Page 3 of 30 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 443

Thread: US plan to improve Afghan intelligence operations branded a $457m failure

  1. #31
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    DE, I have seen videos of US Apaches killing Taliban/Al-Qaida fighters. 4/6/10, maybe more. What do you think an Afghan air-force would do, if they get their hands on some aircrafts?
    Provides an asymmetric way to break the existing stalemate and turn it into a bruising one. Force the Taliban to the table. Right now , Taliban think they can win and are not interested in talking. Ghani said they were going to build up the AAF to 250 craft

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKBN1A80MX

    it also has a powerful effect on boosting morale with the ANA. More likely to take on the Taliban

    Use a million dollar missile to kill 10 Talibans? This approach has not worked out for the Americans, and Afgahnistan is not in a position to pay for those.
    They don't have money because the Taliban won't let them make much. Stalling mining development and driving up costs. Chinese got mine allocations in Afghanistan ten years ago, they have yet to start

    These are merceneries who work for money. Cheap guns for hire. Either pay them to hit back at Pak, or bomb Pak.
    Contradicts the official line on terrorism. That line is used to justify sanctions. The paks get through because the US vouches for them at the WB and IMF. If that could stop then the picture changes quickly. How long can the Paks remain defiant

    These arguments to me sound like don't sanction Pakistan because it won't work. How do people know this when Pakistan hasn't been sanctioned to a point where it could work.

    Paying for mercs is a last resort
    Last edited by Double Edge; 04 Oct 17, at 10:54.

  2. #32
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,812
    Last chance for Pakistan ?

    Mattis says will try to work with Pakistan 'one more time' | Reuters | Oct 3 2017

    U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Tuesday the United States would try “one more time” to work with Pakistan in Afghanistan before President Donald Trump would turn to options to address Islamabad’s alleged support for militant groups.

    “We need to try one more time to make this strategy work with them, by, with and through the Pakistanis, and if our best efforts fail, the president is prepared to take whatever steps are necessary,” Mattis said at a House Armed Services Committee hearing.

    Mattis added that he would be traveling to Islamabad soon, but did not give more details.

  3. #33
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,812
    The plan

    Dunford: New Operational Construct in Afghanistan Should Break Stalemate | DOD | Oct 3 2017

    The military objectives are clear and achievable, the general said. This, he added, should "defeat ISIS and al-Qaida in Afghanistan and ensure other terrorist groups are unable to launch attacks against the homeland, U.S. citizens or our allies; further develop Afghan forces that are capable of managing residual violence with limited international support; support President Ghani's effort to secure key population and economic centers; and provide an enduring counterterrorism partnership with Afghanistan to protect our shared interests in South Asia."

    This is aimed at showing the Taliban that the Afghan government has partners who are committed to the effort for the long run, the chairman explained. The enemy needs to understand they cannot win a battlefield victory, he added, and that it is in their best interests to join the Afghan government in building a new nation.

  4. #34
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,693
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Provides an asymmetric way to break the existing stalemate and turn it into a bruising one. Force the Taliban to the table. Right now , Taliban think they can win and are not interested in talking. Ghani said they were going to build up the AAF to 250 craft

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKBN1A80MX

    it also has a powerful effect on boosting morale with the ANA. More likely to take on the Taliban
    It's the Pak army/ISI who think they can win, Taliban are their proxy. I agree that a solid Afghan AF will boost not only morale but also add on the capabilities of the Afghan defense forces, which leads me into thinking that IAF is acquiring the Rafales to replace the Mig-27s, and so why doesn't India gift them to the Afghans. 80+ Mig-27s will add substantial teeth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    They don't have money because the Taliban won't let them make much. Stalling mining development and driving up costs. Chinese got mine allocations in Afghanistan ten years ago, they have yet to start
    Hahaha. The Chinese are never anywhere to stabilise things, but to earn money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Contradicts the official line on terrorism. That line is used to justify sanctions. The paks get through because the US vouches for them at the WB and IMF. If that could stop then the picture changes quickly. How long can the Paks remain defiant

    These arguments to me sound like don't sanction Pakistan because it won't work. How do people know this when Pakistan hasn't been sanctioned to a point where it could work.

    Paying for mercs is a last resort
    Okay, for now I agree with you. But do remember, if the Chinese aren't onboard, sanctions will mean jack.

    Pakistan pursues zero-tolerance approach against all militants, Asif tells Tillerson

    Good heavens!
    Last edited by Oracle; 05 Oct 17, at 03:28.

  5. #35
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,812
    Provided the US doesn't sanction Pakistan : )

    ..would be one way of interpreting this

    But there will be tests and lets see the results. Do the small fry get rounded up with the big wigs intact or more
    Last edited by Double Edge; 05 Oct 17, at 16:53.

  6. #36
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,693
    Last edited by Oracle; 05 Oct 17, at 20:50.

  7. #37
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,693
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    They don't have money because the Taliban won't let them make much. Stalling mining development and driving up costs. Chinese got mine allocations in Afghanistan ten years ago, they have yet to start
    Seems the Chinese are drilling for 5 years.

    China's CNPC begins oil production in Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Provided the US doesn't sanction Pakistan : )

    ..would be one way of interpreting this

    But there will be tests and lets see the results. Do the small fry get rounded up with the big wigs intact or more
    In the coming days/months, expect a terrorist attack with siginificant casulties in India.

  8. #38
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Seems the Chinese are drilling for 5 years.

    China's CNPC begins oil production in Afghanistan
    Good. Was thinking of the copper mines at hagygak

    In the coming days/months, expect a terrorist attack with siginificant casulties in India.
    They would have a pretext to rush troops to their eastern border and not be able to do enough in the west ?

    what other purpose could it serve

  9. #39
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,693
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Good. Was thinking of the copper mines at hagygak


    They would have a pretext to rush troops to their eastern border and not be able to do enough in the west ?

    what other purpose could it serve
    You guessed it.

    The attack on Parliament and Osama's escape

    How 2001 Parliament attack allowed Osama bin Laden's escape from Tora Bora

    Sometimes the worst of things happen for a reason. I hope if something of that kind hits India now, we do the slicing and dicing across the length and breadth of Pakistan. Having said that, that moment is some months away until President Trumph readies that welcome bill.

    Pakistan military admits ISI has links to militants

    iSLAMABAD: Pakistan's military on Thursday admitted that its Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) has links to "militants", saying this does not mean it supports terrorist organisations, while also asserting that Milli Muslim League — the political wing of banned Jamaat-ud Dawa — is free to contest elections.
    Last edited by Oracle; 06 Oct 17, at 13:25.

  10. #40
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    You guessed it.

    The attack on Parliament and Osama's escape

    How 2001 Parliament attack allowed Osama bin Laden's escape from Tora Bora

    Sometimes the worst of things happen for a reason. I hope if something of that kind hits India now, we do the slicing and dicing across the length and breadth of Pakistan. Having said that, that moment is some months away until President Trumph readies that welcome bill.

    Pakistan military admits ISI has links to militants
    heh, here's why i think it won't happen. The Paks are currently in the dock for supporting terrorism. The last thing they need now is another Bombay.

    2001 was different, they were major non-nato ally. Still are but their days are numbered.

    Ever wonder why everything stopped after Bombay. It stopped because the international fallout from that op was so bad they convinced themselves it would no longer be in their interest to attack civilians. There were a few attacks after but nothing like the period from 2001 to 2008.

    90s, they shifted from Punjab to Kashmir. After Kargil they targeted civilians, after Bombay they went after the Indian military. See the phases they go through

    Attacking the military is still possible but it would be so obvious that Trump is likely to go overboard sanctioning them. Trump is the x factor here. Makes it harder for China to support to protect them as well. Besides we won't do a Prakaram, surprise raids are enough

    A better plan is needed if they want an excuse
    Last edited by Double Edge; 06 Oct 17, at 14:52.

  11. #41
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,693
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    heh, here's why i think it won't happen. The Paks are currently in the dock for supporting terrorism. The last thing they need now is another Bombay.

    2001 was different, they were major non-nato ally. Still are but their days are numbered.

    Ever wonder why everything stopped after Bombay. It stopped because the international fallout from that op was so bad they convinced themselves it would no longer be in their interest to attack civilians. There were a few attacks after but nothing like the period from 2001 to 2008.

    90s, they shifted from Punjab to Kashmir. After Kargil they targeted civilians, after Bombay they went after the Indian military. See the phases they go through

    Attacking the military is still possible but it would be so obvious that Trump is likely to go overboard sanctioning them. Trump is the x factor here. Makes it harder for China to support to protect them as well. Besides we won't do a Prakaram, surprise raids are enough

    A better plan is needed if they want an excuse
    Pak will not leave it's state policy of terrorism until it is forced to.

    The scenario I'm thinking is similar to Osama's escape. NATO/US forces are in hot pursuit of a/some most wanted targets, the Paks on their side of the border reluctantly. A terrorist attack happens with major casualties, and Paks put their troops on the border with India. It's fairly safe to say that the ISI probably has already done their planning (targets, routes etc). Trump is the X factor, but Tillerson is not, he seems to have a more conciliatory approach to Paks misdeeds like previous SecofStates (doesn't matter the political affiliation - democrats or republicans). Having said that, it probably is his job and I know you don't want Nikki Haley as the top diplomat of the US, but I do. I like her aggressiveness.

    Now here's the thing. Pak PM went to UNGA and in the meetings he emphasised that Pak would use nukes if India initiates cold start, a conventional war. He speaks the language of the military, every Pak politician does. What does statements like this accomplish? A.Pak Army is hell worried about the day cold start is put to use. B. They raise the nuke bogey for academics and think tanks in US to infer that if cornered, Pak would indeed use tactical nukes. This worries the US and puts a spanner in US planning, as when Pak moves its troops to it's eastern borders, US will drop everything and try to negotiate a peace, like it has always done. US fails in its objectives in Afghanistan, and Pak Army wins again.

    If the US is serious to win this battle, they should stop calling India after an attack by Pak based terorists to keep calm and solve it diplomatically. When Pak gets pounded from both it's eastern and western borders, then it would understand what it means to run with the hare and hunt with the hound. The only solution to terrorism is not diplomatically, but through the use of military. When will the Ivy League gentlemen of US and India understand that. Probably never.
    Last edited by Oracle; 06 Oct 17, at 18:23.

  12. #42
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Trump is the X factor, but Tillerson is not, he seems to have a more conciliatory approach to Paks misdeeds like provious SecofStates (doesn't matter the political affiliation - democrats or republicans). Having said that, it probably is his job and I know you don't want Nikki Haley as the top diplomat of the US, but I do. I like her aggressiveness.
    Tillerson's days are numbered



    Who will replace him remains to be seen

    Now here's the thing. Pak PM went to UNGA and in the meetings he emphasised that Pak would use nukes if India initiates cold start, a conventional war. He speaks the language of the military, every Pak politician does. What does statements like this accomplish? A.Pak Army is hell worried about the day cold start is put to use. B. They raise the nuke bogey for academics and think tanks in US to infer that if cornered, Pak would indeed use tactical nukes. This worries the US and puts a spanner in US planning, as when Pak moves its troops to it's eastern borders, US will drop everything and try to negotiate a peace, like it has always done. US fails in its objectives in Afghanistan, and Pak Army wins again.

    If the US is serious to win this battle, they should stop calling India after an attack by Pak based terorists to keep calm and solve it diplomatically. When Pak gets pounded from both it's eastern and western borders, then it would understand what it means to run with the hare and hunt with the hound. The only solution to terrorism is not diplomatically, but through the use of military. When will the Ivy League gentlemen of US and India understand that. Probably never.
    Given that Trump undercuts his secstate saying he is wasting his time talking to north korea when he is already in East Asia.... in other words he prefers a military option.

    Maybe its a bluff maybe not.

    The Paks are watching the US put China under pressure. Russia is already sanctioned. Iran will be under the gun next. How lucky do the Paks think they will be

    How Trump likes to negotiate like a madman

    Can the Paks continue to negotiate with a gun pointed to their head like before

    Can the Paks really count on Trump to restrain India should an incident occur and will India be as predictable.

    Getting it wrong means Paks get it on both fronts ; )

    Still think they will attack us ?
    Last edited by Double Edge; 06 Oct 17, at 18:22.

  13. #43
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,693
    Having read your post, yes I still think Pak terrorists would attack. Pakistan is on the edge of the suicide lane. Attacks on Kashmir is on a daily basis, so there goes your optimistic view. I am waiting for that one. It might take months, but it will come.

    Btw, where do you get these cartoons? Lol. ;-)

  14. #44
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,812
    Attacks on Kashmir are on the LOC which we return. Paks are losing in Kashmir. The paras are doing their job going after militants without any political interference. Hurriyat is under NIA watch. This will continue till some conclusion is reached

    If they have to move their forces east then there is no opposition to Afghans chasing any terrorists across their border. The drones will come through too. It isn't going to be as easy to get off the hook. In 2001 there was no ANA, the Taliban are on the back foot now

    So why will the paks invite a two front conflict

  15. #45
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,812
    Pak will not leave it's state policy of terrorism until it is forced to.
    That is the idea

    Donald Trump ready for any steps if Pakistan doesn't mend its ways: Jim Mattis | ET | Oct 5 2017

    Mathis seems pretty blunt here

    prepared to take "whatever steps necessary" if Islamabad does not "change its behaviour" and continued to support terror groups, Defence Secretary Jim Mattis has warned.

    Mattis also warned Pakistan of global "diplomatic isolation" and losing its Non-NATO ally status if it failed to dismantle terrorists' safe havens on its soil.

    "If our best efforts fail, President Trump is prepared to take whatever steps necessary," Mattis told members of the powerful House Armed Services Committee during a Congressional testimony on South Asia and Afghanistan yesterday.

    He was asked a series of questions by Congressmen who expressed their frustration on Pakistan not taking actions against terror groups.

    Without much elaboration, Mattis said the US has "enormously powerful number of options" if Pakistan does not follow through and be a better promoter of stability in the region.

    Mattis told lawmakers that while the US is adopting "a whole of government approach" on Pakistan, it is also aligning NATO countries on this.

    "What you're going to see is 39 nations all in the NATO campaign working together to lay out what it is we need Pakistan to do," he said.

    "What we are doing right now is we are aligning what Department of Treasury, Department of Defence, the Intelligence Committee, Department of State, say, this is what we must ask Pakistan to do ..

    The Trump administration, he said, is going to use a whole government international effort to align the benefits and the penalties if those things are not done.

    "Pakistan has lost more troops in this fight against terrorist than nearly any country out there. And yet at the same time, as you know, there's been some parsing out where some terrorists have been allowed safe havens. We're out to change that behaviour and do it very firmly," Mattis asserted.

    "We're not going to back off. It will start with assistant secretaries coming out of Washington and the National Security staff members going into Pakistan soon followed by the Secretary of State," he said.

    "I will go in and we have (NATO) Secretary General Stoltenberg's very clear support for this in his advocacy as the Secretary General of NATO. So we're going to continue to build this up in an international way with a whole of US government argument for the Pakistanis to work in their own best interest and ours," Mattis said.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 2 guests)

  1. Double Edge

Similar Threads

  1. Oregon Stimulus plan miserable failure
    By highsea in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 17 Mar 10,, 05:13
  2. Afghan and U.S. Officials Plan to Recruit Local Militias
    By 1980s in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 24 Dec 08,, 16:16
  3. Bush's Intelligence Overhaul a `Failure
    By Ray in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02 Feb 07,, 06:20
  4. Reid branded 'an enemy of Islam' during speech
    By Parihaka in forum International Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 21 Sep 06,, 06:34
  5. 15 year old boy branded by employer
    By platinum786 in forum International Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04 Jun 06,, 02:26

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
  •