Pakistan to launch another Potemkin offensive in North Waziristan

[rubyjackass]

"POTEMKIN"

that's a good one!!!




only difference is -- we didn't do Swat or other campaign to 'impress' any imperial power. We did it because it aligned with our interests.

blindly bombing people into oblivion and destroying entire villages and turning people against us was never our strategy..that's why we arent encountering "green on blues" the way NATO is as of late

May be you misunderstood what Potemkin offensive means here. The author is calling Potemkin offensives all the 'offensives' declared as coming or in progress in NWA by Pakistanis from time to time since 2010. He was not saying anything about Swat operation.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

i understood crystal clear what he meant and i dont require your elaboration, but yea thanks . .

 

[Donatello]

The simple fact that terrorists have successfully based in and terrorized Pakistan for over a decade implies that Pakistani generals aren't the sharpest pencils in the box when it comes to lives, time, and resources, yes?

What about the terrorists in the state of Israel, who kill innocent Palestinians?

 

[Masterio92]

The simple fact that terrorists have successfully based in and terrorized Pakistan for over a decade implies that Pakistani generals aren't the sharpest pencils in the box when it comes to lives, time, and resources, yes?

Oh you seem much concerned about terrorized Pakistan? What about the invasion of Palestine and creation of a Jewish state which is a biggest monster of all, a horrendously oppressive, racist, religious state with illegal nuclear weapons who repeatedly attack their neighbors and flout international law?

 

[Mercenary]

Solomon,

Let me ask you something here. When you use the term "Terrorists" do you understand the connotation there? In Pakistan, we are facing a limited Pashtun insurgency. This is beyond Al-qaida and the so called terrorists. This does not end for Pakistan by killing a few leaders, as has been the case with Al-Qaida which is pretty much dead with OBL gone.

The more we go after established Pashtun tribes, the more recruits they get. The Haqqanis aren't some terrorists. They are Afghans and have significant tribal support on both sides of the border. On top of that, they openly claim that their fight is against "occupation of Afghanistan by foreign forces". Which means that their agenda is much different from that of a "terrorist" of the AQ type who cares to disrupt and generate instability only to make a political statement.

So contrary to your silly assertions about our Generals not being quick on the ball to understand this, they know this much better than you or any of the American generals operating in that theater. You have the luxury to pull out if things hit rock bottom, we don't. We are stuck with this problem in the long term. For Pakistan, Pashtun nationalism is a big problem, and taking on the Haqqani network is bound to inflame this.

The only out is to get the Haqqanis talking to Karzai and the ISAF. For us to fight this war against the Haqqanis for a tactical win for ISAF is essentially digging our own graves at the cost of our national stability and cohesion. Unless the overall situation with regards to Pakistan's security concerns on its Eastern and Western borders is concerned (yes this includes sanctity of Durrand Line as well as insurance against use of Afghanistan as proxy by India), we will remain stuck in this situation which is clearly not good for ISAF, nor Afghans or Pakistan.

So what you are saying is that Pakistan is scared to take on a bunch of people who are openly challenging Pakistan sovereignty?

Many other countries faced similar situations.

USA during the Civil War in which to preserve the Union, 600,000 Americans Died but they defeated the Confederate Rebels.

Jordan during Black September in 1970.

Sri Lanka with LTTE.

Colombia with the FARC

Mexico with the Drug Cartels.

If there are going to be bombings and other attacks so be it. Its like having a Snake in your house and you think you can sleep safe at night thinking that Snake is locked up in your Backyard. Sooner or later it will break into your house and attack you. Might as well get hurt and get rid of that snake and you can sleep easy.

 

[Solomon2]

Solomon,

Let me ask you something here. When you use the term "Terrorists" do you understand the connotation there? In Pakistan, we are facing a limited Pashtun insurgency. This is beyond Al-qaida and the so called terrorists. This does not end for Pakistan by killing a few leaders, as has been the case with Al-Qaida which is pretty much dead with OBL gone.

That's not what the U.S. did. After smashing the Al-Q base in Afghanistan the U.S. created flypaper in Iraq which sucked in to destruction many thousands of the rank-and-file trained in Osama bin Laden's training camps. Now the drones are in the process of killing the Al Qaeda leaders who would terrify Muslims into joining its ranks.

The more we go after established Pashtun tribes, the more recruits they get. The Haqqanis aren't some terrorists. They are Afghans and have significant tribal support on both sides of the border.

Offer the people better governance than they're getting and the Haqqanis will lose any popular base; furthermore, if the problem is on both sides of the border then the solution is joint operational command. But I doubt you can ever solve the problem without attacking the corruption that exists in your society from the bottom to the top.

For us to fight this war against the Haqqanis for a tactical win for ISAF is essentially digging our own graves at the cost of our national stability and cohesion.

Pay attention to your ethical values and you need not split up the country. Too bad you didn't learn that after 1971.

Unless the overall situation with regards to Pakistan's security concerns on its Eastern and Western borders is concerned (yes this includes sanctity of Durrand Line as well as insurance against use of Afghanistan as proxy by India), we will remain stuck in this situation which is clearly not good for ISAF, nor Afghans or Pakistan.

Matters need to be taken out of the hands of military professional and into the hands of professional politicians. All theater-level decisions require political judgment and this should not be in the hands of military commanders.

Do you remember B. Bhutto's story from her memoirs? She recounted Mushy's explanation about how the P.A. could capture Srinigar. But B.B. countered that by pointing out how the combination of international forces in response to such a move would eventually work to Pakistan's disadvantage and compel a retreat. The military don't grasp this because their answer to every possible challenge is more strength, not assessing political forces and seeking compromise or even (in the case of Kashmir) stability.

Guess what?


feeling is mutual

Looks like all the Pakistanis agree with Roggio's judgment that any offensive won't be meaningful in nature - they just don't like the deception being waved like a flag in the open. Which only endorses the very worst criticisms in the comments about Pakistani conduct - duplicity concealing enmity.

If success of terrorists is the parameter to judge, you would need to admit American military officials are rather head-less who have continuously lost more and more territory to Taliban despite of spending 100 times more resources than Pakistan. Do we agree?

No. The U.N. Security Council says Afghanistan isn't a fully sovereign state but is in the process of getting its act together. Pakistan, on the other hand, is supposed to be a fully sovereign state but it is in violation of UNSCR 1373 which obliges it to act against terrorists on its territory. Pakistan is thus at fault here, not the U.S.

 

[Solomon2]

Actually it is just the other way around---it was the american generals who scr-ewed it up for every one else. If it was really really about terrorism---then the american military would not have let the al qaeda escape from afghanistan.

You seem to assume Americans are somehow omnipotent. I didn't think this was in you, MK.

This failure in the war against terrorism is a 110% failure of the american military strategist---

True, they should have understood that Pakistan wouldn't put its whole heart into being an ally. Otherwise, I think the problem was failure to reach a suitable political settlement between Pakistan and the U.S. following the conquest of the Taliban. For that both U.S. and Pakistani leaders are to blame - but that was a decade ago and it should be our duty to do the best job we can now.

But there's more than just a Pakistan-Afghan-U.S. settlement going on, there are Pakistan's regional ambitions and the personal cravings of its leaders for money, status, and power. These are things that Pakistanis should be debating among themselves and really I don't see it, I see acceptance of Americans' money as a way to extract wealth from the infidels and the unquestioned assumption that Pakistan is in the right while Americans are wrong.

Dude it is not a fact, just your personal opinion -

It's a question - one the Pakistanis here are obviously avoiding, tossing it away like a hot potato.

“The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind.” ― William Blake

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" -- John Maynard Keynes

When the military tells the civilian government that their forces are 'stretched thin' and advises against an operation, no government will order its army to go in. More so with Pakistan where the government does not exactly 'order' its army.

Yup. Abraham Lincoln would have replaced such a commander with another general. The fault here is that the general confuses his personal interest with the good of the nation.

the best day in history of Pakistan will be when USA leaves us alone

Your leaders believe that the day that happens will be Pakistan's last. Forget India, without U.S. funds how will the government function? It's not like it successfully collects taxes.

 

[karan.1970]

uh oh, the "D ot"-head sputters again

dont re emphasis the incompetence.. As they say, its better to keep quite and look stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.. .. Free advice hai.. leni hai to lo, nahin to jaane do

i said what needed to be said....i'm calling your bluff

That wasnt a response to you..

 

[karan.1970]

either you are too cute or you are just taking a piss.

I think cute is better

let go the money mentality for a moment please, look beyond that. US didnt attack the salala base on request from Kyani. the suspension of the supply was a logical step but we want a closure of the WoT and Afghan issue so sooner or later it was going to be re-opened. there was a lot of bullying and yapping with immediate resumption of the supplies but they found out it wasnt happening.

Vested interests do not always translate to money..

Dude your self

its all relative, relative to what they were paying us, and as far as their annual budget is concerned its irrelevant because in the current times the US financial house is squeaking with strain, dont take my word for it, look up all the interviews and the articles where they were weeping and mourning over the "betrayal" of Pakistan by blocking the route and they having to pay many fold for the alternate routes. all of those blowhard articles had the key word "extra money having to be paid due to the blockade"

As I said, you need to have a perspective there.. The cost of Afghan war till date is close to a trillion dollars.. You think a 700 million they had to spend extra to use NDN would have changed their strategy???

you last sentence is hilarious .. why dont you think before you write? lol
CSF is separate from the transit fee genius, you dont "fund" or "aid" your energy supplier by paying your bill, you are just paying your bill. CSF was meant for part economic development in FATA and part for the military operations to support NATO fighting AQ and Taliban.

Money is totally fungible.. Really does not matter where the source is. You made them spend extra 700 million in transit for the seven months of route closure... You had to let go a part of earlier agreed to CSF funding.. Plain and simple...

War on terror bills: Pakistan forgoes $1.3b claim under CSF – The Express Tribune

and what the fck do you mean by half a$$ non apology? please dont invent self contradictory words. what Pakistan got was the best what a weaker country can get from the sole super power of the world who since the attack and the blockade.
their hawks were demanding immediate resumption without your half a$$.

I exactly mean what you understood.. That dead horse has been flogged to death many times over.. I have though noticed that you tend to indulge in personal attacks now much more often than before.. Not a very attractive trait.. You may end up like Mr Zulfiqar if you are not careful

 

[MastanKhan]

You seem to assume Americans are somehow omnipotent. I didn't think this was in you, MK.

True, they should have understood that Pakistan wouldn't put its whole heart into being an ally. Otherwise, I think the problem was failure to reach a suitable political settlement between Pakistan and the U.S. following the conquest of the Taliban. For that both U.S. and Pakistani leaders are to blame - but that was a decade ago and it should be our duty to do the best job we can now.

But there's more than just a Pakistan-Afghan-U.S. settlement going on, there are Pakistan's regional ambitions and the personal cravings of its leaders for money, status, and power. These are things that Pakistanis should be debating among themselves and really I don't see it, I see acceptance of Americans' money as a way to extract wealth from the infidels and the unquestioned assumption that Pakistan is in the right while Americans are wrong.

It's a question - one the Pakistanis here are obviously avoiding, tossing it away like a hot potato.

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" -- John Maynard Keynes

Yup. Abraham Lincoln would have replaced such a commander with another general. The fault here is that the general confuses his personal interest with the good of the nation.

Your leaders believe that the day that happens will be Pakistan's last. Forget India, without U.S. funds how will the government function? It's not like it successfully collects taxes.

Solomon,

I keep forgetting that regardless of the hardware that the u s has---it has very little history to fall back on---. Why would anybody think otherwise about the u s---. That has been the imgage portrayed by the u s---we know it all---we can see it all---we can handle it all---. So---after all the hoopla---if we begin to beleive in it being omnipotent---it is not our fault---that is what we have been taught---.

But if we now look into the proverbial ' proof in the pudding '----we now begin to realize that it is a miserable third rate millitary with a third rate strategy and a horrible game plan---if it was not for the high tech weaponery and assembly line---if not for the air support---the taliban would wiped out this army years ago.

The regional ambitions that pakistan has are its right---the u s has regional ambitions as well---.

What I am saying is that the u s is where it is not due to what pakistan has not done---it is due to what the u s has not done---what I am saying is that the pak generals should have found a media outlet to throw a light on this issue---nicely and kindly---in a very pleasant manner---with maps and charts---.

But before all that---pak should have understood the deception---or like you stated---the incompetence of the american generals right from day one---when they let Osamsa Bin laden escape tora bora----.

This brotherly islamic love has cost pakistan a free and independant and a prosperous nationhood.

 

[JonAsad]

the best day in history of Pakistan will be when USA leaves us alone

Well this is the best day of PDF for me-
i read blain2- i read mastan khan- the aces-
i am feeling all more knowledgeable- -

 

[MadDog]

Your leaders believe that the day that happens will be Pakistan's last. Forget India, without U.S. funds how will the government function? It's not like it successfully collects taxes.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...fensive-north-waziristan-4.html#ixzz237YASDy0

@ Solomon2

We don't need that aid, its 1-2 billion dollars annually...all we need is to clamp down on tax evaders...every year tax evasion in Pakistan is 500-600 billion ruppees (5-6 billion US Dollars) , we ve on of the lowest tax-gdp ratio in the world...u need a leader whom people trust...and there is no need for aid.

Current incompetent Zardari govt needs aid...cuz ppl don't trust him

source: Business & Finance Review

 

[Irfan Baloch]

The secret in retorting back is not to show hate and anger---but to show disappointment at the failures and deception of the u s military----thru charts and maps---. There have to be visuals displayed on the tv screen---. It does not have to be a general or a politicians but a knowledgeable person who can talk nicely and politely without anger---not downgrading the u s or being insulting---but just showing the deceit.

Sir I agree, politeness wins in the long run.
the tricky part is finding the audience.

the art of reporting or misreporting in the Western mainstream media has morphed into something totally new. shout hardest and longest and dont give the viewer any chance to escape, through adverts, songs, articles, movies, programs, cartoons and illustrations to hard-wire a mindset so that the moment news caster opens the mouth, the audience is already sold to the story as fact and gospel truth.

And I agree with you comments.
its an uphill task, we lack the capacity and will to take on this job with cut lips and broken teeth to make a coherent sound. the constant lashing by the western media and the US administration is such that even the cries of pain are taken as threatening and offensive.

but I dont see anything new here. in an odd relationship of a very strong and very weak, when things would work out fine, the mighty one will claim all the glory and would pass all the blame to the weak one upon failure even if the weaker party had no say or control over the actions of the mighty one. (case in point, American disregard of the Pashton population in Afghanistan since the invasion to this date, despite Pakistan's advice to do otherwise).

Well this is the best day of PDF for me-
i read blain2- i read mastan khan- the aces-
i am feeling all more knowledgeable- -

indeed blain and Mastan are the shining aces and lead the way.

oh i wasnt referring to the americans

I guess he meant both

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

That's not what the U.S. did. After smashing the Al-Q base in Afghanistan the U.S. created flypaper in Iraq which sucked in to destruction many thousands of the rank-and-file trained in Osama bin Laden's training camps. Now the drones are in the process of killing the Al Qaeda leaders who would terrify Muslims into joining its ranks.

Saddam Hussain's credibility went down the tube when he used chemical munitions on Kurds & Iranians.

He was a brutal dictator to those who dissented. But he was in the cross-hairs of terrorist groups like al qaeda as he was a secular baathist.

"Al qaeda in Iraq" came into being only AFTER the US invaded. It was America's misguided adventure in Iraq that caused chaos in Iraq. So IF and only IF what you are saying is 100% accurate, you have your own to blame. Sorry to break it to you.

Offer the people better governance than they're getting and the Haqqanis will lose any popular base; furthermore, if the problem is on both sides of the border then the solution is joint operational command. But I doubt you can ever solve the problem without attacking the corruption that exists in your society from the bottom to the top.

now this i agree with.....the existence of this so-called haqqani group however (which exists on BOTH sides of the porous Durand Line) is purely a reaction to NATOs presence in Afghanistan. Remove NATO from the equation, such groups that see themselves as 'resistance' will lose their steam and any support they may have.

Contrary to popular belief, the people of FATA want investment and want schools -- so that the lives of future offsprings could be improved.

Rooting out corruption from bottom up -- starting from grass-roots level and going up to the MNAs and Senators -- is a damn good start and we can only pray that this happens sooner or later for our sake and our country's sake.

Matters need to be taken out of the hands of military professional and into the hands of professional politicians. All theater-level decisions require political judgment and this should not be in the hands of military commanders.

civilian affairs are best reserved for civilians but Army is compelled to go beyond its job description when the civilians make a mockery of democracy and leave the country in a precarious situation. We lack a unified front of "professional" politicians and I hope that would change. Day to day politics in Pakistan is very dirty.

Do you remember B. Bhutto's story from her memoirs? She recounted Mushy's explanation about how the P.A. could capture Srinigar. But B.B. countered that by pointing out how the combination of international forces in response to such a move would eventually work to Pakistan's disadvantage and compel a retreat.

the people of Sri Nagar are very pro-Pakistan. I suppose this was part of his reasoning and logic. No need however to delve into Kashmir here as its totally irrelevant to this topic.

Looks like all the Pakistanis agree with Roggio's judgment that any offensive won't be meaningful in nature - they just don't like the deception being waved like a flag in the open. Which only endorses the very worst criticisms in the comments about Pakistani conduct - duplicity concealing enmity.

i'd just look at Pakistan Army's track record since, say, 2008. I think they are doing what they can to counter the insurgency. These types of unconventional wars (which consist of day to day squirmishes and battles) are not win overnight. The Americans have a bad habit of expecting immediate results. They are very unrealistic, and we see that in Afghanistan.

that's why your Pentagon and State Dept/White House officials are often at loggerheads with eachother

No. The U.N. Security Council says Afghanistan isn't a fully sovereign state but is in the process of getting its act together. Pakistan, on the other hand, is supposed to be a fully sovereign state but it is in violation of UNSCR 1373 which obliges it to act against terrorists on its territory. Pakistan is thus at fault here, not the U.S.

Pakistan has contributed more in the fight against terrorism than ANY other country and it has paid a HUGE price. Hopefully NATO's actions and missteps will be corrected so that less burden is placed on us.

In the past 3 months alone cross-border attacks from NATO-controlled Afghanistan are steeply on the rise. Soldiers signed up for the job to face, confront and kill the enemies of Pakistan.....but civilians did not.

Afghanistan is an increasingly troublesome country and sooner or later something concrete will have to be done to stop this treachery.

 

[khail007]

It's a question - one the Pakistanis here are obviously avoiding, tossing it away like a hot potato.

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" -- John Maynard Keynes

A good twist, when one can't answer the facts and just keep on insisting upon his opinions. I believe that you don't have a valid reasons for your posts, you are only habitual of quoting some txt books and other's opinions. When a person does not have a reality on his side then he takes refuge behind stories as is the case in your response.