In Your Face
According to the BBC, “Pakistan’s foreign minister has warned that the US could lose Pakistan as an ally if it continued to publicly accuse Islamabad of supporting militants.”
“You will lose an ally,” Hina Rabbani Khar told Geo TV in New York, where she has been attending the UN General Assembly.
“You cannot afford to alienate Pakistan, you cannot afford to alienate the Pakistani people. If you are choosing to do so and if they are choosing to do so it will be at their own cost,” she said.
Translation: Both you and I know we’ve stabbed you in the back, but keep paying us and like it.
How can Islamabad have the temerity to act like this? Well consider their hand. Pakistan’s biggest ace in the hole lies in being able to hold Afghanistan, Barack Obama’s strategic centerpiece in his war against terror, hostage. The full price of waging operations in an area that can’t be supplied from the sea has become apparent. America is maritime power and to conduct land warfare without being able to look back on the sea is to forgo a major source of strategic strength. In fact Afghanistan is the only major military operation in US history, apart from the Indian wars, in which America had to supply its troops largely through a foreign power’s sovereign territory.
That choice to shift emphasis to Afghanistan gave Pakistan veto power over the major part of NATO’s ground effort. Its multinational character made it a particularly expensive political investment. And it was all conditional on Pakistan’s support.
Even if Pakistan couldn’t actually stop US action inside Afghanistan, the landlocked nature of the theater meant that the US had effectively handed political veto power over its strategy to Islamabad. The difficulties with that arrangement became glaringly apparent when Osama Bin Laden was killed in a safe house on May 2, 2011 only a short distance from the Pakistani Military Academy in Abbottabad. Faced with that blatant act of perfidy, the question could not longer be avoided: was Pakistan friend or foe? Whatever Washington was saying publicly, it was clear they were beginning to have doubts and probably had been for some time.
A month later, the Washington Post published a report saying “The U.S. military is rapidly expanding its aerial and Central Asian supply routes to the war in Afghanistan, fearing that Pakistan could cut off the main means of providing American and NATO forces with fuel, food and equipment.” Here was an American attempt to wriggle off the hook. Although this logistical augmentation would not fix the foreign country veto problem but merely transfer its locus from Pakistan to Central Asia, the threat toIslamabad’s influence was clear.
We can’t let this one get away.
Yet if anything the Administration had not yet completely given up on Pakistan. Even after Admiral Mike Mullen testified that “the Haqqani Network — which has long enjoyed the support and protection of the Pakistani government and is, in many ways, a strategic arm of Pakistan’s Inter- Services Intelligence Agency — is responsible for the Sept. 13th attacks against the U.S. Embassy in Kabul. There is ample evidence confirming that the Haqqanis were behind the June 28th attacks against the Inter-Continental Hotel in Kabul and the Sept. 10th truck bomb attack that killed five Afghans and injured another 96 individuals, 77 of whom were U.S. soldiers” – the Senate voted to approve $1 billion for the for the Pakistan Counter-insurgency Capability Fund, only 100 million less than the President requested.
That meant, in the kindest of interpretations, that while the administration was finally prepared to admit it had been sold a bill of goods, it was not yet ready to insist on a refund. The timing of Pakistan’s attacks on the US installations are similarly interesting, because they may prove to be brilliantly audacious or a huge miscalculation. Possibly audacious because by forcing the issue before President Obama can effect whatever plan he had for Afghanistan the Pakistanis are calling his bluff. They’re knocking on the commode door knowing the occupant can’t get up. Yet attacks against the sovereign territory of a superpower are always always a possible miscalculation, since when you come right down to a man may still charge out of the commode with his pants down if you rile him enough.
It is not hard to surmise that Pakistan secretly supported the Taliban long enough to keep Obama from outright winning his centerpiece military action. That also had the desired effect of requiring the US to keep enough forces on the ground to effectively keep them logistical hostages. Rarely has an act of such treachery been performed with such effectiveness and aplomb. No greater service for the Jihad can have been performed with such great effect than by the ISI.
What happens now depends on whether the Pakistanis have correctly judged their man. If they have misjudged him then even now President Obama will be preparing to pivot from Afghanistan to Pakistan. It may be politically expensive for Obama to admit he had been suckered into a strategic trap. Nor is it clear that hostile Republicans or liberal Democrats will support an even potentially larger conflict in Southwest Asia, at least not until after 2012. But he may try it. It will require determination and decisiveness. To fake a withdrawal from Afghanistan simply would not work; it would mean the abandonment of local allies, hard won bases and dismantling infrastructure that would be traumatic and irrevocable. Another man might say, “I shall return”. But that was in another century, in another world.
So if Islamabad has read their man aright they probably expect him to fold under their pressure, after bleating out a few ineffectual warnings and speeches, no doubt, but to fold just the same. And in all fairness it is hard to see what choices he has in a domestic political culture obsessed with political correctness. But internationally, President Obama lives in a tough world made tougher by his bad choices. By relying critically on Pakistan, he opened himself to their blackmail. It might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but now there is no easy way out. None at least, that will not cost him dear.
Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
Didn’t the Teleprompter in Chief suggest we invade Pakistan while he was campaigning for his current job?
Why doesn’t Pakistan stage a phony revolution like other countries have done for 40 years? Then they can act overtly hostile, but keep helping us in secret. It’s an amazingly common trick that the U.S. has played.
Mine the harbors, aerial blockade, cut off the funding. Let us see if the Pakistanis like THAT particular logistical problem.
How dare anyone say Obama might fold! How dare any even think that this Paragon of Virtue and Strength, this Master of the Shining City on the Hill, this Avatar of the Cosmic Consciousness would ever just fold his hand and slink home?
(sotto voce: like a cheap lawn chair, he’s gonna fold!)
How about withdrawing all the military support from Pakistan, offering serious arms deals to India for starters?
We won the war against Afghanistan but lost the reconstruction… Fixing the unfixable sewer of Islam is not and should never be the goal of the West or America. Muslims and Islam must be contained, forced to cannibalize themselves and each other, rather than us. All the tentacles of Jihad, including funding and access to the West through mass immigration must be severed and crushed. Oil revenue must be strangled. Muslim fissures must all be widened, and egged on. The Sunni Saudis must be forced to stop funding mosques Imams and propaganda arms in the Academy and Media of the West and begin squandering trillions, preferably on expensive America technology, to defend against the Shiites who sit atop their richest oil regions. The Shiites must be forced to spend trillions more defending against the Saudis. The Turks must be forced to eat whole the Palestinian feast, the Arabs must be forced to confront their impotency viz. The Turks. The Kurds must be agitated to wage Jihad aginst the Turk and the Iranians. The Black Muslims must be taught the contempt they’re held in by the Arab Muslims, and their Jihad must be tickled into existence.
Afghanistan reconstruction was always a bridge too far. But the inevitable surrender to the Taliban and Pakistan should be laid at the feet of Obama so America can move beyond this inevitable fiasco. Let Obama carry that humiliation – he owes the nation big time – it’s the least he can do. It’s one of the magical aspects of our political system that our national failures can be affixed somewhat onto individuals while the nation moves on. America won’t be unscathed, but affixing the failure on the catastrophic incompetence of Obama has it’s appeal. We cannot escape the humiliation of our failure in Afghanistan, it was foregone when we decided to attempt to fix them rather than bomb them into oblivion for 9/11, but we can make the most of a bad thing and move on.
But it is absurd to suggest that we take on Pakistan directly now when we have a perfect proxy already fighting Jihad. Part of our moving on, our strategic pivot, should (finally) make India our mighty ally against the sewer of Pakistan – that is how it always should have been. Such a re-alignment would go a long way towards salvaging what’s left of our tattered, bankrupt, and forever doomed policy towards AfPak and Islamic reconstruction.
Mercilessly foment the fractures within Islamic society, quarantine them as much as possible, force them to squander their I’ll-gotten gains on Muslm strife, and bomb them mercilessly if they unleash their Jihad on us ever again.
If this were a game of Gō, the situation might be considered a seki where there is a threat of mutual capture/destruction. They hold the forces in Afghanistan hostage through control of the supply lines. We can make them the night light of SW Asia.
One of the basic rules of the military art is this: “The Logistician draws the line beyond which the Tactician dare not tread.”.
Our forces in Afghanistan, associated forces, and the sundry NGO’s there cannot be supported for either active operations or static defense solely with the logistics under our control. The answer is to either ensure adequate supply lines for our operations independent of the threat, or to draw down our forces to the point where we can guarantee adequate supplies. The first involves an ongoing war along the route from Karachi to Kabul. That is not feasible. The second would make our involvement in Afghanistan strategically useless. We are drawn down not to the point where any reduction would make either stasis or victory impossible.
Thus, the only rational response is a rapid phased withdrawal of all our forces from Afghanistan with preparations for an Anabasis if a peaceful disengagement is interrupted. [I note that the author John Ringo seems to be closely tied to both the foreign and domestic zeitgeist; if not precisely, to a scary degree.]
Once our forces are as far out of the line of fire as possible [and it is to the benefit of the enemy to stay closely engaged once they realize what we are doing], I reference my entries #’s 55 and 76 in the preceding thread “See No Evil”.
Subotai Bahadur
Well, there’s always the September 12th approach, when Armitage went to Islamabad and said give us what we want right away or we start using nukes. Worked OK then.
This reminds me of a episode of the TV show “Taxi” where Latka (Andy Koffman) is going to return to his homeland to join the resistance movement.
At his going away party he says, “Now to go fight the Royalist stooges!”
His countryman says, “Oh, we wiped them out long ago.”
So Latka says “Ah, to defeat the fascist imperialists!”
His countryman replies, “Oh, we drove them out in the 1940′s.”
On the third try he manages to come up with the current enemy.
It’s like that. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan the leadership of Pakistan grinned like the used car dealer in the one horse desert town who has just seen a passerby’s car explode and burn, leaving the driver, his wife, and 2 kids standing on the curb on Christmas Eve. The Pakis responded to the initial offers of military assistance from the US with “Bah! Peanuts!”
And now, we need Pakistan to enable us to fight who in Afghanistan? The Worldwide Communist Conspiracy? No, Latka, we defeated them in the early 1990s.
We need Pakistan’s assistance for what? To fight who in Afghanistan? The answer appears to be “Pakistan – and the occasional goat herder who considers an AK-47 and some Infidel targets to be better entertainment than a bug zapper and a six-pack of beer.”
Well, maybe we need bases in the area to be able to put pressure on India. OMG! If they shut down some of those call centers we’ll never be able to get Sears Roebuck or Dell Computer on the phone! It’s bad enuf all ready!
When the USSR folded Pakistan got desperate. They went from being on the front line of the Cold War to the backwater of no war. They really, really, needed the USA to be fighting someone in Afghanistan. We see the result, and with his “good war” assertion, Obama became the guy on the curb with the burning car.
“Translation: Both you and I know we’ve stabbed you in the back, but keep paying us and like it.”
Isn’t this some variation of the standoff Reagan had with the air traffic controllers?
Is it time for a similar response?
Will Obama do it? (this one is easy to answer)
British Viscount Palmerston, in the Imperial days of England, intoned in the House of Commons, “…We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and these interests, it is our duty to follow.” That is as good a vision of diplomacy as I have heard and one that would serve us in good stead in the current world order.
As to Pahkeestahn and Ahfganeestahn particalarly, it’s probably time to call a halt. If we’re not in it to win it, don’t waste any more people or gold. The U.S. Navy should occupy the Chinese built port of Gwadar, bribe or intimidate the tribal govts from there through Quetta and pull every one and every thing out overland. Diplomatically maintain the stepping stones of Israel, the friendly gulf states and Iraq, and India for use as strategic bases to launch any needed operations to enforce Palmerston’s dictates on the region and othewise stand down until needed.
5. trangbang68
How about withdrawing all the military support from Pakistan, offering serious arms deals to India for starters?
Seize their nukes first, and cart them off shore to waiting Navy ships.
Obama’s strategy to expand the war in Afghanistan was on the surface one of his most enigmatic policy decisions. The anti-OIF, anti-war, anti-Bush rhetoric of this president would lead one to believe that he would not commit to foreign wars in general, let alone expand them. But on closer inspection, it coincides with Democrats assertions that Iraq was the wrong war in the wrong place. But second guessing is what partisans do best and once given the opportunity to play out their guesses, they must act on them or be considered hypocritical. Obama and the Democrats needed Bin Laden’s scalp on their scabbard but took it at a very high price. While they were aiming for their prize, what exit strategy had they in mind or concrete goals to define their victory? Democracy for the region, not likely? This whole affair was based on the Democrats assertion that they knew how to run a war and George Bush didn’t. I guess the problem is that things on the ground evolve into different situations and inflexible ideologies do not.
___
Senator Obama (Oct. 2008); “And we have a difficult situation in Pakistan. I believe that part of the reason we have a difficult situation is because we made a bad judgment going into Iraq in the first place when we hadn’t finished the job of hunting down bin Laden and crushing al Qaeda.
So what happened was we got distracted, we diverted resources, and ultimately bin Laden escaped, set up base camps in the mountains of Pakistan in the northwest provinces there…
[...]
But I do believe that we have to change our policies with Pakistan. We can’t coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars, and then he’s making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants. What I have said is we’re going encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our non-military aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.”
—
It may be the only campaign promise Obama kept. Now what?
Pakistan will stop being our “ally?” What is second prize, they stop cashing our checks?
Don’t you want to know more about young Barry Soetero’s Magical Mystery Tour to Pokeestan?
Pakistan not our ally?
This reminds me of the quip from the days before WW2 when the Nazi representative suggested to Churchill that they now had Italy on their side and thus had the advantage, and Churchill replied to the effect that “…it only seems fair, we got stuck with them last time”
Let Pakistan be on the side of the Islamists, they are nothing but dead weight.
Last time there was any substantial discussion on Pakistan on this forum we got some Abdullah guy commenting that “you must respect Pakistan!” These people seem to excel at infantile threats. I will support Obama’s going to congress to ask for a declaration of war against Pakistan just so long as all options are on the table, in other words, nuclear options. They desperately wanted to be a nuclear power, well they got it. Welcome to the club.
“Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders; the most famous of which is ‘never get involved in a land war in Asia’” – Vizzini, The Princess Bride
oh please.
why exactly are they are ally in even the most putative sense? Because George Bush offered to nuke them otherwise and they believed it.
I’ll give you three questions as to what conditions have changed since then.
President Obama said:
If one had to conceive of a better scheme to lock up the most powerful combat force in the world, hand the cell key to the perps and then pay them for rations you couldn’t do better than accept this ‘strategy’.
Who sold the President this idea? If the ISI sold this astounding twaddle by themselves, they would have achieved Sun Tzu’s dream of sdefeating an enemy many times more powerful than himself by without fighting. It be objectively speaking, one of the greatest David vs Goliath victories of all time, certainly a Pakistani victory to cherish forever.
But their job may have been made easier by the kind of memes that were already circulating on the Left. Iraq bad, Afghanistan good; Osama Bin Laden as the strategic focus of the former War on Terror, the possibility of transforming operations into nothing but law enforcement. These were tailor notions ready-made for what the ISI could now suggest. They could just cherry pick these elements and create a ‘bold new strategy’ for President-elect Obama.
A little buildup, some choreographed support from their tame academic allies and policy works and then, the baited hook: “go to Afghanistan and bring everything w/ you. Osama’s there. We have intelligence proving it. And for a small fee we will help carry your load across the Khyber past those tribesmen who we well understand.”
He did it. Then they had him in a trap. But there were unexpected consequences. The one useful thing Afghanistan did provide was access to the Pakistani networks who were encountered in the field. And from captured documents, turned agents and interrogation, signals intercepts, etc came intelligence. Slowly but surely the truth become clear, perhaps reluctantly at first to some, but inexorably and inevitably. Then they knew the setup.
In what I think is probably the greatest proof of the existence of some integrity and patriotism in him, President Obama approved the cross border strike on OBL. It is either that or the military basically boxed him into the choice between his most desired political goal and ripping up the relationship w/ Pakistan.
But whether motivated by patriotism or expediency , the President acted and is now in another kind of trap. The OBL strike decision ripped the mask off the Pakistani face and subsequent events have sharpened the contradiction. So he must choose between continuing down the path begun when he struck out at OBL inside Pakistan or continuing to stay inside the ISI-constructed box.
He may not have the energy to do either. Like a boat that is perilously close to swamping, there may not be much the Obama presidency can do right now but keep paddling in whatever direction it was originally headed, even if that is toward the falls. This is penalty of a weakened Presidency. He is now constrained from doing the “right thing” even if wanted to. I think Pakistan knows this and why they are twitting the US nose so boldly.
But the Pakistanis are not thinking far enough ahead. They are doomed to perish from their own excess of cleverness. The cheater only seems to get away with things till it catches up with him in an alley. There is no long-term flight from karma.
Maybe in the longest view going into Afghanistan may be actually prove to be the right thing — provided it is not taken as an end in itself — a victory not for its battlefield effect but because of its resultant intelligence yield. It answered the fundamental question a prince should know. Who is my friend? Who is my enemy?
This threat by Pakistan to close it’s borders was always on the table, ever since GW decided he was to go into Afghanistan to give al Qaeda a lickin’ – but Musharef was president then. You know, the guy whose name he couldn’t conjure up during the debates. Musharef was a tad more predictable. But Iran, Pack-it-istan and Syria were caught holding their breath until Turkey refused the 4th ID and folk started thinking – accurate or not – that the U.S. was still a paper tiger.
And they were right for the current administration and Obama will begin to show it when he starts again licking the Packi’s butt. No the only paper tiger in the U.S. is our civilian leadership – don’t ever let the military “go” or they’ll do exactly what they are supposed to do, with “overwhelming force, ruthlessly.”
And yet, you never know with Obama (clearly, you don’t). He may just declare war on the Pack-it-stanies judging it a guarantee for 2012.
Pakistan wants to have its yellow cake and eat it too.
We could get very fussy about Pakistan being less than a trusted ally, playing both sides against the middle and for turning a blind eye toward terrorists with an intent to harm us…just as long as nobody from Israel was listening to us complain.
We currently would have a bit of difficulty convincing anyone that we should be taken seriously on the moral high ground about how to act as dependable, trustworthy, “I’ve got your back” allies.
Maybe…just maybe…Pakistan looks at how we treat our allies and how we have a “lead from behind” tremble in our voices and how we sit on our hands with Syria and Iran…and they figure we aren’t all that.
Better to align with folks made of a little sterner stuff and simply play us for the fools, jesters and laugingstock we have become.
The edit fuunction is acting up again; my screen is showing that I can edit 17. Cris comment.
“Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders; the most famous of which is ‘never get involved in a land war in Asia’” – Vizzini, The Princess Bride
Click to EditRequest Deletion
(4 minutes and 43 seconds)
I am all for throwing our weight in with the Indians, they are a nation that seems more aligned with our interests and are less inclined to extortion than our erstwhile allies in the area. They would form an excellent counter-weight to China as a long-term strategic ally. Plus I have yet to hear an Indian politician go on about blowing people up with nukes. They seem altogether a more calm people.
Time to go Roman?
The Pockee have the gift of gab
The Pockee have the knife to stab
The Pockee smile and take our dough
The Pockee say you cannot go
The Pockee say supply your men
The Pockee say we tell you when
The Pockee say you build your forts
The Pockee have us by the shorts
Dr. Scott @ 8 said:
“Well, there’s always the September 12th approach, when Armitage went to Islamabad and said give us what we want right away or we start using nukes. Worked OK then.”
I heard some hallway gossip that during that same time the folks at the national labs were asked about the technical feasibility of nuking Afghanistan/Pakistan. It’s my understanding that the response was negative, i.e. our Cold War nukes would produce overly large fallout plumes and cause too much collateral damage. Again, this brings out one of my pet rants, i.e. our nuclear weapons are useless for limited warfare and we’re essentially a paper tiger.
9/11 was a neon sign flashing “Replace our nuclear deterrent with more appropriate weapons!” All of our land based strategic weapons need to be replaced with single warhead ICBMs that are extremely accurate and have a very long shelf life (highly maintainable). The reentry vehicles need to be maneuverable with terminal guidance, i.e. modern versions of the Pershing-II. The RV bus needs to carry decoys and electronic counter measures that can spoof the most sophisticated modern enemy. The physics package in the RV needs to trade off yield for minimized fallout, e.g. a low fallout tamp, a fuel cycle based upon something that is aneutronic (boron?), etc. The physics package should be tested in deep space (EMP risk eliminated), in plain view of foreign intelligence and the international media. The message should be transparent that we can nuke any enemy we like with appropriate weapons causing little or no collateral damage.
Obviously this won’t happen under Obama but the next President needs to do this as an emergency crash program. As it stands, we have no real strategic defense and our enemies know this as evidenced by 9/11.
India is the curious case of the dog that didn’t bark. Where is India–what is India doing? If anyone here could provide a link to information on this issue, I’d be much obliged.
The fight in southwest Asia should be India’s fight. That’s India’s neighborhood–India’s sphere of influence. I repeat: where is India?
What will teh Won do? After making a few blustering speeches, the problem will be “resolved” by a new sparkling treaty between the US and Pakistan, and the status quo will continue.
In the eyes of the modern trans-nationalist elites there is no problem that cannot be solved by a piece of paper. I find their nearly universal disconnection from reality disturbing.
I agree partially or in whole with several of the comments in this thread. But I especially agree with Eggplant. We do need a tactical/battlefield nuclear capability.
“Maybe in the longest view going into Afghanistan may be actually prove to be the right thing — provided it is not taken as an end in itself — a victory not for its battlefield effect but because of its resultant intelligence yield. It answered the fundamental question a prince should know. Who is my friend? Who is my enemy?” -Wretchard
You’re kidding, right? Ever since doing my research, and familiarizing my self with Islam sufficiently after 9/11 – I have always seen who our enemy is. The red flags were huge and obvious :
Only three nations ever established diplomatic relations with the Taliban — those nations truculently then refused to sever relations after the atrocity, and only did when it became clear that GWB was serious about going all in… those state sponsors of Al Qaida were:
1. Saudi Arabia.
2. UAE
3. Pakistan
Those are our al Qaida enemies. What unifies these nations? Sunni Islam & Sunni Jihad.
Fools and apologists continue to retail the preposterous lie that Iran is the main state sponsor of terrorism in the world today. Iran is bad enough, but it isn’t an either or proposition. The distinction for top sponsor of Muslim terror and Jihad goes to Saudi Arabia – the head of the snake. They are waging low-and high-level Jihad with every dime they pay for Imams, the buildings of mosques, the subsidy of Muslim students across Dar ul Harb, and with every dinar they pay to traitors like John Esposito and Juan Cole, or Islamic “think tanks” at Harvard, Yale, Georgetown. Even FoxNews serves as a propaganda arm for Saudi Arabia…
At the beginning I supported the WoT because I thought we finally were going to take Islam seriously and begin crushing this enemy, and subverting his ideology. Instead we enshrined his ideology of Sharia terrorism and totalitarianism in their constitutions, we bankrupted ourselves trying to make friends with Islam’s foot soldiers across the planet, we paid trillions to the perpetrators of 9/11, and made SA, UAE, and Pakistan stronger …
Eggplant #24:
Add to your nuke specs “Adjustable Yield,” which some of our nuclear weapons already have – but be able to do it without removing the RV from the missile -and Deeply Penetrating Warheads, which the Dems in Congress went into a tizzy about stopping in the late 80′s.
And, of course, Enhanced Neutron Warheads. Who knows, with the current occupants evicted – or eviscerated – the place may be worth something someday.
re: tac nuke capability; what ever happened to those neutron bombs that we had back during the Cold War? If we were silly enough to take them apart did we at least hang onto the parts so that we can put them back into the game? If I recall correctly (am I am not sure that I am doing so) they had little side effect after the intial blast and the fallout/impacted area were both limited.
I think that the sensible thing to do is first threaten and then declare the ISI a rogue terrorist organization. And so put all kinds of international judicial and financial constraints on them.
The important thing to do is to draw a distinction between the Paki gov and the ISI.
(now of course what they’ll do in response is a lot of shape shifting but that’s ok for now.)
RWE @ 29:
Adjustable yield that could be set in real time by the ICBM’s guidance computer would definitely be a good thing. However I wonder if adjustable yield is consistent with a weapon designed for absolute minimum fallout. Enhanced neutron warheads make sense for tactical weapons intended to take out armored infantry or scorched earth tactics but I would argue that aneutronic weapons are best for strategic nukes intended for strikes with minimal collateral damage. Also, the strategic nukes should be a mixed set with some intended for air burst and others with penetrator warheads to take out deep underground targets.
Testing in deep space should be an integral part of this weapons upgrade. The whole “stockpile stewardship” thing is a fantasy that only highlights our status as a paper tiger. Design the test so the nuke flash is 5 degrees directly above the Morning Star as seen from Pakistan just after sunset. Allow our potential adversaries to see the weapon’s test with their own eyes (they don’t have to trust the MSM or pay attention to their local propaganda). Do the nuke test on the anniversary of 9/11. Make it crystal clear to the towel heads that supporting bin Laden was the worst mistake they ever made.
Tcobb @ 29 asked:
“What will the Won do?”
Zip. We’re defenseless while the Won is President. A strategic window has opened for our enemies. If they want to kick our buts, they need to do it while the Won is President. As I write this, it became clear to me that what the MSM did to get Obama elected really did satisfy the Constitutional definition for treason. The next president will need to address this.
anton @ 30 asked:
“what ever happened to those neutron bombs that we had back during the Cold War?”
It is my understanding that they were disassembled at Pantex and the plutonium pits are still stored there.
Here is michael yon saying the taliban is losing on the ground but making progress in the media.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FDn0aujJkAA
The fight in southwest Asia should be India’s fight. That’s India’s neighborhood–India’s sphere of influence. I repeat: where is India?
From the comments I read on the Times of India it appears the average Indian is in awe of the decisiveness, sagacity and honesty of American politicians — when laid alongside their homegrown varieties, who seem uniformly reviled as spineless, venal and stupid. It is sobering to realize that bad as Washington is, it may still represent in some sense, the “last stand on earth”; that there are capitals even crazier and shadier.
Regarding the recognition of the enemy: getting “the prince” to see things maybe harder than getting an individual to see it. It may be clear enough to us, but for a State, “seeing” is a political and bureaucratic process in which facts play a substantial, but perhaps not a controlling role. The problem with recognizing a reality in the face of established myths is that it must in the process destroy a whole lot of gravy trains which depend upon the fictions. Too many people have futures invested in the lie to even admit the existence of the alternative.
Yet it is in this sense that “the prince” must see the enemy; in the official sense. The replacement of a whole set of people and papers by another set of people and papers able to focus on different things. Getting a byzantine Washington to toil through this bureaucratic process this probably means cutting through a lot of gunk in the synapses and may as hard as getting a man with dementia to do higher math. But given enough of a shock, it might happen. And the Pakistanis, it seems, might be just feckless enough to provide the shock.
Arrgh! I called Venus the “Morning Star” as it was seen during sunset (obviously I should have written “Evening Star”). There was a Venus probe proposal called “Morning Star”. A rather poetic name IMHO for a Venus spacecraft. Too bad it didn’t get funded.
[#3 of 4]
Charles 31 “draw a distinction between the Paki gov and the ISI.” Is there a distinction betwene Pakistan’s government, the Army and the ISI? I assume they operate like a Venn diagram, three overlapping circles with some agreements and some bitter disagreements.
Roughcoat 25: “where is India?” Wretchard probably has the correct answer. Here’s a kinder one: afraid of another Mumbai while worried that any increase in tensions with Pakistan leads to nuclear war. India would win, at the cost of a lot of dead Indians and all sorts of unforeseen economic, political and social impacts. They don’t want to take the risk unless they have to act.
Just my opinion, I think the Pakistanis either figure they can roll Obama and the US- what are we gonna do, declare war?- or they feel as if they have no alternative to what they are doing. If Pakistan’s PM demands the resignation of top Army generals and ISI chiefs, how long does he have to catch a plane before there is a coup or an assassination?
Neither side has a good endgame; I doubt either has really thought about one. Pakistan has been a train wreck waiting to happen for a long time.
e @ 24 and others: strictly speaking, we don’t need nukes to deal with the likes of Pakistan, and if we decide to use nukes on the likes of Pakistan collateral damage is the last thing in the world to care about – there would be no such thing as too much collateral damage, in fact the more the merrier.
we have the capability to stand off an opponent like Pakistan pretty much at will using only conventional weapons. of course, what we may lack is the will, but y’know, you can wake up on a clear morning and suddenly have the will.
almost wish Pakistan had denied us in 2001. a US expeditionary force could seize a 100-mile wide corridor from the Indian Ocean to Afghanistan and start developing it as a western (read: Christian, capitalist, and under military control a democracy) enclave. in fifty years it might be the seed for huge progress in all the surrounding countries, best favor we could do for them.
but it would drive the left nuts, so we won’t do it, I guess. pity all around.
A statement released by the State Dept today- “We know…Checkbook/Reset diplomacy is way expensive, but hey, just look at the results!”
hey, it’s Party Time!
Type of Event: ” Fund Raiser and Fall Retreat ”
http://politicalpartytime.org/party/28249/
Where? Stink Island
Bwa ha ha ha
Josh @ 37 said:
“strictly speaking, we don’t need nukes to deal with the likes of Pakistan, and if we decide to use nukes on the likes of Pakistan collateral damage is the last thing in the world to care about – there would be no such thing as too much collateral damage, in fact the more the merrier.”
No, it’s a question of the enemy’s perception versus actual use of the weapon. If the enemy can convince himself that we are a muscle bound paper tiger then our weapons are useless as deterrents regardless of how powerful the weapons are.
I really like the idea of popping off a nuke in deep space on 9/11 in a way that is very easy for the folks in the Middle East to observe, e.g. above the Evening Star or the Moon. Make it a 4th of July thing for them. Every year on 11 September, they can sit out on their balconies while enjoying an evening meal and watch the thing go off. No doubt, they’ll very publicly drink a toast to bin Laden, fire a couple AK-47 rounds into the air and then quietly think to themselves what an idiot bin Laden really was.
Josh also said:
“a US expeditionary force could seize a 100-mile wide corridor from the Indian Ocean to Afghanistan and start developing it as a western (read: Christian, capitalist, and under military control a democracy) enclave. in fifty years it might be the seed for huge progress in all the surrounding countries, best favor we could do for them.”
That’s a great idea! The next president should do this. Of course this corridor will have precisely the same relationship with the people of central Asia as Israel has with the Arabs. That’s actually a feature and not a bug.
[#4 of 4] done for this thread
Josh, #37, Eggplant, #40
Seems that Anne Coulter had a similar thought on September 13, 2001.
http://old.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml
As with so much that is wrong in the region, the answer lies with Iran. A post-mullah Iran, aware of the damage done by the madness of Islamism, may choose to be at least minimally cooperative with the international stabilization of Afghanistan. If they are even as helpful as Uzbekistan, Pakistan’s hand crumbles. If we can drive supplies from the Persian Gulf into Afghanistan, Pakistan’s blackmail will fail. American policy should be based on Iranian regime change.
Pakistan is wagering on a dangerous gambit that could lead to dangerous, perhaps fatal, consequences for itself. If the regime changes in Iran, Pakistan would have to face its transition from a nearly failed state into, potentially, the genuine article. The West would have a greatly reduced strategic interest in our Pakistani “allies.”. The Gulf Arabs would have much less to fear from revolutionary Shiism. India might be tempted then to do what is clearly in its deep strategic interest; secure the Pakistani nuclear arsenal. Friendless, impoverished and surrounded, what would be the prospects for the Pakistani state?
The FIRST counter-action ought to be diplomatic.
We must begin the process of getting NATO and the ISAF positioned to diplomatically de-recognize the Durand Line.
The WHOLE Campaign from Islamabad’s point of view is centered around PRESERVING the Durand Line.
ANY negotiated Pashtun peace would surely cause those Pashtuns EAST of the Durand Line to join in nationhood with the rest of their blood.
This is the Schwerpunkt of the entire Campaign.
Once we get the larger diplomatic community to de-recognize the Durand Line — and recognize Kabul’s eternal claims — then the military consequences come hard and fast.
Islamabad dares not use nukes to hang onto that hell hole. She’ have America, Britain and France all out against her.
Pakistani politicians would, in fact, be delighted to see the severance: the FATA is the breeding ground for all of the assassins that prey upon the Punjabi and Sindh politicians. ( Via ISI cut-outs )
FATA is a money pit for Islamabad. It only mints ( drug ) money for the corruptocrats in the ISI — who tithe to the Army High Command.
After having de-recognized the Durand Line — there’s no immediate need to enter. We can just let the Afghans begin internal operations in the pursuit of justice.
I understand that the Frontier Corps is laden with Pashtuns — in which case they could opt into joining the ANA — and go on our payroll — with altered marching orders.
Any resistance by Pakistan is first to be met by financial exclusion: the basket case is to be entirely cut off from global aid. ( The Red Chinese have already told Islamabad to stuff it. )
Pakistan has a history of losing portions of the nation that are treated very badly: East Pakistan!
Now is the time for Islamabad to shed West West Pakistan: the FATA and NWT.
It’s not as if these are viable military assets to Pakistan. All her future wars figure to be atomic — in which case the horrific mountain lands to the west are entirely useless — and always have been.
Being a state sponsor of AQ et. al. HAS to carry a price. Territory is that price.
We could issue our apologies, publicly, and assure them that support will continue as before, and just not actually send the funding.
Or we could take a page from Castro’s book and publicly (loudly, and repeatedly) declare that we’ve won concessions from Pakistan and they agree to do a, b, and c in exchange for $x and unrestricted passage. And then not send the funding.
Or, we could just not send them the funding. I don’t know, it’s a difficult decision.
I’ll stop now, I think i’m up to four now including the first one that didn’t make it.
15-Anton, thanks for the chuckle, and the stark contract in leadership.
Churchill had wit and will. Obama has twitter and golf.
Being a state sponsor of AQ et. al. HAS to carry a price. Territory is that price.
I am hoping that someone is playing that deep a game. It is conceivable though perhaps not probable that President Obama only pretended to be taken in as a pretext for obtaining the opportunity to lay the groundwork for neutralizing Pakistan. To get his nose in the door, while in reality he might have been feigning the blunder as a cover for a larger effort.
The bare narrative of events on the ground might at a stretch cover this narrative. It is clear the US has been operating inside of Pakistan, but at what level we don’t know from open source. There are certainly indications of an ongoing low-level war between the CIA and the ISI despite outward amity. Even the President’s withdrawal plans could be a precursor to freeing itself of Islamabad’s shackles.
Of course they may be none of the above. It may be just as it outwardly seems. Yet another goof in an administration filled with goofs. But the morbidly suspicious Pakistani mind probably cannot help but imagine the worst: that President Obama has by inattention let policy get captured by those with strategic direction, and who have now given him unwitting and unbidden the winning hand; each step composed of talking points cherry picked from his own political platform; or that Obama has beaten him at their own deceitful game. For if it takes a thief to catch a thief then perhaps it takes a con to fool a con. However it has arrived at that pass, why shouldn’t Pakistan worry that America is now about to twitch aside the matador’s cape and reveal the sword, or at worst, the effective diplomatic riposte?
They can take comfort in the thought that US strategic surprises have been few and far between. Nixon’s trip to China maybe. Reagan’s offensive against the Soviet Union, perhaps. But those were exceptions. Usually the government does today what it did yesterday. The outcome depends largely on leadership; on some entrepreneur having cobbled together a winning bureaucratic coalition. Can you see Gates, Clinton and Obama doing it? That is what sinks my spirits.
Yet if he could do it — manage something like an effective diplomatic riposte or set the stage for final victory against Pakistan — then Obama would achieve what has so far eluded him: a substantial achievement as President. If I had to bet, I wouldn’t, though history is full of surprises.
e @ 40: No, it’s a question of the enemy’s perception versus actual use of the weapon. If the enemy can convince himself that we are a muscle bound paper tiger then our weapons are useless as deterrents regardless of how powerful the weapons are.
I really like the idea of popping off a nuke in deep space on 9/11 in a way that is very easy for the folks in the Middle East to observe,
Only perception the enemy needs is how it feels to be on the receiving end of a 40mm shell.
And along those same lines, I am against this post-modern “shock and awe” that had us carpet bombing outside the city limits of Baghdad to show them what was what. They didn’t care, or couldn’t respond. Requires a much close look where they can get it, or get it, if you see what I mean. A couple of B-2s with a dozen PGMs each, if you want to be all post-modern and surgical. Otherwise a dozen B-52s with dumb bombs with a good chance of hitting specific targets, not that it matters.
Morton Doodslag (#6) I agree with the latter part of your statement, War needs to be WAR! Destroy, Break things and kill as many of them that it takes for them to not be able to kill us! I don’t agree with you that Afghanistan is a failure, I was never for the weak kneed “you break it you fix it” Nation Building cr@p handed to Bush by General Powell, look who’s political side General Powell blows for now (ether Powell is a bigot or has been a Democrat in Repub skin all his career, which would make him even worse than a bigot) same goes for Bush’s Finance man, “Ole Ben” convinced Bush he had to do the 700 billion (secret) bail out or the world would end as we knew it, Old Ben was and is Democrat, did Ben mislead Bush? Hindsight is 20/20 and since the “secret” of where all that original money went I would have to say, Yes! Ben wasn’t out to save America but the International elite’s came first. US needs to break Pak nuke capabilities and start putting Allies first, Us needs to start talking straight and walk’n the talk.
So, it’s pretty much a protection racket…
Only without the actual protection.
Lovely people, really.
wretchard (#19) “But whether motivated by patriotism or expediency , the President acted” Uhmm didn’t it take DAY’s for BH0 to stake claim to the OBL demise… the first stories out had “the President’s men” making the decision, it wasn’t till after the Prez saw he might get a bump in the polls that he started hollering leadership and giving medals. BH0 without his handlers wouldn’t find ether open end of a tunnel, Congresswomen Bachman has it right, this election is a once in a life time chance to put a “real” conservative patriotic American truth telling person in office (I am for Herman Cain), not that the old guard Repub’s can’t shoot everyone in the foot and spoil it otherwise this is really looking like the Repubs could pull off a Full House (House and Senate) and Main Man position to boot! In one election! OMG (0bama Must Go)!
Obama will not fold. As much as he hates our position atop the hill, he will send our men and women into the grinder. He has no love or care for what the military in this country stands for. To extend the war into one of no possible victory at any cost less than nuclear is just what Teh Won wants. Two birds with one stone AND he gets to gain say his opponents to boot! What a pitiful and scurrilous ideology he ascribes to! There will come a reckoning and he will pay a fearsome price for his actions. So Mote It Be!
I saw else where on the net that Iran believes that they should attack American strategic assets in the ME and we will fold and leave the region rather than confront the Mullahs.
To solve this problem once and for all we blockade Iran until they collapse and then us a corridor into Afg. to both kill the Talib and as a spring board for Pak. Will it happen? Not likely until someone with cahones is in the Masion Blanche. Maybe a cowboy from Texas or a prosecutor from N. Jersey. Certainly not an illegal alien peanut farmer from Kenya.
Don’t leave out Panetta. He might be Cheney heavy. He also is ugly and looks scary on TV. He did the OBL deal. BO had no clue. He might be the good wild card in this long debate.
china.
“the President acted” Uhmm didn’t it take DAY’s for BH0 to stake claim to the OBL demise… the first stories out had “the President’s men” making the decision,”
That would be Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton, which pretty well covers the testicular fortitude available with “the President’s men”
…and the President.
Eggplant:
Logically a dial-a-yield nuke would work by deliberately reducing the efficieny of the implosion, which would make it dirtier because you would not use all of the material. But I really don’t know.
As for things I found out about certain nuclear weapons developments, I ain’t talking. Suffice to say, it ruined the first SF story I ever wrote by making it classified.
As for deep space nuclear testing, it is against the Test Ban Treaty. To my knowledge the only ballistic missiles we have fired with live nukes on board were the Thors that went off Johnson Island.
Wretchard:
I recall hearing (from NPR) that when Pakistan and Indis did that series of tit-for-tat nuclear tests in the mid-90′s that the statements made by the politicians of both countries that showed their intnets were discounted by US intelligence analysts because they assumed that the politicians of those countries lied just like US politicians.
The only reason Hillary joined Leon is knowing, from experience(s) how uncomfortable it is to have OBL there for the the taking, and then demure.
BigR
Don’t forget that Obama’s Mother and Grandparents fit the CIA extended family like a glove.
And the CIA is plugged into Harvard and Yale.
Stanley held one CIA front position after another. She also was posted from one hot spot to another Indonesia and Pakistan. Her hotel bills alone were a fright. She spent five straight years living out of the best hotel in Pakistan.
( Obviously, on our dime )
The Grandmother ran the CIA’s black cash account in Hawaii — which had to require a top secret clearance.
The Grandfather ran/ associated with known CIA assets when they visited Oahu. Pictures exist.
So, whereas the CIA was against President Bush; it’s infatuated with one of it’s own: Barry Obama.
As for how Barry entered Harvard Law School — he’s not just AA — he’s the sole son of an ACTIVE CIA agent in the field — making him as good as a ‘legacy.’
—-
All of which is to say that you’ve now got a tag-team of Panetta and Petraeus — which see Wretchard’s comment:
that President Obama has by inattention let policy get captured by those with strategic direction, and who have now given him unwitting and unbidden the winning hand; each step composed of talking points cherry picked from his own political platform; or that Obama has beaten him at their own deceitful game.
Panetta is just exactly the kind of player that is master of deep game — as is the General.
RWE said…
“To my knowledge the only ballistic missiles we have fired with live nukes on board were the Thors that went off Johnson Island.”
Yeah, but you reminded us of the BOMARC !
Back in the good old days that Strangelove loved so well.
RWE…
What makes a nuke nasty is the deliberate insertion of isotopes known to have large ‘Barn’ cross sections ( probability to absorb neutrons ) which then become severely radioactive. ( i.e. are emitters with short half-lives )
Neutron bombs are ‘clean’ because, by design, the neutrons are NOT converted into promoted isotopes. Instead, they are set free to be stopped by water. ( Hydrogen is the perfect moderator for neutrons — and most hydrogen is going to be oxidized to water — of which we are big water bags.) Hence, neutrons poorly interact with tank armor — but are absorbed by the crew.
The dial-a-yield works via throttling the Tritium/Deuterium injected into the void between the two compression faces. The actual mass involved is shockingly small. This swing reaction is basically the neutron bomb dynamic. Fusion of these little beasties is enormously energetic so even a small amount goes a long ways. The boost occurs in the first stage of a super-bomb; which then ultra compresses the second stage. In the beginning the second stage tended to be U238 — but that stopped when enough U235 became available. U235 stages are going to burn much, much more cleanly than U238. This change is why the weapon weight collapsed in the 60′s.
None of today’s weapons is remotely as dirty as the old designs.
The Cobalt Bomb mentioned in the movie Dr. Strangelove is entirely fictive. The writer gave it mutually conflicting physical properties. It was to be a vicious emitter ( short half-life ) and stay nasty for many, many decades, if not centuries. ( long half-life ) So, you see, it helps Hollywood writers if they know virtually nothing of science or fact.
( Batman Begins’ microwave emitter being another perfect case in point. Everything about it is counter-factual starting with it’s power source — and the impossibility for any water bag like the villain to survive anywhere near it’s emissions. It then proceeds to radiate through steel and road to reach a massive water main! Pure comic book. )
BigR @ 54: Don’t leave out Panetta. He might be Cheney heavy.
Love it on pizza.
Reading Cheney’s book, I’m not sure “heavy” would quite describe even him, more like earnest and qualified and experienced and all. Still your point that Panetta might be even in those categories is good, and somewhat comforting.
ps – wish the edit widget here worked better, typos in my previous posts, ugh.
–
on the nukes, maybe we need to blow off a 1mt warhead on some real target, just to sort of make the point. clean or dirty. sigh. expect we will see nukes on real targets within twenty years, heck maybe twenty months, or weeks. maybe not ours, and I hope not here, but even so. how do we do our conditional probabilities? say that it is 98% UNLIKELY to happen in the next 30 days, then keeping the same metric, what are the odds that it *will* happen in the next five years?
4 of 4
In the Suez Crisis Eisenhower told Israel, France and the UK to come to heel with American fundamental interests–or we would destroy them economically and after that by our military.
Israel, France and the UK got the message and came to heel.
The SecDef and the CIA now give the same message to Pakistan and Israel–come to heel–or else.
The frame is American best interests first.
Vicky…
I’ve read that muslims must not imbibe.
Yet, we have your latest invent:
Ike NEVER threatened Britain nor France with military hostilities.
Indeed, he didn’t even threaten the French — at all.
He merely informed the British that unless they withdrew — pronto — then Texas oil would have to be paid for in real cash.
That was ALL that it took.
BTW, France was STILL receiving Marshall Plan ( nee Truman Plan ) aid as late as 1956.
It was on the block, too.
This Campaign was the FIRST time that the U-2 entirely altered history. All non-American parties thought that Ike couldn’t possibly be up to speed WRT events at the battle front.
However, they soon discovered that Ike knew MORE than they did — and MUCH quicker.
ALL three powers lied to Ike — and paid the price.
And for Vicky’s info: Ike was focused upon Hungary.
Britain and France made it possible for the USSR to repress Hungary — just when the ENTIRE East Bloc was about to unravel.
Ike was furious.
The Tactical had superseded the Strategic.
What a gaff.
Britain and France entirely involved in the Suez — meant that they were entirely NOT available for Hungary — and the end of Stalinism.
Brilliant.
34. wretchard: Re: India. I had assumed that one of Pakistan’s strategic objectives was to get the US to sit on India. It appears they succeed.
If we ever extricate ourselves from Afghanistan, and pull Pakistan’s nuclear teeth, we should turn it over to the tender mercies of India
Mina
Mina
Tekle
Upharsin.
Ike threatened that the US would intervene with military force if Israel, France and the UK did not get the hell out of Suez ASAP.
His specific threat to the UK was to call in their debt to the US which would bankrupt the UK overnight.
The event was the final end of the British Empire–as the Brits said to Ike–it is over to you.
We need more of the Ike spirit applied to Pakistan and Israel–get on board or else you are toast.
57. RWE
“To my knowledge the only ballistic missiles we have fired with live nukes on board were the Thors that went off Johnson Island.”
I saw the launch of one of those from Kaiena point on Oahu and then an arial glow to the West some time later.
I was young. It impressed me.
Really, Victor? How about this alternative scenario; that Eisenhower’s cheque-book rattling led to the rise of Arab nationalism and thus in the long run to the Arab-funded jihad we have now and to the worsening of the position of Israel – and also to the severe weakening of one of the USA’s most faithful allies. (God only knows why!) Also, Britain and France both knew what Arabs are like to deal with (having dealt with this particular group of vicious, bullying children for decades) and the USA did not and acted on their ignorance anyway. Yet another example of American stupidity in foreign policy matters.
hmmm sumthin that will interest certain of this board posters:
http://www.acus.org/natosource/france-europe%E2%80%99s-usa
“FRANCE IS EUROPE’S USA
France is Europe’s U.S.A. It’s big. It’s ornery. Like us, the French are notably more inward-looking than Europe’s other populous, geographically big, and prosperous states.
2) Despite France’s co-leadership of the European unification project, a new German Marshall Fund study shows the French have the least confidence in EU leadership, are more anti-EU than any other EU country except the U.K., and have the largest percentage who think the euro has been bad for their economy—a solid 60 percent majority.”
And this article shows that the French are worshipping their committement to France army, like the Americans do for theirs’
Les Français et l’armée : Le sondage choc | France Soir
http://www.francesoir.fr/actualite/politique/francais-et-l-armee-sondage-choc-140186.html
“The OBL strike decision ripped the mask off the Pakistani face and subsequent events have sharpened the contradiction…
“He [0bama] may not have the energy to do either. Like a boat that is perilously close to swamping, there may not be much the Obama presidency can do right now but keep paddling in whatever direction it was originally headed, even if that is toward the falls. This is penalty of a weakened Presidency.” – Wretchard
Yes and yes.
Further, constraining 0bama is the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear state. I find it hard to imagine 0bama would start formal military strikes on Pakistan. The best we could hope for is covert operations to thin out the really bad apples.
I say use taqiyya tactics on Paki officials while liquidating top players in ISI and the Paki army. I am sure there are a few General Lansdale types around who cause significant damage and disruption to our foes in Pakistan – all the while using the MSM to project our “friendship” with Pakistan.
I would seek groups that hate the ISI and use them as proxies against major players in the ISI. I would generally try to damage the infrastructure and economy of Pakistan while helping the Indians. This could include sabotaging Paki weapons depots and fuel storage facilities, sinking Paki ships and damaging Paki aircraft at opportune times – maybe even grabing a few critical nuke components.
If necessary create “accidental” misfires of drones on outposts in Pakistan with under cover of “technical” difficulties. The list could go on and on. This situation is such that we are basically paying the enemies bribes to get material through. Why not knock of a few of them off in the process?
FC: Just gotta admire how your ancient constitutional monarchy left their colony Pakistan in such fine shape. (sarc off)
MC: Glad top hear that France is now taking after Marcel Bigeard. Any chance he might be named Marshall of France posthumously?
Even better to hear that France could reiusse the Franc and get away with it. German Mark the same way???? Others are toast. Looks like the mighty Euro gotta be bailed out by the lowly dollar. Doncha just love it when a plan comes together?
70. Lege: If necessary create “accidental” misfires of drones on outposts in Pakistan with under cover of “technical” difficulties.
There is a slight problem with drones if we make war on Pakistan. Geography is everything. Our presence in Afghanistan would become untenable because it would be shielded by two enemies. Review the map. The only place to base drones in that event would be India, and they might be reluctant to escalate things with their neighbor that would lead to a nuclear confrontation. It would become entirely a matter of projecting carrier power from the Gulf of Oman.
@72 T
Wait a minute. I did not say make “war.” Friendly fire “accidents” happen all the time. It just proving intent is the key. Use taqiyya. There are many reasons for a missile misfire.
The USA is the only superpower. Pakistan is a 3rd world mud hole. Having nukes doesn’t change that. The ONLY restraints on the USA are the ones we choose to accept. Restraints forged by diplo-mites and fastened by a corrupt and self serving Senate.
Any action by the USA will have to start with the removal of those restraints and a declaration of war. We MUST act in a legal, above board manner. Anything else is just posturing.
As far as India, If it looks like America is going to do their dirty work, why should they joggle our elbow? India has fought 3 campaigns ( what the left calls wars) against Pakistan and won them all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siachen_conflict
I included that last although I’m not sure a battle over a glacier should be considered a war. More like a flurry of violence in a standing conflict.
I consider these and the hundreds of other mini wars to be the UN wars, since the UN created them to give it a reason for existing. Some of these conflicts are thousands of years old. They burned down to embers while Europeans were still looking for caves to decorate. I suppose diplomacy counts as a green job. I know the results turn a normal person green and faintly noxious.
snow ball #1
Why do we assume that turning against Pakistan will involve marching armies and skies filled with bombers? What’s wrong with a sneaky, dirty campaign of assassinations, car bombs, and poisonings of top ISI and Pakistani politicos? That’s the kind of combat Muslims like, after all – the quick surprise attack in a dark alley against an unguarded foe – and Obama is enough of a Muslim to like it too. Isn’t that what’s he already doing with his drone attacks – just a little more high-tech than a bomb under a burka.
We must do the traditional American response and aid the Freedom Fighters of Baluchistan to throw off the oppression of the Punjab. An independent Baluchistan has a great port at Gwandar and a short road to Afghanistan. I can see it now, large US ships in the harbor bringing humanitarian aid to the starving women and children of a free Baluchistan. They can bring wheat ,corn , cooking oil, AK-47, RPGs, and other humanitarian aid. And while we are add it we can aid the Northwest Frontier Region to rejoin Afghanistan. There will not be a border to to the chasing of terrorist. It was torn from Afghanistan by evil British Imperialism and this terrible crime has been perpetuated since then. Let us correct this evil crime now. There must be some way to add an independent Sinh but I can not think of it just now. I want to point out that tyrants hate to have their countries broken up. And many third world states are made up of different nations that do not get along so breaking up to a number of small states is a good thing. And you can play off one against the other at a much lower cost.
richib@76:
You said it first while I was looking up the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baloch_nationalist
Let’s do a little fishing in troubled waters / erc
Mad Fiddler asked me some questions in the previous SEE NO EVIL thread about the Trident D-5 payload, most of which have been answered here. Just to complete: The W-88 and W-76 are indeed fusion weapons. The D-5 can carry 12 MIRV. START reduced that to 8. SORT reduced it to 4 from what I understand, but I have heard reports that it is 5.
#75 Dr. Mabuse
What’s wrong with a sneaky, dirty campaign of assassinations, car bombs, and poisonings of top ISI and Pakistani politicos? That’s the kind of combat Muslims like, after all – the quick surprise attack in a dark alley against an unguarded foe – and Obama is enough of a Muslim to like it too.
Obama won’t do that, for three reasons. First, it would work. Second, if it came out, his Moonbat followers or at least a significant fraction of them, would turn on him. Third, like all Western leaders; going after their enemy counterparts personally has one significant downside that applies to Obama. If you go after “Abdul bin Porcine” personally you will either kill him or not. If you kill him, it legitimizes his successor or others to come after you with the same purpose. If you fail, Abdul himself is going to come after you.
Those on top of the political pyramid, regardless of ideology, have a healthy regard for their own whole skins. Divine Right of Tyrants, so to say. It is perfectly acceptable to them for their people and armed forces to be slaughtered as they are lesser beings [especially in the eyes of Obama]; but the Political Class must be preserved at all costs.
Subotai Bahadur
richib@76 said: “We must do the traditional American response and aid the Freedom Fighters of Baluchistan to throw off the oppression of the Punjab. An independent Baluchistan has a great port at Gwandar and a short road to Afghanistan.”
There is evidence that the US (with active support from India) is in the process of executing this plan — with sufficient success at this point in time to panic the ICI. We might interpret certain recent actions by Pakistan as counterplays in a game well underway.
It is time for Patriot Americans to stand up and fight for our Republic. Just as they did so long ago with the signing and content of The Declaration of Independence. Please Help get this out. pgamerica.pcriot.com The only way to get our country back is a Revolution of Patriot Americans is to stand up and take it back.
54. BigR
Don’t leave out Panetta. He might be Cheney heavy. He also is ugly and looks scary on TV. He did the OBL deal. BO had no clue. He might be the good wild card in this long debate.
Panetta is a jerk. I was at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterrey, CA (late 81 early 82) when he came to speak to us as a Congressman. He gave his opening remarks (can’t even remember what he spoke on – probably some typical pol bulconguava,, “Hey look at me! I’m important!) and then opened the session for questions.
These briefings were to officers of all services and some international allies (funny that we had a Naval Captain and a Marine LT from Venezuela – we were “friends” back then). We were briefed not to ask any questions that might irritate the speakers because if we were inhospitable, they might spread the word that NPGS was hostile and no one would volunteer to come to share their perspective. That effectively made each audience a bunch of sock puppets for the politicians to feed us as does a momma bird her babbies in the nest – she shoves worms parts down their throats.
About half way through the questions, an Army officer offers up a fairly non-political question that would today make you think you were at an Obama rally, but it struck some nerve in Panetta. Instantly he just looses it and comes back at the officer like he just asked for his daughter’s hand in marriage – without the marriage. After pinning this guy’s ears to the back of his head, he proceeded to berate this officer publically. He attacked this guy knowing that we are required to be officers and gentlemen. Like some punk mafia street thug bully – knowing that the audience can’t bite back because of orders, he went on and on, rubbing this guy’s nose in a mess Panetta created just for the theatre. Panetta was giving us a message. You could feel the testosterone in the room and hear the lats spreading under all of our shirts because of his ridiculous attack on this good officer. He asked if there were any other questions and the room went silent. We wouldn’t disrespect his office even though he had no idea what that virtue meant. Neither would we act to put the school in a bad light, nor embarrass the Admiral that ran it. Know why? Because we were a disciplined and honorable group who clearly knew what behavior was acceptable and what was not. Nonetheless, we seethed as a group – perhaps each and every one of us fantasizing a put-down. Know what else? A lot of pols still think they can treat us the same way – whether in or out of the service.
Even after his tantrum, we had the respect for his position as a congressman to applause when it was clear that there wasn’t going to be a goodnight kiss. Then the class instructor thanked him and continued the lie by saying how much we all appreciated his visit. Panetta knew that the military did not support the crappola that he and his cohorts were spewing on Capitol Hill, and I believe he took that opportunity to demonstrate just how he felt about the military. Typical Democrat.
AS DECDEF, I wouldn’t doubt his toughness any more than I would Cheney’s – it’s his bent and the cant of his mind that worries me. I wouldn’t trust him with the military as far as I could throw him. Cheney and Rumsfeld were good SECDEFs who were probably incredibly hard to work for because they demanded everything you had. I worked for a man like that; two times as Skipper and once on his Iceland Defense Force Staff. He was as demanding as Gengis Khan and could cut you in half if you loafed on his watch. He was also fair, the officer I most respected and gave the most to when I worked for him. He wasn’t just a warfighter; he was a war winner who tolerated no foolishness. Would he punish his best for their missteps? Yes, if they/we/me screwed up, he would rate you with that error in your FitRep. But like Cheney and Rumsfeld, you knew deep down in your gut that he was in the job to WIN – not only for himself (that’s always part of it) – but for his country, the United States of America.
Obama and Panetta? I have no idea what motivates them, but I’m sure as Hell, it has nothing to do with patriotism for their country. Certainly not if their ideology is any indication.
How stealthy are American stealth bombers?
Could we drop a nuke undetected? say… on an Iranian (or Pakistani) nuke facility…
And then pretend we didn’t do it… “we told you not to play with those dangerous isotopes, now look what you have done”
Spam alert. Clean up on aisle 80.
Concur about the Baluchi option. We have discussed this before. It has the added elegance of turning an old Soviet ploy to our advantage.
We must expel the Chinese fleet from the region before they become entrenched. We should build and buy a dozen silent AIP coastal patrol subs and then assist India Oz Taiwan Japan Korea Vietnam The PI and Israel in adding 40 more.
When I consider the daily situation facing our soldiers in armed forces in Afghanistone age I start thinking that if Pokkeeston is causing so much trouble, why not instead not be there (in Afghan) to take their abuse. But before the sentence is even complete I am reminded of all the counter arguments to that, one, that it would look like a Chicken-Little Vietnam forfeit, and a victory for the enemy, and the negative symbolism of that is not to be permitted. But also, if one wants maintain a threat against Poki, then you need a place to do it, and that is Afgoneeston.
I’ve brought up Hungary before, and other than the infiltration of the CIA by moscow and the tip off they would have gained from that infiltration, even if armed support of the coup by us had been undertaken, moscow would have known of it in advance. The context improves with consideration of the Suex incident. I thought that what made Ike furious was that Brit and France told him nothing of their plans for Suez canal, and that is true, WRT Hungary, but it’s clear now that there was even more to it, and I’m inclined to support the veracity of blert’s explanation as the most plausible explanation, in fact, perhaps the only one that is.
And what happened afterwards? Hungary stays under the iron fist of “soviet” (…that word means “committees”, by the way) domination, and Egypt (Nassar) flips to moscow and signs up for the installment plan.
Yes Virginia, there was soviet infiltration of our government in defense and state departments.
I argued as well in a comment against triangulating with India because one, they know all too well already of Pokkee perfidy and troublemaking, and two, better to pit sunni vs. shia so as to provide yet again, another abject lesson of history that when those crew go to the mattresses with each other, together in peace and harmony, there is no greater killer of muslims in history than islam. It’s an old habit. And one that dies hard.
But even so, despite the inefficiency qualities of muslim mass murder and blight, it still pales in comparison to that the success in that field by atheist regimes in the twentieth century, by hey, they’re working on it.
So Vicky, if you think we can all love these people and leap-frog them into the family of humanity, much less the free world of representative governments, you be a hapless, nattering, semi-dangerous fool. It’s just a question of how many deluded new-age idiots you represent.
Pakistan was always the real “quagmire,” not Afghanistan. Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and Daniel Pearl all knew this. And none of these but Daniel dared to risk his life to sein the Islamic Republic’s muddy tides.
And when the US finally made a military move in Pakistan’s direction, it was to seize a strategic position outside of Pakistan – to get a clearer shot, so to say, and not to act overtly inside the prickly Islamic Republic. Save for Obama’s pin-prick drone attacks in civilian areas, (an extra-military tactic that states-rights advocates in North America may live to regret endorsing one day) Bush’s approach of “stand-back and poke at it” appears to be Obama’s, too.
It’s like the place is radioactive, and, except for China (which shares a common defence treaty with Pakistan) noone wants to touch it with a ten-foot pole.
Stop unnecessary foreign aid, especially to countries that are unfriendly to use.
“How stealthy are American stealth bombers?”
Stealthy enough to be undetected by RADAR as they fly over Pakistan. AFAIK, the bombs are not. So once the rotary magazine kicks the bomb out, IF a RADAR is sweeping that sector, it will get a return off the bomb. It won’t do much good.
Stealth can be defeated but it takes a ‘standing wave’ the size of the B-2′s winwspan. I think that is 139′ I’m getting old so I might be remembering wrong.
The difference between a standing wave and phrased array is that the standing wave cabn be thought of as one continuous wave. ( that’s what the brits call it,continuous-wave RADRA) A standing wave can be no larger then it’s antenna. So for a wave 139 Ft, wave you need a 139 ft. antenna. A phased array will generate 10 waves 13.9 feet long to get a 139 ft. wave. That is what normal fighters us. Without going into a lot of physics and some heavy duty math I’m to old to deal with, much less explain. Phased arrays won’t work on stealth aircraft.
None of this matters anyway.
Pakistan is a nuclear state. It is NOT protected from a pre-emptive nuclear attack by the NPT. The only thing protecting Pakistan is a shortage of testicles on POTUS.
That is another reason why we need a new POTUS. This one is a coward.
I believe our discussion of involving India in any of our difficulties only accentuates our weakness. We are the only superpower and we can’t handle our business with Pakistan by ourselves?
India is doing just fine economically it would seem to me and someone here might want to propose reasons why India would have any inclination at all to push the Packi’s into a nuclear conflict…just to make nice with the USA? Doesn’t sound very logical to me.
Second, what about our relationship with India or Indian history that makes us natural or logical bedfellows?
“It is time for Patriot Americans to stand up and fight for our Republic”
We are. The Battle is November 6, 2012. Maybe the 9th, I forget exactly. Don’t worry, you will get lots of notice.
If you are speaking of taking up arms, you are either an FBI/DNC plant or extremely foolish. Obama has no chance of being re-elected. Why fight and die for something that will be given to you for the simple act of voting?
If you are the FBI, why aren’t you investigating ‘Fast and Furious’?
If you are the DNC, vote early, vote often. I won’t do you any good but you can claim you tried.
Snowball 3
Re#89. stoicheion
Obama has no chance of being re-elected.
I wish I’d have your optimism.
#90 grrr
Agreed. Being re-elected, in the traditional sense, may not be part of his plans.
Subotai Bahadur
Perry blew the debate on Thursday and Cain won the florida straw poll. There’s a big yawning opening for Palin if she cares to step through it.
There are many things about “the one” that makes him a bad president. However on the war on terror he has escalated attacks on the top terroirst leadership tier. Maybe that is from his Chicago Way training. Take out the leadership at the knees. Also Panetta seems to relish the chance to go after the terrorists. Maybe it is he who is orchestrating the latest set of attacks.
The Pakistan government has multiple power centers with ISI being one of them. The others being the Army, civilian authority and tribal confederations. I can see this administration targeting this power center on behalf of the others.
Admiral Mullen’s statement was blunt and uncompromising. I can see cross border attacks on the ground and the Pakistan government bleating about it. We also now have more options as the northern logistics route is now functioning. Also how to best bolster sagging rating? Start a war or escalate it. Domestic politics may also be playing into this.
We live in interesting times.
89. stoicheion
`cal 11 2012` says that it is November 6, 2012.
The “domestic culture of political correctness” is entirely of his own elite cohert’s making.
I say we make an example of them.
The Pakistanis were warned by SoS Powell; now it’s consequence time.
Karachi should look like Bagdhad did in 1991.
Perry is dumb like a fox. I don’t underestimate him. His gut instincts are far better than any other candidate in the race. This is exposing the frat boy mob atmosphere of the Romney campaign. Maybe they are over-celebrating too soon.
The difference I feel between Perry and Romney is best described as grounding. Perry instinctively understand things, Romney has to be coached on the simplest human decision or emotion. That weakness will portend a poor Presidency. It’s similar to Obama’s inability to grasp reality without coaching, and his coaches are space cadets.
“Agreed. Being re-elected, in the traditional sense, may not be part of his plans.”
It’s too early for polls to be useful beyond spotting trends. Go to RCP and look at their collection of polls. EVERY trend line is down. All of them. 107 EV’s are already beyond his reach, His base is talking up running another candidate. Despite all that his re-election chances are better then the odds of a successful coup. Coups require at least acquiescence on the part of both the population and the establishment.
That doesn’t exist. If it did his polls wouldn’t be in a terminal dive. As I tried to point out to the agent-provocateur above, POTUS gets replaced every 4 or 8 years. The 2nd amendment prevents coups, so why not just wait and vote the bath-tard out? I see no evidence that the Obomination is capable of destroying the Idea that is America. He can harm Americans but that is all.
I’m out of snowballs. Bye.
I think the problem with engaging India to cinch the noose around Pakistan is India’s strategic relationship with Russia. See for example joint defense initiatives to build and deploy cruise missiles and stealth aircraft. I wonder who provided India with nuke capability as well. It would also be incredibly difficult to triangulate from a position of strength, or even win-win, with China, which still experiences Chinese border incursions in disputed territories. It’s also unclear whether China would really feel comfortable cashiering Pakistan, their mutual defence treaty, and proxy conflicts, if only because China may not feel able to afford to appear an even more selfish diplomatic partner than it already is. Finally what would be the endgame if something more than a punitive raid is imagined? A joint Indo-US air and ground campaign (short of genocide in the Kush) could destroy Pak army strategic resources, but the low-tech Pashtunis are not a high tech force – and we can leave, whereas India cannot. It is also hard to see how all manner of global idiots could turn such a campaign to their net advantage. Nasty problem.
I haven’t been able to gin up strong feelings about either Perry or Romney, one way or the other. I see positives and negatives for both. I AM beginning to think that Perry has more formidable obstacles than a lot of people seem to think if he is to win this thing. Romney just doesn’t excite me.
I also have come to think that Bachmann is pretty much unelectable by the general public, and I suspect the same is true for Gingrich simply based on the fact that his exploits against Clinton in the 90s gave him lasting, high negatives among the center. Not that everybody feels that way, but the more people prejudiced against you out the gate, the smaller your chances.
This thing with Cain in the FL straw poll, though…I’m having a hard time determining if that event shows something that wasn’t immediately obvious, or if it’s just a fluke/flash-in-the-pan. I have to say that everything I’ve seen about the man seems reasonable and, while I haven’t exactly been focusing on him I haven’t noticed anything that really pisses me off about him. A lot of people seem to be saying that if he can ditch the “unelectable” label he might have a shot. I may tend to agree. The guy obviously has more charisma than we were led to believe.
The most fun part is that his skin is darker than Obama’s. Therefore, if it’s Cain v Obama, then everybody who votes for Obama is ipso facto a racist by their own logic that they used last time. THAT would be a LOT of fun to watch. That situation would probably even produce some columns by the likes of Jonathon Chait or the rest of the JournoList crowd that would be worth reading, something that hasn’t happened since at least their agonized bleating and ranting after the 2010 midterms.
On the one hand, we have Israel, which stands accused of over-reacting to Palestinian Arab attacks and of not being compromising enough regarding its security.
On the other, we have Pakistan, which according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, actively supports or actually engages in the killing of Americans and attacks on a US embassy.
To people like Victor, the two are equivalent. When Wretchard brings up Pakistan, this immediately reminds Victor of Israel, and he demands that both be brought “to heel.”
Two threads back, it was discussed whether Victor is an anti-Semite. Based on his usual behavior, one can argue against that. After all, being reflexively and obsessively pro-Turkey and anti-Israel does not in itself make one an anti-Semite, just tedious. But the mask does occasionally slip. See for instance the following thread, accurately summarized by Eternity: “Our host writes a nuanced post, during the course of which he mentions a possible resurgence of Nazism in the Arab world. Victor’s reaction? ‘The JOOOS are responsible for the death of millions!!!1!’”.
Presidential Ticket:
Herman Cain
John Bolton or Sarah Palin
Victor is a troll. I am no better.
Josh @62 say that it is 98% UNLIKELY to happen in the next 30 days, then keeping the same metric, what are the odds that it *will* happen in the next five years?
By “keeping the same metric,” I guess you mean keeping the 98% in each of the 60 months. In that case, the probability that it *will* happen in the next five years is about 70%:
1 – 0.98^60 = 0.70 approximately
But this is an utterly silly calculation, for two reasons:
A. The 5-year probability changes too much with only a slight change in the 1-month probability, e.g.:
1 – 0.97^60 = 0.84 approximately
1 – 0.99^60 = 0.45 approximately
B. “Keeping the same metric” is worthless. Even if the 0.98 is correct for the 1st month, this has very little bearing on what it will be in any other month.
Perry found a way to raise taxes in Texas. It’s called the “Franchise Tax”. It’s an income tax that targets small business. Further continued vetting will expose this new tax. Cigarette tax went up to more than 100% of retail cost of cigarettes, more than doubling the tax. Perry never met a tax, new or otherwise, that he vetoed. He stood by when they were either invented or increased. Christie, for example. cut spending, and balanced the budget without raising taxes. Perry is democrat party operative, always has been.
74. stoicheion
Re Indo-Pak wars:
I think three things are holding India back
1. The US has been buddy buddy with the Pakis and we are dominating the theater. Why should others spend the money when the US is doing cleanup in aisle 3.
2. The Indian mil is not very confident they could find and destroy all the Paki nukes before they were used. The Pakis have tested tactical nukes that could neutralize Indian armor penetrations before the Indians could get their people deep enough to eliminate the strategic weapons. Their air forces do not have a reliable precision strike capability, so they need men and machines to reach the Paki nukes quickly. This is not easy.
3. Current Indian politicians are not very aggressive or nationalistic and seem to be more interested in developing kickbacks from their version of crony capitalism.
India will become a great nation, but it will require a new generation with new ideas taking the reins from the current political class. The same is true for the US.