Our current operations in Pakistan demonstrate the problem of relying on special forces and missile strikes to wage war in a hostile environment. Without the atomizing effect of lots of conventional forces (as our surge provided in Iraq), special forces raids cannot do more than disrupt the enemy who retain relatively large regeneration capability. They are, as the story below tells, just "shots in the dark." Persistent presence provides more and better intelligence to drive the strikes.
So our recent increase in activity across the border is puzzling:
In the last two weeks, the military has begun launching ground assaults in the Pakistani border provinces known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, American intelligence and military officials said. The region is believed by American and Pakistani intelligence to be hosting the leadership of Al Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden.
While American special forces and military contractors have conducted raids in Pakistan, such actions were rare and required Cabinet-level approval. In July, the leadership of Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was given the sole authority to approve ground assaults in Pakistan. Late last month, the American military began launching ground attacks in the country on a near daily basis, depending on local conditions and intelligence, according to a military official who requested anonymity.
The escalation in Pakistan is due in part to the incoming leader of Central Command, General David Petraeus, who has been credited with changing the course of the Iraq war and is said to have the full trust of President Bush. Before formally taking the reins at Central Command, General Petraeus began meeting in June with Pakistani political leaders to develop an effective strategy for combating Al Qaeda in the border provinces.
I suspected that the promotion of Petraeus would change things in the Taliban Campaign that straddles the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. I noted those June talks that seemed to telegraph a move into the tribal areas of Pakistan. But more raids into Pakistan without disrupting the Taliban and al Qaeda sanctuary will not win us anything, and just risk a Blackhawk Down bloody nose, surrounded by hostiles with few friendly force nearby to help.
And even three more American combat brigades don't give us the strength to invade and pacify the frontier region--even if Pakistani public opinion would tolerate that move. And I still worry about supplying more troops in Afghanistan. Just what are we going to do with more troops in Afghanistan? Remember that the Iraq surge was about new tactics for a changed situation and not just more troops doing the same thing.
Does General Petraeus have more in mind? Something more novel, with our forces in Pakistan being the anvil to Pakistan's tribal hammer, the way our surge in Baghdad was the hammer to Anbar's anvil?
Our Left likes to say the real war is along the Afghanistan border. They're going to get their war in 2009. I dare say they'll learn to hate that war as much as they hate the Iraq War.
