MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
By Salman Masood and Eric Schmitt, New York Times, Nov. 26/27, 2011
Saying at least 25 of its soldiers were killed by NATO aircraft, Pakistan closed the alliance’s two main supply routes into Afghanistan and ordered the C.I.A. to vacate drone operations at an air base.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — [....] In Washington, American officials were scrambling to assess what had happened amid preliminary reports that allied forces in Afghanistan engaged in a firefight along the border and called in airstrikes. [....] In a sign that the White House was trying to keep the situation from growing worse, President Obama was updated regularly throughout the day by Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, Ms. Hayden said.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Gen. John R. Allen, the commander of the NATO-led forces in Afghanistan, all talked to their Pakistani counterparts to offer condolences and to promise an investigation. [....]
What remained unclear on Saturday, and what will be a main focus of NATO’s inquiry, was what exactly prompted the airstrikes and whether they were unprovoked or resulted from a communications mishap. A NATO spokesman, Brig. Gen. Carsten Jacobson, offered details suggesting that [.....]
Also see:
US told to vacate Shamsi base; Nato supplies stopped
By Baqir Sajjad Syed, Dawn, Nov. 27, 2011
ISLAMABAD: Furious over the pre-dawn Nato attacks on border posts, the government on Saturday reacted sharply by indefinitely closing down supply routes used by western forces in Afghanistan and once again asking the United States to vacate an airbase previously used for drone operations. The government also said it would carry out a thorough review of its cooperation with the US and Nato. The retaliatory decisions were taken at an emergency meeting of the Defence Committee of the Cabinet (DCC), the country’s highest forum for defence policy consultation and coordination. [....] The decisions, though sounding tough, apparently kept the window for negotiations open. [....]
Comments
Seems to me, prior to 9/11, Pakistan was on our bad-boy list ... something about proliferation of nuclear technology or something of that nature. Anyway, once the Taliban was singled out as the whipping boy for the US to smack around, Bu$h found he had a tiny, little problem with waging war in Afghanistan. There's no oil to be had there and what little oil and gas available came from Pakistan. So in order to wage war, Bu$h had to take the Paki's off the list and sugar-coat their desires to work with them in order to use their ports and roads to run an endless supply line of gas and other war-related products ... Iran hugs the entire western border down to the Persian Gulf and Russian to the north. Now that the war effort is drawing down, the US is pushing the envelope to do as much damage as they can before they loose all access to the region. Problem is ... the US is perusing an agenda that doesn't seem to have any relation to the main reason for being there. All while pissing off the locals, in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the extreme. Whatever it was we went in there to stop, we've succeeded in assuring its success once we leave.
But the real problem is with Pakistan and India. We royally screwed up with the Paki's with the indiscriminate drone attacks, but our relationship with India is even worst. And neither of them like each other and both have nukes.
by Beetlejuice on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 4:53am
Yeah, I know. For a long time after 9/12/01 I often thought of what a President Gore would have done, something along the lines of pumping all the money we spent on the stoopid intial Iraq invasion into Mushie's Pakistan for education and business development or similar (not weapons,) with all kinds of tight strings attached, of course.
But I am so beyond that now. Learning more of the totality of the perfidy and complex web of rot within that country over the years following, I wonder now whether that might have ended up badly, too, ending up with us being at war in Pakistan.
I don't know if there ever was a nice or good way to handle that mess once the "jihadi" decided that the west was the next target. The Iraq invasion did ramp things up terribly, but the mess was still there without it, as long as the west was determined to have a presence in the area of Saudi Arabia to protect and/or process the oil. And once Osama bin Laden promoted the idea that we would just cut and run like from conflict like we did with Vietnam, I don't think leaving Saudi Arabia and stopping being best buds with Israel at that late point would have helped us much. They would have seen a new isolationism as a major victory and therefore continued with attempts at their dreams of the new caliphate or whatever. Happily assisted by factions in Pakistan. (Even now, after 10 years, they still seem to somehow find an unending stream of those willing to do suicide missions.)
And yes, India doesn't just distrust Pakistan, many Indians fear and loathe it, and did way before 9/11 and "26/11". And yes the nukes on both sides are not going away. But I wonder in some ways had a President Gore tried to get at the real source of the troubles soon after 9/11, it could have been we might be in worse shape as regards our relationship with India then we are now.
by artappraiser on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 1:46am
Guardian:
According to Pakistani officials the 40 or so soldiers stationed at the outposts were asleep at the time of the attack. Government officials said the two border posts that were attacked had recently been established to try to stop insurgents who use bases in Afghanistan to attack Pakistan from crossing the border and launching attacks.
A battle is going on in the area, explosions and gunfire echo through the mountain passes, attack choppers, fighter jets overhead, the '40 or so Pak soldiers' were 'established to stop insurgents' which assumes that someone must be awake and on duty all the time, and, yet, they were all peacefully snuggled in their beds?
Another Pak prevarication which one might hope would speed our exit from the region, and hasten the reduction to zero our contributions, in the billions since 2003, to the double dealing terrorist supporting and enabling military hierarchy of Pakistan.
by NCD on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 12:48pm
Yeah, well, it's difficult to know how this will shake out at this stage of the game. I read into Dawn's insertion of this sentence:
The decisions, though sounding tough, apparently kept the window for negotiations open
as basically saying the following:
folks, this is probably more of the typical faux outrage we have seen many times before. Though I could be wrong.
There was this intriguing CSM piece quoting Afghanis having schadenfreude over this, but I don't know whether to believe it, as I don't know how good the correspondent is, whether he really knows Afghanistan or is just listening to Karzai supporter types around his hotel.
by artappraiser on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 12:13am
by artappraiser on Fri, 12/02/2011 - 1:45am