Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hunting for Haqqanis, US deploys troops along N Waziristan border

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • notorious_eagle
    replied
    Huge loss for Pakistan. A very honest and a competent Officer. You will be deeply missed Sir, RIP.

    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • lemontree
    replied
    The report mentions that the bombing was carried out by the Pakistani Taliban, who we know are proxies for the Haqqanis network to influence the Pakistani establishment. Something would have happened between the Pak military and the Haqqanis to make them take this step. We can only speculate, as the details of the dealings between the Pakistanis and Haqqanis is in the shadows.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Not knowing where to put this...

    Roadside bomb death of Pakistan Major General could derail Taliban peace talks - Asia - World - The Independent

    One of the most senior army officers in Pakistan has been killed in a roadside bomb attack reportedly carried out by the Taliban, in a devastating setback for the peace process in the chaotic territories on its border with Afghanistan.

    Major General Sanaullah Khan had just been inspecting an outpost near the border, in the Khyber Paktunkhwa province, when the vehicle carrying him was struck.

    The bomb blast also killed another officer – a lieutenant colonel, as well as a soldier.

    Maj Gen Khan was reported by The Associated Press to be the leading commander in the disputed Swat Valley, and his death is a rare high-ranking casualty in Pakistan’s ongoing conflict against militants in the north.

    A spokesman for the Taliban, Shahidullah Shahid, quickly claimed his organisation’s responsibility for the bombing, which came after weeks of discussions within the Pakistani government as to whether to continue peace talks.

    Last week, major political parties held a conference on the issue and agreed that talks should be pursued, but the death of Maj Gen Khan will make the possibility of peace more distant than ever.

    The Pakistani Taliban – distinct from the Afghanistan branch – is an umbrella group of different factions, who had previously been set for their own conference to discuss peace.

    Their most extreme elements have baulked in the past at the concept of even getting to the negotiating table with the government unless it meets certain demands – such as imposing strict Islamic law and going to war with neighbouring India.

    Taliban spokesman Shahid said the militants would not stop launching attacks while their leaders decided if the government's offer of talks was genuine.

    “If we find them serious we can talk, otherwise we will continue our attacks,” he said.

    The bombing has been met with equally steely comments from the government itself.

    The Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said Maj Gen Khan’s death would not have an impact on the army’s efforts in the region.

    “The Pakistan army has made substantial sacrifices to protect the nation against the menace of terrorism and such cowardly acts by terrorists cannot deter the morale of our armed forces,” he said.

    More than 40,000 people have died in militant bomb and suicide attacks, according to the government, but with Mr Sharif’s government making better ties with India a key point of policy, there seems to be little common ground from which to negotiate with the Taliban now.

    Leave a comment:


  • S2
    replied
    Week two of SECRET PAKISTAN: Backlash-

    Leave a comment:


  • Mihais
    replied
    Parihaka reply

    I beg to differ.Taliban proper cannot be separated from Pakistan,at least until they win.If they win.But there are a bunch of de facto allies of the Taliban inside A-stan.The chaps tried and to a point they managed to extend in non-Pashtun areas in the last 2 years.Those new recruits are purely anti-Kabul.The result of a decade of mismanagement (and that's a word unusually kind).
    Drug dealers are another ally of convenience.Funny is that here the Taliban proper,the pure criminal ''entrepreneurs'' and GIROA converge.Everybody likes a buck.
    Beside drug dealers,there are the smaller,local criminals.Those can be allies of convenience to the taliban.Chaos favors the extortion bussiness or simple,mundane,robbery.
    Not even trying to go into what makes Taliban themselves.We'll end the list tommorow;)

    My point.Even without Pakistan there are enough forces in A-stan that guarantee troubles.First and foremost is GIROA.
    Of course, without Pakistan and their soul children there won't be any Western force,so it's a sort of tit for tat.
    Last edited by Mihais; 26 Nov 11,, 22:24.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    S2, it seems i missed this post of yours..

    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,, 22:20.

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • S2
    replied
    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..."

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • S2
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ambidex
    replied
    Can not find appropriate thread so posting here.

    Pakistan spied on German officers in Afghanistan - report | Reuters

    Leave a comment:


  • Mihais
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • S2
    replied
    Mihais Reply

    "...they're wrong."


    Simply put, yes. Thoroughly.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X