Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yeah. Look at us holding another of those silly election thingys to select our 44th president. We're doin' alright. How about you?
I'm hopeful that America's military is prepared for open conflict with anybody, anywhere, anytime. We sorta seem to be o.k. on that score.
.I don't know, smart-guy
Hmmm...what do you think, Mr. Bright-bulb?
There's no alienation to risk. Among the less perceptive Pakistani, it's a reasonable assumption this condition already, and has for some time, existed.
You've a skewed vision of both the mission and the ultimate intent. 26 NATO and 15 non-NATO allies are IN AFGHANISTAN for reasons that have nothing to do with "the great game" nor Soviet expansionist dreams. Facade, token, or gratuitous, those nations have a portion of their citizens in Afghanistan with the sole intent of improving it's well-being.
It certainly wasn't going to happen at the hand of Afghanistan's immediate neighbors. God knows some even looked on this abysmally poor nation as "strategic space" and a private playground. Can you imagine that?
The mission is worthy and there's hope that your historical perspective isn't the final word.
There are Pakistani citizens today and former citizens in Bangladesh from yesteryear that might argue that point a tad. The Baluchis may not have felt the same velvet hand afforded the pashtu until recently. Their insurrection was rather roughly handled.
You ***. The British don't know squat or haven't you followed the butcher job at Tarin Kowt? How about Basra?
Here's the real reassuring thing. There's a high probability, unlike some of Afghanistan's neighbors, that internat'l scrutiny and large numbers of neutral forces will assure a second afghani election. The idea, of course, is to get past "one man, one vote, one time".
Here's hoping the same for Pakistan.
What goes around, comes around.
I want to take a moment and assure something-
I've never met finer troops than the British. I've known all ranks up to Brigadier at one time or another. Always only briefly and professionally. I've seen their units at times, though not uniformly and at length.
That said, utterly squared-away.
Why my comment then? This exceptional force has been neutered by forces beyond it's control and without a shot fired. It pains me to see, read, and hear the stories of what these guys do to be properly supplied and then how they've been too-often treated upon their return to England.
I noted with pleasure an article in last Sunday's TIMES about an up-tick in British patriotism. I hope some of that finds itself expressed in their kit. Seems recruiting is up, though, and that's real good.
Take a hard look at the British Army's performance in Basra. It was selected by them based, supposedly, upon their long colonial-based understanding of the region. Failed miserably and run out of the city. Today their remnants stay in self-imposed exile on the outskirts of the airport. Even last May during the Jaaish-I-Mahdi uprising there, Americans and Iraqi Army units travelled 300 kms to the battle.
The British didn't move out the gates of the airport. They need to better practice what they too often preach.
.
So far there has been little evidence of unified military strategy between America and Pakistan. Pakistan and Nato accuse each other of allowing insurgents to cross the border into one another's territory for attacks. Both accusations are correct.
US drones strike al-Qaeda and Afghan Taleban targets in Fata but ignore Taleban groups that stay within Pakistan to kill Pakistani soldiers. Similarly, Pakistan's forces show little inclination to attack militant groups based in Fata whose sole aim is to attack Nato in Afghanistan. If America's and Nato's war is to be Pakistan's too, then they should at least agree on who they are fighting.