Pakistani Military Allows Zardari Administration to Cooperate With Obama Strategy

Charles Lemos at MyDD parses the meaning of today's LA Times report that the U.S. military will be increasing Predator drone attacks inside Pakistan while giving "Pakistani officers significant control over targets, flight routes and decisions to launch attacks under a new joint operation":

The Pakistanization of the Afghan War seems all but complete. It seems we are now fighting Pakistan's war or perhaps they are fighting ours. Either way, the end results are the same. There is a mission creep and what is eerie is how little this is noticed. Somehow we remain fixated on Afghanistan even as a wider war is quickly gathering steam. Take Senator James Risch, Republican of Idaho, who painted a grim picture today at a hearing with Ambassador Holbrooke, saying he was stunned by a lack of progress in Afghanistan, which he called a "black hole" with no bottom. If that's Afghanistan, what's Pakistan?

This piece from S.M. Naseem at Dawn.com points out who the last key stakeholder to get on board with the idea of Pakistan and the U.S. military cooperating more closely -- it wasn't the Obama Administration, it wasn't Zardari, it was the Pakistani military:

President Zardari in Washington and Gen Kayani in Rawalpindi, with the blessings of the tripartite Af-Pak strategy meetings presided over by President Obama, prompted Prime Minister Gilani in Islamabad to tell the nation near midnight last week about the decision to call out the armed forces ‘to eliminate the militants and terrorists in order to restore the honour and dignity of our homeland, and to protect the people.’ That reassurance was needed since previous army operations were half-hearted and botched and the operation in Buner and Dir was hardly faring any better, notwithstanding the claims of the ISPR.

The broadcast recalled a similar dramatic moment two months ago when the prime minister in the early hours of the morning announced the reinstatement of the chief justice and the end of the siege of Islamabad by the security forces to prevent the lawyers’ long march. The armed forces — whose refusal to support the government action against the long march is believed to have played a role in reinstating the chief justice — overcame their reservations about a full-fledged military action against the Swat Taliban.

Nat Wilson Turner May 13, 2009 - 3:13pm

Nat Wilson Turner's diary | printer friendly version |

( categories: Pakistan )

Deja Vu all over again

NVA + Viet Cong vs Viet Minh.

What a wonderful place to be; in the middle of a civil war.

How to tell a Shepard from a Talianista?

Synoia May 13, 2009 - 9:08pm

We never would be in this Situatin

If Bush had not waged a meaningless war on Iraq.

Reality on the ground is that Al Qaeda has morphed into a regional power now, having lost a lot of their resources. The shut down in money has probably had the most devastating impact.

As a result their strategy now is a last stand in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan is the supply route to Afghanistan, so the parallels to Vietnam are eerie in terms of the creep of these conflicts.

However, the difference is stark. No where near the soldier commitments, but the technology being thrown at this is astronomical. US superiority of the air is what will be used. The civilian casualties for the most part have been the entourages of the Talibani and Al Qaeda soldiers.

The US will not stop now based on the reports I have been hearing. Obama has made a full force commitment to eradicating the Al Qaeda network and structures even if they are a regional power.

As far as the Taliban, the strategy is to hit them militarily. The groups have been disparate and unorganized. By fighting them they are forced to organize and concentrate. Ironically in a civil war military setting that is a good thing, because once they develop organization then the US can negotiate with the centralizing authorities and negotiate terms, and a peace. There are no central authorities right now to negotiate with so they sort of fight them into a centralized form.

The thing to keep in mind is there is no goal to win here, only to disorganize and disrupt. That lens is not applicable in modern warfare anymore.

It is a new US strategy, that grew out of British conflicts in Ireland and Obama has picked up on the idea and pitched it to the Joint Chiefs. From what I hear the strategic plan is brilliant.

Scotjen61 May 15, 2009 - 9:03am

Pretty interesting take. Got

Pretty interesting take. Got any sources you can link to? I like the "sort of fight them into a centralized form" angle -- hadn't thought of that before but it is at least a rational idea and at least makes theoretical sense.

Nat Wilson Turner May 15, 2009 - 9:36am

Here is a nice bit of analysis from Stratfor

"As the Pakistani Taliban spread their insurgency beyond the northwestern Pashtun areas and into the country’s core — the government is trying to contain them in an area some 100 miles from Islamabad — concerns are being raised about the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. These concerns are not unfounded. Although security forces are beginning to wage a more concerted campaign against the insurgents, the Pakistani state continues to be weakened by mounting political, economic and security issues. Indeed, it is unclear to what extent the government can effectively counter the Taliban’s advance."

"But the idea of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal falling into jihadist hands is of such security significance worldwide that it is important to understand the true nature of the threat and put it into context. While the concerns are not unfounded, neither are they presumptive in the context of the Taliban offensive. There are significant differences between Pakistan’s northwestern periphery and its core that limit the Taliban’s ability to make territorial gains beyond the Pashtun areas and in the core provinces of Punjab and Sindh. Moreover, the guarantor of state security and stability in Pakistan is the army, and as long as it holds together as an institution, the Pakistani state, despite its many problems, is unlikely to collapse or become the stage for a nuclear launch. Six of the nine corps that make up the Pakistani army are permanently based in Punjab, compared to one corps for all of the North-West Frontier Province and the tribal areas."

The sole focus of the US is on Al Qaeda. As far as the Taliban goes, the objective is negotiation and stabilization. There is also the matter of securing Pakistani nuclear weapons, which is nearly complete with the primary danger now solely related to a rogue jihadist that gets inside the military infrastructure somehow. Pakistan outside the current Talibani areas are actually more modern and focused to the oceans.

It's always the landlocked areas, the isolated regions, that create unrest.

Scotjen61 May 15, 2009 - 10:53am

If this is a brilliant strategic plan, I'd hate...

...to see a stupid one. Playing to allies' weaknesses and enemies' strengths isn't exactly what I think of as optimal. I'd like to be more optimistic, but I ain't.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

JustPlainDave May 15, 2009 - 11:57am

but but it is Zardari's stategy, he says so :D

President Asif Ali Zardari reiterated on Friday that militants would be defeated at every cost. Addressing a joint press conference along with his French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy, he said Taliban militants want to impose their personal agenda on us. “They tried to enforce their self-defined ideology on us,” Zardari said, adding that militants would be defeated at every cost. He further said that “The United States and Europe have agreed to our policy about terrorism.” The president said that France would provide every possible assistance to Pakistan

The Nation[Pak]

Tina May 15, 2009 - 10:04am

I Like It

At least they are taking ownership:)

Again the focus is on Al Qaeda, and they ARE trying to consider the Talibani within a more political solution context. The idea is going to be to form a wedge between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, to make their interests diverge from one another.

Scotjen61 May 15, 2009 - 10:57am

In a First, U.S. Provides Pakistan With Drone Data

Eric Schmitt & Mark Mazzetti | Washington D.C. | May 13

NYT - The United States military for the first time has provided Pakistan with a broad array of surveillance information collected by American drones flying along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan, American military officials said Wednesday.

But it is not clear whether the cooperation will continue. While American military drones flew a handful of noncombat surveillance missions along the border earlier this spring at the request of the Pakistani government, requests for additional flights abruptly stopped without explanation, the officials said.

The offer to give Pakistan a much larger amount of imagery, including real-time video feeds and communications intercepts gleaned by remotely piloted aircraft, was intended to help defuse a growing dispute over how to use the drones and which country should control the secret missions flown in Pakistani airspace, American officials said.

snip

American military officials said Wednesday that there was no plan to allow the military to join the C.I.A. in operating armed drones inside Pakistan. They disputed a report in The Los Angeles Times on Tuesday that said Pakistan had been given joint control of armed American military drones inside Pakistan.

JustPlainDave May 15, 2009 - 11:50am

Search

latest

User login

Navigation

Create new account

Team Agonist

Thoughtful

Global

Timely

Who's online

Online users:

Syndicate

Pakistani Military Allows Zardari Administration to Cooperate With Obama Strategy

Comment viewing options