PDA

View Full Version : After the Bin Laden op, what is the impact? Not on terrorism. Merged thread



Ray
05-03-2011, 01:12 PM
Moderator's Note: I have watched this thread 'The ISI' and 'After Obama What?' develop, wary that they were two halves of the question 'After the Bin Laden op, what is the impact?'. There's also another thread 'OBL's death & Terrorism's next move', which could be merged too, but for the moment will be left in place - for the impact on terrorism.

Apologies if some of the posts appear out of sequence.(Mod ends)


The following events have taken place in quick succession:

1. Imran Khan's whipping up of popular dissent against the Pak Govt and the Army for impotence displayed against US Drone attacks, being incapable to stand up to the US pressure and mortgaging Pakistan's governance to the US. The people under Imran Khan blockaded the US and ISAF supply route to Afghanistan through Pakistan for 02 days and gave an ultimatum to the Govt to take action within 30 days or they will march to Islamabad and bring the Govt down!

2. Consequent to the public unrest and protest, the US is said to be winding up its Drone operations from the Shamsi and other bases in Pakistan and move base to Afghanistan from where the originally used to operate.

3. The US killed Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad, Pakistan. Pakistan is said to have been kept in the dark about the operations, possibly because the US believes that the Army and the ISI leaks like a sieve.

Yet, this operation proves/ raises two issues:

(a) that the US operation once again takes no cognisance of Pakistan's territorial integrity or sovereignty.

(b) there will be disquiet over and may lead to unrest.

Given the above, the issues are:

1. The Pakistan logistic supply route would be seriously compromised and jeopardised.

Therefore, will the US take the Northern Route through Central Asian Republic and will it be viable, economically and militarily?

2. Will the US, having moved its Drone operations into Afghanistan, go the whole hog? If so, what will be the Pakistani reactions? What will be the international reaction?

3. Will the US undertake any ground operations against the Haqqani and other groups in the Khyber Pakhtunkwa to ensure that these groups can no longer affect the ISAF operations and thereafter go at will to clean up Afghanistan? If so, what will be the repercussions?

4. There are speculations that since Osama is dead, the US in Afghanistan will undertake a drawdown and quit. Will it? Can the US leave without cleansing Afghanistan of the AQ and Taliban, because even if OBL is dead, it does not mean that the AQ or the Taliban is dead and will not be able to go their usual ways?

5. Given that Obama is up for the second term at the Presidency and he has been able to fulfil one of his promises to the American people - getting Osama, would he not be compelled to drawdown or even quit Afghanistan since that was another of his promises to the American people? Can he quit Afghanistan without cleaning it up of the terrorist influences? If not, what are his options.

carl
05-04-2011, 05:20 AM
I'm not sure you can count the op that killed OBL as a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty. We say we didn't tell them, and I guess they claim they didn't know, but I don't see how that could be so. Both are lying to save face, like two men telling each other how good looking the other guy's wife is.

Questions 1, 2 and 3, I have no real idea. I can only hope that we would give up the Karachi supply line.

Questions 4 and 5. If Mr. Obama wants to, he can use that loathsome, cynical phrase "declare victory" and bug out, OBL's death being the victory. That would be even more doable if Zawahiri was killed also and maybe a couple of others. The actual facts of the situation won't matter. What matters is what will sell. If he pushes it, Mr. Obama can sell it as the requisite victory. He will have the enthusiastic support of most of the media, and besides, a lot of people want to believe it. Bugging out will be viewed as doing a lot to get him re-elected in his view.

It won't matter if Taliban & Co, AQ and various and sundry terrorists are cleaned out of Afghanistan. We will pretend it doesn't matter and we will justify that in three ways. The first will be to demonize the gov side. That will be done by basically saying they aren't worthy of our assistance. We will say they aren't worthy because they are corrupt, they don't fight hard enough, they have had plenty of time to get their act together and if they haven't by now it's not our fault, conflate the gov elites with ordinary Afghans, etc etc.

The second way will be to build up Taliban & Co. That will be done by highlighting every good thing they ever did and painting them as true representatives of the oppressed.

The third way will be to deny that anything bad will really happen after we bug out. That will be done by saying Taliban & Co are actually sensitive to world opinion, they've changed since 2001, Afghans will find a way to get together and work things out etc. etc.

You have read these already in various American outlets, some on this very sight. It all depends on whether Mr. Obama wants to push it. He doesn't have the nerve to just cut and run. He needs a "victory" to justify a bug out. He has that now if he wants to use it. We'll see. It wouldn't be the first time we've bugged out and left innocent millions to their fate.

Ray
05-04-2011, 04:00 PM
Carl,

What you have mentioned is what the average American would love to hear - declare a victory and quit.

However, from the strategy point of view, why did the US go into Iraq and also Afghanistan?

The answer lies in the Defence Policy Guidelines and the National Energy policy of the US mentored by Dick Cheney, when he was the Secretary of Defence. They were masterpieces giving the new strategic scenario post Cold War and the US priorities.

I don't have the copies of the same since my hard disk crashed with all that.

IIRC, he had stated that the US has to have their presence in areas which were hotspots in the world so that the US could react fast and in the correct timeframe, which was not feasible given the location of the US troops at that time.

He also mentioned that the oil supply lines and areas had to have US control and US had to deny the same to 'adversaries'.

He also mentioned that there should be forces at sea to undertake immediate expeditionary actions and on which other forces could build upon.

Iraq panned out copybook to this theory of Cheney.

The US being still in Iraq and in Afghanistan, is pushing and containing the Russian underbelly. It is also peeking into China and the Uyghurs.

Leave Afghanistan and you leave it to the Russian and Chinese.

Bob's World
05-04-2011, 04:43 PM
We went into Iraq because we lacked the ability to get a substantial conventional force into Afghanistan at the time, and we had to give them some appropriate target to engage. Saddam was just the poor stupid bastard who walked into the company orderly room when the 1SGT was looking for a volunteer.

AQ only followed us to Iraq, and we turned that country into a battlefield for AQ to attempt to atrit us upon and break our will to remain in the Middle East.

As to Afghanistan, we were largely mission complete there, and only retained a presence to have a base of operations for going after AQ. During the course of that we enabled the Northern Alliance to create a government and constitution that made it clear to the exiled Taliban that they were legally banned from any chance at economic or political opportunity in their own country, and thereby gave birth to a growing revolutionary insurgency against GIRoA. As we surged forces to counter the growing violence and pushed Northern Alliance police and army units out into the rural areas it fueled a growing resistance insurgency as well.

So, to your quesiton, is this a matter of "declaring victory and going home" or rather a matter of recognizing that the primary reason we stayed following the intitial effort to run AQ out of the country is now accomplished. Our very exit will reduce much of the causation for the resistance insurgency in Afghanistan proper; and without our continued protection I suspect that the Northern Alliance will get much more serious about working out a compromise with the Taliban leadership in Pakistan to address the revolution as well.

Or we can stay and continue to work to CLEAR-HOLD-BUILD our way to "victory."

carl
05-04-2011, 05:21 PM
Ray:

I forgot to mention a fourth reason that would be used to justify a bug out of Afghanistan. It will be said that even if Takfiri terrorists do try to use the place as a base again, it won't matter because we will control that with drones and spec ops strikes. The fact that that couldn't be done because of no bases and no human intel won't matter. It doesn't have to work. It just has to sound good so it will sell. What most Americans know about these things comes from the movies, and in the movies, the guy behind the computer screen knows all and can direct the spec ops guy who can get anywhere at any time. It would sell.

Robert C. Jones:

I like Mr. Armitage's explanation for the resurgence of Taliban & Co. better. He said we put the fear of God into the ISI in 2001 and they stayed scared for a few years. Then they figured out that we weren't serious about things and decided to get back into the game. We fouled up some other things too but the main thing is we didn't follow Forrest's rule "Keep up the scare" when it came to the Pak Army/ISI. We've been doing more along the lines of Oprah's rule "They have to like me". Forrest works better.

I hope your right that a bug out would result in sweet compromise but I suspect the gates of hell would open and things would get worse than we can possibly imagine.

Ray and Robert C. Jones:

I saw a Frontline production yesterday about an insurgent group in north central Afghanistan. They didn't walk much, they went everywhere on motorcycles, two to a bike. The tracks they used were easy for a motorcycle but would be impossible for a MATV. They would go on patrol in groups.

I've read about insurgents use of motorcycles before. How much of a mobility advantage does that give them and what can we do to counter it? (I know this question is off topic but since you guys are both here I figured I'd ask.)

Ray
05-04-2011, 05:35 PM
As the events unfolded, it was Afghanistan which was in the sight of the US where Osama was being hunted (2001).

The Iraq invasion came in 2003.

Therefore, there should have been substantial force for Afghanistan, if that force was available later for the Iraq invasion.

What is most important the swinging to Iraq leaving the principle aim to take on the AQ in Afghanistan violated the Principles of War - Selection and Maintenance of Aim and Concentration of Force. It result was obvious.

If in Afghanistan one created a constitution that made it clear to the exiled Taliban that they were legally banned from any chance at economic or political opportunity in their own country, then one does not understand Afghanistan. That is surprising since US connection with Afghanistan went way back during the activities to throw USSR out. History, itself, shows that Afghans are lords of what they survey and have no equation to any central body, except in a cosmetic way, their King.

Given the strategic importance of Afghanistan, if the US quits, which it can, Russia and China will lever their way in and that would not do US much good from a strategic point of view, as also, make the whole effort in Afghanistan a total waste of resources in men, matériel, money et al.

Do read this link.

http://cinemarasik.com/2009/10/10/afghanistan--its-strategic-importance-to-america.aspx

Apart from an analysis of the present situation, it also traces the importance of Afghanistan historically.

Excerpt:


Chance Favors The Prepared Mind

The Chinese Leaders are masters of the Prepared Mind concept. China would not have risked going to war with India in 1950s to annex Tibet. But India's prime minister Nehru, is an act of historical stupidity, unilaterally pulled the Indian Army out of Tibet. The Chinese were prepared and they walked in.

The Chinese are also determined and ambitious. Tibet is gone virtually forever. There is no way China will give it up. Tibet is strategically crucial to China. It provides direct land access to Xinjiang for Eastern China. It gives China control of the top of the world and a direct access to Kashmir.

America, frankly, lucked out in Afghanistan. The 2001 attacks allowed America the moral ground to remove the Taleban regime in Afghanistan. Now, America is in control of this vital strategic asset, this gateway between Central Asia, China, Iran, Pakistan and India. It boggles our mind that reasonably patriotic Americans can even consider leaving Afghanistan for the next 10-15 years.

Today, Afghanistan is the land nexus of the World, the World of nearly 3.5 billion people with growing incomes and rising aspirations. America lucked into this nexus position. The question is whether the American mind is prepared to seize this chance the way China did with Tibet.

Unlike Iraq in 2006, this World wants America to stay in Afghanistan. This is of course the real World - India, Iran, Russia, China, Turkey, the Asian countries of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan & Turkmenistan.

The only regime that does not want America to stay in Afghanistan is the Pakistani Army and the ISI, the Army's Intelligence service. Notice we do not say Pakistan, the country. Because, the Pakistani people will leave peacefully if American pacifies Afghanistan. But as they say in Pakistan, the Pakistani Army owns the country and not the other way around.

If America runs away from Afghanistan, it will never be allowed in again. The game for Afghanistan will begin again, this time with China, Pakistan, India & Iran. We would favor the China-Pakistan axis to win this prize. What is the prize? Central Asia, access to the Persian Gulf and Trade with 3.5 billion people.

Ray
05-04-2011, 05:46 PM
I've read about insurgents use of motorcycles before. How much of a mobility advantage does that give them and what can we do to counter it? (I know this question is off topic but since you guys are both here I figured I'd ask.)

Everyone in Afghanistan would have a weapon. It is macho. Therefore, if they were on MCs, they would pass off as any other villager!

Only way is to stop them and question them. But that would mean many average chap will be harassed and it would not be good for the PR that is so essential for a COIN campaign.

Ray
05-04-2011, 07:56 PM
After Osama: Why I Still Think America Should Be in Afghanistan

Peter Bergen

Link (http://www.tnr.com/article/world/magazine/87846/afghanistan-war-osama-bin-laden-death-united-states-obama-taliban?utm_source=The+New+Republic&utm_campaign=2d3c1312d2-TNR_Daily_050411&utm_medium=email)

a comment on this:

05/04/2011 - 2:39am EDT | Konstantin

Somebody’s been reading good ole Small Wars Journal.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/journal/iss/v7n3.pdf

The pertinent article by LTC Mann begins on page 4. Check out that Officerese. It is thick, but a careful reader will discern that the paper is an updated description of the Village Stability Operations & affiliated narrative exploitation TTPs to which Peter Bergen refers in this TNR article. Other than references to the Taliban and a cursory mention of the history of Afghan governance principles, the paper appears to be a regurgitated, less formatted min ... view full comment

jmm99
05-05-2011, 12:45 AM
either 2013 or 2017. My crystal ball ain't accurate enough for either year - sorry :D

Rasmussen has been doing a series of pollings which now has boiled down to, Americans Are Reluctant to Defend Any of These Allies (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/ally_enemy/americans_are_reluctant_to_defend_any_of_these_all ies) (Wednesday, April 27, 2011). Here is a summary graphic of the results:

1459

I can't come up with any consistent rationale which might explain these results.

The real crossover point (40-40-20) is Denmark; but Japan (43-44-13) gets the first heaveho in the chart.

Anyone ?

Astan = 30-54-16 - not a surprise to me.

Regards

Mike

carl
05-05-2011, 03:10 AM
I think the poll is largely meaningless. If you polled Americans in 1800, 1850, 1900, 1950, 2000 or any year you'd care to choose the results would be the same. The question has no context so most people will default to "none of my business" unless they've heard of the place or been there. How else can you explain such little regard for New Zealand.

When there is context things are different.

jmm99
05-05-2011, 03:53 AM
from Carl
If you polled Americans in 1800, 1850, 1900, 1950, 2000 or any year you'd care to choose the results would be the same

Prove it by polls from 1800, 1850, 1900, 1950, 2000 or any year you'd care to choose. Obvious hyperbole.


from Carl
The question has no context so most people will default to "none of my business" unless they've heard of the place or been there.

The question (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/econ_survey_questions/april_2011/questions_defending_countries_april_22_23_2011) does have context as polls go:


National Survey of 1,000 Adults
Conducted April 22-23, 2011, 2011
By Rasmussen Reports

1* Sometimes, when a country is attacked, the United States provides military assistance to help defend that country. Now, I’m going to read you a short list of countries. For each, please tell me if the United States should offer military assistance to defend that country if it is attacked?

Belgium

Brazil

Bulgaria

Chile

New Zealand

Nicaragua

Peru

Portugal

Thailand

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

Some of the apparent inconsistency in the results may well be due to people not knowing spit about geography. I do buy that as a factor. Moreover, based on many prior polls (Rasmussen and others), what one could call the "foreign policy elite" (CFR, etc.) are much more interventionistic than the flew-over masses.

BTW: what context would you add to the poll question to make it "meaningful" ?

Regards

Mike

carl
05-05-2011, 04:19 AM
Exegeration (sic) for effect. The point remains the same. Americans are historically isolationist. I don't have to prove anything, it ain't a courtroom. Merely my opinion which has a historical basis I think.

The question may have context as far as polls go but that is more an indictment of polls than an endorsement of the question. The question has no historical or political context, immediate or long term, without that, it is meaningless.

Perhaps one reason the foreign policy elites are more interventionist is they may follow these things more closely thereby giving them some context to work with right off the bat. (I can't believe you've manuvered (sic) me into a position where I would defend those guys. My life is over.)

Some useful context might be a scenario seeking to simulate multi-year sequence of events that led to our defending South Korea or South Vietnam or intervening in Cuba in 1898 or Kuwait or any number of times a people who have tended to be isolationist, aren't. If you would construct a scenario sort of like that and then let people think about it some rather than saying here is a 50 word hypothetical, you have 10 seconds to answer, then the results might be meaningful. But then your results would be skewed by the details of the question. The whole concept is meaningless.

Ken White
05-05-2011, 04:27 AM
I think the poll is largely meaningless. If you polled Americans in 1800, 1850, 1900, 1950, 2000 or any year you'd care to choose the results would be the same. The question has no context so most people will default to "none of my business" unless they've heard of the place or been there. How else can you explain such little regard for New Zealand.Aside from the fact that some of those nations didn't exist in most of the earlier years cited, results would likely differ for Great Britain in 1800, Canada in 1850, Germany in 1900 (much less in 1917 or 1944, two years one might name...;) ). As for New Zealand, it's simply a function of location. For the bulk of nations, the responses are about about the anglosphere and western solidarity plus historic ties. As is true of any poll, it's a snapshot, answered by some people while others like me just hang up the phone when the Pollsters call...
When there is context things are different.Not much. :D

Dayuhan
05-05-2011, 04:36 AM
I can't come up with any consistent rationale which might explain these results.

The real crossover point (40-40-20) is Denmark; but Japan (43-44-13) gets the first heaveho in the chart.

Anyone ?

Astan = 30-54-16 - not a surprise to me.

What struck me about that is that 20% said eithe "no" or "unsure" to defending Canada, and over 20% said "yes" or "unsure" to the rather absurd notion of defending North Korea.

From this I assume that there's a portion of Americans that disapprove of any defense of a foreign country, a portion that automatically approves, and a portion that is fundamentally undecided.

In between I have no explanations, but 'd be interested to see a survey of general positive-negative impressions of the same list of countries and put them side by side. I suspect you'd see that it correlates less with any perceived strategic desirability than with a general like/dislike scale. It need not be added that many of the respondents would likely have only very rudimentary knowledge about many of the countries on the list. If we excluded results from individuals who couldn't find the country in question on a map or name the country most likely to invade the country to be defended, we might get fairly different results.

JMA
05-05-2011, 07:39 AM
Everyone in Afghanistan would have a weapon. It is macho. Therefore, if they were on MCs, they would pass off as any other villager!

Only way is to stop them and question them. But that would mean many average chap will be harassed and it would not be good for the PR that is so essential for a COIN campaign.

These guys are (should be) drone fodder (drones are cheaper to operate than gunships). Just take this problem by the scruff of the neck and say to the people in that district that it is open season on guys on MCs. They will get used to it. It will solve the problem in no time. After that you can negotiate the terms and conditions of further MC use in that district.

carl
05-05-2011, 01:01 PM
JMA:

I am not sure that would work so well. You would deprive people of an important means of transport for occasional gain. I would guess there wouldn't be enough aircraft available to really make it stick. If you blanketed a small area for just a few days while covering some kind of operation though, maybe that would work. You might still run the risk of knocking off some guy who was desperate to get his sick wife to a doc and wasn't thinking so straight.

When I mentioned the motorcycles I was thinking more along the lines of getting into remote places that our big vehicles can't go either for regular patrolling or in careful pursuit. Should we use motorcycles, or 4-wheelers or dune buggy type things to try to match their mobility? That was what I was thinking.

taabistan
05-05-2011, 07:18 PM
Moderator's Note: I have watched this thread 'The ISI' and 'After Obama What?' develop, wary that they were two halves of the question 'After the Bin Laden op, what is the impact?'. There's also another thread 'OBL's death & Terrorism's next move', which could be merged too, but for the moment will be left in place - for the impact on terrorism.

Apologies if some of the posts appear out of sequence.(Mod ends)


Osama's death proves that there is cooperation between the Pakistani intelligence agency and the military with Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. It was previously suggested that Pakistan supported the killing of US troops in Afghanistan, and would limit their funding to 'Afghan' Taliban, particularly Maulana Jalaluddin Haqqani. This is false: Pakistan are using all three militant groups as proxies. Pakistan's war with the Pakistani Taliban and capture of random militant leaders, be they Arab, Pakistani or Afghan, is simply part of the double game Hamid Gul and Co. have been playing to ensure their geopolitical standing remains intact, that Afghanistan not become an Indian-clientele state, Kashmir become Pakistani land and US military aid to continue.

As someone who has seen his fair share of suicide bombings while in Afghanistan, we have also captured bombers who have failed to detonate their explosives. All would confess to having come from Pakistan, and all of them would list their ISI handlers. Our government would launch an official complaint, but nothing would precipitate because the US (under both Bush and Obama) would protect them from scrutiny.

Osama's death changes nothing but it does raise the troubling issue of how aware were the ISI for the 9/11 attacks. It has been proven by Afghan investigators that Pakistan was involved in the killing of Ahmad Shah Masoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance just two days before 9/11, so there is a definite relation. The US would have to demand a full inquiry and perhaps interview Hamid Gul and Omar Sheikh.

JamesB
05-05-2011, 08:04 PM
Taabistan,

Interesting -- but I'm still not sure how his death is definite proof of Pakistani complicity? Maybe I've not read you correctly.

Do you mean to say Bin Laden was captured and in Abbottabad under house arrest, courtesy of the ISI? Thanks.

Pete
05-05-2011, 09:08 PM
All of that was in the Ahmed Rashid book Taliban many years ago. American policymakers put what he had to say into the "Too Hard" boxes on their desks because they didn't know what else to do. It was like the fiction of the peace agreement in Laos during the Vietnam conflict. Within the country were many NVA divisions as well as the Ho Chi Minh trail but we couldn't say much about them because it might have made us go back to square one, planning-wise. No wonder so many guys came home from there saying, "It don't mean nuthin'."

JMA
05-05-2011, 09:36 PM
JMA:

I am not sure that would work so well. You would deprive people of an important means of transport for occasional gain. I would guess there wouldn't be enough aircraft available to really make it stick. If you blanketed a small area for just a few days while covering some kind of operation though, maybe that would work. You might still run the risk of knocking off some guy who was desperate to get his sick wife to a doc and wasn't thinking so straight.

When I mentioned the motorcycles I was thinking more along the lines of getting into remote places that our big vehicles can't go either for regular patrolling or in careful pursuit. Should we use motorcycles, or 4-wheelers or dune buggy type things to try to match their mobility? That was what I was thinking.

Yes that was a quick solution which would need to be worked through tactically before implementation. That video depicted a Taliban group travelling together by motorcycle, a whole bunch of them... and not the odd individual motorcycle travelling around the area.

But are we not back to a similar argument of a year or so ago?

Then there were those arguing to allow the locals to grow poppies as their source of income. I said no poppies others here said the farmers must be allowed to grow poppies and be given an incentive to switch to a less profitable commercial crop.

Well that better plan would have been to tell the farmers that there will be no poppies grown next season... and then enforce it. The incentive would be for the locals to approach the local department of agriculture office to sign up for any incentive scheme going. Done from the outset poppies would be part of history now and I need to be convinced that the military problems in say Helmand could have been worse as a result.

I suggest that the US driven pop-centric approach is the cause for much of the lack of progress in Afghanistan. If you are going to push this pop-centric stuff where are the civil action personnel?

The insane situation was written about when the Brits "best" troops - the Paras - arrived 6 months ago and were tasked to clear an area controlled by the Taliban (so far so good) then they are tasked to hold the ground. Where were the civil action (or equivalent) personnel to follow on and take over? This would release the combat troops to pursue the Taliban or clear new areas etc etc. Its all about horses for courses... and don't use your best troops to secure the area for local government officials and field workers (which I would have thought would have been obvious).

The Afghanistan situation is closer to what the South African forces faced in South West Africa/Namibia. There was a government system (Apartheid) which could never be sold to the population just as in Afghanistan a criminally corrupt Karzai regime could never win the hearts and minds of the Afghan nation.

Dust off your copy of McCuen, find out what the South Africans did and at least dominate the shooting war while the politicians work out an agreement.

omarali50
05-05-2011, 09:36 PM
The bull#### is indeed coming home to roost. But I will stick my neck out and say that I expect GHQ to slowly, painfully, incompetently and disgracefully PULL AWAY from jihadism and all this nonsense. They are men of this world and they are property owners and they know those corner plots in defence housing societies will be worth bat#### if they continue on their current course. It wont be pretty, but they will slowly back away, getting one hundred slaps and eating one hundred onions, but still, they will back away...Now, when I say slowly, I mean SLOWLY. It may well be that they push out the Americans and get their chance at using the "good taliban" in Afghanistan, but that won't be the end of the story. Much worse will follow. In the long run, they will fight their own creations. They want to live in this modern world and when push comes to shove, they will make that choice...that is my prediction of the day.
* One hundred slaps and onions: A man was about to be punished for some minor crime. He was given a choice, eat 100 onions or get slapped 100 times. He thought the onions sound easier, so he asked for that. After 5 onions he was going nuts with watery eyes and nausea, so he changed his mind and wanted 100 slaps instead, but after 5 slaps it was back to onions. He ended up getting both 100 onions and 100 slaps. ISI is eating onions at the hands of the jihadis and getting slaps from uncle sam (and will get slaps from Uncle Ching one day..these things are fated) and cannot make up its mind which one is worse. It will end up getting both in full measure.

Steve Blair
05-05-2011, 09:46 PM
Aside from the fact that some of those nations didn't exist in most of the earlier years cited, results would likely differ for Great Britain in 1800, Canada in 1850, Germany in 1900 (much less in 1917 or 1944, two years one might name...;) ). As for New Zealand, it's simply a function of location. For the bulk of nations, the responses are about about the anglosphere and western solidarity plus historic ties. As is true of any poll, it's a snapshot, answered by some people while others like me just hang up the phone when the Pollsters call...

And don't forget that this great sample was composed of 1000 people. So the opinion passed off as coming from "the flew-over masses" is in fact only 1000 of those flown over, and there's no real definition of just where that small sample actually lives (or when they were called...I suspect that 1000 folks who were watching Jerry Springer in the morning might have a different perspective than 1000 folks who happened to be watching CNN/Fox talking heads in the evening).

Sorry...but I'm not a big fan of polls. The pollsters (who have a vested interest in appearing as Oracle-like as possible) are too reluctant to reveal things like refusal rates, sample locations, and so on. Cute for sound-bites, but fairly meaningless otherwise.

Pete
05-05-2011, 11:13 PM
Well, if there is a major flaw in your assumptions when you plan a foreign war, studiously ignore it. But then proceed with your operational planning, while you pretend the awkard strategic situation regarding the war doesn't exist. Then set up a massive command-and control apparatus to manage the conflict. Senior NCOs in battalions are always there to counsel those motivation cases who fail to get on with the program.

Bill Moore
05-05-2011, 11:50 PM
Posted by taabistan

the troubling issue of how aware were the ISI for the 9/11 attacks

First, I don't find it so improbable that UBL "could" have been living under ISI's nose without being detected. If you weren't looking in your neighborhood, then you're not going to find him there unless he steps in front of your car when you're driving home. You may not notice then if you were adjusting our radio station to the best jihad propaganda station. I do think it is possible they didn't know, but...

I tend to believe it is more probable that ISI did know he was there. Musharif was recently reinforced that perception when he was caught in a flat out lie when he said they searched that compound in 2004, when imagery clearly points out the compound didn't exist then. The ISI are such great liers, I think they're to the point they believe they can't tell truth from fiction, and either can several gullable U.S. leaders (civilian and military); especially those who work in Pakistan and "drink tea" with the enemy. It is impossible to see what you refuse to believe.

I found taabistan's suggestion of great interest, and frankly never considered it before, but if he is correct (see quote above) and we actually have the moral courage to admit it; then what? If the lines were ever traced back to ISI (not rogue ISI, that ship no longer sails) colluding with AQ on the 9/11 attacks that would present an interesting problem set. How do you respond to attack that happened around 10 years ago after you already got in bed and made love repeatedly to the person who attacked you?

taabistan
05-06-2011, 04:19 AM
Taabistan,

Interesting -- but I'm still not sure how his death is definite proof of Pakistani complicity? Maybe I've not read you correctly.

Do you mean to say Bin Laden was captured and in Abbottabad under house arrest, courtesy of the ISI? Thanks.

Precisely, although I wouldn't term it as "house arrest" as cars would be coming in and out of the compound. It served more as an ISI safe house. Both Geo TV and DAWN news (media outlets of Pakistan) have reported that over the last five years, Bin Laden received treatment for kidney dialysis in Rawalpindi and Karachi. In order for this to happen, the Pakistani military must have provided protection.

We are aware from intelligence that ISI members attend Taliban shura councils. Several Pakistani generals have admitted on CNN International (in interviews with Michael Ware) and the BBC that they are in direct communication with the Taliban leadership, promising they can bring them to the table on the condition that the US makes concessions on India.

Hamid Gul was recently on the Alex Jones radio show, and made a complete mockery of US counter-terrorism efforts, claiming the whole raid was a hoax. He showed this disrespect before, when he claimed the 9/11 attacks were an inside job on Fareed Zakariya's GPS. This behavior is unbecoming of an ex-Intelligence Chief and is aimed in stoking anti-US resentment back home.

Finally, the recent photos released by Reuters was analyzed by local media here and two of the men have been identified as Pakistani military officers. Were they retired? Were they serving as body guards and/or advisors for OBL? These questions should not only be asked, but done so in public.

If my assertions are correct, we will see a spate of revenge attacks conducted against US army personnel in Afghanistan, under the direct orders of Gul. The message will be simple: Keep us in the loop, keep the funds flowing and don't breach Pakistani borders.

taabistan
05-06-2011, 04:27 AM
Posted by taabistan


First, I don't find it so improbable that UBL "could" have been living under ISI's nose without being detected. If you weren't looking in your neighborhood, then you're not going to find him there unless he steps in front of your car when you're driving home. You may not notice then if you were adjusting our radio station to the best jihad propaganda station. I do think it is possible they didn't know, but...



The one flaw in this argument is believing OBL to taking such a brazen decision to house himself in the middle of an army town. Waziristan is large and vast. If OBL had wanted to prevent his own death, he would have stayed in that area rather than expose himself to Pakistani authorities.

carl
05-06-2011, 04:47 AM
Finally, the recent photos released by Reuters was analyzed by local media here and two of the men have been identified as Pakistani military officers. Were they retired? Were they serving as body guards and/or advisors for OBL? These questions should not only be asked, but done so in public.

Everything about this incident is getting stranger and stranger.


If my assertions are correct, we will see a spate of revenge attacks conducted against US army personnel in Afghanistan, under the direct orders of Gul. The message will be simple: Keep us in the loop, keep the funds flowing and don't breach Pakistani borders.

What form do you think the attacks will take?

taabistan
05-06-2011, 05:34 AM
Most likely a combination of suicide attacks and assault on a US base using small arms fire. They will use members of the Haqqani network, or even Tehreek Taliban to do the job. This will be accompanied by a video with images of OBL, verses of the Qur'an and a message from Ayman Zwahiri as part of a propaganda tool. I wouldn't delve too much into the latter. The question is, what is our next move? Karzai will likely wish to meet Petraeus and discuss pressing further on Pakistan, perhaps force them to give up Mullah Omar or other key members of the insurgency. I don't know how the atmosphere is in Washington or if Obama wants to play game with us.

JamesB
05-06-2011, 12:25 PM
Finally, the recent photos released by Reuters was analyzed by local media here and two of the men have been identified as Pakistani military officers. Were they retired? Were they serving as body guards and/or advisors for OBL? These questions should not only be asked, but done so in public.

That would be interesting - is there any English language report on this that you're aware of?

omarali50
05-06-2011, 01:46 PM
To play devil's advocate here: from the average Pakistani's point of view, the US must have known a lot of this from day one (or before day one). If they let it go on, either they are incompetent or involved.....ISI is not the only people with a credibility problem here.
I dont mean to imply that this is some vast conspiracy. I personally think things are generally what they appear to be, not some deep dark conspiracy by the elders of Zion. But I must say that in this case "as they appear to be" includes the US turning a blind eye to many activities that were not very hidden, so one can be excused for thinking that motivations may not have been pure as driven snow OR incompetence may be greater than we imagined.

DVC
05-06-2011, 01:49 PM
The bull#### is indeed coming home to roost. But I will stick my neck out and say that I expect GHQ to slowly, painfully, incompetently and disgracefully PULL AWAY from jihadism and all this nonsense. They are men of this world and they are property owners and they know those corner plots in defence housing societies will be worth bat#### if they continue on their current course. It wont be pretty, but they will slowly back away, getting one hundred slaps and eating one hundred onions, but still, they will back away...Now, when I say slowly, I mean SLOWLY. It may well be that they push out the Americans and get their chance at using the "good taliban" in Afghanistan, but that won't be the end of the story. Much worse will follow. In the long run, they will fight their own creations. They want to live in this modern world and when push comes to shove, they will make that choice...that is my prediction of the day.
* One hundred slaps and onions: A man was about to be punished for some minor crime. He was given a choice, eat 100 onions or get slapped 100 times. He thought the onions sound easier, so he asked for that. After 5 onions he was going nuts with watery eyes and nausea, so he changed his mind and wanted 100 slaps instead, but after 5 slaps it was back to onions. He ended up getting both 100 onions and 100 slaps. ISI is eating onions at the hands of the jihadis and getting slaps from uncle sam (and will get slaps from Uncle Ching one day..these things are fated) and cannot make up its mind which one is worse. It will end up getting both in full measure.


I think this is accurate. Pakistan, like many places, was created with borders that don't match the demographic map. Job one for the central government is to keep the state from breaking up. To do this means doing things they think are imperative, that we think ate abhorrent. Throw in vastly different worldviews/first principles (remember Huntington?) and this is what you get.

carl
05-06-2011, 02:22 PM
There are various other things being reported about this, the Army cordoned off the neighborhood and told people to stay indoors before the helos came, the power went off before the raid and came on just after it ended and the latest I read was the CIA has a safe house in Abbottabad from which they spied on OBL house. If the CIA had a safe house in Abbottabad, the ISI knew about it. And the Pak Army released a statement saying their intelligence failed and there will be an investigation, by golly. Since when does Pak Army publicly admit that their intel service failed, unless it is a game in a game?

The Pak Army/ISI was in on this deal. What did they get for it?


But I must say that in this case "as they appear to be" includes the US turning a blind eye to many activities that were not very hidden, so one can be excused for thinking that motivations may not have been pure as driven snow OR incompetence may be greater than we imagined.

...or both, the incompetence driving the impure intentions.

davidbfpo
05-06-2011, 02:37 PM
We have discussed the role of ISI before on other threads, partly due to their reported role inside Pakistan, the frustration of outsiders at the politics of the region and sheer dismay that a partner state, maybe an ally does not always "jump" to US demands, requests or whatever.

I remain unconvinced today that the deluge of mainly US press reporting based on IMHO unprecedented "leaks" by the US government that SWC can judge what really happened over OBL, let alone wider issues. I am simply astonished that the US press and I assume others have accepted "leaks" on the initial review of the 'treasure trove' from OBL's home. Even more so after the first, official press briefings were so quickly retracted on important details.

Did OBL keep his data all in English? Might it have been encrypted?

We need to remain calm.

Now how the Pakistani state reacts after such a body blow is less likely to be so public, although amidst SWC members there are many who can make valid judgements today.

What I would ask those who post here and others who read - is this body blow an opportunity for civil institutions to exert greater control over state bodies? Yes, ISI and the military. I fear not, for many obvious well known reasons.

carl
05-06-2011, 03:13 PM
David:

What do you think of this thought. The Pak Army/ISI runs Pakistan for the most part. They will until they lose a war and are completely discredited. If they win in Afghanistan, drive us out and re-install the Taliban, their power will be that much more firmly entrenched. Then the next war they will have an opportunity to lose will be one with India. When they lose that one, they will be discredited and civilians might be able to run Pakistan. The trouble is, Pakistan might not survive the lost war.

So the irony could be, we are fighting in Afghanistan to defeat the Pak Army/ISI in order to save Pakistan.

Here is a link to a BBC story in which an ISI spokesman admits to the ISI having no idea and local residents stating Pakistan Army soldiers asked them to turn out their lights an hour before the strike.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13268517

It isn't just the US press.

davidbfpo
05-06-2011, 04:14 PM
David:

What do you think of this thought. The Pak Army/ISI runs Pakistan for the most part. They will until they lose a war and are completely discredited. If they win in Afghanistan, drive us out and re-install the Taliban, their power will be that much more firmly entrenched. Then the next war they will have an opportunity to lose will be one with India. When they lose that one, they will be discredited and civilians might be able to run Pakistan. The trouble is, Pakistan might not survive the lost war.

So the irony could be, we are fighting in Afghanistan to defeat the Pak Army/ISI in order to save Pakistan.

Carl,

Given the history of military on military conflict, four wars since 1947 and countless skirmishing, last at Kargil, I am puzzled why the Pakistani Army has not fully been brought under civilian control. Perhaps after these defeats, notably the loss of East Pakistan, it was not the time for change. The bigger questions are not around the timing or need - as perceived by outsiders - rather the will and capability to act. Finally would the orders be obeyed?

I would not say the Pakistani Army runs Pakistan; the army controls national security decision-making and Pakistan has many problems that the army stays away from, e.g. water management. When the economy was growing some were optimistic that traditional power-bases would wane, notably the rural landowning elite (who control the main political parties).

What I do note is the reported frustration of professionals who strive to change and serve the people amidst a deteriorating internal crime and order environment. Many of whom are capable of leaving.

In fact upon reflection I wonder if the military do not already have little positive credit and Pakistanis are a proud people, so what has just occurred will detract from their credibility as a national institution.

Secondly, if the Taliban were re-installed in Afghanistan - as you indicated, I am not convinced Pakistanis would be that concerned. I found they looked down on Afghans and the activities since of the Pakistani extremists (PTT plus) will hardly have enhanced their feelings / desire to follow that path.

Finally and as a reminder:
..we are fighting in Afghanistan to defeat the Pak Army/ISI in order to save Pakistan.

No. The only people who can save Pakistan are the Pakistanis. Defeating the Afghan Taliban is a side issue.

tequila
05-06-2011, 04:19 PM
What do you think of this thought. The Pak Army/ISI runs Pakistan for the most part. They will until they lose a war and are completely discredited. If they win in Afghanistan, drive us out and re-install the Taliban, their power will be that much more firmly entrenched. Then the next war they will have an opportunity to lose will be one with India. When they lose that one, they will be discredited and civilians might be able to run Pakistan. The trouble is, Pakistan might not survive the lost war.

Ironically the Pakistani Army has been defeated in almost every war they have ever fought, not counting insurgencies and counterinsurgencies.

The defeat in 1971 was as crushing as you can get. It is key to understanding the hatred and paranoia towards India that is pervasive in the Pakistani Army high command - from their POV, India took away half of the country (Bangladesh) from them, never mind that the Bangladeshis were quite eager to get away in the first place. From their POV, Bangladesh could be repeated just as easily in Sindh or Baluchistan, with the ultimate goal of reversing Partition.

davidbfpo
05-06-2011, 04:21 PM
Carl,

Thanks for this, citing the BBC:
...local residents stating Pakistan Army soldiers asked them to turn out their lights an hour before the strike.

For a host of reasons I am unconvinced, in part reflecting my experience with British-Pakistanis. Soldiers asking people at night to turn their lights off? Given the local character this is one place where I'd expect local residents to be paying for their electricity (unlike many cities) and a local sub-station could easily have been remotely turned off.

Did the local tweeter mention this request? IIRC he did not.

Bill Moore
05-06-2011, 04:53 PM
Posted by David,


I remain unconvinced today that the deluge of mainly US press reporting based on IMHO unprecedented "leaks" by the US government that SWC can judge what really happened over OBL, let alone wider issues. I am simply astonished that the US press and I assume others have accepted "leaks" on the initial review of the 'treasure trove' from OBL's home. Even more so after the first, official press briefings were so quickly retracted on important details.

In my view if we were fighting this war the right way (mostly in the shadows with intelligence and SOF) we wouldn't be pressured to release information to the media, with UBL demise being one of the few exceptions for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean we need to release excessive details that not surprising are often inaccurate and later refuted. We operate under the assumption that everything will eventually leak to begin with, which in my view indicates a failure of character on the person's part leaking information to stroke his or her ego (look at what I know), or just as bad to gain political capital by hurting one's foe (former administration and current administrations).

A lot of valuable techniques were needlessly disclosed to feed the media frenzy. Why didn't leaders stand on principle and simply say a small U.S. team conducted a raid into Pakistan to kill UBL and leave it at that? Some idiot apparently released to Washington Post that there was a CIA safehouse in the vicinity of UBL's safehouse. Maybe or maybe not, but why advertise it? Our Public Affairs community in DOD has created this myth (accepted as fact) that we have to get ahead of the reporting, which in some cases is true, but we take it to the extreme and do great harm to our nation in doing so by exposing operating techniques that are still valid if they weren't comprised in the media.

I can imagine the reaction of the U.S. if these leaks occurred during the Cold War, we would likely call on the leaker(s) to be prosecuted for treason. I think we're in an uncomfortable place and those with big egos that want to be the spot light and loved by the media are currently front and center in this media circus, even if they had a relatively minor role to play.

As you point out the truth is obscured with all the B.S. reporting, so maybe in the long run it will actually be in our favor (unintentionally). Hopefully, we'll never know if deals were made with the Pakistanis, because most countries don't like conducting their business transparently, and they won't do business with us if we can't re-learn to keep secrets.

We need to hang up the old operations security poster in everyone's office, where a tough looking Sergeant is offering viewers a canteen cup saying "have a cup of shut the f*** up".

carl
05-06-2011, 05:01 PM
David:

Is the electrical grid in Abbottabad computer controlled and hooked up to the internet? I have no idea at all. But if it was controlled the old fashioned way, would it have been possible to shut it down remotely? Again, I don't know.

Tequila:

I can understand the GHQ thinking India might want to undue partition but the Indians would be nuts to want that. Who would want the place? Seeing it broken up into several parts on the other hand, might not be so bad from the Indian point of view.

Ray
05-06-2011, 06:37 PM
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.

Witches' Brew at best.

Too many fairy tales, changing by the hour, confuses!

jmm99
05-06-2011, 06:43 PM
Bill, you did it now:


from Bill Moore
We need to hang up the old operations security poster in everyone's office, where a tough looking Sergeant is offering viewers a canteen cup saying "have a cup of shut the f*** up".

Is that poster online - serious request ? I'd like it for my office B Board - maybe have to Photoshoop the language a bit.

And, amen, to the sentiment.

Cheers

Mike

Steve Blair
05-06-2011, 07:02 PM
Mike,

You can get a version of it here: http://chairforce.com/images/desktopbacks/001/big-cup-backgrnd.jpg

jmm99
05-06-2011, 07:29 PM
Many thanks.

And a nice large version it is - with some sanitizing already. Not the grizzled sarge version, but the recipient of the cup (a nerd in a helmet, maybe ?).

From another whose favorite book on a war is T.R. Fehrenbach, This Kind of War (http://www.amazon.com/This-Kind-War-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/1574883348) (1964 paperback - new at 95 cents; bought used at 20 cents; held together by more tape than pages :)).

Cheers

Mike

omarali50
05-06-2011, 09:14 PM
Nice illustration of how "5-11" changed everything. This is in Dawn, in Pakistan, very blunt analysis from Cyril Almeida: http://www.cyrilalmeida.com/2011/05/06/dawn-the-emperors%E2%80%99-clothes-by-cyril-almeida/

carl
05-06-2011, 09:33 PM
Omar:

A very good article that was with a wonderfully pithy description of the players in the game.

Soldiers and intelligence networks are more useful than an under-educated and impoverished population. Double-gamers and duplicitous allies at least have something to offer; what can the wretched Pakistani people offer myopic Americans?

Pete
05-06-2011, 10:25 PM
Well, some things might have been, should have been, others could have been. There were also things that happened, but you had to be there. Your point of view at the time may have different from that of others who were also there. Scholarly reseachers should feel free to cite this message of mine as being the definitative account of what really went down there. :eek:

Bill Moore
05-07-2011, 12:07 AM
Posted by JMM,


Not the grizzled sarge version, but the recipient of the cup (a nerd in a helmet, maybe ?).

Either my memory is failing me, or he cleaned up nicely :D

jmm99
05-07-2011, 12:24 AM
you forgot you were the model - was that about 1943 ? - and with a retake in 2003. :D

With apologies to the rest of the serious threaders here.

I'll shut up now with a final comment that the jpg reduces down to 8.5 x 11 frame size at 300 dpi and prints out perfectly. Now ready for the office wall of stuff from the 30s and 40s.

Regards

Mike

Pete
05-07-2011, 12:40 AM
With apologies to the rest of the serious threaders here.Whoa, wait a minute You sayin' I ain't one?

jmm99
05-07-2011, 12:59 AM
didn't we have this conversation several months ago and I re-affirmed your seriousness. :)

Anyway, the one I meant was me - hell, we have Ray quoting MacBeth, what more could we wish for. :D Jack Masters, I suppose.

Back to my legal cubbyhole to write up Ms O'Connell's The Choice of Law Against Terrorism.

Cheers

Mike

Pete
05-07-2011, 01:07 AM
JMM, there's about a hundred dudes waitin' on you outside. I'll help you with the first three of em'.

jmm99
05-07-2011, 05:45 AM
you'll take three; Todd (your new topkick) will take the next 3; and I will get the hell out of Dodge. I'm too old to take on 1, much less 94.

Leaving you with the immortal words, spoken in spring of 1944, by Juho Paasikivi, as interviewed by John Scott, a Time-Life reporter (with close ties in both Washington and Moscow):


Repeating to me what he had probably told Molotov - a description of what the result would be if Russia overran Finland. Paasikivi stood up, shook a bony finger in the air and said:


We will shoot from behind every stone and tree, we will go on shooting for 50 years. We are not Czechs. We are not Dutchmen. We will fight tooth and nail behind every rock and over the ice of every lake. I will not fight long. I am old, but others will fight.

Now, excuse me while I go to sleep - and I have no idea what this has to do with the ISI; but read my last two posts here, No options are off the table (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=120734&postcount=18), and The Choice of Law Against Terrorism (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=120745&postcount=19).

Give me your military observations.

Blame Entropy; he got me going.

Regards

Mike

JMA
05-07-2011, 09:01 AM
After Osama: Why I Still Think America Should Be in Afghanistan

Peter Bergen

Link (http://www.tnr.com/article/world/magazine/87846/afghanistan-war-osama-bin-laden-death-united-states-obama-taliban?utm_source=The+New+Republic&utm_campaign=2d3c1312d2-TNR_Daily_050411&utm_medium=email)

a comment on this:

05/04/2011 - 2:39am EDT | Konstantin

Somebody’s been reading good ole Small Wars Journal.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/journal/iss/v7n3.pdf

The pertinent article by LTC Mann begins on page 4. Check out that Officerese. It is thick, but a careful reader will discern that the paper is an updated description of the Village Stability Operations & affiliated narrative exploitation TTPs to which Peter Bergen refers in this TNR article. Other than references to the Taliban and a cursory mention of the history of Afghan governance principles, the paper appears to be a regurgitated, less formatted min ... view full comment

Ray, the following article struck a cord with me. I liked it.

I would appreciate your comment from the sub-continent (no matter how short):

After Osama bin Laden, Pakistan’s narrow window for redemption - By Mansoor Ijaz (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-insights/post/after-osama-bin-laden-pakistans-narrow-window-for-redemption/2011/04/04/AF9mEeAG_blog.html)

Polarbear
05-07-2011, 09:25 AM
The complicity of the ISI in the Afghan insurgency is evident if one considers the policy of arresting Taliban commanders who are deviating from the agenda of a jihad against the western troops in Afghanistan. One of the most striking examples was the detention of Mullah Beradar last year. Beradar was the number two of the Taliban (although one could say he was rather number one because Mullah Omar has has not been seen nor heard of for a long time...). Beradar was ready for peace talks with the Afghan government. After he had moved between Pakistan and Afghanistan freely the Pakistanis suddenly arrested him, but kept him away from the Americans. I think this arrest should send a strong signal to any of commanders who was thinking about a policy change towards Kabul.
Although I don not have a proof, I personally think that the Pakistanis sold bin Land to the Americans because he was of no value to them any longer. I see his death more as a symbolic success rather than a real tournaround in the struggle against terrorism.

davidbfpo
05-07-2011, 10:29 AM
Not something we've seen much in press reporting, apart form the obligatory street protests - what is the Pakistani press/TV saying? Draw your own conclusions:http://www.opendemocracy.net/abbas-zaidi/media-whizz-kids-of-security-state

OK for economy try these selections:
The very idea behind Pakistan's security state is that civilians are expendable, that there is no need to build civilian institutions because we are permanently invaded and the whole world is our enemy.

(At the end)..the army would not have been able to get away with billions of rupees every year in the name of national security leaving millions of Pakistanis without proper access to education and health. Think about it: 17 million Pakistani kids do not go to school because there are not any they can go to; and one government hospital caters for about half a million Pakistanis.

Fuchs
05-07-2011, 11:07 AM
After the Bin Laden op, what is the impact?

Approx. two dozen bad first person shooter games with the UBL kill scenario.

omarali50
05-07-2011, 04:18 PM
If you are interested in the Pakistani media, you have to pay attention to what those connected to the pro-jihadi wing of the establishment are saying, not just what the small number of liberal English columnists are saying. for example: http://criticalppp.com/archives/48194

I would add that there IS more criticism of the army and ISI than there has been allowed in the past, and the narrative of ISI as the last line of defence against the CIA is becoming harder to sustain (and is truly contradictory now, since there is at least some part of the establisment that cooperates with the US), but its not like they are giving up.

The sad part is, many of them sincerely believe they are the ones defending the future of Pakistan and its people. Once you accept that the US is trying to destroy Pakistan (and arranged carefully stage-managed fake operations on 9-11 and 5-11 and much else as steps in this nefarious scheme) then preserving the good jihadis and the good taliban is a duty, not a mistake.

taabistan
05-08-2011, 08:53 PM
omarali;

If I were the head of the ISI, I would wage war against the U.S., India and the mujahideen network in the much the same way that they are doing so right now.That isn't to say I won't condemn it.

omarali50
05-08-2011, 09:13 PM
If you were head of ISI you might, but if you were a Pakistani outside of ISI, would you still approve of their priorities?

Polarbear
05-10-2011, 07:54 AM
Seems as if the Pakistanis are a bit p***** after the bin Laden raid. They blew the cover of another CIA station chief in Pakistan:

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,761466,00.html

Sorry, it's in German.

JMA
05-10-2011, 11:34 AM
Sorry, it's in German.

If you browse with Google Chrome as I do you have a page translation option which I have used extensively and in this case is pretty damn good (it seems).

One interesting point is this:


Washington nevertheless requires access to "all sources of information -" even to bin Laden's wives ", as Donilon it so far had U.S. investigators had no opportunity to speak with the people who found the Pakistanis in the house bin Laden, the U.S. government.. insists that at least three women will be delivered. (as translated)

Now one should ask why if the US wanted these people did they not take them after the raid? Now they are in a tug-o-war with the Pakistani's.

Steve Blair
05-10-2011, 01:25 PM
If you browse with Google Chrome as I do you have a page translation option which I have used extensively and in this case is pretty damn good (it seems).

Just about any browser has that option these days. For Firefox all you have to do is install the BabelFish plug-in.

carl
05-10-2011, 03:35 PM
Now one should ask why if the US wanted these people did they not take them after the raid? Now they are in a tug-o-war with the Pakistani's.

As I read the stories, and I probably missed many things, 4 helos went in and 3 came out so maybe they just couldn't handle the weight.

omarali50
05-10-2011, 04:29 PM
They could be hiding the fact that they did bring along a living member of the blessed Osama clan. If they did not get even one, that does seem like an unfortunate omission.
Unless, of course, Pakistan was in on the whole deal and all this "tug of war" business is a huge smokescreen.

carl
05-10-2011, 05:51 PM
Unless, of course, Pakistan was in on the whole deal and all this "tug of war" business is a huge smokescreen.

Bingo! said my feverish little suspicious mind when I read this.

JMA
05-10-2011, 06:22 PM
Bingo! said my feverish little suspicious mind when I read this.

Careful about smokescreens... just now we will hear that OBL is in fact in a basement somewhere co-operating fully per kind favour of water-boarding and the stiff they tossed off that ship had false leg-extensions to make up the required length ;)

Always room for some more on the way home due to weight of fuel burned on the way in... and a funny thing about chopper pilots, they always seem more able to take off getting out of Dodge when overweight than on the way in... (to hell with the gearbox we're going home ;)

davidbfpo
05-31-2011, 03:47 PM
My title.

A "broad brush" analysis by Paul Rogers:
This briefing examines the aftermath of the death of Osama bin Laden and developments in Syria, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. The main focus, however, will be on Libya. Is the continuing stalemate in the Libyan War the more important development?

Midway he says:
Thus, by the end of the month and some five months after the start of the disturbances in Morocco, progress in political reform was continuing, but with a counter-reaction from elite regimes. In such circumstances, it might be expected that the strong western support for rebel forces in Libya would be seen as a positive aspect for the region as a whole. Here was external support for progressive change in a country where dissent had been rigorously suppressed. The fact that it is not seen that way across the region is of considerable significance.

Then:
...a deep unease merging into anger that Libya is yet another example of an Islamic state being subjected to attack by western forces. What is really important here, and is not understood in the West, is that the longer the Libyan War continues, the more the balance alters between the two factors, in the direction of popular opposition to western intervention.

(Last sentence)....NATO is therefore facing a dilemma - the extent of which is hardly appreciated among the western political classes.

Link:http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/middle_east/libya_centre

davidbfpo
10-07-2011, 08:34 PM
Not really unexpected given the official Pakistani reaction:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15206639

In a better world those who exposed this man's role should take his place!

J Wolfsberger
05-23-2012, 11:47 AM
Meanwhile, Pakistani doctor who helped US in bin Laden raid sentenced to prison (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/05/23/pakistani-doctor-who-helped-us-in-bin-laden-raid-sentenced-to-prison/)

I'm sure this will give a powerful boost to our intelligence efforts in the region. :rolleyes:

I wonder how they got his name? :mad:

davidbfpo
05-23-2012, 11:51 AM
From the BBC:
A Pakistani doctor who helped the CIA find Osama Bin Laden has been sentenced to 33 years in jail, officials say.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18175964

Leaving aside the personal impact and local matters I would argue that this imprisonment alongside the recent revelations about the betrayal of the second Underpants bomber does not help the West and other friends recruit volunteers who become helpers, informants and spies. Those who are coerced are very different.

Those standard reassurances we will keep your identity secret, known to a very few; we will protect you and go to the "nth" degree to get you out could be now viewed as worthless.

Incidentally Sir Colin McColl, ex-SIS Director, has remarked that recruiting helpers (in GWOT / CT) was adversely affected by the furore over human rights abuses.