War in Pakistan

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Is this the most precious, pretentious way someone has ever said "no comment"?

The Israeli military spokesman's office said in a statement: "It is not our custom to respond to these kinds of reports."

What, like it's not Kosher or something?
 

vimothy

yurp
Excellent article by Dexter Filkins on the Taliban in Pakistan.

Anyone else read this shit? Jesus...

“Pakistan is dependent on the American money that these games with the Taliban generate,” the official told me. “The Pakistani economy would collapse without it. This is how the game works.”

As an example, he cited the Pakistan Army’s first invasion of the tribal areas — of South Waziristan in 2004. Called Operation Shakai, the offensive was ostensibly aimed at ridding the area of Taliban militants. From an American perspective, the operation was a total failure. The army invaded, fought and then made a deal with one of the militant commanders, Nek Mohammed. The agreement was capped by a dramatic meeting between Mohammed and Safdar Hussein, one of the most senior officers in the Pakistan Army.

“The corps commander was flown in on a helicopter,” the former official said. “They had this big ceremony, and they embraced. They called each other mujahids. ”

“Mujahid” is the Arabic word for “holy warrior.” The ceremony, in fact, was captured on videotape, and the tape has been widely distributed.

“The army agreed to compensate the locals for collateral damage,” the official said. “Where do you think that money went? It went to the Taliban. Who do you think paid the bill? The Americans. This is the way the game works. The Taliban is attacked, but it is never destroyed.

“It’s a game,” the official said, wrapping up our conversation. “The U.S. is being taken for a ride.”​

Traditional social (tribal) networks breaking down, the rise of decontextualised Islamist ressentiment -- sound familiar?

The rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda has come at the expense of the maliks, who have been systematically murdered and marginalized in a campaign to destroy the old order. In South Waziristan, where Mehsud presides, the Taliban and Al Qaeda have killed more than 150 maliks since 2005, all but destroying the tribal system. And there are continual reminders of what happens to the survivors who do not understand this — who, for example, attempt to talk with Pakistan’s civilian government and assert their authority. In June, Mehsud’s men gunned down 28 tribal leaders who had formed a “peace committee” in South Waziristan. Their bodies were dumped on the side of a road. “This shows what happens when the tribal elders try to challenge Baitullah Mehsud,” Jan said.

Like Taliban militias in other parts of Pakistan, Mehsud’s men have been strong-arming families into turning over their young sons to join. “They have taken my own son to be a suicide bomber,” Jan said. “He is gone.” The Talibs, he said, now control the disbursement of all government money that comes into the area.

The Taliban have not achieved this by violence alone. They have capitalized on the resentment many Pakistanis feel toward the hereditary maliks and the government they represent. Taliban leaders and their foot soldiers come mostly from the lower classes. Mehsud, the Taliban chieftain, was an unemployed man who spent his time lifting weights before he picked up a gun. Manghal Bagh, the warlord in Khyber agency whom the Pakistan military went after in June, swept public buses. “They are illiterate people, and now they have power,” Jan said.​

It gets better:

IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR, Pakistan opened an offensive into South Waziristan that was far fiercer than any that had come before. It inflicted hundreds of casualties on Mehsud’s forces and caused at least 15,000 families to flee. Then, after just three weeks, the operation ended. As they had before, Pakistani commanders and Mehsud struck a deal. But this time, remarkably, the deal seemed to stick. The army dismantled its checkpoints and pulled back its troops, and the suicide bombings all but stopped.

What happened? A draft of the peace agreement struck between the army and Mehsud may help explain. The agreement itself, which has not been officially released, provides a look into the Pakistani government’s new strategy toward the militants. According to the agreement, members of the Mehsud tribe agreed to refrain from attacking the Pakistani state and from setting up a parallel government. They agreed to accept the rule of law.

But sending fighters into Afghanistan? About that, the agreement says nothing at all.

And that appears to be the essence of the new Pakistani game. As long as the militants refrain from attacking the state, they are free to do what they want inside the tribal areas — and across the border in Afghanistan. While peace has largely prevailed between the government and the militants inside Pakistan since earlier this year, the infiltration of Taliban fighters from the tribal areas into Afghanistan has risen sharply. Even the current Pakistani offensive, according to Maj. Gen. Jeffrey J. Schloesser, the top American commander in eastern Afghanistan, has failed to slow the influx.

In short, the chaos has been redirected.

This must have been why Namdar told me with such confidence that “fighting the jihad” insulated him from the Pakistani government. The real purpose of the government’s Khyber operation became clear: to tame Manghal Bagh, the warlord who does not send men into Afghanistan and who was encroaching on Peshawar. Indeed, after more than a week of enduring the brunt of the army’s assault, Bagh agreed to respect the Pakistani state. Namdar had been left alone by government troops all the while.​
 

scottdisco

rip this joint please
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:

scottdisco

rip this joint please
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:

craner

Beast of Burden
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.
 

vimothy

yurp
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?
 

polystyle

Well-known member
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.
 

vimothy

yurp
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.
 

scottdisco

rip this joint please
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
 

vimothy

yurp
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:
Top