What's new

Does the PA need more troops to fight terror?

How about changing the stratgey and wepons!
We should increase ISI and get to the root cause and strike.
I don't think most of us are really sure what's going on out their.
Only those who gert security briefings are in better position to understand but again army is taking their orders from political govt.
I think it would be wrong if we plan a stratgey for an individual front.
We have been facing occasional terrorism in Baluchistan from years. Today, bomb blasts are in every nook and corner.
All those who had been held responsible for anti Pakistan activities in past are ruling present day Pakistan.
I think no war strategy will work as long enemy knows our movements and planning.
Adding number of soldiers may help but mere manning the boarders is no solution.
Infect, this will make our soldiers sitting ducks irrespective of numbers.
It is simply not possible to win this gorilla war with any number of troops.
We are going in wrong direction.
IMO, we should prepare some master security plan for the cities and than after securing the major cities we should hit the master minds and terror setup will break automatically.

BATMAN; HOUNRABLE sir
i guss your view is very close to my point!
i can give you very good example, in recent wars same as 1, which we are fighting now in fata, US sucsessfully tested the same idea, by increasing the numbers of troops , now iraq is far more secure thn what it was back in 2006 & mid 2007!Progress in Iraq reshapes debate over warwww.USATODAY.com :agree::tup:
we should ,start learning from the big brother.;):agree::tup:

there was , & there will be only a man behind a machine, which can make its performence better & better?
i guss, yes need survllince equipments , on the land & in the air , but we cant defend our selves, without good numbers of troops on the ground!:azn:
thanks
 
JK!;sir
no,its not only "power of arrest " which can make FC, a "capable force to tackle lawlessness" sorry thier initial role isnt that?

problums facsd GSG9 ,cant be compared by the probleum s which , we are facing inthe fata!


PAK ARMY needs a real "HELPING HAND" which can do job , for them, a real force , a real modrnized armed force ,with advanced traning ...for every situation.;):agree::tup:

That was just an example my preferred role for the FC would be act in a SWAT role within cities like the UKs SO19 police teams which are then backed up by Special Forces.

But like their colonial role as most duties are carried out in the mountain sides there has to be an infantry element to it.

They may be a colonial relic to you but its still the best force to adapt to the CI role in the short and long term.
 
Technical skills, strategic improvements, more accurate and upgraded equipments and good observing skills are far more better that increasing personal force.
 
Human intelligence is one thing BUT does not specify that CI is primarily an intelligence issue. MUMINT is only one form and it requires troops to get that intel, it does not fall off the back of a truck.

CI is the combination of boots on the ground and the intel to suggest what and where.
As for training CRAP! You need troops on the ground that are trained to gather teat intel, operate with it and know how to pass it up line.
So you DO need troops trained in CI.
Even the US has discovered that CI needs different training to deal with that specific type of ops.

Oh this may have some truth, but any conflict can change to something else quickly. SO it does not pay to have all the army trained just for conventional war. Some need to be trained in other aspects of conflict.
Should not the PA, or parts thereof, be trained in asymmetric/unconventional warfare as well?
Here I do not just mean the SF groupings.

Fair points, though I'm of the opinion that you can not defeat a dedicate insurgency through purely military means. More troops or better troops can give you a better bargaining positioning for the eventual political solution though.

And I was under the impression the thought process here was to increase the size of the army, whereas I think another 200,000 troops (even if financially feasible for Pakistan) would not change much.
 
Fair points, though I'm of the opinion that you can not defeat a dedicate insurgency through purely military means. More troops or better troops can give you a better bargaining positioning for the eventual political solution though.

And I was under the impression the thought process here was to increase the size of the army, whereas I think another 200,000 troops (even if financially feasible for Pakistan) would not change much.

saiko;sir
how about if pakarmy had to face , enemy on multiple fronts?:cheesy:
plz , keep in mind 18, indian consultes accross afghanistan!

More troops or better troops can give you a better bargaining positioning for the eventual political solution though not only this but , numbers of well equip & well trainned troops , gives sense of security to its civilians , who can play a vital role in the mess.

Progress in Iraq reshapes debate over war [/I]
Updated 2/18/2008 11:23 AM
By Ken Dilanian,
www.USAtoday.com

WASHINGTON — When President Bush proposed increasing U.S. troop levels to quell rising violence in Iraq more than a year ago, several Republicans in Congress were skeptical. Democrats almost uniformly predicted failure.
"I don't think it will change a thing," Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., then the incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in December 2006.

"It would create more targets," added Republican Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota.

"This surge is a bad idea," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said a few weeks later.

The criticism grew louder last April, when Reid declared the war "lost," and louder still over the summer, as U.S. casualties mounted.

In September, the situation in Iraq began to improve. In October, the number of U.S. troops there peaked at 171,000 — 35,000 more than the previous January. By December 2007, U.S. deaths were at their lowest levels since the 2003 invasion, civilian casualties were down, and street life was resuming in Baghdad.

The impact on American politics has been nearly as striking. As the U.S. effort has shown more success, the slowing economy has eclipsed the war as voters' No. 1 concern, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll conducted Jan. 4-6.

The progress has boosted the presidential campaign of Republican John McCain, an early advocate of the troop increase. And while Democratic hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton continue to call for pulling combat troops out of Iraq, the success of the new military strategy has helped stymie efforts by Democrats in Congress to change Bush's policy.
Even as the Iraq war promises to be a defining issue of the fall presidential campaign, the debate on Capitol Hill has lost steam. Most congressional Democrats have been walking a rhetorical tightrope, praising the reduction in violence while contending it hasn't improved Iraq's long-term outlook.
Unlike a year ago, they have shown little interest in trying to force Bush to rapidly withdraw troops — or at least make him veto their timeline for doing so. After Bush requested $70 billion in war funding earlier this month, Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, who heads the defense appropriations subcommittee, was virtually alone among Democratic leaders in vowing to push for troop withdrawal language in spending bills. During a recent planning meeting, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland urged fellow Democrats not to link withdrawal with spending bills.
Democrats actually have lost ground since the summer, as wavering moderate Republicans have embraced the troop strategy. Rep. Wayne Gilchrist of Maryland, a Republican who voted to withdraw%u
 
Last edited:
Pentagon: More troops needed to quell Afghan violence
Updated 7/17/2008 4:28
WASHINGTON (AP) — Pentagon leader on Wednesday signaled a surge in U.S. forces in Afghanistan "sooner rather than later," a shift that could send some units there within weeks, as officials prepare to cut troop levels in Iraq.
Senior military officials are looking across the services to identify smaller units and other equipment that could be sent to Afghanistan, according to a defense official.

Although there are no brigade-sized units that can be deployed quickly into Afghanistan, military leaders believe they can find a number of smaller units such as aviation, engineering and surveillance troops that can be moved more swiftly, said the official, who requested anonymity because the discussions are private.

The moves are expected to happen within weeks rather than months, the official said.


PENTAGON: Troop levels in Iraq may be cut this fall

The decisions are being made against the backdrop of shifting priorities for the U.S. military, and were discussed during a meeting Wednesday of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Military leaders are weighing requests from commanders in Afghanistan for more troops, aircraft and other assistance. And they are trying to determine the right balance between the needs of the force in Iraq, versus troops in Afghanistan who are facing a Taliban resurgence.

To date, the fight in Afghanistan has taken a back seat to Iraq, which has been the strategic priority. While Iraq will remain the top goal, it now appears the military believes there should be a more urgent emphasis on Afghanistan than there has been.

Faced with an increasingly sophisticated insurgency, particularly along Afghanistan's border with Pakistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that sending more troops would have a significant impact on the violence.

"I think that we are clearly working very hard to see if there are opportunities to send additional forces sooner rather than later," Gates told Pentagon reporters. But, he added that no final decisions or recommendations have been made.

His comments suggested an acceleration in what had been plans to shift forces there early next year. And they came as the political discourse on Afghanistan as a key military priority escalated on both Capitol Hill and the presidential campaign trail.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who recently returned from meetings with commanders in Afghanistan, said they clearly want more troops now.

"It's a tougher fight, it's a more complex fight, and they need more troops to have the long-term impact that we all want to have there," said Mullen, who also met last week with Pakistani leaders.

The Pentagon has been wrestling with how to provide what they say is a much needed military buildup in Afghanistan, while they still have 150,000 troops in Iraq. Gates and Mullen have repeatedly said they would have to reduce troop levels in Iraq before they could dedicate more forces to Afghanistan.

Mullen, who was in Iraq last week, told reporters that he is likely to recommend further troop reductions there this fall. He said he found that conditions in Iraq had improved more than he expected.

"I won't go so far as to say that progress in Iraq from a military perspective has reached a tipping point or is irreversible — it has not, and it is not," Mullen told a Pentagon press conference.

"But security is unquestionably and remarkably better. Indeed, if these trends continue I expect to be able early this fall to recommend to the secretary and the president further troop reductions," he said.

The military buildup in Iraq that began more than 18 months ago has ended, now that the last of the five additional combat brigades sent in by President Bush last year has left the country.

Its departure marks the end of what the Pentagon called the "surge." And it starts the 45-day evaluation period that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Congress he would need to assess the security situation and determine how many more troops he could send home.

Neither Gates nor Mullen would detail how they intend to juggle the military requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they spoke more aggressively about meeting Afghan needs more quickly.

Gates said commanders are looking at moving forces around to take advantage of a small boost in French troops expected in Afghanistan. But he ruled out rolling back some of the promises the Pentagon made to soldiers limiting their deployments to 12 months.

"I think we're looking at a variety of options on how to respond here," Gates said. "I will tell you that I have sought assurances that there will be no return to longer-than-12-month deployments, so that's not something we're considering."

Also, he said he is not aware of any pla
 
Last edited:
Fair points, though I'm of the opinion that you can not defeat a dedicate insurgency through purely military means. More troops or better troops can give you a better bargaining positioning for the eventual political solution though.

And I was under the impression the thought process here was to increase the size of the army, whereas I think another 200,000 troops (even if financially feasible for Pakistan) would not change much.

Firstly my comments were specifically based on your comments which I had included in bold in my post. There were not as you have indicated stand alone in that sense.

Your original pots implied that CI was specifically am intelligence matter. This is what I totally disagree with as it is beyond the base intelligences scope. It is a combination of boots on the ground and also how that boots on ground passes the intel up the chain or makes direct action on that intel.

I did not raise the issue of an extra 200,000 pers, just correcting your point on CI.

Now as for:
though I'm of the opinion that you can not defeat a dedicate insurgency through purely military means.
CI is a component of the complete COIN picture. CI is the initial and ongoing security aspect of COIN. Hence CI is the stability & security aspect. The other aspect of COIN that has not been presented is that of reconstruction /construction of the needs of the people. This covers social and infrastructure aspects. Social and infrastructure aspects cover many aspects of lifestyle, from judiciary, education, health, power and water services and government administration to name a few. This component is in most situations a civil matte but may have a degree of military input, use of medical and engineers as an example.

You need boots of various types for a full COIN ops.

More troops or better troops can give you a better bargaining positioning for the eventual political solution though.
COIN is not about bargaining politics. It is about eliminating insurgencies within a nation by that nation or with assistance from outside help. That help can be of many forms, be it military, civil or other aid programs. The political solution comes from the two aspects of the COIN picture, military and civil reconstruction /construction.
More or better troops that are only training in conventional warfare are not going to make a huge difference. You need more troops applied to the situation that are CI trained. Now if that means an additional raising of 200,000 troop so be it BUT it is the specific training that counts not just the numbers.

When people discuss the surge that the US undertook in Iraq that was to boost the CI aspect and hence provide an improved environment to extend that other side of the COIN picture.


My other point you fail to understand is that even with the attitude the enemy is across the eastern border a pure conventional military is not always the wisest or best approach to training of all arms. Most western militaries are now or have always had a component of CI and to some extent COIN training. This training is not restricted to the various SF units but to the Army as a whole.
SF units have a specific role and it is not limited to CI work. It is militarily foolish to consider CI is the sole domain of SF units.
The Army has a specific role and it is not limited to conventional warfare but should include unconventional warfare and CI actions.


With the current Pakistan matters there are problems, to list a few:
1. The troop training for CI is limited to nonexistent.
2. The overall picture even in “stable” areas does not project anything that resembles an attempt of reconstruction of social and infrastructure matters.
3. Weak to zero political will at all levels of governance.
4. Most of the problems stem from poor civil infrastructure and that problem been ignored.

There is a lot to fix and it is not just about extra pers but attitude, intent and will to execute that intent.
Weak attitude and intent NO solution.
 
My other point you fail to understand is that even with the attitude the enemy is across the eastern border a pure conventional military is not always the wisest or best approach to training of all arms. Most western militaries are now or have always had a component of CI and to some extent COIN training. This training is not restricted to the various SF units but to the Army as a whole.
SF units have a specific role and it is not limited to CI work. It is militarily foolish to consider CI is the sole domain of SF units.
The Army has a specific role and it is not limited to conventional warfare but should include unconventional warfare and CI actions.


With the current Pakistan matters there are problems, to list a few:
1. The troop training for CI is limited to nonexistent.
2. The overall picture even in “stable” areas does not project anything that resembles an attempt of reconstruction of social and infrastructure matters.
3. Weak to zero political will at all levels of governance.
4. Most of the problems stem from poor civil infrastructure and that problem been ignored.

There is a lot to fix and it is not just about extra pers but attitude, intent and will to execute that intent.
Weak attitude and intent NO solution.
To the above point i will like to reply .. ist the westren militries specilay US AND Uk (MARINES PARA COMMANDOS RANGERS etc) have so much COIN trained troops because they are usualy or mostly have been operating in such areas i donot think any westren country has fought a conventional warfare after 2nd world war but on the other had pakistan had fought 2 wars with india and it never has any intention of fighting any war out side its soil unlike westren armies the main objective of pakistan army was to protect and defend Pakistan they do not go interfere in other countries for what ever the right or wrong reason unlike West specialy USA and it major allies which think of them self as the world police and so they train for that.
2nd the things are changing now pakistan does have a limited COIN capibility now and a massive programmes for training more troops in such way is being launched which help in the recent bajur offencive where the number of troops invloved was mere 2 to 3 thousand.then you also keep forgetting that the amount of air power used by US and it allies for COIN operations is massive as compare to what pakistan can or had been using ,now i think we all know here that in Afghanistan as the allied troops come under attack within matter of minutes air suppoert is there to supress the enemy fire, so its not just the COIN trained troops that pakistan needs but also the equipment to go with them.AND the reason pakistan army '' lack'' the will to engage openly is that they fear and right so that what happend in the past will happen again that the west will soon leave this mess and wash there hands away and pretend that it never happend and was Pakistans problem all the way (ist afghan war is the living proof of that) and seeing the britsh media and govt altitude now a days i AM SORRY TO SAY THAT HISTORY IS ABOUT TO RPEAT IT SELF.
p.s excuse my spellings or grammer damm the msn
 
my question to all of you guys, is if numbers of troops is not important , to combat fata & afghanistan , like situations , then why US is commiting & pushing for more troops in afghanistan?
 
Fightingn the fanatics in their heartland

March 30, 2009
Article from: The Australian

The first front in the war on terror is again the main game

CRITICS who argue Iraq was always a second-order issue in the war on terror should be pleased with Barack Obama's emphasis on defeating Islamist terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan. With the struggle against unrepresentative insurgents in Iraq now going better than anybody could have imagined two years ago, the US President is able to emphasise action against terrorism in the south of Afghanistan and the adjacent Pakistani provinces, where the writ of the central Government no longer runs. In addition to already announced reinforcements for the existing deployment of 70,000 US and NATO troops, plus 1100 Australians, Mr Obama will now send an extra 4000 soldiers to train the Afghan army. Equally important, he proposes increased economic aid and political assistance for Pakistan and Afghanistan. That Mr Obama has also set a specific objective, to destroy the terror networks that are intent on creating a religious redoubt in the two countries is an excellent outcome. While there is no doubting the moral and strategic sense of the war to liberate Iraq from the despicable despotism of Saddam Hussein, the campaign there took resources and attention away the first front in the war on terror. The theocratic Taliban regime in place in Afghanistan at the turn of the century provided safe haven for Islamist terrorists intent on waging war against people of all religious faiths, and none at all, who do not adhere to their perverse interpretation of the Muslim faith. It was the Taliban that provided inspiration and assistance for al-Qa'ida in the September 11, 2001, surprise attacks on New York and Washington. And despite the US removing the Taliban from control in Kabul in a short, sharp war, the confederacy of feudal warlords, opium-dealing drug barons and religious fanatics which supported that gangster government fight on.

There are three unassailable objectives in fighting the terrorists and their allies in Afghanistan: to protect the rights of ordinary Afghans, to stop Taliban-style terror undermining Pakistan and to deny the terrorists a victory that would convince fanatics all over the world that democracies lack the stomach to fight for freedom. The best way to achieve all three is to end the terrorists' ability to murder officials who defy them, intimidate communities where girls are allowed an education and train suicide bombers. Certainly, Mr Obama's immediate objectives do not include establishing a stable democracy, which is a setback. There is no doubting the desire of ordinary Afghans for democracy. In October 2004, some 85 per cent of the 10 million eligible Afghans went to the polls to elect Hamid Karzai President in the country's first legitimate election in a generation. The desire for democracy was so strong then that despite blood curdling threats, the Taliban did not attempt to sabotage the poll, recognising it would cost them what little popular support they possessed. But thanks in large part to the doubtful competence of Mr Karzai's Government, times have changed for the worse and the Taliban is now more of a force to be reckoned with. In deciding to defeat terror first, Mr Obama has unavoidably accepted a practical objective that must be achieved before Afghanistan's long march towards democracy can continue. And unless Afghanistan is secured there is a real risk of both countries collapsing into fiefdoms ruled by Islamist warlords. We are still a while away from the risk of Pakistan's nuclear weapons falling into terrorist hands -- the country's political establishment is in chaos but the army is disciplined. However, the relationship between Pakistan's security service and the Taliban is a real risk to the country's stability. While responsibility for the Mumbai terror attacks in November and the murder attempt against the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore this month is shady, it seems certain the attacks were sanctioned by the security establishment. Mr Obama is correct to see both countries as a single front in the same struggle.

But while Mr Obama is right to recognise the challenge in the two countries must be met, whether his strategy will work depends on the ability of Mr Karzai, or his successor after the next election, to win the country's confidence, as much as the presence of 100,000 allied troops plus more aid and advisers. Expanding and improving the Afghan army and police are the foundation of the new strategy, but all the assistance in the world will not work unless the Afghan people decide there is a chance of defeating the Taliban once and for all. There is no denying the difficulty of the task but it is by no means impossible. The success of President Nouri al-Maliki's Government in Iraq is not assured, but with US assistance the Iraqis have made enormous progress in defeating sectarian insurgents and creating a stable state. With money and good management, Afghanistan may yet be the front where terrorism is decisively defeated.

Pakistan under attack

Tuesday, 31 Mar, 2009 | 01:01 AM PST

IT should be clear by now that we are at war with ourselves as the enemy within grows more audacious by the day. Yet there are educated people in this country who continue to blame American foreign policy and the ever-potent ‘foreign hand’ for the wave of terrorism sweeping the country. This argument is deeply flawed on several counts. For one thing, the Pakistani state threw its weight behind America’s Afghan policy in the late ’70s and after 9/11, and as such we are equally responsible for the fallout. It is also common knowledge that Pakistani intelligence agencies once provided logistical support to militant organisations that could further our ‘strategic depth’ interests in Kashmir and across the Durand Line. It is argued that those behind the storming of the police training centre in Lahore on Monday, and the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team earlier this month, were so sophisticated in their methods that they must necessarily have had the backing of a foreign power. Such reasoning overlooks the fact that those who were freedom fighters a few years ago and are now labelled as terrorists were trained by the best in the business.
Let us assume for a moment, even if the truth lies elsewhere, that the terrorists who attacked Lahore on Monday were in the pay of an antagonistic neighbour. Does that absolve the Punjab government and the Pakistani state of the charge of gross negligence? Does it in any way disprove those who maintain that such incidents point to monumental intelligence failures and security lapses? It doesn’t matter who the paymasters might be. What we have now are Pakistanis killing Pakistanis, Muslims killing Muslims. And while we are at it, let us discard once and for all the absurd notion that the people who carry out such dastardly acts cannot possibly be Muslims. They are Muslims. In fact, these terrorists and militants consider themselves to be far truer Muslims than those who oppose them.

The militants involved in Monday’s siege may have been overcome but it is time to hammer out a political and social consensus on this issue. It is time to show the kind of fervour the obscurantists demonstrate in abundance but the well-meaning couch in carefully chosen words. This is a fight and it cannot be won without throwing punches. The country’s mainstream political parties need to draw a line in the sand and show the people, with no room for ambiguity, where they stand in this battle for the soul of Pakistan. The religio-political parties must also make their positions clear. President Obama says that US ground forces will not enter Pakistan. We would be well advised to not give them the chance. If we can’t do the job ourselves, others might do it for us. And that way lies disaster.

Editorial: Police targeted at Manawan
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
www.Daily Times.com

At 6 am yesterday, a gang of terrorists stormed the Police Training School at Manawan near the Wahga border in Lahore and seized it, taking hundreds of unarmed trainee policemen hostage. Several hours later, police commandos, backed by the Rangers, flushed them out, killing four of the eight or ten terrorists and capturing the others. It was a great relief that no more than a handful of policemen were killed in the operation, even though many more were seriously injured by indiscriminate firing by the terrorists on their innocent hostages. The terrorists had hand grenades and automatic weapons.

That the training school normally has around 850 trainees on its premises tells us something of the significance of the attack planned by the terrorists. The idea was to strike at the root of a force that is in the process of being expanded and made more deadly for the terrorists. That the attackers were no more than half a dozen makes us think of the parallels with the earlier attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore. There is also the comparison with the Mumbai attacks where only nine terrorists were able to create the kind of havoc that normally takes a full regiment to inflict.
The attackers hunkered down inside the school building and returned fire while surrounded from all sides. This clearly indicates that they are “fidayeen” or suicide-bombers sent out to do as much damage as possible before laying down their lives. This is in pattern with the Mumbai attacks although in that case the operation did not run according to plan and one of the attackers was caught and made to confess the origin of the attacks. Unfortunately, however, the easiest speculation that will emerge in the days to come will be that an “Indian hand” is involved in the attack on the police. Mr Rehman Malik, the interior minister, alluded in a press conference later that the sophisticated weapons with the terrorists pointed to a foreign hand. That the training school is right next to India on the Wahga border will convince many that RAW is “at it” again.:azn::angry:

When it comes to India, there is very little to go on. Most incidents of this sort have been blamed on India before, only to discover later that they had their origin inside Pakistan as a part of the ongoing war with Al Qaeda and its local foot soldiers. And some of them have been owned by the commanders of Baitullah Mehsud, the warlord who sits at head of the Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP). There are other signs too.

In Khyber Agency, the TTP has been attacking the khasadars at their checkposts. Not only were the paramilitary levies attacked and killed inside a mosque in Jamrud on Friday but in Bara a dozen of them were kidnapped and taken away after a series of threatening letters asking them to leave their jobs. This technique of discouraging men from taking employment with the security forces has been tried in Swat too, and those who did resign were actually given some money before they left for their homes.

The thinking behind the killing of the security personnel has crystallised over time. Our army, police and intelligence personnel have been regularly targeted by the terrorists. In Lahore and Peshawar, TTP terrorists bagged the highest number of police officers in their suicide attacks. As for the army targets, it has killed our commandos; and the highest rank they have been able to reach was when they killed a general in Rawalpindi. The FIA building in Lahore was a police establishment and the War College suicide-bombed by them belonged to the Pakistan Navy.
One must wait for the final verdict when investigation into the attack at Manawan is concluded, but the footprint of the TTP is quite clear on the basis of past record. Just as President Asif Zardari announced a beefing up of the police in all the provinces, the message from the terrorists is: don’t join the police and those who are already employed should resign and go home:tsk::crazy:. This should be read together with the widely accepted observation that terrorism is best countered by the police and not the army.:undecided: *





i really belive that we need a new force, which can provide security to the forces & its personals who, are involved inthe "counter insurgency" or "counter terrorism" & can be able to investigate all kind of terrorists sources & can gather intell with its own solid wings , . a force which can carry out all kind of SO,s & can be a multiplier to the regular troops in any kind of situations?:agree::tup::pakistan:
 
Last edited:
GEO Pakistan
Pak-Afghan militants to be fought ‘aggressively’: Petraeus
Updated at: 2010 PST, Wednesday, April 01, 2009

WASHINGTON: Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Wednesday that militant insurgents in Afghanistan are growing in strength but will be fought "relentlessly and aggressively" by bolstered American troops.:azn:
During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on President Barack Obama's new strategy expanding the Afghan campaign, Petraeus said the United States would take the fight to the Taliban and insurgent forces in both Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan.


But Petraeus and top Defense Department official Michele Flournoy were greeted with skeptical questions from senators about how willing the Pakistani government is to fight extremists using its ungoverned Afghan border as a staging area for attacks.

Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., warned that he does not agree with the administration's contention that progress in Afghanistan depends on success on the Pakistan side of the border.

Afghanistan's future should not be tied totally to the Pakistan government's decisions, he said, adding that he remains skeptical about Pakistan's ability to secure its border.
There are currently 38,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.:azn:
 
We already have the FC, let's just expand their capabilities. They need IFV's, better small arms and a level of training that will set them apart in positive ways.
 
We already have the FC, let's just expand their capabilities. They need IFV's, better small arms and a level of training that will set them apart in positive ways.

hounrable,Kharian_Beast; sir
i guss, no !
sir, USA having best of its army units & best of equipments with best of their capabilities in afghanistan, still boosting its troops, numbers why?

yes , i surly support the idea to expand the capabilities IFV's, better small arms and a level of training of FC, but its not enough because the location of the area of FATA & AFGHANISTAN are not just a simple battle field, so therefore after a lot of consideration , US is putting more troops.

i guss , its about time that we, should follow the same but with a permnent force under the command of PAKARMY, & for ever!:pakistan::tup::azn:
 
Last edited:
I think your government should ban the guns

jetLi; sir
yes i think the same but, i guss it needs a strong govt, a revolutionry govt like china, till that not happen , i cant support banning guns!:tsk:

at least common can feel security , even its just a feeling!
thanks for your comments, but please put some light on the topic, i hope your views are important, i want to know your views about my thread.

love pakistan, love china.:tup::pakistan::tup::china:;)
 
Back
Top Bottom