US threatens to intervene in Swat

[jimmy olsen]

Ballsy if true, wonder what the leftists on the blogosphere would think of that! 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6168940.ece

April 26, 2009
'Stop the Taliban now – or we will'
The US got tough with Pakistan as terrorists moved to within 60 miles of the capital
Christina Lamb in Washington and Daud Khattak in Buner

AMERICA made clear last week that it would attack Taliban forces in their Swat valley stronghold unless the Pakistan government stopped the militants' advance towards Islamabad.

A senior Pakistani official said the Obama administration intervened after Taliban forces expanded from Swat into the adjacent district of Buner, 60 miles from the capital.

The Pakistani Taliban's inroads raised international concern, particularly in Washington, where officials feared that the nuclear-armed country, which is pivotal to the US war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and against Al-Qaeda, was rapidly succumbing to Islamist extremists.

"The implicit threat - if you don't do it, we may have to - was always there," said the Pakistani official. He said that under American pressure, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency told the Taliban to withdraw from Buner on Friday.

However, reports yesterday indicated that the Taliban withdrawal was less than total. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people in the district were still at the mercy of armed militants and their restrictive interpretation of Islamic law.

American military and intelligence forces already run limited ground and air operations on Pakistani soil along the border with Afghanistan. But an overt military operation such as that threatened in Swat, away from the border, would mark a major escalation.

The official said last week's outspoken remarks by Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, were "calculated to ramp up the pressure on Pakistan" to take action. Clinton warned that the terrorists' advance had created a "mortal threat" to world security.

She was one of several American political and military leaders to use unusually strong language about Pakistan's failure to curb the Taliban. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, who visited Pakistan, said he was "extremely concerned" about the developments and that the situation was "definitely worse" than two weeks ago.

General David Petraeus, of US Central Command, which oversees Afghanistan - to which America is about to commit 17,000 more troops - said Al-Qaeda and Taliban extremists in Pakistan posed an "ever more serious threat to Pakistan's very existence".

These remarks have stung Pakistan. Husain Haqqani, the ambassador to Washington, accused the Obama administration of making it harder for his country to fight the Taliban.

"The US needs to relate its comments to the ground realities in Pakistan instead of the mood in Washington," he said. "Most Pakistanis are not supportive of the Taliban way of life, but at the same time widespread anti-Americanism confuses many Pakistanis into having a conflicting view.

"We want to turn that view around but the US and its leaders must help us to do that."

The latest crisis stems from a controversial ceasefire the government signed in February to end months of vicious fighting between the Taliban and the army in Swat that caused significant loss of life and an exodus from what had once been a tourist centre. Some 500,000 now live outside Swat, a third of them in camps that used to shelter refugees from the fighting in Afghanistan.

In return for the imposition of sharia [Islamic law] in Swat, the Taliban agreed to disengage, disarm and stop menacing people. But it was from Swat last week that their fighters overran Buner with about 500 well-armed men under a hardline commander, Maulvi Khalil.

As in Swat, once his forces had established themselves, Khalil began to impose the movement's repressive rules on what had once been a peaceful valley. He ordered girls over seven to wear veils and directed men to keep their women inside and to grow beards. He banned music. In several villages the Taliban were snatching mobile phones on the pretext that they had musical ring tones or photos of women on them.

The Taliban stole livestock, took vehicles belonging to government officials and ransacked the offices of some local nongovernment organisations. In a phone call, Khalil denied the Taliban were terrorists. He said: "We've raised the arms to spread the message of Allah. This is the responsibility of each and every Muslim." But residents fear it is just a matter of time before their daughters are forced to marry Taliban commanders, a process that has begun already in Swat, along with public floggings.

On Friday, in a much publicised agreement with the government, Khalil agreed to withdraw. Local residents said the withdrawal was incomplete. He had left men behind to supplement local armed Taliban groups and newly recruited sympathisers.

"There is a collective holding of breath," said Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International's Asia director, from Islamabad. "The Taliban edicts are still in force and the dismantling of the civilian infrastructure is still very much in effect, so a lot of doctors, midwives, civil servants have left and people are hunkering down because they fear an army operation."

The government sent a few hundred paramilitaries to Buner last week but they kepta low profile. It has not sent any troops. The Americans want the government to shift troops from the India-Pakistan border to meet the Taliban threat, but frightened residents of Buner fear an army operation would cause civilian casualties.

[Strix]

Isn't Iraq and Afghanistan enough? Just leave them alone and they will leave us alone. Just give peace a chance.

[Sheilbh]

See the thing that I find worrying about that article is that the ISI is able to tell them to withdraw and, more or less, they do.  The seniority, trust and level of contacts between the two must, surely, be high for that to be happening?

Although as I've said elsewhere I have no useful thoughts or suggestions as to what would be the best policy.  All I can think is that it's time to refer to a PakAf strategy rather than an AfPak

[Grey Fox]

Atleast, that's a good reason unlike the Iraq operations.

[jimmy olsen]

See the thing that I find worrying about that article is that the ISI is able to tell them to withdraw and, more or less, they do.  The seniority, trust and level of contacts between the two must, surely, be high for that to be happening?

Apparently they really haven't though, an army convoy was turned back by the Taliban today.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD97PJIVG3

[Sheilbh]

I don't think anyone reported that they had withdrawn from Swat.  The ISI asked them to withdraw from Buner which is the neighbouring province that's only 60 miles from Islamabad.  That article only says that around 100 of 1000 Taliban forces (I don't know what that means) hadn't withdrawn and that their success had led to more bold local militants.

[Admiral Yi]

Atleast, that's a good reason unlike the Iraq operations.

The whole world will help us out, let's go.

[Tamas]

Atleast, that's a good reason unlike the Iraq operations.

The whole world will help us out, let's go.

I am pretty sure the original Iraq coalition of 2003 can be recreated and thus feature such military powerhouses as Hungary, Trinidad and Tobago and Andorra.

[Sheilbh]

I am pretty sure the original Iraq coalition of 2003 can be recreated and thus feature such military powerhouses as Hungary, Trinidad and Tobago and Andorra.

I doubt if even that's possible.

[Faeelin]

I am pretty sure the original Iraq coalition of 2003 can be recreated and thus feature such military powerhouses as Hungary, Trinidad and Tobago and Andorra.

A pity there's no way we can get India onboard.

[Viking]

I am pretty sure the original Iraq coalition of 2003 can be recreated and thus feature such military powerhouses as Hungary, Trinidad and Tobago and Andorra.

A pity there's no way we can get India onboard.

"We" have been trying to get India NOT to start a war since the Bombay terrorist attack.

[Faeelin]

"We" have been trying to get India NOT to start a war since the Bombay terrorist attack.

Pff. If the US intervenes, it's inevitable it'll be a master clusterfuck leading to the collapse and Talibanization of Pakistan. That being so, why not let India go to town?

[citizen k]

I am pretty sure the original Iraq coalition of 2003 can be recreated and thus feature such military powerhouses as Hungary, Trinidad and Tobago and Andorra.

I doubt if even that's possible.

The Andorians will join the coalition:

[Queequeg]

Although as I've said elsewhere I have no useful thoughts or suggestions as to what would be the best policy.  All I can think is that it's time to refer to a PakAf strategy rather than an AfPak

Cut the Gordian Knot; have India give some concessions on Kashmir in exchange for improvement in relations and stability in Pakistan, relieving the ISI of the excuse for its excessive existence, have the Pakistani army moved to where it could actually do some good.

The best solution would be partitioning Afghanistan and Pakistan between India, Iran and an independent Baluchistan and Pashtunistan.  That's impossible right now, and would only be possible after a fantastically destructive India-Pakistan or Pakistan civil war.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Although as I've said elsewhere I have no useful thoughts or suggestions as to what would be the best policy.  All I can think is that it's time to refer to a PakAf strategy rather than an AfPak

Cut the Gordian Knot; have India give some concessions on Kashmir in exchange for improvement in relations and stability in Pakistan, relieving the ISI of the excuse for its excessive existence, have the Pakistani army moved to where it could actually do some good.

and how would that look to ISI? It would look like their strategy of using barbarians works, and they'll be emboldened to do it again.