U.S. Weighs Strikes Into Baluchistan

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Many of Mr. Obama’s advisers are also urging him to sustain orders issued last summer by President George W. Bush to continue Predator drone attacks against a wider range of targets in the tribal areas, and to conduct cross-border ground actions, using C.I.A. and Special Operations commandos.

Well then, as the DG ISPR Gen. Abbas said, "open fire, in the air or on the ground", and may the above rot in hell afterward, along with the militants.

The only feasible solution here is for the US Defence establishment to stop living in its delusion that somehow if it could only apply more and more firepower over a larger and larger battlefield, that it could control the insurgency.

The only solution here is long term, through development and through the Pakistani security forces. If the US wants to help, it can help through projects like the ROZ's and capacity building of the FC and PA.

Policies like the one suggested in the article make the US part of the problem, not the solution.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I'm sorry but you seem unaware that there are two recent threads devoted to the duplicitous magic we've worked on Islam by perpetuating the image of a dead OBL. We need to maintain our raison d'etre.

You are no doubt referring to this:

Lawrence noted as well that the Osama figure in the December 2001 video, which many have taken as his assumption of responsibility for 9/11, wears golden rings—decidedly un-Wahhabi. He also writes with the wrong hand. Lawrence concluded that the messages are fakes, and not very good ones. The CIA has judged them all good.

On September 16, 2001, on Al Jazeera, Osama said of 9/11: "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation." Again, in the October interview with Tayseer Alouni, he limited his connection with 9/11 to ideology: "If they mean, or if you mean, that there is a link as a result of our incitement, then it is true. We incite…" But in the so-called "confession video" that the CIA found in December, the Osama figure acts like the chief conspirator. The fact that the video had been made for no self-evident purpose except perhaps to be found by the Americans should have raised suspicion. Its substance, the celebratory affirmation of a responsibility for 9/11 that Osama had denied, should also have weighed against the video's authenticity. Why would he wait to indict himself until after U.S. forces and allies had secured Afghanistan? But the CIA acted as if it had caught Osama red-handed.

I asked on the thread, is the above wrong? Is there evidence indicating it is wrong? Why isn't anyone refuting this on the thread?

Pejorative comments about Pakistan serve very little purpose compared to a thorough refutation of theories such as the above, given that they are very well crafted and presented and appear completely believable, especially when the trust deficit is so huge as it is between Pakistanis and the US Govt.

I have personally always taken the OBL tape admitting responsibility as the smoking gun.

If only America had met it's proper responsibilities and secured Pakistan's borders in 2001, none of this would happen.

Let's make amends...

On to Quetta.

Yes make amends, by securing the border on the Afghan side. That is your complaint right, cross border infiltration, so man up and man the border on your side and stop it, and have fun shooting down the militants as they cross.

If you can't stop them from crossing over, despite ostensibly being completely motivated to do so, what exactly is the point of your all so familiar rant of 'Pakistan giving up its sovereignty by allowing the 'Taliban army' in"?

Completely disingenuous - you expected us to do something, with all of the constraints we faced and the lack of information and the lack of belief and knowledge that the Taliban would morph into what they are today in FATA, despite the fact that you yourself, with far better technology, training and 'motivation', cannot accomplish what you expected us to, while having full belief and knowledge of the Taliban danger.

The West needs to stop scapegoating Pakistan and the ISI and pushing paranoid conspiracy theories and blame deflection - almost everything out of the West and posters like you is 'the US is always right, and its always someone else fault'.

 

[M_Saint]

U.S. Weighs Taliban Strike Into Pakistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/world/asia/18terror.html?ref=world

By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: March 17, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama and his national security advisers are considering expanding the American covert war in Pakistan far beyond the unruly tribal areas to strike at a different center of Taliban power in Baluchistan, where top Taliban leaders are orchestrating attacks into southern Afghanistan.

According to senior administration officials, two of the high-level reports on Pakistan and Afghanistan that have been forwarded to the White House in recent weeks have called for broadening the target area to reach the Taliban and other insurgent groups to a major sanctuary in and around the city of Quetta.

Mullah Muhammad Omar, who led the Taliban government that was ousted in the American-led invasion in 2001, has operated with near impunity out of the region for years, along with many of his deputies.

The extensive missile strikes being carried out by Central Intelligence Agency-operated drones have until now been limited to the tribal areas, and have never been extended into Baluchistan, a sprawling province that is under the authority of the central government, and which abuts the parts of southern Afghanistan where recent fighting has been the fiercest. There remains fear within the American government that extending the raids would worsen tensions. Pakistan complains that the strikes violate its sovereignty.

But some American officials say the missile strikes in the tribal areas have forced some leaders of the Taliban and Al Qaeda to flee south toward Quetta, making them more vulnerable. In separate reports, groups led by both Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of American forces in the region, and Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, a top White House official on Afghanistan, have recommended expanding American operations outside the tribal areas if Pakistan cannot root out the strengthening insurgency.

Many of Mr. Obama’s advisers are also urging him to sustain orders issued last summer by President George W. Bush to continue Predator drone attacks against a wider range of targets in the tribal areas, and to conduct cross-border ground actions, using C.I.A. and Special Operations commandos. Mr. Bush’s orders also named as targets a wide variety of insurgents seeking to topple Pakistan’s government. Mr. Obama has said little in public about how broadly he wants to pursue those groups.

A spokesman for the National Security Council, Mike Hammer, declined to provide details, saying, “We’re still working hard to finalize the review on Afghanistan and Pakistan that the president requested.”

No other officials would talk on the record about the issue, citing the administration’s continuing internal deliberations and the politically volatile nature of strikes into Pakistani territory.

“It is fair to say that there is wide agreement to sustain and continue these covert programs,” said one senior administration official. “One of the foundations on which the recommendations to the president will be based is that we’ve got to sustain the disruption of the safe havens.”

Mr. Obama’s top national security advisers, known as the Principals Committee, met Tuesday to begin debating all aspects of Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy. Senior administration officials say Mr. Obama has made no decisions, but is expected to do so in coming days after hearing the advice of that group.

Any expansion of the war is bound to upset those in Mr. Obama’s party who worry that he is sinking further into a lengthy conflict in Afghanistan, even while reducing forces in Iraq. It is possible that the decisions about covert actions will never be publicly announced.

Several administration and military officials stressed that they continued to prod the Pakistani military to take the lead in a more aggressive campaign to root out Taliban and Qaeda fighters who are attacking American forces in Afghanistan and increasingly destabilizing nuclear-armed Pakistan.

But with Pakistan consumed by political turmoil, fear of financial collapse and a spreading insurgency, American officials say they have few illusions that the United States will be able to rely on Pakistan’s own forces. However, each strike by Predators or ground forces reverberates in Pakistan, and Mr. Obama will be weighing that cost.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on “The Charlie Rose Show” on PBS last week that the White House strategy review addresses the “safe haven in Pakistan — making sure that Afghanistan doesn’t provide a capability in the long run or an environment in which Al Qaeda could return or the Taliban could return.” But another senior official cautioned that “with the targets now spreading, an expanding U.S. role inside Pakistan may be more than anyone there can stomach.”

As part of the same set of decisions, according to senior civilian and military officials familiar with the internal White House debate, Mr. Obama will have to choose from among a range of options for future American commitments to Afghanistan.

His core decision may be whether to scale back American ambitions there and simply assure that it does not become a sanctuary for terrorist groups. “We are taking this back to a fundamental question,” a senior diplomat involved in the discussions said. “Can you ever get a central government in Afghanistan to a point where it can exercise control over the country? That was the problem Bush never really confronted.”

A second option, officials say, is to significantly boost the American commitment to train Afghan troops, with Americans taking on the Taliban with increasing help from the Afghan military. President Bush pursued versions of that strategy, but the training always took longer and proved less successful than plans called for.

A third option would involve devoting full American and NATO resources to a large-scale counterinsurgency effort. But Mr. Obama would be bound to face considerable opposition within NATO, whose leaders he will meet with early next month in Strasbourg, France. At the very time the United States is seeking to expand its presence in Afghanistan, many of the allies are scheduled to leave.

As for American strikes on militant havens inside Pakistan, administration officials say the Predator and Reaper attacks in the tribal areas have been effective at killing 9 of Al Qaeda’s top 20 leaders, and the aerial campaign was recently expanded to focus on the Pakistani Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud, as well as his fighters and training camps. Many American intelligence officials say that several of the top Taliban commanders remain in hiding either in the sprawling Afghan refugee camps near Quetta or in some of the city’s Afghan neighborhoods.

Missile strikes or American commando raids in the city of Quetta or the teeming Afghan settlements and refugee camps around the city and near the Afghan border would carry high risks of civilian casualties, American officials acknowledge.

Thom Shanker contributed reporting from Washington, and Carlotta Gall from Islamabad, Pakistan.

Hmmm, why hasn't the creator of the 'Enlighten of the Moderation' seen it while taking 180 degree turn?

 

[Ratus Ratus]

Well then, as the DG ISPR Gen. Abbas said, "open fire, in the air or on the ground", and may the above rot in hell afterward, along with the militants.

The only feasible solution here is for the US Defence establishment to stop living in its delusion that somehow if it could only apply more and more firepower over a larger and larger battlefield, that it could control the insurgency.

The only solution here is long term, through development and through the Pakistani security forces. If the US wants to help, it can help through projects like the ROZ's and capacity building of the FC and PA.

Policies like the one suggested in the article make the US part of the problem, not the solution.

You can build up the CI capacity of the FC and the PA, as well as its overall size, but there has to be a will to remove the insurgent groups completely. That will and intent is missing.

Any form of reconstruction and development has to also follow, like education, and other social needs.

So far I have not seen real intent or commitment of the FC or the PA to remove these terrorists from Pakistan.
The Malakand Division is a good example of what has occurred and what will occur here because of this half hearted approach.
This is going to end up as just another piece of Pakistan being handed over to a group of parasitic thugs. What is more pathetic is some here actually think this is all Ok.

Slowly, slowly Pakistan is being swallowed by these people and the day it hits home will be too late.

You may suggest that US policies as this are part of the problem, but face a few realities Pakistan has built the initial problem, local conditions etc, as well and still is responsible for it being there.

 

[ajpirzada]

many ppl were callin it a conspiracy theory but it is becomin a reality. US is tryin her best to bring this so called WOT to pakistan. they have done enough damage in FATA so now they wanna do the same in balochistan. wat will be the effect? more pakistanis will get up and go to afghanistan to f*ck americans. then US will say that insurgency is on the rise and there is a massive presence of talibans in balochistan. simply tellin the world that problem lies in pakistan and not afghanistan. once world starts speaking their language and researchers come up with a model showing OBL hiding in gwadar etc, they will increase their target area. may be targetin areas close to punjab or sindh.
why does this world doesnt want to look into wat happened in FATA. it was only after american drone attacks on mehsud tribe, ppl went to afghanistan to fight these foreign troops. before that only 5 to 8% of those fightin in afghanistan were from pakistan. now if they start targetin other areas, wat makes them think more ppl will not come to afghanistan to take revenge.
one day ISI might get fed up of this and start providing anti aircraft guns to taliban. that day will be the end. remember USSR?? once afghanis got their hand on stingers, USSR was on the retreat.
ISI has managed to neutralise the CIA effect in fata which is iching americans rit now. these invaders cant even come out of their base camps in afghanistan. they should be careful while provoking a nation of 170 million.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You can build up the CI capacity of the FC and the PA, as well as its overall size, but there has to be a will to remove the insurgent groups completely. That will and intent is missing.

Any form of reconstruction and development has to also follow, like education, and other social needs.

So far I have not seen real intent or commitment of the FC or the PA to remove these terrorists from Pakistan.
The Malakand Division is a good example of what has occurred and what will occur here because of this half hearted approach.
This is going to end up as just another piece of Pakistan being handed over to a group of parasitic thugs. What is more pathetic is some here actually think this is all Ok.

Slowly, slowly Pakistan is being swallowed by these people and the day it hits home will be too late.

You may suggest that US policies as this are part of the problem, but face a few realities Pakistan has built the initial problem, local conditions etc, as well and still is responsible for it being there.

Ratus Ratus,

The Swat agreement was necessary given the constraints, political and military, and it is no harbinger of the future. To suggest that we go from the peace deal in Swat to the 'Taliban swallowing Pakistan' is just scaremongering.

Why the ANP/PA supported a peace deal in Swat is an argument that will only go around in circles - you cannot guarantee Pakistan against any aggression from the Indian side without which enough resources cannot be applied, and the only alternative then is to build up the Pakistani security forces and for the PA/FC to finish up operations in other agencies.

This 'lacking will and intent' thing is just an outdated canard now, given what the PA/FC has accomplished in Bajaur, and what it accomplished in Swat in phase I of the operation before the ANP led peace deals. The will and the intent exists - the capacity and resources perhaps do not.

The 'initial problem', lack of development in the Tribal areas, would not have morphed into the problem we have now were it not for the US invasion that drove the Taliban into Pakistan. And this argument to is unfair, given that it seems Pakistan is singled out for the 'lack of development' in parts of Pakistan, when the truth is that almost every developing country suffers from this poverty and lack of development, even India.

The PA/FC has cleared out Bajaur, Mohmand and Khyber to large extents - what is needed now is for the GoP, with US support, to initiate development projects, ROZ's for generating economic activity and a building up of the local tribal institutions to handle law and order and keep the Taliban from building up again - and not pursue policies that make the situation worse, as this article suggests.

 

[pakomar]

Since 2001 American losses in Afghanistan is less than 700 and seeing Pakistan on other side who send army to its tribal area on 2004 had suffer more than 1500 soldiers martyred (it seems like Pakistan is more serious on so called “war on terror&#8221.Americans should of block tora bora to kill or capture osama bin landin but they did n t because the main US interest was to create military bases in Asia and to cease Pakistan nuclear arsenal for Israel. Every day US troops loses ground to poorly armed freedom fighters and to hide these territory loses use Pakistan for blames games.

 

[S-2]

"I asked on the thread, is the above wrong? Is there evidence indicating it is wrong? Why isn't anyone refuting this on the thread?"

And as a result of these lessons through this information and the absence of refutation you conclude...what, exactly? I'd like to know, if you don't mind?

"I have personally always taken the OBL tape admitting responsibility as the smoking gun."

But A.Q.'s role in 9/11 is now open to serious question by you?

"That is your complaint right, cross border infiltration, so man up and man the border on your side and stop it, and have fun shooting down the militants as they cross."

Yes sir!

"...what exactly is the point of your all so familiar rant of 'Pakistan giving up its sovereignty by allowing the 'Taliban army' in"?"

A.M., my "rant" is a simple point of final responsibility. It is, afterall, your nation to which these men entered.

"..by allowing the 'Taliban army' in"?"

Would you prefer that this defeated army be characterized as having defeated the P.A. in open battle and wrested FATA from you? The narrative can be so shaped if desired. Nobody better to do the work though than you. Make the story rich and heroic, if so, and secure the film rights.

Your choice but they were the defeated taliban army of AFGHANISTAN and magically have found themselves in Pakistan.

Seven years later they and their leadership comfortably remain...but for PREDATOR.

I really don't care how you choose to posture the history of this taliban army on your soil. You must evidently live with them. Neither do I care that you believe that our responsibility to secure your nation's borders in times of crisis somehow exceed yours. Finally, I don't really care how you'd characterize the net degradation to sovereign control. For most it's self-evident.

"Completely disingenuous - you expected us to do something..."

Actually, yes. I did. I expected you to defend your borders in 2001 with the same verve, eagerness, and dedication which you invest against India. I expect an army that occupies territory in Kashmir to be masters of this type terrain. I expect that any army running out of Afghanistan faster than a bunch of N.A. tribesmen and SOF guys could chase them to be little problem for a Pakistani army that had between 9/11 and early November to get it's azz up to the border.

Clearly I was wrong. Disingenuous? B.S. I know what you're army is capable of and that ability was neither reflected then-to the detriment of their national responsibility to SECURE YOUR NATION- nor now.

If you have internal issues of instability, they stem from this abject abdication of responsibility by one of the world's largest and most experienced mountain warfare armies.

In the end, it's understood why.

Anyway, I'll look forward to reading your thoughts on OBL if nothing else.

Thanks.

 

[Omar1984]

many ppl were callin it a conspiracy theory but it is becomin a reality. US is tryin her best to bring this so called WOT to pakistan. they have done enough damage in FATA so now they wanna do the same in balochistan. wat will be the effect? more pakistanis will get up and go to afghanistan to f*ck americans. then US will say that insurgency is on the rise and there is a massive presence of talibans in balochistan. simply tellin the world that problem lies in pakistan and not afghanistan. once world starts speaking their language and researchers come up with a model showing OBL hiding in gwadar etc, they will increase their target area. may be targetin areas close to punjab or sindh.
why does this world doesnt want to look into wat happened in FATA. it was only after american drone attacks on mehsud tribe, ppl went to afghanistan to fight these foreign troops. before that only 5 to 8% of those fightin in afghanistan were from pakistan. now if they start targetin other areas, wat makes them think more ppl will not come to afghanistan to take revenge.
one day ISI might get fed up of this and start providing anti aircraft guns to taliban. that day will be the end. remember USSR?? once afghanis got their hand on stingers, USSR was on the retreat.
ISI has managed to neutralise the CIA effect in fata which is iching americans rit now. these invaders cant even come out of their base camps in afghanistan. they should be careful while provoking a nation of 170 million.

Its obvious when hearing these types of news that US wants to destabilize Pakistan. Today's US is not the same friendly US of Kennedy's days. Zionists and Indians have made their way into Washington, most of Obama's advisers are Zionists and Indians.

The best thing for Pakistan to do now is to share the entire coast of Arabian Sea with China and China can place as much of their navy ships on the Arabian Sea as they want, we'll see if Americans still want to come into Baluchistan province then.

 

[Energon]

Actually nothing in this article really comes as a surprise revelation. The US will continue attacks in Pakistani territory as long the local forces are deemed unfit and/or unable to be relied upon for critical operations. This has very little to do with demonizing Pakistan... we're way beyond all of that. Intelligence agencies obviously have ample evidence suggesting that the militia fighters from Afghanistan take refuge in Pakistan where they enjoy connate support and that the local military personnel are either unwilling to or incapable of engaging them effectively (this is by no means an outdated canard). Either way, numerous experiences in the past have made it clear to the US and NATO forces that involving the Pakistani authorities in critical operations presents with an unacceptable risk. The terrain itself is also very harsh and it is impossible for the NATO forces to maintain a constant physical presence along the entire border. The only way to accost this issue it to close down the sanctuaries on either side of the border. A large offensive will be planned this coming year to put pressure on the Afghani hot spots and as long as the Pakistani armed forces remain unreliable, there is no other option but to limit their involvement to lower level operations while taking unilateral action against high profile targets.

It must be noted though, that the "trust deficit" in regards to the PA isn't a permanent feature; if Gen Kiyani can bring about a paradigm shift and meet certain requirements then this will no longer be an issue. He has already stated his intention to do so, and until proven otherwise the world has no other option but to take his word. Whether he can actually do it or not remains to be seen; what the US and NATO know is that they cannot simply leave it all up to him for the time being, the cost/benefit ratio for such a venture does not pan out. They will keep hitting certain targets and hope that Kiyani can turn things around on his end so that he can be entrusted with more responsibilities.

The 'initial problem', lack of development in the Tribal areas, would not have morphed into the problem we have now were it not for the US invasion that drove the Taliban into Pakistan. And this argument to is unfair, given that it seems Pakistan is singled out for the 'lack of development' in parts of Pakistan, when the truth is that almost every developing country suffers from this poverty and lack of development, even India.

I too think this particular argument has been addressed inadequately. You're certainly right in pointing out that the lack of development in itself does not aptly address the issue given that this problem is endemic to all under developed nations and societies. It also weakens the perceived relationship between poverty and terrorism erroneously believed to be causative among many in the west up until recently. What is true however is that lack of development, poverty and a breakdown in law and order does bring about a vacuum that is filled by unique opportunistic entities that happen to be floating around (in that place/mindset at that time). It just so happens that in Pakistan, the virulence of these entities is far greater, and the particular effect it exacts are far more devastating than most other places around the world including India. Also while it is true that many of the fighters slipped into Pakistan after the US invasion of Afghanistan, it was primarily so because their ideology and movement has always had immense support there since its very inception. Of course why all of this happened and who is to blame and what should be done now are topics for another debate.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And as a result of these lessons through this information and the absence of refutation you conclude...what, exactly? I'd like to know, if you don't mind?

In the absence of any counter argument or refutation of the arguments made in the articles on that thread, I would have to assume that the video of OBL's confession was fake.

A.M., my "rant" is a simple point of final responsibility. It is, afterall, your nation to which these men entered.

Would you prefer that this defeated army be characterized as having defeated the P.A. in open battle and wrested FATA from you? The narrative can be so shaped if desired. Nobody better to do the work though than you. Make the story rich and heroic, if so, and secure the film rights.

Your choice but they were the defeated taliban army of AFGHANISTAN and magically have found themselves in Pakistan.

Seven years later they and their leadership comfortably remain...but for PREDATOR.

I really don't care how you choose to posture the history of this taliban army on your soil. You must evidently live with them. Neither do I care that you believe that our responsibility to secure your nation's borders in times of crisis somehow exceed yours. Finally, I don't really care how you'd characterize the net degradation to sovereign control. For most it's self-evident.

Actually, yes. I did. I expected you to defend your borders in 2001 with the same verve, eagerness, and dedication which you invest against India. I expect an army that occupies territory in Kashmir to be masters of this type terrain. I expect that any army running out of Afghanistan faster than a bunch of N.A. tribesmen and SOF guys could chase them to be little problem for a Pakistani army that had between 9/11 and early November to get it's azz up to the border.

Clearly I was wrong. Disingenuous? B.S. I know what you're army is capable of and that ability was neither reflected then-to the detriment of their national responsibility to SECURE YOUR NATION- nor now.

If you have internal issues of instability, they stem from this abject abdication of responsibility by one of the world's largest and most experienced mountain warfare armies.

In the end, it's understood why.

S-2:

Kasrkin really made this argument quite well in the other thread, and I attempted it again with you in my last post, but you have chosen to either read around it or deliberately not address any of the points raised, merely reiterating that 'rant' of Taliban army.

There was no 'taliban Army' that flowed over the Durand Line, tanks, men and all and set up camp in FATA. The vast majority of the Taliban were Afghans, and the ones that were not killed or captured on the front lines vanished back into their tribes and villages - that is why NATO continues to fight an insurgency fueled and 'staffed' from within Afghanistan.

The Taliban that did make it back into Pakistan were largely non-Afghans, mostly Pakistanis. Many, like those in Sufi Mohammed's Lashkar, were indeed arrested on return. That the Taliban in FATA are largely Pakistani and not this fictional "Taliban Army' that found sanctuary is borne out by a glance at the major Taliban groups and leaders operatin in FATA:

Nek Mohammed, Abdullah Mehsud, Baitullah Mehsud, Mullah Nazir, Gul Bahadur, Faqir Moahmmed - all of these Taliban leaders are Pakistani and their forces are largely comprised of Pakistani Pashtun from their respective tribes.

The few Taliban who did find sanctuary in Pakistan did so the same way they continue to cross back and forth between Afghanistan now, in small groups, over remote trails and inhospitable terrain.

This is the very situation NATO finds itself combating now, with limited success, yet you continue to insist that at a time when Pakistan was warding off Indian aggression in the form of Operation Parakram, at a time when Pakistan did not consider the Taliban to pose a major threat as they do now, or that they would morph into Al Qaeda and link up with them, you expect the PA to have done that which you cannot do yourself now.

That is why this whole narrative of yours is nothing but an absurd distortion to somehow win the 'sovereignty' argument.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Actually nothing in this article really comes as a surprise revelation. The US will continue attacks in Pakistani territory as long the local forces are deemed unfit and/or unable to be relied upon for critical operations. This has very little to do with demonizing Pakistan... we're way beyond all of that. Intelligence agencies obviously have ample evidence suggesting that the militia fighters from Afghanistan take refuge in Pakistan where they enjoy connate support and that the local military personnel are either unwilling to or incapable of engaging them effectively (this is by no means an outdated canard). Either way, numerous experiences in the past have made it clear to the US and NATO forces that involving the Pakistani authorities in critical operations presents with an unacceptable risk. The terrain itself is also very harsh and it is impossible for the NATO forces to maintain a constant physical presence along the entire border. The only way to accost this issue it to close down the sanctuaries on either side of the border. A large offensive will be planned this coming year to put pressure on the Afghani hot spots and as long as the Pakistani armed forces remain unreliable, there is no other option but to limit their involvement to lower level operations while taking unilateral action against high profile targets.

The PA has ostensibly chosen to not make a big issue out of the drone strikes, and the recent greater success rates speak to the cooperation being extended in that regard, so the issue is not so much 'leaving Pakistan out of high level operations' since it is apparent that it is Pakistani involvement that has ostensibly cut down on the collateral damage and strikes on the wrong (non-combatant) targets that characterized many of the earlier US strikes.

Without transparent cooperation and information sharing by both sides the PA will find it hard to overcome its trust deficit WRT the US and vice versa, which is pretty much the rut the US-Pak military relationship fond itself in through the last days of Musharraf.

The reported live Predator feeds to Pakistani command posts on the Pak-Afghan border and more intelligence cooperation point to a simultaneous move by BOTH sides to address the trust deficit, which is how it should be. Your own proposals on the way forward tend to take a 'holier than though' attitude with respect to Pakistan, irrespective of whether you are arguing India's case or the US's, and it is not really workable in the current dynamics.

Your views were shown wrong in the Indo-Pak environment as well, when Steve Coll highlighted the near resolution of Kashmir through back-channel diplomacy. Diplomacy, dialog and resolutions of a form you had virulently opposed unless Pakistan met your 'conditions'.

Your fundamental flaw is of approaching the situation through an absolutist perspective - an approach more in sync with Neo-Con ideology - Pakistan IS 'wrong and evil' and 'XYZ' must be done by it or 'no deal and no talks'. That is not how the world works and no better illustration of that failed line of thinking can be had than the eight years under the Bush Administration.

It must be noted though, that the "trust deficit" in regards to the PA isn't a permanent feature; if Gen Kiyani can bring about a paradigm shift and meet certain requirements then this will no longer be an issue. He has already stated his intention to do so, and until proven otherwise the world has no other option but to take his word. Whether he can actually do it or not remains to be seen; what the US and NATO know is that they cannot simply leave it all up to him for the time being, the cost/benefit ratio for such a venture does not pan out. They will keep hitting certain targets and hope that Kiyani can turn things around on his end so that he can be entrusted with more responsibilities.

As I explained above, there will be no alleviation of the trust deficit unless both sides move simultaneously on various issues, and the events that have unfolded indicate precisely that. Far more cooperation could be forthcoming from both sides, and I imagine that will be the case as we move forward.

The issue is not just one of what Gen Kiyani can accomplish militarily on the Pakistani side, which he has done quite a bit of in Bajaur, Mohmand and Khyber, but also the kind of support the US will extend in support of his operations. This was the focus of Gen. Kiyani's meetings in the US after all - more gunships, light artillery, capacity building of the FC etc.

On another and even more important level, it remains to be seen whether the US will indeed step up and help in reconstruction in areas like Bajaur, where the Taliban have been routed, but hundreds of thousands of refugees will also be returning to destroyed homes, businesses and crops. The FC/PA can militarily do no more in areas like these - without reconstruction it will be a downhill slide from here on.

Once we have these areas stabilized and local authorities in charge, the fight will likely move towards the Waziristan's.

 

[S-2]

A.M.

"That is why this whole narrative of yours is nothing but an absurd distortion to somehow win the 'sovereignty' argument."

Thanks for explaining your P.O.V. I understand why you feel the way that you do. It's difficult admitting that you haven't sovereign control over these lands.

Our belief is that significant numbers of taliban did enter Afghanistan. We are certain that their key leadership is in Quetta and that the locations likely known by your government. We're confident that both Hekmatyar and Haqqani are operating from within Pakistan. These are afghans and they are hardly the only. Just today, we received the news of a targeted bombing in Helmand that severed a taliban connection into Pakistan.

You can't stop PREDATOR and you know that my views correspond quite closely to my government's. Given the fact that you've had the opportunity to convince two separate American administrations upon why they should abandon PREDATOR, today we read that America is likely to expand it's efforts to include the AFGHAN TALIBAN in the Quetta area of Baluchistan.

Whatever you're selling, Uncle Sam is emphatically not buying. That gives me great comfort here.

 

[S-2]

Please allow me to add this. There is, IMHO, a significant argument to be made about the "afghan taliban" within your nation. So too, of course, al Qaeda.

Finally, though, like Sufi Mohammad in 2001, we have agreements reached by Maulvi Nazir, Mehsud, and Bahadur to focus their efforts upon Afghanistan. This, of course, would be as heinous a violation of accepted sovereign responsibilities as harboring foreign soldiers and leaders. The effect, naturally, is the same.

I do hope that someday you can again call FATA yours. It really, really isn't just now and that makes life so much harder for the afghanis.

Thanks.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Thanks for explaining your P.O.V. I understand why you feel the way that you do. It's difficult admitting that you haven't sovereign control over these lands.

Our belief is that significant numbers of taliban did enter Afghanistan. We are certain that their key leadership is in Quetta and that the locations likely known by your government. We're confident that both Hekmatyar and Haqqani are operating from within Pakistan. These are afghans and they are hardly the only. Just today, we received the news of a targeted bombing in Helmand that severed a taliban connection into Pakistan.

You can't stop PREDATOR and you know that my views correspond quite closely to my government's. Given the fact that you've had the opportunity to convince two separate American administrations upon why they should abandon PREDATOR, today we read that America is likely to expand it's efforts to include the AFGHAN TALIBAN in the Quetta area of Baluchistan.

S-2:

The only thing you have is 'belief' that the leadership is operating out of Pakistan - Gen. Pasha indicated that might be as much the case, and his comment regarding their activities is IMO also indicative of the fact that they are kept on a tight leash. Nor do I think was that comment made rashly - if those men are in Quetta and on a tight leash, your people know about it.

For Haqqani to be conducting negotiations over his future with the knowledge of the GoA and Saudis, it beggars belief to think US intel is not aware of whats going on. It just won't go down well with the folks at home if made public is all.

The fact remains that the majority of the Afghan Taliban were likely absorbed back into the Afghan countryside, it was after all the easiest way to avoid capture. You have not presented any argument to contradict any of the points I raised. I see that your cherry picking of sentences in your responses is a means of merely avoiding the tough questions.

Hekmetyar and Haqqani do not by any means comprise anything close to a 'Taliban Army', though they may operate out of FATA. Qari Ziaur Rehman after all brought a thousand men into Bajaur from Afghanistan to fight the PA, so this cross-border movement is by no means one sided.

Sorry S-2, you have offered nothing of substance to counter anything Kasrkin and I have pointed out, choosing once again to retreat into that dissembling, paranoid shell of yours, where I am beginning to suspect many of your Military officers may also exist if they insist on believing and peddling this garbage.

Nothing like 'passing the buck'.

Whatever you're selling, Uncle Sam is emphatically not buying. That gives me great comfort here.

Uncle Sam also cause the rape and mutilation of many societies in Latin America and Asia, and has the blood of millions on his hands, so what Uncle Sam buys or not has little to do with whether Uncle Sam has any moral standing, justification or 'truth' behind it.

The term carpetbaggers and the modern understanding of 'snake oil' was coined in the US after all.