Pakistani Coalition parties oppose use of force in Fata

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Ah, you stand by an amorphous body of posts about Afghanistan and Pakistan - nations in which I'm sure you've never gone to or know anyone from, but are the resident expert upon.

I'd be ashamed in your place, but I suspect you're far too in love with the sound of your own voice to stop subjecting the rest of us to your garbage. :disgust:
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I think too much of this thread to let it degenerate into a personal feud between you and me. Maybe we should let others speak? As for my posts on the areas of Afghanistan, I stand by them.
On this subject, you've never been right.

not once.

You have no idea what "reality" means.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I think too much of this thread to let it degenerate into a personal feud between you and me. Maybe we should let others speak? As for my posts on the areas of Afghanistan, I stand by them.
On this subject, you've never been right.

not once.

You have no idea what "reality" means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somehow I did not have you in mind when I talked about others speaking. But you still sound like a broken record, you tell us how well you are doing in Afghanistan, while you do worse and worse every year.

And then you have the unmitigated gall to call me wrong. palehorse, exactly what part of reality do you not understand?
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I think too much of this thread to let it degenerate into a personal feud between you and me. Maybe we should let others speak? As for my posts on the areas of Afghanistan, I stand by them.
On this subject, you've never been right.

not once.

You have no idea what "reality" means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somehow I did not have you in mind when I talked about others speaking. But you still sound like a broken record, you tell us how well you are doing in Afghanistan, while you do worse and worse every year.

And then you have the unmitigated gall to call me wrong. palehorse, exactly what part of reality do you not understand?

You do understand the reason US/NATO doesn't do as well in Afghanistan as it could is because of political decisions made here, with a large factor thrown in to appease whiners and naysayers like yourself, Right?

When the US commits to actually doing something - and when I say commit, I mean we go all out - the sh1t gets done. It's when we half ass, because of political considerations (read: The softy's in the US won't go for the needed solution, we'll have to ask the military to try and do the best they can with what the US will give it), we get what we get.

That you don't see yourself as a main problem in this equation is astoundingly primadonna'ish.

Chuck
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
At least I can half way agree with Chucky2, GWB&co have tried military occupations on the cheap in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Allocating something like 25% to 33% of the needed troops to have any chance of success.

The chucky2 delusion is that any domestic opposition to these occupations have in any way caused initial poor planning on the part if GWB&co. If anything I am record as saying we need far more troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
At least I can half way agree with Chucky2, GWB&co have tried military occupations on the cheap in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Allocating something like 25% to 33% of the needed troops to have any chance of success.

The chucky2 delusion is that any domestic opposition to these occupations have in any way caused initial poor planning on the part if GWB&co. If anything I am record as saying we need far more troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

you're also on the record as saying that we need to continue allowing AQ and the Taliban to have free reign in Pakistan.

your personal concept of "reality" has been derived from yahoo, google, CNN, and the Daily KOS. You've never stepped foot in ANY of the countries you consistently try to sound so educated about.

as for me, I know exactly how welcome I am in every village I've ever stepped foot in throughout Afghanistan; and, I know EXACTLY what needs to be done, on more than one front, to win the war in central Asia against psychotic Islamic extremism.

You're not part of the solution or the problem... you're the fucking peanut gallery.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: Lemon law
At least I can half way agree with Chucky2, GWB&co have tried military occupations on the cheap in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Allocating something like 25% to 33% of the needed troops to have any chance of success.

The chucky2 delusion is that any domestic opposition to these occupations have in any way caused initial poor planning on the part if GWB&co. If anything I am record as saying we need far more troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

you're also on the record as saying that we need to continue allowing AQ and the Taliban to have free reign in Pakistan.

your personal concept of "reality" has been derived from yahoo, google, CNN, and the Daily KOS. You've never stepped foot in ANY of the countries you consistently try to sound so educated about.

as for me, I know exactly how welcome I am in every village I've ever stepped foot in throughout Afghanistan; and, I know EXACTLY what needs to be done, on more than one front, to win the war in central Asia against psychotic Islamic extremism.

You're not part of the solution or the problem... you're the fucking peanut gallery.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For some one who knows exactly what needs to be done, your track record of doing worse and worse every year sure belies your puffing. And I do not need to attend the game to know what the box score is. Not only are you biting off more than you can chew given your scanty troop numbers, you want to bite off more than your commander and chief tells you
you can bite off.

And given your quite junior rank in the military, you are hardly setting any policy. Worse yet, you seem totally ignorant about the local people and to add injury to insult, you have no interests in learning. Which may work in a war but its fatal to any military occupation. And you very much remind me of the same rhetoric that came out of Vietnam, a basic occupation we expending far more resources on, but lost badly none the less.

Palehorse, you simply are not credible, maybe if you had something on the order of 720,000
troops, Nato could widen the war into Pakistan and have some positive effect, but failing adequate troops numbers, a secure supply line, and Pakistani support, Nato would simply spread its self far thinner than they are now.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,158
6
81
Originally posted by: Lemon law
yllus, does it ever occur to you that Pakistan is a sovereign country, and that Pakistan does not exist as a country to only slavishly serve US interests.

Definition of sovereign:

autonomous: (of political bodies) not controlled by outside forces; "an autonomous judiciary"; "a sovereign state"


If part of Pakistan is controlled by outside forces, does that make them a fully sovereign nation?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,442
7,506
136
Everyone missed the point:

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
When in a position of extreme weakness it's always best to negotiate.

That's about it. Lot of good Pakistan's nuclear arsenal does eh? All it does is increase the likelihood of us caring when they peacefully surrender to the radical militants. The Taliban having control of another nation?s government, well that just stinks of pre-war Afghanistan doesn?t it? Afghanistan never had a nuclear arsenal.

You want to make deals Pakistan, make deals with us. I guess unlike the Taliban we?re not killing your countrymen in order to get brought such nice offers. Just remember, the Taliban are our enemy. I know your country chose its side, and chose it a long time ago, but maybe we?ll make you offer us such a sweet deal. Beware the company you keep.
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Everyone missed the point:

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
When in a position of extreme weakness it's always best to negotiate.

That's about it. Lot of good Pakistan's nuclear arsenal does eh? All it does is increase the likelihood of us caring when they peacefully surrender to the radical militants. The Taliban having control of another nation?s government, well that just stinks of pre-war Afghanistan doesn?t it? Afghanistan never had a nuclear arsenal.

You want to make deals Pakistan, make deals with us. I guess unlike the Taliban we?re not killing your countrymen in order to get brought such nice offers. Just remember, the Taliban are our enemy. I know your country chose its side, and chose it a long time ago, but maybe we?ll make you offer us such a sweet deal. Beware the company you keep.

You mean deals like if we engage in a civil war you will not bomb us?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Lemon law
yllus, does it ever occur to you that Pakistan is a sovereign country, and that Pakistan does not exist as a country to only slavishly serve US interests.

Definition of sovereign:

autonomous: (of political bodies) not controlled by outside forces; "an autonomous judiciary"; "a sovereign state"


If part of Pakistan is controlled by outside forces, does that make them a fully sovereign nation?

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

The nick 1985 myth he is trying to sell is that any country exists in a vacuum. And is homogeneous within and without. At least during the our cold war with the Soviet Union,
everything the US wanted to do was partially checked by the Russians. And today, the USA is hardly politically homogeneous, we may have a 26% popular GWB in somewhat firm control, but its apparent to all that our foreign policy is unsustainable and that we will almost certainly take a new course dependent on the outcomes of the election of 11/4/2008.
And what we do now and in the future is largely controlled by the larger world.

As for Pakistan itself, it might be better to think of Pakistan as two Pakistans. A very primitive part consisting of the tribal areas and a modern and vibrant part that concerns
the bulk of the Pakistani population and politics. And the other myth that nick1985 is trying to sell is that Taliban activity in the Tribal regions of Pakistan is ANY threat to the larger modern parts Pakistan. Taliban type ideals does have some political appeal in the Tribal areas but Taliban type ideals have almost zero appeal in Modern Pakistan.

If anything, IMHO, the modern parts of Pakistan have done a far better job controlling their right wing kooks than the USA has done in controlling our right wing kooks.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Worse yet, you seem totally ignorant about the local people and to add injury to insult, you have no interests in learning.
:confused: does your audacity know no bounds?!

warning, e-cockfight forthcoming...

I have read the same books as you... all of them. And, there's that other small thing... I've also been there! :Q

While there, I worked very closely with the people and I faced the enemy in more than one capacity.

How about you son? What have you ever done to earn credibility on this subject?

I stand by what I've written too many times to count: On this subject, you've never been right.

Care to join me on my next trip over? I'll be glad to introduce you to reality!
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Palehorse, if you have read the same things as I have have then why do you deny the very ideas you perpetually ignore?

Another palehorse post, long on bluster and totally short on results.

But now you have me curious, what is your take on the various historical forces acting on Afghanistan? Other than always calling me wrong, you have never articulated them.

But its worth making an observation, your kill all Taliban no exceptions mantra is unprecedented in war. No victorious army ever got away with always exterminating the enemy. Did we kill everyone in the German army, the Japanese army, the Spanish army, or the confederate army in the aftermath of our wars with them? But that is the seeming scenario you advocate, killing all 31 millions Afghans to save them from what amounts to primitive ideas.

Only crazy people like Hitler talk in those total extermination final solution terms. And you pit 72,000 troops against the 200 million combined populations of Afghanistan and Pakistan???
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Al-Qaeda weapons expert believed killed in Pakistan PESHAWAR, Pakistan, July 28 (AFP) - A top Al-Qaeda expert on chemical and biological weapons is believed to have been killed Monday in a suspected US missile strike in Pakistan's South Waziristan tribal district bordering Afghanistan, security officials said. Egyptian militant Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, had a five-million-US-dollar bounty on his head and allegedly ran terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. Officials earlier said that three Arab militants and three Pakistani boys were killed when missiles fired by a suspected US drone hit a house attached to a mosque near Azam Warsak village in South Waziristan tribal district. ?We believe he was killed in this strike,? a senior intelligence official based in Peshawar, the capital of North West Frontier Province, told AFP on condition of anonymity. ?It was his hide-out and information that has been shared with us says he was targeted in this strike?. There was no immediate confirmation from the US-led coalition in Afghanistan or from Washington. Pakistan's military said it was still seeking confirmation, after claims that Umar was killed in another airstrike in the Bajaur tribal region in January 2006 turned out to be untrue. ?We are facing difficulties in getting to know what kind of incident it was,? Pakistani military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas told AFP. ?We have not yet received any authentic information from the area from our teams.? Umar is described by the website of the US Government Rewards for Justice programme, which offered the reward, as an ?explosives expert and poisons trainer working on behalf of Al-Qaeda?. He served as a trainer at Al-Qaeda's Derunta camp in Afghanistan when it was set up in the late 1990s ?where he provided hundreds of mujahedin with hands-on training in the use of poisons and explosives,? the website said. ?Since 1999, he has distributed training manuals that contain instructions for making chemical and biological weapons. Some of these training manuals were recovered by US forces in Afghanistan,? it said. It said that his exact whereabouts were unknown but that he may be living in Pakistan. He was still likely to be training extremists, the website said. Residents in South Waziristan said they heard US aircraft and pilotless Predator drones flying above the area before and after the strike, adding that there had been alarm over similar flights throughout the weekend. A group of Arabs, believed to be Egyptians, had rented a compound containing the house and a madrassa from a local tribesman, Malik Salat, residents said. ?This (the attack) has been done by coalition forces, we did not do it,? another Pakistani security official said on condition of anonymity. Both the US-led coalition and a separate NATO force in Afghanistan said they were not involved in the missile strike. However, the US Central Intelligence Agency is also known to operate drones in the region. (First Posted @ 09:45 PST Updated @ 21:06 PST)


Pakistan military warns US commander on strikes ISLAMABAD, July 28 (AFP) Repeated US missile strikes in Pakistan could harm relations between the two countries, General Tariq Majid, chairman of Pakistan's joint chiefs of staff, told Lieutenant General Martin Dempsey, head of US Central Command, Monday, a statement said. The warning by General Tariq came hours after a suspected US missile strike in Pakistan's South Waziristan tribal region. ?Expressing concern over repeated cross-border missile attacks/firing by coalition and Afghan forces, General Tariq said that our sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected,? a military statement said. ?Any violation in this regard could be detrimental to bilateral relations,? it said. Majid ?also reemphasized that Pakistan armed forces are capable of handling any challenges to our security.? Pakistani officials said a suspected missile strike by US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan early Monday killed three foreign militants and three boys. Majid also said the ?baseless allegations against Pakistan could affect mutual trust and would definitely influence our efforts in the war against terror.? (Posted @ 17:08 PST)


And a bit off topic

Indian, Pakistani troops clash on Kashmir border: Indian army NEW DELHI, July 28 (AFP) - A group of Pakistani troops crossed into occupied Kashmir Monday and shot dead an Indian soldier, sparking a gun battle, an army spokesman in New Delhi said. ?Between 10 and 12 Pakistani soldiers crossed the Line of Control and entered the Kupwara sector, and after a verbal duel they shot dead a soldier,? Indian army spokesman Anil Kumar Mathur told AFP. He said the killing triggered an exchange of small arms fire, which was continuing into the evening. According to the spokesman, Pakistani soldiers crossed 200 metres ) into Indian territory to ?object to the setting up of a post by Indian army soldiers.? The infiltration took place at 3:00 pm (0930 GMT), an Indian army statement said. ?After that our troops also retaliated and the Pakistani troops withdrew. We don't know yet whether Pakistani troops suffered any casualties. The exchange of fire is continuing in the area,? the army statement added. In Islamabad, Pakistani army's spokesman said he had no information on the clash. ?I don't have any information about this incident right now,? chief Pakistani military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas told AFP. (First Posted @ 21:20 PST Updated @ 22:12 PST)
 

tvarad

Golden Member
Jun 25, 2001
1,130
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law


But its worth making an observation, your kill all Taliban no exceptions mantra is unprecedented in war. No victorious army ever got away with always exterminating the enemy. Did we kill everyone in the German army, the Japanese army, the Spanish army, or the confederate army in the aftermath of our wars with them? But that is the seeming scenario you advocate, killing all 31 millions Afghans to save them from what amounts to primitive ideas.

Only crazy people like Hitler talk in those total extermination final solution terms. And you pit 72,000 troops against the 200 million combined populations of Afghanistan and Pakistan???

Put down the pipe and the needle, bro. You're brain's wasting away.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: tvarad
Originally posted by: Lemon law


But its worth making an observation, your kill all Taliban no exceptions mantra is unprecedented in war. No victorious army ever got away with always exterminating the enemy. Did we kill everyone in the German army, the Japanese army, the Spanish army, or the confederate army in the aftermath of our wars with them? But that is the seeming scenario you advocate, killing all 31 millions Afghans to save them from what amounts to primitive ideas.

Only crazy people like Hitler talk in those total extermination final solution terms. And you pit 72,000 troops against the 200 million combined populations of Afghanistan and Pakistan???

Put down the pipe and the needle, bro. You're brain's wasting away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me tvardad, what part of what palehorse is saying do you endorse?

If you listen to what palehorse says, he does not give a damn about the opinions of Afghans, Pakistanis, or any opinion but his own. Its especially sad when his own commander and chief is saying oh no you don't as well.

At the rate things are currently going, the Nato Afghan occupation will be Kaput before a new President can be elected. You understand nothing of history or military strategy. You act like a child that is playing cowboys and Indians, pull a Custard and the Indians win.

Do the math, what part of being out numbered 2,778 to one don't you understand? But cheer up, palehorse will stay safe, he too is stateside while touting a strategy that is clearly failing.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,158
6
81
Originally posted by: Lemon law

At the rate things are currently going, the Nato Afghan occupation will be Kaput before a new President can be elected.

I'll bet everything I own on that statement being false.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Lemon law

At the rate things are currently going, the Nato Afghan occupation will be Kaput before a new President can be elected.

I'll bet everything I own on that statement being false.

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

Wow that a ringing endorsement nick1985. Maybe you will win that bet I did not necessarily make, but you are hardly saying we will be better than in the horrible shape we are now come 11/4/2008.

Still my beating heart nick1985, could you actually be rational enough to realize that following the palehorse policy of doing worse each year is not advancing us?
 

tvarad

Golden Member
Jun 25, 2001
1,130
0
0
Lemon Law,
First, a state of formal war existed against Germany and Japan (assuming you're talking about WWII; don't know about the others). The war was prosecuted until the German and Japanese army agreed to an unconditional surrender, to which they did. Thus there was no need to kill everyone in the army; but the fight would have gone on until the enemy lost the will to fight. If that was when the last soldier fell, then so be it.

In the case of Afghanistan, we're fighting an asymmetrical, undeclared war. Here, the Nato allies are held to a different standard; a suicide bomber can kill a couple of dozen Afghans without tarnishing the image of the Taliban which sent him; but god forbid if a Allied soldier accidentally kills a bystander when he takes aim at a taliban fighter. The Taliban know this, which is why they force a moral issue on the Allies in the hope that they can hound the Allies out of Afghanistan, rather than a military issue which they know they cannot win. So, it is the Taliban who are treating Afghans like cannon-fodder, not the Allies.

And I don't know how you extrapolate the strength of an army to a whole population when you allude to 31 million Afghans, unless all Germans or Japanese were in the army. Can you clear the ganja smoke so that we can understand what you're trying to say?

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Majid ?also reemphasized that Pakistan armed forces are capable of handling any challenges to our security.?
That sentence cracked me up! :D

Originally posted by: Lemon law
But cheer up, palehorse will stay safe, he too is stateside while touting a strategy that is clearly failing.
My next trip out is to Iraq again... how about yours?

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Palehorse, if you have read the same things as I have have then why do you deny the very ideas you perpetually ignore?

Another palehorse post, long on bluster and totally short on results.

But now you have me curious, what is your take on the various historical forces acting on Afghanistan? Other than always calling me wrong, you have never articulated them.
not only am I aware of them, I actually understand them as they act upon a little something I like to call reality.

But that is the seeming scenario you advocate, killing all 31 millions Afghans to save them from what amounts to primitive ideas.
Wtf?! :confused:

First, the beliefs of the Taliban are only held or truly supported by a very small percentage of the population in the region.

But yes, you're finally correct about one thing.. rape, cold-blooded murder, and violent oppression enforced through both are certainly "primitive ideas."

Only crazy people like Hitler talk in those total extermination final solution terms. And you pit 72,000 troops against the 200 million combined populations of Afghanistan and Pakistan???
once again, I have absolutely no fucking clue where you got the idea that my fight is with anyone other than the 1% who call themselves "Taliban" or AQ. The rest of the population have greeted me, personally, with open and genuinely friendly arms.

you've once again demonstrated a total lack of understanding... seriously son, you're so far off base that you're beginning to hit the ludicrous levels of comic relief.

That said, and for the last fucking time, I've always stated that the war against them must be fought on more than one front - the others being economic, education, or infrastructure based. My main problem with you is that you still dont grasp the reality which mandates that each of those cannot exist without simultaneously exterminating the Taliban, everywhere they sleep, with absolute brutal force.

Until you realize the type of genuine evil we're dealing with in the Taliban, I'll continue to dismiss your uneducated opinions on the subject. Your comparison with the German military fails. Besides the SS, the majority of the German military were conscripts who simply did their soldierly duties. On the other hand, every last Taliban I have ever met or heard of is straight up fucking evil incarnate... no exceptions.

every one of them must be put down.

once again, no exceptions.

At the same time, I expect others, maybe even your lazy peanut gallery ass, to focus on the economic, education, and infrastructure improvements in the region.

Too busy to lend a hand? Maybe you could put down the latte for a minute and help out...
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
I think it's time for Majid and the rest of Pakistan to put up, or shut up...

Pakistan plans a push into its tribal areas

(Pay attention Lemon Law)
WASHINGTON -- Meeting a key Pentagon demand, Pakistan's military is planning to move a major unit of its regular army into the tribal areas on its western border, a largely lawless area used as a haven by Al Qaeda and Afghan insurgents, Pakistani commanders have told U.S. military officials.

The army unit would supplement the country's Frontier Corps, an ill-trained force frequently routed by insurgents, a senior U.S. military officer said. A fully trained and equipped army unit would represent a change, long sought by U.S. officials, in Islamabad's stance toward the troubled region.

However, U.S. officials also question how effective or long-lasting the Pakistani push is likely to be.

"I think they are sincere in addressing what we have identified as the problem, but I am not sure they have wrapped their minds or their enthusiasm over what it will actually take," the officer said. "They are answering our request, but not in a way that will produce an enduring solution."

The disclosure came as President Bush and Pakistani Prime Minister Yusaf Raza Gillani met Monday at the White House to try to smooth a relationship that has been increasingly strained by differences over how to handle the militant threat from Pakistan's tribal areas.

Defusing fears of a rocky meeting, the two leaders stressed the positive in their Rose Garden comments. Bush called Pakistan an ally and said it had made a "strong commitment" to securing the border region. Gillani said Pakistan "is committed to fight" against those who he said are waging war against Pakistan.

The two also discussed a Monday missile attack in a border village in which a senior Al Qaeda official was reported killed. However, neither leader mentioned the Pakistani army plans to move troops into the area.

But Pakistani officials have told U.S. military officials they are planning to use the country's XI Corps, which is based in Waziristan, in the southern end of the tribal region, to counter militants. The Pakistanis have told U.S. officials they have identified key border crossing routes where they plan to station army units.

U.S. military officials have identified the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, or FATA, as a refuge for Al Qaeda and a base from which militants mount attacks on American troops in Afghanistan.

Nine U.S. soldiers were killed July 13 in an attack in Afghanistan's Kunar province, a northeastern area that U.S. officials say is subject to frequent cross-border strikes. A month earlier, U.S.-led forces responding to an insurgent attack in the same area fired across the border; Pakistan said the Americans killed 11 of its troops.

U.S. officials have stationed CIA agents in Pakistan, launched special-forces missions and flown unmanned planes equipped with missiles, but have been frustrated by the hunt for militants in the tribal area. Pakistani opposition precludes an expanded U.S. presence, and Washington has been unsatisfied with Pakistan's response.

The XI Corps, stationed in Peshawar, was formed in 1975 and was assigned to defend Pakistan against the Soviet Union after the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It also helped train anti-Soviet Afghan insurgents. The Corps has also frequently been sent to the Kashmir area when tensions with India have flared.

Military officials would not discuss how many troops the Pakistanis are sending. But U.S. officials said a key shortcoming of the plan is that Pakistan's military, including the XI Corps, has been trained for conventional warfare rather than counterinsurgency.

U.S. military officials would prefer that the Pakistani military begin a broad counterinsurgency and counter-terrorism operation, which would include economic projects, reaching out to tribes, targeted raids and a long-term troop presence.

Many of the U.S. officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the Pakistanis have not announced the operation.

The tribal areas have long resisted direct control by Islamabad. Largely autonomous, the border is protected by the Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force. Pakistan's new army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, has moved to reinforce the Frontier Corps with well-trained army officers. But the force remains poorly organized and equipped and, being drawn from those living in the region, often has little incentive to fight.

U.S. military and administration officials are wondering how far Kayani and his civilian bosses will go to deal with the tribal areas.

"Can we get the Pakistani government and the Pakistani military to come to grips with the threat?" asked a senior administration official. "What is their wake-up call?"

U.S. military officials are skeptical of Pakistan's ability to undertake even basic military operations, much less the more complex tasks a counterinsurgency requires. Previous pushes into the tribal areas by the regular army have been cut short after it took casualties.

"It is a very impotent force," a senior military official said of the Pakistani army.

There are about 800 border-crossing points between Pakistan and Afghanistan, according to U.S. defense officials. Most U.S. officials blame the tribal regions for the growing number of attacks.

"You have basically got ungoverned space in Pakistan that is providing sanctuary to different groups of insurgents," said the senior administration official. "They are using the area as staging bases, recruiting bases, training areas for attacks into Afghanistan."

In an effort to reduce violence, the Pakistani military has been signing agreements with many of the tribes. But a U.S. congressional official with expertise in the region said the agreements amount to little but a temporary truce.

U.S. military officials maintain that even though the Pakistani army is poorly prepared, negotiations must be backed by an active military presence in the tribal region.

According to administration officials, U.S. military and intelligence officials have been working on a sophisticated tribal map to identify tribal subgroups and their allegiances.

Military officials believe Al Qaeda has overplayed its hand in areas, betraying or killing tribal leaders. Those tribes may be willing to work with the Pakistani military.

"There are growing indications that many of the tribes in the FATA are eager for the government to do something and are putting pressure on provincial leaders," the senior officer said.

The Pakistani army, according to military and administration officials, still needs to build allies in the tribal groups.

"We can't see they have, in a strategic way, decided which of these groups are reconcilable and which are irreconcilable," the senior officer said.

U.S. officials would like to send special operations forces to train the Pakistani army in counterinsurgency. But the Pakistani public distrusts the United States, leaving little likelihood that many U.S. trainers will be allowed in.

Still, senior U.S. defense officials say they are scouring for new ways to get Pakistan to step up its efforts in the tribal areas.

"There is a sense of urgency," said a senior defense official. "There is this consensus from the intelligence community that Al Qaeda is reconstituting and the primary threat to NATO forces and Afghanistan forces is coming across the border from Pakistan."
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
If the US and Nato can secure the co operation of Pakistan, I have very little problems with it. But it sound eerily like Vietnam, first it was a training mission and grew out of control from there.

But to translate some of the double speak, the US hopes it can use Taliban overplaying of its hand to convert local tribal leaders, but its more likely that the US and Nato will succeed in alienating exactly those tribes.

But there is no translation needed for the flat statement that-------" But the Pakistani public distrusts the United States, leaving little likelihood that many U.S. trainers will be allowed in. "
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Militants take hostage 30 police, troops in Swat MINGORA, Pakistan, July 29 (Reuters): Pro-Taliban militants attacked a security post and took up to 30 hostages on Tuesday in Swat valley, officials said. Militants attacked a joint military-police post in the Kabal area, 35 km north-west of Mingora, and captured 30 police and paramilitary personnel, according to officials, though a militant spokesman put the number at 27. ?They were asked to surrender or face death, and they gave up,? militant spokesman Muslim Khan told Reuters. Two soldiers and a young girl were killed when security forces traded fire with militants around Kabal after the attack on the post. Security forces arrested several suspects in a search of the village. Militants also torched a health office in exchanged fire with police in Matta, one of the militants' stronghold, on Tuesday. (Posted @ 14:30 PST)



US needs to be patient, warns against 'unilateral' action: PM Gilani WASHINGTON, July 29 (AFP): Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani called on the United States not to act ?unilaterally? against militants in Pakistan. ?We are committed to fight against extremists and terrorists who are destroying and making the world not safe,? he said. ?This is a war which is against Pakistan, and we'll fight for our own cause.? Speaking to CNN television after seeing Bush, Gilani said the United States needs to be more patient and should not take unilateral actions against militants in Pakistan. Asked by CNN about a suspected US missile strike on an Al-Qaeda leader in Pakistan on Monday, Gilani said he told Bush that ?unilaterally it should not be done. We must have more cooperation with each other,? he said. ?Basically Americans are a little impatient. Therefore in the future I think we'll have more cooperation on the intelligence side and we'll do the job ourselves,? he said. Bush said he had received a ?strong commitment? from Gilani that Pakistan would try ?as best as possible? to prevent Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants from crossing from Pakistan into Afghanistan, where they attack US and NATO troops. (Posted @ 09:45 PST)

We should tell the unfaithful American allies to get lost. Too bad none of my leaders have had any balls since the late Z.A Bhutto in the 70s. The new government is a bunch of idiots that probably can't run a circus let alone a country!!

Sometimes I'm envious that you have Bush with leaders like mine!
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
?We are committed to fight against extremists and terrorists who are destroying and making the world not safe,? he said. ?This is a war which is against Pakistan, and we'll fight for our own cause.?

How does one "fight" when they pledge no violence?

Or is that pledge mentioned in your OP already dropped?

Did the kidnappings take place in Afganistan (kabul) or Pakistan?

If in Afganistan, did the terrorists retreat back into Pakistan?

Please explain

Fern


 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,730
2
81
Originally posted by: Fern
?We are committed to fight against extremists and terrorists who are destroying and making the world not safe,? he said. ?This is a war which is against Pakistan, and we'll fight for our own cause.?

How does one "fight" when they pledge no violence?

Are is that pldge mentioned in your OP already dropped?

Did the kidnappings take place in Afganistan (kabul) or Pakistan?

If in Afganistan, did the terrorists retreat back into Pakistan?

Please explain

Fern

How does one "fight" when they support what they are supposed to fight?

UN diplomat: Pretending that Pakistan is not supporting the Taliban is similar to "pretending that Niagara Falls doesn't flow"

Vancouver -- At last, a Western diplomat - Chris Alexander, a former Canadian ambassador now serving as a United Nations special envoy in Kabul - has had enough of the political correctness to publicly acknowledge that Pakistan, through its Inter-Services Intelligence agency, is supporting Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan (UN Envoy Backs Karzai Against Pakistan - front page, July 28). "Otherwise we really are pretending that Niagara Falls doesn't flow."

To date, the Western democracies have simply been shooting themselves in the foot by appeasing Pakistan's government, under whose watch Islamic extremists are spreading their jihad against the Western way of life.