So after killing Pakistani border Guards on sovereign Pakistani soil, the Kabul Puppet threatens some more. The Unicol Western installed puppet is not known for such bluster---------he cried, in the past when Western officials spoke with him harshly about how they saw things, at his official residence (see: Bahlol Lodhi article).
Either he is drunk with imported whiskey, or his Western puppet masters wrote his recent speech, and spoke to Pakistan through him.
What is Pakistan to do?
Upping the ante, and having verbal spats with the Kabul Mayor is pointless. Pakistan can't leave her Waziristan border area exposed if they mean to make a deal of it in that theater. They have been persistently attacking villages in that theater for quite a while, which goes against Pakistan's sovereignty.
Now the Pakistan leadership can wish it away, and not think about it, or take action.
Ignoring the regular border incursions into Pakistan by the West, will mean more attacks must take place as their policies in Afghanistan fail further. This increases the anger of the local Pakistanis against the West, and reduces the credibility of the Pakistani government in the eyes of the general Pakistani public.
The only option is to bolster the border areas, with big battalions, heavily armed to protect Pakistani sovereignty, and claim that Pakistan is doing something to stop the flow of arms into Afghanistan. Specifically the South Waziristan sector.
This is a symbolic act, otherwise how do you seal off the Durrand line 100%----1,700 miles of mountainous border, or over 2.3 million meters of rugged territory. They can't even secure their own borders down in Mexico, which isn't even mountainous-----and its a superpower, with limitless resources with a $1.2 trillion security budget, letting in 20 million illegals. The entire Pak military machine of 800,000 men couldn't seal off the Pak/Afghan border, with a budget of $5 billion defence expenditure. A couple of billion $ more spent on the same policy won't help.
The British Empire never could secure this area, and the Soviets failed, with their 115,000 troops backed by Afghan militia's. It's physically not possible.
The American's have no right telling the Pakistanis to seal off and control the Pashtun's from their kith and kin across the border. Pakistan is not some circus animal that must perform some miracle for the failures of the West in their narco-failed state which they instituted in the first place.
Pakistan has sacrificed over 3,000 lives from the security, and thousands more desertions, and the cohesion and stability of the military for them. These real losses are more than what the West has suffered in their entire campaign in Afghanistan. On top of that they have handed over 400 alleged al-Qaeda fighters, after spending the better part of two decades or more training, and arming the very same at the behest of the British and Americans.
_______________________________________________________
Raj Punjab Police force
losses in and around FATA (2003-2008): 3,000 + dead fighting "al-Qaeda" and the Taliban, organizations created by the West. Several thousand more desertions. 5,000--8,000.
Western coalition Jew-narco-trade occupation force
losses in Afghanistan (2001---2008): 770 dead. Or out of a force of 60,000 ---130 causalities a year.
Now getting back to the point, who exactly is doing their job...............
___________________________________
The Soviets use to loose 5,000 men per annum during peacetime in their military machine.
The Americans lost : 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime. or....The Congressional Research Service, which compiled war casualty statistics from the Revolutionary War to present day conflicts, reported that 4,699 members of the U.S. military died in 1981 and '82 — a period when the U.S. had only limited troop deployments to conflicts in the Mideast. That number of deaths is nearly 900 more than the 3,800 deaths during 2005 and '06, when the U.S. was fully committed to large-scale military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So whats the problem?
1) Perceived failure inherent in the Bush administration---related to military matters, and non-military domestic matters, creating anxiety in the administration; falling approval rating due primarily to conducting an open ended war---for some stupid reason ordinary people don't like perpetual war, and the need to lash out at perceived party poopers-----AKA---Iran and more lately to a lessor level Pakistan.
2) Fundamentally this is a problem of the administration, and its set of self-inflicted failures, wholly. The administration is staff by generally incompetent people who have been chosen for their fealty to the Bush-Crime fraternity, and not on their inherent ability. In addition there is the sheer corruption of the administration, which conflicts with the efficient management of the state, policies and state resources. Really building an empire is a serious business, and short termisms of disbanding the Iraqi security apparatus, so that you can loot the country may be OK for the international Mafioso 'culture' and objective, but on the mission of a Jew empire a serious no, no.
3) Modern wars are a darned expensive businesses, even for the sole superpower. Even though the human costs of war are 'manageable', the material costs are not. Though one can argue that sensitivity to military losses are far greater now than they were a few decades ago. The wars may end up costing America as much as $5-6 trillion eventually, and even with the unquestioned generosity of China and Japanese debt, that money has to be paid back one day. That sense, and the need to wind up things must be pervading certain gentile corridors of Washington, if not McCain.
4) The Zionist dream of building an empire at the expense of the Greater Middle East, and if possible the rest of the world, and the need to push their war agenda boundaries.
__________________________________________
To reiterate the Taliban is the Wests creation, and is a de-legitimating agent of the West. It is too small, too poorly trained, poorly equipped, with poor tactics, poorly led to over whelm the Western forces, about 8,000 (thats the figure I have been hearing for 6 years) fighting about 70,000 plus well equipped Western troops, but the Taliban is a useful tool to:
1) Blame and coerce Pakistan so that Pakistan is always defensive, preparing the groundwork, and the justification for an attack against the country in the future.
2) Justify their illegal presence in Afghanistan for another 50 years according to some of the diplomats there.
There must be many in the ISI in their pay coordinating the work of these Taliban for them, and then the Taliban getting slaughtered in huge numbers. In fact the Talibans performance has been very poor in comparison to the performance of the Mujaheddin of the eighties, also trained by the Pakistanis, and this has led me to this conclusion. The Mujaheddin were doing quite a good job after 6 years of fighting, against the Soviets. A learning curve, and more sophisticated equipment from the West.
10,000 alleged Taliban are no match for the West, and nor do they constitute a real threat to 70,000 well armed Western troops, who have full and complete aircover. To argue otherwise is militarily illogical propaganda.
The vast majority of Afghans hate foreign troops on their soil, for obvious reasons and they don't need help from their kith and kin across the border to express their animosity towards the foreign occupying forces, on a random amateurish basis on and off, in fits and starts in Afghanistan.
The Pashtuns in Afghanistan have been disenfranchised by the Western invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, after ruling the country for 1,5oo years, and it is they who are doing the bulk of the resistance. Eventually due to the failed nature of the state, the grievances against the central government will spread to the rest of the country. 4 Million Afghans are near starvation levels.
The West have promoted the local Mafia to run the country (for the drugs) and this is the inevitable result.
After being established by the West in 1948, working closely with them over 60 years over many ops, the ISI suddenly did not, or certain elements within it certainly did not suddenly develop an independent mind and begin to initiate private help to the Taliban contrary to the wishes of the central government of Pakistan, and their Western handlers.
Musharaf, Zardari and Gilani----frequent visitors to the American embassy, aren't exactly popularly mandated mavericks, with independent critical minds, outside of the Pakistani elite system. They are part of the problem, and its been business as usual, with regular, too regular visits to the US embassy.........and so on. Thus the ISI (elements of ) cannot be helping the Taliban over six years without the tacit approval of powerful sections in the West.
To argue otherwise is like living in a fairy tale.
The Taliban are 'Controlled opposition'. Who are militarily ineffective, but provide the excuse Western powers seek to widen their geo-strategic agenda's into neighboring areas, and specifically to get their hands on the Pakistani nukes, the ultimate goal of Israeli strategists since the late seventies.
The Taliban do not offer any real hope to the Afghans, especially to the non-Pashtuns, beyond short term resistance to the hated foreign forces. Their ideology of Islamic fundamentalism will not solve Afghanistan's problems.
For Pakistan to do nothing at this critical juncture invites more attacks, so the South Waziristan border area must be bolstered with more regular troops along with all the other recommendations I made. This situation can't go on for ever. This will spill over into conflict, before an Iran attack, or after an Iran attack.
Whatever the scenario Pakistan has to be militarily ready.
