Thread: Welcome To Pakistan

And as if by magic


Barack Obama: Taleban can be involved in Afghanistan future

President Obama is prepared to accept some Taleban involvement in Afghanistan’s political future and is unlikely to favour a large influx of new American troops being demanded by his ground commander, a senior official said last night.

Mr Obama appears to have been swayed in recent days by arguments from some advisers, led by Vice-President Joe Biden, that the Taleban do not pose a direct threat to the US and that there should be greater focus on tackling al-Qaeda inside Pakistan.

Mr Obama’s developing strategy on the Taleban will “not tolerate their return to power”, the senior official said. However, the US would only fight to keep the Taleban from retaking control of the central government — something the official said it is now far from capable of — and from giving renewed sanctuary to al-Qaeda.

Bowing to the reality that the fundamentalist movement is too ingrained in national culture, the Administration is prepared, as it has been for some time, to accept some Taleban role in parts of Afghanistan, the official said.

That could mean paving the way for insurgents willing to renounce violence to participate in a central government, and even ceding some regions of the country to the Taleban.

Mr Obama, the official said, is now inclined to send only as many more troops to Afghanistan as are needed to keep al-Qaeda at bay. Downing Street said that the US President had discussed Afghanistan with Gordon Brown yesterday during a 40-minute video conference call.

Sending far fewer troops than the 40,000 being demanded by General Stanley McChrystal would mean that Mr Obama is willing to ignore the wishes of his ground commander.

General McChrystal, along with the US military’s other top officials, insist that only a classic, well-resourced counter-insurgency strategy has a chance of staving off defeat in Afghanistan. Losing the war, they further argue, would provide al-Qaeda with new safe havens from which to mount attacks on the US and elsewhere.

After two days of meetings in the White House Situation Room with his war Cabinet, Mr Obama, according to the official, kept returning to one central question: who is our adversary?

The answer was, repeatedly, al-Qaeda, with advisers arguing that the terror network was distinct from the Taleban and that the US military was fighting the Taleban even though it posed no direct threat to America.

In a sign of how politically astute the insurgents have become in deciphering the debate raging inside the White House, the Taleban issued a statement on their website yesterday declaring that they had “no agenda to harm other countries”.

Mr Obama appears to be thinking that the primary aim of US forces in Afghanistan is to deny al-Qaeda any ability to regroup there — as it did before the 9/11 attacks. Such a mission would require only a small increase in the forces deployed in Afghanistan and a bigger focus on killing al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan. Such an approach will be resisted fiercely by General McChrystal and most Republicans.

Two other factors have played a significant role in the debate. Mr Obama is concerned that the discredited Government of President Karzai could doom a counter-insurgency strategy to failure. The second is how encouraged the Administration has become over the Pakistani Government’s willingness to take the battle to extremists inside its own borders.

Of course the Taliban has “no agenda to harm other countries”. SWAT, Waziristan, the NWFP, Kashmir, suicide bombing in Islamibad and against Indian assets, attacks in Iran against the border police and their hosting of AQ are all figments of our febrile imaginations

"Of course the Taliban has “no agenda to harm other countries”. SWAT, Waziristan, the NWFP, Kashmir, suicide bombing in Islamibad and against Indian assets, attacks in Iran against the border police and their hosting of AQ are all figments of our febrile imaginations..."

"See no, speak no, hear no..."

BTW, that describes an ostrich with head buried in sand.

There was a time when merely suggesting a strategy here for Afghanistan after NATO/ISAF left was met with bitterness. We saw it coming the moment exit plans for Afghanistan started to be chalked up, and now with Obama around, I think it is idiotic if countries like India and Iran don't already start planning something to keep the Taliban out of Afghanistan once the Americans leave. Now, as previously stated before aswell, we truly wish ISAF and Nato to be victors in Afghanistan, but I think it is more than sensible to start chalking up back-up options.

Originally Posted by Tronic

... now with Obama around, I think it is idiotic if countries like India and Iran don't already start planning something to keep the Taliban out of Afghanistan once the Americans leave.

You are planning for the wrong eventuality: Expect a small combined arms American force plus a few core allies in the region for a long time to come. Probably something along the lines of the Piffers - a few highly-trained, career-military officers and men running a bunch of battalions/squadrons/batteries brigaded with select ANA formations and supported by USAF.

I think it is fair to say that almost all Pakistanis (including the ones settled in USA) of all shades of political opinion hate the USA and are happy when its soldiers die.

They don't mind the moolah coming in though, just the conditions that seems to them "humiliating".

A very strange and prickly sense of honor, one that does not get offended with the worst terrorists coming out from their midst, the worst corruption, the worst acts in the name of Islam but one that is so prickly that it gets easily offended when the reality is even talked of.

So many are far more offended by the appearances (or being equated to their fellow Muslim country Afghanistan in Af-Pak), so few even care about the negative image the Mumbai terrorists created for Pakistan and Islam. All they gloat about is that India can't attack them even if more such attacks happen because of their nuclear blackmail.

Yes, USA is being shortsighted, extremely shortsighted in not recognizing an enemy when it sees one. You would do the right thing I am sure, after trying everything else!

Originally Posted by Cactus

You are planning for the wrong eventuality: Expect a small combined arms American force plus a few core allies in the region for a long time to come. Probably something along the lines of the Piffers - a few highly-trained, career-military officers and men running a bunch of battalions/squadrons/batteries brigaded with select ANA formations and supported by USAF.

Cactus, the issue is will the ANA reach the professionalism or even the efficiency needed before the pull out? I'm not too aware of the ANA to be honest but how good really is their training, commanders and their chain of command? How well have they operated against the Taliban? The Taliban are a battle hardened army, the ANA is an infant, and I just don't think that they can take over the fight with the same efficiency so soon.

Originally Posted by WhamBam

I think it is fair to say that almost all Pakistanis (including the ones settled in USA) of all shades of political opinion hate the USA and are happy when its soldiers die.

Thats a big generalization mate. I do have many Pakistani friends in Canada who really couldn't care less. My girlfriend, whose family is from Pakistan, generally agrees and supports American troops in Afghanistan (But then again, she knows sh*t all about the region and I wouldn't exactly term her view as "Pakistani").

"I get very upset when people argue against McChrystal's approach in Afghanistan..."

Let's start there. You directed your anger at me. I DO question the efficacy of his approach. Not from the philosophical perspective but, instead, my concerns center upon the functional implementation of such.

Much depends on the composition of those additional troops. I don't know such and our deployment officers won't be forewarning me neither.

But to your anger I ask this question-have you e-mailed the White House with your same disappointment? If not, why, as it is among the nat'l security staff of POTUS (for reasons that I ALSO object) that McChrystal's assessment is being questioned?

Wrong target. Their reasons differ from mine and they can DO something about their vision. I can't implement my perspective nor can I stop them from implementing theirs.

Let's now discuss Pakistan a bit. Explain to me what they've contributed to our efforts, if you don't mind? Have they conducted a rigorous COIN-based campaign in their lawless tracts? No. Not even now. One modest, continuing (and heading nowhere) campaign in Bajaur. Those citizens, btw, remain largely unsettled 12+ months after initiation. Not so those from SWAT or Buner. Says it all about what matters and what really doesn't in their demographics calculus. FATA is on the outside looking in by intent and has long been that way. Note the date of the operation. It coincides closely with Kiyani's carrier visit a year ago August. Remember?

All else has been within Pakistan proper and only after, in April, it appeared they were prepared to cede BUNER along with SWAT (from which their army had withdrawn from two abortive operations already).

We pay re-imbursement monies to the world's seventh largest army. For what, may I ask? They don't fight our enemies. They don't refuel our aircraft. They don't augment our supplies with there's. So, in effect, we pay them to defend themselves from themselves. Can we assume that in the absence of such re-imbursement they'd not lift a finger in their own defense?

An unusual concept, it seems. Most nations expect to budget and pay for their own defense. It sits rather high on the agendas of most nation-states and it's an odd notion which suggests that defending one's sovereignty is incumbent upon the level of aid and re-imbursement received from others.

While we aided Great Britain in W.W.II, there seems little doubt that they drained every penny from their coffers to do the same. Meanwhile, they actually fought the same enemies as ourselves with the same determination. Perhaps more. And while they certainly asked for our help, they gave as good as they got. So too others.

We PAY, over and beyond re-imbursement, private Pakistani contractors to ship our goods from their ports to Afghanistan. We enrich their economy in so doing. We are their country's largest purchaser of commercial goods and services, by far. Pakistani expatriates in America remit back to Pakistan more money than from any other nation on earth-again, by far. Who's carried the ball for them with the IMF? Who's driven the bus on the "Friends of Pakistan"?

Would any of this be replaced, if taken away, by anybody else on this planet?

Start there with these questions and evaluate what might be a point of departure for "unbearable". I confess it only gets worse from there on my scale of escalation but the patently incomprehensible nature of our present aid and it's dubious benefits immediately calls to question it's purposeful application.

Just now there's a lovely argument on one of their defense forums about where $6.6B of re-imbursement has gone. Expended upon what related to WOT, I don't know. Did it go to replace that which was expended, though? Nope. Much was instead redirected to energy subsidies and other non-WOT related items (including weaponry for conventional war, i.e. TOW missiles, F-16 parts, and other questionable redirected purchases). Finally, a good portion simply vanished into thin air. Gone.

I don't think it's my nation's responsibility to underwrite the defense of some country that might otherwise choose not to particularly participate in it's own defense. I sorta think it's up to them to make a good-faith effort there and show how such effort is driving their country into the ground. That's just lil' ol' me, though.

The levels of unbearability can (and should) easily start there.

Next week: ARCLIGHT or How I Learned To Kiss An Iron Bomb Once For Luck Before Dropping.

Looking forward to your reply. Thanks.

A bomb has gone off in Pak killing 41 people , it went off in a crowded market in north west Pak

Originally Posted by Tronic

Cactus, the issue is will the ANA reach the professionalism or even the efficiency needed before the pull out? I'm not too aware of the ANA to be honest but how good really is their training, commanders and their chain of command? How well have they operated against the Taliban? The Taliban are a battle hardened army, the ANA is an infant, and I just don't think that they can take over the fight with the same efficiency so soon.

Again, I don't think there will ever be a "pull out" - there will more likely be a huge draw down of forces. At that point, will ANA be a first-class army? No it wont be. Will it be a counter-insurgency, nation-building army? I don't think so either. But it will have a few well trained divisions, lots of American advisers who can call down more firepower than the Talibs can afford to throw manpower at. The ANA may be infantile, but the manpower it can draw from is every bit as warlike as the Taliban's Pathans. Enough to keep the Talibs on the run and denying the foreign Islamists an operating base on at least one side of the Durand Line (and making life dangerous on the other). Maybe, just maybe, a few new leaders will emerge in A'stan who can use those divisions to make it a nation; but I am not holding my breath.

This, at least, seems to be one of the lines of thought that has come back in vogue since Rumsfeld (minus some of the ideological stuff). Seen it being pushed from both sides of American political aisle (the VP's office, conservatives like George Will etc).