As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
3 US Troops Killed in Pakistan
[Tycho?]![[Tycho?]](https://us.v-cdn.net/5018289/uploads/userpics/934/nHG8VEMRTY5QM.gif)
As elusive as doubtRegistered User regular
As elusive as doubtRegistered User regular
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8494890.stm
These are certainly the first deaths of US troops in Pakistan that I've heard about. I'll bet the house they wont be the last.
We've all heard of the drone strikes in Pakistan. These attacks were initiated under Bush and ramped up under Obama. Indeed Obama has re-phrased the war taking place in Afghanistan, now referring to the "Af-Pak" region, recognizing that rebel groups in the area cross the border at will. The drone strikes have been rather controversial; the Pakistani government officially despises them, yet actually hosts drones on its own soil and passes intelligence on to the US. Pakistanis hate the attacks though, especially when the inevitable civilian casualties come to light.
US troops, killed on Pakistani soil is taking things to a new level however. The US says these troops were training Pakistan's Frontier Corps. This brings up several interesting things to think about.
1) Just how many US troops and other military personnel are in Pakistan?
2) How did these 3 troops in particular die? It was a bombing, sure. But was it an accident that US troops were there? Or were they specifically targeted? How many more US personnel are at risk?
3) What exactly are these troops doing there? The US does extensive training of foreign armies, this is nothing new. However, its also not new for "military advisors" to be cover for troops acting covertly.
While the comparison between the two has been cliche'd and inaccurate since the 80s, this is also showing similarities with Vietnam. There were over 16 000 US "advisors" in Vietnam before the Gulf of Tonkin incident which really caused the war to get going. The US used bombing campaigns and covert ops in Laos and Cambodia because insurgents were crossing those borders freely. Obviously the situations are very different, yet in both situations we see the gradual creep of increasing militarization as a conflict expands beyond control.
What we are seeing in all of this is the start of a US war inside Pakistan. Calling it a "war" at this point may be pre-mature, however escalation at this point seems inevitable. The war in Afghanistan is going very poorly. Pakistan is extremely unstable. The US has a vested interest in the region, and yet is mired down in a conflict with no end in sight.
It seems clear that the fates of Afghanistan, Pakistan and perhaps the US itself are intertwined. What does the future hold for the region?
Three US soldiers were among 10 people killed when a bomb blast hit a convoy near a school in north-west Pakistan.
Three schoolgirls were among the dead while 70 people, including another 63 schoolgirls and two US soldiers, were injured in the explosion in Lower Dir.
The US embassy said the military personnel had been training Pakistan's Frontier Corps in counter-insurgency.
Both governments deny large numbers of US troops are in Pakistan, where public opinion opposes their presence.
These are certainly the first deaths of US troops in Pakistan that I've heard about. I'll bet the house they wont be the last.
We've all heard of the drone strikes in Pakistan. These attacks were initiated under Bush and ramped up under Obama. Indeed Obama has re-phrased the war taking place in Afghanistan, now referring to the "Af-Pak" region, recognizing that rebel groups in the area cross the border at will. The drone strikes have been rather controversial; the Pakistani government officially despises them, yet actually hosts drones on its own soil and passes intelligence on to the US. Pakistanis hate the attacks though, especially when the inevitable civilian casualties come to light.
US troops, killed on Pakistani soil is taking things to a new level however. The US says these troops were training Pakistan's Frontier Corps. This brings up several interesting things to think about.
1) Just how many US troops and other military personnel are in Pakistan?
2) How did these 3 troops in particular die? It was a bombing, sure. But was it an accident that US troops were there? Or were they specifically targeted? How many more US personnel are at risk?
3) What exactly are these troops doing there? The US does extensive training of foreign armies, this is nothing new. However, its also not new for "military advisors" to be cover for troops acting covertly.
While the comparison between the two has been cliche'd and inaccurate since the 80s, this is also showing similarities with Vietnam. There were over 16 000 US "advisors" in Vietnam before the Gulf of Tonkin incident which really caused the war to get going. The US used bombing campaigns and covert ops in Laos and Cambodia because insurgents were crossing those borders freely. Obviously the situations are very different, yet in both situations we see the gradual creep of increasing militarization as a conflict expands beyond control.
What we are seeing in all of this is the start of a US war inside Pakistan. Calling it a "war" at this point may be pre-mature, however escalation at this point seems inevitable. The war in Afghanistan is going very poorly. Pakistan is extremely unstable. The US has a vested interest in the region, and yet is mired down in a conflict with no end in sight.
It seems clear that the fates of Afghanistan, Pakistan and perhaps the US itself are intertwined. What does the future hold for the region?
[Tycho?] on
0
Posts
Interesting is not the word I would use.
Also, nobody seems to care about our shadow war in Pakistan, and I find that exceptionally unnerving. I think a lot of that has to do with the drone use, but maybe it's one of those things that people are just too confused about to really formulate polarized opinions on.
There was a pretty fascinating Frontline on last night focused on virtual/digital culture. Surprisingly, a large chunk of it was dedicated to examining the alienation of drone warfare, and the psychology of predator drone pilots.
More here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/waging-war/remote-control-war/
Maybe ground US causalities will change people's perception of the situation.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
So it's going to be drone attacks, special ops, blackwater, and "advisers" for now. Don't expect much else.
also
What the hell is this? What could you possibly mean?
I'm saying this could escalate to the first outright war we've fought with another nuclear power. And they're relatively new to the tech, and already in a high pressure situation living right next door to their sworn enemies.
I'm sorry if I didn't treat it with the appropriate gravitas, I'm just saying it will be interesting to see how this whole situation plays out since they're a nuclear power.
We're not at war with the government. They are helping us and don't really care.
What? You think they don't know we're helping train their military in COIN?
You know what, forget it. I'm tired and still recovering from surgery. I concede it was a stupid remark, and I'll bow out of the conversation.
Edit: Sorry, this post ended up being a "me too", and a boring one at that.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Haha - we're not trying to rail on you. We're just saying that the government is working with us - the people with the nuclear power have no desire to see us leave because they're interested in the stabilization of their government.
We've been working with the Pakistani government for a while now. They know we're doing drone attacks - they've allowed this to happen. The Taliban is in Pakistan, and the government has an interest in keeping tabs on them.
Tensions in Pakistan have already escalated to this point. The war in Afghanistan has spilled over to Pakistan. Drone strikes are a regular occurrence, as I'm sure are covert ops. Pakistan is fighting a civil war against the Taliban and other groups, a civil war (like most) where the lines between sides are very, very blurry. The Pakistani military, intelligence and religious communities, all of which have large amounts of power, all have long standing ties to militant groups and terrorist organizations that opperate in Afghanistan, Kashmir, and now Pakistan itself. Things have gotten much, much worse for Pakistan since 2001, and the US has become increasingly more involved.
With Musharaff out of the picture Pakistan is lacking a strong, centralized leadership. The current government is barely holding itself together politically, nevermind the pressure from the civil war or Pakistans huge economic troubles (they're essentially bankrupt and facing increasing unemployment).
The current Pakistani government is friendly to the US. However it would not take much at all for the government to fall, and who knows what would replace it. All this means there is a ton of room for escalation. This attack itself is but a blip on the timeline, much like the acknowledgment of US drone strikes in the country or the start of suicide bombings on Pakistani soil. No one of these events is causing an all out war to break out, yet together they bring war all the closer.
Then we could say our robots are attacking that country, the Caliphate or whatever ... not Pakistan.
The Pakistani government did cede administrative duties, and allowed them to institute sharia in the region. They've always had a hands-off approach to the tribal areas, they've never been effectively governed in the history of the region. About as close as you can get to being its own country, I suppose. Ah, if only it were that easy.
Alternatively Pakistan needs to go to the disenfranchised parts of Pakistan and get their unification on.
Bringing government to those areas will be as easy as bringing it to Afghanistan.
Which is to say, not easy, and lots of people die when its attempted.
Pakistan has basically been run by its military-industrial complex since its inception, and the ISI was documented to have (and probably still maintains) deep connections to insurgent groups, including the Afghan Taliban and Kashmiri groups. It's an uphill battle to convince the Pakistani people that these drone strikes aren't some tin-foil hat scheme between India and the US to destabilize the country.
Bringing up India is a very good point. So many of Pakistan's policies stem from its rivalry with India.
Pakistan has since the 80's seen Afghanistan and its own north-western areas as a buffer that can protect it. It supports the Taliban, which prevents India from moving around to Pakistan's backdoor to get at it that way (Iran as well I'd imagine). These same militants are used in Kashmir to fight India there. Now that Pakistan is facing violence on its own soil it may change its policies... or maybe not, since its hard to know who's in charge of what at any given time. Its such a murkey place, I find it very confusing to look at.
Now I'm not saying we should send troops or even drones there to shake things up, but really what can be accomplished as things stand now? Even if we do those things it is still up to the Pakistani government to bring the areas on board.
The India matter looks to me like paranoia in the extreme. I mean, it's almost absurd the degree to which Pakistan's rivalry with India seeps into every aspect of its policy. Thing is, I don't know whether or not there's a kernel of truth in all that paranoia.
I'd love to stay and regurgitate more of what I've read in Descent Into Chaos and what I've gleaned from my parents and the Urdu-language networks they watch on TV... but it's a gym night. :P
For clarity, Islamabad is the capital, and the seat of pretty much all political power. Karachi is just the biggest city (?), and the (domestic and international) trading hub.
Of course, you could've been using Karachi as a euphemism for something else, so I'll give ya the benefit of the doubt. :P
I just read Descent into Chaos recently too, and while I really didn't like the book there are some good tidbits of info in there.
Anyway, India is making inroads in Afghanistan, and have been for some time. I believe 4 foreign nations have airbases in Central Asia. India is one of them, with a base in Tajikistan, a stones throw away from the Afghan border. From here is where India organizes its aid efforts. Now, I'm sure India does its fair bit of spy stuff as well. I am inclined to think though that Pakistan's policy has been one of paranoia, or at least was not very well thought out.
And regarding the anti-Americanism I mentioned earlier: it's very thoroughly entrenched. I can't speak for the educated elite class there, but the Pakistani citizenry definitely has at best a pessimistic view of The American Imperialists. Case-in-point: my relatives on my father's side had posters of Osama (replete with jets flying in the background, and children standing at attention in the fore) on the doors in their house. Seems like it's especially bad among the Pushtoons in the northern mountainous regions.
I hate the use of the word "troop" to refer to a single person. As in "3 troops were killed." Why do people use this? Are they trying to avoid using the word "soldier?"
You reap what you sow and the US has been using and abusing that country as long as its existed. In the eyes of the people the United States is an unreliable fair-weather ally that only comes around when it has something to gain, otherwise we just ignore them and impose sanctions on their nuclear program.
There are legitimate grievances to be aired vis-a-vis American foreign policy towards Pakistan. However, I'm not too big a lib to say that some of Pakistan's problems, that the US is now stepping in to rectify, stem from its own domestic policies. They turned a blind eye to the rise of the Taliban, and were even sanctioned by the UN to stop selling arms to them. There's a lot of evidence that even now, there're Taliban/al-Qaeda sympathizers within the Pakistani government (and the ISI especially*) that are keeping the hammer from really coming down on the Pakistani Taliban.
*I should give fair warning that I don't know what The Washington Times's reputation for accuracy/bias is; I was just kinda Googling around for an article verifying my statement.
If the United States had paid more attention to the reconstruction of Afghanistan at this time, then we probably could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble down the road.
Washington Times is the one owned by a cult.
Huh, interesting.
Tell me, as someone who is Pakistani, what did you think of Descent in Chaos? Accurate? Biased? Thorough? Sensational? My view of the book was pretty negative, but I'm very curious to see what someone from the region itself thinks about it.
To be honest, I haven't gotten more than a few chapters in. Aside from that, this is also the first account I've gotten of Pakistani history, so I don't have anything to really compare it with. Sorry.
I don't have access to all of the Pakistani media; my parents get a few channels on their dish here. ARY, one of the major news networks there, seems to frame things pretty liberally (which is to say, they frame things from a populist perspective versus aggrandizing the government/business). They've gone as far as becoming actively involved in some kind of sugar shortage going on in the country, and now they're airing promo videos between news segments about the greedy and corrupt sugar barons and how the citizenry shouldn't have to be extorted for its sugar.
Maybe Pakistan's Glenn Beck-alikes are mostly on the radio?
When you're done you should stop by the ol' reading thread and tell us (me) what you think of it. Always good to have second opinions on a book.
You might be waiting for awhile* -- work + school are kinda getting in the way of Reading Time™. Damn priorities.
...whats Dance With Dragons?
(There's a thread. It's the Duke Nukem Forever of seven-part fantasy series.)
The whole article is informative though. Gives us some interesting numbers to play around with, but if they're admitting to 200 soldiers in Pakistan I've got to think the total number is significantly higher. It also mentions how there is going to be a huge media blow-back from this inside Pakistan. A lot of people there are going to be very displeased to discover that there are US soldiers operating in their country.
This just reminds everyone that there're still elements within the Pakistani government that're sympathetic to the Taliban from ties going back to the 90's. Until they're completely weeded out, or convinced that the Americans are worth siding with over the Taliban, you'll continue to see these kinds of occurrences. I don't know whether this was actually betrayal from the inside, but it'd be very easy to believe it.
The NPR piece on this on Wednesday was commenting on how the insurgents could've just been scoping out the scouts' routines and routes.
Troops typically refer to any military personnel, all encompassing. Soldier is mainly used specifically in reference to the Army, Airmen are Airforce, Seaman Navy, and Marines Marine Corps.
Edit: Or the rank of the Officer/NCO in charge of any engagement. Sending out Majors in battle, while it happens, is extremely rare. Colonels even less. Typically, unless you're in a specialized MOS, you stop the tactical side of the operation around Captain or Major, and at Major and above you enter the twilight era, where it's more on the operational side of things. Likewise, MSG/1SG/SMA will rarely see direct combat, and while it does happen, it's not common. At E-8, the Master Sergeant or First Sergeant, you enter Operational side and you have your subordinates exercising your commands.
Command size by rank (Typically):
Using Army ranks:
CPL - Sgt = Fireteam
Sgt - SSGT = Squad
SSGT - SFC = Platoon
MSGT/1SG = Company
CSM = Battalion
SMA = Anything above
Officers:
2nd Lt = Platoon
1st Lt = Company XO
Captain = Company CO
Major = Battalion CMDR
Colonel = Brigade and above
The size structure goes like this:
Personnel nomenclature (Air or Sea man/woman, Marine, Soldier)
Fire Team 3+ personnel
Squad 2+ Fire Teams
Platoon 3+ Squads
Company 2+ Platoons
Battalion 2+ Companies
Regiment 2+ Battalions
Brigade 2+ regiments
Division 2+ Brigades
Corps 2+ Divisions
Army 2+ Corps
Army Group 2+ Armies
Region/Theater/Front - An Engagement
The naming conventions are different based on branch of service or that type of unit (Batteries, Wings, Armour, Squadron, Troop for Cav, etc...) but they all are roughly the same size, or understood to have the same hierarchy.
So what's the point in this? It gives you a bit more insight into the types of people in charge and running things, and who if someone says something on the ground, usually where they rank on the totem pole. Movies and Video Games ruin this, very few places get it right.
So confused now.