Operation Rah-e-Nijat (South Waziristan)

[S-2]

"It would be better if you do some reading and try to understand which are the real taliban and what are the ones who use the name of the taliban but aren't Taliban in anyway."

taimikhan, I'm as well-read on this subject as any here, IMHO, and I see no ideological nor functional/behavioral difference. In fact, more than ever, it appears that both are operating on both sides of the Durand Line depending upon whether it's NATO/ISAF or the P.A. who is doing the pushing at the moment.

They are taliban, plain and simple, and you'd be impossibly pressed to separate them by language, appearance, armament, nor intent to dominate local citizens of either Afghanistan or Pakistan.

That you evidently SEE a difference suggests why America and others remain so concerned about the ultimate objectives of your forces WRT other Wazir tribes like the presently "neutral" Hafiz Gul Bahadur and Maulvi Nazir's boys. It's well understood that they live on your lands and make war upon afghans and the U.N. mandated forces in Afghanistan.

That will always be a problem and remains the primary justification (along with Haqqani, Hekmatyar, A.Q. and Omar) as to why REAPER and PREDATOR fly above you armed to the teeth.

Thanks.

 

[Stewart1989]

I am confused then... What is the meaning of the word Taliban... Why call themselves Tehriek e Taliban Pakistan at all? There surely is a connection somewhere?

Was it not the Afghan Taliban that was harbouring AQ?

 

[S-2]

"Or why the Taliban leader Mullah Omar had to dissociate himself and his Taliban from the ones being led by Baitullah Mehsud and BM had to come up with TTP ??"

First, didn't Omar try to mediate a truce with Mehsud, Bahadur, and Nazir? Yes?

Why, indeed? That they might all fight the afghans but not the P.A. and your citizens? Of course.

Why?

Self-preservation, obviously? Look at what happened to Baitullah? Do you think that Omar wants ISI agents dropping little transponders next to HIS front door?

It's been notable the assiduously correct behavior displayed by the afghan taliban leadership in steering clear of offending their Pakistani hosts.

Their Pakistani "students" though, have a more personal goal in mind-one that Omar, their mentor, would like to defer until Afghanistan is safely in the taliban fold again.

He simply isn't looking for a fight with you right now as he's afghan first and likes staying alive in Pakistan. This isn't particularly complicated nor convoluted.

Why arent' the afghan taliban in SWAT? How easy do you think it was to get there past NATO in Konar and Nuristan last spring, past your forces in active operations in Bajaur and Mohmand, and finally to SWAT. Fact is, you DID find uzbeks and other foreigners in SWAT last spring in any case.

Why aren't they fighting in the Islamic Emirate of South Waziristan now? Maybe because they've opened their homes and hiding places to TTP forces looking for a safe hidey-hole.

We face the same enemy unless you're army and government are interested in retaining "assets" to pursue "strategic depth". Do you? A.M. insists that is not a Pakistani objective. Is he wrong?

I'll eagerly await your reply.

Thanks.

 

[vsdoc]

We face the same enemy unless you're army and government are interested in retaining "assets" to pursue "strategic depth". Do you? A.M. insists that is not a Pakistani objective. Is he wrong?

I'll eagerly await your reply.

As will I ..... though my reading has already started.

Preliminary searches on the Net show that depending on the source and its affiliation, there is a pakistani view, an american view, and an indian view, and increasingly the indian and american views are overlapping and mutually distinct from the injured party righteously indignant pakistani view.

But I will maintain my silence and let these two heavyweights slug it out ...... its a learning op par excellence!

Taimi bhai naraaz mat ho aur post karo.

Cheers, Doc

 

[TaimiKhan]

"It would be better if you do some reading and try to understand which are the real taliban and what are the ones who use the name of the taliban but aren't Taliban in anyway."

taimikhan, I'm as well-read on this subject as any here, IMHO, and I see no ideological nor functional/behavioral difference. In fact, more than ever, it appears that both are operating on both sides of the Durand Line depending upon whether it's NATO/ISAF or the P.A. who is doing the pushing at the moment.

They are taliban, plain and simple, and you'd be impossibly pressed to separate them by language, appearance, armament, nor intent to dominate local citizens of either Afghanistan or Pakistan.

That you evidently SEE a difference suggests why America and others remain so concerned about the ultimate objectives of your forces WRT other Wazir tribes like the presently "neutral" Hafiz Gul Bahadur and Maulvi Nazir's boys. It's well understood that they live on your lands and make war upon afghans and the U.N. mandated forces in Afghanistan.

That will always be a problem and remains the primary justification (along with Haqqani, Hekmatyar, A.Q. and Omar) as to why REAPER and PREDATOR fly above you armed to the teeth.

Thanks.

Sir, before going forward in reply to your post, just would like to share that there are some very well known gangs and figures in my hometown area, all of them involved in car snatching, kidnapping all kind of such things are now wearing turbans, grown beards and call themselves taliban, give share of their earnings to the taliban and keep doing the acts which they used to before. So now such people who have no ideological or functional similarity with the Taliban, should they be termed the real taliban, the ones who are fighting the american occupational forces or killing innocent human beings or wish to enforce Shariah in Afghanistan ??

I am not identifying groups here the ones you have pointed out, yes those groups are fighting over in Afghanistan, but the ones i am trying to identify are the ones, who are the new generation, all of them young guys, who have never went to a Madrasa but call them selves Mullahs and Maulvis. TTP has no role on the other side of the durand line, they just say it but in reality they have none, their sole aim was not fighting American or allied forces, their aim an objective is something else. I am just trying to differentiate between these two, you being such an intellectual know urself how Taliban were born and from where they came, but these guys the TTP ones are no Taliban, they are just using the name of being Taliban, trying to associate themselves with the ones in Afhgnistan. I have relatives from Swat, there was no mentioning of the term Taliban in swat until some years ago, but when those murderers started the armed struggle, just to give legitimacy and a face to their barbarism they gave it the name of Swat TTP.

I agreed before with you also that taliban are here on this side of the border, Mullah Nazir, Hafiz Gul Bahadur, Hekmatyar etc etc, all being in Pakistan and operating from here as they are native of this area, can you plz give me a link where they have agreed to being part of TTP ? If they are also Taliban and are inside Pakistan, then why aren't they calling themselves a part of TTP ?? Why have no reinforcements been sent to them by the people you just mentioned, becoz TTP is not considered part of the taliban struggle, whether in Pakistan or in Afghanistan.

So my point if just to differentiate between TTP and the Taliban fighting in Afghanistan, whether on this side of the border or on the other, that is a separate issue and much has been talked about that too in the past.

All the known thugs and gangs operating around Peshawar have joined or given themselves the name of TTP, This Chapter of TTP or that Chapter of TTP, they have no ideological thinking to differentiate, they are just a bunch of thugs and murderers who have started to use this name to bring fear in peoples hearts and destabilize Pakistan on the directions of others.

 

[vsdoc]

The TTP began to form when in 2002 the Pakistani military conducted incursions into the tribal areas to combat foreign militants spilling across the Afghan border.[2] Many of the Pakistani Taliban are veterans of the fighting in Afghanistan, where they supported the fight against foreigners by providing soldiers, training and logistics.[3] While the Pakistani military concentrated on the Afghan Taliban, small militant tribes opposed to the federal government's control began to coordinate closely. In 2004, the groups started negotiations with Islamabad that effectively established their authority in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). By this time, the militants had killed around 200 rival tribal elders in the region and further consolidated control. In December 2007 the group officially formed under the leadership of Baitullah Mehsud.[1]

On August 25, 2008 Pakistan banned the group, froze its bank accounts and assets, and barred it from media appearances. The government also announced that bounties would be placed on prominent leaders of the TTP.[4]

In late December 2008 and early January 2009 Mullah Omar sent a delegation, led by former Guantanamo Bay detainee Mullah Abdullah Zakir, to persuade leading members of the TTP to put aside differences and aid the Afghan Taliban in combating the American presence in Afghanistan.[3] Baitullah Mehsud, Hafiz Gul Bahadur and Maulavi Nazir agreed in February and formed the Shura Ittehadul Mujahideen (SIM), also transliterated as Shura Ittehad-ul-Mujahideen and translated into English as the Council of United Mujahedeen.[3][5][6] In a written statement circulated in a one-page Urdu-language pamphlet, the three affirmed that they would put aside differences to fight American-led forces. The statement included a declaration of allegiance to both Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden.[3][5]

From Wiki

Cheers, Doc

 

[TaimiKhan]

"Or why the Taliban leader Mullah Omar had to dissociate himself and his Taliban from the ones being led by Baitullah Mehsud and BM had to come up with TTP ??"

First, didn't Omar try to mediate a truce with Mehsud, Bahadur, and Nazir? Yes?

So doesn't that tell you that they are not all the same, but different groups, some having the same goal and some different. Has the truce worked ?? I don't believe it has, doesn't that gives you some idea of who is what and what everyone wants ??

Why, indeed? That they might all fight the afghans but not the P.A. and your citizens? Of course.

Why?

Self-preservation, obviously? Look at what happened to Baitullah? Do you think that Omar wants ISI agents dropping little transponders next to HIS front door?

It's been notable the assiduously correct behavior displayed by the afghan taliban leadership in steering clear of offending their Pakistani hosts.

Their Pakistani "students" though, have a more personal goal in mind-one that Omar, their mentor, would like to defer until Afghanistan is safely in the taliban fold again. [/QUOTE]

So when Taliban had taken over Afghanistan before, why weren't then they active inside Pakistan, they had 95% of Afghanistan in their control, perfect opportunity to create trouble over here, but it did not happen, it means they aren't interested. And the Pakistani students were there before too, they aren't new here, where were they before 9/11 ?? I believe their personal goal theory has been invented by the Americans to justify their and ask us to continue their war on our soil.

He simply isn't looking for a fight with you right now as he's afghan first and likes staying alive in Pakistan. This isn't particularly complicated nor convoluted.

If you sir and Americans are so much sure about that, why is it that the location of his hideout can't be given. In 8 years of war, with such huge infrastructure of technology, drones, satellites and God knows what not, US can't find 3 people in such a small area to search for. Now as even Afghan people are with you, then why can't CIA get information on the whereabouts of Mullah Omar through human intel by utilizing the local people ??

Why arent' the afghan taliban in SWAT? How easy do you think it was to get there past NATO in Konar and Nuristan last spring, past your forces in active operations in Bajaur and Mohmand, and finally to SWAT. Fact is, you DID find uzbeks and other foreigners in SWAT last spring in any case.

if US forces are so efficient in controlling the border, then why do they cry for our help, why can't then they control the Taliban crossing the durand line on daily basis. That is one shocking news that US forces can control those provinces bordering Pakistan, but not on the Waziristan side. Also i don't understand if US forces are so efficient, why the militants in Bajaur have crossed into Afghanistan and now coming back again and striking the security forces ?? Possible explanation, they were knowingly let to cross into and later over to Pakistan by the ever efficient US forces controlling the border. Yeah those foreigners came from within and from across, but their number was way less then told.

Why aren't they fighting in the Islamic Emirate of South Waziristan now? Maybe because they've opened their homes and hiding places to TTP forces looking for a safe hidey-hole.

We face the same enemy unless you're army and government are interested in retaining "assets" to pursue "strategic depth". Do you? A.M. insists that is not a Pakistani objective. Is he wrong?

Let them open, they will be getting the same treatment as given to the Mehsud, at least PA did its job by neutralizing them & recovered the area lost for many years, let the future come and we will see what happens to them too.

Yes, we face the same enemy but both having different objectives and agenda. And unfortunately, the objectives, goals and the intention of US is different comparing to Pakistan.

And i don't believe in the strategic depth thing, we what strategic dept are we gonna get from Afghanistan ?? But i do believe Pakistan will not let it happen to be threatened by India on one side, while a pro-Indian or US on the other side as we can't cater to enemies on both sides. Strategic depth is obtained from a country which has some infrastructure in place, or where we can move our assets, for that also we need infrastructure, which is non existent in Afghanistan.

 

[vsdoc]

And i don't believe in the strategic depth thing, we what strategic dept are we gonna get from Afghanistan ?? But i do believe Pakistan will not let it happen to be threatened by India on one side, while a pro-Indian or US on the other side as we can't cater to enemies on both sides. Strategic depth is obtained from a country which has some infrastructure in place, or where we can move our assets, for that also we need infrastructure, which is non existent in Afghanistan.

Here is where you lost me.

Afghanistan has immense strategic as well as economic importance to you guys.

Your strategic depth now lies in NOT having a pro-India/US Afghanistan to deal with ...... offense has changed pretty quickly to defense.

And how do you believe Pakistan will prevent that very scenario from playing out - i.e. India on one side, pro-India/US Afghanistan on the other?

Difficult to control the sides when whats in between is far from controlled.

Cheers, Doc

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Your strategic depth now lies in NOT having a pro-India/US Afghanistan to deal with ...... offense has changed pretty quickly to defense.

Not having a pro-India Afghanistan that would meddle in Pakistan was always the objective - how has that changed?

Whether Afghanistan is pro-US or not matters little. The US interest in Afghanistan is primarily related to its security concerns AFAIK, and hence a 'pro-US Afghanistan' is of little concern to Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Here is where you lost me.

Afghanistan has immense strategic as well as economic importance to you guys.

It has strategic and economic importance of course, and the reasons are well known to informed readers, but the argument of 'strategic depth' in the military sense (a place to retreat to and fight back I assume is what most Indian commentators are suggesting) has never really struck me as a realistic strategy pursued by Pakistan, nor have I heard it consistently articulated by credible decision makers in Pakistan.

'Strategic depth' in the Pakistani sense is pretty much as you described - economic ties with Afghanistan and through Afghanistan with the CAR's, especially to leverage the transport of natural resources to Pakistan and through Pakistan to the rest of the world, and not having to worry about a state that is hostile to Pakistan, claims its territory and allows India to carry out subterfuge in Pakistan from it.

All of that is achievable with either a pro-Pakistan/anti-India Afghanistan or a neutral Afghanistan -our interests are served either way. It just so happens that the cards dealt out post Soviet withdrawal were of a 'zero-sum game' nature - Pakistan threw its support behind certain factions and the Indians, Iranians and Russians behind the other, leaving little room for 'neutrality'.

The ideal US goal in Afghanistan now would be to try and cobble together a state that does come close to that neutrality, if Afghanistan is to be successful and intervention free from the regional actors going forward. To that end I believe the Afghan actors have to put on a much more convincing show in terms of accepting Pakistan's current territorial boundaries and formalizing that acceptance.

We know already that there is no legitimate non-espionage need for the multiple consulates the Indians have in Afghanistan. A sign of neutrality on the part of the Afghans, and the regional actors desire to accept and help sustain a neutral Afghanistan, would be the closure of all such consulates, by both India and Pakistan.

Without a neutral Afghanistan, it will be hard to sustain stability in Afghanistan in the long run.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The TTP began to form when in 2002 the Pakistani military conducted incursions into the tribal areas to combat foreign militants spilling across the Afghan border.[2] Many of the Pakistani Taliban are veterans of the fighting in Afghanistan, where they supported the fight against foreigners by providing soldiers, training and logistics.[3] While the Pakistani military concentrated on the Afghan Taliban, small militant tribes opposed to the federal government's control began to coordinate closely. In 2004, the groups started negotiations with Islamabad that effectively established their authority in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). By this time, the militants had killed around 200 rival tribal elders in the region and further consolidated control. In December 2007 the group officially formed under the leadership of Baitullah Mehsud.[1]

On August 25, 2008 Pakistan banned the group, froze its bank accounts and assets, and barred it from media appearances. The government also announced that bounties would be placed on prominent leaders of the TTP.[4]

In late December 2008 and early January 2009 Mullah Omar sent a delegation, led by former Guantanamo Bay detainee Mullah Abdullah Zakir, to persuade leading members of the TTP to put aside differences and aid the Afghan Taliban in combating the American presence in Afghanistan.[3] Baitullah Mehsud, Hafiz Gul Bahadur and Maulavi Nazir agreed in February and formed the Shura Ittehadul Mujahideen (SIM), also transliterated as Shura Ittehad-ul-Mujahideen and translated into English as the Council of United Mujahedeen.[3][5][6] In a written statement circulated in a one-page Urdu-language pamphlet, the three affirmed that they would put aside differences to fight American-led forces. The statement included a declaration of allegiance to both Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden.[3][5]

From Wiki

But did the TTP (its core of Baitullah Mehsud led groups, not the Maulvi Nazir and Gul Bahadur led ones) ever shift their goals to Afghanistan from Pakistan?

I would argue not. In fact, as the first excerpt you posted indicates, the TTP rose without Pakistani support as an indigenous movement to impose Taliban ideology in Pakistan, morphed with Al Qaeda and other extremist ideology, and is now the terrorist group we know. Barring some token support for the Afghan Taliban, the core TTP groups have always been focused on conquering Pakistan, not Afghanistan, and there is no evidence that Pakistan either created them or supported them - so they are in no way 'our dogs gone mad', as your earlier analogy implied.

 

[PostColonial]

Strategic depth isn't just "a place to retreat and fight back", its also a place from where to draw irregular fighters in order to gain some advantage vis a vis the Indian army.

PA and Pakistani state is well known for their use of guerrilla fighters drawn from the Tribal regions and Afghanistan, since 1947.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Strategic depth isn't just "a place to retreat and fight back", its also a place from where to draw irregular fighters in order to gain some advantage vis a vis the Indian army.

Last I checked Pakistan had a much larger population than Afghanistan so we aren't exactly suffering from a shortfall of manpower - and most fighters in Kashmir captured or killed in IoK, that were not Kashmiri, were Pakistani, not Afghan.

So that theory makes no sense either.

 

[waraich66]

Strategic depth isn't just "a place to retreat and fight back", its also a place from where to draw irregular fighters in order to gain some advantage vis a vis the Indian army.

PA and Pakistani state is well known for their use of guerrilla fighters drawn from the Tribal regions and Afghanistan, since 1947.

Tribel pushtoons and Afghans belong to best martial races of Aisa , they are very effective against regular army , defeated Indian army in 1948 , Russian in 80's and now US facing defeat.

In WW1&11 they were among best soldiers of British army.

 

[S-2]

taimikhan's explanation of strategic depth is correct. It is not about a final redoubt but, instead, space denial to avoid a perceived double envelopment.