What's new

U.S. Military Seeks to Expand Raids in Pakistan

Yeti

BANNED
Joined
Nov 26, 2010
Messages
7,400
Reaction score
-7
Country
India
Location
Thailand
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/world/asia/21intel.html


WASHINGTON — Senior American military commanders in Afghanistan are pushing for an expanded campaign of Special Operations ground raids across the border into Pakistan’s tribal areas, a risky strategy reflecting the growing frustration with Pakistan’s efforts to root out militants there.

The proposal, described by American officials in Washington and Afghanistan, would escalate military activities inside Pakistan, where the movement of American forces has been largely prohibited because of fears of provoking a backlash.

The plan has not yet been approved, but military and political leaders say a renewed sense of urgency has taken hold, as the deadline approaches for the Obama administration to begin withdrawing its forces from Afghanistan. Even with the risks, military commanders say that using American Special Operations troops could bring an intelligence windfall, if militants were captured, brought back across the border into Afghanistan and interrogated.

The Americans are known to have made no more than a handful of forays across the border into Pakistan, in operations that have infuriated Pakistani officials. Now, American military officers appear confident that a shift in policy could allow for more routine incursions.

America’s clandestine war in Pakistan has for the most part been carried out by armed drones operated by the C.I.A.

Additionally, in recent years, Afghan militias backed by the C.I.A. have carried out a number of secret missions into Pakistan’s tribal areas. These operations in Pakistan by Afghan operatives, known as Counterterrorism Pursuit Teams, have been previously reported as solely intelligence-gathering operations. But interviews in recent weeks revealed that on at least one occasion, the Afghans went on the offensive and destroyed a militant weapons cache.

The decision to expand American military activity in Pakistan, which would almost certainly have to be approved by President Obama himself, would amount to the opening of a new front in the nine-year-old war, which has grown increasingly unpopular among Americans. It would run the risk of angering a Pakistani government that has been an uneasy ally in the war in Afghanistan, particularly if it leads to civilian casualties or highly public confrontations.

Still, one senior American officer said, “We’ve never been as close as we are now to getting the go-ahead to go across.”

The officials who described the proposal and the intelligence operations declined to be identified by name discussing classified information.

Ground operations in Pakistan remain controversial in Washington, and there may be a debate over the proposal. One senior administration official said he was not in favor of cross-border operations — which he said have been generally “counterproductive” — unless they were directed against top leaders of Al Qaeda. He expressed concern that political fallout in Pakistan could negate any tactical gains.

Still, as evidence mounts that Pakistani troops are unlikely to stage a major offensive into the militant stronghold of North Waziristan, where Al Qaeda’s top leaders are thought to be taking shelter, United States commanders have renewed their push for approval to send American commando teams into Pakistan.

In announcing the results of a review of the strategy in Afghanistan, Obama administration officials said they were considering expanded American operations to deal with threats inside Pakistan. They offered no specifics.

In interviews in Washington and Kabul, American officials said that officers were drawing up plans to begin ground operations to capture or kill leaders from the Taliban and the Haqqani network. American officers say they are particularly eager to capture, as opposed to kill, militant leaders, who they say can offer intelligence to guide future operations.

Even before finalizing any plans to increase raids across the border, the Obama administration has already stepped up its air assaults in the tribal areas with an unprecedented number of C.I.A. drone strikes this year. Since September, the spy agency has carried out more than 50 drone attacks in North Waziristan and elsewhere — compared with 60 strikes in the preceding eight months.

In interviews, the officials offered a more detailed description of two operations since 2008 in which Afghans working under the direction of the C.I.A. — a militia called the Paktika Defense Force — crossed the border into Pakistan. They also offered a richer account of the activities of these militia groups throughout the country.

According to an Afghan political leader, one of the raids was initiated to capture a Taliban commander working inside Pakistan. When the Afghan troops reached the compound, they did not find the Taliban commander, but the Pakistani militants opened fire on them, the Afghan said.

An American official disputed this account, saying that the C.I.A. militias are not sent over the border to capture militant leaders, but merely to gather intelligence.

In a second raid, the Paktika militia attacked and destroyed a Taliban ammunition depot and returned to base, officials said. Both of the C.I.A.-backed raids were aimed at compounds only a few miles inside Pakistani territory.

The Paktika Defense Force is one of six C.I.A.-trained Afghan militias that serve as a special operations force against insurgents throughout Afghanistan. The other militias operate around the cities of Kandahar, Kabul and Jalalabad as well as in the rural provinces of Khost and Kunar.

One American service member, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the C.I.A.-backed militia near Khost had recently deployed in the mountains along the Pakistan border, where it would spend the winter trying to intercept Taliban fighters. So far, the C.I.A.-backed force has proven effective, he said.

“The rockets we endured for the past seven months suddenly dried up,” the service member said.

In the past, the American military has had only limited success in its few cross-border operations. In October, an American military helicopter accidently killed a group of Pakistani soldiers during a flight over the border in pursuit of militants. The episode infuriated Pakistan’s government, which temporarily shut down American military supply routes into Pakistan. Several fuel trucks sitting at the border were destroyed by insurgents, and American officials publicly apologized.

Two years earlier, in September 2008, American commandos carried out a raid in Pakistan’s tribal areas and killed several people suspected of being insurgents. The episode led to outrage among Pakistan’s leaders — and warnings not to try again.


Mark Mazzetti reported from Washington, and Dexter Filkins from Kabul, Afghanistan. Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington.
 
.
Don't these guys at the NYT know they are getting just way too predictable? Sure, they've taken on the role as a mouthpiece for the anti-Pakistan camp, and they want to do a good job with the propaganda, but I mean, come on!! A predictable piece shows up the day after Pakistani newspapers reported that the NWA action probably won't be happening anytime soon.
 
.
Still, one senior American officer said, “We’ve never been as close as we are now to getting the go-ahead to go across.”


Who is this signal from?? is it Obama or the Pakistani goverment
 
.
You are probably not familiar with the ridiculous way the NYT has been reporting about Pakistan. Every source is "an official" or "an anonymous source" or "an official on condition of anonymity". It's third class press; more a paid ad by certain vested interest groups than real journalism.

This story has been replayed over and over again with a change of date and a few descriptions. The NYT has *never* conclusively followed up on any of the ludicrous claims it has made against Pakistan. There was that story about us having modified our Harpoons... no followup to that. Then there was the recent story about the ISI outing the CIA station chief. The ISI denied angrily the next day and there was no followup or response from the NYT. When a serious newspaper is confronted so blatantly on their story, they typically respond and explain themselves. Never will you find this happening with the NYT viz their trash about Pakistan.

More on the Harpoon nonsense from NYT:

http://www.techlahore.com/2009/08/3...le-nyt-cant-bring-themselves-to-believing-it/
 
.
You are probably not familiar with the ridiculous way the NYT has been reporting about Pakistan. Every source is "an official" or "an anonymous source" or "an official on condition of anonymity". It's third class press; more a paid ad by certain vested interest groups than real journalism.

This story has been replayed over and over again with a change of date and a few descriptions. The NYT has *never* conclusively followed up on any of the ludicrous claims it has made against Pakistan. There was that story about us having modified our Harpoons... no followup to that. Then there was the recent story about the ISI outing the CIA station chief. The ISI denied angrily the next day and there was no followup or response from the NYT. When a serious newspaper is confronted so blatantly on their story, they typically respond and explain themselves. Never will you find this happening with the NYT viz their trash about Pakistan.



I just went on their homepage to see more about the press firm it was funny to see how they have 1 coloured person on their board which they highlight as being all diverse and inclusive yeah right!

Executives Biographies - The New York Times Company
 
.
i guess...that's the only way to take out those hidden talibans.
 
.
i guess...that's the only way to take out those hidden talibans.

The hidden Taliban were last seen negotiating with NATO :-) Now you've even got the UN talking about dialogue... it's out in the open!

Window for political dialogue may be opening in Afghanistan, Ban reports

On a serious note, the NATO engagement in Afghanistan has to wind down. Just has to. Reductions will start soon, and everyone agrees - politicians and military - they're out within the next 3 years:

Afghanistan - Commentary | The Columbia Daily Tribune - Columbia, Missouri

Combat commitment in Afghanistan to end by 2014: White House -  International News ? News ? MSN India

There is no appetite in the US anymore nor amongst NATO allies:

Decision to extend Afghan mission difficult: PM | Canada | News | Toronto Sun

Germany Will Be Able to Cut Afghan Troop Levels From End of 2011 - BusinessWeek

And the old tired arguments the NYT keeps repeating are entirely incredible. They like to paint this imagined situation where all of Afghanistan is under safe, NATO control and the only issue is hit and run Taliban attacks coming from Pakistan... for if Afghanistan itself is not safe, where NATO has 110+,000 troops, why not worry about that first? It's not like the trouble is only along the Pak border. The Taliban control huge territories in Afghanistan hundreds of miles from the Pakistan border. Hypothetical insurgents based in Pakistan can't even get there and back in a small period of time. No sir, the Taliban - the Afghan Taliban - are very much based in Afghanistan and they have had the better of NATO thus far.

This is unfortunate, because it will complicate life for us once NATO packs up and exits in 2014. But we're used to being left in the lurch...

Unsurging from Afghanistan and Pakistan | Daily Mail Times


Many still are looking for ephemeral “Ho Chi Minh” trails in Pakistan. The Generals in the graveyard of empires go from defeat to defeat and lie about it, dressing up and putting lipstick on a pig. They constant mantra is about “safe havens” a Vietnam vintage phrase that hides the defeats on the ground. Afghanistan has not been occupied and calm because a few dozen insurgents hide in FATA.

This is utter nonsense.

90% of Afghanistan is in the hands of the Taliban. Why do they need a safe haven anywhere? How does that prevent NATO and ISAF from sealing the border from the other side? The US cannot seal the border despite the fact that it has 150,000 soldiers, drones, choppers, satellites, F-22s, F-35s, and AWACs at its disposal. How can it expect Pakistan to seal the same border that the US cannot seal? Even is the border was as sealed as the shark pool in Atlantis, the fact remains Afghanistan is still in the hands of the Taliban. What can the US do about it? Nothing–except blame Pakistan for its failures.





 
.
I can see NATO and US troops winding down and leaving but I have a feeling this war like in Iraq is going to be subcontracted out to 3rd party mercenaries like blackwater and co.
 
.
well, the operation for NORTH WAZIRISTAN by pak army is certainly going to drain due to many reasons....

Now, another effective mean of striking the elements in NWA is to do precision strikes like drones and commando operations.

if that is the reason , then we should let american special forces in and let them die, because the resistance would be tought.

also,

IT WILL NOT BE A LIMITED OPERATION. THEY HAVE TO PLAN HUNDRED OF DROPS BECAUSE ONLY ILYAS KASHMIRI HAS AROUND 3000-5000* MEN WITH HIM.

* read it at thenews.com, no one is sure about the number, but altogether he is very influential and is part of AL-Qaeda now.
 
.
I can see NATO and US troops winding down and leaving but I have a feeling this war like in Iraq is going to be subcontracted out to 3rd party mercenaries like blackwater and co.

Oh the Taliban would have a field day if that were to occur, and it would be very bad for all parties involved - for the US, for Afghanistan and Pakistan. It would unite all of Afghanistan and they would feel like they have free reign to go after mercenaries. I do NOT think this will be done at all. It hasn't been done in Iraq, certainly won't be done in far more dangerous Afghanistan. Can you imagine the press if a few of these bases get over-run? Blackwater wouldn't last 2 days without US Military presence and protection. They cannot hold a country.
 
.
Oh the Taliban would have a field day if that were to occur, and it would be very bad for all parties involved - for the US, for Afghanistan and Pakistan. It would unite all of Afghanistan and they would feel like they have free reign to go after mercenaries. I do NOT think this will be done at all. It hasn't been done in Iraq, certainly won't be done in far more dangerous Afghanistan. Can you imagine the press if a few of these bases get over-run? Blackwater wouldn't last 2 days without US Military presence and protection. They cannot hold a country.


But do you think the US will just packup and go? call me pessimistic but i heard from some members here like gambit that america is going to stay in Afganistan for a long long time if not forever some how some way.

Also I just heard 2 al qaeda members in Karachi were found by a call intercepted by FBI in Karachi this is news to me that they even have listening post around Pakistan now.


The raids in Sohrab Goth areas last November resulted because of a call intercepted by a local FBI station in Karachi, which intercepted the communication and as per an agreement informed the Pakistani authorities.



Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
 
. .
But do you think the US will just packup and go? call me pessimistic but i heard from some members here like gambit that america is going to stay in Afganistan for a long long time if not forever some how some way.

Well, let's look at it this way. Al-qaeda had/has massive presence in Iraq. For a time, the #1 Al-qaeda terrorist everyone used to talk about was Al-Zarqawi. Moreover, the US itself concedes that the present government in Iraq is going Iran's way and in fact is allied with members of parliament from Muqtada Sadr's anti-US party. Finally, a pro-Iran, or even a merely unantagonistic-to-Iran, Iraq creates an open land corridor all the way from Tehran to Lebanon and Israel. The strategic implications of all the above are tremendous. Yet, what is the US doing? Packing up and leaving in 2011. As announced. Obama is keeping his promise. Why should Afghanistan be any different? Is an unstable Iraq with an Al-Qaeda presence and Iranian influence any less dangerous than Afghanistan would be?

Reductions in 2011 and an end to all military ops by 2014 is the announced plan for Afghanistan which has been confirmed by the highest echelons of political leadership and the highest ranking military officials in the US. Unless we think all of these people are liars, we should certainly believe this roadmap.

In addition to just taking their word for it, we have to understand that the bulk of the US populace wants OUT of Afghanistan. This is crystal clear from all the polls and all the political rhetoric on the issue. I don't think any politician in the US can back this war and win. Why? Because it's not just about the war, it's also about the underlying economics. Spending in Afghanistan has now far outpaced spending in Iraq. Is this sustainable for another 10 years? Doesn't seem like it.

As for your reference to gambit, I believe he is a military professional and frankly one would expect him to want to "finish the job". That's commendable. But I don't think the bulk of America shares gambit's views on this subject.

CNN Poll: Afghan War More Unpopular Than Ever -- News from Antiwar.com

Afghan war unpopular in Britain - UPI.com

Poll: Afghanistan War Deeply Unpopular, Dragging Down Presidential Approval | FDL News Desk

Poll: Afghanistan War Hurting Obama's Support at Home - Newsweek



Also I just heard 2 al qaeda members in Karachi were found by a call intercepted by FBI in Karachi this is news to me that they even have listening post around Pakistan now.

This shouldn't be a surprise, and there is frankly no harm in this. Pakistani government officials at the highest levels have confirmed that indeed Pakistan works with the Americans for sigint etc. President Musharraf has said this too. All American presence in Pakistan is very closely supervised though, and none of these "listening posts" are off on their own doing what they please. Contrary to what some people will tell you, the ambit of these activities is limited to the Pak-US agreement on intelligence sharing.
 
.
Well, let's look at it this way. Al-qaeda had/has massive presence in Iraq. For a time, the #1 Al-qaeda terrorist everyone used to talk about was Al-Zarqawi. Moreover, the US itself concedes that the present government in Iraq is going Iran's way and in fact is allied with members of parliament from Muqtada Sadr's anti-US party. Finally, a pro-Iran, or even a merely unantagonistic-to-Iran, Iraq creates an open land corridor all the way from Tehran to Lebanon and Israel. The strategic implications of all the above are tremendous. Yet, what is the US doing? Packing up and leaving in 2011. As announced. Obama is keeping his promise. Why should Afghanistan be any different? Is an unstable Iraq with an Al-Qaeda presence and Iranian influence any less dangerous than Afghanistan would be?

Reductions in 2011 and an end to all military ops by 2014 is the announced plan for Afghanistan which has been confirmed by the highest echelons of political leadership and the highest ranking military officials in the US. Unless we think all of these people are liars, we should certainly believe this roadmap.

In addition to just taking their word for it, we have to understand that the bulk of the US populace wants OUT of Afghanistan. This is crystal clear from all the polls and all the political rhetoric on the issue. I don't think any politician in the US can back this war and win. Why? Because it's not just about the war, it's also about the underlying economics. Spending in Afghanistan has now far outpaced spending in Iraq. Is this sustainable for another 10 years? Doesn't seem like it.


As for your reference to gambit, I believe he is a military professional and frankly one would expect him to want to "finish the job". That's commendable. But I don't think the bulk of America shares gambit's views on this subject.

CNN Poll: Afghan War More Unpopular Than Ever -- News from Antiwar.com

Afghan war unpopular in Britain - UPI.com

Poll: Afghanistan War Deeply Unpopular, Dragging Down Presidential Approval | FDL News Desk

Poll: Afghanistan War Hurting Obama's Support at Home - Newsweek





This shouldn't be a surprise, and there is frankly no harm in this. Pakistani government officials at the highest levels have confirmed that indeed Pakistan works with the Americans for sigint etc. President Musharraf has said this too. All American presence in Pakistan is very closely supervised though, and none of these "listening posts" are off on their own doing what they please. Contrary to what some people will tell you, the ambit of these activities is limited to the Pak-US agreement on intelligence sharing.


You make a good point that the general american public want an end to the conflict and for the troops to be brought home.

Whats intresting to note is that these drone attacks have killed many on Pakistan's own most wanted list so i can see the logic of working together with the US in this regard.

However if the ordinary joe public person in Pakistan hears of such 'listening posts' manned by the FBI not knowing the whole truth they would jump to conclusions fueling the conspiracy theories this I can see as a possible danger in doing such covert operations.
 
.
It's been said enough times in the open... enough to make the covert quite overt.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom