Can we make up our mind?
From CNN:
Clearly, ending the support the Taliban and Al Qaeda find in Pakistan is a key to this larger war. And yet, what is the mantra from the anti-war Left?
It's that Iraq is sinking into a civil war, our troops are stuck in the middle of it, and we must leave.
I don't know if Mr. Hamilton reads the news, but what kind of situation does he think US troops would be going into in NW Pakistan, in terrain much more inhospitable than Iraq?
From The Frontier Post today:
Bill Roggio adds:
Update (7/19): More violence in Pakistan.
In the aftermath of the crackdown on the Red Mosque, a civil war is brewing in Pakistan. Is it ok for US troops to get mixed up in that? And if so, why there and not Iraq.
Hugh Hewitt had a terrific interview today with Gen. Petraeus, (transcript), who explained why Iraq is an important piece of real estate.
Pakistan, too, is important for similar reasons. It sits astride several crucial ethno-sectarian fault lines (e.g. Punjabis, Pashtuns, Baluchis, Sindhis, and Muhajirs are the main ones), it has a mix of Sunnis, Shiites, and Christians. It borders China, India and Iran, all countries of enormous importance in the region. It borders on Afghanistan.
In his interview with Ed Morrissey (transcript here), Ambassador Jawad of Afghanistan explained why Afghanistan could be an important link in the region:
Pakistan could greatly influence this development of Afghanistan. And so much threatened by the radical, murderous ideology that is breeding in the northwest tribal wars.
Yes, that swamp in Pakistan needs to be drained, either by Pakistan or by us, but let's fight our wars guided by military and strategic reasons, not political ones.
U.S. forces should go into Pakistan to rout al Qaeda from the safe haven it has found in the mountains on the border with Afghanistan, a co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group said.
Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, who also served as the vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, says the Iraq war distracted the United States when it had al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden on the run in the tribal region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
He says it's now time to finish the job.
Clearly, ending the support the Taliban and Al Qaeda find in Pakistan is a key to this larger war. And yet, what is the mantra from the anti-war Left?
It's that Iraq is sinking into a civil war, our troops are stuck in the middle of it, and we must leave.
I don't know if Mr. Hamilton reads the news, but what kind of situation does he think US troops would be going into in NW Pakistan, in terrain much more inhospitable than Iraq?
From The Frontier Post today:
Seventeen security officials have been killed and 14 injured when miscreants attacked a convoy of security forces in Madakhel near Pak-Afghan border in North Waziristan tribal region on Wednesday, eyewitnesses said. According to details, armed men exploded a remote-controlled bomb and opened fire with automatic weapons on a security forces convoy in Madakhel area, killing 17 and wounding 13 security men. The convoy was heading to Miranshah, the center of North Waziristan, from the border areas of Lwara Mandi, when the gunmen ambushed it from the mountains at 8.30 am.
Bill Roggio adds:
The Pakistani military has lost well over 100 soldiers over the past week. During military operations in the tribal areas from 2004 to 2006, the government claimed it lost only 700 troops, while American military and intelligence sources tell The Fourth Rail the number is closer to 3,000. Using the Pakistani estimate of 700, the military lost one-seventh the amount of forces in five days than it lost in over two years of operations. The power of the Taliban is clearly growing in the Northwest Frontier Province.
Update (7/19): More violence in Pakistan.
Twenty-six people are said to have died in the southern town of Hub, 35km (23 miles) north of Karachi, in an attack apparently targeting Chinese workers.
Meanwhile, at least seven people were killed and more than 20 injured in a suicide car bombing at a police college in the north-western town of Hangu.
In the aftermath of the crackdown on the Red Mosque, a civil war is brewing in Pakistan. Is it ok for US troops to get mixed up in that? And if so, why there and not Iraq.
Hugh Hewitt had a terrific interview today with Gen. Petraeus, (transcript), who explained why Iraq is an important piece of real estate.
Iraq has the second or third most proven oil resources in the world. It is blessed with other mineral wealth as well that is very substantial, and has enormous potential in the global economy. It sits astride several crucial ethno-sectarian fault lines, fault lines between Arabs and Kurds, fault lines between Sunni and Shia Iraqis, and also has substantial populations of other elements, Christians, Yazidis and some others. It is important in regional terms, needless to say, against surrounded by some neighbors that are Sunni, others Turk, and of course, they have, Turkey, they have a substantial Turkoman population as well. And then or course, Shia to their east. So there’s enormous potential implications for some of the courses of action that have been considered out there, and certainly, a precipitous withdrawal would have potentially serious implications for important interests that we have in Iraq, in the region.
Pakistan, too, is important for similar reasons. It sits astride several crucial ethno-sectarian fault lines (e.g. Punjabis, Pashtuns, Baluchis, Sindhis, and Muhajirs are the main ones), it has a mix of Sunnis, Shiites, and Christians. It borders China, India and Iran, all countries of enormous importance in the region. It borders on Afghanistan.
In his interview with Ed Morrissey (transcript here), Ambassador Jawad of Afghanistan explained why Afghanistan could be an important link in the region:
Overall, if we have a more stable region in that part of the world, the location of Afghanistan is an important asset. With the completion of the ring road in Afghanistan, the country could become a roundabout of Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent, connecting resourceful countries with a lot of energy and oil and gas to the north of Afghanistan. Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and many others, to the countries that need energy such as Pakistan and India down in the south.
Pakistan could greatly influence this development of Afghanistan. And so much threatened by the radical, murderous ideology that is breeding in the northwest tribal wars.
Yes, that swamp in Pakistan needs to be drained, either by Pakistan or by us, but let's fight our wars guided by military and strategic reasons, not political ones.
Labels: GWOT










4 Comments:
At July 19, 2007 7:56 AM, NYkrinDC said…
I don't know if Mr. Hamilton reads the news, but what kind of situation does he think US troops would be going into in NW Pakistan, in terrain much more inhospitable than Iraq?
In the aftermath of the crackdown on the Red Mosque, a civil war is brewing in Pakistan. Is it ok for US troops to get mixed up in that? And if so, why there and not Iraq.
My take is that at least in the NWFP/FATA we have more of an interest at stake because we would be fighting and hunting the people directly responsible for 9/11. That is part of the problem with Iraq, there is no clear connection between the myriad of conflicts there (except for AQI) and the War on Terror. In the NWFP at the very least we would be going after the hiding places, training camps, etc. of the organization that declared war on us. In addition, it was Pakistan's ISI (not Iraq) that created the Taliban movement and had close connections with Jiihadists from the Afghan campaign (where AQ was born). They, much like Saudi are aligned with radical religious elements more than Hussein ever was. AS such, I understand where Hamilton is coming from.
Hence, and I hate using this term, "the anti-war left" is not so much against war (at least the majority of people who oppose the Iraq war, not the radicals) but rather against fighting a war that seems to have little to do with the enemy that attacked us on 9/11.
I mean, in Iraq we are fighting Shiites, some Kurds, Turkmen, Sunnis, Secular Baathists, etc. They are fighting each other, and even within each sect, there are open hostilities. Out of all that only about 10-15% is AQI, the rest have nothing to do with them and our soldiers are being shot at from all sides. In Pakistan's NFWP at least we would be directly engaging the enemy, where in Iraq we are spending much treasure for very little gain.
That said, before heading to war in Pakistan I want to see a plan with clearly defined goals, a post-war stabilization plan addressing everything we failed to prepare for in Iraq.
At July 19, 2007 8:57 AM, Jeff Kouba said…
"the anti-war left" is not so much against war (at least the majority of people who oppose the Iraq war, not the radicals) but rather against fighting a war that seems to have little to do with the enemy that attacked us on 9/11.
That's probably one area where I differ with the Left the most.
I think is a much larger war than just Iraq, or just Pakistan. I mentioned somewhere, there are radicals carrying out violent attacks from Britain to Indonesia. Iran uses terrorism as state policy. Saudi money funds so much.
We have to be concerned about more than just those immediately responsible for 9/11.
At July 20, 2007 7:40 AM, NYkrinDC said…
I mentioned somewhere, there are radicals carrying out violent attacks from Britain to Indonesia. Iran uses terrorism as state policy. Saudi money funds so much.
I don't disagree. My main point here was pointing to the differences between Iraq and Pakistan in terms of Hamilton's recommendations. Even taking into account the attacks you mention, most of them (except perhaps the last attempted one in Britain) originated in Pakistan, or got most funding from AQ central. Hence, in your post you talk specifically about Iraq. I point out that most of the issues in Iraq have little or nothing to do with 9/11 and that that is why most people who oppose an open ended commitment to Iraq oppose it.
While Iran uses terrorism as a matter of state policy, there is a different way to deal with them, mainly because unlike non-state allied/sponsored terrorist groups, Iran has an address we can dial.
As for Saudi, we need to do a lot more, unfortunately we have not.
We can't view every conflict, or uprising in the region through the prism of terrorism or 9/11 because that will just push us to over commit and overstretch with little gain in return. Part of fighting a war intelligently is knowing when and where to fight.
At July 20, 2007 10:26 PM, Jeff Kouba said…
As for Saudi, we need to do a lot more, unfortunately we have not.
Yep. And I suppose some of that has to do with oil.
Which, to some degree, is understandable. I don't know if Americans have thought much about the question "Are you prepared to put severe pressure on Saudi Arabia no matter what it does to oil prices?"
Post a Comment
<< Home