We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2010 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/12/reading_round_u.html Sun, 07 Feb 2010 17:11:15 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2010 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/12/reading_round_u.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/12/reading_round_u.html Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:24:46 -0600
Now everybody in the region has this idea, "We've got 'Uncle Sam' by the ass." The Pakistanis are doing whatever they feel like doing,  the Americans will pay for it. The same is true for Iraq and Afghanistan. I really don't think these people "get it." I would then "summon" the tribal leaders and assist them with transportation to Mecca, not Riyadh nor Jeddah. Take somebody like GEN David Petraeus, a soft spoken man with a great deal of power. The message, it is in everybody's best interest to work together.  This would be true for the target Nation, but also to its neighbor. Since you have proven your inability to establish, we will establish them for you with completion dates. We will assist you in completing the different tasks by the specified date. During this whole process, we should have been siphoning off troops, not far, but a safe distance. We should be looking at all civilian and civilian contractors agreeably or my force, REMOVE THEM. Last I heard, Saudi Arabia would be a real problem, no Americans actually working in the American Embassy, only Royal Family members and passports turned over to the Kingdom. We want to get our people plus those of our allies. WHY ALL OF THE PREP WORK? The reason is this, what happens if they refuse our gracious offer? We would assist them with their "landscaping", we would remove the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. HOW WOULD WE DO IT? We would do it  with a fleet of fully loaded Trident Submarines. Just maybe we could get the idea across to them, that attacking the US was not on the smart list. Just maybe, tho whole purpose of this exercise is not to actually do it, but more to create that most difficult of all questions. It is the same question my Father was always asking me, "What if?"]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/12/reading_round_u.html#comment-81151 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/12/reading_round_u.html#comment-81151 Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:26:18 -0600
You write, "We have no real comprehension of guerrilla warfare and are utterly adverse because of the reality and the mythology of Viet Nam." This is really important, you start that sentence with the word "WE", are you saying this of yourself, specific and singular? Be honest and look in the mirror and answer it! Viet Nam has nothing to do with it, except as a learning tool. I can not get into the rest of it.


]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/12/reading_round_u.html#comment-81149 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/12/reading_round_u.html#comment-81149 Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:30:18 -0600 Take a moment and think about this. Is this a status or a strategy for Pakistan?

Yes, very simply, to both.  That is the point of Pakistan calling them their "strategic depth".  they threaten Pakistan's sovreignty but at the same time, to quote one fellow, the entire reason for Paksitan's existense is that they hate India (did not want to be part of a hindu controlled nation).

More importantly, is this a status or a strategy for actually winning the real Global War on Terror?

Both, again.  Bizarre?  yes.  But, there was a good and a bad to it.  First, it had AQ stuck in Pakistan along with the rest of the jihadists.  That was good.  Target rich environment.  While they are somewhat "protected" there, we don't have to go everywhere to find them.  Unfortunately, it is the reason that these groups went together after India.  They need to broaden the front and give themselves some room.  Which, interesting, gives a good clue that we were making some serious attrition against them. 

One thing that people don't always realize is that, sometimes, when the battle picks up, it is actually a good sign.

Obviously, on the other hand, as the India attacks represent, it gives them some protection to train and plan other attacks.  We have to brace for that.  I'm not sure our government understands that or can convey that in a way that would get public support.  We prefer, as a nation, full frontal war with a definitive front and a definitive victory.  We are not programmed to look at attacks as signs of progress.  It is too much of a dichotomy for our national psyche.

If the Pakistani Military keep it just bad enough that it's so expensive to do anything in the Region, what does it say to us? But even more so, how will such actions affect our deployed troops globally?

Well, if we went in to Paksitan and did what would actually be more definitive (ie, all out war), the entire world would freak out.  Witness Iraq.  It will be "big bad technological advance nation killing people who are already poor, uneducated, hungry and technologically decrepit".  It was bad enough when everyone recognizes that the government is bad and still won't support it's take down for reasons of preferring stability (the point of my original comment) of any variety to all out anarchy. It is obviously costly.  It means, of course, that we will take slow but mounting casualties in Afghanistan as in Iraq. 

At the same time, our national psyche also tends to reject the "slow but mounting" concept.  Not just because we are casualty adverse, but because we have an idea that we are some how omnipotent.  We buy into the propaganda of the enemy that the inability to track down some scraggly goat herders with simple weapons represents a failure.

We have no real comprehension of guerrilla warfare and are utterly adverse because of the reality and the mythology of Viet Nam. 

The real question isn't just the cost of lives of our troops in this situation, but the material cost of a long war and the slow, but mounting casualty rate of civilians.

I guess, in the long run, I'm saying we as a nation and as a global community, are simply too split on philosophy and not angry enough to do anything else.

So, what will it mean for Pakistan?  Slow, ugly, bloody war until, as in Iraq, some part of Pakistan gets disgusted and rejects it.  don't count on that as fast as in Iraq (I know, that is nearly oxymoronic).  Jihad is embedded in Pakistan much more than it ever was in Iraq. 

]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/12/reading_round_u.html#comment-81145 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/12/reading_round_u.html#comment-81145 Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:13:08 -0600 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/12/reading_round_u.html#comment-81144 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/12/reading_round_u.html#comment-81144 Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:19:44 -0600
Probably, only reason why I feel some pity for any Pakistan government official who may want to actually work for the good of their country. 
]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/12/reading_round_u.html#comment-81138 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/12/reading_round_u.html#comment-81138 Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:07:34 -0600



]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/12/reading_round_u.html#comment-81130 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/12/reading_round_u.html#comment-81130 Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:31:34 -0600