Pakistan: “It never pays killing civilians”
Published: 29 October, 2009, 04:06
Edited: 31 October, 2009, 04:52
A Pakistani man runs past burning shops at a market following a deadly car bomb blast in Peshawar on October 28, 2009 (AFP Photo / A Majeed)
(23.9Mb) embed videoTAGS: Military, Terrorism, Central Asia
There is a cause and effect in destabilized Pakistan that nobody in the US seems to understand, argues Ivan Eland, a defense analyst at the Independent Institute.
“The [bombings] do not have that much effect on Obama’s decision, but he is probably going to increase the troops – it is just a question of how much, but even 41,000 is not enough,” said Eland. “During the Vietnam War, we had over 530,000 troops versus 100,000 North Vietnamese Vietkong. So you need that kind of ratio in counterinsurgency warfare.”
“There is a difference between Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Taliban,” Eland explained. “The Taliban usually hits military targets, unlike Al Qaeda in Iraq… It does not usually go very well if it just starts randomly killing civilians…. Al-Qaeda in Iraq has not focused on that and has lost a lot of support and the same may happen in Pakistan if the Taliban starts blowing up markets. In military terms it never pays killing civilians.”
“It will cause the Pakistani population to support the army more and go after these people [that blow up markets with women and children].”
29.10.2009, 02:20
4 comments
Obama overheated in the positive spotlight of pressThe Washington press has really given President Barack Obama an easy go since he arrived in town, argues Politico reporter Josh Gerstein, who has talked to political operatives and former administration officials. |
29.10.2009, 15:18
1 comment
Russian diplomacy cools Iran’s nuclear ambitions – but for how long?Iran says it is ready to accept a proposal for its nuclear program that demands Tehran send its low-enriched uranium to Russia for processing. Should the global community feel more at ease? |
This guy is a simpleton! US didn't control Vietnam by adding that many troops. They only increased targets of opportunity and killed more and more people in the country that didn't want them there. As for Al Qaida, everyone knows it is CIA, but main stream media. They lost support which was the point! They make Iraqis need American support which is America's agenda to stay there. In Afghanistan, Soviet Union, Britain, and many before increased troop numbers and that didn't help either. The advice of this man would lead to disaster. Wouldn't expect someone better than out of a monkey cage to be advising Washington on matters.
So, the people are going to ask for protection. And who will be the guarantor of the security in the country? Who benefits and who looses from such large scale civilian mayhem? It seems that Hillary Clinton is convinced that she is the beneficiary. Based on her speaches and statements, she is convinced that only the course mapped out by US in Pakistan is open. Pakistan has no alternative, but to choose between the mayham and chaos, and US. As one German diplomat put it, for Western Europe, it is "US or Chaos", and for the rest of the world it is "US and Chaos". The problem is, people often forget that not that long time ago during the rule of "bad" Musharaff, their only problem was the election. Lawyers were marching wanting more democracy. Now, they have just what they asked for. Mr. Democracy has come to power, and has the solution. So far, he has managed to bring death, destruction, and millions of refugees. This is what happens when one forgets that the bird in hand is always more valuable then the bird in the bush.