Cross-border attacks: Troops reinforcement likely on Kunar border

[suryakiran]

Any explanation of use of heavy arms from Afghan side?

We understand the inaction from Ghadari govt. but why is ISPR quite on this? They should open the reality to public.

Surely, Pakistan need attack helicopters, drones and night vision googles.

It is clear that there is a combine pressure from US (openly) and India (covertly) to remove some forces from southern border, which hints some plan is in offing.

Pakistanis shall immediately block the transit aid to india, afghanistan and block all unwanted air traffic over its air.

Southern border? What forces are there in the southern border, which India and USA want pakistan to move it from there?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It will have to be the military, as we can't expect anything from the government. Has any federal minister even visited forward troops?

Who is going to provide political cover for the military to take action and potentially start a conflict with the US?

Without political cover and parliamentary endorsement and support, if things go badly, the 'elected politicians' will do what Nawaz Sharif did, and argue that 'we were never informed and Army acted unilaterally and unconstitutionally'. The US/West will also use the events as another excuse to malign the PA/ISI as 'acting against the wishes of the Pakistani nation and people in a dictatorial manner'.

Political cover through parliamentary endorsement is essential given the potential repercussions.

 

[VCheng]

Who is going to provide political cover for the military to take action and potentially start a conflict with the US?

Without political cover and parliamentary endorsement and support, if things go badly, the 'elected politicians' will do what Nawaz Sharif did, and argue that 'we were never informed and Army acted unilaterally and unconstitutionally'. The US/West will also use the events as another excuse to malign the PA/ISI as 'acting against the wishes of the Pakistani nation and people in a dictatorial manner'.

Political cover through parliamentary endorsement is essential given the potential repercussions.

So a veneer of legitimacy is all that is needed?

REAL change and REAL effort is needed to bring back REAL strength to institutions of the state, not mere veneers, fig leafs and whitewashes, as has been the norms in the past.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So a veneer of legitimacy is all that is needed?

Parliamentary endorsement will not be a 'veneer', it will indicate complete constitutional and national support for any actions taken by the Military of Pakistan against cross-border terrorists and their enablers in the US/CIA/NATO forces, who have reportedly been deployed in support of cross-border terrorist operations against Pakistani civilians and troops.

 

[VCheng]

Parliamentary endorsement will not be a 'veneer', it will indicate complete constitutional and national support for any actions taken by the Military of Pakistan against cross-border terrorists and their enablers in the US/CIA/NATO forces, who have reportedly been deployed in support of cross-border terrorist operations against Pakistani civilians and troops.

I see. Is this endorsement so important that the military must have before they take any action to stop the "cross-border terrorists"? Keeping the territorial integrity and defending the borders are ALREADY "endorsed" by the Constitution as the correct and ONLY role of the military, are they not? Or is this just another ruse to do whatever they want to do INTERNALLY, as many times in the past?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I see. Is this endorsement so important that the military must have before they take any action to stop the "cross-border terrorists"? Keeping the territorial integrity and defending the borders are ALREADY "endorsed" by the Constitution as the correct and ONLY role of the military, are they not? Or is this just another ruse to do whatever they want to do INTERNALLY, as many times in the past?

In this case, assuming allegations of US/CIA/NATO support for cross-border terrorist attacks against Pakistani civilians and troops are correct, military action against US/CIA/NATO military targets acting in support of terrorists could very likely result in a conflict/war with the US/NATO, and that, acts that might initiate war, go beyond merely acting against terrorists inside Pakistani borders, which the military is in fact currently doing.

 

[VCheng]

In this case, assuming allegations of US/CIA/NATO support for cross-border terrorist attacks against Pakistani civilians and troops are correct,

That assumption may be incorrect, but let's hear what you think the evidence is in support of that allegation.

military action against US/CIA/NATO military targets acting in support of terrorists could very likely result in a conflict/war with the US/NATO,

Acting in support? Again, another allegation, but even assuming that to be the case, for sake of argument, what legal and evidential bases could the Parliament use to authorize military action on foreign soil?

and that, acts that might initiate war, go beyond merely acting against terrorists inside Pakistani borders, which the military is in fact currently doing.

There is not "might initiate" here. Like I have said, assuming your allegations to be true, what legal and evidential bases could the Parliament use to authorize military action on foreign soil?

 

[BATMAN]

Pakistan was attacked by an army with heavy weapons and a war ensued and this happened in the same border region which shall be under heavy surveillance.

Please, stop making fool of the people in the name of parliament and democracy...
I hope you know almost all parliamentarians are foreigners... they have no investments and immediate family members in Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That assumption may be incorrect, but let's hear what you think the evidence is in support of that allegation.

Acting in support? Again, another allegation, but even assuming that to be the case, for sake of argument, what legal and evidential bases could the Parliament use to authorize military action on foreign soil?

There is not "might initiate" here. Like I have said, assuming your allegations to be true, what legal and evidential bases could the Parliament use to authorize military action on foreign soil?

Any 'evidence' to support allegations of 'US/CIA support for terrorist attacks against Pakistan' would likely be presented before Parliament before any Parliamentary authorization for military action. At the moment, I did deliberately use the phrase 'assuming the allegations are true' to indicate that they are not yet substantiated beyond doubt. What we do have are accounts in the media from locals indicating US/NATO air and artillery support for these terrorist attacks.

As for 'legal basis' - parliament could use the exact same one used by the US to carry out drone attacks and the Abbottabad raid ,'imminent threat'.

And unlike OBL, the multiple and continuing terrorist attacks against Pakistani troops and villages by insurgents based out of Afghanistan and allegedly supported by the CIA/US/ISAF ARE AN IMMINENT THREAT TO PAKISTAN.

 

[VCheng]

Any 'evidence' to support allegations of 'US/CIA support for terrorist attacks against Pakistan' would likely be presented before Parliament before any Parliamentary authorization for military action. At the moment, I did deliberately use the phrase 'assuming the allegations are true' to indicate that they are not yet substantiated beyond doubt. What we do have are accounts in the media from locals indicating US/NATO air and artillery support for these terrorist attacks.

Fair enough. Let's see what happens formally.

As for 'legal basis' - parliament could use the exact same one used by the US to carry out drone attacks and the Abbottabad raid ,'imminent threat'.

And unlike OBL, the multiple and continuing terrorist attacks against Pakistani troops and villages by insurgents based out of Afghanistan and allegedly supported by the CIA/US/ISAF ARE AN IMMINENT THREAT TO PAKISTAN.

So Pakistan will adopt Bush's Pre-emption Doctrine? I hope that Pakistan has the resources to back up such a confident assertion, I surely do.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So Pakistan will adopt Bush's Pre-emption Doctrine? I hope that Pakistan has the resources to back up such a confident assertion, I surely do.

This is not the equivalent to Bush's 'pre-emption doctrine', since Pakistan has suffered at least half a dozen major cross-border terrorist attacks in that particular region, perpetrated by terrorists with havens in that region. Given the allegations of US/CIA/ISAF support for these terrorist attacks against Pakistan, the 'threat of future attacks' is not only imminent, but has already been carried out several times.

 

[VCheng]

This is not the equivalent to Bush's 'pre-emption doctrine', since Pakistan has suffered at least half a dozen major cross-border terrorist attacks in that particular region, perpetrated by terrorists with havens in that region. Given the allegations of US/CIA/ISAF support for these terrorist attacks against Pakistan, the 'threat of future attacks' is not only imminent, but has already been carried out several times.

Okay, but if I understand you correctly, the strategy, if implemented, has the potential of being a double edged sword, given that India is likely to twist the same rationale of being the victim of cross-border terrorism into a similar justification for taking the war into what it sees as the safe havens.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Okay, but if I understand you correctly, the strategy, if implemented, has the potential of being a double edged sword, given that India is likely to twist the same rationale of being the victim of cross-border terrorism into a similar justification for taking the war into what it sees as the safe havens.

The difference being that I am not calling for Pakistani military strikes inside Afghanistan, but Pakistani military strikes against targets, terrorists and any elements supporting them, during hostilities.

This would be the equivalent of 'shooting down drones', and the Indians and Pakistanis already shell each other's positions across the LoC and IB when the suspect the other of instigating 'mischief'.

---------- Post added at 10:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 PM ----------

Just got done with a 7 mile run - perhaps not a great idea at 10 PM given that now I am wide awake ...

 

[American Pakistani]

Simple is build a massive wall with watch towers & bunkers connected to each other & nearby army base via underground network, will require very less troops, border will be safe, militant will be targeted easily & militant won't be able to cross border easily, many fools in Afghanistan who claim Pakistani land as their's will have to shut their mouths forever. The funds for that wall could be gather by public donations. Also Pak Army could than easily eliminate terrorists & drug smuggling will be stopped.

 

[VCheng]

The difference being that I am not calling for Pakistani military strikes inside Afghanistan, but Pakistani military strikes against targets, terrorists and any elements supporting them, during hostilities.

This would be the equivalent of 'shooting down drones', and the Indians and Pakistanis already shell each other's positions across the LoC and IB when the suspect the other of instigating 'mischief'.

.....

As long as the engagements are directly not on foreign soil, I can see your logic.