The US & others working with Pakistan

[Pragmatic Thinker]

Okay, so we decide to launch some kind of Pakistan "incursion", reminiscent of Cambodia. I haven't looked on a map lately, but these tribal areas seem to cover a pretty fair amount of real estate. Here's some questions for the Council.

Are we supposed to then occupy this area, to prevent it from becoming a sanctuary after we leave? This could start sounding like the problems we have right now in Iraq, where U.S. forces can't withdraw until the state can regain control of the area.

How many men is this going to require? Are they there? Are they available from elsewhere?

Or is this envisioned as just some kind of punitive expedition to go across the border and kill/capture some people. Do we think we have the kind of intelligence to know who is who in this part of the world?

Last, but not least, does anybody think there is support in Congress for this sort of thing? I do believe most people view the war in Afghanistan quite differently from our democracy project in Mesopotamia. But I guarantee that any administration that did this would face questions like "Okay, do you have a plan once you get there? Show me. I want details, not promises, after what we've seen in Iraq. Who's in charge? What are the political goals? At what point, would you consider this mission accomplished? How will you know when you have achieved it? etc." I think Congress is going to demand more than a "Trust me, I know what I'm doing" statement from the military and the executive on this.

Tequila -

I won't begin to speculate about numbers of personnel needed but suffice it to say that we would need to be a lot more than we have in country right now. I am against any unilateral actions on our part, but instead would like to see the U.S. government attach more expectations to the economic and military aid we provide the Pakistanis. For example, if they (PAK MIL) claim it is too difficult for them to do it on their own in the FATA then why not demand they allow us to support them overtly (mobility, planning, ISR, joint patrols, etc..). We are either allies with a unified vision of the enemy situation and have an agreed upon end state or we aren't allies and we don't agree upon the enemy situation and if that is the case then we cease all money until we see tangible long term results and we do it ourselves. Let us stop giving away millions of dollars to a government that is incapable or unwilling to attack this problem or refuses to comply with the conditions in which we hand over our money.

I am not calling for occupation, but I am saying that it is absurd for our forces to continually be wounded and killed by an enemy force that sits mere kilometers inside a border that only we recognize. A piece of terroritory that the sovereign of Pakistan himself states "he cannot control" yet he snubs any assistance from the U.S. that would put our forces on the ground with his. These same terrorists/fanatics/ACM/whatever your flavor we would be going after are the same people who fund, recruit, and support the fighters that kill our soldiers in Afghanistan. They are the same people who plan large scale attacks against us and our allies at home. I think most people who really follow these attacks and their post-mortems know the fanatics who carried them out had gone into the the FATA region of Pakistan to recieve their indoctrination and guidance from Al Qaeda affiliated personnel. Since we invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, they have planned and carried out numerous attacks against us (the west) from this area. The 7/7/05 London attack, the 3/11/04 Madrid bombing, and last year's thwarted U.K. airline attack were all hatched within Pakistan's FATA region.

I am not a policy expert and I am not a security expert, but I am a low-level neanderthal military type. A couple of things my military mind are certain of -- 1) there are violent religious fanatics just inside Pakistan who continually plan and execute attacks against us inside Afghanistan; 2) these same religious fanatics just inside Pakistan are planning to attack us and our western allies at home. They have been successful in the past (read examples above) and if we don't radically change our approach they will be successful again. If you're comfortable letting Pervez Musharraf lead the fight against these people then rest easy, but if you're like me you might want to see a more aggressive approach taken to eradicate this threat. They won't stop planning and attacking, and we're not about to stop involving ourselves in matters of economy and state with Muslim "apostate" countries. Our courses have collided the west and its global economic/political interests have collided head-on with their desire to return to the Caliphate and Sharia law. I have obviously over-simplified the issues but in my mind this what I see, and from a tactical perspective we fight the fight on their terms. If they don't recognize the border, then neither do we...if we know Quetta and Miram Shah are staging areas (just as in the Soviet-Afghan War) then we deny them this terrain. If that means bombings, cross-border raids, joint U.S.-PAK ground operations along the border regions, or whatever the guys wearing stars come up with it then that is what happens, but we tactically take the fight to them and stop waiting for them to come across the border before we kill them.

My fear is that most Americans know only the Iraq fight and don't realize that the right hook that is going to knock us on our ass (9-11 style) will most likely originate in the FATA. I would hate to see another large-scale attack happen before our leaders and citizens take action and to realize we allow our enemy sanctuary to plan his attacks through our inaction.

Sorry for the lenghty replies and ramblings.... PT

[Pragmatic Thinker]

My apologies for addressing my last reply to Tequila when it should read Tacitus... PT

[davidbfpo]

The continued use of the FATA by AQ is an issue the British government (HMG) wishes to push out of the headlines, let alone pay attention to. The steady trickle of deaths, let alone injuries, in Helmand Province to British forces will keep the issue in HMG's "too difficult" policy box.

Yes, some U.K. terror plots are reported as having their roots in FATA and Pakistan generally. Just as many I would suggest have their roots closer to home, or as many allude to the web at home.

Any overt or covert Allied incursuion into the FATA, disregarding the immense practicalities, is political madness.

Pakistan is an ally, which has its own difficulties, for example the secular parties may have a more nuanced stand on AQ and terrorism that Musharraf. An incursion before the Pakistani election is hardly pragmatic.

What would HMG do if the logistic support Pakistan gives now was stopped or restricted? I refer to the reported use of Karachi docks and the overland movement of heavy supplies to Hlemand and Afghanistan.

I am sure somewhere there is an author who has analysed and written on the lessons HMG learnt from the North West Frontier (up till 1947).

It is odd sixty years later British national security is so bound up - again - by the NW Frontier and this time the BRitish military are on the other side of the Durand Line in Afghanistan.

In our struggle against AQ terrorism in this region history can teach us much, we too found it frustrating and bloody for a very long time. Brute force is not the answer on this "playing field".

davidbfpo
(sitting in an armchair in the UK)

[Pragmatic Thinker]

The continued use of the FATA by AQ is an issue the British government (HMG) wishes to push out of the headlines, let alone pay attention to. The steady trickle of deaths, let alone injuries, in Helmand Province to British forces will keep the issue in HMG's "too difficult" policy box.

Yes, some U.K. terror plots are reported as having their roots in FATA and Pakistan generally. Just as many I would suggest have their roots closer to home, or as many allude to the web at home.

Any overt or covert Allied incursuion into the FATA, disregarding the immense practicalities, is political madness.

Pakistan is an ally, which has its own difficulties, for example the secular parties may have a more nuanced stand on AQ and terrorism that Musharraf. An incursion before the Pakistani election is hardly pragmatic.

What would HMG do if the logistic support Pakistan gives now was stopped or restricted? I refer to the reported use of Karachi docks and the overland movement of heavy supplies to Hlemand and Afghanistan.

I am sure somewhere there is an author who has analysed and written on the lessons HMG learnt from the North West Frontier (up till 1947).

It is odd sixty years later British national security is so bound up - again - by the NW Frontier and this time the BRitish military are on the other side of the Durand Line in Afghanistan.

In our struggle against AQ terrorism in this region history can teach us much, we too found it frustrating and bloody for a very long time. Brute force is not the answer on this "playing field".

davidbfpo
(sitting in an armchair in the UK)

I concur with brute force not being the ONLY solution, however, we can't let ourselves be hamstrung. I understand Karachi's importance as a POE for supplies for the troops going over land into Afghanistan, which in my opinion remains a serious wekaness in our military strategy. I can't speak for the RAF but I know the USAF is over burdened as it is trying to keep supplies flowing into Iraq and Afghanistan, so relying soley on aerial resupply is out... My point remains a tactical dilemma which is why allow your enemy sanctuary? I keep getting political problems as reasons why we can't have a tactical solution to this and I am not quite buying it. I don't see Pakistan imploding if we decided to conduct precision bombing of key Taliban and Al Qaeda targets in the FATA, and I am not talking about the onsies and twosies we do now but an all out bombing campaign followed by ground incursions. If nothing else it would show our resolve to take the fight to them. I know the Pashtu understand and respect violence, and again I am not advocating a wholesale bombing campaign but a precise campaign of continuous strikes and raids. We haven't tried it yet, so I am not convinced we can sit here and predict the outcome accurately.

PT