Pak Attack

Jeff Taylor | January 10, 2006

Don't let the name fool you, but the Flogging the Simian blog has a pretty sane run-down on the recent events in Pakistan.

Two reasonable conclusions: One, the CIA has its Predator drones in heavy rotation over South and North Waziristan. Two, the U.S. is running cross-border snatch-and-grab operations of high-value Taliban targets.

Me, I woulda preferred to have entire combat divisions in Waziristan, the world's actual terror ground zero instead of some place called Iraq.

Comments

|1.10.06 @ 4:36PM|#

Pakistan Zinda Bad!

|1.10.06 @ 6:08PM|#

Sending troops into Waziristan would be great, except that it would kind of piss off the Pakistani government, and a lot of their citizens, some of whom already don't like them very much, and that it's a very mountainous region which has been famously difficult to pacify... Frankly, I'm amazed we've done as well with Afghanistan as we have, given the trouble it's given other invaders.

I think that FtS also draws some conclusions that aren't necessarily supported by the evidence. For example, a nine-month-old Washington Post article that mentions US operations within Pakistan is not proof that American helicopters were in a particular village this weekend. I agree that the suspicion is reasonable, but proof requires, well, proof. I don't find it hard to believe that the Pakistani government knows way more than its spokesmen let on, though.

|1.10.06 @ 6:09PM|#

Pointless point: isn't a "snatch-and-grab" operation redundant?

|1.10.06 @ 6:22PM|#

I thought "snatch and grab" was the result of people meaning to say "smash and grab".

|1.10.06 @ 6:24PM|#

You know, I think it might be a bad idea to send combat divisions into a country with a nuclear arsenal.

|1.10.06 @ 6:37PM|#

thoreau, as ever, has cut to the case.

You tell Pakistan and the world you intend to hot-pursue the pukes who cratered lower Manhattan PRECISELY because the regime has nukes.

This devalues the nuclear option for states like, oh, Iran.

But, hey, this is all relevant for 2002. Absent a time machine, it does not matter.

|1.10.06 @ 10:06PM|#

Frankly, I'm amazed we've done as well with Afghanistan as we have, given the trouble it's given other invaders.

From what I've heard from friends who have served in Afghanistan, the Afghanis don't feel like they have been invaded.

A relatively few number of Special Forces troops linked up with the Northern Alliance which was holding on to about 5 - 10% of the country.

With the help of a whole lot of American air power, the Northern Alliance was able to take the offensive and topple the Taliban.

A lot of Afghanis were fed up with the Taliban and from their point of view some nice Afghan men with a few American soldiers and a "little" American Air Power got rid of the Taliban.

|1.10.06 @ 11:10PM|#

"You know, I think it might be a bad idea to send combat divisions into a country with a nuclear arsenal."

I can understand the fear, but if we (or anybody else) cower because a potential opponent is armed, then why not just give them unfettered access to any American civilian target? Won't they be assured that we won't retaliate?

Ralf Goergens|1.11.06 @ 10:53AM|#

Jeff,

far from being offended the title of the post made me think of this. :)