<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Combating Al Qaeda in Pakistan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/combating_al_qaeda_in_pakistan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/combating_al_qaeda_in_pakistan/</link>
	<description>Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:28:09 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/combating_al_qaeda_in_pakistan/comment-page-1/#comment-356361</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 20:37:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/05/combating_al_qaeda_in_pakistan/#comment-356361</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;For Iraqis, the horror of living under forced sharia was something they hadn’t experienced for 100 years or more and was enough to turn the tide of public opinion about who the greater enemy was&lt;/blockquote&gt;From what I&#039;ve read, it wasn&#039;t so much the idea of Sharia law that turned Iraqi Sunnis against Al Qaeda, it was that Al Qaeda became a burden rather than a guest of those tribes.  Rather than supporting and protecting those tribes, they put them in danger and began to micro-manage their daily lives and social structure, to the point where Al Qaeda leaders were arranging marriages of Iraqi women against the father&#039;s wishes.  In the end, Al Qaeda was killing them when they didn&#039;t do as they were told.  Once Al Qaeda became the oppressor, then then re-evaluated their opinions of the US backed government.

If you ask me, the way to beat Al Qaeda is Pakistan in to work to create a similar environment.  Make sure that the Pashtun tribes there become burdened with Al Qaeda, and they will soon turn against them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>For Iraqis, the horror of living under forced sharia was something they hadn&rsquo;t experienced for 100 years or more and was enough to turn the tide of public opinion about who the greater enemy was</p></blockquote>
<p>From what I've read, it wasn't so much the idea of Sharia law that turned Iraqi Sunnis against Al Qaeda, it was that Al Qaeda became a burden rather than a guest of those tribes.  Rather than supporting and protecting those tribes, they put them in danger and began to micro-manage their daily lives and social structure, to the point where Al Qaeda leaders were arranging marriages of Iraqi women against the father's wishes.  In the end, Al Qaeda was killing them when they didn't do as they were told.  Once Al Qaeda became the oppressor, then then re-evaluated their opinions of the US backed government.</p>
<p>If you ask me, the way to beat Al Qaeda is Pakistan in to work to create a similar environment.  Make sure that the Pashtun tribes there become burdened with Al Qaeda, and they will soon turn against them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: legion</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/combating_al_qaeda_in_pakistan/comment-page-1/#comment-356146</link>
		<dc:creator>legion</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 16:38:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/05/combating_al_qaeda_in_pakistan/#comment-356146</guid>
		<description>Probably the biggest criticism of the &quot;surge&quot; still under way was that, if we put increased troop levels into focussed areas of Iraq, that the insurgents would simply leave those areas and go someplace else to raise anti-US and anti-Iraqi gov&#039;t havoc. That&#039;s pretty much a definition of how insurgencies work. And you don&#039;t beat an insurgency by sending your troops chasing them all over the planet - you do it by finding a way to keep the &lt;em&gt;people &lt;/em&gt;from supporting the insurgency.

Note-anyone whose instinctive response to that last line was &quot;then kill the people supporting the insurgency&quot; need to punch themselves in the crotch about a dozen times.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Probably the biggest criticism of the "surge" still under way was that, if we put increased troop levels into focussed areas of Iraq, that the insurgents would simply leave those areas and go someplace else to raise anti-US and anti-Iraqi gov't havoc. That's pretty much a definition of how insurgencies work. And you don't beat an insurgency by sending your troops chasing them all over the planet - you do it by finding a way to keep the <em>people </em>from supporting the insurgency.</p>
<p>Note-anyone whose instinctive response to that last line was "then kill the people supporting the insurgency" need to punch themselves in the crotch about a dozen times.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anderson</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/combating_al_qaeda_in_pakistan/comment-page-1/#comment-356141</link>
		<dc:creator>Anderson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 16:28:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/05/combating_al_qaeda_in_pakistan/#comment-356141</guid>
		<description>The mostly-quiescent No Comment blog @ Harper&#039;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://harpers.org/archive/2008/05/hbc-90002894&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;noted&lt;/a&gt; Ignatius&#039;s similar column of a couple days ago, and Iggy&#039;s parallel appearance on Charlie Rose, where Iggy got his ass pretty much handed to him by Barnett Rubin, who also discusses the TV spot &lt;a href=&quot;http://icga.blogspot.com/2008/05/rubin-and-ignatius-debate-afghanistan.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;:

&lt;i&gt;I thought that after all the scandals about journalists misleading the public by repeating government leaks and press releases and “reporting” from escorted tours, major journalists like columnists at the Washington Post would have learned something. Apparently not. &lt;strong&gt;Repetition of government propaganda without independent investigation or analysis does not constitute journalism&lt;/strong&gt;. Readers can decide what it does constitute.&lt;/i&gt;

Of course, if you&#039;re not an expert like Rubin, you hear Iggy and you have no clue that you&#039;re just hearing gov&#039;t talking points, so you can&#039;t really judge what it *does* constitute.

We have this image of journalists as independent researchers, where it seems they&#039;re both intellectually and professionally lazy, on the whole.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The mostly-quiescent No Comment blog @ Harper's <a href="http://harpers.org/archive/2008/05/hbc-90002894" rel="nofollow">noted</a> Ignatius's similar column of a couple days ago, and Iggy's parallel appearance on Charlie Rose, where Iggy got his ass pretty much handed to him by Barnett Rubin, who also discusses the TV spot <a href="http://icga.blogspot.com/2008/05/rubin-and-ignatius-debate-afghanistan.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>:</p>
<p><i>I thought that after all the scandals about journalists misleading the public by repeating government leaks and press releases and “reporting” from escorted tours, major journalists like columnists at the Washington Post would have learned something. Apparently not. <strong>Repetition of government propaganda without independent investigation or analysis does not constitute journalism</strong>. Readers can decide what it does constitute.</i></p>
<p>Of course, if you're not an expert like Rubin, you hear Iggy and you have no clue that you're just hearing gov't talking points, so you can't really judge what it *does* constitute.</p>
<p>We have this image of journalists as independent researchers, where it seems they're both intellectually and professionally lazy, on the whole.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Jawa Report</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/combating_al_qaeda_in_pakistan/comment-page-1/#comment-356100</link>
		<dc:creator>The Jawa Report</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 14:52:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/05/combating_al_qaeda_in_pakistan/#comment-356100</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Some Bad Advice for Dealing with al Qaeda...&lt;/strong&gt;

A must read below, but Ignatius misses the mark in his conclusions because he simply does not understand the new counterinsurgency strategy for which he lays credit for defeating al Qaeda. That new strategy is not one of a smaller......</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Some Bad Advice for Dealing with al Qaeda...</strong></p>
<p>A must read below, but Ignatius misses the mark in his conclusions because he simply does not understand the new counterinsurgency strategy for which he lays credit for defeating al Qaeda. That new strategy is not one of a smaller......</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
