• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Attack within Pakistan

Per the question in the thread

  • Total voters
    32
Tashah said:
If you follow a particular decrepit road that runs past Islamabad airport, you will eventually come to a guardhouse. Beyond lies the Chakala Cantonment which was established by the colonial Brits as a military base. Located in one of the motel-like single story buildings inside is the Office for Strategic Plans. The United States initially funded this project to the tune of $100 million dollars. The OSP has custodianship of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. It is responsible for tracking, securing, and safeguarding Pakistan's nuclear warheads. Khalid Kidwai heads the OSP which also keeps track of the 70,000 Pakistanis involved in the nuclear complex.

Pakistan refuses to divulge how many warheads are available, and the storage locations. Kidwai infers that the warheads are safe but disbursed. He also maintains that the warheads are secured with PALs (permissive action links) much like US nuclear warheads. With the PAL system, a code must be entered to activate the weapon. You are only allowed x number of tries to enter the correct code. One failed attempt too many and the warhead will explode (internal conventional explosives) like an IED.

In short, the US has no idea where Pakistan's nukes are located. The only chance to avert disaster would be to raid the OSP and remove everything to a safe location for analysis. But I highly suspect the Pakistanis have already considered this possibility and have set in place preemptive safeguards.

When Islamabad falls, the race to capture Chakala and its secrets intact will be on.
Click to expand...

I hope for the sake of the entire free world --- this never happens.
 
Vader said:
Unfortunately ... most of the EU has no balls. The British do but I doubt their going to contribute anymore than they already have to the cause in that part of the world!
Click to expand...

The US Army got its ass handled by guerilleros in Viet-Nam, is going to retreat from Iraq and is not winning in Afghanistan, even with hundreds of billions of dollars being spent.

Why do you think it would work in Pakistan? Why do you think it would not be a quagmire?
 
Vader said:
I hope for the sake of the entire free world --- this never happens.
Click to expand...

It most likely will happen...and not in the distant future, but in the next few weeks or months. Diplomats from both Pakistan and India are already making fatalistic comparisons to the Cold War ("It ended when one of the powers collapsed and ceased to exist.")

Frightening.
 
A nuclear armed Taliban would be a terrible thing. Though the US might not be directly attacked, I find that Obama would be apologizing just as Clinton did about the Rwandan genocide, years later. India, though, certainly wont allow for a nuclear armed Taliban. Neither will Iran or Israel.
 
bub said:
The US Army got its ass handled by guerilleros in Viet-Nam, is going to retreat from Iraq and is not winning in Afghanistan, even with hundreds of billions of dollars being spent.

Why do you think it would work in Pakistan? Why do you think it would not be a quagmire?
Click to expand...

The Taliban must be stopped. Iran must be stopped. Radical Islam must be stopped. It is that simple. We cannot allow detractors like yourself desuade us from those goals.
 
Vader said:
The Taliban must be stopped. Iran must be stopped. Radical Islam must be stopped. It is that simple. We cannot allow detractors like yourself desuade us from those goals.
Click to expand...

Aggressive interventionists must be stopped. We cannot let militarists and interventionists like yourself to pervert our civilisation and security to lead to the rise of despotism.
 
Zyphlin said:
Simple question.

Would you approve of an attack ordered by President Obama against the Taliban within Pakistan with or without the consent of the Pakistani government? Why?--
Click to expand...

Difficult because attacks using drones have already been established as an attack method during Bush's campaign. The Pakistanis complained but did not try and stop them.

Using ground troops at this stage? No - Pakistan has finally (last month) started attacking the Taliban in the Buner valley. They got 80 or so personell captured and have since rescued 16 (approx) and need to demonstrate / have the chance to show they can run their own country.

What the west can and should do is offer support / logistics / intelligence so that the Pakistani Govt and army can finally redeem themselves and take control of their own country. A major attack at this stage by the US led forces will simply be more of a recruiting ground for the Taliban or associated forces and anyway it's about time the Pakistanis started showing up to the fight.

I also think contingency plans should be being made to keep Pakistan's nuclear arsenal out of the hands of any radical Islamist Govt - overtures to the present Govt should be made to help with disarming or removal of the nukes. In the worst case scenario there should also be plans to take them by force. The greater threat is not a Taliban style govt - that is ever more likely whatever we do - the greater threat is a nuclear armed Taliban style Govt.

If the Taliban take control they are out in the open and easy to locate, they are at their most dangerous as a guerrilla force drawing from islamist fanatics who are everywhere you could look. Pakistan has never really been a true ally of the West, each year the spring offensive into Afghanistan came from Pakistani territory and Pakistan (especially under Musharraf) sat back and let them attack Western forces at will.

My answer is a temporary "no" as in "not yet" - let's see how Buner valley goes and whether the Pakistani Govt asks for help. We must however keep our eye on the nuclear assets. And for the record, I was one who did not support the invasion of Iraq.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Difficult because attacks using drones have already been established as an attack method during Bush's campaign. The Pakistanis complained but did not try and stop them.

Using ground troops at this stage? No - Pakistan has finally (last month) started attacking the Taliban in the Buner valley. They got 80 or so personell captured and have since rescued 16 (approx) and need to demonstrate / have the chance to show they can run their own country.

What the west can and should do is offer support / logistics / intelligence so that the Pakistani Govt and army can finally redeem themselves and take control of their own country. A major attack at this stage by the US led forces will simply be more of a recruiting ground for the Taliban or associated forces and anyway it's about time the Pakistanis started showing up to the fight.

I also think contingency plans should be being made to keep Pakistan's nuclear arsenal out of the hands of any radical Islamist Govt - overtures to the present Govt should be made to help with disarming or removal of the nukes. In the worst case scenario there should also be plans to take them by force. The greater threat is not a Taliban style govt - that is ever more likely whatever we do - the greater threat is a nuclear armed Taliban style Govt.

If the Taliban take control they are out in the open and easy to locate, they are at their most dangerous as a guerrilla force drawing from islamist fanatics who are everywhere you could look. Pakistan has never really been a true ally of the West, each year the spring offensive into Afghanistan came from Pakistani territory and Pakistan (especially under Musharraf) sat back and let them attack Western forces at will.

My answer is a temporary "no" as in "not yet" - let's see how Buner valley goes and whether the Pakistani Govt asks for help. We must however keep our eye on the nuclear assets. And for the record, I was one who did not support the invasion of Iraq.
Click to expand...

I suppose this is simillar to what I believe.

In the end, I would be willing to support whatever will get rid (or greatly harm) the Taliban, in that I don't immedietly care about violating Pakistan's borders.

I am saying a "yes" but I would be cautious right now to try and get the Pakistan people on board.

As I have heard many times, if Pakistan would have responded to the Taliban as if they were India, then the Taliban would have been destroyed by now. The focus is on getting Pakistan to be willing to do what it takes, if they do that then we have won.

I just don't believe too many attacks into Pakistan that results in civilian deaths will contribute to some victory. But problems only emerge if we kill civilians, so if we are cautious, then attacks without aproval from Palistan can be beneficial.
 
Wessexman said:
Aggressive interventionists must be stopped. We cannot let militarists and interventionists like yourself to pervert our civilisation and security to lead to the rise of despotism.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't you be out hugging a tree?
 
EgoffTib said:
That's hardly conducive to intellectual discourse. Try again.
Click to expand...

Let me help then.

Actions in other countries have a very indirect effect on the level of tyrrany at home. Unless a war is used to make some real police-state policies then we should focus on what the war does abroad compared to what it indirectly does to our freedom.
 
Even though I don't support the war in Iraq and have always been dubious about any involvement in Afghanistan I would definitely support a unilateral military action in Pakistan only if it were:
  1. solely for the purpose of securing and removing the Pakistan nuclear arsenal,
  2. as soon as we accomplished that we left and didn't return unless accompanying a UN or other multinational task force for the specific purpose of restoring a democratic government,
  3. and even then I'd be reluctant to return because our economy is so poor that we can do without needless military expenses.
 
nerv14 said:
Let me help then.

Actions in other countries have a very indirect effect on the level of tyrrany at home. Unless a war is used to make some real police-state policies then we should focus on what the war does abroad compared to what it indirectly does to our freedom.
Click to expand...
The level of respect for national sovereignty has a direct effect on the level of international security and the amount of militarism and aggression in a culture has a direct effect on the level of tyranny at home. Look at the massive increases in state power during the world wars which did not go down by too much afterward, certainly not to pre-war levels. This certainly dwarfs any effect on our tyranny that Iran or Venezuela having repressive regimes might inflict.
 
Zyphlin said:
Simple question.

Would you approve of an attack ordered by President Obama against the Taliban within Pakistan with or without the consent of the Pakistani government? Why?

I would ask those that if you post in this thread that you at least spent the majority of your post explaining YOUR position before attacking anyone elses position. If you don't intent to give your own views on this action and your own stance on it and simply wish to attack others for potentially being hypocritical on EITHER side, please don't participate. Its unfair to everyone debating if you're going to attack them for their views without giving your own to begin with.

This is spurred from the fact Clinton recently said they were a mortal danger.
Click to expand...

I voted no and have pretty mixed feelings about the wars in Iraq and Afganistan.

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:doh
 
new coup for you said:
I've often thought that some kind of collapse might actually be useful, because it would the government to take full action in one swift blow.

I don't think that Pakistan is just a place where a local populace is being radicalized, I think it's also a place where significant Al Qaeda members from around the globe are able to take refuge.

Now, I'm treading closely to Bush "all those who harbor terrorists" rhetoric, but I think there's a certain utility in the idea. It's not just about serving potential terrorist harboring countries a threat, it's about allowing yourself to take advantage of concentrations of terrorists. A Taliban government in Pakistan would mean for a real target to bomb.

I think the US has proved that it's pretty good at destroying nations, it's just poor at fighting insurgencies.

So what would a Taliban government in Pakistan pose to use other then an easy target? It'd make them come out hills and out into the open, where we can bomb them.
Click to expand...

Wouldnt that suck somewhat for the 90% of Pakistanis that dont support the Taliban? [Not to mention those who are fighting it] We should be getting these people on side, not alienating them.
 
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:
Zyphlin said:
Simple question.

Would you approve of an attack ordered by President Obama against the Taliban within Pakistan with or without the consent of the Pakistani government? Why?

I would ask those that if you post in this thread that you at least spent the majority of your post explaining YOUR position before attacking anyone elses position. If you don't intent to give your own views on this action and your own stance on it and simply wish to attack others for potentially being hypocritical on EITHER side, please don't participate. Its unfair to everyone debating if you're going to attack them for their views without giving your own to begin with.

This is spurred from the fact Clinton recently said they were a mortal danger.
Click to expand...

I say yes, the Pakistanis can't be trusted, the ISI and Pakistani military have been infiltrated within the highest echelons of their ranks, they should not even be told if an attack is going to take place as the risk of them tipping off the target is to great.

But still believe it was foolish of Obama to tilt his hand and announce that he would do it, just do it,
 
Last edited:
Agnapostate said:
As I understand it, much of the Taliban was displeased with OBL and Al Qaeda's provocative acts.
Click to expand...

No actually OBL and Mullah Omar were the best of friends and in fact related through marriage after OBL's son married Omar's daughter, in fact AQ sat on the Taliban ministry of defense and their was a special AQ brigade fighting in the Taliban army against the Northern Alliance. Their ranks were so intertwined as if to be indistinguishable.

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.
Click to expand...

There was no real distinction to be made.
 
bub said:
The US Army got its ass handled by guerilleros in Viet-Nam, is going to retreat from Iraq and is not winning in Afghanistan, even with hundreds of billions of dollars being spent.

Why do you think it would work in Pakistan? Why do you think it would not be a quagmire?
Click to expand...

A) We only lost in Vietnam because we were not allowed to actually attack the NVA.

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.
 
Agent Ferris said:
A)
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,.
Click to expand...

Wouldnt the fact that the government of Pakistan is currently at war with the taliban appear to contradict this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom