Enjoy an Ads-Free ASFN - lighter and faster too! Become an ASFN-Contributor and help support the site.
Go Back   Arizona Sports Fans Network > Other Stuff > Politics and Religion

Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.


Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 29th, 2008, 01:49 PM   #1
Absolute Zero
Registered User
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,321
A$FN: 1,102

US Backing Off Pakistan "Campaign"


U.S. Raids in Pakistan: A Rethink?

September 29, 2008 1:03 PM
By NICK SCHIFRIN, ABC News Islamabad, Pakistan
There is a must-read story in today’s Army Times about Pakistan and Afghanistan and the U.S. approach to the problem here. It goes much deeper into the psyche of the United States here than we’ve seen anyone else do.

The United States decided to let its special forces go into Pakistan because it was frustrated by the level of attacks in eastern Afghanistan. But now it’s realized the one major ground attack in Pakistan has backfired, and has decided – once again -- to let the Pakistan military handle the ground offensives.


The article says the special forces raid into Pakistan Sept. 3 came about after a “watershed moment” in Afghanistan – the attack on a base near the Kunar-Bajaur border that killed nine troops July 13. Special operations forces had been itching to go into Pakistan for years, the article says, and “in the wake of the increased Taliban attacks we’ve seen over the last several months and the sense of frustration that we haven’t been more successful, their point of view has finally gained traction,” an unnamed government official told the Army Times’ senior writer Sean Naylor.
But the military didn’t realize the backlash that raid would cause in Pakistan, the article says, and has since once again restrained its special forces from going into Pakistan on foot.


The mission “was meant to be the beginning of a campaign,” the government official says. “We miscalculated, and now we’re trying to figure out how to walk the dog back. … Once the Pakistanis started talking about closing down our supply routes, and actually demonstrated they could do it, once they started talking about shooting American helicopters, we obviously had to take seriously that maybe this [approach] was not going to be good enough,” the government official said. “We can’t sustain ourselves in Afghanistan without the Pakistani supply routes. At the end of the day, we had to not let our tactics get in the way of our strategy. … As much as it may be good to get some of these bad guys, we can’t do it at the expense of being able to sustain ourselves in Afghanistan, obviously.”


I think that quotation goes to the heart of the issue here:


1. What U.S. diplomats and Pakistani military/government officials have been calling long-term vs. short-term goals. In the short term you might get more bad guys if you launch raids in Pakistan, but in the long term you need to win over the Pakistani people in order to defeat the militancy in the tribal areas. And there is nothing that will turn Pakistanis – even anti-Taliban Pakistanis – toward the bad guys faster than multiple U.S. raids in Pakistan.


2. The United States does not like to talk about the supply lines, but they are vitally important. More than 80 percent of the gear being used in Afghanistan goes on an 1,100-mile journey through each of Pakistan’s four provinces. In the last few months the supply line has been attacked repeatedly, and was even temporarily shut down by the Pakistani government as a political protest to the Sept. 3 raid. That was a big deal.
Add the importance of that supply line to the vulnerability of U.S. troops in eastern Afghanistan and no wonder the United States is chomping at the bit to fix the tribal areas. But never before have we heard anyone in the United States publicly admit the recent decision to give ground forces free reign in Pakistan had backfired.


“We are now working with the Pakistanis to make sure that those type of ground-type insertions do not happen, at least for a period of time to give them an opportunity to do what they claim they are desiring to do.”
Anyway, it’s worth a read... Click here to read the article
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________
http://outsidethewalls.com/
Absolute Zero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2008, 03:53 PM   #2
AZZenny
Free Gilad
 
AZZenny's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cave Creek
Posts: 7,662
A$FN: 14,315
Send a message via AIM to AZZenny
This is the approach I was describing that was discussed at the CT conference -- that we should be taking in Afghanistan at once -- and it is partly based on India's success in Kashmir (which has been stalled at times by Pakistan's ISI. There is that problem -- Pakistani intelligence and military, like Saudi military and intel, have a very significant percentage of high-ranking extremist sympathizers).

However, taking a 'modified surge strategy' requires enough military to not only reduce violence against civilians, but to also curtail (or at least carefully channel) wholesale local and regional corruption. That part is very unlikely to come from a domestic military force.

The other big problem is that Pakistan's native tribal systems are actually among the most naturally repressive and radically fundamentalist in the world, and always have been. One way AQ recruits bright young men and women (and I was blown away by this) is because in many ways Saudi-style Islam is far, far more lenient, egalitarian, and individualistic than the normal tribal culture. (This kind of cultural extremism was not nearly as true in Afghanistan's rural areas before the Taliban, contrary to common belief) If we don't recognize these kinds of subtle cultural distinctions, we'll fall flat on our faces.
__________________

oderint dum metuant (Latin for 'let them hate, so long as they fear').



Well, in truth I'm actually not a total hawk, but I'm not a dove either -- I'm more like an angry pigeon flying over the political arena after a really big meal.
-Abba Gav
AZZenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Sitemap:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:12 PM.



Subscribe in a reader
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007 - 2008, PixelFX Studios
Copyright © 2002 - 2006 ArizonaSportsFans.com
Inactive Reminders By Icora Web Design