Pakistan pushes into South Waziristan
posted at 10:12 am on October 19, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The Pakistani army launched its long-awaited offensive against Taliban elements in South Waziristan as Pakistanis protested an American aid package of $7.5 billion as an interference in their internal affairs. The army moved deep into the southernmost region of the federally-administered tribal areas (FATAs), which border on Afghanistan. The attack created a wave of civilian retreat that has already begun a humanitarian crisis that will complicate efforts in both countries in fighting extremists:
The Pakistani army pushed farther into a mountainous Taliban and al-Qaeda haven Sunday, as civilians continued to flow out of an area that has become a full-fledged battleground.
On the second day of a ground offensive in the restive border region of South Waziristan, the military said at least 60 militants and five soldiers had been killed. The Pakistani Taliban, which the government says has plotted a cascade of recent attacks on security forces from its base in the area, told the Associated Press that its fighters had inflicted “heavy casualties” against the army.
The fight in South Waziristan is a key test for Pakistan’s military, which is tasked with shattering a rising Islamist insurgency that has killed nearly 200 people in bombings and gunfights in the past two weeks. American officials, who have urged Pakistan to get tougher on militants operating on its soil, say the region is also a hub for militants who plan attacks on U.S.-led forces across the border in Afghanistan. …
Local officials say tens of thousands of people have fled South Waziristan — most in a steady trickle over the past few months and several thousand more in recent days. The military had been carrying out aerial strikes against militant hideouts for months as it prepared for the ground operation.
The Pakistanis are mostly targeting the Mehsud clan, which runs the Taliban and provides much of its support. They have identified Mehsud assets over the last several months and hope to target them closely in an attempt to minimize the collateral damage in the region. Unfortunately, when an army pulls out artillery and uses helicopters and airplanes to attack positions, collateral damage is unavoidable, and the political fallout could be severe for the elected government.
Pervez Musharraf had more leeway as an unelected dictator in conducting these wars, but even Musharraf couldn’t maintain an offensive against the Taliban. He constantly frustrated the Bush administration with ill-advised truces that allowed the Taliban to rearm and to expand their holdings. Can the elected government remain in power long enough to conduct a proper war in the FATAs, enough to dislodge Taliban and al-Qaeda leadership and force them into a vise between Pakistan and NATO forces in Afghanistan? If Musharraf couldn’t maintain the political capital and army loyalty to do so, it seems unlikely that Islamabad will in this instance, either. That may be why the Pakistani government has made it so clear that they’re primarily going after the Mehsuds.
The latest aid deal from the US may also be a problem in that regard. It has generated a lot of protest as an intrusion on Pakistani sovereignty, which has allowed the extremists to strike a chord with other Pakistanis. Hopefully, those protests will turn out to be a tempest in a teapot, and the latest string of attacks on civilians from terrorists will almost certainly dampen any nascent sympathy for the Taliban in the rest of the country. Whether that translates to more determination to fight remains to be seen, but the Pakistanis have at least jumped out to a good start.
Update: Jules Crittenden makes a good point — if we’re not pushing back with more troops on the other side of the border, how effective can Pakistan’s new offensive be, even if they commit to it fully?









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
This thought should be kept in mind as we ponder how and to what extent the U.S. publicly supports Iranian dissidents.
Bleeds Blue on October 19, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Obama is a god damn moron
Libertarian Joseph on October 19, 2009 at 10:18 AM
A billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon you’re talking real money…
bradley11 on October 19, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Ahhh, SmartPower implemented by idiots.
enoughalready on October 19, 2009 at 10:19 AM
I’ve heard that $54 billion is no longer considered real money.
Doughboy on October 19, 2009 at 10:20 AM
It’s a pagent, put on to fool us.
Pakistan has no intent to really destroy the terrorists.
They created them, after all.
pseudonominus on October 19, 2009 at 10:23 AM
1) The only aid being proposed to Iranian dissidents is moral support. Not that I’m surprised at your attempts to draw a parallel.
2) The people who are doing the protesting, for the most part, want the Taliban to win.
MarkTheGreat on October 19, 2009 at 10:24 AM
While the Paki army takes a walk in the brisk autumn air, people still want to believe what they say. People who so earnestly want to believe Muslims deserve the dark reward they get.
BL@KBIRD on October 19, 2009 at 10:26 AM
This is a total waste of money. Is Obama trying to make lapdogs of the Pakis?
Libertarian Joseph on October 19, 2009 at 10:28 AM
$7.5 billion?
Damn, that’s about 300 stimulus jobs “saved or created”TM.
reaganaut on October 19, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Not really. Its an apples to oranges comparison imo.
Over half the population of Pakistan are illiterate..they can’t even read or write their own languages and are dependent on their local leaders to tell them the what and why of things. This makes them easy subjects for propaganda, and easy to scare into action.
This isn’t the case in Iran.
Itchee Dryback on October 19, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Just for fun…
Over half theDemocrats are illiterate..they can’t even read or write their own languages and are dependent on their leaders to tell them the what and why of things. This makes them easy subjects for propaganda, and easy to scare into action.
WashJeff on October 19, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Right. So we would be mouthing off and thus giving opponents plausible claim that we are intruding on Iranian sovereignty and energizing extremists, but we would be giving the dissidents nothing (or very little) of value.
I think he’s trying to get them to hit Taliban strongholds in the South. And it appears that he’s getting what he paid for.
The Pakistani government’s efforts are clearly good news, after years in which it allowed terrorists to hole up unmolested.
Bleeds Blue on October 19, 2009 at 10:34 AM
A reasonable point. On the other hand, the mullahs’ base in Iran tend to be poorer and less educated than urban sophisticates at the forefront of the opposition, making them, too, relatively more susceptible to propaganda (and class resentment).
Bleeds Blue on October 19, 2009 at 10:36 AM
The one good effect I see from this is that the locals will quickly learn to appreciate the difference between US and Pakistani tactics as related to collateral casualties. It would truly be ironic if in the end we play the role of the good cop while the Pak army is the bad cop.
jwolf on October 19, 2009 at 10:39 AM
So you believe these Muslims. On what grounds do you place your faith?
BL@KBIRD on October 19, 2009 at 10:42 AM
No war has ever been won without collateral damage.
The purpose of any military is to kill people and break things.
Peace is only assured by the superior use of force.
TXUS on October 19, 2009 at 10:48 AM
As long as the bad guys end up dead …
OldEnglish on October 19, 2009 at 10:49 AM
“Collateral damage” hell, they’re the proper target.
Chris_Balsz on October 19, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Does this sound familiar:
(via long war journal)
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/10/analysis_what_lies_a.php#ixzz0UONln7ZP
Let’s see, who else thinks they can “wait” this situation out:
(via gatewaypundit)
Obama Fiddles As Kabul Burns
Monday, October 19, 2009, 4:33 AM
Jim Hoft
A true partner.
So the government has to be free of corruption and meet Obama’s standards before he will commit to providing resources that HIS OWN GENERAL HAS REQUESTED TO IMPLEMENT OBAMA’S OWN STRATEGY.
When has the Afghanistan government ever been free of corruption?
I don’t recall Obama stating that he was committed to winning the Afghanistan war only if the government was working up this his standards.
The surge in Iraq was implemented and succeeded without the government being free of corruption.
I thought the whole idea of providing our military with what it needs to secure the country is based on a free people working toward a more representative government (I know…muslim government).
How does setting our military up to fail by not providing the resources it needs to win help further these goals.
Obama is doing nothing here but trying to “surrender with style”.Cut and run in Afghanistan with the least political damage.
The pathetic stances of “The Taliban are not dangerous” and “we will not fight unless the government meets a certain criteria” is nothing but liberal spin to lay the ground work for surrender.
Of course surrender in Afghanistan destroys what the Pakistan government is trying to do along with it.
Failure in Afghanistan will be Obama’s fault 100%.
This will be on his watch and with his administration denying our military what it has requested in trying to achieve a successful mission.
Failure will not only be catastrophic to America, but to the world and Obama could care less because it is nothing more than an impediment to him achieving the socialization of our country.
The buck stops at the Obama’s desk.
Baxter Greene on October 19, 2009 at 10:50 AM
But what about the possible human rights violations that will happen against the Taliban?
I’m just saying…
Khun Joe on October 19, 2009 at 10:54 AM
So is that how you tell good Taliban from bad Taliban, where they live? Also, I saw on a scrawl this morning that Kerry was going over to explain how the strings attached to the money are not interference. I assume it was John Kerry but not positive. Considering this administration’s choices it would make sense, send the least qualified and the person that will probably offend the folks over there.
Cindy Munford on October 19, 2009 at 10:54 AM
He has never taken responsibility for a failure in his life and sure does not intend to start now.
thomasaur on October 19, 2009 at 10:55 AM
That was an America serious about “victory”.
Chris_Balsz on October 19, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Pervez Musharraf … constantly frustrated the Bush administration with ill-advised truces that allowed the Taliban to rearm and to expand their holdings.
Yeah, that’s called a ‘hudna’, you’d think the Pakis would know about that.
Tony737 on October 19, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Bah, this is all fluff from a government of people who are only a few steps removed from the caves. A few years from now the world will see its first real nuke-armed terrorist nation with all the fun it will entail.
Bishop on October 19, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Full Disclosure I am an Indian and hence my biases and objectives should be obvious. Having said that I am afraid that I find American discussion on Afghanistan/Taliban/Al Qaeda a bit misplaced. Is it necessary to fight Taliban ? Sure. Is it necessary to make distinction between Al-Qaeda and Taliban? May be. Is there something called good Taliban ? Possibly, although unlikely. But all these discussions miss the point that as far as Af-Pak theater is concerned, Taliban/Al-Qaeda/Tribals are just the tools, the main culprit is Pakistan. It may sound too academic, but history of Pakistan’s creation is relevant, Pakistan is the only nation whose creation was direct result of Islamic supremacism. Pakistani polity is driven by fear and loathing of Idolatrous Hindus, consequently aim of all the maneuvering which Pakistani political establishment undertakes is disintegration of India. This instinct is not something which can be reprogrammed as it flows directly from the same ideology which gave rise to Pakistan. Any peace is possible only if Pakistani polity can be reformed to something different from antithesis of India.
Gaurav on October 19, 2009 at 11:03 AM
So, wait, you don’t want us to get the terrorists?
Constant Parrhesia on October 19, 2009 at 11:13 AM
That’s why we have to make it a point to hold the Obama administration accountable for their failures.
It is going to be real hard to pass the buck on the Afghanistan war when not just Americans, but many from the international community will be wrapping Mr. Hope and change in this failure also.
The main reason the international community likes Obama is because he is weak and allows them to beat up on the big Yankee bully that is the US.
They will enjoy nothing more than criticizing and humiliating the US by beating it (and Obama) with the loss in Afghanistan and showing videos of the jihadist dancing in the streets drunk with delight over their defeat of the Great Satan America.
Socialist liberalisms failure will be on center stage for the world to see during Mr. 57 states tenure as President.
Obama and his “smart power” will be the face of that failure and the buck stops at his desk.
Baxter Greene on October 19, 2009 at 11:15 AM
The Pakistani military is just blowing up lots of buildings to impress the bureaucrats in Washington.
Boom! Bang! Boom!
Then they take some of the the US aid to rebuild some of the buildings for the Taliban to move back into. Most money will go into Pakistani politician secret bank accounts.
The Washington politicians are happy. The Pakistani govt. is happy and the Taliban is happy.
Wait six months and repeat again.
albill on October 19, 2009 at 11:25 AM
I hope your breath of fresh air can penetrate partisan American politics. The whole world right now is a place where serious events are just political points for Republicans and Democrats to pout about each other over.
BL@KBIRD on October 19, 2009 at 11:46 AM
That simply impossible THE WORLD LOVE US NOW WE ELECTED OBAMA.
Have you taken your shot of kool aide yet this morning…hmmm cherry flavor :)
Dr Evil on October 19, 2009 at 11:47 AM
It’s beyond me why anyone who voted for Obama thought they were electing a Commander in Chief who had the backbone to fight a war.
I’ve been waiting for him to play this ‘corrupt government of Afghanistan card’.
What a great strategy, destabilize the very government we have to work with.
Obama’s going to bail.
Pray for all of the troops.
Texas Gal on October 19, 2009 at 11:54 AM
BTW, did I hear Rove right this morning that the Obama administration sent James Carville over to help Karzai’s opponent, Abdullah Abdullah, with is campaign against Karzai?
Texas Gal on October 19, 2009 at 12:08 PM
1) They are already blaming us for everything. They’ve been doing that for 20 years.
2) If you think moral support is worth nothing, then you are probably a liberal.
MarkTheGreat on October 19, 2009 at 12:11 PM
They aren’t Republicans.
/sarc
MarkTheGreat on October 19, 2009 at 12:12 PM
It is a sort of pageant, isn’t it?
The whole concept of hudna and treaties is so foreign to the West. We fight to win, then make peace. They fight to fight. We need to understand the eternal war.
PattyJ on October 19, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Great….2 things Hussein is capable of doing …. Apologizing for nothing, unless if its for his own stupidity, and writing checks his arse can’t cash!
BigMike252 on October 19, 2009 at 2:55 PM
“Yokahoma” Isn’t that north of Tejas?
davidk on October 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM