March 06, 2006
The Rise of Talibanistan
The strike in Danda Saidgai, suicide bombing in Karachi & fighting in Miranshah make Pakistan's “miscreant” problem difficult to paper over


The Taliban and al-Qaeda provided an embarrassing scene for Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as President George Bush visited the country last week. Eager to demonstrate Pakistan’s commitment to fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas on the border with Afghanistan, the Pakistani military launched an offensive against a terrorist camp in Danda Saidgai, North Waziristan. The Islamists responded by murdering a U.S. diplomat in a suicide strike outside the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, as well as launching a counteroffensive against the seat of government in Miranshah, North Waziristan.

The attack on the camp in Danda Saidgai and the fighting in Miranshah reveal much about the tenuous situation the Pakistani government faces in the lawless border regions, particularly in North and South Waziristan. Their is plenty of evidence the Pakistani government exerts very little influence outside of the government center in Miranshah and Wana, which have essentially become military garrisons inside hostile territory controlled by the Taliban. The Taliban is

The terrorist camp in Danda Saidgai wasn’t just a transient camp hastily assembled, but a “sprawling hideout “ and “military complex” which housed hundreds of foreign fighters and served as a training center. There were “eight residential quarters” which served as barracks for the terrorists. This camp has been in existence for some time, and it is believed there are several more like it spread throughout the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Northwest Frontier Provinces.

The Taliban responded two days later by launching a devastating counteroffensive (from a military, political and propaganda perspective) against the garrison city of Miranshah and outlying town of Mir Ali. On Saturday, a confidential source in Wana informed me "Miram Shah got hammered today." While the Pakistani military eventually regained control of the city, and claim to have killed up to 100 Taliban fighters, the performance of the Pakistani units in Miranshah is troubling. The Taliban occupied government buildings, including a telephone exchange, and looted a local bank. The fighting is still raging around the city.

According to one press account, the Taliban “compelled the [Pakistani] military to transfer its helicopters and other vital equipment to Bannu from Miranshah.” A confidential source informed me the situation was much worse, and the Taliban actually seized military equipment after Pakistani troops abandoned their posts - equipment which includes American made heavy weaponry including armor-piercing rounds, mortars and other equipment.

Despite the Pakistani military’s boasting about retaking the city and inflicting high casualty rates on Taliban forces, the military essentially lost control of Miranshah. The Taliban is openly is flaunting power in Waziristan, and boldly amassed hundreds of fighters to strike at one of the few government strongholds in the region.

The resurgence of the Taliban is often credited to their resilience in Afghanistan, however the truth is the Taliban is not very popular within Afghanistan proper. The Taliban’s power is derived from Pakistan, as it always has since its inception in the early 1990s. The fighting in Afghanistan is largely being fueled in Pakistan’s lawless border region, and Pakistan has proven unable to establish government control five years after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

By Bill Roggio | Posted March 06, 2006 | Permalink | Print Article

Pakistan: Soon to be Crapistan

Good read. Scary... lots of bad things stacking up on the horizon. I hope our strategic planners are keeping an eye on all this.

Quoted: Pakistan: Soon to be Crapistan Good read. Scary... lots of bad things stacking up on the horizon. I hope our strategic planners are keeping an eye on all this.

Where was GW just this weekend?

This was seen coming, Musharref was basicly told by Bush that he had to deal with this or India would, and we would back India.

If Musharref does bring this under control, we will be extatic, but if he doesnt its not a problem- India and if necessecery our troops in Afganistan will take care of it.

However I think we would rather use or Afghanistan troops to threaten Iran, so more likely a Musharef failure would bring a Indian, not a American, response.

However, in the short term, we are going to have the ugly situation of US troops in Afghanistan being shot at with US weapons.  And I hope we did NOT provide Pakistan with SINGARS radios or now our troops will have to deal with being evesdropped on.  (A nasty problem we had to endure througout the Vietnam war)

FM mullahs fill the airwaves with hatred
By Isambard Wilkinson in Charsadda
(Filed: 06/03/2006)

Pakistan's North West Frontier Province is always hard to control, but it now poses a new challenge, with scores of illegal radio stations transmitting a message of jihad and sectarian hatred.

This has so alarmed the central government in Islamabad that it is has closed 40 stations in the mountainous region along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

 
Mullah Mohammed Hashim who has set up a pirate radio station
Charsadda is a town bristling with the antennae of pirate radios. Mullah Mohammed Hashim, 45, keeps his "radio station" - a car battery, radiator-shaped transmitter and amplifier - in a cupboard. "We are not aggressors, but if we are attacked, then we tell our listeners to be ready for jihad," he declares.

His radio station condemns the actions of Pakistan and US armed forces continuing antial-Qa'eda and Taliban operations in the tribal areas, where Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar are believed to be hiding, describing the operations as "part of a wider conspiracy to shed the blood of innocent Muslims". Mullah Hashim uses basic equipment and setting up a radio station costs less than £100.

The radicalising effect of unlicensed stations has been keenly felt in Bara village in the Khyber tribal agency. There, two "FM mullahs", as they were dubbed by the local press, one who followed a Sufic tradition and another, a newcomer who is a disciple of a more austere form of Islam, waged a turf war via their private channels.

After inciting their followers to bloody riots, a jirga (tribal council) ruled last week that both should be expelled from the area. Now the government is under pressure from secular-minded local leaders who doubt the commitment of President Pervez Musharraf's government to crack down on the stations.

"We have closed over 40 stations during the last four months as they are creating differences and sectarian issues," said the information minister, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed. "There are still a few preaching jihad but we are closing them down."

The government has launched several of its own radio stations, broadcasting music and more secular programmes.

I wish we could go in there and just clean house... but they say that would inflame the radicals in that country even more, and possibly topple Musharraf.

Quoted: I wish we could go in there and just clean house... but they say that would inflame the radicals in that country even more, and possibly topple Musharraf.

I doubt they would say that after this week.

That was why Bush was in India

I think there is more than what meet's the eye at the moment.  I personally think there is something that the Bush Admin is not telling the public.

Quoted: I think there is more than what meet's the eye at the moment.  I personally think there is something that the Bush Admin is not telling the public.

Contrary to popular opinion, it's OK for a government to not tip their hands early... sometimes.

I'm surprised Pakistan even cares anymore after Bush gave India our nukular secrets.

Why Al Qaida is at home in Pakistan its five pages long so I am not going to copy it.

"We are not aggressors, but if we are attacked, then we tell our listeners to be ready for jihad,"
We need to get the press out of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and then do strafing runs with Napalm and white phosphorus. Here’s your jihad!

Even if they do have SINGARS radios we change are frequencies and codes every day. Our radio communications would still be secure.

From The Belmont Clubs post on the above posted Bill Roggio article:

Daniel Byman, in his book Deadly Connections : States that Sponsor Terrorism, noted that state sponsors have always been aware of the danger of biteback. For example, Syria consciously strove to limit the power and influence of each of its terrorist proxies in Lebanon and Palestine, sometimes setting one against the other in order to prevent any single one from becoming a threat to Damascus. But for Pakistan, the temptation to extend it's influence westward grew too great; it nurtured the Taliban as its chosen instrument without anticipating the danger to itself. Excerpts are from Byman's book from page 195 onwards. The extent of Pakistan's role in the Taliban's creation and initial successes remains unclear, but as the movement gained strength it increasingly became Islamabad's favored paoxy. Pakistan's military and intelligence service provided arms, ammunition, supplies for combat, financial aid, and training. Pakistan also helped recruit fighters for the Taliban, often working with domestic religious associations.  ... Support for the Taliban went far beyond official government circles and included major political parties, religious networks, and many ordinary Pakistanis. ... Larry Goodson estimates that Pakistanis comprised one quarter of the Taliban's forces ... The JUI (Jamiat-e Ulema Islam) ... established religious schools that gave birth to and natured the Taliban and shaped its ideology. Parties like the JUI did not distinguish between Kashmir, Pakistan, and Afghanistan when pursuing their ambitions. Over time, these parties and privately run schools provided much of the manpower for the Taliban ... the "madrasa network" ... set "thousands" of recruits ... The Taliban also weakened the Pakistani state ... encouraged both Pashtun nationalism and Islamic extremism in Pakistan itself, further fraying an already weak social fabric. The Taliban's eviction from Afghanistan in 2003 had the effect of turning the Taliban's aggressive ferocity back on Pakistan itself. Although the war on terror is often described with the United States and its allies on one side there is in fact intense and armed competition for supremacy within the "terrorist" side. For example, Fatah and Hamas are contending for supremcy within the Palestinian Authority; and various factions both Shi'ite and Sunni are at each other's throats in Iraq. Wars normally end in a new legitimacy codified in peace treaties and constitutional arrangements. But terrorism, however perfect it may be as an instrument of war is the worst possible vehicle upon which to construct a peace. Countries which use terrorism as a primary weapon will be trapped in it. posted by wretchard at 9:43 PM | 8 comments

The same thing has also happened to Saudi Arabia.  Long the primary financiers and organizers of the madras movement world wide through which they also financed terrorist organizations.  This was originally crated to coutnter the spread of secularism in the Islamic world- since that spread primarily took the form of Stalinist Marxism the US approved if it bothered to take notice at all.  The high point was the organization and financing of the resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afganistan.  But they also fought against OTHER fundimentalist Muslims- the non-Arab, non- Sunni Islamic Revoluionaries in Iran.

Again, this was also beneficial to and approved by the United States.

Saudi Arabia lost control of this movement when one of the last Stalinists they had not neutralized- because they had been forced to use him themselves to keep in check the Shiia Iranian Revolution- none other than Saddam Hussein, took a stab at intimidating Saudi Arabia by invading Kuwait.  The Saudis called in the West to stop him and this was considered a act of betrayl by the Mujahadeen they had created.  The Saudi King and most of his top ministers are trying to help the US, but the country and the goverment and its huge surplus royal family are shot full of jihadi supporters that they cannot stop cash and men from flowing out of the country to Al Qaida- nor even prevent attacks within the country now, though they seem to have enough loyalists to may Al Qaida operations inside the country very expensive.

The US has been very fortunate to not have gotten more involved than it did in proxy warfare.  Cause we can add Cuba to the list and we were of course ALSO involved like the Saudis and Pakistanis in Afghanistan.

Local troops are a useful, even necessecery, adjunct to our military forces.  But I think its quite clear from this that from now on, if we are unable or unwilling to use our own troops in a conflict, we should NOT get involved.  Even if its only at the end, to deliver the coup de gras, after the target is already destabilized and crippled, invasion and occupation is the only way to DISARM and demobilize your "allies" to keep them from turning on YOU.  And you may have to resort to limited violence against them to do it.

Quoted:  And I hope we did NOT provide Pakistan with SINGARS radios or now our troops will have to deal with being evesdropped on.  (A nasty problem we had to endure througout the Vietnam war)

No two programs are the same.  No worries there IMO.

Quoted: Quoted:  And I hope we did NOT provide Pakistan with SINGARS radios or now our troops will have to deal with being evesdropped on.  (A nasty problem we had to endure througout the Vietnam war) No two programs are the same.  No worries there IMO.

+1

I could never get those things loaded up and working right.

.

Its ironic that for the last however many hundreds of years, the North West Frontier Provences have been a source of lawlessness. The whole of India (as it was at the time) was peaceful once the British had put down the Indian Mutiny, except for this area. Now, the country is Muslim, and the area is still a problem. It seems  as though the Pakis are just the new British in the area as far as the tribesmen are concerned.

On the whole Indian nukes thing, why do I get the impression that Bush's agreement with India is all about providing a very visible and thinly veiled counter to the possibility of a fundamentalist takeover in Pakistan? Musharaff is walking a very fine line between Washington and the hardliners in his own country. If he blows off the US, then he looses the only real support that keeps him in power, and the Islamists get him. If he upsets the Islamic hard liners too much, they'll go after him anyway. Considering that he's on such shaky ground, there's a good chance that he'll be toppled/assasinated/bug out at some point in the future, and we all know who'll take over. By giving India help with its civillian programme, the US can free up alot of Indian nuclear scientists to work on their military programme, not to mention making it a trivial undertaking to clandistinly help India to build up its nuclear deterrent force to counterbalance the real enemy: China.

The huge downside of all this is that it makes a mockery of the U.S.'s stance on counterprolifferation. Why is it ok for India to opt out of the NPT, develop nukes and delivery systems, etc. but not Iraq,Iran or NK? "Because we said so" is not an answer that sits well with the rest of the world. "F*ck 'em, we're the best, who needs em" I hear some say. Well, if you want to know why the rest of the world (barring a couple of countries), who likes to play warm and fuzzy internationalist statesman games, rarely supports America, this is why. The U.S. persues its own interests with very little regard to the norms of international diplomacy or the almost universal desire of international foreign policy elites to build a rule-based international system.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. The American voters elect American politicians to look after perceived American interests. Just don't expect the rest of the world to fall into line behind you. They'll persue their interests first.

Quoted: Its ironic that for the last however many hundreds of years, the North West Frontier Provences have been a source of lawlessness. The whole of India (as it was at the time) was peaceful once the British had put down the Indian Mutiny, except for this area. Now, the country is Muslim, and the area is still a problem. It seems  as though the Pakis are just the new British in the area as far as the tribesmen are concerned. On the whole Indian nukes thing, why do I get the impression that Bush's agreement with India is all about providing a very visible and thinly veiled counter to the possibility of a fundamentalist takeover in Pakistan? Musharaff is walking a very fine line between Washington and the hardliners in his own country. If he blows off the US, then he looses the only real support that keeps him in power, and the Islamists get him. If he upsets the Islamic hard liners too much, they'll go after him anyway. Considering that he's on such shaky ground, there's a good chance that he'll be toppled/assasinated/bug out at some point in the future, and we all know who'll take over. By giving India help with its civillian programme, the US can free up alot of Indian nuclear scientists to work on their military programme, not to mention making it a trivial undertaking to clandistinly help India to build up its nuclear deterrent force to counterbalance the real enemy: China. The huge downside of all this is that it makes a mockery of the U.S.'s stance on counterprolifferation. Why is it ok for India to opt out of the NPT, develop nukes and delivery systems, etc. but not Iraq,Iran or NK? "Because we said so" is not an answer that sits well with the rest of the world. "F*ck 'em, we're the best, who needs em" I hear some say. Well, if you want to know why the rest of the world (barring a couple of countries), who likes to play warm and fuzzy internationalist statesman games, rarely supports America, this is why. The U.S. persues its own interests with very little regard to the norms of international diplomacy or the almost universal desire of international foreign policy elites to build a rule-based international system. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The American voters elect American politicians to look after perceived American interests. Just don't expect the rest of the world to fall into line behind you. They'll persue their interests first.

Are you serious? Do you think India is salivating at the chance to launch nukes at Israel or the US?

THINK before you type.

I read somewhere that there is a plan in place should Musharrif be pushed from power to go in and seize the nuke warheads they have

Well, if you want to know why the rest of the world (barring a couple of countries), who likes to play warm and fuzzy internationalist statesman games, rarely supports America, this is why. The U.S. persues its own interests with very little regard to the norms of international diplomacy or the almost universal desire of international foreign policy elites to build a rule-based international system.

Jealousy is unbecoming.

Most of the rest of the world has been recently showing themselves to be completely incompitent, and their "rule-based" international system to be a sham, largely because it requires the admittance of criminal regimes.

"International diplomacy" has of late been nothing more than cowardly appeasment.

We need a blog board to host this type discussion. while many here are up to the intellectual engagement, they theme here is instant gratification and visual stimuli.

good luck, with trying to change that (seriously)

Quoted: Are you serious? Do you think India is salivating at the chance to launch nukes at Israel or the US? THINK before you type. Quoted:

No, of course not. Go back and reread my post FAL. The wackjobs who believe that the world shoud be a fair and peaceloving group hug use exactly this argument: The U.S. is a big bully that has one set of rules for its self and friends, and another for those they don't like AND THAT THIS IS BAD. Now, I happen to agree with the American philosophy of looking out for your own and you friends first. Nevertheless, the reason that America lacks support for much of  what it does in the world is because they put themselves first, and everyone else second. When your trying to build a rule-based system, someone running around doing their own thing tends to mess things up. Right or wrong (and more right than wrong) America is really good at it. Of course Iran, NK and old Iraq are in a different catagory to India. However, India will become the new Israel on the nuclear front, ie. America will be ridiculed as hypocritical because it is willing to support a nuclear Israel and India, but not a nuclear Iran, Iraq or NK because America is a selfish bully. Do I believe this? NO. Will it happen, absolutly.

Quoted: Well, if you want to know why the rest of the world (barring a couple of countries), who likes to play warm and fuzzy internationalist statesman games, rarely supports America, this is why. The U.S. persues its own interests with very little regard to the norms of international diplomacy or the almost universal desire of international foreign policy elites to build a rule-based international system. Jealousy is unbecoming. Most of the rest of the world has been recently showing themselves to be completely incompitent, and their "rule-based" international system to be a sham, largely because it requires the admittance of criminal regimes. "International diplomacy" has of late been nothing more than cowardly appeasment.

+50k

Absolutly spot on. However, just because its been shown to be a stupid, utopian, morally bankrupt and totally ineffective concept doesn't mean the'll give up. It just means that they'll blame America for its failure carry on as before.

Quoted: We need a blog board to host this type discussion. while many here are up to the intellectual engagement, they theme here is instant gratification and visual stimuli. good luck, with trying to change that (seriously)

Visual stimuli, as reqested

Quoted: The huge downside of all this is that it makes a mockery of the U.S.'s stance on counterprolifferation.

Oh? Believe you me, we would gladly hand off the problems in Iran and North Korea, but who does the largely-neutered world look to in both cases? As long as we are expected to play global cop and hand out the tickets, we also get to let our friends off with a warning and a wink. If the Belgiums and Chads of the world think less of the US because of it, we will somehow manage to carry on.

Why is it ok for India to opt out of the NPT, develop nukes and delivery systems, etc. but not Iraq,Iran or NK?

Simple:  Iran and NK are apeshit-nutty dicatorships that are hostile towards the US. India is not. Why should we piss away our resources worrying about India when we have so many other problems to confront?

The U.S. persues its own interests with very little regard to the norms of international diplomacy or the almost universal desire of international foreign policy elites to build a rule-based international system.

And we should give a fuck about said elites because...? They don't seem to have done a very good job at stopping nuclear proliferation, have they? Or any other international crisis for that matter.

The UN is utterly worthless when it comes to most matters, but especially so when talking about touchy situation, such as in Iran. America has learned to trust in allies (especially the Anglosphere), but we don't waste too much time or effort with the UN anymore.

Quoted: Quoted: The huge downside of all this is that it makes a mockery of the U.S.'s stance on counterprolifferation. Oh? Believe you me, we would gladly hand off the problems in Iran and North Korea, but who does the largely-neutered world look to in both cases? As long as we are expected to play global cop and hand out the tickets, we also get to let our friends off with a warning and a wink. If the Belgiums and Chads of the world think less of the US because of it, we will somehow manage to carry on. Why is it ok for India to opt out of the NPT, develop nukes and delivery systems, etc. but not Iraq,Iran or NK? Simple:  Iran and NK are apeshit-nutty dicatorships that are hostile towards the US. India is not. Why should we piss away our resources worrying about India when we have so many other problems to confront? The U.S. persues its own interests with very little regard to the norms of international diplomacy or the almost universal desire of international foreign policy elites to build a rule-based international system. And we should give a fuck about said elites because...? They don't seem to have done a very good job at stopping nuclear proliferation, have they? Or any other international crisis for that matter. The UN is utterly worthless when it comes to most matters, but especially so when talking about touchy situation, such as in Iran. America has learned to trust in allies (especially the Anglosphere), but we don't waste too much time or effort with the UN anymore.

Sure, I agree, especially with your last paragraph. The question though, is does America want to lead the world, or just do its own thing? If the answer is the first, then the opinion of the rest of the world matters. It matters because you have to shape it and get it on side. If the answer is the second, then you don't much have to care what the world thinks, but it can get really lonely. If you go too far, you can alienate your allies, and so  be completly alone. If you want to nail these two approaches down to presidents, Regan is an example of the first kind, and GWB is an example of the second. The first type, such as America under Regan, is ultimatly more powerful, because you get want you want, and the rest of the world supports you (lots of tangible and intangible benefits). The second is a weaker position, but still much stronger than the UN group hug option. See what I mean?

Quoted: The question though, is does America want to lead the world, or just do its own thing?...

We do 'our own thing' (With a nod towards allies). We can't lead the world; it would be like squirrel herding or something like that. Impossible. The Cold War was a unique situation, with two distinct power blocs. Generally, if a nation didn't want to be in the Soviet camp, they came to our camp. There are no such simple divisions these days to rally around, and trying to kiss enough ass to get most of the UN to 'like' us would be a lesson in futility.

Perhaps the situation will change in the future, and it will once again behoove us to 'lead a camp', as during the Cold War. But I doubt it.

Quoted: Quoted: Are you serious? Do you think India is salivating at the chance to launch nukes at Israel or the US? THINK before you type. Quoted: No, of course not. Go back and reread my post FAL. The wackjobs who believe that the world shoud be a fair and peaceloving group hug use exactly this argument: The U.S. is a big bully that has one set of rules for its self and friends, and another for those they don't like AND THAT THIS IS BAD. Now, I happen to agree with the American philosophy of looking out for your own and you friends first. Nevertheless, the reason that America lacks support for much of  what it does in the world is because they put themselves first, and everyone else second. When your trying to build a rule-based system, someone running around doing their own thing tends to mess things up. Right or wrong (and more right than wrong) America is really good at it. Of course Iran, NK and old Iraq are in a different catagory to India. However, India will become the new Israel on the nuclear front, ie. America will be ridiculed as hypocritical because it is willing to support a nuclear Israel and India, but not a nuclear Iran, Iraq or NK because America is a selfish bully. Do I believe this? NO. Will it happen, absolutly.

Lert,

I agree with much of what you have written. I have travelled extensively internationally and that gives one a perspective that folks in the USA don't get. We are a love/hate entitiy. The world loves certain aspects of America but does resent our perceived double standards. There are however those who push back for pushing backs sake, like a teenager trying to assert independance even though it doesn't know what is actually good for it.

We (USA) strongly believes in the notion of Democracy and we support countries that have adopted Democracy. On the face of it, supporting Isreal and India, while admonishing NK, Iran and Iraq looks like a double standard. That is a simple view of the world. The fact is, Isreal and India are not overtly threatening their neighbors or the USA. Just as much as folks in the US need to try to look at the world, thru the eyes of others, those "others" need to look at the world thru our eyes. We are constantly attacked and threaten. Our intellectual property is routinely stolen. Foreign Governments unfairly subsidize products which weaken our economy. It's not just the US which has their very own set of rules. The USA does not have a monopoly on double standards.

Bomber

The situation has to change. The UN is desperatly trying to "reform" but can't get past its own internal contradictions. It's mainly become a club where tinpot third-world countries wring concessions out of guilt-ridden liberal Europeans. That has to change, mainly because the Europeans will only give up so many of the precious social programmes (CAP, Euro regs etc) to appease the third-worlders before French farmers start blocking roads again with tractors and livestock carcasses. For China, the UN is a take it or leave it proposition, Russia does its own thing, and India is a pariah because of nukes and Kashmir. The French still havent forgiven Australia for protesting their nuclear testing in our backyard, and nobody likes us because we supported America in Iraq (boo hoo). ASEAN has its own problems to worry about (Muslim terrorists, American hegemony, rising Chinese hegemony, rising Japanese hegemony) and bitterly resents the "white colonial" UN club interfering in their affairs.

The US has an opertunity coming up soon (next 5 years or so) to take the lead again. Its all a matter of playing your cards right. Unfortunatly, my crystal ball isn't telling me which cards

Quoted: The only 'constant' in International reations is that a certain group of countries stick together despite what the tree huggers, UN, EEC, or anyone else for that matter thinks… The 'Anglosphere' of Britain, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They don't much trust the rest of the world, never have, probably never will. ANdy

Comes with experience.
The "Anglosphere" has a heck of a lot of combined experience "running" the rest of the world.

Quoted: The situation has to change. The UN is desperatly trying to "reform" but can't get past its own internal contradictions. It's mainly become a club where tinpot third-world countries wring concessions out of guilt-ridden liberal Europeans. That has to change, mainly because the Europeans will only give up so many of the precious social programmes (CAP, Euro regs etc) to appease the third-worlders before French farmers start blocking roads again with tractors and livestock carcasses. For China, the UN is a take it or leave it proposition, Russia does its own thing, and India is a pariah because of nukes and Kashmir. The French still havent forgiven Australia for protesting their nuclear testing in our backyard, and nobody likes us because we supported America in Iraq (boo hoo). ASEAN has its own problems to worry about (Muslim terrorists, American hegemony, rising Chinese hegemony, rising Japanese hegemony) and bitterly resents the "white colonial" UN club interfering in their affairs. The US has an opertunity coming up soon (next 5 years or so) to take the lead again. Its all a matter of playing your cards right. Unfortunatly, my crystal ball isn't telling me which cards

We are leading.  But no one wants what we are selling, because they are either in denial that there is a threat or they are cooperating with it..

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lert, I agree with much of what you have written. I have travelled extensively internationally and that gives one a perspective that folks in the USA don't get. We are a love/hate entitiy. The world loves certain aspects of America but does resent our perceived double standards. There are however those who push back for pushing backs sake, like a teenager trying to assert independance even though it doesn't know what is actually good for it. We (USA) strongly believes in the notion of Democracy and we support countries that have adopted Democracy. On the face of it, supporting Isreal and India, while admonishing NK, Iran and Iraq looks like a double standard. That is a simple view of the world. The fact is, Isreal and India are not overtly threatening their neighbors or the USA. Just as much as folks in the US need to try to look at the world, thru the eyes of others, those "others" need to look at the world thru our eyes. We are constantly attacked and threaten. Our intellectual property is routinely stolen. Foreign Governments unfairly subsidize products which weaken our economy. It's not just the US which has their very own set of rules. The USA does not have a monopoly on double standards. Bomber

Bomber,
I agree wholeheartedly. The U.S. tends to be more forthright about what it wants and what it does. It supports Israel for a number of reasons, a big one of which is that it is the only functioning democracy in the region. Same with India. Same with Taiwan. The Europeans, on the other hand, tend to cry foul whilst simultaneously doing exactly what they're complaining about and call it "equality". This, I think, comes down to philisophical differences over the meaning of "equality", as strange as that sounds. American culture tends to favour "equality of oppertunity", whilst the (Continental) European culture embraces "equality of outcome". This is manifested in a variety of ways. In this case, whilst an American would say "we worked hard, became powerful and therefore deseve a seat at the top table" a European (gross generalisation) would say "thats not fair, because America's using its power to do things that weaker states can't. Everyone should have equal say in how the world is run." Hence, the strong European push for a rules-based international system. Small countries know that they'd get a better deal by jumping on the European band-wagon, and on the face of it, would be crazy not to do so. This leads to the European-style double standard of subisdising its agricultre/shipbuilding/manufacturing/etc to gain "equality" with the US. Same goes for their lavish support for Palistine, so that the poor, downtrodden Palistinians can be "equal" with the lavishly US-backed Israelis.

You could also call this a left-right argument. When talking about equality, the right generally takes oppertunity and the left outcome. Food for thought, at any rate.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The question though, is does America want to lead the world, or just do its own thing?... We do 'our own thing' (With a nod towards allies). We can't lead the world; it would be like squirrel herding or something like that. Impossible. The Cold War was a unique situation, with two distinct power blocs. Generally, if a nation didn't want to be in the Soviet camp, they came to our camp. There are no such simple divisions these days to rally around, and trying to kiss enough ass to get most of the UN to 'like' us would be a lesson in futility. Perhaps the situation will change in the future, and it will once again behoove us to 'lead a camp', as during the Cold War. But I doubt it. The US needs to take a position like Britain did in the 1800's with the 'Pax Britannica'. Countries could do what they wanted in a free for all and fairly lawless world, but threaten Britains trade, people, partners or percieved strategic interests and they dropped a ton of shit on your head either militarily or by trade. Was it fair, nope, but when you are 'Top Dog' you make the rules. Now the US is in the same position. It can either reason and appeal to the 'Turd Worlds' good nature and hope for the best, or it can impose the 'Pax Americana' as a defined policy  backed up by the full force of US military and economic might. Enough already with these 'Surgical Strikes'... beat them over the head with a big stick until they understand. IMHO, the US dropped the ball after 9/11. If instead of sending in Special Forces and B1's dropping JDAMS, a bunch of mushroom clouds had sprang up over Kabul, Kandahar and the camps in Afghanistan, the world would still be shitting itself with fear today. ANdy

WWII got in the way.

We are afraid to be compared to Hitler.

And as Lert pointed out to Bomber, with his comment on Europe's "equality of outcome" mindset.  That same mind set would only allow a view of a country with nuclear weapons to "unfairly" destroy one that did not.

And we would be lumped with Nazi Germany.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The question though, is does America want to lead the world, or just do its own thing?... We do 'our own thing' (With a nod towards allies). We can't lead the world; it would be like squirrel herding or something like that. Impossible. The Cold War was a unique situation, with two distinct power blocs. Generally, if a nation didn't want to be in the Soviet camp, they came to our camp. There are no such simple divisions these days to rally around, and trying to kiss enough ass to get most of the UN to 'like' us would be a lesson in futility. Perhaps the situation will change in the future, and it will once again behoove us to 'lead a camp', as during the Cold War. But I doubt it. The US needs to take a position like Britain did in the 1800's with the 'Pax Britannica'. Countries could do what they wanted in a free for all and fairly lawless world, but threaten Britains trade, people, partners or percieved strategic interests and they dropped a ton of shit on your head either militarily or by trade. Was it fair, nope, but when you are 'Top Dog' you make the rules. Now the US is in the same position. It can either reason and appeal to the 'Turd Worlds' good nature and hope for the best, or it can impose the 'Pax Americana' as a defined policy  backed up by the full force of US military and economic might. Enough already with these 'Surgical Strikes'... beat them over the head with a big stick until they understand. IMHO, the US dropped the ball after 9/11. If instead of sending in Special Forces and B1's dropping JDAMS, a bunch of mushroom clouds had sprang up over Kabul, Kandahar and the camps in Afghanistan, the world would still be shitting itself with fear today. ANdy

Ding Ding Ding!! We have a winner!

Why didn't the US glaze Afghanistan and seize that power? Because (and I'm going to get flamed for this) the U.S.A. is the empire that dare not speak its name. Britain came by her empire in exactly the same way- by accident. Britain just traded, intervened, annexed and governed, mostly reluctantly, until by the mid 1800s she woke up and realised she owned a quarter of the Earth's surface and 1/5 of its population. America's not there yet. They have the power, they have the reach, but can't, because of historical reasons, come to terms with the fact that they could actually impose a "Pax Americana". We started to see it with Regan, and, at least rhetorically we are seeing it with GWB. Bush's "democracy" theme sounds alot like Britain's "white man's burden". The problem with Bush's approach is that it's too ideological. Britain's expansion was commercial right from the word "go". The aim was to make money of everywhere they went. By downplaying the legitimate financial rewards that come from controling the second-largest oil deposit in the world AND the pipeline from the Central Asian fields, perversly it makes the rhetoric about spreading democracy sound hollow. Everyone KNOWS that America will benifit financially from this. For "Pax Americana" to have standing, America needs to unashamedly say "Yes, we are safegaurding our interests, and truly wish to spread demcracy because we truly believe in it. However, as the victors, the spoils DO belong to us, and we will responsibly reap the rewards for our labours. Woe betide anyone who stands in our way". Only then will America be in a position to enforce the peace from a position of moral superiority, as they will be acknowlaging to themselves and the rest of the world what they truly are.

Sorry for waxing lyrical, but its 1am and the old brain's a little tired

You could also call this a left-right argument. When talking about equality, the right generally takes oppertunity and the left outcome. Food for thought, at any rate.

A very profound thought. It really breaks things down in a way I hadn't thought of in the past. The same arguement can be used to describe the infighting that goes on within the US.

Obviously, I'm in the opportunity camp.


Thanks.


Bomber

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: WWII got in the way. We are afraid to be compared to Hitler. And as Lert pointed out to Bomber, with his comment on Europe's "equality of outcome" mindset.  That same mind set would only allow a view of a country with nuclear weapons to "unfairly" destroy one that did not. And we would be lumped with Nazi Germany. Don't be afraid to be feared, Rome wasn't and the British Empire wasn't.... I can find no better example of an 'Anglo' policy on dealing with the New World Order than this from 'When Devils Walk the Earth'. Chapter III. Fighting Terror:   Do's and Don'ts for a Superpower: ANdy

Wow, old Niccolo couldn't have said it better himself. Definitly on the right track.

For the record, I don't advocate Rome's method of dealing with Carthage. For those who don't know, after taking the city, the Roman Legions slaughtered the men, sold the women and children into slavery, razed the city to the ground, moved what inhabitants they allowed to remain inland so that they could never build a navy again, and sowed salt on the site of Cathage so that crops, and by extension, people, could never live there again. It's a little extreme, and in this day and age, counter-productive. However, giving enemies no quarter, and actually treating them as enemies, rather than as poor unfortunates, is a good way to go.

...

Quoted: You could also call this a left-right argument. When talking about equality, the right generally takes oppertunity and the left outcome. Food for thought, at any rate. A very profound thought. It really breaks things down in a way I hadn't thought of in the past. The same arguement can be used to describe the infighting that goes on within the US. Obviously, I'm in the opportunity camp. Thanks. Bomber

No worries.
Our whole system of governement and law (yours, Andy's and mine) was built on the premise of equality of opportunity. It was one of your guys that said "All men were created equal". Its also known as "formal equality". For example, everyone is equal before the law. Now, this is great, in theory, however, as the "outcome" crowd points out, in practise, your access to justice depends on such factors as wealth, education, location, etc. Therefore, whilst you have "formal equality", you don't have "practical equality". Therefore, in order for formal equality to be more than a hollow theory (remembering that even in the USSR they had formal equality), measures must be taken to back it up, hence the "public  defender". Now the "opportunity" crowd takes this idea too far (IMHO) and demands not only a measure of practical equality but that equality CAN'T exist unless the outcomes for everyone are equal. Hence you get hiring quotas in affirmative action (which never really caught on here, thank God) and the like. This thinking can send you bankrupt trying to equalise everyone. When you apply these notions to the international realm, they can get alot of people killed.

Quoted: And I hope we did NOT provide Pakistan with SINGARS radios or now our troops will have to deal with being evesdropped on.  (A nasty problem we had to endure througout the Vietnam war)

Won't do them much good if they don't know the frequency hop codes.

Quoted: Quoted: And I hope we did NOT provide Pakistan with SINGARS radios or now our troops will have to deal with being evesdropped on.  (A nasty problem we had to endure througout the Vietnam war) Won't do them much good if they don't know the frequency hope codes.

+1

All the radios on the net have to be loaded with the same cypher and SOI info for for the radios to work in cypher text or frequency hopping modes.  This would necessitate that they also captured ANCD units and the means to use them, plus a source of  US unit SOI intel to program into them.

SINCGARS batteries aren't exactly available at Camel Abdullah's Waziristan Trading Post either.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And I hope we did NOT provide Pakistan with SINGARS radios or now our troops will have to deal with being evesdropped on.  (A nasty problem we had to endure througout the Vietnam war) Won't do them much good if they don't know the frequency hope codes. +1 All the radios on the net have to be loaded with the same cypher and SOI info for for the radios to work in cypher text or frequency hopping modes.  This would necessitate that they also captured ANCD units and the means to use them, plus a source of  US unit SOI intel to program into them. SINCGARS batteries aren't exactly available at Camel Abdullah's Waziristan Trading Post either.

And even if they did capture an ANCD, either we would change the codes because they captured one, or the codes would be changed eventually anyways (probably weekly)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: WWII got in the way. We are afraid to be compared to Hitler. And as Lert pointed out to Bomber, with his comment on Europe's "equality of outcome" mindset.  That same mind set would only allow a view of a country with nuclear weapons to "unfairly" destroy one that did not. And we would be lumped with Nazi Germany. Don't be afraid to be feared, Rome wasn't and the British Empire wasn't.... I can find no better example of an 'Anglo' policy on dealing with the New World Order than this from 'When Devils Walk the Earth'. Chapter III. Fighting Terror:   Do's and Don'ts for a Superpower: ANdy Wow, old Niccolo couldn't have said it better himself. Definitly on the right track. For the record, I don't advocate Rome's method of dealing with Carthage. For those who don't know, after taking the city, the Roman Legions slaughtered the men, sold the women and children into slavery, razed the city to the ground, moved what inhabitants they allowed to remain inland so that they could never build a navy again, and sowed salt on the site of Cathage so that crops, and by extension, people, could never live there again. It's a little extreme, and in this day and age, counter-productive. However, giving enemies no quarter, and actually treating them as enemies, rather than as poor unfortunates, is a good way to go. "Carthago delenda est" --- Marcius Porcius Cato Rome and Carthage was a clash of cultures and there was only room for one to survive. Many feel that we are in a similar situation with Islam. 'When Devils Walk the Earth' is a damn good article... When Devils Walk the Earth

I find nothing wrong with being feared like in the old days, but there do exist practical problems with it in the present.

This is why I dont mind the so-called "Bush Doctrine", which spends some time and effort to try and seperate at least SOME of the Islamic world from the terrorists- or by a honest failure (not cutting and running cause its costing too much money) PROVING that there is no other means but genocide.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: "Carthago delenda est" --- Marcius Porcius Cato Rome and Carthage was a clash of cultures and there was only room for one to survive. Many feel that we are in a similar situation with Islam. 'When Devils Walk the Earth' is a damn good article... When Devils Walk the Earth

I'll have to read the whole article, it sounds like a cracker. Thanks Andy.

Having studied something of Islam at uni, I can see that the West can coexist with some forms of Islam, and not with others. Sufism, for example, doesn't seem to get worked up over much that the West does. That may well be because they're more worried about be persecuted by other Muslims that Western encroachment. Folk Islam, such as that practised in Indonesia, doesn't seem to get that hot under the coller either, although the growing Saudi influence over there is changing that. Notice that they didn't go nuts over the cartoons, even though they are the world's largest Muslim nation? Malaysia seems to be another example, although their Islam seems to be more nationalistic (thanks a bunch Mahatier ). Islamic nominalism, similar to 'lapsed Catholics' or "Christmas and Easter' Anglicans also appears to be quite compatible with the West too, mainly because Christian nominalism blazed the trail for them. Its those who actually believe what the Koran and the Hadiths teach, that Islam is a socio-political system as well as a religion, that come into conflict with the West.

Both Allah and Western individualism and securlarist liberalism are jelous gods and both will fight cage matches for the souls of their adherents. We see it within Western culture too. Just look at how the rise of increasingly more radical secularist liberalism has pushed religion, especially Christianity, out of the public square over the last 50-100 years. Christianity is now pushing back, especially in the US, but the difference between how Christianity and Islam are fighting securlarist liberalism are poles apart. The very violence that Islam calls for is anathema to the Christians (with the exception of a few unhinged individuals). That's why the 10 Commandments on the courthouse debate, and the prayer in schools debate have almost exclusivly been fought out in the media and in the courts, rather than with guns and bombs.

I can't justify genocide for whatever reason. There are innocents to greater or lessor extents on all sides, and they don't deserve death because of the actions of their co-religionists. As a Christian, I can't justify slaughtering each and every Muslim. We do, however, need to get to the "agree to disagree" stage, which is really going to hurt.

Quoted: Quoted: The only 'constant' in International reations is that a certain group of countries stick together despite what the tree huggers, UN, EEC, or anyone else for that matter thinks… The 'Anglosphere' of Britain, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They don't much trust the rest of the world, never have, probably never will. ANdy Comes with experience. The "Anglosphere" has a heck of a lot of combined experience "running" the rest of the world.

The Brits, at least.

Quoted: They have the power, they have the reach, but can't, because of historical reasons, come to terms with the fact that they could actually impose a "Pax Americana".

The US is not an empire, like Great Britain of old. We tried it once, during the Spanish-American War, and it did not work out for us. It's not our nature to rule and subjugate.

Commerce is not empire, although some would like to bend the meaning of "empire" to include globalism and international commerce.

The US looks after its interests, but it doesn't invade for profit.