Should US attack militants in Pakistan?

Should US attack Pakistan to get rid of Islamic militants? Will it lead to balkanisation of Pakistan?

Fears are growing the U.S. may be planning to attack Pakistan’s “autonomous” tribal region bordering Afghanistan.

The Bush administration is ready to lash out at old ally Pakistan, which Washington now blames for its humiliating failures to crush al-Qaida or defeat Taliban resistance forces in Afghanistan. Limited “hot pursuit” ground incursions, intensive air attacks, and special forces raids by U.S. forces into Pakistan’s tribal are being studied.

The U.S. claims the 27,200- sq.-km region, home to 3.3 million Pashtun tribesmen, is a safe haven for al-Qaida and Taliban, and a hotbed of anti-American activity. Indeed it is, thanks mostly to the U.S.-led occupation of Afghanistan.

I spent a remarkable time in this wild medieval region during the 1980s and '90s, travelling alone where even Pakistani government officials dared not go, visiting the tribes of Waziristan, Orakzai, Khyber, Chitral, and Kurram, and their chiefs, called “maliks.”

These tribal belts are always called “lawless.” Pashtun tribesmen could shoot you if they didn’t like your looks. Rudyard Kipling warned British Imperial soldiers over a century ago, when fighting cruel, ferocious Pashtun warriors of the Afridi clan, “save your last bullet for yourself.”

LAW AND HONOUR

But there is law: The traditional Pashtun tribal code, Pashtunwali, that strictly governs behaviour and personal honour. Protecting guests was sacred. I was captivated by this majestic mountain region and wrote of it extensively in my book, War at the Top of the World.

The 40 million Pashtun – called "Pathan’ by the British – are the world’s largest tribal group. Imperial Britain divided them by an artificial border, the Durand Line, now the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Pakistan’s Pashtun number 28 million, plus an additional 2.5 million refugees from Afghanistan. The 15 million Pashtun of Afghanistan form that nation’s largest ethnic group.

The tribal agency’s Pashtun reluctantly joined Pakistan in 1947 under express constitutional guarantee of total autonomy and a ban on Pakistani troops entering there.

But under intense U.S. pressure, President Pervez Musharraf violated Pakistan’s constitution by sending 80,000 federal troops to fight the region’s tribes, killing 3,000 of them.

In best British imperial tradition, Washington pays Musharraf $100 million monthly to rent his sepoys (native soldiers) to fight Pashtun tribesmen.

As a result, Pakistan is fast edging towards civil war.

The anti-communist Taliban movement is part of the Pashtun people. Taliban fighters move across the artificial Pakistan-Afghanistan border, to borrow a Maoism, like fish through the sea. Osama bin Laden is a hero in the region.

The U.S. just increased its reward for bin Laden to $50 million and plans to shower $750 million on the tribal region to try to buy loyalty.

CAN’T BE BOUGHT

Bush/Cheney & Co. do not understand that while they can rent President Musharraf’s government in Islamabad, many Pashtun value personal honour far more than money, and cannot be bought.

Any U.S. attack on Pakistan would be a catastrophic mistake.

First, air and ground assaults will succeed only in widening the anti-U.S. war and merging it with Afghanistan’s resistance to western occupation.

Second, Pakistan’s army officers who refuse to be bought may resist a U.S. attack on their homeland, and overthrow the man who allowed it, Gen. Musharraf. A U.S. attack would sharply raise the threat of anti-U.S. extremists seizing control of strategic Pakistan and marginalize those seeking return to democratic government.

Third, a U.S. attack on the tribal areas could re-ignite the old movement to reunite Pashtun parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan into independent “Pashtunistan.” That could begin unravelling fragile Pakistan, leaving its nuclear arsenal up for grabs.

The U.S. military has grown used to attacking small, weak nations like Grenada and Iraq. Pakistan, with 163 million people, and a poorly equipped, but very tough 550,000-man army, will offer no easy victories.

Those Bush administration and Harper government officials who foolishly advocate attacking Pakistan are playing with fire.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2007/07/22/4359001-sun.html

Re: Should US attack Pakistan?

I don't accept or believe that Pak. is heading for "a civil war." That view much like the hatred of those forwarding it, is dime a dozen.

The tribal areas are a part of Pakistan therefore Pakistani Military should be able to enter it. If American/Afghan/NATO or any other dirt bag military violates the border, then let us arm the tribals and take it into Afghanistan.

Remember guys, these "tribals" are not some animals..poor, uneducated, armed to the hilt, yes..pious and following mullahs, sure, but they are also our Pakistani Muslim brothers.

If Pashtuns tribes are beholden to Mullahs, then Punjabis are slaves of their Chaudhries, Baluchis of their Sardars and Sindhis to their Waderos.

I don't any terrorist activities but seriously how many of you people have actually met a "tribal"? Very easy to talk about bombing miranshah but I bet everyone would be howling in protest if we starting talking about Karachi, Lahori or Faisalabad. Mind you, Al-Qaida terrorists were located there as well.

This is an internal Pakistani issue. President Musharraf was right to setup an agreement and to pull the Pak. military back.

Re: Should US attack Pakistan?

I am not too sure about that, someone was bought with dollars in buckets/briefcases across the border.

Re: Should US attack Pakistan?

The question does not arise. The US should NOT attack Pakistan. The day it does, it'll alienate a large swathe of population which otherwise supports action against terrorists.

Re: Should US attack Pakistan?

True, and I'm afraid we might fare worse than Iraq, atleast on the social divisions, which always are to the advantage of the aggressor...

Re: Should US attack Pakistan?

There is also a possibility that it could unite all people against aggressor.

Re: Should US attack Pakistan?

I smell DOLLARSSS...
i dono why they r delaying this... it wil bring prosperity to our country...err.. 52nd state of US>
count my vote..

Re: Should US attack Pakistan?

^^ please which is the 51st state of USA?

Re: Should US attack Pakistan?

Israel:D

Re: Should US attack Pakistan?

First and forth most, the US should strike the Pakistani army for doing such a poor job in fighting militancy, and call it a 'friendly fire' incident. I am not sure what're they doing

with all money and equipment deliverd by the US.
By the way, apart from empty rhetorics of 'alienation', I haven't heard much from the Pakistani higher brass. I believe there's not much to offer from top to bottom considering the shatterable state the country is in at the moment. The US as it should is doing a great job by exploiting this opportunity...

Re: Should US attack Pakistan?

Here’s what a US attack on Taliban looks like. Compared to this, Pakistan army is a blessing the mullah terrorists.

[liveleak]9d1_1185193252[/liveleak]

Re: Should US attack Pakistan?

^ do you really think they can put up with all teh baggage that comes along with it :D

Re: Should US attack Pakistan?

disturbing

Re: Should US attack Pakistan?

Also known as war. You should also see the aftermath of suicide bombings. Pakistan army obviously is treating the terrorists with kid gloves.

Re: Should US attack Pakistan?

Once Musharaf is gone the so called "Pak heading towards civil war" will stop. Everything will be normal...............for a year or six months with the new government.

Than the race will start again.........pointing fingers, oposition trying to overthrow government than we will have another Military dictator and than things will be calm for few years and again.....we will be back to square.

Re: Should US attack Pakistan?

:omg: :omg: :omg:

The british found it rather the “hard way” but they did end up $$$ these chiefs and got amanullah khan to sell half his pashtuns in a deal called “durand line” :hehe:

Re: Should US attack Pakistan?

Not the bombings. The soldiers' reactions.

Re: Should US attack Pakistan?

so..now that we know that the recent attacks in Pakistan have been claimed by Zarqawi group. which if I recall correctly ..zarqawi was in Iraq. Can US forces control these cross border plannign and execution of terrorist attacks against civilians?

sheesh..

Re: Should US attack Pakistan?

They couldnt stop them operating in US land from kingdom of far far away! let alone land linked couteries.

Re: Should US attack Pakistan?

Times are changing. I don't think Pakistan's politics is just going to slide back to the same old finger pointing corrupt-sort of politics.

It would be really unfortunate if the US got in there. The Pakistani government really needs to be more aggressive about controlling its people. Even the friggin police departments need a big overhaul. How about jailing all the corrupt officers?

Anyway, the country is so corrupt now that it would be very easy for anyone to invade.

How you can have a bunch of territories and a constitution that says the feds can't send in their troops into that area is beyond me. That's retarded. What fart-brain came up with that idea? Don't tell me it was an agreement that Jinnah made, because if so, it was his worst move.