Afghanistan - A Strategic Analysis

Amin sahib,

Well-written.

One point regarding the non-deployment of troops on the A'stan frontier. Why is Pakistan not stationing troops there. There can be only two explanations- 1. It does not want to weaken its eastern frontier. 2. It does not want to fight the Pushtoons there.

1. is clearly nonsense. Seriously the Pakis dont think that Indians want to attack Pakistan.

So would you say that it is becuase Pakistan does not want to fight the Pushtoons/ Afghans?

And what do you make of the latest deployment of troops in W'stan? Especially the use of tanks. What good wud tanks do in the mountainous terrain of W'stan?

Regards

Thanks Pavo.

How do you view today's statement of U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that the United States is "ready, able and willing" to send troops to Pakistan if the government of Pakistan is interested?

I tend to think before the elections date there could be a major incident (another political assassination etc) and the GOP just might show that 'interest'.

Of-course in the background that an additional 9,000 US troops arrived in AF last month. Obviously these would be intended for Pakistan.

Pavo,

Moreover the Pashtun leadership was transformed and changed hands from a previously more dynastic one to a more ideological one ...

From above it would be correct to say that the original Mujahideen were fighting a 'proxy war' while the neo-Taliban are fighting an 'ideological war'.

Amin Saheb:
Another thought provoking article.
"The most significant feature of the Soviet Afghan War of 1978-1992 was a fusion of non State and State actors. State actors like USA and Pakistan used non State actors like the so called Mujahideen as proxies to inflict attrition on State actors i. e the USSR and the PDPA regime and their armed forces. As a result the non State actors acquired technology and skills that in the long run would threaten State actors. There was a transition to Fourth Generation Warfare in which the state was no longer the stronger player. Non State actors challenged the supremacy of the very idea of state by using ingenious expedients, which were cost effective in the sense that devices of sabotage worth a small amount could destroy property or installations a 100, 000 times their small value."

Well said!

Has it occurred to you that, even at this stage, Pakistan will have many more degrees of freedom and options if its military establishment gave up its inbred hostility against India in order to deal with its existentialist struggle?

Re: # 1 i pity the brother armoured corps guys whose tanks are deployed there .tanks as the soviet afghan war proved convincingly are a total failure in waziristan type terrain.

its a proof of I think Pope's verse :--

never set a squadron in the field nor knew the division of battle more than a spinster

Re: # 4 the muslims as you know were saved from extinction by the east india company.to gain a position of unfair advantage the muslim elite classes created pakistan.

now i think both countries should come closer.rationally at least.but who will bell the cat.the paki generals have a notorious nexus with americans and the punjabi mohajir and pashtun elite are also a partner in this.the sindhis and baloch are the aborigines in this case.

Re: # 3 u r right sir.

Re: # 2 once the US troops enter pakistan the paki generals will lose all credibility . but the fact is thet in order to make the americans happy the paki military junta will go to any extent.

pavocavalry.

What about #2?

Re: # 1 ideally pakistan army should not be in the tribal areas at all.but the americans are doing a lot of arm twisting.......and the americans threaten them that if you are not good boys we will make the indians deal with u.

#8 Posted by pavocavalry,

Thanks. But do you regard this statement as as indication of an imminent intervention?

i think this would be a great opportunity for the tribals to deal with the hated kuffar ! it would be counter productive for americans and the pakistan army will also lose credibility . lets hope that the new army boss sees to this.

Re: # 11 intervention is clearly the writing on the wall.and it is to destroy whatever is left of the credibility of the paki army.ultimately the US will use the paki army as a mercenary force for tactical garbage collecting in the region.

#12 Posted by pavocavalry,

Yes I remember you said before that they're waiting for them to come.

But what I don't understand, why's there fighting in Darra Adam Khel? Darra is not Waziristan, and military lost 5 ammunition trucks hijacked yesterday.

Re: # 14 naturally if one limb of the same body is attacked , another will respond , further it is not difficult to infiltrate to darra from waziristan cross country, a couple of snipers can play havoc with an army, thats the beauty of frontier warfare, the tribals are no punjabis whose mosques were used by sikhs as horse stables as badshahi mosque lahore , the tribals are no settled area pashtuns who were saved from sikhs by english east india company in 1849.

the mullahs of peshawar,kohat and bannu proclaimed the english company as saviour of muslims from sikhs in 1849

#15 Posted by pavocavalry,

Haha Pavo yes, but these trucks had tank escorts according to the military spokesman (he said tanks were only being used as convoy escorts, and not as artillery ...).