The Other War

This seems like a problem: "Militants in Pakistan fired rockets at NATO bases across the border in Afghanistan, killing three children in a village and prompting the alliance to launch a pair of retaliatory artillery strikes, officials said Sunday."

Working out some kind of better-than-this arrangement with the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan and local leaders in the border region is a very tall order, but also a vitally important task. And every minute the President and other top U.S. officials are thinking about Iraq is a minute they're not spending on the part of the world where al-Qaeda's leadership is and where nuclear weapons programs and terrorist safe havens aren't hypothetical possibilities but actually existing conditions.

Comments

Why on Earth would you want this gang to start thinking about Pakistan MORE?

Posted by MHD | June 23, 2008 10:55 AM

My constant refrain is that the ONLY good reason
to go into IRAQ was as a distraction from the coming failure that will occur in Afghanistan,
just like every other western adventure there since Alexander the Great.

I am not saying that was a good reason to go into IRAQ.

Posted by catclub | June 23, 2008 10:58 AM

"Militants in Pakistan fired rockets at NATO bases across the border in Afghanistan, killing three children in a village and prompting the alliance to launch a pair of retaliatory artillery strikes, officials said Sunday."

That is nothing new. The Taliban have been caught with Pakistan army uniforms on. If we continue doing nothing this border may devolve into what the India/Pakistan border once was.

Posted by jerri | June 23, 2008 11:10 AM

Pakistan isn't an ideal country for the U.S. to be erecting military infrastructure of the kind that pays multiple contractors unaudited, no bid mega-deals like you see in Iraq. KBR, Halliburton and Bechtel can hardly justify a billion or two a week ostensibly spent supporting Special Forces teams hunting for Bin Laden. No one drinks that much bottle water. Where in Pakistan would you park 3000 retro-fitted Humvees? Nah, there's just no money to be made in that theater. Better to concentrate on a target rich Iraq.

Posted by steve duncan | June 23, 2008 11:12 AM

This is like Matthew's version of the Green Lantern Theory of Pakistan. If only the Bush Administration would think about Pakistan more, all our problems would be solved!

Needless to say, Matthew's comment is pretty dumb. Thinking about the problem won't solve anything. What could solve the problem is an actual policy. The Bush Administration doesn't have one of those. But then again, neither does Matthew or Barack "Liar" Obama.

Posted by Al | June 23, 2008 11:14 AM

"And every minute the President and other top U.S. officials are thinking about Iraq is a minute they're not spending on the part of the world where al-Qaeda's leadership is"

Why couldn't they deal with both? Please elaborate.

Posted by Erudite Hillbilly | June 23, 2008 12:05 PM

Erudite Hillbilly:

For elaboration, see the last five years.

Posted by Dan | June 23, 2008 1:09 PM

I love how little imagination you manage to have, Matt. During WWII, the Feds managed to deal with three major campaign areas and a number of smaller sized ones (such as the lend/lease line over to Murmansk).

Yet in the tiny world Matt inhabits, there's simply no way to run Afghanistan and Iraq, because 2 smallish theaters are beyond the ken of normal people.

If that's the case, I'd like to know why you think government is capable of running health care, which is a way, way larger endeavor.

Posted by James Robertson | June 23, 2008 1:29 PM

Al actually gets this right - if for the wrong reasons.

There is NO WAY the US can do ANYTHING about the Taliban in Pakistan.

Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. No way, Jose. Fergeddaboudit.

Or Afghanistan (because the Taliban are essentially the same group in both countries).

Matt thinks that just taking 160,000 troops out of Iraq and dumping them into Afghanistan is somehow going to change the situation in Afghanistan and make it possible to "win".

Al is correct in this respect: this merely reflects Matt's utter ignorance about:

1) Afghanistan.
2) Pakistan.
3) Military affairs in general, and the US military in particular.
4) 4th Gen War.

Not to mention that the presence or absence of Al Qaeda - let alone the Taliban - in any particular country is utterly irrelevant to the issue of removing the US from the Al Qaeda target list.

The only thing dumping US (and/or NATO) troops into Afghanistan is going to do is turn Afghanistan into Iraq. The only reason it hasn't done so this far is simply because the effort being expended in Afghanistan is much less than that expended in Iraq.

And the situation in Afghanistan has become pretty bad, both in terms of civilian casualties as a result of the piss-poor US/NATO tactical doctrine and the utter inability to deal the Taliban any sort of crippling blow - again, due to the piss-poor US/NATO strategic/tactical doctrine - not to mention the fundamental rationale for being in Afghanistan in the first place.

I can't comprehend why Matt is unable to notice that the entire concept of "nation-building" in Afghanistan after overthrowing a government is precisely the same as "nation-building" in Iraq - i.e., impossible. Especially when the bulk of the population either don't like you or don't give a damn, while that portion of the population with actual guns don't want you around at all.

And the guys with the guns have been successful at kicking out much more modern armies for the last thousand years.

What part of "these people don't quit" don't you comprehend, Matt?

You'd think a five year old - let alone a Harvard graduate with a degree in philosophy (in other words, much the same as a five year old) - could figure out that hanging around a country which you just trashed and where you are killing people's relatives is not really a good place to "win hearts and minds".

Get a clue, Matt.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 24, 2008 3:32 AM