Operations in Dir and Buner

[wtf]

DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Sufi Mohammad?s son killed in Lower Dir shelling

Sufi Mohammad’s son killed in Lower Dir shelling

 

[batmannow]

i guss, PAKARMY already gave a lot of time to talibans, to decide better things for themselves.
But it seems TALIBANS, took it as a weekness of PAKARMY, as talibans were jubilant over the SWAT peace accord, which they thought a loss to PAKARMY.
from the frist day of that peace accord , it was clear that talibans were about to expand thier activities to the other parts of FATA.
it was PAKARMY which gave them , chance to achive peace .
now it was clear that , TALIBANS were not intrested in any peace , any where around , PAKARMY had to take action with full force, in my view it should be done along time ago!

 

[ajpirzada]

Artillery can be utilized effectively if it is accurate.

Given how many militants there are in the region, and that they are choosing to defend (instead of guerrilla hit and run tactics) this phase of the combat would be akin to a conventional light infantry battle.

So even if you avoided artillery and Attack Heli's, there would potentially be significant collateral damage given the amount of firepower that would have to be brought to bear on the insurgents to overrun them.

Infiltrating spotters etc. to target militants and engaging them with artillery and Air strikes minimizes the risk to troops with minimal increase in risk (if any) to civilians, during this phase of the operation, in my non-military opinion.

Once the area is cleared, saturation of the region with Military, paramilitary and LEA's to conduct patrols and maintain law and order, while reconstruction is carried out, would then be required.

What say?

i heard DG ISPR sayin the samehting... tht they first target militants with artillery and gunship and then send in troops. but i was of the view that artillery and gunship will cause more damage to civillians than militants. but i guess more innocents get killed in cross fire than coz of shelling.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Inside Mingora, the Taleban are getting ready for an attack which local people expect to be imminent. One eyewitness told the BBC he had seen militants planting land mines, digging trenches and cutting down trees to block roads.

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Troops killed in Pakistan clashes

7000+ militants estimated - This will take a while, and there will be significant civilian and military casualties.

Pakistanis should be prepared for this and the long haul. Support the offensive no matter what.

 

[Elmo]

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Troops killed in Pakistan clashes

7000+ militants estimated - This will take a while, and there will be significant civilian and military casualties.

Pakistanis should be prepared for this and the long haul. Support the offensive no matter what.

Any idea as to
a. How many troops deployed there?
b. The report mentions 10 soldiers being killed — are they army men or Frontier Corps personnel?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Any idea as to
a. How many troops deployed there?
b. The report mentions 10 soldiers being killed — are they army men or Frontier Corps personnel?

a.
"Between 12,000 and 15,000 Pakistani troops are in Swat, the official said, adding that more troops will be deployed to the Swat, Dir and Buner districts."

Pakistan says Taliban peace deal will end - UPI.com

b. DG ISPR said 'troops were ambushed in a convoy' - my guess is these were PA convoys.

 

[Nemesis]

9 soldiers killed, Pak vows 'decisive' win over Taliban

ISLAMABAD: Nine Pakistani soldiers were killed, seven in one ambush, during clashes over the past 24 hours in the northwest district of Swat, the
top military spokesman said on Thursday.

"In 24 hours, we lost nine soldiers and about 10 of them (were) injured," Major General Athar Abbas said.

Seven of the soldiers were killed when militants ambushed a convoy at the entrance to Mingora, the main town in the northwest Pakistan district.

"The troop carrier was coming and there were seven soldiers killed in that. Two soldiers were killed somewhere in the valley north of Matta," Abbas said.

Pakistani attack helicopters and war planes pounded suspected Taliban hideouts Thursday, as thousands of people fled the deadliest fighting to erupt in Swat since a peace agreement was reached in February.

Army chief vows 'decisive' victory over militants

Pakistan's army chief of staff General Ashfaq Kayani vowed on Thursday to secure a decisive victory over Taliban militants.

"It (the army) will employ requisite resources to ensure a decisive ascendancy over the militants," a military statement quoted Kayani as telling senior officers.

Kayani, who chaired a meeting with top commanders in the garrison city of Rawalpindi, said the army was "fully aware of the gravity of internal threat."

The present security situation "requires that all elements of national power should work in close harmony to fight the menace of terrorism and extremism," the statement quoted Kayani as saying.

"Pakistan is a sovereign state and the people of Pakistan under a democratic dispensation, supported by the army, are capable of handling the present crisis in their own national interest," he said.

"With resolute conviction and faith, Pakistan's army with the help of people of Pakistan will successfully confront current and future challenges," added the statement, which was released in English.

Pakistani helicopters and war planes pounded suspected Taliban hideouts Thursday in the northwest district of Swat, where thousands more people were fleeing their homes fearing a stepped up military offensive.

9 soldiers killed, Pak vows 'decisive' win over Taliban - Pakistan - World - The Times of India

 

[Hellfire]

AgNoStIc MuSliM



Artillery can be utilized effectively if it is accurate.

Agreed but the catch words are "accurate". Anyone familiar with the arty ops will be able to ennumerate upon the frequency of screw ups in implementation of fire missions in a dynamic and fluid field of engagement.

Given how many militants there are in the region, and that they are choosing to defend (instead of guerrilla hit and run tactics) this phase of the combat would be akin to a conventional light infantry battle.

Again the approach adopted needs to be in light of non-linear battlefield as opposed to a linear. PA's stated limitations (as highlighted in innumerable posts by yourself) in decisive action is on limiting civillian casualties so as to prevent a negative public opinion. The present strategy in fact is antithetical to this stated claim of PA.

Any employment of artilleyr/heavy armour/air assets in form of attack helicopters leads to employment of overwhelming fire power concentrated in a limited area. You yourself have contended that the Talibs in the area are concentrating on defensive parameters. This is best achieved by holding villages/towns in the region and forcing an urban warfare type of environ on PA. In such a setting, there is no question of limiting the collateral damage sustained, as I pointed out earlier, to public/private properties and infrastrcuture. This again goes against the basic directive to ensure nonescalation of costs of the operations due to paucity of funding. If such a humongous force is employed in such an environ, the cost of post-war reconstruction as also rehabilitation of displaced populance (almost 500000 as per your own sources) will be tremendous.

As such the approach is flawed and this kind of operation, IMO, seems to be a cover up for a lack in ability to employ troops in sufficient numbers primarily and ultimately.

So even if you avoided artillery and Attack Heli's, there would potentially be significant collateral damage given the amount of firepower that would have to be brought to bear on the insurgents to overrun them.

Not necessary. Anyone who has studied the IA tactics in J&K will be able to appreciate the wisdom of cordon and wait policy. Troops typically cordon off the region that is inhabited by the militants and wait. Its then a question of resources running out first. No doubt a time consuming process, but it allows you to effectively isolate and then bring accurate and proportional fire onto the positions in terms of BSW (batallion support weapons) and MGs. As such the security forces always hold the edge in terms of ability to resupply and rotate troops. It also avoids unnecessary casulties of own troops and/or civillians.

Infiltrating spotters etc. to target militants and engaging them with artillery and Air strikes minimizes the risk to troops with minimal increase in risk (if any) to civilians, during this phase of the operation, in my non-military opinion.

In an urbanised set up, impossible. There is no precision in any arty/air support employed. Until and unless you are going in for PGMs. A very costly affair again.

Thanks

 

[Hellfire]

i heard DG ISPR sayin the samehting... tht they first target militants with artillery and gunship and then send in troops. but i was of the view that artillery and gunship will cause more damage to civillians than militants. but i guess more innocents get killed in cross fire than coz of shelling.

I have a different opinion on that. The fact that at ground level you are able to effectively differentiate between a potential threat and an innocent bystander far supersedes the risks involved to own troops. The basic foundation for this is that the troops are meant for securing the lives of innocent citizens.

Such differentiation is impossible in fire missions involving arty/air assets due to lack of verification in real time. A contention of inserting an observation post (OP) in the sector may not necessarily allow you to plan fire missions to avoid civillian casulties. In urbane set up .... its a nightmare.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Hellfire:

Agreed but the catch words are "accurate". Anyone familiar with the arty ops will be able to ennumerate upon the frequency of screw ups in implementation of fire missions in a dynamic and fluid field of engagement.

That will happen, but note also that 30+ civilians were killed in combat between militants and SF's in Mingora in one day alone, and no airstrikes or artillery were employed by the PA/PAF.

That is greater than the civilian casualties in the first week of the Buner assault, where artillery and gunships were used on select locations. So far artillery and air strikes have been primarily conducted on militant vehicles and positions, and not on the towns or populated areas. If Bajaur is anything to go by, the PA and PAF will wait till most of the population is evacuated in a populated area before applying overwhelming force.

Notice that the PA/PAF have not had any incidents like those in Afghanistan with scores of people getting killed in a single airstrike.

The present strategy in fact is antithetical to this stated claim of PA.

I disagree for the reasons mentioned above.

Troops typically cordon off the region that is inhabited by the militants and wait. Its then a question of resources running out first.

In this case you are talking about all of Swat, Dir an Buner - this is a massive amount of territory to cordon, not feasible at all.

This operation (as in Bajaur) isn't just about rooting out militants holed up in a town, its about retaking a large swathe of territory from a 7000+ extremely motivated and well armed force.

The J&K model does not apply here IMO.

 

[ajpirzada]

I have a different opinion on that. The fact that at ground level you are able to effectively differentiate between a potential threat and an innocent bystander far supersedes the risks involved to own troops. The basic foundation for this is that the troops are meant for securing the lives of innocent citizens.

Such differentiation is impossible in fire missions involving arty/air assets due to lack of verification in real time. A contention of inserting an observation post (OP) in the sector may not necessarily allow you to plan fire missions to avoid civillian casulties. In urbane set up .... its a nightmare.

i understand ur point of view and kind of agree with it as well. but who knows wat the ground situation is lik. coz apparently most of the artillery is being used to target millitant positions in mountains. it would be too risky to send troops in the mountain forests without first destroyin their hideouts. but yes in villages we should rely more on troops instead of artillery or gunship

 

[Xeric]

Agreed but the catch words are "accurate". Anyone familiar with the arty ops will be able to ennumerate upon the frequency of screw ups in implementation of fire missions in a dynamic and fluid field of engagement.

Are you referring to indian artillery??

 

[Hellfire]

Are you referring to indian artillery??

enigma

i mean all arty batts WITHOUT exceptions. And in a fluid battlefield NOT static.

now if you have somehow developed technology which none have to control projectiles which are governed by projectile mechanics then I am sure your fire support will be pinpoint and accurate. and you may be able to provide firemissions with zero error probabilty controlling the windspeed, drag, drafts in moutainous terrain which may govern your projectile as it traverses the air to its target area.

 

[Hellfire]

AgNoStIc MuSliM

Am a persistent PIA sorry


That will happen, but note also that 30+ civilians were killed in combat between militants and SF's in Mingora in one day alone, and no airstrikes or artillery were employed by the PA/PAF.

Am sure you can appreciate that the operation was high intensity and time bound, as such the relative risks were increased manyfolds.

That is greater than the civilian casualties in the first week of the Buner assault, where artillery and gunships were used on select locations. So far artillery and air strikes have been primarily conducted on militant vehicles and positions, and not on the towns or populated areas. If Bajaur is anything to go by, the PA and PAF will wait till most of the population is evacuated in a populated area before applying overwhelming force.

That is why I said so long as you are in linear engagements, the strategy works and is sound (but then your reconstruction costs go up if in urban area). However, with Talibs slowly mixing in with the public the problem will be further potentiated. You are right now going purely on the relative merit of tactics employed. You have to take the broader view of the impact of this particular line of approach. Your cost of engagement will increase manifold if you are going to wait for the areas to be emptied. In addition, it shall reinforce that you are at war and not launching operations against insurgents. This has potential again to have a severe demoralising effect on citizens in mainland cities.



In this case you are talking about all of Swat, Dir an Buner - this is a massive amount of territory to cordon, not feasible at all.

am not asking you to cordon the whole geographical area. pressure is mounted by specific operations against the Talibs which will result in their holding some ground to take a stand. relatively this shall ideally have a small frontage for better concentration of their firepower (GROUND concept is utilised even by them). as such, such a locale can be cordoned. its operation specific not a general approach.

This operation (as in Bajaur) isn't just about rooting out militants holed up in a town, its about retaking a large swathe of territory from a 7000+ extremely motivated and well armed force.

The J&K model does not apply here IMO.


I think I shall wait and watch .... will revert to this topic with you after a couple of days.

Thanks

 

[Xeric]

enigma

i mean all arty batts WITHOUT exceptions.

now if you have somehow developed technology which none have to control projectiles which are governed by projectile mechanics then I am sure your fire support will be pinpoint and accurate. and you may be able to provide firemissions with zero error probabilty controlling the windspeed, drag, drafts in moutainous terrain which may govern your projectile as it traverses the air to its target area.

Come on dude, now dont teach me ballistics!

i was concerned about your claim as regards to "frequency of screw ups"

You talked as if we are living in the stone age where 100 catapults throw 1000 stones and 10 actually makes to the target and out those 10, 2 manage to so some damage at the target end!

Yes screw ups do happen, but it will not happen that a round would land like a 1000 m away from its intended to land.

As for the "windspeed, drag, drafts" there is something known as meteorology which every modern artillery make use of. You must have heard (as you are a militarily trained doc) about electronic met computation and its application.

They are not fighting Siachen where the met effect is exaggerated.

And the guns that you and we have a quite accurate. Rather i must say very accurate!

As for your "zero error probability", the 'probable error' (both the range PE and the deflection PE) in any gun actually helps the aim of any fire support rather than hindering it.

If your gunners sleep and smoke hash while shooting and load projectiles with wrong fuze and pump in a few extra charge bags inside the breach block and 'lay' the gun (the panoramic telescopes)on a passerby's (who happens to be a beautiful South indian) instead of the Aiming Posts, then i can assume the high 'frequency of screw ups' at your end, but 'unfortunately' our gunners don't do that

And yes, before i forget, in mountainous terrain what else would you like to employ to kick the militants out from there? i hope you dont recommend using Armour where tanks are getting stuck in defiles!

Artillery and Airforce are the suitable (though not the best) resources available currently!

Chill!