"Why Waziristan cannot be conquered"

[madrchsod]

"Beware of despising the tribals. They brought both Muslim and non Muslim Emperors to grief whether it was Jahangir, Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb, Ranjit Singh or the British king."

"These men defied the British, killing over 10,000 British or Indian troops from 1849 to 1947, bleeding the British Empire white, forcing the British to maintain a division plus force in the Trans Indus tribal tract. These tribesmen gave sanctuary to Mughal Prince Ferozshah and to the followers of Syed Ahmad Shaheed of Rai Barelly at Malka and Ambela. These tribesmen greeted the British Indian army with fire while many today are famous as great Muslim leaders accepted knighthood and were ridiculed for doing so by Maulana Zafar Ali Khan of "Zamindar" fame".

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/headlines/why_waziristan_cannot_be_conquered
Home / Headlines / Why Waziristan cannot be conquered - Media Monitors Network (MMN)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waziristan
Waziristan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


http://www.guardian.co.uk/slideshow/page/0,,2021829,00.html
waziristan | Gallery | Guardian Unlimited

it took me 10 minutes on google to see that there is`t a simple solution to a complex problem in this region..why did`t obama`s people?

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. Did they say they want to conquer Waziristan?

There is a huge difference between going in after a terrorist camp which is run by a foreigner (Bin Laden is Saudi, you know) and invading to conquer.

Please show me where Obama's people said they were going to conquer Waziristan.

[madrchsod]

4. they did`t

but any action will be perceived by the tribal leaders as an invasion...i too thought that bin might be an outsider but after reading that may not be the case. my problem with obama is that his people should have done their research and finessed his statement away from the military to diplomatic solution....of course let it be known to them privately that the option to use military strike is never off the table.

did`t a president a long time ago say--speak softly and carry a big stick?

[youngdem]

2. Lack of experience?

:shrug:

Or, perhaps they do realize the complexity but have to resort to aggressive, wrongheaded talking points because this is an election, and since he has no foreign policy experience he has to sound strong and specific in pandering to the disaffected portion of the population.

Since Hillary is perceived to have more experience, even though she has made some serious mistakes (voting for the war, etc), she can rely on more mundane, generalized themes and platitudes, instead of risking her frontrunner status with specifics.

[cliss]

3. History is full

of examples like the ones you provided. "never ever believe you are too big, too strong or too invincible" because you will find out otherwise.

It never ceases to amaze me how delusional this administration really is. To even talk about stuff like this creates instability. Stupid William Kristol said it about 2 weeks ago. "We'll bomb, and we won't even tell Musharraf".

And thanx for the linx

[Capn Sunshine]

5. Isn't the idea to actually attack the terrorists?

Or are we supposed to cower in fear now? Is that the new America?

No one wants to conquer anything.
Air strikes aren't an invading army.

And Your agenda is showing.

[madrchsod]

6. ? i voted for obama for the senate

i think he is far better than hillary and it`s either obama or edwards for me. i have no agenda i`m just stating my opinion that his staff should have finessed the statement so at least he did`t piss off pakistan and worse give the phantoms at hillary is 44 something else to run him into the ground.