Tuesday, November 20, 2007

US to add more troops to Pakistan tribal areas! Did you know we were there? So it Begins, World War Three!

You know I am very concerned about Pakistan knowing its proximity, its Islamic militancy, Its possession of nuclear weapons, and its growing volatility. On the 12th I did a story updating the tenuous situation in Pakistan with promise of US intervention. I do frequent updates as to its role in 9/11 and the developments in Pakistan because in this mis named war on terror, as goes in Pakistan so goes the US and the world. On the 12th I wrote Welcome to World War Three

I won't get into what we now call pulling a Musharraf but what I have learned this morning makes it necessary to update Pakistan's developments and our involvement there. First, now I understand why Musharraf says he will take off his uniform. As embattled President Pervez Musharraf and his political opponents grapple over the country's future, an equally crucial role may be played by a less known figure -- a blunt-talking, chain-smoking, golf-playing general who by all reports would like the army to get out of politics. Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, 55, Musharraf's designated No. 2 man in the military, is slotted to be the next army chief of Pakistan when Musharraf gives up his uniform, as he has promised to do. That would give him enormous influence in a country with a history of military rule and coups. A major question is just how loyal he and Pakistan's other generals are to Musharraf during the current crisis.

Kayani's importance is such that U.S. envoy John Negroponte, who knows the general from previous intelligence work, met with him twice on his whirlwind visit to Pakistan last weekend. So far, Kayani and the army are standing cautiously behind Musharraf, even if some soldiers privately disagreed with Musharraf's decision to declare a state of emergency Nov. 3, analysts and diplomats say. The top generals are more likely to just watch and wait for now; their main concern is whether a deteriorating situation might force them to confront civilian protesters and further undermine the military's shaky standing.
"I think currently the men are behind him," said a Western military official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They're letting the politics play out." By his own schedule, Musharraf came a step closer to resigning as army chief of staff Monday when Pakistan's Supreme Court dismissed all but one legal challenge against his being president and military commander at the same time. Musharraf suspended the constitution earlier this month on the eve of the expected ruling, which could have declared his presidency invalid. Monday's ruling was made by a newly constituted court, which Musharraf packed with sympathetic justices after the emergency decree. It is expected on Thursday to reject the final challenge, which is a minor one. Musharraf has hand picked the courts to support him and he has appointed all the top Generals so he has sufficiently stacked the deck in his favor but this is very volatile pakistan and the military is sick of fighting its own people for the US so who knows? I was surprised to read about all the military coups. Please readThe tangled History

Amidst this volatility we are preparing to blow the whole thing wide open. A new and classified American military proposal outlines an intensified effort to enlist tribal leaders in the frontier areas of Pakistan in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, as part of a broader effort to bolster Pakistani forces against an expanding militancy, American military officials said.
If adopted, the proposal would join elements of a shift in strategy that would also be likely to expand the presence of American military trainers in Pakistan, directly finance a separate tribal paramilitary force that until now has proved largely ineffective and pay militias that agreed to fight Al Qaeda and foreign extremists, officials said. The United States now has only about 50 troops in Pakistan, a Pentagon spokesman said, a force that could grow by dozens under the new approach.

The proposal is modeled in part on a similar effort by American forces in Anbar Province in Iraq that has been hailed as a great success in fighting foreign insurgents there. But it raises the question of whether such partnerships, to be forged in this case by Pakistani troops backed by the United States, can be made without a significant American military presence in Pakistan. And it is unclear whether enough support can be found among the tribes, some of which are working with Pakistan's intelligence agency.

Altogether, the broader strategic move toward more local support is being accelerated because of concern about instability in Pakistan and the weakness of the Pakistani government, as well as fears that extremists with havens in the tribal areas could escalate their attacks on allied troops in Afghanistan. Just in recent weeks, Islamic militants sympathetic to Al Qaeda and the Taliban have already extended their reach beyond the frontier areas into more settled areas, most notably the mountainous region of Swat. All I see is Hell while American security officials say they see security Improvements. You read it and tell me

* All I see with an American military presence in Pakistan is an increase in desertions, deaths, and PTSD, as this so called war against terrorism will quickly erupt into World War Three and further Bush's Forever War!

James Joiner
Gardner Ma


Larry said...

Check this out Jim:

Boston police are trying to get guns off the streets by asking parents in high-crime areas to let detectives come into their homes without a warrant and search their children's bedrooms.

There has been considerable controversy over the program. For example, former Boston police lieutenant Thomas Nolan, who now teaches criminology at Boston University, complained that "I just have a queasy feeling anytime the police try to do an end run around the Constitution. ... The police have restrictions on their authority and ability to conduct searches. The Constitution was written with a very specific intent, and that was to keep the law out of private homes unless there is a written document signed by a judge and based on probable cause. Here, you don't have that."

Jack Cafferty discussed the controversy on his CNN show Monday, highlighting the objections by civil liberties advocates that parents "may be too intimidated to say no to the police or may not understand the consequences if they say yes."

Cafferty also noted that Boston police say a similar program in St. Louis was highly successful, finding guns in half the homes that were searched, and have promised that they would never abuse the program to gain access to the homes of people under suspicion or make arrests for small amounts of marijuana.

However, the St. Louis program was effective only during a brief period in 1994-95, when youth violence was at a peak and community support high. It later switched over to a focus on traditional warrants and arrests and was ultimately discontinued.

Cafferty then asked his viewers to respond to the question, "Should Boston police be able to enter private homes without a warrant to search for guns?" He read excerpts from the responses during a follow-up segment.

Although one viewer suggested that "concerned parents would welcome this," the general reaction appeared to be strongly negative, to the point where Cafferty suggested it might be because the question had not contained the phrase "with permission." He apologized repeatedly for that omission, both before and after reading from viewers' comments.

One viewer wrote in warning about "the slippery slope to a police state." Another insisted "absolutely no entry without a warrant ... no fishing expeditions." Yet another wanted to know, "Since when did Boston secede from the U.S. and the constitutional safeguards against illegal searches?"

And one raised the specter of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, asking, "Did someone make Gonzo the Boston Police Commissioner? Why would anybody in their right mind invite the police into their home to conduct an illegal search for illegal guns?"

an average patriot said...

I sent you a comment to this on Lydia's. Being a life long Bostonian I will tell you it will fail before it gets started though if I was a concerned parent I would call them.
kids will merely do what I would do and that is hide them elsewhere.
I will tell you a story from my childhood that you will remember as it is our history.
During the Revolution when the British were trying to quell us they outlawed all guns and went through the streets door to door and took all guns or so they thought.
I probably told you but I was a street kid in Salem, Ma and some of us were befriended by a wonderful Gentleman who just died at 92. Anyway we hung atround his Bakery that he spent 60 years remodeling by himself. Many wonderful stories there but another time.
Anyway his store was on a main street in Salem and his store was there during the Revolution. When Phil opened the walls he found guns that the Colonists hid in there to keep them from the redcoats.
It isn't just the Iraqi's if you want to persevere you will and in the case of Bush we will. Take care!

Anon-Paranoid said...

Der Fuhrer is taking notes on how to be a good Dictator.

Have a great Thanksgiving.

God Bless.

Larry said...

I can understand, my German friend said, why Germans voted for Hitler in 1933 -- though he did not receive a majority of the vote. The Weimar Republic was weak and incompetent. The Great Depression had ruined the nation's war-devastated economy. People were bitter because they thought their leaders had betrayed them in the war. They wanted revenge for the humiliation of Versailles. Hitler promised strong leadership and a new beginning. But why did they continue to support that group of crazy drug addicts, thugs, killers and madmen?

The historical question remains. I leave aside the question of the guilt of the whole German people (a judgment beyond my competence because I am not God) and ask what explanations might account for what happened. Hitler turned the German economy around in short order. He was crazy, of course, a demagogic mystic sensitive to aspirations of the German spirit. He appealed skillfully to the dark side of the German heritage. Anti-Semitism was strong in Germany, as it was in most European countries, but not violent until Hitler manipulated it. He stirred up the memories of historic German military accomplishments and identified himself with Frederick the Great -- thus placating the Prussian ethos of the German army. He promised glory to a nation still smarting from the disaster of 1918. Germany was emerging from the ashes, strong and triumphant once again. He also took control of the police apparatus. The military might have been able to dump him till 1937. After that he was firmly in power. The path lay open to holocaust.

Can this model be useful to understand how contemporary America is engaged in a criminally unjust war that has turned much of the world against it, a war in which torture and murder have become routine? Has the combination of the World Trade Center attack and a president who believes his instructions come from God unleashed the dark side of the American heritage?

What is this dark side? I would suggest that it is the mix of Calvinist religious righteousness and "my-country-right-or-wrong" patriotism that dominated our treatment of blacks and American Indians for most of the country's history. It revealed itself in the American history of imperialism in Mexico and after the Spanish-American War in the Philippines. The "manifest destiny" of America was to do whatever it wanted to do, because it was strong and virtuous and chosen by God.

Today many Americans celebrate a "strong" leader who, like Woodrow Wilson, never wavers, never apologizes, never admits a mistake, never changes his mind, a leader with a firm "Christian" faith in his own righteousness. These Americans are delighted that he ignores the rest of the world and punishes the World Trade Center terrorism in Iraq. Mr. Bush is our kind of guy.

He is not another Hitler. Yet there is a certain parallelism. They have in common a demagogic appeal to the worst side of a country's heritage in a crisis. Bush is doubtless sincere in his vision of what is best for America. So too was Hitler. The crew around the president -- Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Karl Rove, the "neo-cons" like Paul Wolfowitz -- are not as crazy perhaps as Himmler and Goering and Goebbels. Yet like them, they are practitioners of the Big Lie -- weapons of mass destruction, Iraq democracy, only a few "bad apples."

Hitler's war was quantitatively different from the Iraq war, but qualitatively both were foolish, self-destructive and criminally unjust. This is a time of great peril in American history because a phony patriotism and an America-worshipping religion threaten the authentic American genius of tolerance and respect for other people.

The "real" America is still remembered here in Berlin for the enormous contributions of the Marshall Plan and the Berlin airlift -- America at its best. It is time to return to that generosity and grace.

The strongest criticism that the administration levels at Sen. John Kerry is that he changes his mind. In fact, instead of a president who claims an infallibility that exceeds that of the pope, America would be much better off with a president who, like John F. Kennedy, is honest enough to admit mistakes and secure enough to change his mind.

Ed. note: As promised, Tom Engelhardt delivers a Modern Day Nazi Picnic, after up 'til now being very cautious in venturing about in this real obvious area of socio-political reality.

Tom wrote, "The 'Nazi analogy' is making its slow way into the critical mainstream. Of course, since at least 9/11 this analogy has been alive and well at the wilder fringes of the Internet. (There, people have long been asking: Are we already in the Nazi era, or are we at the desperate end of the Weimar Republic? Were the attacks of 9/11 another Reichstag burning?)" and "Now, variations on this Nazi analogy are suddenly thriving -- and not in obscure political websites either.

Holly said...

Hey Patriot I was reading your article but am having a hard time understanding it i don't understand how this is causing a world war

an average patriot said...

Hey Anon
You have a nice Thanksgiving too! Maybe you can forget about all this bush shit for a day but I can't. Anyway everyday is Thanksgiving to me. Happy Thanksgiving!

an average patriot said...

Before I respond to Larry I will ask you to read his comment! this will not be avoided for numerous reasons and the foundation it still just being laid.
Anyway it isn't causing World War three. It is all part of the lead up and just one of the excuses to fight it! I won't get carried away. I will just say watch!
Have you been following the conversation at Lydias' as to McLellan lying for Bush? The lies and rot start right at the top and it is all designed to fight and enforce Bushco's new world order!

an average patriot said...

You know Larry, this is so sickening because it is so oobbvious as to the manipulation and what is going on. It will get a lot worse too. Bush is worse than Hitler by far primarily because he is the decider in control of what is supposed to be the most powerful country on earth.
I did a story a long time ago that many at kos took offense to about BUSH renewing the crusades and trying to raise a Christian Army but that is what is going on as he thinks he fights for God
I have been following the lies you have been discussing at Lydia's. We all knew and know the lies and rot starts right at the top.
It will not stop as the fools are proud of what they have done as they continue to pursue rheir world war and will manipulate events as they are to give them the excuse to have to fight and impliment their new world order or so they think.
Bushco will not be denied their Forever war and I still firmly believe the idiots are trying to bring about the end of days. It won't happen but no one is going to like the way this is all going to turn out.