Bismillah ar Rahman ar Rahim REALPakNationalists

March 4, 2010

Pakistan Gets Laser Guided Bombs

Laser guided bombs

The US Air Force plans to deliver 1,000 laser-guided bomb kits to Pakistan this month to help Islamabad in its offensive against militants on the Afghan border, a spokesman said on Tuesday.

The Air Force is providing the kits after having delivered 1,000 MK-82 bombs last month to Pakistan’s military, Lieutenant Colonel Jeffry Glenn told AFP.

The US military assistance underscored Washington’s role in backing Pakistan’s months-long campaign against Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants.

The Pakistani air force was playing “a big part” in operations against the extremists, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said.

“As they had ramped up operations, they’re looking for ways to get additional capability,” he told a gathering of defence reporters.

Pakistan’s air force chief had visited Washington last year and made additional requests for US military assistance, he said.

Donley said the Pentagon had arranged for “expedited” delivery of the MK-82 bombs, which weigh 500 pounds each.

The United States also was due to deliver 18 additional F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan in June, outfitted with sophisticated night-vision equipment, Glenn said.

Confirmation of the arms deal came as Pakistan on Tuesday revealed a vast Taliban and Al-Qaeda hideout dug into mountains near the Afghan border, captured in an offensive against militants.

Source.

March 3, 2010

Debate About Taliban Appeasement Is Over

Pakistan or Taliban: Whose side are you on?

The debate about Taliban appeasement is over. We have wasted too much time and energy fighting about whether or not there is a difference between Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Taliban. We have argued with each other about whether or not we should be fighting Pakistani Taliban and working out deals with Afghani Taliban. Now we know certainly that there is no difference. Whether fighting in Afghanistan or bombing schools in Pakistan, Taliban are the same group. And this group is our enemy.

The News yesterday makes plain the reason – events over the past few days have proved for all that Taliban and Afghanistan and Pakistan are one group of militant butchers.

There are significant and far-reaching shifts in the way in which the ruling establishment perceives and interacts with the Pakistani Taliban and the Afghan Taliban. Until very recently they were seen as discrete entities, separate but having complementarities and some shared interests. Today, there is a recognition – somewhat belated but no less welcome for all of that – that both the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) are essentially one and the same; jihadi organisations which have the overthrow of the state of Pakistan as well as Afghanistan as their core objective. Over the last eight weeks we have seen nine of the eighteen key members of the Quetta Shura detained by our security forces in several parts of the country. Whilst it is not possible to second-guess what will come next, it may be reasonable to assume that other detentions will follow, and if so, this will weaken the QS and by extension the TTP – which is a very long way from the position long-held wherein a benign linkage was maintained with both groups as a hedge against the future withdrawal of coalition troops in Afghanistan.

When viewed together the TTP and the QS are a large, flexible, adaptive, resourceful and well-equipped single entity that has the capacity to inflict death and destruction to a wide range of targets. Together, they are now seen to represent an institutional threat to our country. They have the ability to terrorise and destabilise large parts of our sovereign territory, and to threaten our infant democracy. That we today recognise this is not just because the Americans have demanded it, but because we have recognised that it is no longer in our best interests to maintain this dubious dark alliance. Other regional players, closer friends than Uncle Sam, have had a role in our rethinking of the concept of strategic depth. It is alleged that the Saudis have played a part, and if true we may have much to thank them for in the future. Now is the time to move away from old and increasingly irrelevant doctrinal positions towards positions that reflect new and emerging realities. Understanding that the TTP and the QS are conjoined is a step in the right direction for both us and Afghanistan, and can only strengthen our hand in fighting militancy and terrorism.

It is no surprise that some of us have held the American with suspicion. They have not always been honest, and they have not always been looking out for anything but their own interests. Even now, America is probably looking out for its own interest, yes. But what has changed has been that this fight is in PAKISTAN’S INTEREST. This is a fight for OUR nation, a fight for OUR culture, a fight for OUR independence.

The people who are attacking and killing our innocents are foreigners from many countries including even those of our Muslim brothers in Egypt, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia. But these killers are not fighting for us, they are killing us. They are butchering our people so that they can invade our country and change our nation into a backwards country ruled by crazed butchers. We will not stand for it.

TTP and QST are two names for the same thing – enemy of Pakistan. The debate is over. Now you must decide for yourself – WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON???

February 25, 2010

Why a Strategic Partnership With American Military is Important

The military has received continued praise from American military commanders and political leaders. But more important is the fact that we continue to see success in efforts to drive Taliban butchers out of our towns and villages. Even as we continue to beat them back, though, the militants are continuing to target innocents with their nefarious attacks. Some people say we should negotiate with these terrorists and compromise with the people who are killing our innocents. I disagree.

An article in Dawn yesterday is a reminder of why it is important to build a strategic partnership with the American military so we can get the supplies and counter insurgency training that are key to defeating our REAL enemy.

The Mingora bombing is a grim reminder that while the nation’s attention has turned elsewhere, Swat still poses a serious challenge. In the days leading up to the bombing, it is believed that a former militant commander of Mingora had sneaked back into the area along with several associates and was planning fresh strikes.

A trip to the region scheduled over the weekend by President Zardari and army chief Gen Kayani was also quietly called off. Yet, this does not necessarily mean that a deadly new phase is beginning in the counter-insurgency in Swat. While it was always predicted that the militants would try to melt into the local population after it returned and then renew their attacks against the security forces, the scale of the re-infiltration is not clear yet.

Bear in mind that operations elsewhere have knock-on effects on the various militant sub-groups. The latest army-led operation in Bajaur is believed to have forced militants who had regrouped there to flee elsewhere. Maulana Fazlullah himself is believed to be on the move again and could be in Dir or Afghanistan or the Charmang area of Bajaur. Complicating matters further are rifts among the militants. Faqir Mohammad, the warlord who controlled the safe haven in Bajaur where Maulana Fazlullah was believed to be hiding earlier, has been ejected by an Afghan-Pakistani militant commander, Qari Ziaur Rehman, which could be yet another reason for Swat TTP militants to be on the run again.

While the precise movements may appear confusing, there is little doubt that the army’s push into many parts of Pakistan — up to 11 areas by the army’s own count — has forced the militants to keep moving from place to place. That represents a clear opportunity: it is easier to capture the enemy when he is on the run and moving through areas that are not very familiar. But there does appear to be a lack of reliable and actionable intelligence in real time. Citizen policing has proved effective in parts of Swat, for example, but it cannot go beyond a certain point.

What’s needed is a trained police force with significant intelligence-gathering capabilities. There is an added benefit of such a force: with reprisal killings on the rise and more arrests being made, an effective police force can help curb vigilantism and bring militants to justice. And yet so much time has already been lost in bureaucratic debate. Even in Pakistan proper the provinces have yet to seriously ramp up their police forces. Without such counter-terrorism capabilities, the country will struggle in its long war against militancy.

This was is not over, and these jihadi militants are not going to give up easily. We should not be talking about negotiating a surrender of Pakistan to these invaders. Instead we should be preparing our forces to root them out for good. A strategic relationship with American military will help make this possible.

February 22, 2010

On an upward curve

The following article by Lieutenant-General (Retd) Talat Masood was originally published in The News on 22 February.

Pakistan and US FlagsThe military to military relations between the US and Pakistan seems to be gradually improving. There is a greater level of mutual confidence and less talk of ‘do more’. This has been achieved by enhanced cooperation at operational and intelligence level and is benefiting both sides. It seems sharing is taking place even at the planning stage to ensure greater synergy and to make sure that the operations undertaken by the US on the Afghan side do not have a negative fallout on Pakistan or vice-versa. The importance the US attaches to Pakistan is demonstrated by the frequency of visits by the US military leaders as well. General McChrystal, Commander of the US and ISAF forces, must have visited his counterpart no less than three to four times in one month alone. In addition, General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen, too, are keeping close contacts with General Kayani and other military and civilian leaders. This has resulted in expanded cooperation on a broad front. There is cooperation in training on new equipment and sharing of counter-insurgency doctrines and practices. Our army, although professionally capable, is constrained by the past and it is only through extensive training that we can prepare for the conflict that we are currently facing. This is even more relevant to the training of Frontier Corps whose role in counter-insurgency operations is expanding. Supply of weapons and equipment from the US has somewhat improved, but still there are shortages in critical areas like helicopters, surveillance equipment and specialised vehicles.

Similar momentum is being maintained by the US at a broader political and diplomatic level. General Jones the National Security Advisor has had meetings with the top civilian and military leaders in Pakistan to discuss Pakistan’s concerns about India’s involvement in Afghanistan and the renewal of India- Pakistan dialogue process. Ambassador Holbrooke has also made several visits and Senator John Kerry must have been to Pakistan about three times since the inception of the democratic government to see how civilian projects could be expedited.

The most pressing problem for the Americans is ensuring full cooperation for their current operations in Afghanistan. The spate of recent arrests of some top leaders of Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda including Mullah Ghani Baradar, Ameer Muawiya in Karachi and other parts of Pakistan is another strong indicator of the growing US-Pakistan cooperation. Whether this is going to be a transient phase of their relationship or a permanent inflexion in Pakistan’s policy paradigm may be early to determine. In all likelihood it appears that there is a growing realisation in Pakistan’s security establishment that the previous policy of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds may have run its course. The huge paradox of closely collaborating with the US, receiving substantial economic and military assistance from it on the one hand, and, at the same time being supportive of Afghan Taliban, is no more a viable policy. Besides, the lethal cocktail of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, Afghan Taliban, Al Qaeda and other jihadi organisations such as LeT, LeJ etc. that were erstwhile considered strategic assets are turning out to be an existential threat to the state. When viewed in this context stakes in the success of the US and ISAF in Afghanistan for Pakistan are fairly high. In the event of US failure, civil war would surely follow and it will immediately trigger off a proxy war accompanied by a humanitarian crisis of great proportions. The last thing that Pakistan would like to see is a chaotic Afghanistan, needless to mention that the success of Afghan Taliban will create a reverse ideological and strategic depth in Pakistan. We do not have to remind that Taliban’s extremist ideology would be a huge setback for our modernisation and relevance to the world. For this reason it is not surprising that arrest of such a large number of Afghan Taliban is taking place in Pakistan. This could weaken Afghan Taliban and may induce them to agree to a negotiated settlement.

It is time a serious policy reappraisal is undertaken for reasons of our internal stability as well as for benefiting from a long term strategic partnership with the US. Pakistan’s military with the consent of Afghan government could use its unique position to persuade Afghan Taliban to agree to President Karzai’s reconciliation offer. A negotiated settlement would provide the US with an exit strategy and help in stabilising Afghanistan which is crucial for Pakistan’s own fight against militants. It is likely that Mullah Baradar could become a collaborator and help in the reintegration policy of the US and the reconciliation efforts of President Karzai. Islamabad’s interests are best served if it widens its engagement and interests with other power centers in Afghanistan and not confine it to only Taliban as was the case in the past. Taliban, too, have to grasp the reality that even in the event of their military victory, a war torn Afghanistan will not have peace or economic viability without support from the international community at least in the foreseeable future.

A subtle shift in the US policy is also discernable. Instead of blaming Pakistan it has started appreciating its contribution in the fight against insurgency. The best part is that several strands of relationship between them are gradually being made to match the set of expectations. If this trend continues, current relationship which could be characterised more of a coalition can be transformed into an alliance.

It seems Washington has played a discreet role in persuading India to recommence bilateral dialogue. This, however, does not imply that the US in any way would subordinate its vital strategic partnership with India to meet Pakistan’s concerns. To expect Washington to immerse in conflict resolution will not be compatible with its larger and more immediate objective of bringing stability to Afghanistan. It will nonetheless continue to encourage both India and Pakistan to engage bilaterally to find solutions to issues.

January 29, 2010

Haqqani: Give Pakistan Armed Drones

The Americans have already pledged to transfer to Pakistan the UAV drone technology to do reconnaissance and intelligence. According to The Nation, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the USA Husain Haqqani is telling the Americans to give Pakistan the armed technology so that Pakistan can target the militants that are attacking us ourselves.

“The government of Pakistan has repeatedly said that we would like to have the capability to be able to identify and take out targets on ground,” Ambassador Husain Haqqani told National Public Radio. Pakistan, he stressed, prefers to do everything on the Pakistani side of the border itself.

“And the reason is very simple: We have a military capability in certain areas and in some areas we lack certain technical capabilities and we would like that technical capabilities for ourselves.”

The Pakistanis are committed to fighting militants in the Afghan border region but it is unfair to characterize Pakistan as a base for al-Qaeda-linked elements, since militants straddle both sides of the porous and challenging border, he clarified.

Haqqani made a very interesting statement also that people are against drone strikes because innocents are sometimes caught in the crossfire. If Pakistan’s military had the technology of armed drones then we would be able to target the militants with our better intelligence and eliminate the problem of innocent deaths while destroying the jihadis.

January 23, 2010

Pakistan to Receive Drone Technology From USA

Shadow Drone UAV

Chinese news Xinhua is reporting that USA is giving drone technology to Pakistan:

The United States will supply drone aircraft to Pakistan which will significantly enhance the country’s surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, visiting U. S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday. Talking to reporters in Islamabad, Gates said that 12 RQ-7 Shadow unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will be part of one billion dollar allocation for Pakistan from its Coalition Support Fund.

He said weapons and equipment will also be provided to Pakistan for the war against terrorism.

In addition, the American Defense Secretary has said that the US will soon make a payment of $500 Million to support Pakistan’s military:

Gates also said the U.S. will soon make a payment of 500 million dollars from the Coalition Support Fund to reimburse Pakistan for its expenses in the war on terror.

This drone technology is far advanced of what Pakistan currently has and will allow for much improved intelligence gathering and reconnaissance against TTP militants, India, and any other aggressors who think that they can encroach on Pakistan’s territory.

President Zardari has been calling on the Americans to transfer drone technology to Pakistan for some time. While this is not the armed drone that is used to launch missiles against militants, it is a great step forward and shows that the Americans are working with us to defend our national security. Surely if we continue to show our military excellence – our military that the Americans are praising as an important partner.

Building this partnership will have two important results. First, it will strengthen our military access to advanced technologies like drones. Second, it will send a clear message to belligerents like Deepak Kapoor.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates with Army Chief Gen. Kayani

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates with Army Chief Gen. Kayani

January 22, 2010

USA Secretary of Defense Pledges Faithfulness to Pakistan

USA Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

USA Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

USA Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has pledged faithfulness to a partnership with Pakistan in comments to military officers today. The following report is from Dawn newspaper:

The United States has no designs on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons or ”a single inch of Pakistani soil,” US Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Pakistani military officers Friday, adding that fighting terrorists along the Afghan border is in Pakistan’s interest as well as Washington’s.”We have enemies in common along the border, but we also have many other interests in common,” Gates said, and the Pakistani military has choices to make about its resources and focus just as the US armed forces have done.

Addressing the legacy of mistrust and what he called an ”organized propaganda campaign” to misrepresent US intentions, Gates used carefully calibrated phrasing to tick off some of the allegations against the United States in wide circulation in Pakistan.

”I fully understand why some of you may be skeptical about the US commitment to Pakistan,” Gates told officers at Pakistan’s National Defense University.

Many in his audience came of professional age in the 1990s, when the United States had cut off military ties to Pakistan and largely ignored the growth of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The United States wants Pakistan to take on Taliban militants who use its territory as a refuge, but Gates’ rhetoric on the subject during two days of talks in the Pakistani capital was notably mild.

He said he was deeply impressed with Pakistan’s military offensive against militants within its borders.

”The leadership will make the decisions” about when or whether they are going to do something. ”That’s just fine with me,” Gates said during an interview with Pakistani and US journalists.

Asked whether the US was winning in the long battle against al Qaeda terrorism, Gates said the United States has made progress but hasn’t won yet. He said al Qaeda and what he calls a syndicate of affiliated groups are less capable of large-scale, coordinated attacks than they once were and in many cases their leadership has been killed or captured.

The Obama administration has taken a softer tone with Pakistan in recent months, praising the country’s unprecedented assault on militants inside its borders and dropping public appeals for Pakistan to focus on the militants along its western border.

In his speech to military officers, Gates said the US seeks no military bases in the country and has no desire to control Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

”The United States does not covet a single inch of Pakistani soil,” Gates said.

In meetings Thursday with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, the country’s army chief and others, Gates called the antiterror operations a success so far, ”and he acknowledged to all of them that we realize that has come with a great deal of sacrifice for the military,” Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said following the sessions.

”We are not trying to prescribe a timeline by which they must do things,” Morrell said.

The Pakistani army said Thursday it cannot expand its offensive against militants for at least six months, after time to consolidate gains made against militants who primarily target Pakistan. Remarks from the Army’s chief spokesman did not rule out the offensive that would more directly benefit the United States.

”We are not talking years,” Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas told reporters traveling with Gates. ”Six months to a year” would be needed before Pakistan could consolidate the gains it has made against militants in other parts of the country and then consider going farther, he said.

January 21, 2010

Is Pakistan an Elite Nation?

There is no secret that India is meddling and trying to destabilize Pakistan. This has been well documented. It is also no secret that India is trying to isolate Pakistan by driving a wedge between us and global powers like the USA and UK. The Daily Times published an editorial earlier this week that discusses the US’s India tilt, but they have taken the wrong lesson from events and are playing into the hands of India by acting indirectly as Indian ‘Trojan Horses.’

The editors of The Daily Times conclude that the US attitude is not helpful. But they are looking at the relationship incorrectly. If the US attitude is not helpful to Pakistan, it is because the US does not see helping Pakistan as being in their interest. The US does not have a helpful attitude towards India because of some secret love affair. Rather, they believe that India is a rising power and that it is in their interest to make a close relationship between the two nations.

It perceives India to be an emerging power and is strongly biased towards developing a strong strategic relationship with it. The US has pledged special concessions to India for transfer of nuclear technology, ostensibly for peaceful purposes, but this has raised legitimate concerns in various quarters about the space this allows for enhanced weapons production.

This is exactly the point. The US is trying to build a strong relationship with India because “it perceives India to be an emerging power.” I was reminded of the above paragraph this morning when I read Syed Talat Hussain’s column in today’s Daily Times. Mr. Hussain takes the correct lesson from dealing with the US – when dealing with a world superpower, we must go to them with heads held up as equals, not having an inferiority complex.

Much of this bilateral mess would not have been created had we been clear and forthright in dealing with Washington and if we had worked out the minutest detail of every part of our support to the US, not just in monetary terms but also procedurally, and then inked a proper, honest and honourable agreement and made it public. Instead, we chose the wrong path and, regrettably, continued on it even after the administration changed in Washington. Even today we see piecemeal agreements with the US as sufficient grounds for cooperation and building a mutually beneficial relationship. And when it comes to our defence arrangement with Washington, even a self-contained document is lacking that could offer a broad insight into this important realm.

There are some who say that Pakistan should not have any dealing with the USA and should isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. This is pure rubbish. Pakistan belongs in the community of elite nations. We are the 6th most populous nation in the world, our GDP is in the top 26% of the world’s nations, and we are one of only nine nations in the world that is a nuclear power. So why is it that some individuals continue to say that we should not be having mutually beneficial relationships with the other world powers?

USA is not going to be our rich uncle Sam. But it will be our partner in the business of national and economic security if we will only learn to have the pride to act as an equal. The US is able to negotiate its deals and make its relationships because it is a world power. By rights, Pakistan is also a world power (this is explained in the previous paragraph). Just as US, Russia, China, and yes even India have relationships that benefit each other, so Pakistan should be part of this group also.

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress