Pakistani Paramilitaries

A recent firefight near Asadabad, Afghanistan was ended when US Air Force F-15Es and a B-1 dropped several 500-lb bombs into Pakistan. Only trouble is, the planes apparently targeted Pakistani paramilitaries, killing 11 of them. Pakistan is upset over the loss.

The incident highlights one of the perils of employing paramilitary forces – the difficulty of distinguishing them from the actual insurgents. My last tour in Iraq saw much of the same, although we were not being engaged by insurgents at the time, so there was little danger of mistakenly killing the Neighborhood Watch guys. However, on more than one occasion I had aircraft working for me report some sort of suspicious activity that looked an awful lot like, say, insurgents placing an IED on a dirt road that we used from time to time. After a watching for a bit, we realized we couldn’t identify them as a threat with any reasonable certainty, and eased our proverbial fingers off the triggers. When we stopped out there on patrol the next day, turns out, it was just the local Neighborhood Watch filling sandbags to fortify one of their checkpoints. We left them with a polite suggestion that they might not want to fill sandbags in the middle of a road at night.

On the whole, paramilitary forces are one of the most effective tools in COIN. Although they don’t have the training and equipment of regular military forces, their knowledge of the local area and population makes them far more adept at separating the insurgent “fish” from the “sea” of the local populace. Many have pointed to the Awakening Movement in Iraq as a key ingredient to the current success in Al Anbar province, and rightfully so. I have seen the difference between Anbar province of 2006, where the Iraqi Army battalion I supported struggled to maintain control of a 4-5 kilometer stretch of battlespace, and the same area in late 2007 and early 2008. The area was so peaceful that the Iraqi Army shifted the entire brigade to another province and gave responsibility for the area to a battalion. The difference was the rise of the Provincial Security Forces in the area.

The Afghan border presents a real predicament for Coalition forces. I spent some time in Asadabad in 2003, and the base out there is not all that far from the border. Add a Pakistani paramilitary force such as the Frontier Corps in close proximity to a Coalition outpost, and the potential for cross-border incidents such as this one is very high. I have no idea what level of coordination is being done with the Pakistanis, but it is apparent that it is not enough.

How to prevent the continuation of this sort of incident? Well, one way would be to restrict all Coalition fires across the border. But since the enemy regularly operates across the border, and places no such restriction on their fighters, it’s pretty easy to see why this is a poor choice, militarily. Better communication with the Frontier Corps seems to be the answer. But how, in a situation like a firefight in the mountains of the Afghan/Pakistani border, do you communicate with the Pakistanis that you are targeting a group of personnel at location X? And how do the Pakistanis, in turn, verify the location of paramilitary forces in the area and communicate whether the targeted individuals are friendly? Or contact the Frontier Corps soldiers and tell them to mark their position in such a way that it is recognizable to Coalition aircraft? All of this in a timely fashion, because the guys in the Coalition combat operations center are very aware that their fellow Soldiers are taking fire on some mountainside and need help. I’ve been in a COC in that sort of situation in Iraq, and having the ability to rain down high explosive from the sky to help out your brothers is very satisfying, but it can also be incredibly difficult to wait for things like identifying a paramilitary force on patrol in the vicinity.

So, I’m going to come completely out of left field with an idea for solving this sort of problem. Rather than relying on communications with the Pakistani Frontier Corps, ask Pakistan to allow Coalition personnel to train and advise the Frontier Corps in the border regions. This puts Coalition personnel and communications equipment in position to track and communicate the location of Frontier Corps patrols. The benefits to the Pakistanis are better training and equipment for their paramilitary forces, and a reduced likelihood that they will be targeted by Coalition units when operating in the vicinity of Coalition forces. The benefit to the Coalition is a more capable force patrolling the Pakistani side of the border, interdicting the insurgents before they attack our forces on the Afghan side. It will also help to maintain good relations with Pakistan, as we are less likely to mistakenly kill their troops.

Of course, there are many problems with this idea. Where do we get the manpower and equipment? Providing enough advisors for Afghan and Iraqi forces is difficult enough as it is. How to overcome Pakistani objections to foreign troops on their soil, even in an advisory and training capacity? They’ve ‘re obviously not interested in having our forces operating in their territory. Of course, I’m not talking actual Coalition combat formations, I’m talking small teams in advisory capacities similar to what we’ve done in Colombia and the Philippines. I would think that should be a bit easier for them to swallow. It’s a pretty tough idea to implement, but one that can bear a lot of fruit in the struggle to secure the border regions and prevent cross-border operations by the insurgents. Not only will it aid in the discrimination of enemy insurgents from friendly paramilitaries, but it will make the Frontier Corps a stronger and more reliable counter-insurgent force. And ultimately, strong indigenous forces are required to win against this cross-border insurgency.

Edited to add: I’m leaving unsaid the possibility that the Air Force did, in fact, successfully target the individuals who attacked Coalition forces that day, and that those individuals might also have been members of the Frontier Corps. That is because I don’t intend for this post to be about the reliability of paramilitary forces, which is another problematic issue. Coalition advisors could help to increase their reliability in terms of loyalty to the government of Pakistan, but ultimately it is up to the Pakistani military to take necessary steps to ensure the Frontier Corps in the Northwestern Frontier Province is not working against us.

Update: I was unable to find the complete footage of the strike earlier, but Defense Tech provided it. From the raw footage, it looks pretty clear that the guys who ate the high explosives were asking for it. Even UAS footage doesn’t necessarily tell all, but I’m pretty confident at this point that if those guys were Frontier Corps, they were bad apples. Even if the UAS lost track of the original group of fighters and hit FC troops, the close proximity would indicate at least a degree of complicity on their part. So, tough luck boys, but when you mess with the bull you get the horns.

Comments

  1. Bob says:

    Sir, The biggest difficulty may be that the Pakistani paramilitary forces in many places along the border have been co-opted by the Taliban and other dirtbags. I believe that our boys on the border would tell you that it is hard to tell the hardcore dirtbags from the paramilitary forces because they are engaged in the same activities.

    This underscores the point that Pakistan is rapidly becoming an incapacitated partner in the GWOT. My suspicion is that a regular, ferocious, deadly response from the Afghan side to bad behavior emanating from the Pakistan side will create some incentives for the folks on the Pakistan side to step back. They are impressed only by force, not reason and norms of civilized behavior. The Pakistani politicians may publicly claim all sorts of things, but I believe that they know the score on the border. They were so focused on the political fight with Musharaf, they turned a blind eye to the dirtbags on the border. They will pay the price for this soon enough. I just don’t want any of the 4th Brigade, 101st Airborne guys who will have that territory shortly to pay for the bad behavior of Pakistani politicians. We have enough costs imposed by U.S. politicians.

  2. Slab says:

    Heh, I think you were typing that at the same time that I was typing my little addendum. You are absolutely right, that is a significant hurdle that will have to be addressed. Ultimately, if the US, Afghanistan, and Pakistan want to subdue areas such as Kunar and the NWFP, then the Frontier Corps needs to be turned into a viable force.

  3. LtCol P says:

    This calls for a force that can field liaison teams, as well perhaps plan, coordinate and execute fires. Where might such a force exist???

  4. Eric Blair says:

    After watching the video that the Air Force released, its apparent that if the dead were frontier force, then they were actively engaging coalition forces. They asked for it, and got it.

    The Pakistani military needs to figure out what side they’re on and act accordingly.

  5. Bob says:

    Sir,

    I had a suspicion we might actually be on the same page. The hard but interesting question is how to transform the border force. We are more than capable of doing the training and of organizing reliable communication along the border. NATO partners, not so much maybe…..

    It will be quite interesting to see whether we can seize on this incident as a way to get the Pakistani government to consider alternative arrangements along the border. I think that the government there needs to understand that status quo will produce more video footage and more funerals. Without that, there cannot be much incentive to change the present arrangements. My concern is that they are too consumed with internal political matters to address the problem.

    I am quite confident that our boys along the border can handle themselves and will, barring a terrible loss of tactical freedom, make border transgressions very expensive for the dirtbags.

    Does anyone have a sense for whether there are enough aerial surveillance assets in that part of the world? The boys in blue turned in a good days work otherwise!

  6. Doug Santo says:

    I don’t understand why a unit of Pakistani paramilitary folks operating in proximity to a coalition base would not immediately seek communication with the base to coordinate activities. The coalition base was evidently known to the Taliban who crossed the border to attack it, or elements of it. The presence of the base and/or coalition forces must have been known to the paramilitary guys.

    It also seems strange to me that the paramilitary guys would involve themselves in an apparently ongoing firefight, at night, without identifying themselves to their coalition allies. The paramilitary guys involved themselves in the firefight at what appears to be close range.

    The Times article says that US forces notified a Pakistani military liaison officer prior to the airstrikes. Why was the liason officer not aware of the presence of the paramilitary unit?

    With the information currently available, it is not possible to know what really happened.

    I wonder how many Pakastani paramilitary units are operating in the border regions? What thier total numbers are? Why they apparently have poor communications not only with coalition forces, but with thier own coventional forces? What percentage of the paramilitary units are actually friends versus foes? And how effective the paramilitary units are at interdicting cross-border Taliban activity?

    If the paramilitary units are significant in number, why haven’t our local commanders established communications with them to coordinate activities and facilitate their operations?

    Doug Santo

    Pasadena, CA

  7. Marv says:

    I am not a military guy, that’s why I read blogs such as this.

    According to your first sentence “A recent firefight near Asadabad, Afghanistan was ended when US Air Force F-15Es and a B-1 dropped several 500-lb bombs into Pakistan.”

    I have just one question: Does a firefight normally end when people who are NOT shooting at you are bombed?

  8. Slab says:

    Marv,

    If, in fact, the folks on the receiving end of that ordnance were not bad guys, then it’s probable that the real bad guys went to ground when the bombs started landing. That’s the smart course of action, anyway. At that point, continuing to fire on US forces or moving around might have drawn attention to themselves.

    Doug,

    You ask a lot of interesting questions. I don’t have firsthand knowledge of the current situation in Kunar, so I can only speculate. First off, it is unlikely that the Frontier Corps (FC) soldiers had any way to contact Coalition forces. I highly doubt that the Pakistani liaison officer knew where the FC patrol was, and had a ready means to contact them. One of the things that separate professional first-world militaries from third-world militaries is our ability to “battletrack”, or keep tabs of our forces in the field. Ask any veterans of advisor tours – this is a very difficult concept to impress upon our Iraqi counterparts. And we, who have some of the best technology for tracking friendly forces, screw it up on a pretty regular basis.

    Your questions about how many paramilitary units are friend vs foe, and how effective they are at interdicting the insurgents, is really the crux of the issue, in my opinion.

  9. Mrs. Davis says:

    If the folks are shooting at you for a couple of hours, they’re bad guys.

  10. Another Opinion says:

    How does the PR for an incident like this get handled? I’ve already heard some Pakistani on the radio talking about how it was unacceptable for the US to do this … sovereignty… riled citizens… etc. How does one tell a foreign populace that some of their soldiers are corrupted, particularly if their initial sympathies are against you?