Comments on: Punitive Strikes v. Invasion

By: Trilok

Trilok — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:33:14 +0000

“Official policy” only means that the public knows about it.
Exactly how the White House wants it.

By: kao_hsien_chih

kao_hsien_chih — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:15:34 +0000

whether US hits inside Pakistan is immaterial. It’s been going on for years. All the knowledgeable parties know it. The problem is when it becomes the “official” policy of the US. Why?!?

By: Trilok

Trilok — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:41:08 +0000

Sorry for the typos.

By: Trilok

Trilok — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:27:39 +0000

If the Americans were really preparing to invade Pakistan, in the conventional sense, then the Indian Army would have been amassing troops along its western borders, particularly in the plains. [at one point in indian punjab, lahore is only thirty minutes by road]

As for the American’s chasing Taliban into Pakistani territory being a bad idea. I don’t necessarily agree.

The targeting of Taliban, real or not, inside sovereign Pakistan could be a ploy to exert pressure on Kayani et al to get serious in ridding, or in the least significantly curbing, the cross border Taliban menace.
Said pressure could come from the Pakistani public, which will demand action against Uncle Sam’s boys. An action Pakistan can ill afford, in light of their domestic economic situation, which is dire.
They have less than four months worth of foreign reserves, their currency is devaluing rapidly, inflation is rising like a rocket, and the general economy is falling apart.
Only Uncle Sam can help.

p.s. i don’t need to tell you how enthusiastic india will be in providing any sort of help, including possibly opening an eastern front, in case of an invasion.

By: kao_hsien_chih

kao_hsien_chih — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 03:56:04 +0000

fnord is right. If you are doing something obviously wrong, one shouldn’t admit to it. heck, you should deny it even when ppl come back with evidence that you are. (which is, admittedly, rather at odds with what I’d been talking about with re. apparent civilian dead above…). If you openly flout that you are violating other country’s borders, that’s problematic.

By: cynic

cynic — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 03:13:20 +0000

Typical Foust — mischaracterize and call everyone else an idiot. Ho hum.

By: cynic

cynic — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 03:13:01 +0000

Typical Foust — mischaracterize and call everyone else an idiot. Ho hum.

By: fnord

fnord — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:37:59 +0000

I think there is one issue that has changed, and that is the statement of the US forces that they will continue to do so under orders from POTUS, and that they will not ask permission. From a purely legalistic pov, that means something, and if there is one thing many pakistani educated gentlemen are concerned with, its formalism and legalistic thinking. From a IO point of view, it is (to me) more worrying that the US is bragging about doing this than that it is doing it.

By: TCHe

TCHe — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:44:04 +0000

Are these negotiations between the PAK government and the tribal elders really happening? I recall the lengthy article by Dexter Filkins at the NYT (think you linked it here, too) and it basically said that no negotiations are happening because the military controls what’s happening. It also said that there aren’t many non-aligned tribal elders left, anyway.

Concerning the near/distant enemy thing. So far that’s true with AQ and IMU being the “internationalist” groups there. That could change however though maybe not in the near future …