What's new

The US just got out of Afghanistan and it's already at risk of getting sucked into Pakistan's war

waz

SENIOR MODERATOR
Sep 15, 2006
19,479
71
52,793
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
While the longest war in US history is finally over, the United States still has business to attend to in Afghanistan.

US troops may no longer be huddling in large bases on the outskirts of Kabul or engaging in counterinsurgency operations, but the Biden administration has been clear that the US will conduct over-the-horizon counterterrorism strikes if the situation calls for it.

US officials are currently seeking arrangements with Afghanistan's neighbors to make those over-the-horizon strikes easier to execute. Washington is reportedly negotiating with Pakistan for long-term access to its airspace in exchange for assisting Islamabad with its own counterterrorism operations.

An agreement like this appears to be a common-sense measure ensuring the US military possesses the operational flexibility to keep the US homeland safe. Yet if US officials aren't careful, deepening the security relationship with Pakistan could be a prelude to another 20 years of war-on-autopilot.

The US should never apologize for striking terrorist operatives who have the capability and intent of attacking the homeland.

al-Baghdadi raid

A drone photo of the compound where ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed in northwestern Syria, October 28, 2019. Ahmet Weys/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
Indeed, the CIA and US special-operations community have become highly proficient in doing precisely that.

Numerous terrorist leaders have been neutralized over the past two decades, including Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Utilizing human sources on the ground, highly sophisticated surveillance technology, and valuable intelligence from allies and partners, the US has made it extraordinarily difficult for terrorist groups to operate unfettered.

The US has such an extensive array of weapons at its disposal that it is virtually impossible for organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS to establish safe-havens. Just last month, a US missile fired by a drone killed a senior Al Qaeda official in northwest Syria, hundreds of miles from where US troops are present.

But despite some successes, targeted killing by the US has transformed into a crutch devoid of a larger strategy. What should be used in extreme cases against high-profile terrorists who are plotting attacks against the US is now a common tactic in an unending war on terrorism.

While President Joe Biden has slowed down the pace of US drone strikes considerably, Washington has vastly expanded the range of groups and potential targets. Today, it is not so much terrorist leaders or key operatives who are the majority of targets but low-level foot soldiers who are as likely to join a terrorist group for monetary reasons as ideological ones.

Afghanistan-Pakistan border crossing Taliban flag

A Taliban flag flies at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. -/AFP/Getty
Look no further than Somalia, where the US is acting not against a transnational terrorist organization, but against Al Shabaab, a ruthless but homegrown domestic insurgency with a local objective of overthrowing the Somali government.

If the US isn't careful, it could experience a similar trajectory in Pakistan.

While the South Asian country no longer makes the State Department's top 10 list in terms of terrorist violence, Pakistan remains victim to an alphabet soup of militant outfits. Casualties among the Pakistani army occur on a weekly basis.

With the exception of Al-Qaeda holdouts in Pakistan's tribal regions — the UN assessed in June that Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri is likely located somewhere in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region — most of those outfits are far more interested in replacing the Pakistani government than attacking the US directly.

US security officials understand the dynamics in Pakistan's tribal regions well. During the Obama and Trump administrations, the US struck anti-Pakistan terrorist elements multiple times. US precision-missile strikes targeted the leadership structure of the Pakistani Taliban, killing the organization's chief in 2009, 2013, and 2018.

At that time, US military pressure made some degree of sense; thousands of US troops were stationed in next-door Afghanistan, and some of these areas served as critical logistical and recruitment zones for the Afghan Taliban.

Pakistan

REUTERS/Mohsin Raza
Yet the situation has changed. US forces are no longer in Afghanistan, having fully withdrawn last August after 20 years of inconclusive war.

The importance of Pakistan as a logistics and transportation hub for supplies into Afghanistan is negligible since the US military is out of the country. Pakistan may still be a valuable counterterrorism partner, but thanks to the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, Islamabad's leverage over Washington has dwindled.

Access to Pakistani airspace would certainly be beneficial to the US from an operational point of view. But US officials need to be careful about the concessions they are willing to offer in return. Islamabad will likely request concrete US intelligence support and perhaps even covert action against anti-Pakistan armed groups.

Accepting Pakistan's request, however, would drag the US into Islamabad's internal conflicts at a time when the Biden administration should be getting more discriminatory in when, where, and against whom it targets. Putting Washington in the middle of a long, ugly intra-Pakistani dispute risks making Pakistan's enemies America's as well.

Biden claims the US is ending an era of "relentless war." If Biden intends to follow through with this promise, he needs to ensure any security and intelligence partnership with Pakistan is limited in scope and keeps the US military from becoming an active combatant in Islamabad's internal conflict.




The dude sounds confused.
 

Oldman1

ELITE MEMBER
May 28, 2011
9,121
-1
4,119
Country
United States
Location
United States
Summarizing that opinion, the author is saying go kill the terrorists in Pakistan by working with the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies but keep it limited in scope like drone attacks but don't send in Special Forces or other personnel or it could get the U.S. involved more.
 

Adecypher

FULL MEMBER
Dec 17, 2014
1,899
1
1,896
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
This is how it works if you study the pattern of all previous engagements....first a perception of "security threat" is created, then funding is provided to various "lifafa journalists" to disseminate opinion pieces enforcing the "already planned" kinetic actions to be carried out in future ... BUT this all can back fired IF the target establish the consensus and neutralize any threat to instigate security crisis. That is the reason all "enablers of piece" in the target region are first wiped out...
 

cloud4000

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 11, 2015
4,797
-8
4,655
Country
India
Location
United States
A stable Afghanistan is in everyone's interests, especially counter-terrorism. This will require the US to move from its hostile position regarding the Taliban. If the US wants Afghanistan free from terrorists then it must engage with the Taliban on all fronts, politically, militarily, and economically.

Punishing Afghanistan (and Pakistan) does not seem to be the right choice, in my opinion.,
 

Ali_Baba

SENIOR MEMBER
May 27, 2018
3,859
-1
5,438
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Silly article paid for by for by some Indian hack to stop the USA going after India's terrorist friends in Pakistan ...
 

TNT

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 2, 2019
6,186
-3
10,689
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
If US keeps engagement at minimum with Pakistan on the ground, it benefits both. If we give space to US again, it will not only anger taliban but also china, iran and Russia. we should not be stupid for sake of money and little toys, we need to look at our long term future. I fear the many brown sahabs in our civil and military establishments who bend backwards for the west.
 

mudas777

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 24, 2016
2,179
-4
3,702
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
While the longest war in US history is finally over, the United States still has business to attend to in Afghanistan.

US troops may no longer be huddling in large bases on the outskirts of Kabul or engaging in counterinsurgency operations, but the Biden administration has been clear that the US will conduct over-the-horizon counterterrorism strikes if the situation calls for it.

US officials are currently seeking arrangements with Afghanistan's neighbors to make those over-the-horizon strikes easier to execute. Washington is reportedly negotiating with Pakistan for long-term access to its airspace in exchange for assisting Islamabad with its own counterterrorism operations.

An agreement like this appears to be a common-sense measure ensuring the US military possesses the operational flexibility to keep the US homeland safe. Yet if US officials aren't careful, deepening the security relationship with Pakistan could be a prelude to another 20 years of war-on-autopilot.

The US should never apologize for striking terrorist operatives who have the capability and intent of attacking the homeland.

al-Baghdadi raid

A drone photo of the compound where ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed in northwestern Syria, October 28, 2019. Ahmet Weys/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
Indeed, the CIA and US special-operations community have become highly proficient in doing precisely that.

Numerous terrorist leaders have been neutralized over the past two decades, including Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Utilizing human sources on the ground, highly sophisticated surveillance technology, and valuable intelligence from allies and partners, the US has made it extraordinarily difficult for terrorist groups to operate unfettered.

The US has such an extensive array of weapons at its disposal that it is virtually impossible for organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS to establish safe-havens. Just last month, a US missile fired by a drone killed a senior Al Qaeda official in northwest Syria, hundreds of miles from where US troops are present.

But despite some successes, targeted killing by the US has transformed into a crutch devoid of a larger strategy. What should be used in extreme cases against high-profile terrorists who are plotting attacks against the US is now a common tactic in an unending war on terrorism.

While President Joe Biden has slowed down the pace of US drone strikes considerably, Washington has vastly expanded the range of groups and potential targets. Today, it is not so much terrorist leaders or key operatives who are the majority of targets but low-level foot soldiers who are as likely to join a terrorist group for monetary reasons as ideological ones.

Afghanistan-Pakistan border crossing Taliban flag

A Taliban flag flies at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. -/AFP/Getty
Look no further than Somalia, where the US is acting not against a transnational terrorist organization, but against Al Shabaab, a ruthless but homegrown domestic insurgency with a local objective of overthrowing the Somali government.

If the US isn't careful, it could experience a similar trajectory in Pakistan.

While the South Asian country no longer makes the State Department's top 10 list in terms of terrorist violence, Pakistan remains victim to an alphabet soup of militant outfits. Casualties among the Pakistani army occur on a weekly basis.

With the exception of Al-Qaeda holdouts in Pakistan's tribal regions — the UN assessed in June that Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri is likely located somewhere in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region — most of those outfits are far more interested in replacing the Pakistani government than attacking the US directly.

US security officials understand the dynamics in Pakistan's tribal regions well. During the Obama and Trump administrations, the US struck anti-Pakistan terrorist elements multiple times. US precision-missile strikes targeted the leadership structure of the Pakistani Taliban, killing the organization's chief in 2009, 2013, and 2018.

At that time, US military pressure made some degree of sense; thousands of US troops were stationed in next-door Afghanistan, and some of these areas served as critical logistical and recruitment zones for the Afghan Taliban.

Pakistan

REUTERS/Mohsin Raza
Yet the situation has changed. US forces are no longer in Afghanistan, having fully withdrawn last August after 20 years of inconclusive war.

The importance of Pakistan as a logistics and transportation hub for supplies into Afghanistan is negligible since the US military is out of the country. Pakistan may still be a valuable counterterrorism partner, but thanks to the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, Islamabad's leverage over Washington has dwindled.

Access to Pakistani airspace would certainly be beneficial to the US from an operational point of view. But US officials need to be careful about the concessions they are willing to offer in return. Islamabad will likely request concrete US intelligence support and perhaps even covert action against anti-Pakistan armed groups.

Accepting Pakistan's request, however, would drag the US into Islamabad's internal conflicts at a time when the Biden administration should be getting more discriminatory in when, where, and against whom it targets. Putting Washington in the middle of a long, ugly intra-Pakistani dispute risks making Pakistan's enemies America's as well.

Biden claims the US is ending an era of "relentless war." If Biden intends to follow through with this promise, he needs to ensure any security and intelligence partnership with Pakistan is limited in scope and keeps the US military from becoming an active combatant in Islamabad's internal conflict.




The dude sounds confused.

Still living in the la la land. Things have moved on and so does the clock and we don't need more era of turmoil and left even further behind in the economical race thanks to the US never ending wars. US should behave even handed to others so no angry men are chasing them on the streets. US should keep their intelligence to themselves and share with India so they can get rid of RSS.
 

Dalit

ELITE MEMBER
Mar 16, 2012
16,244
-18
30,700
Country
Pakistan
Location
Netherlands
While the longest war in US history is finally over, the United States still has business to attend to in Afghanistan.

US troops may no longer be huddling in large bases on the outskirts of Kabul or engaging in counterinsurgency operations, but the Biden administration has been clear that the US will conduct over-the-horizon counterterrorism strikes if the situation calls for it.

US officials are currently seeking arrangements with Afghanistan's neighbors to make those over-the-horizon strikes easier to execute. Washington is reportedly negotiating with Pakistan for long-term access to its airspace in exchange for assisting Islamabad with its own counterterrorism operations.

An agreement like this appears to be a common-sense measure ensuring the US military possesses the operational flexibility to keep the US homeland safe. Yet if US officials aren't careful, deepening the security relationship with Pakistan could be a prelude to another 20 years of war-on-autopilot.

The US should never apologize for striking terrorist operatives who have the capability and intent of attacking the homeland.

al-Baghdadi raid

A drone photo of the compound where ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed in northwestern Syria, October 28, 2019. Ahmet Weys/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
Indeed, the CIA and US special-operations community have become highly proficient in doing precisely that.

Numerous terrorist leaders have been neutralized over the past two decades, including Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Utilizing human sources on the ground, highly sophisticated surveillance technology, and valuable intelligence from allies and partners, the US has made it extraordinarily difficult for terrorist groups to operate unfettered.

The US has such an extensive array of weapons at its disposal that it is virtually impossible for organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS to establish safe-havens. Just last month, a US missile fired by a drone killed a senior Al Qaeda official in northwest Syria, hundreds of miles from where US troops are present.

But despite some successes, targeted killing by the US has transformed into a crutch devoid of a larger strategy. What should be used in extreme cases against high-profile terrorists who are plotting attacks against the US is now a common tactic in an unending war on terrorism.

While President Joe Biden has slowed down the pace of US drone strikes considerably, Washington has vastly expanded the range of groups and potential targets. Today, it is not so much terrorist leaders or key operatives who are the majority of targets but low-level foot soldiers who are as likely to join a terrorist group for monetary reasons as ideological ones.

Afghanistan-Pakistan border crossing Taliban flag

A Taliban flag flies at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. -/AFP/Getty
Look no further than Somalia, where the US is acting not against a transnational terrorist organization, but against Al Shabaab, a ruthless but homegrown domestic insurgency with a local objective of overthrowing the Somali government.

If the US isn't careful, it could experience a similar trajectory in Pakistan.

While the South Asian country no longer makes the State Department's top 10 list in terms of terrorist violence, Pakistan remains victim to an alphabet soup of militant outfits. Casualties among the Pakistani army occur on a weekly basis.

With the exception of Al-Qaeda holdouts in Pakistan's tribal regions — the UN assessed in June that Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri is likely located somewhere in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region — most of those outfits are far more interested in replacing the Pakistani government than attacking the US directly.

US security officials understand the dynamics in Pakistan's tribal regions well. During the Obama and Trump administrations, the US struck anti-Pakistan terrorist elements multiple times. US precision-missile strikes targeted the leadership structure of the Pakistani Taliban, killing the organization's chief in 2009, 2013, and 2018.

At that time, US military pressure made some degree of sense; thousands of US troops were stationed in next-door Afghanistan, and some of these areas served as critical logistical and recruitment zones for the Afghan Taliban.

Pakistan

REUTERS/Mohsin Raza
Yet the situation has changed. US forces are no longer in Afghanistan, having fully withdrawn last August after 20 years of inconclusive war.

The importance of Pakistan as a logistics and transportation hub for supplies into Afghanistan is negligible since the US military is out of the country. Pakistan may still be a valuable counterterrorism partner, but thanks to the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, Islamabad's leverage over Washington has dwindled.

Access to Pakistani airspace would certainly be beneficial to the US from an operational point of view. But US officials need to be careful about the concessions they are willing to offer in return. Islamabad will likely request concrete US intelligence support and perhaps even covert action against anti-Pakistan armed groups.

Accepting Pakistan's request, however, would drag the US into Islamabad's internal conflicts at a time when the Biden administration should be getting more discriminatory in when, where, and against whom it targets. Putting Washington in the middle of a long, ugly intra-Pakistani dispute risks making Pakistan's enemies America's as well.

Biden claims the US is ending an era of "relentless war." If Biden intends to follow through with this promise, he needs to ensure any security and intelligence partnership with Pakistan is limited in scope and keeps the US military from becoming an active combatant in Islamabad's internal conflict.




The dude sounds confused.

Daniel DePetris
@DanDePetris
@DefPriorities
, Newsweek, the Washington Examiner, the Spectator, and the National Interest. Nature lover. Road tripper. Wannabe pundit. Personal account.
NYC & New Rochelle, NY.Lid geworden in april 2014

 
Jul 7, 2014
1,755
0
2,371
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Putting Washington in the middle of a long, ugly intra-Pakistani dispute risks making Pakistan's enemies America's as well.
Using the same logic, why would Pakistan make Afg Talibans New enemies of Pakistan's State on top of TTP while you're suggesting that US should not drag itself into making ttp US enemies too by targeting Anti Pakistan elements within Afg ?? LoL....

1st - USA is requesting Pakistan for airspace & bases not the other way around to dictate your terms.

& 2nd - Pakistan will not allow you bases in the first place lel...

3rd - ask Russians or Central Asian republics to hand you over their airspace & bases for your Over tHe HorizOn AdvEnturE, good lukk
 

ADIL SHERDIL

FULL MEMBER
May 20, 2016
994
1
1,180
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Same old crap. Pakistan going back where we were 20 years ago. Either the author is delusional or a retard. US just admit its defeat. Move on but they wont. They are not satisfied with all the mess the created in this part of world, they want more.
 

ARMalik

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 7, 2017
5,231
3
9,649
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
The reason they have the audacity to write such retarded articles is because these people use to easily buy Pakistan's political and military elites AT WILL !! WHEN YOU HAVE PAKISTAN Elites selling themselves like this than such articles should NOT come as a surprise.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom