For the Pentagon, the Pakistan Army can do no wrong

[Xeric]

For the Pentagon, the Pakistan Army can do no wrong

For the Pentagon, the Pakistan Army can do no wrong


11-Dec-2009 14:55:27 By: Aziz Haniffa Font Size:

Washington, DC: Let's face it. When it comes to the Pentagon, the Pakistani military can do no wrong. Even if it's going after only the Pakistani Taliban and not the Afghan Taliban, which it apparently continues to promote for strategic depth against India and as a hedge in case the US decides to cut and run as it did in the immediate aftermath of the erstwhile Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan nearly three decades ago.

During the past few days, top US military officers with direct command of American troops in Afghanistan and strategic policy toward Pakistan and the south and central Asian region, testifying before Congressional committees continued to heap praise on the Pakistani Army's forays against the Pakistani Taliban and extremist groups in the Swat Valley and South Waziristan. In the process they chose to conveniently ignore the concerns of US lawmakers about the dual-track policy by Pakistan Army Chief General Ashfaq Kiyani's troops and the Inter Services Intelligence.

When pressed, they argued that the only way to address the Pakistani army hedging its bets was by providing Pakistan more security assistance and building up the kind of strategic partnership that assured it that this aid and US support would be there for the long haul.

US Central Command Commander General David Petraeus, who was appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked by the panel's chairman Senator John F Kerry as to what the US strategy was toward the Pakistani military that was clearly hedging its bets and going after only the Pakistani Taliban and not the Afghan Taliban. Petraeus said it is imperative for the US to demonstrate to Pakistan that a "sustained, substantial commitment" would be forever available.

Petraeus said, "First of all, the developments of the last 10 months really are quite significant. Because the Pakistani leadership -- all the political leaders, the civilian populace, the clerics and the military -- have all united in recognising that the internal extremists represent the most pressing existential threat to their country -- more pressing than the traditional threat to the east. And, they have taken action in response to that recognition."

But when pressed as to how Pakistan ultimately takes on the Afghan Taliban and eschews funding and promoting this group, the four-star general said, "Frankly, the effort to demonstrate a sustained, substantial commitment to Pakistan -- frankly the Kerry-Lugar bill (which provides $1.5 billion (about Rs 67,000 crore) annually in American largesse to Pakistan over five years) is a hugely important manifestation of that -- the level of security assistance, foreign military financing, the Pakistan Counter-Insurgency Capability Fund and so forth are also very important, given the history that we have with that country and having left it as you know a couple of times before."

"So, this is a process of building trust, mutual confidence and building a relationship in which the mutual threats we face are addressed by those who are on the ground," he said, and added, "And, again we have to recognise the enormous sacrifices, that the Pakistani military, frontier corps and police have made in these operations and also the losses that their civilians have sustained."

Petraeus reiterated that "it's about building a partnership that can transcend these issues that we have had before where we have left after supporting one operation or the other."

Earlier, in his prepared testimony, he had acknowledged that "the Afghan Taliban are, to be sure, distinct from the Pakistani Taliban and their partner groups, some of which shelter Al Qaeda. They are part of a syndicate of extremist groups that includes both Laskhar-e-Tayiba -- the group that carried out the 26/11 Mumbai attacks -- and the Haqqani network, among others."

Petraeus also admitted that this syndicate "threatens the stability of Pakistan and, indeed, the entire subcontinent. Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar is recognised as 'commander of the faithful' by (Osama) bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders, as well as by Al Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups throughout Pakistan and beyond."

Earlier, General Stanley McChrystal, US Commander in Afghanistan, appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, also lavished praise on the Pakistani army saying that "their recent actions over the last year or two against their own internal insurgency are really a good indicator of just how serious they are about conducting counter-insurgency operations and reducing instability on their side."

Even the US Ambassador to Afghanistan, and retired lieutenant general Karl Eikenberry, when asked pointedly about the Pakistani army's dual track when it came to taking on the Pakistan Taliban and sponsoring the Afghan Taliban for strategic depth vis-à-vis India, only acknowledged that "the security relationship between India and Pakistan has consequences for Afghanistan," but then said he would rather "concentrate of Afghanistan and Pakistan."

He then went on to talk about how in concert with the US Ambassador in Islamabad, Anne Patterson, "we are looking and continuously searching for ways to facilitate political dialogue between Kabul and Islamabad."

"We have an array of programmes to try to develop mutual trust and confidence," Eikenberry said and went to disclose how Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller "hosts trilateral initiatives led by himself but partnered with the ministry of interior of Afghanistan and Pakistan."

The envoy also said, "Another important area that has been underway for several years is to improve intelligence exchanges and cooperation between the US and Afghanistan and Pakistan and those efforts led by Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta and his counterparts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And, that's been a very robust program as well."

And Senator Kay Hagan who had wanted answers about Pakistan's dual-track policy from McChrystal or Eikenberry, she was sorely disappointed as both had effectively filibustered and run out her allotted time for questions.

Hagan's comments and question for the record was that "ever since the partition of India, Islamabad has attempted to utilise its proxies to install a friendly Pashtun government in Afghanistan that would preserve the de facto border and prevent Pashtun aspirations of a homeland and prevent Indian involvement in Afghanistan."

She asserted that Pakistan "continues to pursue a dual track policy of disrupting the Pakistani Taliban in the tribal areas, most notably in South Waziristan, while elements of its military support the Afghan Taliban networks most notably in North Waziristan and the Afghan Taliban high command in its Balochistan province."

Hagan said, "The key question is if elements of Pakistan's military can be persuaded to change this dual-track policy," and that in order to do that "we've got to address Pakistan's regional concerns, taking into account the relationships with Afghanistan and India."

----

Burn baby burn..!!

 

[waraich66]

Friendship between Afghan talaban and Pakistan is stronger then Pakistan US friendship,because of religion, language , culture etc. Afghanistan and Pakistan are just like America and Canada.

 

[aakalim]

US sould realise that Pakistan cannot Afford to go after the "good taliban". We are already suffering the backclash of the operation against the bad taliban i.e. TTP in the form of deadly suicide bombings. Opening another front against the good taliban would create havoc in the country, specially when the majority of pakistani people actually beleive them to be "good".

 

[fatman17]

Hagan said, "The key question is if elements of Pakistan's military can be persuaded to change this dual-track policy," and that in order to do that "we've got to address Pakistan's regional concerns, taking into account the relationships with Afghanistan and India."

this is a step in the 'right' direction - further the pentagon knows it has 'limits' on the 'power' it can employ in afghanistan, and needs the PA on its side. US generals are taking a 'pragmatic' and workable view of the ground reality and it is them(the soldiers they command) who have to actually do the 'fighting', not some senators sitting in the 'warmth' of their offices on the hill and screaming 'do more', 'do more'!!!

 

[Xeric]

Hagan said, "The key question is if elements of Pakistan's military can be persuaded to change this dual-track policy," and that in order to do that "we've got to address Pakistan's regional concerns, taking into account the relationships with Afghanistan and India."

this is a step in the 'right' direction - further the pentagon knows it has 'limits' on the 'power' it can employ in afghanistan, and needs the PA on its side. US generals are taking a 'pragmatic' and workable view of the ground reality and it is them(the soldiers they command) who have to actually do the 'fighting', not some senators sitting in the 'warmth' of their offices on the hill and screaming 'do more', 'do more'!!!

Well they have atleast started taking the first step; praising Pakistan Army's onslaught against the terrorists.

But then i feel may be they are trying to play again; they praise us, place a very heavy responsibility over our shoulders, show the world that they just cant succeed without Pakistan's help, and then when they leave Afghanistan (probably after failing), they are going to blame us for that!!

It seems as if they are preparing Pakistan for using it as a scapegoat!

 

[S-2]

Here's my alternative read-

Lot of platitudes and effusive praise for doing what should have long since been done for yourselves coupled with mucho tap-dancing around the baldly-accepted premise of using proxy armies to achieve your security desires...

...and reward such behavior to boot. A distinct absence of moral accountability by our senior officers who increasingly appear to be the panty-waists.

"Appear" is the operative term for testimony rendered before these open hearings. These generals know two things- 1.) Congress controls the purse-strings and, 2.) closed sessions are far more starkly revealing.

What was left unsaid by Petraeus and McChrystal but, equally, unnecessary amidst the high praise is that American policies are increasingly premised on Pakistan pursuing a dual-track strategy embracing proxy armies. We don't debate the point nor argue it.

Further, that means we believe you've long-since pursued such. Like 2002 or so.

Finally, it's understood by both generals that, because Congress controls the purse thus mandating benchmarks embedded within K-L which drive its continued funding, there's no value in the U.S. Army publically calling out the P.A./GoP when it's Congress' responsibility to exercise that oversight.

What our commanders essentially have said is,

"Yes, we agree Pakistan pursues a dual-tracked policy that's grounded in duplicitous goals which run counter to American objectives. We'll leave it to you senators to figure out what to do with that acknowledgment."

Welcome to the wonderful world of "advise and consent". It's what happens when a military subordinates itself to civilian authority-lock, stock, and barrel. Something you're really rather unpracticed at performing just now.

Somebody is going to have to certify by name that you guys are playing nice-nice to keep the flood-gates open. We all know how certification works with Pakistan. Don't say that you weren't warned.

Burn baby burn, indeed! Those bombs you hear exploding aren't blowing off in Minneapolis.

EDIT: Here's the actual testimony-

Eikenberry, Petraeus, and Lew Testimony Before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearings-CSPAN Dec. 9, 2009

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Those bombs you hear exploding aren't blowing off in Minneapolis.

Precisely why the US is in no position to be sermonizing to Pakistan and demanding 'action' on its time frame and according to its framework. It is Pakistani civilians and soldiers dying in the hundreds and our cities under attack almost every week - the US has no business trying to run our policy in terms of what best guarantees the security and prosperity of Pakistan and Pakistanis.

Related to that, also see my response to you in the 'US duplicity and Lies' thread.

Somebody is going to have to certify by name that you guys are playing nice-nice to keep the flood-gates open. We all know how certification works with Pakistan. Don't say that you weren't warned.

"Thus, Pakistan will receive a total of $3.8 billion from the United States as military and non-military assistance during the next fiscal year."
http://www.defence.pk/forums/u-s-fo...ouse-clears-1-5bn-five-year-aid-pakistan.html

We can 'play' the game as long as possible - of course one hopes that Kay Hagan's comments on addressing Pakistani concerns to cement the relationship and enhance cooperation is the path chosen, because such a path would ultimately end the need for 'games' on both sides.

 

[S-2]

"Precisely why the US is in no position to be sermonizing to Pakistan and demanding 'action' on its time frame and according to its framework."

What time-frame were you on with SWAT and Buner last spring? More negotiations as an alternative? None of this would be the case had you not opened your doors to these men and made use of them to your narrow purposes.

They've infected your locals, as was inevitable. I certainly don't see sermonizing but I'm sure that our congress is long since done with writing you a blank cheque.

"Related to that, also see my response to you in the 'US duplicity and Lies' thread."

Trust me that I have. Two thoughts- 1.) You finally admit openly what you've danced around for so long and, 2.) you use the most convoluted logic I've seen thrust forward to justify such.

I suppose your reply was meant to suggest that Nazir and Bahadur will be addressed all in good time. I think not. Neither are fools to placidly place their heads on the chopping block at the proper time. Both Bahadur and Nazir know that date shall never arrive so long as their actions are addressed westward against Afghanistan instead of upon the GoP.

That's the deal for all of them including Omar, Haqqani, and Hekmatyar and why they'll never be attacked so long as they don't openly broach the established quid pro quo.

As to Senator Hagan, there should be no need to "presuede" Pakistan on the issue of proxies. The principle is clearly understood by all. So too the consequences. Therefore there's little point in rewarding bad behavior. Proxy armies are bad behavior and that's what we have with Pakistan.

The blowback you now experience is solely resulting from that. So too the suffering that Afghanistan has experienced for eight years. More may follow for all concerned because of your duplicity.

Most of all from my perspective, your army's use of proxies intentionally KILLS OUR MEN. You can imagine how I view that matter, I'm sure.

So to Xeric, yeah, you're the self-selected scapegoat until you dump proxies for diplomacy.

Thanks.

 

[Awesome]

Here's my alternative read-

Lot of platitudes and effusive praise for doing what should have long since been done for yourselves coupled with mucho tap-dancing around the baldly-accepted premise of using proxy armies to achieve your security desires...

...and reward such behavior to boot. A distinct absence of moral accountability by our senior officers who increasingly appear to be the panty-waists.

"Appear" is the operative term for testimony rendered before these open hearings. These generals know two things- 1.) Congress controls the purse-strings and, 2.) closed sessions are far more starkly revealing.

What was left unsaid by Petraeus and McChrystal but, equally, unnecessary amidst the high praise is that American policies are increasingly premised on Pakistan pursuing a dual-track strategy embracing proxy armies. We don't debate the point nor argue it.

Further, that means we believe you've long-since pursued such. Like 2002 or so.

Finally, it's understood by both generals that, because Congress controls the purse thus mandating benchmarks embedded within K-L which drive its continued funding, there's no value in the U.S. Army publically calling out the P.A./GoP when it's Congress' responsibility to exercise that oversight.

What our commanders essentially have said is,

"Yes, we agree Pakistan pursues a dual-tracked policy that's grounded in duplicitous goals which run counter to American objectives. We'll leave it to you senators to figure out what to do with that acknowledgment."

Welcome to the wonderful world of "advise and consent". It's what happens when a military subordinates itself to civilian authority-lock, stock, and barrel. Something you're really rather unpracticed at performing just now.

Somebody is going to have to certify by name that you guys are playing nice-nice to keep the flood-gates open. We all know how certification works with Pakistan. Don't say that you weren't warned.

Burn baby burn, indeed! Those bombs you hear exploding aren't blowing off in Minneapolis.

EDIT: Here's the actual testimony-

Eikenberry, Petraeus, and Lew Testimony Before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearings-CSPAN Dec. 9, 2009

So you're saying we should go after the Afghan Taliban and let the TTP bomb us out? As we've seen it, we can only go after one of them at a time. Rest assured, all Taliban, including the Afghan one, would be made to leave Pakistan over the next couple of years when their time comes.

The attitude in Pakistan is highly anti-Pakistan. The love of the "good Taliban" is overly played up by the American media. The good Taliban theory is largely supported by a lunatic fringe of Zaid Hamid and his conspiracy theorist followers.

In any case, withdraw your KL, the only person crying about it in Pakistan would be the President...

But Pakistan is going to play it smart on the war on terror. Your guns blazing, John Woo style of clearing up the Taliban has failed. Try to win the war for a change, and not just win the rhetoric of war.

 

[Awesome]

I've said it time and again, that if we open another front in North Waziristan to appease the Americans, we will lose in the South as well and neither gain anything in the North.

Now the fight is just beginning, already another operation has been outlined by the PM - the one in Orakzai. Americans should continue to do what they are doing in Nowzad, Helmand. Keep the Afghan Taliban busy while we sort out the TTP.

Afterall once we're done, the Afghan Taliban would be holed up in a very small region and will be ours for the taking. The Americans have been opening up multiple fronts in the war and have been losing. Pakistan did that too under Musharraf, it didn't work.

I just feel Americans are now getting antsy since Obama declared the troop pullout.

 

[Xeric]

"Precisely why the US is in no position to be sermonizing to Pakistan and demanding 'action' on its time frame and according to its framework."

What time-frame were you on with SWAT and Buner last spring? More negotiations as an alternative? None of this would be the case had you not opened your doors to these men and made use of them to your narrow purposes.

They've infected your locals, as was inevitable. I certainly don't see sermonizing but I'm sure that our congress is long since done with writing you a blank cheque.

"Related to that, also see my response to you in the 'US duplicity and Lies' thread."

Trust me that I have. Two thoughts- 1.) You finally admit openly what you've danced around for so long and, 2.) you use the most convoluted logic I've seen thrust forward to justify such.

I suppose your reply was meant to suggest that Nazir and Bahadur will be addressed all in good time. I think not. Neither are fools to placidly place their heads on the chopping block at the proper time. Both Bahadur and Nazir know that date shall never arrive so long as their actions are addressed westward against Afghanistan instead of upon the GoP.

That's the deal for all of them including Omar, Haqqani, and Hekmatyar and why they'll never be attacked so long as they don't openly broach the established quid pro quo.

As to Senator Hagan, there should be no need to "presuede" Pakistan on the issue of proxies. The principle is clearly understood by all. So too the consequences. Therefore there's little point in rewarding bad behavior. Proxy armies are bad behavior and that's what we have with Pakistan.

The blowback you now experience is solely resulting from that. So too the suffering that Afghanistan has experienced for eight years. More may follow for all concerned because of your duplicity.

Most of all from my perspective, your army's use of proxies intentionally KILLS OUR MEN. You can imagine how I view that matter, I'm sure.

So to Xeric, yeah, you're the self-selected scapegoat until you dump proxies for diplomacy.

Thanks.

Without getting into delicacies, here's what i'll say:

Look who is talking?!

 

[Xeric]

Let me explain this as a layman; We first have to take care of those issues/groups that pose a DIRECT threat (TTP and likes) to Pakistan, and it is then that we are going to do something about those who pose us an INDIRECT threat (the goodie talibs or whatever yo call them)!!

It is said and known that it is because of these elements (that pose a DIRECT threat to us) that the foreign elements (who DONT pose us a Direct threat-all the times) are able to operate inside our borders and make their presence felt. They have support from the inside and that's why they have been successful. So a little use of common sense and logic would tell us that if we eliminate TTP and party we would indirectly also take care of AQ (and the Guud Taliban etc)!!

It's like one stone two birds (or may be three...)

The Americans made it 'our' war, so i think we are going to fight it out in our own way, or let me put it politely, we are going to support the US in our own way, a way that suits us MORE and that doesnt necessarily mean that we are going to maintain a dual track policy, it's merely the priorities, it's that simple and that's what a common man in Pakistan thinks, and unfortunately you cant alter it no more.

 

[S-2]

"So you're saying we should go after the Afghan Taliban and let the TTP bomb us out?"

Don't put words in my mouth. What I've said is the following-

1.) That the afghan taliban and their Haqqani/Hekmatyar associates have had seven years of non-interference upon your soil...by your choice.

2.) I've said that doing so provided a clear example and infected their tribal hosts with thoughts of the same for Pakistan...and for the same reasons of graft, corruption, neglect, and criminal indulgence by your political and military leadership.

3.) I've said you've the world's seventh largest army and its purpose should have been to repel ALL non-Pakistani invaders. Is not the unseated Afghan taliban gov't and its cronies a clear example of such? The vast majority of your army remains undeployed where you today fight a war that many contend is for your survival as a sovereign state.

That's what I've said. Repeatedly.

"Rest assured, all Taliban, including the Afghan one, would be made to leave Pakistan over the next couple of years when their time comes."

They should have been made to leave between 2002-2006 before this problem exploded within your tribal society. That they weren't and still haven't is clear indication that they serve a policy purpose which directly impedes our efforts in Afghanistan. These men didn't simply wander onto your lands undetected nor unacknowledged where they've surreptiously remained hidden like it's all some grand lapse of oversight.

They've been actively at work pursuing their objectives for Afghanistan from your soil. You've been actively at work assuring they've the safety to do so. So long as their efforts didn't directly contribute to YOUR harm, you were fine with such. They haven't and you still are fine with such.

Further, Asim, whether you eject the afghan taliban or not is moot when you consider the arrangements made with Hafez Gul Bahadur and Maulvi Nazir to feel free to carry their war against Afghanistan so long as they also battle the mehsuds on your behalf.

Those men are Pakistani.

"The love of the "good Taliban" is overly played up by the American media."

It's irrelevant what you contend on behalf of other Pakistanis or think for yourself. You don't write for your military. The "good Taliban" are a nat'l security policy tool of your military and shall remain such for their useful life.

"Americans should continue to do what they are doing in Nowzad, Helmand. Keep the Afghan Taliban busy while we sort out the TTP."

We've nearly as many troops now slated for Afghanistan, by ourselves, as you've got committed to combat in your western reaches. Maybe more. We'll be expanding in Helmand and Kandahar too. We'll be retreating in Nuristan and Konar. Hopefully the afghan government won't but that's their business (and yours) how that is coordinated with your Bajaur operations.

Were I Pakistan, I'd work closely with the afghan government in Nuristan and Konar. I'd even focus all my above-board aid and security contributions to this specific area. It most effects Pakistan and it's there where Pakistan can most assist Afghanistan.

"The Americans have been opening up multiple fronts in the war and have been losing."

Maybe. In a COIN battle, not winning IS losing. In that regard, you are correct that after eight years we are not winning.

 

[Awesome]

Don't put words in my mouth. What I've said is the following-

1.) That the afghan taliban and their Haqqani/Hekmatyar associates have had seven years of non-interference upon your soil...by your choice.

We were busy

2.) I've said that doing so provided a clear example and infected their tribal hosts with thoughts of the same for Pakistan...and for the same reasons of graft, corruption, neglect, and criminal indulgence by your political and military leadership.

Correct.

3.) I've said you've the world's seventh largest army and its purpose should have been to repel ALL non-Pakistani invaders. Is not the unseated Afghan taliban gov't and its cronies a clear example of such? The vast majority of your army remains undeployed where you today fight a war that many contend is for your survival as a sovereign state.

So does a vast majority of your army remain un-deployed. 80,000 are Policing FATA and 30,000 are engaged on Rah-e-Nijat alone. Thats still more than the troops you've committed to a big area like Afghanistan.

Anyway they SHOULD be attacked, but we got to pick our battles. If we go after them now, then we who goes after the TTP which IS bombing us.

All you guys need to do to protect yourself against the North Waziri groups is to beef up your border security. Also that region is perhpas 25% of your problem, the main groups are still in Afghanistan.

I'll tell you how it would play out if we jumped in between the two of you. Afghani groups would start coming to Pakistan in hordes and you guys won't stop them, and we'll have an unmanageable mess on our hands.

In other words they are a lame goose, manageable by you guys. Even your generals have recently admitted that the support from Pakistani areas to your Taliban is not decisive enough to turn the tid of the war against you.

"Rest assured, all Taliban, including the Afghan one, would be made to leave Pakistan over the next couple of years when their time comes."

They should have been made to leave between 2002-2006 before this problem exploded within your tribal society. That they weren't and still haven't is clear indication that they serve a policy purpose which directly impedes our efforts in Afghanistan. These men didn't simply wander onto your lands undetected nor unacknowledged where they've surreptiously remained hidden like it's all some grand lapse of oversight.

A goof-up was made by both sides. Remember our boy Musharraf and your boy Bush were in it all together. Tora Bora should have been a joint operation. But Musharraf's role was just to catch the grunts on the ground and he did that and was appreciated for it at the time. The foresight was just not there from both sides.

They've been actively at work pursuing their objectives for Afghanistan from your soil. You've been actively at work assuring they've the safety to do so. So long as their efforts didn't directly contribute to YOUR harm, you were fine with such. They haven't and you still are fine with such.

We have allowed Drone strikes haven't we? Do your thing.

Further, Asim, whether you eject the afghan taliban or not is moot when you consider the arrangements made with Hafez Gul Bahadur and Maulvi Nazir to feel free to carry their war against Afghanistan so long as they also battle the mehsuds on your behalf.

Yeah but we don't support them, we don't give them arms. We are hoping you guys can handle it.

Those men are Pakistani.

Barely. Hafiz Gul Bahadur though of a Pakistani tribe, spent most of his time in Afghanistan. His return to Pakistan was around 2006ish. It's a good strategy to get the vice chairman of the TTP to defect. Don't take it to heart when we employ the old divide and rule policy even if we convince the guys to attack you instead of us. It's all a ploy and I'm sure the Americans have been well-informed about it.

It's irrelevant what you contend on behalf of other Pakistanis or think for yourself. You don't write for your military. The "good Taliban" are a nat'l security policy tool of your military and shall remain such for their useful life.

Support for militants in Kashmir, yes. Support for the very same group, Taliban? Doubtful. The Taliban won't accept us, even if we decided to use them.

"Americans should continue to do what they are doing in Nowzad, Helmand. Keep the Afghan Taliban busy while we sort out the TTP."

We've nearly as many troops now slated for Afghanistan, by ourselves, as you've got committed to combat in your western reaches. Maybe more. We'll be expanding in Helmand and Kandahar too. We'll be retreating in Nuristan and Konar. Hopefully the afghan government won't but that's their business (and yours) how that is coordinated with your Bajaur operations.

See again doing too much. You guys had to leave Nuristan, had your bases heavily attacked, Helmand op hasn't really started and is sort of in its early stages, Kandahar is another stronghold. Do what is manageable. I hope for yours and our sakes that you guys are more successful, but it would require a major shift in the way you think.

Were I Pakistan, I'd work closely with the afghan government in Nuristan and Konar. I'd even focus all my above-board aid and security contributions to this specific area. It most effects Pakistan and it's there where Pakistan can most assist Afghanistan.

I believe we have committed a few troops to beefing up the border regions to prevent escapes into Pakistan this time around. But if you want true support, you'd need to wait till we're done with all the suicide bombing groups in Pakistan.

And its hopefully not going to be too long. Orakzai Agency remains the only stronghold left of the really dangerous Taliban groups. If you look at the map, with a controlled South Waziristan and a controlled Orakzai, Kurram Agencies, we can move in on the North Waziri tribes together.

I say this because Orakzai, Mohmand, Bajaur, Khyber agencies are where we suspect Indians to be operating. Something that Americans don't even acknowledge and discount it off to usual India-Pak enmity, you know belittle the entire Pakistani point of view. So I expect a lot of strong statements from America while this op goes on. But from the Pakistan point of view, this would create big gaps between Tribal areas and the Indian influenced areas. So expect Pakistanis to be really uncompromising about this op.

"The Americans have been opening up multiple fronts in the war and have been losing."

Maybe. In a COIN battle, not winning IS losing. In that regard, you are correct that after eight years we are not winning.

One thing is clear. The lack of understanding of the Pashtun people. You know how well even a village idiot from Pakistan understands the term "Pathan dimagh" (Pashtun Mindset), the best analyst from your side cannot get that. Lets just say that Americans inspire a sense of militancy. Pakistan was the only country that successfully controlled them for a while. I think if instead of Musharraf and Bush doing the initial ground work if there were other less gung-ho people around we could've avoided this war as well.

Americans now cannot win this war. But hopefully they will be able to give the Taliban a bloody nose by the time they leave and Pakistan will take that.

 

[fatman17]

We'll be expanding in Helmand and Kandahar too. We'll be retreating in Nuristan and Konar. Hopefully the afghan government won't but that's their business (and yours) how that is coordinated with your Bajaur operations.

sorry! i thought we were all in this thing together - so now like us you are picking and choosing where you will fight! cant have the cake and eat it too!!!