How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)

[omarali50]

The best outcome for America would be to sucker the Chinese into running the show AND paying for it.
The best outcome for the Chinese would be to have America pay for it, Pakistan to supply warm bodies and China to get whatever it is that people imagine they can get out of that region.
The likeliest outcome is that America pays for it and nobody benefits except a few people who manage to stash cash in Dubai and time their exit correctly..

As an American, I think Obama may be right. Avoid the sunk costs fallacy. Cut your losses and leave. Let Allah sort them out.

As a Pakistani, I think the aftermath will be long and bloody. I wish the CIA had actually succeeded in whatever nefarious conspiracy they were up to. Their failure will embarrass them ,but it will terminate a lot of poor people in Afghanistan and Pakistan (and probably India...bakrey kee maan kab tak khair manaey gi...how long will the goat's mother stay lucky in all this?). With maximum prejudice.
Of course I hope I am wrong. I hope some brilliant new plan from Washington will actually work. One can always hope.

[Peter Dow]

I wish the CIA had actually succeeded in whatever nefarious conspiracy they were up to. Their failure will embarrass them

Well unlike

• in Pakistan where the Pakistani military intelligence agency, the ISI, doesn't answer to the civilian government but is a part of the independent Pakistani military, which maintains a political role and often imposes a military dictatorship upon Pakistanis and whose ISI is a tool of the military's imperial ambitions, in this context sponsoring an irregular, auxiliary or paramilitary force, the Taliban, to regain Afghanistan as a vassal state of the Pakistani military empire

the CIA does answer to the elected president, it follows the orders of the government, under the law and the constitution of the USA.

As an American you ought to know that. As a Pakistani, you may not know truth from fiction so often have you been lied to by the Pakistani state.

So whilst conspiracy nuts like you may imply that the CIA is an independent unaccountable power with its own political agenda, it is not.


The invasion of Afghanistan was as it was declared to be according to the Bush Doctrine, to go after those who did 9/11 - both the terrorists and their state sponsors.

What we are seeing is an American (and British and NATO) political failure to go to 2nd base with the Bush Doctrine, to follow the trail of intelligence evidence identifying the 9/11 culprits and the Taliban enemy as sponsored by the Pakistani ISI and therefore showing the Pakistani state to be a state sponsor of Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorism.

Here again is the BBC Panorama documentary, "Secret Pakistan" which presents the evidence of Pakistani state sponsoring of terrorism, this time in 2 x 1 hour videos.

SECRET PAKISTAN - Part 1 - Double Cross (YouTube)

SECRET PAKISTAN - Part 2 - Backlash (YouTube)


So there's a political failure to hold Pakistan accountable for 9/11 and the deaths of our forces in Afghanistan.

So the US and NATO government trend is towards doing less than the Bush Doctrine would imply and simply going home, the job half done. That's not a "conspiracy", it is losing focus, abandoning the mission, letting the Pakistani state which hosted Al Qaeda and the Taliban, killed thousands of our people, off the hook.


Now I don't agree with abandoning the mission - I want the Afghan mission converted into an openly Afghanistan-Pakistan mission. That's my politics but I am not part of a CIA or state conspiracy because I am just this guy, you know?

[jmm99]

what is meant by your usage of "to hold Pakistan accountable" ? Are you suggesting that the US use armed force (pursuant to the 2001 AUMF) against Pakistan ? If so, from where and by what means ?

Regards

Mike

[Peter Dow]

Peter,

what is meant by your usage of "to hold Pakistan accountable" ?

Thanks for your questions Mike.

I mean our governments ought to face up to the evidence that the Pakistani state has secretly been waging war against us by secretly employing Al Qaeda terrorists and the Taliban to wage Pakistan's secret war against us.

I mean our governments ought to respond to the revelation of Pakistan's acts of war against us by declaring that a state of war now exists between us and Pakistan and accordingly command our forces to confront the aggressor, Pakistan, with retaliatory acts of war of our own against Pakistan, in our own self-defence, with a view to bringing Pakistan's secret war to an end and to compel Pakistan to agree and to deliver peace terms which would satisfy our need for security into the future.

I mean it is war with Pakistan, Mike. There's no point in sugar-coating what needs to be done.

Are you suggesting that the US use armed force (pursuant to the 2001 AUMF) against Pakistan ?

Yes.

If so, from where and by what means ?

Regards

Mike

That's a very good question Mike. I am glad you asked that. It's really very important that we find the best answers to those sorts of questions.

I have been attempting to provide some answers to those difficult but critical questions in this topic thread.

I would ask you to review my 4-point plan in my OP and my suggested approach to managing Pakistan in post #2.

I don't however believe that a large-scale ground invasion of Pakistan would be a good option to pick in order to prosecute this war to a speedy and successful conclusion any time soon.

So attack Pakistan, sure but "invade Pakistan", I don't think so.

PS. We have many non-military methods as well we can use to apply pressure to Pakistan to bring them to terms - financial sanctions, for example.

[jmm99]

You deserve the same candor from me.

My worldview is very different from yours; but also very different from that of the Bush II and Obama admins (one might as well also include the Bush I and Clinton admins). I don't believe in the New World Order or in US global hegemony; and I would limit US force projection out to our Atlantic and Pacific far littorals, except in exigent circumstances.

UBL was an "exigent circumstance", whose death (and those of his subordinates who happened to be caught in the net) were justified for reasons of retribution, reprobation and specific deterrence. No doubt, one can go far beyond UBL and his immediate associates to argue that a number of groups and nations are "worthy" of inclusion within the scope of the 2001 AUMF because of their support of AQ and associated groups (e.g., the Taliban).

I believe that the US has achieved militarily what it can achieve in the Muslim World. So, I'd leave Eurasia and Africa to those who live there. Hence, no point exists for you and me to argue about operational and tactical military details - as to which I have no particular expertise anyway.

Regards

Mike

[omarali50]

Peter, i was being facetious.
I am not sanguine about the prospects of "our" victory in Afghanistan http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksd...if-we-win.html

[Peter Dow]

Peter, i was being facetious.
I am not sanguine about the prospects of "our" victory in Afghanistan http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksd...if-we-win.html

No but you do make an entirely inappropriate distinction between "the imperialist powers or Pakistan".

Whereas in fact it is imperial Pakistan that wants Afghanistan back as its vassal Taliban state, Kashmir from India, Bangladesh back as East Pakistan and perhaps another bits and pieces of Asia which the global jihad can grab for Pakistan.

Though I do note that it is somewhat of a cowardly imperialism that prefers to grab territory via proxy irregular forces and terrorist groups such as the Taliban, controlled by the ISI, no doubt because the generals can't persuade the regular army nor the people of Pakistan to serve in such imperialist wars of expansion.

Oh no, the USA and NATO allies are not "imperialists". We are simply defending our homeland by removing terrorism which threatens us at source.

[Peter Dow]

You deserve the same candor from me.

My worldview is very different from yours; but also very different from that of the Bush II and Obama admins (one might as well also include the Bush I and Clinton admins). I don't believe in the New World Order or in US global hegemony; and I would limit US force projection out to our Atlantic and Pacific far littorals, except in exigent circumstances.

From sea to shining sea and leave empires like the British, Japanese, German, Russian to fight for global domination, huh?

That's a very different worldview from FDR too.

It's not a good plan Mike because the empire that finally achieves hegemony over the rest of the world would eventually come for the USA and then you'd be on your own.

UBL was an "exigent circumstance", whose death (and those of his subordinates who happened to be caught in the net) were justified for reasons of retribution, reprobation and specific deterrence. No doubt, one can go far beyond UBL and his immediate associates to argue that a number of groups and nations are "worthy" of inclusion within the scope of the 2001 AUMF because of their support of AQ and associated groups (e.g., the Taliban).

One can and one should. Otherwise there's no "specific deterrence" to those groups etc.

On the contrary there is specific payment to such groups in the order of $18 billion in US aid paid to Pakistan after groups there supported the 9/11 attacks and another $1.6 billion promised.

It's not like the generous US Marshall plan to invest in the recovery of Germany and Europe after world war 2. There, the Nazis could not claim credit for the Marshall plan since the top Nazi leaders had been executed and others jailed.

With Pakistan, the generals who supported 9/11 and Taliban attacks on the US can still claim their part in extorting or blackmailing the aid from the US and other countries they've threatened with their state sponsored terrorism.

So it looks to the Pakistani people like the US is weak, can be bullied, blackmailed, extorted. So there's no deterrent. There's an open invitation - who else wants a piece of the USA's wealth and is prepared to kill Americans to get it?

I believe that the US has achieved militarily what it can achieve in the Muslim World. So, I'd leave Eurasia and Africa to those who live there. Hence, no point exists for you and me to argue about operational and tactical military details - as to which I have no particular expertise anyway.

Regards

Mike

It doesn't take a particular expertise to understand that the USA and its global allies constitute the dominant military power in the world and can beat anyone else if we go about the business of war in a militarily efficient way, instead of like fools.

[jmm99]

From sea to shining sea and leave empires like the British, Japanese, German, Russian to fight for global domination, huh?

That's a very different worldview from FDR too.

It's not a good plan because the empire that finally achieves hegemony over the rest of the world would eventually come for the USA in due course and then you'd be on our own.

As to the third point, there's a lot of ifs both ways. As I said, we've very different worldviews.

Regards

Mike

[Peter Dow]

BBC: Pakistan jets bomb Taliban positions in North Waziristan (YouTube)

Washington Post:
Deadly Pakistani airstrikes target militants believed responsible for recent attacks
By Haq Nawaz Khan and Tim Craig, Published: January 21

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan’s military launched airstrikes in its restive tribal areas on Tuesday, killing 40 suspected militants, in an attempt to combat terrorist attacks that are escalating across the country.

Tribal elders, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they feared reprisal from militants, said the strikes appeared more accurate than previous such efforts.

The local elders said that the home of Adnan Rashid, a senior Taliban commander, was hit and his family members were injured, but that he escaped unhurt. Another strike, on al-Noor Mosque in the village of Essorhi, killed 15 people — all reportedly militants, according to the elders.

“So this time the army gunships and jet fighters are accurately targeting the militants,” one elder from the town of Mir Ali said in a phone interview.

The strikes, among the heaviest bombardments of the tribal areas in several years, were conducted in the aftermath of a suicide bombing Sunday that killed 20 Pakistani soldiers. On Monday, 13 people were killed in a blast at a market near army headquarters in Rawalpindi. And Tuesday, three people administering polio vaccinations were fatally shot in Karachi, and at least 20 Shiite pilgrims were killed when an explosion tore through their bus in the country’s southwest.

The military airstrikes began late Monday over a troubled area of North Waziristan, a hotbed for Pakistani and foreign militants near the Afghan border. According to local officials and the Reuters news service, it was the first time the military had carried out airstrikes in North Waziristan since a cease-fire deal with local Taliban leaders in 2007.

Military officials said those killed in the strikes included militants suspected of carrying out a bombing in September that killed 85 people at a church in the northwestern city of Peshawar.

Although some of the elders interviewed said that many of those killed were Taliban militants, area residents said there also were numerous civilian casualties. They said they and their families were fleeing the area because they feared for their safety.

“Can you hear the noise of the gunships? They are just over our heads,” Haji Jamaluddin, a resident, told Reuters by phone. “Everyone in the village is running around with children and women, looking for a safe place to hide.”

The strikes, which followed smaller military operations in tribal areas in recent weeks, could be a sign that Pakistan’s new army chief, Gen. Raheel Sharif, plans to take a harder line against militants. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif appointed him in late November to head the country’s nuclear-armed, 550,000-member military. The two men share a last name but are not related.

The prime minister has been pushing to hold peace talks with the Pakistani Taliban, which has waged a decade-long insurgency that has claimed thousands of lives. But those talks have yet to materialize. In the meantime, former military officials say, the country’s top generals — faced with rising violence — have been pushing for more decisive action.

NATO tribute to Pakistan Air Force: "Don't Stop Me Now!" (YouTube)

A friend of NATO, the AfPak Mission presents a tribute to the Pakistan Air Force in recognition of air strikes against the Taliban, enemy of mankind, from January 2014 - "Don't stop me now!"

No peace with the Taliban.
The only "good" Taliban is a dead Taliban.

Way to go Pakistan!

[Peter Dow]

Wall Street Journal: U.S. Military Proposal Seeks Shorter Afghan Stay

U.S. military leaders have presented the White House with a plan that would keep 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014

WASHINGTON—U.S. military leaders have presented the White House with a plan that would keep 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014, but then start drawing the force down to nearly zero by the end of President Barack Obama's term, according to senior officials.

The request reflects a far shorter time frame for a U.S. military presence in Afghanistan than commanders had previously envisaged after the current international mission ends this year. The new approach is intended to buy the U.S. military time to advise and train the Afghan army but still allow Mr. Obama to leave office saying he ended America's longest war, the officials said.

Military leaders told Mr. Obama that if he rejects the 10,000-troop option, then it would be best to withdraw nearly all military personnel at the end of this year because a smaller troop presence wouldn't offer adequate protection to U.S. personnel, said officials involved in the discussions.

The Pentagon's approach, discussed in White House National Security Council meetings last week, encountered pointed questions from some NSC officials who asked what difference 10,000 U.S. troops would make on such a temporary basis, U.S. officials said.

Vice President Joe Biden has been a leading skeptic within the administration about keeping troops in Afghanistan to train and advise Afghan forces after 2014, officials said.

A senior administration official declined to characterize Mr. Biden's position on the new Pentagon proposal, saying only that he "has asked questions and listened carefully to presentations" about possible troop levels. The official said Mr. Biden will make his recommendation to Mr. Obama "at the appropriate time."

Mr. Biden has advocated deploying special operations forces to Afghanistan for counterterrorism missions, officials said.

Afghan officials in Washington didn't immediately respond to requests for comment on the new Pentagon proposal.

As an important boost to the request, the 10,000-troop proposal has the backing of intelligence agencies and the State Department. They have told the White House that their activities on the ground inside Afghanistan will depend on whether the Pentagon gets the troops it says it needs to secure bases where military advisers, spies and diplomats would do their work.

Senior U.S. officials called it a "binary" proposal, meaning the Pentagon wants one troop level or the other, not a midpoint that they said will be too small to protect deployments and support the goals of the mission.

Defense and intelligence officials who disagree with Mr. Biden's approach said any future special operations force in Afghanistan will be of limited utility without a robust intelligence network to track militants and guide "kill teams" to their targets.

"To have an intelligence network, you have to have a footprint, and to have a footprint, you have to have force protection," said one senior U.S. official involved in the discussions.

Currently, there are about 37,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and another 19,000 international forces. The U.S. is scheduled to draw down to 32,000 forces by the end of February.

Regarding the Pentagon's proposal for a MINIMUM of 10,000 troops in Afghanistan.

One does require more troops to keep an airbridge (that is to say a military base supplied only by air, with airfields, runways etc) open vs all foes.

20,000 French troops proved to be insufficient when in 1954 they were guarding one airbridge military base at Dien Bien Phu, Vietnam when the French base was overrun by the Viet Minh.


Wikipedia: Battle of Dien Bien Phu

If you have only one large base then fewer troops are required. You need to occupy a big area to defend the landing and takeoff fight paths vs enemy ground-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft gun-fire.

The area occupied by the French at Dien Bien Phu proved to be too small at only 2 x 5 miles.

Occupying a base area of at least 20 x 20 miles would be better, more practical to defend.

One does need to defend a large perimeter to keep the enemy guns out of range of the base's runways.

Typically 1000 guards are required to defend one 1 base in routine circumstances to defend the perimeter defences alone.

If the Taliban are surged massively, perhaps supported by regular troops of Pakistan, Iran or even Afghanistan, and the enemy army brings artillery to bear and concentrates a sustained attack on one base, as did the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu then the base would need 10,000 guards to defend the base and win the battle.

Fewer troops are required if engineers build impenetrable wide perimeter defences, meaning vehicle barriers anti-tank minefields, infantry barriers, barbed wire, anti-personnel mine-fields - to a mine field thickness of 2 miles all around the base, and that could be 40 miles or more of a perimeter circumference to build - and the perimeter watched over 24/7 by guards in hardened machine gun positions.

For Afghanistan, if I only had 10,000 troops to deploy then I wouldn't have enough for the proposed 9 bases.

Since each base would require 1000 guards in routine circumstances then 9 bases would require 9 x 1000 = 9000 troops just to guard the 9 bases, which would only leave me 1000 troops for operations outside the bases.

With only 10,000 troops I'd establish no more than 5 bases which would need 5 x 1000 = 5000 troops to guard the bases and leave 5000 troops for operations outside the bases, an average of 2000 troops per base.

In the event of a sustained assault as per Dien Bein Phu, if I could fly in reinforcement troops from reserves outside Afghanistan to the base under attack, I would fly in an additional 8000 troops to each base that came under a sustained attack.

If there were no troops available to fly in to reinforce the attacked bases then I would abandon some of the 5 bases, if necessary all but one, redeploying the troops from abandoned bases so that I had enough troops to defend the fewer remaining bases.