Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Grim Assessment of Pakistan by NIE

  1. #1

    Grim Assessment of Pakistan by NIE

    [QUOTE][SIZE="3"][B]New intelligence report says Pakistan is 'on the edge'[/B][/SIZE]
    Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott | McClatchy Newspapers
    last updated: October 14, 2008 07:51:41 PM


    WASHINGTON [B]A growing al Qaida-backed insurgency, combined with the Pakistani army's reluctance to launch an all-out crackdown, political infighting and energy and food shortages are plunging America's key ally in the war on terror deeper into turmoil and violence, says a soon-to-be completed U.S. intelligence assessment.[/B]
    A U.S. official who participated in drafting the top secret National Intelligence Estimate said it [B]portrays the situation in Pakistan as "very bad." Another official called the draft "very bleak," and said it describes Pakistan as being "on the edge."[/B]
    The first official summarized the estimate's conclusions about the state of Pakistan as:[B] "no money, no energy, no government."[/B]

    Six U.S. officials who helped draft or are aware of the document's findings confirmed them to McClatchy on the condition of anonymity because NIEs are top secret and are restricted to the president, senior officials and members of Congress. An NIE's conclusions reflect the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.

    The NIE on Pakistan, along with others being prepared on Afghanistan and Iraq, will underpin a "strategic assessment" of the situation that Army Gen. David Petraeus, who's about to take command of all U.S. forces in the region, has requested. The aim of the assessment seven years after the U.S. sent troops into Afghanistan is to determine whether a U.S. presence in the region can be effective and if so what U.S. strategy should be.

    The findings also are intended to support the Bush administration's effort to recommend the resources the next president will need for Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan at a time the economic crisis is straining the Treasury and inflating the federal budget deficit.

    The [B]Afghanistan estimate warns that additional American troops are urgently needed there and that Islamic extremists who enjoy safe haven in Pakistan pose a growing threat to the U.S.-backed government of Afghan Prime Minister Hamid Karzai.[/B]

    The Iraq NIE is more cautious about the prospects for stability there than the Bush administration and either John McCain or Barack Obama have been, and it raises serious questions about whether the U.S. will be able to redeploy a significant number of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan anytime soon.

    Together, the three NIEs suggest that [B]without significant and swift progress on all three fronts which they suggest is uncertain at best the U.S. could find itself facing a growing threat from al Qaida and other Islamic extremist groups, said one of the officials.[/B]
    About the only good news in the Pakistan NIE is that it's "relatively sanguine" about the prospects of a Pakistani nuclear weapon, materials or knowledge falling into the hands of terrorists, said one official.

    However, the draft NIE paints a grim picture of the situation in the impoverished, nuclear-armed country of 160 million, according to the U.S. officials who spoke to McClatchy.

    The estimate says that the Islamist insurgency based in the Federally Administered Tribal Area bordering Afghanistan, the suspected safe haven of Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, is intensifying.

    However, according to the officials, the draft also finds that [B]the Pakistani military is reluctant to launch an all-out campaign against the Islamists in part because of popular opposition to continuing the cooperation with the U.S. that began under Pervez Musharraf, the U.S.-backed former president, after the 9/11 attacks.[/B]
    [B]Anti-U.S. and anti-government sentiments have grown recently, stoked by stepped-up cross-border U.S. missile strikes and at least one commando raid on suspected terrorist targets in the FATA that reportedly have resulted in civilian deaths[/B].

    The Pakistani military, which has lost hundreds of troops to battles and suicide bombings, is waging offensives against Islamist guerrillas in the Bajaur tribal agency and Swat, a picturesque region of the North West Frontier Province bordering Afghanistan. U.S. officials said insurgent attacks on Pakistani security forces provoked the Pakistani army operations.

    The Pakistan general staff also remains concerned about what it considers an ongoing threat to its eastern border from its traditional foe, India, the draft NIE finds, according to the U.S. officials.

    For these reasons, they said, the army chief of staff, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, wants the new civilian coalition government of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani to provide the military with political cover by blessing a major anti-insurgency crackdown.

    However, the ruling coalition, in which President Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of the late prime minister Benazir Bhutto, holds the real authority, has been preoccupied by other matters, according to the draft NIE.

    These include efforts to consolidate its power after winning a struggle that prompted its main rival, the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, to leave the ruling coalition.

    [B]Moreover, widespread anti-U.S. anger has left the coalition deeply divided over whether to unleash a major military assault on the Islamists, the U.S. officials said.[/B]

    [B]The government is also facing an accelerating economic crisis that includes food and energy shortages, escalating fuel costs, a sinking currency and a massive flight of foreign capital accelerated by the escalating insurgency, the NIE warns.[/B]

    The Pakistani public is clamoring for relief as the crisis pushes millions more into poverty, giving insurgent groups more opportunities to recruit young Pakistanis.

    (Warren P. Strobel and Nancy A. Youssef contributed to this article.)
    [url]http://www.mcclatchydc.com/nationalsecurity/v-print/story/53926.html[/url][/QUOTE]


    Wow!! This is some really scary stuff. Especially since Pakistan already is a nuclear power. The solution, i dont think, is a purely military one. Extremism breeds on economic desperation and Pakistan is definitely in desperate times. With our economy taking such a hit, im not sure how much we could do. We have to be very careful as to who we are friends with in that region. Strongly backing a ruthless unpopular dictator such as Musharaf was not a very wise thing to do (despite what mcCain thinks). He was weak within his country and was not very trustworthy as he played all sides in an attempt to stay in power. When will we learn that backing unpopular dictators is not in our long term interest?? I only hope the next president has the intellectual curiosity and good judgement that our leaders did not have the last 8 years. Pakistan needs to be treated with great care.

  2. #2
    So what is your favored course of action then Ken? Economic Aid and what else?

  3. #3
    non-intervention is the only practical way out of this. By that I mean consciously commit to shut the military bases around the world, bring the troops home from all 130 countries, and mind our own business.

    If you want to "spread democracy" or whatever send your paycheck to whatever country you want to.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=JetsCrazey;2806158]non-intervention is the only practical way out of this. By that I mean consciously commit to shut the military bases around the world, bring the troops home from all 130 countries, and mind our own business.

    If you want to "spread democracy" or whatever send your paycheck to whatever country you want to.[/QUOTE]

    And you don't see any possible problems or issues down the road from an isolationism foreign policy then, eh?

    So, are you claiming that if we leave the rest of the world alone, they will for all time leave us alone then?

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2806148]So what is your favored course of action then Ken? Economic Aid and what else?[/QUOTE]

    If i had an answer i would be running for president.

    With the Pakistani people having such anti-American sentiment , i think military intervention would be last on my list.

    I think we can not go at this alone. Economic aid, assitance withdevelopment is surely the first step. Supporting the democratic process is the next step. Once you can get support, not only from the leaders but from the Pakistanis (you know winning hearts and minds) then you can put forward proposals for a joint Pakistani/USA intervention in taking on AQ and extremists. But the key in Pakistan is who has the support of the Pakistani Army and we have to ensure that the elected government gets all the help from us that it needs in order to succeed. That means we must help them out economically. Can it be done? Im not sure we are in the position to do that right now. But what i am sure of is that if we continue to piss off the Pakistani people with our military crossing into their border uninvited and accidentally killing civilians in the Afghani/Pakistan border, we will never have their support

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,793
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2806174]And you don't see any possible problems or issues down the road from an isolationism foreign policy then, eh?[/QUOTE]

    What the hell difference does it make? Someone once thought is was a good idea to give the Afghans shoulder fired missiles and teach them guerrilla tactics to fight an overwhelmingly superior occupying force. That worked out well for us. To hell with isolationism...I want my kids to reap the rotten deadly fruit we have sown...

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2806174]And you don't see any possible problems or issues down the road from an isolationism foreign policy then, eh?

    So, are you claiming that if we leave the rest of the world alone, they will for all time leave us alone then?[/QUOTE]

    Wake up. All the foreign policy problems we have today is because of interventionism and militarism by America and England (centers of the bankster empire).

    Was it Albert Einstein who said that insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting a different result?

    The only way you reduce this parasitic ideology of terrorism is to stop meddling where the parasites are located. Without a host, they will die.
    Last edited by JetsCrazey; 10-15-2008 at 05:39 PM.

  8. #8
    If they hate us they will hate us no matter what we do.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;2806212]If they hate us they will hate us no matter what we do.[/QUOTE]

    this is the irrational premise many Americans operate on.
    [U]Feelings and emotions are not static!
    [/U]

    Russia was our supposed "Ally" in 1942. What happened less than a decade later?

    And who is "they?" Terrorists? By intervening there you just create more of them. It is beyond idiotic to think we can squash these terrorists through intervention.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    damn... I was in a good mood, then I read this thread and now I'm bummed

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    22,105
    This is definately scary stuff.

    The thing is, Pakistan, as of yet, does not have missles that can reach US territories BUT it has missles that can reach NATO allies. Thus, NATO should be in the forefront of this as they are, essentially, on the front line of attack. Israel should be included in that as they are on the frontline.

    The bottom line for me, in the time being, is to make sure that Pakistan does not develop ICBMs that can reach the US. Also, there has to be a way to deal with stray nukes and any nuke sales. I don't get paid the big bucks to figure it out, but the US government and NATO allies better damn well figure it out.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=JetsCrazey;2806158]non-intervention is the only practical way out of this. By that I mean consciously commit to shut the military bases around the world, bring the troops home from all 130 countries, and mind our own business.

    If you want to "spread democracy" or whatever send your paycheck to whatever country you want to.[/QUOTE]


    I agree. We need to stop babysitting every country in the world. It has cost the US Trillions to be a nanny to all

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;2807439]I agree. We need to stop babysitting every country in the world. It has cost the US Trillions to be a nanny to all[/QUOTE]

    So your saying you support withdrawing Anti-HIV, Anti-poverty and Anti-starvation aid and support from Africa then?

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Dallas Via Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    3,159
    So you guys are saying you didnt see this coming 7 years ago ? We go into Afganistan the taliban with Al Queda in Tow scramble into Pakistan. Pakistan does nothing short of Harbor these guys and now a country with armed ballistic Missiles is in turmoil ? What happened to Bushs declaration if you harbor terror you are our enemy ? Do they get the same ****ing pass Saudi Arabia has gotten the past 20 freakin years ? Or is all of this what I have been becoming more and more suspicious of , An all out lie by the entire Bush Administration. Are these Guys always making a better case for the conspiracy theorists every single day they are in office ? Nothing they say is true its all a big cluster **** and were the Idiots who have to believe them ?

    This administration wants to blow up Iran who is 5 + years from being any type of threat at all yet we stand by and watch as the so called enemy takes over (or will take over ) pakistan. What a ****ing Joke.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Dallas Via Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    3,159
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2806174]And you don't see any possible problems or issues down the road from an isolationism foreign policy then, eh?

    So, are you claiming that if we leave the rest of the world alone, they will for all time leave us alone then?[/QUOTE]

    Do you think were so involed around the world to help save it and keep the peace ? We seem to be involved in every problem there is maybe the world is getting sick of us and our way of handleing their affairs

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2807445]So your saying you support withdrawing Anti-HIV, Anti-poverty and Anti-starvation aid and support from Africa then?[/QUOTE]

    I support people giving their own money to fight these causes as a moral obligation
    I do not support government using coercion to take a predetermined amount of my money to give to giant bureaucracies of their choosing. Such a course of action is indicative of an apathetic and immoral society that deserves to go under

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Dallas Via Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    3,159
    [QUOTE=JetsCrazey;2807506]I support people giving their own money to fight these causes as a moral obligation
    I do not support government using coercion to take a predetermined amount of my money to give to giant bureaucracies of their choosing. Such a course of action is indicative of an apathetic and immoral society that deserves to go under[/QUOTE]



    :clapper:

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=JetsCrazey;2807506]I support people giving their own money to fight these causes as a moral obligation
    I do not support government using coercion to take a predetermined amount of my money to give to giant bureaucracies of their choosing. Such a course of action is indicative of an apathetic and immoral society that deserves to go under[/QUOTE]

    Are you saying America deserves to go under?

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Dallas Via Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    3,159
    [QUOTE=Roger Vick;2807541]Are you saying America deserves to go under?[/QUOTE]

    Maybe you should re read his post /

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=Smashmouth;2807545]Maybe you should re read his post /[/QUOTE]

    I read it a couple of times before I posted.

    But thank you for your advice.

    Maybe you should let him answer.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us