What's new

Pakistan troops 'aid Taliban'

Goodperson

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
2,860
Reaction score
0
Pakistan troops 'aid Taliban'

New classified US documents reveal that mass infiltration of Frontier Corps by Afghan insurgents is helping latest offensive

* Peter Beaumont and Mark Townsend
* The Observer,
* Sunday June 22, 2008
* Article history

The Pakistani Frontier Corps has been heavily infiltrated and influenced by Taliban militants, sometimes joining in attacks on coalition forces, according to classified US 'after-action' reports compiled following clashes on the border.

According to those familiar with the material, regarded as deeply sensitive by the Pentagon in view of America's fragile relationship with Pakistan, there are 'box loads' of such reports at US bases along the length of the Pakistan-Afghan border. Details of the level of infiltration emerged yesterday on a day when five more US-led soldiers were killed in southern Afghanistan. Four of the soldiers died in a bomb and gunfire attack outside the southern city of Kandahar.

Nato officials have reported a dramatic increase in cross-border incidents compared with the same period last year. The US documents describe the direct involvement of Frontier Corps troops in attacks on the Afghan National Army and coalition forces, and also detail attacks launched so close to Frontier Corps outposts that Pakistani co-operation with the Taliban is assumed.

'The reality,' said a source familiar with the situation on the ground, 'is that there are units so opposed to what the coalition is doing and so friendly to the other side that when the opportunity comes up they will fire on Afghan and coalition troops. And this is not random. It can be exceptionally well co-ordinated.'

Another source - who has seen the reporting - described an attack last year where two Frontier Corps outposts appear to have been directly involved in firing on Afghan forces before a militant attack.

Frontier Corps personnel have in the past been implicated in the past in murdering US and Afghan officers. In the most high-profile case, a Frontier Corps member 'assassinated' Major Larry J Bauguess during a border mediation meeting. In another incident, an Afghan officer was killed. Since then the problem appears to have worsened as the Taliban renew their insurgency on the Afghan side of the border.

'The United States and Nato have substantial information on this problem,' said an American official. 'It's taking place at a variety of places along the border with the Frontier Corps giving direct and indirect assistance. I'm not saying it is everyone. There are some parts that have been quite helpful... but if you have seen the after-action reports of their involvement in attacks along the Afghan border you would appreciate the problem.'

James Appathurai, a Nato spokesman, said: 'The real concern is that the extremists in Pakistan are getting safe havens to rest, recuperate and retool in Pakistan and come across the border. The concerns have been conveyed to the Pakistan authorities.'

Seth Jones, author of the Rand report, which found evidence of collaboration, said the issue had been troubling the US even before the invasion of Afghanistan: 'If you go back a decade to the Clinton administration when the US targeted militant camps, members of the Pakistani intelligence services were killed along with militants.'

The allegation that senior Pakistani officials continue to offer lukewarm assistance to the coalition while offering help to the Taliban is also reiterated in Descent into Chaos, a new book by the veteran Pakistani author Ahmed Rashid.

Relations between the US and Pakistan were strained this month when 11 members of the Frontier Corps were killed when the US allegedly bombed their outpost near the border town of Gora Prai during a gun battle with militants on the border. Pakistani sources have questioned why the troops were hiding in a bunker in the midst of the battle and why they were 'unaware' of an hour-long firefight going on so close by.

The issue of the Taliban's ability to cross and recross the border with Pakistan into that country's Federally Administered Tribal Areas is becoming one of the most contentious issues of the war, with many - including Afghan President Hamid Karzai - insisting that his country is involved in a 'regional conflict' and threatening to send troops across the border.

The death of the five soldiers yesterday came as the Taliban stepped up their offensive. It happened a day after two other US-led soldiers died in separate incidents, including a suicide bombing.

Pakistan troops 'aid Taliban' | World news | The Observer
 
Pakistan troops 'aid Taliban'

New classified US documents reveal that mass infiltration of Frontier Corps by Afghan insurgents is helping latest offensive

* Peter Beaumont and Mark Townsend
* The Observer,
* Sunday June 22, 2008
* Article history

The Pakistani Frontier Corps has been heavily infiltrated and influenced by Taliban militants, sometimes joining in attacks on coalition forces, according to classified US 'after-action' reports compiled following clashes on the border.


Pakistan troops 'aid Taliban' | World news | The Observer

I would not be suprised if the FC incident was due to the above collusion between FC and the Taliban. Anyway lets wait for the inquiry report.

Regards
 
I would not be suprised if the FC incident was due to the above collusion between FC and the Taliban. Anyway lets wait for the inquiry report.

Regards

Qudrati dear what we need to see whenever someone some newspaper, some organization or so-called US think tanks, say "According to Unnamed sources"


So would you accept blindly whatever unamed sources say
 
Qudrati dear what we need to see whenever someone some newspaper, some organization or so-called US think tanks, say "According to Unnamed sources"


So would you accept blindly whatever unamed sources say

Dear Jana,

The role of the FC has been undercloud since the day the surrendered to their kidnappers.

However as i said lets wait for the inquiry report on the FC incident.

Regards
 
AGAIN and again, same old style of preasure on..... pakistan army! the last 1 was KARZAI... wanted to attack pakistan, is this all going to help USA any way!!!

the day pakistan decids to stop its support to USA .... it will be a duck shooting for TALIBANS of NATO FORCES in afghanistan, after all what pakistan had suffered for the unnatural and unrealstic support to USAs WOT...........still pakistan had been , or has been wrongly or unfairly... being alleged or warned off?

i think the situation , is already changed and i guss USA has to changed its policy of ultra warfare.... and milatry media druming should be changed.
 
AGAIN and again, same old style of preasure on..... pakistan army! the last 1 was KARZAI... wanted to attack pakistan, is this all going to help USA any way!!!

the day pakistan decids to stop its support to USA .... it will be a duck shooting for TALIBANS of NATO FORCES in afghanistan, after all what pakistan had suffered for the unnatural and unrealstic support to USAs WOT...........still pakistan had been , or has been wrongly or unfairly... being alleged or warned off?

i think the situation , is already changed and i guss USA has to changed its policy of ultra warfare.... and milatry media druming should be changed.

If we believe you for a moment why has Pakistan not withdrawn support. Lets be honest USA is not going to attack you for that.

Regards
 
I find it interesting that this comes out right after the US bombing.

Some support for the Taliban through the FC is undoubtedly there, but given the timing, I am skeptical about how the article purports to make this "widespread" and even recreates one of the scenarios postulated in te aftermath of the bombing.

Nothing but American BS IMO to validate their actions as part of a propaganda campaign.

Lets remember that the entire UAV footage has not been released still.
 
There is an interesting implication this article and Gen. McNeil's comments quoted below raise.
McNeill declined to endorse a U.S.-funded program to train and equip Pakistan's Frontier Corps, which guards the border, questioning the effectiveness and loyalty of the tribally recruited guards. "It takes well-trained, well-equipped forces, disciplined to take this thing on," he said. "The Pakistanis, in using the Frontier Corps as a military entity to take on the insurgency, will find some challenges.
washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

The implication (not subtle at all) is that the FC is untrustworthy, and not a reliable partner in the WoT. However, the FC is recruited from the tribes of FATA, so questioning their effectiveness in fighting the Taliban brings into question the Tribes themselves - so then it is essentially an argument of "The Pashtun cannot be trusted".

Arguments in favor for the PA being deployed while the FC is sidelined validate this assumption.It seems to me that one consequence of this approach would be that the Pashtun tribes who may have had sympathies with their ethnic and tribal kin in the Taliban and provided infrequent support, now become fully vested in this "cause" - this is tantamount to asking for a full fledged Pashtun insurgency in Pakistan.

FATA cannot be controlled without the Tribes supporting the objectives being attempted. This calls for increased involvement of the Tribes, through quasi-government Tribal militias and the FC, and not a move towards removing them from the process.

Development in FATA and the capacity building of the FC, which Gen. McNeil has declined to endorse, are the only ways to involve the tribes and gain their willing cooperation. I fail to see where McNeil and the US "anonymous" establishment is going with this line of thinking.

The consequences do not seem to be very well thought out at all.
 
There is an interesting implication this article and Gen. McNeil's comments quoted below raise.



FATA cannot be controlled without the Tribes supporting the objectives being attempted. This calls for increased involvement of the Tribes, through quasi-government Tribal militias and the FC, and not a move towards removing them from the process.

Development in FATA and the capacity building of the FC, which Gen. McNeil has declined to endorse, are the only ways to involve the tribes and gain their willing cooperation. I fail to see where McNeil and the US "anonymous" establishment is going with this line of thinking.

The consequences do not seem to be very well thought out at all.

I agree AM but these are long term solutions. The Nato needs immediate solutions. I forsee more strikes like the FC incident unless FC is removed and replaced by the professional PA but that would mean pulling out soldiers from the Indian border.

Regards
 
I agree AM but these are long term solutions. The Nato needs immediate solutions. I forsee more strikes like the FC incident unless FC is removed and replaced by the professional PA but that would mean pulling out soldiers from the Indian border.

Regards

The immediate solutions create more and bigger long term problems for the future, as I argued above. So even if India was not an issue, sidelining the FC would give ammunition to the Taliban to turn it into an ethnic conflict.

The point here is this, in any insurgency you cannot win unless you win the local population over to your side, against the enemy you are fighting at that moment at least.

In this case the local population are the Pashtun Tribes, and the FC are from those tribes - so if the locals have to be on our side, the FC has to be on our side.

Arguments that the FC need to be replaced and are "untrustworthy" mean that more non-military effort is required, not military effort, to win the Tribes and FC loyalty and support. This is a long term effort however, and requires patience, which the US seems to be in short supply of, at least with respect to their media offensive and legislature currently.

Unilateral US Air strikes will only alienate the US/NATO further and create sympathy for the Taliban cause, and make it even harder for the GoP to advocate any strong military approach to the region so that approach only makes things worse.

Hence the direction US policy seems to be heading in seems extremely flawed and dangerous to me.
 
This ridiculous story would make sense IF the Taliban stops attacking us in return.

I mean a collusion works me n you vs someone else.

not me n you vs someone else and you kill me also.

Where were these western jokers when common sense was distributed amongst humanity?
 
Hence the direction US policy seems to be heading in seems extremely flawed and dangerous to me.


While what you say makes sense in the long run please remember our media and public opinion wants our boys back ASAP and will not wait that long.

Secondly its hard for a westerner to understand why the pashtuns have mixed loyalties and prefer siding with the Taliban instead of the PA.

Regards
 
While what you say makes sense in the long run please remember our media and public opinion wants our boys back ASAP and will not wait that long.

Secondly its hard for a westerner to understand why the pashtuns have mixed loyalties and prefer siding with the Taliban instead of the PA.

Regards
Because westerners have no business poking their noses in Pashtun affairs and no business tellin us what to do when they can't even comprehend foreign cultures.

#1 fault of western thought is that they are pretty much calling everyone a Taliban these days.

Half the people Nato has managed to piss off, are the locals. They ALL want to kill Nato. Taliban, the organization headed by Mullah omar also wants to kill nato. You conquered Taliban, a Pashtun group, and now you all seem to be behaving like you want to conquer the rest of the Pashtuns out there too.

PA is not the issue here. It's Nato. Fasaad ki jarr! (root of all woes!)
 
Half the people Nato has managed to piss off, are the locals. They ALL want to kill Nato. Taliban, the organization headed by Mullah omar also wants to kill nato. You conquered Taliban, a Pashtun group, and now you all seem to be behaving like you want to conquer the rest of the Pashtuns out there too.

PA is not the issue here. It's Nato. Fasaad ki jarr! (root of all woes!)

If PA is not the issue then why are PA men being killed by the taliban ?

Why was the SSG mess blown up ?

Why was an ISI bus attacked ?

AA we are on your side not the Talibans.

Regards
 
If PA is not the issue then why are PA men being killed by the taliban ?

Why was the SSG mess blown up ?

Why was an ISI bus attacked ?

AA we are on your side not the Talibans.

Regards
Because we're attacking Taliban as well. We don't have to, but killing Taliban isn't really bad for us and helps Nato as well. And you know how whipped our leaders are anyway. I know pretty soon we're painting ourselves in a corner where we'd have to fight the Taliban and Nato both. Neither side would accept us on their side.

You're on your own side, man. Whatever that means, it's not good for us, especially since your ends justify Afghani means. The bombing of Pak soldiers in favor of Afghani troops just cannot be ignored. That too over a territorial dispute, Afghanistan was supported to expand over Pakistan.

There have been more fighting today along our border as well.

As far as Pakistanis are concerned the cat is out of the bag. The writing's on the wall.
 

Back
Top Bottom