US Drone Strikes In Pakistan

[batmannow]

American power and the Obama presidency

Published: Nov. 6, 2008 at 5:52 PMOrder reprints | Feedback

WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 (UPI) -- The Obama administration will take office during a time when America is at war on two fronts, making national security a top priority, an analysis says.

American voters elected Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as the next president by an overwhelming majority Tuesday. With Thursday marking the first day President-elect Obama is privy to daily intelligence briefs from Washington, his first days in office will be overshadowed by looming decisions regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama will face decisions regarding the nature of troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. defense budget for 2010 and the repercussions left over from former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, an analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington says.

The CSIS report highlights the need for Obama to take immediate action to remedy defense policies that "decoupled" strategic objectives with fiscal discipline.

In addition, it is critical, the report says, for the Obama administration to retool the U.S. Defense Department and national security doctrines to reflect a strategic policy that embraces a civilian partnership with the military.

Meanwhile, on the broader global effort the next president will need to consider the relationship between national security and "geo-economics" while focusing military efforts on finding a tangible balance between asymmetric warfare and nation-building exercises.

"Some of these issues can be deferred for a year or so, but none without cost and making the situation worse," the report says.


© 2008 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

S-2

Those guys in the east would be more useful where bullets are actually flying.

Sheer arrogance and bellicosity, no two ways about it.

Who gave you/US the right to determine what Pakistan's national interests are and how they are best served? This coming from a conservative and citizen of a nation that won't even 'talk' to a country it considers 'evil' for fear of 'legitimizing' its regime, who now wants another nation to just ignore a hostile nation that we have had three wars with. We must be perfectly fine and adjust to the US tolerating a drug and weapons trade supplying the Taliban and being used to carry out attacks such as the Marriott, but heavens forbid if we suggest that the US address Pakistani concerns.

I have to put no words in the mouth of that general, his message was clear, and it was one of flexibility, which you chose to ignore in the typical hubris and tunnel vision that has come to represent the US:

"'We need a slow, steady evolution in the understanding of each other's limitations and constraints,'

'If you want us to deliver, 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.'”

Read it again. Every policy has consequences, desired and undesired, and I maintain that your analysis above was superficial and flawed, focused entirely on one set of possible negative repercussions (notice that no consequence was stated in absolute terms by the General).

And can the crap about being a soldier - you do/did a job like any other individual. It doesn't allow you to lord anything over me, nor does it offer you any greater insight in to what my country's dynamics are, or for that matter any greater insight into anything else, bar fighting a war, and if the situation in Afghanistan and FATA was just about fighting a war, we wouldn't still be talking about it.

If you have anything of value to offer, it can be done by arguing against my opinions and posts, not by your ludicrous attempt to 'pull rank'.

 

[RescueRanger]

AgNoStIc MuSliM ,

Spot on!

I just want to add, that just by saying you were a solider so you know what your talking about, that dont mean jack here friend, cuz in there are many arms in the military for all we know you could have been a cook or a administrator. Besides Mr S-2 aint the only one who has seen uniformed service.

Whilst my experience stems from Law Enforcement i have seen my fair share of bombings and shootouts in Pakistan to know what's what and clearly S2 is lacking any real understanding of what the real dynamics on the ground are.

Its a shame when you see such armchair analysts think they know better then the entire defensive mechanism of a nation.

Eitherway i am sure that as Pakistani's (Regardless of what we do or did) we have a greater stake and broader understanding of Pakistani grand strategic, security and defense policy then somone safely tucked behind his PC screen in the land of the free and the "brave".

 

[jeypore]

"'We need a slow, steady evolution in the understanding of each other's limitations and constraints,'

'If you want us to deliver, 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.'”

This Pakistanie policy is clearly not working because more Pakistanie Pashtons are joining Taliban, and clearly they have shown change of strategy towards Pakistan. Infact they themselves are calling Pakistan Taliban know. Perfect example is the Marriot bombing.

I do agree with the general that US needs to "build Countries capacity".

 

[RescueRanger]

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.

Hahah... And I suppose only those with omnipotent intelligence such as yourself can truly envisage the grand shape of things, leaving us underlings to run circles round each other?

Please listen to yourself... Oh wait, you already are aren’t you? Your one of those who loves to listen to the sound of his own voice so much that even the blunt hammer of logic cannot crack your chauvinistic facade!

Judging by your previous comments you have no interest in what another member has to say nor do you offer a logical rebuttal, instead you beat round the bush and take selected excerpt from posting to form your own reply.

Shame really!

 

[S-2]

"Sheer arrogance and bellicosity, no two ways about it."

There's nothing bellicose about-

"Those guys in the east would be more useful where bullets are actually flying."

Nothing arrogant either. Sorry. Go see Webster's- "favoring or inclined to start quarrels or wars"

Bullets indeed fly in the west already. I can't be guilty of that so no bellicosity. Those soldiers are better served there. Nobody here has given second thoughts to advising how and where U.S. forces should be employed. I've heard too much about too many troops in Iraq and not enough in Afghanistan so it's rather common-place, it might seem.

Yet here you take exception on this issue?

"Who gave you/US the right to determine what Pakistan's national interests are and how they are best served?"

I take liberties here to suggest on a board of debate. Pardon me if that's not appropriate. As to my government, do you have something in mind- a particular scab that we can pick together?

There's a special arrogance to demanding we sustain your efforts as you see fit. To date, your vision has sadly lacked success and quite frankly could use some steering. Fortunately, your gov't seems to know when it needs to cut a deal at the bank of last resort-

Pakistan Accepts 11 IMF Conditions- The Internat'l News

I doubt that you'd be the guy to carry the loan request forward.

"...who now wants another nation to just ignore a hostile nation that we have had three wars with."

Yeah, I do. You've little choice besides pleading our patience of restraint on PREDATOR while mired in Bajaur. That seems as though it will take some time. Honestly that's not surprising given the work that's needed there. Bunkers, drug labs, opium fields arms caches- lots to do but it raises the question of Waziristan and those taliban bent on making war upon Afghanistan.

So without a shot the Indians have tied your forces to an inactive theater that represents no tangible near-term threat. Sorry that you don't see it in those terms.

"I have to put no words in the mouth of that general, his message was clear..."

Then why did you muddy clear waters? I understand the gentleman perfectly and his comments stand at face value to me without the interjection of your particular bent- "high horse" and "arrogant" certainly weren't a part of his message and unnecessary for my eyes.

You may maintain that my "analysis" was flawed by focusing on "one set of possible negative repercussions". That's fine though I disagree as they are most likely foremost in his mind-unmentioned or otherwise. Who else might he have been considering in reassessing a threat, Z?

""And can the crap about being a soldier - you do/did a job like any other individual. It doesn't allow you to lord anything over me...If you have anything of value to offer, it can be done by arguing against my opinions and posts, not by your ludicrous attempt to 'pull rank'.

Yes sir!

You've lost perspective. It was a joke.

It's clear that you disagree with me on very fundamental issues like your continued concern for Maulvi Nazir's short-term health, re-deployment of P.A. troops from the Punjab, and the efficacy of PREDATOR to back-fill the vacumn in S. Waziristan and the associated implications therein to selectively applied interpretations of sovereignty.

I'm living with the anger and vehemence at this board as I discuss these issues. I've no obligation to see matters your way and have presented my views as concisely as possible. I don't interject the C.I.A. and WMD from Iraq and I don't toss around trite rhetoric like lap-dogs and "mayor of kabul" to facilitate my point.

I'm fine though I appear to have invited an onslaught of the usual wisdom from the posters here, including you. You're a moderator. Can we continue to discuss the need for P.A. troops to redeploy or has that topic become verboten as an assault on your nation's dignity? I hope not as I see it a possible remedy to PREDATOR's continued use.

We'll be deploying three brigades to Afghanistan this summer from Iraq. They're no longer needed in one locale but can be effectively used elsewhere. 1500 kms?

Oh well. Just a thought from a neo-con minion of the gre...whoops, sorry there Black Stone.

 

[RescueRanger]

This Pakistanie policy is clearly not working because more Pakistanie Pashtons are joining Taliban, and clearly they have shown change of strategy towards Pakistan. Infact they themselves are calling Pakistan Taliban know. Perfect example is the Marriot bombing.

I do agree with the general that US needs to "build Countries capacity".

Hmm… Interesting point and please allow me to answer:

Outside Pakistan people have a common misperception is that native Pushtun who are involved in the Pakistani Taliban, nay that is quite incorrect and a false picture painted by International Media.

Let me shed some light on this for you:

Most PTT members are ethnic afghan refugees, farsiban pathan’s from across the border and uzbek fighters many of whom resided in Quetta and following on from 9/11 followed the leader of the then TSMN: Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-i-Mohammadi AKA: Black Turban Brigades, this group was lead by Maulana Sufi Mohammed recruited his followers some 10,000 in number went to join the Taliban, upon his return to Pakistan, him and many of his supporters were arrested. The Maulana is in Jail to date.

With their leader arrested the group disbanded many joined the various different groups operating on the Pak/Afghan border. However following the 2005 earthquake these and many other non native hardcore militants found a new ally Maulana Fazlullah AKA: Mullah Radio.

The son-in-law of Sufi Mohammad, the erstwhile leader of the defunct Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-i-Mohammadi (TNSM). He was a graduate of a seminary run by Maulana Sufi Mohammad founder of TNSM in Balambat district, DIR, NWFP.

Maulana Mohammad used the earthquake to lead the illiterate population that the deaths and destruction of the people in the area was due to them moving away from their religion and embracing western “non Islamic” ways.

This strategy was very effective and lead to an increased membership and followers destroyed TV sets, internet Café’s and CD shops. Furthermore the militant leader had become bold enough to attack and destroy police stations, FC check posts and even demand Ushur (Islamic Tax from locals for protection).

During his reign the area saw 50 bombings all-over the valley with in excess of 100 shops selling CDs, videos and music destroyed by the followers of the radical cleric. Eventually the Maulana was ousted by an aggressive government campaign.

And once again the surviving members disbanded only this time to join an even more aggressive and lethal group known as the TTP: Tareekh –E-Taliban, Pakistan.

Lead by Baitullah Mehsud, the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan is the main Taliban militant umbrella group in Pakistan comprising local Talibans.

It is a Sunni (Deobandi) sectarian group allegedly involved in terrorist violence, primarily targeting minority Shia and majority Sunni (Barelvi) Muslims in Pakistan.

It was formed in December 2007 under the leadership of Baitullah Mehsud. The organization comprises of many foreign fighters mostly Farsiban and of Afghan origin the deputy leader is Maulana Hafiz Gul Bahadur and Maulana Faqir Mohammed is third in command.

Mehsud has also been accused of organizing waves of suicide attacks in Pakistan since last year, including masterminding the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

However unlike other groups, In Pakistan, Tehrik Taliban Pakistan – has political aims and it seeks to capture and control territory. The organization has vast amounts of money, weapons and equipment. Captured militants have often been in possession of advanced communication systems. The question that i would like to ask is who is bank-rolling this outfit?

Recently due to an aggressive campaign by the military the TTP have called a cease-fire and declared an unconditional surrender. This however has not meant that the other Taliban and militant groups operating on the Pak/Afghan border have ceased operations.

I am including a list of Anti Pakistani and Pakistan Neutral Taliban Groups for the benefit of members on this board:


TEHRIK-E-TALIBAN
Leader: Baitullah Mehsud
An umbrella organization that embraces several Taliban-style groups, including the Movement for the Enforcement of Islamic Law, a violent affiliate of al-Qaida with close ties to its No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri. Declared war on Pakistan in 2007 after its military operation against religious students holding a siege at the Red Mosque in Islamabad. Strong in Bajaur tribal region. Blamed for most attacks in Pakistan, including the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

ANTI-MEHSUD TALIBAN GROUP
Leaders: Gul Bahadar, Maulvi Naseer
This group has promised not to attack Pakistan. Pakistan praises the group for killing hundreds of Uzbek al-Qaida fighters earlier this year, but Washington says the group sent fighters over the border into Afghanistan to attack U.S. forces. Washington wants Pakistan to shut Nasser down.

HAQQANI NETWORK
Leaders: The father and son team of Jalaluddin and Sirajuddin Haqqani
This group is considered by the U.S. as its biggest Taliban enemy in Afghanistan but does not fight Pakistani troops. Jalaluddin Haqqani has a 40-year association with Pakistan's intelligence and once visited the White House, where he was welcomed by U.S. President Ronald Reagan. The fiery, red-bearded Haqqani fought against the former Soviet Union after its 1979 invasion of Afghanistan, then seized power with other "freedom fighters" in 1992 to U.S. applause.

HEZB-E-ISLAMI
Leader: Gulbuddin Hekmatyar
This group is committed to fighting international and U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and took responsibility for the August ambush and killing of 10 French soldiers in eastern Afghanistan. However, Hekmatyar does not fight Pakistani troops and was a favored "freedom fighter" during the 1980s. Shamshatoo Refugee camp in Pakistan's northwest continues to house Hekmatyar loyalists and Hezb-e-Islami security officers.


AL-QAIDA
Leader: Osama bin Laden
Opposed to both the U.S. and Pakistan, funds the Taliban in both countries. Trains suicide bombers and foments violence, which in turn has given the global terrorist network the room and the oxygen it needs to revive.

JIHADI ORGANIZATIONS
Leaders: Jaish-e-Mohammed, Harakat-ul-Mujahedeen and Lashkar-e-Tayyaba
All have close links to Pakistan's intelligence but have been slipping out of its control since the 2007 assault on the Red Mosque in the federal capital of Islamabad. The organizations have acted as proxies for the Pakistani military against India in the disputed state of Kashmir, but have more recently sided with Taliban-style tribal militants to fight Pakistani security forces in the border regions.

LASHKAR-E-JANGHVI
Leader: Mohammad Ajmal alias Akram Lahori
A violent sectarian group committed to killing Shiite Muslims in Pakistan but also affiliated with Tehrik-e-Taliban. Less involved in fighting in Afghanistan, but at war with Pakistan and hunted down by the Pakistani military. Strong ties to al-Qaida, believed to be Tehrik-e-Taliban's greatest asset for providing suicide bombers.

Regards,

 

[jeypore]

Hmm… Interesting point and please allow me to answer:

Outside Pakistan people have a common misperception is that native Pushtun who are involved in the Pakistani Taliban, nay that is quite incorrect and a false picture painted by International Media.

Let me shed some light on this for you:

Most PTT members are ethnic afghan refugees, farsiban pathan’s from across the border and uzbek fighters many of whom resided in Quetta and following on from 9/11 followed the leader of the then TSMN: Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-i-Mohammadi AKA: Black Turban Brigades, this group was lead by Maulana Sufi Mohammed recruited his followers some 10,000 in number went to join the Taliban, upon his return to Pakistan, him and many of his supporters were arrested. The Maulana is in Jail to date.

With their leader arrested the group disbanded many joined the various different groups operating on the Pak/Afghan border. However following the 2005 earthquake these and many other non native hardcore militants found a new ally Maulana Fazlullah AKA: Mullah Radio.

The son-in-law of Sufi Mohammad, the erstwhile leader of the defunct Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-i-Mohammadi (TNSM). He was a graduate of a seminary run by Maulana Sufi Mohammad founder of TNSM in Balambat district, DIR, NWFP.

Maulana Mohammad used the earthquake to lead the illiterate population that the deaths and destruction of the people in the area was due to them moving away from their religion and embracing western “non Islamic” ways.

This strategy was very effective and lead to an increased membership and followers destroyed TV sets, internet Café’s and CD shops. Furthermore the militant leader had become bold enough to attack and destroy police stations, FC check posts and even demand Ushur (Islamic Tax from locals for protection).

During his reign the area saw 50 bombings all-over the valley with in excess of 100 shops selling CDs, videos and music destroyed by the followers of the radical cleric. Eventually the Maulana was ousted by an aggressive government campaign.

And once again the surviving members disbanded only this time to join an even more aggressive and lethal group known as the TTP: Tareekh –E-Taliban, Pakistan.

Lead by Baitullah Mehsud, the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan is the main Taliban militant umbrella group in Pakistan comprising local Talibans.

It is a Sunni (Deobandi) sectarian group allegedly involved in terrorist violence, primarily targeting minority Shia and majority Sunni (Barelvi) Muslims in Pakistan.

It was formed in December 2007 under the leadership of Baitullah Mehsud. The organization comprises of many foreign fighters mostly Farsiban and of Afghan origin the deputy leader is Maulana Hafiz Gul Bahadur and Maulana Faqir Mohammed is third in command.

Mehsud has also been accused of organizing waves of suicide attacks in Pakistan since last year, including masterminding the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

However unlike other groups, In Pakistan, Tehrik Taliban Pakistan – has political aims and it seeks to capture and control territory. The organization has vast amounts of money, weapons and equipment. Captured militants have often been in possession of advanced communication systems. The question that i would like to ask is who is bank-rolling this outfit?

Recently due to an aggressive campaign by the military the TTP have called a cease-fire and declared an unconditional surrender. This however has not meant that the other Taliban and militant groups operating on the Pak/Afghan border have ceased operations.

I am including a list of Anti Pakistani and Pakistan Neutral Taliban Groups for the benefit of members on this board:


TEHRIK-E-TALIBAN
Leader: Baitullah Mehsud
An umbrella organization that embraces several Taliban-style groups, including the Movement for the Enforcement of Islamic Law, a violent affiliate of al-Qaida with close ties to its No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri. Declared war on Pakistan in 2007 after its military operation against religious students holding a siege at the Red Mosque in Islamabad. Strong in Bajaur tribal region. Blamed for most attacks in Pakistan, including the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

ANTI-MEHSUD TALIBAN GROUP
Leaders: Gul Bahadar, Maulvi Naseer
This group has promised not to attack Pakistan. Pakistan praises the group for killing hundreds of Uzbek al-Qaida fighters earlier this year, but Washington says the group sent fighters over the border into Afghanistan to attack U.S. forces. Washington wants Pakistan to shut Nasser down.

HAQQANI NETWORK
Leaders: The father and son team of Jalaluddin and Sirajuddin Haqqani
This group is considered by the U.S. as its biggest Taliban enemy in Afghanistan but does not fight Pakistani troops. Jalaluddin Haqqani has a 40-year association with Pakistan's intelligence and once visited the White House, where he was welcomed by U.S. President Ronald Reagan. The fiery, red-bearded Haqqani fought against the former Soviet Union after its 1979 invasion of Afghanistan, then seized power with other "freedom fighters" in 1992 to U.S. applause.

HEZB-E-ISLAMI
Leader: Gulbuddin Hekmatyar
This group is committed to fighting international and U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and took responsibility for the August ambush and killing of 10 French soldiers in eastern Afghanistan. However, Hekmatyar does not fight Pakistani troops and was a favored "freedom fighter" during the 1980s. Shamshatoo Refugee camp in Pakistan's northwest continues to house Hekmatyar loyalists and Hezb-e-Islami security officers.


AL-QAIDA
Leader: Osama bin Laden
Opposed to both the U.S. and Pakistan, funds the Taliban in both countries. Trains suicide bombers and foments violence, which in turn has given the global terrorist network the room and the oxygen it needs to revive.

JIHADI ORGANIZATIONS
Leaders: Jaish-e-Mohammed, Harakat-ul-Mujahedeen and Lashkar-e-Tayyaba
All have close links to Pakistan's intelligence but have been slipping out of its control since the 2007 assault on the Red Mosque in the federal capital of Islamabad. The organizations have acted as proxies for the Pakistani military against India in the disputed state of Kashmir, but have more recently sided with Taliban-style tribal militants to fight Pakistani security forces in the border regions.

LASHKAR-E-JANGHVI
Leader: Mohammad Ajmal alias Akram Lahori
A violent sectarian group committed to killing Shiite Muslims in Pakistan but also affiliated with Tehrik-e-Taliban. Less involved in fighting in Afghanistan, but at war with Pakistan and hunted down by the Pakistani military. Strong ties to al-Qaida, believed to be Tehrik-e-Taliban's greatest asset for providing suicide bombers.

Regards,

Very informative, thank you.

In my limited knowledge, Since these Taliban groups will have hard time recapturing Afaganistan because of the NATO force, there strategy has changed to go after Pakistan. First of all if this is true or not? And if so, the question of Pakistan military force guarding from this happening. Overall financially and military Pakistan should let Nato troops just go after them even though it would be breaking Pakistan souvergty, but in the long term Pakistan would be secured from fragmentations from these taliban.

Do you not think so?

 

[RescueRanger]

Very informative, thank you.

In my limited knowledge, Since these Taliban groups will have hard time recapturing Afaganistan because of the NATO force, there strategy has changed to go after Pakistan. First of all if this is true or not? And if so, the question of Pakistan military force guarding from this happening. Overall financially and military Pakistan should let Nato troops just go after them even though it would be breaking Pakistan souvergty, but in the long term Pakistan would be secured from fragmentations from these taliban.

Do you not think so?

Once again thank you for your question, well you see this is where Pakistan's internal dynamics are different from what many see as a quick fix. The groups I have mentioned do not just operate in caves in Waziristan, many are rooted in the cities and metropolises of Pakistan itself.

Now it’s Catch 20/20, the US and Pak both agree that talks with the Taliban are necessary, yet at the same time both parties see the Taliban as a threat to national security and long-term prosperity.

You see this is a very delicate balancing act which is something the west cannot understand, if Pakistan allows the US to enter Pakistani soil to go after these militant groups, we would be opening our western border to foreign forces, the neutral Taliban "good Taliban" would join the anti-Pakistani Taliban "Bad Taliban", local tribesmen who are notoriously territorial will join the fight against what will be seen not only as an invasion but collusion by the Pakistani Government itself, public anger will spill on the streets, protests will turn violent and you will see civil war erupt.

And that is not healthy in a nuclear armed nation; it is something the region and thw world can do well without. Whilst I understand it is frustrating for non Pakistanis to see this slow process take place, trust us "we have dealt with them longer then any other nation on earth" yes this is our war too, and we have a strategy and overall strategic plan for dealing with this threat, one step at a time.

People forget that it is our people who are dying, our troops who are fighting, in the last year Pakistan has seen more IED attacks then that of Iraq and Afghanistan, why the sudden spike? That is the real question?

Believe me, I too wish it was as our American friends think. Flick a switch and hey presto no more Taliban, sadly it is not that easy and this is a tumour deeply embedded into our internal fabric, these unscrupulous elements have used the illiterate and angry masses and allowed them to channel their anger against a united enemy.

We must use a similar strategy, now in the tribal areas the native Pushtuns are angry and livid at being out rooted from their villages and historical home towns, this internal displacement has breed great resentment for the Taliban operating in Pakistan.

Local Jirga's have now been armed and support military and police in fighting the Taliban, only yesterday civilian jirga and police fought and killed militants in a town near Peshawar: Militants clash with security forces near Peshawar

I hope this helped.

 

[jeypore]

Once again thank you for your question, well you see this is where Pakistan's internal dynamics are different from what many see as a quick fix. The groups I have mentioned do not just operate in caves in Waziristan, many are rooted in the cities and metropolises of Pakistan itself.

Now it’s Catch 20/20, the US and Pak both agree that talks with the Taliban are necessary, yet at the same time both parties see the Taliban as a threat to national security and long-term prosperity.

You see this is a very delicate balancing act which is something the west cannot understand, if Pakistan allows the US to enter Pakistani soil to go after these militant groups, we would be opening our western border to foreign forces, the neutral Taliban "good Taliban" would join the anti-Pakistani Taliban "Bad Taliban", local tribesmen who are notoriously territorial will join the fight against what will be seen not only as an invasion but collusion by the Pakistani Government itself, public anger will spill on the streets, protests will turn violent and you will see civil war erupt.

And that is not healthy in a nuclear armed nation; it is something the region and thw world can do well without. Whilst I understand it is frustrating for non Pakistanis to see this slow process take place, trust us "we have dealt with them longer then any other nation on earth" yes this is our war too, and we have a strategy and overall strategic plan for dealing with this threat, one step at a time.

People forget that it is our people who are dying, our troops who are fighting, in the last year Pakistan has seen more IED attacks then that of Iraq and Afghanistan, why the sudden spike? That is the real question?

Believe me, I too wish it was as our American friends think. Flick a switch and hey presto no more Taliban, sadly it is not that easy and this is a tumour deeply embedded into our internal fabric, these unscrupulous elements have used the illiterate and angry masses and allowed them to channel their anger against a united enemy.

We must use a similar strategy, now in the tribal areas the native Pushtuns are angry and livid at being out rooted from their villages and historical home towns, this internal displacement has breed great resentment for the Taliban operating in Pakistan.

Local Jirga's have now been armed and support military and police in fighting the Taliban, only yesterday civilian jirga and police fought and killed militants in a town near Peshawar: Militants clash with security forces near Peshawar

I hope this helped.

It did very well. Since you have described this so elioquently that i really understand very well.

Know let me explain the western perspective, The Americans think, maybe right or wrong, that since Hamid karsi invinting India in Afganistan, that Pakistan ISI is paranoid and they are keeping these Taliban for rainy day. Here is a documentary of what i just said:

FRONTLINE: the war briefing: watch the full program | PBS

 

[RescueRanger]

It did very well. Since you have described this so elioquently that i really understand very well.

Know let me explain the western perspective, The Americans think, maybe right or wrong, that since Hamid karsi invinting India in Afganistan, that Pakistan ISI is paranoid and they are keeping these Taliban for rainy day. Here is a documentary of what i just said:

FRONTLINE: the war briefing: watch the full program | PBS

Thank you very much for the link, very helpful indeed!

 

[foxhound]

Pakistan Playing a Double Game? Capital Talk Sept 15th 2008 - Video/pakistan_playing_a_double_game_capital_talk_sept_1 5th_2008/

 

[foxhound]

Salaam!

A brief situation awareness point of view!

Situation Afghanistan:

US/Nato/Isaf forces are overall losing control of key areas in afghanistan:
1) Afghan government primarily exercises control in Kabul region....and even this area has seen Taliban activity.
2) Helmand has seen a greater resurgent Taliban activity.....the Isaf (primarily British) forces have consistently taken territory and caused much casualties to Taliban forces....BUT DESPITE this....the Taliban are able to regroup and find new recruits. (I don't know if you've seen any of the documentaries of British Royal Marines and Paras engaging regularly in 'contact' with Taliban forces.....it shows a lot of fierce resistance by the Taliban, despite enduring very heavy air activity (precision bombings etc).
3) Militarily the foreign forces are causing a lot of disruption to Taliban activity...however politically they are not doing well. Certain governmernts such as the Canadians and a few others have indicated a withdrawal dates for their forces). The war with the insurgents are over 7 years+, the question is do the foreign powers have the WILL to fight a long duration protracted conflict?
4) The frustration of not being able to successfully achieve their goals in Afghanistan has resulted in them focusing on the borders of Pakistan. HOWEVER, this could cause much problems for them - it will not eradicate terrorism or defeat Taliban.....it could potentially make a nation more unstable as is the case with Pakistan. Do the global powers want a NUCLEAR ARMED failed state?

Overall, due to a number of reasons, such as the following:

1) shortage of troops (ISAF/US)
2) Shortage of equipment to transform Afghanistan (Development wise).
3) the waning International support (i.e. many Governments would like to leave ASAP if they could + not many nations willing to contribute troops or material (such as helicopters etc).
4) Finanacially many nations are 'cash-strapped' and would like to focus their 'monies' elswhere.
5) the long conflict in Afghanistan has been predicted to run for at least another 15 years+.....again does anyone have the 'stomach' to fight this long....it becomes a 'war of attrition'?


All in all, A big game is being played...by everyone. A recent strike in which a 'Taliban' leader was killed...was later to be confirmed as a serving senior Pakistan military officer. The Pakistan governments are playing realist political card. Pakistan has not lost interest in the Taliban...hence they are still getting funds/training from the secret services of Pakistan.

In addition, the Iranians have increased their funding/support of the Taliban forces (to keep the ISAF forces bogged down) and also funding discrete individuals to minimise Pakistan support.

The Indians (primarily RAW) are taking full advantages of the situation and have supplied to key 'rogue' elements within the Taliban/Al-qaeda groups....it is alledged that RAW have approximately 10,000 operatives of various abilities within Pakistan (mainly disgruntled and greedy groups who are willing to destroy various resources of Pakistan for monetary sums) Hence, Pakistan is retaliating....you then see certain incidents in India.

Everyone, behind the doors are fighting for their own interests.....you can say 'screwing' one another. The US/ISAF need Pakistan as well as Pakistan needs them. Thus, Pakistan is prepared to lose many numbers of its personnel/ and Local taliban forces in order toreach its goals.....I believe it has given tacit approval to the US to launch attacks on key individuals (the ones that Pakistan would like to see destroyed aswell). It is only when thinghs get to the media, when they start to complain.

If Pakistan does not want these UAV incursions, then it does have the ability to stop this. Pakistan can reduce NATO/ISAF/US supplies from Pakistan....this would then be a logistical nightmare for the foreign forces...it would escate further their costs in this conflict. Pakistan has options to address the security concerns and issues but has not due to the leadership. There is no honour amongst thieves.....such is the case with hierarchy of senior political and military leadership. The senior leadership is willing to destroy anything that gets in its ways and objectives.

They have been thieves, manipulating the masses. They do not want to 'cut' the hand that feeds them. Personally if anything happens to its people they are not bother (collateral damage in their case). They project and scare the masses of doom and gloom scenarios and are extremely quick to 'BEG' nationally and internationally. They are the scum and a menace to the nations. Hence, when the nations sovereignty is violated - they are unable to defend (THIS IS PRIMARILY BECAUSE THEY HAVE COLLUDED WITH THE ATTACKING FORCES - A TACIT APPROVAL TO HIT TARGETS THAT ARE IN THEIR INTERESTS).
If there are major economic issues then it is primarily the 'elite' and middle classes that will feelthe brunt. However, the vast majority of the population will not be affected (agricultural society - will be able to sustain themselves).

Pakistan is not able 'fight' with bigger/superpowers, but does have the capability to DETER if it so willed. It had a big response to US Special forces action/raids in Pakistan and that has stopped. Please note, to invade or attack a nation consisting of 170+ million with large terrain would not be an easy feat. Furthermore, how far would you want to escalate the matter?

My point is that despite Pakistan being economically and politically unstable....it still can stop a would be aggressor. It is a nuclear armed nation that has the capability (officially) to strike within 3000KM range....(please note unofficially it could be longer...maybe a potential ICBM). It could cause much instability in this region to effect global market positions and environmentally catastrophic issues.

Some refrence points:
Source: CBC News - Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/10/04/afghan-war.htm...

Related Linkshttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4882417.ece
War on Taliban can't be won,

Western forces in Afghanistan will never be able to win the war against insurgents and may need to include the Taliban in any long-term solution, Britain's senior commander in the country says in a report.

The platoon’s first big contact was on June 12. “That day is marked in my head.” Two of his men, Lance-Corporal James Bateman and Private Jeff Doherty, were killed when ambushed by the Taliban while out on patrol. “The amount of firepower was phenomenal; they must have had their finger on the trigger the whole time.

“From then to the present day it never stopped,” said Stout. “We were getting contacts every day, some just pot-shots at the base, others much more. We always outnumber and outpower them with our weapons but they keep coming back. I reckon they’re crazy. Two of them would try to take on a company. That’s not good odds.”


Canada's desire to leave Afghanistan by 2011?
Harper sticks by 2011 troop withdrawal date

Harper sticks by 2011 troop withdrawal date
Liberals insist on rebuilding Afghanistan; Layton wants to talk to insurgents
Mike Blanchfield, Canwest News Service
Published: Thursday, September 25
The Canadian Forces mission in Afghanistan is to either end, or change dramatically, by 2011.

That is the deadline Parliament has authorized for Canada's 2,500 troops to remain in Kandahar, the heart of the southern Afghanistan insurgency, and where the Canadian Forces have been involved in some of the heaviest combat that NATO allies have seen in the country.


Pakistan's goals? double??

AFP News Briefs List

Pakistan replaces chief of powerful spy agency by Masroor Gilani
Print Pakistan has appointed a new head of its powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, amid US accusations that the military spy organisation secretly backs Taliban rebels on the Afghan border.

Lieutenant General Ahmed Shujaa Pasha, formerly head of military operations, was named director general of the ISI late Monday, a terse military statement announced. He replaces Lieutenant General Nadeem Taj.

The move is part of a major shake-up of the army's top brass after US, Afghan and Indian officials alleged in recent months that the shadowy organisation was complicit in the Taliban insurgency wracking the region.

Pasha is considered to be a close aide to the relatively reformist Pakistani military chief Ashfaq Kayani, who ran the ISI until October 2007. Taj, by contrast, was a key lieutenant of former president Pervez Musharraf.

The army insisted the 14 new appointments announced on Monday were routine.

"These were the changes due over a period of time. This is how the system works in the army," chief military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas told AFP.

But movements in Pakistan's military and intelligence services are closely watched by the United States and other allies for signs of the nuclear-armed nation's stability and commitment to the "war on terror".

"The change comes at a time when there was a lot of talk about ISI in the Western media," security analyst Talat Masood, a retired Pakistan army general, told AFP.

"With the new ISI chief, General Kayani has completed a team of his choice. He will be able to now lead the army with greater confidence."

In his previous job, Pasha was responsible for military offensives against Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants in northwest Pakistan and the troubled tribal belt bordering Afghanistan.

The ISI has helped capture or kill hundreds of senior Al-Qaeda militants in Pakistan since Musharraf joined the "war on terror" in 2001, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed 9/11 mastermind.

But many Western officials suspect that, having helped to create Afghanistan's hardline 1996-2001 Taliban regime, the organisation is still playing a double game.

In August, the NATO commander in Afghanistan, US General David D. McKiernan, told AFP there "certainly is a level of ISI complicity" in Taliban militancy along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Whether US forces should strike militant targets in Pakistan if the ISI and other agencies fail to do so has become an issue in the US election race, with Democratic candidate Barack Obama backing such attacks.

Afghanistan, which is supposed to be Pakistan's ally against extremism, and India, Islamabad's historic foe, accused the ISI of involvement in the deadly bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul in July.

Pakistan strongly denies any such links, although Musharraf admitted in 2006 that some retired Pakistani intelligence officers may have been abetting extremists.

The ISI is feared at home as it plays a central, although covert, political role in a country that has spent more than half of its 61-year history under military rule.

The change in the ISI comes after the government led by President Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of slain former premier Benazir Bhutto, tried to put the elite agency under the control of the interior ministry in July.

That move was hastily withdrawn after a protest by Pakistan's powerful military establishment.

In theory ISI works under the control of the prime minister, but in practice its functions are mainly run by Pakistan's pervasive security set-up.

ref:France 24 | Pakistan replaces chief of powerful spy agency | France 24

a good video below click:

Pakistan Playing a Double Game? Capital Talk Sept 15th 2008 - Video/pakistan_playing_a_double_game_capital_talk_sept_1 5th_2008/

 

[fatman17]

ASIA PACIFIC
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2008

Jane's Defence Weekly

Pakistan expects US airstrikes to continue, senior official says

Farhan Bokhari JDW Correspondent - Islamabad

Pakistan expects the United States to continue with its policy of using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to strike targets inside Pakistani territory - even after the Obama administration takes charge in January 2009.

A senior Pakistani government official said on 6 November that Islamabad remained pessimistic on the subject of UAV strikes, following a meeting between Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and General David Petraeus, the new commander of the US Central Command (CENTCOM).

Gilani warned Gen Petraeus at the meeting on 5 November in Islamabad that anti-US sentiment would rise rapidly in Pakistan if the attacks continued. "The US is fighting a losing battle," a senior government official quoted Gilani as saying. "As long as these attacks continue, our public sentiment will increasingly become anti-US and our efforts to get our people on board against the militants will fail."

However, a senior Western defence official told Jane's that US president-elect Barack Obama was unlikely to stop the use of UAVs in the near future. "Obama will want to demonstrate his resolve to fight terrorists," the official said. "Afghanistan will be a very, very big priority area under his administration and a strong military push including [the use of] drones will continue."

US policy regarding the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region poses a major challenge to the government of Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari. On the one hand, the UAV attacks have intensified public criticism of the government's support for Washington, but on the other, Zardari cannot rely on the close relationship that former president Pervez Musharraf enjoyed with US President George W Bush's White House; he will therefore be keen to build bridges with Obama rather than issue demands about the need to end UAV incursions.

Musharraf and Bush co-operated closely for almost six years after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, overseeing the deployment of US troops to Afghanistan and the Pakistani deployment of up to 170,000 troops along the Afghan border.

However, US officials have increasingly criticised Islamabad over the past year for not doing enough to stem the flow of Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants into Afghanistan from Pakistan's tribal areas, and this perceived failure has led to an increasing use of UAV strikes.

© 2008 Jane's Information Group

 

[eva syed]

The actions of men are the best interpreters of their thoughts.