ABOUT HARDBLOGGER

Hardblogger delivers opinions and analysis on the latest political news by MSNBC anchors, correspondents, analysts and contributors. Whenever news breaks, Hardblogger will break it down, so check in often.

Hardball with Chris Matthews airs weeknights on MSNBC.



Pakistan, Do you remember Cambodia 1970?

Posted: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:26 AM by Hardball

On April 30, 1970, President Richard Nixon announced that U.S. troops had begun the invasion of Cambodia, accusing the Southeast Asian nation of allowing North Vietnamese forces to use the country as a transit route and safe haven for its units operating in neighboring South Vietnam. After years of watching the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese using both Laos and Cambodia in this manner, American military commanders requested permission to chase the enemy into these neighboring countries. In 1970, Cambodia lost its “off limits” status.

Let’s fast forward to present day Afghanistan. The U.S. invasion (Operation Enduring Freedom) shortly following the attacks on the United States by al-Qaeda terrorists on Sept. 11, 2001, removed the Taliban-led government of the country and forced al-Qaeda to head for the mountains. After being cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, most of the surviving al-Qaeda fighters fled to neighboring Pakistan, specifically to the federally administered tribal areas and the Pushtun provinces of North Waziristan and South Waziristan (where Islamabad exercises little authority).

Pakistani efforts to expel al-Qaeda from these areas have met with strong resistance from the local tribes, to the extent that in late 2006, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf struck a deal with the tribal leaders that he would maintain Islamabad’s “hands off” policy toward the area in return for the Pushtun leaders’ commitment to stop al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters from crossing the border into and out of Afghanistan.

That agreement was a farce. Al-Qaeda has effectively reconstituted itself in the tribal area, particularly in the Waziristans. Taliban fighters routinely use the area as a safe haven from pursuing American forces; they know full well that Pakistan has refused U.S. troops the right of “hot pursuit” to enter Pakistan. Pakistani forces will not confront the Taliban fighters.

Sounds just like Cambodia 1970.

Vice President Dick Cheney recently visited Pakistan with intelligence reports that indicate the level of al-Qaeda and Taliban activity in Pakistan on the Afghanistan border. Pakistani officials’ responses vary from claims that they are doing all they can to there is no al-Qaeda nor Taliban presence in their country.

Removing the Pakistan safe haven is critical to achieving success in Afghanistan and the larger global war on terror. At some point, the United States is going to tire of Pakistan’s seeming inability or apparent unwillingness to address the problem, and take it upon itself to resolve it, regardless of the risk to the longevity of the Musharraf government.

I’d say that time has come.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

What ever else we do we must consider that it took five million soldiers to defeat and occupy Germany during and after WWII. Technology cannot occupy a country, so what has changed to make this administration thing that 10 or 20,000 will work?
Rick F. Has it so correct! I agree with him.
Rick F. I think President Bush should listen to you.
The solution is a simple one. Get our forces the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I am fed up with the stupidity of people who think we can be successful in a terroristic war in far off lands where our enemy can come and go as they please and hide among the general population. My God, did we not learn our lesson in Vietnam, France's lesson in Vietnam, the lesson of Russia's experience in Afghanistan, and on and on and on. Can anyone explain to me why those who get us into these kinds of actions are so stupid.
oh, the time has come, has it? because expanding the war of vietnam into cambodia worked so well? bombing that nation and moving troops led to pol pot and further murder and mayhem at the hands of a dictator. taking matters into our own hands didn't work then and it won't work now. what the pakistani leadership needs to see is that it is in their best interest to either void that agreement or allow nato incursions into that area so as to disrupt the taliban's base of support and operations. unilateral action will destablilize the current dictator, who I admit is playing both sides. but at this point, I say better the devil you know than the one you don't. we can work with the current leadership. new leadership may only play one side, and we may not like which side it is.
the situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate. doesn't matter who is in charge (nato or u.s), but rather the fortitude of the local populace itself. Been there many times and until we can convince the locals that it is in their best interest to stand up to al-Qaeda (which most do not believe that), then we are engaged in an ever precarious situation. One of my biggest complaints last time I was there was the true lack of qualified locals to carry out the fight. It might be time that we put some hard qualifiers in place that will require the locals to defend themselves - rather than with nato and u.s blood.
I would urge the readers to read the following article titled "Caught between the Yanks & the Taliban" http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm
Excellent analogy Rick, now let's see how the Laos/Cambodia situation played itself out, both nations' economies, infrastructure and social fabric was destroyed, the expanded war only accelerated our exit from Vietnam. Rick, by expanding the war to Pakistan you are going to expand the war to the whole Pashtun population, Pakistan has 25 million Pashtuns of which many have military training. Pakistan has been a stalwart ally of the US since it's independence; and people in Pakistan still remember the last time the US ditched Pakistan, leaving Pakistan to contend with the mess in Afghanaistan and imposing sanctions on Pakistan.
American military power has been so successful in Iraq and Afghanistan(?!), that the US can now afford to invade and fight a third war simultaneously in Pakistan. If the above is the assertion of Mr Francona, I wonder how he ever rose to the rank of colonel!
hi, just an observation. pakistan probably has in excess of 200 nukes including thermonuclear. china has a long standing strategic partnership with pakistan similar to us and uk. what makes you think that 25000 us troops who cannot defeat bare footed, un educated taliban using 50 year old assault rifles in afghanistan will be so overwhelmingly successful in against one probably two nuclear powers?
Nonsense. The tribal areas of Pakistan --and Waziristan in particular-- are extremely inhospitable both in terms of geography and population. The Bush administration has never been terribly concerned about diplomatic niceties, international treaties, conventions, etc. If the administration thought they had the means to successfully take on the Taliban in the tribal areas they would have already done so. Musharraf can do precious little here either. The reason he struck such a lame deal with the tribal leaders is because he knows how little leverage he has....
Spoken like a military man...short sighted and full of force...what Rick F. doesn't mention is that unlike Cambodia Pakistan is nuclear power and can raise the US current casualties from 3000 to 50000 with a press of a button.
What was that about ignoring history and repeating history? We didn't learn from Vietnam when we had the arrogance to attempt regime change in Iraq. We didn't learn from the hate South America has for the USA thanks to 20 different operations which underminded governments in that region. The USA should stop meddling, or one day the whole world will rise against us.
Lt. Col Rick Francona: Please watch the movie "The Killing Fields" and see what mass human destruction the U.S. set in motion by its invasion of Cambodia resulting in the genocide of millions of innocent people. And you are advocating the same for Pakistan? We should let the Afghans take charge of their own country and leave.
Wars are no solution to this problem. We cant even overcome the issues facing in Iraq and Afghanistan while talking about another invasion of a soverign nation. Pakistanis are not only Pashtoons. They have three other major provinces and have opposition to Al-qaida and terrorism in general. The lawless tribal belt (FATA areas) are not even 10% of the country. Pak has population of 150 million, have a well equipped army and nuclear bombs; Attack will be the final nail in the Great U.S empire's coffin and start of 3rd world war in the reigon.
Just to make it a little clearer. Pakistan's ISI is pretty powerful in terms of what it can and can't do with Taliban. They were the one's running the show in Afghanistan before 9/11, and a good bit of there manpower is allied with the Taliban. I urge people to do there research on this. Another fact Pakistan Controlled Kashmir has terror camp. If the US and the world wish to find some of the most important al-Qaida members this would be the place to start looking. The "Freedom Fighters" as they are noted in Pakistan are supported by funds from Pakistan government and training by al-Qaida. People would be foolish to believe that the senior Taliban and al-Qaida member are in the Waziristan region when the perfect sanctuary would be Kashmir. Indian Intelligence Agency had found information about al-Qaida training at flight schools in US from a militant killed in Kashmir and they forwarded the information to US. The US authority did not take the threat seriously. So if the US and the world wanted to devastate the al-Qaida leadership it would be much more worthwhile to start in Pakistan Controlled Kashmir.
One way to win against Al Qaeda in those provinces of Pakistan, and the mountain country of Afghanistan, is to use daisy cutter bombs and kill every living man, woman and child that live there within 24 hours. People can't complain about civilian casualities when there are no civilians left to complain. Another alternative is to dose them all with LSD so they'll never be able to think in that religious fascist manner again. A third is to leave Iraq and Afghanistan and let them creep across the globe towards us. This isn't like your childhood stories, there are no happy endings.
I lived in this area of Pakistan in 60's and it was turbulent then and it is still turbulent. I was there when we had a US base in Badaber. People there supported USA. Guns and war is not the answer. We need education and reforms in this tribal area. Ther were no sucide bombings in Pakistan until the Iraq war and now it is a common day occurance in main land Pakistan. By our irrational actions we will spread chaos in the whole regon. If we with a sophisticated army of 60,000 cant control Iraq how can we expect ill equiped army of Pakistan to control this area. Let us think it over before getting ourselves into another mess.
Pakistan is not combodia, it has a strong half a million brave malitry power with all required high tech weaponery including nukes and ballistic mesiles that could hit any US malitry and Naval base in Gulf, red sea and indian ocean. If American dare to threat our freedom and challenge our resolve to defend it, we will not let them be free from licking their wounds. we will not let them be able to sack the freedom and dignity of other nations any more.
Being a Pakistani, i can safely say that Mr Ricks prognosis is driven by arrogance and ignorance. he clearly does not comprehend the on the ground reality here in pakistan where 99% of the population is markedly moderate and progressive. musharrafs peace overtures come in the wake of the heavy handed policies pursued by the US in Iraq which have led a circle of neverending violence. we in pakistan fear such a cycle and will probably do everything in our power to ensure that it does not transpire. if it means peace, than let it be.
Pakistan is not Cambodia, it's far, far more complicated, and then there's also "the Nukes", try it, why don't you; see if the monumental mess of Iraq pales in comparison to what a direct attack on Pakistani territory could do. The US would not have given Pakistan a chance to join "the coalition" if it had any way of dealing with Pakistan by force, use your damn heads. I hate the al-qaida and the stupid taliban more than anyone else on this planet, I'd love to see Bin Laden killed in the worst way, yes sir, but you know who else I hate? Ignorant people who think they're smart by simply listening to rhetoric. Know the facts and then learn how to write a more interesting article; something with more depth to it. -A
As has been mentioned, the surest way to turn the Islamic Bomb into an Islamist bomb is to invade Pakistan. Unlike Cambodia, Pakistan has weffective ways of pushing back. The ISI, who hired Al Queda to train anti-Indian insurgents in Afghanistan, probably still has Osama on their Rolodex. As to the number of troops required to control an area, when Eisenhower (who knew something about invading continents) pacified Lebanon in '58 He sent in 40,000 Marines for a country of 2 1/2 Mil. (Compare with the estimates first provided by the Pentagon for the pacification of Iraq: 400,000 for a country of 25 Mil.)
Well said Rick. Contrary to the reflexive reaction of Pakistani readers, nothing will happen to General Musharraf if hot pursuit occurs - the jihadis have always been (and continue to be) nurtured by the Army there. As the only "institution" Pakistan has ever known it controls all aspects of the country's domestic and foreign policy and is unlikely to have any apetite to take on US forces openly like the Cambodians did. Besides, it is rank revisionism to blame the killing fields on the US invasion just as it is to blame the US for "ditching" Pakistan after the Soviets were ejected from Afghanistan - the Mujahideen were an ISI creation albeit funded by the US and the Saudis.
Scott Regner is a typical air head that beleives in the drivel that is pushed here. Daisy cutter everything. Those people are human, there life is worth as much as your NOT any more and damn sight not less. The people that need to be "daisy cuttered", are arrogant ill informed cretins as your self
Lionel Baptista: Its not the Pakistan Army you have to worry about, its the Pakistani public. The US is not fighting any armes in Iraq or Afghanistan. Pakistanis will respond to any attack on their country but attacking the invaders. Dont launch more wars when your present wars have been such failures.
Well, you must be dreaming guy. Get your head out of your arse and see where the world is going? and what the groud realities are in that area? You may be able to bomb and kill those people but you will never in 1000 years be able to subdue them. This requires courage, and dropping bombs from drones is hardly courage. That area is the porrest area of a poor country. Instead of spending billions on War if you spend some money to aid thise people, that will be 100 times more useful. As far as bombing pakistan is concerned. First caulauty will be US tropps in Iraq and Afghanistan. How long do you think the WAR/DRUG loards of northern allaince will survive in Kabul without Pakistani support. Couples of nuke will suffice Israel. And EU is not too far away. With 0.5 million American of Pakistani origin mostly Pashtoon and Punjabi. US will not rest in peace. When your laders came to pakistan for help after 9/11, they came to the right place. We are top rated consultants in both terror and anti terror. We are not terrorist, we just facilitate terror and anti terror.
I think author forget to mention one key point ... America lost that war. As long as american ppl will remain in dark thanks by their media, world can not see any peace.
Too much power has made US blind as Power can make you feel like God. Its natural. Stop abusing your power and killing innocent civilians around the globe. And stop using 9/11 excuse. US created Taliban, US created Saddam (Guess Who Got The Key To Detroit?), US created Dictators in South America and supports them in Pakistan. If you want peace then stop messing around with other countries internal affairs(in the name of peace and democracy). One cannot acheive peace by waging wars. Francona, I guess some learn it easy way and others the hard way.
all of the above mention that Vietnam,Cambodia, etc. was bad policy :let us not forget what the taliban did to russia (100,000 men and 8 yrs. later )they had to backoff: Iraq and Iran fought for 8 yrs . with bush , cheney ,rummy nose ,playing both sides of the aisle ,,where are their brains ,i can't tell you on this page but it rhymes with a PLanet , ,thenormal size of a brain is 3 lbs. ?what does the entire administration wheigh all together (weighs )+===== fill in the blanks ?an ounce of coke maybe tops
Give peace a chance--destroy Pakistan. What's really funny is that even the Iranians are accusing Pakistan of sending terrorists into their country. Taliban/Schmaliban. The Pakistani army/ISI/Al Qaeda/Taliban are all the same organization. They just turn in different team jerseys depending on the circumstances. The big mistake we (or Bush-Cheney)made is going Iraq. The Wall Street Journal reported about the money sent to Mohammed Atta by the ISI and our neomorons went and bombed Iraq when we should have bombed Pakistan. Think about it. There is not a terrorist incident anywhere in world where the word Pakistan does not figure in. Give peace a chance-call in the B52s and the daisy cutters over this misbegotten lot.
Fortunately the US Armed Forces has processes in place to screen out psycopath and Ramboesque characters that have created mayhem in so many countries although the occassional nut case does slip through; that's why Frank did not make it past Lt.Col! Attacking and decimating a nation is not the way to solve problems as we can see from events of the past four decades. The problem will follow you back to your hometown as the tragic events of 2001 did. We need to help build back what we paid to destroy and not just walk out of the theatre when the show is over as we did in Afghanistan. It's costing more now both in dollars and lives along with lost goodwill of a nation that now hates what we stand for. The short sighted policies of decision makers in DC often ignore the reality on the ground. We defeated the Taliban and Al Qaeda but we used the assistance of much despised drug lords and warlords to accomplish this task. The same people who had decimated the nation and enslaved the people in a bloody civil war. Elsewhere in the world we are capturing similar characters and imprisoning them for drug offenses. What do we really stand for?
I would just like to say a few words on the whole middle east conflicts: (1) You cannot win a war when you tell the enemy in advance of your operations. (2) The CIA and other intelligence oraganizations we have now are useless, they couldnt find their way out of a paper bag. (3) We spend billions of dollars on high tech weapons that wouldn't require boots on the ground, but we cant use them because we dont like assasinating individuals. (4) Until we quit playing a game of checkers and start playing chess we will loose any encounters our politicians engage us in and the solider will pay the price.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=80071


Syndicate This Site

Add Hardblogger to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google