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

[Marc 1]

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

Nope, not underestimating the difficulty of sealing the border, that's why I pointed out you'd need three times the troop numbers and significant use of technology to achieve it. As you point out even then it would not be hermatically sealed - but it would help stop the flow of fighters and weapons to and from the country. It would significantly hinder the way the taliban operate in the border regions.

Thanks for the link - it shows two things - 1 the people may not like the taliban, but without a guarantee the ISAF forces would be there for years to come the villagers on the whole will not actively turn against the talibs. If they did and ISAF on a political whim cleared out next month, those people would be killed when the talibs returned. 2. It's good to see that some of the population are willing to take up arms against the buggers, now, quickly ISAF, get the aid and reconstruction going there to 'reward' the population for their cooperation.

Still needs long term guarantees and commitment to work.

 

[DefConGuru]

To those of you who question Pakistan's commitment to curbing violence, they have lost over 4,000 troops since operations began. These are all published statistics. They attacked a mosque in their capital city that was a terrorist hangout. They've done a lot imo.

 

[John Sansom]

This business of "border surveillance" and air strikes in the "tribal areas" has a very familiar ring to it, one that harks back to Britain's days of empire and all that. One often hears today's situation in Afghanistan likened to that distant time when "Britain couldn't hang on to the country either."

Fact is, the main function of British imperial troops in that poor beknighted (and yet beautiful) country was to actively discourage Russia's ceaseless pressure on the northern borders as it sought to extend its dominance to the southern seas and those much coveted warm water ports. Fighting the Pathan--who weren't buying either Russian or British blandishments--was part of the job. Britain had India to worry about--then inclusive of Pakistan--and was not about to let the Khyber Pass and Kipling's "Afghan snows" become a Russian highway or playground.

Funny how these things keep on repeating themselves.

 

[Marc 1]

To those of you who question Pakistan's commitment to curbing violence, they have lost over 4,000 troops since operations began. These are all published statistics. They attacked a mosque in their capital city that was a terrorist hangout. They've done a lot imo.

True 4000 dead is serious commitment, but is it because the government sees these radicals as a threat to it or because the US has asked them to take action? Or is it because they thought they'd do their bit to help in Afghanistan by controlling the tribal areas and border?

I'd suggest that the Pakistani government over generations has long acknowledged the need to take control of these rebellious provinces - this is the perfect time to take that action as public opinion is temporarily in the government favour and the talb's across the border in Afghanistan will be too busy engaging with ISAF to assist their brothers in Pakistan. Good on them for hooking in, but I'd say their motives are not altogether altruistic.

 

[Caspian237]

Hello. First post in this interesting Forum.

I was thinking about the earlier discussion regarding Afghanistan's drug trade and its links with the insurgency. It seems that the international community spends billions of Dollars combating the drug trade. What if the allied countries were to covertly buy Afghanistan's drugs and safely dispose of them. Politically dangerous and unconventional, but I think it could lead to positive results.

It could deny funding to the Taliban. As the policy expanded, the coalition forces could book mark the poppy producers for more overt actions in the future. The policy would be expensive yet may yield savings in the greater battle against the drug trade and also in military operations against the Taliban who would have less resources themselves. Infilitration of the drug trade may also provide a boon to intelligence gathering.

Just a thought.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

link to Source

The Pakistani Army has been given orders to retaliate against any unilateral strike by the Afghanistan-based US troops inside the country.

Army Spokesman Maj Gen Athar Abbas confirmed the orders in a brief interview with Geo News on late Thursday night.

The decision was made on the first day of the two-day meeting of Pakistan's top military commanders to discuss the US coalition's ground and air assault in Waziristan region which killed dozens of civilians.

Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani chaired the meeting which began in Rawalpindi on Thursday at the Army General Headquarters.

Pakistan's military commanders expressed their determination to defend the country's borders without allowing any external forces to conduct operations inside the tribal belt bordering Afghanistan, sources said.

A senior official said the military commanders also discussed the implications of the American attacks inside Pakistan and took stock of the public feeling.

"In his statement, Genral Kayani has represented the feeling of the entire nation, as random attacks inside Pakistan have angered each and every Pakistani," he said.

Earlier on Wednesday, Kayani rebuffed the American policy of including Pakistani territory in their operations against the al-Qaeda and Taliban linked militants hiding in the areas near Afghan border.

Also, Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani noted that Kayani's remarks on country's defense were true reflection of the government policy.

The army decision followed bloody incursions by the US ground troops into tribal belt as well as a string of missile strikes by CIA-operated drone aircraft.

The reaction also comes after US President George W. Bush approved US military raids on militants inside Pakistan without Islamabad's agreement.

The development also brought into the open the increasing mistrust between the Americans and the Pakistanis over how to handle the Taliban and al-Qaeda linked militants in Pakistan's tribal areas.

Some political expert predict the break out of an all-out war between the United States troops and Pakistani army following the Bush administration's approval of ground and air assaults inside the country.

JR/DT

Pakistan cannot defeat the US in a conventional war. Pakistan has Nuclear weapons.

 

[John Sansom]

Hey, Stuart. I have no doubt that the Pakistani army and affected public are very unhappy indeed with US incursions in the so-called tribal areas. I rather suspect, however, that it is the unilateral nature of these strikes which the Pakistanis find galling. And I can't say I blame them for expressing outrage....that is, if the Theran-based source you cite has the story straight.

I would think, too, that US and other NATO force commanders are frustrated a mite by the "sieve" syndrome where local intelligence sharing is concerned; ergo the unilateral nature of these strikes.

As for full-scale "war" between the US and Pakistan.... Well, that's a whole lot less than likely. What is more probable is the continuing seizure of throwaway remarks by senior military personnel of whatever nationality by world media members seeking to rub salt into anti-US wounds (if you get my drift).

I think, too, that we might benefit from reminding ourselves that the United States was similarly outraged by the 9/11 business. If that had not occurred, people would be having to find another stick with which to beat George Bush and the UN would probably still be cogitating on how best to deal with Afghanistan's government as that worthy institution continued to mete out horrific punishments on its own populace for whatever religious affronts the mullahs could invent.

MY, I do go on! Sorrry about that.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Hey, Stuart. I have no doubt that the Pakistani army and affected public are very unhappy indeed with US incursions in the so-called tribal areas. I rather suspect, however, that it is the unilateral nature of these strikes which the Pakistanis find galling.

Indeed, perhaps they may even wish to defend their nation.

And I can't say I blame them for expressing outrage....that is, if the Theran-based source you cite has the story straight.

As the saying goes: "wise advice, even from a fool, is still wise advice"

I would think, too, that US and other NATO force commanders are frustrated a mite by the "sieve" syndrome where local intelligence sharing is concerned; ergo the unilateral nature of these strikes.

Nevertheless, attacking a nation that has nuclear weapons is not a wise move
especially when they have no other realistic alternative to their use if they wish to defend themselves..which is the entire point of the weapon.

As for full-scale "war" between the US and Pakistan.... Well, that's a whole lot less than likely. What is more probable is the continuing seizure of throwaway remarks by senior military personnel of whatever nationality by world media members seeking to rub salt into anti-US wounds (if you get my drift).

Do you really wish to be so cavalier when nukes are involved and is a nations only realistic defence?

 

[cheetah]

Iam going to take a shot at this if ia may.

1)Pakistan wants to expell all Afghans out of her territory.

Americans and AFGHAN puppet government objects.

2)Americans expect Pakistan to seal the border from her side but ALL NATO and so called supper power cant achieve that objective from Afghanistan side.

3)All Tali bans are apparently Pakistanis there is no afghan left to fight as they all are willing to accept occupying force.

4)afghan installed puppet controls part of Kabul not the entire state of Afghanistan.

cause again Pakistani tali bans are fighting the afghans on every front not the local population.

5)common knowledge Afghan presidents brother biggest drug lord and making millions/year from drug trade

again thats Pakistan's fault that drugs are grown and smuggled out of Afghanistan and Pakistanis should be doing some thing about that.

6)Indian Arms are being used by Terrorists Against pak acknowledged here(obviously same tali ban don't use these arms against NATO or American forces aim sure there is a gentleman agreement about that between Americans and tali ban)

6)Americans no tali bans use money generated by drugs but refuse to do any thing about it cause it will make the local against them.but they accept Pakistanis to attack and destroy there own.

7)war on drugs isn't cool any more as its American allies doing it but war on terror is cause they want Pakistan to find AMERICAN TRAINED Osama.

8)NATO nations are refusing to supply troops for Afghanistan other the few British and Canadians other so called NATO nations have a Representative or 2 there.they get any kind of weapon they like Pakistan isn't allowed to purchase any of that.but cause of a TITLE major non NATO Allie Pakistan should fight the American war.while Americans make nuclear deals with none NPT signatory INDIA.
but at the same time trying to blame for nuclear proliferation cause it wasn't the Americans who benefit from it that was wrong while Americans do it with Pakistan's biggest enemy its OK and Pakistanis should help Americans as much as possible.
nfloorl:

oh i almost forgot the money being paid for fuel and other services to Pakistan is being advertised as money given to Pakistan government for hep.at the same time billions that went to Afghanistan for help are no where to be seen but apparently thats Pakistan's fault to.:nutkick

 

[Type59]

Conventional war would not be good for either nation.

I think US should respect and relise Pakistan has its own interests in Afghanistan. They want a pro Pakistan or neutral government in Kabul. Karzai is acting tough on TV but behind closed doors is begging Pak govt for wheat. Karzai I think is well disliked by Pak military. There needs to be a bargain acceptable to all major players. US, Pakistan and ofcourse Afghans.

EdIT; Plus Pakistan, unlike Iran, has good ties with many nations China, GCC, EU and also North America. Have you heard any Pak president lauch a tirade against US and Europe? Bad relations in the short and long term would be major diplomatic failure.

 

[John Sansom]

Hi again, Stewart. Way to go and nice ripostes. But let me assure you that I have nothing but the highest respect for Pakistan's armed forces...and for the operational judgement calls they have made and will continue to make.
That's one reason I think an all-out war between Pakistan and NATO is extremely unlikely. I was not being cavalier

While I have some difficulty in understanding the vagaries of the country's civil government processes, I rather think that the elected membership and the civil service have a pretty good handle on things and deserve our respect.
Nothing cavalier about that either, and another reason for believeing that war 'twixt NATO forces and Pakistan is very unlikely.

You'll notice that I have referred to NATO twice; the point being that the US is not about to anger and alarm her NATO allies into stepping away from the alliance in Afghanistan or anywhere else. A third reason? I hope so.

Further to that, we in the West tend to forget that India is looming on Pakistan's eastern border. This is a country which also has armed forces of very significant capabilities and which, like Pakistan, is a friend and ally of the United States and of the European (as well as many other) countries. However, we cannot discount the historic lack of cordiality between the two nations....which serves as a subtle but effective brake against completely untoward actions. Or, at least, common sense would encourage such a view.

The bottom line is that there is more at work preventing a serious clash between Pakistan and the NATO forces in Afghanistan than there is promoting such an event.

What really concerns me about the incursions is that they should be considered necessary. The US, its NATO allies, and Pakistan must get together on this with a view to achieving desired effects with considerably more surgical skill. I suspect they're working on it...and I hope they're getting somewhere close to solving the conundrum.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Hi again, Stewart. Way to go and nice ripostes. But let me assure you that I have nothing but the highest respect for Pakistan's armed forces...and for the operational judgement calls they have made and will continue to make.

Really? I have no high regard for Pakistan's armed forces, at least in what they can acheive, and always potentially ready for a coup.

That's one reason I think an all-out war between Pakistan and NATO is extremely unlikely. I was not being cavalier

Given the cultural/religious make up of that nation and Bush's threat against them in 01, if the US invades the nation, regardless of the reason, then you have a good recipe for a war as invasions tend to be regarded as a Cassius Belli, no?

While I have some difficulty in understanding the vagaries of the country's civil government processes, I rather think that the elected membership and the civil service have a pretty good handle on things and deserve our respect.

Where on earth did you get that idea? the nation is riven by corruption and religious tension, especially the border regions, and it's been that way for countless centuries.

Nothing cavalier about that either, and another reason for believeing that war 'twixt NATO forces and Pakistan is very unlikely.

Except that the US invading the nation, or at least raiding them, will further push them into the arms of China, as that nation will be the only support they have left.

You'll notice that I have referred to NATO twice; the point being that the US is not about to anger and alarm her NATO allies into stepping away from the alliance in Afghanistan or anywhere else. A third reason? I hope so.

Why not? neither NATO or anyone else has stopped the US from anything in the past.

Further to that, we in the West tend to forget that India is looming on Pakistan's eastern border. This is a country which also has armed forces of very significant capabilities and which, like Pakistan, is a friend and ally of the United States and of the European (as well as many other) countries. However, we cannot discount the historic lack of cordiality between the two nations....which serves as a subtle but effective brake against completely untoward actions. Or, at least, common sense would encourage such a view.

You forget China, which has had a strong relationship with Pakistan since the 60's, US actions will further increase their influence, and who needs that if that influence may spread into Afghanistan?
We should be wary that US/NATO action does not make us play the USSR to China's USA of the 80's, what an irony that would be.

The bottom line is that there is more at work preventing a serious clash between Pakistan and the NATO forces in Afghanistan than there is promoting such an event.

Like what?

What really concerns me about the incursions is that they should be considered necessary.

What should concern you is an yet another Islamic nation is having its civilians getting killed by US bombs and missiles, do you understand this? Their actions will only validate what Islamic extremists have been saying all along and make the situation worse.
Their PM and defence chiefs have stated that they are willing to fight back against such raids as have occurred and the nation will support them.

The US, its NATO allies, and Pakistan must get together on this with a view to achieving desired effects with considerably more surgical skill. I suspect they're working on it...and I hope they're getting somewhere close to solving the conundrum.

Work together when the US is killing Pakistani civilians? not exactly positive encouragement I would have thought, the US government wont kill the Pakistani government for allowing their action, but their own citizens and armed forces just might, and they know it so who do you think they will side with?.
Pushing a nuclear armed Pakistan into the arms of China and Islamic extremists is not a good idea, invading a nuclear armed Pakistan that is prepared to fight NATO for invading them is an even less a good idea when they cannot fight back by conventional means do you understand the gravity of such a thing?

 

[radiosilence]

@Stuart Mackey

You mentioned US action will push Pakistan push them into the arms of China. China is already Pakistan most trusted ally, how much further can one push them into the arms of China?

 

[cheetah]

Where on earth did you get that idea? the nation is riven by corruption and religious tension, especially the border regions, and it's been that way for countless centuries.

Please if u don't no the history i suggest don't comment on it Pakistan got independence from British in 1947 thats makes her 61 how do u come up with centuries.

Really? I have no high regard for Pakistan's armed forces, at least in what they can acheive, and always potentially ready for a coup

Lets have American attack there own and see how capable the American so called super power is.
as i suggested if the Americans think that sealing the border is walk in the park why haven't they done it yet on the afghan side as far as i can see so called super power and all its high tech weaponry couldn't achieve its objectives so far.but you having no regards for a army that was under sanctions imposed by USA till few months ago iam sure is a devastating news for Pakistan army.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

@Stuart Mackey

You mentioned US action will push Pakistan push them into the arms of China. China is already Pakistan most trusted ally, how much further can one push them into the arms of China?

By removing themselves from contention: You cannot influence a person if they refuse to answer the phone when you call.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Please if u don't no the history i suggest don't comment on it Pakistan got independence from British in 1947 thats makes her 61 how do u come up with centuries.

So the Islamic parts of the old Indian Empire, and the Mogul Empire before it ad infinitum, are all just figments of humanities imagination?

Lets have American attack there own and see how capable the American so called super power is.

I shall be sure to ask the surviving Generals of Saddam's army that very question should I make their acquaintance.

as i suggested if the Americans think that sealing the border is walk in the park why haven't they done it yet on the afghan side as far as i can see so called super power and all its high tech weaponry couldn't achieve its objectives so far.

I am not sure you have read the article I posted.
Pakistan has said that they will fight American incursions and raids into their territory, and who can blame them, to ignore such unilateral actions calls into question Pakistan's de-facto sovereignty, no nation could tolerate it and no populace long tolerates a government that allows it. If they fight they cannot win a conventional war, sanctions or no sanctions, which is why they have nuclear weapons, you either use it or loose it's deterrent value.

but you having no regards for a army that was under sanctions imposed by USA till few months ago iam sure is a devastating news for Pakistan army.

Thanks for confirming what I just said

 

[SABRE]

For all those discussing about 'sealing the border' topic:-

Pakistan had earlier decided (& still maintains plans for) to seal the entire border with Afghanistan with Barb Wires & electronic fencing. Any breach of the fence would also identify the place from where the militants come & go/went from.

It was Hamid Karzai who went crying around the world to stop Pakistan from fencing. With fencing their drug lords wont be able to cross the border. Plus they like push the Afghan population into Pakistan in winters illegally so its not a burden on them. With fencing they wouldn't be able to do that either.

 

[John Sansom]

Gee, Stewart, you certainluy have it in for the US. Here's the point, though. Whether you or I like it...or not...the Western Alliance that we know must work together with countries like Pakistan and India.

I have already expressed my less than accepting position on the US air strikes into the northwest frontier and other tribal terrritories and my opinion on just what may be driving the sudden and unilateral nature of these incursions. Further to that, I am frankly of the opinion that Pakistan's military is the single cohesive factor in the equation, and one that has the potential for generating stability in that country....not as "coup makers", but as a solid institutional influence. I am also of the opinion that the civil service can be, or can be brought to be, a similar influence. But that is an exercise which is solely within the purview of the citizenry of that country...and of no other.

My opinion is, of course, open to derisive comment if that is a preferred response; just as one might snidely question the puzzling appearance of a long-dead Roman in this conversation. I am sure that Cassius--one of the "lean and hungry" lads--was a real troublemaker on that particular imperial scene. Indeed he may well have been a "casus belli", but then again so was darned near everybody else in that crowd.

Yes, China is an ally of Pakistan; something of a convenience as it sits on a large part of the country's northeast border. However, all real indications to date are that China has other fish to fry in its own brush fires and would prefer to stay clear of anything other than diplomatic base-touching. Then, counter-clockwise and, for a moment, disregarding India, we have Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and, of course, Afghanistan. No credible threats there, with the minor exception of Afghanistan's confusing hither and yon violence (not so "minor" of course to Pakistani victims of the air strikes which really started this conversation).

But nothing remains the same forever. That's why NATO and Pakistan must co-operatively resolve the incursion problem...and it's something they can do. So, in this regard, what specific and potentially workable recommendations that take in the subtleties as well as the grosser manifestations of the situation would you put forward?

Really.

 

[John Sansom]

Nope....not a sequential disaster or opinion shift. Just a quick note to aplogize to Stuart Mackey for constantly misspelling his name.The question, however, remains the same.

What practical get-it-done-now measures can solve this incursion air strike problem...and, hopefully, end the mounting civilian casualty toll? Sealing the border in its extraordinarily rugged areas by traditional means (boots on the ground and all that) has a certain faint hope quality to it...unless, off course, it's accompanied by a masssive technological assist...drones, remote sensing and the like.

Comments? Is it do-able?

 

[Aliph Ahmed]

Pakistanis in general hold no high regard for gun totting Americans who use false propaganda to declare war without the UNO approval and are shamelssly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.

I can go on and on but that would be a waste of my precious time and breathe on unworthy, selfish and shameless war mongering groups within the American administration and American public.

Bottom line is :

USA can not survive in Afghanistan without the "help" of Pakistan. Period !!

I as a Pakistanis among many is of great opinion that Pakistan should refuse to provide saftey for any Afghanistan destined route to US/her Puppets for atleast a month the next time they launch a reckless and stupid attack !!

By the way:

Cuba has as much right to attack USA for wanted men the USA refuses to hand over. but oh wait, USA is always right !! tsk tsk tsk.