Militants ready for Pakistan's war

From Asia Times Online.

Pakistan has two options. The country can give in to militancy or it can conduct military operations against it, influential advisor to the Interior Ministry, Rahman Malik, said on Thursday. And the government is not going to negotiate with militants, he added. His remarks follow a suicide bomb attack outside the country's main defense industry complex at Wah, 30 kilometers northwest of the capital Islamabad, which killed as many as 100 people. The Pakistani Taliban immediately claimed responsibility, saying the attack was in response to the military's recent air bombardment of Bajaur Agency, which led to the displacement of 250,000 people. Rahman's comments amount to a declaration of war on growing Islamic militancy, but it could be that the new civilian Pakistani leadership is steering the "war on terror" in the wrong direction. Rahman's remarks cannot be dismissed as a knee-jerk reaction in the heat of the moment. Only a few hours before the suicide attack, the chief minister of North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), Amir Haider Khan Hoti, announced in a policy statement that even if militants shunned violence and laid down their weapons, they would not be pardoned. Similarly, Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gillani, who spoke to US President George W Bush by telephone on Thursday morning, rejected any possibility of dialogue with militants.

The above are very powerful statements from Pakistan's leadership and builds upon partnerships and plans created in the later part of 2007.

The new elected government is expected to be an active partner in the South Asian war theater and its military will help the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The coordination will be similar to that between Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government and NATO. NATO command will identify problem areas and Pakistan will hit those targets. A plan, drawn up between the Americans and Pakistan in 2007, will be implemented under which Peshawar, capital of NWFP, will serve as a base camp from where, under American guidance, the Taliban's bases will be targeted. The Taliban use these bases to launch operations into Afghanistan.

It seems, Pakistan has finally declared war on Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Previously I noted that the Pakistani people elected businessmen to head the government and an insurgency is bad for business. It appears the new government has finally made the decision to rid itself of its insurgent problem. It will be interesting to watch how this situation develops.

If this article from Syed Saleem Shahzad is true, we should begin to see much more Pakistani Army involvement in the FATA and NWFP region. Recent actions in Pakistan point to the governments change of policy to include recent battles in Peshawar, Swat, and increased Predator strikes in South Waziristan.

2007 was the year in which Al Qaeda lost Iraq. I predicted 2008 will be the year Al Qaeda lost Pakistan. This battle will undoubtedly now go into 2009. A second round of troop increases will finally hit in Afghanistan in 2009 where we are likely to see the situation in Afghanistan greatly change around towards the US's favor. All of this in plenty of time for the vast majority of troops to withdraw from Iraq by 2011. What a difference 2007 was when the US committed to defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq vice withdrawing US forces under pressure. Just a little over a year later, Pakistan is now committed to the War on Terror. It needs to be remembered that Al Qaeda's last unassailable base is in Pakistan which is why this battle in the greater War on Terror will be so important to the overall war.

For a full read, click here.

Tactical to Operational to Stategic

I have been asked why many of my posts begin at the tactical level and proceed to a strategic objective. Please let me elaborate.

Whenever a country employs its instruments of National Power (namely diplomatic, informational, military, and economic instruments) they should be tied to overarching strategic goals and objectives. As such, all tactical operations, especially in a counterinsurgency (COIN) environment have to be examined in the context of whether they are accomplishing operational goals and objectives which will ultimately lead to strategic objectives.

The President's strategic goal in Iraq is a unified democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror. For the Middle East, change the word Iraq in the previous sentence to Middle East and one can clearly see the President's strategic goal for the region. For the broader Global War on Terror, change the words Middle East to Non-functioning Gap. The President will use all instruments of national power to move towards this strategic goal. For this purpose; however, let's focus on Iraq, the central front of the War on Terror.

Operationally, this strategic goal is translated into military, economic, and diplomatic objectives. The overarching military objectives in Iraq has always been to clear, secure, hold, and rebuild areas and regions within this country. Tactically, the military clears, secures and holds areas. Once areas are cleared and secured, State Department assets can begin to rebuild. Rebuilding promotes economic growth and employment while promoting a strong central government who, by rebuilding, is providing essential services to members of its country, enhancing its political (or diplomatic) prestige. With essential services provided, commerce will flourish, promoting the democracy, hence the government is in a sort of feedback loop. Security promotes economics which strengthens the government which promotes further security.

In a COIN environment, we not only have a strategic corporal, but we also have tactical successes which lend directly to strategic security and goals. The term "strategic corporal" states this very fact. A corporal is the smallest element of leadership within a tactical formation. His actions have far reaching strategic consequences in a COIN environment.

Similarly, small tactical actions also need to be examined for their strategic consequences through the operational framework of the region.

This is why I often bring small tactical actions through the operational framework of a region and into the strategic objectives laid out by the President. It is only by doing these mental calculations can we see whether tactical actions are nested appropriately into the strategic objectives.

Hence, the battles in Mosul which have netted almost 1,500 insurgents of which about 300 are "wanted" or Tier 1 or 2 insurgents, are looked at operationally throughout Iraq in conjunction with battles in Sadr City, Basra, and Diyala to see if operationally, we are moving in the right direction given the strategic goals in Iraq.

At times, these strategic goals in Iraq are discussed in broader goals for the Middle East in general. In addition, at times these strategic goals are looked at in terms of the non-functioning gap as a whole, which is where the Global War on Terror focuses.

Since our enemy has made Iraq its central front in the battle we call the War on Terror, Iraq, more than any country, provides easy examination of whether or not tactical actions are having the desired strategic affect. Its location, in the heart of the Middle East, and its ethno-religious make up, having Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds, helps us better understand how these different ethno-religious groups perceive our tactical, operational, and strategic actions.

The Global War on Terror's center of gravity is Iraq much as Baghdad, operationally, is the center of gravity in Iraq. Simultaneously, Mosul is tactically now the center of gravity for Al Qaeda as is Sadr City tactically the center of gravity for Sadr's Mahdi Army.

In conclusion, by stepping up and down the goals and objectives ladder from strategic to tactical and examining all these actions within a country's instruments of national power, we can see if tactical actions are having the desired strategic affect in an area or region. This very fact is why I often look at tactical battles and translate them to the broader strategic objectives in a region and at time the strategic objectives of the War on Terror in general.

The Success of Iraq Policy

From Jim Hall at the American Thinker.

Contrary to the dominant media narrative, the Iraq war is working out as a global strategic success, albeit not to a comfortable time schedule or cost. A Walter Chronkite-type surrender won't be necessary, this time. America had the strength to endure, analyze, correct and advance the mission. America will be the global can-do superpower once again. Europe and the Middle East have seen this light.

An interesting take on the Iraqi War.

For a full read, click here.

Iraq General: Six Villages Taken From Al-Qaida

From NASDAQ/AFP.

Iraqi and U.S. forces engaged in a major assault on al-Qaida have wrested control of six villages in central Iraq from the Islamist militant group, an Iraqi army general said Friday. At least 10 members of al-Qaida were killed and 20 suspected militants were arrested in the sweep, Major General Abdul Karim al-Rubaie, director of operations in central Diyala province, told AFP. The villages named by the general fall within the "breadbasket" farmlands surrounding the town of Muqdadiyah, which is the main focus of Operation Iron Harvest launched Tuesday by Iraqi and U.S. forces, assisted by members of anti- al-Qaida "Awakening" groups. "The villages have been under the control of al-Qaida for a long time," said Rubaie. "We have taken them back and al-Qaida has been chased out."

The remnants of Al Qaeda in Iraq are being killed, detained, or fled from this latest assault as part of Operation Iron Harvest. U.S. Forces are moving into the Muqdadiyah region to close a line of communication into Baghdad along the Diyala River Valley.

Islam: Not Just Another Religion

Janet Levy does an excellent job of detailing why Islam is not just another religion. She states,

Yet, viewing Islamic fundamentalism as just another faith is to play into the hands of those who would destroy us.

She expresses how CAIR founder, Omar Ahmad, stated in 1998,

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

She points out that other cultures have always strengthened America by assimulating into its society; however, this is not the goal of Islam.

It is unprecedented that a minority group that freely immigrated to the United States and Europe of its own accord is now endeavoring to overhaul Western civilization to its Koran-dictated, specifications. The West, particularly America, has a tradition of welcoming people from other cultures and practitioners of different religions. However, immigrants have always assimilated and strengthened American society rather than demand that we adopt their ways at the expense of our own.

She goes on to warn us how Islam is not tolerant of other faiths

In the "enlightened" West, Muslims are free to perform "Dawa" or proselytizing on behalf of Islam. They openly engage in organized efforts to spread the message of Islam and invite non-Muslims to join the faith. Furthermore, the building of mosques and the opening of madrassas proceed without hindrance. Yet, in many Muslim countries, non-Muslims are not free to practice their religion, let alone proselytize, and may be prosecuted for doing so. A Muslim convert to Christianity may be sentenced to death for apostasy.

Finally, she explains how according to the Koran, Christian people have one of three choices under Islam.

The popular, pluralistic bumper sticker "Coexist" espouses a philosophy of religious harmony, mutual acceptance and brotherhood across all faiths and nations. Yet, in Islam, the word of Allah, as represented in the Koran, reigns supreme and overrides any state-imposed laws. The Koran dictates three options for non-believers: conversion, subjugation or death.

We need not forget what The Long War is about. It is a global war. It is a religious war. It is a war for survivial of the Judeo-Christian ethic. Our founding fathers made a bold and uncompromising statement over 200 years ago in the Declaration of Independence,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I do not believe life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are to be mistaken for conversion, subjugation, or death. While we should be tolerant of Muslims in western societies and allow them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we should ensure they allow others these unalienable rights. If they do not, they need to be removed from this society.