Taliban kidnap 29 Pakistani police and FC

[qsaark]

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.....repeat).

If we could find another Musharraf (Zardari is not much different though), it will be resolved (of-course in Indian favor) in less than that period of time.

 

[jon]

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.

This proves my point. When the army commits itself, it can defeat the militants or at least drive them out. How, then, did we reach a point where 80% of Swat is under Taliban control? When the Taliban publicly announces that they will be going around burning down girls' schools... why were they not guarded? Why did the army disarm local militias who wanted to fight the Taliban, and then abandon them? Why did the army claim that destroying a mobile FM transmitter is too difficult for it to accomplish?

How about this article on Dawn (DAWN - Kamran Shafi Corner; January 13, 2009) that claims "Visitors to Swat tell of Pakistan Army and Taliban check posts a few hundred metres apart, army vehicles passing through Taliban check posts too." What is your reaction to that? Will you just dismiss it as hearsay?

You seem to be simply ignoring these problems and not factoring them into your analysis. Sure tactical mistakes will happen. Troops will be ambushed. Losses will be made. That's not what's going on here.

As for blaming the ANP peace deals (which I agree with you were a horrible idea) you conveniently forget all the peace deals the army itself has made with the Taliban. The Waziristan Accord? How about the peace deals it made with Baitullah Mehsud at the same time as the ANP was making theirs?

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.

Look we both agree that boots on the ground are what it takes, but you seem unwilling to actually do it. You can't deflect things by saying someone else knows best because you could say that about anything.

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.

Think about what you're saying. You want to negotiate and make concessions to the Taliban -- a force literally around 1000 times smaller than the army -- yet stand up and be all macho to the Indians -- a force twice as large and better equipped. Either you're tough and macho and should stand up to the Taliban as well, or the whole thing is an act anyway. You don't make concessions to vastly inferior forces if you're strong.

By the way, why do you think India even wants to invade Pakistan? If they wanted to punish Pakistan for some reason, they could do that without ground troops. You think they enjoy Kashmir so much they want a problem 100 times bigger?

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.

Trying to appease them with sharia -- admitting that the government is completely powerless and chooses to submit rather than fight -- and then withdrawing troops so they can focus on India or Mullah FM or whatever wild goose chase you choose will lead to the same disasters as all of the other peace deals brokered with the Taliban. Absolutely nothing is being accomplished except Pakistan is giving in to their demands and giving them more power. All of the ground they will win in order to gain a position of strength in negotiation (as you assume the purpose is) will be lost.

What is Pakistan getting in return? Oh, I'm so sure thousands of militants will lay down their arms, just like what happened with the ANP deal you criticize! Yeah right! They will be marching around enforcing sharia however they see fit, weakening local structures even more.

 

[Awesome]

There's an update to this story. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7868875.stm (sorry, the forum is not letting me post links until I have 15 posts)

According to the BBC, the captured troops and police were released after they vowed to resign and stop fighting. The article also sheds more light on what happened.

Apparently Shamozoi village and the police station are just south of Mingora, so this wasn't an extremely isolated location. It was on the last major road to Mingora that wasn't under Taliban control (obviously this has changed now) so I would think the army would be highly motivated to defend it.

The police station was besieged by "thousands" of militants. No idea how accurate that is. I thought I remembered reading recently that there are an estimated 1500 Taliban in all of Swat, so it seems like an exaggeration. Also, the army did try to break the siege but gave up when night fell.

The question becomes whether the army is truly incapable of defeating the Taliban or whether for some reason they are not making it a priority. How much longer can this go on before the army loses all credibility?

The thing is, all foreign writers just call people every big bearded Pashtun guy, Taliban. The entire Swat region is quite remote, I've been there before it was taken over by terrorists, its as rugged (and beautiful) as it gets. I remember trekking a 15km stretch due to bad or non-existent roads.

The army was there, the rescue didn't go as guns blazing as we'd normally expect because those FC guys obviously put themselves at the Taliban's mercy by being totally outnumbered, out gunned. Plus an easier diplomatic solution was derrived... The FC guys gave them their 'word', to quit.

You have to remember Maulana FM radios boys are forcing Swat people to join their cause. They can hold their families hostage and give the men a few guns to go and fight. Deserters are beheaded and hung from trees in their neighborhood with a threat to not to take them down for x number of days. The local populace is not a militant type group at all, but can easily be forced into it.

So mustering up 200 to 300 people for an ambush is really not out of the question. Plus I think you missed a 0 with the number of regular Taliban under Fazl ullah's control.

 

[jeypore]

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.

Mr. AM

The hostility posture by India has gained only recently thru the mumbai attacks, which had no say in Kashmire issue besides the hatred factor. Mumbai attack clearly showed it was ment for the world forum to be recognized. But this has been goin on for last 7 years, were the hostility in past was non-existence, yet you are tieing in the kashmire issue with the current issue at hand, which is plainly just terrorism (not freedom fighters).

Clearly, Obama dream is a unrealistic, where he simply solves the Kashmir issue for his benefit for troop movement. But when the hard reality struck, he had to retract his position, which seem to you as heavy Indian lobbyism. Putting it simply, American stance is more boots are required at current situation because plainly Pakistan is not capable at this junture.

 

[Awesome]

Mr. AM

The hostility posture by India has gained only recently thru the mumbai attacks, which had no say in Kashmire issue besides the hatred factor. Mumbai attack clearly showed it was ment for the world forum to be recognized. But this has been goin on for last 7 years, were the hostility in past was non-existence, yet you are tieing in the kashmire issue with the current issue at hand, which is plainly just terrorism (not freedom fighters).

Clearly, Obama dream is a unrealistic, where he simply solves the Kashmir issue for his benefit for troop movement. But when the hard reality struck, he had to retract his position, which seem to you as heavy Indian lobbyism. Putting it simply, American stance is more boots are required at current situation because plainly Pakistan is not capable at this junture.

The Indian factor is always there, we can shove the Taliban out with one swift operation, if the Indians get any territory they won't budge an inch. So priority goes to defending against India.

 

[zhero]

"So priority goes to defending against India."

- Some Indian analysts might say that this suits India well. If by not having enough 'boots on the ground' (as some claim) in FATA/SWAT, Pakistan's problems are prolonged, then it would suit India well.

India may not want a destabilized Pakistan, but it certainly will not be averse to a weakened Pakistan.

 

[S-2]

"...we can shove the Taliban out with one swift operation..."

Take a calculated risk and please "swift[ly]" do so. For the elimination of one known enemy already seizing sizable chunks of your nation it would seem that a comment like this would leave no question but that it's necessary.

In my opinion, you do not need to denude your eastern defenses to provide substantive help to your troops in the west. Modest amounts of armor and heavy infantry can be usefully mixed with light infantry, special operations, and para-military forces to achieve an effective mix of forces against the militants.

A swift operation should then finish the matter...right?

 

[jeypore]

"...we can shove the Taliban out with one swift operation..."

Take a calculated risk and please "swift[ly]" do so. For the elimination of one known enemy already seizing sizable chunks of your nation it would seem that a comment like this would leave no question but that it's necessary.

In my opinion, you do not need to denude your eastern defenses to provide substantive help to your troops in the west. Modest amounts of armor and heavy infantry can be usefully mixed with light infantry, special operations, and para-military forces to achieve an effective mix of forces against the militants.

A swift operation should then finish the matter...right?

I was going to answer on this comment, but you have a eloquence in your wrighting.

Probably S-2 he means nuking them!!!

 

[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."

I don't know if you recall correctly but there's little doubt that it's a huge asset. Still, your comment begs the question as it presumes that our forces would avoid the dark in the absence of this technology.

I know for a fact that operations in limited visibility (darkness) are part and parcel to a light infantryman's repetoire long before NVGs became available. You train to conduct night operations with or without NVGs unless you're prepared to cede darkness to your enemy.

Does the P.A.? Shall it do so against the Indians?

But you can bet that doesn't stop them nor the militants from operating at night.

I'd relieve any battalion commander who suggested his battalion was non-functional for night ops in the absence of NVGs for their troops.

"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."

Then my guess is that you've your hands on some fairly proprietary technology that merits careful accounting. I don't know what's available but I was using NVGs in 1988 that would likely be adequate for your needs. I'm sure that level of technology is commonplace now- and cheap. Perfect is the enemy of good enough.

"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."

How do they gather so at night? Given what I'm reading in your press and from yourself I can only gather that you've ceded darkness to your enemy. NVG technology isn't hindering your enemy. To judge from the myriad comments about "foreigners", then these men can't possibly know the region any better than your own soldiers, correct?

It's a firm infantry mission to conduct combat, reconnaissance, counter-reconnaissance, and security patrols at night.

Finally, the conduct of the relief operation needs a great deal of scrutiny. My presumption is that a higher H.Q. was aware of the attack and the need for ammunition and relief. There's little point in stationing men where they can't be rapidly assisted. Is relief planned for these stations? Are there forces allocated and available for such? Are the relief routes identified and multiple or does one ambush blocking one route seal the doom of those trapped?

You can't surrender the night...

 

[fatman17]

How about this article on Dawn (DAWN - Kamran Shafi Corner; January 13, 2009) that claims "Visitors to Swat tell of Pakistan Army and Taliban check posts a few hundred metres apart, army vehicles passing through Taliban check posts too." What is your reaction to that? Will you just dismiss it as hearsay?

what ever this yahoo writes should be taken with a large dose of salt!. he has answers to all what ails pakistan but wont do anything about it. a retd army major who thinks he should have been army chief because he was the real "pukka sahib".

 

[fatman17]

we can shove the Taliban out with one swift operation,

these are not the plains of punjab where one orders your strike corps to make a sweeping end run to take large chunks of territory and decimate enemy formations along the way. FATA is built for counter-insurgency. increase your CI capacity and you will see results. till then the army formations will and can deny the militants the main roads and towns, the PA cobras can attack the militants dug-out in the hills but that is all!

such instances like with the FC paramilitaries being captured and now released is going to happen unfortunately until the army starts to make unit level forays into the hinterland, NVGs or not to knock these guys out.

keep in mind PA casaulties are light so far, it has been the FC and the Police forces that have suffered the most.

 

[Kasrkin]

"I'd relieve any battalion commander who suggested his battalion was non-functional for night ops in the absence of NVGs for their troops..."

I don't think it is as simple as that. Being non-functional is not the same as acknowledging the obvious limitations of operating in a limited visibility environment without appropriate equipment, which is what any good battalion commander would do, particularly when his priority is in achieving the mission objectives and the well-being of his men. I won’t be asking my men to advance on a minefield or an enemy position at night without NVGs (and certainly not on a full moon) unless given the most explicit orders but if that makes me a bad battalion commander according to some, then so be it. I don't think any battalion becomes truly 'non-functional' just because of NVGs, they do however loose the much needed edge at night. That’s the difference between life and death, success and failure.

 

[Omar1984]

ISLAMABAD, Feb. 4 (Xinhua) -- All of the 30 security men who were kidnapped by militants in northwestern Pakistan have been released on Wednesday, private TV channel Geo reported.

The security personnel including 23 paramilitary soldiers and seven policemen were kidnapped by militants in the restive Swat valley of North West Frontier Province, said the report.

The militants surrounded a check post in Swat and exchanged fire with the security personnel and finally kidnapped them.

The abducted security personnel were taken to an unknown location and released on Wednesday. It is still not known under what condition were the abductees were released, according to the Geo.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/04/content_10764092.htm

 

[Flintlock]

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. .

I completely disagree with that. If fatman117 and other senior members are to be believed, the war against the Taliban will not be won by massing troops and artillery in the plains, but by well planned and executed Counterinsurgency operations involving single units that would be as agile and effective as the Taliban.

I don't think such operations would require a significant number of troops to be deployed, but rather a small number of highly-motivated troops with specialized training and weaponry.

By deploying the Pakistani army in the conventional manner, they will only become sitting ducks for Taliban attacks, and will never be able to establish a foothold in the hills and valleys of the region.

I think Pakistan has enought troops to protect its borders with India and carry out operations against the Taliban, if the troops are managed effectively.

Secondly, India never made any open treats against Pakistan. The debate on surgical strikes was done exclusively in the media, and Pranab Mukherjee's noncommital "all options are open" statement was misconstrued by Pakistan and the Indian media (edited) to mean that India was preparing for all-out war. Infact, Mukherjee later clarified on television that his earlier comments were misunderstood, and infact what he meant was that no decision had been made on what steps should be taken in the aftermath of the attacks.

The rest of the hysterical war-mongering was done by Pakistan by

1. Falsely claiming that indian jets had entered Pakistani airspace
2. Redeploying its troops to the Indian border
3. Parading around its airforce jets over major cities in order to further increase tensions

 

[fatman17]

^^we have to admit that the FC and Police are generally poor trained and have no CI training at all. enthusiasm alone wont win this battle!