Gates offers troops for joint efforts with Pakistan

[fatman17]

---

---

Gates offers troops for joint efforts with Pakistan

By Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

January 25, 2008

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. military would be willing to undertake joint combat operations with Pakistani forces against Islamic militants if Pakistani leaders request the help, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Thursday.

Gates' remarks at a Pentagon briefing represented the first such public offer by a top Bush administration official since a change last year in Pakistan's military leadership. It also reflects growing U.S. concern over the renewed militancy there.

Before Thursday, Pentagon officials avoided raising the possibility of combat operations with Pakistanis because of opposition by President Pervez Musharraf and the likelihood of widespread protests against U.S. involvement.

Asked about a widely reported proposal for expanding the U.S. military's training activities in Pakistan, Gates said the Pentagon was willing to go further by conducting joint combat operations.

He said deploying U.S. troops in Pakistan to pursue Al Qaeda leaders was the "subject of ongoing dialogue" with officials there.

"We remain ready, willing and able to assist the Pakistanis and to partner with them, to provide additional training, to conduct joint operations, should they desire to do so," Gates said.

Adm. William J. Fallon, the Pentagon's commander for the Middle East, was in Pakistan this week to meet with senior officials. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael G. Mullen, said he did not know whether Fallon made any new proposals to the Pakistanis.

"I think certainly if there is a desire on the part of the Pakistani armed forces and the Pakistani government to have us assist, we would certainly try to do that," said Mullen, appearing with Gates.

Gates said the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto had prompted the U.S. military to focus on the "considerable security challenge" posed by extremists in Pakistan.

The U.S. has 28,000 troops in Afghanistan, but those forces are not allowed to cross into Pakistan to pursue Taliban or Al Qaeda militants. Pakistan is a "sovereign country," Gates said, and therefore the U.S. would not conduct combat operations within its borders without an agreement.

"They clearly have the right to decide whether or not forces from another country are going to operate on their soil," he said. "We will continue the dialogue, but we would not do anything without their approval."

Gates' remarks were the latest sign of improving ties between the U.S. and Pakistani militaries since Gen. Ashfaq Kiani became Pakistan's army chief of staff in November, when Musharraf relinquished the post under political pressure.

Kiani has taken steps to focus his forces on the threat posed by Islamic militants and is working with the U.S. military to improve his army's counterinsurgency training.

Gates' comments also may represent increased administration pressure on Pakistan to take the Pentagon up on its offer to conduct joint military activities or additional training operations. Gates said the U.S. and its allies are concerned about the reestablishment of Al Qaeda havens in the border region.

Last month, Gates noted that the Al Qaeda terrorist network had turned away from attacks against U.S. forces in Afghanistan and instead was concentrating on Pakistan. Expanding on those comments Thursday, he said Al Qaeda had been strengthened by its alliance with some of the tribes in the border area.

"Al Qaeda has threatened to try and destabilize Pakistan, has threatened to assassinate Pakistani leaders," Gates said. "Some of this lacks real clarity. But they clearly are much more active and working with other people."

Defense officials argue that Al Qaeda hopes to further destabilize the Pakistani government.

In addition, Al Qaeda militants do not believe the Pakistani army is capable of mounting decisive operations against them, U.S. analysts have argued.

American officials remain skeptical of the Pakistani army's counterinsurgency abilities and want to find more ways to help the army become more effective.

Gates noted that any combat operation in Pakistan would involve a small number of troops in the mountainous border area.

"You're not talking about significant numbers of U.S. troops . . . if you're talking about going after Al Qaeda in the border area or something like that," Gates said.

[IceCold]

Now when they saw they couldnt pressurize pakistan anymore neither can they attack without getting their *** kicked, they have started to look for plan B, if pakistan ask. Now the question is why would pakistan ask for US troops? PA is more then capable to handle terrorism and does not need support. The only support we need is in terms of equipment and COIN. US other then its as usual BS should look for ways to maximaize PA's ability to fight terrorism and stop dreaming about the day when US soilders will put foot on pakistan's soil. That isnt going to happen specially not under musharraf's watch.

[Tiki Tam Tam]

I would say allow them.

There are many spinoffs.

One, the Pakistan Army will not feel uncomfortable for killing ******* themselves (remember the post where a chap (cousin) got sick (the poster claimed it was a gift from Allah).

Two, then none can say that Musharraf is anti Islam.

Three, the Pakistani Army cannot be blamed for being tardy and not enthused.

Fourthly, the Taliban menace will be rid of in Pakistan!

I know that many will complain that it would be an insult to sovereignty, but then the cure is better than an ideal that, in actuality, is not really compromised!

[IceCold]

I would say allow them.

There are many spinoffs.

One, the Pakistan Army will not feel uncomfortable for killing ******* themselves (remember the post where a chap (cousin) got sick (the poster claimed it was a gift from Allah).

Two, then none can say that Musharraf is anti Islam.

Three, the Pakistani Army cannot be blamed for being tardy and not enthused.

Fourthly, the Taliban menace will be rid of in Pakistan!

I know that many will complain that it would be an insult to sovereignty, but then the cure is better than an ideal that, in actuality, is not really compromised!

Ohh comeon what horse crap. Would india have allowed it? You think that if the US soilders kill, PA will not get blamed? In the above scenario if allowed wouldnt they be working with PA so if they kill, PA would be blamed more for working with them and musharraf for allowing it to happen. The US setting her foot in pakistan would rise a whole new threat and challenge for the PA. People who are working closely with the PA in the tribal areas will immediately withdraw their support and find a cause to fight against the invaders(mind you US soilders will not be seen as saviours but invaders) and will be dealt accordingly. Besides PA is capable of doing so on her own. US and others need to stop dreaming and look things in reality, if not they might loose another alley on WOT.

[blain2]

I would say allow them.

There are many spinoffs.

One, the Pakistan Army will not feel uncomfortable for killing ******* themselves (remember the post where a chap (cousin) got sick (the poster claimed it was a gift from Allah).

Two, then none can say that Musharraf is anti Islam.

Three, the Pakistani Army cannot be blamed for being tardy and not enthused.

Fourthly, the Taliban menace will be rid of in Pakistan!

I know that many will complain that it would be an insult to sovereignty, but then the cure is better than an ideal that, in actuality, is not really compromised!

Now why do you think that "Pakistan Army will not feel uncomfortable for killing ******* themselves"??

None of what you propose/suggest above will work. US should provide training and equipment and we will tackle the problem on our own.

[shan]

I would say allow them.

There are many spinoffs.

One, the Pakistan Army will not feel uncomfortable for killing ******* themselves (remember the post where a chap (cousin) got sick (the poster claimed it was a gift from Allah).

Two, then none can say that Musharraf is anti Islam.

Three, the Pakistani Army cannot be blamed for being tardy and not enthused.

Fourthly, the Taliban menace will be rid of in Pakistan!

I know that many will complain that it would be an insult to sovereignty, but then the cure is better than an ideal that, in actuality, is not really compromised!

Now you are portraying PA as religious fanatics here. I am not surprised by the way.

PA is kicking "muslims" terrorists ***** whenever they go, just look at recent reports. Even FC forces kill more terrorists then they lost their own mans even when they are in pathetic shape in terms of training and equipment and supposed to be from the same area. FC with help of USA army can go a long way in terms of fighting terrorists.

[yarmook]

I would say allow them.

There are many spinoffs.

One, the Pakistan Army will not feel uncomfortable for killing ******* themselves (remember the post where a chap (cousin) got sick (the poster claimed it was a gift from Allah).

Two, then none can say that Musharraf is anti Islam.

Three, the Pakistani Army cannot be blamed for being tardy and not enthused.

Fourthly, the Taliban menace will be rid of in Pakistan!

I know that many will complain that it would be an insult to sovereignty, but then the cure is better than an ideal that, in actuality, is not really compromised!

Am impressed!!!! keep up the good thought,

Thats the reason i hate simple HATE!!!! Indian media in any form which could make you intellectually impotent

[mujahideen]

I would say allow them.

There are many spinoffs.

One, the Pakistan Army will not feel uncomfortable for killing ******* themselves (remember the post where a chap (cousin) got sick (the poster claimed it was a gift from Allah).

Two, then none can say that Musharraf is anti Islam.

Three, the Pakistani Army cannot be blamed for being tardy and not enthused.

Fourthly, the Taliban menace will be rid of in Pakistan!

I know that many will complain that it would be an insult to sovereignty, but then the cure is better than an ideal that, in actuality, is not really compromised!

Allowing U.S. troops to operate on our terroritory violates our soverignity. We are fully capable of dealing with the challenge our selves.

[mujahideen]

Now when they saw they couldnt pressurize pakistan anymore neither can they attack without getting their *** kicked, they have started to look for plan B, if pakistan ask. Now the question is why would pakistan ask for US troops? PA is more then capable to handle terrorism and does not need support. The only support we need is in terms of equipment and COIN. US other then its as usual BS should look for ways to maximaize PA's ability to fight terrorism and stop dreaming about the day when US soilders will put foot on pakistan's soil. That isnt going to happen specially not under musharraf's watch.

Well said.

[S-2]

Am I missing something? Isn't your army killing these recalcitrant muslim brothers now? Aren't these same men showing zero compunction about doing the same to your army and innocent civilians throughout your nation?

Sec'y Gates has made clear the general conditions by which we would bring combat forces into Pakistan. Nothing said by him should be construed as so offensive as to merit the replies rendered here by you. They're ill-formed.

You SHOULD be masters of your own lands. Currently, that's debatable in key areas of your country. Quit biting helping hands politely offered. We've much to learn from your forces. So too, I suspect, you from ours. We look for lessons anywhere from which they can be found. Do you? Something tells me that you haven't a clue about what our forces actually bring to the table.

Fortunately, your military leaders probably do.

[khanz]

honestly i wouldn't mind a joint effort with them and pak army if pak government allowed it my view if it gets the job done then why not.
What I oppose is U.S forces taking unilateral action and without permission.

[x_man]

I would say allow them.

There are many spinoffs.

One, the Pakistan Army will not feel uncomfortable for killing ******* themselves (remember the post where a chap (cousin) got sick (the poster claimed it was a gift from Allah).

Two, then none can say that Musharraf is anti Islam.

Three, the Pakistani Army cannot be blamed for being tardy and not enthused.

Fourthly, the Taliban menace will be rid of in Pakistan!

I know that many will complain that it would be an insult to sovereignty, but then the cure is better than an ideal that, in actuality, is not really compromised!

Pakistan is undergoing enough problems at the moment....please dont add another one.

[BATMAN]

I would say allow them.

There are many spinoffs.

I kind of agree to the spinoff part but not to your list.

Simply, any US operation in side Pakistan's territory will yield nagitive results.
It will only result in annoying tribals, resulting in helping millitants to gather more tribal sympathies.
Which suerly, will have nagative impacts for Pakistan but it will be equally disastrous for war on terror.
I would say US can say bye bye to it's war on terror after stepping in Pakistan because any such act will only help to push tribals in opposition.

War alone is wrong approach.
IMO, to have tribals by your side is more important than capturing OBL.

[blain2]

Am I missing something? Isn't your army killing these recalcitrant muslim brothers now? Aren't these same men showing zero compunction about doing the same to your army and innocent civilians throughout your nation?

Sec'y Gates has made clear the general conditions by which we would bring combat forces into Pakistan. Nothing said by him should be construed as so offensive as to merit the replies rendered here by you. They're ill-formed.

You SHOULD be masters of your own lands. Currently, that's debatable in key areas of your country. Quit biting helping hands politely offered. We've much to learn from your forces. So too, I suspect, you from ours. We look for lessons anywhere from which they can be found. Do you? Something tells me that you haven't a clue about what our forces actually bring to the table.

Fortunately, your military leaders probably do.

S2,

I think you are misreading the posts. Its not a matter of biting helping hands. We get considerable assistance from the US and those who know of this assistance understand and appreciate it.

The problem in FATA is as such that there are religious and ethnic overtones at play. Any use of US forces in Pakistan in any sort of offensive manner would cause massive problems for *any* Pakistani government let alone a government whose validity is being questioned by most Pakistanis.

Pakistani Army is capable of dealing with this threat and could use help, however the help to it (for the sake of local sensibilities) has to be discrete and not of the type which is played out for all to see.

Am I missing something? Isn't your army killing these recalcitrant muslim brothers now? Aren't these same men showing zero compunction about doing the same to your army and innocent civilians throughout your nation?

If the Pakistan Army takes on these individuals with the goal of establishing the writ of the state then most Pakistanis would buy it (as long as the government can galvanize the country and make the population aware of this threat). However a US military presence in the form of what has been done in the Philippines where US advisers have been embedded in Philippine Army teams combating insurgency would simply not work in Pakistan.

The issue is not a matter of saying no to US assistance, rather its the manner in which its taken up and perceived on the street in Pakistan. On this count, as has been posted by myself on another thread, the statements of US Sec'y Def. have been very appropriate and considerate.

[S-2]

---

---

Thank you for your response and I thoroughly concur with your assessment of the offer, however well-intentioned. General David Rodriguez, commander of ISAF's eastern region has suggested that he looks forward to the deployment of two new ANA brigades in his area of operations this spring.

Here is a brief segment from a U.S. Army operation posted on the "Transaction" thread by Salim-

"Planning for the operation had begun in late February after transfer of authority from the Southern European Task Force to 10th Mountain Division. Ground forces designated for involvement in the operation included elements of the 10th Mountain’s 3d Brigade Combat Team, a USMC infantry battalion,
brigades from the ANA’s 201st and 203d Corps, multicomponent special operations forces (SOF), and various support elements. Also present were
joint PRTs to coordinate R&D activities, engineers to provide mobility and support R&D, and embedded training teams to train and mentor the ANSF. All combined to form CJTF 76.

The embedded teams operated directly with Afghan units, providing both tactical advice and access to coalition artillery and air. Their use enabled two ANA corps to fight effectively alongside U.S. forces while a Canadian-led multinational brigade secured terrain in southern Afghanistan. Pakistan, too, contributed forces, deploying 11 infantry battalions to disrupt insurgent cross-border movement and resupply efforts."

I envision U.S., Afghan, and Pakistani forces conducting harmonized operations in these regions. Colonel Coss, above, indicates as much in his reference to 11 infantry battalions from Pakistan. Where I come from that's very nearly the equivalent of one full division of troops.

No violations of border sovereignty need occur. What should occur on a more-than-routine basis are meetings down to the company commander levels (where necessary) to facilitate, harmonize and, ultimately, synergize these disparate resources to the greatest common utility.

Cross-border eyeball-to-eyeball relationships should be a real part of all three nation's battle commanders down on the deck. They need to know each other and work with one another. Not one U.S. helicopter need be seen in Pakistani skies to accomplish this rapport.