# It will take more than US missiles to bring order to Pakistan’s NW Border Region



## GAP (18 Sep 2008)

A wild frontier
Sep 18th 2008 | LAKKI MARWAT, MAIDAN AND PESHAWAR
From The Economist print edition
Article Link

More on link
It will take more than American missiles to bring order to Pakistan’s north-western border region

AMERICA and Pakistan both deny it; but it appears that on September 15th they fought a short war. America started it. Local reports suggest that, under cover of darkness, two helicopter-loads of its soldiers crossed on foot from Afghanistan into the Pakistani tribal area—and terrorist haven—of South Waziristan. This followed an American policy, allegedly authorised by President George Bush in July, of launching raids into Pakistan without its government’s approval. But, on this occasion, Pakistani border troops responded as to the act of aggression that it constituted: shooting over the heads of the advancing Americans, forcing them back.

Pakistan has, since 2001, been a vital American ally, which makes American policy towards it confused. So, for related reasons, is Pakistan’s towards its own north-west tribal areas; and the ramifications could hardly be greater. A ruggedly inaccessible region, the tribal areas form a hinge between Pakistan and Afghanistan. By manipulating the sentiments of the 3.5m Pushtun tribesfolk who live there, past rulers, including British colonial administrators and Pakistani dictators, have sought to influence events in Afghanistan, where Pushtuns also predominate. In this way, the Soviet army was driven from Afghanistan in 1989—by American-armed mujahideen. But now, in a sadly predictable repetition, it is America and its allies that attract the tribesmen’s wrath.

North-west Pakistan, and the seven, semi-autonomous tribal “agencies” in particular, has emerged as the main refuge and supply-route for Taliban insurgents on both sides of the border. The leaders of al-Qaeda, displaced from Afghanistan, are also there. And so are other stray Islamists, including Pakistani jihadist groups trained by the army to fight in Indian-held Kashmir, and lately discouraged from doing so. 

Most of these fighters are probably drawn to the region to kill NATO troops and their local allies in Afghanistan. Indeed this is a big reason why the reconstruction effort there may be failing. Some 1,500 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan this year—roughly half of them by Western troops. In a bleak assessment of the progress of the war, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of America’s joint chiefs of staff, this month suggested that “time is running out” to turn things around.

Hence Mr Bush’s new policy. Hitherto, America had launched just a few missile attacks on suspected al-Qaeda targets in north-west Pakistan, in consultation with the government; three were reported in 2007. Meanwhile, since soon after America invaded Afghanistan in 2001, it has paid the Pakistani army to wage a counter-insurgency campaign in the tribal areas. To sustain 120,000 Pakistani troops in the field, at the latest count, including a 60,000-strong locally-raised frontier corps, America has given some $12 billion.

It has not got value for money. The border remains a militant thoroughfare. And in Pakistan, Taliban-style militancy has spread deep into the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and beyond. In the past year some 1,500 Pakistanis have been killed by terrorism and insurgency, mostly in or emanating from the north-west. On September 6th, as an electoral college chose Asif Zardari as Pakistan’s president, a suicide-bomber drove into a police check-post in Peshawar, NWFP’s capital, killing 37. A few days earlier bearded gunmen ambushed an American diplomat in the city, spraying her car with bullets. 

No wonder Mr Zardari, Pakistan’s first civilian leader in nine years, says the Taliban have the “upper hand” in Pakistan. Mr Bush seems to agree. By ordering unilateral American action, he presumably hoped to goad the Pakistani army to do better, and also to kill a few al-Qaeda types, including Osama bin Laden, the most famous of all supposed frontier tourists, before his presidency ends in January.

Mr Bush’s new aggression was first unveiled on September 3rd with an American airborne assault on the village of Jala Khel, in South Waziristan, which, American officials claimed, killed a score of al-Qaeda militants. The army and journalists in Pakistan said the victims were civilians. The army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani—hand-picked and American-approved successor in that job of America’s former ally, Pervez Musharraf—denounced the attack and vowed to defend Pakistan’s territory “at all cost”, and an army spokesman said American invaders would be shot. Mr Zardari’s government also vowed to defend Pakistan’s borders. It had little choice: one recent poll showed that four-fifths of Pakistanis oppose America’s striking al-Qaeda within their territory. 

But neither Mr Zardari’s government nor Mr Bush’s can afford an out-and-out rift. Visiting Islamabad this week, Admiral Mullen struck a more conciliatory note. Both sides talked up the prospects for co-operation. But Pakistan’s foreign minister said his government had not been forewarned of an attack by an American drone in South Waziristan on September 17th that killed some militants.

Alas, one reason why Pakistan has failed to bring order to its side of the frontier does seem to be its reluctance to abandon its jihadist proxies. Otherwise, it is hard to explain why Pakistan has captured more fugitive leaders of al-Qaeda than of the Taliban, its former clients. To outsiders, this policy looks contradictory at a time when the Pakistani army is fighting a war against the Taliban and its affiliates, in which over 1,500 soldiers have been killed. But the army’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, masters of strategic doublethink, might call it “selective”—a policy of squashing the militants at home, but still employing them abroad.


----------



## gun runner (18 Sep 2008)

It had little choice: one recent poll showed that four-fifths of Pakistanis oppose America’s striking al-Qaeda within their territory. 


 Ok, so that is how this will turn out for us and our allies. This just keeps getting better and better every damn day. The Pakistanis wont allow the U.S. troops to conduct anti-insurgency raids into the well known hideouts in Pakistan because of the civillian polls that disapprove of it. We all know that the Al-Qaeda use the civillians as human shields just as much as the Taliban do,so why condone it? These people have to know that they are just being used and will be discarded like trash after their usefulness is done. Don't they? How can we hope to accomplish our objectives if the rules of the game keep changing? It is very frustrating to read  of this crap and hope to do what we have set out to do. I hope that makes sense to somebody. Ubique


----------



## Snafu-Bar (18 Sep 2008)

The US can now throw the Patriot act on the Pakistani's table and "remind" them that harbouring terrorists IS TO BE A TERRORIST. Thus in effect reminding the Saudi's and anyone else thinking they are sitting on the sidelines without being noticed.


 Cheers.


----------



## gun runner (18 Sep 2008)

Ok, great idea! And how will that get the Pakistanis to allow Allied troops into their borders to hunt down insurgents? I am sure that the Pakistanis are well aware of the Patriot act, and it hasn't amounted to a hill of beans so far. The Talifuks still hide inside their borders and attack us from the same. It all adds up to fighting with one arm tied up behind your back!! Ubique


----------



## aesop081 (18 Sep 2008)

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> The US can now throw the Patriot act on the Pakistani's table



I'm sure that Pakistan doesnt give a rat's rear end about the Patriot Act. That is American law and thus has no meaning in Pakistan.


----------



## gun runner (18 Sep 2008)

Hear,Hear, finally a voice of reason.Ubique


----------



## Snafu-Bar (18 Sep 2008)

I was just iterating that IF the US so feels they can choose to include Pakistan in thier list of terrorist nations and conclude their mission withing the borders of Pakistan and extend the mission from Afghanistan to include Pakistan.

  The Pakistani's don't care too much at the moment, however they are tween a rock and cobra. The people of India would love nothing more than to have an iota of a reason to launch an offensive on Pakistan, they are however awaiting the moment it suits them just as it suits the rest of the nations against this war on terror.

 But this is just my teeny perspective on the broad base of things as it stands.


Cheers.


----------



## gun runner (18 Sep 2008)

And then have to deal with  an even larger AO, due to the fact that this will give the Taliban and Al-qaeda a much larger place to launch attacks from. And possibly a more sympathetic place to recruit insurgents from. Ubique


----------



## Snafu-Bar (18 Sep 2008)

Well in the grand scheme of things there is a subtle world war going on, right now it's in it's infancy, but with a few bad days could well be full out war. Everyone knows it's possible, and with the world on edge and everyone already aligning themselves or in some cases seperating themslevs from coming the storm.

 Afghanistan is the epicenter of the storm, and although it's coming to a close in what appears to be 2011 for us Canadians, MANY other area's could be factors in an escalation. Pakistan,Iran and Russia are not sitting idle, nor is anyone within striking distance of those nations. Couple that with the scramble for the north pole and you got tension on alot of different fronts.

 But you know all this already..  ;D


 Cheers.


----------



## gun runner (19 Sep 2008)

Ok, you make a good arguement.. but as a nation, are we ready to fight an all out war? I like to think so.. but with an unsteady gov't, and an Armed forces that is only just getting the capabilities to 'bark with the big dogs', so to speak. Can we prepare to fight all out war,modern war, with the resources we have right now? And more to the point..win, or at least hold our ground? If this is a lead up to war on a global scale, I think that we might have a chance..best one in three. But that is not considreing nuclear exchanges.. only conventional conflict. Ubique


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Sep 2008)

http://www.battlefieldtourist.com/content/2008/09/23/all-eyes-on-bajour/

The analysis coming out of media outlets in the US and Pakistan say the ongoing, all-out battle in Bajour Agency, Pakistan, could very well be the crux of the Pakistani army’s fight against that country’s Islamic militantcy. 

The fight is so important to all parties involved that the Taliban are moving forces from Afghanistan to reinforce fighters in Bajour, particularly from Kunar Province.  To the Pakistani government, and the Americans closely watching, the fight for Bajour may be the tipping point where either the Pakistani Army or the militants will gain strength, or lose clout, across Pakistan’s entire tribal agency.

In recent days, Pakistani forces, backed by tanks and artillery, have slowly started pushing toward Lowi Sam, just northwest of Khar.  The troops are fending off hit and run attacks and roadside bombs as they go.  The fighting has killed up to 10 militants since Sunday and has led to the discovery of multiple complex tunnel and trench networks that have left the Pakistanis impressed.

According to Pakistani media group, Dawn, a senior Pakistani official says, “They have good weaponry and a better communication system (than ours).  Even the sniper rifles they use are better than some of ours. Their tactics are mind-boggling and they have defences that would take us days to build. It does not look as though we are fighting a rag-tag militia; they are fighting like an organized force.”

Since the Bajour offensive began August 6, varied reports say between 100 and 700 militants have been killed, with the higher number more regularly reported.  As many as 300,000 civilians have also been displaced by the fighting.

The offensive marks the first time in which regular Pakistani forces (a brigade) have been integrated with Pakistan’s Frontier Corps.  Some say the move is an indication of a new found determination to combat internal terrorism; a determination that has taken on an increased zeal since the deadly bombing of the Islamabad Marriot which claimed more than 50 lives.  Various reports speculate the bombing was in response to the government offensive in Bajour.

The tribes of Bajour also seem to be taking sides against the militants, including the Mamond tribe, which is considered to be a base foundation for the militants.  The defection of the Mamond tribe to the government side could mark a significant turn in the battle.

The Salazar tribe, already organized against the militants, continue to attack pro-Taliban elements which include the burning of homes connected to the Taliban as recently as September 22.  A third tribe, the Untmankhel, have also raised forces to combat the militants.

Bajour Agency is a major stronghold for Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, most aligned with Baitullah Mehsud, leader of the Pakistani Taliban. The area is also regularly named as a hiding spot for Osama bin Laden.


----------



## GAP (23 Sep 2008)

Wow....I guess a lot of influence with the Government has been lost with Musharraf gone....this might turn out good for both Pakistan and Afghanistan in the long run....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Sep 2008)

Anyone hear anything that the Pakistani military brought down a US drone?


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Sep 2008)

The UAV's are not very fast so depending on the type its possible.


----------

