Cavedwellers Upset

On the other hand, the situation in Pakistan is far more consequential than Vietnam or Iraq
.
Well, now is a fine time to mention it? I won't ask where your voice was in '03 - I'm aware that there are conflicting versions out there.
.
Has anyone else noticed that we've been sitting back and allowing this situation to simmer until we could get some adults in charge of policy? People joke about 'messiah' references when talking about Obama, but it appears to me that we've put all our problems on hold in the hopes that he's going come in and instantly fix everything.
.
I hope that 18 months from now, while all these difficulties are still swirling around that we still remember how we got here. There are a whole lot of people who'll be interested in rewriting history by then. It's important that they not get away with it.

Yes, counterinsurgency training in the U.S. would be an excellent solution to the problems you portray. The Army War College in Carlisle educates a great many foreign senior officers from an amazing array of countries--sometimes local news shows, say, a Mongolian colonel at a sportsmen's club skeetshooting event--and this can be expanded to cover these needs.

It's just a little typo, but aid, not aide.
.
The thing is that to be actually effective in reducing the nuclear threats of other nations, the US has to lead. Although I do believe in the power of deterrence--even if the Taliban (in their tiny numbers, with almost no resources) were to somehow get in charge of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, it's by no means clear that they would use it--the US still should do what the NPT says, and reduce its own warhead collection, unilaterally, or by agreement warhead by warhead with Russia.
.
That's how you start on this kind of thing. And, re START, you do it in commemoration of Reagan.

I'd like to suggest that there is nothing to be done about this problem right now -- the kind of effort needed is disproportionate to the perceived threat, and unless and until there is another event like 0-11 that shocks the international community into action, the best strategy is containment and isolation, rather than "victory".

We're far better off concentrating on improving our image among the world's Islamic community as a whole than attacking a small, radical splinter group of Muslims -- and indeed, it makes far more sense to let the Islamic world take the lead against Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Islamic radicalism represents as much (actually, far more) of a threat to the established political, social, and economic order in Islamic countries than it does to the USA, and as long as America insists upon "leading" the fight against al Qaeda, the political leadership of Islamic countries don't need to.

It seems clear that the Pakistani Taliban--and we should begin distinguishing these guys, as best we can, from the Afghan Taliban
.
Um, why?
.
I thought it was all pretty much the same tribe or group of tribes, operating in two countries. And obviously their tribal loyalties are stronger than their national loyalties.
Why should we bother running over there with a magic marker and drawing a line down the middle of the Taliban?

Cliff--
.
Because they are probably different tribes.
.
In other news, there are no case files on the "detainees" in Guantanamo
.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_01/016593.php
.
This is, of course, Obama's fault.

Joe beat me to it. Good job, JK.

More on Guantanamo:
.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_01/016600.php#more
.
For the last eight years, over and over again, it's been worse than I could imagine.

If the Obama Administration feels that they have to be careful with India as it starts to became the "Israel" of South Asia - a place that is virtually immune from American establishment criticism - then they should just stay out of the way. Launching Predator strikes in Pakistan while letting India treat Muslims terribly is not going to result in a happy ending (unless you're a fan of the rapture!).
.
Supposedly this is all to prevent another terrorist attack, but if that's truly the main concern investing in domestic border security would be more effective. As would increasing humanitarian aid in the region to try and reduce the skewed gender ratios caused by sex-selective abortion and infanticide: If that problem is not mitigated Pakistan will be a hostile nuclear state in 20 years anyway.

I think I suggested this, before, but wouldn't it be more cost-effective, and simultaneously develop new markets, if we just off-loaded tons of consumer goods on the area? Right now, I imagine the big thing over there is to just survive; it can't be a paradise of abundance. Set up an infrastructure - water, roads, power supplies, Internet, etc - and then build decent, modest homes for people and stock them with refurbished goods from various manufacturers. Set aside, for the moment, the fact that we can't even fix NOLA. There's a new sheriff in town, now.
'
The idea is to get them dependent on commodities and bring them into the first world. That will do far more to "civilize" them than bombing them or other military actions. The "nothing to lose" mindset would diminish.
'
At least that's how it's worked in America. I rather think our forefathers would be embarrassed by our lack of action against Bush over the last eight years. But that's another argument.

Ah, that's the piece I was missing. Thanks Joe!

I forgot one thing...
.
I appreciate much of Joe's writing recently, but this line is unintentionally hilarious: The Pakistanis have trained for a big-bang war with India and have no idea how to conduct low-intensity conflicts...It seems obvious that one thing the U.S. could offer the Pakistani Army is training in counterinsurgency tactics.
.
Seriously? Because the U.S. has been so successful with counterinsurgency tactics (Yes, that's sarcasm). The Sri Lankan army is probably better qualified to advise Pakistan!
.
I know someone will say that the army has made huge improvements in Iraq, which is true, but many of those improvements have been due to external factors, like paying off insurgents which is not a viable option for Pakistan. And it's still not going well.

@ rose: but many of those improvements have been due to external factors, like paying off insurgents which is not a viable option for Pakistan.
'
Why not?

Is there any reason to believe that, over the long term, paying off insurgents was/is a viable alternative for Iraq? For instance, what happens when the money stops flowing? If the answer is "We're right back where we started", then do we just cross our fingers and hope that it doesn't happen until after we're gone?
.

@ Friar: yes, there is that: how long does the bought "peace" last? Are we just supplying them with cash that they can use to buy _more_ weapons and become more dangerous? Until the fundamental issues that push these folks to pick up arms against whomever is addressed, do our bombs and other weapons - aka "death and destruction" - present a better option?
'
OT: what year is this? I thought it was 2009...
'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_goat

jay, thanks for those case file links. In case anyone here didn't click on them, here they are again because this is required reading; a case file post sounds boring - it is not.
.
There will be a test. And Joe would do well to cover this story both in the Swamp and in dead tree and on all the chattering class shows.
.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_01/016593.php
.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_01/016600.php#more
.
Remember, there will be a test, so you had better read these hilzoy posts.

I don't know if you realize this, but we can't afford our military anymore, probably never could but 30 years of false demand created by cheap credit skews things a bit.
.
OT McCain opposes stimulus
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_opposes_economic_stimulus_package_%5BVIDEO.DE%5D_0125.html
.
ALso, John King on CNN w/ a Rethug talking about the CBO report that shows this stimulus won't hit the economy until 2010...the CBO report that doesn't exist. I think it's all over folks, if the media is going to let the GOP just make it up.

Why do we have to advise the Pakistanis? If their own soldiers don't want to take the local Taliban what makes us think it is because they lack training?

Rose: Hindu extremism, especially in the Gujerat area, has been a curse, and Indian Muslims have paid the price. But in any comparison India emerges better than Pakistan in dealing with minorities.

cincy: I think it's all over folks, if the media is going to let the GOP just make it up. That means Obama has to both go around them, and have a persistent full-court media press to shove wingers back into their caves.
.
Certainly no one would have predicted this: Obama's Right-Wing Dinner Friends Rip His Stimulus Package: Worst Bill In ‘Galactic History'

I'm waiting for Lieberman to come out against it now. The window of opportunity for Obama to ease this country into something other than total collapse is passing by I'm afraid. This whole thing is going to go down in a heap of stupid.

cincy #20 -it's only been 5 days. Surely it will take at least a full week for him to fail?

> I think it's all over folks, if the media is going to let the GOP just make it up.
'
Don't give up hope, yet. There are still solid reporters out there - like our own MS - who will fight the good fight and press the backs of these evildoers against the wall and force the Truth from them.
'
In case it's not obvious, yes, that's tongue-in-cheek.

First, it wouldn't be Pakistan paying off insurgents, because they don't have enough money. It would be the US. Second, the paying off your enemies thing is temporary and perhaps counterproductive in the long term, as Friar Tuck pointed out. And there is a long-term for Pakistan; The US can just leave Iraq, but the Pakistani military is not occupying the country, it's actually where they live. Third - this is both more vague and probably more important - paying off insurgents will lead to divisions between "sell-out" insurgents and "genuine" opponents of US Imperialism/domination, which historically (e.g. Iran, etc.) has often led to greater popular support for extremists that are perceived, in spite of their flaws, as being able to stand up to foreign intervention. Adding money to the equation puts more of a premium on proving you're not an American puppet, although ironically the people who are most successful in proving their indigenous loyalties are often the ones who won the most American aid. Like the Taliban.
.
bitterpill8, you're probably right. Although there are massively more Muslims living in India than Hindus living in Pakistan, so the scale of the problems seems different. I'd rather live in India, but I also think Indian treatment of Muslims lies at the heart of the region's problems.

"cincy #20 -it's only been 5 days. Surely it will take at least a full week for him to fail?"
.
It's not Obama that's failing, it's the media, the populace at large and our civilization. How does Obama succeed when the press behaves this way? It was John King who just no brought up the non-existant CBO report, it wasn't the winger...I mean wtf?

Rose, good points, all, but, idealism aside, how do you propose to fix the "long-term" problem? Throughout all of history, men have been at their neighbors' throats. To stop this, you can bomb them into oblivion; you can pay them off; you can give them their own countries and allow them to do with it what they will. It doesn't really matter. Neighbors will just start fighting, again.
'
About the only long-term solution is to get rid of all men. Someday, that will happen. Until then, the question will ever be: bomb them, or buy them. Personally, I'm of the "bomb them" persuasion: that leaves fewer intransigents to fight. But modern society doesn't have the stomach for that, and doing a half-arsed job just stirs up the remaining pool of potential intransigents, and causes the cycle to loop back to square 1.
'
So, what's left?