What's new

Operation Rah-e-Nijat (South Waziristan)

Side effects of too much PDF :lol:

PDF and 7PM jog are good extra-curricular activity after a tough day....as is the case with many things of life, too much of ANYTHING is bad :)

And what's this Af-Kash?

Dear, you may refer to one Ahmed Quraishi and his article Forget AfPak, Resolve Af-Kash To Win In Afghanistan

I do agree with many points made
 
The hunt for Hakimullah

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Rahimullah Yusufzai

Imagine a most-wanted man listening to the radio carrying reports of his death and hearing not very well-informed analysts talking about its consequences. All this sounds bizarre, but this is what seems to have happened on Jan 14 when the CIA fired its drones to kill Pakistani Taliban commander Hakimullah Mahsud in the remote Shaktoi area in South Waziristan.

Hakimullah survived, claiming that he wasn't even there at the time of the attack and contradicting his spokesman, Azam Tariq, who had earlier said that the "ameer," or head, was in Shaktoi but had left before the pilotless US spy planes struck the mountainous village.

In an audiotape released later to the media, Hakimullah made fun of reporters and analysts who reported and analysed his death. He didn't realise that the media, hungry for news but lacking access to the military-controlled theatre of war, was merely reporting the claim of unnamed Pakistani security officials who were confidently saying that Hakimullah had been killed. It was strange that the US authorities weren't ready to make any such claim, but Pakistani officials, apparently not even taken into confidence about the attack, were excitedly announcing Hakimullah's death.

This wasn't the first time that wrong claims were made about the death of some most-wanted militants, such as Baitullah Mahsud, Qari Hussain, Maulana Fazlullah, Shah Dauran and Faqir Mohammad. Such claims are still being made and the media duly reports whatever it is told, without bothering, or being able, to check and crosscheck facts. The handicapped media sometimes also reports the wild claims made by the militants. Journalism has been in most cases reduced to reporting from a safe distance the claims and counter-claims of parties to the conflict.

In Hakimullah's case, Interior Minister Rahman Malik repeatedly claimed last year that he had been killed in a shootout with supporters of another Taliban commander, Waliur Rahman, following a dispute over the succession of Baitullah. Even when it became obvious that Hakimullah was alive and that no clash had even taken place between his men and Waliur Rahman's after Baitullah's death in a US drone strike on Aug 5, the minister kept insisting that Hakimullah's brother, having a close resemblance with him, had taken his place and was giving interviews to the media.

As far as Hakimullah is concerned, he escaped the attack in question, and he may have survived strikes in the past. So he remains a major target, both for the US and Pakistani armies. He was already public enemy number one of the Pakistani government after claims of responsibility by his Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) for most of the suicide attacks and bombings against security forces and law-enforcement agencies in the country.

The military operation in South Waziristan last October was specifically launched against his group to wrest control of the Mahsud tribal territory and deny sanctuaries to local and foreign militants and terrorists aligned to it.

Hakimullah is also on the hit-list of the US, but he earned further American wrath when he was seen recently in a videotape with Jordanian suicide bomber Dr Humam Khalil al-Balawi, who killed seven CIA agents and caused injuries to another six in a suicide attack in late December in a secret base in Afghanistan's Khost province. The dramatic increase in US missile strikes in the aftermath of the suicide bombing at the CIA station, first in North and then South Waziristan, is evidence enough that revenge is the major motive for these attacks.

The CIA, which primarily operates the missile-fitted spy planes, will continue to hunt Hakimullah, using every resource at its disposal, because it must avenge the loss of its seven agents to raise the morale of its employees. Both the CIA and the US army are convinced that the Khost suicide bombing was planned in Waziristan with assistance from Taliban militants.

Hakimullah may not have played any significant role in planning the suicide bombing, but he provided evidence of his involvement by agreeing to appear in the video with Dr al-Balawi. The Jordanian in his farewell statement also made it clear that he was undertaking the suicide mission to avenge the death of the late TTP head Baitullah and the suicide attack was thus seen as a joint operation.

Twice in three days recently, US drones attacked suspected hideouts of militants in Shaktoi in the hope of eliminating Hakimullah. More than 30 people were killed in these attacks, apparently mostly Pakistani tribal militants, but the prime target managed to get away. Taliban sources conceded that improved intelligence about the whereabouts of their ranking figures was due to infiltration of their ranks by US and Pakistani government spies.

In a situation when Taliban fighters start suspecting their own colleagues, one could expect reprisals and beheadings of those accused of spying. Such a situation could sap the militants' morale, which already was low after their having lost strongholds in South Waziristan, the birthplace of the Pakistani Taliban, and in Bajaur, Mohmand, Swat and the rest of Malakand Division.

The TTP has also suffered setbacks in Orakzai Agency, which is critical for its operations in Peshawar, Kohat, Hangu and other place due to its central location. In fact, the decrease in the number of acts of terrorism in Peshawar and its surroundings is attributed to the military's advance into the Ferozkhel Mela area in Orakzai Agency and control of the approach roads to Peshawar and Kohat. The improved security, as a result of police sacrifices and vigilance in and around Peshawar, has also made it difficult for vehicle-borne suicide bombers to enter the city to attack targets.

Shaktoi's emergence as a new TTP sanctuary will force the security forces to try and seize its control. The military is claiming control of 80 per cent territory in the Mahsud-populated territory in South Waziristan, but its operations would be incomplete if it is unable to capture the remaining, and far tougher, mountainous and forested area where the militants have converged.

Shaktoi is near the boundary with North Waziristan, where the presence of Pakistani and foreign militants has become a bone of contention between the US and Pakistan as Washington is pushing Islamabad to start military action against the Haqqani network of the Afghan Taliban and their tribal allies. Until then, the US will continue drone attacks against all those tribal territories that are beyond the control of the Pakistani security forces.

The mild, and at times hollow, protests by Pakistan leaders and government functionaries including the president and the prime minister, won't change the US determination to go after the Pakistan-based militants who kill American and Nato soldiers and threaten to inflict defeat on the world's only superpower in Afghanistan.

Rather, the US policy to uses drones in Pakistan will continue as long as the Obama administration considers it an effective and essential part of its strategy to stabilise Afghanistan. It would be another matter that if the drone attacks kill far more other people than the few who are targeted, thereby further radicalising the population and contributing to the anti-US sentiment in Pakistan and the Muslim world.

Pakistan's stated policy opposing the US drone strikes is also hard to believe, considering the fact that these missile attacks have facilitated its own task by eliminating some of its most dangerous enemies, such as Baitullah and Haji Omar. Since the government itself was unable to get these militants, Islamabad would be pleased if Hakimullah and the other militants too were taken out by the American drones. This is one reason why many Pakistanis are convinced that the authorities are secretly cooperating with the US in carrying out the drone strikes, even though they publicly complain about it in a bid to calm down resentment among people.

It also explains the government and military's reluctance to follow the parliament's unanimous resolution against the US drone attacks and its recommendation for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in the NWFP and its tribal areas. That resolution wasn't meant to be implemented and the government's meaningless protests on this count shouldn't be taken seriously. And thus, for the foreseeable future, the US drone attacks and Pakistan's military operations in the tribal areas will continue, in the hope that the militants, after having lost all public support, will be eventually defeated.



The writer is resident editor of The News in Peshawar. Email: rahim yusufzai@yahoo.com
 
Drone strikes unlikely to hurt Taliban in long term

* Analysts say attacks can only produce limited results since they provoke strong anti-American sentiments

ISLAMABAD: A US drone strike that nearly killed the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) chief may encourage the CIA to keep up its campaign to eliminate high-profile Taliban by remote control.

But the strikes may only have limited success and generate more anti-American sentiment in Pakistan, which the US sees as a front-line state in its war on terror.

Taliban officials said TTP chief Hakeemullah Mehsud was wounded slightly last week after being targeted in a drone attack. Washington says its drone strikes are key to defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Coming just days after Hakeemullah appeared in a farewell video with the suicide bomber who killed CIA agents in Afghanistan, the apparent revenge attack was a reminder that drone attacks are highly capable of eliminating top Taliban leaders.

Analysts say the high-tech aircraft – designed to throw Al Qaeda and Taliban operations into disarray – are unlikely to break resilient militant groups in the long term and may only generate more anti-American anger in Pakistan.

“Ultimately this is not really an effective weapon. The intent is, that if you can kill off or decapitate a significant extent of the leadership, then you can cause a rift within the movement,” said Kamran Bokhari, regional director for Middle East and South Asia at STRATFOR.

Drone attacks in the Tribal Areas have been intensified since the double agent suicide bomber killed seven CIA employees at a US base in Afghanistan on December 30, the second deadliest attack in the agency’s history.

Holding up: Even if sustained over a long period, drone strikes can only produce limited results – perhaps holding up suicide bombings for a few weeks – since Taliban leaders are unlikely to be killed in quick succession, analysts say.

The problem for the US and its allies is the over-reliance on drone attacks to fight the Taliban, and the lack of ground intelligence.

CIA’s recruitment of agents is tedious and risky since it requires winning over people in a region of tightly knit family and tribal ties. Anyone tempted by cash risks execution if caught by the Taliban or Al Qaeda, and intelligence is often sketchy.

That is why the CIA must rely on Pakistani intelligence to provide targets to the virtual pilots who use computers halfway across the world to fly the $4.5 million unmanned aircrafts into battle.

That coordination may have put the Al Qaeda and Taliban on the defensive in the Tribal Areas.

But Pakistan is unlikely to hand over the intelligence Washington wants most of all – whereabouts of leaders of the Afghan Taliban groups who attack US forces in Afghanistan.

Those coordinates will be hard to come by because those groups are some of Pakistan’s most strategic regional assets.

Pakistani officials complain in public that drone strikes violate the country’s sovereignty and have said that intensified strikes could hurt relations between the long-standing allies.

US officials privately say the attacks are carried out under an agreement with Islamabad that allows Pakistani leaders to decry the attacks in public. reuters
 
Four key Taliban commanders killed in Shaktoi

Tuesday, 19 Jan, 2010

A key commander of the TTP Punjab Azmatullah Mawiya was also killed in a drone strike on January 15 in Shaktoi, officials said.

Four important Taliban commanders were killed in a drone strike on January 17 in Shaktoi, official sources told DawnNews.
They were identified as Shahid Ullah, Hafiz Nizamuddin Storikhel, Khawarey and Mohtaj, officials said.

A key commander of the TTP Punjab Azmatullah Mawiya was also killed in a drone strike on January 15 in Shaktoi.
 
All told, an interesting series of columns that, in many respects contradict themselves.

1.) Revenge- Perhaps...but I'd be disappointed if that was the primary motive. More likely ELINT/SIGINT provided intel of H. Mehsud's Shaktoi presence. Whether a result of traffic increases from the C.I.A. attack is irrelevant, if we felt there was a solide target profile, we'd attack it.

We did. Entirely and professionally appropriate. How we might feel about such is a separate and irrelevant matter to the central purpose.

The continuing attacks are unquestionably being generated by the ELINT/SIGINT/HUMINT that's arising from the attack on H. Mehsud. Their effectiveness seems high.

2.) Perceptions- It's apparent that the perceptions of the Pakistani public are not driven by fact but, instead, by the GoP's unwitting assistance to the TTP propagandists in perpetuating the message of PREDATOR failure and slaughter. Why is obvious- it dovetails the GoP into the Pakistani public mainstream's pre-disposed anti-Americanism thus sustaining its tolerance by that same public. Everybody hears what their pre-disposed inclinations wish.

Accurate? Of course not-

"Journalism has been in most cases reduced to reporting from a safe distance the claims and counter-claims of parties to the conflict."

The C.I.A. has some idea of the effectiveness of these attacks from their intel sources. So too the ISI I presume.

Who certainly knows? Only the taliban. What we do know is an attack happens, a building is immediately cordoned, and phone calls are made by only those possessing such means. Owning a cell-phone in FATAville as an innocent civilian is a death sentence if caught. So who makes the calls to your press?

What's left unsaid until recent op-ed columns by Ms. Farhat Taj in the DAILY TIMES and Mr. Irfan Husain in DAWN is the GoP's surrender of sovereign control of this area to the terrorists and all that's meant to those innocents of this area. SWAT provided all the proof to the public's eye necessary to imagine what life has been within the heart of darkness for all these years since approx 2003/04.

Are not over 700 tribal maliks now dead at the hands of these men. The names of those maliks were certainly well known. Where are they now? Six feet under is where. How many others have suffered the same but lacked the high profile of these men? Any sustained outrage from those east of the Indus river in support of those west of such?

Nada. Nobody really cares enough. Easier to focus on America and distort our efforts and, meanwhile, detract from that which isn't done on your tribal citizens behalf.

Drones are effective and the least intrusive means that America has to defend itself and those of Afghanistan from the war made upon them from inside FATAville. We COULD ratchet our leverage. There are certainly other assets available at our disposal. For certain high profile targets we won't hesitate to use them either if it's determined that they constitute the best means of prosecuting such a target.

Neat series of columns, fatman17. I'm appreciative.

Thanks.:usflag:
 
Perceptions- It's apparent that the perceptions of the Pakistani public are not driven by fact but, instead, by the GoP's unwitting assistance to the TTP propagandists in perpetuating the message of PREDATOR failure and slaughter. Why is obvious- it dovetails the GoP into the Pakistani public mainstream's pre-disposed anti-Americanism thus sustaining its tolerance by that same public. Everybody hears what their pre-disposed inclinations wish.

Accurate? Of course not-

Drones are effective and the least intrusive means that America has to defend itself and those of Afghanistan from the war made upon them from inside FATAville. We COULD ratchet our leverage. There are certainly other assets available at our disposal. For certain high profile targets we won't hesitate to use them either if it's determined that they constitute the best means of prosecuting such a target.

Predator attacks are a no-no. Period. And that is not my pre-disposed inclination either. Be it Nigeria, Algeria or the US, no state can violate another country's sovereignty and conduct strikes. The US, for the long-term, would be better disposed to make the GoP take such measures.

In any case, who takes responsibility for the collateral damage?


Who certainly knows? Only the taliban. What we do know is an attack happens, a building is immediately cordoned, and phone calls are made by only those possessing such means. Owning a cell-phone in FATAville as an innocent civilian is a death sentence if caught. So who makes the calls to your press?

Telecoms don't cover FATA-ville (at least the thick of South Waziristan) last one checked. They only have landlines and the Taliban (as the insurgents in Balochistan) use satellite phones for communication.

(Do correct if wrong.)
 
^Rahimullah Yusufzai is perhaps the most 'well-known' and 'knowledgeable' writer/analyst based at Peshawar with very 'deep roots' in FATA for getting information abt the ground situations. many foreign news beats use his expertise and knowlwdge!
 
"Predator attacks are a no-no. Period."

Speaking from your heart, not your head.

PREDATOR attacks are the least intrusive means of self-protection available to America on behalf of itself, ISAF, and Afghanistan. If Pakistani lands are to be used to attack Afghanistan in violation of its sovereign obligation, then America will assert its right to self-defense against such.

Simple premise to understand-with rights come responsibilities.

Thanks.:usflag:
 
"Predator attacks are a no-no. Period."

Speaking from your heart, not your head.

PREDATOR attacks are the least intrusive means of self-protection available to America on behalf of itself, ISAF, and Afghanistan. If Pakistani lands are to be used to attack Afghanistan in violation of its sovereign obligation, then America will assert its right to self-defense against such.

Simple premise to understand-with rights come responsibilities.

Thanks.:usflag:


"then America will assert its right to self-defense against such."

So what do you suggest if Pakistani people think that the U.S. is trying to invade us..what should they do for self-defense?

If you think Pakistani people do not know the facts..well guess what..U.S. has not justified the WOT rather they only sing the "classical" songs of self-defense..
Should we bomb the U.S. for the sake of self-defense as we also have fear of the U.S. as you have fear from talibans...

Correct me if you think we don't have the right...

Its not an emotional reply rather it is a question about the self-defense!



"Simple premise to understand-with rights come responsibilities."

We will bomb American bases, CIA/Blackwater for the sake of self-defense this is our right and the responsibility will be not to bomb civilians as you do!



:pakistan:
 
Last edited:
Your lands have an ousted foreign government making war upon Afghanistan, ISAF, America, and the U.N. We will defend ourselves.

Thanks.:usflag:
 
Your lands have an ousted foreign government making war upon Afghanistan, ISAF, America, and the U.N. We will defend ourselves.

Thanks.:usflag:


Your land has been involved in the wars...
Should I show you the time line?

Your land supported "legal" agencies to create war hysteria in other countries...
Our land did not support TTP...

We will also defend ourselves!

Dont' think you don't know the facts..

Just a patriotic thug blabbering to support his country's illegal policies!
Thats all you are and you can offer!


:pakistan:
 
Last edited:
^Rahimullah Yusufzai is perhaps the most 'well-known' and 'knowledgeable' writer/analyst based at Peshawar with very 'deep roots' in FATA for getting information abt the ground situations. many foreign news beats use his expertise and knowlwdge!

my favourite is my main man Kamal Hyder (Al Jazeera English Correspondent) ; though, he isnt based in NWFP/FATA. He was recently in Swat if I am not mistaken. He usually stays in Isloo.
 
"Just a patriotic thug blabbering to support his country's illegal policies!
Thats all you are and you can offer!"


Tell that to the other 40+ nations and Afghans under daily attack by your proxies. We've a U.N. mandate and the invite of the Afghan government.

You've nothing but an illegal, never elected, and ousted government using your lands for war.

Permitting such aborgates rights of sovereignty but doesn't deny us the right to self-defense from such.

Time-line that. If you can't or won't understand such, refrain from my replies. It is the base principle that governs the use of PREDATOR and would be equally applicable should we decide that more onerous means are necessary. Sanctuary is wrong and every nation invested in Afghanistan's future will tell any Pakistani that...

...if they'd listen. You won't. I know that.

Thanks.:usflag:
 
Last edited:
Your lands have an ousted foreign government making war upon Afghanistan, ISAF, America, and the U.N. We will defend ourselves.

Thanks.:usflag:

worry about the Afghans, and them defending themselves (from themselves). When you support different militias and drug-lords and questionable figures --how will the "halaat" change in Afghanistan? What and where is the long-term strategy?

You "defended" the oppressed Afghans when the soviets invaded, gave them the means to "defend" themselves (we of course helped you, as it was our own interest at the time). So now decades later, you are in their shoes.

So now occupying their country you talk about defending yourselves and defending Afghans, ISAF and whoever.

The irony of this is just delicious. It is obviously in everyone's interest to neutralize anti-State terrorists. But we have our own threat assesments, our own priorities. We will fight this war on our terms.

Drones should be flying over the Afghan side of the border, so that movement of militants from Afghan side to Pakistan is curtailed in the first place. We should also increase cooperation with countries like Yemen, Sudan, Uzbekistan --as many of their nationals have been involved in terrorist activity in our borders.


I really wish our authorities would expel all Afghans from Pakistan as well. I really wish they were not in Pakistan. God bless them, but I don't think they should be allowed in the Pakistan. Just a few weeks back, indian spy who was at Afghan refugee camp was arrested. Afghans come to Pakistan, then they abuse our hospitality and kindness. When will these nincompoops realize this?? Rehman Malik gives a 72 hour warning, they arrest a few hundred ---then I hear nothing again about it.

I have said many times --Afghanistan is a sad place with so many stake-holders and conflicting goals. We'll just have to ride out the waves and be very calculated. Because there is little room for mis-calculations.




Thanks

:pakistan:
 
Last edited:
"Just a patriotic thug blabbering to support his country's illegal policies!
Thats all you are and you can offer!"


Tell that to the other 40+ nations and Afghans under daily attack by your proxies. We've a U.N. mandate and the invite of the Afghan government.

You've nothing but an illegal, never elected, and ousted government using your lands for war.

Permitting such aborgates rights of sovereignty but doesn't deny us the right to self-defense from such.

Time-line that.

Thanks.:usflag:


Tell that to the other 40+ nations and Afghans under daily attack by your proxies. We've a U.N. mandate and the invite of the Afghan government.

What kind of nations you want us to tell?
U.S. proxy i.e. NATO?
What kind of Afghan gover are you talking about? One supported by the U.S. or ?


You've nothing but an illegal, never elected, and ousted government using your lands for war.

Your government is supporting this illegal government.
So it means you are arguing against the capability of your own government. Be careful if your CIA boss sees it he will kick you out.

Permitting such aborgates rights of sovereignty but doesn't deny us the right to self-defense from such.

Indeed. Permitting such abrogates right of sovereignty but does not deny us the right to self-defense from the thugs like CIA etc..
We will also do a 9/11 on Army House and will bomb White House and the excuse will be-Obama was the hijacker!


:pakistan:
 
Back
Top Bottom