Is the U.S. Expanding it's War into Pakistan?

[DefConGuru]

Amidst the news of recent strikes inside Pakistan that have killed scores of civilians over the past few months and Musharraf stepping down, people both well placed and of average stock are asking, are these events coordinated in some fashion? Apart from that question, Pakistan is bearing a heavy burden on this war that it has no part of since it disbanded with the Taleban in 2001. Pakistan is a "major non-Nato ally" of the US and the old cliche line about keeping your friends close but enemies closer seems to be the strategy applied by Washington. From what I'm hearing there are reports of Pakistani troops finding Indian ammunition and weapons circulating amongst some of these terrorists in the north as well as new Indian intelligence posts dotting the border on both sides of Afganistan-Pakistan. That can't be a good sign. Do not be fooled into thinking India, Afghanistan, the US and other governments do not coordinate intelligence or operations in some fashion. I can't help but to think Pakistan is the recipient of these maneuvers and that the ISI is the scapegoat rather than close ally.

Tensions arise after a high level defense meeting between the US and Pakistan regarding the war on terror. A plausible outcome of the meeting could have been Pakistan denying the US the right to carry out cross border operations. The US won't comment on what was discussed other than it participated in day long talks.

Is there a possibility that the US overreaches in the near future and provokes Pakistan or a large portion of it into a war possibly including other neighbor states such as Iran? What the US calls "pressuring" may be translated as "aggression" and being a country with nukes and Nawaz Sharif back at the helm, anything is possible.

Links to read for verification of above notions :

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/india/raw/index.html


http://www.military.com/news/article/top-brass-meet-pakistanis-aboard-carrier.html


http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5473

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7761

 

[John Sansom]

Howdy, DefConGuru....and, while appreciating your post, I had a wee problem following the logic thereof. That may well be my fault....not yours. The discovery of Indian-made arms and ammunition in forward operating areas shouldn't be too surprising...although I get your point. For instance, the Kalashnikov is ubiquitous, but that doesn't mean that the weapon's appearance in an LA shootout indicates Russian involvement. Just sayin'.

And I rather suspect that recent (and probably not so recent) US air strikes and other incursions into the border "tribal areas" have a "make-up" quality to them, stemming from Tora Borah days when somebody with policy and military clout refused to put a blocking force into place against a retreating al Quaeda. There's a sort of "never again" quality to all this.

I must also admit that my "wee problem" also extends to the cited references. Three of them have a certain axe-grinding quality to them. Obviously, however, you have expended more research time and labour into this than many others--including yours truly--and your posts are always worth reading. Thanks.

 

[Marc 1]

Guru, yeah its a bit puzzling. On the one hand I can sympathise with the frustration the coalition forces must face - terrorists that just slip across the border to supposed safety when necessary. Particularly when their so called ally in Pakistan is either too weak to sort out its tribal areas or perhaps doesn't want to (saying one thing, doing another). I suspect that the former Musharref Govt would have liked to do something about the areas not under tight government control but I'd say there was a gentleman's agreement that the radicals and taliban would leave the government alone provided it didn't stick its nose into their areas.

So the US does the 'logical' thing when you are the largest superpower left - you go in and start sorting the problem out yourself. Infringing the sovereignty of Pakistan can be justified due to insurgents infringing Aghanistans soverignty all the time (tit for tat). Only problem is the rest of the world won't see it that way, and will inflame every Muslim country on the planet. This is a bad idea if things escalate as the US is already heavily committed as it is, and doesn't need a Pakistan that has been overthrown by radicals (a la Iran 1978) and a second front to fight on.

I'm betting the NATO countries were just a tad angry at these anoymous cross border raids - it can only have the side effect of bringing further issues for these countries internal security.

So the coalition if it doesn't want to be 'responsible' for these incursions they need to seal the border - much easier said than done without greatly increased troop numbers. So they are kinda stuck.

Or... Is it that the US is trying to bring on the 'big battle' - taking this chance to clean out Pakistan and Iran whilst the Israelis sort out their problems too. Given that America's allies would be semi-unwittingly drawn into this it could be 'the big showdown'? This is a tad far fetched but I wonder whether it is being considered.

 

[DefConGuru]

Howdy, DefConGuru....and, while appreciating your post, I had a wee problem following the logic thereof. That may well be my fault....not yours. The discovery of Indian-made arms and ammunition in forward operating areas shouldn't be too surprising...although I get your point. For instance, the Kalashnikov is ubiquitous, but that doesn't mean that the weapon's appearance in an LA shootout indicates Russian involvement. Just sayin'.

And I rather suspect that recent (and probably not so recent) US air strikes and other incursions into the border "tribal areas" have a "make-up" quality to them, stemming from Tora Borah days when somebody with policy and military clout refused to put a blocking force into place against a retreating al Quaeda. There's a sort of "never again" quality to all this.

I must also admit that my "wee problem" also extends to the cited references. Three of them have a certain axe-grinding quality to them. Obviously, however, you have expended more research time and labour into this than many others--including yours truly--and your posts are always worth reading. Thanks.

Appreciate your thoughts, points well taken.

 

[DefConGuru]

Guru, yeah its a bit puzzling. On the one hand I can sympathise with the frustration the coalition forces must face - terrorists that just slip across the border to supposed safety when necessary. Particularly when their so called ally in Pakistan is either too weak to sort out its tribal areas or perhaps doesn't want to (saying one thing, doing another). I suspect that the former Musharref Govt would have liked to do something about the areas not under tight government control but I'd say there was a gentleman's agreement that the radicals and taliban would leave the government alone provided it didn't stick its nose into their areas.

So the US does the 'logical' thing when you are the largest superpower left - you go in and start sorting the problem out yourself. Infringing the sovereignty of Pakistan can be justified due to insurgents infringing Aghanistans soverignty all the time (tit for tat). Only problem is the rest of the world won't see it that way, and will inflame every Muslim country on the planet. This is a bad idea if things escalate as the US is already heavily committed as it is, and doesn't need a Pakistan that has been overthrown by radicals (a la Iran 1978) and a second front to fight on.

I'm betting the NATO countries were just a tad angry at these anoymous cross border raids - it can only have the side effect of bringing further issues for these countries internal security.

So the coalition if it doesn't want to be 'responsible' for these incursions they need to seal the border - much easier said than done without greatly increased troop numbers. So they are kinda stuck.

Or... Is it that the US is trying to bring on the 'big battle' - taking this chance to clean out Pakistan and Iran whilst the Israelis sort out their problems too. Given that America's allies would be semi-unwittingly drawn into this it could be 'the big showdown'? This is a tad far fetched but I wonder whether it is being considered.

Marc,

What I think should be done first is sealing the border from the Afghan side as you said. I mean since there are 70,000 coalition troops already there for that reason, achieving some basic objectives would drastically cut off escape routes to Pakistan and back.
Yes there was a gentleman sort of verbal agreement in place between specific areas and the government of Pakistan but it's hardly been stable and right now is nonexistent.
Also everytime there is a terrorist act in Afghanistan hardly means that Pakistan is behind it.
Also this "big battle" type scenario you ventured into of course is being and has been considered by not only defense enthusiasts but probably every self respecting defense analyst/military tactician there is. Contingency planning in itself is an industry

If the US can show some patience and start winning a few hearts and minds in the process that would be super.

 

[bey1919]

relation between pak and usa is in similar trend like usa turkey both these countries use to be nato allies also Us. operation to iraq and afghanistan had similar affects to pakistan and turkey. bombing pakistani villages under the name of fight against terrorism ,also supporting the pkk against turkey in north iraq seems to be one big plan to me ,we can expect colder relations between pakistan and usa also turkey and usa !. these can even be seen in latest georgian crisis. Muserref can go president X can come but few things could change after these types of actions also the way paks and turks consider the alliance of usa in positive .

 

[Marc 1]

Marc,

What I think should be done first is sealing the border from the Afghan side as you said. I mean since there are 70,000 coalition troops already there for that reason, achieving some basic objectives would drastically cut off escape routes to Pakistan and back.

If the US can show some patience and start winning a few hearts and minds in the process that would be super.

Guru, Seriously difficult to seal the border without maybe trebling the troop commitment. Remember, the number of warfighters need to be backed by 2,3 or 4 times the number of blanket counters etc. Sure UAV's and sensors can help to secure the border, but troops are needed to search for and confirm kills. UAV's are not entirely all weather systems so trying to use technology will not work by itself.

Hearts and minds is such a difficult issue. For every major dam component the coalition forces install, they only need to kill a few innocents or even none at all and the other side turns it into "The one roomed house that was hit contained 937 children and disabled mothers" type scenario. The local population would probably like to back any regieme less repressive than the taliban, BUT the question they are asking is "how long will they be here?" The example of Iraq hasn't helped - NATO and the US need to make a 30 year commitment to stay and assist, otherwise the locals will not help for fear of reprisals when the coalition goes. Unfortunately, the coalition in their attempts to minimise their own casualties (laudable) is taking out too many civillians. But short of hunting down each and everry insurgent with small arms fire alone, this will continue to occur.

Unfortunately, people at home in Germany, Georgia, USA and Australia etc will get sick of the constant death toll and monetary black hole that modern operations will demand, and Afghanistan will be slowly transitioned to autonomy and independence. Which will mean that the Afghan govt will survive in Kabul for a few years whilst the countryside reverts to taliban controlled areas, before surprise surprise, Kabul falls. Situation Normal All F*cked Up, back to where they were in 2001, only this time the taliban will belive it has defeated the Russians and now the USA. Unpalateable but probably forseeable the way things are panning out.

The Taliban has the upper hand here - porous borders they can evaporate over, with adjoining populations that are basically laws unto themselves. Remember the country is surrounded by Iran and all the 'stans (Turkmen, Uzbek, Tajiki, and ****) so it's a massive border. The protagonists are religously and ideologically very different and both sides will not back down or reach an arrangement with the other. Mountainous terrain that is full of hidey holes developed over the past 29 years to hide in. A population that supports the basic tenements of the taliban, if not all they espouse, and finally a history of past invaders (Brits in the 20's, Russians in '79, and now the Coalition in 2001, that have all been beaten. There are few insurgent battlefields that are more suited to success.

So, unless we see a truly UN response, a trebling of the forces, and a 30 plus year commitment to the country, unfortunately its a doomed campaign. This is why I was putting forward the major conflict scenario - a clean out once and for all - a WWIII on religeous and ideological grounds - makes me cold and sick just thinking about it, but perhaps there are some wack jobs that believe this is the only way forward. I hope not.

 

[DefConGuru]

Guru, Seriously difficult to seal the border without maybe trebling the troop commitment. Remember, the number of warfighters need to be backed by 2,3 or 4 times the number of blanket counters etc. Sure UAV's and sensors can help to secure the border, but troops are needed to search for and confirm kills. UAV's are not entirely all weather systems so trying to use technology will not work by itself.

Hearts and minds is such a difficult issue. For every major dam component the coalition forces install, they only need to kill a few innocents or even none at all and the other side turns it into "The one roomed house that was hit contained 937 children and disabled mothers" type scenario. The local population would probably like to back any regieme less repressive than the taliban, BUT the question they are asking is "how long will they be here?" The example of Iraq hasn't helped - NATO and the US need to make a 30 year commitment to stay and assist, otherwise the locals will not help for fear of reprisals when the coalition goes. Unfortunately, the coalition in their attempts to minimise their own casualties (laudable) is taking out too many civillians. But short of hunting down each and everry insurgent with small arms fire alone, this will continue to occur.

Unfortunately, people at home in Germany, Georgia, USA and Australia etc will get sick of the constant death toll and monetary black hole that modern operations will demand, and Afghanistan will be slowly transitioned to autonomy and independence. Which will mean that the Afghan govt will survive in Kabul for a few years whilst the countryside reverts to taliban controlled areas, before surprise surprise, Kabul falls. Situation Normal All F*cked Up, back to where they were in 2001, only this time the taliban will belive it has defeated the Russians and now the USA. Unpalateable but probably forseeable the way things are panning out.

The Taliban has the upper hand here - porous borders they can evaporate over, with adjoining populations that are basically laws unto themselves. Remember the country is surrounded by Iran and all the 'stans (Turkmen, Uzbek, Tajiki, and ****) so it's a massive border. The protagonists are religously and ideologically very different and both sides will not back down or reach an arrangement with the other. Mountainous terrain that is full of hidey holes developed over the past 29 years to hide in. A population that supports the basic tenements of the taliban, if not all they espouse, and finally a history of past invaders (Brits in the 20's, Russians in '79, and now the Coalition in 2001, that have all been beaten. There are few insurgent battlefields that are more suited to success.

So, unless we see a truly UN response, a trebling of the forces, and a 30 plus year commitment to the country, unfortunately its a doomed campaign. This is why I was putting forward the major conflict scenario - a clean out once and for all - a WWIII on religeous and ideological grounds - makes me cold and sick just thinking about it, but perhaps there are some wack jobs that believe this is the only way forward. I hope not.

I don't remember troop numbers being in deficient levels fielded by NATO/UN/US/UK/ etc nor a deficiency in resources...it's just that getting even any one nation to take a higher level of burden in Afghanistan is mostly rejected by leaders and their constituents alike. What then gives ISAF the right to place the weight of this failed campaign on Pakistan, who is reeling from internal upheaval stemming from this exact reason?

The failure is not at the military level. I am fully aware of what the capabilities of the ISAF forces are. Politics and core beliefs are to blame.

 

[Marc 1]

I don't remember troop numbers being in deficient levels fielded by NATO/UN/US/UK/ etc nor a deficiency in resources...it's just that getting even any one nation to take a higher level of burden in Afghanistan is mostly rejected by leaders and their constituents alike. What then gives ISAF the right to place the weight of this failed campaign on Pakistan, who is reeling from internal upheaval stemming from this exact reason?

The failure is not at the military level. I am fully aware of what the capabilities of the ISAF forces are. Politics and core beliefs are to blame.

OK, you agree that the borders need to be sealed but troop levels are not deficient? How do you secure the borders of this county from its neighbours if not with troops?

I think that the ISAF forces are realists enough to see that Pakistan cannot control its northern borders, but that does not justify univited incursions by foreign troops. If for no other reason than it makes the incumbent Pakistani government look even more impotent, thus weakening it further.

Could you elaborate on what you mean in your last paragraph.

 

[DefConGuru]

OK, you agree that the borders need to be sealed but troop levels are not deficient? How do you secure the borders of this county from its neighbours if not with troops?

I think that the ISAF forces are realists enough to see that Pakistan cannot control its northern borders, but that does not justify univited incursions by foreign troops. If for no other reason than it makes the incumbent Pakistani government look even more impotent, thus weakening it further.

Could you elaborate on what you mean in your last paragraph.

I'm just saying the nations participating in Afghanistan have enough troops and resources at home to really commit to sealing the border, if that is a goal at all. Personally I think they let the situation on the border lax in order to involve Pakistan as the scapegoat once again.

Also I must question the motives of foreign involvement in Afghanistan...the taliban is out of power yet the country still looks like the Russians came through it yesterday. Very little money has been spent on rebuilding Afghanistan and introducing some sort of a legit economy. Conflicting realities prolong wars.

 

[Marc 1]

I'm just saying the nations participating in Afghanistan have enough troops and resources at home to really commit to sealing the border, if that is a goal at all. Personally I think they let the situation on the border lax in order to involve Pakistan as the scapegoat once again.

Also I must question the motives of foreign involvement in Afghanistan...the taliban is out of power yet the country still looks like the Russians came through it yesterday. Very little money has been spent on rebuilding Afghanistan and introducing some sort of a legit economy. Conflicting realities prolong wars.

OK, I see what you are talking about in your first paragraph and agree that in an all out effort all of the nations involved could double or even triple their commitment if there existed the political will. The problem is the NATO countries (correctly) do not perceive this to be a problem they wanted in the first place and are only grudgingly there in whatever minimum numbers they can get away with. After all, the US wanted the war, didn't consult and went like a bull at a gate at the problem - to quote GWB "you are either with us or against us" (a particularly narrow minded and arrogant approach IMHO). So that's why there is limited interest in the country. To a NATO country it will cost plenty of dollars and many young lives, yet deliver next to no benefit.

Given these restrictions ^ its not surprising that there are insufficient troops to seal the border - only I don't see the conspiracy here, I just see nations with overstretched militaries (US, UK, Aust), and nations that are grudgingly doing the minimum (the rest of NATO and possibly Aust).

The lack of development is concerning - much of it comes down to the perilous security situation, the fact that the Iraqi theatre has soaked up the majority of resources, and some of the usual stupidities of differing organisations not being well co-ordinated. A case in point was this:

Dirty laundry

“My biggest regret about Afghanistan is over a washing machine,” says Stuart Tootal. The machine in question was in a hospital in Gereshk in the south of Helmand and was discovered by Tootal’s men on their first patrol in May 2006.

“The hospital sheets were filthy and the doctor said they couldn’t wash them,” he explained. “But we said, ‘You have an industrial washing machine sitting there in cellophane.’”

The US aid agency that had donated it withdrew when the British arrived so it had never been installed.An engineer with Tootal said that could be rectified, but they had not reckoned with the Department for International Development. It saw aid as its area and disliked “quick impact” projects.

“They didn’t want the military going into hospitals and they said we would tread on the toes of an aid agency even though it wasn’t doing anything,” said Tootal. “I said, ‘It doesn’t have to be done under the cloak of 3 Para. We can dress ourselves up as Afghans, do it at night. We just need to fix it.’”

The government officials refused, so for the whole of 3 Para’s six months in Helmand, the machine sat there in its plastic wrapping.

Tootal believes failure to carry out such “hearts and minds” operations has cost Britain in the long run. “It would have made us stand apart from the usual Afghan experience of foreigners constantly promising and not delivering,” he said.
__________________


From The Sunday Times

July 20, 2008

Over and out: former para on why he quit the Army after Afghanistan

In his first newspaper interview, ex-para commander Stuart Tootal tells Christina Lamb why his Afghan experience made him quit

Perfect example of the degree of stupidity. If the US had devoted the troops and reconstruction money lavished (wasted) on Iraq perhaps the situation would be different. They forgot the first rule of warfare "Selection and maintenance of the aim". Then again a cynic (who, me?) would suggest that as there was no oil under Afghanistan it was always destined to be a sideshow anyway.

Anyway, that's my take on the whole deal. I'd love to think we could help the peoples of Afghanistan, and would like to think that the countries involved would sink trillions of dollars on the country over the next 30 years, but sadly, we all know it won't happen and the poor bloody afghani's will be back where they started in about 5 to 7 years. Sad but probably true.

 

[shrike]

This is really just a couple of questions for everyone. I would like to know your opinions on this.

In your opinion, which parts of the Afghan border should be controlled more tightly by NATO/US? Which are the crucial choke points?

Shouldn`t the Pakistanis be more involved with the security on their side of the border, making the Frontier Corps (and other agencies) take a greater role in the search for the Taleban, Al-Qaeda and their supporters and how could this be achieved?

There is some kind of agreement between Pakistan and the US, to allow some level of military incursions onto their (Pakistani) territory by US forces. How much could the "cooperation" be broadened?

I`m in favor of limited incursions and/or special forces missions on Pakistans territory at the time to get at the people who matter (leaders, commanders).There shouldn`t be just fighting the insurgents in Afghanistan. Because many of the main staging areas are in Pakistan.

 

[Marc 1]

This is really just a couple of questions for everyone. I would like to know your opinions on this.

In your opinion, which parts of the Afghan border should be controlled more tightly by NATO/US? Which are the crucial choke points?

Shouldn`t the Pakistanis be more involved with the security on their side of the border, making the Frontier Corps (and other agencies) take a greater role in the search for the Taleban, Al-Qaeda and their supporters and how could this be achieved?

There is some kind of agreement between Pakistan and the US, to allow some level of military incursions onto their (Pakistani) territory by US forces. How much could the "cooperation" be broadened?

I`m in favor of limited incursions and/or special forces missions on Pakistans territory at the time to get at the people who matter (leaders, commanders).There shouldn`t be just fighting the insurgents in Afghanistan. Because many of the main staging areas are in Pakistan.

1. I suppose the obvious one is the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, although I do not know if the entire length of the border is a problem or just in the tribal areas of Pakistan. BUT if one area is closed the insurgents could just start using another part of the border. Afghanistan is surrounded by muslim populations - pick a border. Iran of course would love to do whatever it could to have a go at "the great satan" (US) and her lackeys.

2. Yes, the pakistanis should patrol their border more closely and eliminate the insurgents from their bases in the tribal areas. That's the 'book' answer. In truth the Pakistani government is only in charge of these regions in name only - in reality they are still controlled by local strongmen who have an unwritten agreement with the government to leave each other alone.

3. I don't know if there is any official or unofficial agreements for the US to conduct military ops on Pakistani soil, but the former government of Pervez Musharraf was certainly seen on the outside to be supporting the US, whether that actually what occurred, I don't know. The problem with obtaining permission and working with the Pakistani authorities I suspect is that sympathizers working in the security forces but in realityfor the taliban/Al Queda will tip off the targets. Thus making the cooperation useless.

4. Don't know if future cooperation will be possible given that Musharaf is no longer in power - the new govt is savvy enough to know that he was seen as a US lackey, so will probably want to be seen to be reducing cooperation with the US. So you could expect that outwardly no permissions will be granted in future, and if there are incursions and civillian deaths (and trust me its good propaganda for there to be heaps of children killed) then there will be official censure of the US. In that envioronment I can't see that going ahead with infringing another nations sovereignty is going to help - unless your goal is to provoke a war.

 

[shrike]

1. I suppose the obvious one is the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, although I do not know if the entire length of the border is a problem or just in the tribal areas of Pakistan. BUT if one area is closed the insurgents could just start using another part of the border. Afghanistan is surrounded by muslim populations - pick a border. Iran of course would love to do whatever it could to have a go at "the great satan" (US) and her lackeys.

Ideally all of the border should be under surveillance, I agree. But the means just aren`t there (number of troops, political will). From what I have read the Taleban threat is most serious in the south and east of the country (Helmand, Uruzgan, Nangarhar). So I think the security measures should be strictest in this part of the border. What do you and others think?

How serious is the Iranian involvment? I mean, I have heard the talk about the "usual suspects" in the news, but didn`t find anything concrete or as serious as the situation on the Afghan-Pakistan border. Do you perhaps have anything more on this?

2. Yes, the pakistanis should patrol their border more closely and eliminate the insurgents from their bases in the tribal areas. That's the 'book' answer. In truth the Pakistani government is only in charge of these regions in name only - in reality they are still controlled by local strongmen who have an unwritten agreement with the government to leave each other alone.

Yes, there are realities on the ground that you just can`t avoid. But it also makes the whole "intrusions upon Pakistans sovereignity", the case that they are making, pretty much void. In my opinion, this talk is very much directed at appeasing the "street" (public opinion). I think this makes a neat grey area for the US to stage limited attacks (small units, sof, drone attacks etc.) upon high value targets. Those agreements with local strongmen were/are a nice thing for the Pakistani government to have. We leave you alone and you leave us alone, thus ensuring a firmer grip on power for the government. But don`t they (the strongmen etc.) allow themselves a little bit to much?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/world/asia/22pstan.html

I know that Pakistan is more focused on India. I mean the majority of the regular armed forces are staged near the LOC. But still. Where is the breaking point so to speak, for harder crackdowns in the tribal areas?

3. I don't know if there is any official or unofficial agreements for the US to conduct military ops on Pakistani soil, but the former government of Pervez Musharraf was certainly seen on the outside to be supporting the US, whether that actually what occurred, I don't know. The problem with obtaining permission and working with the Pakistani authorities I suspect is that sympathizers working in the security forces but in realityfor the taliban/Al Queda will tip off the targets. Thus making the cooperation useless.

4. Don't know if future cooperation will be possible given that Musharaf is no longer in power - the new govt is savvy enough to know that he was seen as a US lackey, so will probably want to be seen to be reducing cooperation with the US. So you could expect that outwardly no permissions will be granted in future, and if there are incursions and civillian deaths (and trust me its good propaganda for there to be heaps of children killed) then there will be official censure of the US. In that envioronment I can't see that going ahead with infringing another nations sovereignty is going to help - unless your goal is to provoke a war.

The new president of Pakistan is also pro American. This Bhutto thing must have overshadowed the fact or he has some very good PR staff.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7605108.stm

Wasn`t Adm. Fallon talking to the Pakistan Army Chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani a few weeks ago?

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h9ouQblNI19Zg5reaiPw4YRoxang

Some sort of cooperation must be going on. Also the history of US-Pakistan cooperation is relatively good. At least since 9/11, with a bit of coersion from the US. And the US is selling military equipment to Pakistan. F-16s, P-3s, Harpoon missiles. I mean that is some heavy stuff. And basically, the Pakistan is only talking a lot about the US operating on their soil. Haven`t heard that they have done anything else.

I agree with cooperation being tough. The problem with the ISI having ties to many insurgent leaders comes to mind and the mounting of civilian casualties is bad, really bad especially in a counterinsurgency where you have to win the hearts and mind of people. Also making sure that the Pakistani government doesn`t get under fire for the US troops killing civilians, which should be avoided in the first place.

What should be the next course of action for Pakistan and US regarding the tribal areas in Pakistan? More military action, talking with leaders (I think wringing them a little bit first would be good, just to make them serious about the talks), social and economic incentives?

 

[Marc 1]

Shrike, I was way out of touch with the new government in Pakistan - thanks for those two reports. I'm surprised that there is still a pro american sentiment, and even more surprised that there is an attempt to soften up the taliban in the tribal areas. It'd be magic if they could shift the nasties and properly control that frontier, but I'd say we won't see that degree of change (happy to be proved wrong though).

When you say keep the border under surveillance - you need to also have troops that can quickly respond to that surveillance. And to ensure that these troops that have been placed near the border to react to sightings are not just sitting targets, they need to patrol and deny the terrain around these bases to the enemy. Establishing ambushes and patrols as well as having a large enough force to respond to insurgent sighting will still require lots of manpower.

As to your question about Iran I have absolutely no evidence that this is happening, however based on the way Iran has been proven to be aiding resistance in Iraq (its other major neighbour), and actively seeding people into the new Iraqi govenment and security forces, I'd be astonished if they weren't trying the same in Afghanistan. Remember, ever since the fall of the Shah in when '78? - America has been their bitter enemy.

 

[shrike]

When you say keep the border under surveillance - you need to also have troops that can quickly respond to that surveillance. And to ensure that these troops that have been placed near the border to react to sightings are not just sitting targets, they need to patrol and deny the terrain around these bases to the enemy. Establishing ambushes and patrols as well as having a large enough force to respond to insurgent sighting will still require lots of manpower.

Yes, I agree.

About US attacks on Pakistans territory, Frontier Corps efforts for curbing the insurgents and much more I found this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07pakistan-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

[Type59]

Just a question? Why does everyone underestimate the difficulty of sealing the border? Just read any geography reports on the region. Very rugged and is covered with trees. Has any nation succeeded in closing a border? US cannot prevent drugs going over the border to Pak its not possible for Pak to prevent people do the same.

Also we need to agree factors on both sides of border are fueling war. It would be easier for US to reduce narco revenue because hundreds of millions of dollars they are estimated to get, then to launched very limited incurions. The money they raise can buy of goverment officials and soldiers on both sides of border.

This might challenge perceptions all Pastuns support Taliban in Pakistan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7595827.stm

 

[shrike]

Just a question? Why does everyone underestimate the difficulty of sealing the border? Just read any geography reports on the region. Very rugged and is covered with trees. Has any nation succeeded in closing a border? US cannot prevent drugs going over the border to Pak its not possible for Pak to prevent people do the same.

Also we need to agree factors on both sides of border are fueling war. It would be easier for US to reduce narco revenue because hundreds of millions of dollars they are estimated to get, then to launched very limited incurions. The money they raise can buy of goverment officials and soldiers on both sides of border.

This might challenge perceptions all Pastuns support Taliban in Pakistan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7595827.stm

I think I said in one of my previous posts that troop levels and the political will does not exist to seal the border. Adding, what you said, about the terrain and lack of precedense for sealing a nations border completely. And the US can`t or won`t even seal its border with Mexico. As far as I can tell it only works with walls. (Berlin wall, Great Wall of China, "Korean Wall", the wall between Israel and the West bank, the Iron Courtain etc.) Not gona see that here though.

About the funds the Taliban get from the narco trade. Yes, it should be dealt with. Cut the major source of funding for them. But I don`t think this is easy to do.Tehnically you can do it by burning the fields. A pretty obvious no-go. The farmer would loose his livehood and turn against US/NATO and support the people who can get him his income. The Taliban would, in a manner of speak, greet him with open arms. Could US/NATO offer him a substitute crop to grow, with a little incentive? Yes, that would be one of the more prudent course of action. Of course the US and NATO countries must reach a policy consensus about this. I would advocate for this policy. There is unfortunately political will required to do so and a lot of it at that. The poppy crop could also be simpy bought up by the US so no money would find itself to the insurgents. Difficult because of the US War on Drugs (zero tolerance). Even if it doesn`t work (the W.on drugs). For example Turkey used this action dealing with its own poppy crop problems in the past. They bought up the crops. The poppy was then processed by pharmaceutical companies and the farmers slowly began to grow your basic food crops.

The incursions is just one of many tools to apply to the War in Afghanistan.
The thread title was about the US going into Pakistan so we were focusing kinda more on that.

Not all Pastuns are supporting the Taliban. That would just be a stupid overgeneralization.

 

[Aliph Ahmed]

I think I said in one of my previous posts that troop levels and the political will does not exist to seal the border. Adding, what you said, about the terrain and lack of precedense for sealing a nations border completely. And the US can`t or won`t even seal its border with Mexico. As far as I can tell it only works with walls. (Berlin wall, Great Wall of China, "Korean Wall", the wall between Israel and the West bank, the Iron Courtain etc.) Not gona see that here though.

Pakistan has 80,000+ troops deployed. Anyone has any idea how many does NATO deploy at the border ?

Fencing the border idea was floated by Pakistan which was shot down. If USA was really and seriously concerned, she should have backed Pakistan for a short terrm untill the insurgency have been minimized.

This was an uncalled war Pakistan never asked for just like NATO. However, Pakistan lost more soldiers then whole of occupying countries under the cover of UN (whatever) have lost combined.

The main problem is lack of trust and coordination between the two countries specially on the part of USA. Why is USA holding back providing Pakistan real time information so that they can act in their own backyard ? and spare me the rogue element theory. The same can be applied for USA as well.

 

[Type59]

I think I said in one of my previous posts that troop levels and the political will does not exist to seal the border. Adding, what you said, about the terrain and lack of precedense for sealing a nations border completely. And the US can`t or won`t even seal its border with Mexico. As far as I can tell it only works with walls. (Berlin wall, Great Wall of China, "Korean Wall", the wall between Israel and the West bank, the Iron Courtain etc.) Not gona see that here though.

There was suggestions to mine and fence the wall. But Karzai rejected it. I think US was happy with Musharrafs idea. Even when fence was put up they were pulled down by Afghans citing this was an attempt to annex land (Border dispute from the British era). Even official Torkham border crossing both sides do not search everyone. It was video showing how people crossed without being challenged on CBS last month. People described themselves as "free tribes".