STUDY- IED sufferings in AF-Pak

This is a cross post from Media Point by the blog Editor on March 30th, 2012. 

The Perceptors Group took up an in depth study on issue of human sufferings specifically due to Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) attacks causing immense human loss in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The group observed  some of the reports, pointing fingers towards Pakistan for either involvement or having lax control on IED material transportation which is a main cause of concern.

To ensure the credibility of report, the study group collected secondary data from diversified sources ranging from studies done by other credible groups, individual research of intellectuals and government based facts and figures released from time to time. The below mentioned data also include information from US and Pakistan’s officially released figures and international NGOs, Think tanks working on both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The report also has some primary data from updated government official reports.

The report intends highlighting the human sufferings due to terrorism on one end and on the other exposes the perceptions being raised and played by interested elements.

 

Perceptions

  • US Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, in US Senate hearing raised the issue of IEDs, claiming that Pakistan remained the main source of the materials used for making the devices. During same hearing Gen James Mattis termed it an area of frustration and serious topic of dialogue with Pakistan. (Read here) US Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, who serves on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, wrote in a column in newsmax that “America must realize that Pakistan is the “Benedict Arnold” to America in the war on terror. The Administration’s request to send more money to Pakistan must be denied.” (Read here)
  • Same is the voice of US military, according to US JOINT IED DEFEAT ORGANIZATION (JIEDDO), the Pentagon’s lead agency for combating makeshift bombs, the leaky border with Pakistan remains a problem. JIEDDO says that Pakistan contributes 80 percent of the fertilizer-based homemade bombs in Afghanistan that cause 90 percent of U.S. casualties.

Facts

  1. The IEDs attacks alone in Pakistan has taken lives of 2707soldiers whereas 1188 NATO soldiers became prey of IEDs in Afghanistan from 2006 to 2012.
  2. In 2010/2011 the causality figures of only Pakistan’s Civil Armed forces (CAF) operating in Balochistan  and in Fata is 176. The number of Army and other LEA in area is expected to be much more.
  3. As of 2010, Pakistani check posts on the Pakistan-Afghan border numbered 821 against 112 check posts set up by NATO-US-Afghan troops on their side. The NATO and U.S forces comprise of 41 countries therefore lack priority to curbing cross-border movement.
  4. Total number of Pakistan’s troops operating on Pak-Afghan border is approx 140,000  and NATO-ISAF are approx 130,386.
  5. Pakistan has undertaken major  efforts to stop the free flow of Urea to Afghanistan including cutting dealership in northern region and changing the color of fertilizer to track it but still this fertilizer is coming  and being used against  security forces engaged in FATA and Balochistan area and Afghanistan.
  6. The data compairing number of IED attacks and number of casualties show that from 2006 to 2012 on Afghan side 44659 IED attacks casued 118 deaths and on Pak side 4828 IED attacks caused 2707 deaths . This shows better techniques of identifying and handling IED attacks by coalition forces on Afghan side.
  7. According to a Telegraph report of 2009, “US Marines captured a vast cache of IEDs made from agricultural ammonium nitrate fertiliser in 25 kilogram bags indistinguishable from the thousands of tons of fertiliser supplied to Afghanistan under Western aid programmes. It has long been obvious that many of the roadside bombs used to kill British and other Western troops are made from fertiliser paid for by UK and other Western taxpayers.” (Read here)
  8. A US delegation has visited a fertilizer industry in Multan during December 2011 to seek the cooperation to stop the flow of fertilizer.  According to Fawad Mukhtar CEO of Pak Arab Fertilizers, ”It is wrong to single Pakistan and us out, especially as we are doing all that they want us to do, We have told them that this is made throughout the region and Pakistan is not the only source. We have also told them that huge quantities of this fertilizer are made in Iran, Uzbekistan and across Central Asia.”
  9. The company involved in production of fertilizers has changed the identification of bags by using different colours and has cut down dealership in the northern region and reduced its supplies. Moreover samples of fertilizer handed over to US delegation experimenting colour change. Efforts are in hand for legislation for production, sale and use of fertilizers in Pakistan. While on the contrary if one looks at US history, it took them 15 years after Oklahoma bombing, for legislation.
  10. According to agricultural reports Pakistan is amongst those countries having acutest shortage of water and per capita water availability ranks dead last in the list of 26 Asian countries. The US authorities have totally ignored this fact that huge quantities of ammonium nitrate are produced in half a dozen neighboring countries of Afghanistan – Iran, Uzbekistan, Central Asia and China with 68% nitric acid composition. European countries also make huge quantity of ammonium nitrate which goes up to 2.89 million tons.
  11. Executives with the US chemical manufacturer Honeywell traveled to Pakistan to pitch Pakarab on the merits of Sulf-N 26, a fertilizer that combines ammonium nitrate with ammonium sulfate, a fertilizer and fire retardant. However, tests carried out in the US showed it could still be used in the production of bombs and the project was shelved, according to Pakarab and Best, the expert at the Joint IED Defeat Organization. Honeywell, which said it had not been informed about the tests, disputed that conclusion. (Read here) This report indicates that investment on Sulf-N26 can be risky if it does not prevent making of IEDs from fertilizers.

Conclusion

In backdrop of  perceived accusations on Pakistan and its forces, data was collected to ascertain facts. An effort was made to collect data on causalities in general and IEDs related causalities in particular to draw a comparison and come out with conclusion to help find the intensity of problem and give a way forward for security decision makers and help them make their policy based on fact and fight false perceptions. All conclusions are supported by figures and graphs included in the study. Main conclusions are as under:

  1. The collected figures and data draw a gloomy picture contrary to US view and general perception of the international media. Unfortunately, Pakistan never presented its case to the world.  The fact is that Pakistan is biggest ever victim of IEDs attack and Afghanistan and NATO troops are far behind in causalities and loss. NATO lost 1188 soldiers and 2707 Pakistani security personnel scarified their lives due to IEDs attack from 2006 to 2012( See Figure and Table.3).
  2. Data conclude that both sides of the Pak-Afghan borders are under attack by IED. However Pakistan has taken more practical  steps by constructing 812 Check posts on its side against 112 check posts being manned by NATO-ISAF to control the approximately 2,640 kilometers long border with Pakistan.
  3. When compared the number of casualty per IED attack it was significantly found that human loss on Pakistan side were much more than on Afghanistan side ( Figure.1 and Figure.2).
  4. On civilians count, the annual death toll from terrorist attacks has risen from 164 in 2003 to 3318 in 2009, with a total of 35,000 Pakistanis killed as of 2010 and this toll is on the rise.
  5. According to the government of Pakistan, the direct and indirect economic costs of terrorism from 2000-2010 is $68 billion. US Ambassador to Pakistan, Camron Munter publicly acknowledged this loss, “as you and I both know, the (IEDs) threat is equally dire in Pakistan.  In 2010, there were about 3,700 Pakistani civilian causalities from IEDs and home-made explosives – road-side bombs, car bombs, suicide bombs.  This nearly equals the numbers for Iraq and Afghanistan combined.” (Read here)

Pakistan has taken many steps to stop the menace of IEDs attack, rather than cooperating with Pakistan, blame game and putting conditions on Pakistan has undermine the efforts and will result in favour of hostile forces. US Gen. John R. Allen also admitted the IED problem to Pakistan in a press briefing (dated 26 March 2012) that “we would always enjoy Pakistani military assistance across the border, but I will tell you that they’re deeply engaged across the border.  In the last couple of years, they’ve suffered 3,000 dead and a couple of thousand wounded, and they have an IED problem from the Taliban on their side of the border that is substantial as well. “ (Read here)

NATO and US associate these IEDs attack to the free flow of fertilizer from Pakistan but Pakistani authorities have made  efforts to stop the eminent threat from publicly available fertilizers. Emerging Asia’s report on “Afghanistan’s Fertilizer Market” reveals that Pakistan is not the single exporter of fertilizers to Afghanistan. It is usually imported to Afghanistan largely from the US, Australia, China,  Pakistan, with smaller quantities from Tajikistan, Iran, Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia. Another fertilizer used in lesser quantity is Mono Ammonium Phosphate from Iran. Fertilizer from the US and Australia is typically exported to Pakistan where it is repackaged and then exported to Afghanistan. (Read more). Afghanistan’s borders are porous from all neighboring states and these fertilizers can be smuggled from all sides.

 

Recommendations

After having analyzed the  primary and secondary data showing problems faced by Pakistan and NATO forces the report recommends:

  1. Pakistan needs to presented its case to the world.  The fact is that Pakistan is the main victim of IEDs attack and its efforts have not got due coverage. The facts brought out in the study must be given maximum projection.
  2. JIEDDO should expand its role by helping Pakistani authorities and security forces to eliminate rise in IEDs attacks. Sharing of Air Surveillance and on ground IEDs detection hardware (i.e PTDS, PGSS, GPR, Goldie, devil pup etc.) can be helpful to neutralize the threat along Pak-Afghan borders.
  3. On diplomatic and political grounds, US congressional representatives and state official should realize the difficulties and contributions of Pakistan to the war on terrorism. As Ambassador Munter and Gen. John R. Allen made a clean breast that IEDs problem is not only with NATO forces but also a substantial issue on the Pakistani side. it took U.S 15 years after 1995 Oklahoma bombing, for legislation.
  4. NATO must raise number of check posts along Pak-Afghan border, less security is favouring hostile forces to move freely on Afghan side and reorganize their strength to hit back on Pakistan’s side.
  5. The international community  be made to realize that Pakistan is amongst  countries having acute shortage of water. Its per capita water availability ranks dead last in the list of 26 Asian countries that’s why fertilizer is crucial requirement for agricultural sector. Viable solutions be considered for Pakistan.
  6. Pakistan’s government should hold an international conference on Terrorism especially IEDs effects on Pakistan society and economy. All regional stakeholders should be invited to discuss measures and share available technology to save human lives.

STUDY DATA

( Due to incomplete registered data on Pakistan side the below may not be the total figure but gives fair idea of the problem)

Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Attacks and Deaths (Security Personnel) in Pakistan, 2006-2012

Year

IED Attacks Deaths
2006
646
222
2007
1,046
376
2008
912
814
2009
1,308
1,104
2010
373
76
2011
510
100
2012 uptill mid march
29
15
Total
4824
2707

(Figure and Table.1)

The above-mentioned data and graph represents that almost every other IED attack on Pakistani security forces was more fatal than the attacks on NATO forces in Afghanistan. On Pak side IED attack fig of 4824 may in actual be a bit more as this record mostly include frontier Corps.

Note:- Security forces figure of 2010/2011 pertains to Civil Armed Forces (CAF) operating in Fata and Balochistan. Figures of other LEAs and Army operating in area are expected to be much more.

IED Attacks and Deaths(NATO) in Afghanistan,  2006-2012

 

 

Year

IED Attacks Deaths
2006
797
41
2007
1147
78
2008
1632
152
2009
9,304
275
2010
15,225
368
2011
16,554
252
2012 uptill mid March
Not Available
22

Total

44659 1188

(Figure and Table.2)

These statistics shows that although IEDs explosions are higher in number but causalities toll is far low than the Pakistani scarifies.  It is noted that there are 50 troops contributed nations in NATO-ISAF and total strength of NATO-ISAF in Afghanistan is 130,386 this figure is taken from ISAF troop number and placement as of 6 January, 2012. (Read here)

Comparison of IED related Deaths of Pak and NATO (Security Personnel), 2006-2012

Note:-Pakistan’s Security forces figure of 2010/2011/2012 is not complete and only pertains to Civil Armed Forces (CAF) operating in Fata and Balochistan. Figures of other LEAs and Army operating in area are expected to be much more.

Year

Pakistani  Casualties NATO Casualities
2006
222
41
2007
376
78
2008
814
152
2009
1,104
275
2010
76
368
2011
100
252
2012 uptill mid March
15
22
Total
2707
1188

(Figure and Table.3)

Combine comparison of NATO and Pakistani causalities shows that so far Pakistani security forces are actual victims of IEDs attacks.

 

Recommendations

After having analyzed the  primary and secondary data showing problems faced by Pakistan and NATO forces the report recommends:

  1. Pakistan needs to presented its case to the world.  The fact is that Pakistan is the main victim of IEDs attack and its efforts have not got due coverage. The facts brought out in the study must be given maximum projection.
  2. JIEDDO should expand its role by helping Pakistani authorities and security forces to eliminate rise in IEDs attacks. Sharing of Air Surveillance and on ground IEDs detection hardware (i.e PTDS, PGSS, GPR, Goldie, devil pup etc.) can be helpful to neutralize the threat along Pak-Afghan borders.
  3. On diplomatic and political grounds, US congressional representatives and state official should realize the difficulties and contributions of Pakistan to the war on terrorism. As Ambassador Munter and Gen. John R. Allen made a clean breast that IEDs problem is not only with NATO forces but also a substantial issue on the Pakistani side. it took U.S 15 years after 1995 Oklahoma bombing, for legislation.
  4. NATO must raise number of check posts along Pak-Afghan border, less security is favouring hostile forces to move freely on Afghan side and reorganize their strength to hit back on Pakistan’s side.
  5. The international community  be made to realize that Pakistan is amongst  countries having acute shortage of water. Its per capita water availability ranks dead last in the list of 26 Asian countries that’s why fertilizer is crucial requirement for agricultural sector. Viable solutions be considered for Pakistan.
  6. Pakistan’s government should hold an international conference on Terrorism especially IEDs effects on Pakistan society and economy. All regional stakeholders should be invited to discuss measures and share available technology to save human lives.

Original publishing link: http://www.mediapoint.pk/study-ied-sufferings-in-af-pak/

About these ads
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Syedain  On April 1, 2012 at 5:18 am

    Excellent work Pakistan’s foreign Policy makers must develop a group of scholars like u; to study in depth the international trends of relationships with all the Countries: before formulating Foreign policy with USA and Europe China Russia and India. Not with those money hungry illiterate selfish so called Parliamentarians.

  • K. Hussan Zia  On April 1, 2012 at 8:20 am

    The writers miss the most obvious conclusion: Pakistan must bring her most ill advised contribution to this most unnecessary war to a swift and complete end.

    Other than that it is a worthy contribution. Was it published any of the mainstream media in Pakistan? Probably not for, as a matter of editorial policy, they do not publish anything that runs counter to western interests.

    Lastly, it is our people who are dying and being maimed and our money that fuels the war. Why are we the citizens not shouting from the roof tops in protest against the traitors who got us involved and who continue to perpetrate this calamity? We may not realise it but in the end all of us are indirectly responsible for putting the future of Pakistan and the lives of our own children and grandchildren at grave risk.

  • Riaz  On April 1, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    no doubt pak is the most effe cted and main vicrtim of IED’S ,besides other factors pakistani media shud also play its role to highlight and project the sacrifices made by us
    16 minutes ago

  • Naghman  On April 1, 2012 at 4:38 pm

    True.

  • sturkman  On April 2, 2012 at 7:27 pm

    But this only covers Ammonium Nitrate. What about C-4 IEDs?
    Why ISI keeps supplying Taliban C 4?
    Taliban do not know, how to manufacture it. They are getting Ammonium Nitrate from Afghanistan’s Open Market?
    But 99% of Taliban are Pakis, live in Pakistan and build their IED and IUDs in Pakistan and buy Ammonium Nitrate in Pakistan, not in Afghanistan.
    Afghanistan imports Ammonium Nitrate?
    Can anybody show us, poor Afghan Farmers using it?
    Why Afghanistan would import Ammonium Nitrate from other countries, when Pakistan Manufactures it aplenty and its the cheapest in Pakistan and Iran?
    The Writer does not know, Ground Facts and realities or is covering up ISI Secret Hand behind its Mercenaries, the Taliban. .

    • Fahad Alie  On June 9, 2012 at 6:32 am

      if the writer doesnt know the facts then my dear you also lack lots of ground realities. if NATO is so innocent then what u ve to say about attacks on salala checkpost by NATO and any documentary proof that 99% Taliban are Pakistanis or it is just a story told to you by your mother’s boy friend???

  • optimist  On April 5, 2012 at 5:35 am

    Pakistan does not manufacture Ammonium Nitrate Fertilizers. It only produces small quantity for medical purposes around 900 tons per year. 75% fertilizers used in Pakistan is UREA, 20% DAP etc and 5% CAN (used only in parts of Sind and Punjab). All countries bordering Afghanistan are producing Nitrogen Based Fertilizers no one stops that going into Afghanistan from those countries…Pakistan is not the only source of C4 or nitrates.

    • sturkman  On April 13, 2012 at 10:20 pm

      Yeah, but Pakistan Military is the only financier, Weapons Supplier and protector of Taliban. Why would it not import Am. Nitrate to supply its dear MojaahiDeenay Islam if Pakistan does not produce enough?

      • Fahad Alie  On June 9, 2012 at 6:43 am

        any documentary proof or it is just a story told to you by your mother’s boy friend??? or in fact that boyfriend was from Talibans?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 96 other followers

%d bloggers like this: