Terrorists attack school in Pakistan, killing 100 children

[Papay]

http://news.yahoo.com/gunmen-hold-50...070859198.html

Reminds me of Beslan school massacre. This is "good" news because when they carry out these attacks, this means they are losing

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I'm interested to see some thoughts on why the Taliban thought this would be a good idea? Considering Pakistans either negligence in helping NATO/ clandestine factional support of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

It's widely commented on the Pakistani border was key to the Taliban's consistent 'revival' and operations in Afghanistan- indeed i'd recommend to anyone the BBC documentary 'Lions Last Roar' -which concentrates on the failure of British policy in Helmond and lessons learned, but also through the interviews of various political and military personnel involved paint Pakistan as being a dubious and untrustworthy party at best, and at west implicitly involved in supporting and unleashing the Taliban back into Afghanistan when it became apparent that NATO was drawing down operations in favour of the Iraq War (So as to have an ally in the region due to Pakistani policy against an attack on India being the military may retreat into the mountains and Afghanistan to get some wriggle room against a larger Indian military) - so basically they rather brought this on themselves in a way. (Or at least one faction within the mess of government that is Pakistan), but what do the Taliban gain from this?

[Visna]

I'm interested to see some thoughts on why the Taliban thought this would be a good idea? Considering Pakistans either negligence in helping NATO/ clandestine factional support of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

It's widely commented on the Pakistani border was key to the Taliban's consistent 'revival' and operations in Afghanistan- indeed i'd recommend to anyone the BBC documentary 'Lions Last Roar' -which concentrates on the failure of British policy in Helmond and lessons learned, but also through the interviews of various political and military personnel involved paint Pakistan as being a dubious and untrustworthy party at best, and at west implicitly involved in supporting and unleashing the Taliban back into Afghanistan when it became apparent that NATO was drawing down operations in favour of the Iraq War (So as to have an ally in the region due to Pakistani policy against an attack on India being the military may retreat into the mountains and Afghanistan to get some wriggle room against a larger Indian military) - so basically they rather brought this on themselves in a way. (Or at least one faction within the mess of government that is Pakistan), but what do the Taliban gain from this?

According to their spokesman (yeah, the Taliban are that modern) it's revenge for the Army offensive in North Waziristan. The school is run by and serves the Pakistani military, and (again according to their spokesman) the aim was not to harm the children, but the military personnel at the school.
I don't know, I would trust a used car salesman before I trusted a Taliban spokesman. But then again, I would also pick both of them over most Pakistani politicians.

[Sphere]

I'm interested to see some thoughts on why the Taliban thought this would be a good idea? Considering Pakistans either negligence in helping NATO/ clandestine factional support of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The government in Islamabad does not control the tribal Pashtun areas on the Afghanistan border. The relationship between the two has largely been live and let live. The Pashtun tribes don't want the government around, and the government doesn't want a Pashtun insurgency.

A few months ago the military launched an offensive in the tribal regions. This is retaliation. Making the costs too high for the government has more or less worked in the past.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Mujahadeen where home grown and received most American aid (not all but most) AQ where foreign fighters mainly funded by the Gulf States, primarily Saudi, but fund raising was going on all over the show, they also received some US financial backing and maybe training (not sure, some sources say just cash and sources for things to buy with said cash, some say more concrete help) the Taliban is weird in that it was an offshoot of both, primarily from the Mujahadeen in the North, which had been backed by Pakistan primarily (again complicated, different groups received varying amounts from different backers at different times) and had picked up, again via Pakistan foreign fighters, the Taliban itself did not fight during the Soviet Invasion, it is a successor organisation to ones did, and unified several.

Cheers for the run down mate, it's interesting to note basically how far-reaching (and arguably short-sighted...though we can all say that with the benefit of hind-sight) foreign funding and organization of paramilitary groups- religious or otherwise can impact in the long term in terms of them superseding their mission statement. They evolve entirely into bodies of their own agenda.

The government in Islamabad does not control the tribal Pashtun areas on the Afghanistan border. The relationship between the two has largely been live and let live. The Pashtun tribes don't want the government around, and the government doesn't want a Pashtun insurgency.

A few months ago the military launched an offensive in the tribal regions. This is retaliation. Making the costs too high for the government has more or less worked in the past.

A really interesting situation (If we remove the horror of this current incident, and i'm more many other actual 'on the ground' violent effects of such an arrangement). So basically on top of the Pakistani governments own factional interests, you have the locals on the border, who are in a situation that perhaps in a Western country would call for a Reformation? But again Pakistan's central government can't 'cut and run' so to speak due to policy and strategic commitments in case of foreign (specifically Indian) aggression and needs those tribal border areas (and by inference a stable and friendly Afghanistan- regardless of government in power over there).

Indeed though i can see contextually attacks like this would make for a more cautious approach to any serious attempt of incursion.

The Chaos here rather highlights something of interest though guys, basically. If like i believe we can all agree Pakistan is a 'failed state' (As Visna rightfully points out, it really does tick most of the boxes) in the sense of a chaotic and un-working government riddled with agency and factional interests and with border regions basically beyond it's control. And with such atrocities as this being committed and more importantly reported in the world wide media.

At what point do states like the US, UK, India, China(?), The Rest of NATO/ UN (don't laugh at that last one...) have a remit to step in and sort it all out in a way acceptable to all parties? I mean we know that the US, Afghanistan and so by extension most NATO states have a political interest in a democratic and stable Afghanistan, which means a democratic, on-side and stable Pakistan. So there's the political interest, and instances like this give a 'moral' justification. So is this a possibility in the near future?

I'm not talking invasion -Afghanistan/Iraq style, i mean merely that the US or some other interested party strongarms/helps out the central government to get...well...working again, sorting out the inner agency issues as well as perhaps mediating a solution with the tribal regions/ potentially using some strongarm tactics and displays. Is that a feasible thing to be desired? Or is their the potential for Pakistan to get it's act together...somehow? I just can't see there ever being a chance for a stable Afghanistan when the border regions are so open to use by any faction with an axe to grind either side.

[Sphere]

I'm not talking invasion -Afghanistan/Iraq style, i mean merely that the US or some other interested party strongarms/helps out the central government to get...well...working again, sorting out the inner agency issues as well as perhaps mediating a solution with the tribal regions/ potentially using some strongarm tactics and displays. Is that a feasible thing to be desired? Or is their the potential for Pakistan to get it's act together...somehow? I just can't see there ever being a chance for a stable Afghanistan when the border regions are so open to use by any faction with an axe to grind either side.

To be fair, even the US military cannot control the tribal Pashtun regions in Afghanistan. They used to set up posts in the remote valleys, but they proved to be nothing more than targets and were eventually withdrawn. The US/Kabul are now content to hold the urban centers and leave the rural area's to be run by the Taliban.. The US strategy is largely the same as the Pakistan one; containment and a negotiated a live and let live peace.

Also, cool map that puts even CKII to shame...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...federacies.jpg

[Papay]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30383761

Your answer is in the BBC article, written some days ago.

Oh and something else. It is proved that Al Qaeda was made by Pakistani secret services. But Americans could not invade Pakistan and instead invaded Afghanistan

[Dante Von Hespburg]

According to their spokesman (yeah, the Taliban are that modern) it's revenge for the Army offensive in North Waziristan. The school is run by and serves the Pakistani military, and (again according to their spokesman) the aim was not to harm the children, but the military personnel at the school.
I don't know, I would trust a used car salesman before I trusted a Taliban spokesman. But then again, I would also pick both of them over most Pakistani politicians.

Well that's not weird at all. A modern institutionalized position...justifying a revenge attack on a school....

I think your right though that it seems an entirely dubious statement to hold. 'Military Personnel at the school'- because that's clearly the type of target you'd pick if you wanted to solely target military personnel. It's interesting though i guess that the Taliban are getting involved in the most modern aspects of war- i.e. media reputation now. Perhaps down the line the need for global public opinion might tone down actions such as this among such organizations as the need to create world support overrides the 'fear' considerations- purely subjecture on my part, but we can hope.

Also yeah, It's interesting watch the Pakistani presidents speech on the issue, and then remember that actually he has very little actual power in many regions to do anything about what's going on.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30383761

Your answer is in the BBC article, written some days ago.

Oh and something else. It is proved that Al Qaeda was made by Pakistani secret services. But Americans could not invade Pakistan and instead invaded Afghanistan

Cheers for the article my friend. So in essence Pakistan is now doing what it should have been doing since 2004 instead of playing the double game. Dare i say perhaps that such incidents by the Taliban as the one here would not have been possible had Pakistan fully co-operated earlier. But that doesn't detract from the overall tragedy of this event.

[Visna]

Well that's not weird at all. A modern institutionalized position...justifying a revenge attack on a school....

I think your right though that it seems an entirely dubious statement to hold. 'Military Personnel at the school'- because that's clearly the type of target you'd pick if you wanted to solely target military personnel. It's interesting though i guess that the Taliban are getting involved in the most modern aspects of war- i.e. media reputation now. Perhaps down the line the need for global public opinion might tone down actions such as this among such organizations as the need to create world support overrides the 'fear' considerations- purely subjecture on my part, but we can hope.

Also yeah, It's interesting watch the Pakistani presidents speech on the issue, and then remember that actually he has very little actual power in many regions to do anything about what's going on.

It makes sense in a Taliban'ish sort of way, it's easier to hit military personnel at soft targets like schools, and the many children make excellent hostages. Especially since they are "military children".
Not only is the President pretty much powerless in many parts of the country because they're simply outside government control, but the Pakistani military is a state within the state.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

It makes sense in a Taliban'ish sort of way, it's easier to hit military personnel at soft targets like schools, and the many children make excellent hostages. Especially since they are "military children".
Not only is the President pretty much powerless in many parts of the country because they're simply outside government control, but the Pakistani military is a state within the state.

You know i didn't even consider that, your right in a very warped sort of logic (Taliban'ish indeed!) that the children in attendance could be considered 'military' targets by association.

True about the President too, i think it's probably why theirs such schizophrenic actions from Pakistan as you have all these different competing powers within it, usually with the resources to act entirely independently of central control. I wonder in a way if it wouldn't suit Pakistan's central government to 'Do a Somalia' and openly state which regions they have no control over and request for US help in the matter (it also being a boon to securing stability in Afghanistan, so it's not as if they'll lack interest)- The army issue the same could be said. As the status quo pretty much leaves Pakistan as a 'failed state'...and one with Nuclear Weapons if i remember rightly...a scary prospect.

[Visna]

You know i didn't even consider that, your right in a very warped sort of logic (Taliban'ish indeed!) that the children in attendance could be considered 'military' targets by association.

True about the President too, i think it's probably why theirs such schizophrenic actions from Pakistan as you have all these different competing powers within it, usually with the resources to act entirely independently of central control. I wonder in a way if it wouldn't suit Pakistan's central government to 'Do a Somalia' and openly state which regions they have no control over and request for US help in the matter (it also being a boon to securing stability in Afghanistan, so it's not as if they'll lack interest)- The army issue the same could be said. As the status quo pretty much leaves Pakistan as a 'failed state'...and one with Nuclear Weapons if i remember rightly...a scary prospect.

Doing a Somalia comes with all sorts of undesirable side effects, number one being having to admit that you've failed. The military say one thing, the politicians say another, often it's the very same people just in different uniforms depending on where they are carreer wise or if there at that particular point in time is a military dictatorship or a pseudo democracy. You have a number of agencies all competing with each other (and often with the central government for that matter). There will be flying pigs before all those actors come together and openly admit to having failed.
If there is one consolation, it is that if there is one thing they all seem to agree on, it is that the nuclear weapons are safe. But then again, that could just be a desire to keep the outside world from interfering.

[Stavroforos]

Horrid. At least it helps us keep in perspective who the bad guys are, and how bad they are, even for all the faults in the West.

[Papay]

As far as i understand, Al Qaeda was created by Pakistani secret services. A ruthless and well-trained Islamic sect, something similar to the Hashashin's of the middle ages. Dismantling them is not easy especially since NATO is in the area. And this is the key problem. As long as NATO exists in the area, these people have huge local support. If NATO leaves then it would be far easier for Pakistan to strike deals with local tribes and isolate Al Qaeda

[conon394]

As far as i understand, Al Qaeda was created by Pakistani secret services. A ruthless and well-trained Islamic sect, something similar to the Hashashin's of the middle ages. Dismantling them is not easy especially since NATO is in the area. And this is the key problem. As long as NATO exists in the area, these people have huge local support. If NATO leaves then it would be far easier for Pakistan to strike deals with local tribes and isolate Al Qaeda

What makes you think that Pakistan or rather the ISI wants anything other than an extremist refuge in Afghanistan so it can direct it at India or Russia or India etc. It is (the ISI) likely is counting the days till the US is out so it can get what it wants and what it had.

Let's see who is on the short list of who recognized Taliban government - Pakistan. Umm where all those radical Madras they (Taliban Zealots) got educated at - hey Pakistan again. Yep as soon as the US just goes away I sure a sun light up land of Peace and Democracy with no political calculations at all will emanate from Pakistan - hey how many coups have they had again? But of course they have no agency or free will its just the US right...

[Dante Von Hespburg]

As far as i understand, Al Qaeda was created by Pakistani secret services. A ruthless and well-trained Islamic sect, something similar to the Hashashin's of the middle ages. Dismantling them is not easy especially since NATO is in the area. And this is the key problem. As long as NATO exists in the area, these people have huge local support. If NATO leaves then it would be far easier for Pakistan to strike deals with local tribes and isolate Al Qaeda

Correct me of if i'm wrong because i'm slightly ignorant as to the inter-organizational links, but i believed the Taliban were separate to Al Qaeda in that the Taliban were in essence 'foreign invaders' to Afghanistan built up regionally to resist the Russian invasion during the cold war, and so armed and trained by the US. There popularity in Afghanistan was highlighted only a few years after the Coalitions invasion, as due to the botched nature of the Afghan government put in place and the scale of the Taliban insurgency many Afghanistani people rightly felt like that it was only under the Taliban they had any real semblance of 'protection' and stability. As to their popularity now i couldn't comment of course.

But are you saying that Al Qaeda was linked too to this attack? As far as i knew, they were always a far far smaller organization than the Taliban (who in effect were and are a state unto themselves- replete with 'Shadow government and legal systems' in Afghanistan operating in tandem with 'official' Afghanistani law and governance) that was less centralized and not a 'state' body in themselves but merely a faction who sought refugee with the Taliban after 9/11?

What makes you think that Pakistan or rather the ISI wants anything other than an extremist refuge in Afghanistan so it can direct it at India or Russia etc. It likely is counting the days till the US is out so it can get what it wants and what it had.

This is a very good question actually. Considering it was Pakistani policy to be a sort of double partner to the Coalition and Taliban at the same time, due to Pakistani policy favoring a 'friendly' power in Afghanistan. Again of course it's a damn mess in terms of governance so it's hard to say which form of foreign policy is the most coherent- i'd say though Conon is right that it's definitely the aim of the ISI.

So we may have a mess here where Pakistan's presidential government aims for closer ties with the US and to wrap up the scenario with the Taliban, while other factions within the Pakistani administration and Intelligence services are pursing a totally different and counter agenda.

[Papay]

Correct me of if i'm wrong because i'm slightly ignorant as to the inter-organizational links, but i believed the Taliban were separate to Al Qaeda in that the Taliban were in essence 'foreign invaders' to Afghanistan built up regionally to resist the Russian invasion during the cold war, and so armed and trained by the US. There popularity in Afghanistan was highlighted only a few years after the Coalitions invasion, as due to the botched nature of the Afghan government put in place and the scale of the Taliban insurgency many Afghanistani people rightly felt like that it was only under the Taliban they had any real semblance of 'protection' and stability. As to their popularity now i couldn't comment of course.

But are you saying that Al Qaeda was linked too to this attack? As far as i knew, they were always a far far smaller organization than the Taliban (who in effect were and are a state unto themselves- replete with 'Shadow government and legal systems' in Afghanistan operating in tandem with 'official' Afghanistani law and governance) that was less centralized and not a 'state' body in themselves but merely a faction who sought refugee with the Taliban after 9/11?

There is a difference between Islamism and Jihadism. Islamists have local goals(perhaps the establishment of a local Islamic government and nothing more). You can talk with Islamists. Jihadists on the other hand are small sects similar to the Hashashin's of the middle ages, that have a "warrior monk" mentality and want to "help" muslims in conflicts around the world. Their goals is to go from conflict to conflict and "help" muslims defeat their enemies. Because they are engaged in charity and other things, they have tremendous local support. Al Qaeda and ISIS are jihadist organizations. But while they have connections with local tribes, they do not rule.

[justicar5]

Correct me of if i'm wrong because i'm slightly ignorant as to the inter-organizational links, but i believed the Taliban were separate to Al Qaeda in that the Taliban were in essence 'foreign invaders' to Afghanistan built up regionally to resist the Russian invasion during the cold war, and so armed and trained by the US. There popularity in Afghanistan was highlighted only a few years after the Coalitions invasion, as due to the botched nature of the Afghan government put in place and the scale of the Taliban insurgency many Afghanistani people rightly felt like that it was only under the Taliban they had any real semblance of 'protection' and stability. As to their popularity now i couldn't comment of course.

But are you saying that Al Qaeda was linked too to this attack? As far as i knew, they were always a far far smaller organization than the Taliban (who in effect were and are a state unto themselves- replete with 'Shadow government and legal systems' in Afghanistan operating in tandem with 'official' Afghanistani law and governance) that was less centralized and not a 'state' body in themselves but merely a faction who sought refugee with the Taliban after 9/11?



This is a very good question actually. Considering it was Pakistani policy to be a sort of double partner to the Coalition and Taliban at the same time, due to Pakistani policy favoring a 'friendly' power in Afghanistan. Again of course it's a damn mess in terms of governance so it's hard to say which form of foreign policy is the most coherent- i'd say though Conon is right that it's definitely the aim of the ISI.

So we may have a mess here where Pakistan's presidential government aims for closer ties with the US and to wrap up the scenario with the Taliban, while other factions within the Pakistani administration and Intelligence services are pursing a totally different and counter agenda.

Mujahadeen where home grown and received most American aid (not all but most) AQ where foreign fighters mainly funded by the Gulf States, primarily Saudi, but fund raising was going on all over the show, they also received some US financial backing and maybe training (not sure, some sources say just cash and sources for things to buy with said cash, some say more concrete help) the Taliban is weird in that it was an offshoot of both, primarily from the Mujahadeen in the North, which had been backed by Pakistan primarily (again complicated, different groups received varying amounts from different backers at different times) and had picked up, again via Pakistan foreign fighters, the Taliban itself did not fight during the Soviet Invasion, it is a successor organisation to ones did, and unified several.

[Ecthelion]

You guys are trying to apply Western thinking to the Taliban.

They attacked the school for one reason and one reason only: because they can.

Schools are easy targets. Children run slower than adults and take fewer bullets to bring down. That's about the crux of it.

[IZob]

You guys are trying to apply Western thinking to the Taliban.
They attacked the school for one reason and one reason only: because they can.
Schools are easy targets. Children run slower than adults and take fewer bullets to bring down. That's about the crux of it.

- and most importantly... the Taliban do not like Pakistan government.

This is horrible news.

[DarthLazy]

I don't even know where the blame game will start on this one. Federal blames provincial, provincial blames federal, but they can't blame the military because its the military, on that note, nobody will blame the military, yes, dirty politicians and stuff.