Pervez Musharraf, who ruled Pakistan for nearly nine years, was forced to resign Monday in the face of moves by the recently elected coalition government to impeach him.

Musharraf’s resignation has been a long time coming. He was forced to give up control over the military and then the government over the alst 9 months since the Bhutto assasination.


Commanders from Afghan, Pakistani and NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) forces have agreed to work together to wipe out militant sanctuaries in the region. The Kuwait News Agency  reported Aug. 20, citing an ISAF statement that indicates  Afghan commander Gen. Bismullah Khan, Pakistani army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani and ISAF Commander Gen. David McKiernan made the agreement at a security meeting in Kabul. The statement calls the meeting

a step toward a common approach to combating insurgents in the region, and says the three commanders agreed to hold talks on a regular basis.

The question becomes has this war already spread to Pakistan?

In a country in which the ISI has ties to both sides,who is the new US ally in charge, and to what extent have McCain and Obama been briefed?

12 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Laughing Boy says:

    With a wave of his hand the seas will lower and Militant Muslims will have a change of heart.

    I think as long as we keep Pakistan out of the loop as to what we’re doing in Pakistan, we’ll be pretty successful.

    Look at the pred strikes just of the last few weeks.  We got Zawahiri’s protector last week.  

  2. Danny the Red (hair) says:

    Candidates do not recieve “presidential briefings” until after the convention when they are the official nominee (not just presumptive).

    Obama has highlighted Pakistan as the central front for years.

    I believe the war against al qaeda and the taliban has always been centered in pakistan.

    The ISI is unreliable at best.  Personally I think if the Quds force is on the terror list (they do support terrorists) then the ISI should be on the terror list as well.

    Between what’s going on in Kashmir and the ISI’s past (present?) support for the taliban we should be pushing pakistan to choose which path they want to be on.

    Pushing them shouldn’t be public, it never pays to embaress an ally (or even an adversary without good reason), but quite  diplomacy, and conditional carrots, could pay great dividends.

    Problem is, good diplomacy takes commitment and time and we have wasted 8 years weakening our foriegn service.

    I was hopeful that no matter what, things would be better with Bush gone, but watching McCain’s empty bluster regarding Georgia I am no longer certain.  

    Bellicose language without backing it up endangers our security, because it makes it harder to jawbone other countries who decide we are all talk.

    On the other hand McCain has demanded nothing from Pakistan to help fight al qaeda in pakistan and rooting out terror sympathizers in the ISI.  We actually have levers over Pakistan as opposed to the Russians.

    • Laughing Boy says:

      Here’s a link regarding the embassy attack the ISI was busted on.

      Our foreign service is a political animal.  It needs a good house cleaning.

    • redstateblues says:

      First Georgia, and now the next target is Poland? Would an attack on a NATO ally mean WWIII?

    • Laughing Boy says:

      Obama has highlighted Pakistan as the central front for years.

      I believe the war against al qaeda and the taliban has always been centered in pakistan.

      That’s nice, but Osama has highlighted Iraq.

      WHen we went to the surge, it allowed us to be much more aggressive toward AQ, enlist and empower the Sunnis who didn’t like AQ to go after them, and now, they are almost totally defeated in Iraq.

      No matter what you thought of the reasons to go to war there, Iraq has been a disaster (an actual one, not a media one) for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

      • Danny the Red (hair) says:

        the Iraqis have always been secular nationalists for the most part.  The tribal sunni’s and and baathists made common cause with foriegn fighters, but there was never much of an idigigenous al qaeda presence.

        Iraq has been a triumph for al qaeda.  They were never there before we invaded.  Iraq 1. taught them how to fight us 2. allowed al qaeda to rebuild the real center of their operation on the A/P border 3. eroded our moral authority 4. weakened our relationships with allies 5. was a fundraising/recruiting boom for al qaeda.

        Once the Sunnis turned on al qaeda (which happened before the “surge”) it was over for al qaeda in Iraq.  The Sunnis turned because of AQI’s maffia tactics and the fact that Iraqi’s don’t want to live under strict sharia.   The surge helped, but it wasn’t the determanitive factor: the anbar awakening was.

        As to what is the central front.  I know you take what Binladen says as truth, but in case you are unfamiliar, in war there is often misdirection.  Ol’ hitler thought the invasion of Normandy was a feint because we had so thoroughly convinced the Nazi’s we were going to hit Calais.  

        • Laughing Boy says:

          There’s been an almost 90% drop in violence since the soldiers actually arrived in Iraq and we started the change in tactics.  There was no perceptable drop from the awakening between November and the beginning of operations in May/June.

          The Awakening was made possible by the surge, not the other way around.

          Calais was tactical misdirection.  Bin Laden made a colossal strategic blunder and AQ’s almost complete defeat in Iraq has been a disaster to them.

          • Yokel says:

            The Anbar Awakening and the Surge are one and the same – They’re basically two elements of the Petraeus counterinsurgency strategy.

            Iraq was basically a neutral field for the US/al Qaeda showdown.  Al Qaeda got crushed.  It was after Iraq, not after Afghanistan, that they lost the ability to operate on a global level.  

            I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – al Qaeda as a global entity has been defeated.  What needs to be done in Afghanistan and Waziristan isn’t against al Qaeda or Osama, but against the Taliban.  They are not one and the same.  The Taliban is a regional group that only allied with Osama out of convenience, and now Osama and al Qaeda aren’t exactly bringing anything to the table for them.

          • Barron X says:


            Just for the sake of discussion, let’s pretend that our military has been fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq.  

            People who understand the military don’t believe that 200 – 300 nut jobs could tie up 55,000 US combat troops and 60,000 Mercenaries on the US payroll,

            but let’s pretend that’s who we’ve been fighting.

            Now that we are declaring military victory over a rag-tag street gang,

            what possible reason could there be for us to stay ?  

            Fear that those 200 al-Qaeda fighters we defeated might be replaced by another 200 ?

            That’s a job for the Iraqi Police,

            and does not require the most formidable fighting force in the world.  

            We are staying in Iraq today …

            because we were there yesterday.


            No other reason.  

            When we get someone who cares about US national security as President,

            which could happen next January,

            we ought to pull out immediately.  

            Not in 16 months, either.  

            16 weeks is plenty.  


    • Ray Springfield says:

      As much as the pro war/surge/escalation supporters don’t want to admit, they have no idea how unstable iraq wuld become with a draw down of troops.

      The Taliban control almost half of Afghanistan, which the mainstream news media fails to report.

      If Obama assigns new brigades into Afghanistan, isn’t this a role reversal for a resurgent Russia to arm the insurgents?Same problem exists for McCain.

      Cental Asia is descending into chaos.

      How will a US economy on the brink of collapse finance this never ending mess?

      • Laughing Boy says:

        DO you really believe that?

        • Ray Springfield says:

          Check out Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. Wachovia and 17 other banks that the SEC forbid naked shorts from hitting for a month while congress was given time to pass the legislation guaranteeing the preferred and bond holders for over 5 trillion in debt.

          When the deriviatives are factored in, It’s a chilling thought.

          The dollar has rebounded somewhat lately due to the EU central banks raising interest rates, and oil has floated near 110 in the futures markets, so there may be hope for survival. At least 150 banks are projected to fail.

          GM,Chrysler, and Ford are all near bankruptcy.  Still Oil’s trend is further up. I believe the price may be played with to attempt to support McCain in the fall, but most analysts believe oil will reaach and stay at about 140 a year from now.

          The defict is close to 10 trillion.

          Both McCain or Obama will have to raise taxes.

          The war effort I don’t believe can be sustained.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.