Comments on: A Safe Haven for bin Laden? http://americanfuture.net/?p=2174 Marc Schulman on a world in turmoil Thu, 09 Sep 2010 15:37:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: The Catapult » Mushy signs “Peace Treaty”?! http://americanfuture.net/?p=2174#comment-278115 The Catapult » Mushy signs “Peace Treaty”?! Sat, 01 Dec 2007 06:13:44 +0000 http://americanfuture.net/?p=2174#comment-278115 [...] eminent American blogger called Marc Schulman has this to say about the [...] [...] eminent American blogger called Marc Schulman has this to say about the [...]

]]> By: AMERICAN FUTURE - Trying to make sense of a world in turmoil » Whose Side Is Musharaff On? http://americanfuture.net/?p=2174#comment-49786 AMERICAN FUTURE - Trying to make sense of a world in turmoil » Whose Side Is Musharaff On? Sat, 07 Oct 2006 05:20:07 +0000 http://americanfuture.net/?p=2174#comment-49786 [...] A Safe Haven for bin Laden? (September 6) [...] [...] A Safe Haven for bin Laden? (September 6) [...]

]]> By: AMERICAN FUTURE - Trying to make sense of a world in turmoil » Something’s Fishy in the State of Pakistan http://americanfuture.net/?p=2174#comment-46996 AMERICAN FUTURE - Trying to make sense of a world in turmoil » Something’s Fishy in the State of Pakistan Fri, 29 Sep 2006 04:59:49 +0000 http://americanfuture.net/?p=2174#comment-46996 [...] Earlier this month, an agreement was reached between Pakistan's government and the North Waziristan Agency (NWA). Among other things, the NWA's tribal leaders agreed to a cease-fire with the Pakistan army, not to allow native militants to cross the Afghanistan border, and to force all foreign militants to leave the country. The New York Times' take on the deal was that ""[t]he deal is widely viewed as a face-saving retreat for the Pakistani Army, which has taken a heavy battering at the hands of the mountain tribesmen and militants, who are allied with the Taliban and Al Qaeda."  It noted that the agreement was reached a day before a visit by President Musharraf to Afghanistan, who would present it as proof of Pakistan's effort to deal with militancy and terrorism.  The Washington Post took a more dismal view.  Noting that Presidents Musharaff and Karzai had been clashing "heatedly" over allegations that Taliban forces in Afghanistan were receiving support and shelter from inside Pakistan, the Post averred that the accord "aroused alarm" among some analysts in Afghanistan, who expressed concern that, whatever the militias promised, a Pakistani army withdrawal might backfire, emboldening militants to operate more freely in Pakistan and to infiltrate more aggressively into Afghanistan. After meeting with Karzai, Musharaff said the agreement with the NWA was intended to end attacks on Afghanistan and training or militant activity on both sides of the border: ''No militant activity, no training activity, they have accepted this. This is the bottom line of the peace agreement.''  Karzai was skeptical, saying "[l]et's see how it is going to be implemented and what will happen." His concern was well-founded—six months earlier, during a visit to Islamabad, Karzai presented Musharraf with an intelligence dossier on Taliban leaders who used Pakistan as a sanctuary. Musharraf dismissed the intelligence as out of date and ''nonsense.'' The day after his meeting with Karzai, Musharaff addressed the Afghan parliament.  In what the New York Times described as a "conciliatory speech," he conceded that Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents had been crossing the border into Afghanistan, denied that he or his government were backing them, and, in a major policy shift, pledged for the first time to seek out and destroy the command structure of insurgents linked to Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime. [...] [...] Earlier this month, an agreement was reached between Pakistan’s government and the North Waziristan Agency (NWA). Among other things, the NWA’s tribal leaders agreed to a cease-fire with the Pakistan army, not to allow native militants to cross the Afghanistan border, and to force all foreign militants to leave the country. The New York Times’ take on the deal was that ""[t]he deal is widely viewed as a face-saving retreat for the Pakistani Army, which has taken a heavy battering at the hands of the mountain tribesmen and militants, who are allied with the Taliban and Al Qaeda."  It noted that the agreement was reached a day before a visit by President Musharraf to Afghanistan, who would present it as proof of Pakistan’s effort to deal with militancy and terrorism.  The Washington Post took a more dismal view.  Noting that Presidents Musharaff and Karzai had been clashing "heatedly" over allegations that Taliban forces in Afghanistan were receiving support and shelter from inside Pakistan, the Post averred that the accord "aroused alarm" among some analysts in Afghanistan, who expressed concern that, whatever the militias promised, a Pakistani army withdrawal might backfire, emboldening militants to operate more freely in Pakistan and to infiltrate more aggressively into Afghanistan. After meeting with Karzai, Musharaff said the agreement with the NWA was intended to end attacks on Afghanistan and training or militant activity on both sides of the border: ‘’No militant activity, no training activity, they have accepted this. This is the bottom line of the peace agreement.’‘  Karzai was skeptical, saying "[l]et’s see how it is going to be implemented and what will happen." His concern was well-founded—six months earlier, during a visit to Islamabad, Karzai presented Musharraf with an intelligence dossier on Taliban leaders who used Pakistan as a sanctuary. Musharraf dismissed the intelligence as out of date and ‘’nonsense.’’ The day after his meeting with Karzai, Musharaff addressed the Afghan parliament.  In what the New York Times described as a "conciliatory speech," he conceded that Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents had been crossing the border into Afghanistan, denied that he or his government were backing them, and, in a major policy shift, pledged for the first time to seek out and destroy the command structure of insurgents linked to Afghanistan’s ousted Taliban regime. [...]

]]> By: Mushy signs “Peace Treaty”?! « The Blog of a Liberal Mugged by Reality http://americanfuture.net/?p=2174#comment-39618 Mushy signs “Peace Treaty”?! « The Blog of a Liberal Mugged by Reality Thu, 07 Sep 2006 17:51:06 +0000 http://americanfuture.net/?p=2174#comment-39618 [...] An eminent American blogger called Marc Schulman has this to say about the “treaty”. [...] [...] An eminent American blogger called Marc Schulman has this to say about the “treaty”. [...]

]]> By: rich http://americanfuture.net/?p=2174#comment-39333 rich Wed, 06 Sep 2006 16:34:56 +0000 http://americanfuture.net/?p=2174#comment-39333 This may be another exercise in taking options off the table by seeing if they work, and then, if they do not, trying something else. Austin Bay's column at Strategy Page tells us of a basic change on the ground in the Middle East. "Iraq's free elections and its new democratic government -- by design -- offer an alternative to the tyrants' and the terrorists' violent dynamic. Sept. 11 was an "asymmetric" terror attack on a "conventional" America. Iraq is "asymmetric" offensive political action led by America, an offensive designed to empower Middle Eastern societies that will police terror, not promote it. In July of this year, Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki appeared before a joint session of the U.S. Congress and said, "Iraqis are your allies in the war on terror." The violent dynamic isn't broken -- but Arab Muslims are now fighting for their own freedom. Five years after 9-11, that isn't a design, but a fact." http://www.strategypage.com/onpoint/articles/20069661547.asp This may be another exercise in taking options off the table by seeing if they work, and then, if they do not, trying something else.

Austin Bay’s column at Strategy Page tells us of a basic change on the ground in the Middle East.

“Iraq’s free elections and its new democratic government—by design—offer an alternative to the tyrants’ and the terrorists’ violent dynamic. Sept. 11 was an “asymmetric” terror attack on a “conventional” America. Iraq is “asymmetric” offensive political action led by America, an offensive designed to empower Middle Eastern societies that will police terror, not promote it.

In July of this year, Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki appeared before a joint session of the U.S. Congress and said, “Iraqis are your allies in the war on terror.”

The violent dynamic isn’t broken—but Arab Muslims are now fighting for their own freedom. Five years after 9-11, that isn’t a design, but a fact.”

http://www.strategypage.com/onpoint/articles/20069661547.asp

]]> By: Wayne http://americanfuture.net/?p=2174#comment-39301 Wayne Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:56:35 +0000 http://americanfuture.net/?p=2174#comment-39301 I am of the opnion that this is desigend to reduce conflict between the Pakistani security forces in Waziristan - who did not have control anyway - and our forces operating in Afghanistan. In other words, the area has just been declared a Free Fire Zone. Load up the B-52's at Diego and let's get to work. I am of the opnion that this is desigend to reduce conflict between the Pakistani security forces in Waziristan – who did not have control anyway – and our forces operating in Afghanistan.

In other words, the area has just been declared a Free Fire Zone. Load up the B-52’s at Diego and let’s get to work.

]]> By: The Glittering Eye » Blog Archive » The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan? http://americanfuture.net/?p=2174#comment-39294 The Glittering Eye » Blog Archive » The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan? Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:06:17 +0000 http://americanfuture.net/?p=2174#comment-39294 [...] Marc Schulman of American Future has an excellent media round-up. [...] [...] Marc Schulman of American Future has an excellent media round-up. [...]

]]>