Dharmaveer, who blogs at “Thoughts of a nationalist Indian”, has written a compelling article laying out the rationale for a US/NATO invasion of the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Some excerpts are below:
The case for a massive US invasion of the Pak-Afghan border- - - - - - - - -
I think it is time the US and Nato launched a massive invasion of the Pakistan-Afghan border areas. I will make the case for such a military action below:
1. The Taliban-Al Qaeda combination attacked the US on its own soil on September 11, 2001. That itself would seem adequate for the US to go after the Taliban and not rest till this menace has been totally eliminated. When Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, the US (a) identified the enemy and (b) went after it ruthlessly, not hesitating to even use nuclear weapons to force a full and unconditional surrender, followed by a total dismantling of the ideology of Japanese imperialism. Why is it hesitating now? September 11 took more US lives than Pearl Harbor. So why the US ambivalence? 2. The Taliban represents the greatest danger to the ideal of women’s rights in the world today. Under the Taliban, women were reduced to nothing more than domesticated animals. Again, this reason by itself would suffice for a serious military strike. The world cannot watch indifferently when women are degraded this way, and humanity is mocked. 3. The Taliban is gaining strength (their own words — see the video above), and preparing essentially for a total takeover of Pakistan. They have already brought significant parts of Pakistan under their control. Pakistan is a nuclear power. The Taliban having nuclear capability does not seem far fetched anymore. Another 10 years? And then what are we going to do? The time to act is NOW.
[three more reasons are listed]
The world must not wait on this threat any longer. Every day that we wait, this threat grows, and increases its power to douse civilization. A forward policy is needed — one where we (a) call this threat the pure evil that it is (b) declare total war upon it and (c) chase it from all its hideouts, including Swat, Waziristan, and all the rest. It can be done. The myth of these tribesman being able to face up to the US war machine is just that — a media myth. Remember the Taliban was routed in 2002 when the US only gave some support to the northern alliance. It is because the US looked the other way after that that the Taliban regrouped. 2002 showed that the Taliban are weak, and can be destroyed, but it will take sharp focus to finish the job.
The time to finish the job has come.
Read the rest at “Thoughts of a nationalist Indian”.
The might of the British and Russian empires broke on the Hindu Kush and dissipated like a sea wave against a jetty. The American wave is even now being humbled on the Afghan side of the barrier.
What will improve our chances this time around? Does Bharat Rakshak — the Defense of India — stand ready to assume a full partnership in this initiative?
12 comments:
he is obviously ready to fight the taliban down to the very last american soldier. how gallant! and in the middle of a depression too!
Except for the Canadians and Aussies, NATO is the biggest problem in Afghanistan. Too many chiefs.
Tom
After some articles I've read (ie. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0109/stratfo012809.php3) - I question whether a massive surge is really the answer in Afghan/Pak vs. just pulling out all but strategic SOF, etc.
I think that link has most of the data I read before, but tomorrow I'll try and dig up another editorial I read a few weeks back that summarized several different possible options pretty well - including the ones in that article (thought it was by Ralph Peters but didn't see it on the Post site).
El says it all.
Despite the P.S. on ours Indian friend blog claiming that India should support the action military, El's words are what we should bear in mind.
And just wait untill the media is to present India fighting, not Pakistan, not the Talibans but Islam. Imagine. Especially once such Indian support would only happen if the BJP was to be in power.
And that is what would really look like the Nazis.
We're simplifying things so much that any of our ideas will be useless.
What should be done? I say, de-nuclearise Pakistan soon.
How?
No. WE need our soldiers much closer to home.
I've ended up here from Dharmaveer's blog. I'm Indian, so here's an Indian perspective, in response to both this post here and the comments which followed it:
1. It's indeed much more likely that a BJP-led government in India would join a counter-terrorism offensive into Pakistani territory than an INC-led government doing the same. But whether the Indian govt. is then made to look like the Nazis is entirely up to how the western media reports it. India is home to the third largest population of Muslims in the world. Our constitution establishes a secular nation and I daresay that our Muslims are among the most liberal and modern in the whole world (certainly behind Turkey, of course). Our media did not report the previous wars against Pakistan as anti-Islamic wars. FOX and CNN are more likely to make that kind of mistake.
2. Besides, while it is conceivable that Pakistan may allow NATO troops on its soil, it is impossible that Pakistan would allow Indian troops on its soil, unless Pakistan was unable to contain the Taliban and other terrorist groups and became desperate for external help. And even in that scenario, Indian involvement would only be met with massive civilian protests across Pakistan.
3. The NATO is able to fight in Afghanistan only because Pakistan allows it conveyance of troops and materiel through its airspace and transport routes. To fight on the Durand line, India would need to be allowed the same, which again isn't likely unless Pakistan became desperate for help.
4. And now comes the interesting part: India doesn't want to fight on the Durand line at all. It would like to see the Taliban menace spread into the Pakistani-occupied-Kashmir region so that it can take advantage of the situation and translate military action into fulfilment of the nation's territorial objectives. The Indian people do not believe - and I do not believe - that there is an Indian stake in the stability of Pakistan. We may like to see the Taliban spread deeper into Pakistani territory so that we are able to fulfil one or both of our twin objectives: (a) gaining territory in Kashmir & (b) furthering the case for neutralizing Pakistan's nuclear capability.
5. In contrast, successive Indian governments have acknowledged the benefits of good relations with a stable Afghanistan and thus want to see the Taliban defeated. During the 1991-2001 Afghan civil war, India and Iran supported the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, which was supported extensively by Pakistan. But for our support, the US may not have found any local military alliance (like it found in the form of the Northern Alliance) in Afghanistan at all. Therefore, we may see Indian involvement along the Durand line in the event of a cry for help from Afghanistan or Pakistan if the Indian government decides to remain committed to a stable Afghanistan, but such a step will surely be extremely unpopular at home. It will also probably have to come at the cost of ending all US military support to Pakistan, which will probably be the price India will extract for getting involved.
Here's the editorial I was looking for last night - Ralph Peters but in USA Today, not NY Post.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/02/the-mendacity-o.html
Key takeaway quotes:
"Ranked from best to worst, here are our four basic options going forward:
• Best. Instead of increasing the U.S. military "footprint," reduce our forces and those of NATO by two-thirds, maintaining a "mother ship" at Bagram Air Base and a few satellite bases from which special operations troops, aircraft and drones, and lean conventional forces would strike terrorists and support Afghan factions with whom we share common enemies. All resupply for our military could be done by air, if necessary.
Stop pretending Afghanistan's a real state. Freeze development efforts. Ignore the opium. Kill the fanatics.
• Good. Leave entirely. Strike terrorist targets from over the horizon and launch punitive raids when necessary. Instead of facing another Vietnam ourselves, let Afghanistan become a Vietnam for Iran and Pakistan. Rebuild our military at home, renewing our strategic capabilities.
• Poor. Continue to muddle through as is, accepting that achieving any meaningful change in Afghanistan is a generational commitment. Surge troops for specific missions, but not permanently.
• Worst. Augment our forces endlessly and increase aid in the absence of a strategy. Lie to ourselves that good things might just happen. Let U.S. troops and Afghans continue to die for empty rhetoric, while Pakistan decays into a vast terrorist refuge.
A reality check
In any event, Pakistan, not Afghanistan, will determine the future of Islamist extremism in the region. And Pakistan is nearly lost to us — a fact we must accept. Our strategic future lies with India."
"But whether the Indian govt. is then made to look like the Nazis is entirely up to how the western media reports it."
Exactly Bhattacharya, that is what I meant. Just that.
"Our media did not report the previous wars against Pakistan as anti-Islamic wars."
Yes. I have always heard in the MSM and in everywhere of a war between two States: India and Pakistan. Not a war of cultures or a war against Islam.
BUT, if India goes down to hunt "Talibans" or people India deems "too islamic" in other states like Indian Nationalist blogger implied, then "Western" MSM would report India as Nazi.
And here between us, the muslims of India would constitute a big problem for you also. That is why I think our analysis of this is so handicaped. Who would win? Nobody.
"India doesn't want to fight on the Durand line at all."
Nice you coroborate what I previously thought.
"During the 1991-2001 Afghan civil war, India and Iran supported the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, which was supported extensively by Pakistan."
And what about that? I did not know this.
I liked your comment, it revealed another perspective. A sand and more wise one, compared to mine.
Tuan Jim, that's what I've been arguing and we better start thinking if India is "clean enough" or not.
"In any event, Pakistan, not Afghanistan, will determine the future of Islamist extremism in the region. And Pakistan is nearly lost to us — a fact we must accept. Our strategic future lies with India."
I don't see reasons for Hindus to attack us, what I see is many reasons that will prevent many Europeans, mainly liberals, to recognise India as a legitimate ally.
Bhattacharyas were always in my eyes Bengali brahmins. What are you doing in Rajasthan? No rivers! No rites? No jalapushpas?
If you are educated, dwelve a bit on Parsis in Bombay or elsewhere and start annoying our good friends Iranians with Avesta. The Indians have special indirect command about the partly lost Iranian identity. We should work together on restauring it - linking the West with you in a proprely brahmanic way. We supply the rest.
We dare to dwelve on the Zoroastrian neighbours Greeks and you do the rest. Agreed?
We restaure the Iranian identity together and meet in the middle.
The Afghanis or Pakis may be slow in their mind, but our Indo-Iranian power should prevail in long term.
More facts: Hindu Kush means "Slaughter of Hindus".
The term "Hindu" is Persian. One of the meanings is "slave". Sindh is a river, rather marginal in "India".
The name of India is also silly, one of the Greek dialects had no h (ionic?), so that India is not Hindia.
Tuan Jim: [Ralph Peters] - Stop pretending Afghanistan's a real state. Freeze development efforts. Ignore the opium. Kill the fanatics.
I would expand Peters' policy to include all Muslim majority nations and all of the fanatics therein. Starting at the top in each country. All of them are ongoing crimes against humanity whose sole intention is to inflict even greater crimes against the rest of humanity.
The writer of the article makes a compelling case. The threat is real and verifiable. However, I have two questions:
1- Does he realize with the OBama administration the US is effectively out of the doing anything about Islamic terrorism business? If the first few weeks are any indication, all our allies on this conflict will soon be on their own. Soon they will miss GW Bush, too.
2- Given the fact that every power who's been unfortunate enough to be embroiled in a conflict in the area has effectively lost, what makes anyone think yet another power will do any better? Overwhelming military might and technolgy has lost every time here. How much better can NATO do given that's even more foreign and distant to the area than any previous power?
Quite frankly, the front line is also in the US and Europe with Islam's useful idiots on the Left doing everything they can to undermine any resistance to being made Sharia compliant. Unless we can deal with the complete cluelessness regarding the Islamofascist threat that permeates the West, we're not going to be able to help anyone. Certainly not while Obama is - insert appropriate gagging sounds here - "Commander In Chief."
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.