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

View Full Version : Is the U.S. Expanding it's War into Pakistan?

Pages : [1] 2

DefConGuru

September 6th, 2008, 05:59 AM

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

September 6th, 2008, 08:25 AM

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

September 6th, 2008, 08:25 AM

DefConGuru

September 6th, 2008, 11:29 AM

DefConGuru

September 6th, 2008, 11:41 AM

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 :D

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

bey1919

September 6th, 2008, 11:48 AM

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

September 6th, 2008, 08:42 PM

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

September 7th, 2008, 06:47 AM

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

September 7th, 2008, 08:51 AM

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

September 8th, 2008, 01:12 AM

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

September 8th, 2008, 08:55 AM

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?:rolleyes:) 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

September 8th, 2008, 07:58 PM

Marc 1

September 8th, 2008, 11:16 PM

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

September 9th, 2008, 04:49 AM

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

September 9th, 2008, 05:20 AM

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

September 9th, 2008, 12:00 PM

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

September 9th, 2008, 02:20 PM

shrike

September 9th, 2008, 04:13 PM

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

September 9th, 2008, 09:20 PM

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

September 9th, 2008, 09:32 PM

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".

Marc 1

September 10th, 2008, 01:58 AM

DefConGuru

September 12th, 2008, 12:20 PM

John Sansom

September 12th, 2008, 02:57 PM

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

September 12th, 2008, 08:05 PM

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

September 13th, 2008, 03:11 AM

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

September 13th, 2008, 08:19 AM

link to Source (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=69186&sectionid=351020401)

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

September 13th, 2008, 09:03 AM

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

September 13th, 2008, 09:13 AM

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

September 13th, 2008, 10:07 AM

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.
:D:onfloorl:

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

September 13th, 2008, 12:00 PM

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

September 13th, 2008, 12:48 PM

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

September 13th, 2008, 03:36 PM

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

September 13th, 2008, 11:17 PM

@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

September 14th, 2008, 01:04 AM

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

September 14th, 2008, 03:27 AM

@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

September 14th, 2008, 03:43 AM

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:rolleyes:

SABRE

September 14th, 2008, 04:12 AM

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

September 14th, 2008, 08:59 AM

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

September 14th, 2008, 01:55 PM

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

September 14th, 2008, 02:21 PM

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.

Marc 1

September 14th, 2008, 08:45 PM

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.

Please explain the above^. Who have they refused to hand over and for what crime?

I happen to agree with you on the way the US is behaving on this issue - it smacks far too much of "if you won't deal with it then we will, and stuff the international repercussions". Unfortunately the Bush administration is very much the proverbial "bull in a china shop".

I'm willing to bet that the reason why it is US forces rather than european forces involved in these cross border actions is because they disagree with these actions. I'd also think that the euros are probably quite annoyed that the US has violated another nations borders and killed it's citizens regardless of the moral case, because as partners of the US, the european allies reputation in the Islamic world suffers too. I'm sure no european nation wants a Spanish train bombing of their own.

It may have taken time, or it may not even have been possible for the Pakistani forces to totally put a stop to the cross border incursions by the Taliban forces, but it is better to have a Pakistan working with you than one working against you. It's called diplomacy and it seems to be something this administration has forgotten about.

John Sansom

September 14th, 2008, 09:51 PM

I certainly agree with you, Marc 1, and I'm sorry Aliph Ahmed is so darned bitter about the US and "her puppets". Her who?

The question I asked is: How do we solve this problem and certainly to the end that no more of these air strikes on population concentrations--no matter how small--occur. And how can it be done within the context of controlling or even stopping the trans-border attacks from safe havens in Pakistan?

Not being an American, I must hesitate to respond to the term "gun-toting" except to note that (a) the gun toters are members of the military just like Pakistani solddiers (who are also engaged in the struggle) and (b) that Pakistan is rightly renowned worldwide for its gunsmiths and gun shops; a reality which I'm sure has beeen taken advantage of by the Taleban and like-minded folk. Hey, Id like to take advantage of that kind of craftsmanship, too.

As to denying the US access to Pakistani routes into Afghanistan, that might not be a bad idea...although I'm not sure just what those routes are and how NATO forces may have been using them. Can I assume one such major route would involve Karachi and subsequent trans-shipment road and rail methods?

At the very least, such a decision would spark the development of some really imaginative transportation initiatives and a dispassionate re-assessment of NATO-Pakistan relations. Certainly, NATO wouild be up to the first and could very well benefit from the second.

Aliph Ahmed

September 14th, 2008, 10:50 PM

Please explain the above^. Who have they refused to hand over and for what crime?

I happen to agree with you on the way the US is behaving on this issue - it smacks far too much of "if you won't deal with it then we will, and stuff the international repercussions". Unfortunately the Bush administration is very much the proverbial "bull in a china shop".

I'm willing to bet that the reason why it is US forces rather than european forces involved in these cross border actions is because they disagree with these actions. I'd also think that the euros are probably quite annoyed that the US has violated another nations borders and killed it's citizens regardless of the moral case, because as partners of the US, the european allies reputation in the Islamic world suffers too. I'm sure no european nation wants a Spanish train bombing of their own.

It may have taken time, or it may not even have been possible for the Pakistani forces to totally put a stop to the cross border incursions by the Taliban forces, but it is better to have a Pakistan working with you than one working against you. It's called diplomacy and it seems to be something this administration has forgotten about.

I read it in an article mentioning names of Cuban dissenters wanted by Cuba and residing in USA but USA will not extradiate them. I will get back to you on those shortly.

By gun toting, I meant hands with blood from vietnam to Panama to Haiti to Libya to Iran to Iraq to Afghanistan to south America to instigating Georgia and etc etc. What the hell ?

I find you a sensible person. See, I am not against Pakistan working with USA or west. I always supported it but I do not support it in its current form. Majority of Pakistanis want this issue to be solved. Majority of us are moderate but when the help of Pakistan (Supposedly frontline ally) is not appreciated and we get to hear/read (and these are from the tip of my mind)

USA wont let Pakistan fence the border.
USA wont provide drones which are less sophisticated then F-16s.
Money provided to support the troops at the border is questioned.
Pakistan's airforce is called as Al Qaida's airforce.
Unilateral actions are taken where innocent lives are lost and labbeled as collateral damage. CONTINIOUSLY.
Better weopons are offered to our foes.
Nuclear regime is bended but same deal is not offerred to us.
much much more :

Then one starts to wonder a lot of things if they are being taken for a ride and if the USA is really sincere.

As a start If it were to me, I would get the border heavily mined on war footing just like Pakistan did in 2002 when the tensions were high with India and let Afghanistan cry all they want !!

cheetah

September 15th, 2008, 01:34 AM

Chris Floyd
Sunday, 14 September 2008

This week another gate swung open in the multi-chambered hell that is the "War on Terror." George W. Bush has authorized the invasion of Pakistan by American ground forces, and the armed incursions have already begun. The implications of this move -- which largely corresponds with the strategy that Barack Obama has said he would employ in the region -- are disturbing in the extreme.

William Pfaff takes up this subject with his usual clarity and good sense in a new article at Truthdig.

In a telling insight, he produces the historical analogy most relevant to the current situation:

The United States has just invaded Cambodia. The name of Cambodia this time is Pakistan, but otherwise it’s the same story as in Indochina in 1970.

An American army, deeply frustrated by its inability to defeat an anti-American insurgent movement despite years of struggle, decides that the key to victory lies in a neighboring country. In 1970, the problem was the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Cambodia. Today it is Taliban and al-Qaida bases inside Pakistan, which the United States has been attacking from the air for some time, with controversial “collateral damage.”...

Washington’s decision was made known just in time for the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that opened the first phase of the “war on terror,” after which “nothing could ever be the same.” We no doubt have now begun phase two.

Pfaff notes that the result of that previous "surge" was not a happy one:

The eventual outcome of the American intervention in Cambodia in 1970 was Communist overthrow of the American-sponsored military government in that country, followed by genocide...

In the Vietnamese case, the American military command held that it could win the war by invading Cambodia to cut the so-called Ho Chi Minh Trail, along which supplies and arms for the Viet Cong Communist insurrection were being transported. The argument made was that cutting this route would starve the Viet Cong of supplies.

Initially, the unhappy Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia, desperately trying to keep his country out of the Vietnam War, was persuaded to turn a blind eye to U.S. bombing of the trail. A military coup followed in 1970, installing an American puppet general. B-52 saturation bombing ensued, without the desired military effect, but killing many Cambodians.

The joint U.S. and South Vietnamese “incursion” to cut the trail came in April 1970; it simply pushed the supply operations deeper into Cambodia. Richard Nixon said he acted to prove that the United States was not “a second-rate power.” “If, when the chips are down, the world’s most powerful nation acts like a pitiful helpless giant, the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy will threaten free nations and free institutions throughout the world.”

Or to translate this into our modern idiom: "The terrorists would win." To forestall the terrible fate of looking like a "second-rate power" -- a persistent anxiety of our national leaders; which is not surprising, given how second-rate they are -- Nixon opted for the usual method employed by presidents in such circumstances: mass murder.

It's 1970. Nixon is angry: The Air Force is not killing enough people in Cambodia, the country he has just illegally invaded without the slightest pretence of Congressional approval. The flyboys are doing "milk runs," their intelligence-gathering is too by-the-book: There are "other methods" of getting intelligence, he tells Kissinger. "You understand what I mean?" "Yes, I do," pipes the loyal retainer.

Nixon then orders Kissinger to send every available plane into Cambodia -- bombers, fighters, helicopters, prop planes -- to "crack the hell out of them," smother the entire country with deadly fire: "I want them to hit everything." Kissinger tells his own top aide, General Alexander Haig, to try to implement the plan: "He wants a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia," Kissinger says. "It's an order, it's to be done. Anything that flies on anything that moves."

That's how the system works, beneath the mask. A blustering fool issues an order, and thousands upon thousands of innocent people die. An entire country is ripped to shreds, and into the smoking ruins steps a fanatical band of crazed extremists -- the Khmer Rouge -- who murder two million more..

Years later, of course, George W. Bush -- another little second-rater anxious about his manhood -- would "crack the hell" out of Iraq: an operation that is already nearing Khmer Rouge proportions, with more than a million dead so far. The new Bush-McCain-Obama move into Pakistan could presage an even greater orgy of death and ruin, especially if Pakistan's nuclear arsenal comes into play. As Pfaff notes:

The future consequences in (nuclear-armed) Pakistan await. There is every reason to think they may include civil protest and disorder in the country, political crisis, a major rise in the strength of Pakistan’s own Islamic fundamentalist movement and, conceivably, a small war between the United States and the Pakistan army, which is the central institution in the country, has a mind of its own and is not a negligible military force.

Pfaff also references one of the most salient -- and almost universally ignored -- facts about the current crisis: Washington's direct hand in creating it:

Pakistan’s military intelligence services created the Taliban while they were collaborating with the CIA to form the mujahadeen that drove the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. Many in the service still support the Taliban as a useful instrument against India, and to keep Afghanistan out of the hands of more dangerous enemies.

Those Taliban and al Qaeda sanctuaries that threaten American forces would not exist if Afghanistan was not a massively failed state, ravaged to pieces by 30 years of sectarian war. And that sectarian war would not have raged so long and so virulently if the American government (and its allies in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) had not decided to arm, train, fund and organize the world's most violent, retrograde religious extremists into a worldwide movement. And why did Washington do such a "notably wrong-headed" thing? Because the American elite -- stung and emasculated by their defeat in Indochina -- wanted to "give the Soviets their own Vietnam," in the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski. And so Jimmy Carter -- yes, mild-mannered ole Jimmuh -- greenlighted the covert op to build up a jihad army that would destabilize the secular government of Afghanistan and provoke the Soviets to intervene to save their clients there.

The fact that America's support of violent religious extremists in Afghanistan pre-dated the Soviet invasion there -- and was actually a cause of the invasion -- is of course virtually unknown in the land of the free (free of any useful information about what their overlords are getting up to, that is). At almost every turn, American policies have created more violence and more extremism in the region, either by design, or through neglect, or as the inevitable result of heavy-handed, blood-sodden massive military intervention.

Expanding the war to Pakistan...would certainly be in keeping with the long, bipartisan tradition of American policy there. And it would undoubtedly produce the same bitter fruit: more decades of hatred, extremism, poverty, ruin and suffering.

Now that expansion has begun. It will doubtless continue no matter who is president next year, for both major candidates and their running mates have enthusiastically pledged their allegiance to the Terror War -- despite the fact, as I wrote more than two years ago:

...What matters most now is ending the so-called "war on terror," this dance of death led by two small factions whose ambitions and principles are depraved, inhuman and obscene.

Naturally, we should apprehend anyone who commits a crime--murder, destruction, looting, extortion, intimidation--and subject them to the rule of law. And this should of course be done no matter what kind of organization the criminal belongs to: a religious sect, a mafia clan, a corporation--or a national government. All such criminals should be subjected to the judicial process--either domestically, in the countries where they commit their crimes, or internationally--no matter what grand abstraction they claim as "justification" for their misdeeds: "freedom and democracy," "national security," "defense of the ummah," "God's will."

"Stateless criminals" like the terrorists of al Qaeda are just that: criminals. They should be dealt with as criminals, and not inflated and glorified into gigantic figures of world-historical import. The perpetrators of state terrorism are somewhat different, because they are far more powerful and wreak far more damage than the freebooters on the fringe of society. But of course they too should be held accountable, as individuals, not only for the crimes they commit, but also for the crimes they order to be committed, and the crimes that arise indirectly from circumstances they have deliberately created with their great power.

Both sides need the other in this insane global conflict--but ironically, only one side can actually stop the "war." Only the United States can cease to respond with massive military force all over the world to provocations from criminals on the fringe. Only the United States can say, "We are not fighting a war; we are dealing with criminal actions as they arise--while working feverishly on the diplomatic, social, political, cultural and economic fronts to address the conditions in which the particular set of crimes known as 'terrorism' are apt to arise. It is a complicated business, to be sure: hard work, often unrewarding, full of pitfalls and reverses--but we are wise enough and strong enough as a nation to see it through."

But this course--the only sensible, and only genuinely effective response to criminal actions of extremist groups -- will never be undertaken by the Bush Faction, no matter who heads it. Nor by anyone else, of whatever political stripe, who buys into the militarist philosophy of an American dominance imposed on the world by force (either directly or through the more subtly implied but ever-present threat of force favored by "liberal" advocates of "soft power").

As long as the Bush Regime -- or some other permutation of "Bushism" [which, as we can see in 2008, includes the Obama-Biden Terror War ticket] -- is in power, the "war on terror" will never end. It will go on spawning new wars, real wars... This blood-dimmed tide will keep rising: thousands, perhaps millions (if the hard-Right's dream of nuking Iran comes true) will be struck down by death and grief, and we will all keep falling deeper into the pit of a lamed and brutal life.

So when they ask why you are so "angry," why you are so "strident" and "shrill," tell them you've been vexed to nightmare by the foul embrace of the "war on terror" factions. Tell them you've had enough of the blood and *****, the power games, the talk of God from murderers' lips. Tell them the war is over -- the war is over -- and you'll have no more senseless killing in your name.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Again conveniently forgetting history lets not forget Iran Iraq war +sanctions after that had practically destroyed Iraq's army.so hitting a man when he is down on his knees don't really count as victory :nutkick but no need to discus this as this only takes our attention away from the topic.

Marc 1

September 15th, 2008, 02:29 AM

Interesting article Cheetah, although I confess that I'm a tad worried that this guy Chris Floyd hasn't been taking his medication recently. Mind you the parallels between Cambodia and Pakistan were worth noting the entire tone of his article makes him seem frankly like some rabid spit flecked crazed homeless guy...

Another article that seems to support the idea that US troops going into Pakistan is a bad idea:

Pakistani tribal chiefs threaten to join Taliban

· US warned of uprising if armed incursions continue

· New counter-terror policy backfires on Washington
Saeed Shah in Islamabad
The Guardian,
Monday September 15 2008
Article history
A controversial new US tactic to mount counter-terrorist operations inside Pakistan has met with fresh hostility, it emerged yesterday, as Pakistani tribesmen representing half a million people vowed to switch sides and join the Taliban if Washington does not stop cross-border attacks by its forces from Afghanistan.

Reacting to American missile attacks in north Waziristan last week, which followed an unprecedented cross-border ground assault earlier this month, tribal chiefs from the area called an emergency meeting on Saturday.
"If America doesn't stop attacks in tribal areas, we will prepare a lashkar [army] to attack US forces in Afghanistan," tribal chief Malik Nasrullah announced in Miran Shah, north Waziristan's largest city. "We will also seek support from the tribal elders in Afghanistan to fight jointly against America."

The development threatens to widen the conflict, with previously moderate people from Pakistan's tribal border region with Afghanistan in danger of joining Taliban militants based in the area. They have reacted furiously to intensified American missile attacks on targets in the tribal territory in recent weeks.

The issue is likely to feature in talks between Gordon Brown and Pakistan's new president, Asif Ali Zardari, this week. Zardari, who is on a private visit to Britain, is due to meet Brown tomorrow. The prime minister is likely to press for greater Pakistani action against militants in the tribal area and may go along with US calls to integrate the tribal territory into the conflict in Afghanistan as one theatre of war, an idea Pakistan will fiercely resist.

Zardari and Pakistan's prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, said in a joint statement at the weekend: "The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country should be respected at all cost." During the past month, there have been seven US missile strikes in the tribal area, about the same number as in the whole of last year. A US ground assault in south Waziristan provoked a sharp rebuke from the Pakistan army.

Washington believes that Taliban and al-Qaida militants fighting the western coalition in Afghanistan are using Pakistan's tribal area as a safe haven.

But Ayaz Wazir, a retired Pakistani diplomat who is a tribal chief from south Waziristan, warned: "If the Americans are coming to sort it out with force, they would create more enemies. The Americans might have supersonic jets and we might have to fight with stones in our hands, but we will stand up."

Up to now, only a tiny minority of the tribesmen have joined the Pakistani or Afghan Taliban movements, but incursions by the US could ignite the area.

The heightened US activity comes just as some Pakistani tribes have risen against the Taliban in the border areas of Dir and Bajaur. But hatred of America would far surpass any dislike for Islamic extremists.

The above article was pinched from another forum.

Happy reading.

Marc 1

September 15th, 2008, 03:07 AM

I read it in an article mentioning names of Cuban dissenters wanted by Cuba and residing in USA but USA will not extradiate them. I will get back to you on those shortly.

Hmm, this info is a bit sketchy here mate but if you are advocating that if you show dissent toward another country then that country should be allowed to extradit you and put you on trial?

If so mate, the Indians have a pretty good case to extradite all Pakistani's and vice versa, Russia swaps populations with America, Australia swaps with Indonesia, hell come State of Origin Football time here in Oz, all of Queensland should be deported to NSW to face charges:D

On the other things the US stands accused of I have no specific info except to comment on collateral damage. In assymetric warfare where the enemy deliberately disguises him/herself to blend in with the population, there will always be innocent victims. In this type of warfare there are no front lines and the bad guys don't wear an established combat uniform. Hell, in that part of the world your average innocent farmer is likely to have the odd AK47 to defend his family further adding to the confusion. So is it surprising that there are innocent victims in this conflict? No.

It is also not surprising that when area weapons are used against structures (Artillery shell being guided onto a particular building for example), that immediately afterwards the Taliban will say that that building was chock full of only women in labour and children inside it, despite a group of armed Talibs being videoed running into the place. It's called propaganda and has been used by each side in warfare to their advantage since Ogg the caveman picked up a club. Then again, some commanders are probably too quick to call in an airstrike on some buildings even if they did see a Talib or two take shelter inside it. It may be better to let say two blokes go than incur massive civillian casualties in killing them. Its a tough call, and just one of the reasons that makes these insurgents so damn hard to defeat.

Ideally, you win the hearts and minds of the population to the degree that they will actively report insurgent activity, so that it can be rooted out before the insurgents can take cover amongst the people and their homes. And that's going to take thousands of coalition deaths and many many years to achieve.

I also hope one of the longer term aims is to get rid of that crook Karzai - the more I read about him the more I believe he is part of the problem not the solution to it..

Aliph Ahmed

September 15th, 2008, 05:23 AM

US troops' attempt to enter inside Pakistan's territory foiled

Updated at: 1210 PST, Monday, September 15, 2008

WANA: Pakistan Army and local tribes on Monday foiled an attempt of US troops to enter inside Pakistan’s territory through two American helicopters.

According to sources, US troops boarded on two helicopters were trying to enter onto Pakistan’s areas near Angoor Adda along Pak-Afghan border when local tribes and troops of Pakistan army resisted the move and opened fire, forcing US helicopters to return.

Sources said situation remains tense in the area while local tribals along with Pakistan army are also positioned to face any untoward situation.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=55289

Pak jets scare US planes away

BAGRAM/NORTH WAZIRISTAN: Tribal elders are seriously considering summoning a grand jirga of all tribal areas to form "joint lashkar" to counter any US attack.

It was told after the jirga meeting of local tribal elders, which was called on Sunday to form a 'lashkar' to counter any US-led NATO forces' attack inside Pakistan. Earlier, Pakistan jet fighters have forced the US jet fighters to leave the area near the Pak-Afghan border and North Waziristan. While the US predators' flights continued on Sunday.

Reportedly, the US F-18 Hornet fighters took off from the Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan, entered into Pakistan and flew over its territory for 11 minutes. However, two Pakistan F-16 fighters have compelled them to leave the area.

Pakistan jet fighters have started its routine flights to monitor the US spy planes and the Pak-Afghan border. The locals have lauded Pakistan Army for the defence.

The jirga said the US spy planes' movement had increased in areas of the Bajaur Agency, Dama Dola, Shekai, Chena Bandy, Miran Shah and Wana.

The local tribal elders have expressed dissatisfaction over the measures taken by government for their security. They urged the government to take stringent security measures to protect masses' lives and property.

http://www.thepost.com.pk/MainNewsT.aspx?bdtl_id=12643&fb_id=2&catid=14

On SAT, a reaper was intercepted by a PAF Mirage Rose I and was seen leaving the area soon afterwards.

I dont know what the USA is doing but it is surely playing a very dangerous game. Her " reckless " and unilateral actions give moderate Pakistanis very little room to defend PAKISTAN siding USA.

JEEHA

September 15th, 2008, 06:32 AM

[QUOTE=Aliph Ahmed;154250]

[B]Pak jets scare US planes away

nice wordings mate!!!!! errrrrrrr............did they realy "scare" them????

Admin: Text deleted. please read the rules about posting behaviour.

Grand Danois

September 15th, 2008, 06:34 AM

JEEHA,

Please change your avatar, refrain from pointless one-liners & posting flame bait.

Now.

Thanks
/GD

JEEHA

September 15th, 2008, 06:42 AM

Admin:

You've had one private Mod request to change your Avatar
You've had one public Mod request to change your Avatar

Refusal to acknowledge and change it has earnt you a 7 day holiday.

The reasons why we have requested you change it have been articulated clearly.

If you do not change it by the time you come back then you will earn an extension to the ban.

It is not an unreasonable request, and if the shoe was on the other foot, then you would be urging the same treatment dished out to others.

Develop some grace and tact while you're on the enforced holiday

In the interim, we have changed your avatar to something more socially acceptable

Aliph Ahmed

September 15th, 2008, 07:07 AM

Unnecessary. /GD

Pakistan soldiers 'confront US'

Pakistani troops have fired shots into the air to stop US troops crossing into the South Waziristan region of Pakistan, local officials say.

Reports say seven US helicopters landed on the Afghan side of the border and US troops then tried to cross the border.

South Waziristan is one of the main areas from which Islamist militants launch attacks into Afghanistan.

The incident comes amid growing anger in Pakistan over US attacks along the border region.

The confrontation began at around midnight, local officials say.

As the US troops tried to cross the border from the Afghan province of Paktika, Pakistani paramilitary soldiers at a checkpoint opened fire into the air and the US troops decided not to continue forward.

Reports say the firing lasted for several hours. Local people evacuated their homes.

The incident happened close to the town of Angoorada.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7396366.stm

Marc 1

September 15th, 2008, 07:10 AM

i think pakistan is well on its way for becoming the next iraq!! pak may have been the ally of us in the past(and so was iraq) but almost all of the islamic allys of us has caused headaches for them.... iraq,afganistan,iran...the list goes on....now with so much islamic terrorist training centers inside pakistan and the presence of nukes( and ofcourse long range missiles) in the country..its really a hot spot..

Gee, I wonder why Pakistan is becoming more militant:rolleyes: After all they only have troops from another country with completely different religous and moral values either bombing or firing missiles into their territory, then rubbing salt into the wounds by publicly flaying the Pakistani government about their lack of control of the tribal areas, then sending in ground troops.:crazy

Now I've got a request for you to do something unique for a US citizen, your chance to put yourself in someone else's shoes... A quick question, if the Mexicans bombed a town just inside the US then followed that with a helliborn assault using troops, and killing US citizens (even if they were say a renegade bikkie gang), how do you think Uncle Sam would react...?

John Sansom

September 15th, 2008, 08:24 AM

Thanks to all for recent posts--a "deeply frustrated" US force, frightened US pilots, shots in the air by Pakistani paramilitary folk and all. And, of course, I'm sorry about the red ink.

Here's a question, though. Whatever happened to that accord between Pakistan's government and tribal area leaders? It didn't work? Oh, okay. What's next?

Well, for any sane person the solution must lie in the world of diplomacy; a diplomacy which allows for clearly defined areas of responsibility and of operational action. Given the nature of a great deal of the terrain involved, that's not as simple as one might think. Another downside factor is the present build-up of situational resentment which can only be dealt with through face-to-face patience.

I am sure that said diplomacy is underway...and I am equally sure that there are very influential personalities on both sides of the fence who are impeding it. George Bush is not one of them. These impediments are more the products of irrational ego than they are of monetary and/or corporate self-interest. My bet is that the current US president recognizes this, but has become powerless to effect change. Pretty much the same appears to have been going on in Pakistan for years.

Ideally, then, well-intentioned diplomats must isolate themselves from the ego maelstrom and, under the direction of a third party (how about Latvia or the like?), must hammer out a publicly disclosed agreement and common modus operandi. Public disclosure, with all its attendant risks, is essential in this matter....but, hey, what do I know?

At any rate, it's some kind of a start...and it's one helluva lot better than digging dead children out of the rubble while grief-stricken and bewildered parents look on.

arunmenon

September 16th, 2008, 06:17 AM

Gee, I wonder why Pakistan is becoming more militant:rolleyes: After all they only have troops from another country with completely different religous and moral values either bombing or firing missiles into their territory, then rubbing salt into the wounds by publicly flaying the Pakistani government about their lack of control of the tribal areas, then sending in ground troops.:crazy

Now I've got a request for you to do something unique for a US citizen, your chance to put yourself in someone else's shoes... A quick question, if the Mexicans bombed a town just inside the US then followed that with a helliborn assault using troops, and killing US citizens (even if they were say a renegade bikkie gang), how do you think Uncle Sam would react...?

i dont get your logic mate!!! u know only a hundredth of the taliban militia where either killed or captured!!! where do u think the rest have disappeared? they are holed up in Pakistan!

now about the mexican bombing what will the Mexicans bomb at in the us?? play schools? dance bars??? or are there any terrorist camps in th us that we don't know about?? if there are any dnt worry mate then the us will bomb those in us

Marc 1

September 16th, 2008, 08:25 AM

i dont get your logic mate!!! u know only a hundredth of the taliban militia where either killed or captured!!! where do u think the rest have disappeared? they are holed up in Pakistan!

now about the mexican bombing what will the Mexicans bomb at in the us?? play schools? dance bars??? or are there any terrorist camps in th us that we don't know about?? if there are any dnt worry mate then the us will bomb those in us

I was being sarcastic mate, Jeeha's opening line was "i think pakistan is well on its way for becoming the next iraq!!" (sic) I was trying to point out to him using sarcasm that one of the reasons why Pakistan is having issues is the way the US has been acting.

Yes, great swathes of the talibs are probably in Pakistan, the Pakistani authorities are the ones best placed to either roll them out of the country (where they can be legitimately engaged in Afghanistan) or hopefully will assist in sealing the border so the talibs cannot use Pakistan to as a refuge to refresh and rearm. The way you gain the cooperation of the Pakistani government is not by invading their country with foreign troops and killing their citizens.

Forget about the Mexicans, it was a hypothetical scenario to try and help Americans understand what Pakistan is experiencing - obviously lost on some.

Aliph Ahmed

September 16th, 2008, 10:27 AM

Pakistan orders troops to open fire if US raids

By STEPHEN GRAHAM, Associated Press Writer

Pakistan's military has ordered its forces to open fire if U.S. troops launch another air or ground raid across the Afghan border, an army spokesman said Tuesday.

The orders, which come in response to a highly unusual Sept. 3 ground attack by U.S. commandos, are certain to heighten tension between Washington and a key ally against terrorism.

Pakistan's civilian leaders have protested the raid but say the dispute should be resolved through diplomatic channels.

However, army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas told The Associated Press that after U.S. helicopters ferried troops into a militant stronghold in the South Waziristan tribal region, the military told field commanders to prevent any similar raids.

"The orders are clear," Abbas said in an interview. "In case it happens again in this form, that there is a very significant detection, which is very definite, no ambiguity, across the border, on ground or in the air: open fire."

U.S. military commanders accuse Islamabad of doing too little to prevent the Taliban and other militant groups from recruiting, training and resupplying in Pakistan's wild tribal belt.

Pakistan acknowledges the presence of al-Qaida fugitives and its difficulties in preventing militants from seeping through the mountainous border into Afghanistan.

However, it insists it is doing what it can and paying a heavy price, pointing to its deployment of more then 100,000 troops in its increasingly restive northwest and a wave of suicide bombings across the country.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/09/16/pakistan.troops.us.ap/index.html

Pakistan to halt oil supply to NATO in case of attack

Tuesday, 16 September 2008 11:45 www.daily.pk

Pakistan in unequivocal terms has said that it would halt supply of oil and other commodities to NATO in Afghanistan if the US troops continue to violate country’s border.

Private TV Channel quoted government and defense sources saying Pakistan would also hold fresh talks on agreement struck between Former President Pervez Musharraf and US President George. W. Bush with regard to logistic support to US in war against terrorism.

US would be informed strictly that Pakistan would halt supply of oil, edible items, weapons and other commodities to Afghanistan based US allied forces if US troops counties to violate country’s border.

According to information, more than 400 containers carrying commodities for Afghanistan based US allied forces pass from Torkham to Chaman.

Sources further said that debate on the issue would also be held in the Parliament.

http://www.daily.pk/national/nationalnews/7341-pakistan-to-halt-oil-supply-to-nato-in-case-of-attack.html

Also heard on PTV, news, American Joint Chief Of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen is arriving in Pakistan tonight,

This is the same guy who said cross border raids are Americas divine right.

nevidimka

September 16th, 2008, 11:09 AM

wow, this is getting interesting. Based on Bush's doctrine, Pakistan is allowed to make preemptive strikes at US forces staging attack on Pakistan across the border. LOL

So how come the US can illegally attack another country with disproportionate force on their territory without any condemnation? :)

Aliph Ahmed

September 22nd, 2008, 01:55 PM

Pakistan troops 'repel US raid'

Pakistani troops have fired warning shots at two US helicopters forcing them back into Afghanistan, local Pakistani intelligence officials say.

The helicopters flew into the tribal North Waziristan region from Afghanistan's Khost province at around midnight, the reports say.

Tensions have risen after an increase in US attacks targeting militants.

The incident comes amid mounting security fears after a militant bomb attack on the Islamabad Marriott hotel.

Pakistan's army has said it will defend the country's sovereignty and reserves the right to retaliate to any border violations.

The government has said it will take targeted action against the militants, promising raids in some "hotspots" near the border with Afghanistan.

Meanwhile in the city of Peshawar, Afghan consul Abdul Khaliq Farahi was kidnapped after six unidentified men ambushed his car, officials say. His driver died in the attack.

'Firing in the air'

Last week Pakistani troops fired into the air to prevent US ground troops crossing the border into South Waziristan.

The latest confrontation between US and Pakistani forces took place in North Waziristan's sparsely populated Ghulam Khan district, west of the main town in the region, Miranshah, local officials say.

They told the BBC that troops at border posts in the mountainous region fired at two US helicopters which crossed into Pakistani territory.

The helicopters returned to Afghanistan without retaliating.

A senior security official based in Islamabad told the AFP news agency that the helicopters had been repelled by both army troops and soldiers from the paramilitary Frontier Corps (FC).

"The helicopters were heading towards our border. We were alert and when they were right on the boundary line we started aerial firing. They hovered for a few minutes and went back," the official said.

"About 30 minutes later they made another attempt. We retaliated again, firing in the air and not in their direction, from both the army position and the FC position, and they went back."

A Pakistani military spokesman, Maj Murad Khan, said he had no information "on border violation by the American helicopters".

The US military in Afghanistan also said it had no information on the incident.

The BBC's Barbara Plett in Islamabad says after increased American incursions this month, the army stressed that it reserved the right to retaliate.

Our correspondent says standard procedure would be to first fire warning shots.

'Crisis in relations'

The two countries held talks last week on anti-militant co-ordination.

Anti-US feelings are on the rise in Pakistan

America's top military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, flew to Islamabad to try to calm the crisis in relations but tensions remain high, our correspondent says.

As well as reported incursions, there have been a number of US missile attacks aimed at militants in Pakistan territory in recent weeks.

The Americans stepped up their strikes after criticism that Pakistani troops were unable or unwilling to eliminate Taleban sanctuaries along the border.

Waziristan is one of the main areas from which Islamist militants launch attacks into Afghanistan.

It emerged earlier this month that US President George W Bush has in recent months authorised military raids against militants inside Pakistan without prior approval from Islamabad.

Pakistan reacted with diplomatic fury when US helicopters landed troops in South Waziristan on 3 September. It was the first ground assault by US troops in Pakistan.

Pakistan's army has warned that the aggressive US policy will widen the insurgency by uniting tribesmen with the Taleban.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7628890.stm

I am starting to wonder/think if there are US rogue commanders who are willing to test Pakistan/White house and risk taking their country to another war she can ill afford. :shudder

Aliph Ahmed

September 23rd, 2008, 05:11 PM

It is being reported on ARY a Pakistani news channel that a US drone has been shot down inside Pakistan.

Will be posting the article as soon as it becomes available online.

Aliph Ahmed

September 23rd, 2008, 06:13 PM

No US military drone reported down: Pentagon
23 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The Pentagon has no information that any US military drone was shot down or crashed Tuesday in Pakistan, a spokesman said.

"We have no reports of any loss of DoD (Department of Defense) drones," said Lieutenant Colonel Mark Wright.

The CIA declined to comment on the report by Pakistani officials that an unmanned spy plane crashed in South Waziristan.

A senior Pakistani security official told AFP the plane, which was believed to be American, crashed in Pakistani territory without disintegrating. Some residents said it was shot down by tribesmen.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hDGp_V...j_e0rMbSOaQisHg (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hDGp_Vl5zNcVnj_e0rMbSOaQisHg)

Pakistanis say suspected US drone shot down
38 minutes ago

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — Pakistani troops and tribesman shot down a suspected U.S. military drone close to the Afghan border Tuesday, three intelligence officials said.

If verified, it apparently would be the first pilotless aircraft brought down over Pakistan and the incident likely would add to tensions between Washington and Islamabad over a spate of recent American cross-border incursions in the lawless tribal regions.

The officials said the unmanned aircraft was shot down late Tuesday in the village of Jalal Khel in South Waziristan after circling over the area for several hours. Its wreckage was strewn on the ground, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief the media.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gQ4KsS-...tJ3AOAD93CL2381 (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gQ4KsS-XVChuTcjSjAEQJUtJ3AOAD93CL2381)

So is it safe to assume that Rogue US commaders are having those drone fly over Pakistan without the knowledge of Pentagon ?

Marc 1

September 24th, 2008, 06:41 AM

So is it safe to assume that Rogue US commaders are having those drone fly over Pakistan without the knowledge of Pentagon ?

What do you mean by rogue? Orders for the employment of these UAV's would be made in theatre (ie from a HQ in Afghanistan or the middle east somewhere) in accordance with directives issued via the Pentagon from the White House. Perhaps the