Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.
My thoughts on drone strikes substituting for a strategy in Pakistan aside, the death of Baitullah Mehsud would be a good thing. But it's my sense that many in Pakistan consider Mehsud to basically be the root of their problems and that taking him out would be the natural end to a campaign against the militants in FATA and the NWFP. So should we worry that the death of Mehsud might, perversely, mean a relaxation of the Pakistani Army's campaign against Pakistan's insurgent groups? Or will this instead fill them with confidence to carry on? Schmidle, where are you when we need you?
"...the death of Baitullah Mehsud would be a good thing."
You are a bundle of contradictions.
"...every one of these dead noncombatants represents an alienated family, a new desire for revenge, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially even as drone strikes have increased."
How many non-combatants were killed? Or are family members of terrorists guilty of the crime of living-while-being-related-to-a-former-recruit-now-declared-an-enemy-of-the-state?
It isn't very good if poor intelligence leads to a missed target and lots of angry people, it is good if it gets rid of a serious target like Baitullah Mehsud. Leaders of his reported ability don't appear very often, which is something we should be glad of. Besides that, if we can provide dead leaders to the Western public they're more likely to accept a longer mission even if they don't understand the first thing about it.
Art of the Martyr, Part I: Martyrdom in Transnational Jihadi Media
My fear is the same as yours i.e. if Mehsud is killed, then will Pakistan, continue to go after the Taliban? It does make it easier for Pakistan to start playing the good taliban-bad taliban game again, doesnt it?
My fear is the same as yours i.e. if Mehsud is killed, then will Pakistan, continue to go after the Taliban? It does make it easier for Pakistan to start playing the good taliban-bad taliban game again, doesnt it?
I understand the thrust of your question is the danger in Pakistan relenting now that there's consensus that Mehsud has been killed, but it seems that this feeds into a larger tenant of COIN theory: decapitation strikes do not win the war.
Expanding the scope of this lesson a little, we should re-examine the focus and intensity of our wars. Just as the capture/trial/killing of Saddam Hussein did not quell the violence in Iraq (as some hoped/expected), the capture or killing of Bin Laden would be a significant, but limited victory. Yet the media and public seem consumed with the idea of a person that must be eliminated. Rather, it is the appeal of that person's call to arms that must be eliminated. Not as sexy a solution, because ideas cannot be executed while cellphones record the events for YouTube broadcasts. Nor as intuitive or as appealing to our instinctual core which believes that evil is personified (and that by killing the person you eliminate the evil) .
Pakistani army offensive+US co-ordinated airstrikes+co-option of local tribes. That's what's been going since April when Islamabad found itself staring into the eyes and the guns of the Taleban. Taleban on run over since. Seems like Iraq circa 2007.
Would any of the military commenters here say that this operation was planned in one April night? I don't think so. It would be weeks if not months, in the planning would it not? And having got this far, why would the Pakistani army give up now?
>why would the Pakistani army give up now?
Because Pakistan created, funded (by Saudi Arabia mainly) and trained the Taliban, to give them "strategic depth" in Afghanistan against India. They believe Taliban will out-last the America in Afghanistan, so they dont want to lose leverage with Taliban, when US leaves. Because, it allows them to continue to pursue terrorism to support its Foreign Policy objectives in Afghanistan and India. Most importantly the Pakistan Army post Zia-ul-haq is significantly radicalized and sees Taliban, as brothers in arms who have been misguided to attack Pakistan, and therefore, can be negotiated & convinced to focus on external targets only. So once Mehsud, who is attacking Pakistani targets is taken out, then we are back to good Taliban days, i.e. they do Pakistan's bidding & not attack Pakistan. So what is the need for Pakistan to go after the Taliban, once the anti-Pakistan Taliban is taken out?
Oh, that Dalton Fury, he's just a cowboy. And nothing every happened, so what's all the fuss about.
Meanwhile, fellow travelers scramble to keep concealed the Israeli/American state policies of espionage, assassinations and terrorism. "National interests"; "US and allied interests": bullshit.
Zero-sum games, hell-bent, with a psychopathic belief that such actions occur in some kind of vacuum.
"Because, it allows them to continue to pursue terrorism to support its Foreign Policy objectives in Afghanistan and India." They bad, we good.
Sick
Add your comment