> If al Q is involved in guerilla warfare in Kashmir,
> the Indian govt is justified in fighting back with
> military means. If it wants to ask for US militray
> assistance, I guess that's it own business.
India can handle insurgency in Kashmir. Terrorism in Kashmir has declined by 50% in last one year. Kashmiris are fed up of violence.
> Nonetheless, I think that the best way to deal with an
> internatiuonal criminal cartel is through police work.
> That's not a graet method -- the Mafia is still with
> us after all these years.
I am not sure what would be the aim of police work. Gather evidence and arrest suspected terrorists? What would constitute the adquate evidence? How do you gather evidence in a society with the minimum of infrastructure? If there aren't any a) vehicles to be tailed, b) phones to be tapped, c) mail to be opened, d) bank accounts to be looked into for money laundering etc. etc., what would the police work involve? How do you organise the police work, when Taliban are in power? Your police force is sent on a wild goose chase by your "allies". Suspected terrorists are tipped off just before a raid. They can be provided shelter in mosques and madrassas.
>There's a prejudice that just because you're making a very loud
> bang you must be doing something, we got trouble, send
> in the 82d Airborne. The record on that is not great.
> It worked for the Brits, to be sure, in Malaya and
> Kenya, but it failed for the French in Algeria and
> Indochina and for the US in Vietnam, and in those
> cases there were ground forces that would stay on the
> ground. The lound noises wea re making here are mostly
> long distance and from high up.
Taliban did not have the popular support that Vietcong or FLN had. Taliban antagonised all neighbouring countries: Russia, China, India and Iran. It is not difficult to defeat a regime like Taliban. Creating the new and stable state apparatus in and for Afghanistan is going to the most difficult task.
Ulhas