An interesting story here about a joint US/Afghan special forces raid into the "ungoverened' territories of Pakistan.
I had been a bit troubled by our government's distancing itself from Musharraf as he came to the ignominious end of his political tenure. I am troubled no more. I see evidence of a tacit deal here, one in which the Paks said that "...if you keep quiet about moving Musharraf aside, we'll work harder to crack down on the Islamists in Waziristan (which they have) and we'll keep quiet if you conduct operations here (which we have)".
If selling out Musharraf is the price of getting Bin Laden, then I'm ok with paying it.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Well I must admit I was rather surprised to see the Washington Post had covered a possible good news story regarding GWOT efforts in Pakistan/Afghanistan. Then I read the article. Of course they wrote it. It was about how the US and Allied forces killed "locals" deep inside undisputed Pakistani borders. Well, that was a big relief to me because the day the Washington Post heralds progress in this Administration's strategic objectives is the day I will have to start buying extreme cold weather gear for my near-certain residence in Hades. Although I don't arrive at the same conclusion with the same certainty that you have implied in your article, I do see it as a very possible outcome and one which I would also welcome. Having a democratically elected Pakistani government assisting the US (tacitly or actively or both) in ridding AQ and their affiliates from the region should be front page news IF the nation is united in seeking such a victory. I contend that this is but another example of daily evidence that approximately half of our nation's population ranges in opinions from "wouldn't mind seeing us lose" to "desperately hope we lose" because their desire to prove the Bush administration wrong is so overpowering that they can't bear to see us win. By the way, I place Pelosi and Reed at the top of the latter category as evidenced by nearly everything they say and their dour faces at hearing that the surge was producing noteable positive results in Iraq during the State of the Union address this year. But it's okay because they've told us "we support the troops", Fornicate them and the donkey they road in on.
I have GOT to start taking advantage of the "PREVIEW" option here. That would be "...and the donkey the RODE in on". Perhaps they could hit the "road".
and that would be "Reid" not "Reed". Sigh. I dew no how too spel. Rilly. I dew.
Mudge...we're family here...don't sweat the spelling/typing mistakes.
Let's wait and see a bit more on my cooperation with Pak theory....I hope it holds up.
Post a Comment