Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 148

Thread: War in Pakistan

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,088

    Default

    what was it you said his business card might say Ollie?

    hah!

    P.S.
    The United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom are Pakistan's three largest bilateral donors. Multilateral donors and their principal areas of focus include the Asian Development Bank (health, education, access to justice, roads and energy), the World Bank (health, microfinance, education, civil service reform, governance), and the UNDP. China has been the most consistent donor since the 1970s (primarily military assistance) and is perceived to be a close ally due to their unwavering political support over the past 30 years.
    US Aid 2006 Budget justification to Congress, Pakistan section.

    i think Crackerjack's point stands, though just thought i'd post a link showing the General's biggest supporters from one snapshot year for balance.

    randomly to get solipsistic for a second i remember - this was a long time ago, i must humbly submit - signing a petition that the university campus Tories were circulating in support of him immediately after the coup, which was basically phrased 'we should give him a chance for at least a bit and wait and see what happens'.
    they seduced me with their siren song i guess. (i was a wet-behind-the-ears undergrad.)
    Last edited by scottdisco; 07-02-2009 at 12:40 PM. Reason: that 'balance' thing is wooly thinking and sounds twattish but i shall leave it in

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,088

    Default thought i'd get to it myself first..

    (because petitions signed by physically puny teenage Britons make a difference to well-armed, tough armies thousands of miles away.)

    coff-coff
    Last edited by scottdisco; 07-02-2009 at 12:52 PM. Reason: that sounds even worse, no?

  3. #33

    Default

    The release of A Q Khan is a nightmare. It's, like, right back to square one. What next? I used to follow his story extremely closely, and I know a lot of the squalid details, and I find this move on the part of Pakistan unbelievable. Obama should be all over this! It's very dangerous provocation.

  4. #34

    Default

    Will he do interviews, though?

  5. #35

    Default

    And where's his nefarious daughter these days? Where are those tapes?

  6. #36

    Default Default Rolling Central Asia Thread?

    Lots happening at the moment:

    The Taliban shoot up government offices in Kabul on the eve of Holbrooke's visist.

    ISAF having some serious supply issues.

    No, that was wrong. Now they're having some serious supply issues.

    Doesn't seem like anyone's got any more troops to contribute. Doesn't seem like there are the necessary preconditions for any kind of "surge" with similar effect as in Iraq.

    Feels like the US Afghanistan strategy is up for grabs right now. Which way's it going to go -- are America going to be pulling out in a year's time?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    NYC , Tokyo
    Posts
    1,914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    Lots happening at the moment:

    The Taliban shoot up government offices in Kabul on the eve of Holbrooke's visist.

    Feels like the US Afghanistan strategy is up for grabs right now. Which way's it going to go -- are America going to be pulling out in a year's time?
    Thanks Vim.
    To be brief: Well, with Holbrook in -and I say thanks to that -US policy is totally into review,
    but doubt withdrawl is in the cards any time soon.
    Not with Al Queda and probably others working out plans to get hands on a nuke or two, or more.
    No doubt they are working towards it every day ,
    while others do their thing on the Afghan border, on the Khyber Pass -esp. busy lately with blown up bridge, supply line attacks,
    and on the North towards Kashmir.

    But I would venture that Karzai will be gone asap , elections are coming as it is.

    Citizens thought the Mumbai attacks were ghastly, wait till nukes are involved.

  8. #38

    Default

    Hey Poly: Could be right re future US policy. Some things to think about:
    • The Iraq surge is not reproducible.
    • US strategic interests in Afghanistan and its nascent democracy are not clear (unlike anti-AQ counterterrorism operations).
    • ISAF is bit of a shambles.
    • Logistics are becoming more and more difficult (and I read that even at the best of times it is twice as costly to keep a brigade supplied in Afghanistan than it is in Iraq).

    Reading US military types, they are very pessimistic. What is America gaining from continued efforts in Afghanistan? No one seems sure. Get the feeling that most would rather withdraw forces (except for some units engaged in training Afghan Security Forces and counterterrorism) if the situation continues to deteriorate, and many would like to even if it didn't.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,088

    Default

    one of the things that i really want to know about is ISAF troops.

    we all know that the international partners to Kabul with the most boots on the ground that have been in the most dangerous regions in recent years have tended to be the US, the UK, Canada and the Netherlands, but France under Sarko is a different beast than France under Chirac, no?
    (to give one example of possible ISAF troop changes in the air.)

    i've just found this
    “The Future of the Alliance and the Mission in Afghanistan”
    45th Munich Security Conference

    General David H. Petraeus

    Remarks for Panel Discussion - 8 February 2009

  10. #40

    Default

    Scott -- IIRC, France has one battlegroup/task force in the south or east where the fighting is fiercest. This is equal to the Canadian, Dutch, Polish, Australian, Danish, and Romanian contributions in the same regions (though France has the same sized force again in a relatively less dangerous location -- it supplies twice the number of troops as these nations). The real issue, as I understand it, is what the troops there are equipped for, capable of doing, and legally allowed to do. French troops are different according to their rules of engagement, doctrine, logistical capacity, institutional culture, training, equipment, and so on... As are all forces in Afghanistan: ISAF is hugely uneven and granular force, basically a hodge-podge of differing military resources, strung together by a complex and possibly dysfunctional web of separate bureaucracies and command structures.

    Dunno if Sarkozy is likely to send more French troops or alter their rules of engagement.
    Last edited by vimothy; 12-02-2009 at 07:16 PM.

  11. #41

    Default



    Click map for larger version.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    NYC , Tokyo
    Posts
    1,914

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,088

    Default

    thanks Vim!

    yes AFAIK the four countries i mentioned up-thread have tended to be involved in the most enemy contact out of international forces (or i think did the last time i was following this with any regularity which i admit was way back last summer; also Denmark has had the most troops killed of any international country relative to population).

    this is mostly because their troops, especially Canada, the US and the UK, have been deployed in what have been the most dangerous areas, and less, i think, to do with their rules of engagement being significantly different from that of other partners.
    i don't think the British ROE are much less strict than the German ones, say.

    what can differ considerably from country to country is the caveats.

    Much has been made by various commentators in recent months about the negative impact national caveats are having on Nato/ISAF operational capabilities in Afghanistan. As well as affecting operational effectiveness, such caveats - which place self-imposed restrictions on the way in which individual national forces may be deployed - are having a corrosive effect on relations between contributing Nato countries, and on overall ISAF morale.

    Although forces from all 26 Nato member states are deployed in Afghanistan, only Britain, America, Canada, Denmark and Holland have not used caveats to limit the rules of engagement of their troops.
    article from May 2008 here, idk about current accuracy, but these caveats must be pretty dispiriting for some ISAF top brass

  14. #44

    Default

    I think relative casualty rates also have a lot to do with capacity and equipment. But the nations with lots of casualties are def in the most dangerous areas. Kinda mad that Denmark has the most. And yeah, sorry, the caveat thing is what I meant. The effective rules of engagement.
    Last edited by vimothy; 12-02-2009 at 11:25 PM.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    I think relative casualty rates also have a lot to do with capacity and equipment. But the nations with lots of casualties are def in the most dangerous areas. Kinda mad that Denmark has the most. And yeah, sorry, the caveat thing is what I meant. The ultimate rules of engagement.
    nah, sorry, i think i knew that you were talking caveats, but i just wanted to open that discussion up with a direct quote.
    really, you said everything i said in my post, except you said it with 'ISAF is a bit of a shambles' (something i realised after posting): i do esteem concision

    would be interested to hear more on the capacity/equipment - relative casualty rates you mention. (if there is much more to be said.)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •