NATO, US, Pakistan Should Attack Uzbekistan

[HAIDER]

Dear Haider I totally agree with your sentiments and in past we have accepted refugees with open heart but now they are security threat and we should go for a rational approach without wasting a moment. i.e. tighter id control and movement restrictions etc.

I would also clarify the notion of 'Pakistan as Islam ka Qila' I see it not from religious point of view but from the geopolitical point of view.
You can assume that Pakistan is the foundation stone of the stability of whole region and in large of Muslim world.
Pakistanis have least knowledge about Islam but a weaker Pakistan may invite foreign aggression over many Islamic states.

IMO, best way forward would be to work with the respective central asian govts. which are very closed to outsiders. their people know only what states tell them so for obvious reasons their is no chance of public pressure.
In such circumstances our state must contact the respective states, other wise, I doubt that respective states may be interested to spend their money to further tighten the border control just by reading fine news.

I respect your opinion, but take look all these militancy, which is flowing in our border are coming from countries those who have either dictatorship, non democratic govt or non people's govt. I accept Pakistan has no full democracy, policies are dictating on us. But we are much more democratic and liberal then any other Muslim country in the world. Its people who has to say "NO" to extremism and terrorism and govt should be strong enough to implement public opinion in the rule of law.

 

[roadrunner]

i agree with you 100% but you do realize all afghans travel to the world on pakistani passports

I've heard the opposite actually. The war in Afghanistan is fertile ground for Pakistanis looking to travel on the basis of a faked Afghan passport.

The stuff on illegal refugees is fine, though I still would say deporting them to war zones is a barbaric attitude to have. Legal refugees should be deported only after the war is over. Far too much is blamed on refugees all over the world. I think offering the illegals a choice between jail and their home country, though harsh, wouldn't be so bad.

The resource drain that these refugees create is a load of rubbish. They are fed by various charities and UN organizations operating in the region.

They just need to be monitored better, which is where the Soviet system would work very well.

 

[HAIDER]

I've heard the opposite actually. The war in Afghanistan is fertile ground for Pakistanis looking to travel on the basis of a faked Afghan passport.

The stuff on illegal refugees is fine, though I still would say deporting them to war zones is a barbaric attitude to have. Legal refugees should be deported only after the war is over. Far too much is blamed on refugees all over the world. I think offering the illegals a choice between jail and their home country, though harsh, wouldn't be so bad.

The resource drain that these refugees create is a load of rubbish. They are fed by various charities and UN organizations operating in the region.

They just need to be monitored better, which is where the Soviet system would work very well.

Sir, our resources are draining to provide protection from these refugee to average Pakistani. They already left bitter marks of weapon and drugs and now terrorist culture is cultivated on the ground which provide them shelter from invasion.
Ask those who saw Peshwar before and after Afghan war. How a beautiful city of Peshwar turn into dust and diesel by these afghan refugee. In majority of robbery end up at afghans door. Its same like Laos pay the price of war in Vietnam..........how long God knows

 

[A1Kaid]

Let me tell you something Haider

Using your logic of attacking Uzbekistan, have you thought of the Geo-Political response and result to such an offensive?


This would bring Uzbekistan and India closer, and establish ties, if such an attack were to be made Tashkent is going to reach out to New Delhi, for military support. New Delhi, of course will arm Uzbekistan with weaponry and other devices....

Trust me attacking Uzbekistan is a counter-productive approach to regional issues.


How about we do what we're suppose to do, that is guarding and protecting our borders. Immigration and border crossing ought to be regulated as much as possible. I understand the terrain is an amazing and unbearable challenge for us and we are far from ideal conditions, but surveillance and more protection at our borders would dramatically lower any Uzbek or foreign trouble makers, this includes RAW agents, India, and US but not limited too...

 

[PAFAce]

All I am saying is nothing more than what we did in Vietnam; we owned our province not the VC.

You make some good points about flexibility, border disputes etc., but I believe they can all be resolved if our leaders show any seriousness towards the issues.

Border disputes can be taken care of on the international stage. A border can be defined by the United Nations, and then that's it, fence that place. It will most probably cause tension between Pakistan and Afgahanistan, but it is a necessary evil and the UN must decide fairly.

Also, your random patrol scenario assumes that there will somehow be no gaps between patrols on the border, or that the infiltrators will hold back due to fear of running into a random patrol. This, however, is not the case because for every group that encounters a patrol, there may be many that will get through the gaps. Also, a suicide bomber will not care much for a slight possibility of running into a patrol, as long as he gets to kill some "Munafiqeen". A fence would eliminate these gaps and make it that much tougher for the madmen to get close to the security forces and the civillian population.

Lastly, I don't see how a fence can affect our flexibility and our ability to patrol randomly. As long as we stay on our side of the border, and we have no reason to do otherwise, we should be able to maintain any patrolling and surveillance patterns we please.

My arguments may not seem very sound, and I will be the first to admit that I do not have any real experience or expertise in the area. Everything is based on research, hypothesis and my personal understanding of my country, so please don't take them as anything else.

 

[A1Kaid]

You make some good points about flexibility, border disputes etc., but I believe they can all be resolved if our leaders show any seriousness towards the issues.

Border disputes can be taken care of on the international stage. A border can be defined by the United Nations, and then that's it, fence that place. It will most probably cause tension between Pakistan and Afgahanistan, but it is a necessary evil and the UN must decide fairly.

Also, your random patrol scenario assumes that there will somehow be no gaps between patrols on the border, or that the infiltrators will hold back due to fear of running into a random patrol. This, however, is not the case because for every group that encounters a patrol, there may be many that will get through the gaps. Also, a suicide bomber will not care much for a slight possibility of running into a patrol, as long as he gets to kill some "Munafiqeen". A fence would eliminate these gaps and make it that much tougher for the madmen to get close to the security forces and the civillian population.

Lastly, I don't see how a fence can affect our flexibility and our ability to patrol randomly. As long as we stay on our side of the border, and we have no reason to do otherwise, we should be able to maintain any patrolling and surveillance patterns we please.

My arguments may not seem very sound, [A1Kaid:Okay fair enough] and I will be the first to admit that I do not have any real experience or expertise in the area. Everything is based on research, hypothesis and my personal understanding of my country, so please don't take them as anything else.

"A fence would eliminate these gaps and make it that much tougher for the madmen to get close to the security forces and the civillian population."

It is not feasible for us to build a fence across the Afghan-Pak border, the mountainous terrain is unbearable, too rugged and too wild, for us to build any worthy fence there. Also think about the maintenance cost for such a large fence very expensive as well.

Also remember if armed individuals or groups are planning to trespass into Pakistan territory, then they can simply destroy one part of the fence and cross right over...


When we talk about good border security this would most likely be manned guards/patrols. This would require us to build a network corridor/highway/roads to allow border security to travel up and down the mountainous area.

Though I think we must incorporate modern technology into our security. Using Pakistani made UAV's would be very helpful for monitoring the security situation at the border.

Maybe Pakistani defense industry should rise to the new challenge and begin producing domestic attack helicopters, we could sure use them to protect the borders against hostile enemies.

 

[Ratus Ratus]

My arguments may not seem very sound, and I will be the first to admit that I do not have any real experience or expertise in the area. Everything is based on research, hypothesis and my personal understanding of my country, so please don't take them as anything else.

No issue, I realised that from reading what you wrote.

Let’s take this slowly.

The first big issue is a combination of local population and your province and national leaders. So far this strong stand sucks big time and I am being nice here.

The border should have been fixed in 1947.
I have a long list why that should have happened and most is economic based. It would have benefited both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Border disputes can be taken care of on the international stage. A border can be defined by the United Nations, and then that's it, fence that place. It will most probably cause tension between Pakistan and Afgahanistan, but it is a necessary evil and the UN must decide fairly.

Though a border may be define via the Security Council of the UN in most cases such disputes would end up in the International Court. Naturally that is a long process.
An outcome would be legal but the enforcement becomes a bit messy.
Also when Afghanistan was ruled by the Taliban this problem still could not be resolved so it will no doubt stay messy.

Also, your random patrol scenario assumes that there will somehow be no gaps between patrols on the border, or that the infiltrators will hold back due to fear of running into a random patrol. This, however, is not the case because for every group that encounters a patrol, there may be many that will get through the gaps.

I never suggested that the patrol would not produce gaps between patrols. To make such a thing gap proof one would have to have a line of troops running the full length. Gaps actually don’t make much of a big issue as presumed.
The thing that is significant is the quantity and quality of the patrol. A walk through the country side is useless. It must be executed with intent of doing damage to the other side.

In Nam the main thrust was patrols and these were coy size, with their own local mor and Arty in DS, (direct support). MFCs/FOs went with the coy HQ. Resupply was carried out by chopper and each patrol went out for extended periods and always under the umbrella of arty.

Notice also I said long range patrols. That is they go out and came back in days or week later not out morning back that night.
I also said night work, as this is one of the times of main enemy activity.

As for running into someone, simple shoot the idiot ask questions after.
Face it no suicide bomber will be hoping about mountain passes looking for your patrols.
Simply the patrol buffer zone is defined as a blunt no go shoot on sight. Besides just patrols, ie walking about being a nuisance to the enemy, the other part is ambushes. These may be set for several days on useful tracks but in the long run become effective in convincing the enemy you are not there for a chat. An ambush is there not to deter people but kill them. You may get one or two injured enemy but that is a side benefit not the intent.
Sorry but that is the truth not the TV version.

I also mentioned the ‘greet and meet’ patrols. These are critical in this as well. They must be run in sync with the other patrols. These do the social interaction with villages and provide help where possible.
BOTH must be actively executed. Yes both must be prepared to fight the enemy.

Your suicide bomber will be someone entering a village wanting to destroy your ‘meet and greet’ patrols. So expect it and deal with it. Villages will also start wanting the enemy out.
Get the villages on side.

As pointed out by A1Kaid it is not possible to fence the whole border. A fact issue. Also since the border is in dispute why aggravate that aspect of Pakistan/Afghan relations.

Also the fence would restrict flexibility as this is base on “lack of defined border”. Add to this is fence maintenance and security for that maintenance. Waste of time.
OK if you have a fence have a real one at main so called crossing points, villages etc. These become economic hubs which can be controlled by local law enforcement not Army or FC units.

A1Kaid:
Ok use UAVs but the tendency will be to place then as the main thrust not as a back up surveillance tool. They can monitor but the effect may be minimal and counter productive. Call them eyes in the sky. Remember the Predator is only highly effective with eyes on the ground to guide it to a kill.
Attack and tpt helios are going to be critical as well as mobile arty.
The big issue with technology is to make it the primary tool not the service tool. One heck of a mistake in this type of situation.


Nothing new in any of this it is all straight forward situational tactics.
In general I am totally stunned that this type of action has never been carried out and everything has been left to a what ever goes attitude.

So may I ask why has nothing in this vein been done??

 

[UATF]

attack Uzbekistan?! NOOO. They are one of the STANS of the former USSR. My whole family was raised not to judge people by the actions of one, or the government.

If you attack Uzbekistan, you attack all little children in school

 

[Sino-PakFriendship]

East Turkistan terrorists should take Uzbekistan, not Xinjiang of China.

East Turkistan = Uyghuristan = Uzbekistan

Because Uzbek = Uyghur

 

[roadrunner]

Sir, our resources are draining to provide protection from these refugee to average Pakistani.

As I see it, the problem comes from Pakistanis who are perhaps being funded by foreign powers to cause instability in Pakistan. Some Afghan refugees might be used to carry out their plans, but they could quite easily get these Afghans from Afghanistan. The border is porous.

Another aspect is funding to these refugees. The funding is not provided by Pakistan entirely. It is provided by UN aid agencies such as UNHCR.

UN refugee agency musters aid for thousands displaced by Pakistani fighting

They already left bitter marks of weapon and drugs and now terrorist culture is cultivated on the ground which provide them shelter from invasion.
Ask those who saw Peshwar before and after Afghan war. How a beautiful city of Peshwar turn into dust and diesel by these afghan refugee. In majority of robbery end up at afghans door. Its same like Laos pay the price of war in Vietnam..........how long God knows

That then is the price one pays for the instability next door. It does not matter how many refugees there are in Pakistan. If the nation next door is destabilized, then those people will cross over to find food and money.

The weapon culture would not be removed from Pakistan even if Afghanistan were prosperous. The drugs would, because there would be alternatives to poppy fields there. A little more understanding of the plight of refugees is required in these situations.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

i will never support Pakistan to ever attack a country like Uzbekistan.


blame the terrorist handlers, supporters, brainwashers, financiers...

not the nationals or the nation!!


The terrorists have no nation and no religion. If they did, they wouldnt do what they do.