Core of al Qaida is in Pakistan, says British PM

[jeypore]

The root of the Indo-Pak dynamic in Afghanistan of course leads back to Kashmir, and Nehru's reneging on his commitments to Pakistan and the UN, and the subsequent hostility that has characterized the relationship ever since.

Yes, but this cause and effect was not the creation of al-queda. The kashmire issue has to do nothing with terrorism, remember it is afterall "a freedom fighter issue." The root cause is simply hatred, no matter how it is put.

 

[arsenal_gooner]

nothing but hype for the policy change : a few headlines and attention ...if it were something realy big i doubt we would have heard about it

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes, but this cause and effect was not the creation of al-queda. The kashmire issue has to do nothing with terrorism, remember it is afterall "a freedom fighter issue." The root cause is simply hatred, no matter how it is put.

If you are saying that Al Qaeda was 'created' in Saudi Arabia, then you are correct.

However, the AL Qaeda we know todays isn't s simple organization that OBL founded in his basement in Riyadh and later took global. Al Qaeda's evolution and morphing into what it is today had a lot to do with the environment that was created after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

That environment of conflict and chaos in Afghanistan was perpetuated by India and Pakistan's proxy war in Afghanistan, and the cause of the proxy war was the hostility over Kashmir, which IMO was primarily due to Nehru's duplicitous policies and reneging on the Kashmir commitment made in the UN.

The connection with Kashmir isn't direct, but it is nonetheless a strong connection because the hostility borne out of Kashmir affected India and Pakistan's regional policies.

 

[jeypore]

AgNoStIc MuSliM;334072If you are saying that Al Qaeda was 'created' in Saudi Arabia, then you are correct.

However, the AL Qaeda we know todays isn't s simple organization that OBL founded in his basement in Riyadh and later took global. Al Qaeda's evolution and morphing into what it is today had a lot to do with the environment that was created after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

That environment of conflict and chaos in Afghanistan was perpetuated by India and Pakistan's proxy war in Afghanistan, and the cause of the proxy war was the hostility over Kashmir, which IMO was primarily due to Nehru's duplicitous policies and reneging on the Kashmir commitment made in the UN.

The connection with Kashmir isn't direct, but it is nonetheless a strong connection because the hostility borne out of Kashmir affected India and Pakistan's regional policies.

On this issue Am, i greatly disagree. If you mean India support of North alliance which created conflict, agreed. But bare in mind after the Russias left, the power vacuum was taken over by the talibans, which created a detoriation of Northern alliance, and in so doing detoriated India's influence in Afgainstan. So the connection that you are pointing towards has less to do with Kashmire, but more to do with al-queda alliances/mergers with talibans and Kashmire movement talibans. And yes this is more current issue, since newer alliance/mergers are forming (al-queda and LET).

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

On this issue Am, i greatly disagree. If you mean India support of North alliance which created conflict, agreed. But bare in mind after the Russias left, the power vacuum was taken over by the talibans, which created a detoriation of Northern alliance, and in so doing detoriated India's influence in Afgainstan. So the connection that you are pointing towards has less to do with Kashmire, but more to do with al-queda alliances/mergers with talibans and Kashmire movement talibans. And yes this is more current issue, since newer alliance/mergers are forming (al-queda and LET).

Jeypore,

One reason behind Pakistan supporting the Pashtun factions was the Northern Alliance's connections with the Indians. Given the fact that the previous Afghan regimes had carried out a wave of bombings and support for seperatist movements in Pakistan, this was not something Pakistan could take lightly.

The Indo-Pak dynamic, borne out of Kashmir, therefore played strongly into the Afghan interventions.

 

[S-2]

"I suppose the third, that KB might have been implying (I think), is if the Neo Con's still have grand plans of restructuring the Muslim world ala their invasion of Iraq ..."

Yes, we do. However those grand plans are again back in place where they rightfully belong-in Iraq and on track after a brief departure to the precipice borne of managerial incompetency.

I'm pleased despite ourselves. We held the momentum and there was less hurry in disposing of Saddam Hussein than in doing so with clear preparation for the aftermath. My mis-guided neo-con leaders showed an abysmal lack of simple prudence-

Hope for the best; plan for the worst. More pre-invasion prep to the securing of weaponry in abundance, securing state treasures and institutions, state transportation, sewage, water, and electrical infrastructure and, most of all, the full and unfettered cooperation of a neutered but still capable and respected army.

Blew it big time. Six "P" malfunction of the first order that was avoidable. Utterly.

Back on track somewhat with a ton of real-world challenges made harder.

Democracy seed planted and will have to take hold in Iraq. Afghanistan and Pakistan are both different animals from Iraq-which now appears positively benign by comparison.

Of course, that could change in a flash...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^^^ I think the 'Neo Con objectives' would come across as actually being 'good' rather than 'evil' if such intervention in failed states/dictatorships also extended to Africa for example.

The exit out of Somalia, a genocide in Sudan around the time of the Iraq invasion - the choice of nations for intervention, at the neglect of others with far more dire humanitarian consequences as a result of a lack of intervention, obviously lends itself to a questioning of US intentions, regardless of what the eventual outcome in Iraq is.

Of course then there are the questions over whether tens (or hundreds) of thousands dead and millions of refugees, justify the intervention. Or whether Iraq would have eventually seen regime change on its own, with less bloodshed, albeit over a longer time.
Questions that may be prove impossible to answer.

On a slightly positive, albeit selfish, note, from Pakistan's perspective it is perhaps advantageous that Iraq did happen, because otherwise there would be no 'positively benign' hell of Iraq to compare to.

 

[Task Force Black]

...

Blew it big time. Six "P" malfunction of the first order that was avoidable. Utterly.

Back on track somewhat with a ton of real-world challenges made harder.

Democracy seed planted and will have to take hold in Iraq. Afghanistan and Pakistan are both different animals from Iraq-which now appears positively benign by comparison.

Of course, that could change in a flash...

A Six "P" malfunction of the first order is putting it somewhat mildly dear chap, we'd simply generated too much momentum in too short a space of time and simply had to dash off to close out that theatre. Still least we managed to get the field manuals updated, some passages were neigh on several hundred years old after all.

I don't agree that things could change in a flash though given the Total Force structure soon to be in effect:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/multimedia/ISF%20Armys-Corps-Divs.php

Unless some neighboring state is planning to throw a major curve ball...? Which I doubt.

Given the level of meetings that will be taking place in both the Hague & Moscow this year, their singular focus and even who's-who with regards the invitation lists speaks volumes.

 

[Task Force Black]

^^^ I think the 'Neo Con objectives' would come across as actually being 'good' rather than 'evil' if such intervention in failed states/dictatorships also extended to Africa for example.

The exit out of Somalia, a genocide in Sudan around the time of the Iraq invasion - the choice of nations for intervention, at the neglect of others with far more dire humanitarian consequences as a result of a lack of intervention, obviously lends itself to a questioning of US intentions, regardless of what the eventual outcome in Iraq is.

Of course then there are the questions over whether tens (or hundreds) of thousands dead and millions of refugees, justify the intervention. Or whether Iraq would have eventually seen regime change on its own, with less bloodshed, albeit over a longer time.
Questions that may be prove impossible to answer.

On a slightly positive, albeit selfish, note, from Pakistan's perspective it is perhaps advantageous that Iraq did happen, because otherwise there would be no 'positively benign' hell of Iraq to compare to.

Occasionaly we can blame the UN for acting in accordance with Stalin & Roosevelt's wishes.

Somalia is none the less recieving much more focus now, after it's recent decades of anarchy and turmoil.

 

[S-2]

"I think the 'Neo Con objectives' would come across as actually being 'good' rather than 'evil' if such intervention in failed states/dictatorships also extended to Africa for example."

We'll try to accomodate your ambitions. Feel free to mobilize other assets to do so in the interim as we're otherwise engaged at the moment and believe our priorities based upon 9/11 and our Persian gulf geo-strategic imperatives weigh more heavily.

"The exit out of Somalia, a genocide in Sudan around the time of the Iraq invasion - the choice of nations for intervention, at the neglect of others with far more dire humanitarian consequences as a result of a lack of intervention, obviously lends itself to a questioning of US intentions, regardless of what the eventual outcome in Iraq is."

Yes, much good work to be done. Feel free to donate your largesse. We'll, of course, best choose how and in what manner is most effective for us. Iraq was a superb target choice and remains so.

Allow me to re-iterate, A.M. Behind our actions presently always lies this U.S. geo-strategic imperative- We are committed to assuring the free and unfettered access by any and all nations to Persian Gulf energy at market prices. We'll resist the efforts by any nation of that region (or the entry of any outside nation) bent on altering that condition of hegemony.

Our ability to trade depends upon healthy global trading partners able to access market-priced energy without political coercion and this is a bedrock tenet of America. As a maritime trading power on two oceans, we've invested heavily in a navy and ground forces to assure as much and that likely will remain central to our foreign policy objectives. The Persian gulf is a central feature of that interest and so are any and all maritime choke-points around the globe.

That's self-interest but best served by assisting everybody's interests, to include yours. We can't or won't be everywhere but we've chosen Iraq and Afghanistan and believe that they both constitute greater need borne of a greater threat.

You save Sudan and Somalia. Or Saudi Arabia et al. can choose to do so. Or the rest of Africa. Or Europe. I don't care. We'll probably get to it eventually because nobody else likely will in any meaningful way beforehand.

Thanks.