Update: Conflict escalates on the Afghan-Pakistan Border

[Ram]

'Another US strike' hits Pakistan Five civilians and seven militants have been killed in north-west Pakistan in a suspected US missile attack, local officials say. Missiles hit two buildings near Miranshah, the main town in the North Waziristan region on the Afghan border. It has emerged that President Bush recently authorised US raids against militants in Pakistan without prior approval from Islamabad. There is growing concern in Pakistan over unilateral US military action. Early reports said all, or nearly all, of the dead were Taleban fighters killed by one missile. But later reports from the scene said missiles hit two buildings - in one three women and two children were killed, and in the other seven Taleban militants died. The missiles were fired from a drone - an unmanned US plane - local people said. Military spokesman Maj Murad Khan confirmed "a missile attack at around 5.30 in the morning" and said the government had been informed. American and international troops are fighting Taleban and al-Qaeda militants close to the scene of the attack in neighbouring Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the Pakistani army says its troops have killed at least 28 militants in the north-west of the country. The BBC's M Ilyas Khan in Pakistan says that heavy fighting is continuing around the strategically important area of Loisam in the Bajaur tribal area. House destroyed Friday's missile attack was in the Tol Khel area on the outskirts of Miranshah, local officials and eyewitnesses told the BBC. It is the fifth time since the beginning of this month that US forces have carried out cross border strikes, according to local people. On Monday, at least 14 people were killed and 15 injured in a suspected US missile strike in North Waziristan, witnesses and officials said. The attacks follow persistent US accusations that Pakistan is not doing enough to eliminate Taleban and al-Qaeda sanctuaries in the border region. An unnamed senior Pentagon official told the BBC that at some point within the past two months President Bush issued a classified order to authorise US raids against militants in Pakistan Pakistan has said it will not allow foreign forces onto its territory and that it will vigorously protect its sovereignty. It says that cross border raids are not the best way of fighting the "war against terror". The country's Chief of Army Staff, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, said there was "no question of any agreement or understanding with the coalition forces whereby they are allowed to conduct operations on our side of the border". The upsurge in strikes has alarmed Pakistani military and government officials, who say it seriously undermines their counter-insurgency operations. Claim disputed Meanwhile, the Pakistani army says it killed at least 28 militants in the north-west of the country on Thursday night. They said two army soldiers were also killed in the fighting. The killings took place in the troubled districts of Swat and Bajaur, on the Afghan border. The militants have disputed the army's claim, saying no Taleban have been killed. An army spokesman, Major Murad Khan, told the BBC that those killed included foreign fighters as well. A Taleban spokesman, Maulvi Omar, told the BBC's Urdu service that no Taleban fighter had died in Thursday's fighting. The casualty figures could not be independently verified. Bajaur is believed to be a major al-Qaeda sanctuary, and has attracted several suspected US missile attacks from across the border in Afghanistan. Security forces launched an operation against militants in the area in the first week of August. Most markets and shops in the area have remained closed since then. More than 300,000 people have since fled the area to avoid fighting. Witnesses say those who are still in the area are faced with severe food and medicine shortages. --------------------- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7611721.stm Tis only a matter of time before there's a direct firefight between the Pak army and American troops from across the border. Sparks are gonna fly, anytime now.

[DomainK]

Pakistan has said it will not allow foreign forces onto its territory and that it will vigorously protect its sovereignty. It says that cross border raids are not the best way of fighting the "war against terror". The country's Chief of Army Staff, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, said there was "no question of any agreement or understanding with the coalition forces whereby they are allowed to conduct operations on our side of the border". The upsurge in strikes has alarmed Pakistani military and government officials, who say it seriously undermines their counter-insurgency operations.

Armed forces of one country striking missiles or physically operating in another country without permission. Isnt that an act of war? So can we say that the US is now at war with Pakistan?

[PaiN_KiLLeR]

American army operations on Pakistani soil ... I am absolutely loving this!

[Desi Cartman]

reminds me of bhagwan ke ghar mein dair hai andhair nahi and what goes around comes around PS: Im loving this ..

[Ram]

From Pakistani troops firing at US drones, to them shooting in the air to repel advancing US troops, now it has come to a direct confrontation between the US and Pakistani troops on the border areas. The US has begun to talk as though it has lost faith in the Pakistani govt/military to control the Pakistani Taleban and it is going to take matters onto to its own hands to deal with the issue. Thats a major reversal of the policy which has been followed till now, under which US did not meddle into the Pakistan affairs and considered it the sole prerogative of Pakistani military to deal with the Pakistani side of the problem. We may be getting to something really big here.

[DomainK]

From Pakistani troops firing at US drones, to them shooting in the air to repel advancing US troops, now it has come to a direct confrontation between the US and Pakistani troops on the border areas. The US has begun to talk as though it has lost faith in the Pakistani govt/military to control the Pakistani Taleban and it is going to take matters onto to its own hands to deal with the issue. Thats a major reversal of the policy which has been followed till now, under which US did not meddle into the Pakistan affairs and considered it the sole prerogative of Pakistani military to deal with the Pakistani side of the problem. We may be getting to something really big here.

US will talk Pakistan into submission. They fall for sweet talks from US. They have done it and they will do it. Zardari will give in if he gets to shake hands with a few more gorgeous ladies from US. Then US can carry out the attacks with help from Pak military.

[Ram]

My worry is, most of the US generals/ media etc, have begun to club Pakistan along with Afghanistan, Iraq, in their War on Terror. Its like they decided to take it upon themsevles to fix the problem, rather than allow the Pakistanis to fix it. The following column by Tom Friedman is revealing in so many ways; Drilling in Afghanistan By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: July 30, 2008 Sometimes in politics, particularly in campaigns, parties get wedded to slogans — so wedded that no one stops to think about what they’re saying, whether the reality has changed and what the implications would be if their bumper stickers really guided policy when they took office. Today, we have two examples of that: “Democrats for Afghanistan” and “Republicans for offshore drilling.” Republicans have become so obsessed with the notion that we can drill our way out of our current energy crisis that re-opening our coastal waters to offshore drilling has become their answer for every energy question. Anyone who looks at the growth of middle classes around the world and their rising demands for natural resources, plus the dangers of climate change driven by our addiction to fossil fuels, can see that clean renewable energy — wind, solar, nuclear and stuff we haven’t yet invented — is going to be the next great global industry. It has to be if we are going to grow in a stable way. Therefore, the country that most owns the clean power industry is going to most own the next great technology breakthrough — the E.T. revolution, the energy technology revolution — and create millions of jobs and thousands of new businesses, just like the I.T. revolution did. Republicans, by mindlessly repeating their offshore-drilling mantra, focusing on a 19th-century fuel, remind me of someone back in 1980 arguing that we should be putting all our money into making more and cheaper IBM Selectric typewriters — and forget about these things called the “PC” and “the Internet.” It is a strategy for making America a second-rate power and economy. But Democrats have their analog. For many Democrats, Afghanistan was always the “good war,” as opposed to Iraq. I think Barack Obama needs to ask himself honestly: “Am I for sending more troops to Afghanistan because I really think we can win there, because I really think that that will bring an end to terrorism, or am I just doing it because to get elected in America, post-9/11, I have to be for winning some war?” The truth is that Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Pakistan are just different fronts in the same war. The core problem is that the Arab-Muslim world in too many places has been failing at modernity, and were it not for $120-a-barrel oil, that failure would be even more obvious. For far too long, this region has been dominated by authoritarian politics, massive youth unemployment, outdated education systems, a religious establishment resisting reform and now a death cult that glorifies young people committing suicide, often against other Muslims. The humiliation this cocktail produces is the real source of terrorism. Saddam exploited it. Al Qaeda exploits it. Pakistan’s intelligence services exploit it. Hezbollah exploits it. The Taliban exploit it. The only way to address it is by changing the politics. Producing islands of decent and consensual government in Baghdad or Kabul or Islamabad would be a much more meaningful and lasting contribution to the war on terrorism than even killing bin Laden in his cave. But it needs local partners. The reason the surge helped in Iraq is because Iraqis took the lead in confronting their own extremists — the Shiites in their areas, the Sunnis in theirs. That is very good news — although it is still not clear that they can come together in a single functioning government. The main reason we are losing in Afghanistan is not because there are too few American soldiers, but because there are not enough Afghans ready to fight and die for the kind of government we want. Take 20 minutes and read the stunning article in last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine by Thomas Schweich, a former top Bush counternarcotics official focused on Afghanistan, and dwell on his paragraph on Afghan President Hamid Karzai: “Karzai was playing us like a fiddle: The U.S. would spend billions of dollars on infrastructure improvement; the U.S. and its allies would fight the Taliban; Karzai’s friends could get rich off the drug trade; he could blame the West for his problems; and in 2009, he would be elected to a new term.” Then read the Afghan expert Rory Stewart’s July 17 Time magazine cover story from Kabul: “A troop increase is likely to inflame Afghan nationalism because Afghans are more anti-foreign than we acknowledge, and the support for our presence in the insurgency areas is declining ... The more responsibility we take in Afghanistan, the more we undermine the credibility and responsibility of the Afghan government and encourage it to act irresponsibly. Our claims that Afghanistan is the ‘front line in the war on terror’ and that ‘failure is not an option’ have convinced the Afghan government that we need it more than it needs us. The worse things become, the more assistance it seems to receive. This is not an incentive to reform.” Before Democrats adopt “More Troops to Afghanistan” as their bumper sticker, they need to make sure it’s a strategy for winning a war — not an election. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/opinion/30friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin --------------------------------- Just note the # of times he has clubbed Pakistan with other places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Syria. These are dangerous signs for Pakistanis.

[fineleg]

US will talk Pakistan into submission. They fall for sweet talks from US. They have done it and they will do it. Zardari will give in if he gets to shake hands with a few more gorgeous ladies from US. Then US can carry out the attacks with help from Pak military.

:two_thumbs_up:

[fineleg]

My worry is' date= most of the US generals/ media etc, have begun to club Pakistan along with Afghanistan, Iraq, in their War on Terror. These are dangerous signs for Pakistanis.

worry? dont worry, be happy

[kablooee87]

Very interesting, the way things are going. Some thoughts: 1. It's worth noting that the US still hasn't acknowledged that the spy plane shot down was in fact operated by the US. Almost as if they still think people don't know they go into Pakistan territory for operations/missile strikes. 2. Both the President and the military chief have made comments about "protecting Pakistan's sovereignty." Not that I'd be surprised to see that changed once Mr. Slimeball returns from his UN visit. 3. One thing is definitely for sure, something it definitely going to give very soon. Either the people in charge in Pakistan will change their minds or the US will decide enough is enough. Makes me wonder what kind of discourse is going on between the US administration and Zardari and his entourage while he's in the states. 4. To follow up on the spy plane incident, I find it hard to believe that the military didn't have a hand in that. I don't see local tribesman having the resources to shoot down that drone. Although I will say that I'm not that knowledgeable in that regard to I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong. 5. Lastly, smh at the people desperately home hoping for the US escalate hostilities with Pakistan.

[Ram]

worry? dont worry, be happy

For the millionth time, please try to get this into your head. India and Pakistan live in the SAME neighborhood. Our destinies are inter-twined with each other. We're not an island on the Pacific ocean for us to feel safe, irrespective of what happens in other countries. Any instability in Pakistan will have massive impacts in the entire South Asian region. It is in OUR interests, to see Pakistan stable and prosperous. An unstable Pakistan, a militant Pakistan, is disaster for us.

[fineleg]

It is in OUR interests, to see Pakistan stable and prosperous.

Sorry, i dont buy this. I am not saying India needs to do any first attack on pak. But if someone else is engaging them in war, then good. Let them be diverted. Else those morons in their govt spend their time troubling India.

[Ram]

Sorry, i dont buy this. I am not saying India needs to do any first attack on pak. But if someone else is engaging them in war, then good. Let them be diverted. Else those morons in their govt spend their time troubling India.

Sorry, I think you have absolutely no clue on the geopolitical consequences of having an unstable neighbor which is on the verge of civil war. Prosperity can be isolated, but instability cannot be.

[THX_1138]

Very interesting, the way things are going. Some thoughts: 1. It's worth noting that the US still hasn't acknowledged that the spy plane shot down was in fact operated by the US. Almost as if they still think people don't know they go into Pakistan territory for operations/missile strikes. 2. Both the President and the military chief have made comments about "protecting Pakistan's sovereignty." Not that I'd be surprised to see that changed once Mr. Slimeball returns from his UN visit. 3. One thing is definitely for sure, something it definitely going to give very soon. Either the people in charge in Pakistan will change their minds or the US will decide enough is enough. Makes me wonder what kind of discourse is going on between the US administration and Zardari and his entourage while he's in the states. 4. To follow up on the spy plane incident, I find it hard to believe that the military didn't have a hand in that. I don't see local tribesman having the resources to shoot down that drone. Although I will say that I'm not that knowledgeable in that regard to I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong. 5. Lastly, smh at the people desperately home hoping for the US escalate hostilities with Pakistan.

what is this talk about Pakistan's sovereignty? Does pakistan actually have sovereign boundaries that it can stake claim to? the entire north west frontier is fiercely autonomous. it does not adhere to the control of islamabad, does not have representation in the national assembly, does not have a municipal corporation, or a local law enforcement, fire brigade, schools, universities, postal service and does not collect taxes from that region either. heck half the time, pakistani troops are shot at in that region.

[kablooee87]

what is this talk about Pakistan's sovereignty? Does pakistan actually have sovereign boundaries that it can stake claim to? the entire north west frontier is fiercely autonomous. it does not adhere to the control of islamabad, does not have representation in the national assembly, does not have a municipal corporation, or a local law enforcement, fire brigade, schools, universities, postal service and does not collect taxes from that region either. heck half the time, pakistani troops are shot at in that region.

Sounds like you've paid a visit to the region. I haven't so I won't argue with that.

[MarathaPride]

For the millionth time, please try to get this into your head. India and Pakistan live in the SAME neighborhood. Our destinies are inter-twined with each other. We're not an island on the Pacific ocean for us to feel safe, irrespective of what happens in other countries. Any instability in Pakistan will have massive impacts in the entire South Asian region. It is in OUR interests, to see Pakistan stable and prosperous. An unstable Pakistan, a militant Pakistan, is disaster for us.

Swing and a miss!! The intertwined destiny theory is absolute bull. Myanmar, Bhutan, and Nepal are also in our "same neighborhood", and they havent exactly been beacons of stability, good governance, and prosperity. Yet, we have been largely unaffected. It is rather obvious that it would be in India's best interests to see a Pakistan that isnt "Pakistan" anymore, but rather different nation states - Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, Waziristan. This, ofcourse, will not be happening any time soon. However, a nation that fighting on several outside fronts, while also fighting against secessionist movements from within, cannot pose any serious challenge to us and can be countered very effectively. If they know that if they strike us, we can strike back with much greater venom and vengeance (and thereby adding to their woes), then they are automatically deterred. Also, please stop this desi bhai-bhai crap. Its one thing to be friends with Pakistanis in the US/UK/Elsewhere (and I do have some good Pakistani friends..but we rarely ever talk politics :--D), but it is utter stupidity to wish for the stability and prosperity of an ENEMY country (I'd rather you wished for the well being of countries mentioned in the first para).

[MarathaPride]

Very interesting, the way things are going. Some thoughts: 5. Lastly, smh at the people desperately home hoping for the US escalate hostilities with Pakistan.

Why? Do you seriously believe that India and Pakistan are not enemies? When you guys foment, abet, and encourage separtist movements in India that have caused the deaths of several of our brave soldiers and innocent civilians, then wouldnt it be foolish for us to wish for the safety of your nation? Dost, you seem to be a person with good intentions, but India and Pakistan will ALWAYS remain in a state of hostility (only the degree and magnitude of this enmity change) until one country is completely subjugated by, and subserviant to, the other.

[Kohum]

Swing and a miss!! The intertwined destiny theory is absolute bull. Myanmar, Bhutan, and Nepal are also in our "same neighborhood", and they havent exactly been beacons of stability, good governance, and prosperity. Yet, we have been largely unaffected.

That is primarily because - these are not ENEMY countries. The best example of political instability affecting us would be Kargil. Today Pakistan is suffering from political as well as regional instability on a bigger scale.

It is rather obvious that it would be in India's best interests to see a Pakistan that isnt "Pakistan" anymore, but rather different nation states - Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, Waziristan. This, ofcourse, will not be happening any time soon. However, a nation that fighting on several outside fronts, while also fighting against secessionist movements from within, cannot pose any serious challenge to us and can be countered very effectively. If they know that if they strike us, we can strike back with much greater venom and vengeance (and thereby adding to their woes), then they are automatically deterred.

Wrong statement IMO. Cricket & Vengence against INDIA, can and have served as a great means to the Pakistani politicians, in keeping the Paki populations attention diverted from their own issues.

[kablooee87]

Why? Do you seriously believe that India and Pakistan are not enemies? When you guys foment, abet, and encourage separtist movements in India that have caused the deaths of several of our brave soldiers and innocent civilians, then wouldnt it be foolish for us to wish for the safety of your nation? Dost, you seem to be a person with good intentions, but India and Pakistan will ALWAYS remain in a state of hostility (only the degree and magnitude of this enmity change) until one country is completely subjugated by, and subserviant to, the other.

I had a lengthy post written up, but deleted it in a moment of clarity. All I will do is point out the highlights of your posts. Within the space of two posts you managed to declare me your eternal enemy, denounced any thoughts of decreasing hostility, justified putting up a front for your expatriate Pakistani friends, wished for Pakistan to no longer exist but said you would settle for it to be plagued by external offensives and secessionist movements, and referred to me as "dost".

[Ram]

Swing and a miss!! The intertwined destiny theory is absolute bull. Myanmar, Bhutan, and Nepal are also in our "same neighborhood", and they havent exactly been beacons of stability, good governance, and prosperity. Yet, we have been largely unaffected. It is rather obvious that it would be in India's best interests to see a Pakistan that isnt "Pakistan" anymore, but rather different nation states - Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, Waziristan. This, ofcourse, will not be happening any time soon. However, a nation that fighting on several outside fronts, while also fighting against secessionist movements from within, cannot pose any serious challenge to us and can be countered very effectively. If they know that if they strike us, we can strike back with much greater venom and vengeance (and thereby adding to their woes), then they are automatically deterred.

You've just shown your utter ignorance by comparing some tiny-pot nations that are mere specks on the map to a country with 150 million people, one of the largest operational armies in the world and MOST importantly, a some nuclear warheads and missiles capable of landing them on some important Indian cities.

Also' date=' please stop this desi bhai-bhai crap. Its one thing to be friends with Pakistanis in the US/UK/Elsewhere (and I do have some good Pakistani friends..but we rarely ever talk politics :--D), but it is utter stupidity to wish for the stability and prosperity of an [b']ENEMY country (I'd rather you wished for the well being of countries mentioned in the first para).

Only kids engage in this friend-enemy talk. If I am true patriot and love my country ( which I do), I would do whatever it takes to make it more safe and prosperous. And it is for that reason for which I wanted our entire neighborhood to be safe and stable too.