Always Neutral
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,859
- Reaction score
- -20
Sorry Mr. Super Crap,
Get a life and some knowledge on the way and maybe get laid too.
I am just summing up the quality of your Harry Potter posts.
Regards
US is going to raid in Pakistan.
- Thread starter hasang20
- Start date
- Status
Sorry Mr. Super Crap,
Get a life and some knowledge on the way and maybe get laid too.
I am just summing up the quality of your Harry Potter posts.
Regards
Always Neutral
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,859
- Reaction score
- -20
US has learnt bitter experience in afghanistan.They dont have experience of gurilla war fare.
You dont need money in gurilla war ,you need just unity,faith,decipline in nation.
The US has learnt a bitter experience ? Are u sure its not the otherway around after all its the taliban hiding in the mountains and not the NATO ?
If Taliban has won why not ask Mullah Omar and OBL to make a public appearence ?
A JDAM will land softly on their heads from the defeated US
Regards
foxhound
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 473
- Reaction score
- 0
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 reasions, 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.
My point is that despit 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.
Last edited:
Always Neutral
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,859
- Reaction score
- -20
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.
3) Certain governmernts such as the Canadians and a few others have indicated a withdrawal dates for their forces).
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,
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)
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.
.
Please provide reliable neutral links on the above points otherwise its all fiction.
Regards
foxhound
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 473
- Reaction score
- 0
An....the vast amount of this information is available from open source intelligence material. You just need to dig up information on various intelligence agencies and the political remarks given. See Dawn/Jang/Cnn?bbc news/Various think tanks, Chatham House, Janes Defence, Islamabad Think tanks...etc......Unfortunately I do not have the time to dig up this information. However, if I come across any...I will post it.
Keysersoze
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,858
- Reaction score
- 2
where to start with this retarded mess of a post???????a)I could always start with the fact that it appears you are a adolescent fantasist with delusions of relevance. And totally dismiss your post as a pointless idiotic rant . (And frankly no one would blame me)
b)I could take your pathetic attempts to attack by point out a few facts that even a retarded 4 year old would spot.
For example you assumed that you and I are in the same country WRONG! Which raises the question....Why are you in the states if you hate it so much? I do have a few contacts that can get you deported if you really want?
I understand you wanna join the PAF...what makes you think they need retards in their ranks? We have influential members of the airforce on this site. Do you think they are going to help along a half with who doesn't even know the basics of world politics?
A nuclear bomb that can target 27000 kilometers huh? wow thats real handy nitwit.......You are claiming Pakistan has ICBM's! WOW everyone! we heard all here first! Wait maybe HAsang is a petulant child who knows nothing! Stop the celebrations everyone!
Submarine launched 27000 missiles as well huh?Wow I would love to see your school scores........the way you write there must be a bright future washing cars for you.
Pakistan helped Turkey gain independence? Dear god, boy have you never opened a book? Have you heard of the Ottoman empire? and the history of it? Now go back to school and ask you teachers to beat you for being a idiot.
OK I am now bored of this...It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Let me explain something to you.......Time for some harsh realities.
You can barely write English despite the fact you live in the USA. You have little or no ability to understand history and politics (of the last century let alone the preceding history) And yet you think you can come on here and talk s**t like the pathetic crap that you are? and the Funniest part is that you think you are smart enough to join the airforce?
Keysersoze
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,858
- Reaction score
- 2
Sorry mate but having read what you have posted it is mostly hyperbole.
For example I have seen the same footage as you and generally the Taliban run away. IED's and suicide bombers are generally the way the casualties are created.
The other Nato members are not withdrawing but moving into stabilisation roles.Instead of offensive roles. however the troop surges from other nations would increase the overall numbers.
The rest of what you have posted has little or no basis in reality old fruit. My sources have given me a better insight and it contrasts quite differently with yours.
Unless you can bring your various source into a form of some sort than i am afraid We can't take what you written seriously.
foxhound
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 473
- Reaction score
- 0
salaam!
In response to the above:
1) For example I have seen the same footage as you and generally the Taliban run away. IED's and suicide bombers are generally the way the casualties are created. - Actually the taliban run away is quite simply that guerilla forces are not able to fight equally, they lack hardcore resources such as heavy machinery/tanks/aircrafts etc. Therefore they would fight in whatever is the best ways for them. And for that reasons they are doing a brilliant job (by the way I do not sympathise with them - but i give them respect for bravery/good overall combat performace despite limited resources). Please note, a large proprtion of foreign forces in the areas are 'special forces' or their near equivalents....i.e. Royal marine commandos, Paras, and US equivalent forces. Despite this, they have not done as good as one expects. Look on the BBC website about the response given by Brit forces in Helmand Province.
2)The other Nato members are not withdrawing but moving into stabilisation roles.Instead of offensive roles. however the troop surges from other nations would increase the overall numbers.
- in response to this:
Source: CBC News
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.
An absolute military victory in Afghanistan is impossible, Brig.-Gen. Mark Carleton-Smith told England's Sunday Times newspaper.
What foreign forces must now come to grips with, he said, is reducing the level of insurgency so that it can be managed by Afghan forces and no longer poses a major threat.
"We may well leave with there still being a low but steady ebb of rural insurgency I dont think we should expect that when we go there wont be roaming bands of armed men in this part of the world," Carleton-Smith was quoted as saying.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/10/04/afghan-war.htm...
From The Sunday TimesOctober 5, 2008
Relentless Taliban just keep coming
As their gruelling tour of duty in Afghanistan ends, men of 2 Para tell of relentless battles with an enemy that simply doesnt know when he is outgunned
AS the Afghan sun set over the end-of-tour memorial service last Wednesday at British headquarters in Lashkar Gah, 32 names of the dead, aged between 19 and 52, were solemnly read out, including that of the first woman killed, Corporal Sarah Bryant. Almost every other name, it seemed, was from 2 Para.
The 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment lost more lives than any other section of 16 Air Assault Brigade 11 in total, and five in one week in June or one in 10 of the unit.
Over the past few days, as the paras flew back to Camp Bastion at the start of their journey home, the mood was sombre. 2 Para took the bulk of the casualties, said Sergeant Andrew Lamont.
I lost a few good friends Ive known for 12 years. Others lost limbs. But when youre out on the bases you just get on. If anything it encourages you to fight to the best of your ability. Only now, as were going home without them, is it really sinking in.
Related Linkshttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4882417.ece
War on Taliban can't be won, says chief
Grim reality of life beyond Helmandshire
The most recent victim was popular Lance-Corporal Nicky Mason, killed by a roadside bomb while on patrol keeping the Taliban away from the Kajaki dam. It was a big shock to everybody, said Lamont, who was just a few hundred yards away when he heard the blast. When I got back to camp I actually had a cigarette, the first Id smoked in 19 years.
It was not supposed to be that way. Unlike 16 Air Assault Brigades first tour in Helmand two years ago, when the then defence secretary John Reid declared that he hoped not a single shot would be fired, they were well prepared this time.
They had almost twice as many men 7,800 troops and four combat battalions, consisting of the 2nd and 3rd Battalions the Parachute Regiment and two battalions of the Royal Regiment of Scotland. Their commander, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, declared them the best equipped force the British Army has ever sent.
But the Taliban have also changed tactics, increasingly using improvised explosive devices (IEDs), hiring foreign fighters from Chechnya and Uzbekistan as well as from Pakistan, and even managing to lure defectors from the Afghan national army who had been trained by British and American forces by offering to double their £90-a-month combat pay.
Capitalising on an increasingly unpopular government in Kabul and growing anger at civilian casualties, the Taliban now present themselves as less hardline, promising if they return to power they will no longer ban kites or demand quite such long beards.
As he prepared to hand over to the marines, Carleton-Smith admitted that it had been an intense summer. But he insisted: That intensity has been less a product of resurgent Taliban and more the result of a larger international military footprint. Were controlling more, our perimeter is wider, more people are living in our enclaves.
He said British forces had killed six senior or mid-level Taliban commanders and successfully transported a US-funded turbine to the Kajaki dam to prepare the way for a supply of electricity.
Weve taken the sting out of the Taliban for 2008, he said. As autumn turns to winter those who are foreign will return home and restore themselves and only reappear after the poppy harvest in May or June.
The number of civilians caught in the crossfire has also been reduced. Weve dropped fewer bombs than on any of the previous missions, said Carleton-Smith.
Yet, while the British claim 78% of the population lives in their zones, the governor of Helmand says half the province is under Taliban control and they are fighting in Nad Ali, less than 10 miles from brigade headquarters in Lashkar Gah.
Carleton-Smith acknowledges the preponderance of Taliban ringtones proclaiming Death to the Invader that are heard on the street, but dismisses them as quite a good insurance policy to have on your phone. He insists that the very conventional battlefield of 2006 no longer applies.
For those engaged in the fighting, it certainly seemed like war, particularly to the men of 2 Para who lost so many comrades.
Sergeant Phil Stout, 34, commander of one of C companys three rifle platoons, lost five men from his 30-man unit, one to an IED and the others in firefights. Stationed at Forward Operating Base Gibraltar in the upper Gereshk valley, he had only been in theatre two weeks when two Royal Marines who were due to go home were killed on patrol. That really brought home theres a real threat out there, he said.
The platoons 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 theyre crazy. Two of them would try to take on a company. Thats not good odds.
The relentless attacks reduced the area in which British forces could operate. When we arrived we could patrol up to the top of our operating area, 8-9km north, but by the end we couldnt go more than 1-1Åkm, Stout said.
The worst threat was from IEDs. Theyre very crude devices and we got good at identifying them, but its always in your head, Am I going to lie on something or kneel on something and get blown up?
Conditions were basic. Food was usually 10-man ration packs, ammunition containers sufficed as chairs and tables, and the only washing facilities were solar showers. It was so basic that I was really excited when we got a welfare pack from a teacher with wet wipes and toothbrushes, he said.
When he started suffering from stomach pain, Stout blamed the way they were living and dosed himself with paracetamol. Then he collapsed and had to be medi-vacced back to the UK. His gall bladder was about to burst and he was lucky to have survived. Yet as soon as he had recovered he returned to Afghanistan, much to the horror of his wife.
With him at FOB Gibraltar was Corporal Scott Bourne, 26. I knew it was always worse in summer than winter but thought it was bigged up in the media before I came, he laughed. His view changed when, on June 10, he narrowly escaped being blown up by a suicide bomber.
Two days later he was on patrol when there was an ambush by 30-40 Taliban. After that it was every couple of days. By the end we could go less distance than at the beginning and we were just pushing, pushing, fighting Taliban off.
Lamont, commander of one of 2 Paras fire support groups, spent his entire tour based at Kajaki. When we first arrived it was the poppy harvest, so fighting was low, but then the maize grew so they had more cover and fighting got more intense, he said.
If anything Id say its getting worse. Taliban tactics are changing, using more IEDs, and they dont back down.
Lamont at first operated from a Wimik, an armed Land Rover, but near the end of the tour he was equipped with one of the new Jackals, a much better protected vehicle.
Its one of the best things the government has done for us, he said. It saved three of my boys lives.
Two weeks ago they were on patrol when an IED blew up the vehicle behind him. I heard this huge explosion and turned around thinking the worst, he said. All I could see was this massive wall of smoke. Then two guys started to walk towards me, the driver and the commander. The gunman had been thrown out. If wed had the old vehicles wed have lost all three guys.
While getting the turbine to Kajaki was the high point of the tour, Carleton-Smith admits that the low point was sustaining so many casualties. In June Britains 100th soldier died in Afghanistan.
Our casualty figures have been substantial but they have to be kept in context, he says. We may in the course of 2008 have in the region of 50 fatalities in Helmand, but in 1972 more than 100 British soldiers were killed in Northern Ireland, on our own streets.
He insists that time is on the side of the Afghan government. The young people want betterment of their lives. What the Taliban cant do is deliver progress and development. As long as the international community can stay the course, over time the Afghan government capacity will grow.
He argues that the international community should aim not for victory over the Taliban but to reduce the insurgency to a level that can be contained by the new Afghan army.
If we reduce our expectations then I think realistically in the next three to five years we will be handing over tactical military responsibility to the Afghan army and in the next 10 years the bulk of responsibility for combating insurgency will be with them.
Flying out through the dustbowl that is Camp Bastion, and watching all the building going on below, it seems the British Army is digging itself in for a very long campaign.
[B]Canada's desire to leave Afghanistan by 2011?[/B]
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.
Yet, Canada's efforts to stamp out the Taliban insurgency and the slow pace of rebuilding Afghanistan has not emerged as a hot issue in the federal election campaign.
Email to a friend
Printer friendly
Font:****Election polls place Afghanistan well behind the economy, the environment and health care as an issue. Still, the country remains divided and questions persist about what Canada will do in 2011. Depending on NATO allies, withdrawing from Kandahar to a safer part of Afghanistan may not be an option.
Although staying longer is a possibility, indications are the government has grown weary of the reluctance of some Western European allies to embrace the heavy fighting in the south and may be ready to stick to the withdrawal schedule.
Where they stand:
- Conservatives: The Conservatives are committed to training as many Afghan police and soldiers as possible, helping rebuild the Dahla Dam, a signature aid project that would show tangible Canadian goodwill toward the people of Kandahar province, as well as repairing schools, training teachers and fostering better governance -- all by 2011. The benchmarks for measuring success are vague. During the campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canada would be out of Kandahar as scheduled.
- Liberals: The Liberals make clear that Canadian troops must leave Kandahar by 2011, and that the mission must go beyond "an exclusively military focus" and aim towards greater development and diplomacy. The Liberal platform does not explain how this shift would work in the face of an unhindered guerrilla insurgency that targets innocent civilians and employs hit-and-run tactics on Canada and its allies.
- New Democrats: The party is opposed to Parliament's extension of Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan and wants the troops brought home. Leader Jack Layton wants a negotiated end to the war with the Taliban, but has not specifically explained how such talks would transpire with the most hardened al-Qaida and Taliban militants, who have made the unconditional withdrawal of all foreign troops from Afghanistan and the restoration of fundamentalist Islamic law their core demand.
© The Edmonton Journal 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 15:40
[B]Pakistan's goals? double??[/B]
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_15th_2008/
foxhound
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 473
- Reaction score
- 0
Keys...what trade are you in? are you serving personnel?...hmmm.....I have sources from 'strategic' to 'tactical' level.....and believe me its not a rosy picture......
ejaz007
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 6,533
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
US carried out secret raids into Pakistan
* Operations against Qaeda conducted under 2004 mandate by Bush
* NYT says Navy Seals raided Taiban compound in Bajaur in 2006
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: US commandos have carried out in secret around a dozen attacks against Al Qaeda and other militant outfits in Pakistan, Syria and elsewhere, the New York Times reported on Monday. The recent American boots on the ground September 3 raid in Bajaur Agency, therefore, was not the first one in Pakistan.
The attacks were authorised by former Bush defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld with the approval of the president. The US military was given new authority to attack the Al Qaeda terrorist network anywhere in the world. In 2006, a Navy Seal team raided a suspected militants compound in the Bajaur region of Pakistan, according to a former CIA official. The 2004 order was issued after the Bush administration had already granted intelligence agencies sweeping power to secretly detain and interrogate terrorism suspects in overseas prisons and to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on telephone and electronic communications. Targets in Somalia need the approval of the defence secretary, while targets in some countries, including Pakistan and Syria, require presidential clearance. An operation to send a team of Navy Seals and Army Rangers into Pakistan to capture Ayman Al-Zawahri, Osama Bin Ladens top deputy, was aborted at the last minute. Zawahri was believed by intelligence officials to be attending a meeting in Bajaur and the Pentagons Joint Special Operations Command hastily put together a plan to capture him. There were strong disagreements inside the Pentagon and the CIA about the quality of the intelligence, however, and some in the military expressed concern that the mission was unnecessarily risky. CIA director Porter Goss urged the military to carry out the mission, and some in the CIA even wanted to execute it without informing Ryan Crocker, then the American ambassador to Pakistan. Rumsfeld ultimately refused to authorise the mission.
The New York Times report said, The 2004 order also provided a foundation for the orders that Bush approved in July allowing the military to conduct raids into the Pakistani tribal areas, including the September 3 operation by Special Operations forces that killed about 20 militants, American officials said. Administration officials said that Bushs approval had paved the way for Defence Secretary Robert Gates to sign an order separate from the 2004 order that specifically directed the military to plan a series of operations, in cooperation with the CIA, on the Qaeda network and other militant groups linked to it in Pakistan.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
* Operations against Qaeda conducted under 2004 mandate by Bush
* NYT says Navy Seals raided Taiban compound in Bajaur in 2006
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: US commandos have carried out in secret around a dozen attacks against Al Qaeda and other militant outfits in Pakistan, Syria and elsewhere, the New York Times reported on Monday. The recent American boots on the ground September 3 raid in Bajaur Agency, therefore, was not the first one in Pakistan.
The attacks were authorised by former Bush defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld with the approval of the president. The US military was given new authority to attack the Al Qaeda terrorist network anywhere in the world. In 2006, a Navy Seal team raided a suspected militants compound in the Bajaur region of Pakistan, according to a former CIA official. The 2004 order was issued after the Bush administration had already granted intelligence agencies sweeping power to secretly detain and interrogate terrorism suspects in overseas prisons and to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on telephone and electronic communications. Targets in Somalia need the approval of the defence secretary, while targets in some countries, including Pakistan and Syria, require presidential clearance. An operation to send a team of Navy Seals and Army Rangers into Pakistan to capture Ayman Al-Zawahri, Osama Bin Ladens top deputy, was aborted at the last minute. Zawahri was believed by intelligence officials to be attending a meeting in Bajaur and the Pentagons Joint Special Operations Command hastily put together a plan to capture him. There were strong disagreements inside the Pentagon and the CIA about the quality of the intelligence, however, and some in the military expressed concern that the mission was unnecessarily risky. CIA director Porter Goss urged the military to carry out the mission, and some in the CIA even wanted to execute it without informing Ryan Crocker, then the American ambassador to Pakistan. Rumsfeld ultimately refused to authorise the mission.
The New York Times report said, The 2004 order also provided a foundation for the orders that Bush approved in July allowing the military to conduct raids into the Pakistani tribal areas, including the September 3 operation by Special Operations forces that killed about 20 militants, American officials said. Administration officials said that Bushs approval had paved the way for Defence Secretary Robert Gates to sign an order separate from the 2004 order that specifically directed the military to plan a series of operations, in cooperation with the CIA, on the Qaeda network and other militant groups linked to it in Pakistan.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
Imran Khan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 68,815
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
US, FATA and Afghanistan
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Khalid Aziz
After Barack Obama's victory in the US presidential elections many people wonder whether there will be a reduction of tension in the region. The policies of great powers are grounded in these countries' particular geo-strategic compulsions. Such geo-strategic determinants remain permanent and do not shift. Mr Obama may have won an election, but he will have limited choices as far as Pakistan and Afghanistan are concerned.
This election has not given Mr Obama a big mandate. He obtained 52 percent of the popular vote. The US remains a divided country and it will be difficult for the new president to usher in a radically new policy in Afghanistan.
During the campaign Mr Obama stated that he will focus on Afghanistan. Although he may shift his focus of attention from Iraq to Afghanistan when he assumes office, he would be guided by his country's approved policies, one of which is the US National Defence Strategy 2008. Unless this is drastically revised--and I don't see that happening--the policies circumscribe what Mr Obama will be able to do.
Firstly, defence policy clearly states that threats to regional peace and security come from areas which are soft and lightly governed. They permit non-state actors to establish safe havens. It is thus clear that under this definition FATA and other isolated pockets causing a threat to global peace will be the focus of US attention. Secondly, the strategy states that unless violent extremist movements are neutralised the US will remain under threat--an obvious pointer towards Al-Qaeda. Thirdly, it stresses that the US will ensure the free flow of energy so that it is not affected by instability. Among other things, it means that the US military would wish to hold critical points in locating its bases. One expects long-term US presence in Afghanistan because of its strategic location on the path to the Central Asian energy resources. Fourthly, the US strategy speaks of containing an expanding China, which is emerging as a regional hegemon having close links with Pakistan. All these factors of the US strategic vision indicate that Pakistan's position will remain exceptionally critical because of her being a neighbor of Afghanistan.
Obama has said that the real war is in Afghanistan and wants NATO and other US allies to carry more of the Afghan war burden. This means that he expects Europe to supply more troops and carry a higher proportion of the financial burden of the war. Sadly for Mr Obama, the populations of European countries dislike wars and a large proportion of their voters are in no mood to help. Secondly, Europeans are extremely averse to seeing casualties. Many European nations are already withdrawing troops owing to the global financial crisis.
Therefore, for all practical purposes it will be unlikely for the US to have a sizable force, which is required to stabilise Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban. If the US does not have the numbers to stabilise Afghanistan the Americans obviously lack the strength to launch any large-scale incursion into FATA. So what real options does Mr Obama have in this matter? He may either continue with the present holding strategy in Afghanistan while mounting pressure on Pakistan. However, to continue with an endless holding strategy will be politically suicidal for him. If the US withdraws from Afghanistan it would be like transferring power to the Taliban and that would again be something disastrous for the new president. Or Mr Obama could be forced by circumstances to agree to the Afghan government negotiating a power-sharing agreement with the Taliban for establishing a coalition government based on providing representation to the various ethnic groups. This too is likely to lead to another round of war because the Taliban are an ideological movement and such movements never share power.
All these options will be anathema to those Americans who do not subscribe to Mr Obama's worldview and did not vote for him. They constituted 48 percent of US voters in the presidential election. This analysis clearly shows that despite what the US defence strategy may state the range of options before the next president are limited. An examination of the situation presents only two probable options that are available to Mr Obama. He continues on the present course of a long-term holding action (a war of attrition) in the hope that the concurrent transformational efforts may produce a more pliable generation of Taliban leadership in the future who are amenable to a settlement. The second imminent probability is that pressure will be mounted on Pakistan to do more. This course of policy begs the question whether Pakistan holds the key to neutralising the Taliban inside Afghanistan. Under the latter assumption Pakistan will come under more pressure. Secondly, we are going to see more and deeper attacks by the UAVs. No one stops to ask what exactly are the UAVs achieving? At best they may succeed in getting rid of some Al-Qaeda leaders. Yet these leaders' elimination has little impact on the reduction of the overall strength of the Taliban movement inside Afghanistan. The Taliban continue to expand their area of control inside Afghanistan, and Pakistan has nothing to do with that. Therefore, policing by air through the UAVs does not get us near a solution of the problem.
On the other hand, the related collateral deaths as a result of UAV attacks in FATA and Afghanistan increase acrimony against the US. Under these hopeless circumstances, what should Mr Obama do? One can sympathise with his situation and refer him to the US defence strategy itself and to one of its rarely highlighted gems of wisdom, which says that victory against insurgencies does not lie in the use of military force alone. Success would lie in taking other measures of a transformation nature which relate to economic growth and political participation as the means to removal of grievances which are at the heart of insurgencies. Building the capacity of the Afghan national army to do the fighting would also help.
It is thus clear that one should not hope for too much with the arrival of a new leader in the US. The war in Afghanistan will continue to rage while pressure will mount on Pakistan in FATA, although what happens there has only a marginal influence on the fighting inside Afghanistan. The solution to the Afghan war lies in Afghanistan.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Khalid Aziz
After Barack Obama's victory in the US presidential elections many people wonder whether there will be a reduction of tension in the region. The policies of great powers are grounded in these countries' particular geo-strategic compulsions. Such geo-strategic determinants remain permanent and do not shift. Mr Obama may have won an election, but he will have limited choices as far as Pakistan and Afghanistan are concerned.
This election has not given Mr Obama a big mandate. He obtained 52 percent of the popular vote. The US remains a divided country and it will be difficult for the new president to usher in a radically new policy in Afghanistan.
During the campaign Mr Obama stated that he will focus on Afghanistan. Although he may shift his focus of attention from Iraq to Afghanistan when he assumes office, he would be guided by his country's approved policies, one of which is the US National Defence Strategy 2008. Unless this is drastically revised--and I don't see that happening--the policies circumscribe what Mr Obama will be able to do.
Firstly, defence policy clearly states that threats to regional peace and security come from areas which are soft and lightly governed. They permit non-state actors to establish safe havens. It is thus clear that under this definition FATA and other isolated pockets causing a threat to global peace will be the focus of US attention. Secondly, the strategy states that unless violent extremist movements are neutralised the US will remain under threat--an obvious pointer towards Al-Qaeda. Thirdly, it stresses that the US will ensure the free flow of energy so that it is not affected by instability. Among other things, it means that the US military would wish to hold critical points in locating its bases. One expects long-term US presence in Afghanistan because of its strategic location on the path to the Central Asian energy resources. Fourthly, the US strategy speaks of containing an expanding China, which is emerging as a regional hegemon having close links with Pakistan. All these factors of the US strategic vision indicate that Pakistan's position will remain exceptionally critical because of her being a neighbor of Afghanistan.
Obama has said that the real war is in Afghanistan and wants NATO and other US allies to carry more of the Afghan war burden. This means that he expects Europe to supply more troops and carry a higher proportion of the financial burden of the war. Sadly for Mr Obama, the populations of European countries dislike wars and a large proportion of their voters are in no mood to help. Secondly, Europeans are extremely averse to seeing casualties. Many European nations are already withdrawing troops owing to the global financial crisis.
Therefore, for all practical purposes it will be unlikely for the US to have a sizable force, which is required to stabilise Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban. If the US does not have the numbers to stabilise Afghanistan the Americans obviously lack the strength to launch any large-scale incursion into FATA. So what real options does Mr Obama have in this matter? He may either continue with the present holding strategy in Afghanistan while mounting pressure on Pakistan. However, to continue with an endless holding strategy will be politically suicidal for him. If the US withdraws from Afghanistan it would be like transferring power to the Taliban and that would again be something disastrous for the new president. Or Mr Obama could be forced by circumstances to agree to the Afghan government negotiating a power-sharing agreement with the Taliban for establishing a coalition government based on providing representation to the various ethnic groups. This too is likely to lead to another round of war because the Taliban are an ideological movement and such movements never share power.
All these options will be anathema to those Americans who do not subscribe to Mr Obama's worldview and did not vote for him. They constituted 48 percent of US voters in the presidential election. This analysis clearly shows that despite what the US defence strategy may state the range of options before the next president are limited. An examination of the situation presents only two probable options that are available to Mr Obama. He continues on the present course of a long-term holding action (a war of attrition) in the hope that the concurrent transformational efforts may produce a more pliable generation of Taliban leadership in the future who are amenable to a settlement. The second imminent probability is that pressure will be mounted on Pakistan to do more. This course of policy begs the question whether Pakistan holds the key to neutralising the Taliban inside Afghanistan. Under the latter assumption Pakistan will come under more pressure. Secondly, we are going to see more and deeper attacks by the UAVs. No one stops to ask what exactly are the UAVs achieving? At best they may succeed in getting rid of some Al-Qaeda leaders. Yet these leaders' elimination has little impact on the reduction of the overall strength of the Taliban movement inside Afghanistan. The Taliban continue to expand their area of control inside Afghanistan, and Pakistan has nothing to do with that. Therefore, policing by air through the UAVs does not get us near a solution of the problem.
On the other hand, the related collateral deaths as a result of UAV attacks in FATA and Afghanistan increase acrimony against the US. Under these hopeless circumstances, what should Mr Obama do? One can sympathise with his situation and refer him to the US defence strategy itself and to one of its rarely highlighted gems of wisdom, which says that victory against insurgencies does not lie in the use of military force alone. Success would lie in taking other measures of a transformation nature which relate to economic growth and political participation as the means to removal of grievances which are at the heart of insurgencies. Building the capacity of the Afghan national army to do the fighting would also help.
It is thus clear that one should not hope for too much with the arrival of a new leader in the US. The war in Afghanistan will continue to rage while pressure will mount on Pakistan in FATA, although what happens there has only a marginal influence on the fighting inside Afghanistan. The solution to the Afghan war lies in Afghanistan.
Task Force Black
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 79
- Reaction score
- 0
Keysersoze matches sheer folly with complete sense and stark reality, a task well done.
Imran khan has highlighted some good articles that do allude to a strategic draw down of Pak Mil & NATO UAV flight ops, allowing for shifts in the political landscape to bed in along with the thorough analysis of all effects to present to the incoming administration.
Imran khan has highlighted some good articles that do allude to a strategic draw down of Pak Mil & NATO UAV flight ops, allowing for shifts in the political landscape to bed in along with the thorough analysis of all effects to present to the incoming administration.
Keysersoze
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,858
- Reaction score
- 2
salaam!
. Please note, a large proprtion of foreign forces in the areas are 'special forces' or their near equivalents....i.e. Royal marine commandos, Paras, and US equivalent forces. Despite this, they have not done as good as one expects. Look on the BBC website about the response given by Brit forces in Helmand Province.[/COLOR][/B]
2)The other Nato members are not withdrawing but moving into stabilisation roles.Instead of offensive roles. however the troop surges from other nations would increase the overall numbers.
- in response to this:
Source: CBC News
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.
An absolute military victory in Afghanistan is impossible, Brig.-Gen. Mark Carleton-Smith told England's Sunday Times newspaper.
What foreign forces must now come to grips with, he said, is reducing the level of insurgency so that it can be managed by Afghan forces and no longer poses a major threat.
"We may well leave with there still being a low but steady ebb of rural insurgency I dont think we should expect that when we go there wont be roaming bands of armed men in this part of the world," Carleton-Smith was quoted as saying.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/10/04/afghan-war.htm...
From The Sunday TimesOctober 5, 2008
Relentless Taliban just keep coming
As their gruelling tour of duty in Afghanistan ends, men of 2 Para tell of relentless battles with an enemy that simply doesnt know when he is outgunned
AS the Afghan sun set over the end-of-tour memorial service last Wednesday at British headquarters in Lashkar Gah, 32 names of the dead, aged between 19 and 52, were solemnly read out, including that of the first woman killed, Corporal Sarah Bryant. Almost every other name, it seemed, was from 2 Para.
The 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment lost more lives than any other section of 16 Air Assault Brigade 11 in total, and five in one week in June or one in 10 of the unit.
Over the past few days, as the paras flew back to Camp Bastion at the start of their journey home, the mood was sombre. 2 Para took the bulk of the casualties, said Sergeant Andrew Lamont.
I lost a few good friends Ive known for 12 years. Others lost limbs. But when youre out on the bases you just get on. If anything it encourages you to fight to the best of your ability. Only now, as were going home without them, is it really sinking in.
Related Linkshttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4882417.ece
War on Taliban can't be won, says chief
Grim reality of life beyond Helmandshire
The most recent victim was popular Lance-Corporal Nicky Mason, killed by a roadside bomb while on patrol keeping the Taliban away from the Kajaki dam. It was a big shock to everybody, said Lamont, who was just a few hundred yards away when he heard the blast. When I got back to camp I actually had a cigarette, the first Id smoked in 19 years.
It was not supposed to be that way. Unlike 16 Air Assault Brigades first tour in Helmand two years ago, when the then defence secretary John Reid declared that he hoped not a single shot would be fired, they were well prepared this time.
They had almost twice as many men 7,800 troops and four combat battalions, consisting of the 2nd and 3rd Battalions the Parachute Regiment and two battalions of the Royal Regiment of Scotland. Their commander, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, declared them the best equipped force the British Army has ever sent.
But the Taliban have also changed tactics, increasingly using improvised explosive devices (IEDs), hiring foreign fighters from Chechnya and Uzbekistan as well as from Pakistan, and even managing to lure defectors from the Afghan national army who had been trained by British and American forces by offering to double their £90-a-month combat pay.
Capitalising on an increasingly unpopular government in Kabul and growing anger at civilian casualties, the Taliban now present themselves as less hardline, promising if they return to power they will no longer ban kites or demand quite such long beards.
As he prepared to hand over to the marines, Carleton-Smith admitted that it had been an intense summer. But he insisted: That intensity has been less a product of resurgent Taliban and more the result of a larger international military footprint. Were controlling more, our perimeter is wider, more people are living in our enclaves.
He said British forces had killed six senior or mid-level Taliban commanders and successfully transported a US-funded turbine to the Kajaki dam to prepare the way for a supply of electricity.
Weve taken the sting out of the Taliban for 2008, he said. As autumn turns to winter those who are foreign will return home and restore themselves and only reappear after the poppy harvest in May or June.
The number of civilians caught in the crossfire has also been reduced. Weve dropped fewer bombs than on any of the previous missions, said Carleton-Smith.
Yet, while the British claim 78% of the population lives in their zones, the governor of Helmand says half the province is under Taliban control and they are fighting in Nad Ali, less than 10 miles from brigade headquarters in Lashkar Gah.
Carleton-Smith acknowledges the preponderance of Taliban ringtones proclaiming Death to the Invader that are heard on the street, but dismisses them as quite a good insurance policy to have on your phone. He insists that the very conventional battlefield of 2006 no longer applies.
For those engaged in the fighting, it certainly seemed like war, particularly to the men of 2 Para who lost so many comrades.
Sergeant Phil Stout, 34, commander of one of C companys three rifle platoons, lost five men from his 30-man unit, one to an IED and the others in firefights. Stationed at Forward Operating Base Gibraltar in the upper Gereshk valley, he had only been in theatre two weeks when two Royal Marines who were due to go home were killed on patrol. That really brought home theres a real threat out there, he said.
The platoons 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 theyre crazy. Two of them would try to take on a company. Thats not good odds.
The relentless attacks reduced the area in which British forces could operate. When we arrived we could patrol up to the top of our operating area, 8-9km north, but by the end we couldnt go more than 1-1Åkm, Stout said.
The worst threat was from IEDs. Theyre very crude devices and we got good at identifying them, but its always in your head, Am I going to lie on something or kneel on something and get blown up?
Conditions were basic. Food was usually 10-man ration packs, ammunition containers sufficed as chairs and tables, and the only washing facilities were solar showers. It was so basic that I was really excited when we got a welfare pack from a teacher with wet wipes and toothbrushes, he said.
When he started suffering from stomach pain, Stout blamed the way they were living and dosed himself with paracetamol. Then he collapsed and had to be medi-vacced back to the UK. His gall bladder was about to burst and he was lucky to have survived. Yet as soon as he had recovered he returned to Afghanistan, much to the horror of his wife.
With him at FOB Gibraltar was Corporal Scott Bourne, 26. I knew it was always worse in summer than winter but thought it was bigged up in the media before I came, he laughed. His view changed when, on June 10, he narrowly escaped being blown up by a suicide bomber.
Two days later he was on patrol when there was an ambush by 30-40 Taliban. After that it was every couple of days. By the end we could go less distance than at the beginning and we were just pushing, pushing, fighting Taliban off.
Lamont, commander of one of 2 Paras fire support groups, spent his entire tour based at Kajaki. When we first arrived it was the poppy harvest, so fighting was low, but then the maize grew so they had more cover and fighting got more intense, he said.
If anything Id say its getting worse. Taliban tactics are changing, using more IEDs, and they dont back down.
Lamont at first operated from a Wimik, an armed Land Rover, but near the end of the tour he was equipped with one of the new Jackals, a much better protected vehicle.
Its one of the best things the government has done for us, he said. It saved three of my boys lives.
Two weeks ago they were on patrol when an IED blew up the vehicle behind him. I heard this huge explosion and turned around thinking the worst, he said. All I could see was this massive wall of smoke. Then two guys started to walk towards me, the driver and the commander. The gunman had been thrown out. If wed had the old vehicles wed have lost all three guys.
While getting the turbine to Kajaki was the high point of the tour, Carleton-Smith admits that the low point was sustaining so many casualties. In June Britains 100th soldier died in Afghanistan.
Our casualty figures have been substantial but they have to be kept in context, he says. We may in the course of 2008 have in the region of 50 fatalities in Helmand, but in 1972 more than 100 British soldiers were killed in Northern Ireland, on our own streets.
He insists that time is on the side of the Afghan government. The young people want betterment of their lives. What the Taliban cant do is deliver progress and development. As long as the international community can stay the course, over time the Afghan government capacity will grow.
He argues that the international community should aim not for victory over the Taliban but to reduce the insurgency to a level that can be contained by the new Afghan army.
If we reduce our expectations then I think realistically in the next three to five years we will be handing over tactical military responsibility to the Afghan army and in the next 10 years the bulk of responsibility for combating insurgency will be with them.
Flying out through the dustbowl that is Camp Bastion, and watching all the building going on below, it seems the British Army is digging itself in for a very long campaign.
[B]Canada's desire to leave Afghanistan by 2011?[/B]
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.
Yet, Canada's efforts to stamp out the Taliban insurgency and the slow pace of rebuilding Afghanistan has not emerged as a hot issue in the federal election campaign.
Email to a friend
Printer friendly
Font:****Election polls place Afghanistan well behind the economy, the environment and health care as an issue. Still, the country remains divided and questions persist about what Canada will do in 2011. Depending on NATO allies, withdrawing from Kandahar to a safer part of Afghanistan may not be an option.
Although staying longer is a possibility, indications are the government has grown weary of the reluctance of some Western European allies to embrace the heavy fighting in the south and may be ready to stick to the withdrawal schedule.
Where they stand:
- Conservatives: The Conservatives are committed to training as many Afghan police and soldiers as possible, helping rebuild the Dahla Dam, a signature aid project that would show tangible Canadian goodwill toward the people of Kandahar province, as well as repairing schools, training teachers and fostering better governance -- all by 2011. The benchmarks for measuring success are vague. During the campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canada would be out of Kandahar as scheduled.
- Liberals: The Liberals make clear that Canadian troops must leave Kandahar by 2011, and that the mission must go beyond "an exclusively military focus" and aim towards greater development and diplomacy. The Liberal platform does not explain how this shift would work in the face of an unhindered guerrilla insurgency that targets innocent civilians and employs hit-and-run tactics on Canada and its allies.
- New Democrats: The party is opposed to Parliament's extension of Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan and wants the troops brought home. Leader Jack Layton wants a negotiated end to the war with the Taliban, but has not specifically explained how such talks would transpire with the most hardened al-Qaida and Taliban militants, who have made the unconditional withdrawal of all foreign troops from Afghanistan and the restoration of fundamentalist Islamic law their core demand.
© The Edmonton Journal 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 15:40
[B]Pakistan's goals? double??[/B]
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_15th_2008/
Apologies for my late reply.
Please note, a large proprtion of foreign forces in the areas are 'special forces' or their near equivalents....i.e. Royal marine commandos, Paras, and US equivalent forces. Despite this, they have not done as good as one expects. Look on the BBC website about the response given by Brit forces in Helmand Province.
What you have written here is not true in any sense of the word. There are of course Elite units within Afghanistan. (AS they would be in any conflict) But there are units such as the Anglicans/ the Rifles /Scottish regiments. In fact a large proportion of said units is made up of reservists. So it is not a special forces battle out there. Thats the simple fact of it. Most of the forces are part time soldiers.
The next part you have quoted is the "harrowing tales" as written by the journalists who are trying to make a good story for their leadership. After all hearing how easy or boring a tour in Afghanistan is hardly makes good copy.Actually most of the soldiers leave because of the time they have to spend away from their families than any other reason.
Also take some time to look at the cold hard numbers 125 Uk casualties over 7 years. Thats less than the Northern Ireland troubles. And the UK didn't give up then either. The majority of causalities have been caused by IED's and poor choice of vehicles. However the newer designs such as the mastiff and other types would cut this down to almost nothing.
Oh and a few segments you didn't highlight in the article.
Weve taken the sting out of the Taliban for 2008, he said. As autumn turns to winter those who are foreign will return home and restore themselves and only reappear after the poppy harvest in May or June.
Lamont at first operated from a Wimik, an armed Land Rover, but near the end of the tour he was equipped with one of the new Jackals, a much better protected vehicle.
Our casualty figures have been substantial but they have to be kept in context, he says. We may in the course of 2008 have in the region of 50 fatalities in Helmand, but in 1972 more than 100 British soldiers were killed in Northern Ireland, on our own streets.
He insists that time is on the side of the Afghan government. The young people want betterment of their lives. What the Taliban cant do is deliver progress and development. As long as the international community can stay the course, over time the Afghan government capacity will grow.
What foreign forces must now come to grips with, he said, is reducing the level of insurgency so that it can be managed by Afghan forces and no longer poses a major threat.
Flying out through the dustbowl that is Camp Bastion, and watching all the building going on below, it seems the British Army is digging itself in for a very long campaign.
You see you haven't posted anything of substance and merely highlighted sections you like the look of whilst forgetting to read the other parts.
Strategic to tactical level huh? Do share because I know when I hear crap.
Keysersoze
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,858
- Reaction score
- 2
Well again you see thats the difference between experience and acquired knowledge waraich. At the moment the largest number of casualities are being caused by IED's and suicide bombers. Now The old land rover snatch vehicles were susceptible to the above methods. The newer vehicles are not. There are also other methods that I will not discuss here. take away the IED's and then you will note the number of casualties goes down substantially.
The Taleban haven't defeated anyone And please stop telling me about "ground reality" I know it. Here's one for you. Whenever the Taleban tried regular operations against Nato forces they would get beaten badly. They then hide and fall back upon suicide bombers and IEDS.
Sacrifice is great but shows the how many dumb fools go to die for something pointless. If the Taleban cared so much for Afghanistan they shouldn't have hidden the AQ members in the country. And it annoys me when people who know nothing come on here and try to cheerlead such retarded behaviour. Frankly if it were not for the fact that it would affect Pakistan I would advocate flattening every square inch of the place with nukes. Unfortunately the Western forces try to abide by rules of War whereas the heroes of the TAleban and AQ like detonating bombs where civilians are as well as hiding in their houses.
YOU support with your views the prevention of womens education--Only a man with deep inadequacies would support such a thing.
YOU support the destruction of Historical monuments which is almost like burning books. Which in turn shows how retarded the likes of the Taleban are.They are incapable of creating schools and anything of worth.
YOU support a insular way of thinking that is Alien to Islam. It was Islamic schools and scholars which preserved the knowledge of the Greeks which formed the basis of western thinking in the present time. The Taleban and their supporters destroy knowledge.
YOu support something you do not understand having no doubt never experienced it.
I suggest you travel outside you closed little world (and learn about other cultures and peoples) before someone convinces you to strap on a idiot vest and blow yourself up
May be NATO armed forces dont have good brains because good brains are going towards science fields
dear god boy do you ever check what you write?- Status
Similar threads
