Posted on 11/25/2009 5:08:56 PM PST by JimWayne
Indian Premier Manmohan Singh Friday urged the international community to "stay the course" in violence-wracked Afghanistan.
...
"We appreciate the efforts of international community to stabilise Afghanistan and it is our sincere hope that the international community will stay the course."
(Excerpt) Read more at sify.com ...
And finally there is the whole set of "Afpak" [Afghanistan and Pakistan] issues and they just wanted to get a sense from Obama that he's not going to withdraw from Afghanistan...
So the Indians appreciate the efforts of the American troops while Zero dithers? And the Indians want the War on Terror to continue? My take is that Obama is desperate for success in Copenhagen that he must have reluctantly agreed to troops in Afghanistan in exchange for India not spiking the Copenhagen talks.
Actually, I think Pakistan is much more happy to have the U.S. in the region than many would think. As for India sending over Gurkhas, it would raise objections from Pakistan, and probably wouldn’t be helpful at all.
Pakistan and India have been a lot quieter vs each other of late, and we don’t want that to change.
Sending Gurkhas is my attempt at humor. (No disrespect to Gurka warriors.)
I think you are right. I recall reading a few years ago that the Indian Air Force actually operates out of Tajikstan and if it sends troops, Pakistan would object to it. I don’t agree that Pakistan is really happy about the US presence. They are a reluctant partner and joined in only after they were threatened with being bombed into the stone age.
Those are some great comments. I agree. Sorry I fell down on the humor. Take care...
Do you believe the unrest in Pakistan is related to our efforts in the area? If so, and Pakistan’s leadership agrees, you may be right.
I believe Pakistan’s leadership may see this as an opportunity to clean out the opposition. I also believe they may be happy to have had the U.S. moderate the tension between them and India, although they wouldn’t say so publicly.
Nope! It is related to ISLAM. The full name of Pakistan is ISLAMIC Republic of Pakistan. Moslems are a restless bunch and so there is always unrest in Moslem countries. In fact, if you want to prevent unrest, dictators have to rule the place.
I guess it was those same Muslims that defeated the Soviets, correct?
It is very obvious that the current violence taking over Pakistan is a result of the drone attacks. Every objective stat shows this
You basically have “2 Pakistans”
The people in the cities, who drink whiskey, have cigars, but also like to show their Muslim by going to Friday prayers, and the poor, illiterate who get swept up by the religious crazies.
The people in the cities, up until about December 07, really didn’t care about what was going on in the border area. It may as well have been happening in China
Since the civil war in Pakistan has now been taken to Islamabad, Karachi and Lahore, the people in the cities actually do give a damn.
What will happen? God only knows, but the US will be blamed, blackwater will be blamed, India will be blamed
Easiest solution. Lets save our money and get the hell out, have tons of CIA in the border area and keep a close eye out on the crazies.
What’s your take on Iraq then?
Agree about the relationship being stable but that is only when Generals rule Pakistan. The people have always hated us. Pakistan was one of the three places in which the people danced in the streets when 9/11 happened (Palestine and Egypt were the other two). As for the woman being elected, even Bangladesh elected two of them. In all three cases, these women inherited the party from a male relative. Benazir Bhutto's election was due to the fact that she inherited the party and the hatred between her province and another province ran high. Her inflammatory speeches got her the votes. They were not votes for some policy related issues.
Pakistan cannot be compared to Iraq because Iraq has experienced stability and the current instability began after 2003. Pakistan has always been unstable. Pakistan has also harbored more hatred for us. Remember that the 1993 attack on WTC was by a guy from Pakistan. It is just that the dictators have been easier to deal with.
Jim, I do agree with your take on Iraq. There was stability, but it was held together by a dictator too. A strong man in Pakistan might be able to do the same thing over time. That one hasn’t is a point well taken.
Even though a Pakistani did take part in the 1993 attack, it’s also true that a number of Saudis took part in the 09/11 attack. It doesn’t necessarily mean that either government detests the U.S.
Pakistan could have dug in it’s heels and given us grief over there. It didn’t. I’m not convinced that a military threat was the only thing that made them come our direction either. It hasn’t allowed our troops in, but then it has to answer to it’s people, and those people were quite animate that they didn’t want any foreign powers on their soil. I don’t fault Pakistan for that.
You and I probably agree in parts and disagree in others. Take care.
Let me clarify that I was not giving credit to Iraq. I was just trashing Pakistan.
Even though a Pakistani did take part in the 1993 attack, it’s also true that a number of Saudis took part in the 09/11 attack. It doesn’t necessarily mean that either government detests the U.S.
Agree with this, but the people hate the US. Besides, that Musharraf guy used to smooth talk us here while giving inflammatory speeches in his language in Pakistan.
Pakistan could have dug in it’s heels and given us grief over there.
They did that! Did you see the news about how Taliban fighters were given a ride in military helicopters? I would think that most Taliban attacks against Western troops are sponsored by ISI, Pakistan's intelligence. Remember that the Daniel Pearl throat slitting was a government job.
As for Iraq, I have no hope for it. Any control one gets over a Moslem population is temporary. Arab countries are easier to control because they have few cities in a desert.
No, I was just addressing your comment about stability.
Yes, the people in both nations detest Western ways, and in particular the U.S.
I hadn’t heard the Pearl incident was government backed. As for the Taliban given rides, I hadn’t heard that either. Still, it is true that the Taliban are trying to take down the Pakistani government. There isn’t an air of cooperation between them at the present time.
I don’t disagree in total with your long range assessment of Muslim nation stability. We are in a situation where we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
And this: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,488779,00.html
Is Pakistan a Friend or Foe?
And this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/pakistan-air-force-seen-evacuating-foreign-fighters-from-kunduz-618144.html
Pakistan air force seen evacuating foreign fighters from Kunduz
And this: http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/DB26Df01.html
The Daniel Pearl case, however, which has seen the arrest of some ISI officials and others associated with it in connection with the journalist's kidnapping, shows that it will take some doing fully to wipe out the diverse extremist elements to which the ISI gave birth and shelter for so many years.
Do you believe the government of Pakistan is being attacked by the Taliban?
I don’t believe I expressed doubt in your comments, so the links are nice, but they weren’t needed.
I think that everyone in Pakistan supports the Taliban including people in the government. If Taliban attacks someone in the government, it will be because they believe that the particular individual is an "American agent" or an apostate or because they were defending themselves from an attack by the reluctant Pakistanis who had to launch the attack to show the Americans that they were serious about the war on terror.
On Taliban's capability itself, I don't think they deserve credit for being a good army. It is a ragtag army and the US army's problem is not Taliban's fighting capabilities, but that they are asked to do things other than fight. When it comes to fighting, the US Army does a fabulous job, and the propaganda about Afghans defeating superpowers is really the foreign armies getting bogged down by things other than war.
I posted the links not to prove anything, I know we are on the same side. I posted them cos you said you missed the news about these two issues and I thought they'll make interesting reading.
My position in short is that the US should not trust (1) any Moslem country and (2) China.
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.