Acts of Terrorism in Pakistan

[Flintlock]

Bomb kills lawmaker, wounds 6 in Pakistani city

By RIAZ KHAN – 1 hour ago

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) — A bomb killed a secular lawmaker and wounded six other people Wednesday in a Pakistani city close to the Afghan border increasingly under attack by Islamist militants.

The bombing in Peshawar in northwest Pakistan took place as U.S. envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke visited the city, local TV reports said.

Police said it appeared the bomb was hidden in a motorcycle and was detonated by remote control when a vehicle carrying Awami National Party lawmaker Alam Zeb Khan passed. The lawmaker, his body guard and two of his staff were hit along with three passers-by, said police officer Hamid Khan.

The lawmaker later died at a hospital, said Wajid Ali Khan, a minister in the provincial government.

Footage on Dawn TV showed Holbrooke arriving at the governor's house in Peshawar on Wednesday morning. There was no suggestion he was close to the site of the attack. The report said Holbrooke also visited a Pakistani military base near the border.

Holbrooke was on the third day of a visit to Pakistan to help President Barack Obama chart a new strategy to beat the insurgencies raging here and in Afghanistan. U.S. officials provided no details of his agenda for security reasons.

Islamist militants based in the tribal regions close to Afghanistan are fighting Pakistan's pro-American government. Peshawar, a bustling city with a history of lawlessness, has seen regular attacks. The city lies on the main supply line for Western troops in Afghanistan.

The ANP, which holds power in the northwest, has spoken out strongly against the militants. Several top party leaders have narrowly survived suicide bombings.

Western officials also worry that al-Qaida could be training volunteers in the border zone for attacks far beyond Pakistan.

On Wednesday, an official said security forces detained a New Zealand national trying to enter a notorious militant stronghold in Pakistan's tribal belt.

Barkatullah Khan, a government official in the town of Tank, said troops discovered the man while checking passengers on a bus bound for Wana, the main town in the South Waziristan region.

Khan said the man had a New Zealand passport that identified him as 35-year-old Mark Taylor. He said Taylor had grown a beard since his passport photo was taken and was wearing local dress.

Khan said the man was taken for questioning.

New Zealand has no embassy in Pakistan. Officials could not be immediately reached at either its consulate in Karachi nor its foreign ministry in Wellington.

Also Wednesday, police said the Taliban briefly detained a group of Red Cross staffers, including foreigners, in the northwestern Swat valley.

Red Cross spokesman Jean-Pascal Moret said the organization had re-established contact with the group and that they were "safe and sound" and returning to Peshawar.

Suspected militants have abducted several foreigners in recent months, including a Polish geologist apparently killed by his captors last week and an American U.N. worker seized in early February in the border city of Quetta.

Associated Press writer Ishtiaq Mahsud in Dera Ismail Khan and Zarar Khan in Islamabad contributed to this report.
The Associated Press: Bomb kills lawmaker, wounds 6 in Pakistani city

 

[S-2]

"However the US$ 50 b / year price tag is pure wishful thinking (US$ 25 b on force sustainment + US$ 25 b Stabilization, Aid, Rebuild)."

Well, no, I don't think so. Under your criteria, it would only be an incremental portion of a greater cost. Here's a continuing look at costs for OIF, OEF, and ONE (a security enhancement program globally for U.S. facilities) from the Congressional Research Service. I think that it's a valuable report as it's a "living document" to some extent-

The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan And Other GWOT Operations Since 9/11- CRS October 2008 (Updated)

For those who don't wish to read it, I'll provide the summary. It's succinct-

"With enactment of the FY2008 Supplemental and FY2009 Bridge Fund(H.R.
2642/P.L. 110-252) on June 30, 2008, Congress has approved a total of about $864 billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).

This $864 billion total covers all war-related appropriations from FY2001
through part of FY2009 in supplementals, regular appropriations, and continuing resolutions. Of that total, CRS estimates that Iraq will receive about $657 billion (76%), OEF about $173 billion (20%), and enhanced base security about $28 billion (3%), with about $5 billion that CRS cannot allocate (1%). About 94% of the funds are for DOD, 6% for foreign aid programs and embassy operations, and less than 1% for medical care for veterans. As of July 2008, DOD’s monthly obligations for contracts and pay averaged about $12.3 billion, including $9.9 billion for Iraq, and $2.4 billion for Afghanistan.

The recently enacted FY2008 Supplemental (H.R. 2642/P.L. 110-252) includes
a total of about $160 billion for war costs for the Department of Defense (DOD) for the rest of FY2008 and part of FY2009. Funds are expected to last until June or July 2009 well into a new Administration. The Administration did not submit a request to cover all of FY2009.

While Congress provided a total of $188 billion for war costs in FY2008 — $17
billion more than the prior year — this total was a cut of about $14 billion to the Administration’s request, including both reductions in DOD’s investment accounts and substitutions of almost $6 billion in non-war funding. CRS figures exclude nonwar funding. Congress also cut funding for foreign aid and diplomatic operations for Iraq and Afghanistan by $1.4 billion, providing a total of $4.5 billion.

For FY2009, Congress provided $67 billion, close to the request. Earlier, to tide DOD over until passage of the supplemental, the House and Senate appropriations committees approved part of a DOD request to transfer funds from its regular accounts.

In an August 2008 update, the Congressional Budget Office projected that
additional war costs for the next ten years from FY2009 through FY2018 could range from $440 billion, if troop levels fell to 30,000 by 2010 to $865 billion, if troop levels fell to 75,000 by about 2013. Under these CBO projections, funding for Iraq, Afghanistan and the GWOT could total about $1.3 trillion or about $1.7 trillion for FY2001-FY2018.

This report will be updated as warranted."

I think that this report is an accurate assessment. The issue seems to include a large number of variables that will impact so-called "final costs". We can't predict what expenditures can be better managed from our end as developing tools to do so is a constant process. Clearly, though, U.S. management of aid here stands to achieve some management, logistical, and financial efficiencies as we get better at our job. No diminishment of money but more bang for the buck.

So too with troop deployments. They likely won't proceed as a constant. There will be re-deployments as sure as the sun rises in the east. Back to the states and from the states to Iraq and Afghanistan. How those costs shake out aren't predictable either. I do know, in line with Kilcullen's thoughts that we're constructing base facilities now in Afghanistan. We arrived first to Afghanistan and not Iraq. We'll be leaving Afghanistan LONG after our departure from Iraq. There's little more that we can tangibly accomplish in Iraq with our soldiers and it's time for them to move on. So we can expect fluctuations in our troop deployments and associated costs.

Finally, what of our accued benefits from the ongoing civic investments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. While I can't argue that Pakistan isn't likely to see significant aid increases, one place from which civic aid won't be arriving is the DoD. Much of our civic aid in both Iraq and Afghanistan can actually be found buried in DoD accounts for PRTs and discretionary funds dispersed by ground commanders. Then there are engineering projects and base construction projects that see downstream economic benefits.

Most importantly, as capabilities and responsibilities grow within local communities, benefits can be expected from decreases in corruption, improvements in services, and-most of all (like ourselves)-improvements in management, logistics, and financial acumen to optimize expenditures from the receiving end.

Your numbers, as calculated, indicate a two decade expense of $2.5 trillion. We can question that but there's no denying regardless as to how the numbers shift based on accrued savings and unpredictable events, it's still a huge sum.

The key, as always with any investment, becomes the ROI and whether the costs are bearable in the interim. I don't know but I fail to see how America has little choice but to decisively commit to changing the complexities of the region to a more benign and productive posture.

"The US has to stay engaged in Iraq on the periphery; has to bribe its way with Russia, has to make a lucrative deal with Iran, has to live with Chinese current account surpluses. Above all, the US has to invest some decent numbers in Pakistan."

You seem to suggest that these are problems. Our meddlesome nature precludes any chance of us being unengaged virtually nil. Whether in the manners forecasted above by you is another matter. We'll just have to see.

Thanks.

 

[muse]

I don't know but I fail to see how America has little choice but to decisively commit to changing the complexities of the region to a more benign and productive posture.

Sages say that one ought to take great care in their choice of enemies. The US is no match for the kinds of cultures it seeks to take on, if some continue to have their way -- perhaps there is something to the idea that small, cost effective goals, is the way to go.

The US can help, can contribute towards a "more benign and productive" region, without the use of American uniformed personnel. Imagine if there was adeal on the table that has even a quarter of the amount spent thus far and that requires Pakistan and India to come to a agreement on Kashmir and Afghanistan; but that will not happen, it perhaps could never have happened, but it might be tried so that we can rule it out as a option.

 

[S-2]

"The US is no match for the kinds of cultures it seeks to take on, if some continue to have their way..."

Oh, I don't know. Some would have you believe that there's no more virulent culture on this planet than America's. We're insidiously infectious and conquer through Elvis, MTV, and Mickey Mouse.

I suspect more immunities than you ascribe.

OTOH, I don't see why you should feel so threatened by "...decisively commit...". That doesn't, from my POV, render an exclusively military solution "...to changing the complexities of the region...".

"The US can help, can contribute towards a "more benign and productive" region, without the use of American uniformed personnel."

Wouldn't that be wonderful were it true? There's no way for the immediate and near-term future that this ambition is possible in Iraq or Afghanistan though we'll see the decline over time in Iraq for certain. I don't see it anytime in the forseeable future for our naval presence in the G.C.C nor would I want to there. Possibly not Kuwait either.

I don't think the world has a better custodian of transit rights through the Persian Gulf than ourselves. We've the navy and incentive to see Persian gulf fossil energy underpin the continued expansion of the global trade network. That can only be accomplished by the free and unfettered access to market-priced energy by any and all nations-large or small.

Consider the neutralization of regional hegemons in the Persian gulf area an enduring nat'l security priority of the highest magnitude for the United States.

"Imagine if there was adeal on the table...that requires Pakistan and India to come to a agreement on Kashmir and Afghanistan..."

Imagine- the theme song of my high school prom in 1973. Can you IMAGINE that I'm so old...? Well since we've spent about $857 Billion on OEF/OIF/ONE since 2001, that would be...ummm, about $215 billion.

Yeah, you've my authority to cut that deal on behalf of the U.S. gov't and cut yourself a .01% commission. I'd pre-pay the income tax on that if I were you.

Let me know how it goes with the Indians. Do you think they'll take a cashier's cheque from any of our banks?

 

[Anwar2]

Dear S-2:

Thanks for sharing the valuable document, which is based on factual appropriations and Congressional approvals.

“” The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan And Other GWOT Operations Since 9/11- CRS October 2008 (Updated)””

However there is one major flaw on basing the cost of War on the US$ 850 b congressional allocation. That will be akin to saying that the total cost of Sum Prime landing default is a paltry $ 250 b invested so far in Sovereign guarantees to ensure liquidity at Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae; whereas the real cost of the disaster is about US$ 4.4 Trillion!

That reminds of George Bush Senior who remarked in June 1991 that the US actually made “profit” on the first Gulf War. Expenditure being just US$ 48 b and Allied contribution at about US$ 61 b! later research showed the Real cost of the first gulf war to the US tax payer at about US$ 500 b.

Real estimates on the “war on Terror” till end 2008 varying from about US$ 1.70 – 3.00 Trillion!.

I do agree that the US Government will never refuse to approve a few billion $ here and there to keep the Military in Afghanistan / Iraq. But fighting a war under the shadow of DCMA / DCAA on the cheap will not you anywhere.

Here are a few examples of real capacity building:
1. Between 1950-1961 the US spent about US$ 120 b (in 2005 $) to build Korean highways and airports infrastructure.
2. Subic bay and Clark AFB in the Philippines were about US$ 12 b in current dollars.
3. During Dwight D Eisenhower era about 34 major Air Bases were built in Germany, Turkey, Korea, Japan, Pakistan and Iran using US Taxpayers money.

By comparison just look at the record in Afghanistan / Pakistan:
1. How many new expressways have been built in the past 8 years in Afghanistan?
2. How many new bases or airports (don’t name Bagram or Kandahar as they were built by Russians.
3. How many new Hospitals, Universities (I mean real Mc Coy not Mickey Mouse works by the PRC thieves?
4. The critical NATO supply route through Pakistan is mostly a single lane road. Why doesn’t NATO / US spend US$ 10 b to build a decent supply route.

Fighting the War on the Cheap is the biggest curse to afflict the US Strategy. Be my guest, fight as much as you like, but please do spend a penny to ensure some semblance of “victory”.

 

[S-2]

"However there is one major flaw on basing the cost of War on the US$ 850 b congressional allocation. That will be akin to saying that the total cost of Sum Prime landing default is a paltry $ 250 b invested so far in Sovereign guarantees to ensure liquidity at Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae; whereas the real cost of the disaster is about US$ 4.4 Trillion!"

Uh, you mean by the long way around that you don't believe the report.

"That reminds of George Bush Senior who remarked in June 1991 that the US actually made “profit” on the first Gulf War."

Can you link the quote though I'm unsure why costs in Afghanistan and Iraq would remind you of such a non-comment? Maybe you could explain that as well? I find it hard to believe that GHB actually said that given how it might have upset a few allies but it seems the quote might be right at your hands.

"Real estimates on the “war on Terror” till end 2008 varying from about US$ 1.70 – 3.00 Trillion!."

I provide a document that's regularly updated by the Congressional Research Service to describe OIF/OEF/ONE costs and you provide...an exclamation mark? Oh boy. Aren't we the credible one?

Again, a link please? You've the gall to question the best numbers out there but only allude to "real estimates"? You're very, very high.

Not your numbers. You. High. As a kite.

 

[Flintlock]

Taliban rockets kill policeman in Pakistan: police

8 hours ago

MIRANSHAH, Pakistan (AFP) — One officer was killed and another wounded when Taliban militants fired rockets at a police station in a tribal region of northwest Pakistan early Thursday, police said.

The attack targeted the Shahbazkhel police station 70 kilometres (43 miles) east of Miranshah, the main town in the North Waziristan district bordering Afghanistan and a Taliban stronghold.

"One policeman was killed and another injured when militants fired rockets at Shahbazkhel police station," local police official Noor Khan told AFP.

Nobody claimed responsibility for the attack, but militants operating in North Waziristan have threatened to launch attacks in northwestern towns in retaliation for US missile strikes.

"We will launch attacks in neighbouring towns if US drone attacks are not stopped," militant spokesman Ahmadullah Ahmadi said in a statement sent to reporters in Miranshah.

Ahmadi claimed responsibility for a suicide attack that killed five policemen at Baran Pul, about 50 kilometres (31 miles) east of Miranshah, on Monday.

Pakistan, a key US ally, has voiced fierce opposition to suspected US strikes against militant hideouts on its soil, saying they violate sovereignty and could spark a worsening backlash in the nuclear-armed Muslim nation.

Pakistan's rugged tribal regions have been wracked by violence since becoming a stronghold for hundreds of Taliban and Al-Qaeda rebels who fled across the border to escape the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001.
AFP: Taliban rockets kill policeman in Pakistan: police

 

[Anwar2]

Dear S-2:
You are Absolutely Right. Links MUST be provided where available.


Bloomberg.com: Worldwide
Economist Stiglitz Says Iraq War Costs May Reach $5 Trillion

The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More
The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More

Iraq, Afghanistan could cost $2.4 trillion - Oct. 24, 2007
'War on Terror' may cost $2.4 trillion

BBC NEWS | Business | The Iraq war: Counting the cost
The Iraq war: Counting the cost

Bush, Iraq war, real cost | Salon
The cold price of hot blood


The three trillion dollar war | Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes - Times Online
The three trillion dollar war
The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have grown to staggering proportions

 

[S-2]

Your first two and last two links all lead back to Stiglitz. He, variously, proposes $3 trillion to $5 trillion.
You've some man-love for Joseph Stiglitz. Four out of six links- there it was, Joseph Stiglitz. Over and over again. That was rather tacky and misleading, don't you think?

Your third link uses CBO numbers from October 2007 and based upon sustaining Iraqi levels at that time. Circumstances have changed dramatically, wouldn't you say? I suggested as much in my first response to you here. Numbers provided by the CRS are based upon these baselines and updated. I like mine better. Fresher data from the same sources.

Finally, your BBC document resources the same CBO, but as of last March. It's numbers track closely to what we've read as of October. So? Beyond the dates, I don't see any substantive differences. It's all about the variables.

The CRS is tracking these numbers fine and you know it. They are as impartial as it gets and their access is unrivaled. Two of your three offered POVs use the same data.

Worthless exercise. More so as you aren't considering ROI for America. Wars cost money? Tell us something new.

 

[muse]

Consider the neutralization of regional hegemons in the Persian gulf area an enduring nat'l security priority of the highest magnitude for the United States.

Thems fightin words -- but then you know that and you offer it by design. One would have thought that the highest natl security priority is learn to play well with others.

Anyway, it will come, I and most people I think, take comfort from your signature line.

 

[S-2]

"One would have thought that the highest natl security priority is learn to play well with others."

What do you think the maintenence of a global trading system that secures the free and unfettered access to Persian Gulf fossil-based energy at market prices would be?

America's greatest advantage, even in this recessed global economy, is our trading network. Our greatest weapon is Madison Avenue and our culture. We make money anywhere we can extend markets to, and vice-versa. After all, I can't sell to you if you've no money to buy goods and services. Therefore, I (or somebody else) must BUY from you.

The story of comparative advantage writ global to optimize our trade networks. To do so, Liberia, Singapore, Peru, or Pakistan must be able to secure energy with the same access and at the same prices as Japan, Germany, India, Brazil, or America.

Playing well with others doesn't mean establishing a choke-hold over the persian gulf and manipulating prices by holding product at risk and so too access by those seeking these resources for their economies.

The alternative is, bluntly, stark. It is a world of great power competition for scarce energy heightened by xenophobic nationalism. Regional power blocs emerging and hoarding THEIR energy at the expense of all. Other great powers will do what they can to secure THEIR energy in this suspicious climate.

The little guys will be left out. The global trading network will disconnect and we'll descend into a new dark ages.

Thanks but no thanks. Free and unfettered access to market-priced energy for all. Securing sea-lanes and preventing regional hegemons from emerging and endangering such a beneficial system is a perfect hyper-power task.

We should be billing the rest of you for the services provided.

 

[muse]

What do you think the maintenence of a global trading system that secures the free and unfettered access to Persian Gulf fossil-based energy at market prices would be?

Certainly, however; trade is not the same securing for yourself the goods of others. But this reveals a attitudinal problem, see, I don't know whether these last 7 years have been instructive or not, but to many people in the world, they will not let themselves be pushed around by the big guys - there are any number of levelers.

America's greatest advantage, even in this recessed global economy, is our trading network.

Which is why learning to play well with others is an existential imperative.

The US which you suggest, the benign hegemon, is certainly a more acceptable propect than a US that imagines it can achieve by force of arms what it cannot without.

"Imagine" may have been your highschool theme song, however; I used it to ilustrate possibilities - everything begins with "imagine", even for the hard nosed who have experienced the failure of "imagine"

 

[S-2]

"Which is why learning to play well with others is an existential imperative."

I look around the globe and see the World Bank, U.N., GATT, Breton Woods, NATO, and realize that we've been foremost practicioners since 1941. I don't really see your point.

You know from whom and where we secure most of our energy. Very little comes from the gulf. That said, what are our interests then? Are you one of those who think we've stolen oil from the Iraqis? Do you think we've tangibly enriched ourselves over the near-term by our presence in Iraq?

What, then, could be our motives if not an over-riding concern with the maintenence of a global trading system that seems to be connecting the world and not fracturing it? No doubt we are the primary beneficiaries of such, but that in no way, of course, suggests that many, many others haven't rode the same pathway to success.

Those small nations matter. It's not benign altruism. It's the functional reality of a globally competitive economic model. It rests on the ability of the weak to secure their needs without being leveraged by regional hegemons to temporal advantage of a few at the expense of many.

Once energy becomes a weapon of war and not a market commodity, all hell will surely break loose.

You won't like us at all then- of that I can assure you.

How do you like them fightin' words?

I presume that you believe the Persian gulf is capable of self-management to everybody's net benefit. Can you tell me why you believe so, please?

 

[muse]

I don't really see your point.

I understand that - in the last 7 years the US has not played well with others. You really should learn to appreciate that while the US has not earned friends in these 7 years, it has earned emnity and that it need to reverse this - this reversal can be effected by learning to play well with others.

Once energy becomes a weapon of war and not a market commodity, all hell will surely break loose

A commodity is a commodity - if it is used as a weapon then I would have thought the US would have worked to ensure that it plays well with others.

You make a great deal of sense, and bravado is no substitute for sense.

 

[S-2]

"You really should learn to appreciate that while the US has not earned friends in these 7 years"

Assumptive. Our net popularity is down. Friends come and go. You can't be sure who we've added regardless of those whom we've lost.

"it has earned emnity and that it need to reverse this"

Perhaps, perhaps not. It depends who's emnity we've earned and for what reasons or, in too many cases, ill-formed and mal-conceived rationales established well prior to 9/11.

"this reversal can be effected by learning to play well with others."

It takes two (or more) to tango. We dance with 41 other nations daily in Afghanistan under a UN mandate established in late 2001 in Bonn. With how many dance partners does Pakistan daily exercise it's etiquette- and to what effect?

More pointedly, how well does Pakistan play with others these days? The GoA has some thoughts on that subject periodically. Have you added Poland to your list?

In the end, the notion of glass houses comes to mind.