9 U.S. troops reported killed in Afghanistan

[Vijay Reddy]

Link

 

Military wants answers on Afghan attack

 

Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2008 7:16 PM PT

 

By Jim Miklaszewski, NBC News Chief Pentagon Correspondent

 

U.S. military commanders in Afghanistan have now ordered a formal investigation into last weekend's attack on a remote combat outpost that killed nine American soldiers and wounded 15 more. The commanders not only want to determine how scores of heavily-armed insurgents took the Americans by complete surprise, but exactly who were those enemy forces and how were they able to pull off such a well-coordinated and complex attack.

 

The outpost in Kunar province had been established only a couple of days before when some 200 insurgents staged the pre-dawn attack with machine-guns, rocket propelled grenades and mortars. Eight of the nine dead were killed in a surveillance tower. A handful of the enemy fighters actually breached the wall to the small compound but were quickly driven back or killed. But two days after the assault, U.S. commanders determined the outpost could not be adequately defended and withdrew all American forces. Reports claim that within hours the post was overrun by Taliban fighters.

 

Defense officials say commanders called for the formal investigation known in the military as a "fifteen-six" (15-6), to get answers to a series of critical questions: Just how did so many insurgent get so close to the outpost without being detected? Was security and surveillance surrounding the outpost inadequate or did those involved in security fall down on the job?

 

The insurgents launched the attack from homes, shops and a mosque in the nearby village of Wanat. The villagers themselves had fled the area before the attack. Were they fearful for their lives or did they willingly provide cover for the attackers?

 

But what troubles U.S. commanders is that this was one of the most sophisticated, well-planned, coordinated and executed attack against American forces in Afghanistan since the start of the war nearly seven years ago. Military officials have described the tactics and manuevers as "first-rate" and suggest that it may not be the last.

 

U.S. military and intelligence officials say there is increasing evidence that the Taliban, al-Qaida, and a variety of loosely-aligned insurgent groups appear better-trained and better-coordinated in their military operations than ever.

 

U.S. frustrations mount

 

Intelligence indicates most are currently being trained in camps across the border in the remote tribal regions of Pakistan. The growing frustration at the Pakistan government's refusal to crackdown on the Taliban and al-Qaida safe havens broke out at the Pentagon this week when Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared, "There is no question that the absence of pressure on the Pakistani side of the border is creating an opportunity for more people to cross the border and to launch attacks." When asked if the U.S. military would launch unilateral strikes against the insurgent camps inside Pakistan, Gates would not rule it out.

 

Meanwhile, defense officials say Pentagon efforts to send more American troops and equipment to Afghanistan to counter the growing enemy threat there have kicked into "high gear."

 

The 15-6 investigation underway into the attack should hold those in the U.S. military accountable in the event there was any negligence. But the growing capability and sophistication of the enemy in Afghanistan will be a much harder fix.

[Colin]

I truely hope the US gives a deadline to stop the border attacks or suffer the consequences, making sure the supply lines running through other countries are secured first.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

U-2 nose art honors fallen Soldier.

[Vijay Reddy]

I truely hope the US gives a deadline to stop the border attacks or suffer the consequences, making sure the supply lines running through other countries are secured first.

 

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=422439

 

Russia has already agreed to allow non-lethal supplies to Afghanistan through its territory - air and land. Russians absolutely do not want a Taliban reprise because a Sunni jihadist AFghanistan would lead to a strengthening of militancies in Russian periphery, not to mention the one in Chechnya.

 

Regardless, the key is not the logistics but political will. The Pakistanis will not cut off supply lines. The issue is that American policymakers simply do not have the motivation to put Pakistan in the enemy category. Just see how the Pakistanis have operated since 9/11.

 

1. They asked for their men fighting alongside the Taliban to be given safe passage in Kunduz. The Americans obliged. The Paks smuggled out every terrorist they could save alongside their men. This is documented in several books by US military and intel people who had knowldege of this.

 

2. The Paks then figured they could evacuate Mullah Omar and the key Talib figures. The Americans did not mind it as long as some Al Qaeda bigs were handed over.

 

3. In 2004, the Paks began supporting the Taliban passively. There was no American response.

 

4. In 2006, the Paks made "peace deals" and allowed terror camps to function openly. The Americans accepted it after a bit of protest as long as an odd camp or two were blown up periodically.

 

5. Now the Paks are into pre-9/11 support fo the Talibs. And everyone is surprised why they are doing it?

 

It's human nature. If I cheat on you on a small scale and you don't call me on it, I have every incentive to up the ante. Sooner or later the shit hits the fan. But its your fault for not calling me on it first.

[Colin]

I don't know, to many "organized attacks reeking of Pakistani miltary help" will push the US to hit sites in the Tribal Areas. Misreading the US intentions and politics can lead to a world of hurt being unleashed upon you.

[Vijay Reddy]

Colin,

 

US commanders in Afghanistan know the issue and they are not the bottleneck. Even a couple of punitive bombing raids into Pakistan may give some satisfaction but the real issue lies in Washington. There is absolutely no desire in the White House, top levels of the Pentagon and clearly in the State Department to confront Pakistan.

 

You can keep launching Hellfire missiles at mid level Taliban commanders in Pakistan but they have an industrial size manufacturing plants for those guys, with the master controls in Islamabad.

 

What you need is the US President and senior US officials calling the Paks on their double game and making it clear both publicly and privately that continued Pakistani support for the Talibs/AlQ/jihadists would result in aid cutoff, end of World Bank loans, oil subsidies etc. You need to lay out benchmarks and keep calling them on it. A few months of that and they'll get the message.

 

Pinprick missile strikes will only make them laugh. They have enough mid level commanders to sacrifice till the next ice age.

[crazyinsane105]

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.

[Vijay Reddy]

"Hey buddy, we gave up Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, so please bend over and take it when some terrorists we trained bomb London or New York"

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/2...ghanistan/print

 

Pakistan troops 'aid Taliban'

 

New classified US documents reveal that mass infiltration of Frontier Corps by Afghan insurgents is helping latest offensive

 

Peter Beaumont and Mark Townsend

 

The Pakistani Frontier Corps has been heavily infiltrated and influenced by Taliban militants, sometimes joining in attacks on coalition forces, according to classified US 'after-action' reports compiled following clashes on the border.

 

According to those familiar with the material, regarded as deeply sensitive by the Pentagon in view of America's fragile relationship with Pakistan, there are 'box loads' of such reports at US bases along the length of the Pakistan-Afghan border. Details of the level of infiltration emerged yesterday on a day when five more US-led soldiers were killed in southern Afghanistan. Four of the soldiers died in a bomb and gunfire attack outside the southern city of Kandahar.

 

Nato officials have reported a dramatic increase in cross-border incidents compared with the same period last year. The US documents describe the direct involvement of Frontier Corps troops in attacks on the Afghan National Army and coalition forces, and also detail attacks launched so close to Frontier Corps outposts that Pakistani co-operation with the Taliban is assumed.

 

'The reality,' said a source familiar with the situation on the ground, 'is that there are units so opposed to what the coalition is doing and so friendly to the other side that when the opportunity comes up they will fire on Afghan and coalition troops. And this is not random. It can be exceptionally well co-ordinated.'

 

Another source - who has seen the reporting - described an attack last year where two Frontier Corps outposts appear to have been directly involved in firing on Afghan forces before a militant attack.

 

Frontier Corps personnel have in the past been implicated in the past in murdering US and Afghan officers. In the most high-profile case, a Frontier Corps member 'assassinated' Major Larry J Bauguess during a border mediation meeting. In another incident, an Afghan officer was killed. Since then the problem appears to have worsened as the Taliban renew their insurgency on the Afghan side of the border.

 

'The United States and Nato have substantial information on this problem,' said an American official. 'It's taking place at a variety of places along the border with the Frontier Corps giving direct and indirect assistance. I'm not saying it is everyone. There are some parts that have been quite helpful... but if you have seen the after-action reports of their involvement in attacks along the Afghan border you would appreciate the problem.'

 

...

Edited July 20, 2008 by Vijay Reddy

[shep854]

From StrategyPage: The attack site was an overnight laager, not an established base.

 

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/art...s/20080721.aspx

[crazyinsane105]

"Hey buddy, we gave up Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, so please bend over and take it when some terrorists we trained bomb London or New York"

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/2...ghanistan/print

 

 

KARACHI: Senior al-Qaeda commander Mustafa Abu al-Yazid has claimed in an exclusive interview with Geo News that Pakistan has damaged the terrorist organisation more than any other country.

The operational chief of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan also said that the recent attack on the Danish embassy in Islamabad was conducted by his organisation. He also claimed that al-Qaeda was growing in strength in Afghanistan and would soon occupy the entire country.

 

He strongly debunked the view that al-Qaeda was actually protecting American interests and said it carried out the 9/11 attacks on the US and that 19 of its supporters launched the devastating attacks. He added that many of his comrades were involved in training the hijackers.

 

These comments were made in an interview with Najeeb Ahmed that was broadcast on Monday on Geo TV's Aaj Kamran Khan Kay Saath programme. This was the first detailed interview in five years of a senior al-Qaeda leader.

 

The 53-year-old Mustafa Abu al-Yazid is also known by the name of Sheikh Saeed. He was born on Dec 17, 1955 in Egypt. In 1981, he was incarcerated for three years in connection with the assassination of the then Egyptian president Anwar Saadat. In 1988, he became a member of al-Qaeda and went to Afghanistan. Later, in 1991, he moved to Sudan where he worked for Osama bin Laden as an accountant. By 1996 he returned to Afghanistan and taken over the responsibility of handling al-Qaeda's finances.

 

Mustafa Abu al-Yazid had claimed his organisation's responsibility for Benazir Bhutto's assassination in Dec 2007. In his interview, Al-Yazid said the morale of fighters in Afghanistan is very high and they are putting up a tough fight against US troops. He said the resistance is gathering momentum and has become unstoppable. Listing the attacks launched by al-Qaeda, he took credit for the attacks on US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. He said the Karzai government would meet the same fate as other 'traitors'. There is no government that supports al-Qaeda as the rulers have sold their faith and by doing so they have put themselves beyond the pale of Islam.

In his view, the government that has damaged the Mujahideen the most is Pakistan's. Pervez Musharraf first inflicted suffering on the Mujahideen of the neighbouring country. He claimed that it was because of the sacrifices of the Mujahideen that Russia was unable to enter Pakistan. Musharraf's men arrested and subjected them to violence and handed them over to the Americans. What is a bigger example of collaboration with the infidels than this? This is a crime that can never be forgotten, he said.

 

According to him, it was a matter of great honour that his supporters launched an attack on the Danish embassy in Islamabad. He congratulated his comrades for successfully executing this mission. He said they had picked a time to attack when there were no innocent Muslims in the vicinity. (Idiots, most of the people who were killed were Pakistani Muslims...)In any case, there was strict security around the embassy and it was not possible for ordinary Muslims to come near it.

 

He said many eminent Islamic scholars have justified the practice of suicide bombing.(Most of them have bitten their tongues and are taking their word back after what they've seen in Iraq). The official Maulvis parrot those Fatwa that they are told to. He said the aim is to engage in direct combat but in many places it is not possible to reach the enemy. He maintained that it is not legitimate to target mosques in this way. He denied al-Qaeda's hand in the attack on Aftab Sherpao in a mosque, saying his supporters never target mosques. A statement to this effect was issued to the Pakistani press soon after the attack. He condemned violence near or inside mosques and said defending the sanctity of such places of worship is every Muslim's duty. He paid tributes to Khalid Sheikh and termed him a fearless person who the Muslim Ummah is proud of. He prayed that God's curse fall on the government that handed him over to the US.

 

Reuters adds: The suicide bomber who carried out an attack on the Danish embassy in Islamabad last month came from Makkah, an al-Qaeda leader said in a rare interview with Geo News.

 

It was unclear, from what Yazid said, whether the embassy bomber was a Saudi, as many non-Saudis have settled in Makkah, or whether he had been recruited while visiting the city. Yazid said the bomber had come to join a Jihad in held Kashmir or Afghanistan, but became enraged by the publication of blasphemous cartoons in Danish newspapers in 2005.

 

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=16144

Edited July 23, 2008 by crazyinsane105

[Vijay Reddy]

It's quite interesting that Al Qaeda #3 leaders like to keep staying in Pakistan even after the super duper anti-Al Qaeda actions by the Paks. I mean, who else can hit Al Qaeda with the most dreaded of weapons - the peace treaty that allows terrorist camps to function.

 

Al Qaeda is so worried about Pakistan's "tough" actions that - you guessed it - it has 8,000 terrorists operating from the country. From the same newspaper

 

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=16112

 

8,000 foreign fighters in Fata ring alarm bells in Islamabad

 

 

Monday, July 21, 2008

 

By Hamid Mir

 

ISLAMABAD: In a disturbing report presented to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, days before he travels to the United States, the latest figure of foreign fighters present in the tribal areas of Pakistan is estimated to be more than 8,000 but the government is reluctant to officially confirm this number.

 

At a special cabinet briefing on Sunday in which Asif Ali Zardari was also present, besides the prime minister and Adviser to the Interior Ministry Rehman Malik, said the government will have to use force if the process of dialogue does not produce the results but his view was opposed by the minister from FATA Hamidullah Jan.

 

The funny part was this:

 

A Taliban leader said: “We are not against all the Jews and Christians, but we are against crusaders and Zionists, who should leave Afghanistan first and then we will ask our foreign Muslim brothers to leave the area but if the Pakistani rulers want to fight with us, we are ready.”

 

There you go. If you ain't a Crusader or a Zionist, you have nothing to worry about.

[crazyinsane105]

It's quite interesting that Al Qaeda #3 leaders like to keep staying in Pakistan even after the super duper anti-Al Qaeda actions by the Paks.

 

It doesn't a genius to figure out that patrolling the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan (one of the world's toughest mountain terrain) isn't an easy task to do and that's why the PA has to rely heavily on tribesman. Its also quite interesting how even with all the super duper military projection power the US had in Iraq (basically a completely flat, desert country), it was unable to do much damage to an insurgency that raged on for years. Al Qaeda's leadership in Iraq is still intact even after the Awakening Council has beat it to a pulp, and you're complaining that the Pakistani military (one that is clearly inferior to the US in terms of logistics, technical capability, etc.) is having a rather hard time finding high level Al Qaeda commanders, basically men who travel in full secrecy in a mountain range similar to that of the Grand Canyon but one that extends nearly a thousand miles?

[Vijay Reddy]

Mendacity is not a substitute for logic. The difference between US forces in Iraq and Pakistani forces in Pakistan is that the former do not tend to have safehouses in big cities where Al Qaeda terrorists hide.

 

The fact remains that almost all of "Al Qaeda #3" figures have been found in safehouses in Pakistani cities FAR AWAY from the tribal areas.

 

1. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was hiding in the house a serving Pakistan Army captain in Rawalpindi, which BTW is the HQ of Pak Army

 

2. Abu Zubaidah was found in a safe house in Faisalabad which was the house of ISI-proxy terrorist group leader Hameedullah Niazi.

 

3. Ahmad Khalfan Ghailani was found in another ISI proxy's safe house in Gujrat

 

4. Ramzi Bin Alshibh was found in the house of a Jaish-e-Mohammed leader in Karachi. The Jaish, of course is a terrorist group CREATED by the ISI to kill Indians

 

5. Taliban leader Maulvi Obaidullah was found in a BIG hotel in Quetta, a couple of miles from the Pakistan Army X Corps headquarters

 

6. Just yesterday, Pakistani forces "magically" picked up Mullah Rahim from Quetta, again.

 

Rawalpindi, Faisalabad, Gujrat, Karachi and Quetta are big cities, far away from the tribal areas. Can you tell me what Grand Canyon is in Karachi or Pindi?

 

BTW, please explain what an ISI Colonel is doing fighting alongside the Taliban in Helmand? If you cannot answer that, have the decency to stop quoting my posts.

[WRW]

Mendacity is not a substitute for logic. The difference between US forces in Iraq and Pakistani forces in Pakistan is that the former do not tend to have safehouses in big cities where Al Qaeda terrorists hide.

 

The fact remains that almost all of "Al Qaeda #3" figures have been found in safehouses in Pakistani cities FAR AWAY from the tribal areas.

 

1. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was hiding in the house a serving Pakistan Army captain in Rawalpindi, which BTW is the HQ of Pak Army

 

2. Abu Zubaidah was found in a safe house in Faisalabad which was the house of ISI-proxy terrorist group leader Hameedullah Niazi.

 

3. Ahmad Khalfan Ghailani was found in another ISI proxy's safe house in Gujrat

 

4. Ramzi Bin Alshibh was found in the house of a Jaish-e-Mohammed leader in Karachi. The Jaish, of course is a terrorist group CREATED by the ISI to kill Indians

 

5. Taliban leader Maulvi Obaidullah was found in a BIG hotel in Quetta, a couple of miles from the Pakistan Army X Corps headquarters

 

6. Just yesterday, Pakistani forces "magically" picked up Mullah Rahim from Quetta, again.

 

Rawalpindi, Faisalabad, Gujrat, Karachi and Quetta are big cities, far away from the tribal areas. Can you tell me what Grand Canyon is in Karachi or Pindi?

 

BTW, please explain what an ISI Colonel is doing fighting alongside the Taliban in Helmand? If you cannot answer that, have the decency to stop quoting my posts.

 

He could have been trying to infiltrate them - nah - probably not

[Gabe]

BTW, please explain what an ISI Colonel is doing fighting alongside the Taliban in Helmand?

 

Keeping an eye on the Indians obviously. The Pakistani are growing very alarmed by a pro-India Afghan government.

[Vijay Reddy]

Keeping an eye on the Indians obviously. The Pakistani are growing very alarmed by a pro-India Afghan government.

 

Did you read the report I posted? The ISI Colonel was killed while fighting alongside the Taliban against British forces in Helmand. There are no Indians in Helmand and you don't have to kill NATO forces to "keep an eye on Indians"

 

The patronizing tone is alarming. It was easy to pass off the generation of Pakistan sponsored terrorism as "Oh it must be those silly Pakistanis and Indians fighting each other." Now that they are killing or training to kill people from London to Sydney to Toronto, the matter is not that easy to gloss over, is it?

 

BTW, an Afghanistan that was raped and nearly decimated by years of Taliban's medieval barbarism is only naturally going to look for allies to fight Islamist savages.

[Tim the Tank Nut]

Let Pakistan be alarmed. Afghanistan has every right to look for military partners that will enable it to fight back against Pakistan's continual violations of Afghan soveriegnty.

 

If anything, Afghanistan should be threatening Pakistan with war. Nothing unifies a people like an external enemy.

[crazyinsane105]

Mendacity is not a substitute for logic. The difference between US forces in Iraq and Pakistani forces in Pakistan is that the former do not tend to have safehouses in big cities where Al Qaeda terrorists hide.

 

The fact remains that almost all of "Al Qaeda #3" figures have been found in safehouses in Pakistani cities FAR AWAY from the tribal areas.

 

1. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was hiding in the house a serving Pakistan Army captain in Rawalpindi, which BTW is the HQ of Pak Army

 

2. Abu Zubaidah was found in a safe house in Faisalabad which was the house of ISI-proxy terrorist group leader Hameedullah Niazi.

 

3. Ahmad Khalfan Ghailani was found in another ISI proxy's safe house in Gujrat

 

4. Ramzi Bin Alshibh was found in the house of a Jaish-e-Mohammed leader in Karachi. The Jaish, of course is a terrorist group CREATED by the ISI to kill Indians

 

5. Taliban leader Maulvi Obaidullah was found in a BIG hotel in Quetta, a couple of miles from the Pakistan Army X Corps headquarters

 

6. Just yesterday, Pakistani forces "magically" picked up Mullah Rahim from Quetta, again.

 

Rawalpindi, Faisalabad, Gujrat, Karachi and Quetta are big cities, far away from the tribal areas. Can you tell me what Grand Canyon is in Karachi or Pindi?

 

BTW, please explain what an ISI Colonel is doing fighting alongside the Taliban in Helmand? If you cannot answer that, have the decency to stop quoting my posts.

 

Wow, you honestly believe the PA and ISI are supporting Al Qaeda. OK, all those cities that you mentioned....do a little bit more research on them. Notice the fact that EVERY one of them had been struck by suicide bombers, bombs, etc. or terrorist attacks. So not only, in your opinion, is the ISI supporting Al Qaeda, but at the same time they are also helping them attack Pakistani cities and military compounds? Rawalpindi has been struck quite a few times by suicide bombers and there have been COUNTLESS thwarted attempts in all cities. It is absolutely of no surprise that high level Al Qaeda commanders are in these cities, MOST LIKELY BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES COORDINATING THE ATTACKS. Who else would do it besides them?

 

8,000 foreign fighters? Are you kidding me? What are you smoking dude? You actually believe that number? At the height of Al Qaeda in Iraq, there were at MOST several hundred foreign fighters. Yet somehow there are 8,000 in FATA. Get real. I've heard another source claiming that Beiutillah Mehsud had 25,000 armed men in Waziristan. There probably aren't even that many fighters all together in Waziristan (there are four tribes in Waziristan, one of them being the Mehsud tribe, the other three tribes are not very friendly at all with the Mehsud clan).

 

As for the ISI colonel fighting alongside the Taliban...well, you see, the problem is that you're getting the Afghan Taliban (the most powerful Pashtun party in Afghanistan currently) mixed up with Al Qaeda (a foreign jihadist organization). The Afghan Taliban (the large segment being led by Mullah Omar) has distanced itself away from Al Qaeda in recent years and Afghan insurgents rarely attack Afghan civilians. Those who are conducting the bloody suicide bombings are allied with Al Qaeda. So getting back to the ISI colonel, let's just say that Pakistan has been quite frustrated at how badly the US screwed up its mission in Afghanistan. Right now Pakistan is simply placing its bets more on the Taliban than NATO. There was a lot of hope in Pakistan that things in Afghanistan would get better after the Taliban left, but the situation in both NWFP and Afghanistan has gotten a whole lot worse. Honestly, do you really think the Taliban can be defeated militarily? You'd be outright stupid if you said 'yes' to that question. Is it really in Pakistan's interest to go after Al Qaeda? YES. But the Taliban? That can only be achieved politically and for that you need the cooperation of NATO and Karzai. Unless there is political reconciliation in Afghanistan, fighting there will only get worse.

 

The Taliban being barbaric? So I guess when Northern Alliance soldiers go around raping little boys in front of Canadian soldiers (who saw it with their own eyes and are now being treated for PTSD) that's a civilized thing, right? Both the Taliban and Northern Alliance are barbaric in their own ways, one of them isn't necessarily better than the other. BTW, if the Taliban was so barbaric, why was the US giving the Taliban aid (hundreds of millions of dollars) about a year before 9/11 when it was in full knowledge by the US there were Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan (the same organization which attacked the USS Cole and the American embassies and the WTC in the 90s)?

 

Lastly, Tim the Tank Nut, Afghanistan has been fighting a civil war ever since the Soviets left. What's going on in Afghanistan is a civil conflict. Regardless of Pakistani intervention or not, the war will rage on until both sides decide to quiet down and talk. So a war against Pakistan isn't going to happen. Do you honestly think that Afghan Pashtuns would attack Pakistani Pashtuns simply because of some imaginary border that divides the two countries (look up the conflict of the Durrand Line, I don't think you have too much knowledge about this issue)?

[Tim the Tank Nut]

Well, let's look at it like this:

 

The last time we left Afghanistan alone they harbored terrorists who managed a strike against the continental US that inflicted massive casualties amongst civilians. Now, after that happened NATO forces removed the Taliban from power without depopulating the country. Now, they didn't have to do it that way. It could have been plenty bloody as Afghanistan had co-operated in an act of war against the United States. You may (and appear to) believe that the US has no real reason to enforce it's will in the Afghan theatre of war but the ability is there. If the NATO forces leave Afghanistan and it falls into chaos and results in another terrorist refuge I believe that the retribution will be more terrible that than most would believe public opinion would tolerate.

 

In short, your assesment that NATO has made a mess of Afghanistan is too absurd to reply to. Afghanistan has always been a mess. Ever heard of the British adventures in that area some years back?

Modern technology has made isolated terrorists too dangerous to be ignored. In much the same manner that a duplicitous Pakistan can't be ignored forever. This administration may no longer have the political will to deal with Pakistan but that is no indication that the next administration won't. If not them then the one after.

 

more in a bit...

 

From another thread:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

 

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

 

If the Pakistanis are serious about eliminating terror cells then the means are certainly available but they do not appear to be. I think that Karzai (if no one else) is aware that Afghanistan needs to join the modern world or it's lawlessness will result in its destruction.

Edited July 25, 2008 by Tim the Tank Nut

[crazyinsane105]

Well, let's look at it like this:

 

The last time we left Afghanistan alone they harbored terrorists who managed a strike against the continental US that inflicted massive casualties amongst civilians. Now, after that happened NATO forces removed the Taliban from power without depopulating the country. Now, they didn't have to do it that way. It could have been plenty bloody as Afghanistan had co-operated in an act of war against the United States. You may (and appear to) believe that the US has no real reason to enforce it's will in the Afghan theatre of war but the ability is there. If the NATO forces leave Afghanistan and it falls into chaos and results in another terrorist refuge I believe that the retribution will be more terrible that than most would believe public opinion would tolerate.

 

In short, your assesment that NATO has made a mess of Afghanistan is too absurd to reply to. Afghanistan has always been a mess. Ever heard of the British adventures in that area some years back?

Modern technology has made isolated terrorists too dangerous to be ignored. In much the same manner that a duplicitous Pakistan can't be ignored forever. This administration may no longer have the political will to deal with Pakistan but that is no indication that the next administration won't. If not them then the one after.

Dude, the US aided the Taliban by giving hundreds of millions of dollars even though the US had FULL KNOWLEDGE that there were indeed Al Qaeda training camps there. That doesn't mean we left Afghanistan alone, in fact we helped aid the Taliban. When I mean that NATO had made a mess, I intended to say that NATO (well, the US since its us that's doing the majority of just about everything there) had the opportunity to rebuild that country and let in the more moderate Taliban join in the political process. This was happening right up until the invasion of Iraq...and that's when everything started to go downhill. All US resources began to be poured into another conflict. What does that tell Pakistan?

 

The US had abandoned Pakistan right after the Soviets left and now, the same thing was happening yet again. The fight in Afghanistan was far from over, yet the US was more concerned with concentrating on Iraq than anything else. That again sounded like the US was once again abandoning Pakistan. Couple that with the Bush administration's relative friendliness with India and unwillingness to support Pakistan on the Kashmir issue one bit among many other things, and you have a very distraught military and intelligence service (one that lost 2000 soldiers in two weeks of fighting). Sorry to say it, but if you want other countries to do your dirty work, you HAVE to suck up to them and that doesn't mean giving them useless aid money-it means supporting them on issues that matters to them. Through the eyes of an American, obviously one would get furious at the actions of the Pakistanis, but if you settle down for a minute and think as to why Pakistan is doing what's it doing (by stepping in their shoes for once), then you will have a better understanding.

 

Deal with Pakistan? How? The US can't even deal with states like Iran that don't have nuclear weapons yet and now you're saying the next administration or the administration after wards will want to deal with a state armed to the teeth with nukes? Sanctioning Pakistan won't work if that's what your thinking. It will only make Pakistan more self sufficient and push Pakistan to make larger trade agreements with Iran, China, etc. What's to say that under US sanctions that Pakistan doesn't go ahead and start outright cooperation with the Iranians on defense projects? Sanctioning isn't a good idea, only engagement and supporting them is.

Edited July 25, 2008 by crazyinsane105

[crazyinsane105]

From another thread:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

 

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

 

I honestly hope you don't believe in those two quotes. I can easily fling mud back and say a LOT of stuff about Christianity, but I am not going to stoop to that level. It would be wise to delete those two quotes before somebody else does. BTW, the Islamic civilizations were the forefront of civilizations for nearly 500 years and it wasn't until Christian Europe started to trade with the Arabs did they come out of the Dark Ages...but let's not turn this thread into one about religion.

[Colin]

I think the problem is that Pakistan is not one country and not a normal one at that. You have several different parts with little in common. You have several powerful factions fighting for control using a feudal mindset. Each side is screwing the other side all of the time, making sure no one gets to powerful. It’s like a chess game being played on 25 different levels all at once. Dealing with Pakistan is like negotiating with an armed man with multiple personalities which they are flipping through. It is easy Pakistan to be both our ally and our enemy at the same time, it is the nature of the beast. Also note that the NWF, tribal areas are Pakistani in name only, a concession the Taliban maintain to avoid having the US bomb the snot out of it.

 

Another problem for Pakistan is that their nuke card is useless against the US as is their conventional forces, so the factions use the one tool they believe has any possibility to succeed, it also fits into the standard strategy of all nuke powers which is war by proxy.

[Vijay Reddy]

So getting back to the ISI colonel, let's just say that Pakistan has been quite frustrated at how badly the US screwed up its mission in Afghanistan. Right now Pakistan is simply placing its bets more on the Taliban than NATO. There was a lot of hope in Pakistan that things in Afghanistan would get better after the Taliban left, but the situation in both NWFP and Afghanistan has gotten a whole lot worse. Honestly, do you really think the Taliban can be defeated militarily? You'd be outright stupid if you said 'yes' to that question. Is it really in Pakistan's interest to go after Al Qaeda? YES. But the Taliban? That can only be achieved politically and for that you need the cooperation of NATO and Karzai. Unless there is political reconciliation in Afghanistan, fighting there will only get worse.

 

Since I called you out on your mendacity, I must at least commend you on a whiff of honesty here.

 

Let me turn into a lay "citizen of the world" and try to understand what you are saying. Pakistan has essentially decided to support the Taliban a-la its pre-9/11 policy. Now it may be just me but somehow I don't think that the Americans nor the West in general would understand why it is that they are paying Pakistan upwards of $10 billion in addition to covering up the nuclear proliferation saga, pardoning of billions of dollars more in loans etc. when Pakistan has decided to fight on the other side of the war on terror.

 

There are two key UN Security council resolutions, both passed under Chapter VII, that say that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are the same and all UN members should cease and desist from supporting either group. See http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ResEng.htm for details. The sanctions committee lists every Taliban leader and commander and requires sanctions on states and entities that support any of them.

 

When Bush said "With us or against us" it was not an a-la-carte menu. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are joined at the hip. Taliban chief Mullah Omar had married bin Laden's eldest daughter while bin Laden took one of Mullah Omar's daughters as his fourth wife.

 

Like I said before, the Pakistanis are playing a dangerous game once again - by trying to support some terrorists while occasionally handing over an "Al Qaeda #3" out of one of the safehouses in Pakistan. Pakistan's nukes can protect it from messing with India. But you are messing with the whole world now. Should another 9/11 type attack happen, you'll find that your nukes will not save you from the combined wrath of the world.

 

A lot of people have made the mistake of underestimating American resolve, starting from the Imperial Japanese to now you guys. When the shit hits the fan, even a President Obama would not hesitate to turn a mortal enemy to mincemeat.

 

Pakistan will not and should not get the benefit of doubt next time.

[Tim the Tank Nut]

As a matter of interest the two quotes I posted are by Winston Churchill. If the FFZ thread is correct then they are quite old. In fact, they pre-date the formation of Pakistan.

You seem to think that we (the West) should naturally support Pakistan as a counterweight to India but we gave that a go and it got us nowhere. India has never supported acts of violence against the USA (that I am aware of, certainly nothing like 9-11).

Pakistan may well be multiple personalities and all that but over here we lock crazy (dangerous-crazy) people away before they hurt someone. Pakistan has made its choices and now reality is coming home to roost.

Don't look for comfort from an Obama administration. Democrat administrations have been proven to be profligate with military force.

[crazyinsane105]

As a matter of interest the two quotes I posted are by Winston Churchill. If the FFZ thread is correct then they are quite old. In fact, they pre-date the formation of Pakistan.

You seem to think that we (the West) should naturally support Pakistan as a counterweight to India but we gave that a go and it got us nowhere. India has never supported acts of violence against the USA (that I am aware of, certainly nothing like 9-11).

Pakistan may well be multiple personalities and all that but over here we lock crazy (dangerous-crazy) people away before they hurt someone. Pakistan has made its choices and now reality is coming home to roost.

Don't look for comfort from an Obama administration. Democrat administrations have been proven to be profligate with military force.

 

Honestly, only time will tell what the US can or cannot do. Right now with the current situation, the cards are in the hands of the Pakistanis and not the US. Let's just leave it at that.