What's new

22 killed in US missile strike in N Waziristan

India is happy as per pakistan droons go. The reason is India is traditional enimy of india. So all illegal forces of pakistan which were fighting against India now focus on new enimy to fight. Even records show this.....Also this incidents will ensure pakistan on war field and always project pakistan is not safe for investment....definitely reduced economical growth..

I like Pakistan to comeout. They dont have better chance than now. Obama is new..Pakistan rep in US told that pakistan options are open if US doesnt show positive attitude.

Obama clearly said in his campain about attacking pakistan. He wants permanent base. As per me there is no way pakistan can avoid it unless it cuts the ties

Pakistan is a country with 500 billion $ GDP. F ** K off US peanuts of 7-8 billion $. Take out your army and put them near india border. Let US have fun with taliban.






Pakistan

i do understand y u dont mind that.

the only thing which pakistan needs to deal with US is strong will. and that is wat our leaders really lack. last person who had that was Bhutto.
pakistan cannot simply pull out her army and deploy them near indian border. we have got a problem on our western border but that can only be solved once we make US start respecting our borders.
 
US CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY FORCES: Covert warriors

Andrew Koch is JDW Bureau Chief - Washington, DC

The little-known activities of the CIA paramilitary forces involve fighting secret battles on behalf of the 'war on terrorism'. Moves are under way to increase this covert military punch, writes Andrew Koch

Qaed Senyan al-Harthi (also known as Abu Ali) never knew what hit him. One minute the suspected Al-Qaeda operative and five accomplices were driving along in the Yemeni desert, the next an AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missile fired from a Predator unmanned air vehicle turned their vehicle into a smouldering ruin.

The operation that caused Abu Ali's demise was part of a new US strategy to strike terrorists around the world. That strategy has sought to deny terrorists safehaven, and, as one senior US official described it, "get them moving" in the hopes that operational security mistakes would be made.

But whether Ali's downfall was due to lax operational security or good intelligence, the strike that killed him was carefully planned and implemented by the secret warriors who form the sword-wielding arm of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Called the Special Activities (SA) Division, these CIA paramilitary forces along with covert special operations force (SOF) units are fighting a clandestine 'war on terrorism', details of which are rarely seen or acknowledged.

The Yemen attack is the exception that demonstrates the rule. Since the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, the US has conducted covert SOF and paramilitary missions against suspected terrorists around the world from Afghanistan and Colombia to Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia and Yemen.

They are also active in Iraq. According to US military sources, CIA and SOF forces have travelled in and out of the country's northern and western areas since at least late last year. Those forces are scouting for ballistic-missile launchers and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites, monitoring oil wells, looking for potential Iraqi defectors and organising Kurdish guerrilla forces for operations if there is an armed conflict.

Some Kurdish politicians are also being organised for their role in post-war reconstruction, mostly by the time-tested CIA tactic of buying loyalty.

But it is in Afghanistan where the SA, part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, has played its most significant role. They were the first US forces sent to the country, smoothing the way for SOF and other military personnel that would follow. Working in small teams of not more than a dozen people, they organised anti-Taliban efforts, often by bribing local warlords; provided intelligence on targets the military would later strike during the air campaign; and prepared landing zones and safehouses for the follow-on SOF personnel. The CIA gave out "bags of cash" while organising Afghan resistance to the Taliban, one official said, estimating the value of the effort at over $50 million.

The CIA personnel built on the agency's year of experience in Afghanistan and contacts with local leaders. As James Pravitt, CIA Deputy Director of Operations, explained earlier this year: "The first American team on the ground out there was CIA - for a reason. We had people with the right local languages, we had people with the right local contacts, and the right universal skills - the ability both to report conditions and, if need be, to change them for the better." The agency has received much public acclaim for this performance in Afghanistan, but the very survival of its secret SA units was in doubt less than a decade ago. By the end of the Cold War the CIA had largely scrapped its covert-action capabilities, especially its paramilitary forces.

According to an agency document, by 1993 the Special Activities Division, then called the Special Activities Staff, had declined to a staff of 190 personnel overseeing a $70 million budget. That changed, starting in July 1997, when Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet took the agency's helm and the SA and other covert-action units began to grow again. The 'war on terrorism' has accelerated that trend, although the unit is still estimated to have no more than "several hundred" operators in the field - perhaps three times the 1993 total. As Pravitt notes: "You simply cannot create overnight the combination of assets - the talent, the sources, that went into the highest possible gear in defence of America after 11 September."

CIA versus military

The growth of the CIA-SA has left some senior Department of Defense (DoD) officials wondering why they are not military missions. Moreover, they asked, why did the military, with its extensive SOF capabilities, have to rely on the CIA to prepare the ground in Afghanistan for the introduction of US military forces? One senior intelligence official noted the agency's views on such a division of labour, explaining that CIA operators can deploy "in days" rather than the weeks it can take the military.

But, he added, the agency cannot sustain that presence for long periods of time due to their limited number of operational personnel. In many instances the CIA sees its role as going in first to prepare the way for SOF/military units to take over.

This, several DoD sources said, worries Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld because CIA operatives could start a conflict that the Pentagon would have to finish. Rather than have this happen, they said, Rumsfeld is seeking to increase the size and capabilities of SOFs capable of fighting a covert war to disrupt, interdict, capture or kill terrorists around the world (Jane's Defence Weekly 15 January).

The newly reinforced SOFs would report to Rumsfeld not Tenet. The plans are for specialised military units to play a greater role in intelligence-gathering, special reconnaissance, and what is called "direct action", a euphemism for clandestine paramilitary operations such as that which killed Abu Ali.

A number of proposals are being floated in the DoD to increase this covert military punch, although none has been approved yet. One, forwarded by the Defense Science Board (DSB), recommends creating "a new elite Counter-Terrorism Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group" (JDW 6 November 2002).

Comprising personnel with highly specialised skills including covert action, special operations, information operations, intelligence- gathering and deception, the group would report to a specially designated co-ordinator on the National Security Council. At the same time, the study recommended the DoD and CIA "increase emphasis on counter-terrorism covert action to gain close target access".

Increasing DoD capabilities to conduct covert missions might be feasible in some situations, the CIA argues, but any increased SOF role in secret missions abroad would be complementary to, not competing with, the agency's activities. As the senior intelligence official noted, "there are some countries in the world where the DoD cannot easily go into".

This is due to the visibility military forces have that could carry serious political consequences for host countries with which the US is not at war.

Small-scale civilian CIA teams can better conduct missions in such circumstances, the official argued, because they have a better ability and network to blend in. They also offer political cover due to the absence of uniforms and of public US government recognition that provides a degree of plausible deniability. Still, the official said, "when the military enters in, the agency takes on a support role".

Specialisation

To conduct such missions, Rumsfeld is likely to turn to a small number of secret military units associated with the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, which sources said is "considerably bigger in terms of operators" than the CIA-SA. These personnel already possess the requisite skills and specialisation in counter-terrorism (hostage rescue, close-combat operations, covert action) and counter-proliferation (including materiel interdiction missions).

JSOC units include the army's 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta, commonly known as Delta Force. Specialising in counter-terrorism missions such as hostage rescues, as well as a growing counter-proliferation focus, the size of the Delta Force is difficult to estimate; most military sources put it at several hundred. The navy's Sea, Air, Land (SEAL) forces also have a covert specialised unit for similar missions called the Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU). Formerly known as Seal Team 6 and based at Dam Neck, Virginia, the unit is believed to comprise no more than 400 personnel. JSOC may further include a special aviation unit, possibly part of the army's160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, but few details are available.

A final group, which together with Deltas and DEVGRU personnel could form the core of any increased DoD role in covert counter-terrorist operations over the short term, is a highly classified army intelligence unit once called the Intelligence Support Activity (ISA).

Now believed to be known as Grey Fox - the unit conducts covert operations, infiltration, direct action, signals intelligence, and other close-in intelligence collection that is separate from both the regular intelligence community and SOF, although the exact nature of its relations with the latter is unclear.

Said to be "several hundred" strong at most - members of the unit took part in SOF/CIA efforts to grab Bosnian-Serb war criminals in the Balkans during the late-1990s, several former US officials said.

Despite these groups' capabilities, at least one former senior counter-terrorism official questioned the wisdom of increasing the military's counter-terrorism role if it came at the expense of the CIA. Units from JSOC, the official said, are very well trained for 'taking down' aircraft hijackers and rescuing hostages, but asking them to conduct global interdiction missions of terrorists would be "a dramatically different role".

The official also said that despite great proficiency by JSOC forces because of their very rigorous training, before Afghanistan they had little operational experience because the US military leadership had become averse to using special operations for covert missions. For example, the Clinton administration wanted to use SOF more extensively in the Balkans to go after war criminals, but met resistance at the DoD, with many requests for using JSOC personnel in "direct action" roles having been declined.

All CIA-SA personnel have a broad array of military and special-purpose kit available; the most publicised are Hellfire-armed Predators. Both JSOC and the CIA-SA forces, for example, were seen using Mi-8 and Mi-17 helicopters and non-traditional aircraft in Afghanistan.

Either force could use US Air Force Special Operations Command's 6th Special Operations Squadron (6 SOS) aircraft, depending on the mission. The 6 SOS operates Mi-17 and Mi-8 helicopters and other foreign-built aircraft.

And while the unit primarily conducts foreign internal defence and training missions, "the squadron can also function in a direct-execution role", the command says.

Their capabilities in this regard include support for SOF missions such as exfiltration/ infiltration, resupply, and airdrops from both fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft. The CIA-SA also has its own fleet of aircraft, often with civilian markings.

The CIA's fleet includes foreign-built aviation assets as well as specialised Gulfstream and Boeing 757 aircraft often leased through front companies.

Equipment is not the only area these forces share resources. Many of the CIA-SA personnel come from JSOC units - either through the recruitment of retired SOFs or active troops on detail from the DoD.

The CIA-SA had just over 100 personnel deployed to Afghanistan, slightly more than the number of SOFs that are understood to have been detailed to the CIA for the Afghan operations because the agency did not have enough paramilitary personnel available.

In all, US SOFs totalled fewer than 500 personnel during US-led Operation 'Enduring Freedom' (OEF), according to Marshall Billingslea, the DoD's head of the office for Special Operations and Low Intensive Conflict.

SOFs are still in Afghanistan working to track down Taliban and Al-Qaeda remnants, while CIA-SA personnel are conducting a similar mission in Pakistan and Afghanistan, US officials say.

CIA-SA operatives worked in tandem with their SOF counterparts during 'Enduring Freedom'.

Many of the small specialised SOF teams that proved crucial during OEF included a CIA-SA operative, and more SA forces were detailed to both regional planning cells as well as US Central Command, to whom they reported for that conflict.

But despite these operational links, US military sources complained that the two groups experienced co-ordination and interoperability difficulties, particularly early in the conflict.

Some senior DoD officials, for example, have complained that they were not always informed about what the CIA forces were doing nor were regular non-SOF troops well informed about their counterparts' activities.

Such complaints concerning interoperability and communications may be true at the headquarters level in Washington, one intelligence official noted, but it is not the case among the operators.

During OEF "there [was] a total visibility between military planners at the [regional combatant commander]-level and agency planners for covert action on how to integrate their respective roles and missions", the official said. "The information goes to the most sensitive operations. There is nothing kept from [the combatant commanders]."

Still, the official said, the CIA has been looking to improve interoperability and information flow with US military forces to allow more people in the field to obtain agency data quickly. In attempting one technical effort, the CIA attempted to utilise the military's communications infrastructure by using the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System.

New policies and procedures are also being implemented based on the lessons of OEF. Such co-operation "is unprecedented but that is going to be growing in the future as part of the global 'war on terrorism'...The relationship that [Special Operations Command] is developing with the CIA will only grow with time", the official noted.

Sources familiar with both the covert SOF and CIA units also note that overcoming inter- operability challenges requires additional effort despite plans already being in place.

These challenges, the sources said, are due more to policy, doctrine and tactics than equipment issues.

For example, military forces including specialised SOF units tend to be creatures of habit, and their doctrine, tactics, techniques and procedures well-developed and exercised.

Others they may co-operate with, however, such as CIA and especially foreign government personnel, do not follow these procedures, forcing the SOF to improvise. "Sometimes it works out well, but other times not so great," one source said, "mostly because [of] this lack of practised co-ordination."
 
And I seriously thought Obama said during his speech at the inaugeration: We will approach the Muslim world humble and with respect, we will reach a hand out to them and we will do whatever we can to ensure mutual interests blablablabla"

So much for his speech.
 
Deadly missiles strike Pakistan

Two missile attacks from suspected US drones have killed 14 people in north-western Pakistan, officials say.

At least one missile hit a house in a village near the town of Mirali in North Waziristan, a stronghold of al-Qaeda and Taleban militants.

A second suspected drone attack has been reported in South Waziristan, killing five people.

Pakistan has long argued that such strikes are counter-productive and are a violation of its sovereignty.

These are the first drone attacks since Barack Obama was inaugurated as US president on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, two security personnel were killed when a suicide bomber rammed his vehicle into a military checkpoint in the Fizzagat area of the Swat Valley in north-western Pakistan.

Swat plays host to frequent battles between the Pakistani army and Islamic militants trying to enforce a strict form of Islamic law set down by Mullah Fazlullah, a radical cleric.

'Militants killed'

The first drone attack struck a house owned by a man called Khalil Khan in the village of Zeerakai at 1700 local time.

Four Arab militants were killed in the strikes, officials said. Their identities were not immediately clear but officials said one was a senior al-Qaeda operative.

The second attack was aimed at the house of a Taleban commander about 10km (six miles) from the town of Wanna, local reports said.

But officials told the BBC that the drone actually hit the house of a pro-government tribal leader, killing him and four members of his family.

More than 20 attacks have been carried out from drones on targets in north-western Pakistan in recent months, sparking protests from Pakistan's government.

On Thursday, President Obama appointed Richard Holbrooke as special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, having promised that his administration would continue to tackle the threats posed by extremists in both countries.

Earlier on Friday, a roadside bomb exploded on the outskirts of Mingora town as a security patrol was passing.

Eyewitnesses said the security forces opened fire and killed three passers-by, but the security forces denied being responsible for the deaths.

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Deadly missiles strike Pakistan

These missle strikes will only make the militants stronger...its going to cause anger and we may lose pro-government locals to the militants.
 
"are you referring to the CIA article above."

Exactly.

Googled the title and author without success. Always a bad sign. I was hoping you knew some black magic but alas!

Cool. No worries. I'm all over protecting copyright. Guys work just as hard putting words together as machines. They deserve protection too (end of gratuitous and unnecessary peripheral rant:lol:)
 
Deadly missiles strike Pakistan

Two missile attacks from suspected US drones have killed 14 people in north-western Pakistan, officials say.

At least one missile hit a house in a village near the town of Mirali in North Waziristan, a stronghold of al-Qaeda and Taleban militants.

A second suspected drone attack has been reported in South Waziristan, killing five people.

Pakistan has long argued that such strikes are counter-productive and are a violation of its sovereignty.

These are the first drone attacks since Barack Obama was inaugurated as US president on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, two security personnel were killed when a suicide bomber rammed his vehicle into a military checkpoint in the Fizzagat area of the Swat Valley in north-western Pakistan.

Swat plays host to frequent battles between the Pakistani army and Islamic militants trying to enforce a strict form of Islamic law set down by Mullah Fazlullah, a radical cleric.

'Militants killed'

The first drone attack struck a house owned by a man called Khalil Khan in the village of Zeerakai at 1700 local time.

Four Arab militants were killed in the strikes, officials said. Their identities were not immediately clear but officials said one was a senior al-Qaeda operative.

The second attack was aimed at the house of a Taleban commander about 10km (six miles) from the town of Wanna, local reports said.

But officials told the BBC that the drone actually hit the house of a pro-government tribal leader, killing him and four members of his family.

More than 20 attacks have been carried out from drones on targets in north-western Pakistan in recent months, sparking protests from Pakistan's government.

On Thursday, President Obama appointed Richard Holbrooke as special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, having promised that his administration would continue to tackle the threats posed by extremists in both countries.

Earlier on Friday, a roadside bomb exploded on the outskirts of Mingora town as a security patrol was passing.

Eyewitnesses said the security forces opened fire and killed three passers-by, but the security forces denied being responsible for the deaths.

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Deadly missiles strike Pakistan

These missle strikes will only make the militants stronger...its going to cause anger and we may lose pro-government locals to the militants.

This is the issue. Nek mohammed too we had peace deals with and we had peace deal with him and was not attacking our troops and we were completely at ease. We had a deal with him that we would leave him alone and he would leave us and not harm Pakistanis. Then in US strike he was killed for no apparent reason and who came... Same bastard CIA agent Baitullah Meshud who killed thousands of innocent civilians in Pakistan. Remember Baitullah is the chief of tehreek e taliban pakistan. He is like Usama Bin Laden for us. The ace of spades. These airstrikes on pro pakistani elders make it more harder for these elders to be freinds with pakistan because they know Pakistan will not protect them from american strikes and then they decide to side with the taliban instead. With death of nek mohammed this has been going on and we are having difficulty explaining our position...

Also check this out. It raises several of the questions in my mind:


US told not to back terrorism against Pakistan


KARACHI: Pakistan has complained to the United States military leadership and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that Washington’s policy towards terrorism in Pakistan was inconsistent with America’s declared commitment to the war against terror.

Impeccable official sources have said that strong evidence and circumstantial evidence of American acquiescence to terrorism inside Pakistan was outlined by President Pervez Musharraf, Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani and Director General Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt. Gen. Nadeem Taj in their separate meetings with US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen and CIA Deputy Director Stephen R Kappes on July 12 in Rawalpindi.

The visit by the senior US military official along with the CIA deputy director — carrying what were seen as India-influenced intelligence inputs — hardened the resolve of Pakistanís security establishment to keep supreme Pakistan’s national security interest even if it meant straining ties with the US and Nato.

A senior official with direct knowledge of these meetings said that Pakistan’s military leadership and the president asked the American visitors “not to distinguish between a terrorist for the United States and Afghanistan and a terrorist for Pakistan”.

For reasons best known to Langley, the CIA headquarters, as well as the Pentagon, Pakistani officials say the Americans were not interested in disrupting the Kabul-based fountainhead of terrorism in Balochistan nor do they want to allocate the marvellous predator resource to neutralise the kingpin of suicide bombings against the Pakistani military establishment now hiding near the Pak-Afghan border.

In the strongest evidence-based confrontation with the American security establishment since the two countries established their post-9/11 strategic alliance, Pakistani officials proved Brahamdagh Bugti’s presence in Afghan intelligence safe houses in Kabul, his photographed visits to New Delhi and his orders for terrorism in Balochistan.

The top US military commander and the CIA official were also asked why the CIA-run predator and the US military did not swing into action when they were provided the exact location of Baitullah Mehsud, Pakistan’s enemy number one and the mastermind of almost every suicide operation against the Pakistan Army and the ISI since June 2006.Notice they leave a killer of 1000-1500 Pakistanis alone but a man that is open about american occupation of afghanistan and the damage caused is not spared

One such precise piece of information was made available to the CIA on May 24 when Baitullah Mehsud drove to a remote South Waziristan mountain post in his Toyota Land Cruiser to address the press and returned back to his safe abode. The United States military has the capacity to direct a missile to a precise location at very short notice as it has done close to 20 times in the last few years to hit al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistan.

Pakistani official have long been intrigued by the presence of highly encrypted communications gear with Baitullah Mehsud. This communication gear enables him to collect real-time information on Pakistani troop movement from an unidentified foreign source without being intercepted by Pakistani intelligence.
(We dont understand how they can moniter our communications!)

Admiral Mullen and the CIA official were in Pakistan on an unannounced visit on July 12 to show what the US media claimed was evidence of the ISI’s ties to†Taliban commander Maulana Sirajuddin Haqqani and the alleged involvement of Pakistani agents in the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul.

Pakistani military leaders rubbished the American information and evidence on the Kabul bombing but provided some rationale for keeping a window open with Haqqani, just as the British government had decided to open talks with some Taliban leaders in southern Afghanistan last year.

Before opening new channels of communication with the Taliban in Helmand province in March this year, the British and Nato forces were talking to leading Taliban leaders through†Michael Semple, the acting head of the European Union mission to Afghanistan, and Mervyn Patterson, a senior UN official, before their unprecedented expulsion from Afghanistan by the Karzai government†in January this year.

The American visitors were also told that the government of Pakistan had to seek the help of Taliban commanders such as Sirajuddin Haqqani for the release of its kidnapped ambassador Tariquddin Aziz, after the US-backed Karzai administration failed to secure Aziz’s release from his captors in Afghanistan.

Admiral Mullen and Kappes were both provided information about the activities of the Indian consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad and were asked how the CIA does not know that both Indian consulates are manned by Indian Intelligence who plot against Pakistan round the clock.

“ We wanted to know when our American friends would get interested in tracking down the terrorists responsible for hundreds of suicide bombings in Pakistan and those playing havoc with our natural resources in Balochistan while sitting in Kabul and Delhi,”, an official described the Pakistani mood during the July 12 meetings. (Do note BLA and BRA are not terrorist organizations in US, many of there members raise hell in USA)

Throughout their meetings, the Americans were told that Pakistan would like to continue as an active partner in the war against terror and at no cost would it allow its land to be used by our people to plot terror against Afghanistan or India . However, Pakistan would naturally want the United States, India and Afghanistan to refrain from supporting Pakistani terrorists.

Pakistani officials have said that the current “trust deficit” between the Pakistani and US security establishment is not serious enough to lead to a collapse , but the element of suspicion is very high, more so because of† the CIA’s decision to publicise the confidential exchange of information with Pakistan and to use its leverage with the new government to try to arm-twist the Army and the ISI.

The Pakistani security establishment, officials said, want a fresh round of strategic dialogue with their counterparts in the US, essentially to prioritise the objectives and terrorist targets in the war against terror, keeping in mind the serious national security interests of the allies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
2 U.S. Airstrikes Offer a Concrete Sign of Obama's Pakistan Policy

By R. Jeffrey Smith, Candace Rondeaux and Joby Warrick

Washington Post Staff Writers

Saturday, January 24, 2009; Page A01

Two remote U.S. missile strikes that killed at least 20 people at suspected terrorist hideouts in northwestern Pakistan yesterday offered the first tangible sign of President Obama's commitment to sustained military pressure on the terrorist groups there, even though Pakistanis broadly oppose such unilateral U.S. actions.

The shaky Pakistani government of Asif Ali Zardari has expressed hopes for warm relations with Obama, but members of Obama's new national security team have already telegraphed their intention to make firmer demands of Islamabad than the Bush administration, and to back up those demands with a threatened curtailment of the plentiful military aid that has been at the heart of U.S.-Pakistani ties for the past three decades.

The separate strikes on two compounds, coming three hours apart and involving five missiles fired from Afghanistan-based Predator drone aircraft, were the first high-profile hostile military actions taken under Obama's four-day-old presidency. A Pakistani security official said in Islamabad that the strikes appeared to have killed at least 10 insurgents, including five foreign nationals and possibly even "a high-value target" such as a senior al-Qaeda or Taliban official.

It remained unclear yesterday whether Obama personally authorized the strike or was involved in its final planning, but military officials have previously said the White House is routinely briefed about such attacks in advance.

At his daily White House briefing, press secretary Robert Gibbs declined to answer questions about the strikes, saying, "I'm not going to get into these matters." Obama convened his first National Security Council meeting on Pakistan and Afghanistan yesterday afternoon, after the strike.

The Pakistani government, which has loudly protested some earlier strikes, was quiet yesterday. In September, U.S. and Pakistani officials reached a tacit agreement to allow such attacks to continue without Pakistani involvement, according to senior officials in both countries.


But some Pakistanis have said they expect a possibly bumpy diplomatic stretch ahead.

"Pakistan hopes that Obama will be more patient while dealing with Pakistan," Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, said in an interview Wednesday with Pakistan's Geo television network. "We will review all options if Obama does not adopt a positive policy towards us." He urged Obama to "hear us out."

At least 132 people have been killed in 38 suspected U.S. missile strikes inside Pakistan since August, all conducted by the CIA, in a ramped-up effort by the outgoing Bush administration.

Obama's August 2007 statement -- that he favored taking direct action in Pakistan against potential threats to U.S. security if Pakistani security forces do not act -- made him less popular in Pakistan than in any other Muslim nation polled before the election.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton indicated during her Senate confirmation hearing that the new administration will not relent in holding Pakistan to account for any shortfalls in the continuing battle against extremists.

Linking Pakistan with neighboring Afghanistan "on the front line of our global counterterrorism efforts," Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "we will use all the elements of our powers -- diplomacy, development and defense -- to work with those . . . who want to root out al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other violent extremists." She also said those in Pakistan who do not join the effort will pay a price, adding a distinctly new element to the long-standing U.S. effort to lure Pakistan closer to the West.

In blunt terms in her written answers to the committee's questions, Clinton pledged that Washington will "condition" future U.S. military aid on Pakistan's efforts to close down terrorist training camps and evict foreign fighters. She also demanded that Pakistan "prevent" the continued use of its historically lawless northern territories as a sanctuary by either the Taliban or al-Qaeda. And she promised that Washington would provide all the support Pakistan needs if it specifically goes after targets such as Osama bin Laden, who is believed to be using Pakistani mountains as a hideout.

At the same time, Clinton pledged to triple nonmilitary aid to Pakistan, long dwarfed by the more than $6 billion funneled to Pakistani military forces under President George W. Bush through the Pentagon's counterterrorism office in Islamabad.

"The conditioning of military aid is substantially different," as is the planned boost of economic aid, said Daniel Markey, a Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow who handled South Asian matters on the State Department's policy planning staff from 2003 to 2007.

Bush's focus on military aid to a Pakistani government that was led by an army general until August eventually drew complaints in both countries that much of the funding was spent without accountability or, instead of being used to root out terrorists, was diverted to forces intended for a potential conflict with India.

A study in 2007 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies reported that economic, humanitarian and development assistance under Bush amounted to no more than a quarter of all aid, less than in most countries.

The criticism helped provoke a group of senators who now have powerful new roles -- Joseph R. Biden Jr., Clinton and Obama -- to co-sponsor legislation last July requiring that more aid be targeted at political pluralism, the rule of law, human and civil rights, and schools, public health and agriculture.

It also would have allowed U.S. weapons sales and other military aid only if the secretary of state certified that Pakistani military forces were making "concerted efforts" to undermine al-Qaeda and the Taliban. In her confirmation statement, Clinton reiterated her support for such a legislative restructuring of the aid program, while reaffirming that she opposed any "blank check."

Some Pakistanis have been encouraged by indications that Obama intends to increase aid to the impoverished country, said Shuja Nawaz, a Pakistani who directs the South Asia Center of the Washington-based Atlantic Council of the United States. Nawaz said Pakistanis may be willing to overlook an occasional missile lobbed at foreign terrorists if Obama makes a sincere attempt to improve conditions in Pakistan.

"He can't just focus on military achievements; he has to win over the people," Nawaz said. "Relying on military strikes will not do the trick." Attaching conditions to the aid is wise, Nawaz said, because "people are more cognizant of the need for accountability -- for 'tough love.' "

Rondeaux reported from Islamabad. Special correspondent Haq Nawaz Khan in Islamabad contributed to this report.
 
This JDW article appears written before OIF. As such, we've seen considerable changes on the ground. Why have you offered this on this thread about a missile strike?

Are you suggesting that the targeting intelligence/BDA is being conducted by these guys inside your borders? I'm pretty sure that we're not operating any deep reconnaissance that's actively seeking targets-of-opportunity from which to direct PREDATOR or even moving to provide battle damage assessments of targets predicated from other intel sources.

Makes no sense and terribly difficult. I've little doubt that the bad guys, the good guys, and every armed guy in-between would KILL our guys if they got in a run-down. We've had and lost SOF teams in Afghanistan that have been swarmed and lost. We've encountered situations where despite multiple CAS strikes we were unable to suppress AAA sufficient to bring in life-saving choppers and have watched guys go down.

It would be far worse on your side. The only people that could work for us on your side of the border in FATA and do these specific missions are deep undercover and very good (I hope). Your army, the police, the taliban, A.Q., the tribes and the ISI all would like to chit-chat.

Naw. Virtually all these targets are A.Q. They're rarely people that we're REALLY interested in like Mullah Nazir and, equally, seem to rarely be of somebody YOU'RE really interested in such as Baitullah. Common ground-A.Q. Who can find and offer up A.Q.? ISI. Who can assess damage afterward and make calls/leaks to the press even though it's reported over and over again how the scene is immediately cordoned by "armed men". Come on, everybody- ISI.

We're not sending guys across and it's damn near unlikely that we've local assets so our targets are generated by technical means or human intelligence. That'd be you guys. Ain't a doubt in my bones.:agree:

Just some thoughts.

P.S.- I just thought of this. I think, despite lots of suggestions here otherwise, that we'd nail Baitullah if we could. It's simply that he very much recognizes that he's an enemy of state and isn't easily found by your people, however much you're looking for him- and I suspect that there's a considerable effort there.

I'm sure if it was passed on where he was with some certainty and we'd the means that there'd be a strike. As to the purported Baitullah miss in the past, I've noted very little comment other than the myth of us blowing off the target.

Side note all...
 
Last edited:
Are you suggesting that the targeting intelligence/BDA is being conducted by these guys inside your borders?

I am saying the other-wise. it is guys on this side of the border who are providing the human intell, coordinates for these drones to be successful. the article was posted not to offer what you said but as a backgrounder to our forum members who may not be as deeply conversant with whats going on. also note that the army wallas are quietly sitting at the co-ordination post at torkham probably back-slapping each other on a job well done!
 
I don't think Obama has ever said that he was going to stop the strikes on Pakistan. If anything operations in that theater are more than likely to increase in the coming years.
 
This JDW article appears written before OIF. As such, we've seen considerable changes on the ground. Why have you offered this on this thread about a missile strike?

I was refferring to the damages the airstrike causes. You kill pro government officials but the real terrorists who commit great crimes against humanity.

Reffering to this:
But officials told the BBC that the drone actually hit the house of a pro-government tribal leader, killing him and four members of his family.

Also decide now. Is this a was against 170 million pakistanis or is it really a war on terrorism because we all have a certain degree of anger against the united states and its policies. America needs a complete review and an end to cheap policies and double standards. Mehsud who kills 1000-1500 Pakistanis is not touched but others who kill one or 2 american soldiers here and there are the ones attacked despite peace deals and the fact that they are against the tehreek e taliban pakistan! The airstrikes are causing massive level of anger in our country which in turn results in Pakistanis being killed by jihadi suicide bombers who can justify their idiotic ideals with illeterate masses. That Pakistanis are being slaughtered ofcourse does not matter to USA and its terrorist policies but it can be used to make talibani terrorists even stronger which can be dangerous. Basically even the pro pakistani elders we have deals with are not safe. It may result in the entire region erupting against USA.

Pro government elders are forming lashkers to strike at Taliban currently. Sadly they are being attacked. The war on terror is going to fail until USA reassesses its policies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think Obama has ever said that he was going to stop the strikes on Pakistan. If anything operations in that theater are more than likely to increase in the coming years.

increase before they decrease!
 
P.S.- I just thought of this. I think, despite lots of suggestions here otherwise, that we'd nail Baitullah if we could. It's simply that he very much recognizes that he's an enemy of state and isn't easily found by your people, however much you're looking for him- and I suspect that there's a considerable effort there.

I'm sure if it was passed on where he was with some certainty and we'd the means that there'd be a strike. As to the purported Baitullah miss in the past, I've noted very little comment other than the myth of us blowing off the target.

BM is not in FATA. he is recuperating in Quetta!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom