US Drone Strikes In Pakistan

[Always Neutral]

lets have some F-16s and Mirage on the sky and shot them before they even cross the border

Yes please do that, when and if you join the PAF. Stop posting rubbish and try to find out that the people killed were harming Pakistan not the otherway around.

If just flying a F16 and shooting down a drone was the solution don't you think THINK TANKS like Muradk etc would have not done that long ago.

Regards

 

[S-2]

That was a powerful article by David Ignatius at WAPO. It confirms most of what I've been saying- these attacks have the tacit approval of the GoP and have proved especially effective.

Why? Well, here's a clue-

"It provided new mechanics for coordination of Predator attacks and a jointly approved list of high-value targets. Behind the agreement was a recognition...that the imminent threat to Pakistan's security comes from Islamic terrorists rather than from arch-rival India.

The approved target list includes, in addition to al-Qaeda operatives, some Afghan warlords who were once sheltered by the ISI, including Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the Haqqani family network and Taliban leader Mohammad Omar. Also on the target list is Baitullah Mehsud, often described as the leader of the Pakistani Taliban."

Jointly developed with something to make everybody happy. America willing to absorb the political heat (as usual). Target locations to facilitate attacks likely produced in CLOSE cooperation with ISI field agents in FATA and NWFP. Special Forces training of key F.C. trainers. Increased tempo of P.A. combat operations in Bajaur of all places. Who would have figured but for Elizabeth Rubin and Sebastian Junger's excellent articles about the Korengal valley last fall. They introduced Kunar Province to the American public in a most graphic and telling manner. It only made sense with the contacts our guys had on the Afghani side that there were some VERY interesting events and people hanging out just on the other side.

Events over the last two months in Bajaur confirm everything suspected about this very fascinating area.

Awesome stuff.

 

[RescueRanger]

Events over the last two months in Bajaur confirm everything suspected about this very fascinating area.
Awesome stuff.

Says it all...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

America willing to absorb the political heat (as usual).

Mullah Nazir and the other breakaway factions have already declared that the attack that almost killed Nazir could not have been possible without Pakistani military cooperation due to the secrecy of Nazir's movements.

They have clearly indicated through their spokesman that continued attacks would be taken as a GoP declaration of war against their particular factions, and they would therefore join the TTP in waging war against the Pakistani state, and in fact redirect from Afghanistan into Pakistan.

The 'heat' is going to more than likely be entirely on Pakistan and its people, as we open another front doemstically, that was long denied to the TTP through these 'alliances'.

While these people do need to be 'taken out', now is not the time, not until Bajaur and Swat are pacified, and not while Pakistan continues to struggle economically.

 

[S-2]

I found this article by Sadia Sulaiman and used it to better understand a bit of the inter-tribal relationships and the affiliated taliban organizations. It seems generally current and I found it helpful. Please correct me if there's an unrepresented position or undue bias-

Empowering "Soft" Taliban Over "Hard" Taliban: Pakistan's Counter-Terrorism Strategy- Terrorism Monitor

"They have clearly indicated through their spokesman that continued attacks would be taken as a GoP declaration of war against their particular factions, and they would therefore join the TTP in waging war against the Pakistani state, and in fact redirect from Afghanistan into Pakistan.

The 'heat' is going to more than likely be entirely on Pakistan and its people, as we open another front doemstically, that was long denied to the TTP through these 'alliances'."

Glad you agree that they need to be taken out as choosing otherwise would clearly support insurgency of Afghanistan from your territory. If so, of course, all bets in our current relationship would be off. So that's a nice position but also a middle-ground that fully justifies PREDATOR continuing it's attacks as your position of convenience-"...now is not the time, not until Bajaur and Swat are pacified, and not while Pakistan continues to struggle economically..."- offers no respite to the afghani gov't and citizens who remain under attack by these groups.

There's where my comment about the "political heat" comes to play. As mentioned by myself, there's something here for everybody. Aside from targets which meet the separate or joint requirements of ISAF/Pakistan, there's the very comforting political cover provided by the indignant outcry of sovereign violation.

I understand that attacking Nazir could jeopardize your convenient, if temporal, arrangement with these thugs. Sad that there's this quid pro quo existing which clearly illustrates the weakness of the P.A. and GoP in Waziristan but you've offered the afghani people as suitable sacrifice and that's unacceptable to others who've the means to rectify matters.

PREDATOR is doing so.

"Mullah Nazir and the other breakaway factions have already declared that the attack that almost killed Nazir could not have been possible without Pakistani military cooperation due to the secrecy of Nazir's movements."

A.M., I'd try advising the good "mullah" that these must be "rogue elements" within the Pakistani military/intelligence and don't reflect the government's position.

God knows that America has heard that often enough and said with sincerity. It'll work here too if given the same tone.

They'll know it's not true. So did we but what can be done?

 

[fatman17]

^^^the heat is being absorbed by both sides - politically and militarily!

 

[S-2]

"the heat is being absorbed by both sides - politically and militarily!"

Yes. Certainly America and, increasingly, Pakistan.

Still, recent combat operations in Bajaur (still continuing, I believe) have revealed the cost of war in far greater detail and with far greater consequence to the Pakistani people- all in three months time- than that done by PREDATOR since those flights began.

I don't know that to be fact as I haven't tallied all the alleged and confirmed deaths resulting from PREDATOR nor have an accurate count of those innocents caught in the crossfire of P.A.-AQAM (al Qaeda & affiliated militias) battles but I imagine I'm not far off.

Of course, it's clear now also the cost of NOT CONFRONTING these collective scum. Entrenched and established as a law unto themselves, why shouldn't the fight to grab back Pakistan's honor in Bajaur and Swat not be expected to be a severe contest? So it's proved. Has it been worth it?

I think so as I do with PREDATOR as well unless you wish to argue that America is deliberately targeting or callously indifferent to the consequences of collateral death, injury, and suffering.

I'd disagree but, if so, I'd argue the same in spades of any Pakistani that accomodates these "good" taliban attacking the same innocent afghan civilians.

The recent attacks, Fatman17, of PREDATOR have been terribly effective. They've appeared to reached some seriously bad people. It seems evident that Bajaur was a veritable ***'s nest and they're now scattering-mostly further south.

I imagine if Waziristan is turned into an equally unsuitable abode that they may ALL eventually find themselves in Quetta.

Won't that be interesting?

 

[fatman17]

It seems evident that Bajaur was a veritable ***'s nest and they're now scattering-mostly further south.

they are on the run, and the PA is definately going to finish the job they have set out to do. the CI trg will come in handy so too will some more cobras and upgraded F-16s to finish the job in waziristan in the not too distant future.

as far as i am concerned i dont see any difference between a good and a bad taliban. they are all extremists and their ideology is not wellcome by the 99% moderate pakistani citizens.

 

[Prodigy17]

Congratulations...and you're still doing just peachy.

Yeah, our special thanks to Team America

We understand you so much better than you think.

Sure you do, you understood North Korea, China, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan better than their own people and look where you ended up Get over it and and stop telling us that you know us better than we can think. An average Pakistani is way more capable of thinking what is good for his/her country than 'Joe the Plumber'.

America is under no illusion that you're our friends. As such, we risk nothing by your "alienation". That's long since largely occurred among the rank n' file for a variety of reasons that we do and don't have much control over. It won't keep us out of Afghanistan. It won't likely stop PREDATOR. It likely won't stop supplies. If so, we've other options which are sustainable.

Moreso or equally we are under no illusion either regarding american friendship or alliance, just how many times it takes to confirm as to who's your fair weather friend. Should i talk about the 1965, 1971 or the great betrayl in the aftermath of Afghan war. Which rank and file you are talking about yours or ours, confusing huh.... You can afford to risk alienation and you can go it alone... which doesnt take a genious to understand, implies that you are possibly prepared for an open conflict with us ??? Really.. u think so.... As far as you staying in af-tan is concerned, if history is any measure of assessing such conflicts Mr. Know all, then your rhetoric doesnt hold substance. Just consult history buffs, all superpowers of their times starting from Persians (Darius), Greeks (Alexander), Mongols (Genghis, Hulego), British and USSR have tested the waters in af-tan and found them too hot to handle. what makes you think you will stay forever as your NATO (peace keeping) armies/ allies are already deserting you. Since we can't choose our neighbours and have to live with af-tan as neighbour so what do you expect us to do in such scenario ??? Frankly, you have a reputation for leaving your allies high and dry after getting ur fulfilled or unfulfilled interests.

No. Sorry for the confusion. I really am. I wasn't suggesting that you attack NATO and the Afghan army at all. I was suggesting that you put up with PREDATOR as long as necessary.

Hope that helps clarify things

.

It does.

Counter-intuitive and renders your WHOLE point as an exercise in duplicity. It's not about dead babies. It's all about who's tossing the ordnance around. Guess that would make you "TEAM PAKISTAN".
In any case, you haven't impressed me with your simple love of life.

Oh come on, put your thinking cap on and remove the prejudiced, one sided, always right Team America spectacles to understand that 'it is' about dead babies and civilians. when a Pakistani pulls a trigger or button to set off hell, he and those controlling him will make sure (ten times) who are they attacking instead of cold blooded and callous attitude of your fellow countrymen considering it another of their sick destruction game on LAN or internet being played out in FATA.

offers no respite to the afghani gov't and citizens who remain under attack by these groups.

Does a government exist ??? You can't hope to have a stable government in af-tan without involving Pushtoon majority in the government, so listen to Britishers when they say talk to Pushtoon, they know Pushtoons only too well.
Pushtoon on the other side of Durand have strong links with people on this side so you also can't have a government in af-tan that is leaning towards India and is hostile to Pakistan. Just one of the many dynamics of the people and area

I imagine if Waziristan is turned into an equally unsuitable abode that they may ALL eventually find themselves in Quetta.

Won't that be interesting?

Yeah, that will then make it a second CIA directed proxy war in Balochistan. Want to know which is the first one. Read this :-http://http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2005/03/pakistan-unveiling-mystery-of.html

As far as jointly approved list is concerned, i'm yet to see any "bad" Taliban being targetted by your drones. why they are only after Maulvi Nazir, ( who can go to hell or paradise from my side..his choice ) is it because he allegedly attacked your new found ally's embassy in Kabul.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

offers no respite to the afghani gov't and citizens who remain under attack by these groups.

This is an old argument, one that we have been over several times. The continued drugs and weapons trade in Afghanistan, that NATO is loath to dismantle (or unable to bring pressure about on the Karzai Government to do so) has resulted in Pakistani security forces and Pakistani civilians remaining under attack, as that drug and weapons trade supplies the suicide bombing freaks and TTP terrorizing Pakistan.

I don't buy your argument of the British being responsible for this in Helmand - it is your war, you are the primary occupation force and responsibility for what happens in Afghanistan is yours alone. Your nation's refusal to go after the drug trade is directly responsible for the deaths of Pakistani security forces and civilians in violence, not to mention the exorbitant social cost from the drug industry in Pakistan.

One justification that has been offered for this abdication of responsibility in Afghanistan by the US is that it does not want to 'alienate the populace', by taking away their sole source of livelihood in some cases, and therefore increase the challenges being faced in Afghanistan, at Pakistan's, and indeed also Afghanistan's, cost. That justification is analogous to Pakistan's rationale for having temporal alliances with certain Taliban factions opposed to the TTP, since our policy too reduces the challenges faced domestically, while it does have a cost in Afghanistan, as well as a cost in Pakistan, considered smaller than the cost of a united Taliban front.

At the very least, even if your excuses about the British in Helmand are accepted, the fact remains that US policy remains one wedded to 'body counts' - how many bunnies can NATO kill and how many bunnies can Pakistan kill. It ignores the potential of Pakistan not being able to economically or militarily cope with a united Taliban front brought about by US insistence to implement this 'mutually beneficial' policy, and being destabilized to the extent that it cannot even do that which it is doing now.

US policy therefore does not offer a long term, comprehensive regional approach that works towards stability, focusing instead only on short term, short sighted tactical goals, and is therefore inherently anti-Pakistan.

There's where my comment about the "political heat" comes to play. As mentioned by myself, there's something here for everybody.

There is something here for everybody only if Pakistan controls the attacks, and is able to also direct them against the TTP leaders, and keep the 'pot simmering' instead of boiling over with the breakaway Taliban factions. It is also mutually beneficial only if Pakistan is given the electronic intercept equipment it has been asking for years, given that it is expected to face a united Taliban enemy. It is also only mutually beneficial if NATO initiates substantial actions in Afghanistan to cut down the sources of funding and resources of the Taliban through the drugs and weapons trade. So far this is pretty much a one sided street as far as 'benefits' and 'demands' go, IMO, unless the 'secret' agreements do address these issues.

 

[S-2]

"...and look where you ended up..."

Yeah. Look at us holding another of those silly election thingys to select our 44th president. We're doin' alright. How about you?

"You can afford to risk alienation and you can go it alone... which doesnt take a genious to understand, implies that you are possibly prepared for an open conflict with us ???"

I'm hopeful that America's military is prepared for open conflict with anybody, anywhere, anytime. We sorta seem to be o.k. on that score.

"implies" and "possibly" sure are wishy-washy and leave a lot of wiggleroom. I don't know, smart-guy. There's no alienation to risk. Among the less perceptive Pakistani, it's a reasonable assumption this condition already, and has for some time, existed.

"...if history is any measure of assessing such conflicts Mr. Know all, then your rhetoric doesnt hold substance."

You've a skewed vision of both the mission and the ultimate intent. 26 NATO and 15 non-NATO allies are IN AFGHANISTAN for reasons that have nothing to do with "the great game" nor Soviet expansionist dreams. Facade, token, or gratuitous, those nations have a portion of their citizens in Afghanistan with the sole intent of improving it's well-being.

It certainly wasn't going to happen at the hand of Afghanistan's immediate neighbors. God knows some even looked on this abysmally poor nation as "strategic space" and a private playground. Can you imagine that?

The mission is worthy and there's hope that your historical perspective isn't the final word.

"...what do you expect us to do in such scenario.."

Foregoing your meddlesome nature with Afghanistan and, instead, being a good and mature neighbor might be a nice change.

"Frankly, you have a reputation for leaving your allies high and dry after getting ur fulfilled or unfulfilled interests."

Frankly, your understanding of my nation's geo-political history is cursory, topical, and ephermeal at best. How long have we been in S. Korea? Europe? Japan? Kuwait? Decades? Half-century? We'd no enduring interests in Afghanistan and, until 9-11-01, no compelling reason to return. That changed and now we're there. I imagine we'll be there for some time, given the problems. It took S. Korea about 25 years to find it's financial and economic legs and another 15 or so to emerge as a true democracy.

It'll be a lot longer for Afghanistan and, quite likely, Pakistan.

"...when a Pakistani pulls a trigger or button to set off hell, he and those controlling him will make sure (ten times) who are they attacking instead of cold blooded and callous attitude of your fellow countrymen considering it another of their sick destruction game on LAN or internet being played out in FATA."

There are Pakistani citizens today and former citizens in Bangladesh from yesteryear that might argue that point a tad. The Baluchis may not have felt the same velvet hand afforded the pashtu until recently. Their insurrection was rather roughly handled. You're self-righteous and sanctimonious. I'd say the emperor is wearing no clothes myself. Those American soldiers have a conscience and, often, families of their own. Deaths of innocent civilians is never taken lightly and you'd be the last to know how they actually feel in any case.

Get off your high horse.

"Does a government exist ??? You can't hope to have a stable government in af-tan without involving Pushtoon majority in the government, so listen to Britishers when they say talk to Pushtoon, they know Pushtoons only too well."

You ***. The British don't know squat or haven't you followed the butcher job at Tarin Kowt? How about Basra? Bet the afghani pashtu take to the next elections like no other the next time around. Ask the Iraqi sunni how well it goes to avoid an election. Leaves you outside looking in.

Here's the real reassuring thing. There's a high probability, unlike some of Afghanistan's neighbors, that internat'l scrutiny and large numbers of neutral forces will assure a second afghani election. The idea, of course, is to get past "one man, one vote, one time".

Here's hoping the same for Pakistan.

"why they are only after Maulvi Nazir, ( who can go to hell or paradise from my side..his choice ) is it because he allegedly attacked your new found ally's embassy in Kabul."

Would that be a guy living in S. Waziristan (Pakistan) attacking a facility in another country? Hmmm...what do you think, Mr. Bright-bulb? Amazing. Nonetheless, the target list seems to dramatically exceed your limited knowledge. Here's some help to refresh your recently lost memory-

longwar journal

Though an unabashed talibunny hater, Bill Roggio compiles a pretty informative blog. Avail yourself of the recent news. You need it.

What goes around, comes around. Bad karma in his soul. Lots of it. It was called to question by powers greater than you or I. Good riddance when they finally nail the sucker.

 

[S-2]

"The continued drugs and weapons trade in Afghanistan, that NATO is loath to dismantle (or unable to bring pressure about on the Karzai Government to do so) has resulted in Pakistani security forces and Pakistani civilians remaining under attack, as that drug and weapons trade supplies the suicide bombing freaks and TTP terrorizing Pakistan."

Yes, A.M., the heroin is a problem. How does that address mullah nazir's intent to wage war on Afghanistan from within your country? It is his clear intent to which you acede.

"I don't buy your argument of the British being responsible for this in Helmand - it is your war..."

Take it up with UNODOC. That's the vast majority of the dope. Fact is, we aren't there and the British are. Fact is that this war affects everybody and has since 9-11. Fact is that there are 41 nations in Afghanistan.

"One justification that has been offered for this abdication of responsibility in Afghanistan by the US is that it does not want to 'alienate the populace', by taking away their sole source of livelihood in some cases, and therefore increase the challenges being faced in Afghanistan, at Pakistan's, and indeed also Afghanistan's, cost."

Are you attempting to muddy the waters or simply that poorly informed here. That "justification" is offered by the British. It's our war but their justifications, eh? Come on?

If America had it's way, we'd burn the fields. How do you think the taliban got so far so fast? Take a look at their 1999 opium numbers sometime and compare to 2001. I'd say that the impact on the farmer by the taliban gov't was likely onerous. You?

Personally, I'd buy it up. All of it. At above-market-price. Production would go through the roof but it might be controlled as to it's eventual destination while gainfully occupying the good guys (farmers) and putting the distributors, labs, and dope lords on the shelf.

"the fact remains that US policy remains one wedded to 'body counts' - how many bunnies can NATO kill and how many bunnies can Pakistan kill."

Really? Now I'm the uninformed one. Can you provide me with this change in American policy? I'm unaware of any abiding interest. Enemy casualties are reported where known. That's done in Pakistan too. Trumpeted, actually. That said, can you show me where U.S. small-unit commanders face pressure to report "kills" to superiors and attain "quotas". You know...the Vietnam thingy so many seem determined to affix in Afghanistan. Maybe like you also? I hope not as they're decidedly not the same.

"US policy therefore does not offer a long term, comprehensive regional approach that works towards stability, focusing instead only on short term, short sighted tactical goals, and is therefore inherently anti-Pakistan."

Nothing long-term about $15 Bil, eh?

Pakistan Welcomes $15 Bil Aid Package

Sorta reminds me of your comment about the Foreign office and Parliament's aid approval recently. Remember what you said about it's final disposition within Pakistan?

"There is something here for everybody only if Pakistan controls the attacks, and is able to also direct them against the TTP leaders, and keep the 'pot simmering' instead of boiling over with the breakaway Taliban factions. It is also mutually beneficial only if Pakistan is given the electronic intercept equipment it has been asking for years, given that it is expected to face a united Taliban enemy. It is also only mutually beneficial if NATO initiates substantial actions in Afghanistan to cut down the sources of funding and resources of the Taliban through the drugs and weapons trade."

I know that McKeirnan is going to use SOF to chase down drug labs and people in the chain. That's new. "Simmering" reads too much like the accomodation of which we've seen so much failure. You are acquiescing to their ambition to fight in Afghanistan from Pakistani soil.

A.M., you've repeatedly held to the contention of Pakistan under assault from Afghanistan. No doubt that you've experienced since 2006 the blow-back long predicted but this is a problem anticipated immediately in 2001. The taliban pulled back into Pakistan. It was expected that they would attack back into Afghanistan eventually and this in fact transpired. That it took until 2006 to also come to fore in Pakistan didn't mean that AQAM weren't long there.

"electronic intercept equipment" is interesting. Can you comment with authority to what essential items you are missing to do your job?

Let me suggest something different. You've read it but not addressed it as far as I'm aware. A bomb blows up outside the Indian embassy in Kabul. What do any of us KNOW? I personally don't know a thing other than...

there are conversations. Lots of them. Kiyani doesn't permit the ISI's restructuring but shortly thereafter you've a new chief. There are more conversations on the USS Roosevelt. Shortly thereafter operations commence in Bajaur and, with that, PREDATOR begins making any number of interesting strikes.

What was said do you imagine that so thoroughly turned your nation's security apparatus 180 degrees overnight? I'm sure that it wasn't a great big "pretty please with sugar on it".

Finally, I've gotta ask you out of deep respect for your intelligence whether you actually think that we- America, CIA, whatever, are bestest buddies with Baitullah Mehsud? Can you provide me with this incontrovertible evidence that we knew absolutely where he was, had the aircraft/PREDATOR available to get him, and CHOSE not to do so. You know,

"Ah...we could, you know, get him but , ummm...we'd really rather not. Hey, thanks for the data but PREDATOR's on holiday".

Mehsud's no friend of the U.S. I'm sure that there's a link around here about our good buddy and how we saved him for yet another day's work in Pakistan. I'd like to read it please.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes, A.M., the heroin is a problem. How does that address mullah nazir's intent to wage war on Afghanistan from within your country? It is his clear intent to which you acede.

The heroin is directly feeding the supply chain of the Taliban, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as such its continued existence is just as strong an influence as Mullah Nazir's intent.

Take it up with UNODOC. That's the vast majority of the dope. Fact is, we aren't there and the British are. Fact is that this war affects everybody and has since 9-11. Fact is that there are 41 nations in Afghanistan.

Are you attempting to muddy the waters or simply that poorly informed here. That "justification" is offered by the British. It's our war but their justifications, eh? Come on?

If America had it's way, we'd burn the fields. How do you think the taliban got so far so fast? Take a look at their 1999 opium numbers sometime and compare to 2001. I'd say that the impact on the farmer by the taliban gov't was likely onerous. You?

Personally, I'd buy it up. All of it. At above-market-price. Production would go through the roof but it might be controlled as to it's eventual destination while gainfully occupying the good guys (farmers) and putting the distributors, labs, and dope lords on the shelf.

I am not taking it up with anybody - its your war, your superpower military with meetings aboard CBG's, and if you cannot even reign in your allies and implement a coherent and sustained policy to address one of the most fundamental driving factors behind the insurgency, then you are really up **** creek without a paddle and have no grounds to be criticizing Pakistan for abdicating its responsibilities.

It is precisely because it is your war that the justifications from various parties in Afghanistan, whether the US or her lapdogs, are US justifications. The dichotomy is in your position, not mine - the US wanted to play global cop, now control your constables.

Really? Now I'm the uninformed one. Can you provide me with this change in American policy? I'm unaware of any abiding interest. Enemy casualties are reported where known. That's done in Pakistan too. Trumpeted, actually. That said, can you show me where U.S. small-unit commanders face pressure to report "kills" to superiors and attain "quotas". You know...the Vietnam thingy so many seem determined to affix in Afghanistan. Maybe like you also? I hope not as they're decidedly not the same.

"US policy therefore does not offer a long term, comprehensive regional approach that works towards stability, focusing instead only on short term, short sighted tactical goals, and is therefore inherently anti-Pakistan."

Nothing long-term about $15 Bil, eh?

Pakistan Welcomes $15 Bil Aid Package

Sorta reminds me of your comment about the Foreign office and Parliament's aid approval recently. Remember what you said about it's final disposition within Pakistan?

I am not referring to reporting or trumpeting enemy casualties, that is not what I was getting at, but rather the argument advanced by you that the Predator attacks should continue regardless of the cost to Pakistan in terms of stability because of some platitudes about innocent 'Afghan Civilians'. If this policy continues, I do not see willing Pakistani approval for it. IMO, the US is essentially arm twisting the GoP through financial pressure to agree to its demands, and those demands, if Mullah Nazir and the breakaway Taliban factions carry out their threat of joining the TTP and redirecting into Pakistan, have serious repercussions for Pakistan's stability. That is my rationale for arguing that US policy is focused on body counts, not long term policy.

You raised the issue of the 15 billion aid package, its all hot air until the money actually shows up. What about the ROZ's? How long have those been discussed? No intentions of an FTA, or even preferential market access - that idea was shot down by the US even when bilateral relations were good.

With Pakistan staring at default, why no move to release these 'long term assistance funds'? Why the continued delay in reimbursement of an estimated 800 million USD for operations and logistical support in FATA? Instead, we actually have a US controlled institution like the IMF forcing the World Bank to cancel an already approved 300 million USD loan to Pakistan, ostensibly so it can impose its own stringent conditions - more arm twisting, and no relief in sight.

So, lots of talk, about a proposed 15 b package, ROZ's and the 'Friends of Pakistan', but the policies on the ground are 'just kill more bunnies', regardless of the repercussions. Until I see tangible evidence of a long term policy, there isn't one.

I know that McKeirnan is going to use SOF to chase down drug labs and people in the chain. That's new. "Simmering" reads too much like the accomodation of which we've seen so much failure. You are acquiescing to their ambition to fight in Afghanistan from Pakistani soil.

A.M., you've repeatedly held to the contention of Pakistan under assault from Afghanistan. No doubt that you've experienced since 2006 the blow-back long predicted but this is a problem anticipated immediately in 2001. The taliban pulled back into Pakistan. It was expected that they would attack back into Afghanistan eventually and this in fact transpired. That it took until 2006 to also come to fore in Pakistan didn't mean that AQAM weren't long there.

"electronic intercept equipment" is interesting. Can you comment with authority to what essential items you are missing to do your job?

Let me suggest something different. You've read it but not addressed it as far as I'm aware. A bomb blows up outside the Indian embassy in Kabul. What do any of us KNOW? I personally don't know a thing other than...

there are conversations. Lots of them. Kiyani doesn't permit the ISI's restructuring but shortly thereafter you've a new chief. There are more conversations on the USS Roosevelt. Shortly thereafter operations commence in Bajaur and, with that, PREDATOR begins making any number of interesting strikes.

What was said do you imagine that so thoroughly turned your nation's security apparatus 180 degrees overnight? I'm sure that it wasn't a great big "pretty please with sugar on it".

Finally, I've gotta ask you out of deep respect for your intelligence whether you actually think that we- America, CIA, whatever, are bestest buddies with Baitullah Mehsud? Can you provide me with this incontrovertible evidence that we knew absolutely where he was, had the aircraft/PREDATOR available to get him, and CHOSE not to do so. You know,

"Ah...we could, you know, get him but , ummm...we'd really rather not. Hey, thanks for the data but PREDATOR's on holiday".

Mehsud's no friend of the U.S. I'm sure that there's a link around here about our good buddy and how we saved him for yet another day's work in Pakistan. I'd like to read it please.

Again, I will believe the US has ceased abdicating its responsibility in Afghanistan when these raids take place with regularity, when the drug numbers actually start coming down, and when the UNDOC and the British aren't being made scapegoats anymore. The US is the overarching entity in Afghanistan, the rest would not be there were it not for the US, and therefore their actions are US responsibility. Just as you argue the GoP has the sole responsibility to put its house in FATA in order, so does the US in Afghanistan.

I cannot give you 'exact equipment', I do not know what exactly is being sought. I do not know whether Gen. Pasha was able to move on that when he met with Hayden. I do know that PM Gillani took that request with him, and that gripe has been echoed in statements by the Pakistani military leadership under the civilian government and Musharraf.

What I think turned the military apparatus around I have outlined above. Pure and simple economic arm twisting. Whether the people replaced were guilty or not cannot be determined. Quite frankly, given the choices, shuffling a few generals around to relieve US jitters is not a major compromise in my opinion. There is no unanimity in the US intelligence community on what happened in Kabul either (the Islamabad station chief being removed, and some military officials describing the CIA as seeing AQ under every rock), and quite frankly the paranoia displayed by the US intelligence community in the run up to Iraq, and their strong links with an Afghan intelligence apparatus run by Northern Alliance Warlord, Ahmed Shah Massoud's deputy intelligence chief does not instill confidence either.

Incontrovertible evidence such as that indicating that Pakistani officers supported Haqqani in attacking the Indian embassy? Where is that? Where is the incontrovertible evidence indicating that intelligence shared with Pakistan ended up with the Taliban? Why should 'anonymous sources', and 'officials' in the Western media be given credibility while those in the Pakistani media rejected? Your nation does not have any infallible, glorious past, as is evident by your covert and ugly interventions in Latin America, Asia and the Middle East, and neither does ours. Self-serving hubris, foundations laid in 'manifest destiny' perhaps, is what has guided the US. So 'reputation' is no barometer for credibility here - if it is, it only validates deceit and perfidy in pursuit of 'national interest'.

What it essentially boils down to is this, I see no evidence that US policy has moved beyond, "GI Joe, how many body bags can you show!". I see no evidence of any long term support for Pakistan (economic, trade, strategic - nothing). I see no evidence of substantially more effective policies and actions to reign in the drug trade, I see no evidence of US pressure on India to free up resources tied up on the Eastern front. And until I do, there is nothing 'mutually beneficial' here.

 

[S-2]

Z,

Lot of passion. How's that fit with that interesting article of emotionalism in Pakistani geopolitical discourse?

Let's start here-

UNODC Country Profile- Pakistan

You'll note the long legacy of labs reaching back to 1979 in FATA. Hundreds. You'll note that even today, while Afghanistan exceeds that by fifty times, Pakistan remains an illicit PRODUCER of opium. Efforts by your government with financial assistance provided by UNODC and the U.S. (there are those guys again!) has managed to restrict this cultivation to-

Dir District, Mohmand and Bajaur Agencies.

Gosh, are those names familiar?

That's a little too self-righteous on the tone for somebody who's own little opium factory happens to be the hornet's nest from hell also. Glass houses and rocks comes to mind. How can this be?

I'd say those ol' boys probably self-fund very nicely. No wonder that they've fought so hard. There's more than just OBL in them hills.

You're ranting but the facts are that clear in Afghanistan and out on the U.S.S. Roosevelt. I can only guess but it would seem that what we had to say about the ISI convinced Kiyani if nobody else.

Start there in your re-assessment.

 

[S-2]

"...the argument advanced by you that the Predator attacks should continue regardless of the cost to Pakistan in terms of stability because of some platitudes about innocent 'Afghan Civilians'."

Platitudes? Either you don't think they're innocent, civilian, or Afghani because I'm certain you understand that it's Nazir's intent to go to Afghanistan and make war.