The Surge Produces Results

It isn't a matter of result, it's a matter of change. Obviously if we sweep the country, we are going to get results, the good news will come twenty years from now if things actually change. Since 2003 we have under gone several large scale operations, all of which had the same effect, and wound up back were we started because this isn't a conventional war, we are not fighting a conventional enemy. All the military action and success' in the world mean nothing without policy, and diplomacy to back them up. Our policy, and diplomacy sucks.

http://www.conflictingviews.com/t1624/ Looks like it's changing to me.

They do not like AQ because AQ does things badly, that doesn't mean they want what we have given them for a government, or that they are going to be pacified once we leave. The change will be not when they turn on AQ, but when they no longer turn on their own, and us, and work with the country instead of fighting it. The enemy of my enemy is my friend isn't always a good sign.

So were following your rules huh? Don't think so. First it wasn't results that mattered, you changed it to change, i give you an example of change and now it's not change that will do it but when they stop turning on there own? Do you ever get to a point?Who is not doing this other then terrorist orginizations. So in your opinion, are you working with this country (the US) or instead fighting it? No wonder you side with them!Yup, it applys to you too? But i bet your of the opinion it don't?

You are really dense. The reason they are turning on AQ is because they do not think that AQs methods are going to get the results they want. We are viewing them (iraqi insurgents) as "enemy of my enemy". Just because they want AQ out does not mean that they want US in, or that attacks on US troops are going to stop. I have seen it first hand, ING soldiers coming to get training and weapons, then dissapearing to be found later fighting with insurgents. You think you know what it's like over there, but your little cushioned world doesn't have a clue. Many of Iraqs government, and those helping American soldiers are asking for asylum in the US, in return for their help, or they will stop helping, doesn't sound like they are in it for "the long haul" to me. Iraq will fail, if Iraqis fail, as I have said from the beginning, nothing has changed.

All counter-guerrilla wars become sloppy, ugly, complicated and unpopular. Nonetheless, they're a standard feature of life on Planet Earth. We're fighting one right now, and shouldn't expect it to be easy or pleasant. Generally speaking, counter-insurgencies suck, but must be fougt, from time to time.

Um, there was no insurgency before we started the war. The insurgency is because of the war, not the other way around.

I am proud my country chose to take a stand against Terrorist Islam. WE TOOK A STAND. The Radical Beheaders have felt our wrath, and hopefully will continue to feel it, for decades to come. :headbang:

it's so funny how the Bush haters are so quick to deny reality

it's like that Iraq defense minister in 2003

or like the Dem's trying to convince America how bad Bush's economy is as homeownership goes through the roof and the DOW tops 14K

The reality is we are only scratching the surface, and even if we clean up Iraq for a couple months, not "going after them where they hide" is going to be the undoing.

Looks like Pakistan is about ready to go after them where they hide. But i'm sure there is something wrong with that from your military analyst point of view.

FRONTLINE reports from the lawless Pakistani tribal areas along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and reveals how the area has fallen under the control of a resurgent Taliban militia, which uses it as a launching pad for attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan. Despite the presence of more than 70,000 Pakistani troops, the Taliban has claimed two tribal agencies, North and South Waziristan, as Taliban republics. The area, off limits to U.S. troops by agreement with Pakistan's president and long suspected of harboring Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri, is now considered a failed state. President Pervez Musharraf tells FRONTLINE reporter Martin Smith that Pakistan's strategy, which includes cash payments to militants who lay down their arms, has clearly foundered. In a region little understood because it is closed to most observers, FRONTLINE investigates a secret front in the war on terror.

PBS Previews | FRONTLINE "Return of the Taliban"


he United States has stepped up its economic assistance to Pakistan, providing debt relief and support for a major effort for education reform. During President Musharraf's visit to the United States in 2003, President Bush announced that the United States would provide Pakistan with $3 billion in economic and military aid over 5 years. This assistance package commenced during FY 2005.

Following the region’s tragic October 8, 2005 earthquake, the United States responded immediately and generously to Pakistan’s call for assistance. The response was consistent with U.S. humanitarian values and our deep commitment to Pakistan. At the subsequent reconstruction conference in Islamabad on November 19, 2005, the U.S. announced a $510 million commitment to Pakistan for earthquake relief and reconstruction, including humanitarian assistance, military support for relief operations, and anticipated U.S. private contributions.

President Bush and President Musharraf have affirmed the long-term, strategic partnership between their two countries. In 2004, the United States recognized closer bilateral ties with Pakistan by designating Pakistan as a Major Non-NATO Ally. President Bush visited Pakistan in March 2006, where he and President Musharraf reaffirmed their shared commitment to a broad and lasting strategic partnership, agreeing to continue their cooperation on a number of issues including: the war on terror, security in the region, strengthening democratic institutions, trade and investment, education, and earthquake relief and reconstruction.

The United States and Pakistan concluded the sale to Pakistan of F-16 aircraft in late 2006, further reflecting their deepening strategic partnership. President Musharraf visited Washington in September 2006, where he held a bilateral meeting with President Bush and also participated in a trilateral meeting with President Bush and President Karzai of Afghanistan. The U.S.-Pakistan strategic partnership is based on the shared interests of the United States and Pakistan in building stable and sustainable democracy and in promoting peace and security, stability, prosperity, and democracy in South Asia and across the globe.
Pakistan (05/07)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

MR. RUSSERT: Are you convinced Osama bin Laden is alive?

Admiral McCONNELL: We have not heard from Osama bin Laden for over a year. There was a recent video where he appeared. Many people thought that was current. That was actually old videotape. So it’s been a year. There are rumors about his illness. My personal view is that he’s alive, but we, we don’t know because we can’t confirm it for over a year.

MR. RUSSERT: And living in Pakistan?

Admiral McCONNELL: I believe he is in the tribal region of Pakistan, and how he conducts his affairs, only speaking to a courier, staying completely removed from anything we could exploit to find him, I think he’s in that region.

the director of national intelligence, Admiral Mike McConnell

MTP transcript for July 22, 2007 - Meet the Press, online at MSNBC - MSNBC.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pakistan's Appeasement Strategy Has Failed
By AHMED RASHID
The Daily Telegraph
July 13, 2007


LAHORE, Pakistan — President Musharraf again finds himself in the eye of the storm. Al Qaeda is baying for his blood as a result of the carnage inside the Red Mosque, and Western powers and most Pakistanis are demanding that he finally take on Islamic radicals and militant madrassas. Since the September 11, 2001, attacks, General Musharraf has survived by riding two horses, at times bending to Western pressure to hunt down Al Qaeda and their Pakistani protectors, while allying himself with Pakistani Islamic parties in an attempt to placate extremists.

It has been a rocky time and Pakistan is paying the price, but General Musharraf has preserved the three-decade old nexus between the army and the fundamentalists, which has helped to keep him and the military in power.

As a result, Al Qaeda has found the space and support to regroup in Pakistan's tribal areas, the Afghan Taliban leadership has found a safe refuge in Baluchistan province, foreign radicals like the 2005 London bombers have found easy access to Al Qaeda central, while Pakistani extremist groups have multiplied. American and NATO forces fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan have become frustrated at General Musharraf, but they have dared not put pressure on him fearing even greater chaos, while Pakistan's middle class has despaired at its president's courtship of the fundamentalists.

His two-track policy has come to the end of the road. Pakistani extremists such as those who were holed up in the Red Mosque have read the army's laxness toward them as a passport to defy the state and bring about an Islamic revolution.

General Musharraf is faced with two stark choices: Go for the extremists in a consistent manner, or succumb to them and try to appease them, putting the future of Pakistan at risk. If he takes the first path he will need a new political mandate and support from secular national parties such as Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan Peoples Party, which he has treated with contempt since he seized power in a coup in 1999.

But striking a deal with Mrs. Bhutto will also mean that the army will have to hold a free and fair election by the end of the year, allow an independent judiciary and press and share power with the politicians — something General Musharraf has been loathe to do. The other path is that General Musharraf and the army again strike peace deals with the Pakistani Taliban in the North West frontier province, jeopardize Afghanistan's future by allowing the Afghan Taliban to continue wreaking havoc there, allow the mushrooming of militant madrassas — and live with the risk that one day he will be assassinated by the extremists.

The second path would also mean an abandonment of any pretence of democracy, the imposition of martial law and a further distancing from the West. To ensure that General Musharraf takes the first path, Pakistan's liberal politicians have to show wisdom and flexibility and Western powers must exert pressure so that he does the right thing. The first choice carries immense risks but it is the only way that Pakistan can be saved the fate of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Pakistan's Appeasement Strategy Has Failed - July 13, 2007 - The New York Sun

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

posted September 6, 2006 at 12:50 p.m.
Pakistan signs peace deal with pro-Taliban militants
Critics say treaty, which calls for end to terrorist actions, seems 'a total capitulation' by Islamabad.
By Arthur Bright | csmonitor.com

In a move that some say appears 'a total capitulation' to pro-Taliban forces, Pakistan signed a peace deal with tribal leaders in the North Waziristan region of Pakistan Tuesday, and is withdrawing military forces in exchange for promises that militant tribal groups there will not engage in terrorist activities.

The Associated Press reports that the agreement is meant to end five years of fighting in the province, located along the border with Afghanistan, that has claimed the lives of over 350 Pakistani troops and hundreds of militants and civilians.

Under the pact – signed by a militant leader, Azad Khan, and a government representative, Fakhr-e-Alam – no militant in North Waziristan will shelter foreign militants.

Militants also will not target Pakistani government and security officials or pro-government tribal elders or journalists, North Waziristan lawmaker Maulana Nek Zaman said.

For almost five years, Pakistani soldiers and paramilitary forces have battled local tribesmen, many believed to be allied with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, in the fiercely independent mountain region where central government powers do not reach. Bin Laden is also believed to be hiding along the porous Pakistani-Afghan frontier.

The New York Times reports that the deal "is widely viewed as a face-saving retreat for the Pakistani Army, which has taken a heavy battering at the hands of the mountain tribesmen and militants, who are allied with the Taliban and Al Qaeda." But while the militants have promised to cease attacks across the border into Afghanistan and to expel foreign fighters, the treaty has given them a significant loophole.

In one of the most obvious capitulations since it began its campaign to rout foreign fighters from the area, the government said foreigners would be allowed to stay if they respected the law and the peace agreement. Osama bin Laden and other leaders of Al Qaeda are believed to be among the foreigners who have taken refuge in the area. ...

A spokesman for the militants, Abdullah Farhad, denied in a telephone call from an undisclosed location that there were any foreign militants in North Waziristan, and said the government should provide evidence of their presence.

"Why should we bother if they are not here," he said, speaking of foreign fighters.

Although Mr. bin Laden is thought to be in the area, Pakistani officials have given mixed signals as to whether he would still be considered a target by government forces. In his blog for ABC News, Brian Ross reports that Pakistani Major General Shaukat Sultan said in an interview that bin Laden "would not be taken into custody, as long as [he] is being like a peaceful citizen."

Soon after in a statement, however, the Pakistani ambassador to the US said, "If [bin Laden] is in Pakistan, today or any time later, he will be taken into custody and brought to justice." The ambassador also said that Gen. Sultan's comments were taken out of context, though Mr. Ross presents the transcript of the interview in his blog.

Though the treaty was met with hugs and the exchange of greetings between Pakistani soldiers and Talibani forces upon its signing, Ismail Khan of the Pakistan newspaper Dawn said the deal sent the government "back to square one."

Like a pendulum, 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. Never did the government try to intelligently combine the use of force with pursuit of dialogue. ...

For now the government has been able to achieve peace but whether it will be durable and not relapse into more chaos and lawlessness, remains to be seen. It will indeed be a daunting task for the government to ensure that there is no cross-border movement by local and foreign militants and they do not indulge in activities detrimental to peace and security.

Unless that happens, the government would continue to be under pressure from Afghanistan and the US-led coalition partners to rein in militants, prompting it to launch another operation and that may result in the unravelling of the agreement.

The Washington Post notes that the peace deal may bode ill for Afghan and US forces across the border in Afghanistan, as it could embolden militants "to operate more freely in Pakistan and to infiltrate more aggressively into Afghanistan to fight US and allied forces there."

"This could be a very dangerous development," said one official at an international agency, speaking anonymously because the issue is sensitive in both countries. "Until recently there has been relative stability in eastern Afghanistan, but now that could start to deteriorate."

The agreement could add a new element of tension to [Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez]Musharraf's visit [to Afghanistan on Wednesday], aimed at smoothing over his relations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The two Muslim leaders, both allies in the U.S.-led war against Islamic extremists, have clashed heatedly over allegations that Taliban forces in Afghanistan are receiving support and shelter from inside Pakistan.

Pakistan's move also appeared to complicate the U.S. role in the region. U.S. officials have praised Musharraf for his help in capturing al-Qaeda members and refrained from pressing him hard on cross-border violence. A withdrawal of Pakistani forces could reduce pressure on al-Qaeda figures believed to be hiding in the region, including Osama bin Laden, allowing them more freedom of action.

The Indo-Asian News Service reports that the US would prefer Pakistan retain control of its tribal areas like North Waziristan, in the interests of deterring terrorist groups.

"It is in the interest of Pakistan and the Pakistani people that the government be able to exercise its sovereignty throughout all of Pakistan," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters in response to a question about a reported peace agreement with pro-Taliban militants in the North Waziristan region. ...

"Certainly everybody understands the importance of not having safe havens where you can have these ungoverned areas where Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, other terrorist groups can plan and launch terrorist attacks not only against Afghans and international forces in Afghanistan but against Pakistanis and Pakistan."


Pakistan signs peace deal with pro-Taliban militants | csmonitor.com


Only thing coming out of Pakistan is appeasement of the Taliban

Not for long IMO. There gonna circle and squeeze.