Home » International » Pakistan to U.S.: You bet you’re sorry. Now get out.

Pakistan to U.S.: You bet you’re sorry. Now get out.

By Philip Ewing Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012 3:55 pm
Posted in International

The Obama administration’s internal deliberations over whether to apologize to Pakistan will make a fascinating chapter in a future Bob Woodward book.

On one side, we’ll probably hear from the members of the Defense Department camp who say: This is stupid. We had nothing to apologize for. The Pakistanis opened fire on our guys well inside the Afghan border, our aircraft did several low passes to dissuade their attack and they kept it up, so we were well within our rights to defend ourselves.

On the other side, we’ll probably hear from the White House and State Department camp saying: “Who cares? We just wanted Afghanistan to be over.” That is the side that finally won out.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement Tuesday reaffirms that more than anything else, President Obama’s central goal for the Afghan war is for it to end — yesterday. The official view seems to be that goal is worth the billions in military assistance; worth the swallowed pride; worth continuing to play patty-cake with an “ally” that harbors terrorists and backs proxies who attack Americans.

Pakistan had Washington’s arm twisted back and wasn’t going to let go until it got an “uncle.” The Pakistanis knew that without the ground supply routes, the Army’s “retrograde” from Afghanistan would have been a complex, costly nightmare. With the supply lines, logisticians can truck 10 years worth of supplies and equipment to ships in Karachi and transport them home. (Still not a walk in the park, but easier than the alternative.)

Pakistan says American war materiel is only allowed to travel south and out of Afghanistan, Clinton said: “Consistent with current practice, no lethal equipment will transit the [Ground Lines Of Communication] into Afghanistan except for equipping the ANSF.” It isn’t clear how or whether Pakistan will enforce this rule — whether it will inspect shipments to satisfy itself that nothing objectionable is getting through — but the message to the U.S. is unambiguous: Get your stuff and get out.

At this point, the U.S. seems only too happy to oblige.

Join the Conversation

	Lance July 3rd, 2012 at 4:16 pm Depressing how we need to use that scummy failed nation who supports the bad guys far more than our men in the region.
	Drake1 July 3rd, 2012 at 4:33 pm Time to end it.
	greg July 3rd, 2012 at 4:52 pm (Still not a walk in the park, but easier than the alternative.) what is the alternative?
	Engineer July 3rd, 2012 at 4:56 pm Pull out or last piece of equipment and last man and then bomb them the next day back to the 14th century .…..wait.….…. they are already there.
	Russ July 3rd, 2012 at 5:24 pm The Obama Administration should have told the Pakistanis that for every dollar higher in tariffs and taxes that they added for each vehicle to transit their country the U.S would subtract $20,000.00 in aid. With their economy in such dire straits I believe they would beg us to transit the country for free. Also the Haqqani network overran a Pakistani army position last week. 17 soldiers were captured alive. A few days later the heads of those 17 soldiers were found after they had been beheaded( slaughtered) as they call it. Pakistan when are you going to learn that you cant play both sides.
	ghostwhowalksnz July 3rd, 2012 at 5:30 pm Does having their own nuclear weapons sound very 14th century to you ?
	Drake1 July 3rd, 2012 at 5:31 pm That’s about all they got.
	ghostwhowalksnz July 3rd, 2012 at 5:32 pm They can and do. End of that argument.
	orly? July 3rd, 2012 at 5:47 pm And having them thinking that using them against their next door neighbor won’t have consequences? Yeah, that’s 14th century logic right there.
	Drake1 July 3rd, 2012 at 6:04 pm 14th century logic is choosing to allow a vast swath of un-governed territory in your own borders. They already interfere in their neighbors internal politics bu supporting terrorists groups that operate in Afghanistan.
	Big-Rick July 3rd, 2012 at 6:18 pm just another failed foreign policy of the current administration if we have no influence over an “ally” whom we supply billions of dollars in aid to, who can we can any influence over? I say we get the hell out of the ‘stan, say to Karzai, “good luck with the Taliban”, and then stop ALL aid to our crappy friend in Pakistan and say to them “good luck with India.”
	ghostwhowalksnz July 3rd, 2012 at 6:34 pm How does the ungoverned chaos in Mexico on your border look ? … does it really mean its the US fault , and its the 14th century in Texas ? Let it go ..man
	ghostwhowalksnz July 3rd, 2012 at 6:35 pm That worked well, from 1900 to 1939 . How did that turn out in 1914 and 1941
	moebius22 July 3rd, 2012 at 7:11 pm So the ungoverned regions in Pakistan are analogous to Mexican violence spilling over the border into the U.S.? Maybe you should let it go, since you can’t form good analogies.
	Robert Birdwell July 3rd, 2012 at 7:48 pm Yes, it does. Some evil men from Germany and the Failed Soviet Union were well paid to travel to 14th Century Pakistan and build them some A-Bombs. Just because they have A-Bombs they will never understand how to build doesn’t mean they’re not 14th Century hicks and barbarians. That’s like saying since Bill and Hillary were paid millions by the Saudi’s for betraying the Serbian Christians, that having money they never earned makes them somehow successful and upstanding. No it doesn’t. They’re still psychopaths, liars, murderers and thieves.
	majr0d July 3rd, 2012 at 8:07 pm Your suggestion? I’m not for returning Afghanistan to the same regime that let 911 be planned and launched from their territory. Those that think emotionally just say pull out and let “them” deal with it fail to realize WE are “them” after the next attack. Basically it’s the Clinton approach (husband). Let “someone else” deal with the problem. What’s your approach?
	Belesari July 3rd, 2012 at 8:47 pm Did clinton bring up the constant raids by Taliban from pakistain or the pakistaini weapons and supplies constantly coming into afghanistain. Or the fact that we have had fire come from pakistani territory.…… No didnt think so.
	majr0d July 4th, 2012 at 3:06 am How?
	Thunder350 July 4th, 2012 at 3:14 am Our special forces community in conjunction with our intelligence services can easily “deal” with any threats that pop up. Or just send a armed UAV overhead to drop them a gift. Saves western lives and A LOT of money that we don’t have to spend.
	STemplar July 4th, 2012 at 3:20 am Leave.
	STemplar July 4th, 2012 at 3:23 am No one said anything about turning a blind eye to burgeoning threats from any country. Clinton did nothing. To maintain the policy in Stan currently is a waste. We don’t want to fight a war across the Pak border and we can’t turn dark age barbarians into Harvard grads. We can’t accomplish either, so just leave.
	majr0d July 4th, 2012 at 3:55 am Sorry, unless you are throwing your hands up in the air and admitting yeah let’s give Afghanitan back to the Taliban you aren’t offering a solution. You’re kicking the can down the road. That’s what Clinton did.
	majr0d July 4th, 2012 at 4:14 am Thunder — No, you’re falling for the great special ops panacea fallacy. You’ll note we are effective with spec ops in countries where we have a friendly gov’t or a nearby safe and secure location from which to launch strikes (e.g. Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Phillipines). No doubt special ops were key in toppling the Taliban but everyone seems to forget the Afghans provided the troops to push the Taliban out of the country. Air power and special ops didn’t do it alone. They sided with us because they believed we’d change things. Don’t bet they want to be our friends again after abandoning them to a vengeful Taliban and don’t think we’re going to have the human intel assets in country to tell us where the enemy or next plot is coming from..
	majr0d July 4th, 2012 at 4:37 am That’s not a plan. That’s an emotional answer. Like I said below… “Sorry, unless you are throwing your hands up in the air and admitting yeah let’s give Afghanitan back to the Taliban you aren’t offering a solution” I’ll support pulling out when there’s a plan in place to keep another attack from coming from Afghanistan. Remember, “all enemies foreign and domestic”.
	Benjamin July 4th, 2012 at 9:30 am The only way to remove Afghanistan as a threat to the U.S. and other countries is by staying in country until that country is economically capable of functioning. That may take a generation or so. Afghanistan does have natural resources that have gone untapped because of the wars. If the U.S. leaves now Afghanistan will revert back to a failed state because that is what Pakistan wants. Fortunately for Pakistan, Obama does not care if Afghanistan becomes a failed state again.
	Archy Cary July 4th, 2012 at 11:19 am I was a small part of the effort to make the early rendition of the Afghanistan strategy work in Vietnam. Didn’t work there. Isn’t working now in Afghanistan. When will we ever learn? Apparently, never. FormM SGT, 5th SFG, RVN
	moebius22 July 4th, 2012 at 1:06 pm Never right Biden was finally right. Keep Special Forces on the ground and drones in the air. That’s all we can do unless we want to nuke Pakistan (which I wish we could do).
	STemplar July 4th, 2012 at 1:10 pm I’m throwing my hands up in the air and admitting that this nation is not prepared to commit the resources necessary to ‘beat’ the Taliban. Since we are not willing to do that, there is no reason to maintain an occupation sized force there, we aren’t accomplishing anything except giving them targets to shoot at. We are leaving incidentally, the recent ‘apology’ to the Paks with the caveat that offensive weapon system can only move out through their nation means we are leaving. My answer is not emotional, it is a concise expression of the facts as they relate to what is occurring on the ground and the steps that are being taken.
	STemplar July 4th, 2012 at 1:17 pm It isn’t me major, look at the news. France handed over its province today. We apologized to the Paks and will only move offensive gear out. Two of our services are posturing and positioning to counter the Chinese. We are “pivoting” to the Pacific. We are leaving. Frankly the Taliban will never have the level of control they had before. We abandoned Stan after the Cold War, now we will throw money at anyone who isn’t the Taliban and the result will be the Taliban will never have the resources to rule the roost like they did. Will Stan be a happy place? Nope, it never has been. Are we as blind to the threats as we were pre 9/11? Not even close. Continuing to occupy a nation that is socially and culturally in the dark ages does nothing except get a lot of kids from America killed and maimed that don’t need to be. I apologize to you major, but standing around in a country while your enemy walks back and forth across an imaginary line on a map to rest and reset while you do close to nothing is just plain dumb. It is everything that was wrong with Vietnam and why we left there too, we aren’t willing to cross that border and stomp the Haqqani and Taliban properly, so there is no reason to stay.
	majr0d July 4th, 2012 at 3:47 pm Approving of stupid decisions because everyone else is doing so doesn’t make it right or absolve oneself of responsibility. If so Congress and the Pres are doing fine with the budget. My point is to get a discussion of options. No one is telling the American people of the costs of this action. Do your remember our withdrawl from Somalia. Granted, there are some key differences but it was the withdrawl based on two dozen KIA and dead soldiers dragged through the streets that got us running and convinced Bin Laden Americans would withdraw when faced with casualties, that we have no determination. Maybe he was right? I agree the Pakistan sanctuary is unacceptable. Unfortunately dealing with it involves raising stakes dramatically in the region. Just because the politicians don’t have the stomach for it doesn’t mean pulling out is right. The American people didn’t support the Civil War before Gettysburgh. I guess we should have sued for peace and left slavery in place? Granted it’s not easy. The right thing rarely is. Even if most Americans want to kick the can down the road, I can’t. Making excuses for it doesn’t make it the best course of action though it’s very cool with the cynical crowd, the pinkos and the anti-war OWS types.
	majr0d July 4th, 2012 at 3:59 pm Mobius — See my answer toThunder this thread. Special Ops isn’t a panacea. If we can’t keep the Taliban from conducting spectacular raids in the capital and maintain a cauldrom of crap on the border what rational person things LESS assets is going to do better. Our special forces are awesome. Asking them to do the impossible is setting them up for failure. That’s good niether for them or the nation. Templar, I agree the politicians and the nation doesn’t have the will. We didn’t before gettysburgh either but we had a leader committed to “victory” even if it cost him an election. I’ve never been a “get along to go along type”. We should be taking the opposite tack in the region. Confront Pakistan, ally with India and finish this crap. The reason we have had a decade of war in Afghanistan is because we didn’t do that after Tora Bora.
	TMB July 4th, 2012 at 4:56 pm Flying everything for 100 times the cost of ground transport or leaving stuff behind.
	TMB July 4th, 2012 at 5:03 pm Basic international politics Russ — we need them far more than they need us. That’s why they got their apology. If we stopped giving them aid, they’d turn an even blinder eye towards the Taliban forces that cross their borders. They’re willing to live with hostile Taliban in their backyard if it means having a foot in the door in Afghanistan. The Pakistani government probably thinks “they’re terrorists, but they’re our terrorists.” When Musharraf was running the place, we convinced him to launch a couple offensives into the border regions. It was a slaughter on both sides. Pakistan has a pretty big military and most of it is still pointed at India. Dealing with the Taliban is a tradeoff they’re willing to live with.
	Drake1 July 4th, 2012 at 5:48 pm I realize it isn’t a panacea, but what we are doing now is not sustainable. Part of pillars of the strategy was to work with the Pakistanis to deny refuge in Pakistan. That’s not going to happen, so one of the pillars of the strategy is a failure. Karzai neither has the stomach to do what he has to do to win this war. Afghan soldiers seem to be willing to fight as long as we back them, while also showing a penchant for shooting our service members in the back. An Afghan police unit of over 50 men surrendered to the enemy today. I can’t ask good men and women to die anymore for this train wreck, when we have terrorists (including al-queda) in other countries where we do not have this sort of footprint.
	donbacon July 4th, 2012 at 5:51 pm Why did you delete the entry phrase? probably b/c it makes no sense. But that’s Clinton. Clinton: “Foreign Minister Khar has informed me that, consistent with current practice, no lethal equipment will transit the GLOC into Afghanistan except for equipping the ANSF.”
	anonymous July 4th, 2012 at 7:51 pm so much for the peace and humanity, hard to believe some people calling out for nuking whole country in that region without realizing not all of them are alike well who cares only Americans have the right to be called civilized superior human being rest of the world can go die, especially that part.
	majr0d July 5th, 2012 at 12:04 am You might not be able to “ask good men and women to die anymore for this train wreck”. Will that change when we are attacked again and we have to send troops back to a country whose population remember we left them to the taliban? Maybe but it will be infintely harder. The northern alliance isn’t going to be too enthused tyo throw their lot in with us again. Again, very short term perspective with no consideration what the consequences will be.
	orly? July 5th, 2012 at 12:39 am You do realize many of them have asked for the nuking of our country for decades? They have named us unworthy, we have merely done the same. While I do not condone the nuking of Pakistan for the actions of a minority, they are guilty of many wrongs to their own people as well as to the West
	majr0d July 5th, 2012 at 12:41 am Ben — You got the negs because that’s not a popular answer and making them economically viable is whole new war. At least you tried. Not one freakin countersuggestion. No wonder the country is broke and no one fixes the problems. Whiners. I for one don’t want Americans to be there forever. There’s A LOT of things we could do short of what you describe. We started and then waffled. We keep forgetting the way we got Pakistan to play ball after 911 when they were the ONLY allies of the Taliban. We threatened their regime. Three different strategies. 1. Take out the sanctuaries. Prep the people with the facts of Pakistan’s treachery. Do the UN thing. Any nation that doesn’t exercise sovereinty over its territory and is allowing attacks from that territory on a neighbor conducting a war of aggression against a neighbor. Do it through NATO but make a very public show that we’re going after the sanctuaries. Limited action and then we are LEAVING. Pakistan has to decide what side of the fence they want to be on. If Pakistan closes the supply lines, blockade them. They send troops, fine, sign a treaty with India beforehand so they have to worry about a two front war. High risk but it solves the problem. The greatest shortcoming of this strategy is the world doesn’t believe us anymore. If we had done this after 911 we’d have been out of Afghanistan by ’03. 2. Make Pakistan responsible for Afghanistan. Make a very clear doctrine announcement. “Pakistan has elements in it that want to rule Afghanistan and will not take action against them. If those elements gain power in Afghanistan PAKISTAN will be held responsible for any action or inaction of those elements. We will also consider a massive terror strike as 1st use of a WMD by PAKISTAN.” Sign a mutual defense pact with India. I’d also like to drop a nuke in the Indian ocean but that would hurt India (and the fish). 3. Turnabout is fair play. Pakistan makes trouble for us, return the favor. Pakistan has a xenophobic fear of India. EVERYTHING they do is done with an eye to India. Let’s give them a reason to be so focused and let them know beforehand what we are willing to do. Those domstic terrorists might not be such a good idea anymore. Think KASHMIR. India. Internal unrest. Just get their nukes or have them targeted. Our greatest weakness (besides casualties) is a supply line. Pakistan won’t help, go through Kashmir. This is of course very ugly. War IS ugly. We’ve convinced the world that we want peace at any cost that now it’s open season. My favorite is #2 but that requires the same iron will that made MAD work for almost half a century. Being we have a huge crowd who wants to cut and run I doubt there’s much spine among them but they’ll be hollering the loudest after the next terror attack and playing armchair quarterback with 20/20 hindsight. There will be some coming to the defense of Pakistan. Pause before you type. Pakistan harbored Bin Laden for FOUR YEARS in an Army town and next to their West Point. Quit fooling yourself as to who the enemy is. (BTW, that was another GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY to read the riot act to Pakistan. We NEVER got an answer. Hmmmmm, who’s fault is that?)
	STemplar July 5th, 2012 at 3:43 am The problem is all the attacking going on against America isn’t coming from Pak major. It’s just the Taliban hating us there. The real attempts to attack America over the last decade have been originating in Somalia and Yemen. We aren’t solving anything by remaining in Stan for as long as we have.
	Vitesse et Puissance July 5th, 2012 at 7:13 am There is a problem with this picture. SF on the ground and drone strikes into Pakistani territory are equally infractions against their sovereignty. I fail to see how advocating such measures is really addressing Pakistan’s complaints. OTH, we have a perfectly legitimate right to do what we have been doing in Afghanistan ? And since Pakistan itself has nukes, if you are going to escalate, you’d better get in and get the nukes and make sure you get ‘em all. Otherwise, you’re just wasting your time and putting our people at risk. There is of course an alternative — we could withdraw from Afghanistan — through Iran.
	Vitesse et Puissance July 5th, 2012 at 7:21 am One should ask, “Why does the USA ‘need’ Pakistan ?” And the only real answer is that they are in the way, literally and figuratively speaking. Eventually a nation that overuses that account ends up getting its bluff called. This all would be a lot easier if the Russian government behaved in a reasonable manner in accord with its enlightened self-interests. But instead we have a Russian government that lives in the past and gets by off its energy resources. Still, we should look for a way out of the trap. If we are all so fired up about “off-shore balancing”, then go all the way and develop stronger seaborne and airborne capability to project power into the Eurasian hinterland.
	Vitesse et Puissance July 5th, 2012 at 7:25 am The other option is to hand things over to India and the Northern Alliance and let them take matters into their own hands. The only problem with that approach is risk — you could end up with WWIII on your hands.
	Zak July 5th, 2012 at 8:58 am Staying there without a real logistics line isn’t a solution either. Before we can commit to staying there we need to establish a supply line that isn’t subject to blackmail.
	Zak July 5th, 2012 at 9:07 am We can’t just force a solution on the Afghan people — the people in Afghanistan need to decide what kind of country they will have. They’ve never really been a country as they’ve never had a national outlook. They are really a bunch of independent tribes that happen to live near each other. We can help them if they choose to become like us by respecting rule of law instead of rule of force, respecting individual liberties, and freedom but until they make that decision they are going nowhere. The idea that democracy fixes evertyhing is utterly false. It’s just one piece of the solution that the USA found. The war in Afghanistan is not a war we will win alone — it”s a war the Afghani people need to be a part of and in fact they are the key.
	Zak July 5th, 2012 at 9:08 am It isn’t just the current administration — Bush pretended Pakistan was our friend too.
	Zak July 5th, 2012 at 9:09 am That’s not a viable option without a supply line that is free from blackmail.
	moebius22 July 5th, 2012 at 10:19 am I just ask why we insist on occupying this country when we don’t use the same approach in other nations where we know al-queda resides?
	John July 5th, 2012 at 11:16 am Bring our troops home when we’re gone they will still be fighting for the next thousand years not one thousand of them is worth one of our troopers
	PolicyWonk July 5th, 2012 at 11:53 am There is an old saying (don’t recall who said it first) that “those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it…”. This is/was lamentably true in Afghanistan, as was agreed to in the background in Stanley McCrystal’s Afghanistan Assessment (2009), and the opinion of the British Foreign Service. Very sad indeed that we all ended up paying the price.
	WarPony July 5th, 2012 at 12:48 pm George Santayana
	WarPony July 5th, 2012 at 12:54 pm If anyone thinks a mere “apology” did the trick, then your knowledge of this “den-of-theives” culture is limited. Surely it was bribes. So, when the equipment is in final retrograde — cut the foreign aid to the paks.
	Yellow Devil July 5th, 2012 at 1:07 pm True, but I doubt he ever issued an apology to them. Plus I do recall Bush expanding relations to India.
	majr0d July 5th, 2012 at 3:08 pm Templar — Yes we are. We are preventing another failed state to serve as a launch pad for 911 Part II. When you and those that think like you have a plan to keep that from happening I’ll gladly consider it. Just leaving is akin to police stopping surveillance of an organized crime ring because they haven’t had any successful crimes lately. Zak — good point. A supply line is a must.. Moebius — two differences. Those other countries have not launched large coordinated terrorist attacks. None of those launched attacks succeeded.
	Big-Rick July 5th, 2012 at 3:12 pm that’s well said Zak the one thing most people don’t realize about the rest of the world, especially third world countries, is that they will never become free, democratic nations for the simple fact that the people can’t comprehend anything different then what they are used to. They don’t have the culture, education, nor the background to accept democratic ideals. If we look at the founding of democratic type of government in the U.S. if didn’t happen in a vacuum. The leaders were well educated, the country was ready for freedom in term of culture and infrastructure, and they all understood what it meant. It was the perfect petrie dish. That’s why third world countries will always be third world-because they have no bases of understanding and nor do they want to understand anything different. So the best thing we can do for Afganistan is to damage the Taliban infrastructure as much as possible, try to prepare the population for something better, put a strong but fair leader in place. continue to train their security forces, and then be on our way, with the stern warning if they return to their terrorist exporting ways then we will bomb them back to the stone age.
	majr0d July 5th, 2012 at 3:14 pm Did you miss the part about Kashmir?
	Fab 290 July 5th, 2012 at 8:18 pm I better not say anything…!
	majr0d July 5th, 2012 at 8:32 pm What solution am I forcing on the Afghans? Where did I say Democracy fixes everything? Not that it doesn’t but where did I bring in political systems? Uh, I didn’t. Why does the Taliban in PAKISTA get to decide how afghans live? more importantly “respect” for other people’s choices doesn’t include being a threat to me. You’re attempting to obfuscating the issue “how to keep Afghanistan from becoming a terror paradise again?”. BiG Rick — I don’t believe it’s our responsibility to spread democracy but I also don’t believe the mildly racist idea that Democracy isn’t for everyone. What? Uneducated people around the world don’t deserve an opportunity to vote? “Other people” don’t have culture or infrastructure for Democracy? Wow, never knew one had to have a judeo christian outlook or road network to be democratic. How did our founding fathers or the Greeks for that matter manage?
	TMB July 5th, 2012 at 10:46 pm “How did our founding fathers or the Greeks for that matter manage?” By fighting very bloody wars and convincing the occupying power that they wanted it bad enough. I haven’t seen that in Afghanistan. I didn’t see much of it in Iraq. You have to want democracy. You can’t force it on someone and expect it to work. Their government and a pretty big chunk of the people don’t want us there and side with the Taliban, so unless we’re prepared to forcibly occupy Afghanistan for a couple generations and fight both its people and the Taliban at the same time, we have no real way of preventing the Taliban from taking over. My unit was witness to a suicide bomber blowing himself up and taking out a number of civilians. We and the Afghan police came to help. The survivors didn’t say F* the Taliban! they said “go home USA.” We’ve worn out our welcome in many parts of Afghanistan.
	ltfunk2 July 6th, 2012 at 2:00 am The Pakistanis would just laugh. We have a military that can’t fight it’s way out of a paper bag and you want to run a supply route through Kashmir LOL. Expanding a losing war is always the naive armchair solution, it never works and just makes the defeat larger.
	majr0d July 6th, 2012 at 2:31 am That message brought to you from our local Al Qeada affiliate :)
	ltfunk2 July 6th, 2012 at 4:13 am Yea because we own the dreams Al Queada owns reality. LOL
	majr0d July 6th, 2012 at 5:06 am Were you there in 2000 where the Northern Alliance had been fighting the Taliban for four years and suffered 15 massacres at the hands of the Taliban according to the UN? No matter I’m not defending the Afghans nor am I making the case for a Democracy in either country. Read my posts, again.. Recommend you take a step back and consider what your position is. Are you saying like many here we need to up and leave? What of the sacrifice of our comrades? What’s the plan for going back and finishing the job when even the Northern Alliance will feel we are the enemy? Keep in mind your experience isn’t indicative of the whole country and even if it was it still doesn’t secure our nation from yet another terror stronghold. THAT’s the mission. Check out my suggestions and strategies. I’m not the enemy but quitting is exactly what the enemy is counting on.
	majr0d July 6th, 2012 at 5:12 am Zak — very true. Bush went from telling the Pakistanis “you either help us or we go through you” to turning an blind eye to increasing Pakistani treachery. The present occupant has NEVER read the riot act to the Pakistanis even when we found Bin Laden living next to their West Point for four years. On the contrary he tried to molly their outrage at being caught (go figure) with giving them credit and not holding them to account even as they let the chinese examine the remains of a Stealth Blackhawk.
	Zak July 6th, 2012 at 8:43 am they have to win their own cultural war — we can’t do it for them. If they had a movement for being free from militants like the Kurds do then it would be a much different situation.
	Zak July 6th, 2012 at 8:45 am yes, the current administration has been much weaker in general and towards Pakistan specifically but let’s not pretend Bush was perfect either.
	Zak July 6th, 2012 at 8:53 am yes I did. I like the idea of supplying via Kashmir but it would be very difficult as the area where Kashmir and Afghanistan share a border is mountainous and no road currently exists so we’d have to build a road. Those mountains are even larger than our rockies so that would be an incredible engineering challenge. And we’d still have the problem of the lack of support from the Afghan people. They’ve got to want to change their culture before any freeish form of government will work.
	majr0d July 6th, 2012 at 1:03 pm Go through Peshwar. The capital of the tribal region, Pakistan isn’t exercising sovereignty over but simultaneously whining about sovereignty. I don’t buy the Afghan “people” don’t support. It’s limited to the Pashtuns and to be honest it doesn’t matter. I’m not promoting democracy. I want to get rid of the taliban that caused this whole mess in the first place so we can come home.
	majr0d July 6th, 2012 at 1:06 pm Did you miss the part where I said, “…to turning an blind eye to increasing Pakistani treachery.” Not that belaboring the past solves the present problem or bringing up Bush’s name might obfuscate the primary issue. I’m sure it’s a nice distraction to the present problem when you aren’t offering solutions besides quitting.
	majr0d July 6th, 2012 at 2:18 pm Uh, they did and do have a movement (Google “National Coalition of Afghanistan”). So according to your logic it’s “a much different solution.” but again unlike what you just said, I’m not interested in getting involved with domestic Afghan politics.
	Zak July 6th, 2012 at 3:52 pm It’s not to the same degree. And the 2 cultures are very different.
	TMB July 6th, 2012 at 4:40 pm majrod, I’m saying that unless we can convince the Afghan government to care enough about Taliban infiltration to do something about it, convince the Pakistan government to do something about it, or launch a full scale invasion of the border regions, we’re spinning our wheels with little gain for the money and manpower we’ve committed to the mission. You invoke the men we’ve lost. What about the men who will later die? What are they dying for? To give the Taliban (and their Afghan sympathizers) something to shoot at? Our men die trying to protect Afghan civilians and the Afghan leadership says they’d rather be allied with Iran and the Taliban. The enemy lives there and we don’t. Getting the foreign power to quit has always been the goal of the insurgent force in every war of this type. The only way to defeat that insurgency is to ensure the locals can do the fighting themselves and/or destroy the insurgent havens. Is fighting the Pakistan Army on your list of options? Or keeping a third of our army there for another decade or more? Even if we built an awesome Afghan Army, they had a trustworthy government, and Pakistan kept the Taliban on their side of the border, our war is still with AQ. Do we spend the next decade just taking Predator shots at them across the border?
	majr0d July 6th, 2012 at 5:23 pm TMB – You continue to fail to address the issue. How do we keep Afghanistan from becoming a terror sanctuary again or is that not a factor in your shortsighted solution? You’re a smart guy. I’ve read many of your posts but you’re missing here. Quite familiar with COIN. You aren’t applying it correctly to this situation. Think strategically. Even a fully supportive population doesn’t end an insurgency if its base of support is in a neighboring country. EVERY Afghan could love the gov’t and peace would still elude the region as Pakistan continues to bankroll the Taliban and ferment grief to subvert the gov’t. The Afghans do care about infiltration. The current Afghan administration talks worse about Pakistan than they do about us (though it’s not as publicized). Doesn’t make a bit of difference. Intentions don’t substitute for capability. We kept men in Germany and Korea for decades and they often died to deter the enemy. What did they die for? Not what I propose but this is not a precedent. We have political options. Karzai‘s up for election in 2014. The Afghans in the North aren’t happy “Partition”? Read my COAs (that I admit have zero chance of being adopted because no one has a spine in DC until we have another terror attack). Remember history. The ONLY time Pakistan blinked is when they BELIEVED their regime was being threatened. Think past COIN and consider geopolitics/history. Afghanistan is a chip to the Pakistanis in its paranoid struggle with India. Figure out how to take it off the table and the reason for Pakistani support of the Taliban disappears. Heck, invite India to secure Afghanistan. Build up a couple of Afghan armored brigades to threaten Pakistan and broker a self-defense treaty between India and Afghanistan. We don’t have to go through with any of these actions but the concrete belief by Pakistan that we will upsets the calculus they’ve been using in the region since the 80’s and breaks the link between Pakistan and the Taliban, a PAKISTANI invention. Step back and look at the bigger issues! This is chess not checkers. Pulling out with no plan doesn’t guarantee peace. It guarantees a round trip ticket.
	majr0d July 6th, 2012 at 5:24 pm Wait a minute! First you said, “If they had a movement for being free from militants like the Kurds do then it would be a much different situation.” They do. It’s called the NCA. Now you’re saying, “It’s not to the same degree. And the 2 cultures are very different.” Yeah, I didn’t see that waffle coming! (sarcasm) None-the-less it’s immaterial to my point and argument. You can’t answer what to do when Afghanistan becomes a terror state once we cut and run and you’ve been throwing stuff against the wall since to justify your “when the going gets tough, quit” approach.
	jughead July 6th, 2012 at 10:08 pm 9/11 Thats why we are there and unfortunatley we dont have an executive branch with any balls. Its not a question if we can win but r we willing to go the extra mile to make it happen and more importantly make those lives lost have real meaning. Pakistan is key to victory but it takes an executive branch willing to enforce the threats Bush had given the pakis in the beginning. Bombs may have been in that vocabulary but im sure more aid to India did even more to get pakis listening . We own that gov’t just takes real men in the wh house to deliver Obama The Sorry kind and gentle world is in childrens books not reality
	jughead July 6th, 2012 at 10:31 pm We are in other countries an d with cosiderable forces too quite a few troops left iraq but never came home. Where did they go? Couple places in region we have had troops since first gulf war. Troops are always safer witthout media and politicians infact this one could have been over if politicians stayed out and let the generals run it no holds barred
	Yeo July 6th, 2012 at 10:34 pm It is time for US to look for an alternative route in another country that are more reliable. Being held hostage is not what the US look for in a friend or ally. Do the right thing.
	ltfunk2 July 7th, 2012 at 5:13 am An we still would have lost because the sad truth is that the soldier on the ground dosent want to win he wants to go home.
	ltfunk2 July 7th, 2012 at 5:16 am When the army of soldiers fighting for thier home meets the army of soldiers fighting for secure governement jobs no amount of money will change the result. We will continue to lose in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan until our military is professionalised.
	William C. July 7th, 2012 at 6:19 am Coming up in Itfunk’s fantasy world, Taliban “freedom fighters” invade America, hand out free opium to the oppressed children, and chop off the heads of the evil defense industry workers…
	Vitesse et Puissance July 7th, 2012 at 9:15 am If you look at the Kurds’ history, one of the Kurdish parties was out-and-out Communist and the other was a Trotskyite spin-off (this is why Christopher Hitchens called them “brothers”). But the KGB had bigger fish to fry with the Baath Party. The Nothern Alliance is an amalgam of Tadjiks and Uzbeks, some of whom fought for the Soviets and some of whom fought against the Soviet — and none of whom were supported by the ISI or the CIA in the 80s. To complete the record, Karzai and Rabbani fell out with the ISI-supported Islamists in the 1990s. Rabbani, though a “moderate” Islamist, translated Qutb’s writings into Persian and was tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. That did not keep the Taliban thugs from murdering him.
	Vitesse et Puissance July 7th, 2012 at 9:22 am Karzai is a piece of work, but some of his more outrageous public remarks reflect poor diplomacy on the adminstration’s part. I don’t know if there is a magic force level that will keep the lid on the situation, but I am pretty sure that it is a number greater than zero. And this also appears to be the adminstration’s policy, even though they have done a poor job of declaring that policy. As far as the Afghan Security Forces go, I would be inclined to do two things: (1) reduce numbers in favor of quality; (2) let the tribes form militias for local security as they see fit. If you suceed in (1), you don’t have to worry about (2) leading to the downfall of the central government.
	Vitesse et Puissance July 7th, 2012 at 9:27 am As an addendum to this — and I am fully in agreement with Rod on this issue — we MUST retain the ability and have the will to redeploy forces back in their if the Afghan security forces fail and there is a prospect of the Afghan central government falling. As OEF showed, the US military absolutely has the ability to intervene decisively, with a light footprint on the ground. We should affirm that we can and will use this capability in the future, as our interests demand.
	majr0d July 7th, 2012 at 1:38 pm I’m on the fence with Karzai. He’s said some bone headed things no doubt. I’ve read a bit on his background and he seems to be a moral elader but I aslo believe he’s an idealist trying to operate in a real world which at times explains his stupidity. I would love to raise the quality fo the Afghan military but don’t support shrinking it to get that quality. 10% of the population is literate. To raise the quality of the force that has to be raised and that’s one of the things that has to be addressed not to mention the even more difficult problem of culture. That’s not going to happen quickly. We need numbers now and it’s a L O N G border. This is one of those situations where quantity is the better quality. The enemy has to deal with the same challenges in their force.
	majr0d July 7th, 2012 at 1:39 pm That’s funny!
	Vitesse et Puissance July 7th, 2012 at 2:01 pm Um, let me put it this way…when it comes to basic combat skills, these guys all stink to high heaven. The Askars — the very best of the Tadjik-centric Afghan Army — blow off small arms ammo with unaimed fire like its going out of style. And thats as good as it gets. With the exception of IEDs and suicide attacks, the only way any of our people get killed is plain bad luck. Maybe that tells us about how horrid the Cat B Soviet Army divisions that fought there really were…my point is that you need to take that trainable ten percent and make real killers out of them. And you arm them up so that they can deal with the wide open spaces and rough ground. Just sitting on people will never get this done.
	Benjamin July 7th, 2012 at 2:25 pm LOL I think conscription in the U.S was done in the 70’s.
	ltfunk2 July 7th, 2012 at 3:19 pm In William Crooks fantasy world American soldiers keep on dying in losing wars and he keeps on profiting from thier deaths. Yea hilarious
	nukes-against-rogues July 8th, 2012 at 12:49 am The sad aspect of it all is Obama’s determination to reduce our nuclear arsenal to levels below what is necessary to convert Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea et al into glow-in-the-dark glassy skateboard parks. FWIW, I do not actually condone such an action, but without the means to actually do so, there is no incentive for rogue nations to play a little nicer.
	robert fritts July 8th, 2012 at 2:50 am A Afghanistan and Pakistan with no US Aid, Military equipment or training, and most importantly no possible path to immigrate to North America will remove them as a threat to the US. This will also make the entire region safer. If Romney were to state all Americans(military, civil servant & civilians) out of ALL the STANs in 120 days, he would seal a landslide victory in November.
	Vitesse et Puissance July 8th, 2012 at 5:20 am Yes, but what would do to our country. Look at how low David Cameron’s Conservative Party has brought Great Britain. Is that the future we want for America ? Bread and circuses and everyone gets to hoard more stuff until the barbarians arrive on our doorstep ?
	Retired SSG July 8th, 2012 at 9:01 am Seems to me that you have no US Military experience. I have been there and done that and I know that there is far more to it than just jobs. We do what we do because that is what we do. You wouldn’t understand that.
	LetsLobRob July 8th, 2012 at 11:56 am We may have to extract our enemies from Pakinstan…Those darn bothersome nukes.(Call for the Seals).
	majr0d July 8th, 2012 at 12:34 pm The Soviet experience while educational isn’t as similar to our experience as many would have us believe (mostly the quit and run crowd). The Soviets faced widespread rebellion. We don’t. The Soviets threw armored and mechanized units at the enemy. We don’t. The Soviet “hearts and minds” approach was to remove those physical parts from the Afghanis. We don’t. For their efforts they lost over 14k in almost 10 years. We’ve lost 2k. All said and done I’m not sure Afghanistan is a good measure of the Soviets CAT B divisions. They all weren’t CAT B. As for better training for the better Afghans, I believe we are doing that with the most trainable Afghans. That’s where their special ops units are coming from.
	Vitesse et Puissance July 8th, 2012 at 5:01 pm I think it speaks a lot for the light fighter COIN biases in our Army that our measure of success is Afghan special forces. What I’m asking to do isn’t all that ambitious — creating an Afghan National Army as good as the 29th Infantry Division and an ANP as good as the Soviet Interior Ministry. The Russians themselves took their shot at modernizing an Afghan regime. Some of their proteges went tribal, and they never could get Khalq and Parcham to work together. But irrespective of how many Mi-24s our Stingers shot down, the Soviets would have prevailed in their own crude and brutal fashion if Gorbachev hadn’t cut and run. They did manage to lie to themselves that all would be well if they localized the conflict and let their Afghan clients shift for themselves.
	Eugene July 8th, 2012 at 5:13 pm The Republicans see a war as a way to strengthen our economy, sad but true, look at McCain chomping at the bit to go into Syria. The real reason other countries dont like us isnt because we are arrogant or beligerant, it is because we have attempted to over turn most of the nations we have gone into. south America has finally had enough of our CIA killing their presidents and trying to overthrow their governments. Any country with oil reserves has good reason to fear us.
	majr0d July 8th, 2012 at 5:47 pm No, this isn’t the light fighter mafia conspiracy you tend to gravitate to. The fact is you are dealing with a country where one in 10 can read and you think an Infantry division isn’t ambitious? Imagine a BN where the most educated guys are HS graduates, all five of them. Now think about the myriad training, planning, coordinating, supplying and administering of this 800 man organization. Now multiply that across 20 battalions, four brigades and a division staff. Should I mention the nonexistent typing, computer, maintenance and communication skills? Thinking creating a modern Infantry division in those kind of circumstances isn’t “ambitious” is as reasonable as promoting a cut and run strategy with no thought of the repercussions.
	majr0d July 8th, 2012 at 7:06 pm Uh yeah. Tell that to the Kuwaitis who’d still be getting murdered by Saddam if it wasn’t for the US. BTW, Syria is an oil poor country. The “blame America first” crowd is SOOOOOOO predictable (and so illogical).
	Benjamin July 8th, 2012 at 7:49 pm Eugene, Syria has little if any oil and I think Afghanistan has none. Does it mean Canada has a reason to fear us? We get a lot of oil from them.
	FormerDirtDart July 8th, 2012 at 10:38 pm It would seem Exxon Mobil disagrees with you on there being no oil in Afghanistan.
	Vitesse et Puissance July 8th, 2012 at 11:05 pm FWIW — the brigades of the 29th ID are now organized as light infantry, and have been so since the 80s. But that wasn’t really my point. The reason I say think small for the ANA is that there is a certain tradeoff between firepower, mobility and endurance. The real deal is to get those educated Afghans to understand that, no joke, if they want to enjoy the freedoms and the standard of living they want, they better be prepared to fight for those things themselves. Forget about conscription, or being an “army of the people” — if you have 2.8 million literate men and women, there is where you look for recruits. And those people are not all natural born killers, irrespective of how rough and tough their culture is — you have to train these people to be soldiers. What I am saying is that too much of this kind of army will fail, and will be a burden on the society. Look at Syria and Egypt, as well as Pakistan to see what this looks like, And remember — you and I both agree we’re all in to come and help if need be.
	Benjamin July 8th, 2012 at 11:46 pm Got to admit I did not know about the oil. From what i have researched on the internet, it does not seem like a lot of oil. The mineral wealth on the other hand is there if they develop the mining and refining capacity.
	FormerDirtDart July 8th, 2012 at 11:51 pm 29th ID has two Brigade Combat Teams, one light: 116th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (of VA), and one heavy: 30th Heavy Brigade Combat Team (of NC), along with the divisions Combat Aviation Brigade, base in Maryland. If you’re going to try and come off as knowledgeable about a subject, its best not to begin you post with outdated or incorrect information.
	FormerDirtDart July 9th, 2012 at 12:00 am If the Chinese, Exxon, and others, are willing to go poking holes in the ground, in the middle of that bees nest, I think you can assume they believe there is a reasonable amount of oil in the ground.
	majr0d July 9th, 2012 at 4:18 am Just because they are light infantry doesn’t mean training schedules aren’t written. Ammo requirements aren’t forcasted. Quarterly training plans aren’t planned and published. Opords aren’t written and disseminated etc. ad naseum. We may agree on some issues but your striking out when you think an American type quality Infantry division isn’t an ambitious feat in a country where only one in 10 can read. You aren’t thinking this through.
	Zak July 9th, 2012 at 3:31 pm It’s not waffling, it’s a fact. Maybe you should visit them more often. They Afghans have 5 guys wanting freedom and the Kurds have tens of thousands — it makes a big difference. And you’ll do anything to stay in Afghanistan even when you don’t have any long term solutions. Keep beating your head against the wall for more brain damage.
	Zak July 9th, 2012 at 3:36 pm I’ve read multuple reports that identify that the rural people don’t support Karzai and I’ve seen no reports that claim differently. So I don’t buy that the people support the current Afghan government. At best they ignore it so long as the government doesn’t interfere in their day to day lives. We’d have to invade Pakistan to really get rid of the Taliban as they can hide there quite effectively. We have drone strikes attacking them but that’s not ever going to eliminate the organizaion completely.
	majr0d July 9th, 2012 at 4:06 pm Yes, the NCA consists of five Afghans. This is the Northern Alliance formerly led by Ahmad Massoud who was murdered by Bin Laden right before 911 because he was a threat. It is now led by Abdulah Abdulah who was Massoud’s foreign minister. He got almost 1.5 mil votes in the last election(those FIVE afghans were BUSY that day!. (Shows how much you know about Afghanistan) I’ve listed no less than four long term approaches for a lasting solution to your “run for the exits” approach.
	Bob Bradly July 9th, 2012 at 7:34 pm Know thy enemy.
	majr0d July 9th, 2012 at 11:05 pm “I’ve read multuple reports that identify that the rural people don’t support Karzai and I’ve seen no reports that claim differently.” Please share your sources… As for Afghan support of the gov’t , “Overall satisfaction with the performance of the national government has remained the same as in 2010 with 73% of respondents saying the government is doing a good job.” Also “More than two thirds of respondents (69%) say they are satisfied with the way democracy works in Afghanistan. Satisfaction is highest in the Central/Hazarajat (78%), West (76%) and North West (75%). However, 40% of respondents in the South East, 34% in Central/Kabul and 31% in the North East say they are dissatisfied with the way democracy is working.” http://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/KeyFindi… This is the SEVENTH report this organization alone has done. Google is a wonderful thing!
	Chaostician July 10th, 2012 at 7:29 am There is a lot of exploratory drilling that is done into unknown territory, known as wild cat drilling. Throw in murky politics, corruption, keeping up appearances, and we need to realize that alot of decisions that are made have nothing to do with smart economics on a micro-level. Sun Tzu: “All warfare is based on deception.”

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

Pakistan to U.S.: You bet you’re sorry. Now get out.

Join the Conversation

LIVE Coverage: Paris Air Show

Recent Comments

Pakistan to U.S.: You bet you’re sorry. Now get out.

Join the Conversation

LIVE Coverage: Paris Air Show

Most Read

Recent Comments