What's new

Warzone Pakistan

SpArK

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
22,519
Reaction score
18
Country
India
Location
India
Warzone Pakistan

Washington's impatience with Islamabad's approach to counter-terrorism has led to US operations straying deeper into Pakistan​


afghanistan-war-overspill-006.jpg
A US Predator drone of the type increasingly being used in attacks across the border into Pakistan. Photograph: Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP​


Escalating US cross-border military incursions into Pakistan suggest the Obama administration has lost patience with Islamabad's failure to stop militants using the tribal areas as launchpads for attacks on Nato forces in Afghanistan and safe havens for training foreign-born terrorists.

As attacks involving American helicopter gunships and unmanned drones rise sharply, Washington's blunt message to Islamabad is: "If you can't or won't take care of the problem, we will." Last week, interior minister Rehman Malik offered a blunt riposte: "We will have to see whether we are allies or enemies."

The new strategy is high-risk. Public fury at the incursions, which caused the closure of a key Khyber Pass supply route, may further undermine Pakistan's civilian president, Asif Ali Zardari. It could alienate the Pakistani security apparatus and fuel jihadi recruitment. It is an embarrassment for Nato's allies, who have no control over US special forces or CIA operations. And it resurrects the dread prospect of a wider, regional war spreading outwards from Afghanistan.



But Barack Obama, egged on by his new Afghanistan commander, General David Petraeus, and under pressure to meet his self-imposed withdrawal schedule, appears determined to take the fight to the enemy – even if it means waging war inside another sovereign state.

Last month saw 22 cross-border CIA drone attacks on Taliban or al-Qaida-linked militants, nearly double the previous monthly record, and three reported helicopter raids. One helicopter attack last Thursday killed three Pakistani soldiers. On Monday, eight supposed terrorists of German nationality were killed.

Obama's policy is rooted in an executive order signed by George Bush in July 2008 sanctioning secret cross-border counter-terrorist operations. In September that year US commandos launched a ground raid into Pakistan. The ensuing uproar meant that future ground operations mostly stopped. But aerial attacks using Predator and Reaper drones have steadily increased.

Anthony Cordesman, writing in the National Interest, said there were 35 drone attacks in 2008, 55 in 2009, and 77 in the first nine months of 2010, according to information collated by Long War Journal. But it was wrong to present the rise as a "massive bombing campaign" causing numerous civilian casualties, he said.

"This rise in strike numbers is a kind of 'surge' but it adds up to 175 strikes over the entire [Afghan] war, and of these strikes, 65% have been concentrated in North Waziristan, [in the tribal areas] where the Pakistani army has been unwilling or unable to act." Cordesman also said improved rules of engagement had reduced civilian casualties.

US reports say all but three of last month's cross-border operations were aimed at the Haqqani terrorist network in North Waziristan, which Nato blames for an upsurge in violence in adjacent east Afghanistan. Jalaluddin Haqqani, the network's leader, has close links to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency. The ISI supposedly hopes to use the network to manipulate events in Afghanistan after the US withdrawal – and is thus reluctant to act against it.

American officials say North Waziristan is also used by al-Qaida as a base for organising and planning terrorist operations overseas, such as the recently reported plots targeting Britain, France and Germany.

American concerns intensified last spring when it emerged that the failed Times Square bomber in New York had trained in Pakistan. Intelligence agencies say European-born would-be jihadis, frequently of Pakistani, Afghan or North African descent, receive training in the tribal areas. This is the context of Monday's attack on the German nationals.

Obama raised these issues in a letter to Zardari last November, warning that the US would be forced to act if Pakistan did not. The army made no move – and US patience finally snapped. "The CIA sought more resources, which the White House strongly supported … The results speak for themselves," an unnamed official told the Washington Post.

The expansion of US operations inside Pakistan appears to break even an informal, officially disavowed agreement concerning so-called "flight boxes", which sets limits on the area of drone operations. But in its mania for killing real or imagined terrorists, anywhere and everywhere, Washington does not seem to care.



Nor do Pakistan's protests or worries about provoking a wider war cut much ice. "Fighting a war in Afghanistan that has given the enemy a sanctuary in Pakistan, and al-Qaida immunity in Pakistan, has little point," Cordesman said, indirectly answering Rehman Malik's question about allies or enemies. "More bluntly, if Pakistan cannot provide at least enough co-operation to passively allow such strikes, it is not an ally, it is a major strategic liability."


Warzone Pakistan | Simon Tisdall | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
 
.
"More bluntly, if Pakistan cannot provide at least enough co-operation to passively allow such strikes, it is not an ally, it is a major strategic liability."


According to this defination if some wanted by Pakistan and hidding in Afghanistan then we have right to go for strategic strikes

India is in trouble then :yahoo::sniper::sniper:

:pakistan::pakistan:
 
.
According to this defination if some wanted by Pakistan and hidding in Afghanistan then we have right to go for strategic strikes

India is in trouble then :yahoo::sniper::sniper:

:pakistan::pakistan:

Foreign countries are invading your sovreign space and India is in trouble.

Dude.. Its not about right. Its about Power projection capability.
 
.
Foreign countries are invading your sovreign space and India is in trouble.

Dude.. Its not about right. Its about Power projection capability.

you are wrong here my friend its not always that powerfull wins :flame:

one thing for sure if this war spread then india will be part of this war so stay aways from fire as this is not kids game.......we Pakistanies are in it from long time (from 80s) and we know how to play such games ......worry about your country :sniper::sniper:

:pakistan::pakistan:
 
.
you are wrong here my friend its not always that powerfull wins :flame:

one thing for sure if this war spread then india will be part of this war so stay aways from fire as this is not kids game.......we Pakistanies are in it from long time (from 80s) and we know how to play such games ......worry about your country :sniper::sniper:

:pakistan::pakistan:

I have generally seen that the number od smilies in a post is inversly proportional to the amount of substance in that post.

Dont worry.. We have no intention of participating in the War or what ever. We are just enjoying the ringside seat to the boxing match.
 
.
According to this defination if some wanted by Pakistan and hidding in Afghanistan then we have right to go for strategic strikes

India is in trouble then :yahoo::sniper::sniper:

:pakistan::pakistan:

you already exhausted that option by bombing Indian embassy in Kabul twice, and India is not the one in trouble.

Get a set of balls and defend your air space or do what you are doing .. Day Dreaming.
 
.
"More bluntly, if Pakistan cannot provide at least enough co-operation to passively allow such strikes, it is not an ally, it is a major strategic liability."


Well Pakistan is definitely part of problem but they know very well that we are part of solution too.

Both Pakistan and America can't pull out of this war and both have no option other than to cooperate with each other. Relations will normalize after some days.
 
.
I don't think I have run across an article that states as clearly as the one below that the US is playing a double game with Pakistan -- Whereas we have any number of US policy makers complaining that Pakistan plays a double game, I will be remiss not to salute Pakistani policy makers for their early assessment of US policy and more importantly policy makers:

Pakistan Blocks NATO Supply Lines, Testing Fragile Relationship
Posted: 01 Oct 2010
Pakistan has blocked NATO's primary supply line into Afghanistan in retaliation for an air strike that killed three Pakistani paramilitaries.

Reporting for FT, Farhan Bokhari notes that this will not have an immediate impact on operations but would if the embargo held for long, since "Most of the fuel, food and building materials for the war in Afghanistan is ferried into the landlocked country through Pakistani mountain passes."

Steve Hynd reminds us that pretty much the same thing happened two years ago, for pretty much the same reason. But the political situation is much different this time. CSM's Jonathan Adams puts it rather mildly when he observes that this turn of events is "testing the already fragile US-Pakistan alliance against Al Qaeda terrorists and Taliban militants holed up in remote, rugged mountain terrain in northwestern Pakistan tribal areas." Marvin Weinbaum, formerly of the State Department and now with the Middle East Institute, tells NPR's Robert Siegel that the "relationship has been fraying for some time now, particularly as our efforts in Afghanistan have gone worse than they had been. There's no question now that there's greater pressure to do something about Pakistan, to make Pakistan more of a partner in this counterinsurgency than it has been." He adds that, while there has been a tacit understanding that NATO troops can pursue Taliban forces into Pakistan from the other side of the border, "the public itself has a very limited tolerance of any kind of cooperation with the United States militarily."

Bernard Finel, a National War College professor and Atlantic Council contributing editor, sees the combination of this development with increasing signs that Pakistan's generals are working to oust President Asif Ali Zardari, as worrisome, indeed. "If Pakistan chokes off supplied, or even if Pakistan fails to whole-heartedly support our efforts in Afghanistan it is game over." He adds, "At that point, we need to think in terms of ending the mission and mitigating the consequences, not trying to cludge together some sort of minimal capacity to continue to pursue what, in the best of circumstances, are difficult goals."

In fairness, Finel has thought the game over for some time. But it is indeed getting difficult to pretend that the United States and Pakistan are allies in this fight.

The reason, as Weinbaum explains, is that the two sides have a very different view of the situation. "The heart of the problem here is that the very people who we have seen as our enemies, like the Afghan Taliban, the so-called Haqqani network, the Hezb-i-Islami, these are all insurgent groups that were fighting in Afghanistan, that these very people are not viewed as the enemy by the Pakistan government." Instead, he explains, "The Pakistan government has for some time seen these people as a surrogate force in Afghanistan, particularly as they expect the Americans and their allies won't be there over the long run."

Weinbaum distinguishes, as do most experts in the region, the Afghan Taliban from the Pakistani Taliban, with whom the Pakistani government sees themselves "in a death struggle." But, from the standpoint of the United States, all these groups are the enemy and part of the same amorphous phenomenon. And it's getting very hard to keep pretending that we're on the same page.

Complicating matters further, the democratically government continues to serve at the pleasure of the military, which Weinbaum thinks will continue pulling the strings from the outside rather than retaking the reins in a coup. "There's really no reason for the military to want to regain formal power. At this point in time, the military gets just about everything it needs. It controls foreign policy. It controls - has a veto over domestic policy that in any way affects its interests. Why at this juncture would it want to take on the formal responsibility, particularly in a country where things have been going so badly?"

At the same time Zardari is getting pressured from the army, he must worry about public opinion, which is increasingly hostile to American strikes that flouts Pakistan's sovereignty and kill its civilians. Indeed, General Kiyani can rightly claim the mantle of popular support when pressuring Zardari on these matters.

In this morning's Washington Post, Karen DeYoung and Karin Brulliard quote a senior Pakistani official on the view of the relationship with the United States fron Islamabad, "On the one hand, there is a genuine comfort level and a feeling of partnership - at least on the surface. But the Pakistan government and military are feeling very frustrated. They feel they are doing all they can in a very complicated domestic setup - a fragile democracy, more fragile after the floods - and that the U.S. doesn't really care about anything besides [its own] needs. They are not true partners."

And the Pakistani parliament issued a unanimous proclamation condemning yesterday's attacks and Interior Minister Rehman Malik proclaimed, "we will have to see if they are allies or enemies."

The answer, of course, remains Both. But it's getting increasingly hard to play that double game.


James Joyner is managing editor of the Atlantic Council.
 
.
According to this defination if some wanted by Pakistan and hidding in Afghanistan then we have right to go for strategic strikes

India is in trouble then :yahoo::sniper::sniper:

:pakistan::pakistan:

United States will push the Pakistani's hard but not to the point where the country destabilizes since that means India is now free to be the dominant power in the region. This is not something the US wants, or really no great power would never ever want.
 
. . .
you are wrong here my friend its not always that powerfull wins :flame:

one thing for sure if this war spread then india will be part of this war so stay aways from fire as this is not kids game.......

:pakistan::pakistan:

:rolleyes1:


we Pakistanies are in it from long time (from 80s) and we know how to play such games ......worry about your country :sniper::sniper:

As far as we know, India is only helping Afghans to rebuild the country.
 
.
^ you really made me laugh early in the morning ........ i have not seen any progress in any term there in afghanistan...but i have seen hell of progress made by RAW against pakistan in balochistan through afghanistan and some of idiot afghanis ........ well anyways no complains to you ......
but i am praying that pakistan should keep the route block only for another 2 weeks .......... then it will be game on .........
us and nato will not ask russia or iran to supply ......... and deffinately cannt use c130 either .........
kiyani is playing nice ........quiet and awesome till yet
 
.
Instead of RAW, the CIA might be more interested in creation of Balochistan as it give them access to sea route and a port. It will give them an alternative to Pakistan.

I'm not saying this will happen, but as you all know US does many things so that it can achieve what it wants.
 
.
^ you have point ......... and i kinda agree ........CIA does many thing ....

but tell me one thing do you see naruto?
 
.
Back
Top Bottom