President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government. And the BBC reports that Pakistani security officials say they have killed up to 100 militants on the Afghan border. Also, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, said there was "no question of any agreement or understanding with the coalition forces whereby they are allowed to conduct operations on our side of the border." It also seems that fighting has been suspended in the Bajaur tribal district on the Afghan border in honor of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. Over five hundred people have died in the fighting here, and about 300,000 have fled the area.
2008 is already the deadliest year for U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
I think it's long overdue for us to unleash across the border, in strength, and not some recon special ops affair.
Every sovereign state has the obligation to control its border, and not allow any part of her territory to serve as a basis for attacks upon neighboring states. This is the Westphalian conception.
But there's a catch, which is often overlooked when discussing how to deal with terror bases on foreign soil.
A state that fails to police her territory, can hardly complain when an aggrieved state takes military action to redress terrorist activity, even if such military operations cross her borders.
Pakistan entered into a deal with the Taliban, and with Taliban like groups within her border, and that deals allows them to cross over into Afghanistan to sow discord, to conduct terrorist raids, so long as they do nothing to unduly disturb Pakistan's government.
That deal, which Pakistan's leadership entered into, erases any obligation that we might have to respect Pakistan's border.
What we should do right now is gain control of Pakistan's nuclear weaponry. We need to denuclearize Pakistan, peacefully or otherwise. We should do that simultaneously with air and naval air strikes on Iran, {commencing the evening of the election, a perfect night to gain tactical and strategic surprise}.
These are grim suggestions, I know. I know full well.
Diplomacy has failed, sanctions are so contrived that they gain no bite on the offending state. And in this situation of Western collapse of nerve, Russia moves in strength on a neighboring democracy, seeking to establish a new sphere of unquestioned influence.
Time we regain our strategic and moral credibility, and in a hurry. And the first place to start is with Tehran's Manhattan Project.
" 2008 is already the deadliest year for U.S. troops in Afghanistan. " 112 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan so far this year. An estimated 125 were killed this summer alone in Chicago. Just a little perspective.
By this logic pakistan could claim a right to come into this country and wipe out right wing militia groups? I wonder what the spin on the Montana freemen would have been if it was the Canadian government coming in to put down the revolt. Sadly, the idea of a foriegn army utalized to put down Americans on American soil is already in place.
https://www.mainemediaresources.com/ffj_03260801a.htm
Lets hear an opinion on the Civil Assistance Plan current ohio republicans.
This is a quasi-legal issue, quasi-legal because "international law" is still far more a legal fiction than concrete reality.
Firstly, you've conflated "spin" with propaganda. "Spin" is a term more appropriate for domestic politics. Leave it out of the realm of foreign affairs. Besides, states are alllowed to present their best argument for a course of action, but that argument must be tethered to reality, a REAL, bona-fide analysis of the situation. A case in instance there would be Great Britain's intrusion into Scandanavian jurisdictions during the early months of 1940.
A real world example of the "spin" that you suggested in your hypothetical would be Operation Canned Goods, {which was the German agent provacateur action that they used to "justify" their invasion of Poland, in 1939}.
Returning to the case at instance, armed groups that we've engaged have retreated into Pakistan, and then days or weeks later, returned, rearmed, reorganized and ready to resume hostilities. This has happened COUNTLESS times. Thus by any OBJECTIVE analysis of the situation, Pakistan either can't do anything about it, has chosen not to do something about it, or affects an ignorance of the true state of affairs to justify their inactivity.
Clearly an intolerable situation. And the Afghan people deserve better, than to have to endure terror provocations by Taliban remnants.
As for the agreement that Pakistan's government entered into with the Taliban, {and allied groups}, and it needs to be noted, entered into AFTER the Taliban was diplaced as the controling entity of Afghanistan, that's all a matter of public record. I could easily present a compelling brief for that agreement being equivalent to the initiation of a state of hostilities against the lawful and legitmate government of Afghanistan, lawful and legitimate by virtue of genuine elections.
As for supposedly "right wing groups" conducting terror operations out of Montana, ------- there's a little problem with that hypothetical, and that is that there's nothing behind it, no American government favouring such actions, no evidence of the American government failing to act against such actions. That's not irrelevant. Whereas concerning Pakistan, the media has reported at length about the terrorists using Pakistan as their base area. And I haven't even gone into reports that Pakistan's ISI is actively assisting the Taliban!
The only question now remaining is what we're going to do about it.
If you desire to dodge difficult issues, ----------------- feel free, most Democrats do, so you won't be alone. Just don't weary us by throwing forward nonsenical hypotheticals that only demonstrate intellectual bad faith.
Here is a better example of "spin" if you have the time to look at it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
The problem that I have with this is that Terror is such a blanket phrase it can be adapted at will to mean more and more possilbe enemies. It is an ingenious idea that presents an unwinable and never ending war all over the world. If it is a game of border jumping freeze tag and its so important that we get the jumpers then why is it coming out in the press that we are doing this? In the age of Executive orders I think this is more about setting a precident.
You can see the world in a false right left paradigm if you want but please do not lump me in either column.
Brutus,
I think you have already forgotten the tragic events of seven years ago.
Yes, the idea of a war on terror by definition would be a very long conflict. But Americans (or righteous humans in general) would be hard pressed to find a more just cause. Terrorists are the epitome of modern day evil. It is the obligation of Just nations to attempt (even if it is merely an attempt) to destroy said evil. Anything less would be an injustice to good people all over the world.
As we say in the Marines, SEMPER FI.