« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
If At First A Peace Agreement Between Terrorists And Pakistan Doesn't Succeed...
The revelation in last week's National Intelligence Estimate on al-Qaeda was that its senior leadership has established a "safe haven" in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas. At today's joint House intelligence-armed services committee hearing, five defense and intelligence officials stated that the crucial factor for the development of the safe haven -- which allowed al-Qaeda to rebuild its capabilities -- was a ceasefire accord signed last year between President Pervez Musharraf and tribal leaders in northern Waziristan. Yet even as the ceasefire collapsed earlier this month, following Musharraf's raid on the Red Mosque, members of his government have tried to resurrect it.
Toward the end of the hearing, the acting assistant secretary of defense for international security, Mary Beth Long, conceded to Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) that Musharraf's government is still exploring "small agreements" with the same entities that allowed al-Qaeda to develop its safe haven.
Long didn't seem too exercised about a return to what practically everyone at the hearing acknowledged was a failed policy resulting in a stronger al-Qaeda. She described the approach as a possible "effort to change tribal minds" reminiscent of Anbar tribal shift against al-Qaeda in Iraq. And that wasn't very far out of tune with what the officials testified should be done in Pakistan anyway: while reserving the right to use force if the opportunity presents itself, most, like Defense intelligence chief James Clapper, said that the U.S. ultimately needs to "continue what we're already doing," which consists of helping train and equip Pakistani troops and giving $110 million in aid to the tribal areas. After all, it's an approach that's worked well so far -- at least if your name is Usama bin Laden.
Comments (13)
M M wrote on July 25, 2007 8:26 PM:anbar is totally different from the tribal areas of Pakistan and using one strategy for both is a disaster of, well Bushian stupidity; tribes have pledged to protect the Taliban and al-qaeda unlike the sunni's in iraq who viewed al-qaeda as a foreign presence
other threads have discussed what a disaster the Frontier Guards are (really a way for the tribes to collect quota payments)
Halle Burton wrote on July 25, 2007 8:54 PM:The Loyal Bushies are not professionals at anything but partisan politics. They're stuck riding out the last 18 months of a failed Administration for want of a real job. Mostly to blame are the voters who put these people in office not once but TWICE.
If we can make it to 2008 without another Katrina-like fiasco or massive failure of national security resulting a major disaster, I will be very surprised. It's been 6 years, 7000+ American lives lost and we're well on the way to spending $1 trillion on this failed Iraq war. The result? Al Qaida and the Taliban have regrouped and the government has essentially erased the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments. At least Nixon has some successes. Bush and Tricky Dick II's legacy will not fair nearly as well as Tricky Dick I.
JD21 wrote on July 25, 2007 10:34 PM:Check out the Olbermann clip.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Docs_contradict_Gonzales_sworn_testimony._0725.html
"Mi Abogado" as Bush calls him has gotten hit knickers knotted again with that truth stuff. Our Attorney General may be forced out of office by the end of the Summer if this keeps up.
Roberta wrote on July 25, 2007 11:26 PM:What's this "some would argue" stuff that Ms Long keeps throwing out in her explanation?
"And if fact that agreement, some would argue, was an attempt not only to deal with the al Qaeda presence there but also the Taliban."
In Rhetoric, using "some would argue" is a way to push an argument that doesn't have wide support.
"Some would argue that the approach [Musharraf is taking with the agreements in villages and with tribes] isn't too different from the approach that we're taking in al Anbar ..."
So if some argue what she's said, who argues something different and what are those arguments? Are the other arguments, perhaps, closer to the truth?
RBS wrote on July 26, 2007 5:48 AM:Jake D. hasn't visited this particular thread--yet--but, like every other discussion thread on almost every TPM Comments section, the odds are he soon will. So please forgive the following repeated post:
Jake D's unrelenting attempts at hijacking the discussion are, unfortunately, enormously successful--the thread always ends up being about him and his inane diversions (which is exactly what he wants) rather than about the subject matter at issue--and I, for one (or two or three), am ready to forego TPM's comments entirely rather than having to slog through such massive amounts of troll shit.
Legitimate expressions of "other" viewpoints are fine, but when Jake's "expressions" disproportionately and egregiously hog the bandwidth, with the intent to disrupt the actual thread of the conversation and prevent real discussion of the issues, there's no reason for TPM to put up with it (the First Amendment only restricts the government from censoring expression, Jake) and legitimate reasons not to put up with it (losing readership).
Enough is enough.
If there's a TPM moderator, please get rid of this guy; he adds nothing and only disrupts the true flow of the commentary. Too many people "bite" and feed this guy, which is understandable, but the tipping point has been reached.
Could others who feel the same way pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease let TPM know how you feel?
Thanks.
(We now resume our regularly hijacked programming . . . )
RBS
Johann wrote on July 26, 2007 9:20 AM:Does anyone else realize that "Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas" are being administered mostly by a hands-off attitude? These areas might just as well be considered separate countries for all the influence the Pakistani government has there.
markg8 wrote on July 26, 2007 9:37 AM:I think administered in Pakistan means "we'll only drop by to hand out the $110 million US dollars at monthly intervals and in return you'll stop trying to blow up my motorcade. Whatever else you do is your business."
kenga wrote on July 26, 2007 11:04 AM:RBS - I feel your pain, but I have to object.
I wouldn't mind necessarily, if JakeD posts were deleted or extensively moderated, but the fact would remain that it would stifle debate( often dishonest, frequently delusional and generally derisive, but debate nonetheless.)
As has been said in the past, the only answer to speech is more speech.
Better that JakeD be allowed to post, and be refuted regularly and accurately, than that he be shut out, or his assertions left to stand unchallenged.
Let him post. Shoot down his arguments as often as needed.
Ron Hurst wrote on July 26, 2007 11:42 AM:We aren't the only ones who read these - many don't comment who do read.
Ignoring the trolling may be more satisfying, but it has the effect of allowing the assertions to stand - which casual or first-time visitors may then take away as gospel.
F@ck that S#!t.
What ever happened to the the "if you harbor a terrorist you will be treated like a terrorist" doctrine? Oh, I guess we're stil following it. We're just using the Musharaff model of how to "teat a terrorist".
Ron Hurst wrote on July 26, 2007 11:42 AM:As Yogi would say "This is deja vu all over again". Except instead of Afghanistan it's Pakistan. We will get a redeployment of our forces. Just not until AFTER the next 9/11.
What ever happened to the the "if you harbor a terrorist you will be treated like a terrorist" doctrine? Oh, I guess we're stil following it. We're just using the Musharaff model of how to "teat a terrorist".
Ron Hurst wrote on July 26, 2007 11:42 AM:As Yogi would say "This is deja vu all over again". Except instead of Afghanistan it's Pakistan. We will get a redeployment of our forces. To Pakistan. Just not until AFTER the next 9/11.
What ever happened to the the "if you harbor a terrorist you will be treated like a terrorist" doctrine? Oh, I guess we're stil following it. We're just using the Musharaff model of how to "teat a terrorist".
furnacefed wrote on July 26, 2007 11:44 AM:As Yogi would say "This is deja vu all over again". Except instead of Afghanistan it's Pakistan. We will get a redeployment of our forces. To Pakistan. Just not until AFTER the next 9/11.
Truly mindless drones , they don't get it at all . This American experiment is just to plunder for them . The dignitaries and officials seem completely unaware of any other purpose other than to run cover for insane reactionary ends . Regulation is an official diversion rather than a military one . It is possible they may make the military the official diversion of the "Others" .
Dee Illuminati wrote on July 26, 2007 11:52 AM:To Roberta
"some would argue"
Two quotes:
If someone asked us 'but is that true?' we might say 'yes' to him; and if he demanded grounds we might say 'I can't give you any grounds, but if you learn more you too will think the same.' ...
What I hold fast to is not one proposition but a nest of propositions. (Ludwig Wittgenstein)
"It is as if" when making assertions under testimony that that caveat "some would argue" implies a position but remains within the realm of 'Case Based' reasoning and the ability 'to hold to a nest of propositions.'
This is not the religous fanatic mind at work, this is not the unreasonong partisan mind at work, this is not legal weasel at work, this is an intelliget mind enumerating a set of propositions (not necessarily true or false) to audience that in high probability "will not allow the facts to stand in the way of their convictions."
Now just because I'm Dee Illuminati I would have asked: "why might it be a good policy to feel that combatting the religous zealot or true believer in Pakistan is best treated as a policing endeavor and why that policy for the US is inapropriate?" Is you answer based on a different set of propositions for an outcome or result based on those two divergent approaches? Is there an expected result from treating the religous fanatic as a criminal or a terrorist? And why and where might one approach work better than the other?
That ought to get some wheels turning...
Keep in mind, If Mohammeds (allahs) body was found, with texts specifically abmonishing terrorist acts.. if the stuff was tatto'd on him like the ice man... the religous mind or partisan mind.. (or karl roves brain)
"will not allow the facts to stand in the way of their convictions."
Here semantics indicate bias but reasoning