Taliban kidnap 29 Pakistani police and FC

[jon]

This question is premature. Focusing on one incident is not an accurate means of analyzing the Army's current offensive. The lack of 'boots on the ground' is apparent, but constrained by our belligerent neighbor in the East there isn't much we can do about it. Capacity building in the FC and its expansion will take time.

This isn't the first incident so I don't think it's premature.

Anyway, have you thought about what impact it would have to take 20% of the army and redeploy? Wouldn't the threat of nuclear weapons hold India at bay even with that level of reduction? Even if it didn't, how long would it take to abandon the fight in Swat and return to the border if things got more hostile? Would fighting at reduced strength for a few days make a significant difference in the long run?

The importance of a parallel political process cannot be understated either. On that count there are 'reports' that the Swat Shariah bill will be signed off on by the Presidency, and the possible support for it by Sufi Mohammed could undermine Mullah FM and his movement.

Using the army to defeat the Taliban would provide incredible political capital in other areas, so clearly that cuts both ways. Also, making political concessions to undermine a radio station isn't very efficient when it's so easy to shut one down militarily. (The lack of action on that front is another point against the army, by the way.)

 

[Energon]

This question is premature. Focusing on one incident is not an accurate means of analyzing the Army's current offensive. The lack of 'boots on the ground' is apparent, but constrained by our belligerent neighbor in the East there isn't much we can do about it. Capacity building in the FC and its expansion will take time.

I don't think anyone (at least in the international community) is buying the lame excuse that Pakistan can't solve it's terrorism problem because of unwarranted "belligerence" from India. India very much has the right to be belligerent given the unabated and repetitive acts of mass terrorism, mayhem, murder and subversive warfare that are being launched from Pakistan, thanks to an unparalleled terrorism infrastructure meticulously constructed over the period of a few decades as part of a (failed) national policy which now seems to have gone awry. I'm not sure what it is exactly that you're expecting from India in light of never ending attacks with the latest edition being the sort we saw in South Mumbai (obviously the social and financial nerve center)... pat Pakistan on the back and say shabaas beta, better luck "reigning in the terrorists" the next time around? Or follow the British model: express disappointment over Pakistan being a center of excellence for all things terrorism and then pull out the checkbook and write out a big fat one so that the current leader of Pakistan can pocket it and then make more empty promises? The sort of reaction you're seeing from India is exactly what any state in pursuit of progress and prosperity would have if they were constantly attacked viciously and violently by "non state actors" bred in another country (ostensibly devoid of any serious progressive aspirations of of its own) through institutions spawned by the said state to further its own interests.

It is up to Pakistan to resolve its own terrorism issues through earnest efforts, and most of all make sure it doesn't affect anyone outside its borders in the mean time. Blaming everyone else is neither going to help nor garner sympathy.

 

[RS4]

There is a serious problem here, if the siege lasted 24 hrs then why where additional forces brought in, or air support called in. The lack of communication and rapid reaction forces is showing. This shows some of the flaws in the operations there, so let hope GHQ do something so this does not happen again.

 

[S-2]

The relief was broken off because of "night".

Here's the link to the BBC story-

Taliban Release Pakistani Troops- BBC

"Troops were mobilised to break the militants' cordon but could not rescue the policemen and soldiers as darkness fell, officials said."

Stunning by itself but it hints, given the release of the prisoners as though the army understood that they'd be released shortly anyway.

I don't know if that's the case but "night", by itself, isn't a reassuring excuse if I'm expected to man a similar outpost in the district.

This is coupled to an article written by Irfan Husain provided yesterday by Rabzon here suggesting that the army had no interest in being out and about after dark-

"As soon as night falls, our soldiers retreat into their camps while the jihadis rule the valley."

Maybe too much of a garrison mentality. COIN isn't a 9-5 gig and the militants are operating on an agenda set to a different clock.

 

[zhero]

Time for GoP to ask for 'dronal' assistance in swat?

 

[Kharian_Beast]

Houston...we have a problem.

I am sure political games are being played at the expense of cheap labour.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Paskistan has suffered the maximum lose in this US's war.
Still US asks for more cooperation. People dont have any IDEA that Taliban are so strong and armed with high tech weponary and above all familliar to this terrain more than anybody else.

US dosent trusts Pakistan thats why its carraying out drone attacks. Alot of people here are not happy abt these drone attacks.

US and Nato troops currently rely on Pakistan For its supply of fuel and weponary.
When some of the supply containers were burnt to ashes US again raised fingers on Pakistan and even thretend that its considering other supply routes to Afghanistan most likely from the airbase in Kirgystan. But recently the gov their made descision to shut down that Airbase. Leaving Pakistan the only land route for the supplies to troops in Afghanistan. If These supply routes are disturbed then only way supply could reach kabul is via AIR lift which is very expensive.
Curently Confidance between Pakistan And US is at lowest in past 60years. No one from either sides trust each other.
End result would be that US and Nato will have to find a way to survive in Afghanistan without the help of Pakistan.
Currently US is providing huge amounts of aid but people here think that this is not enough. They are hurt by the strategik deals btw INDIA & US and american doublestandards.
The events Like
1. Closing of US airbase in Kirgystan
2. Iranian Satallite launch
3. Successful Indian Satallite launch
4. Strategik Nuclear and milletary Deals btw US & India
5. The Mumbai Drama
6. The Israeli massacre
7. The Elite Jew lobby working in US
8. The arrival of the Bosnian Butcher (Robert Hollbroke) in Islamabad
9. The worst CIA drone attacks in Pakistan which is killing inocent civilians along with
targets
10. Mounting Russian Influence in the reagion


Has created huge concerns in minds of many people.
America currently is the most hated country in the whole world.

one day or another Americans will have to leave Afghanistan defeated just like the Soviets.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Russia influences Kyrgyzstan to close key U.S. airbase - Kansas City Star

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

It was the year 1976 and the US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was on a visit to Pakistan, to meet the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Zulkiqar Ali Bhutto. The Americans wanted Pakistan to give up their nuclear project, and Henry Kissinger was on a mission to deliver the US President’s message to Bhutto. Mr Bhutto listened to Kissinger very patiently and then addressed him, “you are my friend, please advise me what I should do.” Kissinger smiled a bit, and said softly, “Mr Prime Minister! In the game of diplomacy and power, nobody is any one else’s friend. I am only a messenger at this time. You should consult one of your own advisors”. Bhutto smiled and replied in a beautiful tone, “I still consider you my friend despite that and so request your advice.” Henry Kissinger laughed heartily, and looking at Bhutto, said, “you are really a chess master.” Bhutto stared at him silently.

Kissinger waited for a while, and said in a cultured tone, “Basically I have come not to advise, but to warn you. USA has numerous reservations about Pakistan’s atomic programme; therefore you have no way out, except agreeing to what I say”. Bhutto smiled and asked, “suppose I refuse, then what?” Henry Kissinger became dead serious.

He locked his eyes on Bhutto’s and spewed out deliberately, “Then we will make a horrible example of you!” Bhutto’s face flushed. He stood up, extended his hand towards Kissinger and said, “Pakistan can live without the US President. Now your people will have to find some other ally in this region.” Bhutto then turned and went out.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

This story was related to me by a senior foreign ministry official, who became quite friendly with General Ziaul Haq after Bhutto, and gradually rose in rank to join the General’s elite close circle. In 1987 Russian forces started evacuating Afghanistan, and President General Ziaul Haq was left isolated all of a sudden.

It was a great blow to his ego, and he started berating the CIA officers and US Embassy officials present in Pakistan at the time. Once, during that time, the President accidentally came face to face with the US Ambassador in a function, and in the presence of dozens of other people, admonished the Ambassador.

The General addressing him directly told him, “You people think that we cannot live without your help. Remember that Pakistan is a strong and powerful country, and if we can make Russia run away from Afghanistan, then we can also cope with USA.” The US Ambassador kept silent. General Ziaul Haq caught the ambassador by the chin, and pushing his face up, said, “Tell your government that you have no option except our friendship.”

The Ambassador shook his head left and right.

 

[S-2]

Please attribute the story between Bhutto and Kissinger so that we may know who originally wrote the article.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

They are a generation of ‘disposable’ culture. In their view, faithfulness and constancy are meaningless words.
This is American nature. In reality, they cannot maintain companionship with any one for a long time. Only if you have a love/hate relationship with the US, you can keep their company for a long period.
On the contrary, we are always obedient to the US and go out of our way in our love for USA, to the extent of altering our own constitution and laws even. After that, we start getting demands from USA to “do more”, and then a time comes when it becomes impossible for Pakistan’s authorities to accept American demands.
When a Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto or a General Ziaul Haq explains to the Americans his legal or constitutional constraints, they do not believe him. Americans think that every thing is ‘possible’ in Pakistan, and that their “friend” is now deceiving them.

Therefore, the Americans change their attitude, after which the Pakistani ruler reminds them of all the services rendered by Pakistan to the USA. He recalls, with big gusto, all his acts of good faith performed in the service of the USA but the Americans shrug their shoulders and reply, “In return we had given you the opportunity to govern Pakistan.”

Answering them the Pakistani ruler starts to threaten the US government, and then, whether it is Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto or General Ziaul Haq, Both of them meet a dreadful, exemplary end.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This isn't the first incident so I don't think it's premature.

Anyway, have you thought about what impact it would have to take 20% of the army and redeploy? Wouldn't the threat of nuclear weapons hold India at bay even with that level of reduction? Even if it didn't, how long would it take to abandon the fight in Swat and return to the border if things got more hostile? Would fighting at reduced strength for a few days make a significant difference in the long run?

In this particular operation in Swat it is the first major incident. Incidents like these were quite commonplace when the military was deployed the first time around as well, and despite that the first phase did result in the Army driving out the TTP into the more far flung areas, and maintained relative calm until the peace deals under the ANP government.

The Loisam incident was far worse, yet that too turned out to be a poor indicator of the Pak Mil's resolve in Bajaur, and the eventual result.

On the issue of redeploying 20 percent of the Army and not making a dent in its ability to ward of the hysterical warmongers in the East, that is a decision whose impact is best understood by the Army. Not only are we half the size of the IA, but the window of time Pakistan has in terms of obtaining a favorable outcome in the event of a conflict with India is smaller for us because of the disparity in resources, strategic stockpiles etc.

Using the army to defeat the Taliban would provide incredible political capital in other areas, so clearly that cuts both ways. Also, making political concessions to undermine a radio station isn't very efficient when it's so easy to shut one down militarily. (The lack of action on that front is another point against the army, by the way.)

You are putting the cart before the horse here - the defeat of the Taliban, either in Afghanistan or Pakistan, will not be through pure military means alone. A political solution is part and parcel of this. But I agree with you that the political solution must be implemented from a position of relative strength, and not weakness such as the current one. To that extent this operation seems to be attempting to create that space from which the GoP can advance the Shariah Bill, have it endorsed by Sufi Mohammed, and then go after the elements that do not lay down arms.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Time for GoP to ask for 'dronal' assistance in swat?

As if the drones have put a dent in the insurgency in Afghanistan, or Waziristan for that matter.

No substitute for men, properly equipped and trained, on the ground.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Please attribute the story between Bhutto and Kissinger so that we may know who originally wrote the article.

Actually the story was told to me by my grandpa.