Al Qaeda's paramilitary 'Shadow Army'

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
326
126
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: dphantom
The link below is a frightening wake up call for Westerners concerned with the developments in Pakistan concerning Al-Quedah and the Taliban.

Link

Reliable sources now indicate Al-Quedah and the Taliban are conducting operations in battalion, brigade and even division size units analogous to conventional military units. They appear to be well equipped, well led and very well trained.

The ability of the Pakistani conventional forces (not Frontier Corp) appear to be highly suspect. If a regular battalion backed by tanks and air support as indicated in the link above cannot stand up to a Taliban force, then NWFP and perhaps other parts of Pakistan are or soon will be lost.

I suspect that is why the US and other NATO nations in Afghanistan are working very hard to secure alternate supply lines into AG as the ones thru Pakistan are soon to be lost.

This bodes very poorly for Afghanistan itself. By operating from protected bases, the Taliban/Al-Quedah can launch attacks and retreat to their sanctuaries whenever they want. It means a very long war with much higher troop committments than we see today or are even projected for later this year. This type of war will last a decade or more. Are we prepared for the casualties and monetary cost of such a war?

Wow. If Al-Qaida is going to start waging conventional war against us, they've already lost.

They're only advantage lay in unconventional tactics and trying to wear American patience thin. In a toe-to-toe conflict, they'd get their asses kicked. That's one lesson Westmoreland learned.

My guess is that any conventional Taliban/Al-Quedah attack would be against Pakistan and not NATO as NATO would kick their but. Instead, they will continue to use their current tactics of hit and run, taking over a village or small city for a time and then retreat to their sanctuary. Sounds very similar to Vietnam actually.

It won't be until NATO pulls out that we see a conventional attack against AG from Pakistan and that will be the end of AG as we know it.

Yeah, the ISI attacking the population while the ISI curbing the violence has been the status quo since foreign troops were introduced.

I will state this as clearly as i possibly can, there are no friendly ISI troops in the area, there are daily bombings and target locations by troops in the area.

All in all, you are incorrect about every assessment and i don't say that to be rude, it's just the way it is.

John,
While I appreciate your service as I am a retired USAF officer, I would ask you to remove yourself from this discussion as you seem to be able to only respond by personal attack. Additionally, you are off topic as I mentioned nothing about the ISI in either my original and subsequent posts nor in the article I linked to.

If you can stay on topic and hold a civil discourse, then by all means join in. But I do not stand for your type of personal attack.

Could you please bold the section where i made a personal attack.

I do not want to be disrespectful towards you but i would like to know your rank and time of service, it's not so i can investigate your or anything, it would be futile with that information, i am just curious.

The "stupid twat" comment earlier is one.

USAF Major, (ret) 1987-2005 enlisted 1982-1987 (E-5)

Yeah, me and Richard cleared that up though.

You outrank me sir, i am a Captain of TFB, currently in Afghnistan, for others not in the know the TFB stands for Task Force Black, an SAS unit.

Last turn, probably but i have said that every time.

I work in this area that is mentioned and i can tell you that there is nothing that is said in that article that is true i think what is observed is the training of the ISI (which i trust about as much as Kramelil) and i can assure you that if there was such a camp we would mark it and the USAF would handle it.

Thank you for your courtesy sir.

Cpt Jake

No problem. Stay safe.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
326
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
"longwarjournal.org" and "reliable sources".

Error 404, credibility not found.

I'm really feeling the love from JoS in this thread!

Actually, LWJ is relatively credible as is Michael Yon's blog. See my sig for a third source of fairly straight reporting.

The LWJ article is sourced from other information and appears to be primarily from India. As JOS said, it could very well be ISI in these formations, but then again, how much of ISI is actually Taliban?
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Damn! This really is bad! This looks like full-scale civil war. What the hell is wrong with the Pakistani army? The claim to be one of the top 5 forces in the world and they can't control their own terrirtoy? Ridiculous!! And these Wahabis are suicidal maniacs. They are the biggest threat to Islam; more so than the Zionists. When will the Pakistanis realize this and start fighting like a real war which it already has become?!!! What shit we are in. We have 600,000 men but that doesn't seem enough with threats from both the eastern and western borders and terrorists attacking so close to the settled areas!

And the last thing we need is American intervention. Every Pakistani despises America after what it has done in Iraq and is doing to Iran; the Shiahs, the Sunnis, the secularists. It's a pretty dumb tactic by the USA to try and fight every sect at once. Realize NOW that the wahabis are a threat to all including Iran. The basic flaw in American foreign policy is its support for the SA wahabis. You feed billions into SA and they only come to haunt everyone. Iran hates SA; and it's because of Wahabis. It's about time you rethought your strategic alliances in the region. And no-JOS; I'm not going to reply to self-righteous jerks like you.

I'm waiting for the video to load (my internet has become sucky) and just want to clear out that those are the Paramilitary frontier corps and not regular army soldliers.
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Skoorb
"longwarjournal.org" and "reliable sources".

Error 404, credibility not found.

I'm really feeling the love from JoS in this thread!

Actually, LWJ is relatively credible as is Michael Yon's blog. See my sig for a third source of fairly straight reporting.

The LWJ article is sourced from other information and appears to be primarily from India. As JOS said, it could very well be ISI in these formations, but then again, how much of ISI is actually Taliban?

ISI being Taliban is just propaganda. You can listen to idiots blabbering away without proof if you want. Having said that it IS pretty bad back here. Swat is a settled area unlike the rest of the taliban controlled territory. This is unacceptable. The government recently (1 week) launched a new military operation to take back control of Swat after "negotiations" failed. I'm not convinced that we need to negotiate with terrorists. They are blowing up schools and what not.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Skoorb
"longwarjournal.org" and "reliable sources".

Error 404, credibility not found.

I'm really feeling the love from JoS in this thread!

Actually, LWJ is relatively credible as is Michael Yon's blog. See my sig for a third source of fairly straight reporting.

The LWJ article is sourced from other information and appears to be primarily from India. As JOS said, it could very well be ISI in these formations, but then again, how much of ISI is actually Taliban?

ISI being Taliban is just propaganda. You can listen to idiots blabbering away without proof if you want. Having said that it IS pretty bad back here. Swat is a settled area unlike the rest of the taliban controlled territory. This is unacceptable. The government recently (1 week) launched a new military operation to take back control of Swat after "negotiations" failed. I'm not convinced that we need to negotiate with terrorists. They are blowing up schools and what not.

There has been enough proof to make the link. If you read sites other than your forced fed Pakistani is the best sites you would see that.

Do you have any reasonable explanation on why nuclear armed nation (nukes are irrelevant, but the army needed to maintain a nuclear arsenal is not) cannot control its own population?
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Skoorb
"longwarjournal.org" and "reliable sources".

Error 404, credibility not found.

I'm really feeling the love from JoS in this thread!

Actually, LWJ is relatively credible as is Michael Yon's blog. See my sig for a third source of fairly straight reporting.

The LWJ article is sourced from other information and appears to be primarily from India. As JOS said, it could very well be ISI in these formations, but then again, how much of ISI is actually Taliban?

ISI being Taliban is just propaganda. You can listen to idiots blabbering away without proof if you want. Having said that it IS pretty bad back here. Swat is a settled area unlike the rest of the taliban controlled territory. This is unacceptable. The government recently (1 week) launched a new military operation to take back control of Swat after "negotiations" failed. I'm not convinced that we need to negotiate with terrorists. They are blowing up schools and what not.

There has been enough proof to make the link. If you read sites other than your forced fed Pakistani is the best sites you would see that.

Do you have any reasonable explanation on why nuclear armed nation (nukes are irrelevant, but the army needed to maintain a nuclear arsenal is not) cannot control its own population?

It's because they've never tried. And it's not our own people. Read that article again. Most fighters are foreigns. Uzbeks, arabs, Afghans... It's the same reason why you are having problems in Afghanistan except our government doesn't seem to care!
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Skoorb
"longwarjournal.org" and "reliable sources".

Error 404, credibility not found.

I'm really feeling the love from JoS in this thread!

Actually, LWJ is relatively credible as is Michael Yon's blog. See my sig for a third source of fairly straight reporting.

The LWJ article is sourced from other information and appears to be primarily from India. As JOS said, it could very well be ISI in these formations, but then again, how much of ISI is actually Taliban?

ISI being Taliban is just propaganda. You can listen to idiots blabbering away without proof if you want. Having said that it IS pretty bad back here. Swat is a settled area unlike the rest of the taliban controlled territory. This is unacceptable. The government recently (1 week) launched a new military operation to take back control of Swat after "negotiations" failed. I'm not convinced that we need to negotiate with terrorists. They are blowing up schools and what not.

There has been enough proof to make the link. If you read sites other than your forced fed Pakistani is the best sites you would see that.

Do you have any reasonable explanation on why nuclear armed nation (nukes are irrelevant, but the army needed to maintain a nuclear arsenal is not) cannot control its own population?

It's because they've never tried. And it's not our own people. Read that article again. Most fighters are foreigns. Uzbeks, arabs, Afghans... It's the same reason why you are having problems in Afghanistan except our government doesn't seem to care!

And why have they not tried? No political motivation to do it?

Why is that? Perhaps there are Taliban sympathizers in the military and ISI which has a reputation for strong arming politicians?
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Originally posted by: RichardE

And why have they not tried? No political motivation to do it?

Why is that? Perhaps there are Taliban sympathizers in the military and ISI which has a reputation for strong arming politicians?

One reason is that everybody is too busy with other issues. The judiciary; possible war with India; the fast failing economy. When put into perspective this seems like the least of our problems. Sadly.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: RichardE

And why have they not tried? No political motivation to do it?

Why is that? Perhaps there are Taliban sympathizers in the military and ISI which has a reputation for strong arming politicians?

One reason is that everybody is too busy with other issues. The judiciary; possible war with India; the fast failing economy. When put into perspective this seems like the least of our problems. Sadly.

I understand that, but this has been an ongoing issue since the Soviet/Afghan war in regards to Pakistan taking action on the sanctuary. You guys really need politicians with balls who can get the militaries backing to curb the snake that is the ISI since it is now almost too powerful for politicians to handle.
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: RichardE

And why have they not tried? No political motivation to do it?

Why is that? Perhaps there are Taliban sympathizers in the military and ISI which has a reputation for strong arming politicians?

One reason is that everybody is too busy with other issues. The judiciary; possible war with India; the fast failing economy. When put into perspective this seems like the least of our problems. Sadly.

I understand that, but this has been an ongoing issue since the Soviet/Afghan war in regards to Pakistan taking action on the sanctuary. You guys really need politicians with balls who can get the militaries backing to curb the snake that is the ISI since it is now almost too powerful for politicians to handle.

There was no reason to fight them before 9/11. I also think if it weren't for the ISI we would have been licking the ground for India. And the CIA, MOSSAD and RAW aren't showpieces either.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
The claim to be one of the top 5 forces in the world
LOL, who claims that? I claim that I can run 100 meters in 5 seconds and eat 2000 hotdogs in 12 minutes.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: RichardE

And why have they not tried? No political motivation to do it?

Why is that? Perhaps there are Taliban sympathizers in the military and ISI which has a reputation for strong arming politicians?

One reason is that everybody is too busy with other issues. The judiciary; possible war with India; the fast failing economy. When put into perspective this seems like the least of our problems. Sadly.

I understand that, but this has been an ongoing issue since the Soviet/Afghan war in regards to Pakistan taking action on the sanctuary. You guys really need politicians with balls who can get the militaries backing to curb the snake that is the ISI since it is now almost too powerful for politicians to handle.

There was no reason to fight them before 9/11. I also think if it weren't for the ISI we would have been licking the ground for India. And the CIA, MOSSAD and RAW aren't showpieces either.

There was plenty of reason to fight them before 9/11 but ISI had its hand in the Afghanistan pot doing the proxy war thing with Iraq, Iran, India and the US. The Taliban is an entity that the ISI helped nurse with the US during the Soviet/Afghan war, the chicken is just comming home to the roost so to speak.

Which is why your idea of "we should deal with our own problems" is such nationalistic pandering bullshit as to be laughable. The US and Pakistan were both responsible for the creation of the Taliban, and working together could pretty much decimate it in short order, but your nationalism is going to be the downfall of your society, since the day it looks like the Taliban are going to get there hands on the country overall, Pakistan will lose its sovereignty.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Pakistan is just a small outpost of Islam Redivivus around the world. John needs to worry more about the 3-4 million "Tiny Minority of Extremists" about to turn his country into SWAT valley rather than Pakistan.
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: RichardE

And why have they not tried? No political motivation to do it?

Why is that? Perhaps there are Taliban sympathizers in the military and ISI which has a reputation for strong arming politicians?

One reason is that everybody is too busy with other issues. The judiciary; possible war with India; the fast failing economy. When put into perspective this seems like the least of our problems. Sadly.

I understand that, but this has been an ongoing issue since the Soviet/Afghan war in regards to Pakistan taking action on the sanctuary. You guys really need politicians with balls who can get the militaries backing to curb the snake that is the ISI since it is now almost too powerful for politicians to handle.

There was no reason to fight them before 9/11. I also think if it weren't for the ISI we would have been licking the ground for India. And the CIA, MOSSAD and RAW aren't showpieces either.

There was plenty of reason to fight them before 9/11 but ISI had its hand in the Afghanistan pot doing the proxy war thing with Iraq, Iran, India and the US. The Taliban is an entity that the ISI helped nurse with the US during the Soviet/Afghan war, the chicken is just comming home to the roost so to speak.

Which is why your idea of "we should deal with our own problems" is such nationalistic pandering bullshit as to be laughable. The US and Pakistan were both responsible for the creation of the Taliban, and working together could pretty much decimate it in short order, but your nationalism is going to be the downfall of your society, since the day it looks like the Taliban are going to get there hands on the country overall, Pakistan will lose its sovereignty.

At the time; The Taliban seemed a much better option for the stability of the region compared to the fighting factions that were there then AFTER the USA abandoned it. We have fired back at the incursions by NATO and USA and we will do it again. Drones are not worth it however. The taliban will get NO support outside the NWFP. The Taliban are pakhtuns and they get support from the pakhtuns for their ethnicity nothing else.

I still think the source of all this is SA.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: RichardE

And why have they not tried? No political motivation to do it?

Why is that? Perhaps there are Taliban sympathizers in the military and ISI which has a reputation for strong arming politicians?

One reason is that everybody is too busy with other issues. The judiciary; possible war with India; the fast failing economy. When put into perspective this seems like the least of our problems. Sadly.

I understand that, but this has been an ongoing issue since the Soviet/Afghan war in regards to Pakistan taking action on the sanctuary. You guys really need politicians with balls who can get the militaries backing to curb the snake that is the ISI since it is now almost too powerful for politicians to handle.

There was no reason to fight them before 9/11. I also think if it weren't for the ISI we would have been licking the ground for India. And the CIA, MOSSAD and RAW aren't showpieces either.

There was plenty of reason to fight them before 9/11 but ISI had its hand in the Afghanistan pot doing the proxy war thing with Iraq, Iran, India and the US. The Taliban is an entity that the ISI helped nurse with the US during the Soviet/Afghan war, the chicken is just comming home to the roost so to speak.

Which is why your idea of "we should deal with our own problems" is such nationalistic pandering bullshit as to be laughable. The US and Pakistan were both responsible for the creation of the Taliban, and working together could pretty much decimate it in short order, but your nationalism is going to be the downfall of your society, since the day it looks like the Taliban are going to get there hands on the country overall, Pakistan will lose its sovereignty.

At the time; The Taliban seemed a much better option for the stability of the region compared to the fighting factions that were there then AFTER the USA abandoned it.

I still think the source of all this is SA.

Potentially, though I would think both should have acted as soon as the true nature of Taliban became realized. SA is to blame, the Taliban and them both were working towards the same goals and playing games by funding terrorists. I still think the nationalistic bullshit needs to be pushed back a bit and both the US and Pakistian go into the sanctuary and take care of business. Than have the US pull out and Paksistain can continue on with its regular life. (Probally for the better with India as well).

Some things are more important than pride. Because you know, as well as I do, that if the country looks like its going to fall to the Taliban, India will attack and ask for the US's help. China and Russia will stand by idly since they are both fearful of internal issues coupled with external Islam extrminism.
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: RichardE

And why have they not tried? No political motivation to do it?

Why is that? Perhaps there are Taliban sympathizers in the military and ISI which has a reputation for strong arming politicians?

One reason is that everybody is too busy with other issues. The judiciary; possible war with India; the fast failing economy. When put into perspective this seems like the least of our problems. Sadly.

I understand that, but this has been an ongoing issue since the Soviet/Afghan war in regards to Pakistan taking action on the sanctuary. You guys really need politicians with balls who can get the militaries backing to curb the snake that is the ISI since it is now almost too powerful for politicians to handle.

There was no reason to fight them before 9/11. I also think if it weren't for the ISI we would have been licking the ground for India. And the CIA, MOSSAD and RAW aren't showpieces either.

There was plenty of reason to fight them before 9/11 but ISI had its hand in the Afghanistan pot doing the proxy war thing with Iraq, Iran, India and the US. The Taliban is an entity that the ISI helped nurse with the US during the Soviet/Afghan war, the chicken is just comming home to the roost so to speak.

Which is why your idea of "we should deal with our own problems" is such nationalistic pandering bullshit as to be laughable. The US and Pakistan were both responsible for the creation of the Taliban, and working together could pretty much decimate it in short order, but your nationalism is going to be the downfall of your society, since the day it looks like the Taliban are going to get there hands on the country overall, Pakistan will lose its sovereignty.

At the time; The Taliban seemed a much better option for the stability of the region compared to the fighting factions that were there then AFTER the USA abandoned it.

I still think the source of all this is SA.

Potentially, though I would think both should have acted as soon as the true nature of Taliban became realized. SA is to blame, the Taliban and them both were working towards the same goals and playing games by funding terrorists. I still think the nationalistic bullshit needs to be pushed back a bit and both the US and Pakistian go into the sanctuary and take care of business. Than have the US pull out and Paksistain can continue on with its regular life. (Probally for the better with India as well).

Some things are more important than pride. Because you know, as well as I do, that if the country looks like its going to fall to the Taliban, India will attack and ask for the US's help. China and Russia will stand by idly since they are both fearful of internal issues coupled with external Islam extrminism.

The country won't fall to the taliban. There are about 140million people of other ethnicity that will wage war against the taliban if it comes to that. The only supporter of the taliban in Pakistan are the Pakthuns.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Sour grapes wishful thinking or not, the JOS comment of "But now we got Gen Petreus who is a stupid twat with a political solution.

Bring in General Wesley Clarke, focus on the area at hand and let the airforce do what we do best, after that Petreus can continue to twiddle his thumbs while we fix it.",

simply is not going to happen.

Either Gen Petraeus is going to continue with trying to find some political solution or Obama is going to have to try some radically different approach. What we have is not working. But the Wesley Clark possibility is simply an empty fantasy exceeded only by the JOS claim of "while we fix it."


 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: RichardE

And why have they not tried? No political motivation to do it?

Why is that? Perhaps there are Taliban sympathizers in the military and ISI which has a reputation for strong arming politicians?

One reason is that everybody is too busy with other issues. The judiciary; possible war with India; the fast failing economy. When put into perspective this seems like the least of our problems. Sadly.

I understand that, but this has been an ongoing issue since the Soviet/Afghan war in regards to Pakistan taking action on the sanctuary. You guys really need politicians with balls who can get the militaries backing to curb the snake that is the ISI since it is now almost too powerful for politicians to handle.

There was no reason to fight them before 9/11. I also think if it weren't for the ISI we would have been licking the ground for India. And the CIA, MOSSAD and RAW aren't showpieces either.

There was plenty of reason to fight them before 9/11 but ISI had its hand in the Afghanistan pot doing the proxy war thing with Iraq, Iran, India and the US. The Taliban is an entity that the ISI helped nurse with the US during the Soviet/Afghan war, the chicken is just comming home to the roost so to speak.

Which is why your idea of "we should deal with our own problems" is such nationalistic pandering bullshit as to be laughable. The US and Pakistan were both responsible for the creation of the Taliban, and working together could pretty much decimate it in short order, but your nationalism is going to be the downfall of your society, since the day it looks like the Taliban are going to get there hands on the country overall, Pakistan will lose its sovereignty.

At the time; The Taliban seemed a much better option for the stability of the region compared to the fighting factions that were there then AFTER the USA abandoned it.

I still think the source of all this is SA.

Potentially, though I would think both should have acted as soon as the true nature of Taliban became realized. SA is to blame, the Taliban and them both were working towards the same goals and playing games by funding terrorists. I still think the nationalistic bullshit needs to be pushed back a bit and both the US and Pakistian go into the sanctuary and take care of business. Than have the US pull out and Paksistain can continue on with its regular life. (Probally for the better with India as well).

Some things are more important than pride. Because you know, as well as I do, that if the country looks like its going to fall to the Taliban, India will attack and ask for the US's help. China and Russia will stand by idly since they are both fearful of internal issues coupled with external Islam extrminism.

The country won't fall to the taliban. There are about 140million people of other ethnicity that will wage war against the taliban if it comes to that. The only supporter of the taliban in Pakistan are the Pakthuns.

I guess time will tell. I'm not terribly worries, since either you are right and they stay contained, or they don't and India takes care of them with the US's help. Either way they are not a threat. I actually prefer if they focus more of there means against Pakistanis army, since it will help take pressure off in Afghan.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Our fantasy tatoo, is that we can control a population of 31+ million people with 72,000 troops. And then augment that control with bombing raids that alienate almost all of that 31 million population. And Obama's fantasy is that he can double the troops size and do any better.

As for the tribal regions of Pakistan, they have de facto autonomy from the more modern parts of Pakistan, and as they look West at Afghanistan, the last thing the inhabitants want is to see any Nato activity in their homeland after seeing what Nato has done for Afghanistan.

We need to start looking at this problem as a political, economic, and diplomatic problem, because looking at as a military problem is badly backfiring. And as a military problem, we need to think 600-700 K troops at a minimum, or any military strategy is not viable.

The more developed regions of Pakistan want nothing to do with either the Taliban or Al-Quida, because neither Al-Quida or the Taliban has anything to offer for their future, but in both Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan, there is almost no economic development and conditions are primitive. And until Nato can start to bring economic development along with their presence, anarchy favors the Taliban and Al-Quida.
It was already broke before we got there, perhaps we need to realize that we can't fix it, or maybe that is actually our goal,,,not fixing it.