WikiLeaks and the Aghan War

The documents reveal a faltering strategy

from JoeUser Forums

The Af-Pak War has finally found a dubious notoriety, in the same manner as the Vietnam War found its in New York Times  publication of the Pentagon Papers.  The founder of WikiLeaks Jackie Assange, the Australian founder of this web site, has declared that the documents revealed on his site make a strong case for war crimes. This statement is sheer hype and the real story lies in the sordid nexus between the Government of Pakistan and its Army under Genaral Kayani and the Taliban. During the recent Donor's Conference in Kabul the US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton made a pointed reference to the involvement of the Pakistan establishment in fomenting taliban insurgency in the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan. In fact one senior US official has even state that the Pakistanis are aware of the hideout of Osama bin Laden. The documents expose the fact that the official denials not withstanding, the civilian and military establishment of Pakistan is running circles round USA by publically endorsing US positions and coverly supporting the insurgency.

WikiLeaks has exposed literally thousands of documents that very clearly establish the enduring links between the Taliban insurgents and the Pakistani Military establishment. A retired general named Hamid Gul seems to have set up the interface between the Taliban and the Pakistani Army. The US has confronted the pakistani officials over the involvement of the Army Intelligence in planning and attacking the Indian Embassy in Kabul in 2008. In fact the treasure trove published in WikiLeaks reveals that the NATO forces had advance information of the attack on the Indian Embassy. General Gul needs to be treated as a terrorist and thr Pakistani Government must hand him over to the US for trial.

WikiLeaks has also published material regarding the training and recruitment of suicide bombers. The documents show without a shadow of doubt that the US has built a very good human intelligence network in the region. This may be now compromised due to the publication of reports. In fact the interrogation of the US terorist David Headley has shown that the Pakistani Army was involved in training the attackers who carried out the strikes in Mumbai, India, on 26th November 2008.

The US administration is incensed at the expose. However, I must add that there is hardly anything in the 92,000 pages that was not known earlier. Except for minor details much of the happening in Afghanistan is known to the rest of the world.

 

wikileaks af-pak war president obama isi pakistan hamid gul
7,808 views 22 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

The US administration is incensed at the expose.
End of quote

That is the only thing you got wrong.  it is "feigning" outrage, but it is quietly applauding the release.  Just another example of the slime of this administration.

The most damaging thing is the exposure to the human network.  Not who they are, but that they exist is enough to get the bad guys to start sniffing around and as you indicate, put many of them in danger.

You also did not mention the intel on Iran (showing their covert activities) that was exposed.  For the most part, the documents are a big "we already know" revelation.  I heard one analyst say that they were "Secret" not "top Secret", so very little damage (outside of the spy network) will probably occur from this (except to perhaps some relations with other countries).

I just wonder when people are going to stop excusing this administration for their gross incompetence in everything and start holding THEM accountable to the level they did Bush.  Stupid is as stupid does, and the most apparent revelation of this episode is how stupids can (and did) vote for this regime.

Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

I just wonder when people are going to stop excusing this administration for their gross incompetence in everything and start holding THEM accountable to the level they did Bush. Stupid is as stupid does, and the most apparent revelation of this episode is how stupids can (and did) vote for this regime.
End of quote

You're seriously going with "it's obama's fault" on this one? 

 

 

Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting dan_l, reply 2


I just wonder when people are going to stop excusing this administration for their gross incompetence in everything and start holding THEM accountable to the level they did Bush. Stupid is as stupid does, and the most apparent revelation of this episode is how stupids can (and did) vote for this regime.
You're seriously going with "it's obama's fault" on this one? 
 
End of dan_l's quote

I forgot who is the current President?

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting the_Peoples_Party, reply 3
I forgot who is the current President?
End of the_Peoples_Party's quote

Bush, isn't it?  that is all I hear out of congress, the White House and the MSM.  Must be true, if Dan Blather says it is so.

Just remember the difference between ignorance and stupidity.  Ignorance means you can learn.  Stupidity means you refuse to.

Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top

Once again DG, you miss the point. 

 

The wikileaks incident isn't any president's fault.  Really, just blame the guy who leaked the documents and be done with it.  Instead your insightful commentary is: "Americans are stupid for not voting for an 85 year old man and a governor from Alaska". 

 

Just remember the difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance means you can learn. Stupidity means you refuse to.
End of quote

Thanks Forest.  Is life still like a box of chocolates? 

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Pakistan is supporting the Taliban? No, say it isn't so. Didn't need a leak to know this. Bet he found a boatload of war crimes committed by the US and zero by the Taliban. Does this mean the left will cry that Obama is a war criminal, just like they did for Bush? Crikets... Execute the leaker (although I'm sure he'll get a cell like John Walker did), imprison those involved at wikileaks (for passing classified material) and be done, the MSM needs to get back to main task deflecting criticism of this administration.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

Thanks Forest. Is life still like a box of chocolates?
End of quote

You tell me.

The wikileaks incident isn't any president's fault.
End of quote

Not fault - responsibility!  Remember - The Buck Stops here?

You miss the point.  I am not accusing Obama of handing over the documents.  I am accusing him of gross incompetence in handling the situation (like that is new - oil Spill anyone???).  The least kept secret of this is that it was coming.  That was known months ago.  And they are just now being shocked?

Don't be stupid.  I believe you can learn.  Do not refuse to.

Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top

I just wonder when people are going to stop excusing this administration for their gross incompetence in everything and start holding THEM accountable to the level they did Bush. Stupid is as stupid does, and the most apparent revelation of this episode is how stupids can (and did) vote for this regime.
End of quote

I cannot blame President Obama for the War or the present uncertain course it is taking. I feel that the uS shopuld shift from territoriAL INTEGRITY of Afghanista to its partion into 3 or 4 units with a Pashtun state firmly under the "good " Taliban. I believe some influentioal members of the Obama ADMINISTRATION LIKE mULLEN ARE in favor of this solution.

Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top

The least kept secret of this is that it was coming. That was known months ago. And they are just now being shocked?
End of quote

Out of sheer curiosity---I don't expect rational---what did you really expect him to do? 

 

 

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

I feel that the uS shopuld shift from territoriAL INTEGRITY of Afghanista to its partion into 3 or 4 units with a Pashtun state firmly under the "good " Taliban. I believe some influentioal members of the Obama ADMINISTRATION LIKE mULLEN ARE in favor of this solution.
End of quote

Famous last words from the head dunce himself - Biden, on Iraq.  The answer is always divide.  Why?  Apparently because no one wants to work for anything any longer.  They want to sit in eden and be spoon fed.

Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top

You must give credit where it is due. Barack Obama and his Administration have the right political objectives in Afgahinstan. They however have inherited the ISI backed double dealing Thugs in the form of the Pakistan Government aNd its games. I feel that partion of Afgahistan together with the merger of the Pshtun territories of Pakistyan into a neutral land locked state under international safeguards like Switerland is the only solution that seems feasible.

Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top

Famous last words from the head dunce himself - Biden, on Iraq. The answer is always divide. Why? Apparently because no one wants to work for anything any longer. They want to sit in eden and be spoon fed.
End of quote

What are you talking about?

 

 

 

 

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

You must give credit where it is due. Barack Obama and his Administration have the right political objectives in Afgahinstan.
End of quote

No, that is giving credit where it is not due.  Obama's Afghan war is a disaster.  He is doing a Johnson on them (in more ways than one).  Instead of allowing the generals to fight it, he first picks a political one to fight it, undercuts his own pick, fires him for nothing, and then replaces him with the Bush General.  The last move is the first right one he has made.  But then that has just begun, and I fully expect him to undercut Petraeus as well.

I feel that partion of Afgahistan together with the merger of the Pshtun territories of Pakistyan into a neutral land locked state under international safeguards like Switerland is the only solution that seems feasible.
End of quote

And that is a cop out answer.  Divide and conquer is as old as history itself and that is what you are advocating.  A division would just be throwing in the towel, but it would not solve anything.  And that is not hypothesis, but history.  They could have done it themselves after the USSR left - as the Northern Alliance was firmly entrenched in 1/3 of the country, and the Taliban in another 3rd.  They basically fought a 10 year war for the whole country, which is what would happen if someone arbitrarily divides it up and then throws in the towel.

And Pakistan would never go for giving up any of its territories, period.  And I do not blame them.

Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top

Ohhhhhh man. 

 

It seems like Obama Derangement Syndrome is getting stronger and stronger in DG every day. 

 

Instead of allowing the generals to fight it, he first picks a political one to fight it, undercuts his own pick, fires him for nothing, and then replaces him with the Bush General. The last move is the first right one he has made. But then that has just begun, and I fully expect him to undercut Petraeus as well.
End of quote

Just to make sure we all get this: 

-Stan McChrystal wanted out.  You can't just 'up and quit' when most of your staff has a contractual obligation to hang around and get shot at by Tommy Taliban.  So he opened his mouth and got himself canned.  You can't hold the president responsible because of that.  I mean you can----you'd be totally wrong and totally disconnected from the reality of the stiatuion.  

-As an aside, what planet are you from?  Obama went along with McChrystal's request for additional troops.  That's not exactly a popular idea, even for a relative hawk like myself.  How does that represent a leader who's 'playing politics' instead of 'letting the general's fight'  As a matter of fact, do you think anybody in the executive branch is giggly over sending predators to blow up guys in Pakistan?  Do you really believe that's a 'political' concept?  Or might you be inclined to believe that's an idea from the military? 

So again, what are are you watching?  Or are you not watching and instead just pot shotting a president because you hate him? 

-So wait:  In your opinion, he shouldn't have replaced McChrystal but you're happy that he replaced McChrystal with a 'bush general'?  

 

Honest to god man, relax.  Obama isn't destroying the country.  The world isn't ending.   

 

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Dan, you are a good DNC parrot, but you do not know anything beyond what they tell  you apparently.

1. Obama gave less than the requested troops and waited 6 months to do it.  I guess you forgot that.

2. Show me where McChrystal requested an out?  Or is that just another one of your DNC talking points?

3. I am on earth and from earth.  I heard that DNC parrots are from Uranus, but that is just speculation I suspect.

4. Please show me where I said the world was ending.  As for destroying the country, that is a matter of opinion is it not?  My opinion is that any president that nationalizes 60% of the economy is destroying the country since we know that government cannot run business.  Want to see the biggest bust since the Edsel?  Buy a Volt.  That is going to be the destruction of Government Motors and that is ALL the Obama administration.

But I guess the talking points did not cover those subjects, did they?

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

They could have done it themselves after the USSR left - as the Northern Alliance was firmly entrenched in 1/3 of the country, and the Taliban in another 3rd
End of quote

Unfortunately the resistance strirred up by USA against the Soviets concocted a heady brew of Islamic fundamentalism and anti communism. The results is of course the frnkensteinian monster in the form of AL QAEDA and the USA is now battling the very demons it created.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

1. Obama gave less than the requested troops and waited 6 months to do it. I guess you forgot that.
End of quote

Right.  So clearly, not giving in to every whim of the military represents 'playing politics' and not letting the 'generals fight the war'  their hands?

 

2. Show me where McChrystal requested an out? Or is that just another one of your DNC talking points?
End of quote

So how do you explain it?  come on now.  Let's hear some independent thought.  You have a guy who has reached the highest echelon of military service.  Then one day he up and decides "you know what?  I'm going to bad mouth my boss in front of rolling stone".  Do you think that's just a coincidence?  Why does somebody do that if not to get fired? 

And please, show me where that's a DNC 'talking point'.  It's just common sense. 

 

3. I am on earth and from earth. I heard that DNC parrots are from Uranus, but that is just speculation I suspect.
End of quote

YEAH YEAH DNC PARROTS YEAH YEAH ZOBAMA SOCIALISM. 

 

Please show me where I said the world was ending. As for destroying the country, that is a matter of opinion is it not?
End of quote

Well, a great deal of what you say does seem to have this sort of fatalist zero sum twinge to it.  Such as: 

ny president that nationalizes 60% of the economy is destroying the country since we know that government cannot run business.
End of quote

The answer is always divide. Why? Apparently because no one wants to work for anything any longer. They want to sit in eden and be spoon fed.
End of quote

Stuff like that is just so delusional I imagine that you're married to Lula. 

 

Buy a Volt.
End of quote

An American car?  they still make those? 

 

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Bahu, reply 16

Unfortunately the resistance strirred up by USA against the Soviets concocted a heady brew of Islamic fundamentalism and anti communism. The results is of course the frnkensteinian monster in the form of AL QAEDA and the USA is now battling the very demons it created.
End of Bahu's quote

That is a common misconception.  And of course it is wrong.  Have you ever seen the Planet of the Apes series?  The last one is very telling.  The creators were trying to get out of the franchise and so it is sloppy, but has a great sub plot to it.

When the mutant humans attack ape city, the gorillas run away.  Cornelius, the Chimps and orangutans defeated them, and then were allowing the defeated humans to retreat to their city.  The gorillas, not having to fear a potent enemy at that point, attacked the remnants.

So it was with the Taliban.  They hid in Pakistan while the real Afghans died against the USSR.  While members of Al Qaeda were part of the fighters there, Al Qaeda was not (they came later).

So you have to rethink your whole supposition as it is based on false statements and incorrect logic.  The Taliban and Al Qaeda were the gorillas in the 80s, not the Chimps.

Reply #19 from Stardock Forums Top

 

That is a common misconception. And of course it is wrong. Have you ever seen the Planet of the Apes series? The last one is very telling. The creators were trying to get out of the franchise and so it is sloppy, but has a great sub plot to it.
End of quote

 

So it was with the Taliban. They hid in Pakistan while the real Afghans died against the USSR. While members of Al Qaeda were part of the fighters there, Al Qaeda was not (they came later).
End of quote

So you have to rethink your whole supposition as it is based on false statements and incorrect logic. The Taliban and Al Qaeda were the gorillas in the 80s, not the Chimps.
End of quote

 

Oh.  My.  God. 

 

Yeah.  I guess it's not like the US was shipping equipment  to the anti-soviet war effort in Afghanistan, and it's not like that money was being distributed by the same Pakistani intelligence agencies that we know even today have a 'close' relationship with the bad guys in Afghanistan, and it's certainly not like any of that could possibly  represent the embryonic stages of both the Taliban and Al Quaada. 

Reply #20 from Stardock Forums Top

That is a common misconception. And of course it is wrong. Have you ever seen the Planet of the Apes series? The last one is very telling. The creators were trying to get out of the franchise and so it is sloppy, but has a great sub plot to it
End of quote

It is a well known fact that the al-qaeda was formed, trasined and equpped by the USA during the days of Soviet occupation and the strategy was so successful that it has come back to haunt the very super power that launched the "BASE".

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Bahu, reply 20
It is a well known fact that the al-qaeda was formed, trasined and equpped by the USA during the days of Soviet occupation and the strategy was so successful that it has come back to haunt the very super power that launched the "BASE".
End of Bahu's quote

No, that is the PR hype, but it is also false.  Al Qaeda was not formed or financed by the US during the Afghan campaign.  it was formed in response to the Gulf War and was never financed by the US.  That some members of Al Qaeda were a part of the Afghan resistance is a given.  But Al Qeada did not exist until the US established bases in the Middle east in response to Saddam Hussein.

I am a bit surprised at you.  Although your topics are usually left leaning, you normally do at least get the basic facts straight. You have failed in this case, and not even by a little, but by a whopping lot.

Reply #22 from Stardock Forums Top

I am a bit surprised at you. Although your topics are usually left leaning, you normally do at least get the basic facts straight. You have failed in this case, and not even by a little, but by a whopping lot.
End of quote

I am not at sure about this. I stand by my argument that the al-qaeda was formed as part of the mujahudeen trained and supplied and also groomed by the US at the time of the anti-Soviet resistance. The al-qaeda did not play a role in the first gulf war against Saddam Hussain when his forces occupied Kuwait. If so how do yopu expalin the argument tritted out by Bush that Iraq has become a haven for the al-qaeda and he used this as a suggestification to launch the invasion. The fact is that USA created the conditions for the present crisis due to its strategic overreach.