Comments on: “Experts question U.S. strategy in Pakistan”

By: Shirin

Shirin — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:52:55 +0000

“It’s similar to the way some Saudis I’ve met feel about the spoiled Saudi royal family.”

Yes, no doubt, although one difference is that I did not hear about the kind of terrible human rights violations we know go on in Saudi Arabia, and women do OK there. I was in a smallish, quite conservative city, and all of the women I met were well educated, and most had jobs, and careers, and full freedom of movement.

By: RS Janes

RS Janes — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 22:20:51 +0000

Thanks for the enlightenment, Shirin. It’s similar to the way some Saudis I’ve met feel about the spoiled Saudi royal family.

By: RS Janes

RS Janes — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 22:11:41 +0000

I stand corrected, Montag. Cut “damn near.”

By: CK

CK — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 23:02:44 +0000

Jerome
Why would China wish to get OBL for the US? What’s in it for them?
Why not ask Wen and Ho to buy up all the sub-prime mortgage paper that is bankrupting the USA … oh wait the USA did that and China politely REFUSED.
As to the sex worker thing, who you going to believe a bunch of islamofascist kidnappers or the victim of their misguided moral jihad?

By: Shirin

Shirin — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:53:08 +0000

“…Musharraf (who wasn’t that popular to begin with)…”

Extreme understatement. Last year I spent nearly three weeks in the family home of a friend in Pakistan, every moment of the time in close contact with “ordinary” Pakistanis, and could not elicit a single positive syllable about Musharraf from a single person. Widely disliked and disrespected would be a nice way to put the popular sentiment I found there.

By: Jerome

Jerome — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:37:56 +0000

It must be nice to have the international clout of China in Pakistan. How awesome was it for China to get their sex workers out of the Red Mosque. Maybe we could have China ask them to get Osama for us.

By: mudkitty

mudkitty — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:51:30 +0000

Why has it taken the msm sooooo long to get hip to Pakistan? Maybe Saudi Arabia is next?

By: mudkitty

mudkitty — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:46:18 +0000

Oh it’s blowback all right. Nearly 100 years of Bush Family Blowback.

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:36:41 +0000

“shrubco says Hezbollah wants to hit us here, AQ is big in Iraq, blah blah blah.”

Yep you said it … blah blah blah…. Thats all it is. There is no evidence what so ever that Hezbollah has any wants or desires to attack the US. Besides they get there money from supporters here.

Its fuuny how many here in the States view Hezbollah and even Hamas. While many from the Middle East have a different view point on both organizations. Both organizations have political arms that have gotten out of ccntrol and can be a regional destabilization powers, but that is part of our fault and very much Israel’s fault. Again our foreign policy has been out of whack for a very long time in the ME Region.

As far as attacking us here in America? More Bush-aid obedience performance drink babble…..

By: Montag

Montag — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 02:28:02 +0000

RS Janes,
Some of the commenters under the article would delete the “damn near” from “certifiable.” Peters and his ilk don’t understand the power of Nationalism. The Turks commenting were spitting bullets! Sure, a Greater Kurdistan would be nice in principle, except that the one thing that Turks, Iranians, Syrians and Iraqi Arabs agree on is that it must never be put into PRACTICE. Peters condemns the arbitrary borders drawn by the Great Powers, but his solution is more of the same. Anytime someone insists blithly that “ethnic cleansing works,” I smile politely and leave the room–being careful never to turn my back while I’m doing so. That article is great propaganda for Al Qaeda because it alienates pretty much everyone. He reminds me of Napoleon redrawing the map of Europe to his taste, only to find that reality made the new borders impermanent.

By: Cee

Cee — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 01:20:11 +0000

RS,

I realize that those people are crazy. They still seem to be in control. The fact that people are evening talking about attacking Pakistan is proof of it.
Lord help us.

By: SusanUnPC

SusanUnPC — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 01:13:19 +0000

Brilliant analogy, Montag.

By: RS Janes

RS Janes — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:51:23 +0000

You can smell the blowback here reeking like a mountain of burning tires: Bush invades Pakistan to nab Osama (and fails, of course), outraged Pakistanis overthrow Musharraf (who wasn’t that popular to begin with), Islamic fundamentalists take over Pakistan and — voila! — a Muslim state that hates the West has nuclear weapons. (Oh, and let’s not forget our nuclear-armed friends in India next door who hate the Pakistani Muslims.) Thank you, Mr. Boosh! Heckuva a job, Junior — you may get a nuclear confrontation yet — between Pakistan and India.

By: RS Janes

RS Janes — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:47:28 +0000

That is an interesting article, Cee, but let’s keep in mind it’s by Ralph Peters — and Peters is damn near certifiable, not to mention that his screwy plans for ‘democratizng’ the Middle East have been wrong so far.

By: Philip Henika

Philip Henika — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:34:21 +0000

No Quarter:

IMO, “Al Qaeda Prime”(1) is not to be underestimated even
though operational capability has been reduced as
alluded to in this Stratfor report. However, once
again, I invoke the simple hypothesis of Dr. Boaz
Ganor i.e. terrorist groups require both operational
capacity and motivation before they act.

IMO, countermotivation has been a nonfactor in the
reduction of the global spread of Al Qaeda ideology.
Al Qaeda has achieved longevity. Al Qaeda can
selectively recruit and train which is a luxury
afforded to such crime organizations as the Mafia.

There has also been much talk recently of the effort
of “moderate” Muslim NGOs to convert and subsequently
“radicalize” youth toward a future of violent Jihad.
This, IMO, is essentially the battlefield, if you
will, for hearts and minds.

Michael Chertoff’s “gut feeling” suggested to me a
putative “Al Qaeda Prime” attack of a magnitude
exceeding 9/11. The hypothesis that Al Qaeda wants to
exceed the casualities of 9/11 with the next attack
and that they will not attack unless they can do so
rendered Chertoff’s comments, IMO, disjointed.

Was the “gut feeling” based on al Qaeda operational
capacity or motivation or both?

Recently, Daveed Gartenstein Ross has commented on
Musharaff’s succession: “Prominent Pakistani military
and intelligence figures–individuals like retired
Gen. Hamid Gul and Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg–are
ideologically sympathetic to the Taliban and al Qaeda.
It is not inconceivable that they could seize power.
Few have thought through the tremendous geopolitical
implications of such a succession. Given Pakistan’s
nuclear arsenal, the changes to the global war on
terror would be instantaneous and dramatic.”

We know that Al Qaeda is motivated – ‘primed’, if you
will. It just may be that Al Qaeda Prime’s operational
capacity could return swiftly.

(1) TERRORISM INTELLIGENCE REPORT
07.25.2007
Al Qaeda and the Strategic Threat to the U.S. Homeland
By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart