US to hit militant safe havens in Pakistan

[muse]

So sad that hate filled Indians are allowed on the forum - but that's not my call.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Thank you for pointing that out Was.

No need for the link - the admins will determine what to do.

Back to the discussion please.

 

[Kasrkin]

LOL.
I think you said nothing wrong, but since it is not exactly related to the topic, and is kinda personal...MoDs might not be too happy.

But the question to ponder on is what can we do if the US tries something like this again; the easiest thing would be to bomb the bases from where these helicopters took off(I'm sure we know where they are) but that doesn't sound like the best course of action to me. So I would suggest that we use PAF to bomb Taliban targets inside Afghanistan (preferably some nice Afghan warlord/Indian militant camps) and that would shut up Hamid Karzi nice and good, wouldnt you agree? And it would tell the Americans that 2 can play at this game...

 

[was]

ok sir back to the topic

UK backs new US strategy on Pakistan border
Updated at: 1910 PST, Thursday, September 11, 2008
LONDON: British Prime Minister Gordon Brown says he'll discuss a new approach to policing the Afghan-Pakistan border in talks with U.S. President George W. Bush.

Brown said the two leaders were holding a video conference on Thursday to assess the work of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan.

Brown says a new strategy is needed to halt the flow of Taliban and militant fighters between Pakistan and its neighbor.

He told reporters that he'll soon meet in London with Pakistan's new president Asif Ali Zardari to discuss authorization for cross-border raids.

Some Pakistani officials have criticized the U.S. over raids in Pakistan's South Waziristan region. Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani said the operations risked stoking militancy in the region.

 

[was]

LOL.
I think you said nothing wrong, but since it is not exactly related to the topic, and is kinda personal...MoDs might not be too happy.

But the question to ponder on is what can we do if the US tries something like this again; the easiest thing would be to bomb the bases from where these helicopters took off(I'm sure we know where they are) but that doesn't sound like the best course of action to me. So I would suggest that we use PAF to bomb Taliban targets inside Afghanistan (preferably some nice Afghan warlord/Indian militant camps) and that would shut up Hamid Karzi nice and good, wouldnt you agree? And it would tell the Americans that 2 can play at this game...

first of all i want to tell you ''NOTHING PERSONAL''
back on the topic. this is a part of the us plan to further destebalize pakistan and about going in afghanistan it,s not the right action to take now.

 

[Nasha]

WOWEEE, I think I should get my self a lot of letters and take my Parot to the streets. because I was just soooo right.

 

[dr.umer]

Pakistan backs army chief over US rebuke​

September 11 2008 13:04 BST

Pakistan's civilian leadership today endorsed the head of the army after he took the unusual step of criticising the US for launching unilateral attacks on Pakistani soil.

General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, considered by the US as a pivotal figure in the "war on terror", said yesterday Pakistan had never agreed to allow the US to operate on Pakistani territory, and that unilateral attacks risked undermining joint efforts against insurgents.

"Falling for short-term gains while ignoring our long-term interest is not the right way forward," Kayani warned.

Kayani usually keeps a low profile so his open rebuke of the US is likely to make policymakers in Washington sit up and take notice.

Today, Pakistan's prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, said Kayani reflected government opinion and policy. Pakistan has been in uproar ever since US special forces carried out an incursion into Pakistani territory last week without telling Islamabad in advance.

The Pakistani government has protested over the ground assault and even summoned the US ambassador. But Kayani's comment will attract particular attention in the US, as he leads Pakistan's most powerful and stable institution.

"Kayani's statement expresses a deep concern in Pakistan and was quite timely because of the feeling in Pakistan as if the army and the government of Pakistan has surrendered to whatever Americans want to do in the tribal regions," said Rasul Bakhsh Rais, a political analyst.

Gilani's comments came as the New York Times reported that George Bush has secretly approved orders allowing US special forces to carry ground assaults inside Pakistan without prior Pakistani government approval.

The incursion into Pakistan and a barrage of suspected US missile strikes in Pakistan in recent days suggest growing American impatience with Pakistan's willingness and capacity in taking out militant safe havens in its tribal regions bordering Afghanistan.

Gordon Brown today said he would hold discussions with Bush on a "new approach" to policing the Afghan-Pakistan border. At his monthly press conference, the prime minister said he and Bush were holding a video conference to assess the work of US and Nato troops in Afghanistan.

Brown said a new strategy was needed to halt Taliban fighters criss-crossing the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Brown said he would be meeting Zardari in London soon to discuss authorisation for cross-border raids.

In a speech this week, the US president said Pakistan along with Afghanistan and Iraq was a central battleground in the "war on terror".

In a barbed message for the new Pakistani president, Asif Ali Zardari, Bush said Pakistan had a "responsibility" to fight extremists "because every nation has an obligation to govern its own territory and make certain that it does not become a safe haven for terror".

-------------------------------------------------------------

It is a good sign that Gen. Kiyani is vocal on this issue.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Look - there is no overpowering rationale for crossborder raids by US SF's in the numbers we have seen so far. They might be useful in terms of going after high level targets, but this particular raid killed perhaps 3-4 militants (no high level targets), and the remaining 15 were innocent civilians, including women and children. In fact, the greatest success in eliminating high level targets has been accomplished by either Pakistani SF's, or US Drones, case in point for the latter being the high level AQ members killed recently.

Almost every analysis of such raids raises the 'nighmare scenario' of US troops being captured or killed and giving AQ a propaganda victory. Given the cowardice on display here, it is guaranteed that to avoid casualties and 'propaganda victories for the enemy', massive suppressing force will be used and women and children who happen to also reside in the vicinity be damned - the latter scenario is exactly what happened in this last raid.

To really make the potential gains from Cross border raids worthwhile, compared to UAV strikes, you need much larger incursions, and even there the potential for greater civilian casualties goes up. None of this includes the potentially destabilizing impact such actions with negligible gains have on Pakistan, nor that it continues to erode support for teh WoT with the US being perceived as the enemy and the Taliban gaining sympathy as 'righteous defenders' in both Afghanistan and FATA.

So from a strategic point of view, this plan is abysmally ill conceived - from a tactical POV, it might have some gains in the sense that a few dozen AQ militants might be killed, but again, the latter can be accomplished, and has been, from UAV strikes.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So the goal for such actions is not any outright military victories, but possibly the folowing:

1. Destabilize Pakistan

2. Force Pakistan to react in some fashion to prevent such CB raids, and in the process put pressure on the Taliban (militarily or using any contacts it has).

3. Sheer stupidity, lack of understanding of the regional dynamics and long term planning (not surprising given the Iraq fiasco).

Now, if option 2 is what is being planned, I would argue that it once again points to the US being no 'friend' of Pakistan and/or bein ignorant of regional dynamics. Most US policy makers likely realize that Pakistan has to cater for contingencies on its Eastern Front, which prevent a larger deployment of resources in the West, and that concerns about the actions of the hostile neighbor in the East through Afghanistan and in collaboration with the GoA, also affect its policies.

One would think then that a far less risky and long term solution in terms of getting Pakistan to deploy forces with more effectiveness in the West would be to address Pakistani concerns in that respect and facilitate some sort of raaproachment with India. The reason could be, as Muse pointed out, that US policy in Afghanistan has been primarily determined by DoD (add in a Bush administration too busy wooing India to bother attempting regional conflict resolution - surprise surprise!), or a deliberate attempt to destabilize Pakistan with an eye on freeing India's hand wrt China.

One positive (from Pakistan's perspective) event to have occured in conjunction with this alleged new US policy is the ceasefire announced by the Baluch militants. Is it designed to reassure Pakistan that India will be kept on a leash when it comes to destabilizing Pakistan, and that Pakistan can therfore redeploy some more resources from East to West?

Of course this woudl also validate Pakistan's accusations of Indian/GoA involvement in terrorism in Pakistan, and also implicate the US by virtue of turning a blind eye to such Indian/GoA activities.

What about Zardari's statement over Kashmir? "Some good news soon".
Does that not also play into some possible behind the scenes rapproachment between the two?

But if behind the scenes rapproachment is really what is going on, why would the US not wait till these developments, especially on Kashmir, actually take place? To argue that just because the Baluch militants announced a ceasfire, and that India has possibly shown interest in resolving the Kashmir dipsute means the PA should just pack its bags in the East is simply absurd.

 

[dr.umer]

Look - there is no overpowering rationale for crossborder raids by US SF's in the numbers we have seen so far. They might be useful in terms of going after high level targets, but this particular raid killed perhaps 3-4 militants (no high level targets), and the remaining 15 were innocent civilians, including women and children. In fact, the greatest success in eliminating high level targets has been accomplished by either Pakistani SF's, or US Drones, case in point for the latter being the high level AQ members killed recently.

Almost every analysis of such raids raises the 'nighmare scenario' of US troops being captured or killed and giving AQ a propaganda victory. Given the cowardice on display here, it is guaranteed that to avoid casualties and 'propaganda victories for the enemy', massive suppressing force will be used and women and children who happen to also reside in the vicinity be damned - the latter scenario is exactly what happened in this last raid.

To really make the potential gains from Cross border raids worthwhile, compared to UAV strikes, you need much larger incursions, and even there the potential for greater civilian casualties goes up. None of this includes the potentially destabilizing impact such actions with negligible gains have on Pakistan, nor that it continues to erode support for teh WoT with the US being perceived as the enemy and the Taliban gaining sympathy as 'righteous defenders' in both Afghanistan and FATA.

So from a strategic point of view, this plan is abysmally ill conceived - from a tactical POV, it might have some gains in the sense that a few dozen AQ militants might be killed, but again, the latter can be accomplished, and has been, from UAV strikes.

AM,

Considering all the points you have stated in the quoted post, what do you think, why US is adopting this strategy?

Destabilization of Pakistan can be the reason but why it is being ignored, if this is the case, that weak Pakistan politically will create many more problems in Afghanistan and mainly to WOT?

I was late posting this. You have already answered above.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM,

Considering all the points you have stated in the quoted post, what do you think, why US is adopting this strategy?

Destabilization of Pakistan can be the reason but why it is being ignored, if this is the case, that weak Pakistan politically will create many more problems in Afghanistan and mainly to WOT?

Ignoring destabilization as the motive, the attempts to get Pakistan to redeploy more resources in the East is an attempt by the US to 'have its cake and eat it too'.

It does not want to engage in conflict resolution between India and Pakistan, and it especially does not want to be seen as pushing India towards anythig given the new strategic partnership that is developing, and therfore is taking the only other option available to it, trying to force (almost literally) Pakistan to react in its favor.

This way its relationship with India continues apace, and it also gets what it wants in Afghanistan, the complications faced by Pakistan, and the potential long term repercussions don't factor into this.

Another reason for the 'force over diplomacy' approach could be that bar the US, other NATO members may be looking at timelines of withdrawal from Afghanistan. Canadian PM just announcd that Canda might be looking at a potential 2011 withdrawal date - if that ends up being solidified, would it start a cascade of other NATO countries pulling out? So the approach may be changing with that possibility in mind as well....

P.S: Apparently I answered it again...

 

[IceCold]

So we come back to the initial question, what will be the official response of the PA? I mention PA only because the political leadership in Pakistan and the democratic government to be honest will have no response what so ever. Frankly they dont care, the only thing that we might hear is a huge fry cry by the foreign office, and maybe and just maybe the calling off the US Ambassador into the foreign office to lay our protest, nothing more. What about the army? How will they respond? Can we fight a two front war, one over the east while the other on the west since India will not let this opportunity go to permanently change the geostrategic situation in S.A. Not to forget the state our economy is since the new government came in.

 

[dr.umer]

Here is an interesting development.

NATO says won't take part in Pakistan raids​

By David Brunnstrom
Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:28pm IST

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - NATO will not take part in a proposed U.S. strategy of conducting raids into Pakistan from Afghanistan against Taliban and al Qaeda militants, a spokesman said on Thursday.

"The NATO policy, that is our mandate, ends at the border," James Appathurai told a regular news briefing. "There are no ground or air incursions by NATO forces into Pakistani territory."

Appathurai said he was sure the issue would be discussed when 26 NATO defence ministers debate Afghan strategy at a Sept. 18-19 meeting in London. But he added: "Let me stress, it is not NATO that will be sending its forces across the border."

The spokesman said a solution needed to be found to growing extremism in tribal areas of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan.

"Pakistan needs to take effective action in cooperation with the rest of the international community and the Afghans to address the problem that is increasingly threatening Pakistan's stability as well as Afghanistan's," he said.

NATO leads a force of some 53,000 troops in Afghanistan. A separate U.S. force is also battling militants in the country.

On Wednesday, the U.S. military conceded to Congress that it was not winning the fight against the Taliban insurgency and said it would revise its strategy to target militant safe havens in Pakistan.

U.S. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee he was "looking at a new, more comprehensive strategy" that would cover both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border.

Helicopter-borne U.S. commandos carried out a ground assault last week in Pakistan's South Waziristan province, a militant border sanctuary, the first known incursion into Pakistan by U.S. troops since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. It killed 20 people.

Pakistan, which has been an ally in the U.S.-led war on terror launched after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States in 2001, condemned the raid and has repeatedly said it will not tolerate foreign troops entering its territory.

On Thursday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai backed the proposed U.S. strategy change, saying he had been calling for a different approach for years.

Violence in Afghanistan has soared in the past three years as al Qaeda and Taliban fighters have regrouped in border areas.

 

[dr.umer]

So we come back to the initial question, what will be the official response of the PA? I mention PA only because the political leadership in Pakistan and the democratic government to be honest will have no response what so ever. Frankly they dont care, the only thing that we might hear is a huge fry cry by the foreign office, and maybe and just maybe the calling off the US Ambassador into the foreign office to lay our protest, nothing more. What about the army? How will they respond? Can we fight a two front war, one over the east while the other on the west since India will not let this opportunity go to permanently change the geostrategic situation in S.A. Not to forget the state our economy is since the new government came in.

Sir, Gen Kiyani is vocal now against these territorial violations by US and today PM has said that Gen. Kiyani's view points are backed by GOP. What course of action you think PA will possibly take if it decides to stop US raids in Pakistan?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So we come back to the initial question, what will be the official response of the PA? I mention PA only because the political leadership in Pakistan and the democratic government to be honest will have no response what so ever. Frankly they dont care, the only thing that we might hear is a huge fry cry by the foreign office, and maybe and just maybe the calling off the US Ambassador into the foreign office to lay our protest, nothing more. What about the army? How will they respond? Can we fight a two front war, one over the east while the other on the west since India will not let this opportunity go to permanently change the geostrategic situation in S.A. Not to forget the state our economy is since the new government came in.

The pakistan military reacting without sanction from the GoP pretty much opens the doors for:

1. Another Martial law, and this time we will be treated like Burma, since the military will be acting against an entity that supports US policy, and directly acting to prevent the execution of said US policy.

2. It will lead to senior Military leadership being removed from ofice and the military being brought into line in that manner. This approach especilly will undermine both Pakistan and the military, as those opposed to US actions in Pakistan will see the Zardari appointees as US Lackey's, and you could possibly see attempts within the institution of the Army to sieze control.

The army acting unilaterlally has no benefits, other than settling some 'pride' issues.