actually, I would ask the moderators of the forum to exercise the zero tolerance policy and close/delete the thread on the basis that no one here is in the armed forces in any rank to inform us what right tactics should be deployed, what right course of action should be taken since the thread is questioning army's tactics. or are we to listen to monday quarterbacking of the civilians who probably just hit lv 44 in call of duty 4 and who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about anyway. thank you.
Ofcourse there should be concerns about the military operation. The refugee crisis is one that will need all the attention possible from Pakistanies of every political affiliation.
We hope the military will be decisive this time around, and not just use long range artillery fire. Also the focus should not be on containment in one given area, letting them grow strong again and then punishing them again. The focus should be on eliminating them entirely.
This is atleast now, the stated objective. One hopes they will live upto it inshallah.
There are legitimate concerns about ANY war, and theres nothing wrong with discussing those concerns, and discussing them does not make anyone pretend they are experts at military tactics.
the thread operator definitely seems to know alot about military tactics, their repercussions and he even seems to know the taliban's action plan to fight as well. And if he's not a soldier then epic fail. Lock/delete thread.
Are the army tactics likely to be counterproductive? The army is using the tactics of 'fighting from a distance' using long-range artillery and air power. This will take a heavy toll on the civilian population. The Taliban, on the other hand, can minimize their losses by dispersing. Will these tactics eventually end up alienating the local population and strengthening the Taliban?
?
I have a couple of concerns about the Swat operation.
I hope they don't violate the zero tolerance policy or make me unpatriotic.
Are the army tactics likely to be counterproductive? The army is using the tactics of 'fighting from a distance' using long-range artillery and air power. This will take a heavy toll on the civilian population. The Taliban, on the other hand, can minimize their losses by dispersing. Will these tactics eventually end up alienating the local population and strengthening the Taliban?
Is the army sincere in defeating the taliban or is this a show for american aid? In the past the army has let the Taliban grow unchecked and failed to do simple things like jamming their radio. Now, with aid on the table, a big operation is launched. Will it be business as usual later?
i should think stopping debate on this topic would be neglecting to acknowledge civilian life in that area.
counter productive it appears. and my opinion is yes it will alienate people furhter and this military action will back fire
2.i cant say for the army, i respect the army and its not a democratic institute by rule. they follow commands.but i am very skeptical abotu the intentions of our govt. extreme measure to me in haste always has reason.
One thing that concerned from the beginning was ISPR's ridiculous statement on the first day that Dir has been cleared and Buner would be cleared in 7 days. They're still operating on the assumption that they're fighting regular forces without the ability to melt into the population or hide in the mountains or civilian houses. This fight will last years.
but isnt it a soldiers job to risk his life to save that of a civilian? and there are civilians in these areas you cannot deny that.
Thats exactly what they are doing. Army and govt let them take control of Swat but they were not happy enough with that so they wanted Buner and they already claimed that they wouldn't stop till complete takeover. So by army fighting them now they are actually saving lives of millions of civilians.
^how army is fighting them is going to be a focal point in this. as the details are murky now, i cant be sure we are going with least possible damage theory.
One thing that concerned from the beginning was ISPR's ridiculous statement on the first day that Dir has been cleared and Buner would be cleared in 7 days. They're still operating on the assumption that they're fighting regular forces without the ability to melt into the population or hide in the mountains or civilian houses. This fight will last years.
Any military's PR department will always give the most optimistic view. If it does anything else it would harm the morale of its own soldiers!
Sorry to go off-topic but is nt this the very argument MQM is using or similar. You criticise Altaf Belly and his goons for their views, yet you hold similar concerns?
My concerns:
3) Lots of dislocated refugees, and they will now be flooding into other cities of Pakistan, slums, shanty towns, crimes will go up
Soldiers are not bodyguards for civilians, they are trained, at least in the pak army to follow orders and accomplish missions. In the real world, that is how it is.
^ in the real word army has only one purpose and all their missions ar to suit that purpose. though your compassion and concern for civilians in the midst is touching.
^ in the real word army has only one purpose and all their missions ar to suit that purpose. though your compassion and concern for civilians in the midst is touching.
You can give the army an order to do many things, doesn't mean they will be good at it if they don't have the training for it.
One thing that concerned from the beginning was ISPR's ridiculous statement on the first day that Dir has been cleared and Buner would be cleared in 7 days. They're still operating on the assumption that they're fighting regular forces without the ability to melt into the population or hide in the mountains or civilian houses. This fight will last years.
