CIA Director Panetta to be defense secretary; Gen. David Petraeus to CIA

[RazorMC]

Excerpt from another source:

WASHINGTON: While political Washington is cheering General David Petraeus’ nomination to head the CIA, the mood at the agency’s headquarters and in Pakistan’s intelligence service is less celebratory.

Petraeus, the architect of the current US strategy in Afghanistan, is expected as CIA director to embrace the campaign of drone strikes in Pakistan, a nominally covert CIA operation that has fueled anti-American sentiment but put heavy pressure on militant safe havens.

Read the full article here.

I think the issue of drones is going to be a hot topic once he gets the seat. And I remember that it was Gen. Patraeus who helped the negotiations in Iraq so he may have been brought in to do the same in Afghanistan. The evacuation deadline approaches in a couple of months

--------------------------
btw patanjali, how long do kingfishers last ?? heard you from the EF/Rafale discussion.

 

[khurasaan1]

in Afghanistan. The evacuation deadline approaches in a couple of months

Bro. They already said they not leaving till 2014...
so we got plenty of time to watch/have fun there....Insha-Allah...

 

[President Camacho]

"If it is true, then well... Pakistanis beware... Even tougher times ahead."

"...Tougher..." than what? What do you perceive that's not been already considered by Pakistan's leadership? What do you KNOW that the rest of us don't.

Okay, here's how I look at it: It is widely known that the CIA's operations have been marred by lack of intelligence in Afghanistan and Northwest Pakistan. That is one main reason why the CIA has been heavily dependent on the ISI for intelligence. Historically, the main focus of the CIA has been mostly Europe and Russia (Now somewhat China), and the Directors (of the CIA) were also appointed with the same region as priority. However, appointments of Panetta as the Defense Secretary, and Patraeus as the Director - CIA (Both having ever greater understanding of the Afghanistan-Pakistan region than those that served before them) show the shifting focus of the American intelligence network from Europe/Russia to the Afghanistan-Pakistan region.

It is also not lost on anyone that this dependency of the CIA on the ISI has been costing the US much more than it has suffered anywhere else in any other operations. The CIA wants the ISI to help provide legit intel on the targets of interests to the US, whereas the ISI wants the CIA to eliminate those that are harming the ISI's objectives in the region. Somewhere inbetween, the priorities of both the agencies clash so badly, resulting in heavy loss of resources, (often such bad intel leads to the loss of CIA operatives, or the unrelated parties in that region) that they require higher officials and elected representatives to come out and make public statements to mellow down the tone and help the operations be a continual process.

Irrespective of what such elected officials say, it is a fact that the ISI and the CIA stand poles apart when it comes to their priorities and targets in the region, for the sole reason that one's targets are the other's assets.

The appointment of Patraeus - whose success in Iraq has been the subject of long talks, clearly shows that this time the CIA wants someone who has a much better understanding of the region and can quickly deliver the results. But deliverance of results (by the CIA) in the Af.Pak region requires of the CIA to go against the ISI, and there's no bypassing. Patraeus can very well do such a job, or at least his track record shows that.

This appointment of Patraeus, and the US's desire to start droning in south of Pakistan (Balu area) is a clear sign that drone attacks are to be intensified in the coming times. But the growing unrest (regarding drones) among the Pakistani populace will make sure it is an uphill task even for both the agencies working together. However, the drones have come up with only a limited amount of success in spite of such heavy bombing. This limitation on the success of drones may force the US to start ground operations - but that would not be so wise unless there's a greater amount of quality intel. As I see it, after achieving a greater independence from the ISI regarding the intelligence in the area, Gen. Patraeus's extensive experience in Iraq will be put to use when the drones fail. And if any ground operations by the US do start in Northwest Pakistan, then that area is sure to turn into another Iraq. I doubt the US will let go of the region that easily, especially when it knows it has been played well by the ISI.

 

[S-2]

"...Somewhere inbetween, the priorities of both the agencies clash so badly..."

Correctimundo.

"However, appointments of Panetta as the Defense Secretary, and Patraeus as the Director - CIA (Both having ever greater understanding of the Afghanistan-Pakistan region than those that served before them)..."

This isn't assured. Both are bright men surrounded by equally bright men but neither are scholars to the region and both are recently introduced to the issues there. Panetta, moreover, had purview over a range of issues far exceeding simply as C.I.A. director. So too shall Petraeus.

OTOH, on the whole you're correct that much of their focus at the C.I.A. and DoD shall remain there. Hopefully not myopically so. It's a biiiig world with lots of problems and both jobs entail the full range of those global responsibilities.

"...it is a fact that the ISI and the CIA stand poles apart...for the sole reason that one's targets are the other's assets."

There's no reciprocity here. Our targets are the ISI's assets (Afghan taliban). Our targets also are the ISI's enemies (TTP). The ISI, however, has been long engaged in the business of killing Americans.

"But deliverance of results (by the CIA) in the Af.Pak region requires of the CIA to go against the ISI, and there's no bypassing. Patraeus can very well do such a job, or at least his track record shows that..."

Actually there's very little Petraeus can uniquely do that others haven't. If his powers of persuasion aren't sufficient to sway Kayani to mount serious offensives against the afghan taliban on your lands then there's really very little leverage left.

Our congress and citizens will continue demanding that the afghan taliban be attacked wherever they can be found as some measure of protection (or retaliation) for our troops. The mothers of our soldiers demand that of our government officials. We choose to use PREDATOR in preference to B-52 strikes as the minimum leveraged precision asset we've available. More means open warfare with Pakistan.

Some might applaud that but it raises the rather inconvenient spectre of our supply routes and all that untidy re-routing of supplies through central asia and Russia. It also raises the liklihood that Pakistan would ratchet its nuclear arsenal at India. Now this brinksmanship could destroy Pakistan, of course. OTOH, 40 or 50 million dead Indians might not justify it over a near paleolithic country like Afghanistan.

Now it's possible that Petraeus is a true fork-tongued devil but I rather doubt it. Kayani has the measure of him and knows that even ol' Dave Petraeus has a limited bag of resources from which to draw. This calculus has been well-played out by both sides innumerable times. That's why we are were we are. Such was inevitable as the Kabuki dance reached its final stages.

"...However, the drones have come up with only a limited amount of success in spite of such heavy bombing..."

You don't know this. The names of those killed is more than "limited". You (and I) are only aware of the Hollywood stars that have been whacked-Nek Mohammad, Qari Hussain, Baitullah Mehsud as example. What lies just beneath our limited understanding are a whole range of immensely valuabe senior and mid-level operatives...and soldiers that have also tasted HELLFIRE. Further, you discount the effect PREDATOR has on those still alive. We're rather satisfied with the net results and happy to have PREDATOR as means of minimal retaliation. As weapons go, it ain't too bad for this war.

"This limitation on the success of drones may force the US to start ground operations..."

Nope. It'll be a cold day in Hell before we conduct a sustained ground offensive inside Pakistan. Special ops raid? Maybe if the target was truly justified but we're likely talking OBL or Zawahiri.

"Gen. Patraeus's extensive experience in Iraq will be put to use when the drones fail. And if any ground operations by the US do start in Northwest Pakistan, then that area is sure to turn into another Iraq. I doubt the US will let go of the region that easily, especially when it knows it has been played well by the ISI."

That experience isn't transferable and he'll be leaving his soldiering days behind to put on a spook suit. We're not going anywhere. Our soldiers will be...in time but we'll retain a rather significant presence in the region.

Patanjali, here's what I see-civil war. We'll do our best with the afghan army but they're a hopeless case in my view. Utterly unreliable to any ostensible master whom they serve. Pakistan will retain and use its afghan taliban proxies to make full-scale war upon the GoA when our troops depart. They're utterly incapable of defeating ISAF beforehand. Once gone, though, Afghanistan will resort to warlordism and the afghan taliban might well be the biggest warlords. Of course, the N.A. shall resurrect itself and Iran, India, and Russia will all dive in.

Meanwhile Pakistan will continue receiving lessons that there are no differences in taliban-same guys, different neighborhoods. Haqqani and Omar, though, have more in common with Hakimullah Mehsud than Kayani every day of the week. Both might kill Mehsud now to save their skin...but that's the afghan way. OTOH, safely escounced once more inside a civil war-riddled Afghanistan, they'll not ignore their pashtun breathren on the Pakistani side.

Remember these words of your's-

"If it is true, then well... Pakistanis beware... Even tougher times ahead."

My sense is most Pakistanis haven't a clue just how tough things will be over the next couple of decades. We'll see.

 

[53fd]

"...it is a fact that the ISI and the CIA stand poles apart...for the sole reason that one's targets are the other's assets."

There's no reciprocity here. Our targets are the ISI's assets (Afghan taliban). Our targets also are the ISI's enemies (TTP). The ISI, however, has been long engaged in the business of killing Americans.

Then why hasn't the US concentrated on closing down the safe havens for the TTP Mehsud faction in Khost, Afghanistan that infiltrates into North & South Waziristan, Pakistan? Why hasn't the US closed down the safe haven for the TTP Qari Zia Rehman group that operates in Kunar, Afghanistan & infiltrates into the Bajaur & Mohmand Agencies of Pakistan? Why hasn't the US closed down the safe havens in Nuristan where terrorists infiltrate into Dir, Pakistan? Why have you concentrated on the Afghan Taliban in Kandahar while providing safe haven to the TTP terrorists in Khost, Kunar, Nuristan?

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

Then why hasn't the US concentrated on closing down the safe havens for the TTP Mehsud faction in Khost, Afghanistan that infiltrates into North & South Waziristan, Pakistan? Why hasn't the US closed down the safe haven for the TTP Qari Zia Rehman group that operates in Kunar, Afghanistan & infiltrates into the Bajaur & Mohmand Agencies of Pakistan? Why hasn't the US closed down the safe havens in Nuristan where terrorists infiltrate into Dir, Pakistan? Why have you concentrated on the Afghan Taliban in Kandahar while providing safe haven to the TTP terrorists in Khost, Kunar, Nuristan?

It was a drone strike which killed Baithullah Mehsud, don't forget that.

 

[DV RULES]

This isn't assured. Both are bright men surrounded by equally bright men but neither are scholars to the region and both are recently introduced to the issues there. Panetta, moreover, had purview over a range of issues far exceeding simply as C.I.A. director. So too shall Petraeus.

Panetta appointment as DS can bring some pressure over Pakistan as recently conflict between two agencies still unsolved. It may increase tension between GHQ & Pentagon but any breakthrough toward settlement of joint operations not possible but may leads towards more separations.
Petraeus appointment as CIA chief may bring some stability in intelligence relations, but as military commander he well aware from red line of Pakistan & where i think Petraeus will be more successful than Panetta in their new responsibilities. Surrounded by bright men, not guaranty that they will handle situation in favour of US or regional stability.

There's no reciprocity here. Our targets are the ISI's assets (Afghan taliban). Our targets also are the ISI's enemies (TTP). The ISI, however, has been long engaged in the business of killing Americans.


Actually there's very little Petraeus can uniquely do that others haven't. If his powers of persuasion aren't sufficient to sway Kayani to mount serious offensives against the afghan taliban on your lands then there's really very little leverage left.

Our congress and citizens will continue demanding that the afghan taliban be attacked wherever they can be found as some measure of protection (or retaliation) for our troops. The mothers of our soldiers demand that of our government officials. We choose to use PREDATOR in preference to B-52 strikes as the minimum leveraged precision asset we've available. More means open warfare with Pakistan.

Some might applaud that but it raises the rather inconvenient spectre of our supply routes and all that untidy re-routing of supplies through central asia and Russia. It also raises the liklihood that Pakistan would ratchet its nuclear arsenal at India. Now this brinksmanship could destroy Pakistan, of course. OTOH, 40 or 50 million dead Indians might not justify it over a near paleolithic country like Afghanistan.

ISI targets are CIA assets (TTP, BLF, Joint CIA-RAW training camps against Pakistan) so there is no need to prove as saint. Till that moment CIA will continue playing triple game against Pakistan, CIA also has to face same game which you often named as MAIN HURDLE CONDUCTING OPERATIONS IN AFGHANISTAN. Fair game but painful for US.

s-2, for what purposes US army jumped into this war? to sit calmly in camps drinking & dancing? You know what is war? how funny that your congress and citizens will continue demanding some measure of protection (or retaliation) for your troops. So Fight with Taliban to save US from extremism! Look at Pakistan army how bravely they are fighting against CIA supported TTP & extrimists, it is their job to protect boundaries of country so where i think Pakistan also must launch operations or attack on save heavens of TTP in Afghanistan? Well not worse idea.

Mothers of our soldiers also demands from government to attack all those agents in shape of TTP where ever they are in Afghanistan or elsewhere.
In 10 years you did nothing to save Afghan people by these drones but killing innocent peoples in attacks, there success ratio to kill an extremist 1:100, so what are talking about predators where you openly violate international rules & regulations of sovereignty. You totally failed in Afghanistan so open warfare with Pakistan is nothing but empty words.

Further, you discount the effect PREDATOR has on those still alive. We're rather satisfied with the net results and happy to have PREDATOR as means of minimal retaliation. As weapons go, it ain't too bad for this war.

Then use them in Afghanistan but not over Pakistan territory because it too bad for our security measures in country and creates negative reaction against our army. We can't convert situation as in Afghanistan only because of your drones so best option to provide drones to Pakistan and they should conduct operation but not US.

That experience isn't transferable and he'll be leaving his soldiering days behind to put on a spook suit. We're not going anywhere. Our soldiers will be...in time but we'll retain a rather significant presence in the region.

Also will be the day when you will say we're not going anywhere as we are putting eye on Afghanistan but not soldiers.

here's what I see-civil war. We'll do our best with the afghan army but they're a hopeless case in my view. Utterly unreliable to any ostensible master whom they serve. Pakistan will retain and use its afghan taliban proxies to make full-scale war upon the GoA when our troops depart. They're utterly incapable of defeating ISAF beforehand. Once gone, though, Afghanistan will resort to warlordism and the afghan taliban might well be the biggest warlords. Of course, the N.A. shall resurrect itself and Iran, India, and Russia will all dive in.

Afghan army is hopeless because they understand that they have no social, ethnic, or generally people support to work with foreign invaders, still Afghan people support those carrying gun against US, why because US/NATO loosed his support in people by killing them & massive bombing over residential areas. So now every street & town filled with anti ISAF feelings and their men went in mountains to fight with ISAF forces, they are not Taliban but fighter forced by ISAF strategies & in present these kind of fighters are more than number of Taliban allegedly called Pakistan supported Talibans . Real picture of ISAF success Afghanistan many worst then press reports shown in BBC or CNN. These are ground realities but not part of fiction.

My sense is most Pakistanis haven't a clue just how tough things will be over the next couple of decades. We'll see.

We are already facing tough time from 1979 by the blessing of our excellent ally US and after that main ally in WOT so what clue could be in next? Time never be same so who know tough time starts for US now!

Advice: Why US can't bring these all his pet AQ & Talibans to US, US is a big country, may be they will give place where they can live with their self derived or US derived Islam? Your creation you must take back, south Asia doesn't need these inhuman creatures and US's proxy wars. Let give people live with peace without any war mongering foreign attitudes.

NO OFFENSIVE

 

[President Camacho]

S-2: "Patanjali, here's what I see-civil war. We'll do our best with the afghan army but they're a hopeless case in my view. Utterly unreliable to any ostensible master whom they serve. Pakistan will retain and use its afghan taliban proxies to make full-scale war upon the GoA when our troops depart. They're utterly incapable of defeating ISAF beforehand. Once gone, though, Afghanistan will resort to warlordism and the afghan taliban might well be the biggest warlords. Of course, the N.A. shall resurrect itself and Iran, India, and Russia will all dive in."

This is essentially what I meant too, esp when I mentioned Iraq - a civil war in Pakistan, though with a defunct ISI.

----------

However, appointments of Panetta as the Defense Secretary, and Patraeus as the Director - CIA (Both having ever greater understanding of the Afghanistan-Pakistan region than those that served before them)...

S-2: "This isn't assured. Both are bright men surrounded by equally bright men but neither are scholars to the region and both are recently introduced to the issues there. Panetta, moreover, had purview over a range of issues far exceeding simply as C.I.A. director. So too shall Petraeus."

It is true that any DCI would have to oversee wide range of issues, given the responsibility that comes with that position. But my idea stems from the well-lauded success of Patraeus in Iraq, and his being a soldier. I am of the view that the US has been so kind for so long to the ISI is for the sole reason that it heavily depends on the ISI for the intel regarding the WoT. However, once the CIA is free from this dependency, the US will find no reason to please the ISI, and then, no reason to paint an enemy as an ally. And that is (the independence regarding intel and in-depth approach in the region) exactly what I see happening with the appointment of a counter-terrorism expert soldier as the head of the CIA.

----------

"But deliverance of results (by the CIA) in the Af.Pak region requires of the CIA to go against the ISI, and there's no bypassing. Patraeus can very well do such a job, or at least his track record shows that..."

S-2: "Actually there's very little Petraeus can uniquely do that others haven't. If his powers of persuasion aren't sufficient to sway Kayani to mount serious offensives against the afghan taliban on your lands then there's really very little leverage left."

For the underlined part... I am from India. And not sure if the Afghan Taliban have come here yet. But I do think, that Patraeus's persuasion will come for sure and in the form of a dire situation for Pakistan. In fact, an outright war against Pakistan is out of question, even though it is also a fact the ISI has often facilitated the killing of Americans, just to keep its influence intact in the region. Hence, there will be nothing but persuasion, albeit harsh one. Ya know, a gun in the hand is the most convincing statement. There's no other way of persuading an entity that is answerable to none.


----------

S-2: "Some might applaud that but it raises the rather inconvenient spectre of our supply routes and all that untidy re-routing of supplies through central asia and Russia. It also raises the liklihood that Pakistan would ratchet its nuclear arsenal at India. Now this brinksmanship could destroy Pakistan, of course. OTOH, 40 or 50 million dead Indians might not justify it over a near paleolithic country like Afghanistan."

Now this is a very interesting part, as it is often the subject of talks. Pakistan learned the skills of brinkmanship from none but the US. This egging on of Pakistan since the time of Nixon resulted in massive purchases of weapons from the US. However, now that the world is completely changed, the US has sided with India, and has continuously deteriorating relationship with Pakistan, Pakistan is busy being inept by applying the same brinkmanship against the US. But brinkmanship has its limits, and an expiry date too, that Pakistan seems to have forgotten.

And then when we take into consideration the perks and dividends that the power of Pakistani Army fetches its personnel (Generals and all), we can easily conclude that none (Pakistani Gens.) would want to engage it in a costly war and lose all those luxuries. Now, how wise it's of them to embark on such brinkmanship, we all can see.


----------


"...However, the drones have come up with only a limited amount of success in spite of such heavy bombing..."

S-2: "You don't know this. The names of those killed is more than "limited". You (and I) are only aware of the Hollywood stars that have been whacked-Nek Mohammad, Qari Hussain, Baitullah Mehsud as example. What lies just beneath our limited understanding are a whole range of immensely valuabe senior and mid-level operatives...and soldiers that have also tasted HELLFIRE. Further, you discount the effect PREDATOR has on those still alive. We're rather satisfied with the net results and happy to have PREDATOR as means of minimal retaliation. As weapons go, it ain't too bad for this war."

Yes, I admit, I do not have a great or precise idea about the success of the drones. It is also very much possible, and plausible to think, that the intensity and frequency of suicide attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan would have been much more if the drones were not put into action. And you are right there that the citizens of the US will not be happy to see their sons and brothers leave only to come back as corpses. So I suppose, pushing the war farther inside Pakistan with the help of drones is what might happen when this brinkmanship breaks down. After all, in spite of strong reservations against NATO troops entering Pakistan, the GoP has very well allowed for the drones to operate freely.

----------

"This limitation on the success of drones may force the US to start ground operations..."

S-2: "Nope. It'll be a cold day in Hell before we conduct a sustained ground offensive inside Pakistan. Special ops raid? Maybe if the target was truly justified but we're likely talking OBL or Zawahiri."

Oh, I in no way mean that the US will attack Pakistan like any conventional warfare. Not even special ops raid, that would in itself mean a declaration of war. The US would rather intensify its pressure on Pakistan, and may conduct the raids along with the PA. I know it sounds as if brothers in arms going for a mutually beneficial operation. But, if it happens, it would be a partnership forced by the US upon the PA. And if it really does happen, it will weaken the ISI considerably (owing to its responsibility regarding the intel on its own assets), something that is desired by the US for quite a while. I know such a scenario appears highly implausible, but this is akin to how the US got the PA (Pakistani Administration) to agree on the drone strikes.

----------

S-2: "Meanwhile Pakistan will continue receiving lessons that there are no differences in taliban-same guys, different neighborhoods. Haqqani and Omar, though, have more in common with Hakimullah Mehsud than Kayani every day of the week. Both might kill Mehsud now to save their skin...but that's the afghan way. OTOH, safely escounced once more inside a civil war-riddled Afghanistan, they'll not ignore their pashtun breathren on the Pakistani side."

Isn't it is already happening? It'll just get way worse when the ISAF is out of Afghanistan.

S-2: "Remember these words of your's-

"If it is true, then well... Pakistanis beware... Even tougher times ahead."

My sense is most Pakistanis haven't a clue just how tough things will be over the next couple of decades. We'll see."


At least not in this forum. To get the perspective, I read thousands of posts in this forum. And you know what, most say we will see when bad times come. What they don't realize is that bad times are already here! A lot of such bad times were talked about in 3 year old posts, those bad things came true today. And yet, the same lot says, okay, we'll find the remedy if it gets worse. It is like saying that I will do it tomorrow - not realizing that tomorrow never comes! Most of the worsening times talked about in the past have come true today, and the majority has failed to even acknowledge it!

 

[RazorMC]

Bro. They already said they not leaving till 2014...
so we got plenty of time to watch/have fun there....Insha-Allah...

They will begin the withdrawal process this year. Initially it's going to be the support staff and engineers etc. Complete withdrawal will definitely take longer.
But this begs the question; how sincere is the US in Afghanistan's reconstruction?

 

[RazorMC]

... The ISI, however, has been long engaged in the business of killing Americans...

Can you share some independent sources for this?

 

[S-2]

"Why hasn't the US closed down the safe haven for the TTP Qari Zia Rehman group that operates in Kunar, Afghanistan & infiltrates into the Bajaur & Mohmand Agencies of Pakistan?"

Rehman is at war with America in Kunar. He has a $3m bounty on his head. He lives in fear of PREDATOR and ground attack. Read this interview with Rehman and learn something-

At War With The Taliban: A Fighter And Financier-Asia Times Syed Saleem Shahzad May23, 2008

I doubt you understand what sanctuary means. Living under constant threat of attack isn't sanctuary. Haqqani owns Mir Ali. THAT's sanctuary. For ten years he hasn't faced any threat of capture or killing. None.

There's no comparison.

The border lands are rugged and wild. Men will hide there. That's a fact. There's a war fought and the other side does its level-best to survive and fight. Nothing is guaranteed but six U.S. soldiers recently died in Kunar taking the fight to Rehman.

That's more than has ever been attempted against Omar, Haqqani, Hekmatyar, Maulvi Nazir and Hafez Gul Bahadur. These men walk your lands completely undisturbed. Omar, Haqqani and Hekmatyar are afghan taliban. So much for sanctuary AND sovereignty.

"Why have you concentrated on the Afghan Taliban in Kandahar while providing safe haven to the TTP terrorists in Khost, Kunar, Nuristan?"

Why have you failed to study this war before railing without fact? There are three U.S. battalions fighting in Nuristan and Kunar right now. There are two more in Khwost.

Afghanistan Order Of Battle-Institute For The Study Of War April 2011

Save the link and use it...if you're smart enough.

If you disagree with the methods we choose to employ our troops don't dare disagree with the facts that they're engaged daily in combat against these enemies of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's not their business to satisfy your wants.

OTOH, your army hasn't lifted a finger in nearly ten years of unimpeded sanctuary for your afghan proxy armies. You know it. I know it. WE know it. Not one offensive operation. Nada.

Pakistani soldiers fight SOLELY the enemies of Pakistan. Those "enemies" don't include Haqqani and Omar and never have. Nor do they include their Pakistani friends Maulvi Nazir and Hafez Gul Bahadur. They didn't even do that before Bajaur in September of 2008 and very nearly surrendered Swat and Buner before your leaders decided your country might be worth fighting for.

bilalhaider, you're not dealing with a novice student of this war. I've been a careful watcher of events since 1974. I've friends who spent time with the Mujahideen fighting the Russians during the early eighties. Our troops have fought, killed and died in those valleys along the Pakistani border a long, long time. This is war and both sides play to win. There is absolutely no love between the U.S. government and the TTP. We see ZERO distinction among taliban. The Pakistani government, however, sees great distinction between those you harbor against Afghanistan and ISAF and those whom attack you.

 

[S-2]

"...how sincere is the US in Afghanistan's reconstruction?"

My government has proved more sincere over the last 10 years than any other nation on earth. Prior to that (during the taliban's rule) no nation gave more civil aid to Afghanistan than America.

Here's a question for you-how long should we be committed to Afghanistan's reconstruction...if at all? We owe the afghan people nothing. From their lands came misery to my fellow citizens.

Here's another question for you-how sincere is the Afghan government and people in taking responsibility for their own reconstruction?

My personal preference would have been that Afghanistan be left to its own devices once the taliban were ejected. We did so with 100 special forces soldiers and the U.S.A.F. What's necessary to fight Al Qaeda doesn't include spending countless billions of dollars and buckets of American blood. We can accomplish the same by stationing a task force in the Indian Ocean for far less.

That's my complaint with the American government. I look forward to our departure. I envision civil war following our departure and nothing but continuing misery for the Afghan and Pakistani peoples for decades yet to come.

 

[Ignited Mind]

"...how sincere is the US in Afghanistan's reconstruction?"

My government has proved more sincere over the last 10 years than any other nation on earth. Prior to that (during the taliban's rule) no nation gave more civil aid to Afghanistan than America.

Here's a question for you-how long should we be committed to Afghanistan's reconstruction...if at all? We owe the afghan people nothing. From their lands came misery to my fellow citizens.

Here's another question for you-how sincere is the Afghan government and people in taking responsibility for their own reconstruction?

My personal preference would have been that Afghanistan be left to its own devices once the taliban were ejected. We did so with 100 special forces soldiers and the U.S.A.F. What's necessary to fight Al Qaeda doesn't include spending countless billions of dollars and buckets of American blood. We can accomplish the same by stationing a task force in the Indian Ocean for far less.

That's my complaint with the American government. I look forward to our departure. I envision civil war following our departure and nothing but continuing misery for the Afghan and Pakistani peoples for decades yet to come.

I feel the fault lies more with the Pakistanis and their desire to make Afhanistan a fiefdom for their 'strategic depth' against India. The US, though owes nothing to Afghanistan, would do the world a favour by ensuring a stable Afghanistan and helping them come out of Pakistani clutches.

 

[S-2]

"...I am of the view that the US has been so kind for so long to the ISI is for the sole reason that it heavily depends on the ISI for the intel regarding the WoT..."

I think there's been a more balanced sharing of intelligence than you suggest.

"...I am from India..."

Please excuse my oversight.

"I do think, that Patraeus's persuasion will come for sure and in the form of a dire situation for Pakistan. In fact, an outright war against Pakistan is out of question, even though it is also a fact the ISI has often facilitated the killing of Americans, just to keep its influence intact in the region. Hence, there will be nothing but persuasion, albeit harsh one. Ya know, a gun in the hand is the most convincing statement."

You refer to coercion-not presuasion. We lost that opportunity ages ago when Bush failed to make clear to Musharraf his seriousness. Without the threat that the trigger shall actually be pulled the bluff is easily called.

"...we can easily conclude that none (Pakistani Gens.) would want to engage it in a costly war and lose all those luxuries. Now, how wise it's of them to embark on such brinkmanship, we all can see."

Pakistanis, foremost their generals, believe their future lies with the PRC, not America. Many, many Pakistanis view America in irreversible decline and hold us in contempt. Now some of that may be wishful thinking on their part and therein lies the risk. If wrong they risk alienating a powerful entity and potential ally but, on the whole, their course has been set for some time.

"So I suppose, pushing the war farther inside Pakistan with the help of drones is what might happen when this brinkmanship breaks down."

I don't agree. We'll not expand the war beyond FATAville.

"After all, in spite of strong reservations against NATO troops entering Pakistan, the GoP has very well allowed for the drones to operate freely."

In truth, the use of drones isn't dependant upon Pakistan. Accessing N. Waziristan is and has been easily accomplished from Khwost and Nangahar. Shamsi AFB is 200 miles southwest of Quetta. Consider that for a moment. What are drones doing there? There's nothing out there except...baloch terrorists. Do you imagine we launch drones from Shamsi AFB to fly northeastward for hours to reach N. Waziristan? I don't.

Our policy on the use of PREDATOR attacks is simple. America retains the right of self-defense and will attack forces otherwise protected by sanctuary whom make war upon our interests, soldiers and citizens. Suggestions that Pakistani sovereignty is inviolate was rendered moot ages ago when the afghan taliban government and their remnant armies found protection provided by the Pakistani state. America called bullsh!t to Pakistani claims to sovereign authority in the most polite manner possible on the first day PREDATOR struck inside FATAville and has ever since.

We use PREDATOR as the least intrusive, most minimal precision strike asset we've available. Anything more ratchets considerably the liklihood of collateral damage. The casualties bandied about here and elsewhere by those opposed to drone attacks are unverifiable. Others such as Ms. Farhat Taj suggest PREDATOR have been immensely valuable to the citizens of FATAville caught between their army and the taliban. The actual numbers remain unknown but it's a convenient football to toss about.

America will not abandon our right to self-defense and, instead, will exercise that right whenever necessary. That's a plain, visible and incontrovertible fact.

"The US would rather intensify its pressure on Pakistan, and may conduct the raids along with the PA. I know it sounds as if brothers in arms going for a mutually beneficial operation. But, if it happens, it would be a partnership forced by the US upon the PA."

There've already been occasional instances of operational cooperation between U.S. and Pakistani forces along the border. It'll never happen to the extent desired by America because the P.A. isn't interested and we've insufficient leveage to compel such.

 

[Ahmad]

Let them try to invade Pakistan...and we gonna invade Israel........alongwith all Europe...Insha-Allah....

you are smoking opium produced in afghanistan.