If AlQeda is getting stronger in Pakistan...

headscratcher4 · 19th February 2007, 01:15 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/wo...=1&oref=slogin

(need to subscribe)

What exactly are we doing in the middle of a predictable (and predicted) civil war in Iraq?

(NYTimes story on growing AlQeda strength in Pakistan).

Ziggurat · 19th February 2007, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/wo...=1&oref=slogin

(need to subscribe)

What exactly are we doing in the middle of a predictable (and predicted) civil war in Iraq?

Are you suggesting we should have invaded Pakistan? Otherwise, I don't see your point.

geni · 19th February 2007, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Are you suggesting we should have invaded Pakistan? Otherwise, I don't see your point.

Should have put more effort into the followup in afganistan.

Asside from that if the CIA doesn't know how to prop up a dictatorship by now I would be somewhat supprised.

headscratcher4 · 19th February 2007, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Are you suggesting we should have invaded Pakistan? Otherwise, I don't see your point.

No...we went were AlQeda wasn't, Iraq...and where it would be unlikely that AlQeda would ever have much influence...instead of winning the battle in Afghanastan. If our fight is against terrorism, it has been mis-construed, badly executed from the outset.

Ziggurat · 19th February 2007, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by geni

Should have put more effort into the followup in afganistan.

Afghanistan is not Pakistan. Why would more effort in Afghanistan have made Al Qaeda in Pakistan weaker? In fact, couldn't it have the opposite effect, where Al Qaeda decides not to spend resources in Afghanistan and focuses on Pakistan?

Quote:

Asside from that if the CIA doesn't know how to prop up a dictatorship by now I would be somewhat supprised.

Why would you be surprised? They've actually never been terribly good at that. If they were, Iran wouldn't be ruled by the mad mullahs.

headscratcher4 · 19th February 2007, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Afghanistan is not Pakistan. Why would more effort in Afghanistan have made Al Qaeda in Pakistan weaker? In fact, couldn't it have the opposite effect, where Al Qaeda decides not to spend resources in Afghanistan and focuses on Pakistan?

Why would you be surprised? They've actually never been terribly good at that. If they were, Iran wouldn't be ruled by the mad mullahs.

And, conversely, how has our battle in Iraq done anything to stop ALQeda? It is even further away from Pakistan.

Ultimately, it isn't about where. It is about focus. This Administration, battle, president haven't any.

geni · 19th February 2007, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Afghanistan is not Pakistan. Why would more effort in Afghanistan have made Al Qaeda in Pakistan weaker? In fact, couldn't it have the opposite effect, where Al Qaeda decides not to spend resources in Afghanistan and focuses on Pakistan?

Being right next to an enviroment that is not at all healthly for Al Qaeda followers is far from ideal position for them. Instead of putting effort in afganistan we lost interest and allowed their allies to move back in.

Quote:

Why would you be surprised? They've actually never been terribly good at that. If they were, Iran wouldn't be ruled by the mad mullahs.

That was somewhat unusal. They kept Joseph-Désiré Mobutu in powers for years.

Ziggurat · 19th February 2007, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by geni

Being right next to an enviroment that is not at all healthly for Al Qaeda followers is far from ideal position for them.

So what? So how does that actually prevent them from increasing influence in Pakistan?

Quote:

Instead of putting effort in afganistan we lost interest and allowed their allies to move back in.

Back into Afghanistan, which means out of Pakistan. So how would increased efforts in Afghanistan have crippled AQ's influence in Pakistan?

Quote:

That was somewhat unusal. They kept Joseph-Désiré Mobutu in powers for years.

The CIA (rather than direct, non-covert aid) kept him in power? That's news to me, especially since at one time he accused the CIA of plotting to overthrow him. The CIA gets blamed for a lot of things, but it's not nearly as powerful (or capable) as is often believed. And it's got an especially lousy track record in the middle east. Musharaf cannot count on the CIA to protect him any more than Sadat could, and he knows it, even if you don't.

Ziggurat · 19th February 2007, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

And, conversely, how has our battle in Iraq done anything to stop ALQeda? It is even further away from Pakistan.

It's done nothing to stop Al Qaeda's influence in Pakistan, but that's not why we did it, and I never made any claims to that affect. Your attempts to redirect attention don't do anything to support what was YOUR initial claim, not mine.

Quote:

Ultimately, it isn't about where. It is about focus.

If that were so, then isn't the relevant metric not how well Al Qaeda is doing in Pakistan, but how well they're doing globally? But that's not what you pointed to. You pointed to a local problem, and them blamed it on something that you STILL can't tie to that problem.

headscratcher4 · 19th February 2007, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

It's done nothing to stop Al Qaeda's influence in Pakistan, but that's not why we did it, and I never made any claims to that affect. Your attempts to redirect attention don't do anything to support what was YOUR initial claim, not mine.

If that were so, then isn't the relevant metric not how well Al Qaeda is doing in Pakistan, but how well they're doing globally? But that's not what you pointed to. You pointed to a local problem, and them blamed it on something that you STILL can't tie to that problem.

Well, I guess you are right. Sorry. I did just about as good a job as tying it to the problem as the Administration has done in invading Iraq.

Bad on both eh?

Ziggurat · 19th February 2007, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

Well, I guess you are right. Sorry. I did just about as good a job as tying it to the problem as the Administration has done in invading Iraq.

Bad on both eh?

Sorry, but I don't recall Bush ever claiming that invading Iraq would address the problem of Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

And Al Qaeda in Pakistan is a problem. What to do about it isn't obvious, and there's a shortage of actual ideas being put forward for addressing it, rather than just ideas about how to blame it on Bush (which are always in abundance, and tend to involve Iraq regardless of how tangential the logical connection). It would have been nice to think about and discuss the former, rather than hash through the latter yet again.

19th February 2007, 01:15 PM	#1
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,749	If AlQeda is getting stronger in Pakistan... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/wo...=1&oref=slogin (need to subscribe) What exactly are we doing in the middle of a predictable (and predicted) civil war in Iraq? (NYTimes story on growing AlQeda strength in Pakistan).
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

19th February 2007, 01:23 PM	#2
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,199	Originally Posted by headscratcher4 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/wo...=1&oref=slogin (need to subscribe) What exactly are we doing in the middle of a predictable (and predicted) civil war in Iraq? Are you suggesting we should have invaded Pakistan? Otherwise, I don't see your point.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

19th February 2007, 01:33 PM	#4
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,749	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Are you suggesting we should have invaded Pakistan? Otherwise, I don't see your point. No...we went were AlQeda wasn't, Iraq...and where it would be unlikely that AlQeda would ever have much influence...instead of winning the battle in Afghanastan. If our fight is against terrorism, it has been mis-construed, badly executed from the outset.
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

19th February 2007, 01:33 PM	#5
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,199	Originally Posted by geni Should have put more effort into the followup in afganistan. Afghanistan is not Pakistan. Why would more effort in Afghanistan have made Al Qaeda in Pakistan weaker? In fact, couldn't it have the opposite effect, where Al Qaeda decides not to spend resources in Afghanistan and focuses on Pakistan? Quote: Asside from that if the CIA doesn't know how to prop up a dictatorship by now I would be somewhat supprised. Why would you be surprised? They've actually never been terribly good at that. If they were, Iran wouldn't be ruled by the mad mullahs.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

19th February 2007, 01:35 PM	#6
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,749	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Afghanistan is not Pakistan. Why would more effort in Afghanistan have made Al Qaeda in Pakistan weaker? In fact, couldn't it have the opposite effect, where Al Qaeda decides not to spend resources in Afghanistan and focuses on Pakistan? Why would you be surprised? They've actually never been terribly good at that. If they were, Iran wouldn't be ruled by the mad mullahs. And, conversely, how has our battle in Iraq done anything to stop ALQeda? It is even further away from Pakistan. Ultimately, it isn't about where. It is about focus. This Administration, battle, president haven't any.
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

19th February 2007, 01:29 PM	#3
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,570	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Are you suggesting we should have invaded Pakistan? Otherwise, I don't see your point. Should have put more effort into the followup in afganistan. Asside from that if the CIA doesn't know how to prop up a dictatorship by now I would be somewhat supprised.

19th February 2007, 01:39 PM	#7
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,570	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Afghanistan is not Pakistan. Why would more effort in Afghanistan have made Al Qaeda in Pakistan weaker? In fact, couldn't it have the opposite effect, where Al Qaeda decides not to spend resources in Afghanistan and focuses on Pakistan? Being right next to an enviroment that is not at all healthly for Al Qaeda followers is far from ideal position for them. Instead of putting effort in afganistan we lost interest and allowed their allies to move back in. Quote: Why would you be surprised? They've actually never been terribly good at that. If they were, Iran wouldn't be ruled by the mad mullahs. That was somewhat unusal. They kept Joseph-Désiré Mobutu in powers for years.

19th February 2007, 02:01 PM	#8
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,199	Originally Posted by geni Being right next to an enviroment that is not at all healthly for Al Qaeda followers is far from ideal position for them. So what? So how does that actually prevent them from increasing influence in Pakistan? Quote: Instead of putting effort in afganistan we lost interest and allowed their allies to move back in. Back into Afghanistan, which means out of Pakistan. So how would increased efforts in Afghanistan have crippled AQ's influence in Pakistan? Quote: That was somewhat unusal. They kept Joseph-Désiré Mobutu in powers for years. The CIA (rather than direct, non-covert aid) kept him in power? That's news to me, especially since at one time he accused the CIA of plotting to overthrow him. The CIA gets blamed for a lot of things, but it's not nearly as powerful (or capable) as is often believed. And it's got an especially lousy track record in the middle east. Musharaf cannot count on the CIA to protect him any more than Sadat could, and he knows it, even if you don't.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

19th February 2007, 02:04 PM	#9
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,199	Originally Posted by headscratcher4 And, conversely, how has our battle in Iraq done anything to stop ALQeda? It is even further away from Pakistan. It's done nothing to stop Al Qaeda's influence in Pakistan, but that's not why we did it, and I never made any claims to that affect. Your attempts to redirect attention don't do anything to support what was YOUR initial claim, not mine. Quote: Ultimately, it isn't about where. It is about focus. If that were so, then isn't the relevant metric not how well Al Qaeda is doing in Pakistan, but how well they're doing globally? But that's not what you pointed to. You pointed to a local problem, and them blamed it on something that you STILL can't tie to that problem.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

19th February 2007, 02:14 PM	#10
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,749	Originally Posted by Ziggurat It's done nothing to stop Al Qaeda's influence in Pakistan, but that's not why we did it, and I never made any claims to that affect. Your attempts to redirect attention don't do anything to support what was YOUR initial claim, not mine. If that were so, then isn't the relevant metric not how well Al Qaeda is doing in Pakistan, but how well they're doing globally? But that's not what you pointed to. You pointed to a local problem, and them blamed it on something that you STILL can't tie to that problem. Well, I guess you are right. Sorry. I did just about as good a job as tying it to the problem as the Administration has done in invading Iraq. Bad on both eh?
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

19th February 2007, 03:10 PM	#11
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,199	Originally Posted by headscratcher4 Well, I guess you are right. Sorry. I did just about as good a job as tying it to the problem as the Administration has done in invading Iraq. Bad on both eh? Sorry, but I don't recall Bush ever claiming that invading Iraq would address the problem of Al Qaeda in Pakistan. And Al Qaeda in Pakistan is a problem. What to do about it isn't obvious, and there's a shortage of actual ideas being put forward for addressing it, rather than just ideas about how to blame it on Bush (which are always in abundance, and tend to involve Iraq regardless of how tangential the logical connection). It would have been nice to think about and discuss the former, rather than hash through the latter yet again.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law