« A curiousity: murdered Afghan intelligence chief was a wanted man in Pakistan | diachronic's Blog | Pakistan Seizes the Moment, Decriminalizes Corruption »
NYT Points Out the 'Frustrating Paradox' in Afghanistan
Here it is:
the more the administration wrestles publicly with how substantial and lasting a military commitment to make to Afghanistan, the more the ISI is likely to strengthen bonds to the Taliban as Pakistan hedges its bets.
the more the administration wrestles publicly with how substantial and lasting a military commitment to make to Afghanistan, the more the ISI is likely to strengthen bonds to the Taliban as Pakistan hedges its bets.
Advertisement
The futility of this (and the misdirection rife in the media, that the problem is Karzai's corrupt government- Karzai's government may be corrupt, but the fundamental problem is that it is less in the pay of Pakistan than the Taliban) as well as Pakistan's undisguised desire for our Xe-prepared drones, is apparent from this AP snippet:
"Earlier this year, the Pentagon began ramping up the eight-year war in Afghanistan, targeting extremist Taliban leaders to make sure the nation does not become a safe haven for al-Qaida. But White House officials now are refocusing on Pakistan, where al-Qaida leaders are believed to be hiding, by potentially launching more missile strikes by unmanned spy planes and sending in more special operations forces.
Pakistan will not allow the United States to deploy a large-scale military troop buildup on its soil. However, its military and intelligence services are believed to have assisted the U.S. with airstrikes, even while the government publicly has condemned them.
A spokesman for the Pakistan Embassy in Washington, Nadeem Kiani, signaled that Islamabad is cool to the idea of letting the U.S. expand its CIA-led drone missions in Pakistan.
Generally, the U.S. shares the intelligence it gets from the spy planes with Pakistani leaders, but has resisted selling drones to the Pakistan for fear it could target its longtime enemy, India.
"Our position on this is well known: We would like to have this technology in our hands," Kiani said at the U.N. General Assembly in New York. That way, Kiani said, there would be no violation of Pakistan's sovereignty, "which is very dear to the Pakistani people.""
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090923/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_afghanistan
In fairness to Pakistan, we would not much enjoy it if Xe were raining drones on New England.
September 23, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pakistan is not a cohesive country with a functioning government, but a collection of ISI and Army power brokers and warlords. Each one of them would like the technology to knock off others.
You don't 'rain drones' the drones fire missiles. Pakistan has no qualms about 'violating the sovereignty' of Afghanistan or India by murdering their citizens so why should anyone respect Pakistan's.
September 23, 2009 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The issue is not Pakistan's sovereignty. It is the fact that our 'success' in Afghanistan can only make things worse for us.
September 24, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
'why should anyone respect Pakistan's'
Has the U.S. ever fought a war against a nuclear-armed nation?
There is nothing the U.S. can do in this region, other than what it is doing, which is to send troops into a slowly-escalating bloodbath. The one difference between Obama and LBJ is that Obama is not going to institute a draft.
September 24, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a pedantic point: the expression 'rain drones' was meant as shorthand for 'rain drone missiles.' Probably not the best use of language on my part.
September 24, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually (and this is incredibly pedantic, but caffeine does this) it was a kind of metonymy in which 'drones' was carried over, almost anaphorically, from preceding references, rather than the obvious 'missiles.' Predators are not suicidal things, hence the substitution seemed legitimate, somewhere between anaphora and metonymy.
September 25, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Next time I will just use the more metaphorical 'drones rain,' in case I feel the need to depart from strict literalism to describe Xe-related activities of this nature.
September 25, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just read an article by William Lind, in which he claims that Karzai and his crew cannot form an Afghan state, and that we should allow the only group capable of such in to do so- the Taliban.
The problem, he says, is that maybe the Taliban would, as Hilary claims, invite their old friends al-Qaeda back. But no need to worry on that score:
:The risk is the Taliban’s willingness to keep al Qaeda out. Why should Mullah Omar agree to that? Because al Qaeda no longer needs Afghan bases. It has far more useful ones in Pakistan. That is why it is not in Afghanistan now."
True enough, that Pakistan is for many purposes ore convenient than landlocked, nuclear-free Afghanistan. Yeah, that's the strategy, hand over Afghanistan to Mullah Omar. We could have done this is 2002.
This will send the Pakistanis into ecstasy, too. They will forgive us our drone attacks, too, privately.
http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/2009/09/22/on-war-316-last-exit-before-quagmire/
September 24, 2009 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink