Pakistani Coalition parties oppose use of force in Fata

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Maybe its time to say no one's hands are really clean and how complex and jumbled this entire problem is. A good deal of this relates to Reagan arming the Afghan resistance movement in the early 80's.

But to throw somewhat of a bone to palehorse and JOS, the following New York times piece may shed some light.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07...d/asia/30pstan.html?hp

There is almost no doubt that certain elements inside of Pakistan are aiding both Al-Quida and the Taliban. But to blindly assume that Nato can or should blindly blunder into Pakistan to fix the problem is hardly a real solution. While its true that one can always kill a cancer by killing the cancer victim, a good part of the problem is Pakistan's fear of India and its relatively fragile civilian government now transitioning away from military rule. But to assume Pakistan is any more politically united than the US is a mistake. And since GWB, our own CIA, and our military leadership are at least aware how touchy the entire situation is, I would hope that most US citizens realize how dangerous palehorse and JOS type ideas are.

At least Obama advocates that we need a far bigger troop commitment for Afghanistan, and 72,000 Nato troops is woefully inadequate. But to get the stability in Afghanistan, I certainly advocate a political and economic solution, and if needed, military efforts should be directed at keeping the Taliban out of Afghanistan rather than spreading Taliban appeal into wider regions.

...and if needed, military efforts should be directed at keeping the Taliban out of Afghanistan rather than spreading Taliban appeal into wider regions.

Without military efforts, the Taliban will spread back throughout Afghanistan.
And how to you keep them out; by removing the ability for them to get in and removing their rat holes.

 

[Lemon law]

If the Taliban has free run of Afghanistan without massive military operations, it means they have popular support among the Afghan population and the battle is already lost. Any military incursion into Pakistan will simply result in the Taliban finding different places to hide while uniting the entire population of the tribal regions against Nato.

But if cross border Taliban resupply from Pakistan is effectively stopped, Pakistani hiding places for the Taliban ceases to be a problem for Nato in Afghanistan.

And if we believe JOS and palehorse, the Taliban are nothing but vicious rapists that the Afghan population will help Nato exterminate. And then simply putting a cell phone or two in every village should allow Afghans the chance to call on Nato every time they spot a Taliban fighter. Use helicopters to bring in Nato forces and end of problem for the few Taliban trying to operate inside of Afghanistan.

But if we are rational enough to not believe the JOS&Palehorse comic book version, and we must realize the Taliban has some real popular support inside of Afghanistan. And then the only real way to beat the Taliban is by proving their ideas don't work. Sadly, Nato is only proving that they make a very bad situation worse for the entire country of Afghanistan.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Funny thing about cell phones.

A few months ago, the Taliban were using destroying towers for that reason.

And they also were executing village elders that had cell phones becuase they might be leaking information.

You either have the option of handing the country over to the Taliban or removing them.
It has been demonstrated what the Taliban do to villagers - is that the way one wants the courty to head?

Pakistan is allowing them to use their frontier as bases.

If Pakistan were close that door, then the Taliban woiuld be crushed - caught between NATO and the Pakistani.

At present they are just pushed across the border until NATO moves on.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: neodyn55


When the chickens come to roost, take the coward's way out, huh?

So much of your talk of 'not harming innocents'.

So do you regret your killings of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

How could anyone not?

Chuck

What about the weapons that you export that kill millions? This includes the cluster bombs that Israel used against innocent civilians.

I have four thoughts on that:

1.) We shouldn't be exporting any weapons, except to NATO governments and allies, Period.

2.) If we enact #1, some other country will absolutely step in to fill the void. Not say this means we should not do #1, but, it's a reality that must be realized.

3.a.) If we sell weapons to an ally, and they misuse them, it's not our fault. I don't believe prosecuting firearms manufacturers for crimes committed with their product is proper, I don't believe prosecuting a knife manufacturer for stabbings with their products is proper, and I don't believe prosecuting the US for arms sales when they're misused is proper - provided we're selling them to proper parties and not a F'ing wacko like OBL.

3.b.) The gray area in 3.a. is 'proper parties'. Who is a proper party? I'd say a NATO/ally nation state would be a proper party - this would be your Israel example. Is a proper party also a village in Afghanistan who's fighting AQ or the Taliban? I'd vote Yes, but that can have immediate and also down the road ramifications. What are we supposed to say to to a village leader in Afghanistan who tells us, 'You want the Taliban in my area wiped out? Good. Get me 100 rifles, some mortars, training, and we'll get right to it.'? Should we tell them, Well, go get'em, but, we can't give you any armaments? What are they going to say/do? My guess is, 'Take a walk idiots, we can't do it with the sh1t we've got now.' Then what?

As far as Israel itself, my personal opinion is the US should completely go hands off on Israel. No funding, no military support, no political support (unless some truly outrageous UN resolution comes up). But that will cut both ways. Next time Israel goes after terrorists hiding amonst civilians in Lebanon - because the Lebanese act like Pakistan, and don't take care of their own problems - and Israel is kicking the sh1t out of everyone, that means the US doesn't intercede. Think about that for a minute and get back to me on if you'd really like that or not...

4.) This gets back to #2. The US doesn't give weapons to people and say, Go wipe out civilians. This is a classic victim mentality that the rest of the world needs to stop F'ing whining about. You have a beef with Israel because we gave it cluster bombs to defend itself against when attacked, and they got sick of said terrorist attacks - against its civilians - and went after the terroists? Fine, go b1tch at Israel. It's not the US's fault that Israel used their weapons poorly. This would be the same as someone saying that NK should be punished for helping Iran obtain nukes. Yeah, it's not a great thing, but, in the end, it's not NK's fault - it's Iran's. If Iran wasn't obtaining nukes in the first place, then NK wouldn't even be a consideration.

In your Israel example, if their civilians weren't being blown up, they wouldn't go cluster bombing in retaliation. I'd make the same case that if Israel wasn't treating the Palestinians as garbage, then the Palestinians wouldn't be blowing Israeli civilians up as payback. There's no right or wrong over there anymore, only F'd up ness.

None of the above takes away from Pakistan allowing truly POS groups to exist within borders it's never had complete control over, and then in the same breath when US/NATO forces want to rid the world of the problem, b1tch about borders and how Pakistan will control itself from within.

Your country is not doing that, and because it's not doing that, innocent people are suffering/dying, in addition to your own government loosing control. How F'ing self destructive do you have to not be to see that clearly??????

Chuck

 

[firewall]

NYTimes > July 20, 2008
The World
When Spies Don?t Play Well With Their Allies\
By MARK MAZZETTI
WASHINGTON ? As they complete their training at ?The Farm,? the Central Intelligence Agency?s base in the Virginia tidewater, young agency recruits are taught a lesson they are expected never to forget during assignments overseas: there is no such thing as a friendly intelligence service.

Foreign spy services, even those of America?s closest allies, will try to manipulate you. So you had better learn how to manipulate them back.

But most C.I.A. veterans agree that no relationship between the spy agency and a foreign intelligence service is quite as byzantine, or as maddening, as that between the C.I.A. and Pakistan?s Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or I.S.I.

It is like a bad marriage in which both spouses have long stopped trusting each other, but would never think of breaking up because they have become so mutually dependent.

Without the I.S.I.?s help, American spies in Pakistan would be incapable of carrying out their primary mission in the country: hunting Islamic militants, including top members of Al Qaeda. Without the millions of covert American dollars sent annually to Pakistan, the I.S.I. would have trouble competing with the spy service of its archrival, India.

But the relationship is complicated by a web of competing interests. First off, the top American goal in the region is to shore up Afghanistan?s government and security services to better fight the I.S.I.?s traditional proxies, the Taliban, there.

Inside Pakistan, America?s primary interest is to dismantle a Taliban and Qaeda safe haven in the mountainous tribal lands. Throughout the 1990s, Pakistan, and especially the I.S.I., used the Taliban and militants from those areas to exert power in Afghanistan and block India from gaining influence there. The I.S.I. has also supported other militant groups that launched operations against Indian troops in Kashmir, something that complicates Washington?s efforts to stabilize the region.

Of course, there are few examples in history of spy services really trusting one another. After all, people who earn their salaries by lying and assuming false identities probably don?t make the most reliable business partners. Moreover, spies know that the best way to steal secrets is to penetrate the ranks of another spy service.

But circumstances have for years forced successful, if ephemeral, partnerships among spies. The Office of Strategic Services, the C.I.A.?s predecessor, worked with the K.G.B.?s predecessors to hunt Nazis during World War II, even as the United States and the Soviet Union were quickly becoming adversaries.

These days, the relationship between Moscow and Washington is turning frosty again, over a number of issues. But, quietly, American and Russian spies continue to collaborate to combat drug trafficking and organized crime, and to secure nuclear arsenals.

The relationship between the C.I.A. and the I.S.I. was far less complicated when the United and Pakistan were intently focused on one common goal: kicking the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. For years in the 1980s, the C.I.A. used the I.S.I. as the conduit to funnel arms and money to Afghan rebels fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

But even in those good old days, the two spy services were far from trusting of each other ? in particular over Pakistan?s quest for nuclear weapons. In his book ?Ghost Wars,? the journalist Steve Coll recounts how the I.S.I. chief in the early 1980s, Gen. Akhtar Abdur Rahman, banned all social contact between his I.S.I. officers and C.I.A. operatives in Pakistan. He was also convinced that the C.I.A. had set up an elaborate bugging network, so he had his officers speak in code on the telephone.

When the general and his aides were invited by the C.I.A. to visit agency training sites in the United States, the Pakistanis were forced to wear blindfolds on the flights into the facilities.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, C.I.A. officers have arrived in Islamabad knowing they will probably depend on the I.S.I. at least as much as they have depended on any liaison spy service in the past. Unlike spying in the capitals of Europe, where agency operatives can blend in to develop a network of informants, only a tiny fraction of C.I.A. officers can walk the streets of Peshawar unnoticed.

And an even smaller fraction could move freely through the tribal areas to scoop up useful information about militant networks there.

Even the powerful I.S.I., which is dominated by Punjabis, Pakistan?s largest ethnic group, has difficulties collecting information in the tribal lands, the home of fiercely independent Pashtun tribes. For this reason, the I.S.I. has long been forced to rely on Pashtun tribal leaders ? and in some cases Pashtun militants ? as key informants.

Given the natural disadvantages, C.I.A. officers try to get any edge they can through technology, the one advantage they have over the local spies.

For example, the Pakistani government has long restricted where the C.I.A. can fly Predator surveillance drones inside Pakistan, limiting flight paths to approved ?boxes? on a grid map.

The C.I.A.?s answer to that restriction? It deliberately flies Predators beyond the approved areas, just to test Pakistani radars. According to one former agency officer, the Pakistanis usually notice.

As American and allied casualty rates in Afghanistan have grown in the last two years, the I.S.I. has become a subject of fierce debate within the C.I.A. Many in the spy agency ? particularly those stationed in Afghanistan ? accuse their agency colleagues at the Islamabad station of actually being too cozy with their I.S.I. counterparts.

There have been bitter fights between the C.I.A. station chiefs in Kabul and Islamabad, particularly about the significance of the militant threat in the tribal areas. At times, the view from Kabul has been not only that the I.S.I. is actively aiding the militants, but that C.I.A. officers in Pakistan refuse to confront the I.S.I. over the issue.

Veterans of the C.I.A. station in Islamabad point to the capture of a number of senior Qaeda leaders in Pakistan in recent years as proof that the Pakistani intelligence service has often shown a serious commitment to roll up terror networks. It was the I.S.I., they say, that did much of the legwork leading to the capture of operatives like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Ramzi bin al-Shibh.

And, they point out, the I.S.I. has just as much reason to distrust the Americans as the C.I.A. has to distrust the I.S.I. The C.I.A. largely pulled up stakes in the region after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, rather than staying to resist the chaos and bloody civil war that led ultimately to the Taliban ascendance in the 1990s.

After the withdrawal, the American tools to understand the complexity of relationships in Central and South Asia became rusty. The I.S.I. operates in a neighborhood of constantly shifting alliances, where double dealing is an accepted rule of the game, and the phenomenon is one that many in Washington still have problems accepting.

Until late last year, when he was elevated to the command of the entire army, the Pakistani spymaster who had been running the I.S.I. was Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. American officials describe this smart and urbane general as at once engaging and inscrutable, an avid golfer with occasionally odd affectations. During meetings, he will often spend several minutes carefully hand-rolling a cigarette. Then, after taking one puff, he stubs it out.

The grumbling at the C.I.A. about dealing with Pakistan?s I.S.I. comes with a certain grudging reverence for the spy service?s Machiavellian qualities. Some former spies even talk about the Pakistani agency with a mix of awe and professional jealousy.

One senior C.I.A. official, recently retired, said that of all the foreign spymasters the C.I.A. had dealt with, General Kayani was the most formidable and may have earned the most respect at C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va. The soft-spoken general, he said, is a master manipulator.

?We admire those traits,? he said.

The article certainly gives an interesting perspective

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: chucky2
Nukes? What nukes? Do you understand what I mean here??

Also, saying the ISI isn't part of and/or aligned with the Pak military is like saying the social wings of Hamas are seperate from the military wings of Hamas. There's no real distinction between the two, they're both of the same loins.

Chuck

Yes. I fully understand. If the US invaded us and we resisted until a full scale war broke out we would use out nukes to pressurize the US to stop. They will have to because they can not afford nuclear proliferation. Hence you can't win a war against us.

No, you don't understand at all. If the US went into Pakistan and actually thought those nukes might do anything other than stay exactly where they are, they would cease to exist/would come under US control.

This is my point to you on this TGB, and it has nothing to do with delusions of grandeur on my part, but rather, cold hard fact: Pakistan, or any other country save for 6 or 7, would get F'ing decimated should the US choose to actually go all out. Iraq got rolled over and we still didn't even come close to going all out. This is not bragging, this is not ePeen, etc....this is just the way it currently is. Maybe in 100 years the US will be a peon and Pakistan will be the top dog, who knows? Right now though, having thoughts like you do leads to an unrealistic decision making ability in relation to cause/effect...in short, were you in charge, you'd be F'ing dangerous because you don't get where you stand in relation to your opponent.

Chuck

 

[Lemon law]

Very good post, IMHO, firewall.

But, IMHO, there are valid reasons for all the double dealing on both sides. I would think Pakistan would be far more eager to co operate with US interests if
two conditions are met (1) Some sort of long term US guarantee that the US will not allow India to bully Pakistan, and some solution to the Kashmir disputes
would go along way toward defusing India v. Pakistani questions. (2) Some sort of real US and Pakistani joint co operation in stabilizing Afghanistan that reduces Afghan anarchy and allows Pakistan to again use Afghan trade routes to the West and North. An Afghanistan in perpetual anarchy and a weak US commitment for addressing infrastructure problems is not in Pakistani interests.

Until then, part of the problem is and remains, that parts of the Pakistani military regards both the Taliban and Al-Quida as assets they may have to call on to help defend themselves from India. Which partially explains why they now straddle the fence.

But sadly a straddle the fence also works against Pakistan, and the danger has now reached critical mass. Because large numbers of foreign fighters are filtering in from the far east and the mid-east. And the foreign fighter goal seems to be to increase anarchy while making the entire region into a proxy war. And if anti aircraft missiles are smuggled in to add to the mess, things may soon spiral out of all control.

As foreign fighters move from all points and attack Afghanistan and brew up trouble in the Kashmir region.

I certainly advocate having far more US and Nato troops in Afghanistan while economically working to stabilize Afghanistan. I see nothing but danger in trying to widen the war into Pakistan. But GWB&co has already said no to even committing 7000 more troops in Afghanistan.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Sometimes I'm envious that you have Bush with leaders like mine!

OK, in these sorts of thread I tend to agree with Palehorse, and I certainly give more credibility to the opinion of someone who has actually been there and put his money where his mouth is than the standard forum arm-chair expert who spouts complete bullshit based solely on their political views rather than an understanding of the theater in question or even reality itself.

But let's not go overboard here. You think Pakistan's in bad shape now? You ain't seen nothin' yet. One of the primary reasons our boys haven't already finished this war is because of the sheer idiocy of the Bush admin. It started from day one when the Army said they could handle the invasion AND occupation of Iraq with 300,000 troops, and Bush sent them LESS THAN HALF (c. 140,000). I find that especially interesting because his own father felt we couldn't handle an occupation in 1991, when we had 500,000 US and c.200,000 Coalition troops! Don't these two ever talk on the phone or something?

All he had to do was crack a book on Vietnam and he could've easily learned the real lesson from that conflict: do not go unless you are willing to send overwhelming force and fvcking WIN. All other possible outcomes are faliures and have too much of a negative effect on our military, their families, our economy, our country's self- and world images, etc., to say nothing of the ripple effects on the rest of the world, who, contrary to Bush's Crawford Texas opinion, DO actually matter.

My point? If you order our military to invade another country and knock over their government, then you had damn well better untie their hands and let them do what they were trained to do: WIN. Otherwise, 60,000 American lives are lost and Saigon falls anyway. Contrary to the pussified PC liberal modern opinion that wars cannot really be won are thousands years of human history that prove otherwise.

 

[Lemon law]

Pardon me Buck Armstrong if I take one snippet from your post---but where the hell did you get your last sentence from-----"Contrary to the pussified PC liberal modern opinion that wars cannot really be won are thousands years of human history that prove otherwise."

Forgive me in my observation that now a days, your somewhat valid observation is a 100% republirat sin. Having, Buck Armstrong is anything but holding.
Ill gotten gains that are not permanent always come back to bite the temporary holder.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan have been unmitigated disasters for the US, as we pay the price for stupidity. What part of the Vietnam message did you not learn? Yes, LBJ was dumber than a box of rocks, but Nixon was even dumber.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
But I will not stand idly by and allow palehorse to screw up Afghanistan with our taxpayer bucks while he pursues his own self appointed mission from God.

That might be THE most ridiculous thing you've ever written. 1. I'm not religious, and 2. what have I personally screwed up in Afghanistan?

Even if we accept the palehorse estimate that only 1% of the Afghan population is Taliban, that still adds up to 310,000 people that must be exterminated if we buy into the goal that extermination is the only solution. Add in the population of the Tribal areas of Pakistan and we are now talking much greater numbers. Exactly how palehorse will tell who is taliban and who is not remains a great mystery since they are ethnically the same people and we are talking ideas and not uniforms.

Equally laughable is the concept that the remaining 99% who are not Taliban love and support Palehorse&JOS as their hero's and saviors.

I've been welcomed with open arms, smiles, and warmth, in 9 out of every 10 villages I've ever stepped foot in throughout Afghanistan. I've heard the pleas of the elders who say they want nothing to do with the Taliban, but they fear for their lives and the lives of everyone in their villages... especially the women. I've been in those villages the day after the Taliban left them "night letters" ordering them to cease all contact with NATO forces, or face the death of every woman in the village. I've seen that horrible look in their eyes when they see us as saviors one moment, and fear us as a ticket for death the next -- not at the end of OUR weapons, but rather at the end of those Taliban who essentially hold entire villages hostage with death threats, rape, and brutal murder.

How about you? What have you seen?

Far from believing that Taliban are not a problem in Pakistan, I simply point out its a manageable problem for Pakistan.

Please explain to me how allowing your enemies to maintain unmolested base camps is "manageable."

If Nato gets too aggressive, its going morph into a problem no one can manage. In my mind, Nato needs to stick to its mission of Afghanistan, Afghanistan, and Afghanistan. Your own link stated there are only some 800 border crossing points, 24/7 monitoring of those points by small patrols plus the ability to call in air support could shut down any cross border Taliban resupply without unduly straining Nato troops.

you still don't get it... you really don't. Those "800" are just the ones that allow vehicle traffic... foot/horse/motorbike traffic, on the other hand, multiplies that figure by a factor of 1000, or more.

meh...

Meanwhile we all wait to see the stupid leadership of GWB&co fade into the sunset. And hopefully its will be replaced by a US government that will try to political and economic solutions in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. And if that is properly applied, even the Taliban itself will see that their own ideas have no real place in a modern world. As its is, palehorse type thinking is the greatest sales tool the Taliban has.

In a battle of ideas, the comic book thinking of JOS&palehorse are sure losers. And a lose lose lose for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and all Nato and US allies.

If your economic and political solutions are not matched in raw firepower against the Taliban throughout FATA, we will all lose. It is YOU who refuses to even go so far as to pay "lip service" to the fact that the Taliban must be destroyed by force as well as through economic stimulation, infrastructure development, and dipomatic maneuvering.

You're more ignorant than they are... even the Taliban know how we could beat them on every front... that is, IF we bothered to try. Most of th Taliban I have met often wondered out loud why we continue to let them run back across the border... they think we're fucking stupid for it... and, worse yet, it allows them to make us bleed.

you, my sick, twisted, basement-dwelling nemesis, are now starting to become part of the problem. you're objection to the use of overwhelming force is aiding and abetting the Taliban.

as it stands, you've summarily dismissed all of my invitations to help out... i take it that you're too busy...? perhaps misguided and uneducated opinions are all you have to offer to the fight...?

I fucking thought so.

 

[Socio]

Looks like Pakistain is not the only one aiding the Taliban;

Afghan officials are helping kill Americans

A prominent Taliban commander boasted to NBC News in an interview that Afghan officials are aiding his forces in fighting U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan.

In the interview, wanted Taliban commander Sirajuddin Haqqani said that the corrupted Afghan officials are a key to the Taliban's military success. ?There are some people with government portfolios who are supporting us because they are worried about their own security,? Haqqani said. ?They inform us of the movements of U.S. and NATO troops. There have even been some instances where they have assisted us in carrying out attacks,? he added.

Haqqani said that he was the planner behind January?s terrorist attack on Kabul?s luxury Serena Hotel, where eight people died. He also claimed responsibility for the failed assassination attempt on President Karzai at an Independence Day parade in the capital in April.

?Yes, I organized those attacks,? Haqqani said ?but I had help from a serving Afghan military general.?

This would certainly help explain why we are having such a hard time over there, they know everything we do and exactly where our weakest points are.

That and this does not help either;

?We are in trouble,? Haqqani said. ?We are occupied by foreign forces so we asked our Muslim brothers from all over the world to come join us and help us. And they have come.?

And with help from Iran they come;

Iran main entry route for militants

KABUL (Reuters) - Iran has become the main transit route for militants trying to join insurgents in Afghanistan, an Afghan government daily said on Sunday.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
If Pakistan were close that door, then the Taliban woiuld be crushed - caught between NATO and the Pakistani.

We offered to build a fence long ago. Your puppet in Kabul rejected our proposal.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
If Pakistan were close that door, then the Taliban woiuld be crushed - caught between NATO and the Pakistani.

We offered to build a fence long ago. Your puppet in Kabul rejected our proposal.

Question

Why does Pakistan need Afganistan permission to build a fence on it's side of the border?

Fern

 

[Lemon law]

I would imagine that Pakistan would have then wanted funding help to build a fence that is easily cut.

But I still remain convinced that Pakistan R&R has little to do with the resurgence of the Taliban. And now we see, in a few posts back, that a claim is now being made that foreign fighters are coming in through Iran and as far as possible from the Afghan Pakistan border. Add in the Northern Stans, and its very easy to see 72,000 Nato troops are not near enough for even Afghanistan.

All the elements that have shown any improvement in Iraq are totally missing in Afghanistan. And as time goes on, we are learning just how incredibly corrupt the Afghan government is as they quietly enrich themselves over drug profits Nato is doing nothing about. Sadly Karzai seems to have no ambitions in terms of ever taking any control beyond the city of Kabul. Basically leaving Afghanistan in a state of perpetual terrorist limbo going nowhere.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
If Pakistan were close that door, then the Taliban woiuld be crushed - caught between NATO and the Pakistani.

We offered to build a fence long ago. Your puppet in Kabul rejected our proposal.

Why does Pakistan need their assistance/approval. $$$

Also, a fence will not work unless it is monitored.

Stationing troops to turn back or block the Taliban will accomplish a lot.

Reports have shown that Pakistan knows where some of the Taliban are hiding, and I would expect that they know the transit routes that are being used.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
If Pakistan were close that door, then the Taliban woiuld be crushed - caught between NATO and the Pakistani.

We offered to build a fence long ago. Your puppet in Kabul rejected our proposal.

Question

Why does Pakistan need Afganistan permission to build a fence on it's side of the border?

Fern

The border is disputed. And we'll get fired upon if we go near it by the Afghans. It's already happened before.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Stationing troops to turn back or block the Taliban will accomplish a lot.

What should be done when the local tribals are sheltering them? We can't fight them. That area is too volatile and sensitive. The tribals are convinced the taliban and AQ weren't responsible for 9/11. Do you have any proof otherwise for them?

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Reports have shown that Pakistan knows where some of the Taliban are hiding, and I would expect that they know the transit routes that are being used.

Too bad we won't tell you where they are fearing another violation of our airspace. We won't use air power but hopefully we should have a plan ready for them eventually.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Stationing troops to turn back or block the Taliban will accomplish a lot.

What should be done when the local tribals are sheltering them? We can't fight them. That area is too volatile and sensitive. The tribals are convinced the taliban and AQ weren't responsible for 9/11. Do you have any proof otherwise for them?

Are you stating that Pakistan either can not control their own territory and there is multiple governments

 

[Lemon law]

I agree with parts of what Common Courtesy is saying. It might not even take a physical fence, just clear cut the border of all cover, put in electronic and visual monitoring, and have fast aircraft able to vector in and shoot anyone crossing at anything but approved border checkpoints.

But in terms of the Taliban and not Al-Quida, nearly everyone in the Pakistani tribal areas agrees with some parts of the Taliban message. And thoughts are not crimes. As for Taliban fighters hiding out all over the Tribal areas, unless the intel is near perfect and the strike is made in an extremely surgical manner, too many basically innocent civilians will also get killed. Enough Pakistani citizens have already been killed that way and they are seething with anger over it. As it is, many of the local tribes will violently oppose any Afghan or Nato incursions into Pakistan. Not as a standing army, but in a snipe at the invaders every step of the way.

72,000 Nato troops just is not enough to even make the invasion idea tenable, but I still think a border quarantine is doable.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Stationing troops to turn back or block the Taliban will accomplish a lot.

What should be done when the local tribals are sheltering them? We can't fight them. That area is too volatile and sensitive. The tribals are convinced the taliban and AQ weren't responsible for 9/11. Do you have any proof otherwise for them?

Are you stating that Pakistan either can not control their own territory and there is multiple governments

Yes. The Tribal areas have a great deal of autonomy.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I agree with parts of what Common Courtesy is saying. It might not even take a physical fence, just clear cut the border of all cover, put in electronic and visual monitoring, and have fast aircraft able to vector in and shoot anyone crossing at anything but approved border checkpoints.
-snip-

I must assume you have not read what TGB and others are telling us.

The border is in dispute, this is gonna cause problems with placing such equipment. What if they kill an Afgani in the disputed area?

The border is big, innumerable places to cross by foot, horseback etc. This plan will never work.

The tribes feel autonomous, are in disputed areas so you're just kill them when they travel back and forth visiting relatives are whatever?

Did Don Rumsfeld take over your AT account?

Fern

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Reports have shown that Pakistan knows where some of the Taliban are hiding, and I would expect that they know the transit routes that are being used.

Too bad we won't tell you where they are fearing another violation of our airspace. We won't use air power but hopefully we should have a plan ready for them eventually.

Pakistan has had 5-6 years to develop and implement a plan.

What has been produced?

Why should more time be allowed?

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I agree with parts of what Common Courtesy is saying. It might not even take a physical fence, just clear cut the border of all cover, put in electronic and visual monitoring, and have fast aircraft able to vector in and shoot anyone crossing at anything but approved border checkpoints.
-snip-

I must assume you have not read what TGB and others are telling us.

The border is in dispute, this is gonna cause problems with placing such equipment. What if they kill an Afgani in the disputed area?

The border is big, innumerable places to cross by foot, horseback etc. This plan will never work.

The tribes feel autonomous, are in disputed areas so you're just kill them when they travel back and forth visiting relatives are whatever?

Did Don Rumsfeld take over your AT account?

Fern

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I especially concentrate on the sentence that says " the border is big, innumerable places to cross by foot or horseback etc. This Plan will never work. "

Then ask what the alternative is? If you don't think the tribal areas themselves are vast, then add in the Stans to the North, and Afghanistan itself to the VAST, VAST, AND VASTER, factor into the fact only 72,000 troops exist, and then ask which is more doable.

And if the border is disputed, keep on the safe side of the border, because one is talking a basic line not to be crossed that can be placed anywhere. As for the Afghan and Pakistanis wanting to go on cross border jaunts, one has to explain to all concerned that its now hazardous to health unless approved checkpoints are used. And to minimize inconvenience, the line can be placed to inconvenience fewest number of local people.

As it is, I do not buy the palehorse argument that just as Nato is about to nab a group of Taliban fighters, they run across the border. If that is the case, let them get further in before you start pursuit and they will not be able to make it to the border. Once inside of Pakistan ( or Afghanistan for that matter ), the Taliban look just like the locals, so unless they are bearing weapons and shooting, its impossible to tell. But the apparent fact is that the Taliban have free run of the Afghanistan, and if Nato can't control the Taliban deep inside Afghanistan, they can at least concentrate on preventing any resupply.

The idea that palehorse and Nato can simply execute some 300,000 plus Taliban is absurd.
Not when the Taliban have the finest CIA insurgent training on the planet.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Reports have shown that Pakistan knows where some of the Taliban are hiding, and I would expect that they know the transit routes that are being used.

Too bad we won't tell you where they are fearing another violation of our airspace. We won't use air power but hopefully we should have a plan ready for them eventually.

Pakistaqn has had 5-6 years to develop and impliemtn a plan.

What has been produced?

Why should more time be allowed?

Firstly let me make it clear. Pakistan will act in its interest not NATOs. We will go in when we feel the time is right. It's not us that's making it hard for NATO but NATO is making it hard for us. It's very easy for the tribals to hate anybody that is an ally of the US who is killing Pashtuns indiscriminately (or they think so anyways). And the whole Lal masjid fiasco has now created another group willing to kill and commit suicides.

5-6 years is NOT enough time to do anything. Not the mighty British empire could overcome the Pashtuns and now the American war machine looks close to failing. They may be able to wipe a few taliban here and there but once America leaves Kabul will not have a pro-US government. What happened in the Battle of Tora Bora? That's massive failure itself in my books. YOU let the terrorists escape. We did not invite them. Now that they are here they will be dealt with on our own terms. The tribals follow a culture that was before Islam came. Yes Islam bought major changes; but look at them still. They practice honor killings. But they're autonomous and we let them do some of these things in return for peace (Not that they should. But we don't have too many options).

The major failure of the British and Pakistan Sate has been the failure to develop that area for the past 200 years. It is only now that even some development has been done. But we don't have money. Inflation is at 25% and there is food shortage.

Damn my government cant even provide a 24hr supply of electricity to me! Fuel prices are the highest in years. Security is deteriorating. My currency is down 15%. Business is down. I'm so lucky this has not affected me in anyway. May God's grace continue to shower upon me.