US Drone Strikes In Pakistan

[Prodigy17]

I dont know why our General's bother with War College and Westpoint/Sandhurst! They should come here for advice and guidance! Forget National Defence College!

Agreed, i think this is oversimplification at its best by S2 albeit i dont doubt his intentions, as such he speaks from his own experience ( i wont say narrowly shaped, counter insurgency obsessed view ).

Just to point out, watch carefully as he has been thanked by two of our forum members from India for his post suggesting we remove our troops from East. See post #69 (small but good indication if one is observant).

I would say, pulling out troops from East completely, is out of question. But we can ofcourse give increasing reinforcement from those troops to west and give higher priority to troops battling in west from the point of view of training, epuipment, funding etcetra. the number in west can be suitably increased if deemed appropriate.

Frankly, S2's suggestions of leaving the east vacant and daring Indians, comes as a shock, coming from a former military guy himself. It betrays not only common sense but all the principles of warfare, i'm sure even Clauswitz and Jomini would be amazed.

 

[S-2]

"S-2, you shouldn't use the term "Great Satan" because you will get an infraction."

Seriously? Hmmm...Are you offended, Black Stone? It was a rather casually tossed-about phrase to which I've taken a somewhat ironically perverse attachment.

Still if it's use is all that's standing in the way of an unabashed American love-fest with hugs all around, I'm all for kicking it to the curb.

 

[Prodigy17]

I dont know why our General's bother with War College and Westpoint/Sandhurst! They should come here for advice and guidance! Forget National Defence College!

Agreed, i think this is oversimplification at its best by S2 albeit i dont doubt his intentions, as such he speaks from his own experience ( i wont say narrowly shaped, counter insurgency obsessed view ).

Just to point out, watch carefully as he has been thanked by two of our forum members from India for his post suggesting we remove our troops from East (small but good indication if one is observant).

I would say, pulling out troops from East completely, is out of question. But we can ofcourse give increasing reinforcement from those troops to west and give higher priority to troops battling in west from the point of view of training, epuipment, funding etcetra. the number in west can be suitably increased if deemed appropriate.

Frankly, S2's suggestions of leaving the east vacant and daring Indians, comes as a shock, coming from a former military guy himself. It betrays not only common sense but all the principles of warfare, i'm sure even Clauswitz and Jomini would be amazed.

 

[Black Stone]

"S-2, you shouldn't use the term "Great Satan" because you will get an infraction."

Seriously? Hmmm...Are you offended, Black Stone? It was a rather casually tossed-about phrase to which I've taken a somewhat ironically perverse attachment.

Still if it's use is all that's standing in the way of an unabashed American love-fest with hugs all around, I'm all for kicking it to the curb.

No, your mistaken about my intention. I am not offended, I just wanted to let you know that by using that term will land you an infraction.

As a fellow American, I don't want you to get an infraction.

 

[RescueRanger]

Overnight your world would turn for the better as you rediscover vast resources heretofore unavailable.

Care to share with us what those resources will be and what will be sacrifice in return? Even if we do find this magical pot of gold you keep referring to, what is to say Mr.10% whom you seem quite eager to support will not grab the swag and fly away to uncle Sam with our strategic weapons in toe?

Also please don’t take this the wrong way but actually your emphasis on peace, democracy is a non starter as far as I am concerned. We live here day in day out. Hell I faced the thick of GWOT in 2005-2006 during my in the force here.

But lets get something straight, when the state's say we are bombing for peace! Bombing for Peace! Is that not an oxy moron?

As far as I am concerned bombing for peace is like F****** for Virginity, how does it work exactly? Please do enlighten me, as I am sure you will do!

 

[S-2]

"...But we can ofcourse give increasing reinforcement from those troops to west..."

Why can you do so? What's changed to even allow that? A greater imperative in the west? A diminished need in the east? Some combination of the two?

How can you afford to do so at all?

Yet your own personal threat assessment evidently allows for this change as stated above. If so, why do I need to be the one to point to the advantages of such here?

It is a legacy of your regional variant to the "cold-war mentality". India gains nothing by making overt, conventional war replete with an invasion of the Punjab. At a time when their ambitions span globally, do you really think that they'd jeopardize their investment climate and trade relations to satisfy some vain ambition whose acquisition and manifestation of power pales to their already elevated status.

Nothing to gain and a ton to lose. It's not on their agenda. Trust me. I know. Those guys that thanked me told me so. You're safe.

Move your troops.

 

[S-2]

"Mr.10% whom you seem quite eager to support will not grab the swag and fly away to uncle Sam with our strategic weapons in toe?"

Naw. Remember Chamberlin says that they'll be evacuated to Afghanistan through that natural invasion corridor thingy leading back to Khost.

As for my support, all I know is Zardari is your president- not mine. I imagine with his mind constantly on 10%, he pretty much says what the army tells him to say. Probably Kiyani's thoughts, actually, and he's astute enough to have Zardari float them.

No loss of credibility among the locals and army but it's an idea that long been overdue. It challenges Pakistanis to confront their demons with a proper emphasis and priority.

"Go west, young man", as Horace Greeley supposedly uttered.

 

[2ndOpinion]

The 'Obedient Servants', our armed forces, are here to serve American Interests, killing their own people. It is high time that people should start speaking against American Attacks, exert pressure on Americans. Patriots and real Muslims in Armed forces should start questioning orders that ask to open fire on your own people, innocent civilians, children, women and elderly. American support should be stopped immediately. Logistic supplies should be cut off. Pakistan is more important than dollars, green cards, visas and petty interests.

 

[Kasrkin]

"Afraid we cant put the future of our nation on the line based on your 'guesses'."

Baring your belly is, indeed, radical and is an expression of my confidence that no harm would come by doing so. It's offered, btw, from 6,000 miles distant. However, your future is already in the hands of this man. Disagree with him and change HIS mind-

"India has never been a threat to Pakistan" and...

"I, for one, and our democratic government is not scared of Indian influence abroad."

Overnight your world would turn for the better as you rediscover vast resources heretofore unavailable. Zardari's correct, largely. His praetorian, Kiyani, hasn't uttered one word of disagreement. Fruit trucks are passing through the LOC.

Catch a clue...

Take it from a Pakistani, I'm really serious...you are reading WAAAAY too much into this. Politicans in Pakistan say alot of things they dont mean, I saw Zardari's interview where that comment about India never being a threat was all but retracted, he said that his comment was "we dont consider India a threat anymore because now we are too big and too strong a country".
Here we go:

Kayani is no "praetorian" to any corrupt civilian president who has spent all his life ridiculing the very country he is supposed to be leading. You are naive to think that Pakistan is such a dysfunctional country that just because the army chief hasn’t over thrown the civilian president yet, this would be mean that Kayani and Zardari are all handy dandy or that some kind of underhand personal allegiance or sponsoring is involved.

Throughout the history of Pakistan there has been friction between the Army hierarchy and the politicians over mishandling over national security, but it hardly ever came to our attention in any big way, and whenever it did it was firmly denied by both sides. Musharraf never spoke openly against Nawaz Sharif before the coup, as never did Zia against Bhutto or Ayub against Mirza.

Besides there already have been many instances of friction, at least one of which you must have heard of…the whole ISI affair. Western analysts are quite keen to use that as “proof” of the monopoly of military influence on Pakistani state affairs. Catch a clue?

Zardari is so bloody unpopular, I’m surprised that even a foreigner like you are taking him seriously. Like it or not, the military is the greatest and perhaps only constant in Pakistan.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the founder of Zardari’s political party and the man Zardari and his wife so greatly venerate, was the one who said that Pakistan would make a nuclear bomb to oppose India even if it meant that the people of Pakistan had to eat grass. He was a bloody hawk and was responsible for formulating and proposing many (very bad) war plans against India including offensives to take Delhi when he was in power.

Like I said, Pakistani politicians say a million things but they don’t really mean any of it, everything is up for change depending on where the cheap popularity is coming from. It would be most laughable if you were to suggest Zardari is capable of changing Pakistan’s birth policy as if he is a leader of the caliber and vision of Kemal Ataturk or something.

We know who our enemies are, we know who our friends are and we know who our untruthworthy friends are. For more than half a century Pakistan's policy in relation India has been constant, its not gonna change now baby so dont go all "catch a clue" on us.

 

[S-2]

I rather think that Zardari's comments were vetted internally. There's no reason to believe that this hasn't even originated within your military. There may be levels of sophistication to which you're unaccustomed to imagining.

No doubt that you're politicians back-track, dissemble, obfuscate, and stage-manage. We KNOW that. It's why we use your comments so diligently against your leaders.

"It would be most laughable if you were to suggest Zardari is capable of changing Pakistan’s birth policy..."

Good, bad, or indifferent, all he has to do is be in office while it happens. Good ideas arise from everywhere. Good leaders recognize this and use them. That'll be the real test of these guys- Zardari, Durrani, Quareshi, Kiyani, and Gilani.

Meanwhile, move your troops west while you can still pay them and make some practical use of their latent talents. Let the Indians build tunnels in J&K. You've more pressing matters.

Frankly, so do they.

 

[Prodigy17]

Sorry for double posting on this page guys..

It is a legacy of your regional variant to the "cold-war mentality".

Ok then let me explain it from the point of view of cold war since you are referring to it and since you know it way better than most. How did cold war finish ??? My answer is with the fall of communist USSR and its disintegration, so it had a logical end which permitted US to sit and ponder on future course of action and even then it took some time to get rid of that mentality. Going by this analogy, when can we get rid of the same "mentality on regional level", i'm guessing 'when our conflicts with India reach their logical end either diplomatically or militarily'. Now, I know this thinking is prevailing especially in the mind of new administration and Petreaus. But till the time no concrete step is taken to allay Pakistani apprehensions, you can expect them to persist. Why haven't we heard such assurances from Indian government ???? Again dont expect us to trust them because Nitesh and Vinod told you so ( guys who thanked you ).

You have again quoted an incomplete sentence and missed the caveat "if deemed appropriate". Again, your argument defies all military principles, moving some troops to west doesn't mean that the threat finishes and you can move all resources. It is always possible in defensive deployment to take out some troops without causing imbalance in the posture. I thought you being a ex professional soldier schooled in warfare would understand that. You should know better.

Nothing to gain and a ton to lose. It's not on their agenda. Trust me. I know. Those guys that thanked me told me so. You're safe.
Move your troops.

Thanks for your assessment, but i guess it would take more than that on grounds of assurances between nations to do that.

 

[Kasrkin]

I rather think that Zardari's comments were vetted internally. There's no reason to believe that this hasn't even originated within your military. There may be levels of sophistication to which you're unaccustomed to imagining.

Despite all the trends, factors and indications I have pointed out to the contrary, that is the best you can come up with? You feel that the notion that India was never a threat to Pakistan and that Pakistan has been wrong in fighting all those wars, facing up to all those confrontations, sacrificing all those lives and money and making our security vise-versa India the cornerstone of our foreign policy from Year 1, in all places...would originate from within the Pakistan Army?
It would be most advisable for you to ground your "sophisticated imaginings", you will only embarrass yourself here.

Your understanding (or lack of more like) of the Pakistani mind frame and the factors behind it is quite pitiful. I certainly hope that higher ranking members of the American military are more educated in term of geo-strategic tendencies. Perhaps this will help enlighten you a bit:
Strategic Insights -- Comparative Strategic Culture, The Case of Pakistan

To put it bluntly, you are narrow minded much like the American establishment and tend to disregard completely those you conceive to be in the way of your own interests.

Meanwhile, move your troops west while you can still pay them

Another lame, unreal, unauthentic and obvious attempted slur at my country and its armed forces. Sad really...if you lack crediable information to back up your notions, you should not resort to this...its pathetic.

 

[fatman17]

^^^man i dont know where to start or stop. lord give me time and patience.

 

[S-2]

No. My argument is to move some troops west. Any reasonably spared should be expedited where they can best help.

Yes, I've been snide about meeting their salaries but the imperative and the means intersect here. It's quite likely that the threat assessment in Punjab might indicate the possibility of culling forces to achieve the ratios necessary to attack Maulvi Nazir and others now instead of pleading further patience.

"Concrete steps" aren't possible. You've an IMPERATIVE. I'd forlornly hoped that somebody might challenge that assertion but it's been missed. In the face of compelling needs elsewhere, luxuriating in the certainty of an army prepared to defend the nation's honor against those wascally wabbits, the Indians, just doesn't cry to the need of patience on our part- at least not to restrain PREDATOR.

I imagine that PREDATOR shall fly until we've no compelling need. Our troops are on the move and three more brigades will be in Afghanistan by this summer. More may be following beyond those, especially if B.O. intends to adhere to his campaign pledge of nada in Iraq by the end of 2010.

 

[S-2]

"Despite all the trends, factors and indications I have pointed out to the contrary, that is the best you can come up with?"

"You feel that the notion that India was never a threat to Pakistan..."

Let's start with the assertion that I said India was never a threat. Prove it. Their threat to you NOW is dramatically diminished. I provided sound reasons why that may generally be the case as there are severe economic and political disincentives that far outweigh the benefits of any invasion of the Pakistani Punjab. They remain unanswered but, again, I challenge you to provide me with a case where it's to India's advantage to pre-emptively invade Punjab.

Without it, you've little rationale to maintain force levels where they are while facing a more virulent and immediate threat elsewhere. If nothing else, what does the absence of P.A. forces from the Afghani border tell you about the GoP's actual concern to it's sovereignty along the Durand line? Must be minimal. No reason to stop PREDATOR.

A lot of gratuitous whining while your troops sit in their peace-time kasernes elsewhere. Hmmm...., at least send your AAA battalions so you can take a real swing at PREDATOR.

Perhaps you're too in love with your comments/analysis/FACTORS but I believe that Zardari's comments stem from a better source of knowledge than you. Like him or not, he sits nicely placed to learn and see things that will NEVER cross your purview.

Whether India has been the cornerstone of your security policy as framed by your army (SINCE YEAR 1, no less) is irrelevant. That assessment may well have changed or be in the process of changing. Threat analysis was what I did at the tactical level. It remains a moving target at all times and deserves consistent reassessment.

Assault my understanding of the Pakistani mindframe but from what perspective do you say so- you're understanding of Americans? If accurate about yourselves, you've condemned your citizens to a repeated litany of military coups and political intrigue for all your understanding. Please KNOW yourselves less and imagine some new possibilities here if that's the legacy you'll inherit.

Somebody elsewhere within your government seems to be doing so. You can afford no less yourself.