While I and other commentators have welcomed increased US strikes into the ungoverned Pakistani tribal areas, a recent article brings to light part of the complexities of our more aggressive strategy. There have been five strikes within the last twelve days and while it seems some did eliminate both foreign fighters and Taliban members, no high-value-targets have been liquidated. However,

The reputed target of Monday’s attack, veteran Taliban commander Jalaluddin Haqqani, was not among those killed, and the devastation left on the ground seems only to have strengthened the Taliban’s influence on local civilians. “After about an hour, the Taliban turned up,” said Khan, who helped in the rescue work at Dande Darpa Khel. “They ringed a building and erected a tent (to treat casualties) nearby,” the 35-year-old said. “Then they recovered more bodies and wounded who were sent to hospital.”

This brings home one of the most difficult parts of organizations like these (Terrorist, criminal, etc.) to overcome, their social operations. Hamas and Hezbollah both engage in extensive social welfare programs and other community services. While the U.S., Israel or ISAF can eliminate terrorists when sighted, their respective groups are the ones on the ground picking up the pieces, tending to the wounded and/or dead and organizing locals.

The administration seems to have reached the conclusion that there is no way to alter the loyalties of those in the FATA and that despite further antagonizing them and possibly increasing local support for the Taliban (is this possible?), a more aggressive policy of UAV strikes and special forces operations is the only way forward. As some have noted, Pakistan cannot claim to be sovereign while at the same time ceding national sovereignty to locals and claiming it has no control over the area. Where this takes us remains to be seen, but it is indeed a welcome change to a strategy that yielded no results. However, it would do well to read the article closely and to step up efforts in Afghanistan to mitigate ill will after missile strikes and other operations in more ways than simply paying off locals.


COMMENTS / 7 COMMENTS

It’s kinda difficult for foreign troops who come from another land to come into some place & start declarin’ they’re here to “help” the locals by tellin’ ‘em ‘bout “superior” forms of governance & how they should adopt it & all, whilst all the locals seem to observe are these foreign “devils” pointin’ guns & various other weapons at ‘em. & of course there’s the dreaded “collateral damage” to be taken into consideration.

Not exactly “winnin’ hearts & minds”, but the Victorian Brits & Soviets have all gone down that path as well & FAILED miserably…

Maybe TIME to LEAVE this hellhole before it bleeds dry the coffers of the US of A.

Yours Truly added these pithy words on 15 Sep 08 at 7:53 am

I have to agree to an extent with YT. US incursions into Pakistan should be small footprint, not raining hell on the locals in an effort to kill one or two men. Given the attitude of any sovereignty regarding another nation waging battle within their borders without their permission you’d think a more intelligent strategy would be presented.

Jay added these pithy words on 15 Sep 08 at 11:10 pm

I am also unconvinced that there is a way to win in Afghanistan. I also fail to see an obligation of the US to the people of Afghanistan, who have hosted, and appear not altogether opposed to, a variety of xenophobic, primitive governments which have led to their abject poverty. The same can be said in regard to Pakistan. There should have been a reckoning in Pakistan for their role in 9/11. Pakistan cannot continue to run third party terrorist organizations as state policy towards its neighbors.

The United States is misguided in the belief that there will ever be some sort of fondness towards it from the followers of the false prophet. As opposed to those above, I could not agree less. The US should strike, and strike hard, to kill any of a number of notorious terrorists and their accompaniments, as was illustrated by the reliance on “allies” in the UAE with UBL and in Qatar with KSM.

Augustinus von Moltke added these pithy words on 16 Sep 08 at 9:14 am

Augustinus von Moltke : I agree, these religious fanatics & terrorists have to be SQUASHED. A threat to practically everyone, even muslim states. Most importantly, the US Administration has got to stop supportin’ despotic states which encourage activities as such.

No easy solutions though, it’s like all of ‘em muslim states CONDEMN the U.S. for eveythin’ (includin’ the jews). & they don’t seem to be doin’ too well in relation to economic or fiscal policies, things which they oughta BLAME ‘EMSELVES for.

Yours Truly added these pithy words on 16 Sep 08 at 10:40 am

Strike hard and kill because striking hard and killing is the most effective way to win a counter insurgency. Or maybe a football game. Well either of which, lots of bombs and nevermind the civilian casualties. Worked very well for the Israeli’s in Lebanon two years ago. Hezbollah is a mere shadow of it’s previous self as we all know. Firepower over logic. Wins the day everytime, I always say.

Jay added these pithy words on 17 Sep 08 at 1:12 am

I dunno, Jay. What I’ve read was that the israelis weren’t any better off after that debacle. Not exactly a clear win & after all that poundin’ in Lebanon, not exactly winnin’ other nations to their side… Then again, guess the israelis couldn’t care less ‘bout what others thought of ‘em.

Yours Truly added these pithy words on 18 Sep 08 at 2:57 am

YT and CA, heh. Apologies. That comment was pure sarcasm. Not at all speaking Victorian.

Jay added these pithy words on 22 Sep 08 at 10:10 pm

SPEAK / ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated.

Return to Top

Where Kinetic Ops Cant Compete

Posted on 14 Sep 08 by Chirol. Subscribe to follow comments on this post. 7 comments. Add your thoughts or trackback from your own site.

DISCUSSION / RECENT ACTIVITY

TAGS / TOPICS AND REGIONS