran.

It would have been nice if that were just an interesting set of facts "out there" but the oil producers are still central to the European and Asian economies, and our economy depends on selling to those countries.

Moreover the stability of the oil producing countries was and is being eroded from within by the Islamicists. Sooner or later we were going to either move in with serious force or throw in the towel and go the route of Britain and the continent. And for me, at least, that's unacceptable.

Posted by lotp 2008-01-20 20:11|| 2008-01-20 20:11|| Front Page Top

#17 Whether Oil For Food collapsed or not, Saddam would still have check Iranian power. Blood enemies and all that. Now the struggle is to check the Iranians from having a contiguous path to the Mediterranean. In the time since 2001, the Iranians hae powered up Bushehr, have thousands of centrifuges producing enriched uranium, bringing on line plutonium producing reactors, and building 500km missiles. The Iraqi invasion had little effect on Iran's nuke program, other than speeding it up with Putin's help (and soul).

This Marxist inspired Kumbaya foreign policy w.r.t. mullahs who study and practice deceit, ambush and slaughter will be the death of the west.

The Asian and European economies depend on selling the to the US. Have you forgotten the $736 billion US trade deficit? Bring that economic activity home and Americans (esp. the lower and middle classes) will be much better off.

The US has 250 years of coal and 500 years of shale (at current use rate and recovery tech). Double our coal production and produce 13-15 million barrels/day of nuke produced H2 F-T petroleum. In the mean time, shift to electric based transportation. Then WE will be the major oil exporter. Or the threat will collapse oil prices to $30/barrel.

Posted by ed 2008-01-20 20:41|| 2008-01-20 20:41|| Front Page Top

#18 Three words. Reagan. Libia. 1986.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2008-01-20 20:42|| 2008-01-20 20:42|| Front Page Top

#19 2500km missiles

Posted by ed 2008-01-20 20:47|| 2008-01-20 20:47|| Front Page Top

#20 Ed, unfortunately we cannot re-create a high paying manufacturing base overnight, nor build the nuclear capacity needed to replace oil in various ways in less than several years of all out, emergency efforts -- efforts for which there is not yet domestic support politically.

In the meanwhile, 9/11 was a turning point that signalled we could no longer ignore what was building in the middle east and elsewhere.

I personally doubt that our presence in Iraq has sped up the Iranian nuke program. They've been hell bent on that path for some time IMO.

I could be wrong, but that's how I read it. Nor do I think Saddam could hold the Iranians in check much longer. It's become clear that in the last years of his regime the infrastructure in Iraq was falling apart very badly, including the oil production infrastructure. If he had fallen to internal enemies, or just died, the resulting chaos would not only have hit the world economy hard it would also have given Iran exactly that open path to the Mediterranean you mention.

I might be wrong, but I'm damned if I can see how we could avoid something similar to what we're doing now unless we were ready to absorb the consequences. And I just don't see Clinton as having left us in shape to do that very well.

JMO

Posted by lotp 2008-01-20 20:48|| 2008-01-20 20:48|| Front Page Top

#21 Even today, a nuclear plant can be built in a few years, including the long lead items. The barriers are not technological or even financial. They should be continuously coming off assembly lines by now. Instead we have entirely wasted 6 years. We have sent an extra trillion dollars to those who want to kill us. Better to spend the dollars to kill them first and take the oil.

On the contrary, industrial capacity can be built surprisingly quickly. Witness American industrialization in WW2 or the German and Soviet industrialization of the 30's. It is technical knowledge worker base that is hard to create, which we are also willy nilly exporting. All for the benefit of a few moneyed elites who, when the shit hits the fan, will be able to get on their jets and yachts to a safe haven.

What 1991 showed was the Shiites and Kurds could not overthrow the Sunnis, Saddam breathing or not. At the time of the ceasefire, when the regime as on it's knees begging Gen. Schwartzkopf, there was only one Iraqi division between the US Army and Baghdad. But it was enough to kill and suppress the Shiite and Kurd civilians.

I am absolutely horrified at the stupid strategic decisions made by this administration. They have strengthened our enemies, given them resources, and weakened us at home. Sometimes I wonder whose side they are on, but then I realize the Democrats would give up the game even quicker.

We live or die on our wits and resources. There won't be an Army coming from across the ocean to rescue us.

Posted by ed 2008-01-20 21:22|| 2008-01-20 21:22|| Front Page Top

#22 I keep pushing, and someday someone's going to say "I've got a great idea - let's divide Pakistan between India and Afghanistan, along the Indus River", and I'm going to say things that aren't allowed to be said in this forum. I will also agree, and shout HURRAH! once it's a done deal.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2008-01-20 23:45|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2008-01-20 23:45|| Front Page Top

23:59 Barbara Skolaut
23:45 Old Patriot
23:06 Ulomomble Turkeyneck4286
23:01 JosephMendiola
23:00 Ulomomble Turkeyneck4286
22:58 Ulomomble Turkeyneck4286
22:50 JosephMendiola
22:45 JosephMendiola
22:27 rjschwarz
22:09 JosephMendiola
22:06 trailing wife
22:02 JosephMendiola
21:58 Eric Jablow
21:53 OldSpook
21:49 OldSpook
21:34 trailing wife
21:31 Omung Squank9908
21:25 JosephMendiola
21:22 ed
21:21 trailing wife
21:18 JosephMendiola
21:17 Pappy
21:13 trailing wife
21:08 trailing wife