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

[carl]

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]

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.

[davidbfpo]

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]

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".

[Ray]

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.

Witches' Brew at best.

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

[jmm99]

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]

Mike,

You can get a version of it here: http://chairforce.com/images/desktop...p-backgrnd.jpg

[carl]

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.

[tequila]

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.