US strike kills 11 Pakistani soldiers

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
edit: Most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. I take Jon Stewart's cue of repeating that fact often. Seems important.

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

What is the existing benefit to Pakistan by having Afghanistan in turmoil. Who gains and why?

Who is responsible for current turmoil there? Blaming Pakistan is arrogance. Afghanistan under the taliban was BETTER than it was under total civil war.

Bullshit. The taliban were/are backwards and uncivilized. Destroying historical monuments because they don't jive with their own religion. Fuck those guys. I don't agree with moral relativism. Some things are inherently wrong and should be offensive to all humankind and I think the rule of the taliban is one of those things.

So destroying historical monuments is worse than destroying thousands of homes everyday?

Who destroys thousands of homes a day?

Civil war.

There should be a minimum IQ requirement of 60 for posting in the PnN to filter posts likes yours and palehorse's.
 

mxyzptlk

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2008
1,888
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
And if the USA thinks its can use its nuclear arsenal to bully the entire world, we will have an entire world against us.

Good, so you agree with me that we really don't need to be the worlds police force. I'm glad that I can depend on your vote when I run for office in 2024 :D

 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
The "neo-Taliban" control at least 20 districts in the Kandahar, Helmand and Uruzgan provinces where Nato troops replaced US soldiers. It is hardly a secret that many officials in these zones are closet supporters of the guerrilla fighters. As western intelligence agencies active in the country are fully aware, the situation is out of control. The model envisioned for the occupation was Panama. The then US secretary of State, Colin Powell, explained that:

"The strategy has to be to take charge of the whole country by military force, police or other means".

His knowledge of Afghanistan was limited.

The Pashtun majority in Afghanistan has always had close links to its fellow Pashtuns in Pakistan. The present border was an imposition by the British empire, but it has always remained porous. It is virtually impossible to build a Texan fence or an Israeli wall across the mountainous and largely unmarked 2500km border that separates the two countries. The solution is political, not military. And it should be sought in the region not in Washington or Brussels.
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed It is virtually impossible to build a Texan fence or an Israeli wall across the mountainous and largely unmarked 2500km border that separates the two countries. The solution is political, not military. And it should be sought in the region not in Washington or Brussels.

Actually the Afghans rejected our proposal to build a fence a few years ago citing disputed regions as the reason. That would have solved all problems but I guess the occupiers have no brain only brawn.
 

mxyzptlk

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2008
1,888
0
0
LOLWTFBBQ?!? someone seriously proposed a fence? I swear, there must be some kinda powerful fence lobby that is just looking for fat, no-bid government contracts.. If I hear of one more ridiculous fence proposal...
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: The Green Bean

...

Don't be arrogant. Once Pakistan stops supporting NATO in Afghanistan there will only be one loser - NATO; without our airspace and supply routes it will be the end of your little campaign in Afghanistan.

Can Pakistan afford to give up the gravy train?

Heh...the "gravy train", US taxpayer money...

Veteran Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid explains how the US ally Pakistan has armed and financed the Taliban after the US invasion of Afghanistan; how the CIA pays Pakistan to arrest al-Qaeda operatives, but Pakistan uses the money to fund the Taliban resurgence in northwest Pakistan; and how the US and NATOs failure to deal with Afghan civil society has led directly to the huge rise of the opium trade that funds the Taliban.

Rashid: Americas main aim is to keep Musharraf there. They dont want to see Musharraf go, even though hes become hugely unpopular after the February elections, in which his party lost all the seats and all the opposition parties did far better."

So basically , US taxpayers money is helping to fund the Taliban, keep Musharraf in place and keep Pakistan destabilised.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
When we think about it, there may be a 2500 KM border, but only a tiny fraction of that is useful for anything but slow boat to China foot traffic where almost everything must be carried on the human back. Any heavy transport is limited to a few mountain passes, at high elevations any plants leave little cover to hide behind, and any ground based observer can see anything moving for many miles in any direction. And in areas where there are forests on the slopes, clearing strips would leave areas of no cover to cross.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
It confirmed that 11 soldiers were killed including an officer.
Pakistani troops repulsed the Afghan soldiers and the coalition then bombed the area. Coalition aircraft also killed around 15 Taliban militants about a kilometre (half a mile) away, the officials said.

What were Pakistani soldiers doing WITH Taliban militants?

The message is clear ? side with our enemy and you will join them in death.

Don't be arrogant. Once Pakistan stops supporting NATO in Afghanistan there will only be one loser - NATO; without our airspace and supply routes it will be the end of your little campaign in Afghanistan.

We'll see about that -- both Russia AND the majority of the 'Stans have agreed to assist and allow shipments of ALL supplies through their countries. Once Pakistan no longer has the supply routes to use as leverage, what will they do to stop us from entering the frontier and destroying the Taliban ourselves?

My guess is that we'll eventually have the 'Stans -AND- Pakistan routes to bring in supplies; and Pakistan won't do anything to stop us from entering the frontier region.

IOW, status quo...
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Here is more;

Airstrikes complicate U.S.-Pakistan relations

U.S. diplomats offered apologies for the reported casualties, while the Pentagon insisted that surveillance drones tracking the bombings showed they hit exactly whom they intended: about a half dozen enemy fighters firing on coalition forces.

Defense Department press secretary Geoff Morrell said it was too early to know whether the strike killed 11 Pakistani paramilitary forces, as alleged by the angry Pakistani Army.

"Every indication we have is that this was a legitimate strike against forces that had attacked members of the coalition," he said.

Sounds like the Pakistani paramilitary forces may have opened fire on coalition forces and got return fire.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Bullshit. The taliban were/are backwards and uncivilized. Destroying historical monuments because they don't jive with their own religion. Fuck those guys. I don't agree with moral relativism. Some things are inherently wrong and should be offensive to all humankind and I think the rule of the taliban is one of those things.
x2
x3
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Socio
Here is more;

Airstrikes complicate U.S.-Pakistan relations

U.S. diplomats offered apologies for the reported casualties, while the Pentagon insisted that surveillance drones tracking the bombings showed they hit exactly whom they intended: about a half dozen enemy fighters firing on coalition forces.

Defense Department press secretary Geoff Morrell said it was too early to know whether the strike killed 11 Pakistani paramilitary forces, as alleged by the angry Pakistani Army.

"Every indication we have is that this was a legitimate strike against forces that had attacked members of the coalition," he said.

Sounds like the Pakistani paramilitary forces may have opened fire on coalition forces and got return fire.
shhhHH, don't spoil all the anti-American fun with your pesky little facts and friendly testimony! We were just about to see TGB declare war on us for hurting his Taliban buddies!

damnit... so close...
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Didn't Beanie about 8 months ago effectively say, ""Bring it on!"" to the US touting the beloved patriot military strength ??

Lead, follow or get out of the way, bud. If you are either unwilling or unable to address the problem, or actively supporting insurgents and providing their leadership with safe haven, I don't give a sheet.

I don't care about beloved patriot resentment. NOW HEAR THIS: Your country?s national sovereignty is NOT under threat.

You need to gain a more genuine recognition of the threats posed to Afghanistan by the cross-border insurgents. Until then ...

I'd be alot less worried about the Hellfires than the AC-130s in support of SFs Ops.

Look out for Spooky



 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
As palehorse says---We'll see about that -- both Russia AND the majority of the 'Stans have agreed to assist and allow shipments of ALL supplies through their countries. Once Pakistan no longer has the supply routes to use as leverage, what will they do to stop us from entering the frontier and destroying the Taliban ourselves?

My guess is that we'll eventually have the 'Stans -AND- Pakistan routes to bring in supplies; and Pakistan won't do anything to stop us from entering the frontier region.

IOW, status quo...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My guess is, long before that happens, you will be called home because the USA can't afford to maintain your type stupid occupation as you widen the area you try to control far faster than the number of troops alloted can maintain any type of control.

You can't even control one small country, what makes you think you can maintain even your current abysmal level of control when the patrol area gets three or four times bigger? And as you try to chase them further and further away, they will merely get in back of you and filter right back in. Which is what is happening now.

Its quite clear you understand nothing about fighting an insurgency. Being an 800 pound gorilla may mean you can sleep where ever you want, but you seem to totally fail to understand you can only sleep in one small area at a time. And when you move to where your opposition is now, they will move to the area you just vacated or somewhere else.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
It confirmed that 11 soldiers were killed including an officer.
Pakistani troops repulsed the Afghan soldiers and the coalition then bombed the area. Coalition aircraft also killed around 15 Taliban militants about a kilometre (half a mile) away, the officials said.

What were Pakistani soldiers doing WITH Taliban militants?

The message is clear ? side with our enemy and you will join them in death.

Don't be arrogant. Once Pakistan stops supporting NATO in Afghanistan there will only be one loser - NATO; without our airspace and supply routes it will be the end of your little campaign in Afghanistan.

We'll see about that -- both Russia AND the majority of the 'Stans have agreed to assist and allow shipments of ALL supplies through their countries. Once Pakistan no longer has the supply routes to use as leverage, what will they do to stop us from entering the frontier and destroying the Taliban ourselves?

My guess is that we'll eventually have the 'Stans -AND- Pakistan routes to bring in supplies; and Pakistan won't do anything to stop us from entering the frontier region.

IOW, status quo...

Destroy the Taliban?...intresting premise. Easier said than done...

Can your senario be accomplished without Musharraf?. American influence is not as strong since Nawaz Sharif is not prepared to have his strings pulled as yet.

Can NATO really win this Guerilla War with 20,000 or so forces?. With each passing month the Taliban Fighters grow stronger. Last year, was the most lethal year for NATO since the invasion. To even attempt a military occupation of the entire country to "kill" all these Taliban would require a minimum of 200,000 troops."

Resolution of the war in Afghanistan seems naive in the utmost, namely that the neighbouring countries simply decide to make a stability pact for ten years until Afghanistan gets back on its feet. That concept completely discounts the fact that there are seriously disagreeing factions within Afghanistan.

Even without NATO/UN/ISAP forces there will be significant conflict between various ethnic groups, various tribes, and between drugs lords, political lords, religious leaders and the other assorted gang leaders, discontents, lawbreakers and profiteers.

Do you really think we could or should kill them all?

This country will stay at war until each feud is resolved at a local level. And only then will the process of rebuilding anything like a country be possible. Not likely, but only possible. The more likely outcome is that Afghanistan will revert simply to a geographic area that is controlled entirely at the local level by tribal, ethnic or religious leaders. And it may turn out that the Taliban rule parts of the country once again, particularly if the people find that any semblance of order is better than continuing chaos.

Our wonderfully pleasing concepts of rule of law, democracy, freedom of thought and expression, human rights, and economic progress remain our wonderfully pleasing concepts.

They won't necessarily be accepted by the new Afghanistan either now, in ten years, or maybe forever.
 

tvarad

Golden Member
Jun 25, 2001
1,130
0
0
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: The Green Bean

...

Don't be arrogant. Once Pakistan stops supporting NATO in Afghanistan there will only be one loser - NATO; without our airspace and supply routes it will be the end of your little campaign in Afghanistan.

Can Pakistan afford to give up the gravy train?

Reports show we spend 50% more on the war on terror than we are supposed to receive. The instability in Afghanistan has a detrimental effect of our economy so in the end it costs us loads more than we have to benefit from meagre amounts of promised money that never gets paid.

The reports I have been reading say that Pakistan is over-charging for services rendered and siphoning off a substantial portion of the over-charged supplies for it's internal use instead of helping Afghanistan. As they did in the Afghan war against the Soviet Union. Typical Pakistani two-timing.
 

tvarad

Golden Member
Jun 25, 2001
1,130
0
0
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Originally posted by: palehorse

So now, try to remain rational, and decide... what's it going to be? (1-4)

My guess is the status quo... #3.

But they can't in anyway possibly hope to actually fight against NATO. It'd be foolish and suicidal. Why would they "rationally" pick one of those? The rational thing to do (to me at least) would be what the pakistani intelligence has been doing.. Do their best to pretend to comply with NATO while still helping their buddies in anyway they can.

No. The best option is #5. Cut off NATO's supply routes and tell them to f*** off. The USA can not afford to start another war; especially not one against a nuclear armed country of 160 million.

The United States, even tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, could knock you off the map quite handely without ever putting boots on the ground.

More arrogance and more empty threats. If an Iranian said that to Israel he would be a zealot but you people seem to think Americans can get away with anything. Let's see how you get about "knocking us off the map."

Tacit support to the Balochis in their quest for independence would set the ball rolling, besides ensuring a sea-link to Afghanistan not controlled by the Punjabis.
 

tvarad

Golden Member
Jun 25, 2001
1,130
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
The myth chucky2 and palehorse try to promote is that I am anti American and cheer for our "enemies".

When the fact is and remains, that I believe in some sort of US occupation of Afghanistan but the one being currently conducted cannot succeed if we ignore the various realities
or follow palehorse type linear stinking thinking. We are making exactly the same mistakes we made in Vietnam, and as I said before, one must understand the problem in all its complexities and craft a course that does not totally alienate the very people we need to succeed.

Non-sequiter. The Vietnamese were fighting for their country. They were Vietnamese first and communists second. That is why they won. The Taliban are fighting for an ideology. They are Islamic nuts first and Afghans second. An ideology can be defeated. Nationalism is another story.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: tvarad
Originally posted by: Lemon law
The myth chucky2 and palehorse try to promote is that I am anti American and cheer for our "enemies".

When the fact is and remains, that I believe in some sort of US occupation of Afghanistan but the one being currently conducted cannot succeed if we ignore the various realities
or follow palehorse type linear stinking thinking. We are making exactly the same mistakes we made in Vietnam, and as I said before, one must understand the problem in all its complexities and craft a course that does not totally alienate the very people we need to succeed.

Non-sequiter. The Vietnamese were fighting for their country. They were Vietnamese first and communists second. That is why they won. The Taliban are fighting for an ideology. They are Islamic nuts first and Afghans second. An ideology can be defeated. Nationalism is another story.
again, well said.
 

tvarad

Golden Member
Jun 25, 2001
1,130
0
0
Aimster,
The Vietnamese grouse was that their country was unjustly divided, not that the South Vietnamese were not Communist. Once they won and unified it, the fighting stopped. Their nationalism was so fierce that they even took on the Chinese (fellow communists, I might add) and gave them a licking in 1979, even though they had received a lot of help from them earlier.

The Taliban, on the other hand, never ceased fighting even when they took over Afghanistan. And, more importantly, they were p*mping their country to Pakistan, Al-Qaeda and everyone else in-between.


 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: tvarad
Aimster,
The Vietnamese grouse was that their country was unjustly divided, not that the South Vietnamese were not Communist. Once they won and unified it, the fighting stopped. Their nationalism was so fierce that they even took on the Chinese (fellow communists, I might add) and gave them a licking in 1979, even though they had received a lot of help from them earlier.

The Taliban, on the other hand, never ceased fighting even when they took over Afghanistan. And, more importantly, they were p*mping their country to Pakistan, Al-Qaeda and everyone else in-between.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if there is some validity to the tvardad contention or it makes any distinction difference,
at the time of 911, the taliban was still fighting the Northern alliance for control of Afghanistan.
And on the very day before 911, Ossama Bin Laden somewhat won the undying gratitude of the taliban leadership by success in assassinating the leader of the Northern Alliance by the name of Massoud.

In terms of a larger recent history, the Northern alliance was one early group that post soviet invasion temporarily was able to rule Afghanistan. But they had largely worn out their welcome by being extremely corrupt and their corruption fueled the rise of the taliban.

And in perhaps the biggest US military blunder of our Afghan current occupation, the US military formed a alliance with the Northern alliance which was short term successful in expelling the Taliban from Afghanistan post 911, but has since returned the corruption of the Northern alliance which has earned the US undying hatred of the Afghani people who are largely now locally ruled by the Northern alliance war lord thugs. And as bad as the taliban is, the Northern alliance is even worse in the eyes of the Afghan people.
 

tvarad

Golden Member
Jun 25, 2001
1,130
0
0
Lemon Law,
The most cohesive force for a country is nationalism, not ideology. The taliban are ideologists, not nationalists. For Pakistan, a spineless Afghanistan controlled by Islamic luddites is stategic heaven in their scheme of things. That is why they are longing for the good old days.

Yours and the Green Bean's arguments are stuck in the past. One should be naive to think that Afghanistan will be allowed to return to it's old ways, given the aftermath of 9/11. Even if it means that the West is reshaping Afghanistan against it's people's will (and we only have the Taliban's opinion on it).

 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Did you know Pakistan has missiles that can strike anywhere in Israel? I do not think it is best for the U.S to piss off Pakistan.
Their government is friendly towards the West.

Imagine if that changes.

Although I have full confidence is the Arrow system Israel has, I still think it's a risk that shouldn't be taken
 

Auric

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,591
2
71
Originally posted by: Aimster
The Vietnamese were fighting for communism. They were killing other Vietnamese.

Absurd. First and foremost, they were fighting for independence: from China, France, Japan, USA, whomever.

I do so love the quote from the Pakistan military: "a completely unprovoked and cowardly act". They have learned so well from the USA. lulz

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: tvarad
Lemon Law,
The most cohesive force for a country is nationalism, not ideology. The taliban are ideologists, not nationalists. For Pakistan, a spineless Afghanistan controlled by Islamic luddites is stategic heaven in their scheme of things. That is why they are longing for the good old days.

Yours and the Green Bean's arguments are stuck in the past. One should be naive to think that Afghanistan will be allowed to return to it's old ways, given the aftermath of 9/11. Even if it means that the West is reshaping Afghanistan against it's people's will (and we only have the Taliban's opinion on it).

I cannot say I totally disagree with you. The problem with your argument is that much of Afghanistan is stuck in the past and little changed since the time of Alexander the great.

And someone like palehorse seemingly comes from another planet and the taliban can be at least be related to. On the other hand, the bulk of Pakistan except for the parts of its "frontier" provinces have spent generation becoming used to the benefits of technology and modernity. As a result, the taliban and Al-Quida have little appeal in a modern Pakistan.

And in the bulk of Afghanistan, they just have nothing to relate modernity to except the misery it brings. And the only things they can basically see is anarchy and corruption as they are the poor smucks caught in the crossfire as people with modern weapons make their homes into shooting galleries as they shoot at each other.

Only after a stable central government without corruption can be established with the additional benefit of roads and trade will virtues of modernity start to become apparent in most of Afghanistan. And when that happens the taliban will lose the support they now somewhat enjoy.

But our mistake is trying to put the cart in front of the horse and try to impose rather than understand what the population wants and needs. When the preconditions are established we can win over the Afghani people, but until those preconditions are established, we can't even hope to communicate.