Petraeus Agrees that the greatest danger is from Pakistan not Iraq

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Jack Reed finally brings up the gorilla in the room. He asks Petraeus if he agrees with the intelligence community and Chairman Mullen's assessment that the next terrorist attack on the United States would most likely come from the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area.

Petraeus says YES.

And Reed naturally asks, then why does the campaign plan focus on Iraq not Afghanistan and Pakistan? Reed also asks how Petraeus would plan to actually bring more troops into that area, since they're all in Iraq.

Can everyone just yield their time to Senator Reed?

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2008/05/petraeus-agress.html

...which supports what Obama and others like Biden have been saying about Pakistan. Hmmm...in the spin over foreign policy, this puts a monkey wrench into it.

[Heracles 417]

Maybe we should install solar panels along the border there..

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Maybe we should install solar panels along the border there..

That would endanger the camel habitat!

[HAL 9000 96]

Jack Reed finally brings up the gorilla in the room. He asks Petraeus if he agrees with the intelligence community and Chairman Mullen's assessment that the next terrorist attack on the United States would most likely come from the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area.

Petraeus says YES.

And Reed naturally asks, then why does the campaign plan focus on Iraq not Afghanistan and Pakistan? Reed also asks how Petraeus would plan to actually bring more troops into that area, since they're all in Iraq.

Can everyone just yield their time to Senator Reed?

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2008/05/petraeus-agress.html

...which supports what Obama and others like Biden have been saying about Pakistan. Hmmm...in the spin over foreign policy, this puts a monkey wrench into it.

Yes... yes it does.

[Heracles 417]

How does having more troops in Afghanistan affect Pakistan?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

How does having more troops in Afghanistan affect Pakistan?

A little complicated to explain.

Since Zia's time, Pakistan's military has viewed Afghanistan as an area of strategic depth in case of war with India (and thus, desirable to annex):

• this was why Zia armed-up Gulbudin Hekmatyar and his Hezbi-Islami (who did squat fighting against Soviets) until Reagan was informed of the deception (due to William Casey's friendship with Zia's ISI head Akhtar Abdur Rehman) by Charlie Wilson; basically, Zia saw Gulbudin as his proxy governor. After Wilson had informed Reagan, the Jamiati Islami (which did the actual fighting) led by Burhanuddin Rabbani and Ahmad Shah Massoud received arms from US through a pipeline which bypassed Pakistan.
• Also why Pakistan later was the all-too-obvious support behind Taliban

US (and NATO) troops in Afghanistan means that a regime not friendly/subservient*** to Pakistan can function--not exactly to their taste.

***Nevermind that outsiders who have tried to control Afghanistan always wound up getting burned--as now proved by Taliban inside Pakistan.

[mawilson 2,133]

And Reed naturally asks, then why does the campaign plan focus on Iraq not Afghanistan and Pakistan?

They gotz nukez.