• NOVEMBER 21, 2009
ARGUMENT PRINT  |   TEXT SIZE        |  EMAIL  |  SINGLE PAGE

How to Help Pakistan Win This Fight

The Pakistani Army is determined to defeat al Qaeda-linked militants in South Waziristan. So why is the United States still withholding the military equipment Pakistan urgently needs?

BY SHUJA NAWAZ | OCTOBER 20, 2009

The battle for Pakistan has finally started in earnest along the northwest frontier. After months of warning of an impending attack, the Pakistani military moved into South Waziristan this weekend to stamp out the Pakistani Taliban (TTP), which is allied with al Qaeda and allows the terrorist group to operate from the region. The Army bulked up the division entrusted with the task, supplementing it with troops and helicopters from North Waziristan, and local regiments from the Frontier Corps. The aim was to encircle and destroy the TTP in the southeastern third of Waziristan, where some 10,000 well-armed and battle-hardened militants are hiding.

COMMENTS (9) SHARE:
Digg
 
Facebook
 
Reddit
 
Bookmark and Share More...

But despite the reinforcements, the force trying to root out the entrenched militants is still not fully equipped or ready for mobile warfare. After more than eight years of involvement in the U.S.-led war against militants in Afghanistan, Pakistan still does not have all the weapons or assistance that it needs to do the job right.

The Pakistani forces are facing a more desperate and dangerous TTP. Since the powerful TTP chieftain Baitullah Mehsud was killed by a U.S. drone strike in August, the movement's new leaders have endeavored to establish their own credentials. Their attacks -- such as those on the general headquarters of the Army in Rawalpindi and on police offices in different cities in the Pakistani heartland -- have become more audacious and open.

The TTP-al Qaeda militancy has also become more dangerous due to the active participation of Punjabi terrorist groups. In years past, these Islamist extremists operated under the auspices of Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan's powerful military spy agency, fighting against Indians in Kashmir. Now, following Pakistan's attempt at reconciliation with India over Kashmir, they have gone rogue. The Army lacks the capacity and willingness to open a new front in Punjab, where the militants are based in small towns and some cities. But it can do much damage to the Taliban-al Qaeda nexus in South Waziristan.

The Army has attempted to stop the anti-TTP operation from becoming an all-out tribal feud, though. Following the pattern of the offensives into Swat and Malakand earlier this summer, it encouraged neutral Mehsud tribesmen to leave the battle area. Thousands of internal refugees moved south last week, as the Pakistan Air Force pounded targets with F-16s and other aircraft to prepare the ground for the Army assault. Given the complex terrain, it is not clear how successful those bomb runs have been. If the ground offensive slows down over the next few days, it will signal that the militants have dug deep into the mountains and will exact a heavy toll on advancing forces. Some of them, including al Qaeda elements, might even head into Afghanistan to regroup, buying off the area's Wazir and Bhittani tribesmen along the way. If the going is easier, then it is likely that the al Qadea and the TTP leadership has slipped away to seek refuge in northeastern Afghanistan, leaving behind booby traps and mines and a rearguard to fight against the invading Army.

Co-opting some of the Mehsud was a smart move, but it meant the Army lost the element of surprise. It will have to decide this war by sheer force of will and firepower, enduring heavy losses. And even if it wins the ground battle and occupies TTP territory, it might end up being a short-lived win. The Army is not trained or equipped to "hold" the area. There is no civilian force to police the territory, nor is there a judiciary to provide good governance; indeed, over the past eight years, Pakistan's government has failed to provide itself with anything other than military solutions to such problems. Both ousted autocrat Gen. Pervez Musharraf and the current government (which has retained the general's centralized powers) have entirely failed to strengthen their civilian capacity.

The United States too, has failed, most spectacularly in its inability to engage broadly with the Pakistani people, choosing instead to deal with one person or a small group of powerful players at the center. It thus lost its ability to gain public support in Pakistan for the fight against terrorism and militancy. The huge contretemps in Pakistan over the Kerry-Lugar bill has further undermined Washington's efforts to generate good will, and the Amy's public rebuke of the bill has only added to the mistrust between these two wary allies.

The Pakistani Army's wariness should not surprise us. Though American taxpayers have given Pakistan nearly $11 billion to cover the costs of its military operations since 2002, Washington has withheld the latest U.S. equipment from Pakistan. U.S. officials wring their hands when asked about more helicopters and gunships, for instance, explaining that sending the latest and unfamiliar U.S. equipment to Pakistan would entail introducing new maintenance and logistical problems. Thus, the only major sources of helicopters to match Pakistan's inventory of Chinese aircraft are the Eastern European states and Russia. (Fears that Pakistan might divert these weapons system to the Indian border could be met by providing helicopters under renewable leases.)

This severely constrains Pakistan's ability to traverse the mountains in Waziristan, where the average height is 8,500 feet and roads are few and far between. Pakistan's land forces, meanwhile, go into battle with half-flak jackets and the Frontier Corps' Scouts still traipse around in "chappals," open-toed sandals, in the rough and cold terrain of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. The Army also lacks the capability of tracking or jamming satellite phones used by the militants.

As the Pakistani military faces such logistical obstacles, militants and their supporters in Punjab will continue to terrorize the public. They will also attempt to unbalance the military and police forces in the hinterland with sporadic attacks. But they face a resolute military that is now finally determined to take the fight to the militants and fight its own fight.

The United States ought to help Pakistan with this endeavor, finding and delivering urgently the equipment that Pakistan needs to fight its own battle for survival, beginning in the mountains of South Waziristan. Time is short. Soon, winter will descend on the border region, and even though South Waziristan doesn't usually get heavy snows except on the peaks, the winter is very cold and will make an extended battle harder to sustain. We should know in the next week how this war for Pakistan in the wilds of South Waziristan will turn out.

Save over 50% when you subscribe to FP.

DAVID FURST/AFP/Getty Images

 

Shuja Nawaz is director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council in Washington, and author of Crossed Swords: Pakistan, Its Army, and the Wars Within, now out in paperback, and FATA: A Most Dangerous Place.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE: Facebook|Twitter|Digg
  • The Al Qaeda Diaries

  • Boring Summits Are Better for Everyone

  • D.C.'s New Game: Who's Paying Your Pundit?

  • Lowering the Bar: The ABA's Ties to Despots

 (9)

SHOW COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

KXB

1:44 PM ET

October 20, 2009

Clean your room, then you get your toys

Pakistan's inability to get control of Waziristan and other tribal areas has little to do with its lack of military hardware, and more to do with its leaderhships willingness to cut short term deals with tribal leaders.

If Pakistani troops are running around in sandals, it has little to do with how much aid it gets from the U.S., and more with the misplaced spending priorities of the brass at Rawalpindi. As Fareed Zakaria pointed out, India is an ideal enemy for the Pakistani military. It seems large, and so they need those fancy weapons - but the likelihood of war is small, so the weapons will never have to be used. Plus, they can always get bigger kickbacks on fighter jets than only night vision goggles.

It is not America's responsibility to underwrite Pakistani reform.

 

TELMEWA

9:45 AM ET

October 21, 2009

Toying with your own toys?

It's a typical imperialistic approach which often works and the powers also afford to maintain it, but here it would be a mistake, for it's not the question of Pakistan's survival but more of a western fight that it is fighting. US can't afford to leave Pakistan in lurch as she did on various occasions; they did the same with Mujahideen of cold war too and the result is before you.

The reasoning of Fareed Zakaria on the question of Pak Military's ability (as quoted above) is also one sided. Don't forget the same military has actively helped to defeat the rival super power of US without letting its single soldier die. It has learnt the art of fighting in proxy, who is more acclimatised to this battlefield than Pakistani agencies.

 

SHAHID

9:04 AM ET

October 21, 2009

Desparately seeking deal with the same"perpetrators"

The writer has made a realistic and incisive analysis of the situation on ground, and since he authored a book on Pakistan Army, he is in better position, academically, to assess the capabilities and needs of the Army.
The comment 'clean your room, the you get your toys' only reflects a preconceived bias and hubris.
As far as the deals and comparative performance is concerned the Pakistan Army has fared much better in Swat than the Americans in Afghanistan--where it is humbled to draw distinction between Taliban and Al-Qaeda. And now desperately seeking a "long term" political deal with the former.

 

KXB

10:24 AM ET

October 21, 2009

It is a bit much to talk

It is a bit much to talk about what a great job the Pakistani Army did in Swat, considering that they did not even want to do it in the first place. They were content to leave the Taliban there until the Obama Administration leaned heavily on Pakistan to get them out. Secondly, given that the Pakistani Army shows little regard for civilian casualties, it was able to engage in aerial bombardment of Swat to a degree that American forces in Afghanistan cannot.

 

RAJA

2:58 PM ET

October 21, 2009

This is typical approach used

This is typical approach used in the US media which is very biased and narrow in approach. The Pakistani media is reporting lack of coordination even among NATO forces plus Pakistan. The minute Pakistan army entered Waziristan, NATO forces left their check posts along the Afghan border. On one hand they always blame Pakistani army for their failure on the other hand there is no serious effort to help Pakistan forces and infant civilian govt. who inherited the problematic Pakistan from the "blue eyed" general Musharraf. The war against terrorism cannot be effectively fought and won with out the involvement of Pakistani people. Such a biased approach can harm the efforts to restore peace in the region and world. I appreciate the article has been written in time and wish the advice is taken seriously.

 

SHAHID

12:19 PM ET

October 21, 2009

Strange advocay!!!

Actually, imperial hubris doesn't allow Americans to understand how their "leaning heavily on others" also complicates things for others.

American's regard for civilian causalities is historically vindicated, as it is the only country on the globe that "tested" the nuclear device on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even the ratio of civilian killings in recent-months Drones attacks is 10:1.

How strange it is that traditional non-aligned, anti-imperialists are advocating the US?

 

MHCLAXTON

3:48 PM ET

October 21, 2009

Wrong

Those killed by the drones are not civilians. If they are close enough to the terrorist Islamists to be killed, then they are terrorists themselves for associating with the Taliban and they deserve death.

 

ITONLYSTANDSTOREASON

3:46 PM ET

October 21, 2009

Not Sense

Anyone familiar with procurement operations would realize that it is absolutely too late to get new equipment of even the simplest kinds - boots, for example, into the S Waziristan fight before winter comes around. Anyone familiar with the past 8 years of the US/Pakistan relationship also know that if the troops lack basics, it is not for lack of US funding and support.

The reluctance to supply the latest helicopter gunships is characterized as "hand-wringing". To me it sounds like common sense. These aren't weapons, like a AK47 or a grenade. These are weapons systems, and will fail quickly if the gunships are supplied without the support infrastructure, which takes time to build, including the training of the personnel. There may also be political issues which the author fails to mention. Neither is concern for politics mere hand-wringing; in this region politics kills, on a daily basis.

This is a fight the administration wants Pakistan to win. Until I hear otherwise, on the basis of solid information, I'll presume the US is giving Pakistan all the support that is possible and prudent.

 

JPWREL

1:37 PM ET

October 22, 2009

The fact is that Pakistan

The fact is that Pakistan does not have the logistic, maintenance and operational infrastructure to use or service AH-64 Apaches. To build such a capability would require years even with American assistance. It is difficult enough even for sophisticated British and U. S. forces to keep their attack rotary assets in good order in Afghanistan. There is no reason to think that attack helicopters would add any decisive punch to the Pakistani military that could not come from fielding better equipped, trained and officered infantry. This could be done more quickly and less expensively than trying to mimic the complex and costly rotary attack doctrine of top tier NATO forces.

 
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. Karzai's Cronies
  2. The Terrorists Among Us
  3. The Al Qaeda Diaries
  4. Planet Slum
  5. The Real Shock of Fort Hood
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. Edward Burtynsky's Oil
  2. Think Again: God
  3. Bolivia's Lithium-Powered Future
  4. Planet Slum
  5. Plague: A New Thriller of the Coming Pandemic
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. The Al Qaeda Diaries
  2. Zardari in the Crosshairs
  3. The Real Shock of Fort Hood
  4. This Week at War: Heading for a Bad Breakup
  5. The Terrorists Among Us
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. The President, the Professor, and the Wide Receiver
  2. The Real Shock of Fort Hood
  3. Is There a Palin Doctrine?
  4. The Terrorists Among Us
  5. The Only Hope Left?
  • NET EFFECT

    Why are people creating Facebook profiles for Holocaust victims?

    BY EVGENY MOROZOV

  • PASSPORT

    North Africa's escalating soccer war

    BY JOSHUA KEATING

  • ARGUMENT

    How the Chinese media covered Obama's visit

    BY WILLIAM MOSS

  • SMALL WARS

    The U.S. and Pakistan are heading for a bad breakup

    BY ROBERT HADDICK

  • DANIEL DREZNER

    Time's not-so-shocking Obamaland expose

  • BEST DEFENSE

    What would George Marshall think of today's generals?

    BY THOMAS E. RICKS

  • SHADOW GOVT.

    What does containing North Korea actually mean?

    BY JAMIE FLY

  • THE CABLE

    How the Chinese government censored Obama's visit

    BY JOSH ROGIN



  • 1. Aligning on Afghanistan? President Obama and PM Brown Turn Focus on Exit Strategy
  • 2. R.I.P.: Russia to Continue Ban on the Death Penalty
  • 3. All for One: Jailed Fatah Leader Implores Palestinian Unity
  • 4. Global Warming Time Out: Stagnating Temperatures Baffle Climate Experts
 See All Photo Essays
  • Planet slum: From Nairobi to Caracas, Mumbai, and Jakarta

  • Falling Like It's 1989

November/December 2009
  • Feature

    Revolution in a Box

  • Feature

    Plague, by Robin Cook

  • Opening Gambit

    My Plan to Overthrow the Mullahs

  •  See Entire Issue

     Preview Digital Edition

  • Made in China—and sold there, too.
  • Why Sarah Palin is unlikely to be the future of the Republican Party.
  • What to drink on Thanksgiving: Napa cabernet.
  • Geithner Is Not Going Anywhere
  • GM Customers Give Back
  • Ron Paul Wins Lifelong Fight, Now May Be Forced To Vote Against Everything He Believes
  • What Would the Pilgrims Say About Tofu?
  • What Would the Pilgrims Say About Tofu?
  • What Kobe, LeBron and Dwyane Owe Spencer Haywood

About FP: Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Corporate Programs | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP

Services: Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues

Subscribe to FP | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | RSS Feeds | Contact Us

FP Logo


1899 L Street NW, Suite 550 | Washington, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group, a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.