16 replies to this topic

[Hostile]

KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghan President Hamid Karzai threatened Sunday to send Afghan troops after notorious Taliban leaders inside Pakistan — an angry warning to his eastern neighbor that he will no longer tolerate cross-border attacks.

The threat — the first time Karzai has said he would send forces into Pakistan — comes only days after a sophisticated Taliban assault on Kandahar's prison freed 870 prisoners, including hundreds of militants from the Islamist movement. It also comes six weeks after Karzai survived his fourth assassination attempt — an attack claimed by the Taliban.

Karzai has long pleaded with Pakistan and the international community to confront tribal area safe havens, and U.S. officials have increased their warnings in recent weeks that the sanctuaries in Pakistan must be dealt with.

Last week, U.S. aircraft dropped bombs along the Afghan-Pakistan border, an incident the Pakistan army said killed 11 of its paramilitary forces. The exchange ratcheted up increasingly touchy relations among the U.S., Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Analysts said they doubt military action by Afghanistan is imminent, but Pakistan's prime minister said the threat "will not be taken well." A Taliban spokesman warned that the Afghan army would be defeated by thousands of armed tribesman.

Speaking on the grounds of his fortified presidential palace, Karzai told a news conference that Afghanistan has the right to self defense, and because militants cross over from Pakistan "to come and kill Afghan and kill coalition troops, it exactly gives us the right to do the same."

Then, Karzai warned Pakistan-based Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud that Afghan forces would target him on his home turf. Mehsud has been accused in last year's assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

"Baitullah Mehsud should know that we will go after him now and hit him in his house," Karzai said.

"And the other fellow, (Taliban leader) Mullah Omar of Pakistan, should know the same," Karzai continued. "This is a two-way road in this case, and Afghans are good at the two-way road journey. We will complete the journey and we will get them and we will defeat them. We will avenge all that they have done to Afghanistan for the past so many years."

In Pakistan, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said his country is a sovereign state that wants good relations with its neighbors. But he said the Afghan-Pakistan border is too long to prevent people from crossing, "even if Pakistan puts its entire army along the border."

"Neither do we interfere in anyone else's matters, nor will we allow anyone to interfere in our territorial limits and our affairs," Gilani told The Associated Press. "We want a stable Afghanistan. It is in our interest. How can we go to destabilize our brotherly country? Such kind of statements will not be taken well by the people of both countries."

A spokesman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force said he would not comment. But another ISAF official said he thought Karzai's comments should be seen as a reflection of frustration with militant safe havens but not as a sign an attack is imminent. He asked not to be identified because he wasn't authorized to speak on the topic publicly.

The U.S. has spent more than US$3 billion the last two years training and equipping the Afghan army, and Karzai's comments raise the specter that a U.S.-trained Afghan military could be used to attack Pakistan. The ISAF official dismissed that idea.

Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general and security analyst, said Karzai's statements were "an extension of the pressure that is being mounted by the U.S."

"This obviously means that they (the U.S.) are pushing Pakistan to take military action instead of negotiating. There is pressure on Karzai as well, and Karzai is transferring his pressure on us (Pakistan). The pressure on Karzai is more for corruption, more for governance."

As to whether Karzai would really make good on the warning, Masood said, "I wouldn't say it's too serious, but it cannot be ignored."

A spokesman for Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, Pakistan's Taliban movement, warned of an escalation in Taliban attacks against NATO and Afghan forces if Karzai sends forces across the border.

Spokesman Maulvi Umar also said the Afghan army would face defeat at the hands of thousands of tribal fighters. Umar said Karzai is becoming "nervous" due to an increase of Taliban attacks in Afghanistan.

U.S. officials have increased their warnings in recent weeks that the Afghan conflict will drag on for years unless militant safe havens in Pakistan are taken out. Military officials say counterinsurgency campaigns are extremely difficult to win when militants have safe territory where they can train, recruit and stockpile supplies.

Karzai said that in recent fighting in the Garmser district of Helmand province — where hundreds of U.S. Marines have been battling insurgents the last two months — most of the fighters came from Pakistan.

Karzai called Pakistan a "brother government" and "friend," but he also urged it to "act against those elements that are making Pakistan and Afghanistan insecure." He said it was better for Afghan troops to be killed during offensive operations into Pakistan than in militant attacks in Afghanistan.

His comments come as Pakistan is seeking peace deals with militants in its borders, including with Mehsud.

The deals have come under criticism from U.S. officials, who warn truces will simply give militants time to regroup and intensify attacks inside Afghanistan. But Pakistan insists it's not negotiating with "terrorists," but rather with militants willing to lay down their arms.

Pakistan's government also insists it will not allow its territory to be used for attacks on Afghanistan. However, it is unclear whether that is spelled out in the peace deals currently under negotiation.

Mehsud, who is based mainly in the South Waziristan tribal area, has said he would continue to send fighters to battle U.S. forces in Afghanistan even as he seeks peace with Pakistan.

U.S. and NATO commanders say that following the peace agreements this spring, attacks have risen in the eastern area of Afghanistan along the border.

Meanwhile, U.S.-led coalition and Afghan forces killed more than 15 insurgents during a hunt for inmates who fled the Kandahar prison after the attack Friday. The U.S. said it couldn't immediately confirm that any of the 15 killed were escaped prisoners.

The provincial police chief of Kandahar, Sayed Agha Saqib, has said 870 prisoners — including some 400 Taliban militants — escaped from the prison. Saqib said Sunday that Afghan forces have recaptured 20 prisoners, including seven former Taliban inmates.

http://www.foxnews.c...,367184,00.html

[CIL]

I think that this proves how unstable the middle-east is, even with semi-stable democracies established.

[Ash]

What troops are those, then? Do they have a starry, stripey flag on their arm and M4s in their hands?

[duke_Qa]

meh, better to train someone who knows the language and the culture better than some jarheads from the US.

I have to agree that if they have camps in Pakistan and the Pakistani ain't doing good enough work to stop them from going into Afganistan, they can't blame the Afgani military for doing what they are not. i would find it interesting if the Pakistani military would come into the zones and protect those that are attacking into Afganistan.

[MSpencer]

You're under the illusion that Afghanistan is a democracy? One must only look to Iraq to see that warlords and militias control the outcome of elections. They need not make a show of their dictatorships, mastery is already within their grasp.
It's a widely known fact that the only forces that Afghanistan can muster are the forces of the United States. The "Afghan Army" is nothing more than a bunch of overstretched police officers with guns exceeding their caliber (I mean that in both possible interpretations of the sentence). If you expect the Iraqi "forces" to deploy to the Pakistani front and stand up against even a brigade's strength of the Pakistani military, you're a fool. And if you think that Hamid Karzai is saying this without external influence from the United States State Department, you're a complete idiot. The Afghanistan regime has never been anything more than a puppet, and in wake of an American airstrike, this is only further proof of the ridiculousness of the Afghani regime.

Edited by MSpencer, 17 June 2008 - 03:37 AM.

[Ash]

It's a fact that all those governments of the arab states the US walks into will be puppets, without the oh-so-widely trumpeted 'freedom' except that which America grants. Is it any wonder they occasionally get a bit pissy and try to find ways to remove the American influence by force and violence? Because let's face it, these countries will now be satellite states for the US, who will use them to funnel troops into the middle East ready to take the rest of the '-stan' countries. That, and they'll get 'mates' rates' discount on Iraqi and Afghan oil now, which means the US doesn't need to drill for its own until it's good and ready, whereupon it can charge ridiculous prices.

Why do you think research into sustainable energies and alternative fuels is so underfunded? And why do you think it is that the resultant technologies are not mainstream?

[CIL]

This could be the spark for the powder keg... This may be the begining of WWIII . Just kidding, but anyways, it works like this. The Pakistani government gets ticked at sends troops into Afghanistan. Afghans occupying Pakistan kill innocents and soldiers of Pakistan. The Pakistani soldiers in Afghanistan do the same, allies go in and aid the countries and then China takes its chance (as our forces are stretched far too thin, thanks to Bill Clinton killing our military's size [one of the few things I dislike about him, along with the Monica Lewinsky]) and pounces on the west coast. Seattle and San Diego are taken by the Chineese, who have been joined by the Russians by this point. Then, the nukes start flying and it turns into Armageddon from WWIII. But that's only a somewhat plausible scenario, as the U.N. is gonna go in and rip the people off while "making peace" at the same time. The way I see things, you don't make peace, it will always backfire. Look at what Korea did. WWIII turned out alright but Europe is going nuts. Over $10 a gallon for guess what... regular unleaded. Well, I've strayed OT, but I guess I might get along to posting a conspiracy theory topic (lol, but it would provide good discussion so long as the l337's stay out.) in the House of Parliment.

Edited by Crazy Intellectual Liberal, 17 June 2008 - 09:16 AM.

[CodeCat]

Over $10 a gallon for guess what... regular unleaded.

Current prices here according to Google:

1.60 (Euros per litre) = 9.39932888 U.S. dollars per US gallon

[Banshee]

Guys, let's face it. Afghanistan need to clear up their own terrain of talibans before thinking about attacking taliban bases on Pakistan. The talibans now took part of the province of Kandahar and if the govern doesn't respond in the appropriate ways, they'll take the rest.

[CIL]

I blame my country for removing pretty much all our troops from Afghanistan. We cleaned the place out of almost all al-Qaeda operatives but now they have moved back in as we have pretty much left the country. We are now stuck in a hopeless war against al-Qaeda in Iraq. If only we had the ability to fight terrorism like the Brits...

[CodeCat]

We are now stuck in a hopeless war against al-Qaeda in Iraq.

LOL! Why is it that so many people believe in some kind of global terrorist conspiracy? Not every terrorist is a member of Al-Qaeda!

Iraq: Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%
Al-Qaeda, alternatively spelled al-Qaida, al-Qa'ida or al-Qa'idah, (Arabic: القاعدة‎; transliteration: al-qā‘idah; translation: The Base) is an international Sunni Islamic organization.

Do you honestly think they'd be fighting in a country where they're in a serious minority? The insurgents in Iraq aren't Al-Qaeda, they're just warlords.

[CIL]

No, I don't. You got me there. You have Hamas, Hezbollah, and Muqtada al-Sadr's militia. They are Shi'a. The real hardcore terrorists are in al-Qaeda and the Taliban. I blame the Saudies for the entire situation. If they had accepted bin Laden's aid in trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein, 9/11 would never have happened (something else of equal or greater proportions would have eventually). He got ticked off at the Saudies for accepting our aid instead of theirs. But back to the point... the fight in Iraq IS hopeless.

[Vortigern]

If only we had the ability to fight terrorism like the Brits...

What ability do we Brits have to fight terrorism? Our illegitimate and unrepresentative government has tried to pass a law declaring an end to freedom in the hope that we'll catch some terrorists, who may or may not exist. Britain is quite possibly the worst example ever of how to fight terrorism. The answer is anything but denying your own law-abiding citizens their liberty for crimes not yet committed by anyone, much less those most affected.

[Phil]

Thought police, that's what it is.

[CIL]

Well, the British can ACTUALLY catch criminals without having a corrupt police system that rapes everything it sees (those of you who are police officers, I actually meen your bosses telling you to do the stuff). Here in the U.S., we allow rapists and murders to walk free all the time while we are allowing the government to hold tons of Muslims (some of which are innocent, you know) for up to a year without charging them, which is illegal. Back to what I said earlier. Do you think we would have caught the plot to get liquid explosives on planes?

[Vortigern]

Do you think there really was a plot? Are you sure it wasn't just some guy with some suspicious toothpaste? By the way, the popularly held British view on catching criminals is that it doesn't matter how we do it as long as it doesn't affect me. Like your position on transvestite toilets, that sort of thing. You know what the weirdest thing is, though? I was in China recently, and you have to go through metal detectors and have your bags scanned before they let you in the train station. Who's going to hijack a train!? Also, it was a right bugger, because I had a sword with me. (Just while we're thinking about security.)

Edited by Vortigern, 21 June 2008 - 07:08 PM.

[duke_Qa]

You're under the illusion that Afghanistan is a democracy? One must only look to Iraq to see that warlords and militias control the outcome of elections. They need not make a show of their dictatorships, mastery is already within their grasp.
It's a widely known fact that the only forces that Afghanistan can muster are the forces of the United States. The "Afghan Army" is nothing more than a bunch of overstretched police officers with guns exceeding their caliber (I mean that in both possible interpretations of the sentence). If you expect the Iraqi "forces" to deploy to the Pakistani front and stand up against even a brigade's strength of the Pakistani military, you're a fool. And if you think that Hamid Karzai is saying this without external influence from the United States State Department, you're a complete idiot. The Afghanistan regime has never been anything more than a puppet, and in wake of an American airstrike, this is only further proof of the ridiculousness of the Afghani regime.

I'm guessing its directed at the OP, but i might add some of my viewpoints on how Afganistan is looking right now. Afganistan is a puppet-state, no doubt, but its also a poor-mans rural country.

It doesnt have the population density of Iraq, it doesnt have the urban warzones that Iraq has, it doesnt have the same number of angry neighbor states that hates the US and Israel with the exception of Iran. it has not the same shia/sunni divide and conflict.

It does have militias(thats how middle-eastern countries keep the peace when the government is far away after all), but they have more than enough trouble with guarding the opium fields than to blow up americans or fellow citizens.

basically, what i'm trying to get to is that the new Afgani government have had less trouble making tribesleaders join the government than the Iraqi government. That doesnt mean that they are capable of surviving on their own without coalition support, but they should have a much easier time recruiting Afgani troops than Iraqis would have recruiting Iraqi troops.

My perspective on modern warfare is that you need ground troops to control the ground, but you don't need ground troops to attack an enemy on the ground. It's the best for all sides if local soldiers are on the streets and coalition troops are in the air helping out when the shit hits the fan. If you can handle to train moderately organized and loyal soldiers to do the simple job of holding and guarding, it doesnt matter if the airplanes blowing up hostiles are american, israeli, russian or chinese. All that matters is that there is good coordination and reaction time with the cavalry and the grunts.

naturally, when it comes to the pakistani borders, there are political elements involved. having american troops help Afgani troops attack over the Pakistani borders would probably cause trouble. claiming that the Afgani government asked for American support in a strike on a terrorist camp in a enemy territory, would easily be painted as a puppet government miming "we wanted the americans to help us, this was not the americans idea at all!"

So, any attack on the other side of the border would either require planes flying without colors to protect their owners, some new sort of military cooperation contract that technically leaves the military units actions responsible with the nation they fought for, or some other unlikely theory.