War and Conflict Journal

An American drone attack apparently killed 80 people in Pakistan’s turbulent and rebellious border country, but the chief target, Jihadist leader Baitullah Mehsud, escaped.

The drone attack struck a funeral held for a Taliban leader killed in an earlier drone strike that same day.  The drone strikes today were the 19^th and 20^th drone attacks since Barack Obama took office in January.  There were only 24 known American drone attacks in Pakistan during the Bush Administration, spanning the years 2004 through January 1, 2009.

Recent drone attacks seem to be targeting Baitullah Mehsud’s organization, which is central to the Taliban rebellion against the Pakistani government.

Strike Reportedly Missed Chief of Pakistani Taliban by Hours—NYTimes, June 24, 2009

Drone attacks on Pakistan by the United States—Wikipedia Article

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

India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed neighbors who have already fought three major wars and several minor wars against each other, exchanged fire across their mutual border in the Kashmir region.

See the article below from http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/03/21/asia/AS-Kashmir-Shooting.php

for more information:

Indian troops were fired upon across the heavily fortified frontier in the Himalayan region of Kashmir, injuring a soldier, army officials said Saturday, even as Pakistan blamed Indian army soldiers for the shooting.

Brig. Gopala Krishnan Murali, a senior Indian army officer in India’s Jammu-Kashmir state, would not say whether suspected Islamic rebels or Pakistani soldiers initiated Friday’s firing, but said that a formal complaint had been lodged with Pakistan.

Pakistan’s army, meanwhile, said it was Indian troops who “resorted to unprovoked firing.” An army statement said that a protest had been filed “for cease-fire violation.”

The overwhelmingly Muslim region has been the focus of two of the three wars between India and Pakistan, who both claim Kashmir. Relations between the two have been further strained by last year’s terror attacks in Mumbai that killed 164 people.

India has blamed the attack on Lashkar-e-Taiba, an Islamist militant group widely believed to be created by Pakistani intelligence agencies in the 1980s to fight Indian rule in the divided Kashmir region.

A gunbattle broke out in the Uri region, about 80 miles (130 kilometers) west of the state capital of Srinagar, after Indian forces were fired upon, Murali said. They returned fire, and the clash lasted about three hours.

Exchanges of gunfire along the Line of Control — as the frontier separating Indian and Pakistani territory in Kashmir is known — were a regular occurrence before the two sides signed a cease-fire in late 2003. There have been several incidents since the agreement, with both sides accusing the other of initiating the shootings.

This is the first such incident this year, Indian army spokesman Lt. Col. J.S. Brar said.

Nearly a dozen Islamic rebel groups have been fighting for Kashmir’s independence from India or its merger with Pakistan. More than 68,000 people, most of them civilians, have been killed in the conflict since 1989, and India routinely accuses Pakistan of assisting the insurgents, a charge Islamabad denies.

Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/03/21/asia/AS-Kashmir-Shooting.php

Comments by Indian officials indicate that the terrorists who
attacked Mumbai this week are believed to be affiliated with the Muslim
Kashmiri group, Lashkar -e- Taiba.  Lashkar is a violent
organization which seeks to separate Muslim-majority Kashmir from India.

Lashkar -e- Taiba has received major aid and training from
Pakistan's intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)
in the past, and if Lashkar is indeed implicated in the Mumbai attacks,
India may feel it has to respond with military force against Pakistan.

However, regardless of which Muslim extremist group is behind the
attack, most likely one of their goals is to sabotage the recent
rapprochement between the sub-continent's two most long-standing
enemies.  Pakistan's new civilian leadership has been trying to
increase peace talks with India, but this new policy does not have the
backing of Pakistan's security services, including the powerful
ISI. 

If India retaliates militarily against targets in Pakistan, it could
very well set off another major war between two old foes, who now both
possess nuclear weapons.  This situation could get very worse,
very quickly.

What is known about the Mumbai attacks as of Friday morning, Nov. 28, 2008

• Attackers entered the Mumbai waterfront via boats near the Gateway
of India monument on Wednesday night. They then hijacked cars,
including a police van, and split into at least three groups to carry
out their attacks.

• One group headed toward the Cafe Leopold, a popular spot for
Western tourists, firing their weapons at people on the street. The
terrorists then opened fire and threw grenades at the Chhatrapati
Shivaji Terminus railway station. As police toward the scene of the
attacks, the terrorists then attacked the Cama Hospital, which is a
medical facility for women and infants. Several people were killed at
the hospital, with the standoff ending Thursday morning.

• Two other groups of attackers entered the Oberoi and Taj Mahal
hotels, taking hostages in both luxury hotels. By Friday, the
authorities claimed that the situation at the Oberoi was over.

• Terrorists took hostages at the Chabad House (at 5 Hormusji Street
- Nariman House – Colaba Mumbai, 400-005 India ), a Jewish religious
center in Mumbai where several Jewish families live. Rabbi Gavriel
Holtzberg, the city's envoy for the community, was being held inside
with his wife, a member of the Hasidic Jewish movement said. Gunmen and
hostages still were believed to be in the house Friday morning when
police retook Chabad House, and reported that 5 hostages and 2
terrorists were found dead.

Explosions at the Chabad House, Mumbai, India.

• Fire brigades battled blazes at both hotels. By early Friday, it
appeared what had been a major fire at the Oberoi had been
extinguished.

• By Friday morning, 146 had been killed in the attacks, including
at least six foreigners, authorities said. An Italian and a Briton were
among the confirmed dead. More than 300 people were wounded, including
seven Britons, three Americans and two Australians.

• At least nine gunmen were killed in fighting with police by Friday
morning. Also among the dead were 14 police officers and the chief of
the Mumbai police anti-terror squad. Authorities said they believe the
attacks were carried out by a total of about 26 terrorists.

• The Indian navy had detained a ship off the west coast with the
help of the Indian coast guard. It is believed that the attackers'
boats came from this ship, and that they believe the ship is from
Karachi, Pakistan. The Pakistani government has denied any involvement
in the Mumbai attacks.

• Several Indian news outlets report a group called the Deccan
Mujahedeen e-mailed them to claim responsibility. Intelligence
officials say little is known about the group. U.S. officials and
security analysts say the sophistication of the attacks may indicate a
more-established group is involved.

Once again, the Western Indian city of Mumbai was rocked by
terrorist attacks, as at least 100 died in a coordinated terror
operation apparently aimed, at least partially, at American
and British citizens.

Early reports indicate the coordinated attacks targeted at least ten
locations in Mumbai, which is a major financial center in India.
Reports indicate between 87 to 100 people died, with several hundred
wounded.

Indian news sources indicate a group calling itself the Deccan
Mujahedeen claimed credit for the attacks. Targets included two major
hotels frequented by Westerners, as well as the train station and a
hospital. 

As more details emerge, one major thing to look for is who India
blames for this attack.  Many past terrorist attacks have been
blamed on Kashmiri separatists, who in the past have operated with
significant support from Pakistan.  There are elements in the
Indian government and in the military, for strong responses to any
sort of Islamic terrorism, and the more right-wing Hindu nationalist
elements in India will likely cry out for revenge, either on India's
large Muslim minority, or on Pakistan itself.  Either response
would likely play directly into the hands of whichever militant group
is really behind this attack. 

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: