US bombs Pakistani border patrol!

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
41

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jagjeevan: *
Ok, so FATA kinda sounds like the old west - local law, occasional deals with the 'federal / union' etc.

It also seems like you are saying there is either significant Afgan presence (old taliban) or intense sympathy.

Leaving the recent complexity of US presence aside, what was the reason the pakistan govt did not attempt to or succeed in bringing these areas under normalized control - say between 1950 and 1970? or between 1975 and 1990?
[/QUOTE]

Jag, to answer your question. The FATA could not be "normalized" between 1950-70 or 1975-1990, because of the inrewnse opposition it would create. I mean recent past in Malakand division the Malik declared their agency as a Islamic independent state, things got very tense, with PAF took to the skies as a show of force. Things were set to get really ugly with the tribesmen (armed to the teeth) were ready to begin clashes with the military, but fortunately cooler heads prevailed and things were resolved with Malakand adopting Sharia but still continuing to be with Pakistan.

I think this new phase of normalization is being done with a development of social infustructure such as hospitals and schools. My fiancee's family, although from the settled NWFP area, comes from a tribe that has an agency in FATA. The interesting thing was that the relations between the settled and tribal areas were uneasy in the past, however things are changing with people to people contact. NWFP MUST have control of FATA not Islamabad.

42

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jagjeevan: *
Leaving the recent complexity of US presence aside, what was the reason the pakistan govt did not attempt to or succeed in bringing these areas under normalized control - say between 1950 and 1970? or between 1975 and 1990?
[/QUOTE]

There were low-level skirmishes in the late 40s and 50s. But at the end of the day, bringing these areas under normalised control was something that the might of the British Empire could not achieve, at a great cost in terms of British casualties.

The FATA is not worth the lives of Pakistani soldiers, and similarly Pakistan has no desire to fight the Pashtuns who live in the FATA.

Through the current arrangement, we have come to an understanding where, without losing any lives) Pakistan can claim the FATA to be part of Pakistan (which makes Pakistan's government happy), and yet have very little authority over what goes on there (which makes the locals happy).

Everyone's happy, no lives lost.

43

Deleted <

44

What I find more interesting here is that American GI's cannot even take care of some poorly trained tribal khasidar with a G3 rifle, without relying on an F-16 for air support. Pathetic.

45

RajputFury, :slight_smile:

I won’t agree with you that Talibans were good for Pakistan. We have suffered enough; and won’t have enough abilities to bear that load over again and again. Maybe you are worried in case of Security concern on Pakistan-Afghanistan border as NA is in power. Well, my friend, that’s not true.

Our National interest is with Afghanistan, not with Talibans or Northern Alliance. We would like to see peace, stability and unity of Afghanistan. Policies are made in accordance with environments: the environment changed, our policy changed. National interest is permanent. National interest can never be given up; not even on Kashmir.

As you said Karzai is a US puppet, well yeah, we needed a person in charge of Afghanistan, who support War on Terror; and of course to have stable region. Karzai has spent half of his life in Quetta, Pakistan; possesses wishful and friendly desire with Pakistan. Take Gas Pipeline project as an instance. Sounds good to me. National interest.

Coming to our argument Pakistani Soldiers can go to FATA. Question for you: Do Pakistani Soldiers also have to pay loyalty to Maliks in FATA as well? Did you know it was the first time Pakistani Troops went to FATA? Anyway, I’ve heard a while back that Pakistani Troops have already started taking measures to build FATA.

  • Latest Developments:

Pakistan, US Agree on Closer Liaison, Colin Powell and Pervez Musharraf, 'both agreed that the incident of Dec 29 may have occurred due to some misunderstanding at the operational level on the ground", said FM Kasuri.

Meanwhile, the US Military confirms that no Border Crossing has been done. According to Major Steve Clutter, American soldier was wounded when troops came under fire from a Pakistani border guard, who they say was inside Afghan territory, later ended up crossing into Pakistan’s Territory.

In conclusion, the US claims the school is in Afghanistan. The Pakistani military said the bomb fell on Pakistani soil. **“That’s as close as we actually came,” **Clutter said about crossing the border.

Durand Line Confusion!

46

PT yaar, this is all diplomatic blah from both sides. As their spokesman Maj. Critter :D said "We are not just going to tiptoe and stop right when we get to the border. We do reserve the right to pursue them, and Pakistan is aware of that. There's no change there."

There is no stopping them if US forces decide to enter the Pak territory (FATA, FANA, NWFP, Baluchistan, whatever it may) chasing the bogiemen from Afghanistan. You think Pak military is going to engage with them? I dont think so :)

47

I don't think US troops will want to engage with anybody in those areas, they'd much prefer if we did it for them.

48

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mr Xtreme: *
I don't think US troops will want to engage with anybody in those areas, they'd much prefer if we did it for them.
[/QUOTE]
And we all know that's not going to happen either. Back to square one.

49

the deal is for US to not mention it when it happens again and for pakistan to not mention it when it happens again. there is no circumstance underwhich us can stop chasing the crooks down wherever they run and there is no circumstance underwhich pakistan can afford to have such forced entry publicised.

in simpler terms, we'll probably not hear of future incidents such as this until some colonel retires and writes a book.

50

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by 5Abi: *
PT yaar, this is all diplomatic blah from both sides. As their spokesman Maj. Critter :D said "We are not just going to tiptoe and stop right when we get to the border. We do reserve the right to pursue them, and Pakistan is aware of that. There's no change there."

There is no stopping them if US forces decide to enter the Pak territory (FATA, FANA, NWFP, Baluchistan, whatever it may) chasing the bogiemen from Afghanistan. You think Pak military is going to engage with them? I dont think so :)
[/QUOTE]

5Abi,

Glad to heard the background music.

Let me ask you: Has this news been on your fav. channel ABC Tonight with Peter Jennings?

51

*I won't agree with you that Talibans were good for Pakistan. We have suffered enough; and won't have enough abilities to bear that load over again and again. Maybe you are worried in case of Security concern on Pakistan-Afghanistan border as NA is in power. Well, my friend, that's not true. *

My argument for the Talibs is based upon a pure Pakistani geo-political perspective. The nation was secure, the border quiet and trade was up, I think those factors do not hold today. Afghanistan is once again fractured with warlordism rampant, the border is NOT secure, and trade has ben takn over by other countries.

The Pak-Afg border will not be secure. True the Afghans don't pose a problem at the moment, but with a national army, we may have low level skirmishes. Thats another monkey on our back that we do not need.

*As you said Karzai is a US puppet, well yeah, we needed a person in charge of Afghanistan, who support War on Terror; and of course to have stable region. Karzai has spent half of his life in Quetta, Pakistan; possesses wishful and friendly desire with Pakistan. Take Gas Pipeline project as an instance. Sounds good to me. National interest. *

Right, it SOUNDS good so far. I'd like to see him deliver. Don't get me wrong, a strong Karzai over his NA cabinet monkeyboys is the best thing. I think Karzai wants a successful, stable Afghanistan, so do we.

Coming to our argument **Pakistani Soldiers can go to FATA. Question for you: Do Pakistani Soldiers also have to pay loyalty to Maliks in FATA as well? Did you know it was the first time Pakistani Troops went to FATA? Anyway, I've heard a while back that Pakistani Troops have already started taking measures to build FATA.**

Ok are you referring to Frontier Corps or the Pak. Military? I assume your talking about the military, then no they didn't have to pay anything to enter. Think about it, the Maliks receive a cash payment from Islamabad yearly. As for the FC, since they are largely recruited from the tribes, it is more likely that their loyalty to the tribe may be greater than the country. FC has patrolled the borders since the inception of Pakistan.

52

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RajputFury: *
My argument for the Talibs is based upon a pure Pakistani geo-political perspective. The nation was secure, the border quiet and trade was up, I think those factors do not hold today. Afghanistan is once again fractured with warlordism rampant, the border is NOT secure, and trade has ben takn over by other countries.
[/QUOTE]

Trade? You mean, trade of Cocaine to the youth of Pakistan. Raj dear, smell the coffee dude. Do you want to see Jihad-ul-Haq Operation in Pakistan again? I don't wanna see Pakistan going back to the same road of destruction.

[quote]
The Pak-Afg border will not be secure.
[/quote]

ahem Afghans don't consider Durand Line as a border b/w Pakistan and Afghanistan, do they?

[quote]
True the Afghans don't pose a problem at the moment, but with a national army, we may have low level skirmishes. Thats another monkey on our back that we do not need.
[/quote]

I don't think Afghanistan possesses a serious threat to the security of Pakistan. Either, ignoring them wouldn't be good.

[quote]
I think Karzai wants a successful, stable Afghanistan, so do we.
[/quote]

Ditto!

[quote]
Ok are you referring to Frontier Corps or the Pak. Military? I assume your talking about the military, then no they didn't have to pay anything to enter.
[/quote]

Settle then!

53

Tribal areas (FATA = Federal Administration of Tribal Areas)

it is said that there is virtually no government or administration in place.each and every house there has weapons stored in them and killings take place with out any discrimination.smuggling is one of the live wire activities there.

I wish we had Indians on FATA. :hehe: and you will doing a heck of a job on ‘War onTribal areas (FATA = Federal Administration of Tribal Areas Terrorism’. /QUOTE

so finally u understood the fact that pak army is good for nothing :hehe:
54

Seems like you been to FATA.

Gesto, when you reply to anyone’s quote, try not to add/subtract words. :hehe:

Munnay, Pakistani Army don’t go there; it’s FC, that’s control FATA.

And where did I say Pakistan Army is no good? Didn’t you see how India pulled back her Army after deploying for 10 months? :stuck_out_tongue:

Plus, tell Indian Army to block LoC. :stuck_out_tongue:

55

gesto: Despite being 10 times more weapons per person then New York for example, and poverty being a hundred times higher. The Tribal areas have quite a low crime rate and are quite peaceful. They've always been pro Pakistani, although they have strong links and considerable influence in Afghanistan because the artificial border cuts some Tribes right down the middle. It is very difficult to patrol an artifical borders, they tend to be very porous( I am sure any Indian can udnerstand that, look at the LOC after all;) )

PT: RF's argument is simple, even if it wasn't the Taliban, any government in Kabul which wasn't attempting to destabilise the country, would be a good one. The Northern Allaince Ministers are no friends of Pakistan. On another note, I personally don't accept the Durand line as a real border. Pakistan and Afghanistan need a soft border, something like a free trade zone. The Durand line was a creation of the British.

56

zakk nwfp is not kashmir . pakistani army cant enter nwfp freely
like indian army can in kashmir .

57

rvikz you only usually write a couple of lines but I always have trouble making sense out of even those :confused:

58

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Pakistani Tiger: *

5Abi,

Glad to heard the background music.

Let me ask you: Has this news been on your fav. channel ABC Tonight with Peter Jennings?
[/QUOTE]

Nope, not from Peter Jennings program :D. This is from LA Times as well as Guardian of UK. You should read those too :)
Oh and the links I provided in an earlier post in this thread :p

59

Okay, it is all clear now on the H&D front.
Hot Pursuit on the Paki backside, is now approved, as long as “neither side would issue a statements without consulting the other” i.e., “the US forces could go in hot pursuit without making their chase public.”
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/comp/articleshow?artid=33563011

60

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by 5Abi: *

Nope, not from Peter Jennings program :D. This is from LA Times as well as Guardian of UK. You should read those too :)
Oh and the links I provided in an earlier post in this thread :p
[/QUOTE]

5Abi,

It's just a hot air with no real substance. :)

Zakk: You nailed it.