SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Conflicts -- Current & Future > Other, By Region > South Asia

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-03-2007   #41
MCMasterChef
Registered User
 
MCMasterChef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3
Default

Considering Pakistan is already precariously close to state failure by a number of criteria as it is, I have to say I'm not really clear on how economic boycott / trade cessation could be seen as an ideal strategy for managing the problems it presents... or how we 'take out' their nuclear weapons without risking the irradiation of the subcontinent.
MCMasterChef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2007   #42
goesh
Council Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,188
Default

- we may have no choice but to pray for the bad aim of one-eyed Omar if Musharraf falls and fundamentalists get their paws on nukes, or succumb to major blackmail, hegemony via escalation in Kasmir and a massive Taliban escalation in Afghanistan. With Mullah Omar's fingers on the red buttons, I opt for massive irradiation.
goesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007   #43
Jedburgh
Council Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,097
Default

CEIP, 10 Jul 07:

Rethinking Western Strategies Toward Pakistan: An Action Agenda for the United States and Europe
Quote:
Without Pakistan’s active and full cooperation, the United States and the broader international community cannot reconstruct Afghanistan, defeat the Taliban, and turn the tide of international terrorism. Yet most observers agree that Pakistan has not provided the fullest possible cooperation. Debate is growing about whether the Pakistani state is merely unable to do better or is actively undermining international efforts in Afghanistan and against terrorism.

This report makes the case that the Pakistani state bears responsibility for the worsening security situation in Afghanistan, the resurgence of the Taliban, terrorism in Kashmir, and the growth of jihadi ideology and capabilities internationally. At the core of the problem is the Pakistani military, which has dominated Pakistan’s politics since 1958 and has developed over the years a nationalism based more on its own delusions of grandeur rather than on any rational analysis of the country’s national interest. Inheriting a highly divided polity, the Pakistan Army has tried to muster solidarity by stoking religiosity, sectarianism, and the promotion of jihad outside its borders, particularly in Afghanistan and Kashmir....
Jedburgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007   #44
Ski
Council Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 489
Default

We really are stuck in between the proverbial rock and the hard place with the Pakistanis.

Musharaff is able to keep the radicals somewhat at bay, but it is just a matter of time until he overthrown and assassinated. I think he's survived 8 assassanition attemps since he's been in power.

I am of the mindset that what comes after Musharaff is going to be much worse than what we have to deal with now. Even though we've done good things with the Pakistanis (Earthquake relief comes to mind), they continue to support terrorism in Kashmir, they have an ungodly amount of madrasses, and Waziristan has been given de facto autonomy.

So what de we do? Like Steve Metz said, plan a buttload of contigency ops against their nuclear facilities in case of the worst case scenario, and continue to support Musharaff in the meantime. What else can really be done?
__________________
"Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"

The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland
Ski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2007   #45
Tacitus
Council Member
 
Tacitus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bristol, Tennessee
Posts: 146
Default This might be a world record.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ski View Post
Musharaff is able to keep the radicals somewhat at bay, but it is just a matter of time until he overthrown and assassinated. I think he's survived 8 assassanition attemps since he's been in power.
Even a cat is only allowed 9 lives. I wonder if fate is catching up with Musharaff?

This remarkable statistic is usually just glosed over. Can anybody think of a head of state who has survived this many attempts on his life? That's more than the reported amount of attempts on Castro by the CIA, I think. I checked the guinness book of world records website, but couldn't find a category for "survival of assassination attempts."

Perhaps he graduated from this course in Vegas?
http://www.crisisresponseint.com/sur..._execution.htm
__________________
No signature required, my handshake is good enough.
Tacitus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2007   #46
tequila
Council Member
 
tequila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,665
Default

Four attempts, assuming you buy the fourth.

I'm not buying the much ballyhooed Islamist takeover of Pakistan. The greatest threat to the President does not come from al-Qaeda and associated radicals in Pakistan, but rather the PPP of the Bhutto family and Pakistan Muslim League of Nawaz Sharif.
tequila is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2007   #47
Tacitus
Council Member
 
Tacitus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bristol, Tennessee
Posts: 146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tequila View Post
Four attempts, assuming you buy the fourth.
So we have one source saying it is just four. I wonder if there is double counting going on here. Interesting. It wouldn't be the first time the media misreported the facts.

I've never really heard alot of details on these attempts to kill him, just a story on the news saying he has just dodged another attempt on his life. It does seem, however, that I've heard this more than four times.

Are his assassins incompetent, or is he just plain lucky?
__________________
No signature required, my handshake is good enough.
Tacitus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2007   #48
LawVol
Council Member
 
LawVol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kabul
Posts: 339
Default

If we sever ties, can we then launch a cross-border operation to grap/kill UBL? If Musharaff is killed, who takes over and what is the effect on Pak relations with the US? India?
__________________
-john bellflower

Rule of Law in Afghanistan

"You must, therefore know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second." -- Niccolo Machiavelli (from The Prince)
LawVol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2007   #49
tequila
Council Member
 
tequila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,665
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LawVol View Post
If we sever ties, can we then launch a cross-border operation to grap/kill UBL? If Musharaff is killed, who takes over and what is the effect on Pak relations with the US? India?
Some rather large questions.

I'm pretty sure that a Pakistani government which we severed relations with would view a U.S. military incursion onto its territory as a violation of sovereignty/invasion.

If Musharraf was killed, I'm pretty sure another general selected by the Pakistani general staff would take over. Relations with both the U.S. and India are reasonably good at present, notwithstanding certain tensions, and would probably continue down the same path.
tequila is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007   #50
SWJED
Small Wars Journal
 
SWJED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Largo, Florida
Posts: 3,988
Default Strike by U.S. in Pakistan Is an Option, Officials Say

26 July Washington Post - Strike by U.S. in Pakistan Is an Option, Officials Say by Walter Pincus and Joby Warrick.

Quote:
Top Pentagon and State Department officials said yesterday that U.S. Special Forces would enter Pakistan if they had specific intelligence about an impending terrorist strike against the United States, despite warnings from the Pakistani government that it would not accept U.S. troops operating independently inside its borders.

The statements were the clearest assertion yet of the Bush administration's willingness to act unilaterally inside tribal areas in northwestern Pakistan where al-Qaeda's top commanders are believed to have taken refuge. But the officials also voiced strong support for President Pervez Musharraf, who they said has repeatedly backed U.S. anti-terrorism efforts in the region at great political cost...
SWJED is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007   #51
Pragmatic Thinker
Council Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: VA
Posts: 57
Default

My frustration and subsequent sarcasm in my writing has to do with what I believe is a real lack of knowledge regarding the playing field we find ourselves fighting the Global War on Terrorism. Especially, when we start to talk about the Afghanistan-Pakistan side of the world. I am often amazed that people act like this is our first jaunt into that region militarily, plus I can't seem to wrap my arms around our support for Musharraf. I am not convinced that Pakistan does everything it can for us in our fight against Al Qaeda, however, we continue to dump aid ($$) into his military and economy without any kind of expectation of a return on our investment.

I will point out two items from Clapper's testimony that I am finding misleading in their logic.

1) "The NIE highlights one such way in which the enemy has adapted: in response to its loss of Afghanistan: it has reconstituted some of its command and support network in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border."

Is this really an enemy adaptation? They have always traveled in and out of Waziristan. The Durand Line isn't recognized by the Pashtun nor their foreign guests who continually travel in and out of Afghanistan attacking US and coalition forces, so how does this equate to adaptation by the enemy when this capability has always been there? They exploit our unwillingness to pursue them into Pakistan is a more accurate statement then giving them (Al Qaeda) credit for discovering some sort of technique or tactic. Maybe word smithing but I find the language a little too one sided.

2) "At the same time, there are signs of a reaction against the extremists. On April 17, 2007, a convention attended by over 2,000 Pakistani religious figures in Peshawar, the capital of Pakistan's ethnically Pashtun North-West Frontier Province (which includes the FATA), proclaimed that suicide bombings were against Islam and condemned the forcible implementation and enforcement of Shari’a (Islamic Law). Also, internal disputes in Pakistan's tribal agency of South Waziristan recently erupted into conflict between Taliban-allied local tribes and al Qaeda-allied Central Asian groups, mostly Uzbeks. Uzbek forces offended local Pashtun groups by their criminal activity and insensitivity to local tribal customs, resulting in open warfare between locals and Central Asian fighters."

I think he takes a huge leap here implying that a limited reaction by some locals against a particular group equates to a consensus among the people of North Waziristan that there is an exploitable fissure between the Pashtu and the Taliban/AQ and their foreign guests. He couldn't be any further from the truth and this sounds a little like "cherry picking" reporting to paint the picture you want and not the picture that is actually there. There has been some limited (and I want to underscore limited) success by the Pakistani security forces in punishing tribes that allow foreigners among their midsts, but this hasn't taken hold long term and in the end most tribals see the Peshawar based Punjab military and political leaders as U.S. puppets. I would recommend the writers of this testimony spend some time along the border region talking to locals and getting the "ground truth" and not relying on single source reporting from questionable sources to support your arguments.

Again, not taking anything away from the man personally but I didn't read anything in his testimony about the enemy that was too promising. We can beat these guys and we can win this fight, but real issues need to be addressed and the first one is defining who really is our enemy? If Usama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are the leaders of the enemy organization we wish to defeat then why do we allow them sanctuary in Pakistan? Why do we ally ourselves with Musharraf after he publically states, 1) he believes Al Qaeda's top leaders are in his country but he claims he is supposedly powerless to do anything about it, and 2) he would rather see anyone else BUT the United States be the ones that capture/kill Usama Bin Laden within Pakistan should he be found.... Also, we say the enemy has "adapted" to using Waziristan as a sanctuary, but it only remains a sanctuary if we don't go after them...

I am no genius (militarily or otherwise) but there lacks basic logic in our policies and actions that I find too easily dismissed by the people who are supposedly "great leaders" and "no nonsense types"....

PT

Last edited by Jedburgh; 07-27-2007 at 04:11 PM.
Pragmatic Thinker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2007   #52
wm
Council Member
 
wm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: On the Lunatic Fringe
Posts: 1,237
Default US and Pakistan Military Cooperation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pragmatic Thinker View Post
[R]eal issues need to be addressed and the first one is defining who really is our enemy? If Usama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are the leaders of the enemy organization we wish to defeat then why do we allow them sanctuary in Pakistan?
For the US to cross into Pakistan unilaterally would be perceived (rightly, I think) as an overt act of aggression and would lose us even more of the little international public support we have for our anti-AQ efforts. It would also undercut the internal support Musharraf has in his own country. Do we really want a nuclear-armed Pakistan to lose his rule? His replacement may be far worse.
Quote:
Why do we ally ourselves with Musharraf after he publically states, 1) he believes Al Qaeda's top leaders are in his country but he claims he is supposedly powerless to do anything about it, and 2) he would rather see anyone else BUT the United States be the ones that capture/kill Usama Bin Laden within Pakistan should he be found....
Musharraf (or his handlers) is pretty astute IMHO. Regarding your question 1), see my point above--he at least provides some stability in the government of a predominantly Islamic nation state member of the "nuclear club."
Regarding 2), I submit that having any nation other than the "Great Satan US" capture/kill UBL would lessen UBL's future "Martyr" status. Were the forces of a Moslem nation to effect the kill/capture, I believe that could be used to send a strong message to show that the efforts of the terrorists are wrong in the eyes of Allah and the Prophet.

Quote:
I am no genius (militarily or otherwise) but there lacks basic logic in our policies and actions that I find too easily dismissed by the people who are supposedly "great leaders" and "no nonsense types"....
Logic has very little real play in the world of international diplomatic affairs. If you want to discuss whether we need more consistency in our policies and actions, that might very well be a topic worth exploring more fully.
wm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2007   #53
Pragmatic Thinker
Council Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: VA
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wm View Post
For the US to cross into Pakistan unilaterally would be perceived (rightly, I think) as an overt act of aggression and would lose us even more of the little international public support we have for our anti-AQ efforts. It would also undercut the internal support Musharraf has in his own country. Do we really want a nuclear-armed Pakistan to lose his rule? His replacement may be far worse.

Musharraf (or his handlers) is pretty astute IMHO. Regarding your question 1), see my point above--he at least provides some stability in the government of a predominantly Islamic nation state member of the "nuclear club."
Regarding 2), I submit that having any nation other than the "Great Satan US" capture/kill UBL would lessen UBL's future "Martyr" status. Were the forces of a Moslem nation to effect the kill/capture, I believe that could be used to send a strong message to show that the efforts of the terrorists are wrong in the eyes of Allah and the Prophet.



Logic has very little real play in the world of international diplomatic affairs. If you want to discuss whether we need more consistency in our policies and actions, that might very well be a topic worth exploring more fully.
I have heard the nuclear argument before that we must proceed cautiously for should Musharraf fall the nukes will fall into the hands of madmen. I think there is some merit to this, however, we went through this same supposed scare when Musharraf stole the reigns in '99 and now look at him, he is the toast of Washington when he comes into town. So much so that during his last visit he was plugging his autobiography on the Daily Show. So I am not convinced that some Islamic loon would get his hands on the keys and launch codes. In my dealings with Pakistan there is one thing that remains consistent there and that is a strong military who doesn't seem opposed to stepping on the toes (or pushing them aside for that matter) of their civilian leaders when they feel the country is in "trouble", so again I am not discounting the argument but I am not taking that fear-ladened approach either.

As for Musharraf's support at home, I would again say that he has it among his Punjabs in places like Peshawar and Islamabad, but you wander out to Waziristan and it is a whole other world out there. We're talking about a Pashtu populace that has attacked its own military and police, so this is nothing less than a "restive" place in my opinion and no greater place for our enemies to find sanctuary.

My argument isn't against Musharraf the man, but our policies in that region... I have studied the history of our foreign policy in South Asia and it sucks with inconsistencies. There isn't a Pakistani who doesn't believe that as soon as UBL, other AQ senior leaders, and to some extent the Taliban are no longer deemed a threat to the U.S. that we will once again "abandon" Pakistan and continue our economic dealings with their arch-enemies the Hinuds of India. I get that piece and fully understand the underlying political constraints, BUT from a strictly tactical sense if you want to take away your enemy's ability to reconstitute, re-arm, and re-fit from within his sanctuary then you need to take his sanctuary from him. The fact that many of these Taliban and foreign fighters are living mere kilometers across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border yet they seem almost invicible is absurd. I would take one thing from the Soviet playbook of the Soviet-Afghan War and that is not to leave places like Quetta and Miram Shah in the of the bad guys without a price. How many American, British, Canadian, and other coalition soldiers will have to die before someone realizes that this sanctuary only exists because we allow it to? I will not buy into the premise that Musharraf's government will collapse if we were to lead offensive operations into the FATA. I am not convinced whatsoever. We have asked, cajoled, threatened, and requested that the Pakistanis do it themselves and they are incapable of long term sustainment in that region. I don't want to argue why they can't do it themselves but rather lets address the real problem -- our enemy finds sanctuary inside the borders of a supposed ally on the Global War on Terrorism.
Pragmatic Thinker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2007   #54
tequila
Council Member
 
tequila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,665
Default

Quote:
I will not buy into the premise that Musharraf's government will collapse if we were to lead offensive operations into the FATA. I am not convinced whatsoever. We have asked, cajoled, threatened, and requested that the Pakistanis do it themselves and they are incapable of long term sustainment in that region. I don't want to argue why they can't do it themselves but rather lets address the real problem -- our enemy finds sanctuary inside the borders of a supposed ally on the Global War on Terrorism.
What sort of offensive operations are you talking about? Are we talking about the 82nd Airborne or I MEF setting up shop independently in North Waziristan and basically occupying the area?

If so, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any Pakistani government that could survive under such circumstances.
tequila is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2007   #55
Pragmatic Thinker
Council Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: VA
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tequila View Post
What sort of offensive operations are you talking about? Are we talking about the 82nd Airborne or I MEF setting up shop independently in North Waziristan and basically occupying the area?

If so, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any Pakistani government that could survive under such circumstances.
I am talking about any kind of continuous operation that denies the enemy freedom of movement to enter Afghanistan to kill coalition forces along their (bad guys) preferred LOCs. I have heard the argument that Musharraf would be pressured internally, but why not allow limited joint U.S.-Pakistani forces to conduct operations inside Pakistan? Much like we do in the Philippines? Is he not truly concerned about ridding Al Qaeda and Taliban influences from within his country? Is he truly committed to the fight to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban which is the major destabilizing force inside Afghanistan? If he is then why refuse U.S. forces who are admittedly better capable some sort of limited ability to strike targets within his borders or complain when they do?

Anyway, this is turning into a discussion about South Asian politics and not about the Intelligence Estimate released earlier this month and the testimony from Gen. Clapper, so I will disengage from it. We can agree to disagree and my tactical perspective will remain the same -- a sanctuary is only a sanctuary if you allow it to remain as one. I get that Pakistani soldiers are dying in these operations inside Waziristan, but remember this a conscript Army and not to say their loss of soldiers is not as great at the personal level, but I do NOT want to use the metric of dead bodies as a measurment of resolve and/or dedication to a fight...it is illogical and one I see bantied around Washington by the pro-Musharraf crowd. If you're interested, read how many soldiers they (PAK MIL) lose annually fighting Baluch insurgents in the south and their occassional forays in Kashmir against the Indians.

PT
Pragmatic Thinker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2007   #56
tequila
Council Member
 
tequila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,665
Default

PT - Don't misunderstand me, I am hardly a Musharraf apologist. I think the best result for all would actually be if he resigned and left the country and open elections were held - unfortunately he appears to believe that he is Ataturk come again, sans French-style laicite, judging from my quick skim of his autobiography.

I do think, however, that a unilateral American intervention in the FATA would be seen by almost all the varied Pakistani publics as an American invasion.

I agree that it would certainly be to the good of both America and Pakistan if joint ops could be run - though I do think that the U.S. footprint in any such should be small and avoid any appearance of occupation. A Filipino- or Colombian-style advisor/trainer program would be best, with a discreet American air presence as well.

An important thing to remember, however, is the large Pashtun constituency in the Army --- I think they are upwards of 25% of the officer corps. In intra-Army politics, while they do not constitute a single faction, the feelings of Pashtun officers, who often have clan or family affiliations in FATA, cannot be ignored as is the case in Baluchistan. This is another case where a democratic civilian leader would be less amenable to Army pressure than a general like Musharraf.
tequila is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2007   #57
Pragmatic Thinker
Council Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: VA
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tequila View Post
An important thing to remember, however, is the large Pashtun constituency in the Army --- I think they are upwards of 25% of the officer corps. In intra-Army politics, while they do not constitute a single faction, the feelings of Pashtun officers, who often have clan or family affiliations in FATA, cannot be ignored as is the case in Baluchistan. This is another case where a democratic civilian leader would be less amenable to Army pressure than a general like Musharraf.
I agree that sympathies within the ranks is a problem and that factionalism is something of a problem too...Pashtu, Baluch, or Punjab...especially when you consider the company level leadership (where the rubber meets the road and policy is executed) mirrors the ethnic make-up of the civilian populace. I have seen where local border commanders are sympathetic if not complicit in allowing armed personnel to cross the border into Afghanistan. It isn't so much they're anti-American but they don't "see" the battlefield the same way we do. If their cousins go up on a hill and fire off rockets because the local imam paid them x-amount of rupees to do it, they don't see that as dishonorable but merely a way to make a living and feed their families, and in the end who gets killed? Some Afghans and Americans? Oh well, as long as they didn't bring dishonor to their tribal faction then they're good to go. I fully understand the internal problems but lose patience easily. I am, however, glad to see the latest round of Pakistani actions in regards to the Red Mosque and the FATA. I only hope this lasts longer than the remainder of the summer and we see a long term commitment to the fight against these religious extremists and fighters.

PT
Pragmatic Thinker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2007   #58
wm
Council Member
 
wm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: On the Lunatic Fringe
Posts: 1,237
Default

The appeal to operations like the Phillippines is problematic. Local perceptions of US involvement during the Phillippine Insurrection at the beginning of the last century painted us as supporting the Catholic Filipino minority in certain Moro areas. We were, therefore, largely viewed by the Islamic Moros as "handmaidens" of the Filipino oppressors, which I suspect caused the insurrection to last much longer than it m,ight have otherwise. I fear a similar type of reaction by the Pashto tribes, where we would be perceived as supporting the Punjabis to suppress them should we engage in in a joint intervention/AQ-Taleban hunt in the tribal areas. I suspect that we are caught in a similar kind of perception trap in Iraq right now, vis-a-vis Sunnis and Shias.

In matters of the kind under discussion here, perception (no matter how distorted) is reality for most of those involved.
wm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2007   #59
Tacitus
Council Member
 
Tacitus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bristol, Tennessee
Posts: 146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tequila View Post
What sort of offensive operations are you talking about? Are we talking about the 82nd Airborne or I MEF setting up shop independently in North Waziristan and basically occupying the area?

If so, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any Pakistani government that could survive under such circumstances.
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.
__________________
No signature required, my handshake is good enough.
Tacitus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2007   #60
Pragmatic Thinker
Council Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: VA
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tacitus View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
afghanistan, china, gwot, india, pakistan, saudi arabia

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror) Peter Dow OEF - Afghanistan 39 03-21-2014 01:56 PM
Step 1: Decentralize Afghanistan IntelTrooper OEF - Afghanistan 15 07-25-2009 12:57 PM
NATO's Afghanistan Challenge Ray OEF - Afghanistan 38 05-30-2007 09:10 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9. ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation