The Taliban is working with Pakistani intelligence and Pakistan has nuclear weapons

[Windy]

And many think that we should pull out of Afghanistan?

Seems a bit detrimental to national security doesn't it?????

Bush prematurely pulling out of Afghanistan resulted in the Taliban and Al Q regrouping in UNSTABLE Pakistan and now those elements are working with the Pakistani intelligence service????? I think I'll be calling my Senator and Congresspersons and tell them to support the Afghanistan war funding bill.

flame away if you want to, but Afghanistan and Pakistan are not only a threat to the US but also to India (a country that is inseparably tied to our economy) and the greater middle east.

Bush f'ed up the world and Obama has to try and fix it. I wish him luck. He's going to need it!

P.S. I served in the military just to forestall any comments in that regard.

[closeupready]

1. Yawn.

:boring:

[Windy]

2. no substantive rebuttal???? nt

[alsame]

3. Wasn't the Taliban - ISI connection known years ago? I seem to

recall hearing a lot about this in late 2001/early 2002. If I remember correctly, it was Bushco's excuse to wage a full scale war rather than just strategically go after AQ and their Taliban supporters.

[EFerrari]

5. Yes, you are correct. The ISI basically made the Taliban

much as we helped put together bin Laden's group in Afghanistan. This is not new.

[Windy]

6. No...History shows that Bush simply threw a few bombs into afghanistan

disrupted the country then left. Instead of going after AQ and the Taliban, they just allowed them to flee to pakistan. Pakistan wasn't an issue until ALQ and the Taliban settled in Pakistan's western provinces as the result of bush's failed and flawed effort.

Now the Obama administration is stuck with a difficult and more dangerous mess.

[alsame]

7. That's not how I remember it at all. Pakistan was an issue from

the very beginning of the invasion.

[Windy]

10. the pakistani government wasn't as unstable as it is now. Big difference.

We can't and don't have the resources to invade Pakistan directly and must work with them diplomatically, but we can prevent infiltration into an unstable afghanistan.

[EFerrari]

15. Yes, the Pakistani government was unstable then, too.

It was always split between a faction that wants to do business with us and one that does not. There were several attempts on Mubarak's life, for example.

If it is MORE unstable now, you have years of American presence providing a cause for war to thank for it.

[Windy]

19. Never in recent decades has it been as unstable as it is now.

read your history.

I am a liberal in all other matters, but on this issue, I have my children and grandchildren to think about. I want them to have a world to grow up in and the situation in afghanistan/Pakistan is a threat to that.

[EFerrari]

24. Right back atcha. We have made Pakistan more dangerous

and the course you propose is only more of the same.

[newspeak]

53. well, I'm still wandering why Little Boots forgave Pakistan's debt after 9/11

and I still remember the story of Gen. Mahmoud (sp) who allegedly wired 100,000 to Atta--ya know one of the alleged terrorists. Then, who found Daniel Pearl's body? Oh, I think it was the ISI, imagine that!

And something still smells-smells like rotten fish.

[EFerrari]

60. I know. There's not enough tin foil in the world

to make a hat big enough to cover the BFEE's criminal activities.

[Individualist]

18. Pakistan has been unstable for decades.

http://www.iexplore.com/dmap/Pakistan/History

[EFerrari]

9. The Taliban was formed in the refugee camps of Pakistan.

Pakistan has always been at issue.

[Windy]

12. The government was not as unstable as it is now thanks to the Bush administration.

Pakistan could be taken over by fundamentalist factions. It is possible now and makes the situatoin much more dangerous.

Again, things are NOT simple.

[EFerrari]

30. Who is saying things are simple? You are, actually,

in proposing that an American war will resolve this situation when an America war has made it visibly worse.

[Windy]

43. So we just walk away after making a global situation that threatens the world's stability a crisis

situation? You make no sense whatsoever.

I'm saying that its not that easy to just leave Afghanistan.

[Windy]

44. So after we have created a crisis situation, we should just leave?

and then when something happens, then what????
This is the situation that the administration is dealing with. Pollyanish attitudes do not address the real challenges that we face with regard to Afghanistan.

[EFerrari]

58. I don't know why you have to introduce insults here.

And there is nothing "pollyanna-ish" about pointing out that we can't win this militarily. Pollyana's habit was to be glad for her tribulations. I'm not doing that. See Pollyanna and The Glad Game.

Obviously, our military presence in that region has made things worse, not better, unless you are a defense contractor raking in money.

If we don't want "something" to happen, we need to go in another direction.

[Webster Green]

20. That's incorrect.

I found out about the Taliban/ISI connection in March of 2001, when the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan statues. I read an article about that in the San Francisco Chronicle. I was so angry, that I wrote to the author of the article, thanked him for writing it, and asked for resources for more information. He put me in touch with a leader in the Afghan/American community who asked me to help him organize Bay Area protests against the Taliban. He told me that it was common knowledge that the ISI and the Taliban were one and the same. I lost touch with him 6 months later, after 9/11 happened.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

51. What?

"Instead of going after AQ and the Taliban, they just allowed them to flee to pakistan".

You appear to be rather ill informed.
There was no "fleeing" to Pakistan.

I guess you missed the communication indicating how it is that the assault on Tora Bora was really ineffective and virtually laughed at as such.

[Individualist]

11. You remember correctly.

[Windy]

14. Again, Pakistan is much more unstable now. Should we just ignore

the fact that deployable nuclear weapons exist in Pakistan and that they also possess nuclear fissle material that could easily fall into the wrong hands given the instability of the Pakistani goverment as confirmed by Wikileaks?

Again, what do you think would happen if a nuclear bomb or some other device went off in the Kashmir area of India???

[Individualist]

22. See post 18.

[EFerrari]

4. Why do you think A WAR in the region will make it more stable

and less of a threat?

[Windy]

8. If we pull out of aghanistan without stabilizing it, AlQ and the Taliban

will just set up shop again, and this time, with access to Pakistan's resources.

Bush has not only enhanced the danger to the US but has also enhanced the danger to our allies and economic partners. What do you think would happen to our economy if a nuclear weapon was launched against the kashmir region of India by terrorists, or the pakistanti goverment if we leave the area and the radicals take over pakistan?

You have to look at the big picture. I dislike war, but unfortunately, it is sometimes necessary to save our country and frankly the world from greater harm. I do, however, believe that other nations should be involved, not just the US and England (which was Kerry's point years ago)

Things aren't always simple and they aren't always fight or flight.

[EFerrari]

13. The ISI has always supplied the Taliban.

And you might have noticed, we are not stabilizing Afghanistan and we are only gifting anti-American sentiment there. That is the big picture.

[Windy]

16. No, the big picture is that Afghanistan goverment is corrupt and unstable

The pakistani intelligence service and the pakistani government are unstable and Pakistan is armed with actual WMDs. If we just pull out of Afghanistan without a stable government in place and pakistan remains unstable, we, the United States, have created a more dangerous situation for the rest of the world than what existed pre 9/11.

[EFerrari]

21. We have created a more dangerous situation. That's just reality.

And we cannot fix it with troops on the ground. That's reality, too.

[closeupready]

26. That's exactly right.

n/t

[Windy]

28. we created the mess.... we have to fix it.

[EFerrari]

31. We can't do it with a war. That's simply not possible.

And anybody that tells you different is lying to you.

Do you have any idea how many troops we'd need to really occupy Aghanistan and Pakistan? We can't even hold Afghanistan right now. There is no amount of money that you can throw into this situation to make it winnable by our military.

Remember Viet Nam? Welcome back.

[newspeak]

61. "afghanistan is corrupt"

Well, who set up Karzai, the oil man, as leader in the first place? We should all know about corruption after having invaded one country based on lies, funneling money to private contractors, protecting oil fields for the global corporations, billions of our money disappearing in Iraq and going into Afghanistan, allegedly to get OBL. Of course, after we were in Afghanistan, Little Boots could have cared less about OBL--it wasn't one of his main priorities.

Oh, and did I mention that, I believe Gen. Mahmoud was in DC on 9/11?

[spanone]

66. there is no stabillizing afghanistan, just ask the russians.

that's the big picture.

[bemildred]

17. It will stabilize fine without us, it just won't stabilize the way we want it. nt

[Windy]

23. What do you mean "the way we want it"? With no terrorist elements

given free reign with a corrupt government? I'm all for that.

[bemildred]

52. Pigs will fly before that ever happens, whether we leave or not.

I doubt that the US government cares a fig about that stuff though. That is just bullshit for the Rubes.

[closeupready]

25. You state you've served in the military, yet, you've disabled your profile.

Why is that?

[Windy]

42. what are you talking about? Disabled my profile? If I did, it was unintentional

I served in the USAF in the 410 FMS and was an electrician on B-52 and KC-135 aircraft.

What is your point?

[Junkdrawer]

27. And who helped A. Q. Khan develop Pakistan's bomb?

Hint: it wasn't the Russians or the Chinese.

On Edit:

CIA 'let atomic expert Khan go'


Pakistani nuclear expert AQ Khan was not arrested when living in the Netherlands as the CIA was monitoring him, an ex-Dutch prime minister says.

Ruud Lubbers said the CIA had asked the Netherlands in 1975 not to prosecute Abdul Qadeer Khan, who is now dubbed the father of Pakistan's atom bomb.

Mr Khan admitted last year that he had leaked nuclear secrets to North Korea, Libya and Iran.

He came under suspicion while working for a Dutch uranium firm, Urenco.

...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4135998.stm

[newspeak]

57. and then there's BCCI

a Pakistani bank who apparently has been investigated for money laundering. I'd say in Pakistan, we got some people on both sides playing a game on us. If the US really wanted to get rid of terrorism, then our government would cut them off where it counts-money. Also, banks like BCCI would not be allowed to money launder--allowing exchanges for weapons and funding terrorism. Now that's if they really want to end it. I think there are people who are making a load of money playing the game.

[Stinky The Clown]

29. This isn't news. There is little we can do about it except turn Pakistan to glass along with .....

.... the rest of the middle east and east Asia ......

Or we can get the fuck out and let THEM work it out. Maintain out human intelligence assets and our defensive capabilities. We will NEVER wipe out AQ or stop the ISI. NEVER, unless we nuke them.

Surely you're not proposing that . . . . . are you?

[closeupready]

35. The problem with that is nuclear fallout would then kill many millions in India, China

and elsewhere in Southeast and East Asia. And there goes our economy.

[Stinky The Clown]

36. There's a term for that

"Collateral damage"

[Windy]

45. Unacceptable. And its also not acceptable for rogue elements now present in Pakistan

to get their hands on a nuclear weapon or materials and then set off a bomb in lets say India, or even Afghanistan, Israel, Jordon, Iraq, etc.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

33. Gee, I wonder if we should stop funding the ISI then?

[moondust]

34. Maybe.

I don't have enough information to know one way or the other.

[wickerwoman]

49. You can start by using Pakistani instead of Paki.

It's pretty rude and offensive.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Paki

[moondust]

54. It depends.

An old Pakistani friend of mine used to use it all the time as simply a short/abbreviated form, similar to a "Kurd" from Kurdistan or a "Tajik" from Tajikistan. But she's a college professor of English so what would she know? :eyes:

[wickerwoman]

67. And I know black people who use the n word

and gay people who use the f word and women who use the c word.

One individual's decision to use or reclaim an offensive term doesn't make it acceptable across all contexts.

[truebrit71]

55. No shit...they may be many things..but using that term is derogatory and offensive...

...

[Stinky The Clown]

39. The Taliban have long proved themselves sufficiently sophisticated to maintain a credible ......

...... offense against two major superpowers.

[Stinky The Clown]

40. Did you know the Pakistanis find the term "Paki" offputting?

They do.

Arrogant American foreign policy people don't know that. That's among the reasons "the Pakis" think we're lower than whale shit.

Just sayin'.

[Vinnie From Indy]

37. This is a silly OP

Do you really think using extra punctuation enhances your silly bit of obvious flamebait?

[Windy]

46. So addressing a real issue and provoking debate is now flamebait? Not agreeing that

abruptly leaving Afghanistan is a smart move for a host of reasons is flamebait? Interesting.

[closeupready]

50. Yes, and part of what makes it silly is he ignores North Korea.

Even though they HAVE actually engaged in extra-territorial aggressiveness, they have nuclear bombs, they are threatening to destroy the entire world (as opposed to Iran's more limited stated objectives), are led by truly insane people.

[Windy]

64. They don't have the means to deliver them at a distance unlike Pakistan.

We aren't even 100% sure that they have fully capable nuclear bombs.

North Korea is isolated. THere is no comparison

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. We lot. Get out. Get over it.

P.S. I served in the military, too.

[TheKentuckian]

41. How is military action a cure?

I understand your concerns but I have no idea what your case actually is that we can effect a solution using force.

Same absurd bushshit, different day.

Where did the concept that such problems have military solutions come from and what indication do we have from history that gives even a hint that this kind of thinking can be even moderately fruitful?

How does the current action result in a stable Afghanistan/Pakistan?

I see dreamers wrapped in the guise of realists that are heavily dependent on magical thinking and might makes right rather than people who are looking steely eyed at a huge debacle with no easy and safe answers.

The concept that we can just make it happen by flexing muscles and staying the course borders on insanity and it certainly had no basis in reality.

The only cases where order can be imposed to fit the bil is by occupation and I think we almost universally agree that there is no way in hell we have any real ability to take and hold Afghanistan and Pakistan or even just Afghanistan. Nor is there any real body of evidence that if we did that we could permanently change the dynamic.

[Windy]

47. its not just force, its a host of different strategies.

we need a stable government in afghanistan. Unfortunately, we need to use force to try and acheive it and to protect the taliban and other factions from taking over and also to prevent them from taking over in Pakistan and yes, that means launching drone attacks from afghanistan.
I'm sorry that a simlple solution is unavailable and that talking about the very obvious hazards with regard to the Afghanistan/Pakistan arena is uncomfortable for many here at DU.

Afghanistan is not Iraq.

[TheKentuckian]

65. That still evades the how because there is no how just a faith based initiative

I'm not asking for a simple solution but rather an actual one.

Maybe it should be considered that we don't have an effective solution and some are just advocating throwing shit at the wall and hope something sticks.

There is absolutely no model to work from here and less reason to be hopeful that we can enforce a new culture of stability and rejection of theocratic radicalism.

You can reiterate the dangers of the situation till you turn blue but it does not mean you have presented an actual remedy. Hell, there is not any evidence that our presence is or even projects to be a stabilizing influence.

Nor do you calculate for the extreme strain the operation puts on already overextended resources both human and material and the impact that maintaining this farce naturally requires.

The reality is we have no way to actually get our desired end result that is not overwhelmingly dependent on Afghans and Pakistanis doing a whole host of things that they appear to have no intention or ability to do or wiping them out in a murderous bombardment that doesn't get off without a lot of people getting vaporized in the region and likely escalating into a much more widespread and out of control situation.

Talking about looking for simple answers, what else is throwing the military at nation building and crossing our collective fingers? Seems like magic thinking to me.

[Vinca]

48. How many of our tax dollars are going to the Taliban and Pakistani

intelligence and will, ultimately, contribute to our own demise? Sometimes I think we should guard our borders and say to hell with the rest of the world.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. America is working with Israeli intelligence and Israel has nuclear weapons.

Seems a bit detrimental to our security doesn't it?

[Windy]

63. Bad analogy. While I don't condone a lot of what israel does, they are not Al Q or the Taliban

There is no comparison.

[closeupready]

68. Despite your implied claims to the contrary, the situation in South Asia is not unique.

We do have comparisons here to North Korea and Israel and even India that are useful to look at, and your dismissal of these comparison with "There is no comparison" is ridiculous.

[truebrit71]

59. Of the two wars started by Lt AWOL and his fellow war criminals...the Afghan war..

..was at least the correct theatre for operations if the goal was to kill/capture those behind 9/11.

I am more concerned with Pakistan (and it's nukes) coming under the authority of fundamentalists in the government there.

I have said time and again that if the radical nutters in Pakistan get their hands on the nukes India will light them up like the fourth of july without some much as a by-your-leave..

All this bullshit about NK or Iran is exactly that..bullshit...

The first nuclear war will be waged (very, very briefly) between Pakistan and India..and the consequences will be horrifying..

[Windy]

62. agreed and my point. A lot of us on the left don't want to see reality. nt

[newspeak]

69. yes, I think we should go in (we're already there) and kill more

civilians, so the Taliban can have even more recruits. And while we're at it, we can set up some more corrupt leaders while pouring more money that we don't have into their reconstruction, while the corrupt leaders that we installed give it away to their buddies and secret it out of the country.

It's amazing that we look at other countries with such a superior light--even though France aided in our revolution, it was our ancestors who actually instigated and participated in our war against the Mother country. But, you know, those "brown people" they need help because apparently they're not as industrious as we are or believe in sacrificing for their freedoms. We need to go over there and show them how it's done--of course, liberty is a bloody thing and a lot of their people maybe killed in the process (those few surviving, can enjoy all of those so called freedoms); but, we're fighting for their freedom and liberty.

So, Pakistan has nukes, now whose fault is that? And, I'm sure India is going to sit by if Pakistan starts making any type of move.

I think we should allow the women in Pakistan and Afghanistan political asylum and let the taliban die out. Because, their views on women and children seem to be driven more by their sociopathic ego, than the Koran. Before the war, Afghanistan under the Taliban had the highest female suicide in the world, got that, in the world. Allow women to leave, and see how Afghanistan and even Pakistan fare.