Question: can the problems in Pakistan and Afghanistan be solved or will this be Obama’s Iraq?

Discuss…

Indian Army troops of the famed Gurkha Rifles on parade

A flurry of reports in the Indian, Pakistani and Western media indicate that both India and Pakistan are taking serious steps to prepare for a new conflict between the two nations, which have fought three wars since 1947, in the wake of the November 26 terror attacks in Mumbai.

According to reports from both sides of the border, Pakistan has cancelled all military leaves, put its forces on high alert, and is moving troops from the west to the frontier with India.  At least two corps of Indian Army troops are also on the move in what officials called “annual exercises.”  And Indian Prime Minister met for the second time in a week with India’s top military officers in a widely publicized gathering to review “defense preparedness.”

Meanwhile, the Indian government is warning its citizens not to travel to Pakistan, and both sides are ratcheting up their war of words.  Over the past week, India has increased its pressure on Pakistan to take concrete action against the Pakistan-based groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad, that India and U.S. intelligence officials believe were responsible for the Mumbai attacks.  India pointedly delivered a letter from the sole surviving Mumbai attacker to Pakistani authorities, contending that it constitutes the evidence demanded by Pakistan of the terrorists’ Pakistani ties.  But Pakistan has refused to consider the letter as sufficient proof.

The United States continues to call on both sides to avoid a conflict that could seriously harm the American-led war against the Taliban in Afghanistan by diverting Pakistan’s armed forces from west to east. A parade of high-ranking U.S. officials has descended on Pakistan and India in recent weeks, making no bones about their strong interest in a Pakistani crackdown on Kashmiri terrorists and Indian forbearance.  However, Indian officials have harshly scolded the “international community” — which in this case can be taken to mean chiefly the United States — for not doing enough to “deal effectively” with a terror threat in Pakistan that India regards as the “greatest danger” to the world.  While pushing for heightened international pressure on Pakistan, India is also laying the groundwork to be able to say it exhausted international channels to solve the problem before deciding to strike.

In what might well be a propaganda move designed to counter India’s claims about the Mumbai attackers and rally Pakistanis behind their flag, Pakistan said Thursday that it had arrested three Indian nationals for a bombing in Lahore and linked them to an “Indian spy.”  India immediately dismissed the charge as a “ploy.”

Referring to the kind of precisely targeted Indian attack along the lines I speculated about a few days ago, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani and Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi warned that Pakistan would retaliate for any such attack.  Their statements were presumably designed to convince India and others that any Indian military action — even a “surgical” strike against one or more of the Kashmiri separatist training camps located within the Pakistan-administered portion of Kashmir — would lead to a wider war.

I, for one, don’t doubt that.  The Mumbai attacks have put both sides between a rock and a hard place.  Anger over the attacks is so widespread among large segments of India’s population that India’s governing Congress Party must extract significant concessions from Pakistan of a kind that no Pakistani government, civilian or military, has ever been able to give and still survive.  There is no chance that Pakistan’s weak civilian government will arrest and extradite to India anyone associated with the attacks.  It’s even unlikely that Pakistan will directly punish lower-level militants or take serious steps to break up Lashkar-e-Taibi or Jaish-e-Muhammed.  The simple fact is that the minimum needed to placate India is more than the maximum that any Pakistani government can afford to do.

Of course, the U.S., NATO, and the Afghan government have a major stake in seeing that Pakistan’s army is not drawn away from the North West frontier, but as the stand-off between India and Pakistan goes into its second month, it’s not clear what more any of them can do to avert a clash.

I’m just guessing, but my guess is that India will launch a targeted strike sometime soon.  If so, President Barack Obama will face another serious crisis just as he assumes office.

(Visit me at The Purple Center)

Above: Indian Air Force Sukhoi Su-30 MKI multi-role strike fighter

As the luxury Taj and Trident hotels prepared to reopen for the first time since the November 26th terrorist attacks in Mumbai, The Times of India reported that India is “keeping the military option alive and kicking in face of Pakistan doublespeak on the crackdown on terror.” According to the report, “a top-level meeting was held on Saturday evening to review the security situation in the region and the state of defence preparedness of the armed forces.” Similar accounts of high-level security meetings have appeared elsewhere in the nation’s press over the past couple of days. More ominously, another leading newspaper, The Telegraph, quoted “top government sources” saying that the Mumbai attacks were “the direct handiwork of Pakistan’s military that trained and armed the militants and planned the strike in detail.”

Meanwhile, on both sides of the Indo-Pakistan border, stories about apparent border incursions by air continue to appear, including an Indian report of “massive practice by Indian Air Force planes in Jamnagar” a city in western India a short jet hop from Pakistan.

This should not come as a surprise. Since the Mumbai attacks, Pakistani authorities have gone through the motions of rounding up the usual suspects associated with the Kashmiri terrorist outfits, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad, that U.S. intelligence officials believe were responsible for the attacks. But Pakistan resolutely refuses even to concede that Pakistanis were involved in the attacks, much less crack down hard on the Kashmiri groups it has long sponsored and supported.

The Mumbai attacks shook Indian society and the Indian leadership to the core. Unless it gets some hard concessions from Pakistan that are politically difficult or impossible for any Pakistani government to make, India’s governing Congress Party government simply cannot afford to kick up a little dust and hope the matter will go away. It will likely lose the next national election.

Speculation about a possible Indian strike has centered on air attacks on Kasmiri separatist training camps inside the Pakistani-administered portion of Kashmir. There is no shortage of such targets. A “surgical” strike against them might satisfy India’s need to make it’s point and cause Pakistan some pain without risking escalation into a major conflict.

However, the independent intelligence analysis firm, Stratfor, points out that such strikes might be largely symbolic, since the Indian Air Force lacks the heavy bombing capability needed to do significant damage to facilities of this kind. Stratfor theorizes that India may decide to attack a key Pakistani governmental facility in Islamabad, such as the headquarters of the Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI, which India has long identified as instrumental in creating, training, arming and supporting the Kashmiri Islamist groups.

The the Indians have the resources needed for such a mission, according to Stratfor:

 

The Indian air force increasingly has been regarded as professional and capable by American pilots at Red Flag exercises in Nevada. India has modern Russian fighter jets and probably has the capability, with some losses, to penetrate deep into Pakistani territory.

Just two days ago, Stratfor confirmed its belief that India is preparing for a strike.

Hitting the ISI would send a clear, loud message. Pakistan would want to retaliate but have few serious options to do so, lacking much of an air punch. And the Pakistan military leadership might be forced to conclude that further Mumbai-style terror attacks inside India are not worth the trouble they bring.

If India is contemplating a military strike, the next week or so would be a ideal time to carry it out. The United States has been working hard to restrain India while pressing Pakistan to make tougher concessions. But the U.S. is in the midst of a government transition, and this coming week, both the outgoing and the incoming administrations will be on vacation, along with most of the rest of us. The coming holiday period may be a critical time.  

(Visit me at The Purple Center)

Because there is not substantial proof that Pakistan coordinated or sponsored the attacks, India does not want to make a move that could put the civilian Pakistani government in a difficult position. Any military action by India would likely increase the Pakistani military’s power, weakening civilian control. Additionally, Pakistan would likely respond to Indian aggression by redeploying troops from the tribal areas along the Afghanistan border to the Indian border — a move that would play into Taliban and al-Qaeda hands.

The hope is that Pakistan will fully cooperate in the investigation to uncover the ringleaders behind the Mumbai attacks. The shear brutality of those attacks should give Pakistan plenty of cause to round up the perpetrators who are likely hiding within Pakistani territory. This attack is not like previous assaults on Indian governmental establishments. This was a horrific and indiscriminate attack on civilians. I would hope there would be little sympathy for the attackers and little desire to help them remain hidden.

Many militants would like nothing more than a war between Pakistan and India. As of now, it doesn’t appear either nation is going to fall into that trap.

In short, Obama better keep his eye on this nuclear power…or else.

After watching this I can’t help but think that, regardless of what this panel says, the incoming administration realizes the unique position Pakistan has on the world stage. After all, they’re really the only “rogue” nation to have demonstrable nuclear capabilities, so it’s not like this is a hidden problem.

The trick will be where to draw the line between cooperation and concession. And do we really care about getting Bin Laden if it means pissing off enough Pakistanis to make them dangerous?

In the end, something tells me that we’ll be talking about this country throughout the Obama administration, be it 4 or 8 years.

Surprisingly enough, Christopher Hitchens thinks Obama has the right plan when it comes to Pakistan…

Sen. Barack Obama has, if anything, been the more militant of the two presidential candidates in stressing the danger here and the need to act without too much sentiment about our so-called Islamabad ally. He began using this rhetoric when it was much simpler to counterpose the “good” war in Afghanistan with the “bad” one in Iraq. Never mind that now; he is committed in advance to a serious projection of American power into the heartland of our deadliest enemy. And that, I think, is another reason why so many people are reluctant to employ truthful descriptions for the emerging Afghan-Pakistan confrontation: American liberals can’t quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he’s ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less.

This is a good point. If Obama is true to his word about going into Pakistan to fight al Qaeda, and if that could lead to a deeper conflict with Pakistan, does he risk it? Especially since Pakistan is a nuclear power?

McCain called Bhutto’s death “a great tragedy. When something like this happens, you try to figure out who are the winners and the losers. It seems to me that the winners are radical Islamic extremists.” [...]

In an interview with reporters after the event, McCain said, “I would hate for this tragedy to affect anyone’s campaign.” But he was quick to add that “my theme throughout this campaign has been that I’m the one with the experience, the knowledge, and the judgment. Perhaps it may serve to enhance those credentials.”

So what to make of this? I’m not sure there’s any context where it can be read any other way. McCain very clearly stated that Bhutto’s death could enhance his foreign policy credentials.

Personally, I think he’s probably right in the long run since voters trust him more when it comes to handling terrorism, but that still doesn’t make it a politically smart thing to say. Also, for McCain to now denounce very similar statements from his top advisor appears disingenuous at best, and only serves to make it harder for him to get away from the flip-flop meme.

(h/t: TPM)

What in the world was Charlie Black thinking? Because not only did he suggest the contents of the title, but he also talked about an assassination helping McCain’s cause too?

Big time error here…

Charlie Black, an adviser already in the spotlight for his past lobbying work, is quoted in the upcoming July 7 edition of Fortune magazine as saying such an attack “certainly would be a big advantage to him.” Black said Monday he regretted the comment.

Black is also quoted as saying the “unfortunate event” of the assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto earlier this year “helped us.”

Still, I have to think that Black believes this stuff on some level. Unvarnished comments like this don’t come from nowhere, and we all know how shrewd these politicos can be. Anything that can be spun to one’s advantage is up for discussion.

So that brings up the obvious question: does McCain believe any of this? Perhaps, but he’d never admit it and he has already strongly denounced these statements so I’ll take him at his word.

In the end, my guess is that Black will be gone within a matter of days because you just don’t say stuff like this on the campaign trail, especially when you’re such a close advisor.

Not surprisingly, I found this news in a story about an attack by the Taliban that freed hundreds of inmates from an Afghan prison:

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan – U.S. and NATO troops aided Afghan forces with reconnaissance in a hunt Saturday for 870 inmates who escaped prison after a sophisticated Taliban assault that even NATO conceded was a success for the militants.

A roadside bomb, meanwhile, killed four U.S. Marines sent to southwestern Afghanistan to help train the country’s fledgling police. The deadliest attack on American forces this year came one day after the U.S. defense secretary highlighted the fact that more American and allied troops were killed in Afghanistan than in Iraq last month.

Here are some numbers from the AP to chew on…

By the Pentagon’s count, 15 U.S. and two allied troops were killed in action in Iraq last month, a total of 17. In Afghanistan it was 19, including 14 Americans and five coalition troops. One month does not make a trend, but in this case the statistics are so out of whack with perceptions of the two wars that Gates could use them to drive home his point about Afghanistan. [...]

However, I think the AP’s math is off when comparing the amount of forces in Afghan and Iraq:

The comparison is even more remarkable if you consider that there are about three times more U.S. and coalition troops in Iraq than in Afghanistan. Since the Iraq war began in March 2003, there have been just under 4,100 U.S. deaths — including more than 3,300 killed in action — according to the Pentagon’s count. In the Afghan campaign, which began in October 2001, the U.S. death total is just over 500, including 313 killed in action.

If I remember correctly, there are about 155,000 US troops in Iraq, and that’s not even counting the 180,000 private security contractors who operate as defacto soldiers in many ways. And since many of the “coalition” troops are gone, adding them to the total Iraq mix would only make a nominal difference.

So if the number of troops in Afghanistan is around the levels they were last November (26,000), then there are nearly 6 times more U.S troops in Iraq than in Afghanistan and not the 3 times the AP claims.

Given these realities, don’t we think it’s time to refocus our attention on the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, especially since we know it has a specific area set aside as a safe haven for terrorists?

More as it develops…

And while some on the left and the right have been trying to make hay out of this, the segment does have my wondering why, if our highest priority targets are in Afghanistan, that we’re not trying to destroy them.

I understand we think we have an obligation to the Iraqi people, but after Maliki’s recent U.S. aided power grab last week, it seems like we’re wasting our time and we need to start going after al Qaeda again. Because as Confederate Yankee points out…

what Crocker actually told Biden is that our military had severely damaged the operational capabilities of al Qaeda in Iraq (by 75-percent in the last year alone, according to the Iraqi Interior Ministry) and knocked it into a defensive posture where it is far less of a threat.

How much less of a threat?

According to StrategyPage.com, Osama bin Laden admitted defeat in Iraq on Oct 22, 2007, a sentiment that Marine Colonel Richard Simcock shared contemporaneously as it related to al Qaeda’s former strongholds in al Anbar in specific. Battered, tattered, and lethally-harassed by coalition soldiers at night and former Sunni Iraqi allies during the day, al Qaeda’s morale in Iraq is crushed, along with most of it’s capabilities.

Thanks to Iraqi and coalition efforts, Al Qaeda in Iraq is beaten, fragmented, and on the verge of a final collapse, according to the terror organization itself. With this enemy almost defeated, it is only common sense that Crocker would select the remaining al Qaeda hiding along the Afghan-Pakistani border as being the greater threat.

This is GREAT news, and what it means is we should shift focus, yes? I doubt Confederate Yankee would agree with this conclusion, but if we’ve “won” in Iraq what are we still doing there?

Simply put, if this really is a war on terrorism, we need to target the terrorists…not take part in one nation building exercise after another. I know many are concerned with Iran, but that’s a diplomatic mission and I think everybody knows this by now. Having troops in a neighboring country doesn’t do anything for us at this point. Actually, I think it only exacerbates any ill will because the threat is always, “You’re next.” It can’t be all stick and no carrot. The world knows we can organize our forces in a matter of weeks and pound nearly any country into oblivion.

Iraq is won. Time to shift back to Afghanistan.

What an extremely sad day.

From CNN:

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan (CNN) — Pakistan former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has died after a suicide bombing that killed at least 14 of her supporters, ex-government spokesman Tariq Azim Khan and Pakistan’s primary television networks said.

Bhutto suffered bullet wounds in the aftermath of the bomb attack, TV networks report.

Video of the scene just moments before the explosion showed Bhutto stepping into a heavily-guarded vehicle to leave the rally.

Khan said while it appeared Bhutto was shot, it was unclear if her bullet wounds were caused by a shooting or shrapnel from the bomb.

The suicide attack left at least 14 dead and 40 injured, Khan told CNN in a telephone interview.

This attack and death of the opposition might make Musharaff crack down on extremists within his own borders more, but somehow I doubt it. They seem to be doing his bidding now. That’s not to say he wanted this by any stretch of the imagination, but since he has been running the country like he’s a dictator it’s certainly not inconceivable.

Well Pakistan, this is your chance. You can see what people will do to stop a more democratic government from gaining a foothold. Will you let this deter you or will you push towards a more just and fair republic?