Risk assessment

Can the Zionist/feminist team that has effective control of this country
assess risk/reward rations sanely, with due regard to the U.S. interest?
Evidently not, as the following makes clear.

Clinton Issues Blunt Warning to Pakistan
New York Times, 2011-10-21
(this is actually a link to the 10-20 web version of the story)

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan —
An unusually powerful American delegation arrived here Thursday
and, according to a senior American official,
intended to warn Pakistan that
the United States would act unilaterally if necessary
to attack extremists groups who use the country as a haven to kill Americans.


[That sounds nice and macho, all right.
But where is this heading?
What are the risks involved?
What are the risks that,
whatever the Pakistani political leadership
may be strong-armed into going along with
(for a look at the Pakistani political situation with regard toward such things,
see the 2011-10-17 article “Pakistan leans toward talks with Taliban, not battle”),
the elements of Pakistani society
that are ready, willing, and able to retaliate against the United States
for taking unilateral action which they find deeply offensive
to their view of the Pakistani, not to mention Muslim, interest
will do just that,
finding America’s most vulnerable pressure points
and retaliating against America.
In other words, saying to America, “Take your aid and shove it.”
The harder we push Pakistan
to take actions they obviously do not want to take,
and the more we violate their national sovereignty
by taking such actions unilaterally,
the more we increase the risk that will happen.
Then what is the price America will have paid, not only to their retaliation,
but in the further escalation in U.S./Muslim hostilities?
How much more war with Muslims do we want?
And what are we gaining by this war?
Why not just get out of Afghanistan
and let whoever is capable of conquering and ruling it
(by historical precedent, that would be the Taliban)
do their thing?
Would that be so awful as to justify continuing and, as suggest above,
escalating hostilities?
Do Hillary, Laura, Michelle and Dr. Jill think their visits to the troops
really make up for the harm this war is causing
to the American nation in general
and those fighting and being harmed by the war in particular?

I am going to make a prediction:
the Pakistanis are going to get awfully tired of being lectured like this,
treated like errant school-children.
No good end will come to America from this,
only further war, conflict, and heart-ache.
And why?
Because the feminists just can’t give up on their quest to “reform” Afghanistan,
and stop the Taliban from gaining power.
If you think that is an exaggeration, see this and this.]

Then there is the Washington Post story:
Clinton warns Pakistan on insurgent havens
By Joby Warrick and Karin Brulliard
Washington Post, 2011-10-21


“We will be delivering a very clear message
to the government of Pakistan
and to the people of Pakistan,”
Clinton told reporters during a stop in Afghanistan
on her way to the Pakistani capital.
“There should be no support, and no safe havens anywhere,
for terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children.”

[Again, treating the Pakistanis like children.
They are already overwhelmingly anti-American,
due to just such pressure as this to take steps
they clearly could have taken if they wanted to do,
but did not.
More pressure will only add to the anti-Americanism.
And then what?
More military actions?
And practically inevitable asymmetric responses from the Pakistanis?
Look who’s clueless now!]


“Pakistan has a critical role to play
in supporting Afghan reconciliation and ending the conflict,”
Clinton said at a joint press conference with Khar.
“We look to Pakistan to take strong steps to deny Afghan insurgents safe havens
and to encourage the Taliban to enter negotiations in good faith.”

For the next-day story, see this.

Labels: , ,