Why are we afraid of Pakistan?

[Luke]

Being just Missouri hillbilly I am not well versed on the geo-political situation in Pakistan I suppose. I realize that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and that their government is not all that stable, yet I thought the deal was "you are either with us, or against us." All the information I find seems to point to the Afghanistan/Pakistan border as being a strong point for terrorism. It also seems to me that the US is all that is keeping the current government afloat in Pakistan, so perhaps someone can enlighten me on the reasons why we are unable to attack our enemy in that region.
Why isn't Pakistan considered to be "harboring" terrorist?

[Sean Osborne]

Being just Missouri hillbilly I am not well versed on the geo-political situation in Pakistan I suppose. I realize that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and that their government is not all that stable, yet I thought the deal was "you are either with us, or against us." All the information I find seems to point to the Afghanistan/Pakistan border as being a strong point for terrorism. It also seems to me that the US is all that is keeping the current government afloat in Pakistan, so perhaps someone can enlighten me on the reasons why we are unable to attack our enemy in that region.
Why isn't Pakistan considered to be "harboring" terrorist?

Amazingly, it's been 3 days and no one posting here seems willing to address the issues raised by Luke.

Luke, this issue has nothing to do with where you live, or whether you are just this or just that. You have, in fact, nailed the salient issues squarely on the head. I think you deserve a proper response.

You're correct, President Bush told the whole world in the aftermath of 9/11 that from America's perspective, the perspective of his administration specifically, "you're with us or you're against us." Apparently that was his speechwriters gem of a sound byte - it had no real backbone when it comes to pursuing Usama bin Lden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the rest of Al Qaeda in nations other than Afghanistan and Iraq.

Had he truly meant what he said then American special operations forces would've gone into the Sistan-e-Baluchestan province of extreme southeastern Iran at some point since 2002 and bagged or tagged UBL - that's where he has been since escaping from Tora Bora.

Regarding Pakistan. The region along the current Afghan border, known as the FATA or Federally Administered Tribal Area is only nominally under Pakistani government authority or control.

The reason is simple - that area only recently came under the control of the British-created state of Pakistan. For hundreds of years that entire was part the ancestral Afghan homeland. To this day the local Pashtun's resist federal Pakistani intrusion into their affairs. They would probably equally resist the federal Afghani government authority. Short of all out invasion - these areas are uncontrollable.

However, the Pakistani government looks at its border with Afghanistan and what lies within it to the east as sovereign Pakistani territory and has forbidden any US military presense or activity here. Even so much as an American pilotless drone flying overhead searching for Dr. Ayman al-Zawahri risks rebellion against the regime in Islamabad. The FATA regions, North and South Waziristan particularly, are for all intents and purposes a very safe haven for Al Qaeda and their Islamic allies.

For our part we cannot correctly say that Pakistan is harboring terrorists in this region when Islamabad has no direct control over it. Catch-22.

[Ryan Ruck]

Truth be told, I don't consider myself all that well versed on the minutia of The Middle East and any answer I could have given would be a disservice to answering Luke's question.

Thankfully, Sean is here to offer his wealth of knowledge, and has just saliently proven my point.

Thank you Sean!

[Luke]

Thanks for the reply Sean,

So it would seem that the Pakistan/Afghan border is similar to what we used to call " Indian Territory". Which makes it all more confusing to me. If this area is not actually under Pakistan rule, who cares if we send in troops to clean it up? Perhaps the Pakistan government could consider it military aid.

Would the Afghans have ran the Russians out without US aid? Would Russia send covert aid to the region? Wouldn't that place them offically "against" us?

I don't care if it offends some but in my opionion if Islammic Radicals can proclaim a jihad,"holy war", then perhaps it is time to call for a "new crusade"

It seems to me that the Military/Industrial Complex is once again back in full control. Could there be that much profit being made in Pakistan?

As you can all see I have many questions, but not many answers, I am sure my old History teacher is laughing in his grave. Asking the same type questions that got me kicked out of class 40 years ago.

[samizdat]

40 years? Thot u wuz a young tyke. I also was interested in your Q, but not as salient as others. Now that Sean has exposed the real deal, I'll prose some more queries. And opinionated probable facts.

1. Pakistan is BUKU Islam, where as India is Islam/Hindu with some Christianity. Pakistan has de BIG BOMB: UUUH, and is not friendly with their neighbor India-less w/british and the western world. And the region Sean delineates is rift with fables of the extirpation of testicles of mercenaries searching for the family jewel's of OBL. Not a prudent place to go as a Christian missionary, if you got your emergency response/first responder stuff down. ME first, selfish responsibility or perhaps the Spirit of Christ prevents preaching in this place.

It seems to me that the Military/Industrial Complex is once again back in full control.

http://newsblaze.com/story/20070714081700p...S/Opinions.html



Comrades pray and watch, for ye know not the hour.



As for aa's "hot summer" and preferring cool places....

I read in Dante that there is a cool place in HELL- next to Satan with the chief arrogant blasphemers, traitors, and coin rattlers. There, one, alone, receives the icy blast of satan's breath... por omnia seculae seculorum (forever and ever)


RIA reported former Russia Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov stated afterward, "We discussed many issues. Our goal was not to get media coverage, some public relations points or press home any propaganda messages. We came here to solve problems. We agreed to hold the next meeting in mid-December in Washington D.C." There they should be meeting President George W. Bush and if the Moscow-Washington offensive against Tbilisi-Ankara-Tehran is successful then perhaps in November Moscow-Tehran could have already begun negotiations to end the war, at least in the Caucasus.


In attendance with Kissinger were: Former Secretary of State George Schultz, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, former Special Representative for Arms Control, Nonproliferation and Disarmament Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., former Senator Sam Nunn and Chevron Chairman and Chief Executive Officer David O'Reilly.

[Sean Osborne]

If this area is not actually under Pakistan rule, who cares if we send in troops to clean it up? Perhaps the Pakistan government could consider it military aid.

Well, Pakistan's President Musharraf recently reinforced the FATAs status as semi-autonomous regions of Pakistan by concluding a "peace treaty" with the various entities. I think Musharraf would care if US forces attacked these regions in light of his personal guarantee not to conduct military operations against them.

However, if this report from todays issue of the N.Y. Sun proves accurate, well... "Houston, we have a problem."

http://www.nysun.com/article/58888


This report evokes three questions from my perspective:

1.) Why does POTUS Homeland Security advisor, Ms. Frances Fragos Townsend, offer even one syllable in response to any question regarding what would obviously be highly sensitive covert operations on foreign soil?

2.) Is she now also the spokesperson for the DoD and SECDEF Gates?

3.) What ever happened to "I can neither confirm or deny"?

[Jag]

Pakistan warns of strikes inside Pakistan territory

Jul 23 10:43 AM US/Eastern

ISLAMABAD, July 23 (AP) - (Kyodo)—Pakistan reiterated Monday it will not tolerate military strikes against perceived terrorists or al-Qaida hideouts in its territory by U.S.-led forces in neighboring Afghanistan, dismissing such talk as "irresponsible and dangerous."


"We have stated in the clearest terms that any attack inside our territory would be unacceptable," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasneem Aslam told reporters at a weekly briefing.

She said any further talk in the United States about the need to take direct action against safe havens for fundamentalist Islamic fighters in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan would "further complicate our ongoing efforts to fight al-Qaida and other terrorist elements."

Aslam said Pakistan remains deeply concerned over the possibility of al-Qaida or any other terrorist entity establishing a sanctuary or regrouping or regenerating inside its territory.

"Our government and our security forces are determined not to permit such a development. These terrorists have threatened Pakistan, attacked our security forces, killed innocent civilians and targeted our leadership. We are therefore countering terrorism in our own interest," she said.

Pakistan's deployment of tens of thousands of troops in its tribal belt to prevent cross-border movement of militants after U.S.-led forces overthrew the Taliban regime in Afghanistan had triggered fighting with local inhabitants, but the local administration negotiated a truce with the tribesmen in 2006.

After the United States complained the truce has allowed al-Qaida and Taliban fighters entrench themselves in the areas bordering Afghanistan, Pakistan last week sent fresh troops into these areas to launch another crackdown on militants and their local supporters.

"We do not want our action to be undermined by ill-conceived action from any quarter that is inconsistent with the principles of international law and will be greatly resented in the tribal areas and generally in Pakistan," Aslam said.

Jag