Panetta is right in that we should never stand for anyone attacking our soldiers. But, then if we weren't there............
Today's Poll: Should the U.S. take more aggressive military action against Pakistan?
Submitted by Howard Owens on June 7, 2012 - 7:39am
We should turn the problem over to our friends in India.
How about we stop giving them billions of dollars in aid and let them fend for themselves? They are not our friends despite what Washington continues to think. Our tax dollars probably paid for bin Laden's compound.
The Pakistani government will not go after the groups who routinely cross the border to attack our troops, these groups have been given sanctuary by the Pakistani security services. It is time to stop all aid to Pakistan both military and commercial. No more imports with labels with made in Pakistan, no more easy student visas, to quote Nancy Reagan "just say no".
TP, is right on target with having their neighbors to their east ideal with them it's more a matter of vital national security for India than it is for us. There is no reason for NATO troops to be put in harms way or for our treasury to be emptied by a nation that feels it can harbor those who do us harm or interrupt the flow of material to our troops in the field in Afghanistan.
My guess is that as soon as the leaders in Pakistan understand that those are the rules of the game going forward they will act quickly to squash those who threaten to tip their rice bowl.
I see Mr. Hunt, so you would let two regional Nuclear powers that already hate each other duke this out and you think that it would not escalate beyond the region?
There is little we can do to stop India and Pakistan from going to war if they decide to. They have issues going back to the late 1940's that basically are none of our business (like the border problem of Kashmir).
If we are not in Afghanistan, then it becomes even less of our problem. And if the need comes up, there are always the drones.
John my responce was pretty much to TP's I do not think we should take a more aggressive stance in pakistan, nor do I think we should do less at this time. From everything I have read, even after we pull combat troops out, the plan is to maintain a presence specifically to deal with the Al Queda types.
On the contrary, we do a lot to keep India and pakistan from nuking each other however. And we have since the 80's
My retort was to the statement, "Let India Handle it" that would be a mistake of monumental proportions.
Many seem to confuse Afganistan with Iraq, we are not there to keep the peace, we are there to retailiate and destroy al Queada.
Pakistan has failed to help, we don't need to invade them, we need to keep doing to what we are, capture and/or kill AL Queda. If Pakistan gets in the way, we either by pass them or consider them collateral damage.
Mark, having India assert itself as the regional power does not automatically mean they would engage in a nuclear exchange with Pakistan any more than their ongoing tensions with China over border disputes regarding Nepal. If the Pakistanis value their independence to the extent they willingly harbor remnants of AL Qaeda while simultaneously taking American foreign aid, dumping their manufactured goods here and blocking needed supplies for our NATO troops in Afghanistan, perhaps it is time the U.S. calls a halt to being a convivial patron to this less than grateful ward.
Ed I have to disagree for several reasons
1) India's concerns are strictly regional, specifically the integrity of thier borders.
2) I never advocated taking a more aggressive posture by anyone, the Al Queda problem is largely ours and Europes, all that I say is when we need to kill them, when we don't who cares, but the notion that after the war winds down we are going to leave the region entirely is niave, we still have troops in Iraq, non combatant in title but capable.
3) Based solely on Military capabilty, and the fractured political structure in Pakistan, it would not be India launching a first nuke, it would likely be Pakistan.
The poll question was "Should the U.S. take more aggressive military action against Pakistan?" currently India is not in the Pakistan/Al Queda mix, nor should they be. The problem in Pakistan is since Mushariff left office, the ISI has gained a great deal of influence in the Pakastani Government, diminishing what little oooperation there was to absolutely no cooperation.
Al Queda in Pakistan is severaly diminshed and the entire thing will be moot as Al Queda strength now shifts to Yeman, therefore I think it would be more prudent to stay the present course there, finish the job, forget about nation building in Afganistan and maintain a capabilty to either do a small scale insertion or drone strike when necessary in the future, NOT ask any country outside of NATO to do anything.
I voted no, but I think all military and financial aide should come to an immediate halt. Pakistan is no friend of ours, and there isn't much more they can do but bitch about drone strikes.
We should have a few more friendly fire incidents, as I believe the Pakistani military is as thick as thieves with the taliban and al queda.
The idea that either Pakistan or India would go nuclear is remote. Both countries are led by rational leaders who have accepted the paradigm of mutual assured destruction (MAD), neither country is going to strike first. The day has come for the U.S. to back off and let them attend to their own affairs.
What would be beneficial is a cessation of the continued subsidies to the Pakistanis as well as a trade embargo that is enforced. If Pakistan wants to continue the flow of capital from the west and access to our markets then it needs to decide if they are our ally or our enemy, this is a zero sum proposition. Continue the present and you loose it all.
Ed, India is run by rational leaders, Pakistan on the other hand is not so cut and dry. The political leadership is not running the country right now, the ISI backed by the some key military leaders are actually pulling the strings, otherwise the entiore hiding of Bin Laden thing might not have worked out exactly the way it did.
The last war between India and Pakistan known as the Kargil conflict was an incursion of Pakistani Spec Ops forces with Kashmiri separatist that was later followed by the regular Pakistani Army, there were fears of escalation then. India showed great restraint by not following the pakastani's back into Pakistan at the beheist of the President Of The United states at the time.
The point is, India has stated and proven by it's actions that it is only interested in maintaining it's border. The aggressor was Pakistan, further they invaded with a force of 5000 against an Indian force of 30,000, clearly they did not think they could win that fight with convetional means only. Pakistan of late has done nothing to show themselves as rational, and clearly more radical members of the military and ISI are increasing thier hold on power. I would never assume Pakistani Leadership to be in the least bit rational of late.
We should do exactly what we are currently doing, drone strikes and/or raids when necessary, cut off thier aid, and NOT depend on any country in the region to do what we need to get done.
Ed, I am NOT saying we should continue to support Pakistan at all, I am saying India has no interest in anything in that region beyond it's borders escept that Pakistan has nukes pointed at them.
In fact, in the last war between India and Pakistan, we sided more with India than with Pakistan.
I am saying that we should not count on India to deal with the Al Queda presence there. We obviously should not count on Pakistan to assist either