Pakistanis Deal Severe Defeat to Musharraf

[zzzz]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[zzzz]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Ag with kids]

Only ONE thing worries me about Pakistani elections....

Their nuclear arsonal...

Even their support for or against the terrorists in Afghanistan pales in comparison...

 

[dognduckhorn]

The main thing about this, if true, is whether the Government validates the returns, and Musharaf's reaction to it. Musharaf needs to retain 1/3 of parliament to forestall any impeachment effort. By some accounts, the registration rolls were cooked against the opposition.

I am worried about stability here, and the fact that the Taliban is increasing launching major incursions in the south of Afghanistan and then retreating across the border (very reminiscent of the NVA and Viet Cong using Cambodia and Laos for sanctuary in the Vietnam War), not to mention their opportunistic exploitation of unrest in Pakistan. This bears watching.....

 

[scottsins]

he is our ally in the war on terror.

 

[Summerof79]

I for one am glad we decided to stop pursuing Osama Bin Laden ad at the Border of Pakistan and embraced the Dictator of Pakistan as our ally. All the while attempting to justify to the Muslim world that we were really fighting for the democratic principles that the hearts of all men hunger for in Iraq....

Now we have a situation where the host country of Bin Laden may be actually more rather than less sympathetic to the man actually responsible for the Attack on our shores on 9/11. And that sucks...

 

[BernOrange]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[NameAlreadyInUse]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[dognduckhorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

Dog, you may want to read Summer's post. My questions were directed at his assertion that we should have gone into Pakistan to get Osama. As far as our reasons for not going in then, little has changed. So if he thinks we should have gone in then, it follows that he thinks we should go in now.

So I ask again based on Summer's comments

In reply to:

---

---

 

[El_Guapo]

I'd like to hear the answer to Uninformed's questions also. Please, Summer, do tell.

 

[Ag with kids]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[FondrenRoad]

What's with all the conservative worries here? Aren't we out to push democracy worldwide at all costs? Isn't this democracy in action?

Aren't y'all the same ones who said we had a moral obligation to topple Saddam, yet you want to keep Musharraf in power.

 

[Nivek]

I guess we are going to need more troops.

 

[El_Guapo]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[dognduckhorn]

All righty, now that I'm off work.

It appears that we are, to a limited extent, militarily involved in Pakistan:
"In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.

The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.

Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities. "


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802500.html?hpid=topnews

So, I guess the real issue is: how much more do we want to send in boots on the ground, as opposed to Predators, and how will the new Pakistani government react? Where I see the real issue, in terms of the two parties, is that the Republicans want to pursue both the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as one indivisible war on the terrorists being waged on two fronts, and the Democrats want to separate the former from the latter, regarding Iraq as an effort with diminishing returns and a drain on resources from the latter (a cost effective approach, if you will). That is the difference between the two.

I read Summer's response as sarcasm, which, as we all know, doesn't work well on this board...

 

[98XPLonghorn]

the US has been killing Pakistanis within Pakistani borders by the dozens, probably hundreds, for a long time now. This can only lead to anti Musharraf feelings, which I find tragic since he is a good leader who has brought economic stability and some upturn to a desperately poor nation. Were it not for a strong army rule narco-gangs would again run rampant through the cities terrorizing and kidnapping civilians as they did during non military rule. Now as a reaction to American belligerency, the security situation will worsen for US interests. However, the nukes are of no concern to Americans as they are in good hands with the only threat being to India.

 

[El_Guapo]

In reply to:

---

---