Petraeus: The Surge is Working, Premature Pull-Out Would Be Devastating

Bush's speech tonight was particularly over the top ~ seemed very odd to me especially the letter from the dead soldiers parents.

 

My wife and I were watching the prompter and the other people in the room in the reflection on the windows behind W. Were we supposed to be listening to him?

 

FB, the situation in Pakistan is far more complicated than you might believe. The fact is that they have been attempting to do something in the Tribal Region for years. To paraphrase a friend of mine, that area hasn't been under anyone's control for centuries. Did you know that Pakistan has had 100,000 troops in the region for years? That since 2004, they have suffered 1,000 dead, and far more wounded, and that right now, they have over 200 soldiers held prisoner, some threatened with death if the government doesn't "hold off" with their efforts in the area? That the regular soldiers in their military, which is arguably the strongest institution in the country and, as much as we may not like some of their actions, one of the only things holding it together, are increasingly refusing to fight in the area?

Here's something from the Times. Not our NY Times, but the online version of the London Times. Courtesy of my friend, a member here of long standing.

From Times Online
September 12, 2007

Pakistan soldiers kidnapped by militants

Jeremy Page and Zahid Hussain in Islamabad

Taleban militants kidnapped 12 Pakistani soldiers and threatened to kill 240 more already in captivity in the country’s northwest today, dealing an embarrassing blow to President Musharraf.

The kidnappings came as John Negroponte, the US Deputy Secretary of State, met top officials in Islamabad to discuss co-operation, particularly on fighting Taleban and al-Qaeda militants on the border with Afghanistan.

Mr Negroponte expressed unequivocal support for General Musharraf, only two days after the president controversially deported Nawaz Sharif, the former Prime Minister whom he ousted in a coup in 1999.

“Your country is both a close friend and a long-standing reliable ally of the United States,” Mr Negroponte told a news conference. “We stand ready to assist you whenever you may call upon us.”

Mr Sharif’s deportation to Saudi Arabia, four hours after returning from seven years’ exile, appeared to violate a Supreme Court ruling and has been widely condemned inside and outside Pakistan. Mr Negroponte, however, said that it was an internal matter to be decided by the Pakistani people.

His reluctance to criticise General Musharraf reflected Washington’s conviction that the former commando is its best hope of defeating the militants who are “Talebanising” Pakistan’s tribal and volatile northwest.

But the latest kidnaps highlight the limitations of Pakistan’s military, which has 100,000 troops deployed in tribal areas and along the Afghan border, and has lost at least 1,000 in action since 2004.

Rebel tribesmen are already holding hostage more than 240 soldiers who surrendered two weeks ago in the tribal region of South Waziristan — apparently without firing a shot.

In yesterday’s pre-dawn raid, rebels armed with rocket-launchers and other weapons surrounded a security post outside the city of Bannu, on the edge of North Waziristan. The militants opened fire on the post, wounding a policeman and a soldier, before taking away 12 members of the paramilitary Frontier Constabulary, which is recruited locally.

Zulfiqar Mehsud, a spokesman for the rebels, said they would begin killing their captives if Pakistani troops “continued to kill innocent people in the tribal region”.

Army helicopter gunships and artillery pounded rebel hideouts in Northern Waziristan later in the day, killing an estimated 40 insurgents, according to military officials.

Major General Waheed Arshad, the top military spokesman, played down the significance of the abductions. But other military sources revealed that most of the first 240 soldiers captured had surrendered because they did not want to fight “their own people”. “They could have done something to get out of the situation,” a senior army officer told The Times on condition of anonymity.

There are also reports of soldiers deserting and officers being court-martialled for refusing to fight in the tribal areas.

Troops’ morale has been further eroded by a “fatwa”, or religious edict, that soldiers killed fighting militants should not be given an Islamic funeral.

Mr Negroponte dismissed suggestions that the surrenders reflected the Pakistani army’s reluctance to fight in the northwest. “There is no doubt whatsoever of Pakistan’s commitment to restoring and establishing security in that part of the country,” he said.

Even as he spoke, however, there were further signs of the mounting opposition to General Musharraf and his support for the US-led war on terror.

Imran Khan, the international cricketer turned politician, organised a protest against Mr Negroponte’s visit in Islamabad after police blocked him from entering the city of Karachi. “Musharraf has never had any legal authority but now he has lost all moral authority in Pakistan,” Mr Khan said. “He’s hanging in there through the help of the United States.”

A new poll also shows that Osama bin Laden is more popular among Pakistanis than General Musharraf. Terror Free Tomorrow, the US-based organisation behind the survey, said it “may help explain why Osama bin Laden remains at large in Pakistan and why both al-Qaeda and the Taleban have regrouped there”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2437956.ece


It is a hell of a situation. As distasteful as we might find General Musharraf, what alternatives are there? And what happens if, like the Sheik in Anbar Province today, he is killed tomorrow? What then? Complete chaos?




D&D. Impeach Bush. Thank You.

 

Most likely it would be more of the same, Sharif or Bhutto or some other military figure - would come to power. Pakistan has changed leaders before, it will do it again. I don't feel like getting into it in depth but it is equally likely that Musharraf is only portrayed as unitary and moderating because his presence stirs everything up.

 

It's bad, and I understand why Musharraf is doing what he's doing, and made the deals he's made. But we have to act in our best interest, not that dictators.

 

violating a country's borders without their permission is an attack. There's no other way around it. If we had some crazy's anti-muslim group festering in Texas and Iran decided to bomb them out of existence, that's still an attack on the United States. You can't do that.

Pakistan is an ally. They have been for decades. Was it misguided for Nixon to ally with Pakistan vs. India? Yes. But I am speaking as an American, and as an American, I know that it is Pakistan that is our ally and we owe them the respect of not violating thier borders.

 

No, I think gov't is never given a free pass on accountability. The elections of 2006 and now in 2008 will prove out accountability. The Republican party has taken big hits and will likely lose a lot of power. If not the executive branch, Congress will continue to sway more democratic. Accountability in democracy is generally not a problem.

And I advocate impeaching Bush. I think he's terrible president and should be held accountable - it's actually you who has argued against that...so it's surprising to see that you're not talking accountability of the gov't. To me, Bush is a lame duck and irrelevant, a cancer that's soon to pass. We all know he screwed up and was terrible - what else is there to do?

I believe Patreaus....and this one more year stuff isn't from him, but retired generals. Why is it that you trust retired generals when they speak out against the war, but when they say something along the lines that might be used to argue for continued presence, it's all b.s.????

I think the expression might be "cherry picking". Anyway, I don't think it's unrealistic to believe that considering the study says we need another year, and now Patraeus is actually working to give Iraqi forces repsonsibility and has proven he can improve a situation....and when you consider that it's going to take years to withdrawl...it makes sense to do it in a way to maximize success.

And if it's about soldiers lives...you have to be careful that withdrawing too much doesn't jeoperdize the soldiers lives who remain behind. It's not going to reduce casualities if we leave our troops in a more precarious position.

 

Patraeus' own boss apparently thinks the General is a sycophant which is what I've been saying all along. You can continue to believe that he isn't Bush's hand picked toady if you wish. The reason the retired general's carry more weight and credibility is they were right, and removed for disagreeing with Bush. So Bush picked someone who would agree with him, and Petraeus' own boss called him on it.

We also know that Fallon, who is Petraeus' boss has been calling for troop withdrawl for some time.

 

Again violating their borders should not be the first option. Nobody is suggesting that it is. But harboring the leaders of Al-Qaeda isn't acting as an ally, and if it continues then ally status should be removed, and we should act.

There are plenty of steps, diplomatic incentives, sticks and carrots that should be used before it even gets to that. But if we lose Pakistan as an ally and destroy Al-Qaeda leadership in the meantime, then so be it. That's a net positive for the U.S.

 

That is a VERY tough call. Obama may be right but speaking about it during a campaign wasn't a good idea IMO.

I agree with you on Fallon. I forgot to mention him in an earlier post and I'm getting tired of this debate. People who want to rationalize and believe the rubbish coming from Petraeus (as if he's the Captain America of generals) and Bush won't be convinced no matter what has happened or how logical you are. Petraeus is the latest bait on the hook Bush wants America to swallow.

 

No one has accused Patreaus of playing politics during his testimony the last few days - in fact, he's been honest and his statements have been said as much to be that. He's a good general who has the esteem of both democrats and republicans...why do you have to rip him apart because his boss is Bush?

 

Not a net positive if it turns into a theocratic state like Iran, which is not an impossibility. Remember the axiom I said before the stupid invasion of Iraq... wars have unintended consequences. God knows, we've seen that happen the last few years, haven't we?

Going in secretly with special forces, with good intelligence, absolutely. We should be doing that. We should have been doing that for a while. Should have done it immediately after the fiasco at Tora-Bora. Secretly. We have arguably the best special forces in the world... certainly in the top three. Blundering around in the Tribal Region with an invasion force would be an act of madness, in my opinion. Sneak in fast, hit hard, and play dirty. Then deny everything.



D&D. Impeach the Living Embodiment of the Peter Principal.

 

Obama suggested that.

And Pakistan doesn't harbour Al Qaeda - to harbour is to actively provide shelter and protection. Musarraf has been fighting Al Qaeda and trying to root them out despite the fact it puts him at risk.

You act like Pakistan has failed to do anything, let me remind you that our own forces were unable to catch Bin Laden. What if Pakistan had found out there were terrorist cells in the U.S. with aims against Pakistan and they felt we didn't do enough - does that mean they can send a commando unit here and knock out those groups?

No man. What was Obama thinking? You expect that stuff from Bush - and Obama really screwed up because he was trying to sound tough and just showed his inexperience.

 

You think Bush showed competence at everything he did prior to getting bumped up to President?

 

He's still riding the crest of his Peter Principal wave. One of the longest rides in history.



D&D. Impeach the Living Embodiment of the Peter Principal.

 

Deck, I think Stupid means GWB never show any particular competence at anything, at any level before he became President whereas the Peter Principle asserts that people actually have some competence at levels below the highest one they are promoted to.

Yale legacy, C student, failed oilman, lost congressional race, avoided military commitment, ceremonial governor etc.

He did advance to a point where he could fly a jet fighter, you don't get to do that by being a boob though.

 

Actually Obama never suggested that. You are mischaracterizing what he said. What he said was that if Pakistan didn't take care of them the U.S. would. That is not suggesting first option violation of their borders. Obama's policy is sound.

Pakistan made a truce with the terrorists in that area, and they aren't really actively trying to get them. They are fighting extremist groups in their nation, but they aren't going after Al-Qaeda leadership with any real zeal and effort. Making truces and allowing them to stay there does equal harboring.

Your analogy is another misrepresentation of what was suggested. Nobody suggests that simply because they are there the U.S. can go after them. The suggestion is that we work with Pakistan to deal with the issue. If Pakistan can't or won't deal with it, then we will.

In addition the leadership there aren't just people that plan to attack the U.S. They are leaders who did attack the U.S. and killed 3,000 of our citizens. If a terrorist group attacked another country like Pakistan, then came to the U.S. planned on future attacks against Pakistan, and we made a truce with them, and allowed them to stay here, then absolutely the should be able to go after them with a commando unit.

Again as far as Musharraf's risks, they only concern me as far as they can be used to in diplomacy to get him to really take out the Al-Qaeda leadership. He is a crackpot dictator, and not someone that we should be particularly concerned with protecting.

 

While it's not an impossibility that Pakistan would turn into a theocracy run by extremists it is extremely unlikely. The extremists there are only a small percentage of the population and political groups. In whatever elections they do have there, the extremists parties combined only brought in 10% of the vote.

And even if they do turn into a theocracy like Iran, I don't see it as much worse than having Musharraf in power now. Without a theocracy they are already allowing terrorist groups to use their mountainous regions as HQ, selling nuclear secrets to North Korea, etc.

I agree with you that it can be done with special forces. But going in with special forces is still a violation of their borders.

 

ACtually both Republicans and Democrats have accused Patraeus of playing politics, and his own boss believes he's a sycophant.

You can believe what you want about him. His direct superior and many others have a different opinion.

 

At the risk of tarnishing my anti-Bush credentials, I thought he did OK as governor. But the leap from Texas Governor to President is a vast chasm and the Peter Principle more than applies.