You suggest Omar might be in Helmand. So?
So, why was it hard to comprehend that the first time?
The discussion is about "good" and "bad" taliban. That particular lexicon applies only to Pakistanis. Outside of Pakistan, there are only taliban and they are ALL bad.
That’s utter bull. The notion of differentiating between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Taliban and engaging with the former is present in Afghanistan. That’s been expressed routinely by coalition commanders, other western officials and local ones. It’s not just Pakistanis who have to deal with the morality of differentiating between Taliban. In fact your proxy in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzi, has gone as far as to offer Mullah Omar indemnity in exchange for talks, and has lobbied for the removal of the UN ‘terrorist’ designation on Taliban members for that purpose. The very same supposedly irredeemable Mullah Omar-lead Taliban you insinuate Pakistan is in outrageous complicity with. You’re making a big deal of what Secretary Gates supposedly ‘believes’, but you’d do well to educate yourself as to what opinion your leaders the likes of President Obama and General Petraeus hold in regards to ‘reconcilable Taliban’.
Like I said, look to yourself before making sweeping, pompous remarks in the future.
This discussion isn't about the efforts of foreign nations to assist Afghanistan.
In case you haven’t noticed, we’re in the same war. Why should the actions, performance and credibility of the international forces be beyond reproach? You’ve made both explicit and implicit accusations insinuating Pakistan’s ‘complicity’ being the ‘foundation’ of coalition failures in Afghanistan. You being so adverse to that notion, which either way has bearings on the ground realities of both countries, being assessed here is hypocrisy. Simplistic, and inherently hypocritical, retorts like the following won’t help the credibility of your rants about Pakistan:
What happens in Helmand is beyond your control. What happens in Quetta is not.
Very well. How about “what happens in Quetta is beyond your control. What happens in Helmand is not. In Helmand, sufficient amounts of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Taliban reside, deal with them and the territories they control before moaning about Quetta.” You think that’s fair? Probably not, but since you’re okay with this ‘logic’, so am I.
In any case, they'd be inaccurate if doing so. Many of our setbacks and failures can be legitimately attributed to ourselves. We seem to spend a great deal of time, blood, and money, however, to determine what we might do better.
As do we. It’s quite generous of you to admit that ‘many’ of your failures are your responsibility. I’d be inclined to appreciate that, but:
Pakistan's decision to aborgate it's sovereign responsibilities in the late fall of 2001 and early 2002 helped to create an externally-directed insurgency against Afghanistan. This is a legitimate source of our angst. No doubt. The fountain, even.
Really? Most observers are given to comment that it was your fixation with invading Iraq, complacency spurred by initial success in Afghanistan (which lead to under-resourcing in terms of military equipment, personal and poor infrastructural, political and social management) and lack of efficient coordination with Pakistan which is what lead to the Taliban resurgence and your present predicament. And not some “Pakistan’s ‘decision’ to abrogate its sovereign responsibilities” crap. Pakistan did its fair bit to stop the flow, which should’ve been your responsibility primarily since it originated from Afghan territory, the military control of which was mandated to you, not us. Certainly there is was no intentional ‘decision’ to ‘abrogate’ anything. Manifested here is your clear bias; you’ll prefer to distort, dissemble, ignore or deny any and all narration at odds with your factually-vacant pretentions.
90,000 ISAF troops suggest such is going on.
Not necessarily. A large chunk of these 90,000 are constitutionally barred from partaking in combat heavy operations that define fighting the insurgency to the south and south-east. That is where British, Canadian and American forces man frontline positions with the Taliban, many such districts are heavily undermanned (as per your own COIN doctrines) while others almost entirely uncontested. The Taliban are not a force relying on Pakistani soil for military survival, they’re a force that’s very much intact, alive and kicking in Afghanistan.
No S-2, the only thing the situation in Afghanistan tells us is there’s much work to be done, both in terms of mustering the psychological and material resources and the executing the supposedly improved plans.
How "self-righteous" is in the eye of the beholder. For myself, I accept such a condition now with equanimity.
You can dispense with the verbal sport and focus on defending your suppositions.
I'm governed by no such obligation and can look to wherever I see problems.
Then so can I. Your failure to bring stability to Afghanistan, as was your mandate 8 years ago, is such. That is the reason for your tirade about Quetta, not the other way round.
It is conceivable that Omar, his command leadership, OBL, Zawahiri, Hekmatyar, and Haqqani all reside 24/7/52 weeks a year in Afghanistan.
Now that you’ve acknowledged what you had failed to in your first reply. I’d like to address this particular concept:
Unlike you, though, we'll be searching a foreign land for these men. You'll be searching your own lands...or so they're drawn on maps. Therein lies the fundamental difference between ISAF operations and your own.
You keep repeating that, but it is inconsequential to the matter at hand. Why should the standards of success, credibility and commitment be laxer for the coalition on account of the fact that Afghanistan is not their sovereign territory but a sovereign territory they’ve been mandated to protect and secure? This ‘fundamental difference’ is mere semantics, a technicality.
Pakistan barely has a fraction of the resources the western powers have to secure Afghanistan, Pakistan constitutes
much less military prowess as well. The Obama administration is not inclined to comment that Afghanistan is a subordinated foreign policy objective. You need to come up with a better logic to negate your failures and feign superiority over Pakistan, this one is flawed.
Nonetheless, we'll be pleased to uncover Omar in some hamlet in Helmand should he be there as we arrive.
I doubt it. You’d have to admit you were wrong for one thing. For another many of your customary excuses would evaporate.
What rants? Sovereign aborgation? If so, that's not a rant. It's a very serious issue given the subsequent consequences
The serious nature of your allegations or of your alluded “consequences” does not negate the fact that it is a rant. To the contrary actually, it’s dramatic, factually vacant and vague.
Policy has long been in place and executed on just such an analysis by our government and others.
And how well has that turned out for you, if we take the US ‘belief’ that Saddam was stockpiling WMDs as a recent example. There is no reason to believe that this ‘analysis’ is anymore genuine. Had such undeniable evidence and intelligence existed pertaining to Quetta hosting the Taliban command centre then, in my view, the Obama administration would not have abstained from deploying Predator drones to target it, much like they have no qualms in targeting the Al-Qaeda infiltrated tribes in Pakistan’s settled and unsettled areas up north.
Earlier I left the Elizabeth Rubin piece by the NYT and Peter Bergen's thoughts but they hardly are the sum total. I suspect Gates' sourcing goes a bit deeper though.
I’m sure you do, you’re given to believe what is convenient and what sits well with your ‘blame the Pakistanis’ mentality. Thoughts of American authors and unattributed pieces by the NYT (known for printing the occasionally outrageous inaccuracies) aren’t going to cut it. Anymore than pieces from Pakistani newspapers or journalists would were to I make my own contentions on another thread.
Irrelevant what I believe about your Interior Minister and DG ISPR on that topic.
Not irrelevant. Why can’t your standards of credibility be shared by me? I believe my DG ISPR would know more about matters in the region than your SECDEF Gates, who’s to decide who is right? They’re both partial. If you can rubbish his beliefs on account of his partiality, so can I in regards to Gates.
So too many independant reporting sources. I've previously used links to such assertions to support my prior posts on this thread.
I don’t see ‘many independent sources’ attesting anything you’ve alleged. They’ve reported claims and counter-claims, but none of them claimed to have independently verified anything. Certainly nothing of the sweeping and irrefutable nature you’re insisting on. There is little doubt that Taliban (or ex-Taliban) members might be able to find their way to a multi-ethnic city like Quetta now and then, but that’s a far cry from your claim that the Pakistan government has decided to host their operational and strategic command. Karzi and his family were residents of Quetta when the Taliban were in charge, but everyone knew about it then. In contrast, there is no such indication that Omar makes his residence there. Let alone heads a military presence capable of dominating the underworld and handling operations across the border, which is bound upset the balance of intricate ethnic rivalries in and around the city.
That's the second time you've referred to "proof". This isn't a rhetorical exercise, Kasrkin.
This isn’t a rhetorical exercise, which is why I’m talking about verifiable, credible substance to back up your allegations. All you’ve given me so far is rhetorical arguments in the hopes of crediting your factually-vacant contentions. In the past you’ve demanded ridiculously detailed amounts of ‘proofs’ in order to undermine even the simplest of observations by others. Now suddenly I’m being too unrealistic by asking you to substantiate?
There is the assertion of the SECDEF and a long history of anecdotal reporting to this effect. "Google" away, lad.
‘Anecdotal’ reporting just isn’t good enough. You can find anecdotal ‘reporting’ on pretty much everything. As to googling, well I might as well google ‘America run by zionists’ for all the credibility I’ll find.
The BBC link you provided makes clear that the ISI protecting Omar in Quetta is an Afghan intelligence claim, the supposed ‘confession’ was extracted under unclear conditions. Mr. Hanif apparently ‘confessed’ that Retd. General Hamid Gul is actively involved with the Taliban as well, which is laughable. Reports based on ‘anonymous’ officials, they never end do they? They’re not attributed much credibility elsewhere and they won’t be here.
Point is that the US is responsible for it as well, so think before you make taunts. We’ve learned our lesson too, nothing you have can dispute that.
If men such as Gates, Barnos, McKiernan and many, many others with far greater insight and access are prepared to assert such on a routine basis, so too shall I...and have.
I don’t recall Gates claiming that Pakistan has ‘decided to abrogate it's sovereign responsibilities’ which is a very serious allegation. Its just a dramatic rant without particular and factually verifiable proof (which is your case) and probably a bloated exaggeration of any comments he might’ve made on the matter anyway. Even if it were his comments, that it is Pakistan’s
decision to host a exiled Taliban government in Quetta, that doesn’t excuse your inability to substantiate any if it through facts. What you’ve provided so far is very weak. You need to come up with something more credible if you plan on insisting that Pakistan is deceiving the west or playing a double game, otherwise its all rants at best and flaming at worst.
There are plenty of "vague rants" on this thread. Mine aren't among them.
I’ll be the judge of that, if you don’t mind.
Thank me once we’ve finished with this discussion.
