Big P
Well-Known Member
well??? is it true?? you are all a bunch of hypocrates huh?
dont worry I always new you guys were
White House Won't Rule Out Troops for Pakistan War
By Noah Shachtman
March 27, 2009 | 2:08:00 PMCategories: Agony of A-Stan, Perils of Pakistan
President Obama has just laid out his new war strategy. And he's made it clear that the fight is both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. So I asked Dennis McDonough, with the National Security Council: Does that mean U.S. ground forces in Pakistan? Or more drone attacks? "I'm not going to comment on the notions you laid out there," he answered, during a White House conference call with bloggers.
But during a separate press conference, Bruce Reidel, who recently completed a strategy review of the region for the White House, offered some hints. "Thus far, our policy sees Afghanistan and Pakistan as two countries, but one theater of operations for our diplomacy, and one challenge for our overall policy," he said. "We have very concrete proposals for increasing economic assistance to Pakistan, proposals that have already been put forward by the Congress. We're also looking at what we can do on the military side."
Michele Flournoy, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, added, "I certainly believe we are going to be increasing our intelligence focus in this theater, and as opportunities arise that may increase the pace of operations, as well."
Richard Holbrooke, the administration special enoy to the region said of Pakistan: "of all the dilemmas, problems and challenges we face, that's going to be the most daunting, because it's a sovereign country and there is a red line. And the red line is unambiguous and stated publicly by the Pakistani government over and over again: No foreign troops on our soil." Yet I haven't seen anyone in the administration state unambiguously yet that U.S. troops won't go to Pakistan. If anything, they've side-stepped the question.
Draw your own conclusions. But to me, they're saying: Yes, there will be more troops (both human and robotic). We'd just rather not talk about them.
Later in the blogger conference call, Spencer Ackerman asked McDonough about what the President really means by "disrupting" and "defeating" alQaeda. His answers were... well, a little unexpected.
McDonough defined "disrupting" as making sure Osama's pals couldn't carry out attacks in Europe or America any more. The terror cell or cells could still be intact - just impotent. Which is different from how I've imagined a "disrupted " al Qaeda before.
But the really interesting answer was about "defeating" the Osama-ites. Sure, there's a harcorde element that "has to be met by force alone." But for the most part, it's not necessarily about turning them into Predator flambe. Instead, it's about making sure the "the violent, hopeless future offered by Al Qaeda is outshone by different opportunities" in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
As Ackerman points out, "Notice that 'defeat' here is has an ideological meaning, and its primary measurement comes from the perceptions of Afghans and Pakistanis themselves."
[Photo: U.S. Army]
dont worry I always new you guys were
White House Won't Rule Out Troops for Pakistan War
By Noah Shachtman
March 27, 2009 | 2:08:00 PMCategories: Agony of A-Stan, Perils of Pakistan 
President Obama has just laid out his new war strategy. And he's made it clear that the fight is both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. So I asked Dennis McDonough, with the National Security Council: Does that mean U.S. ground forces in Pakistan? Or more drone attacks? "I'm not going to comment on the notions you laid out there," he answered, during a White House conference call with bloggers.But during a separate press conference, Bruce Reidel, who recently completed a strategy review of the region for the White House, offered some hints. "Thus far, our policy sees Afghanistan and Pakistan as two countries, but one theater of operations for our diplomacy, and one challenge for our overall policy," he said. "We have very concrete proposals for increasing economic assistance to Pakistan, proposals that have already been put forward by the Congress. We're also looking at what we can do on the military side."
Michele Flournoy, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, added, "I certainly believe we are going to be increasing our intelligence focus in this theater, and as opportunities arise that may increase the pace of operations, as well."
Richard Holbrooke, the administration special enoy to the region said of Pakistan: "of all the dilemmas, problems and challenges we face, that's going to be the most daunting, because it's a sovereign country and there is a red line. And the red line is unambiguous and stated publicly by the Pakistani government over and over again: No foreign troops on our soil." Yet I haven't seen anyone in the administration state unambiguously yet that U.S. troops won't go to Pakistan. If anything, they've side-stepped the question.
Draw your own conclusions. But to me, they're saying: Yes, there will be more troops (both human and robotic). We'd just rather not talk about them.
Later in the blogger conference call, Spencer Ackerman asked McDonough about what the President really means by "disrupting" and "defeating" alQaeda. His answers were... well, a little unexpected.
McDonough defined "disrupting" as making sure Osama's pals couldn't carry out attacks in Europe or America any more. The terror cell or cells could still be intact - just impotent. Which is different from how I've imagined a "disrupted " al Qaeda before.
But the really interesting answer was about "defeating" the Osama-ites. Sure, there's a harcorde element that "has to be met by force alone." But for the most part, it's not necessarily about turning them into Predator flambe. Instead, it's about making sure the "the violent, hopeless future offered by Al Qaeda is outshone by different opportunities" in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
As Ackerman points out, "Notice that 'defeat' here is has an ideological meaning, and its primary measurement comes from the perceptions of Afghans and Pakistanis themselves."
[Photo: U.S. Army]
