Taliban kidnap 29 Pakistani police and FC

[Fennecus]

How long did the battle last? How were there no communications with HQ or any reinforcements during that time?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"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.

S-2:

IIRC, US commanders have stated that the NVG's employed by NATO forces are the by far the largest deciding factor in favor of NATO troops in encounters with the Taliban.

From what I understand, the NVG's supplied by the US to Pakistan remain limited to SSG, and even there have to be turned in for inventorying every six months. I am unaware of the availability of other 'less restricted kit' for the regular Army and FC.

In mountainous terrain, with the enemy having the ability to gather forces for ambushes/assaults from small groups in a short amount of time, and the assumed equipment limitations, I am not certain Night patrolling would be very effective, even if adopted.

I think this just continues to point to a need for more well trained and equipped forces, and neither of those will be achieved quickly.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

The unwarranted belligerence from India is part of the problem. Indian warmongering and her refusal to implement her international commitments and agreements under the UN and therefore resolve the Kashmir dispute, as had been agreed under the Instrument of Partition and the UNSC, does contribute to situation in FATA/Swat in that the PA cannot deploy the optimal quantity of assets there, as a certain parity has to be maintained in the East to ward off Indian aggression.

Whether the International community will pussy foot around this reality, as they have done around the need for pressuring Israel to also make concessions (especially the US), we shall see, and will likely happen. But the reality of the situation as I described it can be gauged from the fact that Obama and Biden both argued for addressing India-Pakistan tensions as a central issue during the Presidential campaign. Obama's close adviser at the time, Bruce Riedel strongly advocated such an approach.

Analysis in the West, such as that by Barnett Rubin and Ahmed Rashid, Shuja Nawaz, and many others argued to the necessity for normalizing the relationship and addressing Kashmir. And of course we had the recent statement by David Milliband in India.

Now, Indian economic clout and her hysterical tantrums over trying to mediate may silence the 'official voices' and tone down the 'official policy statements', but the fact is that the events and positions I highlighted indicate that despite Indian posturing on the issue and her blatant violation of international commitments, these nations and individuals are aware of the impact of Indo-Pak hostility, and specifically Kashmir, on the insurgency in FATA/Swat and therefore Afghanistan.

Indian outrage over terrorism on her soil is expected and justified - the hysterical finger pointing towards Pakistani institutions, despite her own evidence dossier indicating no evidence of Pakistani institutional involvement was found, and her 'warmongering statements and actions', some even before her own investigation was completed, are not justifiable and do indeed raise tensions in the region and complicate Pakistan's efforts to combat the insurgency.

 

[zhero]

I hardly think that Pakistan can shrug off the Mumbai episode as acts perpetrated by 'non state actors'. The question is, even if they were non-state actors, what is Pakistan doing to dismantle the terror networks aimed at India. If the Indian perception is that nothing meaningful is being done, then they may escalate the confrontation to a degree (recalling high commissioners, trade etc.).

Things probably will not get better on this front (not in the short term anyway)

Pakistan in Denial Over Alleged Links to Mumbai Attack - TIME

 

[jeypore]

But the reality of the situation as I described it can be gauged from the fact that Obama and Biden both argued for addressing India-Pakistan tensions as a central issue during the Presidential campaign. Obama's close adviser at the time, Bruce Riedel strongly advocated such an approach.

Analysis in the West, such as that by Barnett Rubin and Ahmed Rashid, Shuja Nawaz, and many others argued to the necessity for normalizing the relationship and addressing Kashmir. And of course we had the recent statement by David Milliband in India.

Obama and Biden plans have changed drastically after they have taken the office, the negoitation guru (Milliband) is coming for Pakistan and Afganistan issues only, not Kashmire.

The officials, who spoke on condition that they not be named, stressed that Holbrooke was going to India to discuss Afghanistan and not to mediate the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan, which have fought three wars since 1947.

US' Holbrooke to visit India to discuss Afghanistan | Reuters

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I hardly think that Pakistan can shrug off the Mumbai episode as acts perpetrated by 'non state actors'. The question is, even if they were non-state actors, what is Pakistan doing to dismantle the terror networks aimed at India. If the Indian perception is that nothing meaningful is being done, then they may escalate the confrontation to a degree (recalling high commissioners, trade etc.).

Things probably will not get better on this front (not in the short term anyway)

Pakistan in Denial Over Alleged Links to Mumbai Attack - TIME

Pakistan is not 'shrugging off' the attacks, we would'nt have acted against the JuD or conducted any sort of investigation into the incident if that was the case, and told India to 'shove off'.

However, Indian belligerence in the aftermath of Mumbai did complicate the issue from a domestic standpoint, in that Pakistan could not be seen as merely accepting Indian accusations and demands without an investigation or verification. The absurdity of the Indian position and perceptions of India pursuing unrelated objectives vis a vis the Kashmiri Freedom movement, were only highlighted when India turned over a list of people that had nothing to do with teh Mumbai attacks.

Had India acted responsibly, without the war hysteria, and accepted repeated Pakistani offers for cooperation/joint investigations that we saw, the hands of the GoP would not have become tied and cooperation would have come earlier and in a more transparent manner. Now, different issues need to be juggled.

As far as the FIA report is concerned, I think we need to wait and see what the official conclusions are and what information those conclusions are based on.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Obama and Biden plans have changed drastically after they have taken the office, the negoitation guru (Milliband) is coming for Pakistan and Afganistan issues only, not Kashmire.

That is my point about the international community pussy footing around the real issues because India throws tantrums. Obama is constrained now as the POTUS, but both his and Biden's statements (during the campaign) and the statements and analysis of the others I mentioned, indicate that despite the 'official stance' there is understanding of the impact Indo-Pak hostility has on the region, and specifically the impact it has on the insurgency in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

 

[zhero]

"Pakistan is not 'shrugging off' the attacks, we would'nt have acted against the JuD or conducted any sort of investigation into the incident if that was the case, and told India to 'shove off'."

- It is too early to say whether the actions against JuD are purely 'cosmetic'. The Indian accusation is that a similar 'crackdown' on these outfits in 2001 (or was it 2002?) were an eye-wash.

- It is also moot what quality of investigation will be performed by the Pakistani agencies, when the President of Pakistan is himself crying hoarse for a UN/Scotland Yard investigation into his wife's death! It does not exactly inspire confidence, when the head of state himself does not back his own investigative agencies.


At any rate, IMO, the attitude of the Indians will depend to a large extent on the guarantees (public or private) that they receive on what Pakistan is doing to prevent other attacks in the future. If the Indian perception is that nothing will change, then there is no reason for them to take troops off the Indo-Pak border (or not to support Pakistani separatists). From their viewpoint, they have little to lose!

We digress....perhaps get back to the topic now!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"Pakistan is not 'shrugging off' the attacks, we would'nt have acted against the JuD or conducted any sort of investigation into the incident if that was the case, and told India to 'shove off'."

- It is too early to say whether the actions against JuD are purely 'cosmetic'. The Indian accusation is that a similar 'crackdown' on these outfits in 2001 (or was it 2002?) were an eye-wash.

It could not have been an eyewash since the LeT leadership stated that their operations had been severely impacted by the Pakistani restrictions. It is also too early to claim that the JuD was actually involved in funding and carrying out the Mumbai attacks, though Pakistan needs to comply with the UN decision. Aside from Hafiz Saeed, the people arrested, especially Lakhvi and Z Shah, the alleged masterminds, are all from the LeT.

Hafiz Saeed I believe is being implicated because of his prior role as head of the LeT, and his position as a 'spiritual leader'. I don;t think the Indian dossier implicated him through any direct evidence. But that should become clearer with the Pakistani investigation and the prosecution process.

In addition, Pakistani sincerity can be gauged from the fact that the LoC remained largely silent for all that time, and the insurgency in Kashmir, and infiltration from Pakistan, was very, very low. That has continued in the post Musharraf era, barring a few isolated incidents by both sides.

Pakistan also largely stood aside and adopted a policy of non-interference (barring the traditional statements of Kashmiris should be allowed to exercise their rights per the UNSC resolutions, and even then they were few and far in between) when Kashmir witnessed its largest ever separatist rallies last year, and dozens of protesters were shot dead.

Pakistan has demonstrated its commitment to keeping the region peaceful quite well IMO, given the above, but without any movement on Kashmir from the Indian side, I think the LeT decided to embark on mischief of its own.

- It is also moot at what quality of investigation will be performed by the Pakistani agencies, when the President of Pakistan is himself crying hoarse over a UN/Scotland Yard investigation into his wife's death! Does not exactly inspire confidence when the head of state himself does not back his own investigative agencies.

The PPP's tantrums are are political posturing, just as they were in the run up to the elections - more a means to discredit Musharraf than any real indicator of the efficiency of Pakistani investigators. Now they have to go through with it since they made such a big deal out of it for their supporters. But you will notice that hardly anyone in the PPP talks about it anymore, since the actual objectives of overthrowing Musharraf and ending military rule have been accomplished.

It was pretty much an open and shut case, in terms of culpability, given that B Mehsud initially claimed responsibility and then backtracked. The forensic results were signed off by the SY team in an observer/adviser capacity, so that was in fact a validation of some level of competency on the part of the Pakistani investigators.

At any rate, IMO, the attitude of the Indians will depend to a large extent on the guarantees (public or private) that they receive on what Pakistan is doing to prevent other attacks in the future. If the Indian perception is that nothing will change, then there is no reason for them to take troops off the Indo-Pak border (or to support Pakistani separatists). From their viewpoint they have little to lose!

Pakistan can only do so much in terms of preventing attacks on India. I outlined above that we have already done quite a bit, but given that we cannot prevent attacks within Pakistan ourselves, and are struggling with a sophisticated and well armed insurgency, there is as much guarantee of such an attack not happening again as there was before, and Indian posturing and war mongering means that Pakistani forces will continue to be primarily focused in the East.

India's position is self defeating then, since increasing hostility with Pakistan only allows instability within Pakistan to increase as we are forced to focus on them more than the terrorism - unless of course that is what India would rather see, a weak and unstable (though not splintered) Pakistan that cannot pose a conventional military challenge to India.

The only way out of this quagmire for Pakistan would be to invest heavily in the FC capacity building and expansion program, and use them to fill the gaps, but until then both Pakistan and India remain vulnerable.

I think the India-Pak relationship does relate to the topic, that after all is the argument I have articulated!

 

[jeypore]

That is my point about the international community pussy footing around the real issues because India throws tantrums. Obama is constrained now as the POTUS, but both his and Biden's statements (during the campaign) and the statements and analysis of the others I mentioned, indicate that despite the 'official stance' there is understanding of the impact Indo-Pak hostility has on the region, and specifically the impact it has on the insurgency in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

This is were i get really confused AM, The real issue is the Taliban and Al quida not Kashmire, interms of United States perspective. You are making it sound like Kashmir is the seed that sprouted movement of wahabism and extremism. The first priority for Obama is to control afganistan and errdicate these terrorist that are in the neighborhood.

 

[zhero]

"Pakistan can only do so much in terms of preventing attacks on India. I outlined above that we have already done quite a bit, but given that we cannot prevent attacks within Pakistan ourselves, and are struggling with a sophisticated and well armed insurgency, there is as much guarantee of such an attack not happening again as there was before, and Indian posturing and war mongering means that Pakistani forces will continue to be primarily focused in the East."

- True enough, and I think it's in India's best interest to wait and watch (well, they can't do much directly anyway!).


"India's position is self defeating then, since increasing hostility with Pakistan only allows instability within Pakistan to increase as we are forced to focus on them more than the terrorism - unless of course that is what India would rather see, a weak and unstable (though not splintered) Pakistan that cannot pose a conventional military challenge to India."

- I believe that the Indian fear (well founded or not, I don't know) is that all the insurgencies will be back on track, at a future date.


"I think the India-Pak relationship does relate to the topic, that after all is the argument I have articulated!"

- Tangential at best? I mean, if you are looking towards noramalizing relations with the Indians, before you re-take control over swat, then you may have a very long wait......I do believe that, in this instance, you may have overplayed the 'India' card.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This is were i get really confused AM, The real issue is the Taliban and Al quida not Kashmire, interms of United States perspective. You are making it sound like Kashmir is the seed that sprouted movement of wahabism and extremism. The first priority for Obama is to control afganistan and errdicate these terrorist that are in the neighborhood.

If you read through my response to Zhero, I think I have outlined the connection as I see it.

 

[qsaark]

Tangential at best? I mean, if you are looking towards noramalizing relations with the Indians, before you re-take control over swat, then you may have a very long wait......I do believe that, in this instance, you may have overplayed the 'India' card.

I honestly think that Zardari Government has not yet played any Indian card let alone 'overplayed'. GOP should start showing the photographs of the uncircumcised genitals of the captured or killed terrorists as a proof that India is involved in Sawat and in other areas.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

- I believe that the Indian fear (well founded or not, I don't know) is that all the insurgencies will be back on track, at a future date.

I don't think domestic public opinion in favor of the Kashmir freedom movement will allow the GoP to come down with a heavy hand on groups that are not involved in terrorism, as the LeT is. We won't support them materially, and we won't facilitate their infiltration into Indian Kashmir, but you can probably imagine the backlash were we to militarily act against them, going by the backlash against Pakistani operations against the Taliban. And unlike the taliban, Kashmir is a far more emotional and personal issue for Pakistanis. There is Kashmiri diaspora settled all over Pakistan.

However, that threat only exists so long as India remains stubbornly opposed to resolving Kashmir. I fail to see why there shouldn't be an equal amount of pressure on India by the international community to show some movement on the issue, given that Pakistan has kept the region quiet for almost a decade.

This one sided respect for the law in the West, invade and sanction Muslim/weaker countries for not respecting international and UN agreements while letting more powerful nations such as India/Israel get away with violating those agreements and UNSC resolutions, does not infuse a lot of faith in us for 'respecting the law', since the 'law' and 'diplomatic resolution of disputes' only seems to work when the West/powerful nations stand to benefit.

- Tangential at best? I mean, if you are looking towards noramalizing relations with the Indians, before you re-take control over swat, then you may have a very long wait......I do believe that, in this instance, you may have overplayed the 'India' card.

Point taken.

Little impact on Swat, unless you believe the reports that the PA formations withdrawn from the North West as a response to the Indians were not from FATA, but from Swat.

Nonetheless, as you said, normalization with India, or the lack of it, is not a factor in the immediate efforts to wrest control back from the TTP. We will move on.

 

[zhero]

I have no doubt that the Kashmir issue will be resolved at some future date (20 years?!!), after India and Pakistan have had their peculiar tango (one step forward, three steps sideways, and two steps back.....turn around and repeat).