How do you solve a problem like Af-Pak?Follow

Health Care is passed, and one can only assume that the "House Fix" bill will pass the Senate after a moderate amount of hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing. This precludes the inevitable court battles and State-level attempts to dodge the bullet, so to speak, but it allows us, the political-minded forum dwellers, to move on to other topics, at least for the moment.

In that spirit, I'd like to recount a conversation that I had while sitting at a steak restaurant in Dubai, and ultimately ask of you, the political-minded forum dweller, an opinion.

Joining me at this steak restaurant were three ex-pats; one Greek and living in Dubai, one Pakistani and living in Dubai, and the other French and living in Italy. Also in attendance was a fellow from our finance center in Argentina, a fellow Illinoisan of the Caucasian persuasion, and our corporate SOX manager, who holds dual citizenship in the United States and Pakistan.

Inevitably, we began discussing the geo-political boondoggle that is the Middle East, and how it's entirely the fault of the U.S., U.K., and Russia. I brought up a recent article which described Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai's anger at the Obama administration for apprehending the local Taliban number two, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar. Karzai had apparently been communicating on the down-low with Baradar concerning future peace negotiations with the Taliban, and was miffed that Obama didn't ask for his permission before apprehending the terrorist and known harborer of 9/11 hijackers. This struck me as especially knuckle-headed considering the outcome of the Swat Valley "peace agreement" that fell through in Pakistan last year.

In this context, I asked, how do you solve a problem like Maria Af-Pak? Can, and more importantly should, the Taliban be negotiated with? Is there any foreseeable future of peace in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan if the Taliban are prominently involved?

To this, both Pakistani natives replied with an emphatic "no", one even going so far as to put his fingers to his head in the shape of a gun, and stating that the only way to end the violence is to "kill them all."

So, what say you, policital-minded forum dweller?



For the record, I'm somewhere between the second and third options, but leaning towards the third given recent news like this.

It was the Toyota wasn't it?

You have a mix of 5 dominant religions, Hindu, Shia Islam, Sunni Islam, Jewish and Christian operating in the region, each withthousands of years of history and historical atrocities visited upon them and upon the others, all with a distinct inclination towards destroying the historical holy sites of one religion and replacing them with their own. Coupled with that you have one of at the same time most resource rich and poor areas of the planet, in direct proximity to one of the busiest shipping lanes on the entire planet, which passes through the narrowest chokepoint on the planet.

You couldn't design a more ****** up situation if you tried. You can't isolate one issue from the other the way you might be able to a certain degree here. You take away Oil from the equation, and their economies collapse overnight and you get a massacre the likes of which we haven't seen in 50 years. Take away Israel, and all the excesses it has been responsable for in its area of control, and you end up with egypt palestine and Libya fighting over the area again. At one point, Iran and Iraq were both pretty much our allies in the region, and even then we couldn't stabilize things because of Opec and the Oil issues of the 1970's

I think the only rational thing we can do that will have any effect at all will be to maintain control of the areas of national interest. Keep the strait of Hormuz open, and park a nimitz/ford class carrier group there for all time to protect cargo ships and tankers operating in the area. Keep the military bases at Qatar and Iraq, maintain the ones in Iraq similar to how Guantanimo, Cuba is maintained. Big *** fence, resupply from sea, minimal interaction wiht the locals, but a damned big stick to speak with if needed. Our previous efforts in the area to that effect were always hindered by a soviet presence. Now they want their tankers getting through just as bad as we want them so that shouldn't be an issue anymore. We let all the players in the area know that we don't really care what they do to eachother, but touch our **** and we're going to shove a cruise missile up your ***, and maybe certain aspects of the situation decrease over time.

But peace? I really don't think a true mid east peace is possible short of several sides killing eachother off entirely. There is just to much political and cultural baggage, with too much pressure behind it. You kill the leaders, someone takes their place.

I voted to pull out entirely. While not realistic, it's the only option that shifts the blame back to where it belongs, the people who inhabit the region. Let them figure it out.

So you think the most realistic option presented is to put more troops in the region then?

I don't disagree, I'm just sort of shocked to see you voicing anything remotely resembling support for armed conflict or the escalation there of.