US Drone Strikes In Pakistan

[fatman17]

chill guys, our saviour is here - Obama - the man of change!

i am sure you both have heard this somewhere:

"youre both right and youre both wrong"

 

[RescueRanger]

Like i posted earlier:

Secret accord allows US air raids inside Pakistan
DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Secret-accord-allows-US-air-raids--qs

Looks like M10% finaly go his daily rate for keeping mum!

 

[S-2]

Fatman17 posted the original WAPO article here if you're interested.

 

[RescueRanger]

Thnks buddy, sorry for the double posting. My bad

 

[Prodigy17]

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

Congrats for electing a new president but my point related to the military out come of the conflicts that i had mentioned albeit your quip is not lost on me. When we reach the age that your nation has reached, i'm sure we would also be silly enough to do it regularly having learnt our lessons. But on the lighter side and correct me if i'm wrong, i'm betting that your conservative colleagues in the armed forces (which is a vast majority) would have preferred McCain.

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.

Well that is what all militaries train and prepare for but then there are host of other considerations to be borne in mind by the politico- military thinkers.

I don't know, smart-guy

.

Hmmm...what do you think, Mr. Bright-bulb?

Thanks for the compliments....

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.

I'm guessing that these more perceptive Pakistanis are the ones toeing your line and are happy with the proceedings but my personal opinion differs on account of action by foreign forces on Pakistani soil. Call it ego or whatever... but we should be capable of dealing the problems on our own with US providing us the required support to get the job done and to ensure transparency and serving of mutual interest, a monitoring mechanism can be developed to adress your concerns. This faking of haplessness doesn't serve any one politically or militarily.

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.

Out of these 26 NATO and 15 non NATO allies, how many are really taking the brunt of fighting. If i'm not wrong, they were even accused of partying all nights in the safety of Kabul airport and other places while soldiers from US and UK died in the real combat. Why US and NATO are there ??? this question has an obvious answers which can't be denied by anyone in the world. If it had been purely for welfare of this 'abysmally poor nation' as you say, then they would not have been at the mercy of communists and warlords for better part of the last century. Again your sarcasm about afghan neighbours is unjustified because in the vacuume created by your departure, someone had to step in to fill the vacuume. And may i remind you that we have done a lot for af-tan which is not mentioned anywhere these days.

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.

Your juxtaposition is out of context and merely retalilatory. All conflicts fought by our gallant sons have been in self defense and aimed at preserving national integrity viz-a-viz fought by US forces globally. I still maintain that we have strong armed forces capable enough to deal these issues if provided with equipment and know how to deal with these threats more effectively. Now, this should be acceptable to your policy makers particularly after having their way with ISI restructuring, as you seem to imply.

You ***. The British don't know squat or haven't you followed the butcher job at Tarin Kowt? How about Basra?

Now, i don't like ******(aestericks) so whatever you have in mind put it into words since to me it is insulting and indicates lack of coherence. Next, the british, i do understand your "love" for them but if i'm not wrong they are the ones who successfully defeated communist insurgency in Malaya. I heard, General Casey kept a copy of COL Nagl's book by the name of "Learning to eat soup with a knife" and even gave it to Rumsfeld. This book is supposed to give an academic analysis of British success and US failure in Vietnam. It was widely read by US higher and juniour commanders alike in Iraq.

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.

Thanks for being a well wisher but we already had our elections and it did'nt require foreign forces on our soil to do that. Since you have quipped so frequently about democracy and neighbours of af-tan, let me ask you a question, if we hold a referrendum today or in near future in af-tan asking a simple question whether they want foreign forces on their soil, guess what would be the answer. I seriously doubt if afghans are willing to be your host for another day so why are you so bothered about them, they are more close to us and on any given day would prefer neighbours assistance than assistance by occupation forces.

What goes around, comes around.

Agreed. we are having a taste of it. But the priciple is universal and there are no exemption for superpowers.

 

[S-2]

"I'm guessing that these more perceptive Pakistanis are the ones toeing your line and are happy with the proceedings but my personal opinion differs on account of action by foreign forces on Pakistani soil."

Americans have long accustomed ourselves to seeing the GoP and others selectively manipulate the notion of sovereignty. As muse suggested, it seems to have special application only where America is concerned. He forgot India amazingly and, I'm sure, would include it if reminded but his point is salient and supportive to read from a respected poster.

Equal application has long been missing from this equation.

"Out of these 26 NATO and 15 non NATO allies, how many are really taking the brunt of fighting. If i'm not wrong, they were even accused of partying all nights in the safety of Kabul airport and other places while soldiers from US and UK died in the real combat."

Anybody in Afghanistan these days deserves a party any chance that they can find. Do you object? The brunt is felt by the Canadians, British, Americans, Dutch, and Danes but Estonians, Poles, French, Italians, Spaniards, Germans, and more have buried sons and daughters killed here. Every soldier there is a visible commitment by these nations to Afghanistan's well-being. However small the commitment, none by their presence in Afghanistan wish that nation or it's people ill.

You should know better.

"Why US and NATO are there ??? this question has an obvious answers which can't be denied by anyone in the world. If it had been purely for welfare of this 'abysmally poor nation' as you say, then they would not have been at the mercy of communists and warlords for better part of the last century."

Why don't you begin by providing your "obvious answers"? We're there because you, U.A.E., and KSA couldn't keep a lid on the taliban. They sponsored some very bad people and it's our intent to remove the possibility of events like 9-11 occurring again from this once-forgotten hell-hole. It's still a hell-hole but forgotten no more.

Let's hope and work for success in achieving those goals, shall we?

"Your juxtaposition is out of context and merely retalilatory. All conflicts fought by our gallant sons have been in self defense and aimed at preserving national integrity viz-a-viz fought by US forces globally."

Huh? What, exactly are you saying here? Retaliatory? You're the one who wanted to discuss the care with which you unleash hell upon your own citizens. I'd say it's hardly uniform in application. So would many of your own. Your citizens do so again in Bajaur when artillery shells and F-16 delivered bombs fall upon them. Doesn't change the need nor make those men wanton killers.

Neither too America, Americans and PREDATOR.

"I still maintain that we have strong armed forces capable enough to deal these issues if provided with equipment and know how to deal with these threats more effectively."

That may be so but never among the F.C. while the P.A. has only become serious and visible in the last three months. It's very late in the game and functionally effective assistance has been notably missing for too long. We weren't permitted in-country to provide "know how" and you've had no desire to liase along the Afghan border with us.

Finally, your best forces were and still remain facing India. Some are clearly unsuitable for these operations but not all. Even mechanized infantry can be sent to these areas to fight dismounted. The experience is worthy and their light infantry brothers would be appreciative.

Great place to really find out how good you are. They shoot back and don't necessarily run.

"i do understand your "love" for them but if i'm not wrong they are the ones who successfully defeated communist insurgency in Malaya. I heard, General Casey kept a copy of COL Nagl's book by the name of "Learning to eat soup with a knife" and even gave it to Rumsfeld. This book is supposed to give an academic analysis of British success and US failure in Vietnam. It was widely read by US higher and juniour commanders alike in Iraq."

I've a revised edition copy myself and know it well. The point is not the British but the lessons-learned regardless of origin. Their past contributions to COIN acumen is considerable. Their present practice has been spotty owing to a variety of factors- some controllable by their troops and some beyond their control.

Tarin Kowt deserves a full study by you. Google it up and see what you learn about British subtlety and nuance there. Take a hard look at the British Army's performance in Basra. It was selected by them based, supposedly, upon their long colonial-based understanding of the region. Failed miserably and run out of the city. Today their remnants stay in self-imposed exile on the outskirts of the airport. Even last May during the Jaaish-I-Mahdi uprising there, Americans and Iraqi Army units travelled 300 kms to the battle.

The British didn't move out the gates of the airport. They need to better practice what they too often preach.

"...if we hold a referrendum today or in near future in af-tan asking a simple question whether they want foreign forces on their soil, guess what would be the answer. I seriously doubt if afghans are willing to be your host for another day so why are you so bothered about them, they are more close to us and on any given day would prefer neighbours assistance than assistance by occupation forces."

If the same referendum was held, instead, in FATA asking those wards of the Pakistani state whether they wished for the P.A.'s presence in Bajaur, what do you think might be the answer? The tribal leaders of Dir have passed a "no-war zone" thingy where neither AQAM nor the P.A. are welcome.

As to you helping them, you've not even heretofore attempted to raise the lot of your own autonomous zones. You've sixty years of possible help to Afghanistan without us around. Did you do so? What's the outcome? 9/11? America can't afford more of the same and that's why were there now.

"Agreed. we are having a taste of it. But the priciple is universal and there are no exemption for superpowers."

Your citizens haven't generated these misfortunes by karma if that's what you mean. Baitullah Mehsud is a bad guy used to having his way- in his village, district, and region. Now he fashions himself as ruler of Pakistan some day. He's a thug and terribly bad man for which he deserves to die-maybe painfully and slow. So too Maulvi Nazir. A PREDATOR shall be his karma I pray. If you find my nation's intentions as bad, so be it. I don't, so while we have enemies that periodically inflict wounds upon us, it's not karma.

 

[S-2]

I want to take a moment and assure something-

I've never met finer troops than the British. I've known all ranks up to Brigadier at one time or another. Always only briefly and professionally. I've seen their units at times, though not uniformly and at length.

That said, utterly squared-away.

Why my comment then? This exceptional force has been neutered by forces beyond it's control and without a shot fired. It pains me to see, read, and hear the stories of what these guys do to be properly supplied and then how they've been too-often treated upon their return to England.

I noted with pleasure an article in last Sunday's TIMES about an up-tick in British patriotism. I hope some of that finds itself expressed in their kit. Seems recruiting is up, though, and that's real good.

 

[Always Neutral]

I want to take a moment and assure something-

I've never met finer troops than the British. I've known all ranks up to Brigadier at one time or another. Always only briefly and professionally. I've seen their units at times, though not uniformly and at length.

That said, utterly squared-away.

Why my comment then? This exceptional force has been neutered by forces beyond it's control and without a shot fired. It pains me to see, read, and hear the stories of what these guys do to be properly supplied and then how they've been too-often treated upon their return to England.

I noted with pleasure an article in last Sunday's TIMES about an up-tick in British patriotism. I hope some of that finds itself expressed in their kit. Seems recruiting is up, though, and that's real good.

Dear S2,

Its sad that only war makes one aware on the short commings of its own troops so in a way Iraq and Afghanistan were an eye opener and good for the British Armed Forces.

Regards

 

[Keysersoze]

Thank god for that last post S-2 Because I was about to come across and piss on your rug so to speak (regardless of whether it made the room come together or not).
Kit has been improved a great deal and I am impressed with a few bits of it.

One point you have to understand is that the Iraq conflict was a political one and not popular anywhere. The Afghan one was seen as a war that needed to be fought. Ergo the shift to it from Iraq.

I would happily serve in Afghan not so readily in Iraq.

 

[S-2]

"Because I was about to come across and piss on your rug so to speak (regardless of whether it made the room come together or not)."

The "Dude" is grateful. It DOES tie the room together beautifully.

Meant it. The troops make do but, in some ways, the officers in the field have been handed a bag of sh!t with their missions weighed against their resources. There's a disconnect that impossible to miss at MoD but has been anyway.

I know a former captain (retired) from 1 RTR who's boy is a twelve year vet and married with two kids and he's leaving. Home one year in the last four basically. When he got home, the local magistrate hassled him over some T.V. tax?

Threatened to take it to the paper and it was dropped altogether. If he'd done something WRONG why not stand down on the issue instead of backing away? Another on leave to bury a buddy and couldn't get a room in the town where the funeral was to be held. Didn't permit soldiers of the crown in it's only establishment. He slept in his car for the night.

Go figure.

I really do hope things pick up. Our guys are pretty well treated and very well-respected these days. Even if Iraq and/or Afghanistan doesn't sit high on somebody's agenda, there's very little blow-back onto the troops.

 

[JK!]

Take a hard look at the British Army's performance in Basra. It was selected by them based, supposedly, upon their long colonial-based understanding of the region. Failed miserably and run out of the city. Today their remnants stay in self-imposed exile on the outskirts of the airport. Even last May during the Jaaish-I-Mahdi uprising there, Americans and Iraqi Army units travelled 300 kms to the battle.

The British didn't move out the gates of the airport. They need to better practice what they too often preach.
.

I recommend you read a book called Sniper 1 by Sgt Dan Mills from PWRR it gives a good insight as to the crap the Brits have had to deal with in Southern Iraq particularly with the rules of engagement.

 

[S-2]

"I recommend you read a book called Sniper 1 by Sgt Dan Mills from PWRR it gives a good insight as to the crap the Brits have had to deal with in Southern Iraq particularly with the rules of engagement"

The battlegroup was restricted to it's kaserne by MoD out at the airport during the uprising. They couldn't leave if they wanted. From the Guardian-

'Welcome to Teheran' How Iran Took Control of Basra

Here Maj. Gen. Graham Binns explains the rationale behind the displacement to the airport-

"In Basra Violence is a Tenth of What It Was Before Pullback-Int'l Herald-Tribune

It's not about the troops. It's about the policies that have left them neutered politically in the field and ill-equipped before deployment. No doubt the ROEs have been unsatisfactory from time to time.

For a look at life with the "squaddies" here's Michael Yon embedded w/ 5 Plt 2nd Bn. "The Rifles" last April before pulling back to the airport-

British Forces At War- As Witnessed By An American

Nobody blogs from the troops like Michael Yon. Nobody. The Brits are first-rate down where the rubber meets the road. Read the provided rationales behind the pull-back though and match it to events on the ground.

There was a dis-connect at MoD that could have led to tragic consequences for Basra.

Plenty of coverage out there for those interested.

 

[batmannow]

From The TimesNovember 6, 2008

What do you mean, bin Laden doesn't exist?
Obama must rethink America's muddled strategy in Pakistan if he is to defeat the threat from militants?

Anthony Loyd

America's President-elect was being watched a lot closer to the front lines of the US War on Terror than he may have been aware on Saturday night.
As Barack Obama's face shone from a huge wide screen television into the officers' mess at a Pakistani army fortress in Khar, in the tribal area of Bajaur, the room shook to heavy artillery blasting from gun positions at the gates. Barely a mile up the road Pakistani troops traded fire with Taleban raiding parties.
“I want to increase non-military aid,” Mr Obama, interviewed on CNN, announced to a handful of officers between explosions. “But we also have to help make the case that the biggest threat to Pakistan right now is not India, which has been their historical enemy, it is actually the militants within their own borders.”
The officers did not look overly convinced, despite the shenanigan outside.
India is their old enemy, as key to the Pakistani military psyche as the Turks are to the Serbs and the Israelis are to the Palestinians. Most officers are convinced that Nato's involvement in Afghanistan will be fleeting and that India is set on dominating the vacuum created by a Western withdrawal. This fear causes the military to cling to its concept of Afghanistan as a place of “strategic depth” for Pakistan's interests. Hence their past overt support of the Taleban and the lingering accusations that elements of Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, continue to support Afghan insurgents even now as a safeguard for the future.
Nato and America may not like this military thinking, and the strategy may have backfired on Pakistan but it is nevertheless an understandable result of the regional power games fought between the ISI and its Indian counterpart, the RAW.
Until there is a sea change in Pakistan's sense of enmity with India the discord between Pakistan and its nominal Western allies is set to run deep. As Mr Obama's interview finished, a major turned to speak to me. It was no coincidence that he, multilingual, charming and erudite, was a senior intelligence officer in the corps headquarters. Which made his words all the more alarming.

“The trouble is I don't believe bin Laden exists,” he said. “I think he is a myth. A creation.”
It was not encouraging to hear this from an intelligence officer in Bajaur, reputed to be the hideout of bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and where for the past two months Pakistani troops have been locked in battle with thousands of insurgents, including foreign fighters. Since August 83 soldiers have died and more than 300 have been wounded fighting along a stretch of road just eight miles long.
That the major saw this bloodshed as in part the result of a US conspiracy testified to the extent of America's ill-conceived and muddled strategy in Pakistan, which so far has failed to secure a single security objective there since 2001. Al-Qaeda remains effective in the country. The tribal areas bordering Afghanistan are still a sanctuary for militants of every description who are enjoying a nationwide sense of ascendancy rather than diminution. The Pakistan Government is divided as to how to approach the problem, as is the Army. And the Pakistani population is utterly dubious about its role in the war. Many believe that the violence blighting their lives has been caused by US involvement in their affairs.

“This is not a war between Pakistan and the Taleban,” a teacher who fled to a refugee camp to escape fighting in Bajaur told me. “Our Government has made a monster out of the Taleban just to get money from America.”

There has been no lack of dollars thrown at Pakistan. The official figures state that the US gave Islamabad $10 billion in aid between 2002 and 2007. Yet in the militancy's heartland, the seven semi-autonomous tribal agencies - the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) - 96 per cent of US aid has gone to the military. Most of this has been spent through coalition support funds that reimburse the Pakistani Army for counter-insurgency operations. These funds have given many Pakistanis the impression that their soldiers have become little more than mercenaries fighting someone else's war.

Of American aid devoted to Fata, only 1 per cent has been spent on development. The 3.5 million Pashtun population that live there suffer the worst poverty in Pakistan. Literacy runs at barely 17 per cent, unemployment at 80 per cent. The education system, such as it exists at all, has collapsed and clinics and doctors are a rarity. Small wonder Fata has become a militant playground.

Mr Obama's victory offers a degree of hope. Joseph Biden, the Vice-President-elect, has been a longstanding critic of George Bush's policy in Pakistan, and is co-sponsor of the Enhanced Participation with Pakistan Bill. Due to be passed imminently by Congress, it will give Pakistan $7.5 billion in non-military assistance over the next five years and could be seen as the vanguard of a new, more holistic strategy.

If Mr Obama wants Pakistan to re-identify its enemies, he must get the Pentagon to redefine its aims too.
So far there has been little evidence of unified military strategy between America and Pakistan. Pakistan and Nato accuse each other of allowing insurgents to cross the border into one another's territory for attacks. Both accusations are correct.

US drones strike al-Qaeda and Afghan Taleban targets in Fata but ignore Taleban groups that stay within Pakistan to kill Pakistani soldiers. Similarly, Pakistan's forces show little inclination to attack militant groups based in Fata whose sole aim is to attack Nato in Afghanistan. If America's and Nato's war is to be Pakistan's too, then they should at least agree on who they are fighting.

And if that effort is to have any chance of success, it will have to incorporate long-term and intense regional diplomacy, massive financial assistance to develop Fata and encourage an overhaul of Pakistan's Army from within.

“We need a slow, steady evolution in the understanding of each other's limitations and constraints,” one general admitted. He seemed so reasonable I wondered if India had escaped his mind. It had not. “If you want us to deliver,” he added in sudden warning, “then you must build our country's capacity. If not, then we will go with our own threat assessment as to who is giving us the most heat.”

 

[batmannow]

US blames Taliban for Afghan deaths

Source: Al Jazeera and agencies
Thursday, November 06, 2008


The US military says that Taliban fighters prevented civilians from fleeing clashes in southern Afghanistan, leading to the death of about 40 people who were believed to have been attending a wedding ceremony.

US and Afghan forces killed several Taliban fighters in the battle, which took place in Kandahar, the US military said on Thursday.

The military did not specify how many civilians were killed in the fighting, but villagers say that about 37 civilians died in a US air raid on Monday.

The bombing run was called in as part of the fighting between US forces and Taliban fighters in the area.

The military's statement said that fighters attacked a US-led patrol that was moving through the Shah Wali Kot region of Kandahar.

"Civilians reportedly attempted to leave the area, but the insurgents forced them to remain," the US military said, but did not specify where the report was from.

Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, condemned the killings on Wednesday, saying that 40 people had been killed and 28 wounded as a result of the air raid.

Amid the controversy over the raid in Shah Wali Kot, Afghan officials said on Thursday that seven civilians were killed in another air raid by foreign forces in the northwest of the country.

Wedding attacked

Roozben Khan, the father of the bride at the wedding ceremony in Shah Wali Kot, said that he had lost six relatives in the attack.



"I lost two sons, two grandsons, a nephew, my mother and a cousin," Khan said.

His daughter was among seven of his relatives who were wounded. The groom survived but his father, mother and sister were killed, he said.

US officials said that an investigation was under way.

Major John Redfield, a spokesperson for the US forces in Afghanistan, told Al Jazeera from Kabul: "This is an issue we take very seriously, we go to great lengths to prevent any civilian casualties but the Taliban often operate from civilian areas and sometimes draw fire there.

"But we are going to investigate this."

Redfield said that a joint investigation would be made with the Kandahar governors office, the national directorate of security and the regional police office."

Concerning the use of air strikes, he said: "We have to use any means possible against an enemy like the Taliban. We take great measures to ensure that areas are free of civilians."

The international forces in Afghanistan regularly say that Taliban fighters do little to try to protect non-combatants, but this has done little to ease growing anger in Afghanistan over civilian casualties.

The US air raid is the latest in a string of incidents in which the US military has been accused of attacking civilians.

In one of the most serious cases of civilian deaths in Afghanistan, an Afghan government commission found that a US operation in August in western Afghanistan killed some 90 civilians.

The US at first denied that any civilians had been killed, but after two investigations and the emergence of photographic evidence of dozens of bodies - including children - the US said that 33 civilians had died.

Latest air raid

While Taliban fighters are mounting a strong resurgence in Kandahar, foreign and Afghan forces are also engaged in a battle with opposition fighters in northwest Afghanistan.

Wednesday's air raid by foreign forces in the Ghormach district of Badghis province came after Taliban fighters launched an attack, provincial officials said on Thursday.

District chief Abdullah said seven civilians and 15 opposition fighters were killed in the raid.

"I myself have been to the area and seen the bodies of seven civilians. The house of a member of the provincial council was also bombed, two of his sons and a grandson were also killed," Abdullah, who only uses one name, said.

The claims of civilian deaths from the air raid by foreign forces have not been independently verified due to the remoteness of the area and its poor security.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So far there has been little evidence of unified military strategy between America and Pakistan. Pakistan and Nato accuse each other of allowing insurgents to cross the border into one another's territory for attacks. Both accusations are correct.

US drones strike al-Qaeda and Afghan Taleban targets in Fata but ignore Taleban groups that stay within Pakistan to kill Pakistani soldiers. Similarly, Pakistan's forces show little inclination to attack militant groups based in Fata whose sole aim is to attack Nato in Afghanistan. If America's and Nato's war is to be Pakistan's too, then they should at least agree on who they are fighting.

I rest my case.