The fear that if we leave Afghanistan, the Taliban will take over and then go after Pakistan-------

[trumad]

is quite laughable.

If I'm not mistaken---before we invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban controlled the whole country.

Question: Why didn't they go after Pakistan then?

[tekisui]

1. It is no different an argument than Iraq's 'WMD's' falling into the hands

of terrorists. Baseless and fear-mongering.

[trumad]

2. Picking apart the reasons wy we are they

uncovers the absurdity of why we are there.

It makes no sense at all.

[C_Lawyer09]

6. Actually in fact it's hugely different

Being as how Iraq had no WMD, and Pakistan has a bunch of nukes.

[tekisui]

7. But, there is not significant risk of the nukes falling into terrorist hands.

The Taliban will not take over Pakistan. Period.

[C_Lawyer09]

8. I won't argue that

But I've read a lot of conflicting theory on both sides. Of course I don't know either argument for a fact. I did read something that agrees with what you say on common dreams

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

27. Take it over in the sense that they'll control every inch of it and run the show?

Then you're right, the Taliban aren't capable of it. But then again, that's not what they have to accomplish in order to gain access to nuclear weapons. All they really have to do is create enough hate, discontent, and chaos for the government to implode in on itself and then go from there.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

26. Is it baseless?

The Taliban advanced to within 70 miles of the Pakistani capital (during a truce, no less). I'm not sure how one can say there's no real threat.

[Wilms]

3. No, silly.

We have to keep bombing Afghanistan so that bearded men can't use the caves.

Ya know, you need to hang out in those caves in order to plan using planes to blow up buildings.

No caves = No attacks. Right?

I thought you would have known that. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

16. LOL

:rofl:

[C_Lawyer09]

4. Not defending current policy

But there are strong arguments for the Pakistani nuclear security, but the reality is this is an extension of the containment policy that is the foundation of both Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of how the deployments were sold to the American public. Late 70's, Zbigniew Brzezinski President Carter's National Security Adviser. I say we focus more effort and money on Pakistan, with a lot lighter physical footprint.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. No, no, no. The Taliban will rebuild it's massive navy and storm Atlantic City.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[sandnsea]

9. The Taliban has always been in Pakistan

I've always thought you were a bit more reality based. Read Three Cups of Tea. There are better means to work in the region than war, but there is reason and Pakistan having nukes is one of them.

[mulsh]

10. According to Ahmend Rashid's book Taliban Pakistan funded and

provided important support to the Taliban through out its history. I think its a safe bet that some of the strongest supporters of the Taliban are very much involved in Pakistan's current government.

The question should be since Pakistan's early and continued support is well known why are western nations supporting Pakistan? Press conference and PBS interview antics aside I believe Ms. Clinton has delivered an unambiguous message to the current regime over there.

[EFerrari]

17. The ISI funded the Taliban. The Pakistani government

has been at war with itself for quite a while. One faction has been using both the Afghan Taliban and the local one as a wedge. And it gets more complicated from there.

And Hillary's message is a little over the top considering that the corrupt thugs we're backing are every bit as corrupt as the corrupt thugs we're not backing. But I'm sure that at the State Department they think that the American public has been reassured about our position on corruption. :)

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

28. There are undoubtedly elements within the Pakistani government who are supportive of the Taliban

However, it is also undoubtedly true that the Pakistani government has taken serious steps to confront the Taliban in the last year.

[Tejas]

11. Try reading a few Pashtun message boards, I believe

you'll see that US presence has had a positive effect on their morale/fortitude and they are on the verge of seriously doing something about the Taliban.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

29. The bloodthirstiness of the Taliban

is undermining their cause, just as the bloodthirstiness of al-Qaeda in Iraq undermined their cause before it.

[Xithras]

12. The answer to that is no secret.

The Pakistani ISI not only provided resources to the Taliban, they helped them to maintain power over Afghanistan. Why? Two reasons. First, the Pakistani's were tired of the constant inflow of refugees from Afghanistan and wanted the civil war there to end. They really didn't care too much how it happened, they just wanted it over. Secondly, when the realization that the new Afghanistan was a fundamentalist state set in, they took advantage of it as a way to bleed off some of their own fundamentalist populace. Pakistan was a secular country, and Pakistani fundamentalist Muslims had the ability to move to Afghanistan, settle at almost no cost, and live in the kind of lifestyle they wanted.

The Taliban viewed Pakistan as a source of money, citizens that fit their "ideals", and manufactured goods that they couldn't import any other way. They had established a peace agreement, and established a balance of power.

It is extremely improbable that any such peace treaty could be worked out today. The Taliban were deposed because Pakistan let the U.S. utilize their country as a a means of access to Afghanistan, and the Pakistanis themselves have arrested and exectuted thousands of Taliban fighters. The Taliban see the Pakistanis as traitors and will not seek peace with them again.

[donco]

13. Hhmm…kinda sounds like the domino theory to me.

Now where did I hear of that before? Oh, I remember, it was something that was said before I went to Viet Nam.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

30. You don't consider the threat to Pakistan real? Because the Pakistani govt. sure seems to.

[mzmolly]

14. Doesn't Pakistan have an Army?

:crazy:

[EFerrari]

18. Pakistani army has been engaged in real fighting against their local Taliban

for some weeks now. The displaced civilians are now in the millions.

[mzmolly]

21. Sheesh.

What a freaken mess huh?

[EFerrari]

15. There are two groups of Taliban. One is loosely Afghani.

The other is Pakistani. They are not the same people.

But it laughable because the Taliban was never defeated in Afghanistan and they've been back for years now.

Pakistan does have a problem with their Taliban but it isn't the same problem.

[JI7]

19. Pakistan is the one that supported the Taliban

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. Back in the 1960s, we called it the Domino Theory

Funny thing, though. Thailand had Communist guerrillas, but they never made much headway.

[mmonk]

22. Because they are already in Northwest Pakistan.

[optimator]

23. we have no right to meddle

the only thing that should concern us is physical defense of our country, which there is no threat.

[Vincardog]

24. The Taliban took over in Afghanistan after we failed to deliver the economic support we promised

after they threw the Russians out.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

25. Short answer?

Your argument is based on the assumption that the situation in Pakistan today is comparable to the situation in Pakistan in the 1990s and, quite frankly, that isn't the case. In the 1990s, the Taliban generally didn't slaughter Pakistani civilians because they had agreements worked out with Pakistan's notoriously corrupt security forces. However, in the last several years, many of those agreements have fallen by the wayside. Efforts to create new ones between the Pakistani govt. and the Pakistani Taliban have failed miserably, as the Taliban refused to abide by them and continued to take over new territories.

...so what can I say? I strongly disagree with your position. If the U.S. were to suddenly pull out of Afghanistan, that would draw Pakistan into an prolonged war, which might very well result in the government's collapse.

[Ozymanithrax]

31. The Taliban was closely linked and allied with Pakistan. Pakistan supported the Taliban...

in a big way with money and arms. The Pakistani secret service was especially close to the Taliban, and was reported to have rescued many of the Afghan Taliban leadership in in 2002.

But the fear, as you stated is not that the Taliban will take over and go after Pakistan. Afghanistan has never had a military capable of doing that. The fear is that the Taliban will reopen Afghanistan as a staging ground for religious terrorists. Pakistan, who is having considerable problems with their own religious extremists would probably consider it in their interests to pay off the government of Afghanistan to pacify their own Taliban based revolution. Or Afghanistan could provide support and supplies to the Pakistani Taliban who could overthrow the government of Pakistan. The Northern Alliance is not better, they are also religious extremists, they are just our religious extremists. But the majority of the people of Afghanistan don't like the Northern Alliance.