Afghanistan NATO Taliban Pakistan Jihad Madrasah Arabs Drones Raids - AfPak strategy

I do wish Condi would not be so patient with Pakistan. I don't think the world can afford to wait decades for Pakistan to put its own house in order. I don't think the Pakistani politicians are strong enough when faced with an obstinate Pakistani state which sees some purpose in sponsoring terrorism.

I would like in future to hear of Condi recommending that the world take a much tougher approach with Pakistan, an "iron fist" approach, so to speak, led by the US and its NATO allies, and hopefully with India's support, to force Pakistan more quickly to confront the state sponsors of terrorism - generals and former generals of the Pakistani military who dictate military policy behind the scenes in Pakistan.

This could involve suspending aid to Pakistan, international arrest warrants for those state-sponsors of terror Pakistani generals and former generals, raids like the raid to get Bin Laden but against those in the Pakistani state who were sheltering Bin Laden, assassination missions against those terror generals and former generals, more drone attacks, targeted missile or bombing air raids, seizing control over Pakistan's satellite broadcasting to call for the arrest of all involved in sponsoring terror and so on.

I would not heed any complaints from the Pakistani state which is not putting its own house in order. I would not be impressed by any threats Pakistan made about blocking supplies into Afghanistan. We would like the honest people in the Pakistan military to take action against those in the Pakistani military, such as the ISI, who have long been dishonest sponsors of terrorism.

The world needs to pressure Pakistan to make the reality that for the honest Pakistani military it will be an easier course of action to confront their dishonest comrades than daring to confront the rest of the world about any actions we take to raise the pressure on Pakistan.

I would even be prepared to raise military tensions to a level that was last seen in the Cuban missile crisis with US forces on high military alert.

No I would not like to see a nuclear war which would hurt many Pakistani civilians. We love the people of Pakistan but it is in their interests for someone to take a tough stance against the state sponsors of terrorism in Pakistan because that terrorism is, as often as not, turned against the people of Pakistan with their own politicians and leaders being targeted.

The exact measures to be taken are not really my point. Those are up for discussion and modification as required.

My real point is the pressure on Pakistan needs to be stepped up 100 fold by the West led by the US and NATO and with the support of India. No more softly, softly.

This would be my advice to our dearly beloved Condoleezza Rice. No-one inspires me more than she. No-one is better placed to decide on what is good advice and what is not. I trust her judgement but I want her to hear my advice.

AfPak Mission links


AfPak Mission logo - the AfPak Mission is inspired by the leadership of Condoleezza Rice

AfPak Mission channel http://www.youtube.com/user/AfpakMission

AfPak Mission twitter http://twitter.com/AfPakMission

AfPak Mission forum http://scot.tk/forum/viewforum.php?f=26

AfPak Mission flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/afpakmission/

AfPak Mission blog http://peterdow.wordpress.com/category/afghanistan/

 

But if you try to play that video now, all you get is ...

So I need to post new links for that video hosted elsewhere and here it is, in 2 x 1 hour videos.

Part 1 - 1 hour

[video=youtube;qSinK-dVrig]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSinK-dVrig[/video]
Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 1 (Double Cross) - YouTube


Part 2 - 1 hour

[video=youtube;G5-lSSC9dSE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5-lSSC9dSE[/video]
Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 2 (Backlash) - YouTube


Bonus video - Saudi Arabia is to blame too

[video=youtube;T1dcwrucnAk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1dcwrucnAk[/video]
America's 'allies' Saudi & Pakistan: 'enemies' more like! - YouTube

 

Condi is as diplomatic as ever but I'd say the only "good" Taliban is a dead Taliban.


This war must be prosecuted unto total victory, crushing the Taliban,

• as a political organisation, arresting all their political leaders and media representatives and
• as a military force, capturing or killing all their fighters.

Thank you Condi once again for trying to save those who will listen from the hell on earth, the sacrifice of our cherished values, the dishonour to all that we hold dear, that would be surrendered in any peace deal with the Taliban.

The AfPak Mission

[video=youtube;0eH8eJAuhVw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eH8eJAuhVw[/video]

The AfPak Mission on the internet is about war on terror military and security strategy for NATO and allied countries with ground forces in action in Afghanistan and air and airborne forces including drones and special force raids in action over Pakistan.

The AfPak Mission helps implementation of the Bush Doctrine versus state sponsors of terror and is inspired by the leadership of Condoleezza Rice.

The AfPak Mission approach to the Taliban is uncompromising.

• There should be no peace with the Taliban.
• The only "good" Taliban is a dead Taliban.
• Arrest all Taliban political leaders and media spokesmen.
• Capture or kill all Taliban fighters.

The AfPak Mission identifies useful content across multiple websites.

On YouTube, the AfPak Mission channel presents playlists of useful videos.

The AfPak Mission forum offers structured on-line written discussion facilities and the forum is the rallying and reference centre of the AfPak Mission, linking to all other AfPak Mission content on the internet.

The AfPak Mission has a Twitter, a Flickr and a wordpress Blog too.
You are invited to subscribe to the channel, register with the forum and follow on twitter, flickr and the blog.

 

National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice meets with a member of the Afghan security forces


National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice with Generals Kilrain, Dunford and McConville at Bagram Airfield


National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice with LTC Jean-philippe


National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice receives a briefing from Generals McConville and Lewis at Camp Gamberi


National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice meets with soldiers at Camp Gamberi


National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice meets with soldiers at Camp Gamberi

[video=youtube;KCPMO_viz7k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCPMO_viz7k[/video]

Susan Rice loves US Forces in Afghanistan! (YouTube)

While she was there Susan Rice was generous enough with her time to meet with somebody by the name of "Karzai" who threw another of his hissy-fits but it is OK because Susan Rice sorted him out.

[video=youtube;HiZE3HN0zc0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiZE3HN0zc0[/video]

 

National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice meets with senior members of the Afghan security forces



National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice with SFC Moravac



National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice hugs a soldier at the Niagara DFAC at Kandahar Airfield



National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice with American and Afghan forces at Camp Morehead





Ambassador Susan E. Rice with General Dunford and Ambassador Cunningham



National Security Advisor Susan. E. Rice meets with students at the American University of Afghanistan in Kabul

 

With our enemy the Taliban now patrolling with the Afghan National Army which the NATO countries have funded with billions of pounds (mostly US dollars actually), anyone who is not in denial can plainly see the fatal flaw of funding an Afghan army over which we have no political control.

Also, we've been funding the Taliban's masters - Pakistan with more billions in aid and Saudi Arabia with even more billions in oil purchases. So the Taliban have been well funded, if indirectly, by us too.

So the Taliban have not been short of money to spend on training up new recruits to replace their fighters we've killed on the battlefields of Afghanistan.

It is a military fundamental that you don't win a war by funding your enemy but rather you win a war by bankrupting your enemy, cutting off the resources the enemy needs to sustain its army.

So we've made the war in Afghanistan much more difficult to win because of the incompetent management of the war by our governments which we've seen over the years. The mission can now be seen to be failing and it will take thorough remedial measures to bring the mission back on course.

Part of the solution would to be re-organise the Afghan forces as I have already described to counter green-on-blue attacks by Afghans on our own soldiers.

We should establish a new auxiliary NATO force of Afghans recruited from the Afghan National Army but which would be commanded by our NATO generals and be under our political control.

We should stop funding the ANA.

 

We shouldn't of gone into Afghan anyway.

Both the ANA and police are going to be untrustworthy, irrespective of who pays and controls them.

Ultimately the mission to rebuild Afghan is a failure and what little has been achieved is fragile at the best and temporary.

Frankly, victory in Afghanistan just wasn't and simply isn't possible.

As for combating terrorism in the UK, well that's why we have the intelligence services. Such an enemy can't be combated by soldiers.

 

Afghanistan would not have been my first choice of places to invade to prosecute the war on terror. My first choice would have been invading Saudi Arabia to seize the oil fields and dry up much of the funding for Al Qaeda. We ought to keep in mind that most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis.

Bin Laden went to Afghanistan and named his group "Al Qaeda" - "the base" specifically to make a big point of his Afghan bases so as to lure our forces into Afghanistan where they had previously beaten the Soviet super power and fancied their chances against the Western super-power, because the terrain is difficult for our tanks and we'd have long vulnerable supply lines they could cut or threaten to cut if we didn't pay them money and generally make us run our war like idiots.

So we fell right into Bin Laden's trap and we're still there even though he is dead because Bin Laden was a secret agent for the Saudi - Pakistani military dictatorship - jihadi imperialists and they have plenty of other terrorists to fight us - they don't need Bin Laden, though it was welcome progress when we got him.

After Saudi Arabia, my next choice would be regime changing Pakistan, to get a truly friendly Pakistani government and military that wouldn't support the Taliban. Then and only then would it be worth while going on to Afghanistan and probably via a supply route through Pakistan which we could defend ourselves having our forces invited into Pakistan to do that by a truly friendly Pakistani government.

Well we should not pay anyone we don't trust. So quit paying the ANA. Quit paying the Afghan police. Quit paying an Afghan state we can't trust.

Only a fool pays someone he doesn't trust.

Instead, organise a new auxiliary force of Afghans under NATO and only recruit the most trustworthy of locals to serve in that.

Well who's fault is that? The people in charge of our mission are at fault. Our governments are to blame for this failure, for running the mission like fools.

Nothing hard is possible to do by governments of idiots, fools and incompetents. That's the political lesson we must draw. We need higher quality, more knowledgeable people in positions of authority to run our wars. We need to quit appointing yes men who tell the politicians what they want to hear and instead appoint competent officials who tell the politicians the uncomfortable truths that they don't want to hear.

And at election time we need to keep looking out for better politicians who are better judges of people, who appoint competent officials in the first place.

Well intelligence is telling us that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are funding and organising terrorists - they are both state sponsors of terrorism - so to combat the terrorists we have to combat the Pakistani and Saudi regimes. In Pakistan it is more the generals and former generals who dictate military policy behind the scenes than the elected politicians who are responsible.

To combat state sponsors of terrorism we have to use the military to wage war to regime-change those states - that requires air power and missiles especially - strategic bombing to soften up the enemy, before perhaps sending in the troops, if we even have to do that, because sometimes regime-change can be had by use of strategic bombing alone although it takes a lot longer to work through as the people remove the discredited regime from within which has so mismanaged their country's affairs as to cause foreign bombs to be brought down on their country.

Also regime-change can be facilitated using other methods described in this thread - seizing control over satellite TV, stopping aid, economic sanctions, targeted assassination of regime leaders and so on.

But yes, it is very poor strategy indeed to send in the infantry on the ground without first taking all those other steps to weaken the enemy.

 

I think a full on invasion is a bit over the top and ultimately it would require international sanction as well as substantial and conclusive proof that the state of the KSA is actually doing this.

True

I suspect that the vetted volunteers of such an force would be too few to be a substantial element in the Afghan equation but it's not a bad idea although it might not look so good for PR.

Well it is very badly organised so I can't disagree with you there.

I do largely agree with you there but one does also have to factor in the culture/cultures of Afghanistan and their lack of unity as well as their distrust of foreign forces and not to mention the many that struggle to make a living.

All the more reason to keep our opposition quiet and covert.

Well unfortunately it's not all that legal to do so. And public opinion would not be in favour of a forced regime change

Well I think assassination is something that should be considered last.
But the thing is that embargoes and seizing national media may actually get people to back those regimes rather than rebel against them.

 

It's not any more "over the top" than the other invasions we've done - in Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, while we had forces in Iraq, it was a lot more convenient to invade neighbouring Saudi Arabia and more "over the top" to invade inconvenient Afghanistan.

Well there's plenty of proof.

I've posted this video twice already in this thread.

[video=youtube;T1dcwrucnAk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1dcwrucnAk[/video]

then there's this one.

[video=youtube;V79M8svB3Rw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V79M8svB3Rw[/video]

But the proof is well known in intelligence circles though many governments prefer to turn a blind eye in public, they know.

Wikipedia - State sponsored terrorism - Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia is said to be the world's largest source of funds for Salafi jihadist terrorist militant groups, such as al-Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, and Lashkar-e-Taiba in South Asia, and donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide, according to Hillary Clinton.[110] According to a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state, "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups."​

The auxiliary force could be strengthened by recruiting also from neighbouring countries like India, which has a very large population to recruit from. It looks excellent for PR if we control the TV satellite broadcasting.

I'm not sure why you think all that should justify or excuse our governments being led by incompetent politicians appointing incompetent officials. However hard the job in Afghanistan is it must be right to put our best people on the job.

No, we should be public and bold about naming our enemies, the type of people they are and the particular names as and when we know them and our intention to have those enemies arrested

For example what works is when we were very bold about our opposition to Bin Laden and we were after him, though we kept the details of the specific operation to capture or kill him quiet and covert. That's the way to deal with all our enemies.

However, we have not yet been bold about our opposition to the Pakistani generals and former generals who have been sponsoring terror. In fact the ex Pakistani military dictator, General Musharraf lived in London for a time quite happily because he was never declared to be an enemy of ours. He appeared on Western TV chat shows like butter would not melt in his mouth.

If we keep quiet and never name our enemies publicly then they won't ever be touched. They'll go on waging war against us secretly with a kind of political immunity.

We have done this before, legally and with the public support, well most of the public but it is a free country so you will always get some opposition from some of the public and long may it be that way. That's the freedom that we enjoy.

Sometimes it is the only way. There was no other way to get Bin Laden and maybe that'll be the case with the rest of them too?

Well I am sure if we explain on their TV why we are doing what we are doing, who we need arrested, and that we can stop all those sanctions etc when we get our enemies then they will understand.

Getting their backs up won't change the equation. Either they help us get our enemies or there will be a price to pay. We aren't depending on them liking us for our pressure to encourage them to help us. They can hate us if they insist even if we don't hate them but it won't stop our sanctions.

If we are fair and proportionate and if we seize the satellite TV to make our case to the people, they will understand. They may not like it much but they will know where they stand with us.

 

We had a lot of forces temporarily based in Saudi Arabia before, and fighting in southern parts of Iraq during, Gulf War 1 to kick Saddam's forces out of Kuwait and based in Kuwait afterwards. So before we invaded Afghanistan, but after 9/11, turning our forces around to invade Saudi Arabia was easier, more convenient and less over the top. Of course, it was not until after we invaded Afghanistan that we later went back to re-invade all of Iraq to oust Saddam's regime altogether.

 

Cheers Mr President!

I've prepared some war on terror strategy notes for the new Director of the APSPO, as follows.

AfPak Mission briefing notes for the Director of the APSPO

The primary challenge to security in Afghanistan is Pakistan. The struggle is primarily with the Pakistani military intelligence service, the ISI, waging a war to oust our forces, using proxy irregular forces of the Pakistani military, call them "insurgents" or "Taliban", but they serve the imperialist generals and former generals of Pakistan who still dictate the military policy of Pakistan, behind the scenes of the window-dressing of an elected but powerless government.

Watch the BBC's "SECRET PAKISTAN" videos which show how the very same Pakistani military, the US gave $10 billion to since 2001, is actually SUPPORTING, RECRUITING, TRAINING, SUPPLYING AND DIRECTING THE TALIBAN.

The BBC's "SECRET PAKISTAN" videos

Part 1 - 1 hour

[video=youtube;qSinK-dVrig]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSinK-dVrig[/video]

Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 1 (Double Cross) - YouTube

Part 2 - 1 hour

[video=youtube;G5-lSSC9dSE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5-lSSC9dSE[/video]

Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 2 (Backlash) - YouTube

The next video is not part of the "SECRET PAKISTAN" videos but it does mention the role of Saudi Arabia in funding terrorism in Pakistan so it's worth including for that reason.

Bonus video - Saudi Arabia is to blame too

[video=youtube;T1dcwrucnAk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1dcwrucnAk[/video]

America's 'allies' Saudi & Pakistan: 'enemies' more like! - YouTube

The secondary challenge to US & NATO security in which Afghanistan features, is in the deeper strategic war being waged against us by Al-Qaeda who lured our forces to Afghanistan where they believed they could repeat their success in defeating another super-power some years ago, the Soviet Union, but this time defeating us, the Western super-power led by the US.

Whilst this strategic war is not in the minds of the typical Taliban fighter or their ISI controllers (their simple war aim is merely to oust us from Afghanistan ASAP) the Al-Qaeda plan would be to inflict heavy casualties and dissolve our NATO cohesion first before we are driven out of Afghanistan, a super-power no more.

If Pakistan's secret is revealed now that the Taliban are indeed run by the ISI for the Pakistani military then it follows that the concept of containing or including the Taliban could only be as valid (or as invalid) as the equivalent concept of containing or including the Pakistani military, the masters of the Taliban.

So the investment of US lives and treasure in Afghanistan whilst, yes, increasing the absolute performance of the Afghan military has not done so well in relative terms against the Taliban because the US has, rather foolishly in retrospect, been paying Pakistan billions of dollars in military aid, part of which they have invested in the Taliban and part in more nuclear weapons.

Perhaps most dangerously for our security we have allowed Pakistan to assume they can sponsor terrorists such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to attack us yet escape state responsibility for doing so and escape our wider application of the Bush Doctrine to regime-change Pakistan.

We need a new strategy which defeats the Taliban (and Al Qaeda) by applying the Bush Doctrine versus those states which sponsor those terrorists - Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Applying the Bush Doctrine versus Afghanistan alone makes as little strategic sense as it would have if we'd applied Cold War doctrine to say Cuba alone but not against the Soviet Union and its Eastern European client communists states!

It is a military fundamental that you don't win a war by funding your enemy but rather you win a war by bankrupting your enemy, cutting off the resources the enemy needs to sustain its army.

We should apply massive pressure to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, up to and including war if necessary. Something fairly dramatic is needed to show the state sponsors of terrorism that their plan for a secret war against us with no chance of any blow-back has utterly failed and they are looking down the barrel of a real war with us.



AfPak Mission Channel AfPak Mission - YouTube
Forum For Freedom Forums
Twitter http://twitter.com/AfPakMission
Flickr Flickr: AfPak Mission's Photostream
Blog AfPak Mission

 

Taking sides on post-2014 troop levels, I'm for the 10,000 US troops + allies option outlined here as the Dunford plan supported by Hagel, Kerry, Brennan, Dempsey as barely enough for a sustainable military presence in Afghanistan against all foes.

I oppose the Biden 1,000 to 2,000 troops plan supported by Blinken & Lute for the reason stated by the Pentagon - it's too few troops for force protection.

2,000 troops is not enough troops to keep even one airbridge military base defended and the troops supplied by air against a sustained attack.

Potentially, it is 2,000 casualties or prisoners of war who would be at the mercy of a hostile army.

If it is only 2,000 troops then you'd better have plenty of helicopters to fly them all out in one night because they may have to leave Afghanistan in a hurry!

I do support Dunford's notion of concentrating the 10,000 in 2 main air bases and Bagram and Kandahar are his expected choices.

2 main air bases is far preferable to spreading them out in the "9 bases" proposal floated in earlier reports. The troops spread out in 9 bases would be too vulnerable.

The "2,000 to 3,000 troops from allied countries near Mazar-i-Sharif in the north, led by a German contingent, and Herat in the west, under Italian command" sounds reasonable and sustainable so long as the level of hostilities is routine.

Ideally, it would be preferable to keep not only Bagram, Kandahar, Mazar-i-Sharif and Herat open but Bastion air base too but that would require either a British contingent or more US troops than just the 10,000.

As a British republican and loyal friend and ally of the US, if I was commanding British forces I'd offer a 1/5th proportional contribution to whatever US troops at 10,000 or above - so I'd offer 2,000 British troops as 1/5th of 10,000 US troops.

It is my understanding that shamefully UK Prime Minister David Cameron is intent on withdrawing all British forces at the end of 2014.

Once again this is a cautionary example to our American friends that royalists do not have the staying power and resolve of republicans and so the UK royals should not be as popular in the US as they seem to be.

The Queen and her governments are not as dependable a friend to the US as many Americans seem to think they are. The UK royalists are nowhere nearly as loyal to the US as British republicans like myself are.

Where I differ from Hagel and Kerry is that I don't think a signed BSA is an absolute requirement and if sufficient forces were available, an occupation option should be offered to the President, with objectives much the same as Dunford's plan for 10,000 but configured to resist even determined opposition from all foes attempting to expel our occupying forces.

I think it is important not to surrender our war on terror objectives to any Afghan President. If we tuck tail and run from Karzai or his successor then I don't see that as too different from running from the Taliban and their Pakistani ISI masters and we certainly don't want to be seen to be doing that!

Showing weakness in retreating from the enemy will only invite more aggression against us, more terrorism, more blackmail and extortion from Pakistan.

For the plan to occupy bases versus all foes then more investment is needed to secure the airbridges required to keep the troops supplied.

20,000 French troops proved to be insufficient when in 1954 they were guarding one airbridge military base at Dien Bien Phu, Vietnam when the French base was overrun by the Viet Minh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu

The base needs to occupy a big area to defend the landing and takeoff fight paths vs enemy ground-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft gun-fire.

The area occupied by the French at Dien Bien Phu proved to be too small at only 2 x 5 miles.

Occupying a base area of at least 20 x 20 miles would be better, more practical to defend.



One does need to defend a large perimeter to keep the enemy guns out of range of the base's runways.

Typically 1000 guards are required to defend one 1 base in routine circumstances to defend the perimeter defences alone.

If the Taliban are surged massively, perhaps supported by regular troops of Pakistan, Iran or even Afghanistan, and the enemy army brings artillery to bear and concentrates a sustained attack on one base, as did the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu then the base would need 10,000 guards to defend the base and win the battle.

Fewer troops are required if engineers build impenetrable wide perimeter defences, meaning vehicle barriers anti-tank minefields, infantry barriers, barbed wire, anti-personnel mine-fields - to a mine field thickness of 2 miles all around the base, and that could be 40 miles or more of a perimeter circumference to build - and the perimeter watched over 24/7 by guards in hardened machine gun positions.


Perimeter defences for a military base for the Global War on Terror by Peter Dow


Gun tower for the perimeter defences of a military base for the Global War on Terror by Peter Dow


See the AfPak Mission forum for more details and to discuss strategy.

Perimeter defences plan for a military base

 

The Afghan nation is not militarily capable of successfully defending the territorial integrity of its internationally recognised claim to sole jurisdiction over all the land of Afghanistan.

In other words, the Afghans can't stop the Taliban, an enemy force sponsored by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and others from invading Afghanistan and waging war against the Afghan nation with the secret aim to establish a vassal state for the Pakistani military empire.

Although Afghans tried to defend their country versus the Taliban before we invaded, they were not successful and the Taliban state of Afghanistan was established.

Even now, before we have fully drawn-down our forces to much below the level they were at before the surge ordered by President Obama, we see the Taliban operating unchallenged in parts of Afghanistan.

No shame on Afghans for failing to exclude an enemy presence in Afghanistan because it is a difficult, perhaps impossible country to secure the borders of - except perhaps in the depth of winter when many mountain border crossings become impassable.

Therefore while I do propose that NATO occupy airbases in Afghanistan - and to do so securely by fortifying versus the threat of siege so that the airbases can be supplied entirely by air - for the purposes of fighting enemy terrorists and their state sponsors in the region, the net effect of such a limited military occupation would be significantly to defend and to enhance the exercise of Afghan national sovereignty and sole jurisdiction over significant parts of Afghanistan that would be in severe jeopardy of being lost entirely to the Taliban should we withdraw all our forces or deploy only a trivial force level in an insecure way as mere potential hostages for the Taliban.

In other words, the writ of the national government of Afghanistan will run over more of Afghanistan with us there as occupiers of a limited number of bases, perhaps 4, than us not there at all.

Lest we forget, we are in a state of war against state sponsored terrorism and in times of war then legal technicalities of sole jurisdiction of national government sometimes have to be infringed upon.

We have our own national sovereignty of the NATO and allied nations to put first (which is threatened by terrorists sponsored by states in the region) before questions of Afghan national sovereignty though no democrat such as myself would ever be insensitive to such important matters.

I propose that we sign BSAs and SOFAs with any and all representatives of the people of Afghanistan who wish us to maintain our military presence in parts of Afghanistan. I would seek above all the signature of candidates for the Afghan presidency.

One such signature would be sufficient to justify our continuing presence, more would be better but I do not think it would be necessary to either have BSAs or SOFAs signed with either the elected president of Afghanistan or by the speaker of the parliament of Afghanistan.

Sure that would be nice to have the representatives of a majority of Afghan votes signing a BSA & SOFA. That would be worthwhile but not so necessary as to compel us to make foolish compromises with our security - to agree foolishly not to launch counter-terrorism raids from our bases against targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to agree foolishly not to fortify our airbases versus the threat of siege so that our supplies could be blocked and our forces held to ransom and so on.

Greedy rulers like Karzai and those of Pakistani seek a stranglehold on our forces to exert leverage, to blackmail and to extort money and power from us, making us weaker while they grow stronger at our expense. That would end if my approach is adopted by NATO.

So as far as I am concerned there is no "Karzai veto" or "Afghan president veto" or "Afghan parliament veto".

The power of a national veto can be lost in war and it was lost as far as Afghanistan and Pakistan are concerned on 9/11.

Now at least we can be honest about our limited but necessary infringements upon Afghan territory which contrasts with the dishonesty of the secret infringements of the Pakistani military which sponsors the Taliban precisely to remove Afghan national authority over all of Afghanistan.

One somewhat similar example to think of is the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This military base is on the island of Cuba but it does not significantly infringe upon Cuban national sovereignty - which is much more threatened daily by the Castro dictatorship than by the base.

If the Afghans and Pakistanis can cease state sponsoring of terrorism then they have as little to fear from NATO Afghan airbases as do the Cuban people from the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay.

Likewise as the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay is not a hostage to the Castros then the Castros are not able to get rich with a veto over the US Naval Base operations, are not able to blackmail and to extort ever more for permission to remain.

So it would be with NATO Afghan bases. We would be there without fear or favour; offering friendship and support to all who would be our real friends but resolute in confronting our enemies.

 

American city nuked after the so-called 'Drop-Dead Date'

What Senator Lindsey Graham doesn't realise is that he and President Obama if they agree with a "drop-dead date" policy may be condemning Americans in American cities to be the ones who are dropping dead following the 'Drop-Dead Date'.

Why should American civilians in cities like New York be the ones to drop dead?

That's not what Senator Graham has in mind. He thinks the ones to drop dead would be Afghans. Not so. It would be Americans.

How could this be?

Well for example, if the Pakistani military give a nuclear weapon to an Al-Qaeda terrorist to set off in an American city then it will be American civilians dropping dead from a nuclear blast.

Plenty of Americans dropped dead on 9/11.

Plenty of Americans would drop dead in a terrorist nuclear attack on an American city.

Now that is the danger that Senator Graham and his "Drop-Dead Date" policy are heading Americans into.

So before anyone thinks that a "drop dead date" policy is clever and a good sound bite then we first need to look at why the danger is to American civilians in American cities dropping dead.

Senator Graham is the Senator from South Carolina and the largest metro in that state is Greenville with a population of more than 800,000.

Now if Greenville is unlucky and Al-Qaeda terrorists choose Greenville to set off a terrorist nuclear bomb in then very many of those 800,000 American citizens of Greenville will be dropping dead.

Now I am sure that Senator Graham does not have in mind the good citizens of Greenville would be the ones to be dropping dead after his "Drop Dead Date" policy had gone in to operation.

Nevertheless Senator Graham and other Senators really ought to think of that scenario or some other American metro being destroyed by a terrorist nuclear weapon before he goes to the media boasting about his "Drop Dead Date" policy.

Someone needs to explain to the good Senator that all those in the Oval Office who think a "Drop Dead Date" is a good policy may be condemning American civilians in American cities to be dropping dead some time after their much flaunted "Drop Dead Date".

Why?

Because if we pull our forces out of Afghanistan after a "drop dead date" then the Pakistani military will believe that their terrorists are winning the war on terror, that the US is weak and on the retreat, doesn't have the will to win, will pay billions of dollars and then go home.

The Pakistani military will see that as a green light to intensify terrorist attacks in American with which to make further blackmail and extortion demands on the USA.

The Pakistani military got $10 billion in military aid after 9/11 and if they get away with that, if the USA retreats from Pakistan having done nothing but give money to the USA's enemies in the Pakistani military then the next terrorist attack will be bigger and more damaging with a view to get even more than $10 billion.

I do not know how much the Pakistani military will be looking to get from the USA after their nuclear attack on an American city but I would expect that they would be expecting a great deal more than $10 billion - maybe $100 billion or more. I don't know.

But if the USA is weak and paying up to terrorists then they will terrorise the USA even more to get as much money as they can get.

We need to keep the Afghan bases to wage war on our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan - both the terrorists sponsored by the ISI of the Pakistani military and we need to wage war on the ISI itself and all Pakistani generals and former generals who are dictating policy to sponsor terrorism.

We need to keep the Afghan bases without paying Afghanistan anything or giving any ground whatsoever in the war on terror.

Keep the bases as an act of war against our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

That is the best way to be make sure that our enemies in Pakistan know that we are not retreating that we are still at war with our enemies in Pakistan and we will hold them accountable one day for 9/11 and certainly even more so if there are any further big terrorist attacks on the USA like that.

We must teach Pakistan accountability for their terrorists and if we withdraw our forces after a drop dead date then Pakistan will have escaped responsibility for 9/11 and our enemies in Pakistan will believe that they can escape responsibility for another such massive terrorist attack on America, perhaps next time with nuclear weapons.

So don't use the phrase "Drop dead date" except to explain how stupid and dangerous such a policy is because it will be Americans dropping dead.

Don't abandon our Afghan bases. Keep them even if the next Afghan president doesn't sign the BSA.

That's the way to win the war on terror.
A 'Drop-Dead date' is the way to lose.

 

Obama going soft on war on Al Qaeda

And here are the headlines of the next few years (maybe)

• US stops adding al Qaeda leaders to 'kill list' - Threat Matrix

• US announces peace talks with Al-Qaeda.

• US president signs peace treaty with Al-Qaeda.

• Pentagon purges military to quell dissent against Al-Qaeda treaty.

• Rump US military stages joint exercises with Al-Qaeda.

• Obama appointed senior Al-Qaeda commander in America.

• US military joins Al-Qaeda renamed as "Al-Qaeda in America".

• Al-Qaeda in America occupies Congress and the Supreme court.

• US Congress members and Supreme Court judges beheaded.

• Al-Qaeda in America defeats National Rifle Association in last stand.

• Al-Qaeda declares Sharia Law in America.

• Barack Obama gets his 2nd Nobel Peace Prize.

Yes he can?

 

Who knows ... we are already funding Al Qaeda in Syria ... who knows what is next.

As far as Sharia Law. We do not need Al Qaeda to do this. The religious right is taking care of that.

 

Pakistani ISI chief "knew of Bin Laden's presence in Abbottabad"
Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, was the Director-General of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's main intelligence service, from October 2008 until March 2012.

Carlotta Gall's excellent article is consistent with the findings of the BBC's Panorama documentary "SECRET PAKISTAN" (2011).

The buck stops with the President, Obama. Why is Obama turning a blind eye to the enemy rooted in the Pakistani military?

This is not Obama, the community organizer, representing the interests of the American communities threatened by a Pakistani nuclear bomb which the ISI could give, claiming "theft", to their Al Qaeda terrorists for a devastating attack on the US homeland.

This is Obama, the peace-prize winner, wishing a legacy of "war is over", and welcoming advice to surrender Afghanistan to the Pakistani military from Pakistan's woman inside the White House, Robin Raphel.

This is Obama, the defamation lawyer, denying the incompetence of his Secretaries of Defense - Gates, Panetta & Hagel - and their Pentagon advisers who have founded their failing Afghan strategy on co-operation with the treacherous Pakistani military, depending on Pakistan's roads and air-space for US and NATO logistics purposes but at the price of taking off the table the winning Afghan and war on terror strategy of regime-change of Pakistan via policies of ultimatums, sanctions and war under the Bush Doctrine to root out the generals and former generals comprising the Pakistani military dictatorship which continues to sponsor jihadi terrorism and imperialism behind the scenes of an elected but relatively powerless government of Pakistan.

 

Sorry this above quoted photograph is of another implicated Pakistani general, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. More on him in a minute.

First the correct photograph of Pasha.




Pakistani ISI chief "knew of Bin Laden's presence in Abbottabad"
Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, was the Director-General of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's main intelligence service, from October 2008 until March 2012.

Bin Laden's Sugar Generals

The Pakistani Generals who provided for Osama Bin Laden while taking $ billions from the USA.

Ashfaq Parvez Kayani & Ahmad Shuja Pasha

Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani appointed Pasha as director general of Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), on 29 September 2008.

Previously, Kayani himself had served as director of the ISI from October 2004 to October 2007 and accordingly would have been responsible for providing safe houses for Bin Laden and other state sponsored terrorists during that period.





Directors General of the Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence since 9/11

• October 1999 – October 2001: LGen Mahmud Ahmed
• October 2001 – October 2004: LGen Ehsan ul Haq
• October 2004 – October 2007: LGen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani
• October 2007 – October 2008: LGen Nadeem Taj
• October 2008 – 19 March 2012: LGen Ahmad Shuja Pasha
• 19 March 2012 – present: LGen Zaheerul Islam

Full list of DGs of the ISI, from 1948

 

Again the extremists groups in Pakistan which are attacking, violently indimidating and killing journalists are directed by the Pakistani military ISI.

The ISI censors newspapers and murders journalists because it wants its secret war against the West kept secret.

 

And the longer this goes on, the more it appears that this belongs in "Conspiracy Theory", and not "Military".

 

The notion that there can be no such thing as a "military secret" can only be held by someone who is ignorant of military affairs.

So it is "military" but if it appears another way to you can I request then that you remove your subscription to this thread and stop trolling it?

The evidence for Pakistan's secret terrorist war against the West can be viewed in the BBC's "SECRET PAKISTAN" videos.


BBC's SECRET PAKISTAN


Part 1. Double Cross

[video=youtube;qSinK-dVrig]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSinK-dVrig[/video]


Part 2. Backlash

[video=youtube;G5-lSSC9dSE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5-lSSC9dSE[/video]

 

It ought to worry NATO that the NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen was so naive, gullible and foolish as in January 2010 when he engaged in diplomacy with the enemy Pakistani generals who had been providing VIP protection to Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan.

It's not the job of NATO Secretary General to spend his (or her) valuable time on diplomacy with military enemies whose secret agent terrorist and insurgent forces have attacked NATO countries and our people many times.

The NATO countries have diplomats of their own. We didn't set NATO up to do more diplomacy but to offer military leadership to defend us from our enemies by military means!

But Rasmussen does things his own way.

Maybe Rasmussen thinks it is better if he, as NATO Secretary General, does diplomacy with our military enemies? Maybe he prefers appeasement to war?

Maybe Rasmussen actually has his head in the sand, is in denial about the treacherous nature of the Pakistani military high command and he really thinks Pakistani generals like Kayani are to be trusted?

Rasmussen is supposed to be defending NATO countries from our enemies, not shaking hands with enemy generals like we are "all for one and one for all" with our enemies!



Not content with misleading NATO since 2009, Rasmussen has recommended a successor in the same mould of clueless and incompetent former prime ministers of kingdoms - Jens Stoltenberg, former PM of the Kingdom of Norway - who threatens to doom NATO to years of more bad leadership after Rasmussen has retired!


Anders Fogh Rasmussen (left) and Jens Stoltenberg (right) - a right pair of royalist idiots

See also
Royalist Stoltenberg to head NATO, weakening democracy, inciting enemies.

 

Top Left: Admiral Mike Mullen, US Navy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2007 to 2011.

Top Right: General Ashfaq Kayani, Pakistani army, ran Pakistani terrorism from 2004 as ISI Director, made Chief of the Army Staff in 2007.

Top: The photograph shows Admiral Mike Mullen welcoming General Ashfaq Kayani aboard the US aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln in 2008, though terrorists ran by the Pakistani military have killed thousands of Americans, from the USS Cole, to 9/11 to Afghanistan!

Bottom Left: In 2000, the USS Cole was bombed by Al Qaeda, killing 17.

Bottom Right: Osama Bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda, was a secret agent of the Pakistani military intelligence service, the ISI, who gave him VIP protection.

As naive, gullible and foolish as to welcome the enemy

 

Backstabin dirtydealin sweettalkin doublecrossin flimflamin twotimin whitewashin falsifyin buddykillin PAKI-ISI