Gates offers troops for joint efforts with Pakistan

[mujahideen]

Thank you for your response and I thoroughly concur with your assessment of the offer, however well-intentioned. General David Rodriguez, commander of ISAF's eastern region has suggested that he looks forward to the deployment of two new ANA brigades in his area of operations this spring.

Here is a brief segment from a U.S. Army operation posted on the "Transaction" thread by Salim-

"Planning for the operation had begun in late February after transfer of authority from the Southern European Task Force to 10th Mountain Division. Ground forces designated for involvement in the operation included elements of the 10th Mountain’s 3d Brigade Combat Team, a USMC infantry battalion,
brigades from the ANA’s 201st and 203d Corps, multicomponent special operations forces (SOF), and various support elements. Also present were
joint PRTs to coordinate R&D activities, engineers to provide mobility and support R&D, and embedded training teams to train and mentor the ANSF. All combined to form CJTF 76.

The embedded teams operated directly with Afghan units, providing both tactical advice and access to coalition artillery and air. Their use enabled two ANA corps to fight effectively alongside U.S. forces while a Canadian-led multinational brigade secured terrain in southern Afghanistan. Pakistan, too, contributed forces, deploying 11 infantry battalions to disrupt insurgent cross-border movement and resupply efforts."

I envision U.S., Afghan, and Pakistani forces conducting harmonized operations in these regions. Colonel Coss, above, indicates as much in his reference to 11 infantry battalions from Pakistan. Where I come from that's very nearly the equivalent of one full division of troops.

No violations of border sovereignty need occur. What should occur on a more-than-routine basis are meetings down to the company commander levels (where necessary) to facilitate, harmonize and, ultimately, synergize these disparate resources to the greatest common utility.

Cross-border eyeball-to-eyeball relationships should be a real part of all three nation's battle commanders down on the deck. They need to know each other and work with one another. Not one U.S. helicopter need be seen in Pakistani skies to accomplish this rapport.

I apperciate your assurances that U.S. forces will not stet foot on our territory. But one thing we have to understand is that the threats which I mentioned above and the daily threats by the West in particular in America that our weapons will be seized or U.S. forces will invade Pakistan these really are not needed. You see by doing this you are destablizing President Musharraf's government, because them he is seen as the puppet of America and it creates more anti-American feeling in Pakistan. If we are partners then this partnership should be done on an equal basis, we are no less then the U.S. and the U.S. is no less then us, especially in this fight against terrorists. The fact is the solution lies in Afghanistan. The Afghan government only has control over Kabul and the rest of Afghanistan the law of the jungle rules. Now I know on our side of the border we have some elements, but when we start an operation they go over to Afghanistan and when the operation is over they come back. But then again their is no garuntee that the
U.S. will stick to its commitment in Afghanistan and when they leave we will have to deal with it alone, and this has happened before after the Soviets withdrew we were left alone with this monster. So what needs to happen and like you said is more information need to be shared and what I think is even more important is that we should be viewed as equals of the of the U.S.

 

[blain2]

Yes the arrangement you have mentioned may work. Sort of similar to the oft touted "Hammer and Anvil" approach that we heard of initially. I think this time around, a similar approach will find more active participation from the Pakistani side. But again this approach too would be a tactical one.

In the long run, it would be of immense benefit to Pakistan if the operations that we conducted with the ISAF/US/ANA forces jointly but operating on our own sides of the border are not allowed to be seen in the context of being "anti-Pashtun" . Both Pakistan and Afghanistan would stand to lose greatly from such a situation. Thus whatever is done here, it must be done very carefully. I know many on the outside could care less about what happens in the tribal areas as long as Taliban are routed, however for Pakistan, such tactical approach would be disastrous (after all we have to live with the tribals long after US/ISAF have packed up and gone home).

Also one last point. At least in my opinion, the level of assistance that the US and ISAF provide to ANA goes all the way down to very rudimentary level. Pakistan Army would probably not require external assistance to this extent. The gaps that I see are on the intel, force protection and rapid reaction sort of things which I believe the US can help out with to a very great extent.

On the 11 Infantry Bns, you are right that its about a Div (actually a Div plus a brigade) from a Pakistan Army orbat standpoint.

 

[S-2]

"At least in my opinion, the level of assistance that the US and ISAF provide to ANA goes all the way down to very rudimentary level. Pakistan Army would probably not require external assistance to this extent."

Absolutely didn't intend to convey that your forces need something like that. I'm genuinely sorry if so.

"...Thus whatever is done here, it must be done very carefully. I know many on the outside could care less...however for Pakistan, such tactical approach would be disastrous (after all we have to live with the tribals long after US/ISAF have packed up and gone home)."

We need a quiet place where tactical and operational intelligence of the affected tribes on both sides can be exchanged. The exchangers must also be the end-users/direct beneficiaries. Strategic intel exchanges are not part of this purview. Limited in scope and narrowly focused.

We need you to come to Afghanistan and see our non-kinetic assets, their configurations and effect (good, bad, or indifferent) and gather your input. I'm thinking of our Human Terrain Teams and provincial reconstruction teams. We are acutely aware of the tribal subsets along the eastern Afghani border and are very conscious of the spill-over back n' forth.

Kinetics are unavoidable in COIN. They don't, however, need to dominate nor persist in the battlespace. Further, success, while often long in attainment, usually is marked by a reduction in the need for kinetic ops. As an ancillary benefit, it's a useful metric to monitor progress toward that end.

Finally, Afghani and Pakistani officers need to be MUCH closer to one another. I suspect that America will be in Afghanistan for many years. The need is real enough now regardless of who from what ethnicity is the current President of Afghanistan. Still, somebody once said that Afghanistan and Pakistan are two separate lands who possess distinct national identities yet were joined at the hip. We WILL someday go. Leaving behind a mature Afghan government with close ties to Pakistan would be perfect.

"The gaps that I see are on the intel, force protection and rapid reaction sort of things which I believe the US can help out with to a very great extent."

Intel, intel, and intel- Tactical and operational. TTPs and force configurations for different missions. Problems and benefits of air support and types-mobility, ISR, fires.

Less troops and more awareness and exchanges. Pakistan SHOULD consider inviting Afghan officers/N.C.O.s to participate in ops on your side with those men operating as parts of your staff and, perhaps, vice-versa. Getting company/battalion/brigade level officers and N.C.O.s together would be hugely beneficial.

Some thoughts.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

It is not a good idea at all. The american troops can kill the taliban from the other side of the border---PA does not have any issue with it---the PA kills taliban on its side---even with some second thoughts, PA is ok with that. But to have americans on pakistani soil and kill pakistani taliban must not be acceptable to PA, Kiyani or Musharraf at any cost. It can't happen. As much as I hate the taliban and want to neutralize them, I can't have the foreigner kill them on my soil. It is a recipe for disaster---in case of civilian deaths of women and children or some sarcastic comments by the american troops some of the pakistani troops will turn and execute the american troops and vice versa.

It was a bad bad idea from the begining---and it will stay bad till the day disaster strikes. Pakistan needs to stay out of it. America must stay out of it as well for keeping better relations with pakistan.

America needs its salesmanship and sales ingenuity to work this time. America needs to find a well versed pakistani who understands the pulse of the world, the pulse of the mullahs, the pulse of the people, someone who understands the local issues as well as foreign affairs, someone who is eloquent in speech and with a certain arrogance, someone who is not a politicain but a total outsider, someone who can sit in front of an interviewer like Dr Shahid or Hamid Mir and tear them up, someone who can talk about the judiciary, the judicial system and the implementation of justice, the illegal prctises of the judges and the justice system, the flaws and illegal practises of the current shariat court, the need and the desires of the poor, the weak, the humble, the castigated, an outside man who doesnot want to be the king, a man who can uplift the pakistani nation and pull them up from the bootstraps. America needs to find a pakistani who can sell the pakistanis the idea that religious fanaticism is not right. Somebody who can stand up in front of the religionists, the fundamentalists and prove it on their faces that they are misguided. We need someone who can tell the people---it is ok to cut away the part that has become cancerous. It will be easier and much much cheaper for america to invest and search for such a mythical person than to spend all those billions of dollars on war. This project will cost less than $50 million.

 

[S-2]

"This project will cost less than $50 million."

For that cheap price don't ask America to find a Pakistani saviour. Do so yourselves. Start with you, MastanKhan. How can you not? You've articulated the need beautifully.

MastanKhan, you know what is right and good. I'm glad and wish you well.

 

[MastanKhan]

S-2,

If it was so easy, I would have been on the first flight going home. Every endeavour needs capitol, a well balanced support group, a well balanced team, a well versed effort to create audience, an insiders loop to get onto the tv talk show circuit and print media. All this is going to require a lot of ingenuity and technique and money---I mean to say that you just cannot break the idols like that, the idols that you believe in for the last so many centuries. You just need something, some help to overcome the minimum deterene.

So, I firmly believe that america needs to change its approach and get its thinking cap on. Benazir was not the right answer, even though it was a step in the right direction. She was already tainted. What pakistan needs is someone who can fight for it just like Musharraf does, but does not repeat Musharraf's mistakes. Somebody who believes firmly in the basics of life and being human. Someone who understands that the basic needs of all the people are the same and then find ways to fulfill those desires.

Pakistan needs a different sales and marketing manager regarding its internal affairs. Musharraf has done a great job with what he had and with what he knew and will carry on for a while. But a new face has to emerge in pakistan---.

 

[S-2]

"Pakistan needs a different sales and marketing manager regarding its internal affairs..."

Maybe. I think further, actually. A different corporate philosophy with a different corporate team. Here's the issue- the remedy required demands a dynamic group of like-minded leaders coalescing at the top in a great statesman.

We all do. They're in short supply. B.B. was a cheap and personally tainted pale imitation. She was no great leader and not a particularly good person either, by all accounts. Unfortunately, in the absence of god-like inspiration at the end of a bolt of lightning, we're left to work the problem like engineers-incrementally and institutionally.

The benefit of that, fortunately, is avoiding any "cults of personality" while building institutions that matter. Those beat "star power" everyday.

 

[Spring Onion]

Am I missing something? Isn't your army killing these recalcitrant muslim brothers now? Aren't these same men showing zero compunction about doing the same to your army and innocent civilians throughout your nation?.

S-2 i dont know who had contradicted that. but yes indeed we are doing so and its the right thing we are doing as there is big difference between innocent and the terrorists and there is no Leniency for terrorists in Islam.

Quran says "if there is difference between two groups of Muslims then first go for peacful means (talks) to resolve that but if any of the groups does not come to that than treat it in the same way as it has chosen."

NOw in case of Al-qaeda and other terrorists, they had chosen the path of fight and terrorism instead to conveying their message through peacful means hence there is nothing that disallow their killing no matter if they are Muslims. They are terrorists hence they would be treated so.

Sec'y Gates has made clear the general conditions by which we would bring combat forces into Pakistan. Nothing said by him should be construed as so offensive as to merit the replies rendered here by you. They're ill-formed.

S-2 i think before following the line of other American officials and hopefulls who though made the same announcement but rather in threatening tone while Gate has done so in a friendly tone, Gates should had understand the demography of our tribal areas.
The American forces will be of no use there rather it would ignite more tension and hatred in that case the most who will be killed will be American soldiers.

You SHOULD be masters of your own lands. Currently, that's debatable in key areas of your country. Quit biting helping hands politely offered. We've much to learn from your forces. So too, I suspect, you from ours. We look for lessons anywhere from which they can be found. Do you? Something tells me that you haven't a clue about what our forces actually bring to the table.
Fortunately, your military leaders probably do.

Yes indeed learning is one thing but Sir by operating inside Pakistani tribal areas as i had said before would be more harmful than any experiencing lesson.

BTW im wondering if at all US is offering sending troops how much they have in mind to send.

Any specific number ??

 

[S-2]

Jana,

See blain2's post #26 ADMIRAL: Pakistan O.K.s Bigger U.S. Role. It's a transcript of a press conference with Sec'y Gates and Adm. Mullen. They're pretty open about what they know and don't know (quite a bit on both ends). Planning is contingent and VERY preliminary. Gen. David Rodriguez, commander of ISAF's eastern region and CJTF-82, has said he doubts that the Pakistani army needs U.S. in any troop capacity.

Much hullaballou about nothing. Training and intel exchanges would be good. Exchanges of intel, Afghan officers and N.C.O.s would be good. Integration of intel, Pakistani officers and N.C.O.s into U.S. operations in Afghanistan might be nice. Lots of helpful possibilities exist that have nothing to do with U.S. rifle battalions traipsing the hills when you begin considering areas of mutual interest (intel).

Most of all, exchanges on intel and tribal networks and structures would be huge. You might gather that I think intel exchanges are important and real possible.

 

[Spring Onion]

Jana,

See blain2's post #26 ADMIRAL: Pakistan O.K.s Bigger U.S. Role. It's a transcript of a press conference with Sec'y Gates and Adm. Mullen. They're pretty open about what they know and don't know (quite a bit on both ends). Planning is contingent and VERY preliminary. Gen. David Rodriguez, commander of ISAF's eastern region and CJTF-82, has said he doubts that the Pakistani army needs U.S. in any troop capacity.

i know sir i had read what he said. i think its media hype everytime quoting things out of context.

Much hullaballou about nothing. Training and intel exchanges would be good. Exchanges of intel, Afghan officers and N.C.O.s would be good. Integration of intel, Pakistani officers and N.C.O.s into U.S. operations in Afghanistan might be nice.
Lots of helpful possibilities exist that have nothing to do with U.S. rifle battalions traipsing the hills when you begin considering areas of mutual interest (intel).
Most of all, exchanges on intel and tribal networks and structures would be huge. You might gather that I think intel exchanges are important and real possible.

and i think it is already there the only thing that lacks is the we on Pakistani side are not getting that intel from other side.

the intel on tribal networks and structures isnt huge thing Sir and i believe the US has already.
The only thing that is hindering is the lack of adopting right approach by US/NATO keeping in view tribal networks and structures.

Rest i think you being Ex-millitary man can understand better than civilian girl like me

 

[S-2]

If your avatar was you as a little girl, my compliments. She's wonderful!

"i know sir i had read what he said. i think its media hype everytime quoting things out of context."

Transcripts are tough to beat. Especially backed by the telecast of so many of these press briefings by senior officials these days. Little gets lost yet context still is overwhelmed by various agendas. Depending on the media, as you know, the same conference can render entirely different by-lines.

Gates is a very thoughtful and plain-spoken man who is careful in his mannerisms, generally. That's one of the reasons for the relative shock of NATO members with his recent comments. Even then, the real story is missed in the "righteous outrage" of the various affected nat'l medias.

"...and i think it is already there the only thing that lacks is the we on Pakistani side are not getting that intel from other side."

I don't think it is yet and that it would cut both ways. This ties to my suggesion that, while American combat forces shouldn't be in Pakistan under any imaginable circumstance, exchanges of affected Pakistani and Afghani units should occur with brigade level officers and N.C.O.s accompaning combat elements in actual operations on both sides of the border.

It builds respect and rapport among the young men who we task with living and working (fighting!) next to one another. These men who share the same terrain, hardships, and enemy should be encouraged by their respective senior commands to know and work with each other. Nothing, btw, should stop Pakistani officers and men in accompanied patrols with American forces IN AFGHANISTAN. Same terrain, same enemy, same training experience, different locale. Not entire units, mind you, but part of a larger exchange of individual N.C.O.s and officers.

These relationships will build the foundation of close military liaison and exchanges of tactical and operational intelligence and "lessons-learned" where it matters most-the young men doing the fighting on either side of the Durand Line.

They're the ones who matter.

 

[ARSENAL6]

What I don;t Understand is what do we ned to learn
from the US ? We can do it ourselfs

 

[S-2]

Read the above posts and you'll see that building relationships with Afghan officers and sergeants (and vice-versa) and developing channels to exchange tactical and operational information, tactics, intelligence is a GOOD thing. Exchanges of officers and sergeants between Afghanistan and Pakistan for short familiarization tours (to include actual operations) is a GOOD thing.

The battlefield and terrain are shared. The enemy is shared. Why not share the assets and information which both nations have to offer? These sorts of exchanges could be extended south into Balochistan and Kandahar/Helmand/Uruzgan between P.A. and ANA/British/Canadian/Dutch forces. A different battle environ between the south and Pashtunistan/FATA/N. & S. Waziristan, etc. but, again, shared.

No better time than now to get started, don't you agree, Arsenal6?