What's new

The Battle for Bajaur - PA seizes control

Dear Kasrkin:

You really made me feel proud of being a Pakistani. “”He is our country-man, we have to try. Like it or not it is the likes of him PA is fighting for””

I am a minority here with my contrarian views. Pakistan Defence is a specialized forum focused on military interests. Numerous members have ties to the Army in one form or another; the majority represents a mindset that conforms to the politically correct views of Pak Government and the Army.

But I am not a minority as far as the views of the Pakistani public are concerned. In fact in my own ethnic backyard these are the polite and moderated views of an overwhelming majority.

The key issues are as follows:
1. Majority of Pakistanis are not willing to take the ownership of WoT. It is not our war. The US has invited itself into Afghanistan, first to take on Al-Quaeda, later Taliban, later to do Nation building and “restore peace”. There is no clear objective as to what constitutes “mission accomplished and victory”.
2. Pak Army has been tasked with fighting the so-called American War on Terror on its soil against its own citizens. This is a shameful desecration of the primary National Defense mission of the Army; betrayal of the trust that Pakistani public invested in this institution.
3. Pakistani nation has embraced a life of chronic poverty and malnutrition for decades, nourishing the Army with 7% of the GDP. In return for Heavy investments in Strategic deterrents Pakistani nation deserves a minimum level of dignity.
4. Pakistan Government claims to be an “Ally” in the WoT, which it is not:
a. The Gold Standard of being an Ally is membership of NATO. Whereas basket case ex Warsaw pact countries like Poland and Bulgaria are members, no one touches Pakistan with a 10-foot pole.
b. Pakistanis were bundled with 25 other nationalities into National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) in the USA. Indians were excluded.
c. Which allied nation has its territory bombed by the US as an entertainment?
d. Which allied nation abducts its own citizens and hand them over to the US for torture and imprisonment (Dr Afia case plus several hundred others).
e. Every allied nation saw a material change for the better in its economic fortunes. Look at Korea, Thailand, Egypt, and Israel. None of them ever fired a bullet in anger for the US. We are being asked to “perform” for paltry reimbursable worth a bit more than US$ 1 b per year, our real cost being about US$ 10 b / year.
f. India got the 1-2-3 nuclear deals, we were declared “unqualified”.
5. The most absurd logic for our support to the US is the Threat of being bombed into the stone age!. This is probably the longest “holdup” in human history and deserves a place in the Guinness Book of World Records!.

The unfortunate reality is that Pak Army has the same status as Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) circa 1973. Gen Musharraf was the equivalent of Air Vice Marshall Kao Ki.

The end game will finally depend on an act of US Congress to cut spending on misadventures. Who will be left to cry on the rubble, we Pakistanis?
 
“”I agree with your suggestion about FATA having to be reintegrated back into Pakistan proper””.
Yes. Absolutely! FATA should be merged with NWFP and full human and constitutional rights restored. GoP can adopt Shariah laws and appoint competent judges well versed with the Shariah laws.
But till FATA is integrated into Pakistan respect the pact of honor signed by the father of the nation, Quaid-e-Azam.
 
Perhaps you didn't know this but the FC (and Rangers) are lead by officers from the regular Pakistani Army. It is considered an unglamorous posting by some officers no doubt,

true, but there is more to this:officers who are graded "O" and "WA" get all the good postings and promotions. officers who are graded "A" and "BA" get to go to supply corps and the Para-Military's (FC, Rangers). then there are issues related to "discipline" and "in-subordination". Try having a conversation with a FC or Rangers officer and u will know what i am saying.

O=outstanding
WA= well above
A= average
BA=Below average.
 
then there are issues related to "discipline" and "in-subordination". Try having a conversation with a FC or Rangers officer and u will know what i am saying.

I don't know about that sir. I know very high ranking officers who serve in this capacity, though not very personally of course. I didn't note any such trend; furthermore they look and sound competent enough to me. All I know is that they’re not too enthusiastic about their assignments, but they say even that has been subject to change recently.

Anwar2, I'll get back to you and your posts dont worry.:disagree:
 
GoP can adopt Shariah laws and appoint competent judges well versed with the Shariah laws.

1. The Ulema from all the sects and sub sects in Pakistan have to arrive at a consensus on what Shairah entails, before any thought of imposing it on the people of Pakistan.

2. If a consensus is arrived at, implementation of said 'shariah' is dependent upon the parties supporting it to run for office and get large enough majorities to amend the constitution in favor of those laws.

This shouldn't be a problem since you are so certain that the idea of imposing 'shariah' enjoys widespread popularity in Pakistan.

If this process is followed, I have no issues with Shariah.
 
Perhaps you didn't know this but the FC (and Rangers) are lead by officers from the regular Pakistani Army. It is considered an unglamorous posting by some officers no doubt,

true, but there is more to this:officers who are graded "O" and "WA" get all the good postings and promotions. officers who are graded "A" and "BA" get to go to supply corps and the Para-Military's (FC, Rangers). then there are issues related to "discipline" and "in-subordination". Try having a conversation with a FC or Rangers officer and u will know what i am saying.

O=outstanding
WA= well above
A= average
BA=Below average.

If you put an A or BA level junior officer with troops that have even slight problems this can compound the basic problems and generate more.
Also it will not necessarily improve these lower graded officers.

I also accept that such postings may change a junior officer, that is improve, BUT that is highly dependant on the individual.

Base standards can be helped, and I use that loosely, by using better quality officers and senior NCOs as well as a form of integration within companies or battalion/regts.

I suspect though the military mind set would not consider integration, but it does work.
In Aust there are many integrated units, that is Army Reserve and Regs. Though I do suspect the differences in disciplinary culture between ARes and Regs is not as blatantly obvious as say FC vs PA.

As for high ranking Officers, well they get to those positions because of themselves and their abilities; hence one can with reason assume a level of competence congruent to their rank.

Kasrkin: I did note your 2 postings on this matter as well. I am just passing a minor opinion.
 
then there are issues related to "discipline" and "in-subordination". Try having a conversation with a FC or Rangers officer and u will know what i am saying.

I don't know about that sir. I know very high ranking officers who serve in this capacity, though not very personally of course. I didn't note any such trend; furthermore they look and sound competent enough to me. All I know is that they’re not too enthusiastic about their assignments, but they say even that has been subject to change recently.

Anwar2, I'll get back to you and your posts dont worry.:disagree:

i should have quantified. junior and mid-level up to Lt.Col. now i could be wrong generalizing but i have attended management courses (non-military) where these officers were also participating. i have only one word. "Poor". please dont get me wrong. they are doing a tough job and the MOD needs to pay more attention to improve their overall efficiency.
 
Anwar2:


I can not at this point answer all, but a couple of comments re your points:

a. The Gold Standard of being an Ally is membership of NATO. Whereas basket case ex Warsaw pact countries like Poland and Bulgaria are members, no one touches Pakistan with a 10-foot pole.


No the Gold Standard of being an Ally is not membership of NATO. Australia is an ally and is not a member of NATO. Australia does have one of the largest non NATO contingents in Afghanistan though. Our part in this has not granted our instant acceptance to NATO nor NATO planning.
The countries you cite are part of Europe and hence will get into NATO by that existence, not being an ally in the WoT.

Please form my assesmnet, minor as it is this:
“The unfortunate reality is that Pak Army has the same status as Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) circa 1973. Gen Musharraf was the equivalent of Air Vice Marshall Kao Ki.”
This statement is a real let down of your Army. Do NOT even look like making such a comparison it should be beneath your dignity. I just hope you do not realise what you have written.

Your point 1 does need a long comment but I will see how much I can add for you later. I can not comment all of this point but some I can.
 
AgNoStIc MuSliM: The core judicial processes under Shariah laws are substantially the same for all the sects and sub-sects of Islam. Overwhelming majority of people in Swat / Bajaur are Ahle Sunnah. There are minor variations of interpretation in Fiqah Jaafriah that must always be respected.
Implementation of Shariah should not be held hostage to the election of so-called “public representatives”. The “winner take all” parliamentary system does not allow for One point agendas; that works only under proportional representation and two round elections (where the winner must get 50% of the popular vote).
The right constitutional mechanism is for CEC to hold a One-point referendum in Swat / FATA on the question of Shariah Laws. All parties must respect results of such referendum.
 
Ratus Ratus:

“Gold Standard” means a Standard, not necessarily NATO membership. Israel, Australia, Japan, Korea are not members of NATO but are treated at par, or sometimes better.

Comparison to ARVN circa 1973 is absolutely valid. As a Pakistani I feel the pain and indignation, but that’s the unfortunate reality.
 
Anwar2:
Let me be very frank, Australia and the others are NOT treated at par.

It took out government some leverage to even get accepted to the NATO planning meetings with respect to Afghanistan. Till that point, and it was only last year we, Australia, were NOT even consulted re any planning.

I could be rude and say the US only wants us for our SAS/SFs when they get stuck.:D

So unfortunately it is a perception you hold but not one of fact.

There are more connotations re ARVN that you want to point a big pole at.

The US government hype and drivel is one thing, it is ignorable.
I do suspect that much of the past flip flops that did occur, and I suspect with yoru past government, have not helped in any respect. But I do believe your feelings are unwarranted and the result of being too sensitive. In many ways the media has not helped as they seem content to hype things beyond reality, both positively and negatively. Note, negative comments sell more papers and air time.

Take note also. In the US there is a constant diatribe of media coverage of Iraq and Afghanistan. This usually is actually of no real benefit to any one in the AO. On the opposite side we, in Australia, hear, via media anyway, very little of what our troops are doing. Silence is golden in these operations. This is possible something the US and its media should learn.

Journalists don’t always report real facts, but tend to report their opinion as facts.
 
Dear Ratus Ratus:
Australia is treated at par with NATO with regard to access to weapon systems, technologies and unimpeded logistics. Australia will never be sanctioned upto its eye ball, ever!
Australia is lucky for having been spared the agony of NATO Joint planning, which in essence assigns fill-in-the-blank role to the constituents, with the shots being called by the US. Australians are mere camp followers.
I beg to disagree with your assertion of media coverage. As a matter of fact Iraq or Afghanistan have not enjoyed coverage by free press; no media / TV person have had the moral courage to see the war from the victims perspective. Both Iraq / Afghan campaigns began with the disgraceful blight called “embedded journalists” whose sole claim to fame was attending Centcom press briefs or riding the US APC’s. You will hardly ever see the estimated 3000 Afghan civilians butchered through US bombing in 2008 alone. You will hardly see the hundreds of civilian casualties in Swat, Bajaur and Waziristan. The western bedrooms have been spared the pangs of gory scenes.
 
"Australians are mere camp followers."

That's rich.

We'd go to our knees to get their SAS downrange. You don't have a clue how important they were in Iraq either.

We've a VERY close bi-lateral security relationship. It's incredibly consultative because they are SUPERB strategic and operational thinkers collectively. Better than the Brits, IMHO, when it comes to S. and E. Asia. It's pretty unique and has laid nicely below-the-radar but is nonetheless critical to the U.S.

We don't hold much leverage with the Aussies. When they're not in, they're not in and that's that. Their intel into Indonesia, Malacca states (Singapore, Malaysia), pirates, Vietnam, list goes on and on. ASW too. They're techno-geeky like us but better at what they do. Very focused stuff but top-notch. Our ASW people in U.S. Pacific Fleet kiss their :bunny:.

Won't mess with that. They call the tune. We dance and don't mind one bit given the quid pro quo.

Hope you get my drift...;)
 
Last edited:
Anwar2:

We do not have blanket approval of access to weapon systems, technologies and unimpeded logistics. We only can get what US lest us have and that comes at a cost, nothing free or cheap. We have not as yet had any nice deals. Also unless you can point to a fact I doubt any NATO country gets anything from the US cheap or free.

As for sanctions, Oh yes we have sanction but of the worst kind, the undeclared ones. A simple example, in Australia we make an IMV called the Bushranger. This was going to be in the contention for the MRAP-1 cat of vehicles. This tender got pulled because one of the companies making it is a non-gratis as far as the US is concerned. End result no chance of export contracts. This hurts economically quite a bit.
If you really did about you will find a few more like this.

Since you rise this, “3000 Afghan civilians butchered through US bombing in 2008 alone”, then please then explain to me about all the Afghans killed by Afghans under the guise of Taliban.
You don’t get to choose just a bit of the issues of killings it’s all or nothing. Both are relevant if you want to discuss civilian killings.


Let us get a few things cleared before I bother to continue:

My BIG beef with you is this “Australians are mere camp followers”.
I have so far been very civil with you and also not made any derogatory comment re Afghanistan, Pakistan nor about anything else. Reason it does not make for intelligent discussion and I do not see the need to make such unwanted/unwarranted comment. You have made a generalisation with no real foundation. Unacceptable!

If you want to start degrading nations OK go ahead.
BUT do not expect me to continue this discussion.
 
I guess this info is needed here; No replies to my thread on this also here at the WoT forum:

Over 1,000 civilians killed in Afghan fighting last year: NATO

BRUSSELS (AFP) January 28, 2009

NATO-led forces accidentally killed nearly 100 civilians during fighting with insurgents in Afghanistan last year, while the Taliban and other groups were responsible for almost 1,000 such deaths, the Alliance said Wednesday.

The number of civilian fatalities caused by ISAF (NATO-led International Security Assistance Force) was 97 for 2008, while militant groups, including the Taliban first and foremost, were responsible for 987 such deaths, said Alliance spokesman James Appathurai.

"I want to put into context the fact that the Taliban and other groups like them caused over 80 percent of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan and they do it in an indiscriminate way," he stressed.

"So I would hope there would be a proportionate focus on what the Taliban and other groups are doing, even as we make every effort to diminish the civilian casualties unintentionally caused by us."

Afghan President Hamid Karzai "quite rightly continues to draw attention to what we do with regard to civilian casualties and we are working very hard to improve it," said Appathurai.

In particular he pointed out that last month NATO issued "tactical directives" laying out its guidelines on how NATO forces should operate.

The spokesman at NATO's Brussels headquarters was unable to provide comparative figures for previous years, saying that there had previously been no reliable system of collating them.

"We put in a new tracking system last year. Before that we weren't frankly confident in or ability to judge it accurately.

"You have to understand this is a country where there are no birth certificates, there are no death certificates, people are buried very quickly and this is often in remote areas."

There are nearly 70,000 foreign troops under NATO and US command in Afghanistan fighting a Taliban insurgency alongside Afghan forces.
 
Back
Top Bottom