U.S. military may arm Pakistani tribes - UPI.com


Good Idea or bad idea?

I believe it is a good idea because it is working in Iraq.


“With the increased security situation we have finally been able to provide essential services to the community. For the first time since 1-5 CAV deployed to Iraq last November, the beladiyah is routinely providing trash clean up. We have fixed numerous water pipes, pulled out destroyed car hulks and are working to clean out the sewer system. Likewise the local economy is gaining steam with over one hundred stores opening up the last two months.”

Michael Yon : Online Magazine » Blog Archive » Ameriyah Update

tomder55

1st I'd like to nominate Michael Yon for the Pulitzer Prize . He has been one of the best primary sources to what is really happening in the war against jihadistan.

Contrast that to my utter contempt of the NY Slimes. Again they chose to publish material from a classified report about US military strategy. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/wa...hp&oref=slogin

I question if it will have the same effect as it does in Sunni Iraq. The primary reason that the Sunni tribes flipped is that they had a taste of life under AQ rule and they found it not to their liking . As I understand it AQ was invited into the region .But I have also posted that AQ has attempted a hostile takeover of the Taliban . So if they have worn out their welcome then the plan has a chance to succeed. The Question in Pakistan is as always ;what will the ISI do ?

Dark_crow

I certainly agree with you about Michael Yon. To his favor, I believe, is the fact that he is his own boss.

Michael Yon : Online Magazine » Blog Archive » Ameriyah Update

Contrast what Lt. Col. Dale Kuehl writes in the link above, and the author of the quotes below about the same situation and person, Abu Abed. Ghaith Abdul-Ahad in the Guardian writes:

Meet Abu Abed: the US's new ally against al-Qaida | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

“Our conversation was interrupted by the arrival of a big man named Bakr with a bandolier of bullets over his chest. He squatted next to Abu Abed, laid his big BKC machine gun down and spoke to him conspiratorially, covering his mouth with his hand like a schoolgirl.
Bakr was Abu Abed's head of intelligence. "I was told that someone from al-Qaida is in the area," Bakr said. "We will go out, develop some intelligence and then raid the house."
The only vehicles in the streets belonged to our screeching convoy. A few shops were open and people walked past carrying plastic shopping bags. All around us were the traces of battle: craters in the road from improvised bombs, facades pockmarked with bullet holes, a pile of rubble that had once been a building.”

"Ameriya is a closed zone, surrounded by high concrete walls. Only pedestrians are allowed through the two Iraqi army checkpoints out of the suburb. The "knights" are the only authority inside."

What he writes not only sounds like something out of a fiction fantasy novel; at least in one place, by Lt. Col. Dale Kuehl account, he writes an out and out lie: “Ameriya is a closed zone, surrounded by high concrete walls. Only pedestrians are allowed through the two Iraqi army checkpoints out of the suburb. The "knights" are the only authority inside.”

Please, Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, I don’t know how you missed the fact that Lt. Col. Dale Kuehl was there, because I don’t believe you did. What I believe is that you purposely kept the truth from the public…shame on you.

Dark_crow

Classified, for about 5 minutes.

Splashed on the front page of yesterday’s New York Times is a story headlined, “U.S. Hopes to Use Pakistani Tribes Against al Qaeda.” Here is the first paragraph:
“WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 — A new and classified…
The fourth word of the story is “classified.”

“President Musharraf is hanging by a thread and the Islamists are waiting in the wings to seize control of the regime and the nuclear weapons. If the United States looks like it’s injecting itself too much into Pakistan, Musharraf falls and the country slips into chaos.
Whomever leaked this must have known the damage it would do to our efforts to help Pakistan fight al Qaeda. Those plans are intricate, sensitive, and now, no longer classified.”

Leaked by who I wonder.
Political Mavens » Classified, for about 5 minutes

ETWolverine

There are certainly reasons both in favor of arming and assisting the Pakistani tribes and against it.

In favor: It seems to be working in Iraq.

Againt: The conditions in Pakistan are not the same as those in Iraq. The Iraqis were targetted by Al Qaeda In Iraq and the insurgents and became sick of being targets. So they stopped supporting Al Qaeda In Iraq and the insurgents and started working with the US troops. They realized that the troops are on their side.

I'm not sure that the Pakistani tribes feel the same way about the US troops. Do the Pakistani tribes feel that the US troops are on their side and that the Taliban is against them? Are they as sick of being targets as the Iraqis are? And if they are not, does that mean that the Pakistanis will turn those weapons on our troops the way the Afghani Mujahadeen did after the Afghan War against the USSR (becoming the Taliban and Al Qaeda as we know it today)? That is a serious risk in supporting those who do not necessarily see us as a friend.

If we do decide to arm the tribes (and that is actually the way that I am leaning right now), then we have to make sure to continue to engage them in dialogue and offer certain types of aid once military operations are complete. Part of what turned Al Qaeda and the Taliban against us after the Afghan war was the fact that we completely disengaged and "abandoned" them when the fighting was over. (That and the fact that we remained in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War.) So maintaining our alliance after the fighting is done is imperative to avoid creating another Taliban or another Al Qaeda. That is where diplomacy comes in handy once military operations have set the stage for effective negotiation.

Elliot

Dark_crow

Elliot, you correctly point out; the conditions that made this a success in Iraq do not apply in Pakistan.

Which raises the question, what should we do if Pakistan begins to collapse?

“A serious effort to peel back the Islamist takeover in Swat is a clever move on Musharraf’s part, because it gives him a lever against the United States. If the U.S. threatens to cut off military aid in the middle of a credible attack on Swat, Musharraf can simply call off his assault. It’s a dangerous game, especially given Musharraf’s long-term political weakness. Yet Musharraf’s opportunity to maintain American support by attacking the Islamists could be our best hope of making military progress in Pakistan. A stable and politically united Pakistan fully committed to America’s war on terror would be far better than the current situation. But that fantasy is unlikely ever to be fulfilled.

So it may be that half-a-loaf is the best we can hope for. Instead of chastising the administration for the trouble in Pakistan, we should reflect on the near-miracle of Musharraf’s post-9/11 turnaround. Given long-standing public sympathy for the Islamists, we’re lucky Pakistan has remained in our corner this long. If the most we ever get is on-again/off-again containment of the Islamists, that sadly, may be better than any alternative on offer.”

Stanley Kurtz, National Review Online gives a very good analysis in my opinion.

Stanley Kurtz on Pakistan on National Review Online

ETWolverine

That's where pragmatism vs. idealism comes into play. I tend to be a pragmatist.


Yes, he usually does. And this article is his usual good work. Kurtz is a pragmatist too. Better something than nothing.

Elliot

tomder55

Do you think this report is true ?

Pak nukes already under US control: Report-The United States-World-The Times of India

Stratfor has been a pretty reliable intel. source.

ETWolverine

I have no idea if the report is true. It is one of the moves I would make if I were in an adversarial relationship with Pakistan. But as to whether Musharaf would give in to such a threat, have no idea. He might be willing to say "You want my nukes, come and get them" and force the USA to fight it out with his forces. If it is true, though, it changes the political environment drastically, and puts the USA in a much more solid position to dictate a diplomatic agenda to Musharaf.

Elliot

tomder55

according to the report this happened after 9-11 at a time when we had no assurance that Pakistan would join us in the GWOT . it also explains the reports about alot of US money being used to secure Pakistan's nukes. If this is true it was a bold move that is paying dividends.