[Peace-discuss] End the war in Pakistan (more)

[C. G. Estabrook]

[As always with such things, you have to begin by asking, Who "released" this 
story, and why now? - i.e., to what purpose? Why did Nixon kill Cambodians? Why 
did the chicken cross the road? --CGE]

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Mon, December 20, 2010 -- 8:06 PM ET
-----

U.S. Seeks to Expand Ground Raids Into Pakistan Against Militants

Senior American military commanders in Afghanistan are
pushing for an expanded campaign of Special Operations ground
raids across the border into Pakistan's tribal areas, a risky
strategy reflecting the growing frustration with Pakistan's
efforts to root out militants there.

The proposal, described by American officials in Washington
and Afghanistan, would escalate military activities inside
Pakistan, where the movement of American forces has been
largely prohibited because of fears of provoking a backlash.

The plan has not yet been approved, but military and
political leaders say a renewed sense of urgency has taken
hold, as the deadline approaches for the Obama administration
to begin withdrawing its forces from Afghanistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/world/asia/21intel.html?emc=na


On 12/18/10 11:37 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> "This is basically an undeclared war, which is one of the reasons why the
> incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee wants to update the
> congressional authorization on taking military action ... the U.S.’ top military
> officer visited Islamabad to warn of America’s 'strategic impatience' with the
> Pakistanis ... the 'frail and reversible' progress in Afghanistan ... is said to
> set the stage for starting to draw down NATO combat forces from 2011 to 2014.
> And that doesn’t mean an end to the war. The summary explicitly points to
> 'NATO’s enduring commitment beyond 2014' ... But Afghanistan is the sideshow now
> ... the fight in Afghanistan has become more like the fight in Pakistan, with
> air strikes tripled ... Special Operations raids are at a new high,
> surface-to-surface missiles are in use in Kandahar, and Marine tanks are rolling
> through Helmand."
>
>
> Obama: Never Mind Afghanistan, It’s All About The Drones
> By Spencer Ackerman December 16, 2010 | 9:42 am | Categories: Af/Pak
>
> One year and 30,000 new troops later, Afghanistan is peripheral to the
> Afghanistan war. According to the Obama administration’s review of its strategy,
> it’s official: this a U.S. drone war in Pakistan with a big, big U.S. troop
> component next door.
>
> Sure, the troop surge is working, according to a summary of the long-anticipated
> review that the administration released today. But that assessment, reminiscent
> of years of Bush administration statements about Iraq during that war’s darkest
> days, is conditional and said to be fragile. Taliban “momentum has been arrested
> in much of the country” and “reversed in some key areas.” The goal for 2010 was
> to break the Taliban’s momentum.
>
> But in any event, that’s the goal for Afghanistan, which the review doesn’t even
> address until the end. The aim of the wider campaign, reiterated in the summary,
> is to crush al-Qaeda across the border in Pakistan’s tribal areas, defined as
> taking away their bases and the “elimination of the group’s remaining leadership
> cadre.” In other words: whacking moles, all through massively stepped-up CIA
> drone strikes, despite years of warnings that they won’t lead to victory.
> “Significant progress” has been made in killing al-Qaeda leaders, the summary
> says, but there isn’t any real attempt to connect any of that to what U.S.
> troops are doing in Afghanistan.
>
> And since the CIA drone program is technically secret, the review’s public
> summary asserts nebulously that Pakistani forces and some U.S. effort
> contributed to that progress. What’s that effort actually been? One hundred and
> ten drone strikes, supported by CIA’s teams of Pashtun spotters recruited in
> Afghanistan, double the number of strikes in 2009, which was a big increase from
> 2008. This is basically an undeclared war, which is one of the reasons why the
> incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee wants to update the
> congressional authorization on taking military action against al-Qaeda.
>
> In the summary, American officials hug Pakistan tightly, giving big praise to
> the Pakistani military and patting itself on the back for strengthening
> diplomatic ties to Islamabad. But recent U.S. intelligence reports give dim
> prospects for Pakistani troops actually eliminating al-Qaeda’s safe havens. Just
> this morning, Pakistan’s defense minister brushed the U.S. back further on the
> save-haven question, saying, “We can ‘do more’ only whenever we can. We have to
> see to our interests first.” That comes the day after the U.S.’ top military
> officer visited Islamabad to warn of America’s “strategic impatience” with the
> Pakistanis.
>
> Then there’s another problem. Over the past year, al-Qaeda’s Yemen-based
> affiliate has attempted repeatedly to strike the U.S., through near-misses at
> blowing up passenger and cargo aircraft, and to inspire U.S. Muslims to pull off
> homegrown terrorist attacks. One of the tools of provocation, according to
> would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad: The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and
> Pakistan, including the drone strikes. The summary has to concede that killing
> al-Qaeda in Pakistan “will not completely eliminate the terrorist threat to U.S.
> interests.”
>
> Obama’s summary doesn’t address how to mitigate the provocative effects of the
> war. Its assessment of the war in Afghanistan is cautious and vague — although,
> to be sure, this is just the unclassified version of a longer, secret report, so
> perhaps there’s more detail in the secret version. But the “frail and
> reversible” progress in Afghanistan — giving the Taliban a bloody nose in
> Kandahar, training Afghan soldiers and cops — is said to set the stage for
> starting to draw down NATO combat forces from 2011 to 2014. And that doesn’t
> mean an end to the war. The summary explicitly points to “NATO’s enduring
> commitment beyond 2014.” What effect that will have on future Faisal Shahzads
> goes unaddressed.
>
> But Afghanistan is the sideshow now. If anything, to show progress in time for
> the strategy review, the fight in Afghanistan has become more like the fight in
> Pakistan, with air strikes tripled. What’s more, Special Operations raids are at
> a new high, surface-to-surface missiles are in use in Kandahar, and Marine tanks
> are rolling through Helmand. “The emphasis is shifting,” General “Hoss”
> Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently remarked,
> away from counterinsurgency and toward counterterrorism.
>
> It’s ironic. Along with Vice President Biden, Cartwright was skeptical of a
> troop surge and counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, arguing for a
> Pakistan-based counterterrorism strategy. Judging from the summary today, they
> lost the internal debate — and won the argument.
>