It is also one of those situations where if the accusation is made, you had better have the hard evidence to back it up. This is even more important for us now after all of the well-documented lies perpetrated by the Bush Administration regarding the threats and activities by Saddam Hussein in particular [a drop in the bucket as it turns out for Bu$hie lying], because our credibility is shot in that part of the world.

Understand also that our recent overtures to India on trade and other matters is seen by Pakistan as an insult. India remains their mortal enemy.

Good for Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar. She was very impressive, and I’m sure that she reflects the thoughts of many Pakistanis. The US had better listen and take her words seriously. There needs to be a comprehensive review of Operation Enduring Freedom.

This is a crazy relationship the US has, allying with a country (Pakistan) that is supporting US enemies in Afghanistan where the US is promoting the fortunes Pakistan’s mortal enemy India, and then complaining that Pakistan isn’t doing US bidding. It’s nuts but the US does it anyhow.

Russia, China and India must think the US policy is too good to be true, because it benefits all of them while it does harm does to the US.

in other news, acording to a recent army report:

The incidence of dismounted complex blast injuries has increased during the last 15 months of combat in the Afghanistan Theater of Operations (ATO). The number of Service Members with triple limb amputation has nearly doubled this past year from the sum of all those seen over the last eight years of combat. The number of genital injuries increased significantly from previous OIF rates.

The ATO’s most dramatic changes in 2010 were the increased numbers of bilateral thigh amputations, triple and quadruple amputations, and associated genital injuries…IED explosions on dismounted patrols caused the large majority of these injuries, with traumatic amputation of at least one, and often both, lower extremities. It wasn’t uncommon for these amputations to have accompanying GU injuries, penetrating pelvic and abdominal trauma, and an upper extremity amputation or severe injury…When those who sustained major lower limb amputations were matched with those who also sustained genital injuries, the correlation approached 90%.

Post-traumatic stress (PTS) and TBI still play a significant role and add complexity and challenges to the rehabilitation and reintegration of these Warriors.

At the risk of exposing my ignorance, it seems that Haqqani + PK + nukes = trouble.

I don’t fault Petraeus one bit.
This appears to be lethal.

Between reading about PK/ISI involvement in that horrendous Mumbai massacre, along with OBL living near their military college for years, it’s interesting to watch the layers getting peeled off this onion.

@Bob Schacht:
China has long had a close military relationship with China including military equipment.

@readerOfTeaLeaves:
I’ll agree it’s lethal, but do we really need to be there and incite the locals with the not-totally-accurate drone strikes?

Don, for years Pakistan was the US ally in the region, we used Karachi a lot. India was the Soviet counterweight. But, you are correct in pointing out that the Chinese government is exploiting the situation. I wouldn’t be surprised to see their hands involved in creating wedges.

@rosalind: Not quite O/T; sounds like Obama’s reelection chances.

How are you guys doing?

Jim another great posting & your as usual right for the most part, but you guys are missing the crucial part of ADM mullens testimony

Keyword: Kashmir
Now you can pretty much read a lot into those words therefor ill give you some pointers
nukes:
Iran(jerusalem), Pakistan, India see also new start and beyond. AQ (who we know whants to aquire nuklear material)i found this blog that states that the AFGH president just murdered just got back from Iran (dunno if it checks out though)

http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2011/09/23/who-killed-burhanuddin-rabbani/

pls note mondus operandi

Pls also note in Hellmand they found “aluminum powder” thats the trademark of a pro (se its reaktions to water)

Pipelines, NATO southern supply route,

Knowing marcy and the rest of the gang here at EW that should be well enough to squise ½ the world secrets out of any administration

Have fun and give em’ hell marcy

More OT – Via a story in The Guardian comes this:

The UK approach to unmanned aircraft systems. (102 page PDF)

And even more OT (or not), via the White House, John Brennan’s remarks at the Harvard Law School, September 16, 2011:

Strengthening our Security by Adhering to our Values and Laws

And a sample of the GWOT policies expressed:

“…An area in which there is some disagreement is the geographic scope of the conflict. The United States does not view our authority to use military force against al-Qa’ida as being restricted solely to “hot” battlefields like Afghanistan. Because we are engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qa’ida, the United States takes the legal position that —in accordance with international law—we have the authority to take action against al-Qa’ida and its associated forces without doing a separate self-defense analysis each time. And as President Obama has stated on numerous occasions, we reserve the right to take unilateral action if or when other governments are unwilling or unable to take the necessary actions themselves.

That does not mean we can use military force whenever we want, wherever we want. International legal principles, including respect for a state’s sovereignty and the laws of war, impose important constraints on our ability to act unilaterally—and on the way in which we can use force—in foreign territories.

Others in the international community—including some of our closest allies and partners—take a different view of the geographic scope of the conflict, limiting it only to the “hot” battlefields. As such, they argue that, outside of these two active theatres, the United States can only act in self-defense against al-Qa’ida when they are planning, engaging in, or threatening an armed attack against U.S. interests if it amounts to an “imminent” threat.

In practice, the U.S. approach to targeting in the conflict with al-Qa’ida is far more aligned with our allies’ approach than many assume. This Administration’s counterterrorism efforts outside of Afghanistan and Iraq are focused on those individuals who are a threat to the United States, whose removal would cause a significant – even if only temporary – disruption of the plans and capabilities of al-Qa’ida and its associated forces. Practically speaking, then, the question turns principally on how you define “imminence.”

We are finding increasing recognition in the international community that a more flexible understanding of “imminence” may be appropriate when dealing with terrorist groups, in part because threats posed by non-state actors do not present themselves in the ways that evidenced imminence in more traditional conflicts. After all, al-Qa’ida does not follow a traditional command structure, wear uniforms, carry its arms openly, or mass its troops at the borders of the nations it attacks. Nonetheless, it possesses the demonstrated capability to strike with little notice and cause significant civilian or military casualties. Over time, an increasing number of our international counterterrorism partners have begun to recognize that the traditional conception of what constitutes an “imminent” attack should be broadened in light of the modern-day capabilities, techniques, and technological innovations of terrorist organizations.

The convergence of our legal views with those of our international partners matters. The effectiveness of our counterterrorism activities depends on the assistance and cooperation of our allies—who, in ways public and private, take great risks to aid us in this fight. But their participation must be consistent with their laws, including their interpretation of international law. Again, we will never abdicate the security of the United States to a foreign country or refrain from taking action when appropriate. But we cannot ignore the reality that cooperative counterterrorism activities are a key to our national defense. The more our views and our allies’ views on these questions converge, without constraining our flexibility, the safer we will be as a country…”

@matt carmody:
Yah, but Obama doesn’t have a TV deal with Fox.

@bmaz:

Hope you have a segment on the disloyalty
of Curt Schilling.
Along with Clemens, he’s a typical Republican dickhead.
Spahn and Sain and pray for rain?

I don’t think it’s nice to highjack Jim’s thread with sports crap.

@Bay State Librul:
I think Jim doesn’t want his threads highjacked, so there. And whatever he thinks, I’ll bark about it when it happens ‘cuz he’s my favorite EW diarist in the whole world especially when he agrees with me which is amazingly and inexplicably often.

Now excuse me, I have to go to bmaz and spout off some war stuff. Baseball is so booooring.

@readerOfTeaLeaves: I think there are interests in Pakistan which don’t really want us or Zardari interfering with their profit-making and there are political interests which would like to see a mess develop which they can blame on Obama.

American policy has been to cooperate with Zardari and that has generally gone well. But, the opponents of Zardari and Obama want trouble and they’re good at creating it.

Frankly, if there are people who want trouble, then they would be very lucky to avoid it arriving at their own door. Sadly, this can refer also to people in many parts of the world far from Pakistan.