Pakistan and US relations

[LegalSmash]

As of late, our nation has taken more proactive steps to combatting a very pervasive terrorist problem in Pakistan's wide open places... as such Pakistan is acting rather butthurt. I think this issue may develop into problemd if we continue to strike within their borders, but equally important is the prevention of the continued proliferation of terrorist training camps and safe zones for wanted individuals.

So, here's the question, how do we address pakistan?

[PotshotPolka]

As of late, our nation has taken more proactive steps to combatting a very pervasive terrorist problem in Pakistan's wide open places... as such Pakistan is acting rather butthurt. I think this issue may develop into problemd if we continue to strike within their borders, but equally important is the prevention of the continued proliferation of terrorist training camps and safe zones for wanted individuals.

So, here's the question, how do we address pakistan?

We actually just went over this in class today. Pakistan is dirt, dirt poor. Their government is frail, and wasn't helped by Bhutto being offed or the fact that Musharraf cracked down on democratic opposition, and manhandled the country. Basically being said, they Northern Frontier and Tribal Regions, and Balochistan are all practically failed states, and with the lack of presence of much authority, Taliban offshoots were welcomed or weakly opposed.

The Pakistani government is, with all due respect in a bad way here. They risk harsh criticism from either the Islamists on the right, and liberal, democratic lawyers on the left, so they're walking a fine line.

[LegalSmash]

and STYLE!!! C'mon those long Kameez shirts? Bitches be all over them!

Seriously though, Pakistan's nuclear capability in the sandbox IS a frightening prospect, given how incredibly unstable they are as a nation.

[PotshotPolka]

and STYLE!!! C'mon those long Kameez shirts? Bitches be all over them!

Seriously though, Pakistan's nuclear capability in the sandbox IS a frightening prospect, given how incredibly unstable they are as a nation.

It's the only reason they haven't fallen apart and been ignored by the rest of the international community.

[LegalSmash]

The sad part about the majority of the mideast is that the dogmatic views of clerics, and the people's anger with inability to have western style success without oil money or acting in western fashion turn into a hell of a kettle of shit to deal with.

Arab 1 wants flash and money, but not western values... thing is, flash and money COME from western value. If he gets said flash and money, he is disrespecting islam.

Arab 2 wants religious uniformity and islamic utopia, the rest of the world thinks it is kind of fucked up to stone a 14 year old girl to death for being raped by several drunk men, the world is shocked when it happens, and Arab 2 gets angrier at the world's alleged "bias" against islam, and their stereotyping the religion as "violent.

Arab 3 wants neither, he just wants to follow his faith, and live his life... but he's scared shitless of 2, and cannot stand 1 because they both make him look like either an oil saddled, woman crazed, hyper rich, illiterate playboy, or a bearded, turban topped mideival relic who wants his woman to be humble or die trying.

Sadly, Arab 3 does not really raise his voice often... and its why things are the way they are.

[Frostbyte]

So, here's the question, how do we address pakistan?

http://www.flippeh.de/funPics/toLazyToRename/b%20lackup.jpg

[LegalSmash]

LOL

[Lux]

Well, its better than if US were a cricket playing nation, considering the recent attack on the visiting Sri Lankan team.

[Slavic]

Pressuring Musharraf out of office was the worst thing to happen to the stability of Pakistan. While Musharraf was President Pakistan's economy made impressive gains and he also started crackdown campaigns on Taliban outposts. He was trying to push a moderate Islamic ideal for his country which is desperately needed.

Now that Musharraf isn't putting pressure on Taliban you've got two opposing forces destabilizing the country. Increased Taliban attacks cause the populace to think that the government is weak. Increased cross-border US air strikes diminish Islamabad's sense of authority in its own country.

What Pakistan needs right now is a secular military hardliner. Democratic processes must be slowed, and more power given to the military to conduct campaigns against the Taliban. A stronger and higher spirited military will hopefully stop low level officers from siding with Taliban forces. Another thing that is needed is for the US to halt cross-border strikes and not intervene militarily with Taliban forces in Pakistan. The people in Pakistan need Pakistanis to do the fighting to help unify them. We don't want them to think that they are just a US puppet state.

[LegalSmash]

Pressuring Musharraf out of office was the worst thing to happen to the stability of Pakistan. While Musharraf was President Pakistan's economy made impressive gains and he also started crackdown campaigns on Taliban outposts. He was trying to push a moderate Islamic ideal for his country which is desperately needed.

Now that Musharraf isn't putting pressure on Taliban you've got two opposing forces destabilizing the country. Increased Taliban attacks cause the populace to think that the government is weak. Increased cross-border US air strikes diminish Islamabad's sense of authority in its own country.

What Pakistan needs right now is a secular military hardliner. Democratic processes must be slowed, and more power given to the military to conduct campaigns against the Taliban. A stronger and higher spirited military will hopefully stop low level officers from siding with Taliban forces. Another thing that is needed is for the US to halt cross-border strikes and not intervene militarily with Taliban forces in Pakistan. The people in Pakistan need Pakistanis to do the fighting to help unify them. We don't want them to think that they are just a US puppet state.

Slavic, great post.

[RedOctober]

the problem is the weak Pakistani government not being able to control the tribal regions. because of their complete lack or authority in these regions the government is basically on the verge of being overthrown. this was evident when the presidential candidate Benazir Bhutto was killed in her own house. if they cant control their own house how can they control those regions boarding Afghanistan?

....of course we wouldn't let that happen. even though the president (President Musharraf i believe) strictly PROHIBITED us and un troops from entering his country we would storm in there in an instant if their 50+ nukes were in threat. Why the hell the the US let them keep nukes in the first place?

[PotshotPolka]

the problem is the weak Pakistani government not being able to control the tribal regions. because of their complete lack or authority in these regions the government is basically on the verge of being overthrown. this was evident when the presidential candidate Benazir Bhutto was killed in her own house. if they cant control their own house how can they control those regions boarding Afghanistan?

....of course we wouldn't let that happen. even though the president (President Musharraf i believe) strictly PROHIBITED us and un troops from entering his country we would storm in there in an instant if their 50+ nukes were in threat. Why the hell the the US let them keep nukes in the first place?

I suppose its this thing called national sovereignty.

[Slavic]

the problem is the weak Pakistani government not being able to control the tribal regions. because of their complete lack or authority in these regions the government is basically on the verge of being overthrown. this was evident when the presidential candidate Benazir Bhutto was killed in her own house. if they cant control their own house how can they control those regions boarding Afghanistan?

....of course we wouldn't let that happen. even though the president (President Musharraf i believe) strictly PROHIBITED us and un troops from entering his country we would storm in there in an instant if their 50+ nukes were in threat. Why the hell the the US let them keep nukes in the first place?

Probably for the same reasons we didn't bother India when they developed nukes.

It is pretty much known that if Pakistan had a regime change, us special forces would be on those nuclear facilities on flies. The point is for that not to happen. Bhutto was killed for far more reasons then the presence of uncontrollable tribes. Her family and herself are surrounded in corruption scandal, and she was going to bring about a radical change in government that honestly Pakistan was not ready for. She had plenty of enemies, enough that makes the idea of an inside job assassination believable.

As I said in my precious post, the only real effective solution in Pakistan is sadly a harsh military control under a religious moderate. The Taliban no nothing but war and can not be swayed by political or economic means. The military needs to be revamped and have its officers rotated, far to many have become Taliban sympathizers. Once the Pakistani military can finally make improvement on its counter-terrorism campaigns (not having more casualties then insurgents for starters) and restore confidence in its people, can it be ready to implement better economic reform and eventually democratic reform.

[RedOctober]

Probably for the same reasons we didn't bother India when they developed nukes.

It is pretty much known that if Pakistan had a regime change, us special forces would be on those nuclear facilities on flies. The point is for that not to happen. Bhutto was killed for far more reasons then the presence of uncontrollable tribes. Her family and herself are surrounded in corruption scandal, and she was going to bring about a radical change in government that honestly Pakistan was not ready for. She had plenty of enemies, enough that makes the idea of an inside job assassination believable.

As I said in my precious post, the only real effective solution in Pakistan is sadly a harsh military control under a religious moderate. The Taliban no nothing but war and can not be swayed by political or economic means. The military needs to be revamped and have its officers rotated, far to many have become Taliban sympathizers. Once the Pakistani military can finally make improvement on its counter-terrorism campaigns (not having more casualties then insurgents for starters) and restore confidence in its people, can it be ready to implement better economic reform and eventually democratic reform.


unfortunately your right Slavic. u seem to know alot about this topic by the way...

like you said in your last paragraph Pakistan needs harsh military control to help keep the Taliban in check. But how will the Pakistani military make those improvements? Not by themselves that is for sure. How do you expect them to make those changes to their counter-terrorism programs with their shitty economy and their poor infrastructure. The people wont have any confidence in their government until they see that the government can provide a better quality of life for them than the terrorists. This is why when you walk into a village in Pakistan there are no young men, they all left years ago to fight for the Taliban.

[PotshotPolka]

unfortunately your right Slavic. u seem to know alot about this topic by the way...

like you said in your last paragraph Pakistan needs harsh military control to help keep the Taliban in check. But how will the Pakistani military make those improvements? Not by themselves that is for sure. How do you expect them to make those changes to their counter-terrorism programs with their shitty economy and their poor infrastructure. The people wont have any confidence in their government until they see that the government can provide a better quality of life for them than the terrorists. This is why when you walk into a village in Pakistan there are no young men, they all left years ago to fight for the Taliban.

They get free money from the U.S. and other organizations that find it cheaper to fund them to fight proxy wars than to bother creating permanent solutions. Sometimes people are poor and in bad situations not just because of external forces or religious fanatics either, most of Pakistan is piss poor for agriculture, and nearly completely barren, some places should stay uninhabited for a reason.

[RedOctober]

They get free money from the U.S. and other organizations that find it cheaper to fund them to fight proxy wars than to bother creating permanent solutions. Sometimes people are poor and in bad situations not just because of external forces or religious fanatics either, most of Pakistan is piss poor for agriculture, and nearly completely barren, some places should stay uninhabited for a reason.

alright, so they get our money to sit around on their hands all day and do nothing... who are the numb-nuts in our government that thought this was a killer plan?

so whats the next step for us, just ignore the situation until it becomes to big to handle and blows up in our face. that seemed to work well for us in the past!

[PotshotPolka]

alright, so they get our money to sit around on their hands all day and do nothing... who are the numb-nuts in our government that thought this was a killer plan?

so whats the next step for us, just ignore the situation until it becomes to big to handle and blows up in our face. that seemed to work well for us in the past!

It works perfectly, set it up so that the bomb goes off in 4-6 years after your party leaves office.

[PotshotPolka]

Probably the same people that thought it was a killer plan in Iraq, Nicaragua and in other situations.

Good ol' CIA.

Mind you, MI6, the FSB, the Mossad, and every other major intelligence agency in the world believed Iraq was violating UN sanctions against them.

[PotshotPolka]

Probably the same people that thought it was a killer plan in Iraq, Nicaragua and in other situations.

Good ol' CIA.

Mind you, MI6, the FSB, the Mossad, and every other major intelligence agency in the world believed Iraq was violating UN sanctions against them.

[RapBert]

Pakistan will be the next battlefield. When Taliban presence rises over the top, I'm sure the US will invade it or bomb it back to the stone age.

[RapBert]

What is it with the US and trying to peacekeep?


That's what they've ALWAYS pretended to do after WWII. Iraq was never about WMDs or peace, it was just about oil. If Saddam would have been more cooperative, I don't think they would have invaded Iraq. It's all bout getting advantages for their own needs.

[PotshotPolka]

That's what they've ALWAYS pretended to do after WWII. Iraq was never about WMDs or peace, it was just about oil. If Saddam would have been more cooperative, I don't think they would have invaded Iraq. It's all bout getting advantages for their own needs.

Oh FFS we've got another one.

[RapBert]

Oh FFS we've got another one.

Another what ?

[XeNo]

Oh FFS we've got another one.
Same one, new IP.

I can see it coming.

[RapBert]

Same one, new IP.

I can see it coming.

What the hell are you talking about ?

[Italian Jew]

Pakistan will be the next battlefield. When Taliban presence rises over the top, I'm sure the US will invade it or bomb it back to the stone age.

That would be an upgrade

*I give props to Robin Williams for this joke*


What the hell are you talking about ?


They are getting on you about you thinking it was about oil.

[PotshotPolka]

Or completely bankrupt the bare remainder of funds in the war chest and get bogged down in yet ANOTHER conflict.

What is it with the US and trying to peacekeep?

As good as the sentiment is, I think you should see how bad the situation is (and definitely have been) first. I hope to God the current administration has such sense.

The short answer is that the defunct UN is nothing but a feel-goody-goody group for the Africans, and if it were not for the continued efforts of NATO/US pressure, I have zero doubt this wouldn't be a nice little friendly unipolar world, but instead it would be a multipolar shitstorm of lines drawn across the map Red Alert 3 style. It ain't perfect, and sadly it won't last much longer.


That's what they've ALWAYS pretended to do after WWII. Iraq was never about WMDs or peace, it was just about oil. If Saddam would have been more cooperative, I don't think they would have invaded Iraq. It's all bout getting advantages for their own needs.

The war in Iraq, which is actually just round two from the first Gulf War, was created for completely different reasons under AN ACTIVE UN RESOLUTION. The invasion of Afghanistan was a NATO operation, since an alliance member was assaulted.

It was never about goddamn oil, if you don't believe me, look into rising oil prices, and the fact that Iraqi oil sales died after the 2003 invasion, which is rather counterproductive if the entire operation was based upon gaining access to already fully producing oil reserves.

Was invading Iraq a "good" idea? Maybe, maybe not, I don't believe I have the credentials or the information available to support such a decision, and such statements would be irrelevant as they wouldn't be based upon logic but instead upon personal opinions.

So once again, whitewashed Anti-American idealogy ftw.

[RedOctober]

The short answer is that the defunct UN is nothing but a feel-goody-goody group for the Africans, and if it were not for the continued efforts of NATO/US pressure, I have zero doubt this wouldn't be a nice little friendly unipolar world, but instead it would be a multipolar shitstorm of lines drawn across the map Red Alert 3 style. It ain't perfect, and sadly it won't last much longer.



The war in Iraq, which is actually just round two from the first Gulf War, was created for completely different reasons under AN ACTIVE UN RESOLUTION. The invasion of Afghanistan was a NATO operation, since an alliance member was assaulted.

It was never about goddamn oil, if you don't believe me, look into rising oil prices, and the fact that Iraqi oil sales died after the 2003 invasion, which is rather counterproductive if the entire operation was based upon gaining access to already fully producing oil reserves.

Was invading Iraq a "good" idea? Maybe, maybe not, I don't believe I have the credentials or the information available to support such a decision, and such statements would be irrelevant as they wouldn't be based upon logic but instead upon personal opinions.

So once again, whitewashed Anti-American idealogy ftw.


good post potshot,

the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the oil. that is all the media putting their little spin on things trying to find a new angle to make it look like they are actually doing something. I actually read somewhere that it was FOX news that first brought up the thought that it was all about oil. (and we all know FOX likes to spew crap)

[RedOctober]

Probably the same people that thought it was a killer plan in Iraq, Nicaragua and in other situations.

Good ol' CIA.


the good old CIA did the best they could with the info they had. in fact they didn't even have full control of the invasion plans.

here is the deal..... the CIA director George J. Tenet and Donald Rumsfeld (with his people in the pentagon) were in a power struggle of who was going to head this war. at first Tenet persuaded Bust to let his team lead the invasion but in the end Rumsfeld won and the rest was history.

Now you know where to point the blame....

[RapBert]

The short answer is that the defunct UN is nothing but a feel-goody-goody group for the Africans, and if it were not for the continued efforts of NATO/US pressure, I have zero doubt this wouldn't be a nice little friendly unipolar world, but instead it would be a multipolar shitstorm of lines drawn across the map Red Alert 3 style. It ain't perfect, and sadly it won't last much longer.



The war in Iraq, which is actually just round two from the first Gulf War, was created for completely different reasons under AN ACTIVE UN RESOLUTION. The invasion of Afghanistan was a NATO operation, since an alliance member was assaulted.

It was never about goddamn oil, if you don't believe me, look into rising oil prices, and the fact that Iraqi oil sales died after the 2003 invasion, which is rather counterproductive if the entire operation was based upon gaining access to already fully producing oil reserves.

Was invading Iraq a "good" idea? Maybe, maybe not, I don't believe I have the credentials or the information available to support such a decision, and such statements would be irrelevant as they wouldn't be based upon logic but instead upon personal opinions.

So once again, whitewashed Anti-American idealogy ftw.


I'm sorry for casting doubts on the honorable intentions of the great USA.


If you find sarcasm here, I'll give you a cookie.

[PotshotPolka]

I'm sorry for casting doubts on the honorable intentions of the great USA.


If you find sarcasm here, I'll give you a cookie.

You can take your cookie and cram it up your lager drinking ass until you create a logical goddamn argument with feasible evidence supporting it.

[RedOctober]

What are you talking about?

The CIA funded Saddam because of the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq got shiny new weapons and once the war was over, thought chemical warfare was pretty neat, so started testing out nerve, mustard and other types of gas on civilians.

Then over an oil dispute, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and the rest is history.

you cant blame the CIA for Saddam going haywire and bombing his people and invading other countries. That guy was just freaking crazy. It may sound like i am trying to protect all the actions of the CIA (personally i believed they messed up) but im just saying you cant place the blame on them this time.

if u want to blame anyone for how Saddam got his money for his chemical warfare toys, blame the former UN secretary-general Boutros Boutros-Ghali because he persuaded the UN to give Saddam THREE times the money the US gave.

[PotshotPolka]

you cant blame the CIA for Saddam going haywire and bombing his people and invading other countries. That guy was just freaking crazy. It may sound like i am trying to protect all the actions of the CIA (personally i believed they messed up) but im just saying you cant place the blame on them this time.

if u want to blame anyone for how Saddam got his money for his chemical warfare toys, blame the former UN secretary-general Boutros Boutros-Ghali because he persuaded the UN to give Saddam THREE times the money the US gave.

If it's any consolation on this, the US wasn't really trying to support Iraq, but really just bog down the Iranians, even though the Iraqis started that shitty little war they spent the better of a decade fighting, gotta love Soviet-era domino theories.

[PotshotPolka]

I'm not blaming the CIA, the blame rests with him. However, he wouldn't have been able to were the CIA not funding him to fight Khomeini.

Watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHqY_xC-VEw&feature=PlayList&p=449364B4E22574B9&index=19). It's educational and catchy. :laugh:

I suppose we just couldn't make a decision of which we preferred more, radical sharia laws, or corrupt nationalist thuggery.


Amusing video though if you don't seriously believe that sums it all up.

[RedOctober]

haha i liked it havok!

thanks! :)

[RedOctober]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124092119905463407.html

Pakistan is finally doing something themselves. They attacked a Taliban position in the Swat Valley today. good for them!

[Drox]

Pakistan will be the next battlefield. When Taliban presence rises over the top, I'm sure the US will invade it or bomb it back to the stone age.

Kinda unlikely, and I will tell you why. Yes we will be doing operations in Pakistan but we will not invade this country only because we support it and not only that its one of the few middle eastern countries that we allow to have nukes. So aslong as the Pakistan government stops giving us the cold shoulder (Which they have lately) then it would most likely not happen. I think N. Korea or Iran would be more likely for the next US Invasion then Pakistan. ;)

[Harpr33t]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124092119905463407.html

Pakistan is finally doing something themselves. They attacked a Taliban position in the Swat Valley today. good for them!

The reason they attacked was because international pressure and the military finally was pressured by the civilian leadership to do something.

Edit: Pakistan is going to have a hard time fighting the Taliban, since they aren't used to counter insurgency operation but more of a conventional war against India.

[Slavic]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090505/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan




MINGORA, Pakistan – Black-turbaned militants roamed city streets and seized buildings in a northwestern Pakistan valley Tuesday as thousands of people fled fighting between the Taliban and troops that the government said could lead to an exodus of half a million people. The Taliban declared the end of their peace deal with the government.

Buses carrying the residents of Mingora, the region's main town, were crammed inside and out: Refugees clambered onto the roofs after seats and floors filled up. Children and adults alike carried their belongings on their heads and backs — all of them fleeing fighting they fear is about to consume the region.

Pakistan's leader prepared for talks in Washington with President Barack Obama on how to sharpen his country's fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban, which are blamed for attacks in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The deteriorating Swat Valley truce with the Taliban, which American officials opposed from the start, is expected to play a prominent role in the discussions.

Khushal Khan, the top administrator in Swat, said Taliban militants were roaming the area and laying mines.

A witness in Mingora told an Associated Press reporter that black-turbaned militants were deployed on most streets and on high buildings, and security forces were barricaded in their bases. Another reported heavy gunfire for much of the day. Both asked for anonymity out of fear for their life.

Taliban spokesman Muslim Khan said the militants were in control of "90 percent" of the valley and said they were responding to army violations of the peace deal — citing attacking insurgents and boosting troop numbers. He accused the government of caving to U.S. pressure.

Pakistan agreed to a truce in the Swat Valley and surrounding districts in February after two years of fighting with militants in the former tourist resort. It formally introduced Islamic law last month in the hope that insurgents would lay down their arms, something they have not done.

Last week, the insurgents moved from the valley into Buner, a district just 60 miles (100 kilometers) from the capital, triggering alarm at home and abroad. The army responded with an offensive that it says has killed more than 100 militants, but has yet to evict them.

"Everything will be OK once our rulers stop bowing before America," Muslim Khan, the Taliban spokesman, told The Associated Press by cell phone, adding the peace deal had "been dead" since the operation in Buner.

Khushal Khan, the Swat official, said curfew was suspended so people could leave Mingora, and a camp was set up for the displaced in a nearby town. Hundreds were leaving, according to an AP reporter in Mingora.

"We are leaving the area to save our lives," said Sayed Iqbal, a 35-year-old cloth merchant who was putting household goods in a pickup truck already loaded with his elderly parents, wife and two children. "The government has announced people should leave the area. What is there left to say?"

Mian Iftikhar Hussain, the information minister for the North West Frontier Province, said up to 500,000 people were expected to flee the valley. Hundreds are already gone, adding to roughly half a million people driven from other regions in the northwest over the last year by fighting between soldiers and insurgents, witnesses said.

Hussain said authorities were releasing emergency funds and preparing six new refugee camps to house them.

While an army offensive would be welcomed abroad, it was far from certain the government would be able to dislodge the militants, who have had three months under the peace deal to rest and reinforce their positions.

Pakistan has waged several offensives in the border region in recent years that have often ended inconclusively amid public anger at civilian casualties. The country's army, trained to fight conventional battles against rival India, is not used to guerrilla warfare.

Washington has called for tougher action, and U.S. officials said Obama would seek assurances from President Asif Ali Zardari that his country's nuclear arsenal was safe and that the military intended to face down extremists in coordination with Afghanistan and the United States.

Although the administration thinks Pakistan's nuclear weapons are secure for now, concern that militants might try to seize one or several of them is acute. The anxieties have heightened amid the Taliban's recent advances, the officials said.

Pakistan is struggling to thwart an increasingly overlapping spectrum of extremist groups, some of whom have enjoyed official support. Few extremist leaders are ever brought to justice.

Also Tuesday, the High Court in the southern city of Karachi upheld an appeal by two men sentenced to death for the 2002 slayings of 11 French nationals and four other people in a bombing outside the city's Sheraton Hotel.

The judges said they suspected that the confession of one of the men, Asif Zaheer, was "not voluntary" and that prosecution witnesses had been "set up" by authorities, said state prosecutor Saifullah, who goes by only one name.

Authorities were considering appealing the acquittal, Saifullah said.

___

Associated Press writer Riaz Khan in Peshawar and Ashraf Khan in Karachi contributed to this report. An AP reporter in Mingora who was not identified for security reasons contributed to this report.

The Taliban has called off their cease-fire and are now skirmishing and raiding buildings inside and around the swat valley. This is forcing hundreds of thousands of non-combatants around the providence to flee in fear of another Taliban cross region invasion.

Again, this is such a bad political move by Islamabad. Granting a militant group that wishes to overthrow your administration an autonomous providence will not ease violence but only (godforbid the Bush buzzword) embolden extremist actions.

There are only a few possible outcomes I can foresee.

I'm not up to date on Pakistani military expertize, but I do know that they are underfunded and their lower officers are not loyal.

With proper military campaigns Pakistan could push the Taliban back, but I highly doubt that they would be able to even enter Swat Vally without massive casualties.

Another outcome would be the effects of a bad military campaign. Hundreds of thousands of more displaced peoples. Significant drop in economic efficiency due to such war exhaustion, and possible civil unrest and populous revolt.

Lastly, if the war goes on badly enough, Pakistan may allow more intrusive US aid; military advisers, air strikes, I doubt any troops would be allowed though. Direct US military aid will definitely help confine the Taliban, but will still cause huge civil unrest. The population was in an uproar when Musharraf was just accepting US blank checks, I can't imagine what would happen if they allowed sanctioned air strikes.

The second scenario seems most likely to me.

[RedOctober]

agreed with a combination of the 2nd/ 3rd prediction.

i was reading up on this and the Pakistan i gov't wants to force the Taliban out with their own military. to send a message to their people that the government is strong and they don't need the Americans.

if they continue the prolonged fighting though they wont be able to drive out the Taliban by themselves. either they will turn their tails and whimper away(which they wont do because it politically looks weak) or they will ask for American help(which they don't want to do)

either way they loose....

(although the military properly has a small unit of overt ops there and are trying to keep that under hush. because the US really does want the Pakistani gov't to succeed and get the credit themselves)