Ironduke

If the United States knew where Osama bin Laden or other high-value AQ targets were on Pakistani territory, should the US disregard what Musharraf and launch an operation into Pakistani territory? What would the consequences be, for the US and Pakistan?

My uninformed opinion is that if Pakistan cannot exercise sovereignty over a portion its territory, it's fair game.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

Agnostic Muslim

I think referring to it as "not exercising sovereignty over its territory" is a very simplistic assessment. The autonomous nature of the Tribal areas dates back to the agreement under which they became part of Pakistan, and it isn't easy trying to wrest control over territory back when one has never had a presence there, and the territory has been overrun by heavily armed lunatics that demand loyalty from the populace on the barrel of a gun, faith and Tribe. Your own efforts, as described in the excellent Vanity Fair article, illustrate how difficult the task is in such terrain.

Regardless of your stance on this - I am doubtful of the effectiveness of any such move. Yes you may kill a few high level AQ/Taliban leaders, but without any effective control on the ground the "terrorist narrative" will simply twist such actions to vindicate their stance, and new leadership will keep arising and the local support for such groups will keep rising.

But if the PA is made to pull out by any future government - I say go for it, but you will still need boots on the ground to affect any lasting solution.

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

bolo121

Um arent these border guys really hot tempered Pashtun tribesmen?
US troops on Pak soil might make them come fully over to AQ/Taliban side and then Pakistan becomes even more unstable as they decide to go a jihading.

Agnostic Muslim

Yes - The paramilitary deployed in FATA is primarily from the Tribes.
That is a very real possibility if the PA does pull out (a very bad move and extremely unlikely to happen - regardless of the Government in charge) and US/NATO come in. The conflict then also takes on an additional dimension of "Occupation of Pakistani territory" (it will be given that spin by some groups to gain additional support), and militants and "fighters" from the rest of Pakistan get an excuse to join the fight. So the only thing that would happen is an enlargement of the conflict and further destabilization in Pakistan

That is why the PA will not pull out, and occasional strikes (Anyone know the origin of the recent one killing twelve militants in N Waziristan?) with implicit Pakistani approval will continue.

maqsad

I think the US already has been sending in special ops missions inside Pakistan, that's what the rumor is anyway. 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.

The only way it would not be an invasion as well as an act of war was if someone with the legal authority to do so invited NATO in. Mushy had that authority and he appeared to be wishy washy about it in the press but towards the end he distanced himself from it entirely by saying he will not allow US troops on Pakistan soil. Benazir would have had that authority had the entire US backed process to get her in the saddle succeeded, but she ended up with a bullet in her skull.

S-2

A firm, rock-solid location of UBL that can be attacked by PGMs from aircraft needs to go to the Pakistani Airforce. Equally, the PAF needs aircraft and likely munitions prepped for such a call. The lines of authority need to be clear and traceable in the event of a possible leak. It would be nice if U.S. liaison is allowed the ability to track the mission from Pakistan (Embassy Defense Air Attache, etc.).

If time-sensitive, we're violating Pakistani airspace should we decide to get him. We, too, would need aircraft already in the air which could be diverted. That means they've the munitions to attack the target also. Finally, the only hostile threat that they'll face would be the PAF-a large consideration if not notified, cleared, and approved. The risk from the PAF to un-escorted strike aircraft diverted on short notice would be high.

Finally, my suspicion is that any successful attack on UBL will contain collateral damage. He'll likely possess an entourage including women and children. Without followup ground forces to seize and control the strike site, we'll quite likely lose the following information war. That's most important.

UBL is not a military threat. We've survived his presence now for six and one-half years since 9/11. His elimination affords America satisfaction/revenge and nothing more...except a huge informational victory if correctly handled. That must be salient to his killing. I'd rather fly below the radar on that one. UBL's killing will not be advantageous for the Pakistani gov't or our guys just across the border if mismanaged in the slightest.

Finally, if the data is solid and we're afforded the monitoring desired, it allows the Pakistani gov't and military to validate their shared interest in this matter. Or discredit their professed support. One way or the other it is beneficial should duplicity actually be a nation-state issue.

I'm sure that UBL would be a target eagerly expedited by the Pakistani armed forces, though. The same relationship isn't as apparent between Al Qaeda and the GoP as with the Taliban. By far.

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

Bluesman

If this is a very selective 'what-if' you're proposing, that there is either no time to get and/or low confidence we COULD get Pakistani approval to strike, then we go ahead and do it. Obviously, it would be better if we have the time and the expectation that Pakistani help or permission would be forthcoming. But bottom line is this: if we get a chance at him, and the window could close before all the Pakistani boxes are checked...kill him.

__________________
"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

Different question, I think. We're not talking about some sweeping strategic move here, affecting the tribal areas, or greater Pakistan, or the Muslim world. We're talking about doing what we're sworn to do: bring Osama to justice, or bring justice to Osama. No boots on the ground needed, presumably.

Look, this act, which you so flippantly dismiss as 'kill[ing] a few high level AQ/Taliban leaders' is rather more than that, and it is strategic in its implications all on its own, whether they're replaced or not (they will be of course). There are benefits both tangible and intangible for us doing what we said we'd do, and demonstrating both the capability and the will to do it.

Bluesman

A consideration, of course; we'd be mad if we didn't at least evaluate the impact of our actions.

However, as long as it wasn't utterly booted and screwed up, I believe there is absolutely no way anybody that isn't so far gone into unreasonableness would find fault with us doing a careful and proportionate action to destroy an enemy that has sworn to destroy us. We flatten a whole village to get just ObL? Likely going to rebound in unpleasant ways, sure. But we put a GBU-38 JDAM into Osama's nasal cavity while he's inside Pakistani sovereign territory, and HEY!, am I the only one that remembers the President declaring we were going to do just that if we ever got the chance?

Anybody that would hold it against us is most likely our intractable enemy already, so BIG DEAL if they resent it.

1 Observer

Please explain ... "implications" which are ... what? (I ask at the risk of appearing entirely agnostic)... For sure we loose credebility if we DON'T "wack Waldo". I'm sure we are already being subjected to some rather raucous laughter.That being agreed upon...now further queries, in parts.
A) What happens if we DO, get the job done?
B) Who fills the void?
C) Where will the fight move? How much traction would we provide this anti west sentiment?

Bluesman

No, it isn't. It's a declaration that aQ can stop considering the FATA as their sanctuary and feifdom, and that they are condemned to a life of fear and looking over their shoulders and starting everytime something goes bump in the night.

But it certainly need not be seen by anybody as the US declaring war on Pakistan.

Disagree, unless you are one of those silly people that believes that the fiction known as 'international law' is written, read and enforced the same way as the legal codes of scrupulously-observant places like Switzerland or the US, in which that is possible only because enforcement mechanisms actually exist and operate according to exacting standards. International relations and the legalities which 'bind' (I use this word VERY advisedly) them are notoriously elastic, and they always WILL be, until such time as there is an enforcement mechanism (which, by the way, I'd personally resist up to the point of death).

So, NO, we need not be invited in, lest Pakistan be somehow obliged to declare war on the US, and thereby commit national suicide in the attempt to enforce the sovereignty which has already been comprehensivley violated by a combatant party that uses their territory to stage attacks from and seeks safe haven in.
Well, if he believes he can keep 'em out when he can't police up aQ and keep Taliban forces out, he's welcome to try.

And that's a great demonstration of why it's bad policy to back PERSONALITIES. Systems, processes, or some structure that is harder to kill than a frail body of flesh and bone. I could see where that was a mistake WAY back there, and our feckless State Department, once again, chose badly, and provided our enemies an opportunity to strike at us through another of Foggy Bottom's favored people that will always prove more vulnerable than the institutions that would serve their people better, and would prove to be more durable partners.

1 Observer

"Anybody that would hold it against us is most likely our intractable enemy already, so BIG DEAL if they resent it."

There is a large group of the sentiment that we should not contribute to the magnitude of this Intractable enemy by which ever ... I think they are all hoping placation of hostiles will have different effects than it has historically ... See ... I already regret being in the place to take this side of the argument.
I see where starting down the path, of Not recognizing Sovereignty could be an undesirable presidence. We still have to live within this "World Community" thing... Crapy deal though it is. I do like the idea of an inert GBU-38 JDAM in his "nasal cavity " ... ID purposes right ...

1 Observer

Wow I had no Idea anyone could so articulately wade in and make sense of this mess ...
A) my hat is off (agree or not)
B) I may be in waay over my head here ... any kiddy threads? What "gun" is coolest ... any one?

Bluesman

Our credibility is at stake, here. We've sworn to destroy those that had a hand in this horrible act, and we are duty-bound to do so. To fail at that is to demonstrate lack of will or capability, and either of those damages us in the eyes of friends and foe alike. As Napoleon said, 'If you set out to take Vienna, TAKE VIENNA.'

Furthermore, I disagree that ObL is somehow 'unimportant', or that he's not a strategic target, an irreplaceable asset to our enemy. He's ALL of that, and as long as he's alive, he functions as a recruiter, a spiritual head, an example of unbroken resistance, and he's an affront to the people that act with us to defeat him.

Will he be replaced? OF COURSE, just like General Patton would've been had he been killed in WWII, or just as Cromwell would've been in the English Civil War. But they represented FAR more than just the heads of military forces in the field; they were symbolically the face of their sides in the conflict, and to have them replaced by some no-name, colorless and uninspiring commander sends a signal to their troops and ours: that figure that had grown so huge in your eyes, and that had embodied the Cause is DEAD, and our stock is lower today than it was when he was alive.

And lastly, the notion that ObL will prove more valuable to aQ dead than alive is on the face of it laughable. If we manage to 'martyr' Osama, I expect that he WILL become a legendary figure. But he's that NOW, and the fact that he's still 'in the field' and fighting, unbroken, and defiant of US efforts and might, has a BENEFIT to aQ that a dead Osama won't be able to provide.

And if we manage to kill him at long last, it also provides a tangible benefit to OUR people, too. That goes without explanation.

stasha

EU and USA give Pakistan billions of dollars, USA gives new weapons contract to Pakistan, Pakistan gives the money/weapons to Taliban, Taliban kill EU and USA with the weapons purchased with money EU/USA gave Pakistan, Taliban go back into Pakistan recrute more anti EU/USA soliders, eat with EU/USA money, go back to Afganistan with new recrute's kill more. Whats wrong with this picture.

FRONTLINE: return of the taliban: interviews: steve coll | PBS