No point trying to wriggle out of it now, Lisa. I'll be reporting you to Ali-B. Remember, with great power comes great responsibility.

 

So you are saying that Pakistan is an extremist state!

Les

 

The situation in the tribal areas has created safe havens for Taliban forces fighting in Afghanistan and Taliban activity has also been growing in Pakistan, particularly in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP). The state will not regain control without military solutions, which may lead to full blown revolt and it being overthrown.

Equally problematic is the gradual spread of radical Islamist ideas in Pakistan, in parts of Punjab, as well as the NWFP. This is accentuated by the fact that it is easier for the Taliban to destroy, than for the government to create.

Al-Qaeda have networks that extend from Pakistan's largest cities to remote sanctuaries along the Afghan border.

The state wants to keep NATO happy and also its population. The challenge there is that the general population, predominantly Islamist, hate NATO. The State, however, want to keep NATO happy as we pump billions into the country. Why? Because their nukes are in Western Punjab and within touching distance of the World's largest terrorist network.

So, is Pakistan an extremist state? Well, it employs Shar'ia which I think, according to Western ideals, is extreme, but the West does not classify Pakistan as such as do so would alienate it, and of course they've got nukes. Is it an extremist country? Absolutely!

 

Pakistan is close to being a failed state, maybe we should let it fail, instead of supporting it's corrupt plutocracy with our money?

Let them build their Islamist utopia...

 

And the nukes?

 

Good question, but we still have MAD though.

But I guess it depends if you think an Islamist state would be expansionist or belligerent.

I think an Islamist state won't work myself, it can't function adequately economically...what are the consequences of that though?

Iran is failing economically but its leaders play of game of theater over Israel to please the popular street and distract from economic failure, its a long way from that to a crazed religious nuking of Israel though.

 

If it fails, to be blunt, we're fcuked. Pakistan would be like the vacuum we're trying to fill in Afghanistan, only supersized. And it wouldn't be run by the Johnny Walker supping fakes that are the House of Saud and their likes. It'd be run by real submitters to Allah.

M.A.D only works when reason is employed on both sides. This takes us all the way back to a month or so ago when I was banging on about Enlightenment thinking and the West having gone through The Age of Reason. I don't think these *******s would have a moments hesitation in hitting the button and destroying 'The Great Satan'. The retaliation would be God's will and worse (or perhaps best) case scenario? 72 Virgins.

What the country needs is education, wealth, infrastructure and so forth. The absolute last thing it (and we) needed was a flood. No doubt it was a sign.

 

North Korea understand MAD even though the regime is on the face of it quite bonkers. They are perfectly rational when you understand the peculiar circumstances they exist in. The number one goal of elites is to perpetuate their own power, positions etc.

I do believe that the existing plutocratic elites in Pakistan are the number one problem there. They run the place like some medieval domain. The Islamists get support because you have a big and young population wanting to unlock the productive forces....Islamism provide the best solution from their POV, for more pluralism etc...

You won't have peace there (which is stability) until conflicts are resolved. To my mind that means the current corrupt elites falling.

 

Agreed, accept for the first point. The leadership in North Korea have nothing to gain from being dead. No martyrdom, no perpetuation of an ideal. I'd play it exactly like NATO. Contain Pakistan whilst we deal with Afghanistan; contain North Korea (unless the Chinese want to get involved), and then, next priority, and in my view, will be Iran. We can't let them develop nukes.

 

I think that is a reasonable summary.

Les

 

Cleaned up.

 

We'd be better off letting the Taliban regain control and containing them TBH. It's too expensive what we are doing ATM.

 

And give Al-qeada back its safehouse? We need to keep Afghanistan as the front-line, if we don't they'll bring the fight back to the Allies' streets. As it stands, most radicalised Muslim 'volunteers' are are going East to fight the good fight. The withdrawal talked about by the PM (2015 I think) has been released, I'd wager, to placate the electorate.

Sadly, we're going to lose troops. That's war. Yes, it's expensive when measured in Sterling and it'll be even more expensive long-term if we give Al-Qeada back an unhindered, stable platform from which to launch their next offensive.

There is also, surely, moral currency being traded here. Do we want to walk away from a fight with The Taliban? Additionally, can you imagine the support they'd garner having 'defeated' the West?

I guess the call is between irrelevant (in the grand scheme) 'savings' and winning a battle in a war that's shaping the World.

 

The Taliban want power principally, not to do battle with the west per se. They only ever were basically a tribal force, a local one, not an international one.

We need to find a way to trade them power for not harboring AQ/jihadists, that is the key, if not with the carrot then with the stick.

Divide and conquer.

 

Of course they want power, but not simply for power's sake. If there's one quality I'd acknowledge it'd be that they are indefatigable adherants to Deobandi and Hanafi law and defend an unequivicol belief that this be the system of rule in their homeland. They want power for this reason.

You know of the horrors of Taliban rule. You've no doubt seen the videos and read the articles. Assuming they'd give up their brethren (which they won't) should we have any moral compunction about giving power back to the Taliban?

 

It all angers me tbh...

Its there actions that cause hate/racism to there kind.

They dont deserve any help by Christians, or any other religion in fact.. They should all be stoned.. *****

 

It's a pleasure to watch two people agree with each other as much as JT and TDW - its really good to see these two like minded individuals getting their message over.

 

 

Sure they are horrible yes but there is maybe not a viable alternative.

I firmly believe that if the international Jihadists are between the Taliban and power they would give them up ultimately...or at least not harbour them.

The trick is to do it in the right way so they don't think they are selling out their friends.

 

And put the people of Afghanistan back in the hands of the Taliban?

 

Not our injustice to fight.

 

So all that we would have achieved in Afghanistan is to have pushed Al-qaeda in to Pakistan? No. To have gained anything we have to make the regime change stick.

 

No the priority is to stop AQ/jihadists. Who rules Afghanistan or Pakistan is incidental.

 

Thinking back to those who have tried to overcome the Taliban in past years, going back a long way too, do you think that it will ever be possible to overcome the Taliban in fact since they are an endemic part of the people, and do you think that the Afghan government would ever be able to keep them under control if the Allies left the Afghan army to it?

Les

 

The Taliban will never give into an invading army, they would rather die than give up their land and their country. Have you not seen Rambo III?

 

The strategy would be exactly the same as Iraq. 'Hand over' power to the Afghans via Karzai and control him from Whitehall and Washington. The Taliban are like flies, sometimes they need swatting, at other times spraying and, like now, rentakill need to get called in. They'll just make their nest somewhere else (Pakistan) which we can cope with so long as we can keep hold of the Pakistani state. Quite what we would gain by relinquishing control of the Afghani executive I don't know. We'd be back to square one within a decade. Pakistan's the real issue. 130 million Sunnis, massive Islamist sympathies, nuclear weapons. We need our prescence in Afghanistan
for strategic reasons.

 

Taliban = Backward morons.

 

That was the Mujahadin, who America (the West) armed as the cold war Russians were considered a greater threat than the Islamists. An American hero fighting alongside Islamic fundamentalist; oh, the irony. The Taliban filled the void left after the Russian withdrawal. It's for exactly this reason that I think the Allies will learn from that and leave a prescence in Afghanistan indefinately. It's the only way we can try to stay in control of the region and, clearly, we really need to. Did you notice the Russians have now signed up to the European missile defence shield?

 

I think that the moment the Allies left Afghanistan that the Taliban would be in full control again very quickly. Karzai would not have a cat in hell's chance of controlling the country. Everything that went before would be wasted including all those young Brits who have been killed. The whole business is a mess and we are getting nowhere significant.

Les

 

What do you propose then? War's a messy business as you know, Les.