What's new

Pakistani army: No new offensive for 6-12 months

I think its more of a strategic choice, they need to first stabilize the areas they have liberated, and more importantly they dont have a budget like the US. Economy is already down the drains and instead of giving us predators the US is providing us with its state of the art, extremely sensitive the "shadow paper drone". Its in the best interest of the nation, they need to stabilize the situation within the country too, root out elements that are closer to home and then go after the big guys in waziristan. they wanna secure all the places so when they go into waziristan there are no escape routes left .

And solomon please dont quote me, or reply to this post, cheers mate
 
.
Pakistan's Rebuff Over New Offensives Rankles U.S.

Monday, January 25, 2010
By ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID E. SANGER, The New York Times

WASHINGTON -- The Pakistani Army's announcement last week that it planned no new offensive against militants for as long as a year has deeply frustrated senior American military officers, and chipped away at one of the cornerstones of President Obama's strategy to reverse the Taliban's gains in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

When Mr. Obama announced his decision in December to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, he and his aides made clear that the chances of success hinged significantly on Pakistan's willingness to eliminate militants' havens in its territory, including in the tribal region of North Waziristan. United States officials described the American and NATO surge of troops as a hammer, but they said it required a Pakistani anvil on the other side of the border to prevent the Taliban from retreating to the mountains.

Now that strategy appears imperiled by Pakistan's latest statement. On Thursday, soon after Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates arrived on a two-day trip to the country, the Pakistani Army's chief spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, rebuffed American pressure to step up attacks in North Waziristan. That area is the main base of operations for the Haqqani network, which stages operations against American and Afghan forces in Afghanistan. It is believed to be responsible for many of the attacks on Kabul, including a devastating assault early last week near the presidential palace.

Fighters from Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban have also been concentrated in North Waziristan, including many who were driven out of their positions in South Waziristan by recent Pakistani Army operations.

"This has become the center," a senior administration official said, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to discuss American strategy publicly.

American officials said they had not been surprised by the Pakistani announcement. Since the last two years of the Bush administration, the United States has been arguing for a far more active Pakistani military presence in North Waziristan. But some said they had been surprised that the rebuff was issued while Mr. Gates was in the country, rather than after he left.

General Abbas told reporters it could be 6 to 12 months before the army consolidated its current operations and began any new offensive. Some American officials think it could be longer.

The critical question is how much the Pakistani decision will undercut Mr. Obama's strategy. During a speech at West Point on Dec. 1, he said his administration would reassess the plan at the end of 2010, after all the troops deployed as part of the increase were in place. But if the Pakistani position does not change, the operations on Pakistan's side of the border will not have begun by the time Mr. Obama has made his assessment.

Mr. Obama made no public demands on Islamabad when he announced the troop increase at West Point, but he said he was acting "with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan." He quickly added: "We need a strategy that works on both sides of the border."

Mr. Obama praised the Pakistani Army for waging an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan, where the Pakistani Taliban were taking aim at the country's fragile government. He promised to work with the Pakistanis to strengthen their ability to combat the militants, but he said the United States had "made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear."

Pakistani officials have not refused to go after Qaeda or Taliban fighters in North Waziristan. But they have made it clear that their forces are too tied up now to conduct new, larger operations on Washington's schedule.

As a practical matter, American officials said, Pakistan's inability or reluctance to open a new front in North Waziristan will increase the reliance on missile strikes from drones operated by the C.I.A. to disrupt attacks aimed at Afghanistan.

American officials said that Pakistani military leaders had never promised a specific timetable for beginning a new offensive, but that announcing a delay of as much as 12 months could aid the militants' planning and morale on both sides of the border.

"It's disappointing, but not entirely surprising," said a senior Defense Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid jeopardizing his ties with Pakistani counterparts.

Mr. Gates and other American officials sought to put the best face on the situation last week, saying that the Pakistani Army was stretched thin from its previous offensives against militants.

"Pakistani leadership will make its own decisions about what the best timing for their military operations is, about when they are ready to do something or whether they are going to do it at all," Mr. Gates told Pakistani journalists on Friday, the day after General Abbas's comments.

"The way I like to express it is, we're in this car together, but the Pakistanis are in the driver's seat and have their foot on the accelerator," Mr. Gates said. "And that's just fine with me."

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the head of the military's Central Command, said at a conference in Washington on Friday that American officials must be mindful of the limitations facing Pakistan's military.

General Petraeus said that the Pakistani leaders would need to negotiate agreements with local tribal leaders to hold the gains that the Pakistani military has achieved in places like Swat and South Waziristan. But he emphasized that any deals must be more resilient than previous pacts in the tribal areas, which fell apart and allowed the militants to regain control.

Senior American officers in the region said that cooperation with their Pakistani counterparts had improved in recent months.

NATO military leaders, for instance, recently provided a detailed briefing on the campaign in Afghanistan to Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the Pakistani army chief of staff, a senior American officer said. Pakistani officers reciprocated last week with a briefing for NATO officers on their campaign plans, the American officer said.

7 Bodies Found With Warnings

PESHAWAR, Pakistan -- The bodies of seven people accused by the Taliban of spying for the United States were found in North Waziristan on Sunday, officials and residents said.

Notes attached to the bullet-ridden bodies accused the victims of working with the United States as it carries out a wave of drone strikes in the region, and warned that anyone else who did so would meet the same end.

Drone attacks in the region have increased significantly since the bombing of a C.I.A. base in Khost, Afghanistan, that killed seven Americans on Dec. 30.



Pakistan’s Rebuff Over New Offensives Rankles U.S. - NYTimes.com
 
.
totally stupid nonsense and full of lie!! BULLSHIT soo called WAR ON TERROR its not WAR ON TERROR its DESTROY PAKISTAN TACTICS and we are watching this bullshit from last 7 years continously!

******************** USA!

behind INDIA, ISREAL we know what is actually going on!! stop fooling world and fight face to face if you have guts USA!!!

If those who have just only AK47 and KICK USA and still undercontrol 70% of Afghanistan (i am talking about Talibans) So we have 6 + Military enough Warhead to sweap anycountry with in seconds so WHAT LEFT who is the hell thinking we are not capable to fight with UNITEDSTATE ???? enough is enough bullshits!!

gOOD WORK PAKISTAN ARMY! Military should stick on this WE DONT NEED ANY MORE OPERATION till + 12 months! either US selling us 10000 F16 or 50 Drone or 100 Apaches even free of cost we know WHO IS TALIBAN and WHO IS BEHIND THESE TERRORIST!!
 
Last edited:
.
totally stupid nonsense and full of lie!! BULLSHIT soo called WAR ON TERROR its not WAR ON TERROR its DESTROY PAKISTAN TACTICS...behind INDIA, ISREAL we know what is actually going on!! stop fooling world -
Doesn't this post belong in the "conspiracy theory" thread?
 
.
totally stupid nonsense and full of lie!! BULLSHIT soo called WAR ON TERROR its not WAR ON TERROR its DESTROY PAKISTAN TACTICS and we are watching this bullshit from last 7 years continously!

******************** USA!

behind INDIA, ISREAL we know what is actually going on!! stop fooling world and fight face to face if you have guys USA!!!

If those who have just only AK47 and KICK USA and still undercontrol 70% of Afghanistan (i am talking about Talibans) So we have 6 + Military enough Warhead to sweap anycountry with in seconds so WHAT LEFT who is the hell thinking we are not capable to fight with UNITEDSTATE ???? enough is enough bullshits!!

gOOD WORK PAKISTAN ARMY! Military should stick on this WE DONT NEED ANY MORE OPERATION till + 12 months! either US selling us 10000 F16 or 50 Drone or 100 Apaches even free of cost we know WHO IS TALIBAN and WHO IS BEHIND THESE TERRORIST!!

"Military nay 1 saal ke NAA kya kee susu he nikal gaya hey.... America ka kutay mandhalatay howay Pakistan kay dooray karna shuru hogaye damn it Americans ye tu haal hey inkaa ye lareengay".


How could you have posted 1,000 times on this site and yet still write something as stupid as that? :hitwall:
 
.
United States officials described the American and NATO surge of troops as a hammer, but they said it required a Pakistani anvil on the other side of the border to prevent the Taliban from retreating to the mountains.


But what happened to the anvil that the ISAF was supposed to provide twice, one when they brought boots inside afg and second when PA started full scale operations against the thugs within our tribal areas?
 
.
totally stupid nonsense and full of lie!! BULLSHIT soo called WAR ON TERROR its not WAR ON TERROR its DESTROY PAKISTAN TACTICS and we are watching this bullshit from last 7 years continously!

******************** USA!

behind INDIA, ISREAL we know what is actually going on!! stop fooling world and fight face to face if you have guys USA!!!

If those who have just only AK47 and KICK USA and still undercontrol 70% of Afghanistan (i am talking about Talibans) So we have 6 + Military enough Warhead to sweap anycountry with in seconds so WHAT LEFT who is the hell thinking we are not capable to fight with UNITEDSTATE ???? enough is enough bullshits!!

gOOD WORK PAKISTAN ARMY! Military should stick on this WE DONT NEED ANY MORE OPERATION till + 12 months! either US selling us 10000 F16 or 50 Drone or 100 Apaches even free of cost we know WHO IS TALIBAN and WHO IS BEHIND THESE TERRORIST!!

"Military nay 1 saal ke NAA kya kee susu he nikal gaya hey.... America ka kutay mandhalatay howay Pakistan kay dooray karna shuru hogaye damn it Americans ye tu haal hey inkaa ye lareengay".

sir ji.. you are great.. I have seen posts and I have seen posts.. However its the 1st time I am truely speechless.. ....:confused:

That too from a staff member...
 
.
But what happened to the anvil that the ISAF was supposed to provide twice, one when they brought boots inside afg and second when PA started full scale operations against the thugs within our tribal areas?
Pakistani officials know full well - from the beginning - that there would never be an American or ISAF anvil, only a hard, striking hammer. That's because ISAF is more interested in fighting than occupation; the "anvil" role is better served by a larger, comparatively stationary deployment - Pakistan and its armed forces.
 
.
Pakistani officials know full well - from the beginning - that there would never be an American or ISAF anvil, only a hard, striking hammer. That's because ISAF is more interested in fighting than occupation; the "anvil" role is better served by a larger, comparatively stationary deployment - Pakistan and its armed forces.
What i see is lack of understanding and a deliberate attempt to distort the facts, also i can aboserve is that you like to get into rhetorics, so i wont waste my time on your posts and would like to quote here a discussion which i had with S-2. Take some pain and go through the discourse, i am sure, if you would TRY, it would help your brains:

Is there anywhere the citizens of Afghanistan and those in other countries may complain against the murderers Pakistan sends forth daily from its lands?

We will bomb targets in Pakistan necessary to protect ourselves in the absence of Pakistan controlling its lands and the people on them.

If you can't prevent attacks from your lands, we will do the best we can ourselves. If you can't provide us with good intelligence, we'll use the best we have and let YOU worry about the consequences.

Stop providing sanctuary from which the afghan taliban murder Afghans and prevent the U.N. mandate from being implemented. PREDATOR will cease flying when that happens. Not before.

My reply:
Isnt it a bit late?

Why were they 'allowed' to enter our 'land' at the first place?

What went wrong with your grand strategy?

What the heck happened to the Hammer and Anvil? May you just want us to hammer the terrorists and when it comes to you, you prefer to hide the anvil!

May be you think we are fools, right?

---------------------

S-2's reply:
"Why were they 'allowed' to enter our 'land' at the first place?"

Because your brave taliban retreated faster to Pakistan in the midst of war than 100 SF operators on horseback could attack. What's the world's seventh largest army's excuse since then?

"What went wrong with your grand strategy?"

They didn't surrender in Afghanistan and we didn't count on an "ally" harboring an enemy insurgent leadership on its lands. Silly us. End your sanctuaries. Until then we'll defend ourselves with PREDATOR or anything else we construe as necessary for our defense.

Thanks.:usflag:

---------------------

My reply:
You dont seem to have gone through the Murder-board? You need to work harder!
Because your brave taliban retreated faster to Pakistan in the midst of war than 100 SF operators on horseback could attack.
Not exactly!

This is not how it works!

Well if you would screw around with Tomahawks without boots on ground, this is how it would end.

You knew it, dont you, you just played nuts.

Ok, let's for an intanse believe in your 'excuse'; what did you do when when you horsemen found out that the enemy has been trained in Formula 1?

They were still fleeing when you had boots there, what did you do to stop that?

They are still moving to and fro (read fleeing) across the border currently, what are you doing now? Allowing it to happen, i guess?

Allowing them a 'leveled' playing field? Are you really so dumb?

What's the world's seventh largest army's excuse since then?
Well that's simple.

We dont spend $ 607 Billion (which makes 41.5 % of the world share) out of a total of $ 1464.0 Billion, that all of the Earthlings spend on defence when combined together!

They didn't surrender in Afghanistan and we didn't count on an "ally" harboring an enemy insurgent leadership on its lands.
The same 'ol RANT!

So should we imply that the mighty US went into Afg with a failed strategy? With doing its homework? Dont tell me that you didnt know that the 'ally' would 'harbor an enemy insurgent leadership on its lands'?

You still could prove it! Still extrapolating whatever info you have to your own benefit. Almost, all of your accusations have been proven wrong, but you still dont learn!
Silly us.
Yes!

Or may be not; just another way of earning points, support and sympathies!

-----------------------------

S-2's reply:
"So should we imply that the mighty US went into Afg with a failed strategy?"

Seen a battleplan that survives contact with the enemy? Improvise, adapt, overcome...

"We dont spend $ 607 Billion (which makes 41.5 % of the world share) out of a total of $ 1464.0 Billion, that all of the Earthlings spend on defence when combined together!"

Wouldn't stop everyone of you from grabbing a pitchfork and running east if it were the Indians. Nope. Six months...a year, maybe to get it together and oust those scumoids.

Eight years later tells me you WANT it this way. Tells the rest of the world the same thing.

"Dont tell me that you didnt know that the 'ally' would 'harbor an enemy insurgent leadership on its lands'?"

I recall that sanctuary was discussed by a lot of folks...and dismissed. Nobody in their right mind thought that Pakistan would turn on America for the sake of the Afghan taliban...

...but you clearly have done exactly that.:angry:

I'm still hopeful that might change.

"Is that a threat?":lol:

It's a manifest fact. Look in the skies of FATA every single day. I DIDN'T say skies of Afghanistan, mind you. Now-you tell me...does the presence of our UCAVs over your head read like a "threat" or a "fact"?

Thanks.:usflag:

------------------------------------

My reply:
Seen a battleplan that survives contact with the enemy?
No!

i definitely have heard and experienced: The first casualty on the battlefield dis the plan itself!!

But guess what, there's a different between tactics and strategy, tactics and battle-plans can go wrong, strategy cant, and if it does, you are screwed for guud! Which i think you are! :frown:
Wouldn't stop everyone of you from grabbing a pitchfork and running east if it were the Indians. Nope. Six months...a year, maybe to get it together and oust those scumoids.
Do doubt about that!

But unfortunately that was not the case.

And guess what, we didnt have 9/11 inside Pakistan nor we have a nation that would rush to hug the americans, we need more effort to convince them as compared to you people, where everyone is just ready to run over turbans and beards!!!

Eight years later tells me you WANT it this way. Tells the rest of the world the same thing.
No sir, you made it that way! Not our fault, you fcuked up big time unfortunately.

I recall that sanctuary was discussed by a lot of folks...and dismissed.
i agree, you are right, they did discuss and then dismissed, we'll that's what i call a FAILURE of strategy!

Were you people actually so lame? Didnt you learn anything from history when you left us after killing the Reds? You did learn from 'nam, didnt you?

Nobody in their right mind thought that Pakistan would turn on America for the sake of the Afghan taliban...
Yeah right!

You can do better than this, i know, :)

...but you clearly have done exactly that.:angry:
You are part and parcel of the deal, you made it happen, you initiated and you got to control and run it, not us!
We are just cleaning the mess created by you, thanks!
I'm still hopeful that might change.

It's a manifest fact. Look in the skies of FATA every single day. I DIDN'T say skies of Afghanistan, mind you. Now-you tell me...does the presence of our UCAVs over your head read like a "threat" or a "fact"?

Thanks.:usflag:

Well, that's why i say, you still need to learn alot, or may be not? i tell you, you would screw up again like this and then you wont even have your a$$ to be used as a buffer!

Do you actually believe that these drones are doing more guud than bad?!

Why would it pinch you if we could make use of these UCAVs? Wouldnt that be easier, legalier, more fruitful and handy?
 
.
xeric, that dialogue doesn't do you or Pakistan any credit. Do the other Pakistanis reading care to take a stab at what I'm thinking?
 
.
Pakistani officials know full well - from the beginning - that there would never be an American or ISAF anvil, only a hard, striking hammer. That's because ISAF is more interested in fighting than occupation; the "anvil" role is better served by a larger, comparatively stationary deployment - Pakistan and its armed forces.

xeric, that dialogue doesn't do you or Pakistan any credit. Do the other Pakistanis reading care to take a stab at what I'm thinking?
The United States certainly did come in to invade. How else would they expect to topple the Afghan government, set up a more favorable one and give it enough resources to sustain itself against the eventual resurgence? You can't achieve that through a short war!

What you meant to say was that the United States didn't expect the invasion to carry on for as long as it did. You came in looking to end terrorism, without being prepared for Coiunter Insurgency. Why? no long term planning? poor strategy? lack of preparation? oversimplied threat perception? I don't know, neither do most Americans, and it's a question that's been shrugged under the rug for future generations to debate. All we know is taht the United States had been wounded, it's vulnerability brought to the fore, and so you wanted to go to war, you simply wanted to flex your muscles, and so you did.

So yes, maybe you didn't come in expecting a long-term invasion, but that's what it turned out to be. The question is, by the time 2008 rolled around, you knew full well that this had turned into a long battle. Why didn't you, then, do everything in your power to support those who did have a plan and who did have a strategy that seemed to work? The question Xeric was trying to ask was, after you'd screwed yourselves and us over bad enough, why didn't you step up the pressure when we started clean up the mess on our side?

But I guess it's not fair to assume that you aren't trying. 30,000 troops will be coming in soon, we'll see how they will be utilized.
 
. .
The United States certainly did come in to invade. How else would they expect to topple the Afghan government, set up a more favorable one and give it enough resources to sustain itself against the eventual resurgence? You can't achieve that through a short war!
How long did the U.S. "occupy" France? Be honest with yourself: win or lose, invasion or invitation, for the past century America means death to tyranny, not occupation or colonization.

Why? no long term planning? poor strategy? lack of preparation? oversimplied threat perception?
We thought Pakistan was giving up is bad habits of supporting "non-state actors". It wasn't until 2008 that Pakistan confessed to maintaining its support for the Taliban and other terror groups - and not until this past week did I surmise that maintaining messy governance in Fata and disordered border areas was a Pakistani defensive strategy, not a forgivable weakness.

All we know is taht the United States had been wounded, it's vulnerability brought to the fore, and so you wanted to go to war, you simply wanted to flex your muscles, and so you did.
To the best of my experience, Pakistanis prefer to know what they wish to know, and try to avoid everything else.

Why didn't you, then, do everything in your power to support those who did have a plan and who did have a strategy that seemed to work?
The GoP does not have that kind of record, either at the civilian or military levels. Or are you talking about somebody else?


The question Xeric was trying to ask was, after you'd screwed yourselves and us over bad enough, why didn't you step up the pressure when we started clean up the mess on our side?
Why didn't Pakistan and the U.S. set up a joint command? Apparently because the two countries cannot agree on either a shared strategic objective or common tactical objectives. Do you think the GoP wants victory if it means the loss of U.S. funds flooding the country?

30,000 troops will be coming in soon, we'll see how they will be utilized.
They will only be a passing storm, unless Pakistan makes up its mind otherwise.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom