Pakistan Calls It A War - 'No Mas'

[Nbadan]

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/pictures/musharraf.jpg
"Appeasement Not So Bad'


Pakistan Throws in the Towel
September 05, 2006 1:04 PM
Gretchen Peters and Habibullah Khan Report:


Taliban peace - The Pakistani military will no longer operate in the area where Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda operatives are believed to be hiding, according to terms of what the Pakistan government calls a "peace deal," signed today with militant tribal groups allied to the Taliban and al Qaeda.

It is a stunning setback for U.S. efforts to root out al Qaeda and Taliban strongholds.

The agreement, signed in the North Waziristan district of Pakistan's volatile tribal belt, calls for the military to return to its barracks and for the insurgents to stop launching attacks on Pakistani troops.

"The army will pull back to its camps," spokesman Major General Shaukut Sultan told ABC News. "They will not undertake any terrorist activity. There will be no parallel government, and foreigners will leave the area."

ABC News (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/pakistan_throws.html)

In the words of Carlos Duran, 'no mas'!

[boutons_]

"They will not undertake any terrorist activity.
There will be no parallel government,
and foreigners will leave the area."

GMAFB

[101A]

....well everybody knows the Talliban and AlQueda were good to their word.

This isn't good news.

[Extra Stout]

....well everybody knows the Talliban and AlQueda were good to their word.

This isn't good news.
Well, Dan seems glib, almost giddy about it.

[Nbadan]

Well, Dan seems glib, almost giddy about it.

How's that 'war on terra' going now?

[spurster]

This is not good for the "war on terror" or "spreading democracy", but it's better than a destabilized Pakistan that goes radical with nuclear weapons. However, this puts Afghanistan into greater risk. I think the US has the choice of maybe saving Afghanistan or Iraq, but not both.

[Extra Stout]

How's that 'war on terra' going now?
I'm confused.

Why exactly would you be gloating about a setback in the war against Islamic extremists?

A) You are an Islamic extremist
B) You think America is worse than Islamic extremists
C) You don't think there are actually any Islamic extremists committing acts of terrorism, and that the variety of "attacks" over the past 13 years were carried out by some secret cabal of neo-cons
D) Anything that is bad for George W. Bush is good for you, up to and including events that lead to your own death
E) In your worldview, submitting to a repressive dhimmitude is preferrable to fighting a war
F) You think that Islamic extremists are extremely sophisticated people who are simply waiting for America to adopt leftist political ideologies, following which they will declare a truce
G) Other???

[Hook Dem]

I'm confused.

Why exactly would you be gloating about a setback in the war against Islamic extremists?

A) You are an Islamic extremist
B) You think America is worse than Islamic extremists
C) You don't think there are actually any Islamic extremists committing acts of terrorism, and that the variety of "attacks" over the past 13 years were carried out by some secret cabal of neo-cons
D) Anything that is bad for George W. Bush is good for you, up to and including events that lead to your own death
E) In your worldview, submitting to a repressive dhimmitude is preferrable to fighting a war
F) You think that Islamic extremists are extremely sophisticated people who are simply waiting for America to adopt leftist political ideologies, following which they will declare a truce
G) Other???
OWNED :lol

[Nbadan]

I'm confused.

Why exactly would you be gloating about a setback in the war against Islamic extremists?

A) You are an Islamic extremist
B) You think America is worse than Islamic extremists
C) You don't think there are actually any Islamic extremists committing acts of terrorism, and that the variety of "attacks" over the past 13 years were carried out by some secret cabal of neo-cons
D) Anything that is bad for George W. Bush is good for you, up to and including events that lead to your own death
E) In your worldview, submitting to a repressive dhimmitude is preferrable to fighting a war
F) You think that Islamic extremists are extremely sophisticated people who are simply waiting for America to adopt leftist political ideologies, following which they will declare a truce
G) Other???


:rolleyes

Wow, I'm surprised it took you that long to play the appeaser card. I kinda expected that from AHF.

[Extra Stout]

:rolleyes

Wow, I'm surprised it took you that long to play the appeaser card. I kinda expected that from AHF.
Can you not give a straight answer? Why does bad news -- not in Iraq, mind you, but in south Asia -- make you happy?

Do you not want to answer?

Are you too cowardly to answer?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Pakistan hasn't been operating in the tribal regions of western Pakistan in years (going back to pre-9/11 days).

So they put it down on paper, BFD.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Can you not give a straight answer? Why does bad news -- not in Iraq, mind you, but in south Asia -- make you happy?

Do you not want to answer?

Are you too cowardly to answer?

Can't wait to hear Dan's answer, if he even bothers to respond.

[Zunni]

Pakistan threw in the towel years ago. They have no interest in capturing ObL or allowing us to. Musharraf will continue his repressive ways against his countrymen until they kill him, or he falls from grace with the US, a la Saddam, and we decide on regime change. He's the ultimate fence rider.

[Nbadan]

What's to answer? I've always contended that the strategery the W.H. is using in Iraq and in the general war on terra was just gonna make things worse. This is just further confirmation of what I have been saying all along. It now seems evident that Pakistan sent troops into the tribal region to appease the U.S. War on Terra to keep the U.S. money and weapons coming and they were never really serious about starting a tribal war, especially since the Pakistan ISI (you remember them right? They were the organization that sent money to Muhamed Atta before the attacks) has deep roots in the region.

Meanwhile, under terms of the new agreement, as we pause to reflect on 911, Bin Laden and Al-Zawhiri are free too walk around the streets of Southern Pakistan without fear of arrest or attack and the U.S. is mostly powerless to do anything about it because we are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's been a dandy war.

[PixelPusher]

I suppose If I were to say something snarky like "How's that war on drugs going?", Extra Stout would say:

I'm confused.

Why exactly would you be gloating about a setback in the war against illegal drugs?

A) You are an drug user.
B) You think sobriety is worse than drug addiction
C) You don't think there are actually any illegal drugs being sold in this country, and that the variety of "drug busts" over the past 13 years were carried out by some secret cabal of neo-cons
D) Anything that is bad for the DEA is good for you, up to and including events that lead to your own death
E) In your worldview, submitting to Columbian drug lords is preferrable to fighting a war
F) You think that pushers and drug lords are extremely sophisticated people who are simply waiting for America to adopt leftist political ideologies, following which they will declare a truce
G) Other???

...in which case I would choose G) Other since I don't think long mandatory sentencing for possession and pouring billions of dollars to build and maintain more prisons is the right solution.

...or just make Ad Hominem attacks against me for daring to suggest our government is doing something wrong. Whatever works for you.

[smeagol]

Can you not give a straight answer? Why does bad news -- not in Iraq, mind you, but in south Asia -- make you happy?

Do you not want to answer?

Are you too cowardly to answer?
The same reason why Dan's happy when two Fox News reporters are kidnapped Palestine.

[IceColdBrewski]

Can't wait to hear Dan's answer, if he even bothers to respond.


Dan doesn't have an answer to the on-going terrorism problem. All he knows is that constant lies and "repug" bashing are the only ways that he can get his beloved democrats back into power. Once that happens, the dems can get busy with their true agenda. Impeaching Bush. National security be damned.

I've always considered myself a moderate, but nowadays, it's people like dan and boutons that have me convinced that republican or independent is the only way to go. The left is far wackier than the right at this point.

[Extra Stout]

What's to answer? I've always contended that the strategery the W.H. is using in Iraq and in the general war on terra was just gonna make things worse. This is just further confirmation of what I have been saying all along. It now seems evident that Pakistan sent troops into the tribal region to appease the U.S. War on Terra to keep the U.S. money and weapons coming and they were never really serious about starting a tribal war, especially since the Pakistan ISI (you remember them right? They were the organization that sent money to Muhamed Atta before the attacks) has deep roots in the region.

Meanwhile, under terms of the new agreement, as we pause to reflect on 911, Bin Laden and Al-Zawhiri are free too walk around the streets of Southern Pakistan without fear of arrest or attack and the U.S. is mostly powerless to do anything about it because we are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's been a dandy war.
If what you're arguing is that the breakdown in Pakistan could be related to the drain on our and our allies' resources by the strategic mistake of invading Iraq, then I agree.

If your notion is that the whole idea of fighting Islamic extremist groups in the first place is wrong... well, what exactly is the alternative? I mean, have you ever read any of Osama's treatises? You have to treat the acute systems before you can go after the underlying infection. At least with the original Afghan campaign, Al-Qaeda's nice cozy base of operations was disrupted, and had we not screwed up and gone into Iraq, I think the regime in Pakistan would be stronger and the campaign there would be going better.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I've always considered myself a moderate, but nowadays, it's people like dan and boutons that have me convinced that republican or independent is the only way to go. The left is far wackier than the right at this point.

I consider myself more of a centrist. But like you, when I'm presented with either W. and Co. or the shit that Dan and croutons call their party, and further, when the views they present here seem to be the mainstream thought of the Demo. party these days, that makes it pretty easy to root for the Republicans.

There's some things that I disagree with that Bush's administration is doing, but given the pacifistic nature of the left I'll take the bumps in the road with the current leadership of the Republican party thank you.

[Nbadan]

Dan doesn't have an answer to the on-going terrorism problem. All he knows is that constant lies and "repug" bashing are the only ways that he can get his beloved democrats back into power. Once that happens, the dems can get busy with their true agenda. Impeaching Bush. National security be damned.

I've always considered myself a moderate, but nowadays, it's people like dan and boutons that have me convinced that republican or independent is the only way to go. The left is far wackier than the right at this point.

:lol A wing-nut calling me out for being partisan!

Yeah, you're a centrist/moderate like Yonivore is a Libertarian.

Let me tell you a little something about lies...

Who lied when the administration and M$M claimed Iraq had active stockpiles of WMD's?
Who lied when the administration and M$M claimed Iraq had active ties to terra?
Who lied when the administration and M$M claimed Saddam was an immenent threat?
Who lied when the administration and M$M claimed that the insurgency was just a handful of dead-enders?
Who lied when the administration claimed the insurgency was in it's last throes?
Who lied when the administration claimed they knew nothing about torture doing on at Abu Gharib and other locations?

When you can begin to honestly answer those questions, you will have begun to earn the credibility it takes to call me a partisan.

[Nbadan]

I consider myself more of a centrist. But like you, when I'm presented with either W. and Co. or the shit that Dan and croutons call their party, and further, when the views they present here seem to be the mainstream thought of the Demo. party these days, that makes it pretty easy to root for the Republicans.

There's some things that I disagree with that Bush's administration is doing, but given the pacifistic nature of the left I'll take the bumps in the road with the current leadership of the Republican party thank you.

What pacifist nature? WW1? nope, Demo. WW2? nope, Demo. Vietnam? nope, Demo. Seems to me that the true pacifist are Republicans because they can't seem to run a war without resorting to cut-and-run.

[Nbadan]

http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/3376/nwfpwaziristaned4.gif
Area controlled by Al-Queda

Pakistan abandons N. Waziristan checkpoint:


MIRAMSHAH, Sept 6: The political authorities and tribal militants exchanged weapons and vehicles in the North Waziristan Agency on Wednesday as a part of implementation of Tuesday’s peace agreement, sources said.

They said that the administration returned 24 AK-47 rifles and eight pick-ups to the militants in Miramshah. The rifles and vehicles had been seized in army operations in the region. An official said that six more vehicles would be returned to the militants. The militants handed over three G-3 rifles, some wireless sets, berets and badges to the authorities. According to the agreement, both the parties will return each other’s arms and communication equipments snatched in the operations.

Officials said that the authorities had abolished 11 new checkpoints and the army had evacuated outposts in the area. Now tribal Khasadar force and paramilitary troops were jointly manning old checkpoints in the agency, they added. In a related development, the agency’s political administration removed the names of two militant commanders, Maulvi Sadiq Noor and Maulvi Abdul Khaliq, from the list of wanted men, officials told Dawn in Peshawar.

DAWN (http://www.dawn.com/2006/09/07/top4.htm)

If there are any doubts left that the militants have won.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

What pacifist nature? WW1? nope, Demo. WW2? nope, Demo. Vietnam? nope, Demo. Seems to me that the true pacifist are Republicans because they can't seem to run a war without resorting to cut-and-run.

Maybe you need to go back and check your U.S. history.

It was a democratically controlled Congress that cut off funding for the South Vietnamese and American armed forces battling in Vietnam.

Yeah, Ford, a (R), presided over the withdrawal, but it was a democraptic Congress that cut off the funds for the war.

Next.

[smeagol]

Let me tell you a little something about lies...

Who lied when the administration and M$M claimed Iraq had active stockpiles of WMD's?
Who lied when the administration and M$M claimed Iraq had active ties to terra?
Who lied when the administration and M$M claimed Saddam was an immenent threat?
Who lied when the administration and M$M claimed that the insurgency was just a handful of dead-enders?
Who lied when the administration claimed the insurgency was in it's last throes?
Who lied when the administration claimed they knew nothing about torture doing on at Abu Gharib and other locations?
Conclusion: This Administration has told us a few lies. :lol

[Nbadan]

Checking my history...


On January 15, 1973, citing progress in peace negotiations, President Nixon announced the suspension of offensive action against North Vietnam, to be followed by a unilateral withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam. The Paris Peace Accords were signed on January 27, 1973, officially ending direct U.S. involvement in the Vietnam conflict. The signing of the Accords won the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize for U.S. National Security Adviser and lead negotiator Henry Kissinger and North Vietnamese Politburo member and lead negotiator Le Duc Tho.

Five days before the peace accords were signed, Lyndon Johnson, whose presidency had been marred by the war, died. The mood during his state funeral was one of intense recrimination because the war's wounds were still raw. However, there was relief not only that U.S. involvement in Vietnam had ended, but also that a chapter in one of the most tragic and divisive eras in the United States had at last come to an end.

The first U.S. prisoners of war were released by North Vietnam on February 11, 1973, and all U.S. soldiers were ordered to leave by March 29. Soldiers returning from the Vietnam War were generally not treated as heroes, and were sometimes even condemned for their participation in the war. The peace agreement, in the meantime, did not last.

As an inducement for Nguyen Van Thieu's South Vietnamese government to sign the Peace Accords, President Nixon had promised that the United States would provide financial and limited military support (in the form of air strikes) so that the south could continue to defend itself. But Nixon was fighting for his political life in the growing Watergate Scandal, facing an increasingly hostile Congress that held the power of the purse, and was able to exert little influence on a hostile public long sick of the Vietnam War. Thus, Nixon broke his promises to South Vietnam. Economic aid to South Vietnam continued (after being cut nearly in half), but most of it was siphoned off by corrupt officials in the South Vietnamese government, and little actually went to the war effort. At the same time, aid to North Vietnam from the U.S.S.R. increased. With the United States no longer heavily involved in Vietnam, both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. no longer saw the war as significant to their relations. The balance of power shifted decisively in North Vietnam's favor, and the north subsequently launched a major military offensive against the south.

Wkipedia, Vietnam War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War)

So it was Nixon who broke his promise - check.

[BIG IRISH]

Time for a quote from the great mind of Sir Charles Barkley

"The Republicans are full of it," Barkley said. "The Democrats are a little less full of it."


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/2006-09-06-barkley-politics_x.htm

[Nbadan]

"The Republicans are full of it," Barkley said. "The Democrats are a little less full of it."

Not all Democrats, just Progressives. It's not Secularists versus Traditionalists as the right would like you to believe, it's more like Traditionalists and Progressives. Given those two choices, which would you rather be labeled?

[BIG IRISH]

I would like to see "Your" definition before making a choice.

However if you check the article on Barkley he also said:

He said all political parties should be eliminated.

"You shouldn't belong to a political affiliation; everybody should be an independent," he said. "The way it is now, you're hamstrung to a particular party. That's not right."

[Nbadan]

I would like to see "Your" definition before making a choice.

However if you check the article on Barkley he also said:

He said all political parties should be eliminated.

"You shouldn't belong to a political affiliation; everybody should be an independent," he said. "The way it is now, you're hamstrung to a particular party. That's not right."

Like it or not, Government is built on coalitions. If it weren't the Republicans and Democrats they would be called something else because the only way to coilate power in government is to join together with other groups that share your political viewpoint, although they don't neccessarily have to be in complete agreement on every issue.

What we are really hungstrung by is the influence of money on Congress. Money wins campaigns, and it's much easier for a corporation to donate a ton of money than it is for honest politicians to raise money through grass-roots methods.

[BIG IRISH]

Like it or not, Government is built on coalitions. If it weren't the Republicans and Democrats they would be called something else because the only way to coilate power in government is to join together with other groups that share your political viewpoint, although they don't neccessarily have to be in complete agreement on every issue.

What we are really hungstrung by is the influence of money on Congress. Money wins campaigns, and it's much easier for a corporation to donate a ton of money than it is for honest politicians to raise money through grass-roots methods.

What I'm heading toward is that unless you start doing something different, you are in for more of the same."
I think a small step can be taken with the american public using this new site
when it become available, than Screeming to high Heaven when they see the PORK



AFTER THE EXPOSRURE of "secret holds" by Senators Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) shamed them into retreat, the Senate unanimously passed S. 2590, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. (Hat tip: Glenn)

The bill requires the OMB to ensure that the public will have access free of charge to a searchable website providing information on federal financial assistance, including federal contracts, by Jan. 1, 2007. The website would allow the public to search for information about federal:
* Contracts;
* Grants, including block grants, formula grants, and project grants;
* Cooperative Agreements;
* Loans, including direct loans, guaranteed loans, and insured loans;
* Direct payments for specified (e.g., financial aid) and unrestricted use (e.g., pensions, veterans benefits);
* Insurance; and
* Indirect financial assistance.


You know what this means: No more federally-funded bike paths.
http://volpac.org/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=451

[spurster]

5 years from 9/11 and we are still letting Osama go.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/10/weekinreview/10rohde.html

Al Qaeda Finds Its Center of Gravity
By DAVID ROHDE

OVER the last year, as Iran, Iraq and Lebanon have dominated headlines, hopes of gaining firmer control of a largely forgotten corner of the war on terrorism - the lawless Pakistan-Afghanistan border region - have quietly evaporated.

On Tuesday, the Pakistani government signed a "truce" with militants who have resisted Pakistani military efforts to gain control of the region, which is roughly the size of Delaware. The agreement, which lets militants remain in the area as long as they promised to halt attacks, immediately set off concern among American analysts.

Al Qaeda's surviving leadership is suspected of using the border areas as a base of operation to support international terrorist attacks, including possibly the July 2005 London subway bombings. Meanwhile, the Taliban leadership is widely believed to be using another border area to direct spiraling attacks in Afghanistan.

"There's a link with broader international terrorism," said Robert Grenier, the former top counterterrorism official for the Central Intelligence Agency. "There's a link with what is happening in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda, such as it is now, really has its center of gravity in the area."

Last week's truce agreement covers North Waziristan, an area on the Pakistani side of the border. After the Taliban fell in 2001, senior Qaeda and Taliban leaders are believed to have fled there from Afghanistan and to other remote border areas in Pakistan.

The locations of Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri remain unknown. But American officials suspect that they are somewhere along the border.

After two attempts to assassinate President Pervez Musharraf in December 2003 were linked to the tribal areas, Pakistani officials expanded the military effort to subdue the region. But after suffering heavy casualties in 2004 and early 2005, they began negotiating with local militants. Last year, Pakistan signed a separate agreement with militants in South Waziristan, but the move failed to slow the killing of government supporters.

"If you look at the number of deaths in the region, it's not clear that they've dropped," said Xenia Dormandy, former director for South Asia for the National Security Council. Signing such truces, she said, "is a potentially dangerous route to take because there is little pressure that you can bring to bear to make sure they can follow through on the agreements."

Two hundred miles to the south, the Taliban leadership is believed to have established a base of operations in and around the Pakistani city of Quetta, according to American analysts. Afghan officials say the Taliban used the area to plan and carry out sweeping attacks in southern Afghanistan in the spring.

Pakistan has largely turned a blind eye to Taliban activities, American officials say, because it sees the group as a tool to counter growing Indian influence in Afghanistan. The Pakistanis have longed viewed a friendly Afghanistan as critical to their survival and fears India may be trying to encircle their country.

At the same time, a separate uprising in Baluchistan province has tied up Pakistani soldiers. Ethnic Baluch tribesmen complain that Pakistan's military government is not sharing enough of the profits from natural gas exploration with the locals. The killing last month of a charismatic tribal elder who was a rebel leader set off riots in several cities.

"Pakistan is essentially trying to put down a civil war in Baluchistan," said Ms. Dormandy, now an analyst at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. "At the same time, it's trying to monitor its border with India, monitor the border of Afghanistan and bring down the Taliban and Al Qaeda."

In Afghanistan, NATO forces that took control of security in the south from American forces this summer have been surprised by the size and strength of the Taliban insurgency. Roadside bomb attacks have doubled this year, and suicide bombings have tripled. Yesterday, a suicide bombing in Kabul killed at least 2 American soldiers and 14 Afghan civilians.

All told this year, heavy clashes in eastern and southern Afghanistan have killed more than 100 American and NATO soldiers, roughly twice the number killed in the same period in 2005. Since Aug. 1 alone, 28 NATO soldiers have been killed.

Analysts say the problem in the border region is an explosive mix of conditions: a lack of government authority, a vast amount of weaponry and the rise of Islamic militancy. Until the 1980's, the area was ruled by local tribes, whose brute self-government kept the population isolated and impoverished but allowed for a degree of stability.

In the 1980's, the American-backed anti-Soviet jihad unfolded in the region and began to wear away longstanding tribal structures. Huge piles of weapons and cash empowered Islamist organizations to open dozens of training camps, hard-line mosques and conservative religious schools along the border. In the 1990's, the Taliban emerged there.

Today, said Mr. Grenier, the former C.I.A. official, the only way to increase government authority in the rural areas on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border was to develop the impoverished rural areas over time. "But that's a generational process," said Mr. Grenier, now a managing director at Kroll Inc., a security firm based in New York.

This summer, local people interviewed in southern Afghanistan said they were unsure that the United States and NATO would remain committed to the long, expensive process of stabilizing the border region. This year, the United States cut its aid to Afghanistan by 30 percent.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban are no doubt betting that time is on their side.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

[boutons_]

"that time is on their side."

... as are the Sadr and Badr Shia brigades in Iraq. They work on weakening the Sunnis now in the civil war, then pounce when the US leaves.