S-2

"...when we leave..."

I'm uncertain that America will be leaving anytime soon. Not from Afghanistan. There's some unfinished business in that neighborhood.

__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

Agnostic Muslim

Which part? Not wanting the "headache of fighting in FATA", or my opposition to "forcing change"?

PS; I am just bouncing ideas off - I am in no way suggesting that I am sold on the strategy I have outlined, nor do I have any love or liking for the Taliban and their ilk.

__________________
Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah

Officer of Engineers

I am certain that we'll be there for at least the next decade. The ECONOMIST gives pretty good indicators that we're winning. We still have broad support and we are dealing with the Taliban. We have accepted the defections of several high level Taliban commanders.

However, it would be naive to think that we can change 100 years of warfare in less than a decade. Right now though, as far as I understand it, in meetings with the Provincial governors and the tribal leaders, shouting matches happen more often than not with both sides trading insults with no fear of reprisals by either one.

That has not happened since before the communists came to power in Kabul.

__________________
Chimo

Officer of Engineers

Both.

Winning in peace or war is about leadership and you have none.

Are you not explaining Pakistan's position?

S-2

Colonel,

"However, it would be naive to think that we can change 100 years of warfare in less than a decade."

I concur. I think most professional American warriors concur. We know the nature of the fight now...and are undaunted. Frankly, as I indicated, we've no choice. Other nations perhaps do. That's for them to decide but it seems clear that it's in everybody's interest that Afghanistan experience a sea-change in the manner in which it co-exists with other nations and itself.

So far, Neo's comments about the ISI loom large in the discussion,

"I agree, ISI has some connections with Taliban, its in our interest regarding future perpectives."

He seems convinced. Who am I to argue? That said, it's an indictment that's been dangling for ages-ISI perfidy in Afghanistan for strategic depth. Pisses me off, actually, and makes difficult to accept the GoP's good intentions for Afghanistan.

It really isn't good state-craft and belies a weakness/fundamental insecurity within Pakistan that is a risk for any of it's neighbors.

Agnostic Muslim

Leadership exists - as does a difference of opinion on how to lead, and how to affect change.
There is a matter of perception, since the war is being fought in our nation, on our land, and against our people. To believe that "one size fits all" is not good leadership, in my opinion - you may differ.

Pakistan's position will be clearer after the elections.

bolo121

Exactly what i said in my post
Won all the battles crushed their enemies but it did not matter.
The people of America were sick of the bloodshed and acted to end it. Same thing will happen under new administration.
I always read his name as Vo. Nguyen?Spelling Giap

Officer of Engineers

I would submit that all the war fighters in Afghanistan know what's ahead and remains undaunted. I would also submit that more than few are itching to join the fight but are constrained by their governments.

Pakistan is in the midst of a civil war (I know what that is like) and they are leaderless as much as they don't want to admit it.

The good thing in their favour is that their opposition is also as leaderless.

Officer of Engineers

You don't have leadership. Leadership is about vision. About telling you where you are going. About telling you what the end result of all your sacrifices would be. About convincing you to follow.

As of right now, your leaders don't have a vision of Pakistan. I don't care if it's democratic, Islamic, or follow the yellow brick road. Your leaders have to convince you that their vision is the right one or you won't follow. And you know what? Nobody is following nothing.

Are you fighting that war? I'm reminded of American Civil War General US Grant who later became President. He pressed to victory with no holds bar and once he achieved victory, he gave a peace to welcome his brothers home.

Your leaders are not presenting any such vision of either victory or welcoming your brothers home.

Officer of Engineers

And what of WWII? The Korean War?

It still did not change the fact that he was lucky. He planned a military defeat on the Americans and suffered for it. He got a propaganda victory instead.

bolo121

[quote=Officer of Engineers;440369]And what of WWII? The Korean War?


In my original post i was talking of america's small (cold) wars.
Full bore total war like ww2 was not what i meant
Korean war was at pretty much the end of the same period and fought by mostly same generation so i did not count it.
Now that you reminded me im off to scrounge up a copy of the coldest winter

S-2

From SWJ-

Can the Anbar Strategy Work In Pakistan?

Clint Watts writes-

"Recent U.S. success in defeating al-Qa’ida in Iraq has prompted policy makers and military planners to export this strategy to other theaters, specifically the tribal areas of Pakistan. However, the U.S. should ask itself three questions before continuing: Will the tribes of Pakistan’s frontier provinces turn on al-Qa’ida?... Will the ideology of al-Qa’ida clash with Pakistani tribes?... Third, will financial and military inducements to Pakistani tribes translate into pressure on al-Qa'ida's logistics?"

A.M. has hinted at shifts in the GoP's approach to exploiting tribal and other fissures/leverage points recently. Perhaps on advice from America's experience in al-Anbar. If so, Watts has some surprising answers to his own questions.

Just as interesting is this reply from a reader-

"But just to make it clear, to see the Anbar narrative as all about tribes “flipping” is an impoverished view of the campaign. It’s a Johnny-come-lately view. Hard and costly kinetic operations laid the groundwork for the tribal realignments. Sheikh Sattar had to have his smuggling lines cut and dismembered by specially assigned units conducting kinetic operations in order to ‘see the light’ and align with U.S. forces. Then, a tank had to be parked outside his residence to provide protection against the insurgents in order to keep him alive and aligned with the U.S.

The pundits talk about the tribes, but the Marines talk about kinetic operations inside Ramadi to provide the window of opportunity for the tribes to realign their allegiance:

DefenseLink News Article: Why We Serve: Marine Staff Sergeant Helps Awaken Anbar

To be sure, the tribal alliance is a large part of the Anbar victory, but force projection (not force protection) was the pretext for the Anbar awakening. We simply cannot do COIN on the cheap. I hope that no one exists who believes that we could have waltzed into Anbar three years ago, without the pretext of force projection, and sat down with the tribes and verbally persuaded them to join “the cause?”

His comments underline those by OoE, if there's any REAL validity to applying the (some, a few, one or two, none) lessons of al-Anbar to Pakistan. A.M. seems awed/sold/inspired (don't know-somewhere in that mix) by the region's mythical cultural intransigence and appears resigned to acquiescing positive sovereign control of this region. Neo seems oddly eager for the ISI to resume/continue doing what it does so well-interfere with the lives of it's immediate neighbors.

Is not FATA already autonomous? What's left except for the declaration of independance by Greater Pashtunistan? Pakistan would seem prepared to make a sizable territorial contribution to a newly-born land-locked nation. All that's left, of course, would be for Afghanistan to do the same.

No. At some point Pakistan's authority to rule must be asserted over all it's citizens or it follows that they're really not a part of your nation. That may include "kinetic" operations. "Guns blazing", I think you said.

Are the loyalties of Pakistan's citizenry so dubious?

Blademaster

S-2,

You really need to understand the history of that area. Historically, that area has never been under control of the central government. They pay lipservice to the government of Pakistan in exchange for a large degree of autonomy. That area is culturally different from Punjabis, the largest ethnic group in Pakistan and only remain aligned with Punjabis through Islam and nothing else. Because Musharraff went against the Islamist groups and laid siege to a mosque, Musharraf has become an enemy of Islam in the eyes of Pashtuns and therefore they do not pay lip service to the central government and do what they damn pleased.

S-2

"You really need to understand the history of that area."

And your seven lines of post qualify?

"They pay lipservice to the government of Pakistan in exchange for a large degree of autonomy."

One can hardly argue with that bargain-lipservice for a ton of autonomy.

"...they do not pay lip service to the central government and do what they damn pleased."

Isn't "damn [sic] pleased" the same as "lip-service"? Probably not, eh? The distinction, though, is confusing to us neophytes.

Well. What the hell. At least I finally got a history lesson from someone that's in-the-know.

Wouldn't be Indian, would you?

Blademaster

S-2,

why are you getting your hackles up by my post? I am just trying to point out a few things. Be my guest if you wanna walk in there without studying the history. I don't proclaim to be an expert on that area. Just giving a you a warning and some info.