U.S. Troops to Head to Pakistan

[HeXploiT]

Beginning early next year, U.S. Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence in Pakistan, as part of an effort to train and support indigenous counter-insurgency forces and clandestine counterterrorism units, according to defense officials involved with the planning.

These Pakistan-centric operations will mark a shift for the U.S. military and for U.S. Pakistan relations. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the U.S. used Pakistani bases to stage movements into Afghanistan. Yet once the U.S. deposed the Taliban government and established its main operating base at Bagram, north of Kabul, U.S. forces left Pakistan almost entirely. Since then, Pakistan has restricted U.S. involvement in cross-border military operations as well as paramilitary operations on its soil.

But the Pentagon has been frustrated by the inability of Pakistani national forces to control the borders or the frontier area. And Pakistan's political instability has heightened U.S. concern about Islamic extremists there.

According to Pentagon sources, reaching a different agreement with Pakistan became a priority for the new head of the U.S. Special Operations Command, Adm. Eric T. Olson. Olson visited Pakistan in August, November and again this month, meeting with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, Pakistani Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Chairman Gen. Tariq Majid and Lt. Gen. Muhammad Masood Aslam, commander of the military and paramilitary troops in northwest Pakistan. Olson also visited the headquarters of the Frontier Corps, a separate paramilitary force recruited from Pakistan's border tribes.

Now, a new agreement, reported when it was still being negotiated last month, has been finalized. And the first U.S. personnel could be on the ground in Pakistan by early in the new year, according to Pentagon sources.

U.S. Central Command Commander Adm. William Fallon alluded to the agreement and spoke approvingly of Pakistan's recent counterterrorism efforts in an interview with Voice of America last week.

"What we've seen in the last several months is more of a willingness to use their regular army units," along the Afghan border, Fallon said. "And this is where, I think, we can help a lot from the U.S. in providing the kind of training and assistance and mentoring based on our experience with insurgencies recently and with the terrorist problem in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we share a lot with them, and we'll look forward to doing that."

If Pakistan actually follows through, perhaps 2008 will be a better year.

Source:Washington Post


Looks like the continuation of a failed foreign policy.

 

[bamacre]

This all would be easier if we had never invaded Iraq, and would have cleaned up the mess in Afghanistan.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: bamacre
This all would be easier if we had never invaded Iraq, and would have cleaned up the mess in Afghanistan.

Yes... it would.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: bamacre
This all would be easier if we had never invaded Iraq, and would have cleaned up the mess in Afghanistan.

well, let us know when you've invented your way-back machine 🙂

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: bamacre
This all would be easier if we had never invaded Iraq, and would have cleaned up the mess in Afghanistan.

Yes... it would.

😀

I guess that sounded obvious, but my point was that we are morally bankrupt.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: bamacre
This all would be easier if we had never invaded Iraq, and would have cleaned up the mess in Afghanistan.

well, let us know when you've invented your way-back machine 🙂

😀 Ok, well that is not possible, no. But holding the people responsible for those actions would be a step in the right direction of getting some respect internationally. Acknowledging a problem is always the first step in solving it.

 

[Lemon law]

So it starts with military advisor's. Funny isn't that how we got our butts into Vietnam? Its not clear how much pressure and how many bribes it took to get the Pakistani military and Musharrif aboard, but it is not rocket science to figure out that the religious right in Pakistan is going to gain a lot of popular support. Just saw a poll on another thread that pegs Ossama Bin Laden at 46% popular support in Pakistan, Musharrif comes in at 38%, and GWB comes in at 9%. Its not hard to figure out those numbers will look good compared to poll results after the US starts playing cowboys and indians in the wilder areas of Pakistan and the civilian causality figures come in.

Long odds, inside of a year or two, the Pakistani government will collapse and the whole place will look remarkably like Afghanistan. And Al-Quida and the Taliban can bag the whole lot as the US military gets stretched beyond the breaking point and the USA goes belly up bankrupt.

But Uncle Sucker never learns, all our war hawks have to do is play Yankee doodle off to war rosy scenarios.

 

[palehorse]

Do you object to utilizing only our SOF and Intelligence personnel to combat terrorism?

This example of an unconventional, small-scale solution is exactly what most anti-war folks have been screaming for over the last five years!

I don't see a damn thing wrong with it. AFAIC, our entire GWOT should be reduced to SOF and Intelligence personnel doing exactly what you read in this article.

It's about damn time we started fighting this war against terrorism the right way! Small-scale unconventional forces in a counter-terrorism role. IT'S GREAT!

:thumbsup: to Adm. Olson!

 

[ManSnake]

If Ron Paul were the president, this would never happen.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ManSnake
If Ron Paul were the president, this would never happen.

...and AQ would be allowed to fester in NW Pakistan, indefinitely. Then, when they're nice and ready, they'd hit us again... and again... again!

Why? Because we're not pursuing them to the ends of the Earth, with small-scale counter-terror (CT) teams, like we should be.

I can understand why Ron Paul, and many others, wish to bring our conventional armies home. But there is no excuse for retreating and completely ignoring known terrorists.

Small CT Teams are the answer.

 

[maluckey]

I think that the Pakistan mission is ideal for SOF. The Coach trian and mentor approach will spin up the Pakistani troops ability to fight for themselves with only a minimal investment by the United States.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ManSnake
If Ron Paul were the president, this would never happen.

...and AQ would be allowed to fester in NW Pakistan, indefinitely. Then, when they're nice and ready, they'd hit us again... and again... again!

Why? Because we're not pursuing them to the ends of the Earth, with small-scale counter-terror (CT) teams, like we should be.

I can understand why Ron Paul, and many others, wish to bring our conventional armies home. But there is no excuse for retreating and completely ignoring known terrorists.

Small CT Teams are the answer.

Small CT Teams are ONE answer, but they are a short term, temporary solution to a long term problem that's best solved other ways. There is this ridiculous idea that there are just bad guys out there who go around blowing things up for shits and giggles, but really, it's a symptom of larger problems. A big reason we have so many enemies in the middle east is because of the idiot policies we pursued in that region of the world. You might be right about Ron Paul and terrorists of today, but had he been President 20 years ago, it's entirely possible we wouldn't have any terrorist problems at all right now. The Middle East is fucked up, and for some reason we seem to feel a strong need to stick our nose into the fights there on a regular basis. The terrorists might be a bunch of crazy assholes, but let's face it, they aren't flying planes into buildings in Canada.

That is not to say that there aren't short term problems that need dealing with. Far from it, I think small scale CT teams are EXACTLY what we need to deal with them. Whoever thought of using the entire military as the big green anti-terrorist machine needs to be fired, but a combination of intelligence work and special operations sounds like a winner to me. But that is not a long term solution, ultimately we're not going to Jack Bauer our way out of the war on terrorism.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: maluckey
I think that the Pakistan mission is ideal for SOF. The Coach trian and mentor approach will spin up the Pakistani troops ability to fight for themselves with only a minimal investment by the United States.

It may also allow us to finally take out the AQ/Taliban bases in NW Pakistan that have given us such a headache in Afghanistan for the last six years. I can't think of any better "training missions" than painting a few key targets in the NW frontier!

It also give us better access to their nukes if/when it's necessary to secure them.

This decision was long overdue!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: maluckey
I think that the Pakistan mission is ideal for SOF. The Coach trian and mentor approach will spin up the Pakistani troops ability to fight for themselves with only a minimal investment by the United States.

Has there EVER been an example, in the history of military/intelligence operations, when trying to train a bunch of gomers from some second rate country and expecting them to carry out sensitive and important missions has been a success? Because it seems to me that our attempts to farm out such work have almost universally met with failure at best and something that bites us in the ass at worst. Pakistani troops aren't a few drills away from being a good stand-in for the US armed forces, they are mostly exactly what you'd expect. If we're going to do something, WE need to do it.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ManSnake
If Ron Paul were the president, this would never happen.

...and AQ would be allowed to fester in NW Pakistan, indefinitely. Then, when they're nice and ready, they'd hit us again... and again... again!

Why? Because we're not pursuing them to the ends of the Earth, with small-scale counter-terror (CT) teams, like we should be.

I can understand why Ron Paul, and many others, wish to bring our conventional armies home. But there is no excuse for retreating and completely ignoring known terrorists.

Small CT Teams are the answer.

Small CT Teams are ONE answer, but they are a short term, temporary solution to a long term problem that's best solved other ways. There is this ridiculous idea that there are just bad guys out there who go around blowing things up for shits and giggles, but really, it's a symptom of larger problems. A big reason we have so many enemies in the middle east is because of the idiot policies we pursued in that region of the world. You might be right about Ron Paul and terrorists of today, but had he been President 20 years ago, it's entirely possible we wouldn't have any terrorist problems at all right now. The Middle East is fucked up, and for some reason we seem to feel a strong need to stick our nose into the fights there on a regular basis. The terrorists might be a bunch of crazy assholes, but let's face it, they aren't flying planes into buildings in Canada.

That is not to say that there aren't short term problems that need dealing with. Far from it, I think small scale CT teams are EXACTLY what we need to deal with them. Whoever thought of using the entire military as the big green anti-terrorist machine needs to be fired, but a combination of intelligence work and special operations sounds like a winner to me. But that is not a long term solution, ultimately we're not going to Jack Bauer our way out of the war on terrorism.

Sadly enough, I see it as a never-ending mission - regardless of any changes we make to our obviously flawed foreign policy. That ship may have already sailed...

But you're right -I too wish that we'd never expanded our efforts beyond Afghanistan and a few scattered CT Teams...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: maluckey
I think that the Pakistan mission is ideal for SOF. The Coach trian and mentor approach will spin up the Pakistani troops ability to fight for themselves with only a minimal investment by the United States.

It may also allow us to finally take out the AQ/Taliban bases in NW Pakistan that have given us such a headache in Afghanistan for the last six years. I can't think of any better "training missions" than painting a few key targets in the NW frontier!

It also give us better access to their nukes if/when it's necessary to secure them.

This decision was long overdue!

If the Pakistani armed forces were worth shit in the first place, we wouldn't HAVE AQ/Taliban bases in NW Pakistan giving us grief. The problem with those people isn't training, you think we're going to fly in some special forces guys and suddenly the Pakistani troops are going to say, "Oh, so when a bunch of terrorists set up shop in our country, we should shoot them in the head? And all this time I thought we should leave them alone...it's a good thing you Americans came along, we never would have thought of this stuff before!"

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: maluckey
I think that the Pakistan mission is ideal for SOF. The Coach trian and mentor approach will spin up the Pakistani troops ability to fight for themselves with only a minimal investment by the United States.

Has there EVER been an example, in the history of military/intelligence operations, when trying to train a bunch of gomers from some second rate country and expecting them to carry out sensitive and important missions has been a success? Because it seems to me that our attempts to farm out such work have almost universally met with failure at best and something that bites us in the ass at worst. Pakistani troops aren't a few drills away from being a good stand-in for the US armed forces, they are mostly exactly what you'd expect. If we're going to do something, WE need to do it.

I don't know about that... some of the best security forces in the entire world are foreign teams who were trained by our SOF. There is also no doubt about the effectiveness of the Montegnard forces in Vietnam who were some of the most courageous and successful small groups of fighters in the entire conflict!

Our SOF A-Teams have a pretty decent history of being successful, especially on a small scale.

Now, the overall success of some of the conflicts they were involved in is another matter altogether...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ManSnake
If Ron Paul were the president, this would never happen.

...and AQ would be allowed to fester in NW Pakistan, indefinitely. Then, when they're nice and ready, they'd hit us again... and again... again!

Why? Because we're not pursuing them to the ends of the Earth, with small-scale counter-terror (CT) teams, like we should be.

I can understand why Ron Paul, and many others, wish to bring our conventional armies home. But there is no excuse for retreating and completely ignoring known terrorists.

Small CT Teams are the answer.

Small CT Teams are ONE answer, but they are a short term, temporary solution to a long term problem that's best solved other ways. There is this ridiculous idea that there are just bad guys out there who go around blowing things up for shits and giggles, but really, it's a symptom of larger problems. A big reason we have so many enemies in the middle east is because of the idiot policies we pursued in that region of the world. You might be right about Ron Paul and terrorists of today, but had he been President 20 years ago, it's entirely possible we wouldn't have any terrorist problems at all right now. The Middle East is fucked up, and for some reason we seem to feel a strong need to stick our nose into the fights there on a regular basis. The terrorists might be a bunch of crazy assholes, but let's face it, they aren't flying planes into buildings in Canada.

That is not to say that there aren't short term problems that need dealing with. Far from it, I think small scale CT teams are EXACTLY what we need to deal with them. Whoever thought of using the entire military as the big green anti-terrorist machine needs to be fired, but a combination of intelligence work and special operations sounds like a winner to me. But that is not a long term solution, ultimately we're not going to Jack Bauer our way out of the war on terrorism.

Sadly enough, I see it as a never-ending mission - regardless of any changes we make to our obviously flawed foreign policy. That ship may have already sailed...

But you're right -I too wish that we'd never expanded our efforts beyond Afghanistan and a few scattered CT Teams...

Well, the real problem is that the "war on terrorism" as it is currently presented is ridiculous given the amount of effort we need to be expending here. You're right, fighting terrorism is a never-ending mission...like fighting crime or dealing with any other problem in society. But it's a low level effort that a few people have dedicated their lives to, and everyone else doesn't give a second thought. Right now, it's this all consuming national obsession that can't possibly continue for very long before we have a police state.

It's a never ending mission like the FBI stopping bank robbers, not like fighting Nazi Germany.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: maluckey
I think that the Pakistan mission is ideal for SOF. The Coach trian and mentor approach will spin up the Pakistani troops ability to fight for themselves with only a minimal investment by the United States.

It may also allow us to finally take out the AQ/Taliban bases in NW Pakistan that have given us such a headache in Afghanistan for the last six years. I can't think of any better "training missions" than painting a few key targets in the NW frontier!

It also give us better access to their nukes if/when it's necessary to secure them.

This decision was long overdue!

If the Pakistani armed forces were worth shit in the first place, we wouldn't HAVE AQ/Taliban bases in NW Pakistan giving us grief. The problem with those people isn't training, you think we're going to fly in some special forces guys and suddenly the Pakistani troops are going to say, "Oh, so when a bunch of terrorists set up shop in our country, we should shoot them in the head? And all this time I thought we should leave them alone...it's a good thing you Americans came along, we never would have thought of this stuff before!"

Training... is everything!

You should see what a handful of Iraqi or Afghan Special Forces can do!

You're also missing the key point in that post - access!

We will now have access to the frontier from the other side of the border; and, in case you missed it the first time I said it, we will also have better access to their nukes, should it ever be necessary to secure them...

Did you ever read about what we were able to do to the Taliban, in 2001, with less than 100 SOF troops on the ground for the first four months? Exactly.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ManSnake
If Ron Paul were the president, this would never happen.

Well, he hasn't been president, and so far, we haven't done anything other than give Pakistan billions of dollars. We haven't set foot there, and OBL has been there for years.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
...and AQ would be allowed to fester in NW Pakistan, indefinitely. Then, when they're nice and ready, they'd hit us again... and again... again!

They can't do jack shit without recruitment. OBL doesn't do his dirty deeds himself. And thanks to your boy's wonderful journey into Iraq, that recruitment is up. Way up.

It hasn't been Ron Paul's foreign policy the last 20 years that has fucked America, it is your beloved "experts."

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74
...and AQ would be allowed to fester in NW Pakistan, indefinitely. Then, when they're nice and ready, they'd hit us again... and again... again!

They can't do jack shit with recruitment. OBL doesn't do his dirty deeds himself. And thanks to your boy's wonderful journey into Iraq, that recruitment is up. Way up.

It hasn't been Ron Paul's foreign policy the last 20 years that has fucked America, it is your beloved "experts."

oh shut it... I've already told you that I agree that going into Iraq was a mistake.

But, if you honestly believe that we shouldnt even operate small CT Teams, scattered throughout the world, and available when necessary, then there's no hope for you. That would be taking the "non-interventionist" philosophy a bit too far...

And, if you're an American, then they're your "beloved experts" as well. :Q

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Sadly enough, I see it as a never-ending mission - regardless of any changes we make to our obviously flawed foreign policy. That ship may have already sailed...

Oh give it up. You're aren't fooling anyone trying to play both sides. And your statement right here pretty much proves that.

Oh, what a grand idea, let's continue this horrendous foreign policy because we're "in too deep" now. :roll:

That's just plain stupid. And the rest of the world sits back and sees this clear as day.

We'd have A LOT more respect if we would dump this failed foreign policy, stop handing out money to dictators, have a more humble foreign policy. And AQ's recruitment would drop, because their reasons for attacking us would no longer have merit.

Your desire for this "never-ending mission" is just going to get a lot of people killed, military and civilian, and American and foreign. Not to mention, we'd go broke, if we aren't already there.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I've already told you that I agree that going into Iraq was a mistake.

And taking into consideration what you post around here, I don't think you mean it. Not one bit. You're just trying to save face, and play both sides.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Oh give it up. You're aren't fooling anyone trying to play both sides. And your statement right here pretty much proves that.

Oh, what a grand idea, let's continue this horrendous foreign policy because we're "in too deep" now. :roll:

no genius, I never said that we should continue our flawed foriegn policy. I actually said that one result of the past mistakes will be a never-ending fight against terrorism. As in, even if/when we do correct our policies, I think the threat of terrorism will still exist indefinitely.

reading is fundamental.

We'd have A LOT more respect if we would dump this failed foreign policy, stop handing out money to dictators, have a more humble foreign policy. And AQ's recruitment would drop, because their reasons for attacking us would no longer have merit.

Wrong - they will continue to blame their ills on us longggggg after we stop giving them any real reasons to - and there will always be a large contingent of illiterates who believe them!

Your desire for this "never-ending mission" is just going to get a lot of people killed, military and civilian, and American and foreign. Not to mention, we'd go broke, if we aren't already there.

It's not my "desire," you fool - it's simply my prediction for our future based on the realities we're facing today.

In all honesty, I hope we are able to bring all of our conventional forces home within the next 5-10 years; and then we can rely upon small, unconventional, CT Teams to handle the continued small-scale fight against terrorism.

Ignoring it completely would be a mistake - which is what you seem to propose we do.