US Confirms Raid Inside Pakistan

[Huntarr]

September 04, 2008

Associated Press

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - American forces conducted a raid inside Pakistan on Sept. 3, a senior U.S. military official said, in the first known foreign ground assault against a suspected Taliban haven. Pakistan's government condemned the action, saying it killed at least 15 people.

The American official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of cross border operations, said the raid occurred about a mile inside Pakistan. The Washington-based official didn't provide details on casualties.

Pakistan's Foreign Ministry protested the attack, and an army spokesman warned that the apparent escalation from recent missile strikes on militant targets along the Afghan border would further anger Pakistanis and undercut cooperation in the war against terrorist groups.

The boldness of the thrust fed speculation about the intended target. But it was unclear whether any extremist leader was killed or captured in the operation, which occurred in one of the militant strongholds dotting a frontier region considered a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahri.

[The_Red_Rage]

Pakistan holds one of the two air corridors for supporting the mission in Afghanistan with 40% of the cargo going through there. The other one is provided by Russia. Both partners are alienated now, with potentially grave consequences for Afghan mission.

However, There is interest involved on both sides (that's why the corridors are still open) - Russians are interested in keeping Taliban in check right on their border to avoid Tadjikistan part 2; Pakistanis, as Islamic extremist as they are, still like to consider themselves "an important US ally in the region" (safer the the regime), they make a alot of moolah on "lost" cargo (30-40% of cargo going through Pakistan never makes it), plus all the military support of course.

[JP76er]

We all know that there have been plenty of missions into Pakistan. What's unique about this one, is they publicly acknowledged it. Interesting

[JP76er]

I love your quote at the bottom. Excellent!

September 04, 2008

Associated Press

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - American forces conducted a raid inside Pakistan on Sept. 3, a senior U.S. military official said, in the first known foreign ground assault against a suspected Taliban haven. Pakistan's government condemned the action, saying it killed at least 15 people.

The American official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of cross border operations, said the raid occurred about a mile inside Pakistan. The Washington-based official didn't provide details on casualties.

Pakistan's Foreign Ministry protested the attack, and an army spokesman warned that the apparent escalation from recent missile strikes on militant targets along the Afghan border would further anger Pakistanis and undercut cooperation in the war against terrorist groups.

The boldness of the thrust fed speculation about the intended target. But it was unclear whether any extremist leader was killed or captured in the operation, which occurred in one of the militant strongholds dotting a frontier region considered a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahri.

[Bigduke6]

Gotta wonder, is it helping or hurting? I've no doubt that the targets were some kind of bad guy or guys way up on some kind of secret list. Heck, maybe some of them got taken prisoner and now they're not being tortured in all the imaginative ways the US has of not torturing the people it wants to talk.

But jeez, you start killing people in large groups inside Pakistan's NW territories, that's not a place where you want to start making enemies wholesale. There are more Pathans/Pashto in Pakistan than there are in Afghanistan, and every time you hunt some of them down, you run the risk of pissing off some clan that so far had been happy to stay out of the war or maybe even accept money to be on your side.

But maybe it was such a high-value target, it was worth it.

Maybe.

[JP76er]

Gotta wonder, is it helping or hurting? I've no doubt that the targets were some kind of bad guy or guys way up on some kind of secret list. Heck, maybe some of them got taken prisoner and now they're not being tortured in all the imaginative ways the US has of not torturing the people it wants to talk.

But jeez, you start killing people in large groups inside Pakistan's NW territories, that's not a place where you want to start making enemies wholesale. There are more Pathans/Pashto in Pakistan than there are in Afghanistan, and every time you hunt some of them down, you run the risk of pissing off some clan that so far had been happy to stay out of the war or maybe even accept money to be on your side.

But maybe it was such a high-value target, it was worth it.

Maybe.

That's what makes me wonder. You wonder if it was a high value target, why aren't they telling us who it is? To confirm it publicly doesn't make sense for the reasons you laid out. If it was a high value target & I'm already announcing the raid as being real, give us the goods.

How they torture us here in the USA, are all the Talking Heads on this election cycle. I retired early due to disability & have been forced at times to watch ugly stuff like this. Every person interviewed is an automaton, in all parties. It has become a cultist phenomenon & they are speaking the same speak, all the time. I'm trying to get the word "Change", thrown out of the English language. I want an Ultimate fight match of all involved, now that would be entertainment! Too bad Janet Reno wouldn't qualify this time.

[Lampshade111]

Good, let it be known that we are not afraid to hunt down those Taliban and Al Qaeda filth in Pakistan. Their corrupt government was not doing the job. No need for the heavy armor, but we should let our special forces and infantry units go after them with air and artillery support.

[Battlefront.com]

Let's make sure to not turn this into a politics thread, though I do agree that Janet Reno would kick some serious booty!

This is an extremely troubling development because it basically is saying to the world that Pakistan is useless. As true as that may be, a hostile Pakistan can't possibly be better. Well, not unless this resulted in Bin Laden in a bag somewhere.

I agree with the speculation that the targets must have been waaaaaaay up on the list. In the past when the US has violated Pakistani borders it was against high valued targets. And no boots on the ground either.

The only other reason for violating Pakistani territory so utterly would be a complete botchup where someone really screwed up their GPS reading. However, based on the military reaction to the attack I'd say that was unlikely. This was planned, which again backs up the theory that someone big was thought to be in there. And as BigDuke speculates, it is possible that the someone is now being "questioned". We won't hear about that for a long time if that's the case.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

This was planned, which again backs up the theory that someone big was thought to be in there. And as BigDuke speculates, it is possible that the someone is now being "questioned". We won't hear about that for a long time if that's the case.

On the other hand, it is more than possible that the "somebody big" slipped out of the net as he has done before, and now the US is trying to get the milk back in the bottle. Just another scenario, but it's one we've seen before.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, and we'll not know the answer for even longer if that was the case. Either way, I think this is going to take a little bit of time for the story to unravel.

Steve

[dpabrams]

Janet Reno last kicked butt on the Janet Reno Dance Party on SNL.

Seriously, bad guys respect one thing, POWER and VIOLENCE!

[Bigduke6]

Another worrying aspect of this raid is it is a step up the escalation ladder. Missile strikes in Pakistan we know to have been happening, and covert ground force raids I think we can assume to have been happening. And of course "allowed hot pursuit" by US ground forces crossing the line from Afghanistan into Pakistan has been part of SOP for a while. (Although apparently, the Pathans/Pashto are pretty good at making themselves scarce, and I for one haven't heard of any hot pursuit incidents.)

As Steve points out, this is the first time US ground forces operating inside Pakistan has been confirmed by the US, and that denies the Pakistan government any deniable fiction that it is in control of the Northwest territories.

This may be obvious from the US point of view and from a pure US military point of view, US raids into Pakistan make great sense.

But from a pure Pakistan internal point of view, such raids are pretty closer to a disaster. The raid demonstrates in abosolutely undeniable terms that Islamabad not only has no sway in the Pathan/Pashto regions, but that it is moreover unwilling or incapable of defending its own territory and citizens from an attack by Christian invaders in the form of the US.

Even worse, Pakistan's population that is not Pathans/Pashto is still ovewhelmingly Moslem, and is well aware their government is hugely corrupt. Therefore, as far as the average Pakistani citizen is concerned, this US raid is undeniable proof that not only the government he can't change because the elections are corrupt, is on the take from the Americans; not only are the people in charge of that government Pakistan getting filthy rich by stealing from the Americans; but also that the people that suppsedly lead Pakistan would prefer to do nothing about US soldiers killing Pakistani citizens, in order to remain friends with the Americans and continue the gravy train.

In other words, as far as the average Pakistan citizen is concerned, Pakistan's leadership are allied with the Christian Infidel against Pakistan's own citizens.

Not a good message for the old hearts and minds campaign, I would say.

The implications of such a raid are not tenable on several levels, most simply because the Pakistan population will not tolerate it. If recent history is any guide, continued Pakistani government corruption is a recipe for either severe Pakistani domestic instability, or a Pakistani authoritarian regime. Either way, with the Pakistani government's main enemy being its own people, the ability of Islamabad to do anything in the Northwest Territories will remain somewhere between insignificant and non-existant.

Which leaves the US in quite a quandry. Certainly they can conduct raids into the NW territories, a region if my memory serves containing something like 20 million Pathans/Pashto, and quite possibly the most severe inhabited mountain terrain in the world. But can the Americans conquer it? Administer it? Exert even marginal influence into it? Get a critical mass of clan heads on their side, within it?

That's the key to what I find worrying here. It's all fine and good to run a greenie beanie raid into Pakistan, it makes the special ops people feel good and produces a nice "hooah" reaction among the pro-military portions of the US citizenry, while the anti-military portions of the US citizenry can be fobbed off with the explaination "Well it was just a raid, our guys left, it's not like they stayed there."

But can there be a "high value" target on the Pakistan side of the line, worth the Pakistani domestic fallout of US troops operating inside Pakistan? Whatever the payoff of that target was - intelligence, dead bad guys, scaring the Pathans/Pashto with the message they are not safe in Pakistan, whatever it was - is that going to move events usefully closer to an end the war between the US military, and the Pathan/Pashto tribes?

Because if that raid does not achieve that effect, if its result is non-war winning intelligence or even worse a whole bunch more Pakistani Pathan/Pashto committed to a jihad against the Americans, then there are only two possible options for the US, both bad.

Option number one, of course, is to expand the scale of US military operations into northwest Pakistan, as the Pakistani government cannot. This is not a great idea - the Northwest Territories, not Afghanistan, are the Pathan/Pashto heartland, the home of the most lawless and vicious tribes; and this is assuming the US military had the capacity and the will to take on approximately three times more armed mountaineers in the Hindu Kush, than it is currently fighting.

And the other option is not to escalate the scale of the conflict - which means the Northwest Territories will continue to do whatever they please, and the Americans like the Pakistani government are reduced to pretending they have meaningful influence on what goes on there.

So like I said, that raid had better have produced one Hell of a payoff. There are some serious downsides to a raid like that, and I would really like to hope that the people in charge thought them through before they send US troops to operate in Pakistan's Northwest Territories.

[John Kettler]

This, of course, raises two interesting issues: Who controls the Bomb in Pakistan, now that Musharaff's stepped down and what are we going to do about the ISI, if anything? My understanding is that absent a lot of help from the latter, to include sanctuary in the region just raided, the Taliban simply couldn't exist; that the Taliban is, in fact, the ISI's creature, its means of keeping Afghanistan in more or less permanent uproar. "Strangely," this keeps the U.S. et al. engaged and the gravy train rolling.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Lethaface]

In my opinion, Pakistan cant be seen apart from the Afghan conflict. Afghanistan has been a 'proxy' place since it's birth. Like most recent conflicts, I believe its origin lies in the colonial times. Like in Africa and the middle east, borders were drawn strategically by colonial powers (in this case, the brits) in a school example of 'divide et impera'.

Looking at this conflict in Macro, I think none of us has real knowledge about what the strategic long term goals are in this conflict. This part of the earth has large resources which are badly wanted by all powerfull nations. With China emerging, all factions involved are trying to get grips on their influencial sphere. Powerfull locals will try to gain the best of it while China, Russia and US & NATO have a common goal; keep the Islam dominated countries divided and in chaos. And offcourse they too will try to get the biggest influencial sphere for theirselves among those nations. Imagine most of the middle east, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Filipines (and others) together in one allied block with non-extremist and non-corrupt governments which are supported by their people. That will be the largest and most resource dense pact in the world. While it may bring peace to the world, it will mean the current economical superpowers will lose that (latter) status. All of the current major players will be (macro economic wise) best off with keeping all those nations internally divided with corrupt governments that will 'sell' their country to the highest bidder.

In other words, 'Divide et Impera' still goes strong and I doubt that the ones holding the strings are really up for 'winning hearts and minds' on behalf of the locals themselves. They might be trying to win hearts and minds for their own cause, trying to convince those souls to be won that it is in their best interest. Perhaps it would be, but at least that isnt the main reason for winning those hearts and minds.

In Europe most borders have been created by bloodshed, many many many blood. Perhaps that is the 'fate' of humanity; peace will only come after all parties are fed up with war and in believe that the current status quo is acceptable. For any nation having minorities in power or subjugated, the current status quo isn't acceptable for the majority or minority. Hence, there will be plenty of willingness to wage war. Look at Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Filipines, Indonesia, Congo, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Rwanda, Tsjaad, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Zimbabwe, Myanmar (Burma), Basks in Spain, Kosovo, Abchazie, S. Ossethia, Tjetsjenia [...].

self::emptyBottle(BOTTLE_WINE);

self::setStatus(STATUS_IGNORANT);

self::shutUp();

[JP76er]

Let's make sure to not turn this into a politics thread, though I do agree that Janet Reno would kick some serious booty!

This is an extremely troubling development because it basically is saying to the world that Pakistan is useless. As true as that may be, a hostile Pakistan can't possibly be better. Well, not unless this resulted in Bin Laden in a bag somewhere.

I agree with the speculation that the targets must have been waaaaaaay up on the list. In the past when the US has violated Pakistani borders it was against high valued targets. And no boots on the ground either.

The only other reason for violating Pakistani territory so utterly would be a complete botchup where someone really screwed up their GPS reading. However, based on the military reaction to the attack I'd say that was unlikely. This was planned, which again backs up the theory that someone big was thought to be in there. And as BigDuke speculates, it is possible that the someone is now being "questioned". We won't hear about that for a long time if that's the case.

Steve

LOL I read on & now find that Janet has signed up!! Oh man, that is good. I definitely agree on the political stuff.

I would really like to find out the specifics on this raid but the White House won't return my calls. I know I'm speculating & it had to be something pretty big & important to acknowledge the mission. Like I said, we all know that there have been missions in to Pakistan, but to admit one is very curious.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, very curious. I remember the denials of a Predator strike when reporters in the area were showing pieces of a Hellfire missile, of which the Pakistanis (apparently) had none of in inventory. So there was the evidence, as such, on the spot and without much dispute that it was a Hellfire from a US aircraft and it was indeed well within Pakistan's border... yet there were denials from the official US sources from what I remember. Later it was confirmed to have come form a Predator which was targeting AQ's #2 (this is the one that killed a number of AQ leadership, and some of #2's family IIRC, but the target wasn't there after all).

Steve

[FAI]

New development, Pakistani soldiers ordered to open fire on US raiders.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan

[Huntarr]

They also agreed, if there was precise intelligence, the U.S. could undertake ground operations through special forces within five kilometers of the border without informing the Pakistan Army beforehand.

According to former Pentagon expert Col. David Hunt, the particular unit was the U.S. Marine Corps Special Operations unit called Detachment One.

Hunt claimed that CIA, which for years has had a close working relationship with Pakistan's intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, had been warned prior to the U.S. attack.

"We didn't ask permission," Hunt asserted. "We told them we were coming."

[John Kettler]

Pakistan's in deadly earnest about its territorial sovereignty, as shown by this Beeb report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7396366.stm

And this one from Oz

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24352223-2703,00.html

Further, the new president of Pakistan took the matter up with the British PM--in person!

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gWNBkw9xJ-RMGgzgpU4g2az_i2AA

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sgt Joch]

there was an interesting article in the NY times about developments in the NW frontier area.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07pakistan-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin

To summarize, Pakistan's NW frontier area has always been semi-independent. In colonial times, the British left the local tribal chiefs in charge, as long as they recognized the British Crown. After independance, Pakistan continued the arrangement.

After they got kicked out of Afghanistan in 2001, the Taliban/Al Quaida found a safe haven in the tribal areas. Many elements in the Pakistani government knew they were there, but because different factions in the government are unsure whether they should be viewed as an ally or a threat, their presence has been tolerated.

However, not content with merely being allowed to stay there, Taliban/Al Quaida has been gradually taking over control of the Tribal Areas, killing Chiefs and anyone else who opposes them and now in a more worrisome development (and one which is making the Pakistani Government frantic), they appear to be making moves to take over Pakistan itself, which is not so farfetched as it sounds since they do have supporters throughout society.

Obviously a Taliban/AlQuaida dominated Pakistan would be a nightmare scenario...given that Pakistan has nuclear weapons...

I am sure the US knows this, so the question is what should the US do, given Pakistan's proven inability to control anything that goes on in the tribal areas...

[MikeyD]

I always said it was just a matter of time before the ethnic Iraqi Sunnis got sick of Al Qaida in Iraq running amok in their neighborhoods and did something about it. I'm much less optimistic about the Pakistan border regions. Iraq had a substantial history of a modern secular society. Pakistan's mountainous border areas remain something straight out of a Rudyard Kipling tale. When the Pentagon was asked in 2003 what standing plans they had on the shelf for operations in Afghanistan they replied that they had none. Their perception was that region was where great powers went to be humiliated. I'm glad I'm not the one who has to come up with a coherent plan for that region.

[BigDork]

"Mullen: We respect Pakistani sovereignty" http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/09/ap_pakistan_091708/

Sure... we respect it and all that unless there's someone on the other side of the border we want to take out/take captive.

[John Kettler]

Things seem to have gotten hotter on the Pakistani sovereignty issue. The report claims we came a mile across the border into Pakistan and got shot at or warned off. The Pentagon says it never happened.

http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080922/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan

Meanwhile, a recent issue NEWSWEEK or U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT (can't remember which but has big multipage feature on women and voting, against a broader context of the Sarah Palin impact, stories about her, about Wasila, etc.) issue talks about the cross border attacks and says, in essence, that Pakistan will let us

carry out these raids as long as its part is wholly deniable and it's allowed to yell sovereignty violation and otherwise posture. The article indicated that the followers of the charismatic Haqqani have been given what amounts to a free ride in Pakistan and are able to use radio orders from a Colonel Niazi to pass through checkpoints with impunity, use farms as training camps, etc., while the followers of of another Taliban leader are subject to arrest. ISI is prominently mentioned, together with strong hints ISI's doing a lot more than just keeping tabs. ISI knows where to find all the players, but hasn't moved against them. More like succored them.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Bigduke6]

The problem is, of course, that even with the tacit complicity of the Pakistan central government, the US' ability to affect the tribal regions will remain minimal. This is because the tribal headmen answer to/have deals with not the Pakistan central government, but by all accounts the ISI. After all, Pakistan is one of the most corrupt countries in the the world, and the ISI is widely acknowledged to take orders from no one. The result is a situation where the government pretends to object to US cross-border raids, in fact allows them to happen, and meanwhile the ISI uses the raids to justify its own alliances and schemes with the Pathan/Pashto tribes as proof the ISI is the region's best defence against the foreign invader.

The bottom line here is that both the Pathan/Pashto tribes, and the ISI, are powers quite independant of the Pakistan government, and Islamabad has no means of changing the situation. Washington were it to declare all-out war and probably begin a draft probably could - but the US populace wasn't willing to go for that in 2001, and there's no way they'll buy into a massive ground invasion of the tribal territories in 2008.

The official alternative is, of course, the Afghan army gets to the point where it can defend its own country. Given the corruption and tribal loyalities in Afghanistan, I have my doubts - but maybe in 20 years or so that might be possible.

So, what we have is the US increasingly demanding other NATO countries take up the job of policing Afghanistan, so it can deal in a limited way with the insurgents/tribesmen in Pakistan, and either buy time for the Afghan army to get organized, or waste time pretending the Afghan army will get organized, depending on how optimistically one sees the process of Afghan military reform.

One thing is clear. Washington has no way, none, to change the ISI's behavior in the forseeable future. I would say that alone makes any attempt to bring peace to the region a fool's errand. The most likely outcome is the Pakistan government will pretend to help Washington and to try and bring the ISI under control, while in fact the Pakistan leadership will soak the American government for billions in wasted aid. See the regime of South Vietnam for precedent.

So logically, what will come next is sustained US bombing of the Tribal Regions, followed by substantial ground incursions and the the destruction of "major insurgent headquarters", with little effect on the headquarters. See Henry Kissenger and Cambodia for precedent.

[Battlefront.com]

Or we just nuke the whole place. See Japan 1945 for precedent

Seriously though, the best way to ensure that a region like that doesn't cause us problems is to be disengaged from the area COMPLETELY. Without the Great Satan being on their doorstep, the normal petty tribal crap will once again take center stage for those who have nothing better to do than send others out to die for their selfish interests. Of course the long term ramifications of such a strategy may turn out to be worse than the current policy of "in your face diplomacy", but that's not any more certain than the path we are currently going down.

One thing I will say is that once national identity starts to take hold, ties with tribes start to get strained. I heard an interesting report on NPR a couple of weeks ago about Afghans starting to see their Pakistani "brothers" as being greedy and controlling. Truck drivers, bringing goods from Afghanistan to Pakistan, were complaining about the huge lines to cross the border because of the shakedowns for money and goods, then of course complaining about the bribes and theft they had to endure once they got there. Then of course there is the growing dissatisfaction with the death and shakedowns well inside of Afghanistan being perpetrated by people who don't even live in the immediate area.

This friction is fairly new and therefore probably not a big factor right now. But if the people on the Pakistani side of the magical line in the rocky soil continue to treat the Afghan side as a resource to exploit, resentment will grow and with it resistance where it matters... at the local level. As BigDuke6 said, this could take a few decades to really matter, but every day towards that end things will get progressively better in the interim.

Steve