Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

on bombing Pakistan: what does secular, democratic government have to gain from "War on Terror"?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 09:52 PM
Original message
on bombing Pakistan: what does secular, democratic government have to gain from "War on Terror"?
The "War on Terror" seemed to benefit Gen. Musharraf who was a patron of the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Islamic radicals in his own country, all of whose ties to Pakistani intelligence the Bush administration studiously ignored.

Now that Musharraf is out and an elected civilian government is in, it's hard to see an upside to letting Musharraf's Frankenstein's run wild, particularly when they do things like the Mumbai attack that makes the new government look like they can't keep their own house in order (at best). And what are the chances that those attackers didn't get the go ahead from their ISI handlers to make the civilians look bad?

Therefore, it's hard to see why they wouldn't quietly cooperate with Obama as far as bombing their Afghan border for any al Qaeda hideouts that may actually exist. Further, you would think they would want to give us the coordinates of some generals and ISI officials to accidentally target as well.

But there must be some pieces I'm missing. Obviously it chafes the average Pakistanis nationalism that any nation is bombing them at will, but I wonder what those in the government get out of not shutting down Musharraf's mad men.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm seeing green lights coming from somewhere over there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. Ah, it's not that simple
Edited on Sat Jan-24-09 10:03 PM by TayTay
And you do know that Americans have been shot at by our alleged allies in Pakistan.

Read this story from the NYTimes. It details some of the complications we face:

Right at the Edge

Published: September 5, 2008

"I: The Border Incident

Late in the afternoon of June 10, during a firefight with Taliban militants along the Afghan-Pakistani border, American soldiers called in airstrikes to beat back the attack. The firefight was taking place right on the border itself, known in military jargon as the zero line. Afghanistan was on one side, and the remote Pakistani region known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA, was on the other. The stretch of border was guarded by three Pakistani military posts.

The American bombers did the job, and then some. By the time the fighting ended, the Taliban militants had slipped away, the American unit was safe and 11 Pakistani border guards lay dead. The airstrikes on the Pakistani positions sparked a diplomatic row between the two allies: Pakistan called the incident unprovoked and cowardly; American officials regretted what they called a tragic mistake. But even after a joint inquiry by the United States, Pakistan and Afghanistan, it remained unclear why American soldiers had reached the point of calling in airstrikes on soldiers from Pakistan, a critical ally in the war in Afghanistan and the campaign against terrorism.

The mystery, at least part of it, was solved in July by four residents of Suran Dara, a Pakistani village a few hundred yards from the site of the fight. According to two of these villagers, whom I interviewed together with a local reporter, the Americans started calling in airstrikes on the Pakistanis after the latter started shooting at the Americans.

When the Americans started bombing the Taliban, the Frontier Corps started shooting at the Americans, we were told by one of Suran Daras villagers, who, like the others, spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of being persecuted or killed by the Pakistani government or the Taliban. They were trying to help the Taliban. And then the American planes bombed the Pakistani post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. that actually fits what I laid out--the military supports taliban and like many third world, fascist
countries, and like Bush tried but hopefully failed to do here, the military is a political force with an agenda of its own that it may pursue independent of a civilian government, or they may act out in a way to undermine, destabilize, or overthrow the civilian government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 20th 2017, 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC