EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Expanding US War in Pakistan
Three US special forces soldiers were killed in northwest Pakistan this week, confirming that the US military is more deeply engaged on the ground in Pakistan than previously acknowledged by the White House and Pentagon (see " The Secret US War in Pakistan," November 23, 2009). The soldiers died Wednesday in Lower Dir when their convoy was hit by a car bomber in what appeared to be a targeted strike against the Americans. According to CENTCOM, the US soldiers were in the country on a mission to train the Pakistani Frontier Corps, a federal paramilitary force run by Pakistan's Interior Ministry that patrols the country's volatile border with Afghanistan. A Pakistani journalist who witnessed the attack said that some of the US soldiers were dressed in civilian clothes and had been identified by their Pakistani handlers as journalists. The New York Times estimates that there are sixty to a hundred such US special forces "trainers" in Pakistan. Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for the United States Central Command said there are about 200 US military personnel in Pakistan.
But the geography of Wednesday's attack--in the northwest of the country in an area where the US has no on-the-ground aid presence and where Pakistani forces have struggled against the Taliban and other insurgents--reveals just how close to the epicenter of the action in Pakistan the US military is. According to CENTCOM, the soldiers were not members of Delta Force or the Green Berets, instead classifying them as "civil affairs" trainers. Officially, CENTCOM describes this mission as part of an expanding "partnership with the Pakistani military and Frontier Corps," providing "increased US military assistance for helicopters to provide air mobility, night vision equipment, and training and equipment--specifically for Pakistani Special Operations Forces and their Frontier Corps to make them a more effective counter-insurgency force."
In military parlance, these above-board US "training" forces operating under an unclassified mandate are "white" forces, while operatives working for the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) would be classified as working on "black" operations, sometimes referred to as Special Mission Units. Since 2006, JSOC teams have operated in Pakistan in pursuit of "high-value" targets.
"What we're seeing is the expansion of 'white' Special Operations Forces into Pakistan," says a former member of CENTCOM and US Special Forces with extensive experience in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater. "As Vietnam, Somalia and the Balkans taught us, that is almost always a precursor to expanded military operations." The former CENTCOM employee spoke to The Nation on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the Pakistan operations. He characterized the US military's role with the Pakistani Frontier Corps as "training in offensive operations," but rejected the idea that at this stage these US trainers would cross the line to engage in direct combat against Taliban forces. That does not mean, he says, that US military forces are not fighting in Pakistan. "Any firefights in Pakistan would be between JSOC forces versus whoever they were chasing," he said. "I would bet my life on that."
What has gone largely unmentioned in the media coverage of the deaths of the three US soldiers in Pakistan is the role private contractors are playing. While the New York Times reported that "The Americans' involvement in training Frontier Corps recruits in development assistance was little known until Wednesday's attack," The Nation first reported on that program--and the US involvement in training the Frontier Corps--last December. A former Blackwater executive told The Nation that Blackwater was training and advising the Frontier Corps, working on a subcontract with Kestral Logistics, a Pakistani firm. The presence of the Blackwater personnel in Pakistan was shrouded from the public, the former executive said, because they worked on a subcontract with Kestral for the Pakistani government. At times, he said, Blackwater forces cross the line from trainers or advisers and actually participated in raids. "That gives the Pakistani government the cover to say, 'Hey, no, we don't have any Westerners doing this. It's all local and our people are doing it,' " said the former executive. "But it gets them the expertise that Westerners provide for [counterterrorism]-related work." After the US soldiers were killed on Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility and said the dead men worked for Blackwater. "We know the movement of US Marines and Blackwater guys," said Taliban spokesperson Azim Tariq. "And we have prepared suicide bombers to go after them." The United States dismissed the claim about Blackwater as "propaganda and disinformation."
While the former CENTCOM employee said the US military's training mission in Pakistan (he is against using contractors for such missions) is in the "US interest," he cautioned that there is growing concern within the military about what is perceived as the disproportionate and growing influence of JSOC's lethal "direct action" mentality on the broader Special Forces operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As The Nation reported in November, JSOC operates a parallel drone bombing campaign in Pakistan, carrying out targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, "snatch and grabs" of high-value targets and other sensitive action. JSOC, a military intelligence source told The Nation, also operates several secret bases inside Pakistan. These actions are deeply classified and not subjected to any form of comprehensive oversight by Congress.
With General Stanley McChrystal, who commanded JSOC from 2003-2008, running the war, forces--and commanders--accustomed to operating in an unaccountable atmosphere now have unprecedented influence on overall US military operations, opening the door for an expansion of secretive, black operations done with little to no oversight. "The main thing to take away here is a recognition and acceptance of the paradigm shift that has occurred," says the former CENTCOM employee. "Everything is one echelon removed from before: where CIA was the darkest of the dark, now it is JSOC. Therefore, military forces have more leeway to do anything in support of future military objectives. The CIA used to have the ultimate freedom--now that freedom is in JSOC's hands, and the other elements of the military have been ordered to adapt."
The former CENTCOM member said that what is unfolding in Pakistan is part of the Bush-era philosophy, continued by the Obama administration, of "preparing the battlefield." He sketches out a pattern wherein "black" operations are followed by "white" operations and then conventional US forces. That "preparing the battlefield" justification was often used by the Bush administration to circumvent Congressional oversight of clandestine military operations, particularly when McChrystal was running JSOC. The CIA is legally required to brief the Intelligence committees on covert operations, while JSOC has traditionally operated outside the purview of Congressional oversight. "This allows the JSOC/Special Mission Units more freedom to expand or absorb traditionally CIA missions," he says. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Stephen Cambone "embraced this model--so have Obama and [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates--and it persists to this day." He added that "there is a deep, deep resentment" of the influence of JSOC within "the Special Forces community" under Admiral Eric Olson, commander of the Special Operations Command and Vice Admiral William McRaven, the current head of JSOC.
What is clear from Wednesday's attack on US soldiers in Pakistan is that the US military is becoming increasingly entrenched in the country. In late January in Washington DC, US and Pakistani military officials gathered under the umbrella of the "U.S.-Pakistan Land Forces Military Consultative Committee." According to notes from the meeting, they discussed CENTCOM's operations in Pakistan aiming to "enhance both U.S. and Pakistan Army COIN [counterinsurgency] capabilities" and "potential US COIN Center/Pakistan Army interactions." Among the participants were representatives of the Special Operations Command, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs--Pakistan Afghanistan Coordination Cell, the Office of Defense Representative--Pakistan and a Pakistan delegation led by Brigadier General Muhammad Azam Agha, Pakistan's Director of Military Training.
The United States does not publicly acknowledge US military operations in Pakistan. On CENTCOM's website, they are described in vague terms. "We will of course continue to target, disrupt, and pursue the leadership, bases,and support networks of Al Qaeda and other transnational extremist groups operating in the region," declares CENTCOM's Pakistan page. "We will do this aggressively and relentlessly."
Since President Obama's inauguration, the administration has downplayed the role of US military forces in Pakistan. In July, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke said bluntly, "People think that the US has troops in Pakistan, well, we don't." On Wednesday, after the US soldiers' deaths, his tune changed dramatically: "There's nothing secret about their presence," he said. One thing is certain: as the situation in Pakistan becomes more volatile and the US military presence in the country expands, it will become increasingly difficult for the Obama administration to downplay or deny the reality that a US war in Pakistan is already underway.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

30 Comments so far
Show All-"some of the US soldiers were dressed in civilian clothes and had been identified by their Pakistani handlers as journalists"
Here they go again. putting real journalists at risk. The next time someone claiming to be a journalist is captured, do you think this will help their chances? And with real journalism becoming more dangerous and expensive, Americans become more reliant on propaganda from the US military.
good points
Don't get me wrong...I don't think the US should be in Afg, Pak, or Iraq, AT ALL. But given that we're there, are these pundits and reporters that naive to think the military would just up and announce every move they make? That'd be like the FBI putting an ad in the local paper a week prior to a big drug bust.
Again Scahill among the best. I wonder how long before some elements in the ISI get angry enough to place a firecracker in a USA military installation?
I'll have to disagree with your comment on Scahill. He has published several op-eds that momentarily appeared here on CD, but subsequently removed by CD editors because of his inaccurate, inflammatory reporting. There was one article on Xe/Blackwater as recently as Jan 24th.
I'm not saying that this article is inaccurate, but I would suggest that we handle anything that Jeremy says with extreme care.
How exactly was his reporting inaccurate and inflammatory? Amy Goodman has had him on her show several times over the last months.
One example. Scahill almost never mentions Xe (formerly Blackwater) by name. His recent articles continue to refer to Blackwater without any reference to Xe. Because Blackwater no-longer exists, the correct journalistic approach would be to introduce an article about Xe, and then explain that it was formerly-known as Blackwater. In most cases, this would be acceptable, but Schahill appears unable to do even this.
Why? I contend that Scahill regularly ignores journalistic protocol in order to score "points" with his destined audience. Blackwater conjures bad memories and passion, Xe does not (yet).
This may seem nit-picking, but once you discover that these minor irritations are endemic, even a trademark, of Scahill's writings, he starts to resemble an alumni of the Limbaugh School of Journalistic Excellence.
YMMV
Associating him with Limbaugh for not mentioning the current name of Blackwater Inc. seems a bit over the top to me, suit yourself
I did not mean to associate him with Limbaugh, but rather it was poor sarcasm on my part to indicate that he and Limbaugh share similar approaches to framing a discussion.
You are discussing protocal not truth or integrety.
Perhaps Scahill writes Blackwater for the same reason I and many others do,
We refuse to accede the psych ops advantage to Blackwater, they choose a horrifically apt name and it is a bonified political action to make them live with it.
You are nit picking.
If the Ku Klax Klan changed its name to "Patriots for World Peace" I would still refer to them as "The Ku Kux Klan". It more accurately describes them.
The same is true for Blackwater.
-"are these pundits and reporters that naive to think the military would just up and announce every move they make"
Not announcing individual troop movements is one thing. Starting a war in a sovereign country without announcing it is another.
also:
The US, on one hand, condemns all its adversaries as "war criminals", example: the 15 year old boy they shot in Afghanistan, Khadr, and are still holding in Gitmo, they call him a "war criminal" because the boy wasn't wearing a uniform. At the same time, American soldiers are caught, over and over disguising themselves as vicars, reporters, aid workers.
Here's something that will most certainly be censored in the mainstream media:
"Cynthia McKinney To Receive Munich American Peace Committee Peace Prize"
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/49875
I saw the very same comment here, just moments ago. I jumped to the article on afterdowning. When I came back here, the comment about McKinney winning a peace prize was gone! poof. It was only one short, concise statement, essentially identical to mine.
What's up with that?
Mystery solved! The comment about McKinney winning a peace prize is on another CommonDreams article today, Bonnie Bricker and Adil E. Shamoo: Iraq Policy: D
Thanks for posting this about Cynthia. She would make a great president.
Scahill is one of the best journalists we have around here. We have real investigation, research and analysis and context in this article; something almost completely absent in the MSM.
From article:
'...Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Stephen Cambone "embraced this model--so have Obama and [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates--and it persists to this day." He added that "there is a deep, deep resentment" of the influence of JSOC within "the Special Forces community" under Admiral Eric Olson, commander of the Special Operations Command and Vice Admiral William McRaven, the current head of JSOC...'
Very solid evidence of the seamless transition from Bush to Obama and now escalation.
We now see that the policy has gone even further under Obama/Gates/McChrystal.
Not that it matters, but Obama appears to be even more imperialist than Bush.
He isn't in charge. Niether was Bush. Figure it out.
The Emperor has no clothes and no power? figure it out.
"A Pakistani journalist who witnessed the attack said that some of the US soldiers were dressed in civilian clothes and had been identified by their Pakistani handlers as journalists."
Islamic clothing, or western clothing?
Reminds me of when two British soldiers wearing traditional Islamic garb were pulled from a car packed with explosives and arrested in Basra/Iraq. The British military stormed the prison and freed the soldiers and then buried the story.
Feel free to believe CENTCOM's description of the event, but history has shown that they have rarely been honest with the American people.
The Expanding undeclared US War on Pakistan,,,another December seventh?
Escalating, wider, aggressive invasions of sovereign nations. US becomes an evermore warcrimination. Also, wir Haben SCHULD!
The Obamabots always blame Bush--that's their ongoing defense. These idiots are too obtuse to see the truth standing before them--they're just as stupid and awful as those who supported Bush and his many crimes.
Obama is Bush 3.
"People think that the US has troops in Pakistan, well, we don't."
The use of the word "troops" is a vague term used by the military and politicians that refers to a specific type of military members; however they use the term in hopes the public perceives the "troops" to mean any and all military members.
At war in Pakistan? C'mon, give us a break. That would take an act of Congress, and we know that didn't happen because Congress has done nothing since they refused to declare war and simply gave Bushido Banzai the authorization to slaughter a million-plus folks 8,000 mile from our coastline. But, hey, that's not like actual legally declared war, don'cha know?
.
So it's not war but, as the man said, "an on-the-ground-aid presence." And those other (all of em) nations that have anything that we want (oil, gas, pipeline routes, locations of missile-site potential, etc) best take notice lest they get a dose of our "on-the-ground aid presence," translated from the German "blitzkrieg," only lasting longer, like eight or nine years and no sign of ending ever.
.
Hey, get over it, and be grateful that you're living in one of America's most compelling eras: its biggest historical disgrace, unless, that is, you're of native American stock, then this would rank number 2.
Greed destroys intellect: in ancient Sanskrit, it is called "Lobha".
We all know this is nothing like the "secret " war in Laos. America never attacks neighboring countries when they suspect the enemy is hiding there.
Please CommonDreams don't let the Afpak war get your eyes totally off Iran. Iran has proposed to ship its uranium abroad for enrichment. One would expect the official US response to come from the State Department. It came instead from the DOD. According to an old maxim wars are the continuation of diplomacy by other means. If that is so, what does the statement by Secretary Gates imply?
Hilary Clinton indicated that should China not support sanctions on Iran, China would see its supply of oil from the Middle East cut off.
It should be very clear just what all those Miltary bases the US is constructing in the region are there for.
It should also be clear why the USA wants the Pipelines that carry energy from the Caspian going over US controlled territory.
This followed the US selling 6 billion in arms to Tawain and their continuing to agitate and support the Uighurs in West China.
The USA treads in very dangerous territory if they proceed with a war on Iran. Russian recently announced it would preemptivley use Nuclear weapons in a first strike and announced it would use its own Military to protect Russian Citizens and interests abroad.
Russian technicians are helping build the Nuclear power plant in Iran and Russia recently indicated it would honor its commitment to supply Iran with the s300 anti air defense system.
It should be clear to anyone that the United States is trying to provoke a Confrontation with Iran. It should also be clear as to why, and it has nothing to do with "terrorism" or the threat of Iran obataining Nuclear weapons.