NationStates Jolt Archive

Pakistan has summoned the US ambassador to protest at an alleged cross-border raid which officials say killed at least 15 villagers in the north-west.

A number of civilians were reported killed in the raid, which Pakistan says was a violation of its sovereignty.

Correspondents say the raid appears to have been the first ever ground assault by foreign forces based in Afghanistan.

US-led and Nato forces said they had no reports of any such incursion. Border tensions have risen in recent weeks.

The BBC's Syed Shoaib Hasan in Islamabad says US aircraft have carried out air strikes in the region, but a ground assault would be unprecedented.

It is not clear who the target of any attack might have been.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said Pakistan would not allow any foreign power to carry out attacks on its territory.

He was speaking hours after his motorcade was hit by sniper fire near the capital, Islamabad. Senior government officials say he was not in the car at the time.

'Act of aggression'

Pakistani military and political officials say ground troops brought in by US-led coalition helicopters launched the attack in the South Waziristan tribal area near the Afghan border early on Wednesday morning.

Map

Locals say soldiers attacked with gunfire and bombs. Women and children were among those reported killed.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Sadiq said a "very strong protest" had been delivered to the ambassador, Anne Paterson.

"The ambassador said that she would convey it to her government," he said.

The army called the attack an act of aggression which undermined the fight against militancy.

North West Frontier Province (NWFP) Governor Owais Ahmed Ghani, who is in administrative charge of the tribal areas, called the attack "cowardly".

"At least 20 innocent citizens of Pakistan, including women and children, were martyred," he said in a statement.

There is mounting US pressure on Pakistan - a key ally in the "war on terror" - to crack down on militants, who use the border region to launch raids into Afghanistan.

The Afghan government and Nato say the border region is a haven for al-Qaeda and the Taleban. Pakistan says it is doing all it can to curb militancy.

On Monday, Pakistan's military suspended its operations against Taleban militants in the neighbouring Bajaur tribal area.

The government said this suspension of fighting was to respect the fasting month of Ramadan.

Taleban spokesman Maulvi Omar welcomed the announcement, but he said militants would not lay down their arms.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7597529.stm

So what impact would this have on the region and "War on Terror"?

Its about time. Too bad they cant stay.

If it's true, it doesn't surprise me at all. The Taliban gets its soldiers and equipment from Pakistan these days, the mountainous regions of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan are pretty much uncontrolled by the central government in Islamabad. So I can actually sympathize with attempts to seek and destroy your enemy in their home bases. This might very well not be the first covert operation in Pakistan by US and/or NATO commandos, just the first one to leak out.

So are they coarsely ground or finely ground? Do they get reconstituted by adding water?

So are they coarsely ground or finely ground? Do they get reconstituted by adding water?

Finely and for your 2nd question, more research is needed.

This is fucking horrible.

1) It's a violation of the sovereignty of the nation. An allied nation, no less. (I suppose its no longer a shock or horror if America violates the sovereignty of non-allied nations.)

2) Killing innocent men, women and children is a war crime. Sorry folks, you will never be able to convince me that the victims "deserved it" in any moral way.

3) Note that the Governor in the article says the dead were "martyred." So I believe the US attack was related to the "War on Terror;" it seems to have been directly calculated to exacerbate the issues and increase anti-US sentiments abroad. Good job, fuckers.

What pisses me off is how few people in my own country will venture to criticize this. It's like if we just went and started bombing rural villages in CANADA. Oh, but that's a predominately white Christian nation, so there people might actually object.

In b4 new war.

All they have to do is turn over Osama Bin Laden and this whole problem can just go away.

So far there doesn't seem to be any indication this occurred, other than a statement by the new Pakistani PM whose political motivations are not yet clear.

Moreover even if it did occur, that region is not exactly set up with border patrol, they may have not known they crossed the border. A mountain path in Afghanistan looks pretty much the same as a mountain path in Pakistan.

Not saying it's a good thing, but troops accidentally crossing the border is a far cry from "US INVADES PAKISTAN!!!!"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7597529.stm

So what impact would this have on the region and "War on Terror"?

I know what effect it'll have on CH ever being able to claim that "invading" and attacking inside Pakistan is a strictly Obama idea.

It's alleged at the moment, and we don't know if it was a sanctioned thing if it was really US forces, or a bunch of yahoos deciding to take matters into their own hands. Wouldn't be the first time. Need more information to say for certain.

Well OK, for the "its alleged" and "they are probably making it up" crowd, just what would qualify as verification for you? An admission by the US government?

So far there doesn't seem to be any indication this occurred, other than a statement by the new Pakistani PM whose political motivations are not yet clear.

Moreover even if it did occur, that region is not exactly set up with border patrol, they may have not known they crossed the border. A mountain path in Afghanistan looks pretty much the same as a mountain path in Pakistan.

Not saying it's a good thing, but troops accidentally crossing the border is a far cry from "US INVADES PAKISTAN!!!!"

This is entierly true. However if this is the case it's important to investigate the incident to determine if it happened, if so why and if it was an accident put measures in place to avoid this happening again.

Randomly pissing off Pakistan is a bad idea. Not only because we want to keep their new government as our allies but also because at the moment their government is relatively moderate and progressive (for the region at least). The last thing you want is for the perception that are under attack by an external western power which will inevitably lead to an increased popular support for the radical islamic parties.

Well OK, for the "its alleged" and "they are probably making it up" crowd, just what would qualify as verification for you? An admission by the US government?

something that would actually constitute proof. There's no way to tell one way or another right now if it's true. As a world leader he gets some degree of benefit of the doubt, and I wouldn't be all that surprised if it were true, but I'm not willing to condemn people for something until I have some substantiation to the claim that they did it.

Hehehe. Who do you think does the laser designations for all those bombs the aircraft drop in those airstrikes? Trust me, we've had guys in Patistan before. In fact, we probably have some in Pakistan right now. They just never left witnesses before. ;)

This is entierly true. However if this is the case it's important to investigate the incident to determine if it happened, if so why and if it was an accident put measures in place to avoid this happening again.

Randomly pissing off Pakistan is a bad idea. Not only because we want to keep their new government as our allies but also because at the moment their government is relatively moderate and progressive (for the region at least). The last thing you want is for the perception that are under attack by an external western power which will inevitably lead to an increased popular support for the radical islamic parties.

well to be sure it's certainly not a GOOD thing. But we're long on rhetoric, short on facts, I'd prefer to know the actual situation before passing judgment.

Well OK, for the "its alleged" and "they are probably making it up" crowd, just what would qualify as verification for you? An admission by the US government?

Proof usually. 5.56mm shell casings at the village where this took place for example, since that is predominantly a NATO cartridge. Eyewitness statements are another.

Regardless of whether US troops have made incursions into Pakistan or not, this is a new leader taking a line, and that line is directed as much at Pakistan and the general region as it is at the world.

He's saying that he will not be the puppet that [as he portrays] Pervez was, that he will stand up to America.

All the while it's business as usual because they'll sure continue to take the money and they'll sure continue to fuck around in actually doing anything.

Perhaps it's asking for more money, gambling on the hard line for new concessions, perhaps it's stabilising a new leader's position.

Fact is that it's a diplomatic statement and a stupid one at that. Whatever the rights or wrongs, it's signaling a hard line stance and it bodes ill for the situation in that region.

Frankly, I think they did it.

However, my issue here is that at what point do we, you know, actually fight back against militants that are attacking us.

I'm not saying the solution is easy and I'm not saying we should be sending troops into Pakistan, but there aren't any judges to complain to here. People are dying and we're stopping at an imaginary line and crossing our fingers that someone else will protect us.

Soldiers are human, too. They're disciplined, but at some point when people keep coming over and shooting and blowing up their friends, they're going to settle it.

Well OK, for the "its alleged" and "they are probably making it up" crowd, just what would qualify as verification for you? An admission by the US government?

Physical evidence would probably satisfy me. That, and maybe some pizza.

overall this is a good thing. we likely targeted an important cell of activity for the laden/ taliban. more over the Pakistani response will be to send troops to the area to discourage us from crossing the boarder. which will have the added benefit of getting the Pakistanis to root out these cells in the future. net result less cost in American lives and less cost on the tax payer. Win Win for the US.

This is fucking horrible.

1) It's a violation of the sovereignty of the nation. An allied nation, no less. (I suppose its no longer a shock or horror if America violates the sovereignty of non-allied nations.)

bwahahahahahah

When Pakistan gives a crap about the sovereignty of its neighbors, I will give a crap to Pakistan's sovereignty. :tongue:


it seems to have been directly calculated to exacerbate the issues and increase anti-US sentiments abroad. Good job, fuckers.

really?

Honestly, in a day from now, this will be a non-news.

really?

Honestly, in a day from now, this will be a non-news.
I dunno... I've seen topics here suddenly appear on the news media several days later. so who know... ;)

Just wait and learn how deep the rabbit hole goes... if there is a rabbit hole, that is.

Bout damn time....Unfortunately about 5 years too late...


Shoulda been in there from the start not pussyfootin around in Iraq...

bwahahahahahah

When Pakistan gives a crap about the sovereignty of its neighbors, I will give a crap to Pakistan's sovereignty. :tongue:

That's sort of like saying, "When Nazi Germany gives a crap about slaughtering millions of innocent people, I will too."

There's this whole, having-principals thing that most people do where you don't suddenly become an international criminal just because someone else [allegedly] is one.


really?

Honestly, in a day from now, this will be a non-news.

In the Muslim world? In the Middle East? You know if people just conveniently 'forgot' things like this, I don't believe there'd be a problem with terrorism at all. But they don't, and so there is, and will continue to be.

Proof usually. 5.56mm shell casings at the village where this took place for example, since that is predominantly a NATO cartridge. Eyewitness statements are another.

a 5.56 mm shell casing is almost identical to a .223 caliber. (really hard to spot the difference after its been fired.) in fact the rounds can be used interchangeably between semi autos designed for their use. the .223 is a very popular hunting round. and even if 5.56 rounds were used that still inconclusive since it may well have been left over arms from the 1980's USSR Vs Afghan war when we supplied them.

a 5.56 mm shell casing is almost identical to a .223 caliber. (really hard to spot the difference after its been fired.) in fact the rounds can be used interchangeably between semi autos designed for their use. the .223 is a very popular hunting round. and even if 5.56 rounds were used that still inconclusive since it may well have been left over arms from the 1980's USSR Vs Afghan war when we supplied them.

A shell casing from 20 years ago and one relatively new would be a bit easy to distinguish wouldn't it?

In either case, how widespread is the .223 round in Pakistan anyway?

2) Killing innocent men, women and children is a war crime. Sorry folks, you will never be able to convince me that the victims "deserved it" in any moral way.

I don't think the government even keeps track of war crimes anymore. It's like trying to count all the grains of sand in our beaches.

What pisses me off is how few people in my own country will venture to criticize this. It's like if we just went and started bombing rural villages in CANADA. Oh, but that's a predominately white Christian nation, so there people might actually object.

But Canadians are so nice. :( They wouldn't even object, they'd just be disappointed in us.

All they have to do is turn over Osama Bin Laden and this whole problem can just go away.

This was meant to be lolworthy, right? Just checking, you can never be sure.

I know what effect it'll have on CH ever being able to claim that "invading" and attacking inside Pakistan is a strictly Obama idea.

Absolutely none? Yeah, that's my guess too.

overall this is a good thing. we likely targeted an important cell of activity for the laden/ taliban. more over the Pakistani response will be to send troops to the area to discourage us from crossing the boarder. which will have the added benefit of getting the Pakistanis to root out these cells in the future. net result less cost in American lives and less cost on the tax payer. Win Win for the US.

We aren't looking for bin Laden anymore, remember? The President could not be less concerned over his whereabouts.

I've run your "invading a dangerous nation = fewer American deaths" equation several times. The calculator exploded.

Bout damn time....Unfortunately about 5 years too late...


Shoulda been in there from the start not pussyfootin around in Iraq...

Yes, we should definitely be telling MORE of the world's sovereign nations how they should be run, since we ourselves are such a shining example of democracy and progress.

A shell casing from 20 years ago and one relatively new would be a bit easy to distinguish wouldn't it?

In either case, how widespread is the .223 round in Pakistan anyway?

Not really because the US military recycles shell casings. and they often sit for several years before use. Very likely a Us solider is firing a 20 year old round.
it is one of the most popular hunting rounds. and it fits in automatic weapons give to the region by the US in the 1980's. so I would say very popular.

That's sort of like saying, "When Nazi Germany gives a crap about slaughtering millions of innocent people, I will too."

Nice little godwin there.

In the Muslim world? In the Middle East? You know if people just conveniently 'forgot' things like this, I don't believe there'd be a problem with terrorism at all. But they don't, and so there is, and will continue to be.

In a few days, this thread will be in 3rd page. That is the reality.

Not really because the US military recycles shell casings. and they often sit for several years before use. Very likely a Us solider is firing a 20 year old round.
it is one of the most popular hunting rounds. and it fits in automatic weapons give to the region by the US in the 1980's. so I would say very popular.

I imagine that at the very least, the US military takes some care to clean their rounds in the recycling process, and stores them someplace where they won't be exposed to much dirt.

A 20 year old spent shell casing sitting in the dirt in the mountains of Pakistan, will most likely be much more degraded than a freshly fired NATO round I suspect.

I can't really see the US weapons of the 1980s being in much use anymore in Pakistan's border regions anyway. Not with the proliferation of comparatively sturdier and cheaper Soviet era weapons

Hehehe. Who do you think does the laser designations for all those bombs the aircraft drop in those airstrikes? Trust me, we've had guys in Patistan before. In fact, we probably have some in Pakistan right now. They just never left witnesses before. ;)
:eek2:

I AM SHOCKED AND STUNNED BY THIS! SHOCKED... AND... STUNNED :tongue:

That's sort of like saying, "When Nazi Germany gives a crap about slaughtering millions of innocent people, I will too."
Godwin for the lose.
There's this whole, having-principals thing that most people do where you don't suddenly become an international criminal just because someone else [allegedly] is one.
Almost everyone becomes an international criminal as soon as they gain the force projection to be able to do so.
In the Muslim world? In the Middle East? You know if people just conveniently 'forgot' things like this, I don't believe there'd be a problem with terrorism at all. But they don't, and so there is, and will continue to be.
Who gives a flying fuck if the people of Warizstan are a bit upset? Since they've had predators overflying them for years dropping bombs on Taliban leaders' houses or firing missiles at their cars, as well as (allegedly) larger-scale bombing raids and doubtless hundreds of ground incursions by US and coalition special forces elements, they're probably about as pissed off as they can get.

Not really because the US military recycles shell casings. and they often sit for several years before use. Very likely a Us solider is firing a 20 year old round.
it is one of the most popular hunting rounds. and it fits in automatic weapons give to the region by the US in the 1980's. so I would say very popular.

It is one of the most popular hunting rounds in the US. I will wager that you do not find anywhere near the number of .223s in the border regions that you claim there are, and as such that a fair number of recently fired shell casings there would be evidence.

For a start, the 7.62 is easily far more popular, and in other cases things like old bolt-actions are used. But M16 family and stuff? Little to none.

It is one of the most popular hunting rounds in the US. I will wager that you do not find anywhere near the number of .223s in the border regions that you claim there are, and as such that a fair number of recently fired shell casings there would be evidence.

For a start, the 7.62 is easily far more popular, and in other cases things like old bolt-actions are used. But M16 family and stuff? Little to none.

The only rounds you'll usually find in Pakistani back-country are 7.62mm Warsaw and British .303. Those are the guns they have, those are the rounds they use.

T
2) Killing innocent men, women and children is a war crime. Sorry folks, you will never be able to convince me that the victims "deserved it" in any moral way.


No, not necessarily. Read up on your laws of war, particularly the Hague Convention. Aside from "if they shoot at you, you can shoot at them" (always an applicable rule), there's also the fact that soldiers are under no obligation to avoid killing human shields; in fact, the protection of such is totally the responsibility of the person using them.

They don't "deserve it", no. But killing civilians is not always a war crime.

The only rounds you'll usually find in Pakistani back-country are 7.62mm Warsaw and British .303. Those are the guns they have, those are the rounds they use.

Indeed. Despite that, greed and death seems to think the .223 would be common enough that the presence of large numbers of such shell cases doesn't necessarily prove US involvement. As a result, we can conclude he is wrong.

Nice little godwin there.

Sorry, I see the concept of analogy is lost on you. My point remains: two wrongs do not make a right.

In a few days, this thread will be in 3rd page. That is the reality.

Yeah, see I was talking about the effect that "martyring" Middle Easterners, particularly Muslims, has on the phenomenon of international terrorism.

Not the page numbers of threads on NSG.

Unless NSG is predominately Muslim then the 'reality' you are discussing with yourself has nothing to do with my point.

Godwin for the lose.

I know you think you're awful clever, but mentioning Nazi Germany doesn't "lose" anything. Sorry.

You might have a point if I were comparing other posters to Nazis in an attempt to dismiss them. But that has nothing to do with Godwin's Law, and I wasn't doing that anyway.

Almost everyone becomes an international criminal as soon as they gain the force projection to be able to do so.

Oh, in that case international crime must not be a bad thing. In fact, it's very good. We need more of it!

Who gives a flying fuck if the people of Warizstan are a bit upset?

The people who subsequently die in terrorist attacks made in reprisal for our bombing of villages and civilians? Just a thought. I realize you're from York, England, and not the USA where we actually had about 3000 people die in such an attack. You apparently just want to perpetuate the whole bloody conflict while you bleat from the sidelines. That's nice of you, but while you're trumpeting your apathy and your ignorance (viz a viz "Warizstan") realize that some people (apparently not you) DO care. Quite a bit.

I imagine that at the very least, the US military takes some care to clean their rounds in the recycling process, and stores them someplace where they won't be exposed to much dirt.

A 20 year old spent shell casing sitting in the dirt in the mountains of Pakistan, will most likely be much more degraded than a freshly fired NATO round I suspect.

I can't really see the US weapons of the 1980s being in much use anymore in Pakistan's border regions anyway. Not with the proliferation of comparatively sturdier and cheaper Soviet era weapons

so your saying that Pakistanis are incapable of taking care of their weapons and ammunition ? the round can be 20 years old but fired today if stored properly. or the weapon can be 20 years old the round brought in via legal commercial channels.

It is one of the most popular hunting rounds in the US.

For hunting squirrel, maybe.

People...

The US has been operating inside Pakistan for years now. And Pakistani army has been adequately paid for it. If the Pakistani politicians do not like that, perhaps they should take it up with their army. They cannot support the army when their army violates other countries sovereignty and feign innocence and cry outrage when somebody else violates their sovereignty.

And the election is near, so it is predictable that the US forces will look for a major kill, to bolster Republican chances.

so your saying that Pakistanis are incapable of taking care of their weapons and ammunition ? the round can be 20 years old but fired today if stored properly. or the weapon can be 20 years old the round brought in via legal commercial channels.

Oh, they're capable. Whether that's a viable option in the boonies of Pakistan is a different matter. Besides, Soviet infantry level weapons are cheaper, more plentiful, and a lot more resistant to dirt and grime compared to American counterparts. That does a whole lot of sales talk to the Pakistanis.

For hunting squirrel, maybe.

I blame G&D for that, he's the one who said it originally. I'm not up on standard US firearms choices.

I blame G&D for that, he's the one who said it originally. I'm not up on standard US firearms choices.

The .223 is considered a marginal round (at best) for hunting deer in both the US and Canada.

The .223 is considered a marginal round (at best) for hunting deer in both the US and Canada.

Isn't the .303 a preferred for big game hunting?

Isn't the .303 a preferred for big game hunting?

I don't know of anyone that uses the .223 for deer hunting. Not to say they don't but I have never heard of it.

As for the country I know that it varies for deer on the point of where you are hunting. Out here in Washington State the terrain I believe is better suited for a 7mm. Out in Michigan where the deer are plenty I actually hunted with a shotgun. You could even get away with a 30/30 taking in account that many places in the Eastern US the deer are so abundant that they literally walk past you. I have hunted back east and can say it is so much easier than the mountain terrains of the west. I don't think hunters back there realize how easy it is.

Oh, they're capable. Whether that's a viable option in the boonies of Pakistan is a different matter. Besides, Soviet infantry level weapons are cheaper, more plentiful, and a lot more resistant to dirt and grime compared to American counterparts. That does a whole lot of sales talk to the Pakistanis.

so your saying the weapons we gave them for free in the 80's got thrown away when cheap AK-47s arrived ?

And the election is near, so it is predictable that the US forces will look for a major kill, to bolster Republican chances.

If we've gotten to the point that it's predictable that the military will act to help a political party get elected, we have a serious problem.

I don't know of anyone that uses the .223 for deer hunting. Not to say they don't but I have never heard of it.

to say that .223 is popular for hunting you should expand your definition of hunting to include varmint shooting.

so your saying the weapons we gave them for free in the 80's got thrown away when cheap AK-47s arrived ?

Since 20 years without replacement parts is a long time for the usually dirt sensitive weapons to last, they're likely not even functional these days. And the Mujaheedin certainly got more Soviet weapons from overrun bases than American small arms.

Isn't the .303 a preferred for big game hunting?

ah,yes the .303 British.*mumbles how good the Lee-Enfield is

If we've gotten to the point that it's predictable that the military will act to help a political party get elected, we have a serious problem.

It is quite easy for incumbents to tell military "quick..find me somebody big to show for...don't care if you are found operating inside Pak"..

Apparently some local villagers in Waziristan rose up and killed 6 Taliban yesterday.

The people who subsequently die in terrorist attacks made in reprisal for our bombing of villages and civilians? Just a thought. I realize you're from York, England, and not the USA where we actually had about 3000 people die in such an attack. You apparently just want to perpetuate the whole bloody conflict while you bleat from the sidelines. That's nice of you, but while you're trumpeting your apathy and your ignorance (viz a viz "Warizstan") realize that some people (apparently not you) DO care. Quite a bit.

Someone's forgotten the IRA and the 7/7 bombings.

Since 20 years without replacement parts is a long time for the usually dirt sensitive weapons to last, they're likely not even functional these days. And the Mujaheedin certainly got more Soviet weapons from overrun bases than American small arms.

I was in the service and your making the weapons seem much worse then they are. yes the AK 47 you can leave buried in dirt pull it out kick out said dirt off and still shoot. not to mention US weapons are easy to clean a little oil and a cloth. and most of the time when you need to replace something it is a spring which is readily available with out special parts kits.

some reasons why the need to cross the zero line..quite a good article..quoting some portions..

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07pakistan-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
....According to two of these villagers, whom I interviewed together with a local reporter, the Americans started calling in airstrikes on the Pakistanis after the latter started shooting at the Americans.

“When the Americans started bombing the Taliban, the Frontier Corps started shooting at the Americans,” we were told by one of Suran Dara’s villagers, who, like the others, spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of being persecuted or killed by the Pakistani government or the Taliban. “They were trying to help the Taliban. And then the American planes bombed the Pakistani post.”

For years, the villagers said, Suran Dara served as a safe haven for jihadist fighters — whether from Afghanistan or Pakistan or other countries — giving them aid and shelter and a place to stash their weapons. With the firefight under way, one of Suran Dara’s villagers dashed across the border into Afghanistan carrying a field radio with a long antenna (the villager called it “a Motorola”) to deliver to the Taliban fighters. He never made it. The man with the Motorola was hit by an American bomb. After the fight, wounded Taliban members were carried into Suran Dara for treatment. “Everyone supports the Taliban on both sides of the border,” one of the villagers we spoke with said.

Later, an American analyst briefed by officials in Washington confirmed the villagers’ account. “There have been dozens of incidents where there have been exchanges of fire,” he said.

That American and Pakistani soldiers are fighting one another along what was meant to be a border between allies highlights the extraordinarily chaotic situation unfolding inside the Pakistani tribal areas, where hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Taliban, along with Al Qaeda and other foreign fighters, enjoy freedom from American attacks.

But the incident also raises one of the more fundamental questions of the long war against Islamic militancy, and one that looms larger as the American position inside Afghanistan deteriorates: Whose side is Pakistan really on? ...

little in Pakistan is what it appears. For years, the survival of Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders has depended on a double game: assuring the United States that they were vigorously repressing Islamic militants — and in some cases actually doing so — while simultaneously tolerating and assisting the same militants. From the anti-Soviet fighters of the 1980s and the Taliban of the 1990s to the homegrown militants of today, Pakistan’s leaders have been both public enemies and private friends.

When the game works, it reaps great rewards: billions in aid to boost the Pakistani economy and military and Islamist proxies to extend the government’s reach into Afghanistan and India....

Late in June, to great fanfare, the Pakistani military began what it described as a decisive offensive to rout the Taliban from Khyber agency, one of seven tribal areas that make up the FATA. “Forces Move In on Militants,” declared a headline in Dawn, one of Pakistan’s most influential newspapers. Reporters were kept away, but footage on Pakistani television showed troops advancing behind trucks and troop carriers. The Americans were pleased. “We think that’s a positive development and certainly hope and expect that this government will continue,” Tom Casey, the deputy spokesman at the State Department, said....

A few days into the military operation, the photographer Lynsey Addario and I, dressed in traditional clothes and with a posse of gunmen protecting us, rode into Khyber agency ourselves. “Entry by Foreigners Prohibited Beyond This Point,” the sign said on the way in. As we drove past the dun-colored buildings and corrugated-tin shops, every trace of government authority vanished. No policemen, no checkpoints, no guards. Nothing to keep us from our appointment with the Taliban.

It was a Friday afternoon, and our guides suggested we pull off the main road until prayers were over; local Taliban enforcers, they said, would not take kindly to anyone skipping prayers. For a couple of hours we waited inside the home of an uncle of one of our guides, listening to the muezzin call the locals to battle.

“What is the need of the day?” a man implored in Pashto over a loudspeaker. “Holy war — holy war is the need of the day!”

After a couple of hours, we resumed our journey, traveling down a mostly empty road. And that is when it struck me: there was no evidence, anywhere, of the military operation that had made the news. There were no Pakistani soldiers, no trucks, no tanks. Nothing.


..

Why, I asked Namdar, aren’t the Pakistani forces coming after you?

“The government cannot do anything to us, because we are fighting the holy war,” he said. “We are fighting the foreigners — it is our obligation. They are killing innocent people.” Namdar’s aides, one of whom spoke fluent English, looked at him and shook their heads to make him speak more cautiously. Namdar carried on.

“When the Americans kill innocent people, we must take revenge,” he said.

Tell me about that, I asked Namdar, and his aides again shook their heads. Finally Namdar changed his line. “Well, we can’t stop anyone from going across” into Afghanistan, he said. “I’m not saying we send them ourselves.” And with that, Namdar raised his hand, declining to offer any more details.

By many accounts — on the streets, among Western analysts, even according to his own deputies — Namdar was regularly training and dispatching young men to fight and blow themselves up in Afghanistan. An aide, Munsif Khan, told me that his group had sent “hundreds of people” to fight the Americans. At one point, he described for me how the Vice and Virtue brigade had recently set a minimum-age requirement for suicide bombers. “We are opposed to children carrying out suicide bombings,” Khan said. “We get so many young people coming to us — 15, 16 years old — wanting to go on martyrdom operations. This is not the age to be a suicide bomber. Any man who wants to be a suicide bomber should be at least 20 or 25.”

..
So here was Namdar — Taliban chieftain, enforcer of Islamic law, usurper of the Pakistani government and trainer and facilitator of suicide bombers in Afghanistan — sitting at home, not three miles from Peshawar, untouched by the Pakistani military operation that was supposedly unfolding around us.

What’s going on? I asked the warlord. Why aren’t they coming for you?

“I cannot lie to you,” Namdar said, smiling at last. “The army comes in, and they fire at empty buildings. It is a drama — it is just to entertain.”

Entertain whom? I asked.

“America,” he said.
...
By all accounts, Pakistan’s spymasters were never terribly discriminating about who showed up in their training camps. In 1998, when President Bill Clinton ordered missile strikes against camps in Afghanistan following Al Qaeda’s bombings of American embassies in East Africa, several trainers from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, were killed. Osama bin Laden was supposed to be there when the missiles struck but apparently had already left.

After 9/11, President George W. Bush and other senior American officials declared in the strongest terms that Pakistani leaders had to end their support for the Taliban and other Islamic militants. Pakistan’s military dictator, Pervez Musharraf, promised to do so.

Yet the game did not end; it merely changed. In the years after 9/11, Musharraf often made great shows of going after militants inside Pakistan, while at the same time supporting and protecting them.

In 2002, for instance, Musharraf ordered the arrest of some 2,000 suspected militants, many of whom had trained in Pakistani-sponsored camps. And then, quietly, he released nearly all of them. Another revealing moment came in 2005, when Fazlur Rehman, the leader of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, one of the most radical Islamist parties, denounced Musharraf for denying the existence of jihadi groups. Everyone knows, Rehman said in a speech before Pakistan’s National Assembly, that the government supports the holy warriors. “We will have to openly tell the world whether we want to support jihadis or crack down on them,” Rehman declared. “We cannot afford to be hypocritical any more.”

In 2006, a senior ISI official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told a New York Times reporter that he regarded Serajuddin Haqqani as one of the ISI’s intelligence assets. “We are not apologetic about this,” the ISI official said. For a presumed ally of the United States, that was a stunning admission: Haqqani, an Afghan, is currently one of the Taliban’s most senior commanders battling the Americans in eastern Afghanistan. His father, Jalaluddin, is a longtime associate of bin Laden’s. The Haqqanis are believed to be overseeing operations from a hiding place in the Pakistani tribal agency of North Waziristan.

..

The Taliban are seen as a counterweight to Indian influence. “We are saving the Taliban for a rainy day,” one former Pakistani official put it to me.
..

ONE SWELTERING AFTERNOON in July, I ventured into the elegant home of a former Pakistani official who recently retired after several years of serving in senior government posts. We sat in his book-lined study. A servant brought us tea and biscuits.

Was it the obsession with India that led the Pakistani military to support the Taliban? I asked him.

“Yes,” he said.

Or is it the anti-Americanism and pro-Islamic feelings in the army?

“Yes,” he said, that too.

And then the retired Pakistani official offered another explanation — one that he said could never be discussed in public. The reason the Pakistani security services support the Taliban, he said, is for money: after the 9/11 attacks, the Pakistani military concluded that keeping the Taliban alive was the surest way to win billions of dollars in aid that Pakistan needed to survive. The military’s complicated relationship with the Taliban is part of what the official called the Pakistani military’s “strategic games.”

“Pakistan is dependent on the American money that these games with the Taliban generate,” the official told me. “The Pakistani economy would collapse without it. This is how the game works.”


As an example, he cited the Pakistan Army’s first invasion of the tribal areas — of South Waziristan in 2004. Called Operation Shakai, the offensive was ostensibly aimed at ridding the area of Taliban militants. From an American perspective, the operation was a total failure. The army invaded, fought and then made a deal with one of the militant commanders, Nek Mohammed. The agreement was capped by a dramatic meeting between Mohammed and Safdar Hussein, one of the most senior officers in the Pakistan Army.

“The corps commander was flown in on a helicopter,” the former official said. “They had this big ceremony, and they embraced. They called each other mujahids. ”

“Mujahid” is the Arabic word for “holy warrior.” The ceremony, in fact, was captured on videotape, and the tape has been widely distributed.

“The army agreed to compensate the locals for collateral damage,” the official said. “Where do you think that money went? It went to the Taliban. Who do you think paid the bill? The Americans. This is the way the game works. The Taliban is attacked, but it is never destroyed.

“It’s a game,” the official said, wrapping up our conversation. “The U.S. is being taken for a ride.”


more good stuff there.

I know you think you're awful clever, but mentioning Nazi Germany doesn't "lose" anything. Sorry.
Just untrue.

Comparing anything to Nazi Germany makes it The Worst Thing Ever. Repeated incursions into the bordering tribal regions of Pakistan and the subsequent deaths of a couple of dozen people tops are not the same as what Nazi Germany eventually did, which amounted to around fifty million deaths around the world.

There's two wrongs don't make a right, and there's saying that the actions of the US are mimicking those of Nazi Germany. Until we have wars of ethnic cleansing and the mechanised murder of millions of people due entirely to their religious beliefs, then you're not comparing like with like.
You might have a point if I were comparing other posters to Nazis in an attempt to dismiss them. But that has nothing to do with Godwin's Law, and I wasn't doing that anyway.
Fair enough, I made a cock-up, sorry.
Oh, in that case international crime must not be a bad thing. In fact, it's very good. We need more of it!
I didn't say it was good, I just said that it's what happens. And it won't change, ever. If people have the capacity to take someone's resources and get away with it, they will. I'd rather people stuck to their own borders, but there we go.

Complaining about it on the internet, or indeed doing other such waste-of-time acts as sending in letters to your local MP or Senator isn't going to change this, because this is the most basic part of human behavior. The Acquisition Of Things You Need.
The people who subsequently die in terrorist attacks made in reprisal for our bombing of villages and civilians?
It's a trade-off. Kill the Taliban's commanders in Pakistan, so that attacks fall less on our troops, and on the general citizenry of Afghanistan more to the point, or don't, and save a few lives in Pakistan and a couple of border towns. I like to think that we're doing the right thing here, you might not.
Just a thought. I realize you're from York, England, and not the USA where we actually had about 3000 people die in such an attack.
Oh, of course. The English mainland has never suffered terrorist attacks. Ever. Yes. We didn't have a 30-year long campaign by the IRA on us at all. Oh no.
That's nice of you, but while you're trumpeting your apathy and your ignorance (viz a viz "Warizstan")
Warizstan being the tribal region of Pakistan neighbouring Afghanistan, in which the mission in this story is almost guaranteed to have taken place, I don't see how I'm showing ignorance.
some people (apparently not you) DO care. Quite a bit. You apparently just want to perpetuate the whole bloody conflict while you bleat from the sidelines.
No, I'd rather have the whole thing over and done with in Afghanistan, with some semblance of a strong central government in whatever form it takes so long as it's not some kind of extremist mess like the Taliban's reign. If that means cross-border raids then I'm all for it. I do actually care, I just think that the ends justify the means in some cases, Afghanistan being one of them.

I was in the service and your making the weapons seem much worse then they are. yes the AK 47 you can leave buried in dirt pull it out kick out said dirt off and still shoot. not to mention US weapons are easy to clean a little oil and a cloth. and most of the time when you need to replace something it is a spring which is readily available with out special parts kits.

You just proved my point. A key one at that. And let's not forget. You live in the states, where the .223 round is manufactured in the billions per year. Pakistan doesn't. That automatically hikes the price of the .223 round significantly. The same with the rifles. Soviet era munitions and weapons on the other hand, are still manufactured widely in former bloc countries much closer to Pakistan than the United States, making it much cheaper to acquire.

Durability, reliability, economy. The average Pakistani out in the boonies would pick that over more expensive, sensitive but higher performing rifles.

The .223 is considered a marginal round (at best) for hunting deer in both the US and Canada.

It's illegal in a lot of areas to use a round with a diameter of less than .30 for deer for that very reason.

Personally, I like the 7.62x39mm over the .223 for my purposes. I don't need 600 yds, 300 yds, or even 150 yds. I value the harder hit at closer ranges and and from a cheaper ammo and cheaper weapons to fire them from. Two reasons for this: 1) my vision is going bad, thanks to the Air Force for having me in constant dim environments for a year 2) The Air Force skimmed on my weapons training, so I went and learned how to use all the enemy's small arms on my own time because I figured if I ran into trouble I'd have to kill them and take theirs, so now I'm way more comfortable on their weapons than I am on American weapons. Kinda ironic, huh? :p

Soviet era munitions and weapons on the other hand, are still manufactured widely in former bloc countries much closer to Pakistan than the United States, making it much cheaper to acquire.

Durability, reliability, economy. The average Pakistani out in the boonies would pick that over more expensive, sensitive but higher performing rifles.

In places like Dera Adam Khel etc they have small-scale "factories" (if you can call them that) make their own guns. It is a relatively huge "unorganized" (as in no govt oversight) industry there.

I don't have specs on the stuff they make though. I will dig for it later.

So what impact would this have on the region and "War on Terror"?

Very small: Pakistan cannot afford to lose US support. Unless Russia makes some very interesting proposal, but Vlad and Misha have enough to chew right now in Caucasus and Eastern Europe, and they're supporting India.

Keep eating up the other side's propaganda.

This region in Pakistan, in fact the entire border area is not under the control of the central government.
Pakistan has actually been in a low intensity civil war against the area we raided for years.
I believe we should recognize Waziristan as an independent nation, and then declare full war on it.

Just a thought. I realize you're from York, England, and not the USA where we actually had about 3000 people die in such an attack.

Ok, we never had a single attack of such magntitude as 9/11 happen on British soil, for which we should be forever grateful and I sincerely hope nothing like that ever happens again, anywhere. But do not ever act like we have never experienced terrorism on our soil. Most of the UK posters on this board will be of an age to have grown up with the chronic terrorist campaign waged on us by the IRA. There are STILL no bins in any railway or underground station in the UK because of the risk of bombs being planted in these (a favorite tactic of the IRA). And I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly still have a real wariness about seeing unattended bags lying around in any sort of public transport station.

We have suffered from islamic terrorism too, 7/7 where they actually went off and at least three different narrowly avoided incidents or significant alerts. Going to school in Brussels at an international school, we were constantly on watch for possible targetting by terrorists during the first gulf war, with the performance of plays being delayed by several months due to possible threats. I also recall a number of seperate incidents where the whole school was evacuated due to bomb scares. When you are at primary school, I can assure you that makes an impression.

So please, whatever argument you may make, never act like the UK and Europe generally has never suffered from terrorists.

So much for "allegedly", eh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11policy.html?hp

It's illegal in a lot of areas to use a round with a diameter of less than .30 for deer for that very reason.

Personally, I like the 7.62x39mm over the .223 for my purposes. I don't need 600 yds, 300 yds, or even 150 yds. I value the harder hit at closer ranges and and from a cheaper ammo and cheaper weapons to fire them from. Two reasons for this: 1) my vision is going bad, thanks to the Air Force for having me in constant dim environments for a year 2) The Air Force skimmed on my weapons training, so I went and learned how to use all the enemy's small arms on my own time because I figured if I ran into trouble I'd have to kill them and take theirs, so now I'm way more comfortable on their weapons than I am on American weapons. Kinda ironic, huh? :p

I'm kinda the same way. I shoot my AK-47 every weekend, but even when I was in the Regular Army I only shot every 2-3 months with my M4.

I don't know of anyone that uses the .223 for deer hunting. Not to say they don't but I have never heard of it.

As for the country I know that it varies for deer on the point of where you are hunting. Out here in Washington State the terrain I believe is better suited for a 7mm. Out in Michigan where the deer are plenty I actually hunted with a shotgun. You could even get away with a 30/30 taking in account that many places in the Eastern US the deer are so abundant that they literally walk past you. I have hunted back east and can say it is so much easier than the mountain terrains of the west. I don't think hunters back there realize how easy it is.

The damned deer are so abundant in Michigan it's almost hard not to see them. Last year I saw herds of over 150 deer sitting in the fields.

Isn't the .303 a preferred for big game hunting?

Most people I know use the .30-06 for deer (and those few who hunt elk up north).

So much for "allegedly", eh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11policy.html?hp
Aye and I think that, more to the point, this is more "Bush tells the media to tell everyone that he's been authorising this" - there's no doubt in my mind that we've been going over the border for years.