The AFPAK Channel
Inside the war for central asia Twitter Facebook RSS
Daily Brief Latest from the Blog Latest from FP

Hide and seek in the FATA

By Nadir Hassan, April 2, 2010 Share

Pakistani Army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani may not have hung a "Mission Accomplished" banner as he declared victory against the Taliban in South Waziristan, but he certainly struck a note of triumphalism. What he neglected to mention was that the battle hadn't ended, it merely shifted to a new theater: Orakzai, a tribal agency further north of South Waziristan. 

When the Pakistani military launched an operation in South Waziristan last October, residents were given a window to clear the area. The military's desire to avoid civilian casualties was understandable and politically necessary, but it gave Taliban leaders an opportunity to walk right out of the war zone and set up camp in Orakzai.

The Pakistani Army has belatedly woken up to this reality and ramped up its offensive in Orakzai over the past couple of weeks. The tactics it has employed, however, are questionable. Perhaps fearing casualties and a loss of morale, ground troops are being used to supplement air power rather than the other way around. The successful Swat offensive last year relied heavily on ground troops, a strategy that has not been repeated in Orakzai.

Stationed troops are little more than sitting ducks for militants, who are going on the offensive against the army. On March 24, after 21 alleged militants were killed in an air strike in Orakzai, the Taliban lobbed four rockets at a security forces' camp. The defensive posture of the army was highlighted the next day when, as reported in the Pashtu-language daily Wahdat, security forces repelled a militant attack in the Shanakha and Mir Bakht areas of Orakzai, killing nine suspected militants. With ground forces merely reacting to Taliban attacks and hoping aerial bombardment will do the heavy lifting of eliminating the militants, the Pakistani Army will only be successful in killing a fraction of fighters, without ever being able to clear the area.

Instead, the army seems satisfied with trying to box the militants in by strengthening check-posts at all entry and exit points in Orakzai. This was done after intelligence agencies found that militants in Orakzai were providing supplies to Taliban-allied militants across the country. As the string of suicide bombings in Pakistan over the last year has shown, however, checkpoints are not the most effective deterrent in restricting the movement of militants.

The presumed death of then-Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan chief Hakimullah Mehsud has given the army an opportunity to weaken the Taliban. Instead of a member of the Mehsud tribe assuming the TTP's leadership position as was the precedent, there has been a free-for-all as Mullah Toofan and Commander Rafique have battled for control of the Pakistani Taliban. While the two factions signed a peace accord on March 21, on March 31, Ziaur Rehman, a Taliban commander allied with Mullah Toofan, was killed in Mashti in Orakzai, allegedly by a rival faction.

As the Taliban battle among themselves in Orakzai, the army needs to avoid the mistake of taking sides. Back in 2007, when Abdullah Mehsud was leading the Pakistani Taliban, there were suspicions that the army aided Baitullah Mehsud in securing Abdullah's overthrow, creating an even bigger monster in the process. With a hands-off approach to internal Taliban disputes and greater faith in ground troops, the army could prevent Orakzai from becoming South Waziristan before the military operations there -- a Taliban hotspot.

Nadir Hassan works for the Express Tribune, an English-language newspaper in Pakistan scheduled to launch this spring.

NICOLAS ASFOURI/AFP/Getty Images

 

ALI S

8:49 PM ET

April 7, 2010

Honesty and transparency

Dear Nadir Hassan,

During the run up to the Iraq war, the American press and "established" was accused of group think as the purported cause of this massive strategic (not really intelligence) failure.
Reporters for the NYT (eg. Judith Miller) & others routinely wrote articles that were false or misleading to the American public. This led to lack of transparency in our foreign policy, group think, deception, etc... Whatever one may call it - it was a strategic failure and a huge cost in blood & treasure to Americans and Iraqis.

You and other journalists have to be better and more careful about Afghanistan and Karzai. Please do your homework (due diligence) as a professional.

1. Please investigate for your own education and then report for our education why Mr. Peter Galbraith was fired. It is poor journalism to quote a person who has a serious deficiency in credibility ( think Ahmed Chalabi). Mr. Galbraith also demonstrated questionable ethics in Iraq ( his conflct of interest in helping write the Iraq constitution while owning stock worth tens of millions in companies who would benefit from Kurdish oil is as example).

2. Educate yourself about the polling done by the IRI in Afghanistan prior to the election last year. How does one do credible polling in a nation with a 70% illiteracy rate among males, greater than 90% among females, and not much of a telephone system or electricity in the rural areas. How were these "accurate" polls done? What is the IRI? Does it have an agenda? Can it be manipulated?

3. Mr. Karzai has risked his life to be president of Afghanistan. There is no proof, evidence, or data to indicate he is corrupt or doing this for monetary gain. No evidence - curious? His brother is on the CIA payroll and may be corrupt. There is much corruption in this broken and war torn land. But the corruption is no more than Pakistan (Mr. 10% Zardari is the president after all, and the corrupt generals are extraordinary wealthy based on stolen US aid and narcotics).

I could go on, but please consider doing your due diligence on just these 3 points. Reflexive reporting and analysis leads to group think. This leads to bad policy, and this leads to human suffering.
Good Luck. Americans deserve better.

 

LAL QILA

6:20 AM ET

April 8, 2010

Pakistan should not start a civil war

The government of Pakistan should not start a permanent civil war against targetting one ethnic group viz. the Pathans.

Americans may be happy about it, but they don't understand.

Hindoo Indians will be very happy about starting a civil war within Pakistan, they do understand, but they are Pakistan's eternal enemies, no matter how much they whitewash it. Just do the necessary research about "moth eaten Pakistan", Indian army invasions of Junagarh, Manavader, Kashmir, East Pakistan, starting a nuclear arms race in the Subcontinent in 1974 by exploding a nuclear device 22 miles from Pakistan's border and the forcible annexation of 500 Princely States into India etc. Life is short but the list is very long.