Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 50

Thread: Hunting for Haqqanis, US deploys troops along N Waziristan border

  1. #16

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,826

    InExile Reply

    "That is assuming that Afghanistan does fall to the Taliban in its entirety which is doubtful."

    "That..."? What do you mean? InExile, you're unclear here. If you mean that the Pakistani government must have a Taliban government in Afghanistan for Islamabad/Rawalpindi to focus solely upon India then you are mistaken.

    All the Pakistanis need is a state of perpetual instability within Afghanistan that preoccupies and diverts pan-pashtun sentiments away from Pakistan.

    "...Would the US permit that; after more than 10 years of war??..."

    What part of "...come hell or high water..." don't you understand?

    "...Even if all ground troops are removed; the Taliban can be destroyed from the air if they were to mass for an attack on major cities..."

    Certainly, if America is as committed to doing so as we were in late 2001. Do you know this to be our commitment and, if so, how?

    "...The more likely scenario is that of a weak Afghan government with little authority outside the larger cities; an Afghanistan which is neither a Western or Indian ally but not entirely a Pakistan allied , Taliban ruled, running large Al Qaeda terrorist camps that it was before 9/11."

    Likely? Yes, in the near term. For how long a weak afghan government stands before fracturing into fiefdoms and full civil war is another matter. Either condition will suffice for Pakistani ambitions regarding India.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  2. #17
    Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Sep 08
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    613
    I still don't see what India would gain from trying to get militarily involved in Afghanistan; when both the Soviet Union and the US have not succeeded in imposing their will on the country so to speak. Yes, the current pro Indian Government in Afghanistan is advantageous from the geopolitical point of view; and a source of fear for Pakistan.

    But Pakistan is much weaker than India economically and militarily; without considering their nuclear arsenal; they are not really a threat to India, whatever the 'ambitions' of the Generals. And the Indian economy is growing fast, while Pakistan is mired in fundamentalism and violence and will not prosper as long as it is so; in the long run; the military balance will only continue to shift in our favor. I think India's policy with Pakistan should be one of armed deterrence and continued military buildup while avoiding outright war. That is probably more beneficial in my opinion than to trying to replace NATO in maintaining the current order in Afghanistan.

  3. #18
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    Rant time.

    I'm actually angry at this state of affairs.I can't stand the idea that our honour is trampled by some strategic midgets and a great mass of ignorants.There is a vast wealth that fattened the Karzai's bank accounts in Dubai and even greater wealth that was wasted by a great army of bureaucrats that never got outside their compounds.

    There is the blood shed by our men,chained by their respective fools in chief and their uniformed minions. The Talibans were wasted in every fight,fair or unfair,on their ground as well as on ours.Yet 99% of our men after 10 years can't speak 2 words in Pashto or Dari.We used Civil Affairs and Human Terrain Teams units,supposed to be experts,to do what any half decent Cpl. could do:patrol around.Our SOF,for the most part don't do what they're supposed to do in COIN-live among the people and earn their thrust.The taliban exists because it's the shadow government in large part of A-stan. Marinestan excepted,nowhere else a comprehensive offensive strategy existed to kill the batsrds and interdict their routes.We don't do ambushes anymore To hell with diplomats,crony contractors or even some PRT's that change their promises every 6 months and waste their tour drinking cha'ai on Shura's that the Afghans no longer trust to accomplish a project.There are enough good men that do the job for pennies on the dollar,yet nobody ever heard of them.Strangely,the elders trust them,defend them,inform them of the dangers.There's however a twist.Careerists back home or those populting the vastly oversized HQ's and FOB's won't take a calculated risk.

    The very existence of these wussies is an insult to anyone possesing a semblance of warrior ethos,yet discipline prevents their strangling with bare hands.Life sucks.

    Kill Karzai,put Saleh in charge.Leave a minimum of 10000 officers and NCO's to train and LEAD the ANA.Fire the ANP and extend the Arbakai project instead.Dismantle all the logistic nightmare that requires a million/man/year(what's wrong in eating local food,under supervision and testing by some foreign contractors to prevent poisoning?) Leave some intel capabilities on the ground.Send SF teams to raid **** havens.And for Christ's sake,fire the idiots that ''lead'' you.

    Rant over.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  4. #19
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    21 Apr 05
    Posts
    521
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    Rant time.

    I'm actually angry at this state of affairs.I can't stand the idea that our honour is trampled by some strategic midgets and a great mass of ignorants.There is a ....

    Rant over.

    good rant. 9/10

    I am still shaking my head in awe of how the US snatched defeat from victory.
    Have a B52 over Rawalpindi and you wont have any more haqqani's attacking your guys.

    deport a few of the ISI generals kids back home.

    confiscate the land the pakistani military inc owns in central california.

    I am betting the war will be over in a few short months.

    It is so clear, i am not sure why the State dept mandarins and Pentagon brass dont do it..

  5. #20
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,134
    Yeah,i can see why Mihais is pissed, its like we just turned the clock back to before the OBL affair and everything is hunky dory.

    Pakistani wolf to guard Afghan henhouse | Asia Times | Oct 25, 2011

    Clinton's was a do-or-die mission. Seldom if ever is it that the "good cop" and the "bad cop" undertake a joint mission. Clinton was accompanied at the talks in Islamabad by Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director David Petraeus and the chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey. What did Clinton's mission accomplish?

    In the event, five things emerged.

    - One, the US has publicly acknowledged the centrality of Pakistan's role in the Afghan endgame.

    - Two, the US publicly accepted the consistent Pakistani demand that the Haqqanis should be engaged in talks and that excluding them would make the entire process fragile. The Haqqani network is one of the most important components of the Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan.

    - Three, therefore, the new approach will be to "squeeze" the Haqqanis so that they come to the negotiating table - rather than try to vanquish them as an irreconcilable insurgent group.

    - Four, the US understood the range of factors behind Pakistan's hesitation in launching military operations in North Waziristan and would therefore switch tack and opt for "other forms of acting", such as sharing real-time intelligence and debilitating the network's lethal capabilities.

    - Five, Clinton conceded repeatedly Islamabad's "legitimate" concerns regarding the Taliban operating out of safe havens on Afghan soil to carry out cross-border terrorist attacks on its soil, and henceforth US troops would "up the military tempo" against those sanctuaries and prevent them from attacking Pakistan.
    So, as per point five, it would seem the action that the thread titles suggests is actually against TTP that use Afghanistan as sanctuary to attack Pakistan.

    Clinton categorically denied that the Barack Obama administration recently considered the option of US ground incursions into Pakistani territory. "That has never been a serious consideration." On the contrary, the US is rebooting the strategic dialogue with Pakistan and is putting together a new work plan, "Because we got, as you say, diverted over the last months, and we want to get back to business."
    Can you say U-turn...

    What explains the dramatic u-turn in the US's strategy? In a nutshell, the Obama administration sized up that Pakistan was hunkering down and an impasse was developing, which was unacceptable, given the timeline ahead for the US withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2014. The heavy pressure tactic to the point of brandishing the sword failed to produce the desired result and is unlikely to work.

    In sum, Washington sees the futility of visualizing Pakistan as a hostile power and of trying to impose an Afghan settlement that is unacceptable to the Pakistani military
    . The US has, therefore, switched to a startlingly innovative strategy. The mantra is to "incentivize" Pakistan by inviting it to play a major role in Afghanistan, but on conditions, which also ensures that the US's strategic interests remain protected.

    It essentially devolves on conceding Pakistani primacy in Afghanistan and putting the Pakistani leadership in charge of negotiating with their counterparts in Kabul a settlement accommodating the Taliban that would stop the bloodshed and stabilize the country.

    This may seem to detractors of Pakistan (in Afghanistan, the region and internationally) as a mild version of putting the wolf in charge of the henhouse, and it certainly assumes that Pakistan has had a change of heart with regard to its past agenda of dominating its weaker, smaller neighbor that has shown the temerity or tenacity - depending on one's point of view - to refuse to accept the Durand Line, which makes Pakistan's 2,500-kilometer border and the attendant unresolved Pashtun nationality question existential themes for Pakistan's integrity as a sovereign state.

    But the US sees this as part of a grand bargain that Pakistan will be sorely tempted to accept if it is made sufficiently alluring. The US expectation is to make it a "win-win" situation by making the stabilization of Afghanistan form an integral part of its so-called New Silk Road vision.
    The Barack Obama administration has careered away from its path of spearheading the search for an Afghan settlement by directly engaging the Taliban, bypassing Pakistan and creating a fait accompli for Islamabad. Put differently, Pakistan has scored a resounding political victory by correctly judging the range of the US's vulnerabilities in the given situation and carefully factoring in Pakistan's "strategic assets" and by adopting a unified civil-military stance.
    Learning to live with the Americans in the neighborhood isn't exactly turning out to be a pleasant experience for Indian pundits. One day they were told that the Haqqanis were the murderers who attacked the Indian Embassy in Kabul - and, indeed, the US Embassy too - and now they overhear tit-bits of conversation that the US has had a change of heart.
    What gives ?

    A slightly different version of the Atimes article appeared in my daily

    Mission accomplished | Deccan Hearld | Oct 24 2011

    and included this bit

    The Indian angst is understandable. Having taken a one-dimensional view of the Taliban and ignoring its indigenous roots and its “Afghan-ness”, having fallen into the trap in the late 1990s of approaching the Afghan problem as a zero-sum game with Pakistan and over-identifying with the non-Pashtun ethnic groups, having neglected the imperative need of a strong regional policy and having failed to coordinate with other like-minded countries in the region – Indian strategists today have only themselves to blame. The fundamental mistake was to have hitched the diplomatic wagon to the US’s AfPak strategies through the past 10-year period. Pakistani policy triumphed primarily because it held on to the age-old maxim that “all relationships between two sovereign countries are based on national interest, and this relationship, that between Pakistan and US, is by no means an exception to that”, as Khar eloquently said in the presence of Clinton.

    India urgently needs an independent and active regional policy. Do not expect Washington to offer a cosy corner in a Pax Americana in Central Asia. The New Silk Road isn’t the only regional project in town. Again, India needs to work hard to give traction to the India-Pakistan dialogue aimed at making Pakistan a ‘stakeholder’, which involves advancing the “doables” in the basket of disputes and exploring with sincerity the possibilities of the Iran gas pipeline project. Pakistan has legitimate interests in Afghanistan and the Indian security establishment must be firmly told to take the back seat so that diplomatic skills and advantages could be optimally utilised and the Afghan policy could become responsive to the new circumstances.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 25 Oct 11, at 02:25.

  6. #21
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    Look,the US(and with it all of NATO) surrendered to the Pakistanis. On a side note,there was a theory that the military men overruled Obama in launching the raid on OBL.Given the behaviour since then,there might be some merit in that CT.Admitting the sensibilities of Pakistan is something I tried to do.Not anymore.I refuse to consider anything coming from Rawalpindi wrt A-stan as legit.They're nothing but an aggressor and should be treated as such.Also I have to thank State Dept. for adding insult to injury by admitting Afghan safe havens for attacks on Pakistan.

    The defeat itself is not really important in practical terms.The future betrayal of the loyal Afghans will be however the nail in the coffin of any possible soft policy in the Islamic world. We won't find any friends but those circumstantial.Humanitarian crisis aside,the West loss of face will be the real disaster.
    And it won't be madame Clinton that will shed blood to wash the shame and the lost ground.

    Pals of mine told me of lil' girls 14-16 years old learning a lesson from CA guys in the evening than teaching it to even younger kids in the morning.What teacher(there are few of them anyway) will go in the Wild West(I mean East) for the few pennies GIROA gives it's teachers?
    What will happen to those kids 5-6 years from now(maybe sooner) I try not to imagine.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  7. #22
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    Look,the US(and with it all of NATO) surrendered to the Pakistanis.
    Now, we need to work out the implications of that surrender in the near term as well as long term.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    On a side note,there was a theory that the military men overruled Obama in launching the raid on OBL.Given the behaviour since then,there might be some merit in that CT.
    Yeah, the moment Petraeus stepped down the pressure dissapeared.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    Admitting the sensibilities of Pakistan is something I tried to do.Not anymore.I refuse to consider anything coming from Rawalpindi wrt A-stan as legit.They're nothing but an aggressor and should be treated as such.Also I have to thank State Dept. for adding insult to injury by admitting Afghan safe havens for attacks on Pakistan.
    I hear ya, but that is yesterday or the day before's way of thinking, we are now in the new silk road vision era. Whether this vision is viable remains to be seen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    The defeat itself is not really important in practical terms.The future betrayal of the loyal Afghans will be however the nail in the coffin of any possible soft policy in the Islamic world. We won't find any friends but those circumstantial.Humanitarian crisis aside,the West loss of face will be the real disaster.
    Will that betrayal as you put it be balanced by present developments in Egypt, Libya & Tunisia ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    Pals of mine told me of lil' girls 14-16 years old learning a lesson from CA guys in the evening than teaching it to even younger kids in the morning.What teacher(there are few of them anyway) will go in the Wild West(I mean East) for the few pennies GIROA gives it's teachers?
    What will happen to those kids 5-6 years from now(maybe sooner) I try not to imagine.
    They will have fonder memories of life 5-6 years earlier that is provided things 5-6 years from now in Afghanistan are worse than they are today. I'm pessimistic about that. Where does the balance come from ? the same usual opponents and the result of it is a low-medium level power struggle. A period of no peace nor war either.

  8. #23
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    Yeah,great reward for a decade of sweat and blood.To get back where we started.

    I'm sure the the New Silk road will work just fine.I'm not sure it's in the best interests of the West,but we have no word in it.We just surrendered unconditionally. I prefer the ways of yesterday,thank you very much.
    Afghans will draw the short stick in this affair,I'm afraid and they're as guilty and innocent as we are.Both of us were damned to have miserable leadership.I'm impartial,I hate everyone equally:Western establishment(and the ridiculous military culture on the ground),Paks and GIROA.I'm also Orwellian and I hate our establishment a bit more
    Fact is without foreign leadership,the Taliban(I put everyone opposing us under this label) will roll ANA without breaking a sweat .There are good units,but the fact is those that have the fire inside are too few.Combine this with a probable reduction of logistic support,mix it with the local tradition of switching to the perceived stronger side and we're back in 2001.
    The Silk Road can still work,because even the Taliban tasted money(albeit drug related ones,but money still).

    The West promised no Arab milk and honey.Everytime our patrols walk into a village and everytime there's a shura,everyone from Corporal to General promises the Afghans milk and honey,freedom,commitment etc... That promise is not YET broken,but I bet it will take the politicos about 2 seconds to make an about face. Don't know about you,but I'll be mightily angry if I were lied like that.Angry enough to grow a beard and read a Coran.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  9. #24
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    Don't know about you,but I'll be mightily angry if I were lied like that.Angry enough to grow a beard and read a Coran.
    Makes me think of that saying, take care who you chose as friends and even more for enemies.

    Thats a place of moving alliances that can turn at the drop of a hat. The only difference here is this happens to be a western one. Its time now for regional players to come into the picture.

  10. #25
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,134
    BBC's got a new documentary, called 'Secret Pakistan', seems like old hat but here is the link and another

    The biggest worry ?

    But there are those like Mr Riedel who fear that the forces unleashed in 10 years of war may yet come to haunt the whole world:

    "There is probably no worse nightmare, for America, for Europe, for the world, in the 21st Century than if Pakistan gets out of control under the influence of extremist Islamic forces, armed with nuclear weapons...The stakes here are huge.

    What happens in Pakistan may yet be the most enduring legacy of 9/11 and the hunt for Bin Laden."
    Far fetched today, 10 years from now ? who knows.

    Tho given the present result in Pakistan's favour i think they'll be on top of it.

  11. #26

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,826
    Fcukin' BBC won't let us watch it online.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  12. #27
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    Fcukin' BBC won't let us watch it online.
    Same here.

    If you say bloody BBC it might
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  13. #28
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,134
    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    Fcukin' BBC won't let us watch it online.
    Oh I haven't seen it, its a two part series of which only the first part aired on BBC 2 yesterday. Should make its way to BBC world eventually.

    But going by the description I doubt there's anything new to reveal that you would not be already aware about thats why i called it old hat

    In a way this documentary is already outdated by what Clinton said in Islamabad this week. The world knows the Pak regime is in cahoots with the Taliban & Haqqanis.

    Is the world going to do anything about it ? As of now, nah.

  14. #29
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    Amb. Crocker and Gen's Mattis &Allen won't be too pleased with this developments.I have serious doubts they agreed with this charade.Which can lead to the conclusion WH and State went above their heads.

    One cannot tie the hands of the commander on the ground and than ask him to use his hands.That's as old as Sun Tzu.So we might see some interesting moves in this area as well.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  15. #30
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    Amb. Crocker and Gen's Mattis &Allen won't be too pleased with this developments.I have serious doubts they agreed with this charade.Which can lead to the conclusion WH and State went above their heads.
    Its times like this where what Bluesman says about Obama becomes apparent. He's ranted about this very same pattern of behaviour in other areas.

    We saw the best of Mullen & Petraeus and they did have the presidents ear for a while but in the end its the civvies that call the shots.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    One cannot tie the hands of the commander on the ground and than ask him to use his hands.That's as old as Sun Tzu.So we might see some interesting moves in this area as well.
    Of course, you can't run a mission on some arbitrary time frame thats essentially based on re-election considerations. Small wonder General McChrystal fell out in as public a manner. Thats the deal, if you don't tow the adminstrations line even when it goes against better judgement then you're screwed.

    I guess things might change after Nov next year but until then they will remain frozen in the current state. Nothings going to rock the boat. Hmm, maybe we should see this period as a lull, hopefully temporary.

    But then it raises the question what is the end game here for the west ? Haven't we already had it declared. How many more u-turns can there be. Only an administration different to the present one will be able to pull it off.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 28 Oct 11, at 15:59.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. More troops sent to Thai-Cambodian border as fighting goes on
    By troung in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01 May 11,, 18:21
  2. Syria 'boosts troops on border'
    By xrough in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05 Nov 08,, 09:02
  3. U.S. Troops Kill Pakistani Border Guard
    By Srirangan in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 23 Jan 07,, 10:11
  4. South African Border War troops won't be honoured
    By troung in forum International Economy
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 15 Jan 07,, 20:30
  5. Turkey and Iran mass troops near Kurdish border.
    By troung in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 20 Aug 06,, 18:14

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •