Yes, and I supported Afghanistan
Yes, and I supported Iraq
Yes, and I supported both
Yes, and I supported neither
No, and I supported Afghanistan
No, and I supported Iraq
No, and I supported both
No, and I suppported neither
Undecided, leaning towards yes
Undecided, leaning towards no
"It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke
Ild have no problem with working *with* the pakistani government to deal with the taliban but invading without Pakistans permission would be insane as it would destablise a government that is slowly democratising. Pakistan has promised to repel attacks on its territory by force so its fair to assume an invasion of pakistan would mean a war with the Pakistani state as well as the Taliban. Wouldnt this create a chaotic situation that the taliban would be able to take advantage of?
Also assuming that U.S intervention toppled the government then they would have to install another one via a military occupation. I dont think i need to explain how that could be problematic
Its a difficult question with a lot of competing variables to weigh. Here's a few that come to mind.
1. How much could be gained in the fight against the Taliban by such a strike?
If we could wipe out the Taliban completely, it becomes much more appealing. Even preventing them from seizing power in Pakinstan would be a worthwhile goal. But if were talking about just capturing/killing a few people and/or bases of operation then the gains are far les significant. What are the realistic gains we can hope to achieve?
2. How much would such an action destablize the Pakistani government?
If it lead to a complete collapse of the Pakistani government, that could be disasterous given their status as a nuclear power. We definately don't want to acceleerate or cause such a collapse. However if the Pakistani government is going to collapse either way, then it could be worth it just to prevent the Taliban from filling the void.
3. Would it further radicalize the Pakistani population?
As others have pointed out, it is difficult if nto impossible to completely defeat guerrilla/insurgent forces with traditional armies. Hearts and minds of local populations is very important in limiting and eventually eliminating such forces. Would such an action be seen as a hostile invasion by a large segment of the Pakistani population? Would it push them closer to the Taliban and other radical militant elements?
One thing I would say is aboslute is that militant radicals such as the Taliban cannot be allowed to gain access to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. I think in that point we would have pretty widespread international support, particularly from India, Isreal, and probably even Iran.
Last edited by Psychoclown; 05-08-09 at 06:10 PM.
Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.
But still believe it was foolish of Obama to tilt his hand and announce that he would do it, just do it,
Last edited by Agent Ferris; 05-09-09 at 04:04 AM.
There was no real distinction to be made.It's when the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Sadr's Shiite militia are all conflated into one jumbled mess by uninformed (not claiming you're uninformed) "analysts" with no regard for critical distinctions between these groups that we lack the ability to comprehend intelligent analysis.
B) We have obtained victory in Iraq pick up a paper.
C) The only reason why we have not totally eradicated the Taliban is because the Pakistanis offer them safe haven and refuse to do anything worthwhile to oust them or secure their borders, but that will be a moot point as soon as our battle hardened soldiers fresh off victory in Iraq rotate to Afghanistan in force.