Insurgencies take long to be eliminated: Once Mujahideen (Holy Warriors) and now Insurgents, both domestic and imported, are bent upon capturing Pakistani territory. Pakistani soldiers are now laying down their lives to reclaim the 'occupied territory' and keep Pakistan intact as one geographical entity. Many powerful armies have in the past taken years to beat back much weaker insurgents. The Huk Rebellion, the communist insurgency against the Philippine government, lasted for 8 years. The British Army (147,000 strong) along with the Territorial and Special Police Forces fought Irish insurgents for nearly 3 decades. The Bolshevik Red Army fought for 6 long years. The Angolan Civil War went on for 27 years. The Somali Civil War has been going on since 1991. Why is Pakistan facing an insurgency? In a nutshell, consecutive political and military leadership failures created 'security and capacity gaps.' In Swat, for instance, Pakistan state machinery failed to provide personal, economic and political security to Swat residents. Then there were capacity gaps that did not provide apt justice, food, health and education to a larger number of the residents. The Taliban slipped into these gaps both via coercive and, in situations service, measures and marginalized the state. Pakistan cannot spread its army anymore thinner: Abraham Lincoln fought, and won, the American Civil War by making the presence of his troops so 'pervasive that there simply was no place left for insurgents to hide.' General Franco repeated the Lincoln-model and brought down the Spanish Republic. In Pakistan case, Swat, Chitral, Dir, Shangla, Hangu, Lakki Marwat, Bannu, Tank, Khyber, Kurram, Bajaur, Mohamand, Orkzai, North Waziristan and South Waziristan all put together come to over 56,000 sq km; and with 7 Indian Corps on Pakistan eastern border, Pakistan Army does not have surplus troops to replicate either the Lincoln or the Franco model. Pakistan should try the CHB strategy: The American...

The rise of the obscurantist: One of the battle zones is the northern Bajaur area, separated from the eastern Afghan province Kunar. Bordering this region is the Malakand area, the crown of which is Swat valley - with ski resorts, hilly retreats, glacial water lakes at Mahudand, and hot water springs. It once attracted tens of thousands of local and foreign tourists every year, until the first signs of the Islamist reaction to the questionable War on Terror began emerging in the valley. At first Mehsud's deputy Maulana Fazlullah got his vigilantes to scare shopkeepers into burning music CDs and videos. They warned women not to appear in public without a veil and also instructed hotels not to allow "un-Islamic activities" in other words, the drinking of alcohol. The situation became increasingly frightening when Fazlullah's men began physically checking out hotels in June that year. Two couples, with their children, had travelled to Malam Jabba - the scenic ski resort - and then settled down in a hotel at Mingora, the administrative headquarters of Swat, for a peaceful weekend. At around 2am a band of about a dozen Taliban knocked at their doors and ordered them to leave. 'Don't spread obscenity here, just leave the place,' one of them thundered while swinging his gun. The two frightened women took refuge in one of the bathrooms. But the Taliban shot twice at the door to force them out. Both horrified women were wounded and came out limping. Bleeding profusely, and with children crying, the families packed up and fled from the hotel. From then on, Taliban militants never looked back; one after the other they seized 12 police stations, enforcing their brand of Sharia, eventually prompting the Pakistan army to launch Operation Rahe Haq - the right path - to wrest control of the valley from the rag-tag army in November; but ever since, Swat never settled down. The ensuing hostilities in the areas around Swat led to two peace deals, one in May 2008 and the other in...

Pakistan is engaged in multi-theater wars; a total of four theaters that are all inter as well as intra connected (a single theater of war is defined as a 'specific geographical area of conduct of armed conflict' that is separated from another theater by natural obstacles-a mountain range, river, desert etc.). War 1: Some 650,000 square kilometers of Afghan landmass, west of the Durand Line and surrounded by China, Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan (the Durand Line, stretching some 2,600 kilometers, separates Afghanistan and Pakistan). This theater went hot on 7 October 2001 when the U.S., along with the U.K., launched Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). The casus belli for OEF-or the reason for the war-was the terrorist attack on the U.S. and the stated objectives were to remove the Taliban regime, neutralize al-Qaeda and capture Osama bin Laden. For more than 7 years, NATO-ISAF forces have occupied Afghanistan as an occupying foreign force and the war theater is now getting even hotter. The combatants in this war theater are NATO-ISAF plus the Afghan National Army (led by General Bismillah Khan Mohammadi), on the one side, and the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Hezb-e-Islami, Hizbul Mujahideen, Laskhar-e-Tayaba and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan on the other side. This war theater is mostly about a war against foreign occupiers, being fought by Afghans while some of the supply lines-men and material-either originate or pass through Pakistan. War 2: The entire geographical landmass east of the Durand Line and (mostly) west of the Indus River. This area comprises Bajaur, Mohamand, Khyber, Orakzai, Kurram, North Waziristan and South Waziristan plus Chitral, Swat, Dir, Shangla, Kohistan, Battagram, Buner, Mardan, Charsadda, Kohat and Karak-some 100,000 square kilometers of physical Pakistani terrain. The western most parts-especially parts of FATA-of this theater have been hot for more than a decade, at least a couple of years before the launch of Operation...

Situation now: As of the end of April 2009, Afghan insurgents have killed 90 foreign soldiers marking a 67 percent increase from the same period of 2008. The UN and European Union and NATO security establishments speak of an over 70 percent spike in the spiral of violence. The coalition-insurgents clashes also leave about two dozen dead almost daily. The American Security Project attributes the rise in incidents to the spread of the Taliban, which it said has a 'persistent presence' in about 75 percent of the Afghanistan. This deteriorating situation qualifies as the main source of General Petraeus proposed 'surge' that will raise the US troops to 68,000 by the end of the year. Of the new US reinforcements, some 17,000 soldiers and marines will join the NATO force in Helmand to bolster British, Canadian, Dutch and other NATO troops fighting resurgent Taliban in the southern provinces. This surge will bring the total number of foreign forces in Afghanistan to nearly 100,000 drawing an interesting parallel with the peak number of Soviet troops in Afghanistan i.e. 120,000. With 'the surge,'US and NATO officials hope the coalition would be able to provide a 'degree' of security to over 90 percent of the population in the south, up from 60 percent now. Why 'the surge?' The coalition partners believe that the surge ´ in the form of more troops, 50 more Reapers, and fresh financial injections ´ will, in Obama words, defeat, dismantle and destroy the militants in Afghanistan. With these '3Ds' achieved, this will also help the US chalking out an exit strategy before the international commitment wanes in the face of domestic criticism and skepticism of the engagement in Afghanistan. Essentially the military surge draws on Gen. Petraeus experiences in Iraq, where he managed to get the anti-Saddam Shiite elements within society on the side of the coalition and also raised local councils as part of the nation-building. He unveiled his 14 ideas on the surge cum engagement with...

Situation now: As of the end of April 2009, Afghan insurgents have killed 90 foreign soldiers marking a 67 percent increase from the same period of 2008. The UN and European Union and NATO security establishments speak of an over 70 percent spike in the spiral of violence. The coalition-insurgents clashes also leave about two dozen dead almost daily. The American Security Project attributes the rise in incidents to the spread of the Taliban, which it said has a 'persistent presence' in about 75 percent of the Afghanistan. This deteriorating situation qualifies as the main source of General Petraeus proposed 'surge' that will raise the US troops to 68,000 by the end of the year. Of the new US reinforcements, some 17,000 soldiers and marines will join the NATO force in Helmand to bolster British, Canadian, Dutch and other NATO troops fighting resurgent Taliban in the southern provinces. This surge will bring the total number of foreign forces in Afghanistan to nearly 100,000 drawing an interesting parallel with the peak number of Soviet troops in Afghanistan i.e. 120,000. With 'the surge,'US and NATO officials hope the coalition would be able to provide a 'degree' of security to over 90 percent of the population in the south, up from 60 percent now. Why 'the surge?' The coalition partners believe that the surge ´ in the form of more troops, 50 more Reapers, and fresh financial injections ´ will, in Obama words, defeat, dismantle and destroy the militants in Afghanistan. With these '3Ds' achieved, this will also help the US chalking out an exit strategy before the international commitment wanes in the face of domestic criticism and skepticism of the engagement in Afghanistan. Essentially the military surge draws on Gen. Petraeus experiences in Iraq, where he managed to get the anti-Saddam Shiite elements within society on the side of the coalition and also raised local councils as part of the nation-building. He unveiled his 14 ideas on the surge cum engagement with...

Situation now: As of the end of April 2009, Afghan insurgents have killed 90 foreign soldiers marking a 67 percent increase from the same period of 2008. The UN and European Union and NATO security establishments speak of an over 70 percent spike in the spiral of violence. The coalition-insurgents clashes also leave about two dozen dead almost daily. The American Security Project attributes the rise in incidents to the spread of the Taliban, which it said has a 'persistent presence' in about 75 percent of the Afghanistan. This deteriorating situation qualifies as the main source of General Petraeus proposed 'surge' that will raise the US troops to 68,000 by the end of the year. Of the new US reinforcements, some 17,000 soldiers and marines will join the NATO force in Helmand to bolster British, Canadian, Dutch and other NATO troops fighting resurgent Taliban in the southern provinces. This surge will bring the total number of foreign forces in Afghanistan to nearly 100,000 drawing an interesting parallel with the peak number of Soviet troops in Afghanistan i.e. 120,000. With 'the surge,'US and NATO officials hope the coalition would be able to provide a 'degree' of security to over 90 percent of the population in the south, up from 60 percent now. Why 'the surge?' The coalition partners believe that the surge ´ in the form of more troops, 50 more Reapers, and fresh financial injections ´ will, in Obama words, defeat, dismantle and destroy the militants in Afghanistan. With these '3Ds' achieved, this will also help the US chalking out an exit strategy before the international commitment wanes in the face of domestic criticism and skepticism of the engagement in Afghanistan. Essentially the military surge draws on Gen. Petraeus experiences in Iraq, where he managed to get the anti-Saddam Shiite elements within society on the side of the coalition and also raised local councils as part of the nation-building. He unveiled his 14 ideas on the surge cum engagement with...

Drone attacks in FATA have become one of hottest topics of political and strategic debate in Pakistan. Popular public and political sentiment is bitter against these attacks. Pakistan democratic government has raised this issue with the US officials at numerous occasions but the US until now has not offered any kind of favorable or understanding response. The political parties and the government do not appreciate or own these attacks but cannot do much to stop these violations of Pakistan air space and international political right to sovereignty. Reaper is Deadlier than Predator: The weapon of choice for United States forces was until recently the Predator, manufactured by General Atomics. The much larger and more powerful MQ-9 'Reaper' is now becoming their favorite. The Reaper's turboprop engine is nearly eight times as powerful as the Predator; it carries fifteen times the weapons load and yet travels three times more quickly.' A recent version of the Reaper has a wingspan of over twenty-five meters (about the same as a Boeing 737 passenger-jet), and can carry sufficient fuel to stay airborne for 34 hours. If fitted with two drop-tanks and 300 kilograms of weapons, it can fly a forty-two-hour sortie; as pilot fatigue is not an issue, shifts of operators can be used to sustain this length of time in the air. These aircraft, which have been scaring quite a few in Waziristan, Bajaur and of late in Swat, are operated remotely, often by CIA technicians at bases in the United States can easily carry a range of weapons on a par with a conventional strike aircraft, which include Hellfire air-to-ground missiles, Paveway laser-guided bombs or GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs). Rising of the Reaper: According to a former chief-of-staff of the United States air force (USAF), General Michael Moseley, the USAF has moved from using UAVs primarily in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance roles before Operation Iraqi Freedom, to a true hunter role with the...