What's new

Bush to warn Pakistan on combating militants

Regal

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
Bush to warn Pakistan on combating militants

President George W. Bush has decided to send an unusually tough message to Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf warning that the new Democratic-led Congress could cut aid to his country unless it does more to crack down on al Qaeda operatives, The New York Times reported on Sunday.

The decision came after the White House concluded that Musharraf, a key ally in Washington's "War on Terror," was not living up to commitment he made to Bush in September to combat militant groups, the newspaper said, citing senior administration officials.

Pakistan says it is doing all it can to stop militants infiltrating Afghanistan, but the U.S. military says cross-border attacks around the Afghan frontier increased sharply last year.

U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that the terrorist infrastructure was being rebuilt, and that while Pakistan has attacked some camps, its overall effort has flagged, The New York Times reported.

"He's made a number of assurances over the past few months, but the bottom line is that what they are doing now is not working," one senior administration official told the newspaper. "The message we're sending to him now is that the only thing that matters is results."

"We think the Pakistani aid is at risk in Congress," said the official, who did not want to be identified.

The House of Representatives recently adopted a bill requiring Bush to certify Pakistan is making "all possible efforts" to prevent the Taliban from operating in areas under its sovereign control as a condition of continued U.S. military aid. The Senate was considering a response to pressure Islamabad to do more combat militant groups.

Pakistan receives about $850 million annually in U.S. economic, military and counternarcotics aid and about $350 million of that could be affected by the House bill, congressional experts say.

Under Musharraf, Pakistan became a key ally after the September 11 attacks by withdrawing its support for the Taliban government, sharing intelligence with U.S. officials and rounding up suspected Islamic militants.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070226/ts_nm/pakistan_usa_report_dc_2
 
Vice President Cheney appears to be the messenger seeing as he is in Pakistan for talks according to a BBC news report.

Valid point though concerning democrats in power.
 
DOES THE GUY WANT US TO START USINF TACTICAL NUKES OR SOMETHING? HOW ABOUT NORMAL NUKES ON THEAFGHAN-PAK BORDER???????????
 
All I have to say is that Pakistan is doing a lousy job in letting the world know about ground realities. If we “Americans” can’t police Iraq, and can’t control the shoot and run tactic of the local Iraqis then how can Pakistan achieve the same objectives with limited recourses and less sophisticated hardware (Compared to NATO or America) in a much harsh terrain. I think we need to give more financial as well as moral support to Musharraf government, because the problem is not as simple as it might seem. Its battle of wills, and at the end persistence will prevail. :agree:
 
If we “Americans” can’t police Iraq, and can’t control the shoot and run tactic of the local Iraqis then how can Pakistan achieve the same objectives with limited recourses and less sophisticated hardware (Compared to NATO or America) in a much harsh terrain.

You are comparing the entire Iraq with just a small part(as compare to a country) of our side :rolleyes::rolleyes:

as far US Bush warnings hmmmmmmmmmm whats new about it. They do it whenever they are questioned by their own people about the entire mess they had created for innocent US citizens.
 
Pakistan is fighting a well trained and well honed enemy whose original adversary was the Soviet 40th army of 100 thousand men.

The Soviet Union used indiscriminate tactics such as destroying Villages with helicopter gunships.

As we all know they failed to complete their ultimate objective.

If 32,000 NATO troops backed up by the most up to date weaponary can't handle the situation then why is Pakistan being lambasted for Western Failure?

From the perspective of living in the UK the impression I have is that because the Politicians war is failing they need someone to blame aka Pakistan.

Might of arms alone will not be enough to control this situation and we need to consider the consequences given the recent spate of suicide bombing across the country.

If you want to destroy the militant infrstructure use 155mm Krasnopol shells which China produces or US copperhead cannon luanched projectiles for accuracy. Nukes is a bit too overkill.
 
If 32,000 NATO troops backed up by the most up to date weaponary can't handle the situation then why is Pakistan being lambasted for Western Failure?

There is difference, US is working in foriegn land and they came in like a few years back to hunt them down.

Pakistan on the other hand, has terrorists walking free in the west who have been blowing up national assets, killing service personals and civilians.And they have been given sanctuary there by the locals .

There are a lot of contradictions in Pakistani actions.

Your govt went and had a peace deal with them stating they are "your own men" and then your gunships bombed madrassas and the last i heard was that they are planning a mojor offensive there.

Your govt seems to be scared to take on either the Americans or the talibans/tribesman.
 
If 32,000 NATO troops backed up by the most up to date weaponary can't handle the situation then why is Pakistan being lambasted for Western Failure?
They are not blaming Pakistan for their failure, they are blaming Pakistan for still allowing terrorists to flourish in their territory, and they are targetting the western countries soldiers in Iraq.
 
There is difference, US is working in foriegn land and they came in like a few years back to hunt them down.

Pakistan on the other hand, has terrorists walking free in the west who have been blowing up national assets, killing service personals and civilians.And they have been given sanctuary there by the locals .

There are a lot of contradictions in Pakistani actions.

Your govt went and had a peace deal with them stating they are "your own men" and then your gunships bombed madrassas and the last i heard was that they are planning a mojor offensive there.

Your govt seems to be scared to take on either the Americans or the talibans/tribesman.

The phrase between a rock and a hard place suddenly makes sense :lol:
 
They are not blaming Pakistan for their failure, they are blaming Pakistan for still allowing terrorists to flourish in their territory, and they are targetting the western countries soldiers in Iraq.

Take a look at images of the Border and the type of terrain that needs to be policed. I don't envy any country who makes it their mission to try and clear out those guys. In a program in the UK called dispatches a freshly bombed Taliban mountain hideout was shown still full of them despite Apaches being nearby.

With regards to the comment on age the Taliban do have alot of younger recruits from madrassas etc.

I find it really frustrating that the problem is always debated but serious action rarely occurs. There just seems to be a lack of motivation towards taking the problem seriously.
 
I find it really frustrating that the problem is always debated but serious action rarely occurs. There just seems to be a lack of motivation towards taking the problem seriously.

Its the same frustration thats simmering elsewhere in the world. You know how difficult the terrain is and still you are frustrated, imagine those people who doesnt know anything about the terrain, their frustration is going to be even more severe.
 
Its more then 1300 miles of porous border. Pakistan doesn t have enough resources to control the situation. After watching Cooper's 360 and Nick Robertson report, biggest problem is arab terrorist hiding in Afganistan.
While ago i read interesting news report about role of arab terrorist in afganistan and their arab backers. When US made proposal to construct gas line from centrl asia to gwadar Pakistan. Majority of oil producing Arab countries start supporting the arab terrorist in the region to sabotage the plan. Because once the oil pipeline will be completed, biggest losers will be Arab oil producer, lose huge chunk of revenue.
So, American should hold these Arabs from their balls. They are the biggest culprits who cause biggest unstability in Pakistan and Afganistan.
 
Its more then 1300 miles of porous border. Pakistan doesn t have enough resources to control the situation.

Agreed but I see no solution for this as long as Afganisthan remains poor also Afganisthan will remain sanctury for fundamentalist. Pakistan knowingly was fanning them till Taliban was driven out of their holes most of them were spread in Border areas and Operate from Pakistan. Given how easily Afganis mingle with nothern area this problem will be continuing for long, Secondly I see no resolution for Durand line.

Because once the oil pipeline will be completed, biggest losers will be Arab oil producer, lose huge chunk of revenue.
So, American should hold these Arabs from their balls. They are the biggest culprits who cause biggest unstability in Pakistan and Afganistan.

Its Pakistan is not a big consumer of oil just to imagine this is funny. Morever arabs have helped pakistan in peace and wartimes.
 
Back
Top Bottom