Obama doesn't have mental problems and McCain does i will trust Obama
to end this invasion of Pakistan not McCain .

On Oct 3, 4:17 am, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And who is going to stop this escalation? Not Obama, he agrees with
> it.
>
> mike532 [ Republicans for Obama ] wrote:
>
>
>
> > Pakistan, United States: Brink of War?
>
> >http://www.truthout.org/article/mustafa-qadri-pakistan-united-states-...
> > The US steps up border raids into Pakistan, creating a game of
> > brinkmanship between troops from both countries. (Photo: Anjum
> > Naveed / AP)
> >     As the United States steps up border raids into Pakistan, troops
> > from both countries have commenced a deadly game of brinksmanship.
> > Although aimed at asserting each other's military presence along the
> > Pakistan-Afghan border, the skirmishes risk outright hostilities.
>
> >     U.S. strikes in Pakistan are nothing new. Washington has conducted
> > unilateral missile strikes since soon after its invasion of
> > Afghanistan in October 2001. American pilotless surveillance planes
> > have been flying over the restive border with near impunity for much
> > the same time.
>
> >     From Air to Ground
>
> >     But the tone of the U.S. presence changed this year. In July,
> > President George W. Bush approved covert ground raids into suspected
> > militant hideouts in the Waziristan region of Pakistan, much of which
> > is a Taliban stronghold. Militants use the region as a sanctuary from
> > which to strike foreign and Afghan troops in neighboring Afghanistan.
> > Thus far, U.S. forces attempted at least three ground assaults. The
> > only confirmed ground invasion of Pakistan, on September 3, led to the
> > deaths of around 20 civilians, including women and children. No
> > militant leaders were believed captured or killed in the raid.
>
> >     This ground assault led to unprecedented rhetoric from Pakistan
> > condemning the United States. Even Chief of Army Staff Gen. Ashfaq
> > Kayani, normally quite evasive with the media, said that the Army
> > would defend Pakistan's territory. The Pakistani government summoned
> > the U.S. ambassador to the foreign office and blocked NATO supplies
> > vital to the multinational force's continued operation in Afghanistan.
>
> >     Pakistan averted two other attempted ground raids when its border
> > forces fired warning shots at U.S. helicopters ferrying commandos into
> > Waziristan. On the most recent occasion, Pakistan and U.S. troops
> > exchanged fire for five minutes. Pakistan s government later claimed
> > that its army fired flares, not bullets, at the helicopters, but this
> > explanation did not sound very convincing.
>
> >     Ostensibly, Washington fears that Waziristan - and other tribal
> > regions - could become a staging area for further attacks on the
> > United States if the Pakistani army doesn t root out pro-Taliban
> > forces. But Washington doubts whether Islamabad is capable of doing
> > the job.
>
> >     More broadly, U.S. policy in the region is increasingly shaped by
> > its failure to establish unequivocal dominance in Iraq. With the War
> > on Terror overshadowing U.S. foreign policy for the foreseeable
> > future, the next U.S. president will have to deliver victory in some
> > form to a skeptical public. That is the ultimate legacy of the
> > September 11 hijackers, and the Bush administration.
>
> >     The Next Target
>
> >     That victory will most likely not come out of the violence and
> > political mess of Iraq. Although the Bush administration and both
> > presidential candidates support a significant, continued military
> > presence in Iraq, the United States has accepted that it can t control
> > the entire country by direct military force. It may have had some
> > success in marginalizing al-Qaeda in Iraq - after initially spurring
> > its growth - but it has also been forced to accept Shia domination of
> > domestic politics.
>
> >     Iran was seriously mooted as the next frontline and even now
> > experiences tremendous diplomatic pressure from Washington. But it s
> > difficult for the United States to promote the Shia state as the next
> > front in the War on Terror, however much Israel or its lobby in the
> > United States may favor this path. Iran doesn t pose an immediate
> > threat, nor would it afford a quick and easy military campaign.
> > Rather, war with Iran would almost certainly lead to a severe
> > disruption of global energy supplies and the world economy.
>
> >     Pakistan, in comparison, is an irresistible target. The United
> > States claims to have evidence that the government supports jihadis
> > that wage war against the United States and NATO in Afghanistan. Even
> > a limited, covert war, directed at militants, not the Pakistan Army,
> > is arguably the easiest sell the United States has ever had to make
> > since the 1990 war with Iraq. The only factor preventing all-out
> > conflict is Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
>
> >     Escalation
>
> >     U.S. raids and missile strikes may be an attempt to see how far it
> > can go with Pakistan. After Pervez Musharraf stepped down as
> > president, the United States felt uninhibited by the concern that its
> > Pakistan interventions were impairing a staunch ally. There have been
> > as many missile strikes this year as in the previous seven.
>
> >     Pakistan has engaged in loud rhetoric decrying the attacks and
> > asserted it won t tolerate intrusions into its territory. Strong
> > public criticism was inevitable to placate a population deeply
> > resentful of the U.S. presence in the region. Both civilian and
> > military leaders have to guard against forces, such as rival
> > politicians or upstart officers, using the crisis to leverage power.
>
> >     Even internationally, if Pakistan hadn t condemned the U.S.
> > attacks, it would have tacitly acknowledged that it can t address the
> > militant problem on its own. That would be an open invitation to more
> > interference from foreign armies and, potentially down the road,
> > international isolation as a failed state.
>
> >     Pakistan, as it currently exists, relies on U.S. patronage for its
> > survival. There s very little it can do if the United States decides
> > to step up its military presence in Pakistan. According to the State
> > Department, the United States has given Pakistan $2.4 billion in
> > "security assistance" and $3.4 billion in economic assistance over the
> > past seven years. Pakistan has obtained a raft of loans and credits
> > from international financial institutions like the World Bank and the
> > Asian Development Bank since its rehabilitation by the United States
> > after September 11.
>
> >     Despite the cold-headed realism, there s a real danger that future
> > confrontations between Pakistan and U.S. troops could escalate into
> > outright hostilities. The Pakistani army s rank-and-file is deeply
> > uneasy about military operations that have killed several thousand
> > fellow citizens and Muslims at the behest of Washington, not
> > Islamabad. Pakistan border posts may welcome any future U.S. intrusion
> > into Pakistan as an opportunity to assert their country's
> > independence.
>
> >     U.S. and NATO commanders in Afghanistan also resent what they see
> > as Pakistan's unwillingness to stop militants from attacking their
> > troops from hideouts in Pakistan. U.S. Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright
> > recently told Congress that 30-40% of the attacks in Afghanistan come
> > from Pakistan, an increasing proportion. American commanders may not
> > need much persuasion to fire on Pakistani forces if they are seen to
> > be getting in the way of militant targets. Even a standoff could
> > accidentally escalate into all-out hostilities.
>
> >     If substantial casualties ensue, Islamabad and Washington might be
> > hard-pressed to soothe popular calls for revenge.
>
> >     ---------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to