Australia offers Military advisors

[JK!]

Australia to offer military advisers​

CANBERRA, July 30: Australia will offer military advisers to Pakistan to train security forces to fight Taliban and Al Qaeda militants taking sanctuary there from neighbouring Afghanistan, the government said on Wednesday.

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon called for a bigger international effort, including more economic and military aid, to combat Taliban militants based in Pakistan’s largely tribal border areas.

“We must arm the Pakistani army with the skills and means to conduct counter-insurgency campaigns and civil operations,” Fitzgibbon said in a speech, warning Pakistan must not become a breeding ground for Al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah militants.

Fitzgibbon said this month he was “pessimistic” about the security situation in Afghanistan, where Australia has 1,080 troops. He said Pakistan must be secured for the US and Nato-led war effort against Afghanistan militants to succeed.

“Despite their best efforts, and their heavy losses ..., they are making only limited headway in dealing with the lawlessness in that particular region,” he told the National Press Club.

A southeast Asia-based militant group Jemaah Islamiah has been linked to a series of bombings in Indonesia, including blasts on the holiday island of Bali between 2002 and 2005 in which 92 Australians died.

Australia, a close US ally, was an original member of the coalition that invaded the country to oust Afghanistan’s Taliban militants from their country.

Relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan have deteriorated sharply in recent months as Kabul repeatedly accused Pakistani agents of secretly backing Taliban insurgents fighting Afghan and foreign troops.

Pakistan’s new civilian government has launched talks with militants in its tribal border region to defuse violence that has killed hundreds of Pakistanis in the past year.

Fitzgibbon said any assistance to Pakistan would have to come at the invitation of the country’s government and Australia planned to open talks on military and economic aid soon. “I’m not talking about a deployment which requires force protection and sending people into the tribal areas. I may only be talking about military advisers in Islamabad,” he said.—Reuters

The Australians might have a small army but they are well trained and equiped so I hope the GoP accepts this offer.

 

[roadrunner]

Pakistan's Army would probably have more expertize in counter-insurgency considering how much more they've been involved in it. i think the Australians are trying to appear useful. Better if they provide equipment. Better still, if they send security advisors, to make sure it's safe to send its personnel to Pakistan!

 

[IceCold]

All we need is the military hardware which unfortunate when it comes down to that, some how US decides to back away. Like PM mentioned its the gadgets that we need to break away the communication. Predator is another thing Pakistan is interested in because it can be equipped with a hell fire missile, once the plane spies an activity, it can fire spot on and does not have to wait for the army or the AF to react which militants flee away. Another important thing is that intelligence sharing isn't there from the US side. We need to emphasize on these core issues and should be clear on this point that If US wants results better have a change in your policy as well.

 

[JK!]

The Australian SAS are amongst the best trained Special Forces in the world and I would love to see those guys helping out SSG.

Isn't Pakistan Army interested in an Australian produced UAV?

 

[IceCold]

The Australian SAS are amongst the best trained Special Forces in the world and I would love to see those guys helping out SSG.

Isn't Pakistan Army interested in an Australian produced UAV?

That is the licensed version of the UAV from boeing. Pakistan is interested in that but the final approval will have to be from the US. IMO it would be better if we insist on the predator for obivious reasons.

 

[Spring Onion]

The Australian SAS are amongst the best trained Special Forces in the world and I would love to see those guys helping out SSG.?

Those guys need to help the NATO and Afghan forces in the first place.

Isn't Pakistan Army interested in an Australian produced UAV?

we are not intrested in Human Resource

 

[muse]

Excellent! No foreign advisor, trainers and such especially in the present circumstances and certainly not from hostiles.


How should we deal with terror and by "we" I mean all of us effected by it - below is a piece I think is of some interest and may be helpful in our understanding:


RETHINKING THE POST-9/11 STRATEGY
Analysts debate the rhetoric of war as part of the fight against terrorism.
By Alexandra Marks | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the August 1, 2008 edition


NEW YORK - During the seven years since 9/11 there hasn't been a successful terrorist attack within the United States.

And Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization responsible for the downing of the World Trade Center, has been pushed back in Iraq where it continues to lose support.

But the core of Al Qaeda continues to thrive, according to security analysts, who note it has increased the number of attacks worldwide since 9/11 as well as its geographic reach.

Those facts have led to two starkly different assessments of where the United States stands in its fight against terror – as well as sharp disagreement on the strategy needed as the country goes forward.

This week the RAND Corp. sparked renewed debate about the nation's strategy when it released a report done for the Defense Department that concluded that the so-called "war on terror" has so far failed to significantly undermine Al Qaeda's capabilities. It suggested it was time for "fundamentally rethinking post-Sept. 11 US counterterrorism strategy."

A top recommendation is to replace the phrase "war on terror" with the more low-key term counterterrorism.

"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism," says Seth Jones, the study's lead author. "With the growing number of attacks and an expansive reach, one could argue [Al Qaeda] is even growing stronger."

That assessment prompted derision among some conservative security analysts who contend the "war on terror" is being waged successfully and should continue as is.

They argue that the number of terrorist attacks around the world has actually been declining since 2003. The only reason US intelligence assessments indicate an increase is because they include terrorist attacks in Iraq. These analysts argue those should be categorized as war crimes, not terrorist attacks.
"
We are winning the war on terror, in fact we've almost won the war on terror," says the Heritage Foundation's James Jay Carafano.
"Terrorist attacks have been declining since 2003," he says. If you look at the polling numbers on [Osama] bin Laden ... they're way down in the Islamic world. Essentially, the only thing left to be done is to get into Pakistan and root out the tribal areas" where Bin Laden is thought to be hiding.

Security experts who favor a change in antiterrorism strategy agree there have been some successes in the fight against Al Qaeda, particularly in Iraq.

But they disagree with Mr. Carafano's analysis on several fronts. First, they contend it's important to look at the number of attacks carried out by Al Qaeda and its sympathizers separately from other global terror attacks. That's because most international terrorist attacks are not targeted at the United States, while destroying the US remains one of Al Qaeda's primary goals.

"Measuring the total number of terrorist attacks globally from a US national security perspective is meaningless because most of those groups are not targeting the United States," says Jones. He and other analysts also contend that Al Qaeda has been pushed back successfully in parts of Iraq specifically because the military has begun employing more law-enforcement type strategies there.

"To be effective against terrorism in many ways requires the same things that are needed to be effective against crime. It's knowing neighborhoods, good intelligence, and on the ground information – exactly the kind of information we lacked in Iraq the first three years of the operation," says Gary LaFree, director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) at the University of Maryland.

But Professor LaFree says criminology is not a perfect metaphor for dealing with terrorism, either. "This is what's so difficult about terrorism: it's a blend of political and just plain old criminal justice stuff," he says.

That political element is one of the things that prompts Frank Cilluffo, the director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University to argue strongly against using the phrase "war on terror." Like Jones, he believes the phrase plays into Al Qaeda's own political narrative as holy warriors and thus gives them legitimacy.
"
The adversary's real center of gravity is its narrative and we have to find ways to facilitate it falling on its own weight," says Professor Cilluffo. He agrees with the Heritage's Carafano that Al Qaeda is indeed losing some popular support in the Muslim world.

But Cilluffo believes Al Qaeda itself is responsible for that.

"Al Qaeda has made its colors very clear – people see it for what it is: a violent ideology that will kill anything and everything in its way to meet its so-called objective," he says. "It's unraveling. Even some of the intellectual thinkers [within the movement are] peeling away the justification and credibility of Al Qaeda's narrative."

Jones and others also note that most major Western countries have already abandoned the notion of a war on terror, including Great Britain.

"The British have long since dropped any reference to a war on terror, in part because of their long standing experience fighting the [Irish Republican Army]," says Jones. "Where they became increasingly successful is when they started using Special Branch – their counter terrorism police force - as well as MI-5, their domestic intelligence service. It's the use of those two actors together that really helped penetrate the IRA not the military."

The Heritage's Carafano believes the debate about "shifting the rhetoric" is already old and will have little impact on a war that he contends is already almost won.

But Carafano does agree with the other analysts on one other point: The threat posed by Al Qaeda is still present and the country cannot let down its guard.
"
We could easily have another event. We don't want to blow it out of proportion – we want to keep things in perspective," says LaFree. "It's great we haven't had another attack, but we're still not out of the woods."

 

[Muradk]

Well this is a piece I picked up from an American mag.

"In retrospect you could say ( Australian Special forces ) we're extremely fortunate not to suffer any fatalities over the course of the deployment. We had a total of 11 wounded in action - a combination of gunshot and fragmentation wounds." In Afghanistan they were involved in 139 combat incidents and in all the incidents they were pinned down and had to call for Air support.

Very Impressive

 

[JK!]

Muradk, nearly everyone in ISAF does call for air support though its the only edge they have on the Taliban. I suppose it could also depend on the scope of their missions.

 

[Muradk]

Muradk, nearly everyone in ISAF does call for air support though its the only edge they have on the Taliban. I suppose it could also depend on the scope of their missions.[/QU



JK : I am not trying to showoff but with a PDH in Military Ops, I think it is waist of man power when you get into a situation were you know that you will get pinned down, specially if you see that the first 10 mission were all screw-ups and needed air support to get out of there, the SOP says that the 11th mission onwards you use Air support first them go in.
Gorilla warfare is very different from what the Aussis are used to , one Taliban will sit behind the rock for 2 days without food and water to take a shot at you.

 

[Munir]

I would personally would like to have combat heli's and high tech equipment. I understand that they train Afghani's cause these people hardly know how o handle prisoners or weapons... But Pakistan has tradition and well qualified staff... We do not need warfare training but technology like the use for their soldiers. We need Choppers to get in fast or to rescue soldiers. We need choppers to destroy foreign elements.

 

[Muradk]

I would personally would like to have combat heli's and high tech equipment. I understand that they train Afghani's cause these people hardly know how o handle prisoners or weapons... But Pakistan has tradition and well qualified staff... We do not need warfare training but technology like the use for their soldiers. We need Choppers to get in fast or to rescue soldiers. We need choppers to destroy foreign elements.

Excellent point Munir no doubt that is one area we lag behind, Knowing aviators all my life specially my course mates who didn't qualify for fighters became excellent chopper pilots . I have seen these guys do amazing stuff with limited resources specially in 1971 .
I truly believe that these pilot are the best but need new and modern equipment to survive todays warfare.

 

[JK!]

I must concur with you both (Munir and Muradk) having just reread Simon Murray Legionnaire on his experience of the French fighting against the Algerian Guerilla fighters it countlessly puts the emphasis on helos as a war winning asset.

 

[Munir]

Thank you friends. It reminds me even of something totally amazing. Atleast twice PAF chopper pilots went up to crazy heights and saved mountaineers. Looking at how the did and how cool they stayed made me extremely proud. Brave is something special but the fact that the rotor would hit the mountain so they flew there with a certain angle just to reach the mountaineer and then they still had to pull him away. And we all know how wind, sight and temperature is up there...

I have talked to a senior F16 pilot here in the Netherlands and I can tell you that those pilots on the choppers here are not that good. Even during display they ruined the fire basket (Chinook), then they had no idea what to do the next day and even then it was a task to get them flying around... Totally not up to basic task...


I think the government should clearly say that PAF has quality manpower. We do not need second hand outdated cobra's ( I have been in the cockpit of a new version and even that was not impressive) but high tech stuff. We will secure certain sectors and that depends on how many equipment we get. Besides that cover by UAV will be handy. They shoud stop making propaganda about Pakistan buying F16's to stop terrorism cause it is for anti India usage. If that is the reality then we should ask them to stop topcover over Afghanistan. We have a vast area to cover. Much more difficut environment and we do not cry if being shot. But there is a limit to propaganda.