Contrarian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,571
- Reaction score
- 4
Roger....!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AM,
NATO/ISAF has done a 360 degree turn in its strategy in FATA. They are going for the hot pursuits not just to ensure kill. They are actually ensuring that either the PA meets the NATO forces upfront which means the PA will be sitting on the retreating lines of the militants or allow the militants to start hitting soft targets within Pakistan, forcing PA to turn back to the ISI. Wonder if this rings bells. But that's max that I can say.
This is something I've always wanted to know. Sovjets spent billions in Afghanistan but despite having superior weapons they lost in guerilla warfare.
Simply a miscalculation, lack of experience or is it the rigid terrain they fought in?
AM,Delta,
The attempts to get the PA/GoP to become more pro-active aside, I was referring to the potential of indiscipline within the Army, due to operations in FATA, to the extent that the PA is reduced to being not that much better off than the FC in conducting military ops.
Exactly. This discipline thing is all hypothetical.If you remember, Gen MCNeill's main gripe with the FC, and his argument for deploying the PA as the primary fighting force, was that a highly disciplined force was needed to confront the challenges faced in FATA. If discipline in the PA crumbles (hypothetically speaking, there are currently no signs that it would, and the military seems to have learned from some of its failures earlier) then it doesn't really matter which force is deployed or what NATO does - in terms of getting more positive efforts and outcomes from the Pakistani side.
AM,Going back to the point you raised about 'Hot pursuit' forcing the GoP to react - it might do the trick. The peace deals have failed pretty spectacularly in both Swat and FATA (again!), with even the ANP requesting the military to come into Swat. The combination of the peace deal failures, a possible impeachment/resignation of President Musharraf (resulting in increased support from the masses), and a more aggressive NATO policy of Hot Pursuit (they can already go in up to six miles I believe), might be just what is needed for the GoP to stop waffling around.
AM,
NATO/ISAF has done a 360 degree turn in its strategy in FATA. They are going for the hot pursuits not just to ensure kill. They are actually ensuring that either the PA meets the NATO forces upfront which means the PA will be sitting on the retreating lines of the militants or allow the militants to start hitting soft targets within Pakistan, forcing PA to turn back to the ISI. Wonder if this rings bells. But that's max that I can say.
Now with all these things happening, I seriously doubt the effectiveness of the ISAF/NATO s hotpursuit operations and expectations that the PA can sustain cordon operations to frustrate the Taliban's retreating lines. I have often debated with OoE on another forum regarding this. He nonetheless somehow doesn't seems convinced with my line.
Agnostic
You have to keep in mind that DoD is in charge in Afghanistan and not State. DoD does not do "diplomacy", it has it's agenda and is focused on the success of it's agenda by military means. And if Pakistani interests are disregarded, can it be an accident or an oversight that has lasted 8 years?? US military doctrine promotes the exertion of US Will to prevail over an adversarys and if Pakistani interests are sidelined it is because it fits into the adversary mould for the US.
Delta makes a point that has gone unexplored, that is that Pak Fauj has yet to win a decisive victory in any engagement - why is that?
Agnostic
You have to keep in mind that DoD is in charge in Afghanistan and not State. DoD does not do "diplomacy", it has it's agenda and is focused on the success of it's agenda by military means. And if Pakistani interests are disregarded, can it be an accident or an oversight that has lasted 8 years?? US military doctrine promotes the exertion of US Will to prevail over an adversarys and if Pakistani interests are sidelined it is because it fits into the adversary mould for the US.
A greater number of troops? have we any data on the numbers prsently engaged? Why is this task not given to SGS? Have we good data on the numbers of the insurgents?
if these are large numbers perhaps the PAF can be of further assistance. Moving from one regio to another, for large numbers cannot be a stealthy movement, there are vehicles ot procure and service, large numbers of insurgents have to be fed - how is it that even such basic things as monitoring movement has proven beyond the Pak Fauj?
That is true, but the SSG are not supermen - an SSG patrol is just as vulnerable to ambush as regular infantry, and they are just as vulnerable to being overpowered by larger groups of militants. I think utilizing them more on the ground comes into play when you break the organized networks and havens of the militant groups and have them on the run, as we may see now in Swat, and perhaps in Bajaur.Agnostic
Thank you for that response - I am sure we are agreed that FC supplemented by regulars or even SSG is a flawed conception - the idea of the "commando" was to use small numbers to hunt guerrillas/insurgents - perhaps this idea could be revisited with a view to elimination the leadership of the various groups one at a time.
Exonerating our failures on the backs of NATO was not my intention - I was merely trying to illustrate that the terrain makes it extremely hard for even forces with extensive reconnaissance assets to detect militants.May I also suggest we revist the idea that if NATO are killed or cannot claim success,t hen it may be OK for us to exonerate ourselves -- NATA are thin, seriously - and we, are not. NATO can go home tomorrow, where will we go if we do not succeed?