Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 50

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

  1. #31
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,032
    There is nothing to replace victory.In this case victory means preventing A-stan becoming a safe haven again for the ennemies of the West either by destroying the Taliban or by integrating them in a (more or less)democratic A-stan as another political force.The consequence of that being them demobilizing and giving up violence.
    A-stan's importance is somewhat diminished after the Arab Spring(you know what I think of that),but it remains important as a test of will.If we quit,everyone between Atlantic and Pacific will see it as a defeat,as a proof of decadence.Rightly so,IMO.Which means all hell breaks loose in a few years.If we don't give up,everyone and his brother might restrain themselves,knowing that some guys very good at killing will come and they'll stay until it's over.
    There are however many ways in which the alliance's performance can be improved.We could fight this war on the cheap and be even better at it.Right now we are just squandering away the huge amount of expertise and talent every nation there has.
    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

  2. #32
    Contributor 1980s's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Jul 08
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    Fcukin' BBC won't let us watch it online.
    Secret Pakistan : Double Cross part 1/6 - YouTube

  3. #33

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,779

    1980s Reply

    Bless you sire. I should have checked but am grateful that you did.
    "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

  4. #34

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,779

    Secret Pakistan

    I remain unsurprised by what's revealed from Secret Pakistan. The Kunduz airlift, however, was unknown by me (if otherwise old news).

    The Obama administration fully inherits the taint of culpability that was originally borne by two Bush administrations. All, together with the American congress, are complicit in tacitly accepting the deaths and maiming of American troops for seeking strategic cooperation with a nation thoroughly opposed to our Afghanistan objectives.

    Given our dead and wounded, this behavior may as well be criminal. Our government is shameful.
    "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

  5. #35
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,032
    All our governments are criminal in this regard.But they're even more than criminal,they're wrong.
    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

  6. #36

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,779

    Mihais Reply

    "...they're wrong."


    Simply put, yes. Thoroughly.
    "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

  7. #37
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,032
    Watched the BBC show.Like S2 said,nothing new under the sun.They missed however a few great pieces.The British killed in raid a number of militants in 2004-5,of which 4 had ISI ID's.During Op Medusa in 2006,ISI members were captured in a Taliban supply convoy and released several hours later.If we really started to list the known situations when they've been caught in the act,we'd probably get hundreds of cases.We must also consider this as the tip of the iceberg,since it's obvious the vast majority are unknown to our intel agencies.
    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

  8. #38
    Contributor ambidex's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 09
    Location
    Te Rotorua-nui-a-Kahumatamomoe
    Posts
    518
    Can not find appropriate thread so posting here.

    Pakistan spied on German officers in Afghanistan - report | Reuters

  9. #39
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    Watched the BBC show.Like S2 said,nothing new under the sun.They missed however a few great pieces.The British killed in raid a number of militants in 2004-5,of which 4 had ISI ID's.During Op Medusa in 2006,ISI members were captured in a Taliban supply convoy and released several hours later.If we really started to list the known situations when they've been caught in the act,we'd probably get hundreds of cases.We must also consider this as the tip of the iceberg,since it's obvious the vast majority are unknown to our intel agencies.
    I tend to think they are known, but for political and operation purposes were not released for general public.

    My guess would be that in the next period we will see more articles showing how bad guys ISI are.

    From the amount of such leaks you would be able to predict the further actions towards Pakistani establishment.

    Moreover since the troops are headed home from A-stan, so Pakistan is no more needed as before.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

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

  10. #40
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,535
    How to decipher Pakistan’s Afghan policy | Nov 7 2011 | Badrakumars blog

    Trouble starts for Pakistan - Big Trouble, in fact - if there is indeed a Taliban takeover in Afghanistan. Keeping a Taliban regime in Kabul subservient to Pakistani diktat will be virtually impossible.

    If the Taliban would have the window of opportunity to diversify their external relationships, they will surely seize it and get out of the orbit of Pakistani control. Even during the 1996-2001 period, there was ample evidence that Pakistan had trying times while manipulating the Taliban regime. The main factor that helped Pakistan was that the world community ostracized the Taliban, which made them heavily dependent on the Pakistani subsidy.

    Arguably, a Taliban takeover in Afghanistan cannot even be the actual agenda of the Pakistani military leadership. The Pakistani military would be savvy enough to know that taming the Afghans [Pashtuns] is going to sap Pakistan’s resources and can only lead to a quagmire. Pakistan has an excellent intelligence system within Afghanistan and would have no illusions about the pervasive distrust toward Pakistan among all Afghans, cutting across regions and ethnic groups, and about the futility of restoring the traditional Pashtun dominance.

    But then, discourses regarding the Pakistani policies in Afghanistan are today heavily laden with propaganda, which do not help at all to gain understanding of what the actual Pakistani motivations could be in today’s circumstances. Old, hackneyed theses of ’strategic depth’ vis-a-vis India, etc are still freely bandied about by pundits, whereas ISI would know well enough that Pakistan comes by far first in the Kabul’s - any Kabul set-up’s - pecking order by virtue of social kinships, economic necessity, cultural affinity, tribal links, etc.

    If the current level of creative thinking behind Pakistani regional policies is any indication - Islamabad’s keenness to foster close ties with Russia, build a climate of mutual trust in relations with Iran, woo the Central Asian states or its desperate efforts to gain early membership of SCO - there is reason to believe that its priorities in Afghanistan have transformed from what they used to be a decade ago.

    Therefore, in the interests of regional stability, a case can be made that Pakistan should be put in the driving seat to negotiate an Afghan reconciliation leading to a settlement, and made a ’stakeholder’ in regional security and stability. But then, if that happens, the western troop presence may become difficult to justify. If the RFERL report is any indication, US would even seize Afghan nationalism and turn it around on its head for the sake of giving added justification for establishing long-term military presence in that country.

  11. #41

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,779

    Double Edge Reply

    Your own pundit only has it partially correct. He is utterly accurate that Pakistan experienced much gnashing of teeth in their acrimonious relationship with the taliban regime 1996-2001. It would be fair to remember, however, that Afghanistan (even then) wasn't fully reunited.

    Nor shall it be again. There are more than enough competing interests, even absent America, to assure that Afghanistan remains in a state of near perpetual civil war upon ISAF's departure. This is entirely commensurate with Pakistani ambitions as it continues to focus pan-pashtun sentiment westward upon Afghanistan. A fully united Afghanistan, even under taliban guise, can only be viewed as a threat to Pakistan. The traditional relationships shared by pashtuns across those ill-defined borders won't diminish. Pakistani pashtun subvervience to Punjabi overlords remains a sore-spot that will always demand itching. Their afghan brothers shall always be more than happy to help scratch that itch.

    Pakistan seeks domination of eastern Afghanistan through its pashtun taliban proxies but will play those forces against one another to assure full reunification is impossible.
    "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. #42
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,744
    Nato helicopters 'kill Pakistan checkpoint soldiers'


    Pakistani officials have accused Nato helicopters of firing on a military checkpoint near Pakistan's Afghan border, killing 26 soldiers.

    The "unprovoked and indiscriminate" attack took place in Mohmand tribal region, the Pakistani military said.

    In response, Pakistan has closed the border crossing for supplies bound for Nato forces in Afghanistan.

    The Nato-led force in Afghanistan says it is investigating and has offered condolences to any affected families.

    The alleged attack took place at the Salala checkpoint, about 1.5 miles (2.5 km) from the Afghan border, Reuters reports, at around 02:00 local time (21:00 GMT).

    Two officers were among the dead, officials said, and seven soldiers were reported wounded.

    Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani "has strongly condemned the Nato/Isaf (International Security Assistance Force) attack on the Pakistani post," the foreign ministry announced according to AFP news agency.

    "On his directions, the matter in being taken up by the foreign ministry, in the strongest terms, with Nato and the US," it added.

    The BBC's Shoaib Hasan in Karachi says Pakistani officials are furious, arguing there was no militant activity in the area at the time.

    The incident risks dealing a fresh blow to US-Pakistan relations, which had only just begun to recover following a unilateral US raid that killed Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan in May.

    Continue reading the main story
    US-Pakistan downturn

    30 Sept 2010: Nato helicopters kill two Pakistani soldiers, prompting nearly two-week border closure in protest
    22 April: Supplies to Nato forces in Afghanistan halted for three days in protest over drone attacks
    2 May: US announces Bin Laden's death and says Pakistan not warned of raid
    2 June: Top US military chief Adm Mike Mullen admits "significant" cut in US troops in Pakistan
    10 July: US suspends $800m of military aid
    22 Sept: Outgoing US Adm Mullen accuses Pakistan of supporting Haqqani militant group in Afghanistan; denied by Pakistan
    'Heartfelt condolences'
    A senior Pakistani military officer told Reuters news agency that efforts were under way to transport the bodies of the dead soldiers to Mohmand's main town of Ghalanai.

    "The latest attack by Nato forces on our post will have serious repercussions as they without any reasons attacked on our post and killed soldiers asleep," he said, requesting anonymity because he was not authorised to talk to the media.

    Masood Kausar, governor of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, reportedly condemned the attack as "unacceptable and intolerable".

    In a statement, Isaf commander Gen John R Allen said the incident "has my highest personal attention and my commitment to thoroughly investigate it to determine the facts.

    "My most sincere and personal heartfelt condolences go out to the families and loved ones of any members of Pakistan Security Forces who may have been killed or injured."

    In apparent response to the attack, lorries and fuel tankers were being stopped at Jamrud town in the Khyber tribal region near the city of Peshawar, officials and local media said - part of a key supply route which delivers 80% of Nato's equipment to Afghanistan.

    "We have halted the supplies and some 40 tankers and trucks have been returned from the check post in Jamrud," Mutahir Zeb, a senior government official, told Reuters.

    Pakistani troops are involved in fighting the Taliban in the crucial border region area. Hundreds of militants have been resisting attempts by the security forces to clear them from southern and south-eastern parts of the district.

    Anti-militant operation
    The checkpoint at the centre of this latest incident was set up to prevent insurgents crossing over the border into Afghanistan, our correspondent says.

    He says the movement of insurgents from the area into Afghanistan has been a concern for the Nato-led Isaf and the US.

    The US has been targeting militants in Pakistan's tribal areas near the Afghan border for several months, often using unmanned drone aircraft.

    Last year, US helicopters accidentally killed two Pakistani soldiers near the border, also prompting Pakistan to temporarily close the border to Nato supplies.

    In October, Pakistan's army chief Ashfaq Kayani warned the US against taking unilateral action in nearby North Waziristan.

    He said that the US should focus on stabilising Afghanistan instead of pushing Pakistan to attack militant groups in the crucial border region.

    Washington has for many years urged Islamabad to deal with militants in the area.

  13. #43

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,779

    Denying Pakistan

    Sarah Chayes is an interesting woman. She's lived in Kandahar for years. I remember Maj. Shek calling me to ask if I'd heard of this woman. I had not. He'd just heard her speak at a luncheon gathering at the Pentagon. She has been an advisor to the U.S. military, a major player in a skin-care business established inside Afghanistan as a cottage industry and a published author.

    Her editorial appears in the L.A. Times-

    Denying Pakistan-Sarah Chayes L.A. Times November 26, 2011

    Her points are well-made-

    "...The notion that there are three separate entities in this equation — the government of Afghanistan, the government of Pakistan and the insurgents — has been revealed as a fallacy. The insurgents are an instrument of the government of Pakistan.

    So let's stop pretending. The talks the U.S. government should be facilitating are between two sovereign nations, Afghanistan and Pakistan. If the government of Pakistan has concerns or aspirations regarding its neighbor, it should address them directly, through facilitated negotiations. It should spell out its concerns through this process, and the U.S. should help guarantee that the legitimate ones are properly addressed in a binding treaty. But turning your neighbor into a client state is not a legitimate aspiration and should not be facilitated.

    A second set of talks could address the well-founded grievances almost all Afghans, insurgents included, have against their government. But that process should involve Afghans alone. No outside power, least of all Pakistan, should interfere.

    Such a two-track approach might still save Afghanistan..."
    "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

  14. #44
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,744
    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    Sarah Chayes is an interesting woman. She's lived in Kandahar for years. I remember Maj. Shek calling me to ask if I'd heard of this woman. I had not. He'd just heard her speak at a luncheon gathering at the Pentagon. She has been an advisor to the U.S. military, a major player in a skin-care business established inside Afghanistan as a cottage industry and a published author.

    Her editorial appears in the L.A. Times-

    Denying Pakistan-Sarah Chayes L.A. Times November 26, 2011

    Her points are well-made-

    "...The notion that there are three separate entities in this equation — the government of Afghanistan, the government of Pakistan and the insurgents — has been revealed as a fallacy. The insurgents are an instrument of the government of Pakistan.

    So let's stop pretending. The talks the U.S. government should be facilitating are between two sovereign nations, Afghanistan and Pakistan. If the government of Pakistan has concerns or aspirations regarding its neighbor, it should address them directly, through facilitated negotiations. It should spell out its concerns through this process, and the U.S. should help guarantee that the legitimate ones are properly addressed in a binding treaty. But turning your neighbor into a client state is not a legitimate aspiration and should not be facilitated.

    A second set of talks could address the well-founded grievances almost all Afghans, insurgents included, have against their government. But that process should involve Afghans alone. No outside power, least of all Pakistan, should interfere.

    Such a two-track approach might still save Afghanistan..."
    Mathmatical fallacy unfortunately.
    X = (P)akistan + (T)aliban where X is indivisible as T cannot exist in the real world without P. That is, a negative number.

    (A)fghanistan x X = (O)utcome

    A x T = -O, not applicable in the real world.

  15. #45
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,535
    S2, it seems i missed this post of yours..

    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    Your own pundit only has it partially correct.
    Here i'm trying to figure which part you did not agree with and i think it is this one sentence.

    there is reason to believe that its [Pakistans] priorities in Afghanistan have transformed from what they used to be a decade ago.
    My guess here is Badrakumar thinks that Pakistan won't be able to use the divide and rule tactics of the past. yes, they do not want a unified Afganistan because that will only increase pressure to sort out the border problem. But they will be less able to prevail in the future.

    However its unclear to me why he then says..

    Therefore, in the interests of regional stability, a case can be made that Pakistan should be put in the driving seat to negotiate an Afghan reconciliation leading to a settlement, and made a ’stakeholder’ in regional security and stability.
    maybe its only the extent your author writes...

    If the government of Pakistan has concerns or aspirations regarding its neighbor, it should address them directly, through facilitated negotiations. It should spell out its concerns through this process, and the U.S. should help guarantee that the legitimate ones are properly addressed in a binding treaty. But turning your neighbor into a client state is not a legitimate aspiration and should not be facilitated.
    Still, thats not a driving seat though.

    So the main question is can Pakistan turn Afghanistan into a client state ?

    only if they can is it necessary to keep them out otherwise it does not make any difference. The latter bit is what i feel Badrakumar is implying on the whole.

    And that, is a different narrative to what i've come to understand upto now.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 26 Nov 11, at 21:20.

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,, 17:21
  2. Syria 'boosts troops on border'
    By xrough in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05 Nov 08,, 08:02
  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,, 09:11
  4. South African Border War troops won't be honoured
    By troung in forum International Economy
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 15 Jan 07,, 19:30
  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,, 17:14

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
  •