War and Conflict Journal

New page on the war between the Pakistani government and the Taliban rebels.

“Throughout late 2008 and into the spring of 2009, the Taliban continued to make advances further into Pakistan itself. In April, the Taliban expanded out of the Swat Valley into the Buner region, a mere 60 miles from the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. The Pakistani military responded with attacks on the Taliban advance elements, and by early May, the Swat Valley truce seemed to be in tatters as combat escalated.”

See more at:  http://historyguy.com/taliban_war_in_pakistan.htm

On April 22, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to the military advance of the Pakistani Taliban out of the Swat Valley that has been ceded to them by the weak Pakistani government by stating that this situation in Pakistan formed an “existential threat” to Pakistan and a “mortal threat” to the world, and by extension, to the United States.  She also called on Pakistanis to resist their government’s policy of surrendering national territory to the Islamic extremists.

Tough words, but it remains to be seen if Clinton and the Obama Administration of which she is a part, really have the gumption to truly address this issue.  The Pakistani civilian government seems incapable or unwilling to confront the Taliban in the border areas.  The Taliban (and their al-Qaida allies), rightly see this as weakness on Islamabad’s part, and are pressing their advantage.  It is well known that the Pakistani military and secret services still aid the Taliban in its fight against Allied forces in Afghanistan (see http://warandconflictjournal.com/2008/06/pakistan-aids-taliban-still/).  The military is known to still consider India as its number one foe, and it is reported that important leaders of the military and intelligence services sympathize to some point with the Islamicists in the border regions.   

Clinton is right that the Taliban advances pose a grave threat to Pakistan.  If, by some means, the Taliban or some other radical Islamic group seizes control, or at least weakens the central government enough that the nation falls into true chaos or collapse, then the U.S., Britain, the other NATO allies, and, of course, India, all have to make an important decision.  Pakistan is too large to be allowed to fall into “Failed State” status.  Its nuclear arsenal is far too deadly to fall to ilk like the Taliban or al-Qaida.  It is hard to imagine India standing by as its old, but dangerous enemy becomes perhaps more dangerous through the unpredictability of chaos. 

So, the civilized world must decide what is to be done.  Stop the Taliban now, or wait and deal with the detritus of failed policies after it is far too late.  Pakistan is the “Sick Man of South Asia,” and like the old Ottoman Empire, it is far too large and dangerous to let it fall apart without major consequences for the entire region and the world.

President Obama’s Afghanistan Strategy (2009)
 On March 27, 2009, President Obama, flanked by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, announced his new strategy toward the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Below are the video of the President’s announcement and the text of President Obama’s announcement.  To see this page, go to:  http://www.historyguy.com/obama_afghanistan_strategy_2009.htm

The American helicopter raid into Syria this week which targeted an al-Qaida leader based there, may presage a similar attack into Iran in the near future. Just as missile strikes and a very similar commando raid into Pakistan's border region in September may have foreshadowed this raid into Syria's border area, the next logical target in the ongoing attempt to curtail cross-border aid and supply to al-Qaida and other insurgents into Iraq may be Iran.

Many analysts and pundits have mulled over the possibility of an "October Surprise" in the middle east which could affect the American Presidential race.  The theory being that an international crisis or event could highlight the foreign policy experience of John McCain over his opponent, Barack Obama.  Also, if a major military event took place, the American public may automatically back the party in power (the Republican), and this close to Election Day, that may translate into more votes for McCain.

This theory is faulty on several fronts.  First, the economy will continue to be Issue #1, and little short of a major terror attack on the U.S. homeland will change that.  Second, at this point in the war and in the election campaign, the American public would likely turn on the Bush Administration and, by extension, John McCain if it perceived an attempt to manipulate the election with the lives of American service members.

And then there is the real danger.  George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been clear that they view the development of Iranian nuclear weapons to be a grave and mortal danger the the United States and its allies, particularly Israel.  Rather than start something with Iran before the election, in what the history books and public opinion would surely condemn as a blatant and heavy-handed attempt to influence the election, it is far more likely that the long-feared "Iran War" will begin after Barack Obama wins the election, which, as of this writing, seems very likely to occur.

Were McCain to take office, Bush and Cheney would likely feel assured that their policies on Iran and the nuclear issue would be carried on by McCain.  The same is not true of a likely Obama Administration.  Thus, in order to save America, Israel, and much of Europe from a nuclear-armed Iran, it is highly likely that at some point in the 77 day transition period between Election Day and Inauguration Day, an incident will occur, or a commando raid similar to those carried out on Pakistan and Syria will take place on Iranian soil.  Or, Israel may elect to attack Iran itself, with the full assurance of American support and involvement.

If Obama wins, watch for signs of military buildup and preparation.  This Iran War scenario is all the more likely after the raids on Pakistan and Syria.  After all, what do President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have to worry about if the American public disapproves of such a war?  Elect them out of office?  President Obama may be faced with a much more dangerous, chaotic, and violent world than now exists.

The leader of the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, known by the names Abu Hamza al-Muhajer and Abu Ayyub al-Masri, and several of his top lieutenants have recently left Iraq for Afghanistan, according to group leaders and Iraqi intelligence officials, a possible further sign of what Iraqi and U.S. officials call growing disarray and weakness in the organization. It is believed that these al-Qaeda leaders see more prospects for success in Afghanistan and Pakistan than in Iraq.

Washington Post Article:

The Rand Corporation issued a report stating the obvious and the well-known to anyone paying attention to Afghan affairs:  That elements inside the Pakistani security forces have continued to aid the Taliban.  This despite the alleged alliance between Pakistan and the United States since the Allies invaded Afghanistan to liberate that nation from the Islamic Fundamentalist Taliban and its al-Qaida mercenaries.

The Taliban originally took power in Afghanistan with both covert and overt aid from the Pakistani military and the Pakistani intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) in the 1990s.(see http://www.historyguy.com/afghan_civil_war.html for detailed information on the Taliban’s rise to power).

The United States has been making noise lately about the Pakistani government’s inability or, as this report leads one to believe, lack of desire, to rein in Taliban forces on Pakistani soil.  It is highly likely that if the current situation continues, with Taliban forces using Pakistani territory with impunity, that the U.S. will attack across the border.  Just as in the Vietnam War, when Communist forces used neighboring Cambodia and Laos for sanctuary, the U.S. may see the need to correct the problem itself. 

Whereas the 1970 invasion of Cambodia sparked massive and deadly anti-war protests in the U.S., a repeat of those types of mass demonstrations would be unlikely in America today. Without a military draft to drive millions of youths to the movement, today’s anti-war organizations will not do anything substantial.  In fact, the anti-war movement, if it can justifiably be called a true movement, cares more about the war in Iraq anyway.  Afghanistan is increasingly becoming a truly "Forgotten War," which is a true tragedy, since in many ways, the outcome of this conflict is of more importance than what happens in Iraq.

Analysis:  The U.S. is probably getting ready to cross the border to go after al-Qaida and the Taliban, but is making all of the requisite polite motions toward Pakistan’s soveriegnty first.  Don’t forget that the Bush/Cheney Administration will be out of office in less than a year, and they don’t know who or what will replace them in the Commander-in-Chief’s position.  Many analysts have harped on the possiblity they may attack Iran before they go, but more likely, in the view of the War and Conflict Journal, is a major push to crush the Islamist foe in Pakistan before next January.  And, if they find Osama bin Laden while in Pakistan, all the better.

U.S.
Troops ‘Ready’ to Aid Pakistan–Washington Post, January 25,
2008

The Pentagon is "ready, willing and able" to send U.S. troops to
conduct joint combat operations with Pakistan’s military against
al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan’s tribal areas, Defense Secretary
Robert M. Gates said yesterday.

The U.S. military is also beginning to construct as many as eight
coordination centers along the Afghan-Pakistani border that will be
staffed by officers from the three countries to more closely share
intelligence and conduct combat operations, according to Maj. Gen.
David Rodriguez, the top U.S. commander for eastern Afghanistan.

The first border center is being built at Torkham Gate in
Afghanistan, a key crossing near the Khyber Pass and about 30 miles
from the Pakistani city of Peshawar, Rodriguez said.

Cross-border attacks into eastern Afghanistan have dropped by more
than 40 percent in the past three months, compared with the same
period last winter, as Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters increasingly
wage war on the Pakistani government, according to Rodriguez and a
U.S. military review of border incidents.

Suicide bombings increased more than tenfold in Pakistan — from
five in 2006 to 60 last year — while they remained relatively
constant in eastern Afghanistan, according to the U.S. military data.
"Insurgents are focusing more on gains and expansion opportunities in
Pakistan," the assessment stated.

Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, left little doubt yesterday that they believe U.S. troops –
whether in combat or as trainers — can bolster the efforts of
Pakistan’s military in the rugged and lawless Federally Administered
Tribal Areas, where U.S. officials say about 700 Pakistani troops
have been killed battling al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

"If asked to assist, I think we could do a lot," Mullen said at a
Pentagon news briefing.

Gates said that the possible joint combat operations, likely to
involve small teams of U.S. troops, are a topic of "ongoing dialogue"
with Pakistan’s leaders and that U.S. troops would join in the
fighting at Pakistan’s request.

"They have not fully thought through exactly how they intend to
proceed and their strategy going forward," Gates said. "I expect that
that will happen."

Gates said al-Qaeda has allied with other extremists in the border
area, possibly including Baitullah Mehsud, a tribal leader linked to
the Taliban. "They clearly are much more active and working with
other people," he said.

Rodriguez said Pakistani military leaders are increasingly willing
to cooperate in operations on either side of the border. There is "a
growing realization amongst all of them, that everybody needs to do
more together," he said at a Pentagon briefing this week.

Last year, the U.S. military in Afghanistan established a shared
computer link with the Pakistani military’s headquarters and set up
high-frequency radio communications to coordinate cross-border
operations. It also surveyed Pakistani, Afghan and U.S. border
positions, and stepped up training of Afghan border police.

In 2007, 110 American troops died fighting the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan . 925 Afghan government police also perished in the war.

British losses totaled 41 troops, while the Canadian military lost 30 troops in combat.

4,500 Taliban militants were killed in fighting,

Fighting in Afghanistan escalated in 2007, and the American casualty figures are the highest per year total since the initial invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

110 US troops die in Afghanistan in 2007–Associated Press, Dec. 31, 2007

A very interesting and detailed article on British Special Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the differences between UK and US Special Forces can be found at:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2461368.ece

More violence in Pakistan’s turbulent Baluchistan region:

Two bombs wound 7 in insurgency-hit southwestern Pakistan province–International Herald-Tribune, Aug. 12, 2007

"QUETTA, Pakistan: Two bombs exploded in separate towns in Pakistan’s insurgency-wracked southwestern Baluchistan province Sunday, wounding a total of seven people, police said.

One bomb, hidden in a plastic shopping bag, went off at a traffic intersection in Baluchistan’s capital, Quetta, wounding two policemen and two passers-by, said Rehmatullah Khan Niazi, a senior Quetta police officer.

No other damage was reported and there was no word on how seriously the four people were hurt."