Salaam!
A brief situation awareness point of view!
Situation Afghanistan:
US/Nato/Isaf forces are overall losing control of key areas in afghanistan:
1) Afghan government primarily exercises control in Kabul region....and even this area has seen Taliban activity.
2) Helmand has seen a greater resurgent Taliban activity.....the Isaf (primarily British) forces have consistently taken territory and caused much casualties to Taliban forces....BUT DESPITE this....the Taliban are able to regroup and find new recruits. (I don't know if you've seen any of the documentaries of British Royal Marines and Paras engaging regularly in 'contact' with Taliban forces.....it shows a lot of fierce resistance by the Taliban, despite enduring very heavy air activity (precision bombings etc).
3) Militarily the foreign forces are causing a lot of disruption to Taliban activity...however politically they are not doing well. Certain governmernts such as the Canadians and a few others have indicated a withdrawal dates for their forces). The war with the insurgents are over 7 years+, the question is do the foreign powers have the WILL to fight a long duration protracted conflict?
4) The frustration of not being able to successfully achieve their goals in Afghanistan has resulted in them focusing on the borders of Pakistan. HOWEVER, this could cause much problems for them - it will not eradicate terrorism or defeat Taliban.....it could potentially make a nation more unstable as is the case with Pakistan. Do the global powers want a NUCLEAR ARMED failed state?
Overall, due to a number of reasons, such as the following:
1) shortage of troops (ISAF/US)
2) Shortage of equipment to transform Afghanistan (Development wise).
3) the waning International support (i.e. many Governments would like to leave ASAP if they could + not many nations willing to contribute troops or material (such as helicopters etc).
4) Finanacially many nations are 'cash-strapped' and would like to focus their 'monies' elswhere.
5) the long conflict in Afghanistan has been predicted to run for at least another 15 years+.....again does anyone have the 'stomach' to fight this long....it becomes a 'war of attrition'?
All in all, A big game is being played...by everyone. A recent strike in which a 'Taliban' leader was killed...was later to be confirmed as a serving senior Pakistan military officer. The Pakistan governments are playing realist political card. Pakistan has not lost interest in the Taliban...hence they are still getting funds/training from the secret services of Pakistan.
In addition, the Iranians have increased their funding/support of the Taliban forces (to keep the ISAF forces bogged down) and also funding discrete individuals to minimise Pakistan support.
The Indians (primarily RAW) are taking full advantages of the situation and have supplied to key 'rogue' elements within the Taliban/Al-qaeda groups....it is alledged that RAW have approximately 10,000 operatives of various abilities within Pakistan (mainly disgruntled and greedy groups who are willing to destroy various resources of Pakistan for monetary sums) Hence, Pakistan is retaliating....you then see certain incidents in India.
Everyone, behind the doors are fighting for their own interests.....you can say 'screwing' one another. The US/ISAF need Pakistan as well as Pakistan needs them. Thus, Pakistan is prepared to lose many numbers of its personnel/ and Local taliban forces in order toreach its goals.....
I believe it has given tacit approval to the US to launch attacks on key individuals (the ones that Pakistan would like to see destroyed aswell). It is only when thinghs get to the media, when they start to complain.
If Pakistan does not want these UAV incursions, then it does have the ability to stop this. Pakistan can reduce NATO/ISAF/US supplies from Pakistan....this would then be a logistical nightmare for the foreign forces...it would escate further their costs in this conflict. Pakistan has options to address the security concerns and issues but has not due to the leadership. There is no honour amongst thieves.....such is the case with hierarchy of senior political and military leadership. The senior leadership is willing to destroy anything that gets in its ways and objectives.
They have been thieves, manipulating the masses. They do not want to 'cut' the hand that feeds them. Personally if anything happens to its people they are not bother (collateral damage in their case). They project and scare the masses of doom and gloom scenarios and are extremely quick to 'BEG' nationally and internationally. They are the scum and a menace to the nations. Hence, when the nations sovereignty is violated - they are unable to defend (THIS IS PRIMARILY BECAUSE THEY HAVE COLLUDED WITH THE ATTACKING FORCES - A TACIT APPROVAL TO HIT TARGETS THAT ARE IN THEIR INTERESTS).
If there are major economic issues then it is primarily the 'elite' and middle classes that will feelthe brunt. However, the vast majority of the population will not be affected (agricultural society - will be able to sustain themselves).
Pakistan is not able 'fight' with bigger/superpowers, but
does have the capability to DETER if it so willed. It had a big response to US Special forces action/raids in Pakistan and that has stopped.
Please note, to invade or attack a nation consisting of 170+ million with large terrain would not be an easy feat. Furthermore, how far would you want to escalate the matter?
My point is that despite Pakistan being economically and politically unstable....it still can stop a would be aggressor. It is a nuclear armed nation that has the capability (officially) to strike within 3000KM range....(please note unofficially it could be longer...maybe a potential ICBM). It could cause much instability in this region to effect global market positions and environmentally catastrophic issues.
Some refrence points:
Source: CBC News - Read more:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/10/04/afghan-war.htm...
Related Linkshttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4882417.ece
War on Taliban can't be won,
Western forces in Afghanistan will never be able to win the war against insurgents and may need to include the Taliban in any long-term solution, Britain's senior commander in the country says in a report.
The platoon’s first big contact was on June 12. “That day is marked in my head.” Two of his men, Lance-Corporal James Bateman and Private Jeff Doherty, were killed when ambushed by the Taliban while out on patrol. “The amount of firepower was phenomenal; they must have had their finger on the trigger the whole time.
“From then to the present day it never stopped,” said Stout. “We were getting contacts every day, some just pot-shots at the base, others much more. We always outnumber and outpower them with our weapons but they keep coming back. I reckon they’re crazy. Two of them would try to take on a company. That’s not good odds.”
Canada's desire to leave Afghanistan by 2011?
Harper sticks by 2011 troop withdrawal date
Harper sticks by 2011 troop withdrawal date
Liberals insist on rebuilding Afghanistan; Layton wants to talk to insurgents
Mike Blanchfield, Canwest News Service
Published: Thursday, September 25
The Canadian Forces mission in Afghanistan is to either end, or change dramatically, by 2011.
That is the deadline Parliament has authorized for Canada's 2,500 troops to remain in Kandahar, the heart of the southern Afghanistan insurgency, and where the Canadian Forces have been involved in some of the heaviest combat that NATO allies have seen in the country.
Pakistan's goals? double??
AFP News Briefs List
Pakistan replaces chief of powerful spy agency by Masroor Gilani
Print Pakistan has appointed a new head of its powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, amid US accusations that the military spy organisation secretly backs Taliban rebels on the Afghan border.
Lieutenant General Ahmed Shujaa Pasha, formerly head of military operations, was named director general of the ISI late Monday, a terse military statement announced. He replaces Lieutenant General Nadeem Taj.
The move is part of a major shake-up of the army's top brass after US, Afghan and Indian officials alleged in recent months that the shadowy organisation was complicit in the Taliban insurgency wracking the region.
Pasha is considered to be a close aide to the relatively reformist Pakistani military chief Ashfaq Kayani, who ran the ISI until October 2007. Taj, by contrast, was a key lieutenant of former president Pervez Musharraf.
The army insisted the 14 new appointments announced on Monday were routine.
"These were the changes due over a period of time. This is how the system works in the army," chief military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas told AFP.
But movements in Pakistan's military and intelligence services are closely watched by the United States and other allies for signs of the nuclear-armed nation's stability and commitment to the "war on terror".
"The change comes at a time when there was a lot of talk about ISI in the Western media," security analyst Talat Masood, a retired Pakistan army general, told AFP.
"With the new ISI chief, General Kayani has completed a team of his choice. He will be able to now lead the army with greater confidence."
In his previous job, Pasha was responsible for military offensives against Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants in northwest Pakistan and the troubled tribal belt bordering Afghanistan.
The ISI has helped capture or kill hundreds of senior Al-Qaeda militants in Pakistan since Musharraf joined the "war on terror" in 2001, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed 9/11 mastermind.
But many Western officials suspect that, having helped to create Afghanistan's hardline 1996-2001 Taliban regime, the organisation is still playing a double game.
In August, the NATO commander in Afghanistan, US General David D. McKiernan, told AFP there "certainly is a level of ISI complicity" in Taliban militancy along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
Whether US forces should strike militant targets in Pakistan if the ISI and other agencies fail to do so has become an issue in the US election race, with Democratic candidate Barack Obama backing such attacks.
Afghanistan, which is supposed to be Pakistan's ally against extremism, and India, Islamabad's historic foe, accused the ISI of involvement in the deadly bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul in July.
Pakistan strongly denies any such links, although Musharraf admitted in 2006 that some retired Pakistani intelligence officers may have been abetting extremists.
The ISI is feared at home as it plays a central, although covert, political role in a country that has spent more than half of its 61-year history under military rule.
The change in the ISI comes after the government led by President Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of slain former premier Benazir Bhutto, tried to put the elite agency under the control of the interior ministry in July.
That move was hastily withdrawn after a protest by Pakistan's powerful military establishment.
In theory ISI works under the control of the prime minister, but in practice its functions are mainly run by Pakistan's pervasive security set-up.
ref:France 24 | Pakistan replaces chief of powerful spy agency | France 24
a good video below click:
Pakistan Playing a Double Game? Capital Talk Sept 15th 2008 - Video/pakistan_playing_a_double_game_capital_talk_sept_1 5th_2008/