Report: US weighs military option in Pakistan

[IScreamSundays]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON – The U.S. military is developing plans for a unilateral attack on the Pakistani Taliban in the event of a successful terrorist strike in the United States that can be traced to them, The Washington Post reports.

Planning for a retaliatory attack was spurred by ties between alleged Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad and elements of the Pakistani Taliban, the Post said in an article posted on its website Friday night, quoting unidentified senior military officials.

The military would focus on air and missile strikes but also could use small teams of U.S. Special Operations troops currently along the border with Afghanistan, the Post said.

Airstrikes could damage the militants' ability to launch new attacks but also might damage U.S.-Pakistani relations.

The CIA already conducts unmanned drone strikes in the country's tribal regions. Officials told the Post that a U.S. military response would be considered only if a terrorist attacks persuaded President Barack Obama that the CIA campaign is ineffective.

snip>

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100529/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_pakistan

[ShortnFiery]

1. No! If we want a stable Pakistan, pull the troops out of Afghanistan and leave this NUCLEAR ...

Weapons capable state alone. :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjE2wMWMJwI&feature=player_embedded

http://yorick.infinitejest.org:81/1/img/card-us_foreign_policy.jpg

[cosmicone]

9. Pakistani nukes don't threaten the US in any way.

Pakistan sorely lacks a delivery system to reach that far. Even most people in India aren't scared of Pakistani nukes.

[Go2Peace]

24. You just reminded me what the Beat or Wardrums is likely about

Shit. They are probably looking for an excuse to take down the government because they have nukes. Isn't this the same shit that happened with IRAQ (with a real bomb involved, but same kind of idea?)

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

2. Anyone else looking for a more liberal/progressive Dem in 2012????

[Shining Jack]

4. +1

:raises hand:

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. -1. Happy hunting. Did you even read the article before chiming in?

:eyes:

[Shining Jack]

12. Did you noticed...

That this administration doesn't do a lot of things that Liberals were hoping for? So yes a more Liberal President would be a goo idea.A lot can happen in the next 2 years,I'm hoping for a candidate that keeps his/her promises,well at least a majority of them.

ETA: A member of my Family is in Afghanistan and I want him to come back in one piece.

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. All the best to your family member. But he/she was never misled about our

committment in Afghanistan, and even as a candidate, the president made no bones about that. In spite of his determination to finish the job in Afghanistan, his supporters voted for him anyway. Go figure.

You could jump on the Ralph Nader bandwagon in '12, but be prepared to be laughed off the stage again. Your problem is numbers, and there just aren't enough "liberals" to actually elect a national candidate, so the best you can hope for is to play the role of spoiler, and elect the Republican. I think, or at least I hope, that "liberals" learned their lesson after the 2000 debacle, which is why Ralph was laughed off the stage in '08.

I'm finding more & more that most self described pure "liberals" aren't really Democrats anyway. They're usually third party advocates, who have a desire to see us become some European knock-off (which is never gonna happen). Most liberals think that everyone to the right of Dennis Kucinich is a "corporatist".

[Shining Jack]

17. You should read post #2 again.

"Anyone else looking for a more liberal/progressive Dem in 2012?".I do.

[Go2Peace]

29. Um, your disgust for "liberals" shows your true face Tarheel.

Did it occur to you that DEMOCRATS=LIBERALS? Is that uncomfortable for you? "Progressives" are further left, but the Democratic Party has ALWAYS been the party of "LIBERALS". You are out of place. And despite what you think and what the corporations want to fill Washington with, there are a hell of a lot more "Libruls" in the Party than there are conservatives as you are. Don't fool yourself.

[defendandprotect]

36. We voted for the rest of the "change" Obama was promising . . . .

presumably anyone who was smart enough to see the change he was envisioning

would also eventually see the need to get out of Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, too much has NOT been changed -- making Afghanistan a longer and

larger burden.

Why would a president be willing to bankrupt our Treasury for wars?

For OIL?

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Go2Peace]

27. We need to all rally around a central organization like DFA within the party

I have signed onto their site. But they are still a little disorganized. Can anyone tell me if they are the largest truly progressive movement in the Democratic Party?

[Go2Peace]

26. Yes, and it is not a scientific approach. It is the same old failed policies

We will simply never defeat radicalized fundamentalism with this approach. Because we ignore what Fundandamentalism is. See my post near the bottom. Nobody wants to end this more than I do, but the approach we are using is simply fucking nuts. It will NEVER triumph because it completely fails to account for the nature of the enemy.

The approach is irrational, unintelligent, and backwards. It is below us as a modern nation. Not to mention incredibly destructive to both innocents and our own well being as a nation.

[obxhead]

21. More? I'll settle for even a tiny bit liberal at this point.

Dean/Grayson 2012

Edit to clarify, that position stems from his record of consistently selling us out to the highest bidder, not just this issue.

[Go2Peace]

30. Center-Right is a very vocal MINORITY on this site. Don't let them fool you

They are extremely vocal and prolific, and they hit so many topics they make it seem like there are more than there are.

The party is still "liberal" in the majority. There is confusion going on, but at least for the time being, if you polled Democrats as a whole they still are on the liberal scale, and in many policies they are more "liberal" than the President, but because of propaganda and fear they are convinced this is the best we can do.

I am with you though, there is a significant population in the Party that need a place in the party that don't get represented well now.

[krabigirl]

35. Lol, I was in 2008, why didn't we nominate one?

[defendandprotect]

37. Remember Howard Dean in 2004 . . . Swiftboated by both GOP and DLC . . .!!!

[Adsos Letter]

3. "...unidentified senior military officials..."

Well, I suppose they wanted this news out there; this seems like the type of "leak" that is served up for someones consumption.

A message to Pakistan and the Taliban? I wonder.

[Robb]

7. Yup.

This is a diplomatic reply. We sent Jones and Panetta to Islamabad with the message they needed to keep up their own lawn in the North Waziristan Agency.

They responded by saying a military operation by the Pakistan army to clean out Taliban there was going to happen, probably, but on their own timetable.

This is Washington's way of saying "Do it now."

Edited to add: K&R.

[HereSince1628]

5. I rather suspect the US has retaliatory plans against

every nation that harbors a 1% credible threat. This is what keeps the generals and the colonels busy in the sandboxes at the Pentagon.

To the military minded this is sort of planning is routine, rather like locating the nearest fire escape before the lights go down in a theater.


I am a lot more unhappy with the current state of remote controlled semi-secret belligerence between the US and Pakistan and elsewhere. A republic shouldn't conduct wars behind the backs of its citizens.

[Go2Peace]

32. It's different now. We are increasing our budget and policy toward activities in other countries

don't make the mistake of thinking this is "normal" strategery. There is a very fundamental shift going on right now. Obama is turning out to be a HAWK, if only a with a little more strategic approach. But we seem to be continuing the march we thought was subsiding with a new President.

[cosmicone]

8. Self delete -- wrong place n/t

[cosmicone]

10. This would be a good strategy.

Pakistan has always been duplicitous -- running with the hares while pretending to hunt with the hounds.

If we want to end the Afghan war quickly, bombing targets inside Pakistan and dismantling Pakistan's infrastructure would be a good thing since Pakistan is not even doing 1% of what it needs to and could do.

If it destabilizes Pakistan, it would end up balkanizing because ethnic sindhis and baluchis are not interested in the Pakistani games of world domination via terrorism.

If this direct US attack takes place concurrently with all funding cuts to Pakistan, I would say go for it.

[Robb]

11. That's not REMOTELY what is being discussed.

This article is about targeting terrorist camps in the mountains. You seem to want to militarily target the Pakistani government.

NOT a reasonable position.

[cosmicone]

15. The terrorist camps are

the prized possessions of the Pakistani ISI/Taliban/Al Q'aeda. Their destruction would be welcome.

I am not advocating a military invasion of Pakistan.

[Robb]

19. I misinterpreted "dismantle infrastructure," then

It sounded as if you were advising an attack against the government. My mistake.

[cosmicone]

20. My fault .... I meant to say

"terrorist and terrorism oriented infrastructure"

[Go2Peace]

23. You really think that you can defeat radical fundamentalism through strategic bombing?

In this era?

See my post below. That simply doesn't work with modern Religious fundamentalism. We are taking an extremely unprofitable approach. It's time to bring science into the process.

[Go2Peace]

13. NYC plot prompts U.S. to plan Pakistan attack

Source: MSNBC

WASHINGTON - The U.S. military is reviewing options for a unilateral strike in Pakistan in the event that a successful attack on American soil is traced to the country's tribal areas, according to senior military officials.

Ties between the alleged Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, and elements of the Pakistani Taliban have sharpened the Obama administration's need for retaliatory options, the officials said.

They stressed that a U.S. reprisal would be contemplated only under extreme circumstances, such as a catastrophic attack that leaves President Obama convinced that the ongoing campaign of CIA drone strikes is insufficient.



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37410800/ns/world_news-washington_post/

[Flaneur]

16. Report: Pakistani Taliban Weighs Terror Option in US

Not a real headline, but indicative of where this tit-for-tat leads.

We didn't used to have the Pakistani Taliban coming after us.

[Robb]

18. LOL just because you only recently began paying attention

...don't assume the rest of us are equally ignorant.

[Go2Peace]

22. Duh, we drove them into pakistan and radicalized muslims through bombing

This is so damn ignorant and unintelligent. When will we actually involve specialists that understand fundamentalism?

I went to a fundamentalist Christian church for some years. Believe me, Religious fundamentalists THRIVE in situations like this. Their leaders convince them they are being "persecuted". The *only* way to "fight" fundamentalists is through confronting their ideology. With fundamentalists the most effective thing you could do is drain their ranks through propaganda combined with humanitarian approaches.

If we simply stopped attacking wholesale, shifted resources to our borders and internal intelligence, placed money in rebuilding and then started actually using those supposed ideals we stand for, their ranks would diminish over time.

You must give them an alternative vision of the world. Once the threat that grows their numbers is no longer overarching the attractiveness of the philosophies looses it's power.

Why the hell are Americans so damn irrational? Are we no better than fundamentalists?

[Shining Jack]

25. I totally agree. n/t

[Robb]

31. Duh, no we didn't. Jesus fucking revisionist history Christ.

Brief history lesson, Al Qaeda's journey, with arrows, I can't make it simpler:

Pakistan --> Afghanistan --> Pakistan.

[Go2Peace]

33. It's not revisionist, you are being a little simplistic too

They are a much different organization in Pakistan and we are not "only" dealing with Al-Qaeda anymore, we are fighting a number of groups that have become radicalized through the "war on terror" since 2003 that are basing out of Pakistan.

Just look at this information from NPR. We could cut off Al-Qaeda completely and other groups will just take their place, and already are. This way of fighting is folly.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120103698

And don't forget to look at this, which is also a big part of this story:

The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline to be completed in 2014

[Robb]

43. Oh God, TAPI now???

2014 now, eh? Haven't exactly been keeping up with the news, have we?

Hint: Berdimuhamedov sold the best leases to China last year and finished a pipeline to there. And they're nearly done with a second one. TAPI hasn't laid a single yard of pipe, and has no reason to. You'll see a software update for the TRS-80 before you see TAPI.

And if you think these groups became "radicalized" in the last seven years, I don't know what to tell you. You think Hezb-e-Islami was what, bricklayers in the last three decades, but somehow reluctantly picked up weapons in 2003?? :rofl:

[laylah]

28. I confess to only reading the "headline"...

and my immediate reaction is WTF! Our country is going down the drain...bailouts to people that DGAF, oil companies that are allowed to run rampant and destroy this planet, programs for the most needy are being cut but the bastards in Congress enjoy complete security, talks of cutting SS for Seniors is being discussed, etc, and NOW...NOW they want to start another damned war?????? FFS...I am 59 years old, I have witnessed quite a bit but this BULLSHIT is amazing and depressing.

[The abyss]

34. Military options.

Germany began considering “military options” into Norway and Scandinavia in 1939.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Norway_by_Nazi_Germany

http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_02.htm


They invaded and began occupation of Norway in April of 1940.

How many countries does the US need to invade and occupy before we are officially a “world at war”?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proteus_lives]

42. Always with the inane nazi comparison.

Do you have "Godwin" tattooed on your forehead?

[JoeyT]

41. Well good.

We had a shitload of money we needed to burn anyway.
It isn't as if we're broke or anything.