Jul 16 2008
Afghanistan-Pakistan Border Battles Begin
Yesterday I noted reports of US and NATO forces heading towards the Afghanistan-Pakistan border bringing tanks, artillery and attack helicopters with them. This movement of US, NATO and Afghan forces to the border with Pakistan brought the rats out of the Pakistan Tribal Areas to attack the infidels – and of course the rats are being slaughtered:
The Afghan National Army (ANA), Afghan border police and US special forces have killed more than 150 fighters, mostly Pakistanis, in a military operation in south eastern Paktika province, a spokesman said Wednesday.
‘Last night, more than 350 fighters, most of them Pakistanis, entered Afghanistan from Pakistan, and attacked in the Barmal district of south-eastern Paktika province,’ Ghamai Khan Mohammed Yari told DPA in a telephone interview.
He said the ANA and border police, aided by a coalition airstrike, ‘counter-attacked the militants and after one hour’s fighting, more than 150 insurgents were killed, most of them Pakistani nationals.’
It seems the rats also tried to fire from inside Pakistan, which only provides targeting data to our weapon systems which can track back to the source of fire:
The International Security Assistance Force says NATO-led troops in Afghanistan used attack helicopters and artillery to fire into Pakistan after coming under rocket attacks from that side of the border.
Bring them on! More here at The Long War Journal
Well I hope the three million do work with the Paki army, so much a bigger target. Remember what B-52s did at Khe Sanh. Just think what this generations weapons could do to these jihadis. But, on the other hand, wasn’t the Obamessiah right about having to attack Pakistan? Well, stopped clock, etc….
“bring them on” he types from the safety of his keyboard. your craven bravado is stunning.
Pakistan has the world’s second largest Muslim population outside of Indonesia. The territory there is perfect for defense. Anyone going in there is going to have a hard slog and winter comes to the Hindu Kush in only a few weeks time. I wouldn’t be so big on the bravado. Any kind of a major operation in that region would be extremely difficult even if we are fighting basically a bunch of illiterate hillbillies.
I served in the US Army. If I were there now, I don’t think I would be particularly stoked about fighting in the Himalayas in the winter.
Lets hope Pakistan comes to its senses before things ratchet up and send your kin stationed in Afghanistan some warm socks!
I worry most that Pakistan has, for all intents and purposes, joined the other side and is in fact almost completely in league with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Going into the tribal areas may mean open war with Pakistan, which would be a very serious thing indeed. Of course we could prevail militarily, but we could
no longer supply the forces in Afghanistan, and I don’t know how we handle that contingency. Beg Russia for help is about the only option if that happens.
Norm,
Want to get banned again? “Bring it on” meant for these fools to keep rushing into our gun sights.
“but we could no longer supply the forces in Afghanistan”
We recently negotiated access via one of the former Soviet republics, I don’t remember which one.
Ah, here it is. It was Uzbekistan.
We have a supply route negotiated with Uzbekistan. I have a link in another article that is caught in the spam trap.
yeah…george bush said pretty much the same thing. then 3000+ troops lost their lives and tens of thousands more were maimed. chest thumpers should be taken at face value. at least now the fight is in the right place. better 7 years late than never.
typical far right fringie…don’t like the truth…ban it.
FYI
Norm,
You are wrong. again.
I’m glad to see at least some folks on this blog recognizing the increasingly dangerous situation in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region. Similar to conservatives accusations that liberals have held too firm to the withdrawal from Iraq strategy for political reasons, I believe that many conservatives have ignored or dismissed the obvious deterioration in Afghanistan/Pakistan for political reasons as well. I guess it is not too surprising given that Bush, McCain and the GOP have been telling their legions for years that Afghanistan is doing swell and the Iraqi occupation is not diverting needed resources from this region.
While the public’s realization of the growing problem in Afghanistan/Pakistan has been shifting over time based on the constant negative news, I believe that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s, Admiral Mullen, public statement last week that we need more troops in Afghanistan to address the growing Taliban threat and that we don’t have them because all our resources are committed to Iraq was the tipping point. Bush finally said yesterday at his press conference that he would analyze whether more troops are needed in Afghanistan – apparently unaware that his top military advisor had already publically concluded that they are needed. After months of claiming that Afghanistan is not part of the central front on the war on terror, McCain finally had to change his position yesterday and adopt Obama’s strategy to send more troops to Afghanistan. Thank god we have committed public servants like Admiral Mullen who realized that he had to publically raise his concerns about Afghanistan regardless of the fact that his position is contrary to the White House during an election year.
Given these developments and conservatives (such as AJ) declaration of victory in Iraq, I’m wondering if we are finally reaching a strategy that conservatives and liberals can agree upon – shifting the focus of our military resources from Iraq to Afghanistan. If conservatives believe that we have achieved victory in Iraq, then presumably we can start a phased withdrawal of our troops and other military resources. Obviously there is no need for a huge military presence in Iraq if we already achieved victory there. Liberals have wanted a phase withdrawal for some time, so they would support this strategy as well regardless of whether or not they agree we already achieved victory in Iraq.
Liberals have been saying for years that the central front on the war on terror is in Afghanistan/Pakistan and that we need to commit more resources there. Conservatives appear to be finally realizing/admitting that Afghanistan is not stable, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are resurgent in this area and we need more resources there to correct the downward slide. Therefore, both liberals and conservatives should support increasing military resources in this region.
There is no doubt that liberals and conservatives will continue to argue about who was right and wrong on these various policy/strategy issues, especially in an election year. But it sure would be nice if for once all Americans could be on the same page for the next major policy/strategy in the GWOT.
Norm and others,
Why are you so opposed to any kind of U.S. victory, just curious?
Conman,
Liberals said the “central” front of the war was in Afgh/Pak while al Qaeda was sending thousands of suicide bombers to Iraq who got their asses handed to them and would have destroyed that country. How were you “right?”
I am sure there would be those who would argue that Japan should have been the top priority in WWII since they were the ones who directly attacked us but sometimes strategic decisions override emotional reactions.
Also, while the Taliban are more “active” in Afghanistan, lets not lose sight of the fact that this summer they were kicked out of areas they had held for a long time and we are establishing bases in areas where we had not done so before. In other words, we are being aggressive in confronting them and getting into their areas of control and it would be natural under those circumstances for things to heat up.
As we put pressure on their lines of communications and means of economic gain (routes used to move opium, for example), they are going to stiffen their resistance and attempt to push us out of those areas.
Overall, we are pushing deeper into their traditional strongholds in the more rural areas of Afghanistan. And I believe that is the primary reason why there has been more combat, not that there is any great resurgence of the Taliban overall in Afghanistan.
And we are going to ramp up the pressure when they can least afford it, when they are preparing to winter over in the high country. We aren’t going to give them rest over the winter. Our troops rotate out in a few months, theirs are there for the duration.
I think norm missed the speech Obama gave where he makes it plain he intends to go into Pakistan. There is the truth for you norm. They guy has been feeding you a line of crap, knowing that your innate anti Americanism will always gravitate toward rooting for the bad guys.
And btw, if the terrorists would stop coming into Afghanistan and killing people we would not be hearing about this sort of thing.
Just think if conman had his way, Osama could always go to Iraq and take refuge in Zarqawi’s terrorist training camp and it would be the one place in the world will he could count on being safe. After all, conman and his friends would never ever ever ever go to Iraq. No, Saddam could rebuild his weapons programs and develop nuke and kill a president and invade his neighbors and there they would be prattling on about how they were right.
BTW, I hear public opinion is beginning to shift on the war again. Fewer and fewer people want to abandon Iraq. Most people {unlike hey norm here} want to continue on in Afghanistan.
Mark,
I’m trying to get past the “who was right” arguments and see if there is a consensus for the next phase in the GWOT. As I mentioned in my comments, I believe that the partisan positioning on Iraq and Afghanistan from both sides has contributed to many of the problems over the last few years. Bush refused to acknowledge that Iraq was failing in 2005-2006 for partisan reasons (i.e. the 2006 election) that hurt our country because it delayed our adoption of a new strategy. Democrats insistence on withdrawing from Iraq regardless of the consequences and refusal to acknowledge that the surge was producing significant security gains was motivated by partisan reasons (i.e. 2008 elections) that created problems as well. Republicans refusal to acknowledge that Afghanistan is a growing problem and that the Iraqi government has yet to resolve significant political issues that are paramount to the long-term stability of that country was motivated by partisan reasons (i.e. 2008 elections) that created problems as well.
Our country needs to move beyond arguing who was right before and see if we can find a consensus on the way forward. Remember what Republicans said at the time Bush announced the surge – the debate over whether or not we should have invaded Iraq is academic – we did and now we need to figure out what to do next. I agreed with that position whole-heartedly even thougn I was skepitcal about the surge at that time. I disagree with your assumption that Afghanistan/Pakistan is not the central front on the war and/or that Al Qaeda was sending thousands of suicide bombers from Afghanistan/Pakistan to Iraq, but who cares if you are right or wrong if we can agree on what to do next.
So, I again pose my question – shouldn’t conservatives and liberals be able to agree on the next step based on conditions on the ground? Conservatives declared victory in Iraq and liberals want to withdraw the troops regardless. Quite frankly, I think our military did its job in Iraq and if the Iraqi politicians cannot seize this opportunity to do what it takes for long-term stability, then they never will. Afghanistan is clearly worsening and our own military commanders there are saying they need more troops. Therefore, both conservatives and liberals should support shifting our military resouirces from Iraq to Afghanistan. What do the rest of you think?
“shouldn’t conservatives and liberals be able to agree on the next step based on conditions on the ground? ”
I don’t think it is up to “conservatives and liberals” to dictate the pace of the war. We know exactly nothing about what we are talking about. That is what general officers are paid for. What we should do is have a nice hot cup of “shut the heck up” and listen to what Petraeus recommends because we are all talking through our pants when it comes to the situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Terrye,
If I had my way we would have finished the job in Afghanistan and not diverted our attention and resources to Iraq before the job was finished. If we finished the job in Afghanistan, we would have captured/killed Osama and decimated Al Qaeda. You and other conservatives claim that our strong commitment of military resources in Iraq and willingness to take the terrorist head on is what led to Al Qaeda’s demise in 2008. Think what would have happened had we made this same commitment in Afghanistan in 2002. We could have achieved our objective several years ago had we finished the first fight.
As for Iraq, let us put aside the question of whether or not we should have invaded and focus on the timing of the invasion. Even if you assume that Saddam would have gotten the UN sanctions removed, restarted his WMD program, and started rebuilding his military for another invasion, that would have taken several years to accomplish. In other words, Saddam was not an “imminent” threat in 2003 like Bush claimed. Worst case scenerio he was a potential future threat that had to be contained. In light of what we know know, please explain to me why it was paramount for us to invade Iraq in March of 2003 before we had finished our mission in Afghanistan. If we finished the job in Afghanistan before we started another war, we would have been far better served.