1,080 Pak soldiers among thousands killed in terror war

[Interceptor]

1,080 Pak soldiers among thousands killed in terror war

Saturday, July 05, 2008

By Usman Manzoor

ISLAMABAD: The war on terror has cost over 3,000 Pakistani nationals since 9/11 and the ISPR has confirmed that 1,080 Pakistani soldiers have been martyred to get their country free of terror.

Almost 3,500 militants have faced death while the number of injured amounts to more than 5,000 in all terrorist attacks since Pakistan joined the war on terror. According to the data complied by The News from articles, web sites, magazines and newspapers, and after talking to the official spokesman of the Pakistan Army, over 3,050 Pakistanis have been killed in terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001 while the same number of militants have also died in different operations conducted by Pakistan Army.

Pakistan faced some 81 suicide attacks since it became the frontline state in the war on terror. The sectarian incidents that took place in the country in the last seven years would add more to the figures if included.

Inter-Services Public Relations Director-General Maj-Gen Athar Abbas confirmed to The News that 1,080 soldiers had been martyred since September 11, 2001 in the war on terror, including the recent Nato air strikes on a Pakistani post near Afghan boarder last month which resulted in the death of ten soldiers.

While the US government has been funding worth $500 million per year since Pakistan joined the forces on war against terror and now this aid would jump to $1.5 billion from the current year.

Terrorism has not only deprived Pakistan of an international leader like Benazir Bhutto but has also shaken the base of an stable economy with an attack occurring almost every day last year.

Around 660 people have been killed in terrorist attacks in the first half of 2008, mostly in NWFP. These attacks mainly include the ongoing war in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Fifteen suicide attacks have already occurred in the country in the first half of the year.

These attacks mainly include attack on naval college in Lahore, attack on FIA building in Lahore and attack on medical personnel in Rawalpindi and a suicide attack on a funeral in Swat. The Pakistan Army has also started operation in NWFP against militants who have been bombing the girls’ schools and killing the spies in the mobs.

The year 2007 proved to be the goriest for Pakistan when some 1,500 people were killed in different terrorist attacks across the country with hundreds of soldiers abducted and many others killed. Some 2000 militants have also been killed in the tribal area during the year.

Statistics show 46 suicide attacks occurred in the country while other attacks include 250 mainly in the tribal areas. The suicide bombing deprived the country of Bhutto and many others. The famous Lal Masjid siege now also became the leaflet in the history of 2007 where hundreds of seminary students, including girls ten Army men, were killed.

From 2001 to 2003, some 181 people were killed in terrorist attacks. This also features an attack on President Pervez Musharraf in Rawalpindi on December 25, 2003. During this period the Christian community remained the main target of the terrorists in Bahawalpur, Murree, Texila, Islamabad and Daska. Famous journalist Denial Pearl was also killed on February 22, 2002 while twelve French Nationals were killed in Karachi on May 8, 2002.

1,080 Pak soldiers among thousands killed in terror war

 

[Interceptor]

Shocking read, what becomes of this WoT.

 

[mujahideen]

In the end we must ask ourselves is this war worth it? Who will really benefit from this war? Is this our war? Is it worth fighting our own people? Are we actually making a better Pakistan?

 

[muse]

Ofcourse the war against the terrorists is worth it, it's for Pakistan - it must be fought smarter - it actually has to be fought, not this make believe stuff we seen in Bara

So, who is Ahmad Rashid?? What is his politicial and intellectual background, I am sure you have asked yourself repeated: well...


Frontier years give might to ex-guerrilla's words
By Jane Perlez

Saturday, July 5, 2008
LAHORE, Pakistan

FRESH out of Cambridge University in the late 1960s, and steeped in the era's favorites — Marx, Mao and Che — Ahmed Rashid took off for the hills of Baluchistan, a dry, tough patch of western Pakistan. He stayed for 10 years.

He was a guerrilla fighter and political organizer, and with a couple of like-minded Pakistani pals, led peasants seeking autonomy against the Pakistani Army. He emerged, after bouts of hepatitis, malaria and lost teeth, not exactly disillusioned but defeated, he recalled recently from the comfort of his study overlooking a garden of palms.

Yet the experience became the launching pad for his real career as a prolific chronicler of Afghanistan, Central Asia and his homeland of Pakistan, places that Western writers have often found difficult to gain access to, let alone comprehend in their full depth and complexity.

An expert on the Taliban — until 9/11 he knew them better than almost any outsider — Rashid has over the decades turned out to be something of a prophet in the region, though mostly of the Cassandra type, issuing repeated warnings that are ignored by policy makers.

As fluent a talker as he is a writer, Rashid, 59, has just published his fourth book, "Descent into Chaos, The United States and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia," a caustic review of the mistakes by the Bush administration in tackling Islamic militancy.

His central argument is not original: that the money and blood spent on Iraq should have been invested in Afghanistan, rebuilding the country from 2001 to prevent the resurgence of the Taliban. But it is hard to argue with, now that the Taliban are indeed back, and NATO and the United States are enmeshed in a tough fight with them.

The Bush administration, he said, was too gentle with Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, after he pledged to support the antiterrorism campaign after 9/11. "The Americans never said strongly enough that Pakistan had to stop supporting the Taliban — that was because Musharraf was giving them the Al Qaeda types," capturing a few top Qaeda operatives and handing them over to the United States. Bush should have insisted that Musharraf quash the Taliban too, he said.

One of his insistent themes is the seamlessness of the Pakistani Taliban and the Afghan Taliban. They reinforce each other, he said, and so cannot be treated in isolation.

The Pakistani Army and Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency protected the Afghan Taliban in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan, as "a strategic asset" for use in the future as a buffer against India, he said. But that makes it virtually impossible for them to deal with the Pakistan Taliban and its most prominent leader, Baitullah Mehsud.

"Until Pakistan is willing to give up the leadership of the Afghan Taliban based in Quetta, Pakistan is not going to be able to deal with Mehsud and Al Qaeda," he said. Mehsud stands accused by the Pakistani government and Washington in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

Rashid has a long history with the Taliban and Afghanistan. Baluchistan, where he fought in the '60s and '70s, shares a border with Afghanistan, and in 1978 Rashid was in Kabul for the coup that put the Communists in power. He was in Kandahar a year later when the Soviets rolled in.

"I saw the invasion, when all the Soviet tanks came from the town of Herat into the bazaar in Kandahar," he said. "The soldiers got off their tanks and asked for tea. There was no tension." The tanks continued on to Kabul.

With his perfect English and British education (a photo on the wall of his study shows him as a teenager on the rugby team of Malvern College), Rashid became what he calls the "intellectual repository" for Western journalists who parachuted into the Afghan capital for the Soviet Union's last big invasion.

IT is a role he has played on a larger canvas ever since: as journalist, author and, sometimes, behind-the-scenes adviser to diplomats who have grappled with Afghanistan's troubles, not least the Taliban.

His book, "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia," an account of the rise of the mullahs in Afghanistan, was published months before 9/11 by Yale University Press. It immediately became an essential item in the backpacks of reporters covering the war in Afghanistan in late 2001. It has sold 1.5 million copies in English, an astonishing number for an academic press.

He said he was the first foreign journalist to visit the Taliban in 1994 as they emerged out of the civil strife that consumed Afghanistan after the Soviets left. He was struck immediately by how different they were from the warlords and guerrillas he had been dealing with.

"I persuaded an ABC television journalist to come with me to Kandahar, and I was shocked they wouldn't allow us to take pictures," he said of the Taliban. "I'd been living with the mujahedeen, who loved publicity. When these guys in Kandahar wouldn't be photographed, I suddenly realized this was a completely new thing."

Intrigued, he joined their battle groups, soaking in all he could, and he was in Kabul with the Taliban when they overran it in 1996. In his reporting, which appeared in The Far Eastern Economic Review and The Independent, a British newspaper, he warned against Pakistan's decision in the mid-1990s to support the Taliban. "I wrote that it meant a continuation of the Afghan civil war."

With the publication of his book, he wore out his welcome with the Taliban. These days, rather than trekking through the Hindu Kush mountains, he is more likely to be found around the dining table of his Lahore home, which is known for its fine cuisine.

NOW something of an elder statesman, Rashid is sought after for advice by diplomats in Islamabad and Kabul, and by policy makers in NATO capitals and Washington. "As recently as last summer, I said to the U.S. ambassador, you have to arrest Mullah Omar and the shura," he said, referring to the leader of the Taliban, who has taken refuge near Quetta.

When Benazir Bhutto was prime minister, she asked whether he would be interested in becoming Pakistan's ambassador to Afghanistan but he demurred, preferring the rough and tumble of frontier reporting.

His writings have never sat well with the Inter-Services Intelligence, a subject he said he does not want to go into beyond saying he is "unpopular." Like many Pakistanis, he has watched the unraveling of Musharraf, but declined to predict his moment of exit.

He is on good terms with Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of Bhutto and leader of her party, the Pakistan Peoples Party, who is now regarded as the most powerful man in the country. But after a two-hour lunch with Zardari recently, Rashid said that he worries the new government "has no clue" about the "multilayered terrorist cake" that flourishes in the tribal areas.

As Rashid travels the world, he said he remains a patriot of Pakistan. Of the new government's attitude to the Islamic militants, he said: "They are not briefed, and I am deeply concerned."

 

[gnabi]

Ofcourse the war against the terrorists is worth it, it's for Pakistan - it must be fought smarter - it actually has to be fought, not this make believe stuff we seen in Bara[/B]

My dear brother
do u actually believe all that is said and quoted in the media. They are a bunch of liars working for vested interests minting millions and creating a state of anarchy when it actually does not exist. Who are Taliban and Al Qaeda; Pro islamists, radicals, fundamentalists or agents to some powers desirous of ruling the world. Are they even muslims? Lets not dance to the tune of US and lets decide for ourselves. In the garb of WoT what US is really trying to do. See between the lines and you will know

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Oh ho!

I never knew Rashid was a militant!

Thanks for posting that piece muse.

On the question of the WoT - I absolutely agree with muse.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My dear brother
do u actually believe all that is said and quoted in the media. They are a bunch of liars working for vested interests minting millions and creating a state of anarchy when it actually does not exist. Who are Taliban and Al Qaeda; Pro islamists, radicals, fundamentalists or agents to some powers desirous of ruling the world. Are they even muslims? Lets not dance to the tune of US and lets decide for ourselves. In the garb of WoT what US is really trying to do. See between the lines and you will know

I know that Pakistanis are conducting suicide bombings, kidnapping people, executing them, burning down schools and other government property.

Regardless of who is sponsoring them, they must be tackled, and they must be disarmed or destroyed - hence the WoT must be fought.

 

[fatman17]

half measures cannot be accepted - we cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hound. this WoT effects us directly and requires direct action. it is getting late!

 

[Interceptor]

^

The article emphasis is that Pakistan is the front line pale of US, there is insurgency in Pakistan there are militant that commit heinous acts against the state, and what is requires is that we fight our war, and not foreign wars with foreign military aid pouring in, as can be seen by the new GoP that started dialogue, and peace process which the US didn't accept at all, the GoP needs to fight its war against terror, and not for foreign powers other wise we lose Pakistani interest.

 

[muse]

Gnabi, Interceptor

I do follow and respect what you are expressing - I am not suggesting that we fight someone else's war - but some clarification is in order - anybody who kills Pakistani soldiers or any Pakistani uniformed personnel is not "our people" -- there is no compromise on that, right or wrong, they wear the uniform, that is authority, exclusive authority of the state of Pakistan.

Gentle friends, war is the meanest, vilest of business - one does not just kill, one kills the enemys will to fight - and that latter part is, well you know or realize what that means, and in this Pakistani political establishment has not been up to snuff - actually, it is so awful a enterprise that even super powers must rethink that enterprise. But if Pakistan is to survive and thrive, it must be done.

Please do not get me wrong, I think one can have any political or religious or moral or spiitual inclination that they find persuasive, but the line is draw when it comes to criminal, and in this case, insurrectionist behavior.

The people who are "our people" are your neighbors, uncles, sons, cousins and friends who sacrifice in the uniform of Pakistan.

Whoever these terrorists are, local or foreign inspired, drug dealers or whatever, the path they have chosen is one that has led us to a existential choice - whatever the arguments, Pakistan will not go into oblivion.

 

[araz]

Gnabi, Interceptor

I do follow and respect what you are expressing - I am not suggesting that we fight someone else's war - but some clarification is in order - anybody who kills Pakistani soldiers or any Pakistani uniformed personnel is not "our people" -- there is no compromise on that, right or wrong, they wear the uniform, that is authority, exclusive authority of the state of Pakistan.

Gentle friends, war is the meanest, vilest of business - one does not just kill, one kills the enemys will to fight - and that latter part is, well you know or realize what that means, and in this Pakistani political establishment has not been up to snuff - actually, it is so awful a enterprise that even super powers must rethink that enterprise. But if Pakistan is to survive and thrive, it must be done.

Please do not get me wrong, I think one can have any political or religious or moral or spiitual inclination that they find persuasive, but the line is draw when it comes to criminal, and in this case, insurrectionist behavior.

The people who are "our people" are your neighbors, uncles, sons, cousins and friends who sacrifice in the uniform of Pakistan.

Whoever these terrorists are, local or foreign inspired, drug dealers or whatever, the path they have chosen is one that has led us to a existential choice - whatever the arguments, Pakistan will not go into oblivion.

This is a really good topic and needs to be discussed with calmness and a level head.
There is a feeling amongst many people, myself included that there are two elements to the WOT.The US perspective has changed over the years from one of bash them to one of puzzlement. the problems are obvious and the solutions are now probably difficult to deal with. American interst initially was focused on Iraq for obvious reason. Afghanistan was taken over and bombed to their hearts content and then as a folly of mammoth proprtions was left to fend for themselves. In my opinion, only one front needed to be opened for the Amercans. They should have negotiated with the taliban initially instead of the holier than thou approach and perhaps that might have achieved their aims, without including Afghanistan on their calander as one of the places to Bomb the *&%$ out of.
Once the taliban receded into notihingness , the void should have been filled up by local representatives and money poured in to stabilize the system. It would have perhaps been a lot cheaper to do that than to leave the situation to fester while placing a no good goof in the palace in Kabul.
if infrastructure had been developed and work done in alleviating the problems of the people, there would not have been any animosity amongst the people that US now faces, and response to its overtures might have been more positive.
the second follly on the part of the US was not recognizing and respecting the regional powers in Afhghanistan. Excluding the Pushtoons from initial negotiations and imposing the notrthern alliance on them has allianated a majority of people in Afghanistan.Inspite of the taliban being ethnic Pushtoons, elements supportive of the US could have been found and supported.
The problem of Pakistan is quite diverse. There appear to be 2 forces in the think tank of the Pakistani establishment. One wants to preserve its brain child. These are the elements that support the taliban and from time to time just give the americans enough to keep them happy and plying the powers that be with money and favours. The other force realizes that the threat needs to be dealt with before it becomes a nuisance, but also relaizes the costs involved and the limited benefit form doing all of the masters bidding all too soon. America has a long term habit of turning its back once the job is done. On the other hand the problem in having a diverse thinking is uncertainty and the advantage it provides to the enemy. You can see this in all the so called peace overtures which the locals have used very cunningly to achieve their aims and remain powerful.
This has resulted in the useless approach which Pakistan has adopted so far.
In my view we are in a very difficult situation. The easiest approach is to ply the area with money and opportunities for people to work and get educated and hope that in time they will come into the folds of accepted behaviourie recognizing the writ of law and abiding by it. The second option maybe to fence the border , push all afghans on the other side and close our doors. This would cause immense problems for Nato which it does not want, ie feeding and clothing millions of people.
The third view is to start a long campaign which would be akin to a genocide. Thiswould be immensely unpopular, and cause immense problems for the Government and the people. It may not solve the problem either as one man killed will generate ten joining the jehad and resulting in chaos and probable fracture of the very fragment of pakistan.
The fourth option is to not do anything and allow The US to make its strategy clear and then if needed act to avoid incursion by the US forces. This is what we are appearing to do.
To cut a long story short, this chaos is not of our majking , but thrust upon us. It needs a clear and concerted effort ,and sustained action along with investement in the social sector of people who agree to live within the writ of the law. In either case sealing and mining of the border would probably clearly define the problem as ours and the US?NATOs.
My 2 Ps worth
Araz

 

[muse]

Araz


I very much agree that the US have basically screwed up big time in Afghanistan - they do not even now understand the ethnic and linguistic dynamic and you re exactly right that they have zero respect with regard to the interests of regional players. This ignorance and arrogance has led to failure. The US has bought the NA line with regard to Afghanistan and trust me, they have facilitated this NA view with presenting propaganda 24 x 7 on their media outlets in Afghanistan and in the US and therefore the world. You take the money out out of the equation and the same NA will butcher NATO/coalition troops with pleasure.

Now with regard to Pakistan - some elements helping Taliban? 100% percent!! -- but the question is deeper, because as is usual with things Pakistani, the effort has been easy to hijack - afterall, promoting Pakistani interests cannot mean creating insurrection in Pakistan, can it -- and yet it apparently does -- actually this is a rather general statement, because as an Afghan told me " Pakistan believes that Islam is good for Afghanistan, now we have brought you a taste of Islam so that you see how good it is for Pakistan" -- so, it is not just a matter that what is going o in Pakistan is just because there is no foreign design.

Had the US and this opportunity exists even now, helped created a islamist party that is essentially Pashtun/Pakhtun, without any of the warlords, and that is not hostile to development, but is critical of the US when the criticism is deserved, we could still pull the pashtun/Pakhtun population away fro the taliban -- Please trust me when I say the local ethnic and linguist dynamic and how it feeds into this insurrgency needs greater attention. There is a competition between these two groups that the US is not fully understanding. It is not just that after 300 years, for the first time, Pashtuns/Pakhtuns are not in the drivers seat in Kabul, it's even worse, there are more than a million Pashtun/Pakhtun displaced in Herat, in Kabul, the University students are overwhelmingly non-Pashtuns, in the city, in the nicer parts, such as they are, it's again the same story; Pashtuns live in the slum suburns -- now, I,m not suggesting that this is by some grand design - but lets recall that Pashtun/Pakhtun are the majority population of Afghanistan, in fact, I do not know whether you know or not, but on official documents, pashtun/Pakhtuns are labeled "Afghan" whereas other ethnic groups are identified by ethnicity.

A Afghanistan that is not hostile to Pakistan is, six years of evidence clearly suggests, is not something that the US is interested in, in fact the opposite. US have been vigourous in their efforts to poison relations and have promoted in Afghan media that Pakistan are a enemy. Some Americans will dispute this but there is no dearth of evidence to argue persuasively that such arguments by some Americans will not have legs.

However; foreign design or not, can we have in Pakistan, have parallel governments that are at odds with the Pakistani state? Can we have these entities denying women their rights, destroying schools, and engaging in brigandry? Can we have lunes establishing vice and virtue vigilantism?

See, the more one hesitates and engages in hand wringing, the more the antagonists are emboldened - if one does not hit them hard where it hurts and it always hurts when those closest to you are made to suffer, sanity and sobriety will not rule over these who no longer respect the authority of the Hilal on the Green and White -- compare, in Sri Nagar and other such places, Pakistani flags are raised from roofs of people who know they will suffer at the hands of occupations forces and yet, in the areas afflicted by this insane version of Islam, they shred the Pakistan flag and butcher Pakistani soldiers as if they were animals -- I agree we ought discuss calmly, but I shall not agree what we become comatose in the face of such outrages.

Not doing anything is simply not an option. The American is wedded to his puppet, with or without the participation of any Pakistanis, this effort will fail, the puppet is a net zero - and if you thought he is bad for Pakistan, wait till read and hear the other choices. The US gets bored and seems to have a attention deficit disorder when things go it's way? Yes and no - soon this US president will be replaced, but the ideas behind the "long war" will not - What we see as blood lust, they see as responsible behavior and we are not in a position to induce sobriety into them, but we can be in a better position to deal with them, but dealing with our own problems.

Pakistan have to fight not the GWOT or WOT, this is not for us, however; we do have lunes who have imagined that they and not the Pakistani state will decide the course of events, they must be made to understand this cannot be and unfortunately, it is their choice to pick up weapons against the authority of the Hilal and the green and white, such a challenege cannot, must not, go unanswered.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"sanity and sobriety will not rule over these who no longer respect the authority of the Hilal on the Green and White -- compare, in Sri Nagar and other such places, Pakistani flags are raised from roofs of people who know they will suffer at the hands of occupations forces and yet, in the areas afflicted by this insane version of Islam, they shred the Pakistan flag and butcher Pakistani soldiers as if they were animals -- I agree we ought discuss calmly, but I shall not agree what we become comatose in the face of such outrages."

Perhaps the most powerful lines I have read in a long time.

I cannot agree with your post more, and you have expressed something I have long thought far better than I ever could.

 

[Vinod2070]

"anity and sobriety will not rule over these who no longer respect the authority of the Hilal on the Green and White -- compare, in Sri Nagar and other such places, Pakistani flags are raised from roofs of people who know they will suffer at the hands of occupations forces and yet, in the areas afflicted by this insane version of Islam, they shred the Pakistan flag and butcher Pakistani soldiers as if they were animals -- I agree we ought discuss calmly, but I shall not agree what we become comatose in the face of such outrages.

Indeed a good post bu muse.

However on the flip side one could say that the few Kashmiris who are doing it do it mainly for two reasons:

Reason 1: They have not experienced Pakistan as the Pakistanis themselves have. For them it is an ideal Islamic land, kind of Utopia. The reality could turn out to be quite different as it did for so many within Pakistan. I don't want to go into the gory details here. To me it seems quite obvious that any kind of distinct Kashmiri culture can not survive in the highly unlikely event of it's going to Pakistan. It would be an Islamic takeover all the way with no respect for local sensibilities as it has been for the rest of Pakistan.

They need look no further than the condition of NWFP, Balochistan and FATA (and former East Pakistan) to know what awaits them in their utopia.

Reason 2: The Indian "occupation" forces as you call them actually deal with domestic troubles with much more restraint than either Pakistani or your favorite Chinese forces. No use of air power, no bombings of schools and Madressas for them! And I am glad for that. It may take more time but the results will be better.

In fact I will argue this encourages idiots and traitors like Gilani (who is only alive because of Indian doctors and Indian security) and some other Pakistani flag wavers to indulge in anti-national activities. Were they in Pakistan or China, they would have been air-bombed in their caves like that Bugti!

But then having a democracy was never easy! You sometimes tolerate what you don't like. You can't be as brutish as the dictators with no accountability to anyone.

 

[IceCold]

Indeed a good post bu muse.

However on the flip side one could say that the few Kashmiris who are doing it do it mainly for two reasons:

Reason 1: They have not experienced Pakistan as the Pakistanis themselves have. For them it is an ideal Islamic land, kind of Utopia. The reality could turn out to be quite different as it did for so many within Pakistan. I don't want to go into the gory details here. To me it seems quite obvious that any kind of distinct Kashmiri culture can not survive in the highly unlikely event of it's going to Pakistan. It would be an Islamic takeover all the way with no respect for local sensibilities as it has been for the rest of Pakistan.

They need look no further than the condition of NWFP, Balochistan and FATA (and former East Pakistan) to know what awaits them in their utopia.

Reason 2: The Indian "occupation" forces as you call them actually deal with domestic troubles with much more restraint than either Pakistani or your favorite Chinese forces. No use of air power, no bombings of schools and Madressas for them! And I am glad for that. It may take more time but the results will be better.

In fact I will argue this encourages idiots and traitors like Gilani (who is only alive because of Indian doctors and Indian security) and some other Pakistani flag wavers to indulge in anti-national activities. Were they in Pakistan or China, they would have been air-bombed in their caves like that Bugti!

But then having a democracy was never easy! You sometimes tolerate what you don't like. You can't be as brutish as the dictators with no accountability to anyone.

Well Vinod very typical of you. No surprise at all. I would'nt comment on the whole of your post since i don't want to turn this thread into a kashmir mud slinging thread. However just one thing i would rather comment on is that If Gilani is a traitor, then every kashmiri is because every single one of them sees you guys as an occupier of their territory if not they would have told Pakistan to boot out we are very happy with India. I am amazed to hear how someone who got the area trough occupation calls the resident of that area a traitor just because he raises his voice for a plebiscite and considers Indians as the occupier of his land. Ironic is it.