Comments on: Pakistani Army Advances into Waziristan; Effect of Campaign on US in Afghanistan Doubted; Taliban threaten India

By: Chip Pitts

Chip Pitts — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:08:50 +0000

Hi, Juan — Have you seen the new ICG report, noting the counterproductive results that arise from a strategy relying on military force instead of more rights-sensitive approaches emphasizing diversity, economic opportunity, and constitutionalism? It may be found at:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6356&l=1

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:00:08 +0000

Can Pakistan be classified as a 'failed state'?

Zidan

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:03:48 +0000

Seems to me if per the report in Dawn Mullah Sangin has brought 1,500 Afghan Pashtun fighters into S. Waziristan this alone will have a noticeable effect on the situation in Afghanistan. I've not seen any report that gives the number of active insurgents operating in Afghanistan as over 30,000.

By: Suleman

Suleman — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:14:03 +0000

Regarding “Enlightened Layperson” and others interested in seeing maps of the areas in Pakistan being affected by military operations and general insurgency, the following links may be of some help:

A map of Pakistan within the region of South Asia. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/asia/pk.htm

Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Afghanistan border.
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Image:NWFP_FATA.png

I hope they provide some guidance.

By: MonsieurGonzo

MonsieurGonzo — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:33:02 +0000

ref : “The campaign will thus have little effect on the fighting [= counter-occupation guerrilla war] in Afghanistan, except to the extent that some militants may be displaced from Pakistan north to Afghanistan.” Eric Margolis, "War next door creates havoc in Pakistan" condemns “the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, advanced with President Barack Obama's blessing [the bill's signing came on the same day that the Pakistani Taliban mounted the latest in a 10-day series of devastating multiple attacks on key army and police facilities], is ham-handed dollar diplomacy at its worst... U.S. policy in the Muslim world continues to be driven by imperial arrogance, profound ignorance, and ‘special interest’ groups” :

“Pakistan, bankrupted by corruption and feudal landlords, is being offered $7.5 billion USD over five years -- but with outrageous strings attached. The U.S. wants to build a mammoth new embassy for 1,000 personnel in Islamabad, the second largest after its Baghdad fortress-embassy. New personnel are needed, claims Washington, to monitor the $7.5 billion in aid. So U.S. mercenaries are being brought in to protect U.S. "interests." New U.S. bases will open. Most of this new aid will go right into the pockets of the pro-western ruling establishment, about 1% of the population. Washington is also demanding veto power over promotions in Pakistan's armed forces and intelligence agency, the ISI. This crude attempt to take control of Pakistan's proud, 617,000-man military has enraged the armed forces. It's all part of Washington's "AfPak" strategy — clamp tighter control over restive Pakistan and make use of its armed forces and spies in [the counter-occupation guerrilla war in] Afghanistan. Seizing control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, the key to its national defence against much more powerful India, is the other key U.S. objective [!] However, 90% of Pakistanis oppose the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, and see ‘Taliban’ and its allies as national resistance to western occupation.”

By: Enlightened Layperson

Enlightened Layperson — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:01:50 +0000

Interesting. But is there any way you could provide a map for those of us not so familiar with Pakistani geography?

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:40:52 +0000

Juan,

As always, I appreciate your perspective and insight. I'm wondering if the Pakistani offensive is not so much worrying, but rather necessary and a long time coming.

At the risk of sounding like a fundamentalist myself, is there another solution to dealing with the Taliban (of either Afghanistan or Pakistan)? It seems they can't be bargained with (see SWAT) or left alone. As much as I support self-determination of peoples, the Taliban goes well beyond the pale regarding abusing human rights.

It seems to me that a local solution to the problem is much more attractive than an effort by the US to impose a peace from the other side of the world.

Do you think there is any reason for optimism given this report of the consensus among political groups in Pakistan:
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/04-waziristan-peration-iven-o-ahead-qs-12

I'm not familiar with the source nor all the groups.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:10:25 +0000

What about suspicions that al-Qaeda leaders such as Bin Laden and Dr. Zawahiri are in hiding in South Waziristan? If those beliefs are true then I wonder if this scenario is what is really going on: Obama is holding off on his decision on future action in Afghanistan because this South Waziristan offensive by Pakistan is his actual "future action in Afghanistan". The presence of al-Qaeda is the motivating factor of staying involved militarily in Afghanistan. If Bin Laden et al are in South Waziristan and the Pakistani offensive succeeds in chasing them away or even capturing them, then Obama could declare victory and not need to go ahead with a troop commitment he might not want to do, given the failure of the recent election. A successful Pakistani offensive against Bin Laden et al would also remove the stigma of negotiating with the Taliban.

– Inkan1969