US Poised to Attack Extremists in FATA

[vish]

Q. Is the US Preparing To Attack Pakistan?

A. Not Pakistan, but areas not under the writ of GoP.

 

[ejaz007]

An attack on any part of Pakistan whether under the control of government or not still means an attack on Pakistan. It will be resisted with whatever means are at our disposal.

 

[vish]

An attack on any part of Pakistan whether under the control of government or not still means an attack on Pakistan. It will be resisted with whatever means are at our disposal.

Has it been resisted up until now? Neither did Mush did anything and nor is the current GoP doing anything.

The reason being, these "tribals" are more of a danger to your society than theirs.

The only sensible things to do is to get the house in order, talk turkey with USA and join them.

PS: Do you see a high-IQ guerilla war in the making?

 

[vish]

The Berserkers are at it again - in the distant there is the echo of "bring it on" as was once pronounced in Iraq -- and what a success that has been - so ground is being laid for a new success?? Personally, I don't think this is other than a psyops plan -- a full scale invasionof Pakistan has never been on the cards and will not be. Incursions such as the Israeli model in Lebanon may be what the US may have in mind, but then again, that failed as well.

The US is terribly overstretched and all this attack Iran, Attack Pakistan, it's just not on the cards. Anyway, the damage will be to the Pakistani economy, the territorial integrity of Pakistan, at least in my opinion, will not suffer long term damage. Of course if the Pakistani shows typical weakness of resolve then the Chinese will reevaluate and the Russian, the Indian and the Iranian will help shove a falling wall.

Pakistan need not be stuck in "defiance", it can help itself and the US by giving the US options inside Afghanistan.

A islamic, pashtun political party that is not an AQ clone, that is not maoist in Islamic clothing, but is generally islamic, is not hostile to development, is friendly to Pakistan as well as "others", but generally focused on problems inside Afghanistan, ought to be supported by Pakistan.

The Taliban and their Pakistani allies are focused on the Karzai regime and it's American agenda, but the new political group, that MUST NOT have any mujahideen or warlords in it's central committee and which will hold internal elections for leadership, can, I think the space for such exists, win pashtun support.

The ethnic situation in Afghanistan is genuinely precarious, the new Islamic Pastun party must work to convince, in particular the Hazara, the Turkoman and the Uzbek communities that it has absolutely no interests in the talib ethnic and religious bigotry.

There will be no "Pakhtunistan" -- if there were to be such a thing, Afghanistan would cease to exist as it is now constituted - either way there is no significant support for such an idea -- it is merely a fear in Pakistan.

Anway, what the Palistani state ought to be doingcto address this "fear" is to seek to increase it's influence in Nangarhar, Kunar, Khost, Pakty and Paktika to an irresistable level - to begin with it should act to ensure that trade in these provices is transacted in Pakistani rupees -- trade in these provinces is already transacted in Pakistani Rupees (Kaldar) however; Afghan auhoirites confiscate and arrest persons should they discover trade in Pakistani rupees.

Pakistani products should find their way into these markets with ease and must be paid for in Pakistani rupees.

The US military machine is learning lessons from both Iraq and Afghanistan. They'll get better at low-intensity conflicts.

 

[ejaz007]

It would neither be regular ground battle nor guerilla warfare. An hybrid of the two I believe. The nights would be extremely dangerous.

 

[muse]

"They'll get better at low-intensity conflicts."

And my aunty will be my uncle when....

Us military has an enormous amount of resources and excellent training and the soldiers motivated and excellent morale -- I don't have a problem with these things - most importantly it has air support - otherwise it's man to man and the tribals can produce greater manpower - but it's air that makes all the difference. And ofcourse it not a flat desert like it was in Iraq

 

[Awesome]

Is Pakistan preparing to defend Pakistan?

 

[muse]

Is that Pakistan?

 

[vish]

"They'll get better at low-intensity conflicts."

And my aunty will be my uncle when....

Us military has an enormous amount of resources and excellent training and the soldiers motivated and excellent morale -- I don't have a problem with these things - most importantly it has air support - otherwise it's man to man and the tribals can produce greater manpower - but it's air that makes all the difference. And ofcourse it not a flat desert like it was in Iraq

Ofcourse, you are right.

But how are these guerilla conflicts fought?

1) Play tribe vs. tribe

2) Bribe

These are the two reasons why America fared much better in Afghanistan vis-a-vis Iraq.

All it requires for the "greater manpower" to be made redundant is internal strife. Internal strife is easy to accomplish with bribery.

Plus the Afghanistan War will last a decade or so more.

 

[Awesome]

Given the common threat from America, Why hasn't Pakistan been able to secure better SAMs from China?

I'm not saying we'll take out their airforce down like flies, but the threat that we can knock a dozen or so planes would work as a detterrent to launch air raids on Pakistan and the US would have to use the more expensive option of Cruise Missiles.

Which brings me to my second point. Pakistan should be producing Baburs in bulk.

The threat that Pakistan has enough weapons to knock out big ships parked along the coast of Pakistan would definitely push them backwards.

Pakistani politicians should be visiting China right now rather than the Arab nations.

 

[muse]

IHT editorial

Talking sense on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
Published: July 17, 2008


It has been obvious from the start of the 2008 U.S. presidential election campaign that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the biggest foreign policy challenges awaiting the next president. But there has been precious little detailed discussion of them on the campaign trail.

Until this week, when Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, offered a sensible blueprint for dealing with the mess that President George Bush created by bungling the war of necessity against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, which could have made Americans safer, and starting a war of choice in Iraq, which made the world more insecure.

Obama's Republican rival, Senator John McCain, has not matched Obama's seriousness on Iraq. He is still largely adopting Bush's blind defense of an unending conflict.

Obama has a better grasp of the big picture, despite McCain's claim to more foreign policy experience. For far too long, Bush's preoccupation with his misadventure in Iraq has dangerously diverted precious manpower, resources and high-level attention from Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Obama has correctly asserted, those countries, not Iraq, are the real frontline of the war against terrorism.

Obama said he would withdraw combat forces from Iraq by 2010, shift at least 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan that could be leveraged to persuade NATO allies to also increase their numbers, send more nonmilitary aid to Afghanistan and build a stronger Afghanistan-Pakistan-NATO partnership on the lawless border. He also promised an extra $2 billion as part of an international effort to deal with more than 4 million displaced Iraqis - a crisis that the Bush administration has unconscionably ignored.

We were encouraged that Obama embraced a proposal by the leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to triple nonmilitary aid to Pakistan to $7.5 billion over five years. The United States must invest more in strengthening Pakistan's democracy. Congress should move quickly to adopt the proposal, which also would require a long-overdue plan to address the lawlessness of the Afghan-Pakistan border.

After arguing that no additional forces were needed, McCain reversed course on Tuesday and endorsed sending 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan. But he seemed confused about whether they would be U.S. forces drawn from Iraq or an American-NATO mix, leaving us wondering how well formed his ideas are.

And it was distressing to hear McCain still talking about "winning" the war in Iraq and adopting the tedious tactic of accusing Obama of "giving up" when he talks about a careful withdrawal of troops.

We have no idea what winning means to McCain. Bush initially promised a free and democratic Iraq. After spending $656 billion, his administration has retreated from such grandiose notions and he will be lucky to leave behind a marginally functioning central government in a very fragile country.

Obama acknowledged that reality, and the fact that Bush's decision to deploy more troops last year has reduced the violence. McCain uses that to justify an unending war. Obama wisely said that it was time to capitalize on American soldiers' sacrifices to plan an end to the war.

"At some point, a judgment must be made," he said. "Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don't have the resources to try to make it one."

The United States cannot just turn its back on Iraq, but that is not remotely what Obama is suggesting. He proposed keeping a residual force in Iraq for specific missions like fighting Al Qaeda. He also wisely asserted he will make tactical adjustments as needed.

The more the United States insists it will not even consider withdrawal, the less incentive Iraqis have to settle their political differences. Iraq's leaders have asked for a withdrawal timetable. The next president needs to take them at their word. The candidates need to keep talking about how they will meet that goal and then address the real threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

[IceCold]

The Berserkers are at it again - in the distant there is the echo of "bring it on" as was once pronounced in Iraq -- and what a success that has been - so ground is being laid for a new success?? Personally, I don't think this is other than a psyops plan -- a full scale invasionof Pakistan has never been on the cards and will not be. Incursions such as the Israeli model in Lebanon may be what the US may have in mind, but then again, that failed as well.

The US is terribly overstretched and all this attack Iran, Attack Pakistan, it's just not on the cards. Anyway, the damage will be to the Pakistani economy, the territorial integrity of Pakistan, at least in my opinion, will not suffer long term damage. Of course if the Pakistani shows typical weakness of resolve then the Chinese will reevaluate and the Russian, the Indian and the Iranian will help shove a falling wall.

Pakistan need not be stuck in "defiance", it can help itself and the US by giving the US options inside Afghanistan.

A islamic, pashtun political party that is not an AQ clone, that is not maoist in Islamic clothing, but is generally islamic, is not hostile to development, is friendly to Pakistan as well as "others", but generally focused on problems inside Afghanistan, ought to be supported by Pakistan.

The Taliban and their Pakistani allies are focused on the Karzai regime and it's American agenda, but the new political group, that MUST NOT have any mujahideen or warlords in it's central committee and which will hold internal elections for leadership, can, I think the space for such exists, win pashtun support.

The ethnic situation in Afghanistan is genuinely precarious, the new Islamic Pastun party must work to convince, in particular the Hazara, the Turkoman and the Uzbek communities that it has absolutely no interests in the talib ethnic and religious bigotry.

There will be no "Pakhtunistan" -- if there were to be such a thing, Afghanistan would cease to exist as it is now constituted - either way there is no significant support for such an idea -- it is merely a fear in Pakistan.

Anway, what the Palistani state ought to be doingcto address this "fear" is to seek to increase it's influence in Nangarhar, Kunar, Khost, Pakty and Paktika to an irresistable level - to begin with it should act to ensure that trade in these provices is transacted in Pakistani rupees -- trade in these provinces is already transacted in Pakistani Rupees (Kaldar) however; Afghan auhoirites confiscate and arrest persons should they discover trade in Pakistani rupees.

Pakistani products should find their way into these markets with ease and must be paid for in Pakistani rupees.

While i agree with most of what you said however, the increasing attacks on Pakistani soil and not to mention the attacks that have been started on our military personal, points towards another direction. Americans will not hesitate how many get killed or what effect does it leave on the world economy, they will go for it. Remember that when plans were being developed about attacking Iraq, countries like France objected but finally had to bow to US will. Pakistan was too involved in the list of those countries. My point is whether US actually does attack Pakistan or not, can we wait for such a situation to arise. Also like Asim said can Pakistanis defend Pakistan in case of such an attack? IMO we need to prepare for such an attack whether the threat is real or not, we should not let our guards down in false sense of security or that US will not attack Pakistan.

 

[JK!]

Which brings me to my second point. Pakistan should be producing Baburs in bulk

I'm guessing there needs to be a few more tests of the missile I think at least 7 are needed.

 

[muse]

Yes, triple s is rather shady - on the other hand, when it comes to Pakistan there a few who offer clarity - but you may have posed the most important question all - will Pak Fauj defend Waziristan? But lets add another question, Ought it defend Waziristan in these circumstances??

If the Politicians will not take responsibility, why should Pak fauj act to safe guard those who have beheaded Pakistani soldiers??

Don't get me wrong - I'm not necessarily advocating any particular position, but I am open to these questions - I think we ought to consider these seriously:


Militants ready for a war without borders
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - From thinly disguised insinuations against Pakistan following the suicide attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul this month to outright accusations against Islamabad by the Afghan government over the unrelenting Taliban-led insurgency, the blame game has entered a critical time: a major regional battle could erupt in a matter of days.

Last week, US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen paid a sudden visit to Pakistan during which he revealed to Pakistani leaders and military officials the possibility of surgical strikes on Taliban and al-Qaeda networks operating in the border regions and that coalition forces in Afghanistan would not hesitate to conduct hot-pursuit raids into Pakistan.

Mullen urged Pakistani leaders to play their part from their side. He pin-pointed the North and South Waziristan tribal areas as a focal point, along with the areas of Razmak, Shawal, Ghulam Khan and Angor Ada along the border with Afghanistan. Across the divide, Khost province is considered a likely target for carpet bombing and an offensive by the Afghan National Army.

Pakistani army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kiani was quick to call in senior strategic analysts, who pointed out that the military would only follow the directions of the civilian government. Yet just days earlier, Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gillani had announced that all decisions concerning military operations would be decided by the army chief. This does not bode well for Pakistan's whole-hearted cooperation.

But regardless of how sincerely the Pakistani army fights against the Taliban, the fact is that the Taliban have already staged a virtual coup in North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) bordering Afghanistan.

They have established a reign of terror against which the state writ is powerless. In all districts, the Taliban have taken security officials hostage to press their demands that a strict Islamic code be enforced. Many officials have been killed when the Taliban's wishes have not been granted.

As a result, the middle and lower members of the security forces are effectively non-functional and answer to the Taliban's call across NWFP.

This has left the secular and relatively liberal government of the province, led by the Awami National Party, with no choice but to form "defense committees" at the district level to organize civilians against a complete Taliban take-over.

Across the border, a similar situation exists in Ghazni province, close to the capital Kabul, where, apart from the provincial headquarters, the Taliban call the shots in all districts once dusk descends - the district administrations and the police simply give up control, giving the Taliban freedom of movement.

In Kunar and Nooristan provinces, the Taliban are fighting for similar dominance and already most security checkpoints have been abandoned out of fear of the Taliban.

On Monday, a high-level al-Qaeda shura (council) concluded in Miramshah in North Waziristan with instructions to all members with families to retreat to safe locations in expectation of the Afghan war spreading into Pakistan's tribal areas.

Not that this alarms al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban. They reason that should coalition forces seriously enter into Pakistan (they have in the past sent unmanned Predator drones on raids into Pakistan), the reaction in Pakistan, even among liberals, would be so fierce that the Pakistani army would not dare to follow up with action of its own. This would leave the militants with a free hand to launch operations inside Afghanistan.

The shura also noted that militant ranks in the region had received their biggest boost since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, including growing numbers from Muslim countries.

 

[Myth_buster_1]