A suggestion for changing the course of the conflict on the Afghan/Pakistani frontier
This is an excerpt from an as yet unpublished article. Any comments - regardless of how harsh they might be - would be very much appreciated.
All the best!
The shear quantity and cost - in lives - of recent American incursions into Pakistani territory is not the kind of thing that - rationally - one could expect to be ignored - even by a friendly government - let alone one that had recently seemed on the brink of curtailing, or even ending, military cooperation. And, it is unlikely that even a tacit understanding on the governmental level - to allow such actions - could be long sustained in practice without broader support - particularly within the Pakistani Army.
On the other hand, continued existence of safe areas from which the Taliban and other Terrorists factions can launch attacks on targets in Afghanistan with impunity - and then to which they can retreat to for safety - as well as where they can recruit, train and draw other support from generally - is intolerable. Some solution must be arrived at, one that allows American, Afghani and NATO forces to combat these factions more effectively and do so without tipping the political balance in Pakistan against us and towards a renewal of their efforts to develop a workable accord with our enemies.
A suggestion for consideration in that discussion:
reverse the nature of the incursions. I.e. allow and support Pakistani forces in operations - into their own country - based from sites on the Afghanistan side of the border. Besides the obvious - the possibility of reducing or eliminating the need for unauthorized American incursions into Pakistan - this approach may have other advantages. The enemy could be then attacked - unexpectedly - in greater force than that which can be obtained through periodic cross-border raiding - and from directions from which their current defensive preparations may be less suitable for effective resistance. Circumstances of that kind may also provide a solid basis for the renewal; and development of closer working ties between the Pakistani military and our own best ambassadors - the American Soldier, Marine, Sailor and Airmen. And, at some point it may then become possible for there to be cross border actions involving American, Afghani and NATO forces that are authorized - formally or in reply to requests from local Pakistani commanders. Pakistani units in a hard fight are unlikely to stand firm against offers of assistance. Therefore, instead of losing or reducing the cooperation of Pakistan - as the present course of action threatens to do - or worse, pushing the Pakistani government and military towards greater engagement with the Islamists - we may alternatively cement solid ties with the Pakistani military, connections that would likely go a long way towards moving the country as a whole into our corner. That possibility, along with that of an increase in tactical and strategic opportunities, may make this an attractive alternative to the current approaches
Introduce yourself please
QuietRaven,
As a new SWC member please take time to introduce yourself, on the Tell Us About You: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...splay.php?f=33
SWC members prefer to comment when they can read an introduction. That might get a better response to your first thread.
davidbfpo
How do you propose to do that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rank amateur
Personally, I think we need to establish population control in the tribal areas. Separating the foreign jihadis from the local tribes is a clear, straight froward objective. Much clearer and more straight forward than almost any strategic COIN related objective. Therefore it's achievable.
I realize you passed the buck to the Prez, whoever he or she may be but you must have an idea along that line or you wouldn't propose it...
Your recommendation to implement your goal is?
Do as we say, not as we do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
221CAV
Why doesn't the US try and seal the border itself. Sure, we can't make it impervious, but I'm betting a healthy US presence in this area would cut down a lot of cross border antics by the tribesmen.
Our own country is either unable or unwilling to control substantial population movements on our own southern border. Yet we demand Pakistan and Afghanistan to do exactly that?
Just how many US soldiers would it take to man that border for who knows how long? I'm betting quite a bit for a LONG time.
Sigh. At the risk of stating the obvious
let me suggest that logical solutions occur to others as well as to ones self -- if they aren't being used, there may be a reason...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rank amateur
To answer Ken's question, the president has a number of carrots and sticks. I believe, "if you don't cooperate we'll bomb you into the stone age," did the trick after 9/11. "If you launch a true counterinsurgency campaign we will give you these things:... If you don't, we will bomb the hell out of your tribal regions" should do the trick. And my point is that if it isn't done things will get worse. Just like they continued to get worse in Iraq until we established population control.
Re: the first item -- do you know that or just think that might be the case? Re: the others, if the answers are "We'd like to but cannot;" and "If you do that we will have a rebellion which will make matters worse." What then will you do?
Quote:
That's why you need to go into the village en masse, arrest all the foreigners and stay in the village for 15 years: clear and hold.
Where do you get the manpower and US political will to do that?
Quote:
Of course they are. That's COIN 101. If we kill the bad guy, his wife and the rest of the tribe is going to get angry and seek revenge. The only solution is to put so many troops in the village that there is nothing the population can do to get revenge when you kill the bad guy. Then you spend 10 or 15 years trying to win hearts and minds.
That's why the argument we can't afford to do it right so let's do it half assed doesn't make any sense. There is no half assed counterinsurgency. You either establish population control or make things worse by angering the population and increasing the insurgent recruitment rate.
Shame the Administration and the big Army didn't know that in 2001 -- but they did not.
Did you know that then or have you learned it since like so many others?
By the way, Afghanistan is not an insurgency... :D
Quiet Raven's Original Postq
QR,
Much of what you propose (i.e. combined operations with the PKMIL) have already been floated by the Pakistani's with them answering with a resounding 'NO'. They are not unlike any other people on this earth, and they do not see the value in having armed US forces patrolling inside their borders 'fixing' the Al Qaeda problem. Why this is unpopular inside Pakistan is endless, but again they are a soveriegn people who suspiciously view our activities in Afghanistan as yet another failed 'Great Game' attempt to mold a disparate group of tribals into a civilized western-like society. The Pakistani's know something we fail to admit with regards to Afghanistan and bringing democracy and civilized western values to them -- 'it ain't ever gonna' happen'
Once we start developing a strategy that embraces this fact that the various tribal entities within that God foresaken hole will never embrace western culture and values with regards to basic law, human rights, woman's rights, religious freedoms, and education then we will move beyond this COIN strategy of trying to 'win their hearts and minds' and we will prop up an iron-fisted dictator (think Marcos, Tito, Suharto...our allies in the fight against Communism but instead today it's Terrorism) that will maintain relative peace and support our long term political and economic goals for that region.
PT
SENDS