When does it start to matter? If we were to see an interview of Mohammed Atta telling the public that [insert country here]'s intelligence agency and army designed the attacks and supplied the resources, how long would it take for the American public to demand we overthrow the government of the country? http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011220/wl/india_parliament_dc_20.html I wholeheartedly support actions in Afghanistan, as do most Americans because we have every right to defend ourselves. So how can we in good conscience tell India to stand down against Pakistan when we can't do the same things ourselves and when we don't ask Israel to stand down? I do believe the attacks on India's Parliament were done by Pakistani-based terrorist groups which have links to both al queda and ISI. If we want to root out terrorism, isn't cutting support for all terrorists a good start???????? I don't want to read bickering along the lines of Israel/Palestine threads, but I do want to read opinions on why we can support terrorists and still be righteous. And I'm not convinced that we truly *needed* Pakistan. We may have feared their nuclear technology and wanted to keep that out of the hands of al queda, but I think we could have been just as successful toppling the taliban without them as part of the alliance. any thoughts?
The US needed the overflight rights to bring in the carrier based planes and the heavy bombers from Diego Garcia. Routing the Taliban would have been a much more lengthy affair without that ability. Did the ISI and other terrorists groups support/control/instruct the terrorist attack in India? Probably so, but the US has some forces in the Pakistan - Afghanistan area and doesn't want India to upset the apple cart while doing the final lockdown on bin Laden associates. After the US withdraws, all bets are off as to what action India takes against terrorists and their patrons. Mango
Agreement w/ Mango. All bets are off when we're done in Pakistan, and India might be let off the diplomatic "leash" it's on right now. Also, in order to undermine terrorists in some situations, it may be desirable to usurp their support base. What I mean by this is basically buying off some states who support it now or have in the past. Basically, the carrot and stick approach, without having to actually use the stick. If we can use a combination of threats and promises of lucrative payoffs to persuade a state like Sudan to dismantle its terrorism support infrastructure, then that would be far preferable to using military force to dismantle it ourselves, and it would accomplish the same goal. After all we really don't want to go to war with every nation that supports or has supported terrorism - we'd be at war with over half the world.
You know, were kind of in a catch 22 situation now. On one hand we condemn terrorist activities. But on the other, we support factions we would like to see in power. I'm sure the countries who have regimes that the US doesn't like consider the opposition groups that the US supports as terrorists. Now every regime has a presedence set for them to deal with any opposition groups it claims as being terrorists. It's a matter of time before countries like Iraq start accusing the US as supporting terrorist groups because we may arm an opposition group to overthrow the current regime. I'm sure the Palistinians are already accusing the Israilis of being terrorists. But that's the pot calling the kettle black.
Saddam has labeled us as a terrorist nation for years now, and the Palestinians are fond of calling the Israelis terrorists. Saddam even recently called on the US to abandon its WMD programs, citing fear they would be used for terrorist purposes... The sad thing is that such mindless propaganda actually works in much of the Islamic world.
Mango/tree: The airspace issue completely slipped my mind. I guess we did/do need them for that. Unfortunately, the main issue remains. We are supporting a military leader (may be considered a dictator) who seized power through a coup and who's administration supports and carries out acts of terrorism. So are we just admitting that we will only truly condemn terrorism when it fits in with our plans? If it doesn't fit into our plans then we'll passively support it? I may have gone too far with the last statement, but we're walking a *very* fine line. With policies like that is it any wonder that the rest of the world doesn't see America as the good and righteous power we are supposed to be? That's precisely the kind of thing that makes Saddam's crap somewhat credible to outsiders.
TL: It's just a matter of addressing the realities on the ground - unfortunately we need the Pakistanis right now. When we no longer need them, then they will be addressed. Musharaf and the ISI actually created the Taliban, but we needed their territory (and their intel helped, too), so we didn't mention that. When we're done in Afghanistan and have the time and resources (which are limited, I remind you), we will address Pakistan. Or maybe let the Indians address it. It is definitely a problem that needs addressing, as it could be argued very strongly that they are rascals with nukes... Just not yet.
Do you really believe that? Do you really think that we'll assist in the dismantling of Musharaff's regime a year from the end? Two years from the end? Doesn't that just look the slightest bit shady from the rest of the world's point of view? "Thanks for your help with the whole taliban thing, but this whole terrorism thing has got to stop. Oh yeah, we know you've been doing it for a years, but now that we're not using you, we've decided to start caring." Besides when is the end? The taliban is already done. al queda will never be completely dead. Pockets of al queda support will remain around the world (including in Afghanistan) forever. When can we draw the line and say we're done? When will we no longer need Pakistani intelligence? It will always be helpful to fight terrorism. The question is when are we going to work hard enough to find an alternative to them. As for the limited resources, you know as well as anybody that we can stretch our resources whenever we want to. Our resources are only limited by our will.
TL: As far as Pakistan goes... Well let me put it this way: The Indians are extremely pissed right now. We are most likely the only thing that's holding them back right now. When we're done with Pakistan, we might not feel like holding them back anymore. Pakistan will have to be dealt with at some point. Maybe not this year, maybe not next year, maybe not for a couple of years. But as long as they have a large fundamentalist base and an unstable nuclear stockpile, they will be a threat. At some point in the future that threat will have to be dealt with. I am wrong on timetables at least half of the time, but usually right about substance on issues like this, so I'll just leave it at "at some vague point in the future the Pakistan issue will be addressed". When is it over? Never. But when we've removed a couple of the more tangible threats (Al Qaeda's global support structure, Saddam/Iraq issue, Somalia, plus coming to arrangements with Iran, Syria, Libya, etc), we can relax a bit. But there is no point at which we can claim "This war is over". To think otherwise is to misunderstand the situation. Our resources are not infinite. Especially our military resources, which (unlike their WWII counterparts) cannot be replaced or added on to terribly quickly. One or two conflicts at a time is all we really want to have to deal with militarily. But diplomatically/politically and economically you can bet that the fronts are many...
