New policy will apply both to Afghanistan and Pakistan: McMaster

New policy will apply both to Afghanistan and Pakistan: McMaster
The Kashmir Monitor, By Agencies - Published at: May 16, 2017​

TRUMP'S DEAL WITH DEVILS OF RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM



Why US National Security Adviser Gen H.R. McMaster's (photographed) new plan for Afghanistan is doomed to fail.

Well I suppose for a $100 billion bribe of such an arms deal with the devils of radical Islamic terrorism, Trump might well be prepared to set aside the Saudi and Pakistani regimes' secret state sponsorship of the Al Qaeda terrorist attack of 9/11 and forgive those same back-stabbing regimes for sponsoring the terrorists who killed and injured thousands of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan?

"It's worth it!" the US arms industry will tell Trump.

Trump's Mother of All Bombs and McMaster's silly little plan for a few thousand more troops for Afghanistan is not going to make the slightest difference to the outcome of the long war that the masterminds who run the deep states of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are waging against the US and its NATO allies.

Like the US Presidents before him, Trump and his forces are going to take their whipping from radical Islamic terrorism and not defeat them because for $100 billion "this is business" and "the war on terror can wait" (until the US gets a president worthy of the name).

Any workable solution to stabilise Afghanistan for the long term must prevent the Pakistani deep state (who act via the Pakistani military intelligence agency, the ISI) from any further state-sponsorship of Pakistani-proxy insurgent forces in Afghanistan.

This can only be done by a regime change that reaches deeper into the Pakistani state than was accomplished when the military dictatorship of Pakistan was made to dress up in civilian clothes and have the window dressing of elections.


Jens Stoltenberg, the "witless" Secretary General of NATO

NATO requires a political and military strategy which is beyond the limited wits of Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who as Norwegian Prime Minister failed to prevent a lone-wolf fascist terrorist from mass murdering members of his own party's youth wing at Utøya, Norway in 2011.

If Stoltenberg was out of his depth against one lone-wolf Norwegian fascist we can be sure he is out of his depth trying to stabilise Afghanistan too.

So NATO has to force Stoltenberg out as Secretary General and appoint someone else who is competent, someone like me in fact.

In outline, NATO should employ a strategy of regime-change against the deep Pakistani and Saudi states employing naval blockades and seizing / destroying TV satellites in space to ensure that only our regime-change propaganda is what is being broadcast from space into Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not regime deep state lies and excuses.

Admittedly, my strategy would be much more effective if I was serving NATO with the support of former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Therefore NATO really ought to get in contact with Condi to suggest that she and I work as a team to lead NATO as it needs to be led if we are ever to win this war on terror.

Reference from 2012: BBC: Pakistan helping Afghan Taliban - Nato

 

Whatever the **** your persona is supposed to be, I love it.

I'm just not sure that pressuring Pakistan is going to deliver any results. They'd need to convince the Pakistani government to "invite" NATO forces into Pakistan, which would be politically difficult, to say the least.

On the other hand, China does seem to be in an awfully pliant mood, and they have a lot of influence in Pakistan.

EDIT: Just as an aside, American-backed regime change in Pakistan would likely be a disaster.

 

I don't care your persona. Your post is shallow and a borderline rant. Simplifying complex geopolitical maneuvers.

Also neither you, Condi, Ghandi, and the Dali Lama all put together is ever going to stabilize Afghanistan. We need to leave. We also need to stop thinking that regime change ever fixes anything from narrow perspectives such as yours.

It has never ended in my adult life in anything but calamity.

As to 100 billion dollar arms deal.. Ah now that's interesting and the reasoning behind it and the timing of it worthy of its own thread.

I.. Believe since the US Saud gambit to overthrow Assad failed...the only logical purpose being too weaken Iran... I think the Saudis are preparing for a direct confrontation with Iran alongside the US and surprise! Israel.

That's why the arms deal.

 

Thanks!

It depends on the pressure. The right pressure, the right results.

Why?

What part of "naval blockades and seizing / destroying TV satellites in space" needs a Pakistani government invite or NATO forces in Pakistan? No part.

We've never needed an invite for US / NATO operations in Pakistan before. Our drones weren't "invited". The US Navy SEALS who flew in secretly to get Bin Laden didn't need an invite. We have other weapons systems which don't need an "invite" either.

What did need Pakistan's invite in the past was to supply large NATO forces in Afghanistan via Pakistani roads. We can avoid the need for such an invite in future by not deploying large forces in Afghanistan in the first place and flying what we need in or out or using another land routes.

Well all politics in Pakistan is "difficult", especially for little girls.

Well I don't suppose that China are going to be best pleased with naval blockades of Pakistani ports, because of their China–Pakistan Economic Corridor plans to ship Chinese trade through Gwadar to and from Africa and West Asia.

Well perhaps we can arrange an exemption for Chinese trade and wave their ships through? After all, Pakistan becoming a friendly co-operative trading and constructive nation like China is what we want to encourage.

It's not as if we need to starve Pakistan into submission by blocking all trade. It's more a question of putting enough pressure on them to get their attention so that they'll tune into our satellite broadcasts where we tell them how to help us root out their own deep state elements who have been sponsoring the Taliban and other terrorists.

 

The difference between that proposal and my implied proposal is that mine is actually a plausible scenario.

This is all very true, but drones and the occasional SEAL team aren't enough to defeat the Taliban.

We're not going to blockade any Pakistani ports. The Pakistani government is about as friendly towards the US as we can hope to expect.

The problem is that the Pakistani government is impotent, and regime change would certainly not solve that problem.

 

In fairness, I didn't recommend that Ghandi or the Dali Lama be appointed to lead the NATO war on terror mission in Afghanistan or anywhere else.

Well Obama didn't need to order US troops to leave Iraq altogether. Obama didn't need to allow ISIS their big chance in Iraq but he did.

Neither did Obama need to order so many troops to go to Afghanistan and supply them through Pakistan's roads which put US forces at the mercy of the same Pakistani state that was and is sponsoring the Taliban but he did.

Perhaps we can agree that now as before, we need the commander in chief to be giving orders regarding deploying and withdrawing troops which are more strategically planned?

From history we ought to learn that Afghanistan was left to its own devices by the US after the Soviets were pushed out. However, Afghanistan was not left alone by the Taliban who took it over and used it to host Bin Laden and his terrorist training camps.

So just "leaving" Afghanistan isn't the answer. Saying "we need to leave" is too simplistic, as simplistic as suggesting that sending thousands of more new troops is the answer.

I certainly don't want to get between those arguing for leaving and those arguing for reinforcing disagreeing with each other. That's not an argument I particularly want to take sides on.

The problem is more complex than people understand so the answer is more complex too.

Well I am intrigued as to who you think has a perspective such as mine?
I don't remember attending any rallies of my supporters who share my perspective.

Also why do you claim that my perspective is "narrow"? You seem very quick to rush to judgement about me, someone you barely know.

What about the perspective of regime-change with a view to trying to prevent another mass-terrorist attack on the USA, like 9/11. Is that perspective too "narrow" for you? I don't think the perspective of collective "self defence" is a narrow perspective but perhaps you do?

So are you too young for Gulf war 1 in 1990-91, to liberate Kuwait, which many of the countries who participated in the war to kick Saddam Hussein's regime forces out of Kuwait consider to be a quick and stunning success in its own limited objective terms? Even then there was a certain amount of "calamity", for Saddam's forces mostly.

War is calamitous to a greater or lesser extent but the way you bring the calamity to an end is to have a decisive victory over the real enemy and secure the peace for your friends and allies.

Arming and strengthening Saudi Arabia does not "weaken Iran" but it does seem to be weakening Yemen, the people of whom are now starving.

Trump, About to Visit Saudi Arabia, Is Urged to Help Yemen

 

There's nothing "implausible" about naval blockades or seizing / destroying TV satellites for NATO. Warfare at sea and in space is where NATO's advanced technology gives us a distinct advantage over the deep state of Pakistan, which would have the advantage in a land war in Pakistan.

If your "implied proposal" is the civilian elected government of Pakistan inviting NATO to invade Pakistan to put down the militaristic deep state of Pakistan with a large scale invasion force, as per our forces which invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, I would suggest that your "implied proposal" is the more "implausible" of the two.

Indeed and neither are a few thousand more NATO forces being sent to Afghanistan.
I, on the other hand, am suggesting a comprehensive strategy that can defeat the Taliban by defeating their state sponsors.

Really? You know the future?

Can I suggest that you do a bit of research into how Pakistan (the deep state) helps the Taliban? I helpfully provided a reference for you

Well the elected civilian government of Pakistan may indeed be somewhat impotent, unwilling or unable, to bring their own militaristic deep state to heel, making the deep state accountable for its unauthorised sponsorship of the Taliban and other terrorist groups.

The "regime change" I am proposing is precisely intended to change the Pakistani deep state, to root out the elements which are sponsoring the Taliban and other terrorist groups so that the elected civilian government of Pakistan can be potent in terms of getting all its orders "not to sponsor terrorism" followed loyally by the deep state.

What I am not proposing is any "regime change" that is intended to stop the Pakistani people electing their own governments.

On the other hand, we are at war with the Al Qaeda, ISIS and the Taliban and their sponsors in the Pakistani (and Saudi) deep states because they have chosen to wage a terrorist war on us.

So we can't afford to take our orders from a civilian Pakistani government not to do "X, Y or Z" that we need to do to win this war.

 

This whole thread is pretty farfetched.

 

I'm not saying that the military actions involved are particularly difficult, I'm saying that it's neither a very effective strategy nor politically possible for any administration.

The good news is that my implied proposal is not so far fetched. It would involve allowing American forces to move between Afghanistan and Pakistan at will, and with the support of the Pakistani military.

Again, the concern is that this is a politically dangerous move for the Pakistanis.

There is not a state that you could replace Pakistan with that would be more amenable to American desires and less amenable to Taliban ones. In fact, any attempt to bring about such a change would have the exact opposite effect.

There are certain predictions I can make about the future. Granted "we aren't going to blockade Pakistani ports" is not ironclad without some reservations, but I can state it this way:

Given a political and geopolitical situation like our current one, we aren't going to blockade Pakistani ports.

I'm fully aware of how compromised both Pakistani military forces and intelligence services are. There is no conceivable scenario under which regime change carried out by the United States would change that fact.

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

You really think that regime change would bring about the desired effect? You think that throwing out a democratically elected, pro-American government is likely to bring an end to the elements in Pakistani society which support the Taliban?

And for what reason, given your policy proposal, would the Pakistani people elect pro-Western politicians under those circumstances?

 

Well military actions at sea are particularly difficult and military actions in space are much more particularly difficult when compared to military actions in the mountainous areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the deep state of Pakistan can easily deploy their inexhaustible supply of Taliban foot soldiers to a comparatively greater military effect than if Pakistan were to dare to try to fight us at sea or in space.

Try to understand that we have been lured and suckered (yet again) into fighting the kind of war - an infantry war - that suits the enemy, where our technological advantages count for least.

The effect of the military actions and tactics I propose would be to give us leverage and influence over Pakistan. We can use that leverage to make demands of Pakistan.

Contrast my proposals with the US & NATO military folly of supplying our forces deployed to Afghanistan via Pakistan's roads which Pakistan can easily block thus giving Pakistan leverage and influence over us. Pakistan used that leverage to make demands of us.

Why? Because you say so? You can dictate to any administration?

Putting American forces at the mercy of the Pakistani military who are sponsoring the Taliban would be equivalent to handing over hostages who could be killed at Pakistan's pleasure.

Your very dangerous and foolish proposal suffers from the delusion that the Pakistan military is now a reliable ally in this war on terror whereas it is not and won't be until such time as we have weeded out all the those deep state elements who have been sponsoring the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS etc.

It's not a question of replacing the entire state but of weeding out enemy elements.

The situation where the Saudi-Pakistan axis gets away with sponsoring terrorism with no blow-back from the victims of terror because Trump is in the pocket of the Saudis?

Oh good but that doesn't explain why you might think American forces might be safe from attack by the Pakistani military or their proxies on Pakistani territory?

Well I can conceive of a scenario where by the military actions I propose, we use our leverage and influence over Pakistan to demand they weed out the deep state elements who are sponsoring terrorism.

Yes.

No.

I am not proposing to "throw out a democratically elected, pro-American government."

I have proposed regime-change and by "the regime" I am referring to the deep state, not to the elected government.

So it is the deep state that needs changing, not the elected government.

As I am trying to explain, I do not propose removing the elected government.

 

Thereby offering an opportunity for you to submit a detailed critique.

 

There is no alternative, unless we're willing to accept massive civilian casualties in a massive air war.

The Taliban don't have a navy.

What demands? There is nothing that they are capable of doing to heed our demands.

So would your proposal involve land forces or not>

For the same reason that I know it's politically impossible for the United States to invade Britain and to annex it. It's obvious.

You have to know that working with any local forces, be they Iraqi, Afghan, or Pakistani involves some level of that risk, right?

Trust me, the Pakistani government would love to do that. They can't.

If you think that Trump is in the pocket of the Saudis you haven't been paying attention.

Oh good but that doesn't explain why you might think American forces might be safe from attack by the Pakistani military or their proxies on Pakistani territory?

I'm tempted to ignore every other part of this post and reply only to this, since it's the meat of our disagreement. You believe that blockading ports will cause the Pakistani government to remove the "deep state" (a much overused term nowadays)? First of all, they don't have to ability to remove these people, if they did they would do it. Second, this kind of naked hostility on behalf of the US would not increase the willingness of the Pakistanis to work with the Americans, but to reduce it. It's far more likely that this "deep state" become the REAL state, were your proposal carried out.

 

Paying attention to what's on my TV just now, I see Trump sitting pretty beside the King of Saudi Arabia, the biggest devil of radical Islamic terrorism and Trump is there in Saudi Arabia to secure a $100+ billion arms deal with that devil.

I think Trump is in the pocket of the Saudis because I am paying attention.

More later ...

 

Oh great, war with even more countries. The best way to hurt those countries supporting terrorists is to hit them in their pocketbook without resorting to acts of war. I can only imagine what SA wants all those weapons for, but if they want to start trouble, it will most likely result in our enemies fighting them instead of us.

Kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, was not regime change, it was kicking out an invader.

I don't know a whole lot about it, but how could Stoltenberg stop a lone wolf screwball?

 

There is an alternative to us fighting an infantry war with the Taliban.

The alternative is we regime-change Pakistan sufficiently so that Pakistan changes from sponsoring the Taliban to fighting the Taliban.

Do you mean as per the "massive air war" on Iraq, the "shock and awe" air campaign prior to our invasion of Iraq in 2003?

That's not the only alternative and not the alternative I propose.

I would remind you that the reason we are fighting the war on terror to win is precisely because we are not prepared to accept that our countries can suffer massive civilian casualties, "not" as per 9/11 (and certainly "not" as per if Pakistan were to give their terrorists a nuclear weapon to set off in any one of our cities, which Pakistan might do if we do not hold Pakistan responsible for the actions of the terrorists whom Pakistan sponsors.)

If we let Pakistan off with 9/11 then Pakistan may believe we would let them off with a terrorist nuke attack on us too.

Therefore what is risking "massive civilian casualties" in our own countries is the foolish approach of the US & NATO, focusing on the Taliban, ISIS & Al Qaeda but turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to intelligence reports which identify Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as state sponsors of those terrorists.

The Taliban are part of Pakistan and Pakistan has a navy.

What part of

"we use our leverage and influence over Pakistan to demand they weed out the deep state elements who are sponsoring terrorism"​

don't you understand?

Pakistan has the capability to arrest or to kill any person in Pakistan. Therefore Pakistan is capable of weeding out the deep state elements who are sponsoring terrorism.

My proposal is to regime-change Pakistan and then to involve Pakistan's land forces where land forces are required to act inside Pakistan.

However I do not propose using our land forces to effect regime-change of Pakistan, no.

If the US wanted to regime-change Britain, it should start with seizing / destroying TV satellites which broadcast the BBC world-wide.
Likewise, to regime-change Pakistan, we must begin in space, with the TV satellites which broadcast to the Pakistani people.

The level of risk from terrorist proxy forces is multiplied a thousand fold when we do not hold responsible the states which sponsor those terrorists.

Pakistan can do what the impotent civilian elected government of Pakistan would love to do but can't.

Not only "blockading ports" but also seizing / destroying TV satellites that broadcast into Pakistan and instead broadcasting our own regime-change propaganda into Pakistan.

Not "Pakistani government" but Pakistan, the whole country, (not just the government).

Not "remove" the whole deep state altogether because without any deep state there would be no Pakistan.

But yes I do believe that Pakistan could weed out those elements in the Pakistani deep state which are sponsoring terrorism.

Pakistan, the country, does have the ability to remove any person from its deep state.

The regime in Pakistan is the deep state. They could do it but don't want to do it. The challenge is to pressure the deep state to change their minds about that, to compel them to do what they don't want to do.

Wrong. It is the the US and NATO naked weaknesses of -
* being "in the pocket" of Saudi Arabia for arms deals etc
* relying on road transport through Pakistan to supply Afghanistan
* being too afraid to confront Pakistan
* being too willing to bribe Pakistan with aid payments
- which reduces the willingness of Pakistan to work with Americans and NATO countries but instead to play us for fools while taking our money.

The "deep state" is the REAL state, already. The elected civilian government is merely impotent window dressing that the deep state of Pakistan was pressured into agreeing to set up, to pacify an angry US government after 9/11.

 

Well the world is helping Saudi Arabia's pocketbook by buying their oil and helping Pakistan's pocketbook with aid.
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not being hit in their pocketbooks.

Saudi Arabia together with Pakistan has already started trouble by sponsoring the 9/11 attack, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and ISIS attacks on our soldiers and civilians.

That's nit-picking.

For example, the Norwegian Police should always be securing Utøya island for the time of the Labour youth camp event and similar events with a couple of police speed boats with armed police on board to intercept unexpected visitors and a temporary police station on the island itself.

Since the Norwegian police were not equipped, manned, deployed or led appropriately to secure Norway then that's the fault of the then Norwegian Prime Minister - Stoltenberg.

At the very least, Stoltenberg could have issued a public warning that the Utøya event was not properly secured because the police were not up to the job and so people should not attend for their own safety.

2011 Norway attacks - Wikipedia

 

The US can play the Baluchistan Card.

It is to the advantage of US Geo-Political Strategy for the US to maintain a military presence in Afghanistan.

 

We have nothing to gain. Destabilizing Pakistan to no material end would be monumentally foolish.

 

That DARN Trump! He is coddling Pakis with MOABS!

"Indian authorities are claiming that at least 500 Pakistani nationals (who had been protecting the ISIS operatives in this area) were killed in the US bombing in Nangarhar province."



Trump, You MAGNIFICENT Bastard!

"The impact of the bomb was so huge that it blew up at least 500 Pakistanis and an equal number of IS operatives."

Silly Donald, detroying the terrorists with MOAB's is exactly what they want you to do, you are playing it right into their hands!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...isis-killed-treasonous-us-bombing-afghanistan

 

You can coerce Pakistan to be more effective, by threatening to back the independence of Baluchistan.

 

No, you can't. The Pakistani government would love to excise the more radical parts of their military and intelligence services. They can't do it, they're too weak.

No government has perfect control of the nation, and Pakistan is on an extreme end of that spectrum.

 

IMO it's a great thread.

 

I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.