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

Daily brief: NATO pursues insurgents into Pakistan

By Katherine Tiedemann, September 27, 2010 Share

Cross-border relations

In rare cross-border incursions in the last few days, NATO Apache helicopters killed as many as 49 Haqqani network insurgents who had attacked a remote combat outpost in Afghanistan's Khost province, right across the border from North Waziristan (AP, BBC, Geo, Dawn, Reuters). Though Pakistan is sensitive about attacks on its territory, U.S. officials say they have an agreement that allows border crossing if troops are in hot pursuit of a target or are under attack.

Four suspected U.S. drone strikes were reported in North Waziristan in the last three days, killing around a dozen alleged militants (AFP, Dawn/AFP, AP; AP, BBC, CNN; AFP, BBC, ET, AP). September has seen more reported strikes -- at least 20 -- than any other month since 2004, following January 2010, which had 12 (NAF).

Pakistan's minister for defense production, Abdul Qayum Jatoi, was forced to resign over the weekend after accusing Pakistan's Army of assassinating former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and Baluch tribal leader Nawab Akbar Bugti, criticizing the chief justice of Pakistan, and asserting, "There should be equality in corruption. All should be given their due share" (Samaa, Daily Times, ET, The News, ToI, Times, AP, AJE, Reuters). Earlier today, Pakistan's Supreme Court considered whether to revoke Asif Ali Zardari's presidential immunity from prosecution in corruption cases, and Pakistan's prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has canceled a trip to Europe as rumors about a possible change of government swirl (WSJ, Reuters). Analysts say a military coup now is unlikely because the Pakistani Army would inherit the flood disaster (Reuters). The Supreme Court has given the government until October 13 to respond to open corruption probes (Reuters, ET, Dawn, Geo).

Flood watch: U.S. officials are reportedly making a push for American aid to Pakistan's flood victims to be better branded with the USAID logo, as required; some groups are reluctant to advertise U.S. involvement, which could make them targets for anti-American Islamist militants (AP).

Flashpoint

On Saturday India's home minister, Palaniappan Chidamabaram, offered an eight-point plan that would release some 250 protesters who have been jailed for throwing stones at Indian security forces, compensate the families of those killed in demonstrations, and reduce the number of security checkpoints in the valley (AJE, AFP, Reuters). Syed Ali Geelani, a hardline Kashmiri separatist leader, called the offer a "time gaining exercise...aimed to hoodwink the international community," and issued a ten-day protest calendar (AP, AFP, Hindu).

Operation Dragon Strike begins

Last week, coalition forces began a combat phase of anti-Taliban operations in Kandahar's Arghandab, Zhari, and Panjwai districts, involving some 8,000 U.S. and Afghan troops in the first major offensive in Kandahar since Gen. David Petraeus assumed the Afghan command (NYT, Pajhwok, FT, LAT, ABC). In the eastern Afghan province of Laghman, NATO airstrikes reportedly killed some 70 Taliban insurgents, though local residents say many of the dead were civilians and staged protests in the provincial capital (NYT, Tolo, AP). Four aid workers -- three Afghan men and one British woman -- have been kidnapped in Kunar en route to a ceremony marking the opening of a USAID-funded canal in Narang district (Pajhwok, Tel, Times, AP, Guardian, NYT). The Taliban have denied involvement (Pajhwok).

Bob Woodward begins a three-part series of articles adapted from his new book on the Obama administration's Afghanistan deliberations, describing the rift between Obama's military and civilian advisers (Post). Obama's Wars is being released today.

In the last six months, nearly 2,000 Afghan policemen and some 3,600 Afghan civilians were killed or injured in the insurgency (AFP, Tolo). Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, the top U.S. general in charge of training Afghanistan's security forces, will ask allies today to contribute 1,000 more specialized trainers to help speed the development of the country's police and army (WSJ). There are currently around 256,000 people in Afghanistan's security forces, though planners expect to lose 83,000 in the next 13 months because of death and attrition. The Post reports that the latest figures from JIEDDO show that though the Taliban has planted 30 percent more roadside bombs this year, causing an increase in injuries, fewer coalition troops are dying from the attacks (Post).

A military tribunal begins today to determine whether there is enough evidence to proceed with a court martial for a 22 year old Army Specialist from Wasilla, Alaska, Jeremy Morlock, who is charged with premeditated murder in the deaths of three Afghan civilians earlier this year in Kandahar (Reuters, ABC, CNN, AJE, AFP). Four others have also been charged with murder, and seven more with attempting to block the investigation.

The recount

Afghan election authorities have called for a recount of ballots in parts of at least seven provinces, which is expected to rise as more results from the September 18 parliamentary election are examined (AP, Pajhwok). Nearly 60 percent of the complaints received so far are considered serious enough to affect the outcomes of electoral contests; no provinces have posted their results in full yet (NYT, AP). Candidates in Kandahar accused Ahmed Wali Karzai, Afghan President Hamid Karzai's half-brother and local strongman, of drawing up a list of winners before the election occurred.

The Southern District of New York has opened a criminal corruption probe into another Karzai brother, Mahmood, a U.S. citizen who owns four properties in the U.S., and is thus subject to U.S. tax laws (WSJ). Karzai has had at least $5.5 million in loans from the U.S. government to finance two housing developments in Kandahar, which he says have been repaid, and the prosecution may focus on any transactions related to those loans.

After taking it off the market last year, Afghan authorities have opened the Hajigak ore mine for tender and invited bids from international mining firms to develop the deposits in central Afghanistan, believed to hold up to two billion tons of high-grade iron ore, which is used in steel making (AFP, Reuters, Tolo). The minister for mines estimated that Hajigak could create as many as 7,000 long term jobs in the area, and thousands more in spinoff industries like construction and logistics.

Three more stories wrap up the weekend's news: a NATO "red team" is tasked with rethinking how the alliance deals with Afghanistan's pervasive corruption ("pick your battles;" "tackle what affects [Afghans] day-to-day first") (AP); the Karzai government is cracking down on freedom of the press in Afghanistan, shutting popular news sites and television stations (WSJ); and all three Afghan journalists who were detained by coalition troops or Afghan intelligence services have been released (NYT). Bonus read: Afghanistan's not-so-free press (FP).

Cricketing in Kenya

After several days of training and playing friendlies in the UAE, Afghanistan's cricket team has flown off to Kenya for a series of international matches (Pajhwok). The final of the tournament will be played in Dubai in December, and Afghanistan, Canada, Ireland, Kenya, Zimbabwe, and Scotland have already qualified.

Sign up here to receive the daily brief in your inbox. Follow the AfPak Channel on Twitter and Facebook.

PATRICK BAZ/AFP/Getty Images

 

CEOUNICOM

5:57 PM ET

September 27, 2010

""In rare cross-border incursions in the last few days..."

Whoa. That's pretty heavy. And I assume its a conscious decision to start testing "the agreement" (which as the BBC reports, Pakistan denies having such an agreement) that US forces can cross the border in certain cases.

I am curious how this is going to play out in Islamabad. Protests? I'd expect so, but am surprised it hasn't been reported yet. I wonder though how serious and widespread opposition will be. Perhaps there's a segment of the Pakistani population that thinks it's not a big deal? (given that the Pakistani army was fairly ineffective with its own efforts in Waziristan last year, in operation "Rah-i-Nijat"... and has been slogging away in other regions without much progress) Probably not. They'll probably freak out.

Speaking of Pakistani efforts to fight T-i-T (Mehsud's crew) and the Haqqanis... why is every Pakistani army operation have to be, "The Mother of All Battles"?

1) I thought that was Saddam's favorite phrase, and 2) is it really that necessary to pretend that your enemy is so incredibly powerful so that they can make themselves feel like every little skirmish they fight compares with the Somme, Dien Bien Phu...or Helm's Deep?

Then again, its not like American military operations aren't overblown, and given pretty stupid names too...("Dragon Strike?" Thats' the current Kandahar operation. I mean, who's in the Department of Code Names? A bunch of D&D role-playing nerds? Some guys who are really into Nordic Death Metal? Why is it never, "Operation Mellow Gold", "Operation Fancy Nancy", "Operation Touch My Monkey?" I was told once there's a specific system they have to use (two words), and they just arbitrarily assign words to the letters (how else do you get weird, strangely sexy combinations like, "Gothic Serpent"? - which was Somalia, 1993) But if that's the case, I don't understand how Afghanistan got shifted from "Infinite Justice" to "Enduring Freedom". Seriously, the Military Department of Mission-Branding must be where they send the officers who are so inept, they just stick them there where they'll cause the least damage.

But back to the point about Pakistan fighting in Waziristan.... based on this interesting piece from July ...

http://www.eurasiareview.com/201007265907/pakistans-operation-orakzai-conjuring-victories-south-asia-intelligence-review.html ...

.. it at least seems clear that they're *still trying*. Frequent claims - many made on this blog - that Pakistan's military 'does nothing' to fight TiT or Al-Q are clearly wrong; it just seems that they're *not very good at it*, and tend to declare 'victory' whenever they want to take a break.

The author of that above piece clearly understands the issue... and that paper (magazine? website?) Eurasia Review? Man, look out FP. I can't really figure out what their organization is about, but it seems to be an agglomeration of a variety of international english-language journalists and wonks... not all that different than FP, I suppose. Not as cute as you guys, and lacking the awards and Samuel Huntington cache, of course... but good stuff from what I see. Check them out, policy nerds!

 

CEOUNICOM

8:13 PM ET

September 27, 2010

re: "Eurasian Review"

... regarding, 'Eurasian Review': I am going to qualify my above comment.

After now having read a dozen articles and editorials, I felt like there was something a little weird in the inconsistency of the pieces... particularly the opinion stuff.

Some things seemed to be high-level analysis by established journalists and policy wonks; other things were workmanlike straightforward reportage; some other things were flat out crapola: hyperventilating, poorly-written screeds by people with fairly weak (sometimes non-existent) credentials.

This confused me.

Trying to figure out how this worked, I figured out that the website is a 'product' of the Jaboo Media Group, which turns out to be an ICT Solutions company. (ICT = "Information Communications Technology") Huh? Ahh. They do "Content Management Platforms". So what I gather is that they have a licensing system... they get permission from dozens and dozens of sources to 'reprint' their stuff, and voila! Instant 'Newspaper', of sorts. Some of those sources include self-submitted, 'volunteer' content... basically, bloggers who managed to get onto their approved-sources list. Some of this particular stuff is just partisan garbage.

I don't think they have any proper 'Editors' at all...although they do seem to have some proprietary content? Hmm. Its mostly from what I can tell just a website that will aggregate whatever certain approved sources have to say, perhaps with some very slight content management by actual humans. (maybe they try and reduce redundancy... like, not have 10 articles on the same exact topic all featured)

Either way, it's fairly interesting, and frankly in the end a pretty useful site. One stop shop for getting a wide range of policy analysis, editorial POV, and wonky news from all over the world. (e.g. Want to know what's going on with the Orthodox Church in Azerbaijan? They cover it.) And I've only checked out a small corner of their site. Worth looking into, FP contributors and readers, if you're not already hip to it.

 

CEOUNICOM

4:05 AM ET

September 28, 2010

re: DR. KUCHBHI

DR.,

I understand, and agree.

I understand that there are different factions that present different interests to Pakistani authorities, and that military action differs depending on those interests.

I was mainly pointing out the limitations in their specific actions against groups, and what they've been able to achieve against the groups they decide to repress/harass in their operations..

The differences you point out were pretty clearly outlined in other articles written by journalists/analysts linked to, or if not here, easily available elsewhere. These distinctions are not often clarified in Western mainstream media, and it is disappointing that the general population (after 9 years) is not more versed in the dynamics of the nature of the West-Pakistan insurgent groups than we currently are. Your comments are apropos and appreciated.

 

CEOUNICOM

11:22 PM ET

September 27, 2010

Another little thing...

I noticed, reading the various source articles for the cross-border incident, that the Sept 27 Dawn article was a verbatim cut & paste of an earlier (Sept 26) article in Long Wars Journal (which strangely, they link to - maybe they don't think there's anything wrong with jacking other people's stuff?).

I don't know about South Asian journalistic copyright sensitivities, or how much of *all* the articles written were just reprints of ISAF press-releases and comments from press briefings in the first place, but to have every single paragraph of a front-page story in Dawn be nothing but a direct word-for-word copy of some other source seems a bit low-budget, to say the least. I mean, I'd expect, given that the incident occurred in *their own country*, they'd maybe have some better on-the-ground reportage and sources than do, say, Reuters, who is just whipping out quick-hit stories from - as mentioned - press releases and briefings.

Another, if small, point noticed: all the stories cited copied the blurb "the Haqqani Network is based near Miramshah in North Waziristan"; whereas, the Dawn article added, "THE US CLAIMS the Haqqani Network is based near Miramshah in North Waziristan" (my emphasis)

Again - the thing I find funny about this is that western news sources consider this particular factoid pretty well established enough to not have to caveat it in any way, while Pakistani sources - which I would assume have MUCH better intelligence on this group - adds a qualifier, casting a slight tinge of doubt as to whether there is any basis in truth for it.

Maybe it's just a Pakistani style-guide issue, where anything the US military says needs to be called, "a claim" no matter how well-established it is. The open question however, is why they don't seem to have any additional thoughts on the matter, given that these particular 'insurgent' groups are within their own territorial boundaries, at least nominally (or more truthfully - completely out of their control).

One could debate whether this is an issue of Western news media simply repeating what the military tells them, which is certainly a valid criticism, or whether its an issue of Pakistani media simply shrugging off or trying to inject some doubt on any information implying their responsibility for being host to these insurgents.

The only reason I noticed the small editorial change was because virtually every other word in the piece was a direct copy-paste of someone else's writing. It implies that the only thought they decided to add to the LWJ article was to cast doubt on this one particular point...while taking everything else wholesale. Not exactly the pinnacle of journalistic integrity.

Then again, I don't know how significant Dawn is as a Pakistani news-gathering institution, but given how often they are cited here, I'd think they'd probably represent the 'top shelf' of Pakistani journalism. One would think they'd have at least some small additional dimension or information to add to the story, if only some kind of color or backstory. If they pretend to know less about the Haqqani network than do outside news agencies, the only conclusions to draw are either they don't WANT to know, simply don't have the capability to actually confirm the point, or are being intentionally and disingenuously oblivious.

Any of those conclusions is telling: Pakistani media is no more informed - perhaps less, or even more likely to dissimulate - than any other outside agency, and offers little proprietary insight into actual events that occur in the tribal areas.

 

CEOUNICOM

4:14 AM ET

September 28, 2010

Thank you again for the insight

..I wasn't intending to particularly disparage the paper (although, that is in fact what I did), but your point helps clarify why they covered the incident in the way they did, at this early moment.

It is useful to understand that different factions will be treated differently by Pakistani media, for understandable reasons and/or pressure. I read the piece you mentioned regarding the difficulties of Pakistani journalism, but did not take away as much as you have imparted here. Thanks for the heads up.

 

CEOUNICOM

12:09 AM ET

September 28, 2010

Sorry for the monomania...

...But here's a little detail on the "agreement" that AP covered in 2007

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-08-23-pakistan-engagement_N.htm

Some fairly interesting stuff. The 'agreement' is more like the US saying, "this is what we're saying we'll do", and Pakistan said, "OK, but in public we'll deny it". The fact the details are so specific (10K penetration limit?) implies there was some specific negotiation.

 

CEOUNICOM

12:34 AM ET

September 28, 2010

Last one, I promise...

I've figured out that the Eurasia Review 'proprietary content' (pieces cited as those written by ER staff) are in fact simply reprints of press releases from US government sources.

e.g.

this - "Raccoon Hanging Man Indicted In Hate Crime At School"

http://www.eurasiareview.com/201009278576/raccoon-hanging-man-indicted-in-hate-crime-at-school.html

is in fact, this = a reprint of a DOJ press release

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/September/10-crt-1084.html

Word for word verbatim.

You'd think they'd at least cite the source. I don't know how that sort of thing works, legal-wise, but you'd think they'd be obligated to acknowledge the sources, particularly when they are word-for-word reprints. Maybe US copyright doesn't apply wherever they are based.