US Sends SF Into Pakistan

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Ritch, Sep 12, 2008.

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. Bush secret order to send special forces into Pakistan

    A secret order issued by George Bush giving US special forces carte blanche to mount counter-terrorist operations inside Pakistani territory raised fears last night that escalating conflict was spreading from Afghanistan to Pakistan and could ignite a region-wide war.

    The unprecedented executive order, signed by Bush in July after an intense internal administration debate, comes amid western concern that the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and its al-Qaida backers based in "safe havens" in western Pakistan's tribal belt is being lost.

    Following Bush's decision, US navy Seals commandos, backed by attack helicopters, launched a ground raid into Pakistan last week which the US claimed killed about two dozen insurgents.


    I wonder how long it'll be before more extremists start using this as an excuse to bomb western targets?
  2. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Firstly - good on the septics - kill them wherever they hide, and secondly - my bold; they didn't need an excuse before, so why would this make a difference?
  3. [quote="Biped]
    I wonder how long it'll be before more extremists start using this as an excuse to bomb western targets?

    Firstly - good on the septics - kill them wherever they hide, and secondly - my bold; they didn't need an excuse before, so why would this make a difference?[/quote]

    I agree but I mean, invading an independant country, a supposedly 'friendly' nation. Won't this bring serious repurcussions to the rest of us?
  4. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    I agree but I mean, invading an independant country, a supposedly 'friendly' nation. Won't this bring serious repurcussions to the rest of us?[/quote]

    I doubt it. Most of Pakistan is NOt friendly towards the US, most of the insurgents are from, or trained in Pakistan, the gobment has just changed to one that is more corrupt and less friendly towards the US, and despite the fact that the Pakistanis KNOW the insurgents are hiding their side of the border, they refuse to give permission to the US to chase the bad guys.

    No more excuses needed. Get in there and get stuck in. If Pakistan wants to kick off about it . . . . well, even they won't be THAT stupid. The septcs will just say - 'Do you REALLY want to be in the axis of evil?'
  5. msr

    msr LE

    People like you scare me.

  6. The septics should have just stayed quiet...But no in typical septical style they have to go shouting it to the rest of the world.....well done....none the less fairplay just wish our own government would grow a set instead of trying to appear all fluffy..............but who knows we do seem to follow the septics everywhere.......nuff said

  7. MMMM :? better not tell anyone then
  8. FATA, that's an issue, sure. But don't make the mistake of believing that it's Pakistans primary concern.

    We've long since been silently held to account by the Pakistani dispora who support Pakistans stance on the War on Terror of ignoring the dominant issue in the East.

    It suggests that in order to assist Afghanistan by engaging militancy in FATA, that NATO needs to assert a more direct and positive influence over India to alliviate tensions in Kashmir. Complex? Making a noise over the use of SF into Pakistan is not even the half of it.
  9. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    I don't get the cross-referencing of Georgia. Russia has put 'peacekeepers' across the border and beaten up the Georgians while they were at it. Comeback from the West or anyone else . . . . . nope.

    A ban on crossing borders to chase insurgents and murders . . . . Northern Ireland? What good did that do? Because of no agreement being in place with Ireland to chase the bad guys across the border, Ireland effectively gave them safe haven, and thus, more people,. including civilians died.

    Britain has been involved in other conflicts in which the enemy has not had the safety of a border because we DID cross it to get at them. If I'm not mistaken, we actually won a couple of 'border' conflicts for this very reason.

    You think that it's OK for Pakistan to neither fight the insurgents crossing the border AND deny us access to do it instead? THAT is scary.
  10. The problem as I see it is that Pakistanis are going through political turmoil. They themselves are suffering from domestic terrorism, originating from within the FATA and the militants/taleban are being aided, if not officially, at least tacitly by the Intelligence services ISI. The new Pakistani president cannot afford to launch head long into a protracted civil war, and the military do not have the will to fight it out, as the loyalty to an Islamic state (what the militants claim to be fighting for) would be too greater pull for the toms on the ground.

    The Septics have been forced into this position, as the FATA has been a safe bolt hole for Terry and his AQ buddies whenever they come under too much pressure from NATO forces and the Pakistanis have done nothing to stop them.

    Alleviating tension in Kashmir will do nothing to help the situation, in fact it will make it worse as it will free up those Kashmir conflict veterans to go off and join Terry and AQ in their advancement of a Global Caliphate. We have already seen Laskhar e-Tayyiba getting involved in attacks in Afghanistan as well as attacks in India. Do we really need more Islamic nutters added to the mix?

    At the end of the day, the Pakistanis should sit back, and the let the Septics get on with it. It will help them with their internal problems in the long tun and they will not be seen as the bad guys.

  11. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    That's the point isn't it? Maybe Pakistan cannot publicly allow NATO to jump over the border and slot the bad guys, and they don't have the will to get stuck in themselves, primarily because of the backlash they'll get on the domestic front. Anyone who publicly sides with NATO and furthers that with permission to cross into Pakistani territory to wage war is going to get thrown out of office or more likely, assassinated if they aren't careful. Another factor of course is that most politicians in Pakistan don't want AQ/Taliban as a threat to THEIR way of doing things either, but they know that their armed forces REALLY getting stuck in will not only result in massive casualties, but a great deal of strife politcally; it is quite likely to strengthen support for the nutters considerably on the home front - thus, a home goal if you like.

    On the other hand, loud but ineffectual protestations from Pakistan, with the right sort of aggressive 'tough luck' noises from the septics while they continue crossing the border to whack the baddies should keep everyone on both sides of the border happy - Pakistani gobment on one side, NATO on the other, and only the unhappy 'getting-slotted' forces of discord in the middle.
  12. Good plan, well presented, with just one small flaw. The Pakistanis will not co-operate. The current govt is indeed wobbly, but every US incursion across the border makes it wobblier. In fact, were I AQ I would endorse US actions whole-heartedly as they support in every way the message AQ is trying to send to Pakistanis. It would be ironic indeed if the US forces a change of government in Pakistan that gifts some fully functional WMD into the hands of islamic extremists.

    It also makes the US look like utter hypocrites in the eyes of more and more people. When Russia violates Georgian territorial integrity it's an attack on civilisation itself; when the US violates Pakistani territorial integrity it's business as usual.

    And given the recent statements by the Pakistan military future incursions may well encounter incoming from the same; how will we deal with that ? Particularly given the supply routes we're currently using, and the way the US have just motivated all other neighbouring countries not to help us ...
  13. The previous Pakistan government did allow certain things to occur, but in the end it cost them their jobs as they were being seen as pro western. Wasn't there an incident last year with the Pakistan army being sent in to fight the rebels/taleban and in the end they just gave up as they didn't want to fight their 'brothers', and this turned into a huge nightmare as the government then had to trade for their release.

    I can't see Pakistan going headlong into fighting the taliban or the rebels, they don't have the support to do it, but if the US or anyone else comes into Pakistan and fights the rebels it'll have the opposite effect, it'll cause the other side to back the rebels and that would turn into a complete nightmare.

    EDIT: Just checked google, 300 Pakistani Army taken hostage without a shot being fired last September
  14. Predator strikes have been very effective and will continue to be the primary vehicle for attacks on taliban high value targets. Ground operations such as the one being discussed will be rare and used to go after the big fish.I suspect that this recent raid resulted in prisoners and intel.