Like a Snowball Rolling Down a Hill

13 Replies to “Like a Snowball Rolling Down a Hill”

1. I think the US would have been hammering them even harder had this not been an election year.
   McCain, forward and win, Obuma, retreat, yap and point fingers.

2. This is outrageous.
   How can Toronto bring in Pakistani freedom fighters if the US keeps killing them off?

3. This just highlights the importance of negotiating with the Taliban, assuming that we can establish the subjunctive mood that we’re negotiating in.

4. Soooo? Just who IS this guy from the UK who says we can’t win this war? Full speed ahead guys and gals!!! They say it will cost each household in Canada $1500 to prosecute this war with the Taliban. Great! Can I pay my share now?!?! I’d even be willing to pay more – say – for the pissant NDP TalibanJack J–koffs. Keep the lead flying at’em guys.

5. *
   i’ve been watching this campaign ramping up for a while now. obviously someone is taking advantage of the little hiatus in governance in pakistan to triple-f a few high value targets.
   and for the bush government… it’s kind of a “now or never” situation, isn’t it.
   also, i’m sure all the special ops people are thinkin’ they’d better get their licks in… in case “barry o” actually takes the prize and tries to turn the u.s. military into the world’s biggest search & rescue team.
   *

6. neo:
   Barry O actually was the first guy to come out and say the trouble is based in Pakistan … and that if he were elected president, he’d go into Pakistan.
   Another thing I like about Barry O’s campaign … he points out the Iraq government is awash in money and they should pick up more costs of the reconstruction.

7. SYF
   That’s a pretty conservative point of view. I like it !

8. “McCain, forward and win, Obuma, retreat, yap and point fingers.”
   Next time try to listen to what Obama has to say before zoning out just because you don’t agree with him. He has taken a far more proactive line on Pakistan than McCain, who wants to negotiate and charm his way into a country whose newest President is a certified lunatic – deemed too unfit to stand trial by a New York based Psychiatrists.

9. Obama won’t go into Pakistan, regardless of what he says on the stump. And if he does, he’ll only tiptoe, have his ass handed to him, and pronounce an exit strategy. To believe otherwise is sheer folly.

10. I think the change in the American approach has to due with the loss of power of Musharraf. Here’s my long-winded take on this stuff:
    The US got into a deal with Musharraf to support the overthrow of the Taliban and AQ. The US knew that Musharraf had a hand in creating and supporting the Taliban through the ISI in order to ensure Pakistani dominance over Afghanistan (Pakistan basically created the Taliban in 1994 and supported the coup of 1996 which brought the Taliban to power – later Musharraf staged a coup of Pakistan). Because of Musharraf’s support of the US – the US had to turn a blind eye to the fact that Musharref was playing both sides of the fence – Musharraf still wanted to control Afghanistan.
    The US were probably pretty happy (on one hand) when Musharraf was being forced out because it provided them an opportunity to go after the Taliban in Pakistan directly and force the hand of the new gov’t to fight the Taliban.
    The new President of Pakistan, Zardari (sp.), although saying he is against the US interventions, is probably really for it. Zardari has replaced the head ISI guys and has increased forces to combat the Taliban. In fact, I think that a lot of the information about these high value targets being hit is coming directly from Pakistani intelligence. I would not be surprised if the US succeeds in cutting off the head of the Taliban and AQ by the end of this year.

11. Reasonable analysis, cconn, although a bit overcynical, I think. One of the factors you don’t mention is that Pakistan is presumed to have nukes; this requires a certain delicacy in handling.
    Bush’s metastrategy always appears to be “go with the flow, even encourage it, and exploit the breaks if any.” In the Pakistan of the time, Musharraf or somebody like him was probably the best (or, rather, the least bad) available. He enthusiastically played both ends against the middle, but that ultimately worked against the Taliban and their ISI/military sympathizers. The United States et. al. can shrug off an absolute amount of damage that is relatively overwhelming to a smaller group like the Taliban.
    In Zardari we see the same sort of person as al-Maliki: somebody who has realized that the head of a functional State gets more perks than the boss snake in a snake-pit. The Tribal Areas, where the Taliban have their center, have never actually been part of “Pakistan”. One byproduct of the current sequence is that, if it’s successful, the Tribals get incorporated. There are others along the same lines.
    But don’t get too optimistic. Killing Taliban and Qaedists is necessary, but it’s brush-clearing, not construction. When we start seeing Anbar-like stories about tribes turning on the Taliban and cooperating with Coalition and Pakistani forces, it may mean a useful result is forthcoming.
    Regards,
    Ric

12. All liberal yap, say what you have to say to get yourself by at the time then lie about circumstances later when you don’t follow through. I hear what he saying but I don’t believe a bloody thing he does say. He is just your average liberal, a finger pointing planed excuse with a big mouth. He is nothing but a black tredeau and a street corner hustler, that I do believe.

13. The Big-O will be like all other libs; he’ll rush into conflicts, get soldiers killed, then bail out without winning just to keep the “base” happy.