Attacks on Pak-Afghan border

 Pakistan said on Monday that Afghan and US-led forces had failed to hunt down a Taliban cleric responsible for a spate of cross-border raids despite repeated requests from Islamabad, a complaint likely to deepen tension between the neighbours.
___________________________________________________

.Once again hundreds of armed militants crossed over from Afghanistan into Pakistani soil and attacked Kakar check post in Barawal area of Upper Dir killing one Pakistani soldier and injuring two others while 30 of the insurgents were killed in the encounter. This is not for the first time that Afghanistan sponsored armed miscreants have attacked Pakistan posts. On August 27, this year, some 200 to 300 heavily-armed militants based in Afghanistan attacked seven paramilitary check posts in district of Chitral, killing more than 30 personnel of the security forces. In one of such major attacks, on June 1, more than 500 armed militants who entered Upper Dir area from Afghanistan killed more than 30 police and paramilitary soldiers. Police said that well-trained terrorists who targeted a chekpost, also destroyed two schools and several houses with rocket and gunfire attacks, while killing a number of innocent people. On June 3, hundreds of militants crossed over from Afghanistan and again besieged the Pakistani area. In the recent past, the former US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, while repeating the false allegations had indicated that Pakistan’s “failure to stop insurgents from Pakistani side of the border” has resulted into “40 per cent rise in the militant’s attacks in east Afghanistan…infiltration of insurgents in Afghanistan takes place from the safe-havens of FATA.” In this context, on April 20, 2011, US Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen has alleged that ISI has been supporting, funding and training fighters that are killing Americans and coalition partners in Afghanistan. Their media have also left no stone unturned for alleging Islamabad for cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan, also involving Pak Army and its intelligence agency, ISI. However, American baseless blame game against Islamabad in connection with cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan continues. In this regard, we need to prove, whether Pakistan is responsible for cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan or the latter in Pakistan.Significantly, the Afghan Taliban have categorically denied their involvement in such attacks. A Taliban spokesman has told the Afghan Islamic Press that in such attacks, no Afghan Talib took part; especially the deadly attacks launched in Dir and Chitral areas of Pakistan. He said that they were facing a big enemy in Afghanistan and were not carrying out operations anywhere in the world, including Pakistan. Not surprisingly, dozens of such incidents have increased tension between the two neighbouring countries, with Pakistan raising the issue with Kabul and NATO in bilateral meetings. Pakistan’s Foreign Office has already stated that Pakistan has been forced to retaliate against such cross-border attacks. Despite additional security measures undertaken by Pakistan to protect its citizens from attacks from other side of the Durand Line, the way the Afghan militants are challenging a regular and highly professional Pakistani force, crossing border and not only killing innocent villagers but also attacking security posts is enough to prove at whose behest these attacks are taking place. Otherwise too, it is next to impossible that aggression against Pakistan was possible without knowledge and active connivance of the occupation forces because they claim to have modern surveillance system to monitor movement on every inch of the soil in their areas of interest. The attackers sometimes number more than three to four hundred and it is unimaginable that such a significant movement remains undetected by the United States and NATO forces. But there are reasons to believe these attacks are fully backed by occupation forces with a view to increasing pressure on Pakistan. In fact, militants are funded, trained, armed and pushed into Pakistan for do and die mission. In this backdrop, the assertion by US special envoy Marc Grossman that his country would keep on asking Pakistan to crackdown on so-called safe havens is highly provocative. This shows that for the United States, lives of its soldiers are more important than those of Pakistani citizens who are being killed in cross-border attacks by Afghan militants. Pakistani security officials have recommended to the Afghan government and the NATO authorities to set up more posts at the border to stop such attacks. The ISPR chief, Maj Gen Athar Abbas, recently told the media that the issue was discussed at a joint US-Pakistan-Afghanistan military commission meeting in Peshawar. Against 900 border posts set up by Pakistan on the Pak-Afghan border, Afghanistan while ISAF have only 100 such posts, allowing the terrorists to cross the border with relative ease. Pakistan has already boosted the security at the Afghan border. The Karzai government in Kabul should be informed that such attacks do not sever the maintenance of the brotherly ties between the two countries.

By Afia Ambreen (Frontier Post)

_________________________________________________________

US in Afghanistan: 10 years of massacre

 The US-led alliance has failed and in the last 10 years they could not achieve any considerable success in casualties have soared in the recent past, and there has been a rise in attacks on US led alliance that has deteriorated security situation in Afghanistan. Now the question arises whether the US-led alliance can achieve what they claim in next four years? Can America and its NATO allies clear10 years of mess in next four years, such claims are beyond reality.
___________________________________________________________

10 years ago, the then US President George W. Bush announced a war operation against Taliban in Afghanistan.

The reason for the operation was Taliban’s refusal to extradite Osama bin Laden, the leader of the international terrorist network “Al Qaeda” and the main organizer of the 9/11 attack – probably the most large-scale terror act in history.

At first, the US role in Afghanistan was limited to supporting the so-called “Northern Alliance”, the main Afghan force which stood against Taliban, with airpower and missile shots. However, when the main part of Afghanistan was freed from Talibs, international forces were introduced there. At present, Taliban doesn’t rule Afghanistan any more, but the remaining terrorists are still leading a guerilla war against their both local and Western opponents.

The killing of Osama bin Laden, which took place on May 2 this year, can be called a serious success of anti-Taliban forces. However, recently, General John Allen, who commands international forces in Afghanistan, said that these forces would stay in the country even after 2014, though, earlier, President Obama has said that they would be withdrawn before 2013.

The Afghan war has already cost the US many human lives – and a lot of money. At a recent meeting in Brussels, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said that the US cannot support NATO’s budget any more, because EU countries are cutting their expenditures on defense, and the US itself has cut its defense expenditures by $ 450 bln in the last 10 years.

By October 1, 2011, the international coalition has lost 2,747 servicemen in the war against Taliban.

According to the UK newspaper “Independent”, 14 to 34 thousand Afghan civilians were killed in this war.

The exact number of the killed Taliban militants is unknown. Western sources speak of “tens of thousands”.

In an interview to the “Rossiya 24” TV channel, the head of the Russian anti-drug service Victor Ivanov said that the volume of heroine production in Afghanistan has considerably grown since 2001.

“This war has three results, all very sad,” Mr. Ivanov said. “First, the production of drugs in Afghanistan grew by as many as 40 times. That’s an unprecedented figure. Second, the region is now stuffed with military bases and foreign troops – over 150 thousand servicemen, which makes the situation highly explosive. Third, Afghanistan is still very politically unstable, and the number of militants is constantly multiplying there.”

(Voice of Russia)

Petraeus burnishes Afghan legacy

By M K Bhadrakumar

David Petraeus, United States commander in Afghanistan, is set to beat the historic record of Douglas MacArthur by two-and-a-half years. That’s the time it took for General MacArthur to fulfill the vow “I shall return”, which he made when leaving the Philippine Islands in March 1942.

Petraeus will re-enter the war zone almost overnight following his departure from Afghanistan this month. As soon as he arrives in Langley, Virginia to lead the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Petraeus will don civvies and, figuratively speaking, head straight for the Hindu Kush.

Petraeus is leaving Afghanistan as a dissatisfied general who failed to win his last war. He couldn't achieve the turnaround he managed in Iraq and his legacy in Afghanistan is unfinished and tantamount to just about staving off defeat. No general would want that on his record.

Petraeus' final legacy, however, is still to be made. The US counter terrorism strategy unveiled by White House adviser John Brennan last Wednesday shifts the focus to eliminating terrorists through sophisticated military technology and means without having to commit substantial troops on the ground.

Therefore, Petraeus made a hugely significant statement on Monday, which he carefully timed for his last Fourth of July in uniform. He said the focus of the Afghan war will shift in the upcoming months from Taliban strongholds in the south to the porous eastern border with Pakistan where al-Qaeda affiliates and a range of militant groups presently hold sway.

He went on to explain: "It's a shift of intelligence assets. It's a shift of armed and lift helicopters and perhaps the shift of some relatively small coalition forces on the ground and substantial Afghan forces on the ground." Petraeus claimed the strategy has evolved from the previous phase of military operations under his command.

Safe havens

Indeed, the shift actually began on February 15 - roughly three weeks into the detention of the ace US operative Raymond Davis by the Pakistani security agencies in Lahore - when the coalition forces summarily began a process of withdrawing from combat positions in the Pech valley in the eastern Afghan province of Kunar bordering Pakistan. The US claimed at that time that the withdrawal was part of a plan to shift the forces to more populated areas; it was completed over the next two months.

Several Afghan army units deployed in Kunar also moved out at the same time. Unsurprisingly, various insurgent groups almost instantaneously moved into the security vacuum. They included both Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, Hizb-i-Islami, Lashkar-e-Taiba and various al-Qaeda affiliates. Suffice to say, by a curious coincidence, within a few weeks of the release of Davis in end-March, a "low-intensity war" began across the Durand Line that separates Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Militant groups using Kunar as safe haven began attacking Pakistani security forces across the border. Pakistan complained that in cross-border attacks, militants killed 56 Pakistani paramilitary soldiers and tribal police and injured 81 personnel in June alone. In turn, the Afghan Interior Ministry says nearly 800 rockets have been fired since early June, killing 12 women and girls and 30 men. Some 55 have been wounded, and 120 houses destroyed.

Pashtun sentiments are turning against Pakistan. There have been public demonstrations in Asadabad, capital of Kunar. A top Afghan police general in Asadabad offered his resignation over the government's response to the attacks. A prominent parliamentarian from Pashtun-dominated Nangarhar province, Fraidoon Momand, called on President Hamid Karzai to cut ties with Pakistan "because its non-stop shells have killed many innocent civilians".

The anger among Afghan Pashtuns is bound to have its resonance among Pashtuns inside Pakistan and a vicious cycle of hostilities could begin. On Sunday, over 300 militants crossed into Pakistan and attacked a Pakistani checkpost, the sixth cross-border attack in a month. The Pakistani army spokesman Major-General Attar Abbas has been quoted as saying, "For quite some time we have been highlighting that there are safe havens across the border. Something should be done about these."

Interestingly, a Voice of America report highlighted the grave implications of the situation on Monday:

"Contributing to the tension is that the border - the so-called Durand Line - has been disputed since its creation in the 19th century by British rulers. Ethnic tribes that still hold on to the dream of a unified Pashtun nation refuse to recognise what they call an ‘arbitrary line’.”

But many village elders in the area, who are also ethnic Pashtuns, are becoming increasingly angry with the attacks and warn they could take up arms against Pakistan if it continues."

‘Asymmetrical’ war lasting years

Essentially speaking, the US and Afghan force withdrawal in Pech has pitted the Afghan militant groups against the Pakistani forces across the Durand Line in an "asymmetrical" war. The Pakistani military is obviously annoyed that the US and Afghan forces withdrew just like that and are simply standing by, watching the fireworks.

Karzai has adopted a selective approach. He is raising the matter at the political and diplomatic level with Pakistan but has ordered the Afghan forces not to fire in response to the shelling from Pakistan. Clearly, he refuses to give Pakistan an excuse to stage a "hot pursuit" against the insurgent groups based in Kunar. But to be fair to the Kabul government, it has little or no control over the border areas.

The rising curve of the "low-intensity war" has alarmed the Pakistani military leadership. Pakistan began troop deployments at the weekend in the strategic Kurram Agency, which is an escape route for militants from North Waziristan to the Tora Bora mountains. A major operation is getting underway involving artillery and air power. But it is easier said than done. One of Pakistan's most perceptive commentators on the Afghan problem, Rahimullah Yusufzai wrote on Tuesday:

The lack of government control in the border areas across the Durand Line in both Afghanistan and Pakistan has enabled the militants to set up bases and operate with impunity ... The cross-border raids in Pakistani territory and the retaliatory strikes by Pakistan's security forces have caused tension on the border and inflamed passions, particularly in Afghanistan ... However, large-scale military actions also cause civilian deaths, displacement and economic losses. Around 4,000 families have already been uprooted in Kurram Agency, adding to the number of internally displaced persons from South Waziristan, Mohmand, Bajaur and other places waiting to be compensated and rehabilitated ... The long conflict facing Pakistan has created problems that will take years to resolve.

The big question is whether the looming crisis will prompt Pakistan into comprehensive rethink on its Afghan policy. Without doubt, the fundamental contradiction in the Pakistani policy is surging - making a distinction between the "good" Taliban and "bad" Taliban. The nexus between the two and their mutual support is coming out starkly into the open across the tribal agencies on the Durand Line. Pakistan is truly becoming a victim of terrorism.

The Pakistani policy objective of placing its "strategic assets" in power in Kabul once the US forces withdraw increasingly seems a chimera even as its military gets bogged down in a Pashtun quagmire on the Durand Line. The Daily Times commented, "Pakistan's dual policy towards the Taliban can unravel the whole game plan for which Pakistan exposed its land and people to grave risks, whose diminishing returns and serious damage are becoming apparent now."

To be sure, this is a curious turn to the Afghan endgame. How much of this is a brainchild of Petraeus and how much is due to fortuitous circumstances is a matter best left to future military historians to weigh. For the present, Pakistani military desperately needs some help from the coalition forces across the border in Afghanistan.

That is where Petraeus' "offer" to shift the locus of the war to the east would come as a relief to Pakistan. But Petraeus said the shift would only occur through a period of months - most likely after the current "fighting season". Which means that Pakistani forces will be facing the music in the near term.

What would interest the US most is whether under the immense pressure building up along the Durand Line, Pakistan would finally do what Washington always wanted it to do - commence military operations in North Waziristan. In political terms, Pakistani military's preoccupation with the security of the Durand Line gives the US the respite to accelerate its direct talks with the Taliban leadership.

Beyond all that, of course, lies the US wish list for the Pakistani military - hand over Taliban chief Mullah Omar politically and decimate the Haqqani network militarily. Indeed, from his cabin in Langley, Petraeus will be closely monitoring the “pilgrim’s progress” and choreographing his own final legacy in the Afghan war.