US Poised to Attack Extremists in FATA
- Thread starter dr.umer
- Start date
vish
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 10, 2008
- Messages
- 867
- Reaction score
- 0
Has it been resisted up until now? Neither did Mush did anything and nor is the current GoP doing anything.
The reason being, these "tribals" are more of a danger to your society than theirs.
The only sensible things to do is to get the house in order, talk turkey with USA and join them.
PS: Do you see a high-IQ guerilla war in the making?
vish
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 10, 2008
- Messages
- 867
- Reaction score
- 0
The US military machine is learning lessons from both Iraq and Afghanistan. They'll get better at low-intensity conflicts.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
"They'll get better at low-intensity conflicts."
And my aunty will be my uncle when....
Us military has an enormous amount of resources and excellent training and the soldiers motivated and excellent morale -- I don't have a problem with these things - most importantly it has air support - otherwise it's man to man and the tribals can produce greater manpower - but it's air that makes all the difference. And ofcourse it not a flat desert like it was in Iraq
And my aunty will be my uncle when....
Us military has an enormous amount of resources and excellent training and the soldiers motivated and excellent morale -- I don't have a problem with these things - most importantly it has air support - otherwise it's man to man and the tribals can produce greater manpower - but it's air that makes all the difference. And ofcourse it not a flat desert like it was in Iraq
vish
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 10, 2008
- Messages
- 867
- Reaction score
- 0
Ofcourse, you are right.
But how are these guerilla conflicts fought?
1) Play tribe vs. tribe
2) Bribe
These are the two reasons why America fared much better in Afghanistan vis-a-vis Iraq.
All it requires for the "greater manpower" to be made redundant is internal strife. Internal strife is easy to accomplish with bribery.
Plus the Afghanistan War will last a decade or so more.
Awesome
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,023
- Reaction score
- 5
Given the common threat from America, Why hasn't Pakistan been able to secure better SAMs from China?
I'm not saying we'll take out their airforce down like flies, but the threat that we can knock a dozen or so planes would work as a detterrent to launch air raids on Pakistan and the US would have to use the more expensive option of Cruise Missiles.
Which brings me to my second point. Pakistan should be producing Baburs in bulk.
The threat that Pakistan has enough weapons to knock out big ships parked along the coast of Pakistan would definitely push them backwards.
Pakistani politicians should be visiting China right now rather than the Arab nations.
I'm not saying we'll take out their airforce down like flies, but the threat that we can knock a dozen or so planes would work as a detterrent to launch air raids on Pakistan and the US would have to use the more expensive option of Cruise Missiles.
Which brings me to my second point. Pakistan should be producing Baburs in bulk.
The threat that Pakistan has enough weapons to knock out big ships parked along the coast of Pakistan would definitely push them backwards.
Pakistani politicians should be visiting China right now rather than the Arab nations.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
IHT editorial
Talking sense on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
Published: July 17, 2008
It has been obvious from the start of the 2008 U.S. presidential election campaign that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the biggest foreign policy challenges awaiting the next president. But there has been precious little detailed discussion of them on the campaign trail.
Until this week, when Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, offered a sensible blueprint for dealing with the mess that President George Bush created by bungling the war of necessity against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, which could have made Americans safer, and starting a war of choice in Iraq, which made the world more insecure.
Obama's Republican rival, Senator John McCain, has not matched Obama's seriousness on Iraq. He is still largely adopting Bush's blind defense of an unending conflict.
Obama has a better grasp of the big picture, despite McCain's claim to more foreign policy experience. For far too long, Bush's preoccupation with his misadventure in Iraq has dangerously diverted precious manpower, resources and high-level attention from Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Obama has correctly asserted, those countries, not Iraq, are the real frontline of the war against terrorism.
Obama said he would withdraw combat forces from Iraq by 2010, shift at least 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan that could be leveraged to persuade NATO allies to also increase their numbers, send more nonmilitary aid to Afghanistan and build a stronger Afghanistan-Pakistan-NATO partnership on the lawless border. He also promised an extra $2 billion as part of an international effort to deal with more than 4 million displaced Iraqis - a crisis that the Bush administration has unconscionably ignored.
We were encouraged that Obama embraced a proposal by the leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to triple nonmilitary aid to Pakistan to $7.5 billion over five years. The United States must invest more in strengthening Pakistan's democracy. Congress should move quickly to adopt the proposal, which also would require a long-overdue plan to address the lawlessness of the Afghan-Pakistan border.
After arguing that no additional forces were needed, McCain reversed course on Tuesday and endorsed sending 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan. But he seemed confused about whether they would be U.S. forces drawn from Iraq or an American-NATO mix, leaving us wondering how well formed his ideas are.
And it was distressing to hear McCain still talking about "winning" the war in Iraq and adopting the tedious tactic of accusing Obama of "giving up" when he talks about a careful withdrawal of troops.
We have no idea what winning means to McCain. Bush initially promised a free and democratic Iraq. After spending $656 billion, his administration has retreated from such grandiose notions and he will be lucky to leave behind a marginally functioning central government in a very fragile country.
Obama acknowledged that reality, and the fact that Bush's decision to deploy more troops last year has reduced the violence. McCain uses that to justify an unending war. Obama wisely said that it was time to capitalize on American soldiers' sacrifices to plan an end to the war.
"At some point, a judgment must be made," he said. "Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don't have the resources to try to make it one."
The United States cannot just turn its back on Iraq, but that is not remotely what Obama is suggesting. He proposed keeping a residual force in Iraq for specific missions like fighting Al Qaeda. He also wisely asserted he will make tactical adjustments as needed.
The more the United States insists it will not even consider withdrawal, the less incentive Iraqis have to settle their political differences. Iraq's leaders have asked for a withdrawal timetable. The next president needs to take them at their word. The candidates need to keep talking about how they will meet that goal and then address the real threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Talking sense on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
Published: July 17, 2008
It has been obvious from the start of the 2008 U.S. presidential election campaign that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the biggest foreign policy challenges awaiting the next president. But there has been precious little detailed discussion of them on the campaign trail.
Until this week, when Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, offered a sensible blueprint for dealing with the mess that President George Bush created by bungling the war of necessity against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, which could have made Americans safer, and starting a war of choice in Iraq, which made the world more insecure.
Obama's Republican rival, Senator John McCain, has not matched Obama's seriousness on Iraq. He is still largely adopting Bush's blind defense of an unending conflict.
Obama has a better grasp of the big picture, despite McCain's claim to more foreign policy experience. For far too long, Bush's preoccupation with his misadventure in Iraq has dangerously diverted precious manpower, resources and high-level attention from Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Obama has correctly asserted, those countries, not Iraq, are the real frontline of the war against terrorism.
Obama said he would withdraw combat forces from Iraq by 2010, shift at least 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan that could be leveraged to persuade NATO allies to also increase their numbers, send more nonmilitary aid to Afghanistan and build a stronger Afghanistan-Pakistan-NATO partnership on the lawless border. He also promised an extra $2 billion as part of an international effort to deal with more than 4 million displaced Iraqis - a crisis that the Bush administration has unconscionably ignored.
We were encouraged that Obama embraced a proposal by the leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to triple nonmilitary aid to Pakistan to $7.5 billion over five years. The United States must invest more in strengthening Pakistan's democracy. Congress should move quickly to adopt the proposal, which also would require a long-overdue plan to address the lawlessness of the Afghan-Pakistan border.
After arguing that no additional forces were needed, McCain reversed course on Tuesday and endorsed sending 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan. But he seemed confused about whether they would be U.S. forces drawn from Iraq or an American-NATO mix, leaving us wondering how well formed his ideas are.
And it was distressing to hear McCain still talking about "winning" the war in Iraq and adopting the tedious tactic of accusing Obama of "giving up" when he talks about a careful withdrawal of troops.
We have no idea what winning means to McCain. Bush initially promised a free and democratic Iraq. After spending $656 billion, his administration has retreated from such grandiose notions and he will be lucky to leave behind a marginally functioning central government in a very fragile country.
Obama acknowledged that reality, and the fact that Bush's decision to deploy more troops last year has reduced the violence. McCain uses that to justify an unending war. Obama wisely said that it was time to capitalize on American soldiers' sacrifices to plan an end to the war.
"At some point, a judgment must be made," he said. "Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don't have the resources to try to make it one."
The United States cannot just turn its back on Iraq, but that is not remotely what Obama is suggesting. He proposed keeping a residual force in Iraq for specific missions like fighting Al Qaeda. He also wisely asserted he will make tactical adjustments as needed.
The more the United States insists it will not even consider withdrawal, the less incentive Iraqis have to settle their political differences. Iraq's leaders have asked for a withdrawal timetable. The next president needs to take them at their word. The candidates need to keep talking about how they will meet that goal and then address the real threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
IceCold
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- May 1, 2007
- Messages
- 19,236
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
While i agree with most of what you said however, the increasing attacks on Pakistani soil and not to mention the attacks that have been started on our military personal, points towards another direction. Americans will not hesitate how many get killed or what effect does it leave on the world economy, they will go for it. Remember that when plans were being developed about attacking Iraq, countries like France objected but finally had to bow to US will. Pakistan was too involved in the list of those countries. My point is whether US actually does attack Pakistan or not, can we wait for such a situation to arise. Also like Asim said can Pakistanis defend Pakistan in case of such an attack? IMO we need to prepare for such an attack whether the threat is real or not, we should not let our guards down in false sense of security or that US will not attack Pakistan.
JK!
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,461
- Reaction score
- 2
I'm guessing there needs to be a few more tests of the missile I think at least 7 are needed.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes, triple s is rather shady - on the other hand, when it comes to Pakistan there a few who offer clarity - but you may have posed the most important question all - will Pak Fauj defend Waziristan? But lets add another question, Ought it defend Waziristan in these circumstances??
If the Politicians will not take responsibility, why should Pak fauj act to safe guard those who have beheaded Pakistani soldiers??
Don't get me wrong - I'm not necessarily advocating any particular position, but I am open to these questions - I think we ought to consider these seriously:
Militants ready for a war without borders
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
KARACHI - From thinly disguised insinuations against Pakistan following the suicide attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul this month to outright accusations against Islamabad by the Afghan government over the unrelenting Taliban-led insurgency, the blame game has entered a critical time: a major regional battle could erupt in a matter of days.
Last week, US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen paid a sudden visit to Pakistan during which he revealed to Pakistani leaders and military officials the possibility of surgical strikes on Taliban and al-Qaeda networks operating in the border regions and that coalition forces in Afghanistan would not hesitate to conduct hot-pursuit raids into Pakistan.
Mullen urged Pakistani leaders to play their part from their side. He pin-pointed the North and South Waziristan tribal areas as a focal point, along with the areas of Razmak, Shawal, Ghulam Khan and Angor Ada along the border with Afghanistan. Across the divide, Khost province is considered a likely target for carpet bombing and an offensive by the Afghan National Army.
Pakistani army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kiani was quick to call in senior strategic analysts, who pointed out that the military would only follow the directions of the civilian government. Yet just days earlier, Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gillani had announced that all decisions concerning military operations would be decided by the army chief. This does not bode well for Pakistan's whole-hearted cooperation.
But regardless of how sincerely the Pakistani army fights against the Taliban, the fact is that the Taliban have already staged a virtual coup in North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) bordering Afghanistan.
They have established a reign of terror against which the state writ is powerless. In all districts, the Taliban have taken security officials hostage to press their demands that a strict Islamic code be enforced. Many officials have been killed when the Taliban's wishes have not been granted.
As a result, the middle and lower members of the security forces are effectively non-functional and answer to the Taliban's call across NWFP.
This has left the secular and relatively liberal government of the province, led by the Awami National Party, with no choice but to form "defense committees" at the district level to organize civilians against a complete Taliban take-over.
Across the border, a similar situation exists in Ghazni province, close to the capital Kabul, where, apart from the provincial headquarters, the Taliban call the shots in all districts once dusk descends - the district administrations and the police simply give up control, giving the Taliban freedom of movement.
In Kunar and Nooristan provinces, the Taliban are fighting for similar dominance and already most security checkpoints have been abandoned out of fear of the Taliban.
On Monday, a high-level al-Qaeda shura (council) concluded in Miramshah in North Waziristan with instructions to all members with families to retreat to safe locations in expectation of the Afghan war spreading into Pakistan's tribal areas.
Not that this alarms al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban. They reason that should coalition forces seriously enter into Pakistan (they have in the past sent unmanned Predator drones on raids into Pakistan), the reaction in Pakistan, even among liberals, would be so fierce that the Pakistani army would not dare to follow up with action of its own. This would leave the militants with a free hand to launch operations inside Afghanistan.
The shura also noted that militant ranks in the region had received their biggest boost since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, including growing numbers from Muslim countries.
If the Politicians will not take responsibility, why should Pak fauj act to safe guard those who have beheaded Pakistani soldiers??
Don't get me wrong - I'm not necessarily advocating any particular position, but I am open to these questions - I think we ought to consider these seriously:
Militants ready for a war without borders
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
KARACHI - From thinly disguised insinuations against Pakistan following the suicide attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul this month to outright accusations against Islamabad by the Afghan government over the unrelenting Taliban-led insurgency, the blame game has entered a critical time: a major regional battle could erupt in a matter of days.
Last week, US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen paid a sudden visit to Pakistan during which he revealed to Pakistani leaders and military officials the possibility of surgical strikes on Taliban and al-Qaeda networks operating in the border regions and that coalition forces in Afghanistan would not hesitate to conduct hot-pursuit raids into Pakistan.
Mullen urged Pakistani leaders to play their part from their side. He pin-pointed the North and South Waziristan tribal areas as a focal point, along with the areas of Razmak, Shawal, Ghulam Khan and Angor Ada along the border with Afghanistan. Across the divide, Khost province is considered a likely target for carpet bombing and an offensive by the Afghan National Army.
Pakistani army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kiani was quick to call in senior strategic analysts, who pointed out that the military would only follow the directions of the civilian government. Yet just days earlier, Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gillani had announced that all decisions concerning military operations would be decided by the army chief. This does not bode well for Pakistan's whole-hearted cooperation.
But regardless of how sincerely the Pakistani army fights against the Taliban, the fact is that the Taliban have already staged a virtual coup in North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) bordering Afghanistan.
They have established a reign of terror against which the state writ is powerless. In all districts, the Taliban have taken security officials hostage to press their demands that a strict Islamic code be enforced. Many officials have been killed when the Taliban's wishes have not been granted.
As a result, the middle and lower members of the security forces are effectively non-functional and answer to the Taliban's call across NWFP.
This has left the secular and relatively liberal government of the province, led by the Awami National Party, with no choice but to form "defense committees" at the district level to organize civilians against a complete Taliban take-over.
Across the border, a similar situation exists in Ghazni province, close to the capital Kabul, where, apart from the provincial headquarters, the Taliban call the shots in all districts once dusk descends - the district administrations and the police simply give up control, giving the Taliban freedom of movement.
In Kunar and Nooristan provinces, the Taliban are fighting for similar dominance and already most security checkpoints have been abandoned out of fear of the Taliban.
On Monday, a high-level al-Qaeda shura (council) concluded in Miramshah in North Waziristan with instructions to all members with families to retreat to safe locations in expectation of the Afghan war spreading into Pakistan's tribal areas.
Not that this alarms al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban. They reason that should coalition forces seriously enter into Pakistan (they have in the past sent unmanned Predator drones on raids into Pakistan), the reaction in Pakistan, even among liberals, would be so fierce that the Pakistani army would not dare to follow up with action of its own. This would leave the militants with a free hand to launch operations inside Afghanistan.
The shura also noted that militant ranks in the region had received their biggest boost since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, including growing numbers from Muslim countries.
Myth_buster_1
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2008
- Messages
- 9,016
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Similar threads
- Article
