Pakistan Drone Strikes: Obama-2, Chimpy-38

[tekisui]

Suspected U.S. Missile Strikes Kill at Least 20 in Pakistan

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Jan. 23 -- At least 20 people were killed in northwest Pakistan near the border of Afghanistan on Friday in two suspected U.S. missile strikes, marking the first such attack in Pakistan's tribal areas since President Obama's inauguration.

A U.S. Predator drone fired three missiles at a compound about two miles from the town of Mirali in the tribal area of North Waziristan about 5:15 p.m., according to a Pakistani security official and local residents. The precision strike leveled a compound, which was owned by local tribal elder Khalil Malik, killing at least 10 suspected militants, including five foreign nationals, according to the Pakistani security official. The site of the attack is about 30 miles east of the Afghan border.

(snip)

The second strike occurred about three hours later near the tribal capital of Wana in South Waziristan, according to a Pakistani political official in the area. A U.S. drone fired two missiles at a compound in the small village of Gangikhel, a little less than 20 miles from the border with Afghanistan. Few details of that attack were available, but local residents said at least 10 were killed and two injured.

Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, a spokesman for the Pakistani army, declined to comment on the strike, referring calls to the Pakistani Foreign Ministry. A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry also declined to comment.

(snip)

At least 132 people have been killed in 38 suspected U.S. missile strikes inside Pakistan since August as the administration of President George W. Bush stepped up pressure on Pakistan to pursue more aggressively Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents in the country's tribal areas.

more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012301220.html?hpid=topnews

[tekisui]

1. Locals also said that three children lost their lives.

Security officials said the strikes, which saw up to five missiles slam into houses in separate villages, killed seven "foreigners" - a term that usually means al-Qaeda - but locals also said that three children lost their lives.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5575883.ece

[Phoonzang]

2. Unfortunately we don't have the technology to create missiles that kill only enemy soldiers

and not civilians. The only alternative would be to send in troops in, and with the amount of firepower laid down by modern weapons, the civilians would still have a damn good chance of being killed.

[tekisui]

4. Or, we could get out of a place that has no 'winning' option.

[Phoonzang]

8. Are you sure there's no winning option? Or at least a less crappy

outcome than letting the Taliban take over the country again and be stronger than ever?

[tekisui]

10. We deposed of the Taliban 7 years ago in Afghanistan

and have occupied the country since then. The Taliban are already back and stronger than every. They control 60-70% of Afghanistan and some of Pakistan. The Afghan/Pakistan border is were empires go to die. We have lost over 1,000 US soldiers and are worse off in the war than we were 7 years ago. Last year was the worst year for US and civilian causalities in Afghanistan.

What is our goal? To keep the Taliban from holding 100%? There is no military solution in Afghanistan. It will be the 21st Century Vietnam, if we don't get out.

Spreading into Pakistan will only make it worse.

[ieoeja]

20. "To keep the Taliban from holding 100%"

Interestingly enough that is EXACTLY how the USN/USMC has won dozens of such wars over the past 150 years and just what they recommended to LBJ in Vietnam. However, LBJ went with the USA/USAF strategies, two branches with ZERO experience winning overseas guerilla wars, instead.

The USN/USMC recommendation for Vietnam was to control 10% of the land with 90% of the people/resources and concede the jungles to the VC. Make the guerillas come to them to fight. Or they could sit in the jungle and rot. Going into the jungle just ensured the NVA and VC would get the occasional successful ambush to boost their morale.

Yes, ironically the Marine Corps says South Vietnam would have won that war eventually had we fought LESS rather than MORE as the rightwingers keep saying. Note: Gen Patraeus (sp?) wrote a paper mostly in agreement with this Marine Corps doctrine.

[ieoeja]

22. And the reason empires die there, is because they tried to rule.

We want to help the non-Taliban Afghans win.

I did leave a piece of Marine Corps strategy out of my first response -- and I never log on over the weekend; so you will get the last word.

North Vietnam had a head start on the South when it came to forming a government and, subsequently, a military. The North unified very quickly behind Ho Chi Minh while in the South various parties fought one another for control. Not too surprisingly those who emerged on top were veterans of the wars against Japanese and French occupation (they fought those wars in the south too). Given time and armed by us, they would have built a military every bit as capable as the North's.

But we didn't do that. Instead we pushed them aside and tried fighting their war for them. And that is why empires don't work. The empire's troops will eventually go home, and everybody knows that. Conversely, the South Vietnamese weren't going anywhere. Had we just limited ourselves to a role supporting their growth....

But at least the US Army learned this lesson. Or at least the guy currently in charge over there did as mentioned in my first response.

[tekisui]

23. I hope that you're right,

and I hope the advice Obama is getting from Petreus and others will accomplish the goal of security and getting the troops out sooner rather than later.

[wmbrew0206]

24. Your numbers are completely wrong on how much the Taliban control.

The Taliban are made of Pashtuns and have killed enough Hazzara's and Tajik's that neither want anything to do with them. The Pashtuns do not control more than 60% of the country. So for your numbers to be right, all of the PAshtuns and some of the Tajik's and/or Hazzara's would have to support the Taliban, which is not the case.

[tekisui]

28. As much as 75% reported here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4639647

[wmbrew0206]

30. The editoral writer for the Toledo Blade apparently has never been to Afghanistan and

is lacking in applying logic.

Nowhere in that editorial do they state where they came up with the 75% figure.

The demographics of the population I listed above can be easily checked here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#Ethnic_groups

I even overestimated the % of Pashtuns.

The Taliban's treatment of minorities cemented their opposition to Taliban rule. The Pashtuns control at most 50% of the country, so how could the Taliban be controlling the other 25%? (This is assuming that ALL Pashtuns support the Taliban, which they don't)

[tekisui]

33. Taliban control much of Afghanistan, and their control is growing:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4901770&mesg_id=4901770

[Zynx]

29. We're not in Pakistan. That's the point of these strikes.

[tekisui]

35. Ground troops went into Pakistan last Fall.

And, I am talking specifically about Afghanistan. These strikes in Pakistan are an extension of the Afghanistan war.

[rug]

3. Who authorized missile strikes in sovereign territory?

[TTUBatfan2008]

5. Who do you think?

[tekisui]

6. I guess that would be Obama.

Who else could? He never suggested he wouldn't during the campaigns, and it is the issue I differ with him most on.

[Bok_Tukalo]

7. Just the opposite. He made it clear he would go after high value targets

With or without Pakistani permission. I remember he took heat from his opponents over the issue.

[tekisui]

9. I remember.

That certainly doesn't make it right.

[Renew Deal]

13. I know of someone.

And he's doing what he said he was going to do.

[rug]

17. I'm not so sure he authorized this or just generally authorized the field commanders to continue.

Either way, it's bullshit. I don't care how many times he said he was going to do it.

[GarbagemanLB]

11. As I said in another thread...if the Pakistani government is too weak to go after Al qaeda, we will.

Good for us.

[tekisui]

12. We're still afraid of al-qaeda?

Or are we after revenge?

[Renew Deal]

14. Probably both

And that's appropriate.

[tekisui]

16. We'll see how successful this strategy is.

The Taliban has already reclaimed most of what it lost before. I don't see any military actions in the border area benefiting our security. If anything drone strikes will turn more into radical sympathizers.

With 20,000-30,000 more US troops following in the over 1,000 who have dies there as we watch the Taliban strengthen, I am not very optimistic.

I hope we can hit the 'high valued targets', whatever that means, and get the hell out, soon. But, I'm not holding my breath.

[Joe the Revelator]

15. Iraq was revenge. This is going after the proper enemy in order to ensure security.

[tekisui]

18. Al-qaeda is no more a threat now than Iraq was in 2003.

They have been marginalized. The latest messages from them are focused on PR because they have lost their standing in the Arab world. This is not a policy that will bring us more security.

[Joe the Revelator]

19. This is actually not true in the slightest.

[tekisui]

21. Their are other groups more dangerous than al-qaeda.

al-qaeda is a bunch radicals without leadership, now. They haven't done anything recently to suggest they are an operational threat to the US.

[wmbrew0206]

25. Which other groups are more dangerous?

[tekisui]

26. Ones that haven't hit us yet.

Ones that aren't being watched as closely. I don't know their names, and hopefully we will never learn their names.

[wmbrew0206]

31. Then how can you saw they are more dangerous when you don't even know who they are?

[tekisui]

34. Because al-qaeda is not a threat anymore.

So, any potential threat is likely more dangerous than they are.

[wmbrew0206]

32. Wait a minute, I'm a little confused with your premise. Are you saying

that Al Qaeda is not a threat to the US, when the CIA Director and the Central Command Commanding General all recently said that they are?

[jefferson_dem]

36. Not to mention President Obama...

Sometimes I wonder...

[jefferson_dem]

27. Good.

Obama's doing what he said he would do. If Pakistan can't control shit withing their own borders, we must engage "targets of opportunity" when they arise.