Friday, September 08, 2006

Pakistani Deal Appeases the Taliban Terrorists

GOI: Nick Robertson of CNN was reporting on "Your World Today" that the Pakistani government's recent deal with the militants will work as this allows them to put the emphasis on the border and not on remote villages.

However, the bulk of their forces are going to stay in the bases as apart of this deal. This is leaving the back door wide open. These militants will just cross the border through mountain passes and trails as well as find continued safe haven amongst the tribes of Pakistan in the surrounding villages. Villages where the Pakistani military now won't go according to this deal.

The government agreed to halt major ground and air operations, free prisoners, retreat to barracks, compensate for losses and allow tribesmen to carry small arms.

"The government policy has swung from one extreme to another, from the use of brute military force to what appears to be total capitulation to militants," wrote Ismail Khan of the Dawn newspaper.

"The government was desperate [for a solution]. It has bought temporary peace," said Rahimullah Yusufzai, a close follower of Taleban affairs. "I think this accord will give legitimacy to the militants. They will behave as people who fought the army to a standstill."

GOI: Under the deal foreigners (Taliban and al-Qaeda) would be allowed to stay in the region as long as they "keep the peace." This of course means that as long as they do not attack Pakistani forces then they will be left alone. This will allow the militants to plan attacks against NATO forces and the western government of Afghanistan as well as consolidate power within these tribal areas of north west Pakistan. And of course President Bush is clueless to the whole affair thinking this is an economic issue:

"I don't read it that way," Bush said of the agreement Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's government signed on Tuesday in which the militants agreed to stop attacks in the region.

"What he is doing is entering agreements with governors in the regions of the country, in the hopes that there would be an economic vitality, there will be alternatives to violence and terror,"

GOI: So, we are going to give economic incentives to the terrorists?!! People in these tribal villages who have been sympathetic to the Taliban are not going to stop supporting them simply because they might gain economic opportunity. In fact, it will probably only make it worse as much of any increased income will most likely only go right back to the militants! What happened to smoking the terrorists out and we do not negotiate with terrorists? Instead now we are going to engage in economics with them? And what kind of economic opportunity are we going to provide these terrorists sympathizers that can compete with the money in heroin production? It's like Reagan's delusional program to stop cocaine production in Latin America by convincing farmers to replace the coca plants with banana trees. If these fiercely independent tribal leaders won't give up Osama bin Laden, other al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders for millions upon millions in financial rewards then what other economic incentives can we add??? Who's appeasing whom there Dubya???

The Pakistani military is basically saying to the terrorists, "We will capture you if you are stupid enough to try and pass through the main border crossings but other then that we aren't going to chase or fight you anymore. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge."

Afghanistan is facing increased violence lately from the Taliban and I can't help but put the Pakistani story together with this one.

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- A suicide car bomber struck a convoy of U.S. military vehicles Friday in downtown Kabul, killing at least 16 people, including two American soldiers, and wounding 29 others. It was the Afghan capital's deadliest suicide attack since the Taliban's 2001 ouster.

[...]

"The fighting is extraordinarily intense. The intensity and ferocity of the fighting is far greater than in Iraq on a daily basis," Brig. Ed Butler, the commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, told British ITV news.

[...]

He echoed NATO commander Gen. James L. Jones' call Thursday for more troops.

GOI: Hmmm, I wonder why Americans can not add more troops to Afghanistan? We had a lot of American troops there back before 2003 so I wonder where they went? Hmmm.

---End of Transmission---

2 comments:

thepoetryman said...

It, the bombing by Israel is merely a stepping stone for Israel and the US to hit Syria and then pounce upon Iran. If we do not reject this administration in full came `06 and `08 we will pay a very heavy price and by proxy, the world.

james said...

TPM:

I couldn't agree more.