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

Status
Not open for further replies.

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
If the Prime Minister, President and Cabinet were supposed to be at the Marriott and if that is true, furthermore if members of the senior staff were also meant to be there the Pakistani Army would be in control of Pakistan, quite possibly Musharraf would have come out of retirement to resume command in Pakistan's time of need.
If that would have been the case not even a bird would have been allowed into Marriott hotel.

Former PM Shuaqat Aziz was holding a ceremony in Marriott once when I went there (to meet him) & I was frisked down every part of my body. And vehicles which were not registered to enter & exit Marriott on that day were not allowed near Marriott. & this was when terror alert was pretty low.

Furthermore Pakistan Army will not risk its reputation by bringing Musharraff back. Remember his ratings still remain the lowest.

The parliament contains elected officials that support the insurgents.

Source/Proof?
Baseless allegations can get you banned.


The incursions are destabilizing the Government not the Pakistani Army, as is the offensive, Musharraf has check-mated the new government.
How is Musharraff involved when niether army nor ISI are any longer taking orders from him? He has been shun away from public, governmental as well as military life - although army still holds his security.

there are Musharraf loyalist all over the place. That sort of intelligence even for Pakistan means that their are forces at work against the government, quite possibly against the army.
If you haven't noticed the Musharraf loyalists are at their all time weakest & the most powerful men of Pakistan Armed Forces & ISI (both current & former) are keeping themselves away from politics & not supporting them.
I.e. Lt.Gen, Hamid Gul, former COAS Gen. Aslam Baig, Lt. Gen. Talat Masood etc ...


There is no doubt that the PPP government is having tough time & is at its lowest. Nevertheless, you should also take in account that Pakistan Armed Forces are still respecting their decisions regardless of few ups & downs.


Stryker001; stop talking like Bill O'Riely.

Your reputation is already under scurtiny. SUBJECTIVITY is always welcome - as long as it is correlated to OBJECTIVITY.
 

Aliph Ahmed

Banned Member
Is the Bajaur operation truly successful?
By Ismail Khan

Monday, 29 Sep, 2008 | 10:08 PM PST |


ISLAMABAD: Military operations against militants have been a mixed bag of successes and setbacks; however no timeframe could be given with regard to the ongoing campaigns, sources in the military said.

‘It is a continual operation. It is not going to end in 2008 and it is not going to end in 2009. Don’t be optimistic, as far as the timeframe is concerned. It is a different ground and it will take some time’, military sources said in a media briefing here on Monday.

These sources optimistic that Operation ‘Sherdil’ (Lion-Heart) was well on course to achieving its objective in gaining control of the Bajaur tribal region.
The northern district of Swat was different story altogether where Operation Rah-i-Haq II had had its setbacks following the NWFP government’s peace agreements with militants in May, these sources said.

In Bajaur, these sources said, the militants were putting up stiff resistance, better tactics and communication system, reinforcements and heavy weapons from across the border.

The security forces have lost 69 men and suffered 230 casualties in Bajaur since the beginning of the operation in August.

These sources declined to give a figure for militants casualties but said that their number was above six hundred.

‘Those who have been telling us to do more, we turn around and ask them to do more. Stop the reverse flow into Bajaur. It’s coming. Heavy weapons are coming. The militants are coming’, a security official said.

‘The militants are coming and their travel starts from Central Asia; they cover the entire track of Afghanistan. You are not stopping them and they are coming into our country.’

‘We are in touch with the ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) to make sure that no movement takes place’, the military source said.

These sources said that there was no doubt about the involvement of elements from across the border in the Bajaur fight.

‘People themselves saw two hundred men mostly carrying rocket launchers coming from Afghanistan to Pakistan. We have no doubt that they are supporting the fight in Bajaur’, they said.


These sources were confident that despite stiff nature resistance, the operation would be taken to ‘its logical end.’
They said that the military operation had been fully supported by tribal people in Bajaur.

These sources described Bajaur as the ‘centre of gravity’ and ‘magnet’ of militant resistance with heavy presence of foreign militants.

They said that while the Salarzai tribe had given their support to the military operation, Mamund tribe had ‘huge sensitivity’ as most of the Arabs had married their daughters and had settled there.

But these sources were confident that Mamund too would take a cue from the Salarzais and rise up against militants.

Quoting unconfirmed reports, these sources said that militant commander Faqir Muhammad had left Bajaur and taken sanctuary in neighbouring Mohmand, while Afghan Taliban commander, Qari Zaiur Rehman, who was leading one thousand men, had moved back to Afghanistan.’

‘If these reports are correct then it would increase our chances of success’, these sources said.

‘The situation is not as bad as it appears to be. If the operation in Bajaur succeeds and we are confident that it will then it will resolve many problems. It will have its ripple effects on other places’, the sources said.

Operation Rah-i-Haq II in Swat

These sources said the security forces had boxed militants in Swat in Matta and Beochar Area following Operation Rah-i-Haq I in November last year.
But after the February elections, the ANP-led coalition government opted to give peace a chance and signed an agreement with militants, these sources said.

‘The intent of the provincial government was not wrong’, the sources said
‘But in our view that the peace agreement was not signed from the position of strength and it allowed the militants to regroup and reorganize’, these sources said. ‘The efforts of the military were compromised.’

They said that the peace agreement led to the loss of public confidence and the law enforcement agencies did not only suffer heavy casualties but also delayed the clearance of Beochar and Biha Valleys.

These sources insisted that the military operation would continue till Beochar was cleared and Swat was brought under full control and the advent of winters would have not cause any disruption.

‘The NWFP Government has allowed us to take the operation to its logical end’, the sources said.

Rules of Engagements:

The rules of engagements are absolutely clear, these sources said. Any presence of foreign intrusion in air or on ground ‘has to be engaged by troops on the ground’, these sources said.

These sources were responding to questions regarding the September 3 Angor Adda incident in which, according to the military, forty to fifty U.S Special Operation Forces raided a village and killed 25 civilians including women and children.

The problem with Predators, these sources said, was that they could not be detected by the Pakistani radar system.

Information and Intelligence Sharing:

The military sources said that militaries operating on both sides of the Pak Afghan border exchanged information but there was no intelligence sharing.
‘There is no intelligence sharing with field formations as such’, they said.
Often the information called ‘actionable intelligence’ was outdated, the sources said.

Difference of Approach with the US

The sources made it clear that Pakistan military’s sequences of military operation did not tally with the U.S sequences of military operations.
They said that the military would set its own priorities in view of its own limitations and capabilities.

We have deployed 101,700 forces and hundreds of vehicles and guns on the borders and it has affected our conventional capability’, the sources said.

The Role of the ISI

These sources denied Pakistan’s premier intelligence service —the Inter-Services Intelligence was operating independently and supporting some of the militant groups.

‘Eighty percent of officers in the ISI come from the same formations which are fighting in the tribal areas. Its unthinkable that these officers would be supporting these militant groups to get their own force killed’, the military sources said.

They said that 1368 security personnel had been killed since 2001, while 3348 had been wounded.

http://www.dawn.net/wps/wcm/connect/Dawn%20Content%20Library/dawn/news/pakistan/nwfp/is+the+bajaur+operation+truly+successful+aah



- USA launching reckless unilateral strikes inside Pakistan and creating more sympathy for the terrorists and more hatred and clashes and distance between the tribals and the Pakistan armed forces.

- USA turning a blind eye and possibly even blessing these terrorists to infiltrate Pakistan via Afghanistan.

Oh wow. Seems like tables are turning and US is getting caught red handed for allowing terrorists to infiltrate Pakistan at will.

One must ask why isnt US doing anything to prevent these terrorists infiltrating inside Pakistan?

I must say : Good divide and rule plan. First get the Pakistan armed forces fight with FATA tribals. Create distance and hatred between the two so much so that they will stop at nothing but independence and then use these FATA tribals against Pakistan armed forces.

Another recent example being : US used Northern Alliance to oust Taleban.
 
Last edited:

Jecito

New Member
The Pakistan Nightmare

I don't know what the bush administration is trying to achieve in attacking forces inside of Pakistan and antagonizing the Pakistanis even more. Sure there may be high value targets there, yet you breed alot of resentment amongst the people and risk pushing Pakistan to the brink of a civil war. Just look at how many terrorist attacks are taking place inside that country. The greatest nightmare is not some Pakistani General with his finger on the nuclear button but some extremist Sheikh/Ayatollah. The Pakistani Intelligence service ISI helped create the Taliban. So it will be Afghanistan all over again but with Nukes. And if you lose Pakistan how can you hope to supply Afghanistan? via Russia or Iran? Pakistan is the Iran of 1979. Only this time with Nuclear Weapons.
 

Type59

New Member
I don't know what the bush administration is trying to achieve in attacking forces inside of Pakistan and antagonizing the Pakistanis even more. Sure there may be high value targets there, yet you breed alot of resentment amongst the people and risk pushing Pakistan to the brink of a civil war. Just look at how many terrorist attacks are taking place inside that country. The greatest nightmare is not some Pakistani General with his finger on the nuclear button but some extremist Sheikh/Ayatollah. The Pakistani Intelligence service ISI helped create the Taliban. So it will be Afghanistan all over again but with Nukes. And if you lose Pakistan how can you hope to supply Afghanistan? via Russia or Iran? Pakistan is the Iran of 1979. Only this time with Nuclear Weapons.

I am pretty sure ISI did not create Taliban only when they were winning did Pakistan back them. If late Northern Alliance commander Mosaud took over Kabul and won the civil war before Talibs emerged. Pakistan would have backed him instead.

Plus you need to read English language papers of Pakistan, which are available online. Therefore I disagree with your ill informed statement Pak is like Iran 1979. I believe you dont have a firm understanding of events leading up to 1979 Iranian revolution but see similiarities today?
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
I don't know what the bush administration is trying to achieve in attacking forces inside of Pakistan and antagonizing the Pakistanis even more. Sure there may be high value targets there, yet you breed alot of resentment amongst the people and risk pushing Pakistan to the brink of a civil war. Just look at how many terrorist attacks are taking place inside that country. The greatest nightmare is not some Pakistani General with his finger on the nuclear button but some extremist Sheikh/Ayatollah. The Pakistani Intelligence service ISI helped create the Taliban. So it will be Afghanistan all over again but with Nukes. And if you lose Pakistan how can you hope to supply Afghanistan? via Russia or Iran? Pakistan is the Iran of 1979. Only this time with Nuclear Weapons.
There are no Ayatollahs in Pakistan. They only exist in Iranian Shia religious structure & jurisprudence.

In addition, no General has a finger on a button. The nuclear weapons related decisions, including their launch, is decided by National Command Authority (NCA), not by a single person.

ISI did not create Taliban but they did support them later on when they saw potential in them to take over the whole of Afghanistan. By this ISI sought to do away with anti-Pakistan elements in Afghanistan & also achieve strategic depth.

Can you give me the basis on which you are comparing Pakistan with Iran of 1979?
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Well, i could see some oversimplified comparison in that they're a country that recently finally got rid of a reasonably oppressive dictator supported by the USA, is off to a better future for its population, and is not that unlikely to face - like Iran - a long, drawn-out, useless war in the near future instigated by the USA from a neighbor wrought in certain ethnic disputes.

Oh wait, that's probably not what's being aimed at here. Well, and it's also where the comparison ends, because the entire situation is entirely different.
 

Beatmaster

New Member
hmm big topic lots to read.

When we put a side the fact or this is actually gonna happen or not,
and we put a side or this is good or wrong what will happen to Pakistan in general because everyone knows that Pakistan is a very unstable mix of civilian groups with almost complete differend way of believe and culture.

Lets say for a minute that the USA and her Allies do invade Pakistan for whatever reason what for problems would this bring to the:
-Region
-Pakistan itself
-and the USA and her Allies

Because if you see what the media in general can do, than you can always find a reason to start or to avoid a war.
Some people say this, other people say that, everyone got his own agenda good or bad and everyone has his own opinion regardless of good or bad.
But would it be smart to create a war? specially in this region? or would it be better to avoid a war and first clean up the mess that already is created?
Because regardless who started these problems in this region, its has to end some day.
And in my humble opinion i do not believe that all those soldiers died for nothing and i also do not believe anyway i hope not that all those billions of dollars that we all put into this region is just a donation into a bottomless hole in the ground.
The reason that all these western country's put so mutch effort in this region
is not only removing Taliban but also to give these people a better start.
Or is there a deeper reason why this all is happening?

Iam not an expert and just another human that lost track of the hole situation because almost everyday we all see differend story's on the news.
Some story's are true, some are made up, people at home will someday get sick of this hole situation.
So regardless or this hole idea is good or bad and regardless or this will happen or not and regardless who starts or what reason,
Will the problems on the end not rise above or heads and become unrepairable?
Keep in mind that war is just a easy step but rebuilding and funding this hole project will not come cheap.
Perhaps you disagree with me or you might think that my tekst is bulls**t but think about it, if you see what is happening to the economie if you see how the relations are between some country's than you can make a wrong step very easy call it a bridge to far if you like, but these are difficult times for everyone and it seems that it only will go worse.
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
Well, i could see some oversimplified comparison in that they're a country that recently finally got rid of a reasonably oppressive dictator supported by the USA, is off to a better future for its population, and is not that unlikely to face - like Iran - a long, drawn-out, useless war in the near future instigated by the USA from a neighbor wrought in certain ethnic disputes.
Finally got rid of the pro-US dictator while at the same time elected a pro-US democratic government. Why sideline that fact?
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Finally got rid of the pro-US dictator while at the same time elected a pro-US democratic government. Why sideline that fact?
Also the same Pakistan president who when asked during a interview by a U.S news agency while he was here last week on how major of a issue was these border skirmishes between the U.S and Pakistan, he just brushed it off as a misunderstanding.
 

Jecito

New Member
Pakistan on the brink...

Some reasons that Pakistan is like or worse than Iran 1979....

How about the tribal areas where the Pakistani army can't even control it's own country? Where tribal leaders have their own armies, where the taliban regroups and retrains, where Al-Qaeda and possible Osama Bin Laden, is suspected to be hiding?
What about the growth of the Pakistani Taliban? The role of members of the ISI in it's creation.
What about the constant terrorist attacks, the red mosque battle, the assassination of presidential candidate Bhutto?
What about the recent collapse of the Pakistani military dictatorship? Putting an even weaker government in place. Sure it is 'pro-US' as was the Shah.
What about the economic meltdown in Pakistan, 25% inflation, running down of the countries foreign reserves, massive unemployment,..and an angry islamic populace
Add to all that the U.S attacks inflaming even further anti-US sentiment in Pakistan.
 

Type59

New Member
Some reasons that Pakistan is like or worse than Iran 1979....

How about the tribal areas where the Pakistani army can't even control it's own country? Where tribal leaders have their own armies, where the taliban regroups and retrains, where Al-Qaeda and possible Osama Bin Laden, is suspected to be hiding?
What about the growth of the Pakistani Taliban? The role of members of the ISI in it's creation.
What about the constant terrorist attacks, the red mosque battle, the assassination of presidential candidate Bhutto?
What about the recent collapse of the Pakistani military dictatorship? Putting an even weaker government in place. Sure it is 'pro-US' as was the Shah.
What about the economic meltdown in Pakistan, 25% inflation, running down of the countries foreign reserves, massive unemployment,..and an angry islamic populace
Add to all that the U.S attacks inflaming even further anti-US sentiment in Pakistan.
I bet in five months time you will list them points then in 1 years, then 2 years and in 5 years time. Its not gonna happen, I can discuus the points but I am sure in 2001 people said the same about Pakistan.

One point I will say in Bajaur Agency the smallest but importantly most populous FATA agency, all the major tribes are supporting govt operation. Private armies have been raised to challenge Taliban.

http://www.apakistannews.com/tribesmen-form-lashkars-to-combat-militants-84204

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Pakis...=/080929/481/cab95f6ae91c454aa1a372a02199659a
 
Last edited:

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
Some reasons that Pakistan is like or worse than Iran 1979....

How about the tribal areas where the Pakistani army can't even control it's own country? Where tribal leaders have their own armies
Do a little research. The Pakistan constitution grants them a significant autonomy while the tribesmen provide for the defence of Western borders. These tribesmen are the reason for Soviet's failing to attack Pakistan's western borders. The Afridi & Masud tribes are also responsible for the liberation of Azad Kashmir.

Regardless of politicians preferring to bring whole country under central or provincial government's control majority of them are not willing to vote against the Tribal autonomy. The most powerful prime minister in Pakistan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto tried but failed.

Today these tribes have become a front against Taliban. They have killed more Taliban in in few weeks than US could do in months.


where the taliban regroups and retrains, where Al-Qaeda and possible Osama Bin Laden, is suspected to be hiding?
What & where are the proofs. Many taliban & Al-Qaida people who are caught here & those who carryout suicide bombing in Pakistan are found to be Uzbecks, Chechniyans, Arabs & Dari Pashtoons. There are no Uzbecs, Chechniyans, Arabs & Dari Pashtoons in Pakistan. But there is siginificant population of them in Afghanistan. They are rather coming from Afghanistan into Pakistan.

What about the growth of the Pakistani Taliban? The role of members of the ISI in it's creation.
What about the constant terrorist attacks, the red mosque battle, the assassination of presidential candidate Bhutto?
What about the recent collapse of the Pakistani military dictatorship? Putting an even weaker government in place. Sure it is 'pro-US' as was the Shah.
Non of these traits match the 1979 Iran. The fall of pro-US government brought in anti-US government while in Pakistan it brought it yet another pro-US govt.

Did constant terror attacks & mosque battles took place in the 1979 Iran? If so then please do share the information cause I haven't read them in any book be it writen by a Westerner.

Yes Ms. Bhutto was killed, but then so was JFK. Why not compare it to that?

What about the economic meltdown in Pakistan, 25% inflation, running down of the countries foreign reserves, massive unemployment,..and an angry islamic populace
Add to all that the U.S attacks inflaming even further anti-US sentiment in Pakistan.
& with this you are trying to compare Pakistan with 1979 Iran?

Is the economic meltdown limited to Pakistan only? I mean no financial company in Pakistan has ran out of business in Pakistan yet while in US they are giving bailouts.

What do you mean by angry Islamic Populace? Populace is populace no matter what their religion. They'll turn angry if things aren't going their way. There are Hindus & Christians here also who have same resentments against both Pakistan government & US & protest along side others.
Are you trying to be Racist?
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
Militants start to leave Orakzai Agency
PESHAWAR: The militants have started to abscond from Kurram Agency after cleared their centers situated in Alikhel tribe.

All seven centers vacated by the militants will be destroyed under supervision of Tribal Committee today.

Earlier, militants agreed to leave the area after tribal lashkar of 500-armed tribes had launched crackdown against them in Lower Orakzai Agency.

Meanwhile, 16 militants held by Ferozkhel tribe will also be released after complete shifting of militants from Orakzai Agency.

http://geo.tv/10-7-2008/26409.htm
This is how it is done. If there is any possible way to get rid of Taliban/Militants it is to talk with the Tribal leaders not bomb them. Even Afghan government has started talks with Tribesmen in their country along with Taliban.

How Ironic ... when Pakistan was holding talks or holds talks it just sets up everyone on fire.
 

zenith_suv

New Member
Yup , Talks are the only way out of it .

If the US continues bombing in tribal areas it will only fuel anti US sentiments and support to extremists in NWFP which will lead to more suicide bombings and economic instability.
 

Sampanviking

Banned Member
I would say that the answer to the original question depends very much on what you believe the real purpose of the US presence in Afghanistan is.

If you believe that they are there to fight a Religeous movement, then it probably appears a strange thing to want to do.

If however you beleive that the US presence is about both containing Chinese expansion into the Indian Ocean and to keep the US in the competiton for Central Asian Oil and Gas (a competition it is losing v badly at present) then it will need a secure land route into an Landlocked Afghanistan, surrounded by increasingly "unfriendly" and "unhelpful" neighbours. It currently runs a serious risk of finding its forces isolated in the interior

Pakistan is the only realistic option for such a land route and the following of terrorists and instability is the best pretext to "legitimately" get its troops onto the territory.
 

John Sansom

New Member
I've always had considerable difficulty believing that the US has committed itself to the Afghanistan "adventure" in order to contain Chinese "expansion", or that Washington is determined to stay in contention for Central Asian energy sources by engaging in a tactic calculably far more expensive than even the most positive outcome would warrant.

Somewhat more to the point, however, getting and keeping the various "tribal region factions" on side against the Taliban is the best route to take. Some time ago, though, I seem to recall western and Pakistani rejoicing over a deal arrived at between Islamabad and the tribes whereby the Taliban would be evicted from the areas they were trying to influence. Bit by bit, though, that deal apparently fell apart. If I have that right (and I may not), what's to stop future arrangements from going the same way?

Given the energy the Taliban and associated fanatics put into "propaganda" efforts on the hearts-and-minds side of the equation, what kind of stability might be assured in any agreements Islamabad and the tribes may arrive at? Of course, the latest "propaganda" effort--that is, the deaths by truck explosion of some 50 tribesmen who had gathered to discuss the eviction of the Taliban--could work either way. Remarkable, right?

At the personal level, I tend to be optimistic about the overall picture....as long as Islamabad is handling things on the Pakistan side of the border.
Stepped up interdiction efforts in neighbouring Afghan lands would have to be a corollary to whatever Pakistan does.

Easy to say, but........
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
I would say that the answer to the original question depends very much on what you believe the real purpose of the US presence in Afghanistan is.

If you believe that they are there to fight a Religeous movement, then it probably appears a strange thing to want to do.

If however you beleive that the US presence is about both containing Chinese expansion into the Indian Ocean and to keep the US in the competiton for Central Asian Oil and Gas (a competition it is losing v badly at present) then it will need a secure land route into an Landlocked Afghanistan, surrounded by increasingly "unfriendly" and "unhelpful" neighbours. It currently runs a serious risk of finding its forces isolated in the interior

Pakistan is the only realistic option for such a land route and the following of terrorists and instability is the best pretext to "legitimately" get its troops onto the territory.
Funny you bring it up. I am actually writing a paper on US presence in Afghanistan rather questioning US presence in Afghanistan. I have already written somewhat agreeable views to your post. I'll post it here once the paper is done.
 

Sampanviking

Banned Member
Thank you Sabre, I will be most interested in reading it.

Earlier this year, I was involved in the production of a paper that touched briefly on this area from a different perspective and I enclose the link in case you find our background useful

http://www.newcenturychina.org/page4.html

I would also recommend reading the ATOL articles of Ambassador Bradrakumar (former Indian Diplomatic Service) who has written extensively and authoratively on the subject

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia.html

http://www.google.com/custom?client....y=20&sa=Search&domains=http://www.atimes.com
 

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
And now Syria. This target must have been pretty damn important. Of course the elephant in the room is Iran - I don't think the US will do something similar there. Ahmadinejad is in strife domestically, any excuse to attack the great satan would be welcomed...
 

Jecito

New Member
And now Syria. This target must have been pretty damn important. Of course the elephant in the room is Iran - I don't think the US will do something similar there. Ahmadinejad is in strife domestically, any excuse to attack the great satan would be welcomed...
Problem is that these U.S strikes in other countries only force Iran to work even harder to achieve it's nuclear program. Knowing that once it has nukes there will be no Iraq style US attack. Yet the US/Israel want to stop Iran from building nukes, and one of their options is to attack Iran, which prompts Iran to work even harder. Kind of a vicious circle.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top