1 Observer

[quote=maqsad;453857]. So if uniformed military personnel want to cross the border armed to the teeth looking for "al qaida" targets that they don't trust the pak army itself to terminate then that is pretty much a declaration of war. QUOTE]


If we aren't attacking Pakistan ... then what is it actually called? Incursion? what? What is Turkey doing in Northern Iraq? What is that being called? Who decides what this stuff gets labeled?
When is an invasion not an act of war? When is a border incident/International incident something else? ... a flap perhaps ... something that ambassadors, in smoke filled rooms, can (smiling in one anothers faces) lie about their regrets over?

Bluesman

That WOULD be best, BUT, if and ONLY if the Pakistani AF is capable AND willing, and that there will be LESS blowback than if we went and did it ourselves. (That may not be knowable until the after-action, though.)

It would be almost inconceivable that the Pakistani AF would take any aggressive action in that case, and if we didn't at the very least secure some kind of 'no interferance' pledge from the Pakistanis, then we've either been neglectful or REALLY short on lead-time, in which case, how the hell are we managing this notional strike in the first dam' place?

I wouldn't think that the Pakistani AF would give much trouble in any case. But I grant you, us shooting down their airplanes and vice versa IS a bit of a nightmare scenario, albeit a highly unlikely one.

Well, it's a consideration, sure, but the ABSOLUTE most important thing is that Osama does not die of old age, the successful guerilla jihadi, defiant to the end, never brought to justice. THAT has far worse implications in the information war than anything but a massively-disproportionate amount of dead innocents.

In the technical sense, he never was. But he has strategic implications, and he simply must not be allowed to remain alive, PERIOD.

WOW, I so fervently disagree with this that if we weren't friends, I'd question your intelligence.

YEAH, he matters, and 'getting' him matters A LOT. It's not about revenge, it's about RESOLVE and WILL and ABILITY and I'm talking about those effects on BOTH sides. WE need him dead, once and for all, for too many reasons to count; THEY need him alive, ditto.

This is the only reason to not insist that it be an AMerican op that greases the bastard. If Pakistan can demonstrate not just the capability but the WILL to do this mighty deed AND take the weight, it shows the entire world just exactly who's side they're REALLY on, and at that point, they've got nothing more to prove. So, whether it be the Pakistani AF or the our own that pickles the bomb off that gets him, WE WIN.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Bluesman

The fact that it's a simplistic and error-riddled picture.

Bluesman

[quote=1 Observer;453886]Great points. We're not tsalking about exacting definitions of a legal code, such as you'd get in a court of law. ANY international 'law' may be re-interpreted at will to serve any purpose or back any point-of-view that's convenient to either or both parties.

This is one of the problems with a foreign affairs naif's outlook on treaties or laws or agreements: it just does not matter what is 'legal' or what the language says or what was understood between the parties. It only matters what is in the interests of the parties and what they can enforce.

REMEMBER THIS: ALL LAW IS ONLY WORTH AS MUCH AS THE FORCE THAT BACKS IT UP.

Trying to see international relations through some sort of legal paradigm is foolish.

1 Observer

I have not witnessed anything which would make be believe the pak AF WOULD pull off such an op... I do not have any information supporting this, but my bet would be a flubbed op ... hung around our neck! As if we had screwed it all up to offend Allah himself.
Which is why, in my view, if we want him, we're going to have to do it ourself ... AND we're going to dammed well have to hold the strike site to provide evidence that we didn't just carpet bomb a hundred mosque's, an orphanage ... partridges in pear trees... The information battle will definitely be the bigger op of the action.

Mobbme

If the PA doesn't go after OBL or other high-value AQ targets then YES, we go RIGHT IN. Who cares what Pakistan thinks or wants. If they coward out because they can't even control their own land (fata) we'll gladly bomb the **** outta them. After we KILL these targets, what is Pakistan going to do? Cry and protest that we killed OBL on their territory? I think not, they will play with the ball. Heck, they'd even send out reports that said they gave us permission

Mobbme

Bush said in plain english that we will go after terrorists and the ones who harbour them. So if we do get intelligence saying that these OBL and other AQ scums are in Pakistan in a specific town, and Pakistan does not act upon it. They are harbouring them. So it would be a favour to Pakistan that we don't drop bombs all over and overthrow their military/government.

But this is a "WHAT IF" scenario is it not?

1 Observer

"Heck, they'd even send out reports that said they gave us permission"

"Country: Bush said in plain english that we will go after terrorists and the ones who harbour them. So if we do get intelligence saying that these OBL and other AQ scums are in Pakistan in a specific town, and Pakistan does not act upon it. They are harbouring them. So it would be a favour to Pakistan that we don't drop bombs all over and overthrow their military/government."


Mobbme
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Mobbme
Find More Posts by Mobbme
Add Mobbme to Your Buddy List

Today, 12:50 PM #22 (permalink)
2 part ... I don't know exactly what would happen, but I'm sure you're right about them trying to grab credit ... however, couldn't that backlash upon them?
Whether in all truth and honesty Pakistan dirrectly gets caught delivering Pizza's to OBl ... they'll gracefully deny it ... and we'll let them because $$$ I'm not sure how that bit works... but I am sure thats how it works! Blues man could explain it ... I won't even try.

Mobbme

They've already given us air space.

1 Observer

Outside of us being viewed as christian types, and infidels or worse ... why aren't more muslims seing the light?
Someone must be telling them we'll steal thier women and their souls will go straight to ... where to moslems go if it all gets wonky on st. petes day?
I imagine we are missing a huge oportunity if we aren't trying to get the word out that we don't drink blood, eat babies ... want to tell them who to vote for ... do we? (no no no not the wife stealing, baby eating, blo.od drinking go to hell part)

maqsad

There are many different types of attacks, incursions and subversions. The lines between them are blurry at times but if the pakistan military and the pakistani parliament unanimously declare that it is forbidden for the military troops of any country to cross the borders en masse into pakistan without permission under any circumstances then it is an invasion. Special ops like the delta force, rangers, seals etc are already said to have sneaked across the border, done their work and snuck back. UAVs are supposed to have flown over the border, shot their munitions and flown back.

All of these "incursions" are unofficial and planned and as far as I know are done without the permission and thus are not an OFFICIAL declaration of war. But if 5,000 U.S. troops crash the border posts in Waziristan supposedly "in hot pursuit" of some militants or on a "classified mission" to encircle and capture/kill some militant group which conveniently turn out to be so elusive that it will take months and months to seek and destroy their structure then that is clearly crossing the line. That is an overt act of war as far as the military and parliament of pakistan is concerned.

However if someone like mushy or benazir gives the green light for "help" from NATO then it is definately not an invasion as far as legalities are concerned.

1 Observer

Airspace you say ... ah ! How delightful! This may have a happy ending after all!

S-2

Let's start here-

"This is the only reason to not insist that it be an AMerican op that greases the bastard. If Pakistan can demonstrate not just the capability but the WILL to do this mighty deed AND take the weight, it shows the entire world just exactly who's side they're REALLY on, and at that point, they've got nothing more to prove. So, whether it be the Pakistani AF or the our own that pickles the bomb off that gets him, WE WIN."

In truth, talk of U.S./PAF air-combat is stark (there's no hiding the combatants) but utterly unrealistic. The possibility of UBL becoming a firm target for somebody has been discussed, I'd like to believe. Pakistani or NATO, airstrike or SOF/ground ops. Somebody is ready right now to do something should he come up on our radar.

"That WOULD be best, BUT, if and ONLY if the Pakistani AF is capable AND willing, and that there will be LESS blowback than if we went and did it ourselves. (That may not be knowable until the after-action, though.)"

No reason not to find out beforehand and the level of commitment. Maybe a flight of two F-16s on strip alert for this eventuality, gassed and armed w/ something precise and BIG.

"...we've either been neglectful or REALLY short on lead-time, in which case, how the hell are we managing this notional strike in the first dam' place?"

Really short lead-time was presumed, thus "diverting" and "unescorted". No pre-planned strike package into Pakistan.

"Well, it's a consideration, sure, but the ABSOLUTE most important thing is that Osama does not die of old age, the successful guerilla jihadi, defiant to the end, never brought to justice. THAT has far worse implications in the information war than anything but a massively-disproportionate amount of dead innocents."

No. I'd argue that at this point "the ABSOLUTE most important thing is that Osama" die to best effect. The collateral casualties, hopefully, would be limited to his immediate party. It may be a war-party of males-nothing but. Hopefully not in an apartment building in downtown Peshawar...or maybe that's better. I don't know.

My point is a firm I.D. and control of the scene-IMMEDIATELY. If the GoP has ever orchestrated the story, this is the one to get a screenplay OSCAR. I don't care about the entourage, per se. Not one bit.

Nothing's etched in stone as to the nature of the operation or the number of opportunities that we'll be afforded. As much contingency planning across the full spectrum of ops (AirCOIN, SOF/C.T forces/I.O.) needs to massaged. There'll only be one chance to get the STORY right after-the-fact.

"But he has strategic implications, and he simply must not be allowed to remain alive, PERIOD."

He was militarily important and has suffered deeply by his marginalization on that front. All that remains is his endorsement of franchised copy-cats and the brand-image. That was, is, and remains his greatest value to the irhabists. It IS strategic, without question. Let us ensure that his death is to our complete strategic advantage.

I believe that UBL presides over a cave, generator, and computer. Probably not much more. His own base of support among the Pashtuns is threatened these days by the actions of the Uzbeks and Mehsud. There are developing fissures within. Sadly, his death at the hands of a Mehsud assassin or one of Omar's own men would not be orchestrated to our best effect.

"WE need him dead, once and for all, for too many reasons to count;"

Sure we do. On our terms. He's as good as dead in too many ways now, I believe. He's generally a marginalized figure in my mind.

"THEY need him alive..."

There may come a point where he's more service to them dead than alive. I'm not certain that he isn't a visible reminder of A.Q.'s impotence to do more than kill other muslims without net effect. Just my opinion.

The killing of UBL is exceptional to the day-to-day conduct of the WoT. If it's about institutional integrity on nation-states rather than "cults of personality" then, perhaps, so too insurgencies. Getting the networks dismantled is how we use our time and money until UBL once again pops up. Until then, I'd hope we've solid plans and an absence of pre-occupation beyond our intelligence/identification efforts already on-going.

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

1 Observer

QUOTES-2;453932

"My point is a firm I.D. and control of the scene-IMMEDIATELY. If the GoP has ever orchestrated the story, this is the one to get a screenplay OSCAR. I don't care about the entourage, per se. Not one bit."


dammed skippy! Or we may as well stay home ... we screw this op and ... well, best not to even think about it, 'cus sure enough they have spin all worked up waiting to go. If this were to go wrong ... any kind of wrong ... Remember counting coup on hornets nests?

Mobbme

I should've elaborated, but I had to go eat LOL

The thing with giving us the air space, they already received some back lash. Why not more? Its their reputation they're worried about. They'd prefer to look good to the international community and think less of the arabs running around with bombs strapped to their bodies. Musharaff can do whatever he wants behind closed doors negotiating with the arabs after, so I doubt there will be a MASSIVE backlash.