Posted on 09/15/2008 2:41:44 PM PDT by neverdem
An excellent article by Fraser Nelson in London's Spectator at the end of July put it as succinctly as I have seen it:
At a recent dinner party in the British embassy in Kabul, one of the guests referred to "the Afghan-Pakistan war." The rest of the table fell silent. This is the truth that dare not speak its name. Even mentioning it in private in the Afghan capital's green zone is enough to solicit murmurs of disapproval. Few want to accept that the war is widening; that it now involves Pakistan, a country with an unstable government and nuclear weapons.
"Don't mention the war," as Basil insists with mounting hysteria in Fawlty Towers. And, when discussing the deepening crisis in Afghanistan, most people seem deliberately to avoid such telling phrases as "Pakistani aggression" or—more accurate still—"Pakistani colonialism." The truth is that the Taliban, and its al-Qaida guests, were originally imposed on Afghanistan from without as a projection of Pakistani state power. (Along with Pakistan, only Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates ever recognized the Taliban as the legal government in Kabul.) Important circles in Pakistan have never given up the aspiration to run Afghanistan as a client or dependent or proxy state, and this colonial mindset is especially well-entrenched among senior army officers and in the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI.
--snip--
And that, I think, is another reason why so many people are reluctant to employ truthful descriptions for the emerging Afghan-Pakistan confrontation: American liberals can't quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he's ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
That's not facing Pakistan, Chris?
Is he going to do this before or after he cures cancer?
Christopher Hitchens is wrong about God (I just read his insufferable book God is not Great), and he is wrong about that bizarre self-appointed God, Obama.
Interesting thought to pass around.
I doubt it.
Who in their right mind would want Barry Obama as president when the Nukes start going off in America.. Would be like having Richard Simmons in a Turkey Suit as your brain surgeon..
We don’t have a strategic interest in Afghanistan, neither that country nor anyone in it is a threat to us. We have a moral obligation to try to help the Afghani people who want it, by securing certain areas until they can defend themselves.
Excellent analysis except that we have a game changer now.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-pakistan12-2008sep12,0,2712447.story
All that is needed is the continued will to use them. Barry won’t, that is for sure.
Pakistan is the core problem - the most dangerous country on earth. Either Obama or McCain will have their hands full with it.
The Nazi’s, Manuel, and Sybil did not have nuclear weapons; the Paki’s do. We don’t the O-child playing the role of the major (or Wesley).<{>I certainly hope there is one heck of a lot more going on between the US and the various pieces / parts of Pakistan than we hear about in the press. This wouldn’t be the first time a RAT was talking out of their posterior knowing the classified stuff while the administration appropriately keeps their mouth shut rather than submarine the policy by saying, “look, you blithering idiot, you know damned well that ...”
If he actually read the article, Hitchens wouldn't say "Barack Obama seems to be the only candidate willing to face it."
Mr Obama said he would send two more brigades to Afghanistan. John McCain, his Republican rival, said he would deploy three -- some 10,000 men. So one can tell which way American policy is heading. Rather than a retreat from Afghanistan, there will be a Rhineland-style American military presence there designed to last for a generation. The question is whether to wait for the Fata, Waziristan and other border areas to be policed properly -- or just to go in and get the bad guys.
Not reading for comprehension, is he?
Obama, a bloody war monger, no?
I think they feel sure he didn't mean a word of it.
If by some amazing twist of fate he was serious it would be a disaster. I wouldn't trust him to make a sound decision on which side of a waffle to butter.
EVERYONE recognizes the “Pakistan” problem, in regard to the Taliban crisis in Afghanistan. The author is apparently NOT listening to what anyone, besides Obama, is saying.
What EVERYONE BUT Obama IS recognizing is:
1. Pakistan is not Iraq.
2. Pakistan HAS nuclear weapons.
3. A destabilized Pakistan could descend into civil war.
4. The U.S. has been trying, and must continue to try to get Pakistan’s help without tripping that wire.
Obama is not smarter on Pakistan. He’s just trying to puff his chest out on the issue so he looks more like what he is not - strong on defense.
what a crock! We have been hitting them across the border with Predator Missles, and Pakistan just attacked them and killed 100 in 3 days of fierce fighting!!
this is just another Puff piece for Obama....and it is a LIE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.