Will the operation aganist TTP extend to afghanistan or just only IBOs will be conducted

[Falcon34]

@waz @PanzerKiel

 

[Menace2Society]

If it doesn't extend to bases in Afg then we can conclude its just another psyops.

 

[TheSolution]

If you read his posts, he already said an aerial strike package was sent next door targeting militant infrastructure, and even Afghan media briefly picked up on this.

So it seems it will extend to Afghanistan in areas needed.

Also remember that even the US considered Afg-Pak as a single war theatre due to how porous the western border is, meaning if we are talking about insurgencies, you kinda have to consider it a single theatre for any plan to be effective.

When it comes to insurgencies - they have power because there's typically a core destabilising issue that makes recruitment so likely & possible - apart from taking military action, you must also preemptively tackle this core issue(s) to effectively neuter the faultline entirely, and prevent such an insurgency from rising in the first place. Which brings stability.

Insurgencies could be based on ethnic lines, religious lines, or likely in our case a mix of both (Pashtun ethno-Islamism - TTP, Baloch ethno-nationalism - BLA). So this must be properly addressed for true stability to be born, and to prevent any insurgencies before they even begin.

You could go about this using the Sri Lanka route, Turkey route or the Chinese route. (Or a mix?) It's up to you to analyse which is the most effective long-term. The goal is to remove any inherent faultlines from society and bring true permanent stability.

Countries with single cultures, single religions, single languages, single identities are the most stable inherently - and that's because these societies don't inherently have such obvious divisive lines to exploit into an insurgency, or instability. They are strongly united and work aggressively towards their national goals.

 

[R Wing]

If you read his posts, he already said an aerial strike package was sent next door targeting militant infrastructure, and even Afghan media briefly picked up on this.

So it seems it will extend to Afghanistan in areas needed.

Also remember that even the US considered Afg-Pak as a single war theatre due to how porous the western border is, meaning if we are talking about insurgencies, you kinda have to consider it a single theatre for any plan to be effective.

When it comes to insurgencies - they have power because typically there's an inherent destabilising issue that makes recruitment possible - apart from military action, you must also address this issue effectively to neuter this possibility entirely and prevent such an insurgency from rising.

Insurgencies could be based on ethnic lines, religious lines, or somewhat in our case likely a mix of both. So this must be addressed for true stability and prevent insurgencies to begin with.

Countries with single cultures, single religions, single languages, single identities are the most stable inherently - and that's because these societies don't inherently have such obvious divisive lines to exploit into an insurgency.

How can I upvote this 100 times?

The tragedy with us is that we refuse to apply the basic tenets of deterrence. Peace = raising the cost for the other side and their backers. We have always relied on tactics without strategy, or - as I like to call it - tactics-as-strategy. This has meant lots of ops against terrorists and their infrastructure and next to no direct costs for Indian intelligence, for example (these days it's the Afg Taliban). It can't work that way. Both must go hand in hand. Peace through strength. Stability through deterrence.