Resistance is the first step towards Iraqi independence

Jay # 27

(Now pakistanis are building fences, they are in the tribal areas, where alexander failed with his horsemen, littele pieces of paper with a dead mans image is winning, .. There is fencing in the pak afghan border, fencing in the indo-pak border. India will opt for iran-india under sea pipe to transport gas, and indo iranian navy will be just outside pak)

My hypothesis is close to your appreciation of the situation.

The next threat to Pakistan is from the Pashtoon Talibanic drive from the West. It is going to be ideoligical + religious coersion + sporadic guerilla warfare. It is going to be spread over time.

Circumstances have already put India in an advantageous position. While it can fuel the Talibanic drive into Pakistan through Afghanistan from the west, it can put coersive + military + diplomatic pressure from the East. A two-front pressure.

If Pakistan continues to fuel the religious militancy in Kashmir - it is only providing inroads and legitimacy to this Taibanic drive into Pakistan. The net result of this unthoughtful policy will be that, in due course of time, the areas falling West of Indus will fall back to Afghanistan - their historical position. And areas falling East of Indus, Punjab & Sind, will merge into their historical parts across the border - thus fusing into their original Punjab & Sind civilizations.

If lessons from history are to be learnt, India & Pakistan should sign a peace treaty & fight against this common ideological threat from the West - it will be good for the domestics of both countries as well.

Pakistan has no threat from India because of its secular democratic make up + the rules of engagement are clearly defined - Conventional and/or Nuclear - sufficient detterence to prevent a war.

Above is only an hypothesis and is open to discussion.

Re Airmarshal
``I really don`t see much difference between the reasonings justifying the deaths of Americans in the WTC, by OBL`s followers, and the reasonings justifying the occupation and deaths of Iraqis by the Americans, by this wars apologists. Both groups who present these reasonings basically have the same mindsent, i.e. they are convinced that these killlings (WTC and Iraq) are a necessary step for the betterment of the world.``

There is no moral equivalence, try as hard as you may, between the deliberate attack specially designed to kill innocent civilians and the tragic non-military consequences of a war between two armed forces. You don`t see the difference because you don`t want to; seeing the difference and acknowledging it will destroy the false plank of knee-jerk anti-Americanism that your rhetoric invariably comes down to. That is pretty obvious because for all your tears about the `killing of Iraqis` you didn`t say a whit during the time that the Baathists killed, killed, and killed in the tens of thousands on a regular basis. You don`t care about the life of Iraqis but just use that as an excuse to blame the US.

I think there are two groups who are overly supportive of violence. One is the group that is completely infatuated with OBL. They can see him doing no wrong. And thus follow every statement he makes, as the gospel, without challenging it. The second group is completely infatuated with the USA. They can see the USA doing no wrong. And thus follow every statement made by the USA, as the gospel, without challenging it.

When people become so addicted to one person, one concept, one country, they lose all sight of right and wrong. To the point of easily accepting the deaths of other humans for their cause.

I really don`t see much difference between the reasonings justifying the deaths of Americans in the WTC, by OBL`s followers, and the reasonings justifying the occupation and deaths of Iraqis by the Americans, by this wars apologists. Both groups who present these reasonings basically have the same mindsent, i.e. they are convinced that these killlings (WTC and Iraq) are a necessary step for the betterment of the world.

I think such people can never be convinced to change their minds, other than through force. OBL and his followers are on the run. Hopefully, soon the followers of the USA`s pre-emptive strike policy will be on the run, also.

Iraq now has a bleak future, I am afraid. Of the 87 billion coming in from the USA, 64 billion is to beef up the occupation forces. Only 18 billion is for the Iraqis. I think the budget of Iraq during the sanction days, was about this much. So things aren`t going to improve much. And what about next year? Will $87 get approved again? What happens then.

There is an interesting debate going on in Canada about an Arab-Canadian citizen named Mehr Ahrar. He was taken by the USA, from an aircraft in Ameica, and sent to Syria, for torture. Instead of deporting him to his home country of Canada. The Americans wanted the Syrians to torture him, to get information, since it could not be done in the USA. Right along with his interview, in which he explained his one-year long ordeal, was today`s speech by Bush, in which he threatens Syria to reform itself. Doesn`t really make sense. Ahrar is sent by the USA to Syria for torture, and then Syria is being asked to reform itself.

The Canadian press is quite pissed off at the USA govt. for deporting a Canadian citizen to Syria, instead of his home nation of Canada. They are also challenging the Canadian govt. on why it allowed it to happen. Every opposition leader is challenging the PM in the parliament. Should make interesting journalism. I think this is the difference between Canada and USA society. Had Mehr been an American, I doubt anyone would have bothered, about him.

I think all the Pakistanis (and Muslims) supporting the USA`s actions, need to keep in mind that what goes around, comes around. They could end up being the next Mehr Ahrar. And at the time, they will only have people like us, who are trying to oppose the USA`s actions, as the only group fighting for them. Although, at that point, it may not be worth our time, to support them.

temporal #45 no problem sir. just making sure i wasnt missing anything. hope you had a good day at work and made millions.

urstruly #47 i bring to your attention factual errors in your post and you respond by telling me the parable of the white ants vs brown ants. i remind you that a telling a story is not a response to a question of simple factual erros, and you hide behind Romair.

i think you are afraid of facing reality. is reality really that terrifying?

PS: and btw, Romair`s post, while lengthy, tried to cast doubt on only one of the factual errors i had pointed out, and that response was quite unconvincing as i explained to him (i.e. if the taliban really wanted to hand over bin laden to a third country, it was easy enough for them to do it. they just didnt believe bush when he gave them the ultimatum).

ironman #49 an afghani looks tall and tough in the subcontinent because so many other people in these parts are short and ``single-pasli``.

in any case, wars stopped being a contest of physical strength or aggressiveness the day firearms were invented. of course, gen hamid gul didnt know that.

tahmed32,

``...generals like gul hamid who made public statements back then that US soldiers were chocolate cream soldiers and no match for the tough afghans...``

A general thought on this.
The average afghan looks tall. However when standing next to the average US soldier we see their real height, which is about average south asian.

Why does the afghan look tall then?...I figure its their long tunics and thin bodies.

I do hope you`re right that americans and brits will be driven out of iraq for the sake of global peace, but I have a feeling that when the resistance spreads, america will cede a central role to the UN and the pacification of iraq will begin.

tahmad

I didn`t feel a need to ``correct my mistatement of facts`` because Romair already did, along with the evidence.

........george bush knows what needs to be done, let`s hope he can stick with it like ronald reagen..........


``As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export.

And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.

Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East.

This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before.

The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country. ``

tahmed32 #43:

...my apologies!...consider #34 as addressed to sighalpda only:)

...your name was posted by these overzealous fingers...rest assured soon as i return home this evening i will punish them fittingly...

termporal #34 How does US air superiority in Afghanistan and Iraq relate in any way to the points I am making?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Romair #37 if the taliban were willing to hand over omar to a third party, why didnt they just do it? all they had to do was to hand him over to, e.g., to the pakistani general who was sent as emissary to try and taliban to agree. so lets not kid ourselves.

the fact is that the taliban were sure that the US would never dare to attack them, since they had started believing their own myth of afghan invincibility. the ``fact`` that they had beaten two major powers over the past hundred years - the brits and the soviet union no doubt bolstered their delusions, as did the half-brained paki generals like gul hamid who made public statements back then that US soldiers were chocolate cream soldiers and no match for the tough afghans.

Sometime back I wanted to post a debate on Chowk regarding Neo Clausewitzianism. Somehow, not aware of the subject and its importance, the editors rejected it. Fareed Zakaria`s article and Tariq Ali`s views gives me the opportunity to dilate on some of the aspects of the subject that I wish to share with all friends.

Karl Von Clausewitz in his treatise “On War” talked about the nature of war. Hypothetically, he wrote that every war ought to be grand conducted on the scale of a Grand Strategy, resulting in the total annihilation and destruction of the enemy. Later, he ruled out this utopian idea with a view that though theoretically, such a war was possible, but elements like the ‘Centre of Gravity, Culmination Point and Friction” did not allow the war to take place in totality. Hence ruling out a Total war, he was of the view that all wars are limited in nature with a view to bringing the enemy to a favourable negotiating position. This concept brought a Copernican revolution about the thinking on the nature of conflicts and the centrality of politics to guide and control them. Hence, “war, an instrument of policy along with other means”. If the policy was good, so would the war be. The German General staff spent the last two decades of the nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth century in trying to realise a total war, in defiance and misperception of their great student of war. The same was the case with the French who were led into the ditch and levee en masse by Marshall Foch. USA contrarily has used all its hi tech to totally annihalate the Iraqi Defence Forces. They just left no room for negotiations and compromise. Thousands of innocent lives were lost that has bred even more hatred.

Clausewitz also talked about the Trinity of Politics, Military Operations and the People (social factor). Whereas the French and British had no clue of what Clausewitz meant, the Germans had to pay a heavy price by violating the neutrality of Belgium and Holland in WW1. The same was the case in the American Civil War, in which the North won despite a rag tag army and less technology. The overriding factor was the cause of the North and more volunteers. In both cases, military technology notwithstanding, the societies played a crucial part in winning the war. In Iraq`s case, the sentiments of Iraqis and the entire rational world were ignored. How will USA win the hearts and mind.

The advent of nuclear weapons brought a realisation that due to technology, total war would now be possible. Korean War struck by the bulwark approach of McArthur was a catalyst that decided once and for all that the control of nuclear weapons should remain in the hands of the civilians. Subsequent evolution of nuclear strategy and deterrence theories reinforced the centrality of politics under civilian control and the futility of a Total War. However, nuclear weapons emerged as another instrument of policy, independent of the armed forces in achieving political objectives. Strategists like Colin McGinnis and Ken Booth were quick to point out that in such a situation, it was now theoretically possible for a statesman to bypass the entire military instrument and bring about a total war i.e. a nuclear holocaust. This they called ‘Neo Clausewitzianism’.

Ever since the industrial revolution, technology has been a great force multiplier. So it is now not just the nuclear but other military means available directly in the hands of Civilians to interfere in a war, which in a way under mine the military instrument. Mass bombardment of Afghanistan and Iraq, though not nuclear presents a shade of Neo Clausewitzianism. This is what Rumsfield did with his own brand of special hitech forces.

Having got to lengths in making this premise, I am of the opinion that USA in Iraq not only violated the TRINITY but also led the world closer to Neo Clausewitzianism. With complete disregard to the international perception and the feelings of the entire Muslim world, USA attacked Iraq. Then in complete disregards to military operations, Donald Rumsfield launched his own war through CIA and HI Tech on Iraq, to the extent that relations were uneasy between CENTCOM and the Secretary Defence. At times Tommy Franks had no clue what the State department was up to.

So the present war has not only hurt the entire Muslim world despite words of caution from the international community, but also challenged the prevailing paradigm of conflict. Whatever stability USA can bring in Iraq, the sentiments of hate will continue to grow and USA will never be able to win the hearts and minds. Hi Tech weapons will continue to be challenged by primordial means. USA will never be able to impose the hi tech modernisation on a primordial and patriarchal society especially when the sentiments are driven by richness of history, religious beliefs and hate.

I agree that USA is in for a long haul and sooner of later, the invaders will have to leave unceremoniously.

urstruly #38 i am sure your ant story is delightful and look forward to reading it (rather than skimming through it as i just did) at leasure later on.

however, i must sadly note that it is not a response to my post in which i had corrected certain misstatements of facts that you made. the correct response would have been to (a) accept the facts and issue regrets for making erroneous statements; or (b) to reject the facts by providing a reasonable explanation.

so i am afraid, while no doubt you have contributed greatly to science with your brief on the behavior of the ants, it does not address the point i had made. a respect for facts indicates a respect for truth. is truth really that unimportant to you?

you are entitled to appear in a make-up exam (supplementary as we say in pakistan), and make another attempt at providing an honest response.