Pakistan should deal with its Taliban insurgency!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by jk22, Jan 18, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Hopefully the link will work

    http://www.intelligencesquared.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/32312/Intelligence-Squared-Debate-of-the-Day-Pakistan-should-deal-with-its-Taliban-insurgency-without-US-military-help.pdf

    Nice and short, just how I like it.

    Pakistan dont have the quality of troops. They ve lost a fair few tackling the insurgency. Now I recall somewhere a British commander back in the early campaigns in Afghanistan saying to have peace in these Border territories you would have to steam roll one end to the other. So that is the equivalent of dropping a few nuclear weapons in todays world.

    I don't think anyone can ever control these mountainous borders with pakistan. 3 British campaigns, Soviet effort. Let alone Pakistani troops!

    Lets have some comical thoughts or serious suggestions :twisted:
     
  2. Send in Rambo. Problem solved.
     
  3. "Reap what you sow", as some rather knowledgeable person once remarked. It was Pakistan that, on a long-term basis, caused the present situation in Afghanistan, since the SIS didn't want a secular gobment in Kabul and so torpedoed any chances of that after the Ivans pulled out in 1989.

    Now they get a chance to see how their very short-sighted and selfish policies have backfired badly on them.

    There's no "solution" to the problem (however that's understood) of Afghanistan and Pakistan that can be provided by Western troops, since the whole game is much too complicated for them to even catch the arrse-end of. They (the Pakistanis) should just man up to the fact that they fücked up big-time and look for ways to bring the open hostilities to a close, or a cease-fire at least.

    MsG
     
  4. Thank you for posting this - it is worth watching the full debate.
    Anatol Lieven who covered the Soviet War in the 1980s for The Times and has been a close observer ever since, best summed up the importance of Pakistan.

    "Anatol Lieven suggests that Pakistan, not Afghanistan, is our key strategic interest in the long term, and that the Western presence is driving radicalisation. He said he had been shocked to find that many Pakistanis regard the Taliban as they did the Mujahedeen, and support the Taliban’s right to fight against foreign occupiers."


    Freudian slip here, perchance? ISI I believe is what you mean,
    SIS no longer had a role in the early 90s.

    But agree with you re "Reap what you sow";
    Pak has yet to get fully on board with the programme.
    However, in the past year command elements within the army are finally coming to terms
    that they will have to fight their muslim brothers.

    Two seminal primers should be used especially following the campaign against the Faqir of Ipi in Waziristan in 1937-38.
    Waziristan, the Faqir of Ipi and the Indian Army: The North West Frontier Revolt of 1936-37 by Alan Warren
    &
    Passing It On by General Skeen which is a great manual of experience & anecdote when "gashting" on the Frontier for every platoon commander/ sergeant and section commander.
    The terrain & tactics have changed little, just the technology.
     
  5. and the rest!
    4 British campaigns into Afghan to date, but the NWF border campaign went on pretty much throughout the Brits time in India.

    My suggestion would be to beat them at their own barbaric ways. If you capture them then you strap them over the end of a 105 and blow them into the ozone. Issue out blanket punishment for the smallest of incidents by storming around and Smashing villages like Custer did with the injuns. Then line the Paki border with the strung up bodies of dead Women and children. That should just about do it, i imagine.
     
  6. We've just given them a hiding at cricket -- is that enough for you?
     
  7. US support of the Pak Army has done a great deal of harm to the region in the past four decades. It's an understandable but short sighted policy and it has created the conditions for this mess. Afghans and Pakistanis have largely borne the consequences.

    The Afghan talibans we are fighting are at least in part policy instruments of the ISI and the Pak army brass. They want their boys back in power in Kabul and are prepared to wait us out until either it falls by main force or a deal is made. It's perverse to ignore this.

    It's also naive to imaging an endgame in which an Afghan democracy will ever be full sovereign with this large belligerent neighbor which has a Pashtun population and is itself in existential fear of India. Afghanistan is a buffer state and constructing anything their that Pakistan refuses to tolerate is just as much a fools errand as the USSR's effort.

    It's not just that DC has very compelling reasons for wanting to maintain Pakistan as an ally but also because Islamabad is increasing close to China where much of the US industrial base is and also DC mountainous debt. Beijing can and will call the shots. And both DC and Beijing see Pakistan as balancing India.

    The growing violence within Pakistan is largely a result of three factors:

    1. Ethnic minority grievance in a state dominated by a narrow Punjabi elite
    2. The military's fostering of reactionary Islamic terrorism as a weapon against India and of domestic domination.
    3. The unintended consequences of our long war in the North which is in its turn a consequence of the previous point

    The three major Afghan talibans show no desire to lose their rear basing in FATA to an army crackdown and the Pak army has scrupulous avoided tackling them while it wiped the floor with actors that had come to threaten the state itself. This won't change while some pressure is maintained on the Afghan talibans. This must be carefully calibrated so as not to further damage the fragile situation in Pakistan. This is a recipe for an inconclusive and very long war that we seem politically unwilling to plan for.

    That is not to say DC should not aid Pakistan but it needs to shift its focus to the civilians rather than pampering what is a large and rather well equipped military. Pakistan actually has much potential in its civic life, its people are fiercely patriotic and generally hostile to The Beards. As in Turkey in the last decades of the last century while the military maintains a vice like grip on power it will only get worse.
     
  8. Start playing the ISI & Iran game-equip, finance,& politically throw our weight behind independence for Baluchistan.Offer Pakistani government asylum & talibs the nukes.Retire beyond missile range & grin smugly (after withdrawing all our assets,military but not political!) :twisted:
     
  9. I was keeping the faith as this one isn't over yet! So its not being counted as failed.

    Its a funny old game, the ISI backing the Taliban and now seeing that the game is up. What I would really like to know is who is actually running Pakistan. Been trying to read about it more and more, but the press articles are full of 'failed state, 100s of militants' type themes in the headlines. Is Pakistan really as bad as 24 hour news makes it out.

    Crap stories about how its nuclear weapons might fall into terrorist hands. I don't think its like Dr. Strangelove at all! I don't blame them that they can't control their borders! We can't do it either :twisted: