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

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 ?

---

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, façades 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.

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

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 targeted 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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

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.”

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Stanley Kurtz on Pakistan on National Review Online

---

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

Elliot

Do you think this report is true ?

Quote:

---

Pakistan's nuclear weapons are already under American control even as analysts are working themselves into a lather on the subject, a well-regarded intelligence journal has said.

In a stunning disclosure certain to stir up things in Washington's (and in Islamabad and New Delhi's) strategic community, the journal Stratfor reported on Monday that the "United States delivered a very clear ultimatum to Musharraf in the wake of 9/11: Unless Pakistan allowed US forces to take control of Pakistani nuclear facilities, the United States would be left with no choice but to destroy those facilities, possibly with India's help."

---

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

Stratfor has been a pretty reliable intel. Source.

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

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 a lot of US money being used to secure Pakistan's nukes. If this is true it was a bold move that is paying dividends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Through a source that I cannot recall it is my understanding that the nukes were separated into two components which are many miles apart, and only through great difficulty could they be reunited. I understand too that there are 50 American military personal there. The article could be accurate; we may have control, albeit something that could quickly change.

Quote:

---

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.

---

The way I see it ,in Iraq the tribes flipped and the US Marines out right supportedf them when they went to combat against AQ . It was touch and go and the AQ terror campaign was close to succeeding in fomenting civil war. The fact that we remained committed when the situation was iffy was the key.

This situation is different . There will be no direct US military role beyond perhaps Spec. Op. advisers and trainers for the Frontier Corp. . The tribes will be supported by a Pakistani Army that already has a history of capitulation to the tribes .The South Waziristan Accord was negotiated after the Pakistan military suffered defeats at the hands of Taliban and al Qaeda forces.

After the signing the Taliban and AQ conducted a campaign against any tribal member suspected of working with the Pakistani government or U.S. intelligence. Since then AQ and the TAliban solidified their control in these regions and have begun to threaten adjacent settled regions of the country like the Swat Valley .

Any anti-Taliban tribe that takes part would have to have a resonable assurance that their support will not be a death sentence . I do not see how that can be assured without direct US military support.

There is more than a risk that the arms will end up in the wrong hands;There is a degree of probability . This is a very risky step to take.

I believe the key to opening the door is the poppy fields. Why does the Taliban support AG…money. As it has been pointed out, the Taliban is tied to the land there and is not a foreign entity, AQ is. If a wedge can be driven into the relationship between AQ and the Taliban it will be the end of AQ in the region.

Good observation. On another posting I suggested we just pay the farmers to not cultivate their poppy fields . It works with US farmers it would work with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

good observation. on another posting I suggested we just pay the farmers to not cultivate their poppy fields . it works with US farmers it would work with them.

---

Here is an interesting article


Outcry against poisoning Afghanistan poppies


In 2004, U.S.-contracted aircraft secretly sprayed harmless plastic granules over poppy fields in Afghanistan to gauge public reaction to using herbicides to kill the opium poppies that help fund the Taliban and al-Qaida.
The mysterious granules ignited a major outcry from poor farmers, tribal chiefs and government officials up to President Hamid Karzai, who demanded to know if the spraying was part of a poppy-eradication program. At the time, U.S officials up to the level of Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad denied knowledge of the program.
U.S. officials declined to identify the agency that oversaw the test spraying, but noted that the State Department oversees U.S. counter-narcotics efforts in Afghanistan. The department's bureau of international narcotics and law enforcement declined to comment. U.S. officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the tests remain classified.
The Bush administration now is pressing Karzai to spray real herbicide against what's expected to be another record opium-poppy crop, which is refined into heroin. There's wide opposition — from Karzai and his government, NATO allies such as Britain with troops in Afghanistan and even major parts of the U.S. government, including the Pentagon, the CIA and U.S. military commanders.

Nation & World | Outcry against poisoning Afghanistan poppies | Seattle Times Newspaper

Regading the poppy crop in Afghanistan, I fail to see how destroying the largest source of income for the people in Afghanistan is going to get them to support us.

I agree that the poppy crop funds terrorism, but that would be true of ANYTHING that brings money into the hands of the terror supporters. Would we tell Karzai to get rid of his corn and rice crop if corn and rice were the biggest money-maker for Afghanistan, and those funds were used to support terrorism? Why are we blaming poppy as if it were the cause of the problems? And why are we suggesting the elimination of the largest source of income for families in Afghanistan? Isn't that counterproductive to our goal of getting Afghanistan on our side and getting AQ out of Afghanistan?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Regading the poppy crop in Afghanistan, I fail to see how destroying the largest source of income for the people in Afghanistan is going to get them to support us.

I agree that the poppy crop funds terrorism, but that would be true of ANYTHING that brings money into the hands of the terror supporters. Would we tell Karzai to get rid of his corn and rice crop if corn and rice were the biggest money-maker for Afghanistan, and those funds were used to support terrorism? Why are we blaming poppy as if it were the cause of the problems? And why are we suggesting the elimination of the largest source of income for families in Afghanistan? Isn't that counterproductive to our goal of getting Afghanistan on our side and getting AQ out of Afghanistan?

Elliot

---

Elliot, the farmers are paid dirt cheap, the Taliban is the ones making the money.


Poppy…By any other name, it would still be the reason we are losing the war in Afghanistan.

“Look, take on opium production in Afghanistan, not because you are worried about addiction in Baltimore, but because you are going to lose the war if you don’t confront the issue.” — General Barry McCaffrey


A huge part of the problem, in my judgment, has been Secretary Rumsfeld and the Pentagon civilian leadership that’s said, “Hey, we got 20,000 troops there, we’re there to fight the Taliban on the frontier, let the Europeans worry about opium production, we don’t do that.” If you looked at his language it was almost the language George Soros uses. It’s astonishing.”


Michael Yon:
“Once we have demonstrated the credibility of an eradication program, Afghan farmers will need to be taught how to grow alternative crops that will earn them more money than will opium. Experimental farms in the southern region have had success with cotton, fruit, and certain vegetable crops, according to Rashid. CDAG projects have overseen agricultural development that includes apricots, raisins, pistachios and walnuts, rice, corn, and cotton.”


<a href=http://www.michaelyon-online.com/>Michael Yon</a> on Afghanistan on National Review Online

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

on another posting I suggested we just pay the farmers to not cultivate their poppy fields . it works with US farmers it would work with them.

---

Yeah Tom, General McCaffrey is with you on that too:

The war in Afghanistan and Iraq costs this country seven billion dollars a month. … Look, we’re the ones on the line. My argument has been step forward, do what has to be done so we can stand up a viable political entity in Afghanistan. They’re beautiful people, they are survivors, and they are remarkable people. They want their chance. We need to sustain them and if that means 5 to 10 billion dollars a year in economic aid, then so be it, let’s do it.

I agree with Tom on this one. There is no erason to attack the poppy production when we can just pay the farmers better to grow something else.

I agree with you that the Taliban are the ones ultimately making a profit off the poppy production. But the farmers still need whatever pittance they are getting to survive. Take that away from them, and we have made them an enemy. But if we pay them to not grow poppy better than the Taliban pays them to grow poppy, we gain an ally, the Taliban lose their source of funding, and everyone on our side of the war wins.

How much would it cost us to pay a farmer 30 cents per hour not to grow poppy, compared to the 25 cents per hour they get now? (This is based on the average per-capita income of Afghanis of $800 per year, and assumes a 60-hour work-week.) The cost would be roughly $5.6 billion by my estimate, which is a fraction of the overall cost of the war.

(This estimate is based on the fact that 38% of the overall Afghani economy is involved in agriculture, and assumes that the entire agicultural production is in poppy. That's an incorrect assumption, of course, but it gives us a high estimate. That means that roughly 6 million Afghanis are involved in the agricultural trade. If we pay them each 30 cents per hour for a 60 hour work-week for 52 weeks per year to grow a different product, the cost would be about $5.6 billion. The actual cost would probably be lower. Plus the Afghanis would be able to sell whatever product they atually produce, effectively almost DOUBLING their current income. Who wouldn't jump at a chance like that?)

$5.6 billion is barely a drop in the bucket compared to the overall cost of the war. Why would we balk at spending that to get the Afghanis to stop poppy production and shift to something else, as opposed to simply destroying their livelihoods?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I agree with Tom on this one. There is no erason to attack the poppy production when we can just pay the farmers better to grow something else.

I agree with you that the Taliban are the ones ultimately making a profit off of the poppy production. But the farmers still need whatever pittance they are getting to survive. Take that away from them, and we have made them an enemy. But if we pay them to not grow poppy better than the Taliban pays them to grow poppy, we gain an ally, the Taliban lose their source of funding, and everyone on our side of the war wins.

How much would it cost us to pay a farmer 30 cents per hour not to grow poppy, compared to the 25 cents per hour they get now? (This is based on the average per-capita income of Afghanis of $800 per year, and assumes a 60-hour work-week.) The cost would be roughly $5.6 billion by my estimate, which is a fraction of the overall cost of the war.

(This estimate is based on the fact that 38% of the overall Afghani economy is involved in agriculture, and assumes that the entire agicultural production is in poppy. That's an incorrect assumption, of course, but it gives us a high estimate. That means that roughly 6 million Afghanis are involved in the agricultural trade. If we pay them each 30 cents per hour for a 60 hour work-week for 52 weeks per year to grow a different product, the cost would be about $5.6 billion. The actual cost would probably be lower. Plus the Afghanis would be able to sell whatever product they atually produce, effectively almost DOUBLING their current income. Who wouldn't jump at a chance like that?)

$5.6 billion is barely a drop in the bucket compared to the overall cost of the war. Why would we balk at spending that to get the Afghanis to stop poppy production and shift to something else, as opposed to simply destroying their livelihoods?

Elliot

---

It appears that promises were made and then were broken.

Afghan poppy industry eludes U.S. control - CNN.com

"Not only are they back to cultivating poppy because they did not receive any alternative livelihoods, but they're angry at the broken promises, and they don't trust us anymore," said Norine MacDonald of SENLIS, an international think tank focusing on drug policy.
They say that the money promised by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the international community to plant these alternative crops has not materialized.



“In Nangahar province a remarkable - and many thought unsustainable - 96 per cent drop in poppy cultivation was achieved last year. However, opium production was expected to bounce back this year after farmers complained that promised foreign aid to help them grow alternative crops never materialised.”

Afghan poppy farmers expect record opium crop and the Taliban will reap the rewards - Independent Online Edition > Asia