Taliban Advances in Pakistan

[Stingo]

The ham-handed, post-9/11 foreign policy moves of the Bush administration have actually led the world much closer to the possibility nuclear terrorism. In the near term, President Obama is left with very few (if any) realistic options to deal with the deteriorating political situation in Pakistan.

http://allspinzone.com/wp/2009/04/23/taliban-advances-in-pakistan/

[ben_jenne]

1. It's just too bad Bush didn't leave the Taliban alone in

Afghanistan, all he succeeded in doing is to drive them into Pakistan and now they will have nukes. Obama needs to just get out of their way and let them have Afghanistan back, maybe that will appease them.

[Stingo]

2. Bush should have handled Afghanistan right and destroyed

the Taliban. He failed. Instead he did the ADHD thing and saw pretty shiney objects in Iraq. Doh!

[ben_jenne]

3. How do you destroy a religious movement?

The more you push the more they fight back, kill 1 and 2 more pop up to take their place.

[happyslug]

4. You attack the underlying Economic system driving it.

The classic case is the Crusades, why did it occur? The West had entered into the Medieval Warm Period and people prospered, the Viking and the Magyars had been the last two invaders of Europe and both had been stopped and reversed by 1000 AD (Both ended up joining European Christian Europe). Feudalisation had been adopted starting in the 800s to provide troops to fight the invaders (i.e. you received land in exchange for fighting off the invaders, if you did NOT fight off the invaders, you lost your land to someone who would). By 1000, Europe had developed a sophisticated fighting machine, good enough not only to stop the invaders but to launch attacks against the Magyars and Vikings in their homelands. This excess level of troops AND the increasing areas able to be farmed lead to more then enough food to support a sizable military establishment. The problem with that Establishment was once the Invaders had been stopped there was no one to fight.

At the same time the Eastern Empire (Later called Byzantine Empire but at that time called themselves the Roman Empire, but centered in modern Greece and Turkey and spoke Greek not Latin) had missed opportunities to retake the near east from the Arabs (Do more to domestic problems in Greece then anything the arabs did). By 1000 the Seljuk Turks, who had previously been hired mercenaries of the Muslim Caliph became the real power in the near East and started to put pressure on the Greeks. The Greeks suffered a major setback on Mazakurt and requested Western Assistance against the Arabs. The Pope saw this as an opportunity to get the excess number of knights out of Western Europe when they were no longer needed and Ordered A crusades, the Italian Merchant States of Genoa and Venice had been trading with the East for Centuries, taking empty boots with gold and silver to pay for the rich goods of the East. These merchants now had something to fill their ships when the ships sailed east, the Crusaders.

Thus everything fit together for the Crusades. Now First Crusades went overland instead of by Sea, but then subsequent supplies and replacements for the First Crusaders came by Ship.

My point everything fit together economically for the Crusaders to work. Excess troops, Call for assistance from the Greeks, Order to go by the Pope, Ships to carry supplies dirt cheap and the prospect of land for landless knights as the reward for going on crusades.

Why did the Crusades end? First, the products of Italy started to equal and then surpass the products of Constantinople (Especially after the Fourth Crusader when Constantinople was sacked) this had the long term affect of providing Genoa and Venice a richer product to ship east then Crusaders. The Mongols hit what is now Iraq in 1258 and destroyed Baghdad, destroying a major market of the East, which meet less products that could go west, which meant less ships total. The Sacking of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade destroyed the largest City in the World at that time, killing trade even more (Baghdad became the Largest City in the World after 1204, but only held that title till 1258 when in turn it was sacked, this time by the Mongols).

To protect Egypt, the Mamuluks decided to destroy every port in the near east, let the Mongols and the Crusaders unite against Egypt. This made the Near East even poorer, but made the Mamaluks believed they would be happier as poor rulers of Egypt then a rich merchant under the Mongols. The Seljuk Turks and the later Ottoman Turks adopted the same policy, especially during and after the reign of Tamerlane.

Tamerlane is an interesting Character, of mongol Descent, but NOT from Genghis Khan himself, ruled modern day Iran, Turkmenistan and the rest of what is called today the "Former Central Asiatic Soviet States" (FCASS). He first defeated the Ottoman Turks, and then tried to force his way into the Balkans. The Greeks held Constantinople and the Bosporus, the Ottoman Turks (Who survived the earlier defeat) held the Dardanelles. Together they block Timberland's invasion of Europe, so he turned to the Golden Horde of modern day Russia, Timberland did defeat the Golden Horde, but enough of the Golden Horde survived to prevent him from using Russia as a base to attack Europe. In his old age he decided to Invade China, and was on the March to do so when he died of old age.

Anyway back to HOW the Crusades where stopped, after 1258 the economics no longer made sense. Egypt was still the Richest Country in the Mediterranean World, but it turned increasing inward and cease being a threat to anyone. The Ottoman Turks slowly took over the Near east (And at time Egypt and Persia but never for long) but this was after the efforts to destroy the area least the Mongols use it as a base against Egypt. The Turks took Constantinople, but long after it was a shell of its former self. Up to and including the Crusades, the Near East was a rich prize, but do to the fears of the Mamaluks it was destroyed, and with that destruction any push for the Crusades.

My point is to defeat the Taliban in Pakistan we MUST attack the economic system that produced them. What is that System? Our wars with Russia in Afghanistan and later our refusal to accept the fact to the people of Afghanistan what they tribe wants is more important then what they themselves want OR what Afghanistan wants. These tribes reach on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghan border. The present war in Afghanistan is an attack on these Parthian tribes. We have to figure out what they really want and give it to them, be it guns, money or just to be left alone. Once the tribal leaders are satisfied the support for the Radical Islamic movement in Pakistan will die out, but you have to give them something, and not only the leaders but the poor of those tribes. Bombing them will not work (Through ending the bombing would be a first step). Most members of each tribes have to come to view that it is NO longer in their best economic interests to support the Radical Islamic movement. That is what our aims should be, this may require giving them cars, food, housing etc. , but we have to do SOMETHING that clearly show we understand their economic needs and will address them. That is how you defeat Religious movements, you look at the economics that is driving the movement and change the economics so the radical Religious Movement is no longer the only answer.