Fire in the hole! Now the Pakis are taking shots at US helos

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by AntEater

How dare they?
A sovreign nation firing at armed foreign helicopters crossing their border?
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

This is the Bush doctrine at its worst.
Why give a frackin damn about other nations, diplomacy, intelligence work, negotiations and all that other liberal pinko BS when we have the Delta Force?

Especially funny when you consider how critical the US was about Russia invading Georgia

Indeed. The double standards here are pretty ridiculous. I can understand the impetus for the action, but I don't understand the need for the "moral superiority" facade. If you're going to act cynically out of neccesity, at least stop pretending everything is flowers and stars and stripes... makes the population stupid. Or is that the point? :hmm:

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Frame57

"Never hate your enemies, it affects your judgement"


Don Vito Corleone

I say again, don't mistake hate with determination.

Otherwise I agree with CCIP on that the morale propaganda stampede is not needed. just crushing the Taleban wether they hide behind Pakistani border guards or not, would be sufficient. And if Pakistani troops insist on standing in the way, they can be made to feel the effect of that, I'm sure.

AntEater, could you please give realistic and specific advise on how to make Pakistan give up on the taleban after 40 years, and how to chnage the pakistani policy to destablize Afghansiatn and keep it weal so that a.) Pakistan can project influence there and b.) it does not become a major ally of the west that may be uncomforttable to have olurking around in your rear while you have a little war with India to carry out. And REALISTIC alternatives that after years of treating them with satin gloves all of a sudden would change things...? At least as long as you do not wish to question in general that we have a right to battle those talebans in the needed way that allows a victoriuous battle tactic and strat5egy to win the war, instead of keeping it running on and on and on and on.

[AntEater]

The answer is simple:
The world won't end because some Jihadis on the Pakistan side of the borders are not killed tonight. The war on terrorism won't be won by this either.
Like it or not, Jihadism, the Taliban or however you call them are a mass ideology, a people's movement which you can't kill by killing some bearded fanatics.
If there's one thing the global radical islam has enough of, it is bearded fanatics.
Maybe going after Osama himself would justify such a diplomatic mess, but nothing else.
If your enemy is hiding in another country, you have exactly two options: Invasion or alliance.
Sofar, the US has some kind of in-between solution.
Pakistan, while being a total mess, isn't Cambodia or Laos, which you can invade to go after your enemy's bases and the only one who care are a few peasants and some liberal journalists.
I mean maybe the US wants Pakistan to turn into some kind of super-Jihadistan so they can safely bomb the crap out of them.
Pakistan is such a mess right now that gung ho operations like those are what maybe will tip the balance toward civil war.
Maybe that is the US intention, because if all hell breaks loose in Pakistan, the Taliban will have a new playing field and leave the US alone.

Btw, why doesn't the US give up on that whole diplomacy BS alltogether?
I mean screw all that negotating and courtesy, you don't need to treat anyone as equal if you have no equals.
I would suggest the US scraps its entire foreign office and replace it with small military bases in third world nations. NATO could safely handle all normal contacts to allies.
Economic negotiations could be subcontracted to private companies.
Maybe even the "diplomatic" military missions could be subcontracted to PMCs, so direct US involvement would only be necessary in form of an airstrike
:hmm:

[Frame57]

They have not respnded well to current negotiations. So we threaten to stop all money to pakistan and as a bonus we advise them that India will be getting substantial military aide from us if they do not play ball. What is left after that? Bush said after 911 that any country that harbors terrorist will be dealt with so then we have to lower the boom on pakistan if all else fails. Seems simple enough to me.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by AntEater

The answer is simple:
The world won't end because some Jihadis on the Pakistan side of the borders are not killed tonight. The war on terrorism won't be won by this either.
Like it or not, Jihadism, the Taliban or however you call them are a mass ideology, a people's movement which you can't kill by killing some bearded fanatics.
If there's one thing the global radical islam has enough of, it is bearded fanatics.
Maybe going after Osama himself would justify such a diplomatic mess, but nothing else.
If your enemy is hiding in another country, you have exactly two options: Invasion or alliance.
Sofar, the US has some kind of in-between solution.
Pakistan, while being a total mess, isn't Cambodia or Laos, which you can invade to go after your enemy's bases and the only one who care are a few peasants and some liberal journalists.
I mean maybe the US wants Pakistan to turn into some kind of super-Jihadistan so they can safely bomb the crap out of them.
Pakistan is such a mess right now that gung ho operations like those are what maybe will tip the balance toward civil war.
Maybe that is the US intention, because if all hell breaks loose in Pakistan, the Taliban will have a new playing field and leave the US alone.

Btw, why doesn't the US give up on that whole diplomacy BS alltogether?
I mean screw all that negotating and courtesy, you don't need to treat anyone as equal if you have no equals.
I would suggest the US scraps its entire foreign office and replace it with small military bases in third world nations. NATO could safely handle all normal contacts to allies.
Economic negotiations could be subcontracted to private companies.
Maybe even the "diplomatic" military missions could be subcontracted to PMCs, so direct US involvement would only be necessary in form of an airstrike
:hmm:

At least then say clearly you want an end of the engagement in Afghanistan, for these reasons, and pulling out there - that position I could respect, and I am close to that, for reasons not being so totally different. Just don'T say what you just did - and nevertheless keep the troops in Afghanistan and all the money going there. Pull the plug, metaphorically. either this, or that - just not two half things for comfprtably avpiding to announce unpopular decisions that will keep wetsern helpers and soldiers risk their lives for a war that in this fashion will never be won and will run on for years and years.

Also be prepared that Islamic vioence now focussing on Afghanistan and Pakistna will have free hands then to start activities elsewhere. that truth is the one great inner problem of the messy situation I found no other cure for then to accept confronting Pakistan unconditionally in an effort to annihilate the operaional capacity of the enemy for the immidiate future, and then again and again.

As long as germany does not understand this, I want the Bundeswehr out of Afghanistan completely. If the Germans decide they need to win agai8nst the Taleban, then it must be clear that this is an all-out war with needed logicstical engagement germany probaly cannot afford, and the defense budget cannot pay for. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of troops, then, and probably a full scale military engagement against Pakistan - under the threat of nuking nthem back to the status of one-cellular life if they even consider to touh their nuclear bombs.

Don't complain about me describing the brutal reality - I did not manouvre us into this stupid situation.

[AntEater]

I have no patent solution, but as we all know, the resources of the US and NATO are limited.
Opening yet another front is not the best way to deal with this.
Actually I don't think I know a solution to the current problem.
The easiest way would simply be military victory in southern Afghanistan, but that would not be an easy task even with ten times the troops.
If Pakistan blows, Afghanistan will be the least of our worries and I have the bad suspicion that the Indians will not let themselves be abused as a US proxy.
They will defend themselves, even nuke Pakistan but they will never occupy it.
If I had a patent solution on how to win against radical Islam, I might as well change career.
But my gut feeling tells me that you can't expect to "win" (in the sense of anihilating your enemy) against a revolutionary movement in its heroic phase.
Jihadists might look ridiculous to you and me, but to the people on the ground, these are popular revolutionaries.
You can win in the sense of successfully containing them until the enthusiasm cools down and they become just another bunch of people.

Re the Bundeswehr and Afghanistan, I totally agree with you.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by AntEater

I have no patent solution, but as we all know, the resources of the US and NATO are limited.
Opening yet another front is not the best way to deal with this.
Actually I don't think I know a solution to the current problem.
The easiest way would simply be military victory in southern Afghanistan, but that would not be an easy task even with ten times the troops.
If Pakistan blows, Afghanistan will be the least of our worries and I have the bad suspicion that the Indians will not let themselves be abused as a US proxy.
They will defend themselves, even nuke Pakistan but they will never occupy it.
If I had a patent solution on how to win against radical Islam, I might as well change career.
But my gut feeling tells me that you can't expect to "win" (in the sense of anihilating your enemy) against a revolutionary movement in its heroic phase.
Jihadists might look ridiculous to you and me, but to the people on the ground, these are popular revolutionaries.
You can win in the sense of successfully containing them until the enthusiasm cools down and they become just another bunch of people.

That is a reference to the demographic factor, and the theory that the more male young people there are in a society, the more aggressive and expansionist the society is. In principal, I agree with this, but i do not like the conseqeunces.

Becasue 1.) the Islamic societies will become as overaged and old as Europe is - in 50-70 years from now on. For that long, referring to the social dynamic drive of these theories (whom I happen to agree with) they will remain to show the energy and potential to bhave like they do: aggressive, revolutionary, expanding. and 2.) Radical Islamic leaders know this as well. They know the yhave a certain time window only in which they must succeed with their plans to enforce islam in the areas they have targetted. After that, their societies will be so old that their will not be enough drive and energy of sufficient yung people to push their policies against others anymore. You can assume then that until they still have time, they will not be interested in negotiating, and going to rest. they will push with all power and energy - while it still is there.

50-70 years. I don't know aboiut youk, but I am in no way sure that we can hold out that long if just passively trying to sit them out.