David Ignatius of The Washington

with David Ignatius
in Current Affairs, Books
on Tuesday, October 6, 2009 * * * * *

E-mail this video:

Distribute this video:

Share on:

Close
Description

David Ignatius of The Washington Post discusses his recent trip to Pakistan

Video Share Options
Share
Buy Amazon DVD
Keywords:
Pakistan
Obama
politics
World

In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:

itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/10652

Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.

Close
  • Comments 3
    Post new comment
    1. robdverity  10/11/2009 09:09 PM Report

      Due to delayed ‘activation’ of pertinent sites, taking second relevant choice.

      Brian Glyn Williams and David Kilcullen, both orthodoxy spewing foils for the MI oligarches, were disingenuous to a fault. Especially Williams. To full of certitudes - an ipso facto disqualifier. Anathema! Richard Engel, two nights earlier, was much more credible.

      Richard Engel, NBC (Charlie Rose 10/07/09), gave (at last) an honest assessment of Af-Pak. But, alas, with a paradoxical conclusion, i.e., not to leave posthaste, despite a realistically hopeless outlook. Engle lamented leaving the Pakistani’s after exhorting them to take up the battle against the Taliban. ???? I don’t get it. It’s their problem to resolve (or not) in any level of efficiency (or not) they chose. The Pashtun (Source of Taliban) are 15 per cent of Pakistan. In other words doable if they have the will.

      Engle could discern no distinction between Taliban and al Qaeda, and the Taliban were Pashtun (but all Pashtun are not Taliban). He further asserted that drone missiles were not the answer because of civilian casualties and lack of target definition.

      As an aside, for those who like to keep score against the 3,000+ World Trade Center 9/11/2001 deaths, the raw score in body count is more than settled with Afghan troops killed at 11,522; Afghan civilians killed at 7,589; [1,371 coalition troops, contractors and six journalists]. So the eye-for-an-eye, and a tooth-for-a-tooth (until we’re all blind and toothless crowd) should be satiated.

      Given that and the fact that Osama bin Laden has apparently safely ensconced himself out of reach, what is our objective? The elusive end-game? How about an Hippocratic Oath takeoff, of “Second, Do no (more) harm!” The hardliners are shuddering, but remember tough guys we’re already more than even based on body count - what other metric is there as far as vengeance?

      Formulations to consider, where: O = Outcome, T=US Troops, E = Enemies, C = Created, V = Vanquished (killed), I = Indifferent.

      Scenarios: 1- Add 40,000 to 68,000 troops and 75,000 contractors already there. 2-Add 20,000 troops. 3-Add none. 4-Add none and remove all troops and contractors.

      Assumptions: 1- For each Enemy (Pashtun) killed a MINIMUM of three other Pashtuns will grieve and harbor resentment, 2- The current rate of say (11522+7589)/68000x8 = 35 Pashtuns/US troop/yr vanquished (euphemism for killed) per 1,000 troops will continue.

      Therefore, the outcomes O for for the four scenarios are shown below:

      Where: Outcome O = T in thousands x Vanquished per year per thousand = Annual Pashtun Kill.

      Scenario 1: O = (68k + 40k) x 35 = 3780 / yr

      Scenario 2: O = (68k + 20k) x 35 = 3080 / yr

      Scenario 3: O = (68k + 0 k) x 35 = 2380 / yr

      Scenario 4: O = (68k - 68k) x 35 = 0 / yr

      These hypotheticals could be reduced by strategical policies and actions. But at whatever level, they have consequences. If it can be safely assumed that at least three generations carry emotional trauma for at least three survivors of the ‘vanquished’ 150 enemy-years (E-yrs) will be created for each Pashtun killed. Therefore, for the four scenarios the following potential E-yrs of terrorists will be created ©.

      Scenario 1: C = 150 E-yrs x 3780 = 567,000 Enemy-years

      Scenario 2: C = 150 E-yrs x 3080 = 462,000 Enemy-years

      Scenario 3: C = 150 E-yrs x 2380 = 357,000 Enemy-years

      Scenario 4: C = 150 E-yrs x 0 = 0 Enemy-years

      Reminder, these figures are for one year. Another eight years increases Scenario 1 to 4,536,000 Enemy-years for example.

      Simplistic example: they experience casualties when they go out on patrols in the remote outposts. When they don’t, they don’t. DUH!

      Iraq will never REALLY resolve their Sunni - Shia problem until we leave and they are forced to reach an accommodation one way or another, equitable or not. Repressive a la Sadam or not, they’ll own it.

      Af-Pak as well will never REALLY resolve their Pashtun (aka Taliban, al Qaeda) problem until we leave and they are forced to reach an accommodation one way or another, equitable or not.

      WE NEED TO CUT OUR LOSSES, PULL OUT AND COME HOME - NOW!!

      So, there you go Mr. President, for every 1,000 troops sent to Af-Pak, the potential for diminishing the NY sky-line is increased by 5,250 Enemy-years, for each year they are deployed. Such scientifically, mathematically derived S.W.A.G. precision is undeniable. Ignore at your own peril and demeaning of your newly acquired Nobel peace prize. Prove it and bring em home!

      With all these potential enemies (below), we can’t waste resources on a select few. And we can’t conquer the world - even though the list is long enough to warrant paranoia - we have to ramp up our intelligence, ramp down our arrogance, and pressure ME peace settlements.

      Yemen and Somalia are probably more real threats anyway. Terrorism is not geography, it’s an idea. Like Engle said, when someone says he’s al Qaeda, he pretty much is (regardless of race, creed or location on the planet) We had to work at this world-wide disenchantment..Note the innumerable number of countries represented.

      Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Al-Shabaab, Ansar al-Sunnah, Armed Islamic Group, Asbat al-Ansar, Aum Shinrikyo, Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA), Communist Party of Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA), Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA), Gama'a al-Islamiyya (IG), HAMAS , Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islam/Bangladesh (HUJI-B), Harakat ul-Mujahadin (HUM), Hizballah, Islamic Jihad Union, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan , Jaish-e-Mohammed , Jemaah Islamiya Organization , Al-Jihad , Kahane Chai (Kach) , Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), Lashkar e-Tayyiba (LT) , Lashkar i Jhangvi (LJ) , Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) , Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, Mujahadin-e Khalq Organization, National Liberation Army (ELN), Palestine Liberation Front – Abu Abbas Faction, Palestinian Islamic Jihad – Shaqaqi Faction, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command, Al-Qa’ida, Al-Qa’ida in Iraq (Tanzim Qa’idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn), Al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Real IRA, Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), Revolutionary Nuclei, Revolutionary Organization 17 November, Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front, Shining Path, United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia.

    2. robdverity  10/07/2009 01:51 PM Report

      Catch 22 with world-wide correspondents. They need to act like their assignments are a huge self sacrifice. I know better.

    3. REMant  10/07/2009 11:22 AM Report

      I would be very surprised not to find that the officials over there, when they aren't just socking away what they can, are fence-straddling or trimming in hopes of being on the winning side no matter which it is. I agree we cannot provide security for the Afghan population. To attempt to do so would dilute whatever size force we had. What would result, I'm sure, would be "strategic hamlets" redux.