Meanwhile Back in Afghanistan

“Kinda like Laos during Vietnam...

Pakistan says troop fire turns U.S. helicopters back By Zeeshan Haider
Mon Sep 15, 12:51 PM ET

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistani security officials said on Monday that troops had fired on U.S. military helicopters and forced them to turn back to Afghanistan, but both the Pakistani and American militaries denied the incident.

According to the security officials, the incident took place near Angor Adda, a village in the tribal region of South Waziristan where officials have said U.S. commandos in helicopters raided a suspected al Qaeda and Taliban camp earlier this month.

"The U.S. choppers came into Pakistan by just 100 to 150 meters at Angor Adda. Even then our troops did not spare them, opened fire on them and they turned away," said one security official.”

“Actually, that has been denied by both the US and Pakistan. If it is true, then it's not surprising and not of much military relevance in and of itself. Pakistan has a hard enough time keeping India at bay, let alone trying to secure their largely lawless northern border with Afghanistan. They do not want to get into a shooting war with the US, and the US doesn't want to push Pakistan too far, nor do we want to actually lose planes and personnel. Right now the US is probably going to abort any mission that is fired at as well. That may change, but we're more likely to play India against Pakistan before we decide to stop acting so skittish around anti-aircraft fire.”

“How much money we sent them, $25 billion is it. And Mutt thinks it's ok that they're shooting at us and protecting the Taliban.”

“Obama thinks we should go to war with pakistan.

(perhaps not entirely true, but just as viable a statement as you're misrepresentation.”

“And Mutt thinks it's ok that they're shooting at us - y2

LOL - this is one of those times where you should keep your mouth shut, lest you remove all doubt...”

“They do not want to get into a shooting war with the US -- Muttley

Really? I was thinking maybe they want to try and kick the U.S. while it's down...

Pakistan orders troops to open fire if US raids, Associated Press Writer

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Pakistan's military has ordered its forces to open fire if U.S. troops launch another air or ground raid across the Afghan border, an army spokesman said Tuesday. ”

“Why don't you enlighten us with your in-depth knowledge of military... I mean foreign policy Mutt. I mean there has to be a first time for everything.

Maybe you can move some toy soldiers about on a map and make some explosion noises. ;op”

“Mexico makes raids over our southern border and we respond by throwing two immigration agents in prison.”

“Really? I was thinking maybe they want to try and kick the U.S. while it's down... - troll

It's mostly an internal issue for the Pakis. Right now, Islamabad can't be seen as passive on the issue to its citizens. They talk tough to placate the terrorist lovers - who are deeply entrenched in the armed forces - so that things don't boil over. Secondarily they hope Washington will simply reconsider unilateral incursions. That's not likely to happen unless Obama is elected and drops the ball. But no, the last thing Islamabad wants is the US taking out its sparse assets along the border while prodding India into aggressiveness.”

“Maybe you can move some toy soldiers about on a map and make some explosion noises. - y2

If that helps you, sure! Okay, so like first we'll be all like "hey eat this terrorist paki camel humpers - pakew pakew!" then they'll go like "whoa wtf man stop with the negative waves" and then we'll be all up in their faces going "America, F*ck yeah! Watch out for those dot heads too!" Then the Paki terrorists will be like, "I know, right?" And we reply "ya huh". And stuff.”

“Of course the reality is that nearly seven years on they are no closer to asserting any control over the tribal areas than they were before and the Taliban has been able to regroup and go on the counter attack against NATO forces in Afganistan.

This came about as America and the UK took its eye off the ball to focus on what they thought was a game-changing invasion of Iraq.

The reality now is that despite pouring in Billions of dollars, the US power base has declined to such an extent is that it can do little to lever influence over what is now, and always has been, the key area in the war on terror.
last edited: 9/16/08 8:49:43 AM”

“the reality is that nearly seven years on they are no closer to asserting any control over the tribal areas than they were before - Y2

Wait a minute, if the Paki regulars don't have control over the tribal areas, how do they have command/control enough to threaten US incursions? ;-)

This came about as America and the UK took its eye off the ball - y2

What would you have had us do? I'd really like to hear what would have "worked" if we just hadn't invaded Iraq and caused all the world's problems.

what they thought was a game-changing invasion of Iraq - Y2

It *was* game changing. Not only did we decimate the AQ franchise in real terms, but the perception that created on the fabled Arab Street is that they look like dog sh*t incompetents. Moreover, the level of violence they showed to fellow muslims further discredited them.

But, like before, you'll never be able to see that through your hatred of Bush.

the US power base has declined to such an extent is that it can do little to lever influence over what is now, and always has been, the key area in the war on terror. - y2

I'm not sure what you mean, but when did we have an awesome "power base" in afghanistan? You remember we didn't invade, right? You remember the Taliban voluntarily retreated, right? You remember the analysts saying the Taliban would be back, right? And now that things are heating up again, we're giving it more resources. It helps to have a realistic perspective, Y2. I suggest you listen to me carefully.”

“This is like Foreign Policy 101 ;op. And Stop making the same dumb mistake Bush did in calling them Pakis. You'll be talking about a crusade next.

the reality is that nearly seven years on they are no closer to asserting any control over the tribal areas than they were before - Y2
Wait a minute, if the Paki regulars don't have control over the tribal areas, how do they have command/control enough to threaten US incursions? ;-)

There are armed forces there - but having control over the region is another thing. There's no desire and little capaicity to enforce.

This came about as America and the UK took its eye off the ball - y2

What would you have had us do? I'd really like to hear what would have "worked" if we just hadn't invaded Iraq and caused all the world's problems.

We should have put enough resources in. One of the key factors of the Surge in Iraq was convincing local people that they wouldn't support the Americans, then be dumped after a pull out, and then be killed as the insurgents return. We needed to convince Afghans that the Taliban wasn't coming back. Instead we invaded Iraq.

what they thought was a game-changing invasion of Iraq - Y2

It *was* game changing. Not only did we decimate the AQ franchise in real terms, but the perception that created on the fabled Arab Street is that they look like dog sh*t incompetents. Moreover, the level of violence they showed to fellow muslims further discredited them.

AQ wasn't in Iraq before we invaded them? See you have about as much understanding of things as Palin.

But, like before, you'll never be able to see that through your hatred of Bush.

There's a difference between hating him and being able to see his incompetance and lack of understanding.


the US power base has declined to such an extent is that it can do little to lever influence over what is now, and always has been, the key area in the war on terror. - y2

I'm not sure what you mean, but when did we have an awesome "power base" in afghanistan? You remember we didn't invade, right? You remember the Taliban voluntarily retreated, right? You remember the analysts saying the Taliban would be back, right? And now that things are heating up again, we're giving it more resources. It helps to have a realistic perspective, Y2. I suggest you listen to me carefully.”

We're talking at America's power base in terms of global power and influence. It's still top dog, but a series of blunders and mistakes has left in the weakest position it's been in many years on several fronts
last edited: 9/16/08 9:21:20 AM”

“And when I say the surge in Iraq is working - this doens't mean the invasion of Iraq has been a success. Success at this stage is getting out with the minimal possible cost in lives and dollars.

Iraq is still going to be hugely vulnerable to Islamic revolution for the next 10+ years. That's not a stable democracy, especially when US troops leave.
last edited: 9/16/08 9:26:30 AM”

“y2 you are so wrong and you know it. Where do you think Al Queda would rather be right now? Living on the run in some of the most remote and harsh mountains in the world having a minimal impact on anything outside a 100 mile radius of their position? Or in Iraq, holding their nose and saying the enemy of my enemy is my friend while they rebuild a world wide terror network with the backing of an oil rich country and its intelligence network?

And don't say they weren't in Iraq before we went in because they certainly would have relocated there after we ran them out of Afganistan.”

“What????? - yeah, Saddam wanted a bunch of Militant Islamics from all over the world pouring into Iraq. That would never have happened.

They were never in Iraq and never would be had we not invaded them.

And you're average AQ doesn't care. Many of them are prepared to blow themselves up in the name of Allah - you think a little discomfort worries them.

You can't apply the conservative American mindset on other people - this is at the heart of the blunders we're making time and time and time again.”

“see this is where you and I see al queda differently. A lunatic with an explosive vest doesn't worry me nearly as much as a well financed, terrorist group with an operating command structure and a worldwide network to help facilitate their plans. Its not about their ability to be uncomfortable. Its about their ability to maneuver world wide unhindered by opposition. And I mean financial transactions and strategic planning as well as trained personnel to run the operations. They are severely limited in all three while operating in the border mountains.”

“Like they were before 9/11 you mean?”

“But anyway, this is kind of beside the point - we could have limited there activity in the mountains anyway - even more than now had we not invaded Iraq.

That remains a huge strategic blunder.”

“OMG, are youn serious y2? You really believe they were on the run in the border mountains with their financial and political arms being attacked as vigorously as their military arm? there really is no talking to you.

They were just as much in control of the Afgan government as the taliban was. Its not an oil rich country but its still better than where they are now.”

“No the blunder was pulling out of Iraq/Kuwait the first time around. Pulling out of Somalia with our tail between our legs. Treating the first trade tower bombings like a police matter and letting a key player get away to plan the the later much more successful attack on the towers. One of the many good reasons to go into Iraq was to show the world that we meant business and Hussein was one of the most vocal world leader backing terrorism.”

“We could have taken all the steps against them without invading Iraq.

Iraq has simply served as a recruitment poster for AQ, and diverted resources away from the real 'war on terror' which was going on a long way from the borders of Iraq.

Rather than showing the world how tough the US is, it's shown up vulnerabilities and the limits of American power.

You'd have to wear several pair of rose-tinted glasses to dress Iraq up as anything else other than a mess of monumental proportions - driven by men who assume the rest of the world thinks like your average American CEO.”

“and little capaicity to enforce. - y2

My point.

We should have put enough resources in...We needed to convince Afghans that the Taliban wasn't coming back. - y2

Put enough resources in? Where, Pakistan? - LOL. Everyone knew the Taliban would be back. The Afghan tribal factions are shrewd political players that will happily make deals with the taliban over lofty promises of Americans. History tells them even with 50,000 more troops in Afghanistan, the country won't have a "we won!" outcome like you childishly think would've happened.”

“we wiped out Al Quedas infrastructure and a large chunk of their funding by fighting them in Iraq. You think Al Queda can outspend us. Hell the russians couldn't outspend us and we collapsed them without firing a shot. manipulating al queda to fight us in Iraq where we already had a presence and a security concern was a stroke of brilliance on Bush's part. I also firmly believe we sent many a spy up into their ranks while they were replacing their losses. Something that was very hard to do prior to Iraq. You think Iraq was a failure. I say let time pass and history will show it was a success. if we don't screw it up by abandoning it like we did somalia
last edited: 9/16/08 10:43:35 AM”

“Iraq has simply served as a recruitment poster for AQ - Y2

Rubbish. You pull this out time and again, and as always, one fact makes you look dumb: AQ has NEVER had a problem recruiting. AQ Prime (the ones playing the game on a global scale) could never put into field in an effective manner every jihadist who wants to shake his fist at the West. Iraq inflaming tensions did not alter this reality. What Iraq *did* do was allow a bunch of idiot jihadists (aka AQ franchise - local players, not global terrorists) to show to the world how inept they are and how violent and scumbaggy they are even in the context of Islam, and you have to be a pretty big effing scumbag muslim for mainstream Islam to shun you. ;-) And AQ's cache has taken a big hit as a result.

Rather than showing the world how tough the US is, it's shown up vulnerabilities and the limits of American power. - Y2

Actually it's done both.

You'd have to wear several pair of rose-tinted glasses to dress Iraq up as anything else other than a mess of monumental proportions - y2

It's been a mixed bag, something you're too biased to realize.”

“manipulating al queda to fight us in Iraq where we already had a presence and a security concern was a stroke of brilliance on Bush's part. - hyway

Good point. The burned a lot of resources for nothing.”

“I remember right after the towers fell and everyone was screaming for retribution and Bush made his speech about being at war with terrorism. I knew, like Bush said, that this was going to be a very long war stretching over many presidencies. I didn't know how we were going to fight people that wouldn't stand up and fight. I didn't know how we were going to get intelligence assets into the command structure of this newly discovered (to most americans) Terrorist group that was both well funded and world wide as well as vwery professional with their internal security. I was happy that we had a target like Afganistan that not only acknowledge al queda was there but refused to turn them over. But like trying to exterminate vermin like rats, cockroaches, fire ants, etc, you can't just destroy a nest. they just vanish away to show up somewhere else.

then Iraq happened. And Al queda dumped its manpower, money, trained command structure and political equity against America's military might. I thought what a stupid ploy. what a colossal failure in strategy. Except, with anyone else but Bush as president (with the exception of maybe Reagan) it would have been successful. We would have turned tail and run. Instead, al queada is a local threat to afganistan and pakistan. and not a world wide threat”

“Again with the rose-tinted glasses. Irawq didn't just happen.

And it's not done by a long long stretch either. We've managed a degree of supression after five+ years + the lives of thousands of troops and what'll end up being trillions of dollars - all for a war that didn't need to be fought.

It was a desitraction from the real war.

And Mutt - I know you think the answer to every problem is sending in special forces (cos they're so cool apparently) - but you're just following the same mistakes of the past going-on eight years.

And no matter how much you like to put your fingers in your ears and pretend it's not happening - Iraq set America's fight against terrorist back by years.”

“again, we disagree. I say it was the real war. We fought al queda there. we killed or captured many of the top people in al queda.

Iraq actually made a successful war against al queda and world wide terrorism possible. We would still be blundering around inside the borders of afganistan, if we hadn't turned tail and run back to the US, with someone besides bush in charge. Al queda would have rebuilt and grown stronger.”

“There's nothing of substance there to respond to, Y2. Special forces? What are you talking about? And I can make a case that the Iraq war has had some positive outcomes (while pointing out the blunders as well). The only thing you come back with is "nu uh".”

“We do disagree Hyway.... lol... apparently on many many things.

Mutt - the point is there never seems to be any understanding of your enemy in any foreign policy issue you tackle - and that's one of the major problems of foreign policy in the past eight years. The rise of the Pentagon under rummy and cheney came at the expense of the state department - and we're paying the price for this now.

Know your enemy is the key advice, and these guys just don't seem to in terms of the policies they follow.

For example Putin seems to be able to see America's weaknesses far more clearly than we can see his.

The answer to everything is not always force - yes it's important- for example we had to go into Afganistan post 9/11 - but we have to be smarter in how it's used. Lets add a little more guile and foresight to foreign policy.”

“LOL, you'd think we are bombing our way all over the world. We are fighting in Iraq and Afganistan. Where else are we using force?”

“Pakistan.”

“The answer to everything is not always force - Y2

There was a huge amount of diplomacy going on as well. Many countries willingly cooperated with the US on the WOT. The US strong-armed others through non-violent means. Where do you come up with this stuff?”

“Where Mutt? - not Stratfor that's for sure ;op

Ah yes, the coalition of the willing.

Hyway - What are we looking at now, 150k troops in those locations for five years now.
last edited: 9/16/08 1:06:24 PM”

“Coalition of the willing, yeah that's what I was talking about.

You've resorted to non-sequiturs - my work here is done. Once again, you've failed to make your case, Y2.”

“we are looking at whatever it takes .”

“I think you mean 'Stay The Course'.”

“I mean stay the course if staying the course gets the job done and I mean changing the course IF/WHEN the coourse needs changing. Only you leftist believe that only one option is all one ever needs”

“hafta jump in...

To say that pulling troops out of Afganistahn is what allowed the talibahn resurgence is grossly over simplifying. In the first 6 mos there was a fair amount of conventional US/coalition forces on the ground mainly securing FOBS (forward operating”

“To say that pulling troops out of Afganistahn is what allowed the talibahn resurgence is grossly over simplifying and factually incorrect. In the first 6 mos there was a fair amount of conventional US/coalition forces on the ground mainly securing FOBS (forward operating bases) and supply routes, plus a large contingent of 3rd Ranger Battalion soldiers doing QRF (quick response force) work for the Special Forces operators. The Fighting was done by roughly 300 US personnel working with local tribal leaders/war lords. They were US Special Forces operators. In that first 6 mos over 25,000 estimated enemy were killed. 80+ percent of talibahn real estate was taken leaving them a small portion of the eastern edge of the country. US generals then took it upon themselves to finish the job not wanting SOCOM (special operations command) to get all the credit (translation funding). Thats when it went to hell. COnventional army units stopped integrating with the local populace (for alleged security reasons) and felt they could win without local help. SOCOM fought this but as usual was overridden. That is when we began to lose ground. Not from lack of boots on the ground rather a lack of understanding on how to fight and win this new type of war (not new really, the oldest type).

I recommend reading the book Task Force Dagger, the hunt for bin laden. It is an incredibly accurate acount of the initial invasion. It covers what happened at tora bora when as some claim we "let osama get away”

“we're more likely to play India against Pakistan before we decide to stop acting so skittish around anti-aircraft fire. - Mutt

India Sends Fighters to Kashmir

Mutt Right Again!”

“Play india - and we wonder why things are going wrong.

I guess the bombings in Ahmedabad and Dheli had nothing to do with this.

Pay attention Mutt, you might learn something.”

“I guess the bombings in Ahmedabad and Dheli had nothing to do with this. - Y2

You guess wrong!”

“So the flairing up of a conflict that's as old as Pakistan is really a super secret squirrel plan to .... to ..... divert Pakistani forces from a border we need them to secure?

India accuses Pakistan of aiding a violent separatist revolt in Muslim-majority Kashmir, which in recent weeks has seen huge anti-India protests.
last edited: 9/19/08 8:09:34 AM”

“So we've organized huge protests in Kashmir to provoke and Indian response in turn to put pressure on Pakistan to let American carry out incursions into Pakistan terrirory to attack terrorist bases which we'd just have liked Pakistan to take care of in the first place.”

“So we've organized huge protests in Kashmir to provoke and Indian response - y2

We have? Cite please. That would be one cool trick! You can bet we're at least urging India to rachet things up, even if it is just Pakistan shooting itself in the foot in Kashmir.

to let American carry out incursions into Pakistan terrirory to attack terrorist bases which we'd just have liked Pakistan to take care of in the first place. - Y2

Basically. Everyone wins.”

“Mutt - why???? why would we be seeking to put pressure on a weak weak President and teetering government. More turmoil in Pakistan - to put the extremists in control?

Again you're thinking only in military terms, and I hope to god those in the Pentagon aren't thinking as one-dimensionally as you do.”

“More turmoil in Pakistan - to put the extremists in control? - y2

No, to make things uncomfortable for Islamabad. India pressuring Pakistan most likely won't create the "turmoil" you're predicting. Everything's a risk, though.”

“Is India that secret ingredient of the McCain-Bin Laden gotcha?”