Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
Well if Jewish and Hindu Zionists come togather what you expect from them
Other then Islam/Pakistan bashing.FLASH: ADMIRAL MULLEN
- Thread starter fatman17
- Start date
Well if Jewish and Hindu Zionists come togather what you expect from them
Other then Islam/Pakistan bashing.
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
Now coming back to the topic. Gates today said that US will do whatever yanks thinks is good for them means they are not going to halt attacks on Pakistani areas.
So guys what you think what option we are having in such a situation where you have not to stir the situation and at the same time respond to their attacks??
Forward your suggestions in bullet form so that we can play our role too being Pakistanis.
So guys what you think what option we are having in such a situation where you have not to stir the situation and at the same time respond to their attacks??
Forward your suggestions in bullet form so that we can play our role too being Pakistanis.
* US deputy secretary of state says co-operative efforts best way forward
* Hopes stability will follow Pakistans political transition
* Hopes stability will follow Pakistans political transition
WASHINGTON: Admitting that unilateral action in Pakistani territory is not a viable long-term solution to the security situation along the Pak-Afghan border, United States Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte has said co-operative efforts by the anti-terrorism partners provide the best way forward.
According to a transcript of his briefing in Hong Kong released by the State Department on Thursday, he saw a very important relationship between the US and Pakistan with regard to security and stability in the South Asian region and said he hoped for things to stabilise after Pakistans political transition.
I would say, looking to the future what we want to do is work more collaboratively with the government of Pakistan to see what we can do together on a collaborative basis to try and improve the security situation in that border region.
Unilateral actions are probably not a durable or a viable solution over a prolonged period of time and I think the best way forward for both of our countries is to try to deal with the situation in that border area on a co-operative basis co-operative both between the United States and Pakistan, but also with the country of Afghanistan. So I would say trilateral cooperation, if you will, is probably the best way forward, he said.
Negropontes remarks on Wednesday came as US military commander Admiral Mike Mullen, on a visit to Islamabad, reiterated that the US respected Pakistans sovereignty. A unilateral strike into a part of the tribal areas the same day drew strong criticism from Pakistan.
Political transition: In his remarks, Negroponte also said Pakistan was going through a political transition at the moment which hopefully things will begin to stabilise in that regard going forward, and there have been issues about the degree to which Pakistan has been able or not been able to control ... the region bordering on Afghanistan, which of course is not only of importance to the stability of Afghanistan, but also directly relevant to the security of our own forces that operate in Afghanistan.
The US official claimed the problems in Pakistans Federally Administered Tribal Areas on the border and Afghanistan were interlinked.
Pakistans civilian and military leaders strongly condemned a US ground incursion into a Pakistani border village in South Waziristan on September 3, saying the raid was a violation of the countrys sovereignty and would prove counter-productive in the fight against terrorism. app
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
^^^ It seems Gareth Porter's analysis was on spot, and Muse made similar observations a week or so ago as well..
The SOCOM-CIA and USCOM in Afghanistan vs State Department-CENTCOM struggle over policy has in my view ended with the latter being vindicated.
No guarantees on what policy will be longterm, especially with a new administration coming in, but a potentially positive reversal for now.
The SOCOM-CIA and USCOM in Afghanistan vs State Department-CENTCOM struggle over policy has in my view ended with the latter being vindicated.
No guarantees on what policy will be longterm, especially with a new administration coming in, but a potentially positive reversal for now.
Last edited:
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
We had said that one of the ways in which a poor military situation is countered is escalation or surge - what do you of this (BTW we are not "pros") :
All change in the US's Afghan mission
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
KARACHI - The direct costs of the seven-year "war on terror", which includes operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, have reached US$752 billion, if the current year's appropriation of $188 billion is included, according to the non-partisan US Congressional Budget Office.
With the situation in Afghanistan further than ever from being settled, the US response, much like the financial crisis, is to throw more money and resources at the problem.
US General David McKiernan, who commands the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's) forces in Afghanistan, said after a meeting in Afghanistan with US Defense Secretary Robert Gates this week that he needed a permanent increase in troop levels and other assets such as reconnaissance planes.
Although President George W Bush has said he will send an additional brigade (4,000 to 5,000 troops), McKiernan said he needed three brigades beyond that "to counter the increasing violence and speed up progress in the war". There are currently about 33,000 US troops in the country and if McKiernan gets his way, potentially more than 20,000 troops could be added once support units are counted.
Gates said the George W Bush administration was considering possible changes in its war strategy in Afghanistan, without going into detail. The Independent of London has reported that the US is pushing for sweeping changes to the military command structure in Afghanistan, so the head of international forces reports directly to US Central Command (CENTCOM) instead of NATO.
The newspaper reported that one possibility under consideration was for NATO to continue to be in charge of logistics, force protection and public affairs, while direct counter-insurgency operations would be run from CENTCOM by General David Petraeus, who now oversees US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
From the US perspective, seven years after the invasion that toppled the Taliban, progress and speed are certainly needed in this very costly war.
Independent Western think-tanks paint a picture in which the Taliban have a presence in over 54% of the country, including all the important towns around the capital Kabul.
The influential international policy think-tank the Senlis Council reported recently, "Research this summer shows that over half of Wardak province - which neighbors Logar province, and is just 45 minutes from Kabul by road - is under Taliban control, according to local Afghans. This information was gathered by Senlis Council researchers in June 2008, and is proof of the Taliban's resurgence in and around the capital, as well as in their southern and eastern heartlands."
Asia Times Online has reported on Taliban preparations to reach Kabul and its surroundings (Taliban have Kabul in their sights February 27, 2008).
Taliban activities in Wardak are recorded in a recently released video by the Taliban's newly formed media organ, al-Samood. Footage shows camouflaged Taliban fighters on the main highway into the capital attacking a NATO supply convoy, driving around in captured Afghan police vehicles, ferrying ammunition and making preparations for a raid.
Neither the NATO military spokesperson in Kabul nor the Afghan presidential spokesperson responded to Asia Times Online's requests for comment on the video and the security situation around the capital.
The war theater expands
Given the lack of progress in Afghanistan, the US is actively taking the war into Pakistan, where the Taliban have sanctuaries in swathes of the tribal areas across the border.
Admiral Mike Mullen, on his fifth visit to Pakistan since he became chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff a year ago, on Tuesday tried to reassure Islamabad that the US would respect Pakistan's sovereignty. But the very next day there was a further Predator drone missile attack in South Waziristan in which it was claimed that a pile of the Taliban's rockets had been hit. This follows several other drone missions over the past few weeks and an operation by US special forces that killed about 15 people.
The Pentagon says Pakistan's military and civilian government are onboard with the missile attacks, a claim Pakistan dismisses.
Either way, the US incursions have unprecedented unity between local tribesmen, the Taliban and the rank-and-file Pakistani security forces deployed on the border regions. Tribal sources tell Asia Times Online that the next time American ground forces venture into Pakistan they will meet stiff opposition from these now-combined forces.
All change in the US's Afghan mission
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
KARACHI - The direct costs of the seven-year "war on terror", which includes operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, have reached US$752 billion, if the current year's appropriation of $188 billion is included, according to the non-partisan US Congressional Budget Office.
With the situation in Afghanistan further than ever from being settled, the US response, much like the financial crisis, is to throw more money and resources at the problem.
US General David McKiernan, who commands the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's) forces in Afghanistan, said after a meeting in Afghanistan with US Defense Secretary Robert Gates this week that he needed a permanent increase in troop levels and other assets such as reconnaissance planes.
Although President George W Bush has said he will send an additional brigade (4,000 to 5,000 troops), McKiernan said he needed three brigades beyond that "to counter the increasing violence and speed up progress in the war". There are currently about 33,000 US troops in the country and if McKiernan gets his way, potentially more than 20,000 troops could be added once support units are counted.
Gates said the George W Bush administration was considering possible changes in its war strategy in Afghanistan, without going into detail. The Independent of London has reported that the US is pushing for sweeping changes to the military command structure in Afghanistan, so the head of international forces reports directly to US Central Command (CENTCOM) instead of NATO.
The newspaper reported that one possibility under consideration was for NATO to continue to be in charge of logistics, force protection and public affairs, while direct counter-insurgency operations would be run from CENTCOM by General David Petraeus, who now oversees US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
From the US perspective, seven years after the invasion that toppled the Taliban, progress and speed are certainly needed in this very costly war.
Independent Western think-tanks paint a picture in which the Taliban have a presence in over 54% of the country, including all the important towns around the capital Kabul.
The influential international policy think-tank the Senlis Council reported recently, "Research this summer shows that over half of Wardak province - which neighbors Logar province, and is just 45 minutes from Kabul by road - is under Taliban control, according to local Afghans. This information was gathered by Senlis Council researchers in June 2008, and is proof of the Taliban's resurgence in and around the capital, as well as in their southern and eastern heartlands."
Asia Times Online has reported on Taliban preparations to reach Kabul and its surroundings (Taliban have Kabul in their sights February 27, 2008).
Taliban activities in Wardak are recorded in a recently released video by the Taliban's newly formed media organ, al-Samood. Footage shows camouflaged Taliban fighters on the main highway into the capital attacking a NATO supply convoy, driving around in captured Afghan police vehicles, ferrying ammunition and making preparations for a raid.
Neither the NATO military spokesperson in Kabul nor the Afghan presidential spokesperson responded to Asia Times Online's requests for comment on the video and the security situation around the capital.
The war theater expands
Given the lack of progress in Afghanistan, the US is actively taking the war into Pakistan, where the Taliban have sanctuaries in swathes of the tribal areas across the border.
Admiral Mike Mullen, on his fifth visit to Pakistan since he became chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff a year ago, on Tuesday tried to reassure Islamabad that the US would respect Pakistan's sovereignty. But the very next day there was a further Predator drone missile attack in South Waziristan in which it was claimed that a pile of the Taliban's rockets had been hit. This follows several other drone missions over the past few weeks and an operation by US special forces that killed about 15 people.
The Pentagon says Pakistan's military and civilian government are onboard with the missile attacks, a claim Pakistan dismisses.
Either way, the US incursions have unprecedented unity between local tribesmen, the Taliban and the rank-and-file Pakistani security forces deployed on the border regions. Tribal sources tell Asia Times Online that the next time American ground forces venture into Pakistan they will meet stiff opposition from these now-combined forces.
Last edited:
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Significance of the Marriott bombing
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
by Khalid Aziz
The writer is a former chief secretary of NWFP and heads the Regional Institute of Policy Research
The suicide attack on the Marriott has brought into question Pakistan's participation in the war on terrorism. In a sense the attack was the consequence of the flawed policies which permitted our territories to be used as a place of refuge by the multinational militants who fled Afghanistan after the US attacked and destroyed the Taliban government in Kabul in November 2001.
From January 2008, Pakistan began to confront the militancy in FATA more vigorously. This new military trend was heralded with the launching of operation "Zalzala," against Baitullah Mahsud and his group. This operation was in the nature of collective punishment in which homes and property worth a considerable amount were destroyed, including the main market in Kotkai Razgai.
After the Mahsud operation the insurgency situation in parts of FATA and the NWFP has aggravated considerably. The operation in Bajaur has developed into a small war and the level of violence there is greater than in past confrontations. There are a considerable number of internally displaced persons generated by this new violence. More than 300,000 people have fled from the battle zones to other parts of Pakistan. Due to the increase in collateral deaths the number of motivated tribesmen seeking revenge by joining the ranks of suicide bombers has also increased. This is probably the cause of the Marriott bombing.
On the other hand Pakistan and its ally, the US, have differences over strategy. Pakistanis are upset by the violation of its sovereignty by the US. However, it is for consideration whether we should criticize others when the militants have already usurped Pakistani sovereignty over large tracts of territory south of Kohat; it barely exists in Waziristan. Obviously the loss of control over territory means that the militants have not only obtained control over people and resources but also have the space to plan and prepare operations in Pakistan.
It is now generally acknowledged that the militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan have mastered the art of communication operations. These aim to shift the perception of Pakistanis and Islamists around the world in their favour. The Marriott bombing is in the nature of an announcement that aims to challenge official Pakistani claims of ascendency in Bajaur and Swat. It is a statement telling the Pakistani political elite that the war and the cooperation with US will cost it dear.
Let us examine some of the other aspects of the Marriott bombing. This hotel is located within a security zone, which includes national institutions like the Supreme Court, the Prime Minister's Office and Parliament. On the day of the bombing the new Pakistani president was making his inaugural address to Parliament and the assembly was packed with Pakistan's civil, military and intellectual elite. One can conclude with a high degree of certainty that the target of the suicide raid was the National Assembly. If the attempt had succeeded the loss to Pakistan would have been great. It is surmised that the failure of the militants to penetrate the security around the Parliament forced them to divert to a secondary target, which happened to be the unfortunate hotel. A more successful militant attack would obviously have spread chaos and disorder causing destabilisation in Pakistan.
Secondly, the attack copied a strategy followed by Al Qaeda in Iraq in the Samarra bombing. That bombing was aimed at causing a Shia-Sunni war, which would have destroyed Iraq. A similar effect would have occurred in Pakistan had the National Assembly been hit. Is there a link between the Marriott bomber and the transnational militants fighting in Khost, Paktika and Paktia provinces of Afghanistan? The existence of such a connection cannot be over ruled.
What are the likely consequences of this tragedy? First, it is clear that its impact on Pakistani people will be one of revulsion and hatred against the militants; this is the sentiment which prevails in FATA when collateral deaths are caused by Pakistani or US attacks. The sufferers are infused with hatred and wish revenge. The families of those who suffered in this attack must feel the same way. Although the militants carried out a strategic information attack but the effect on their cause is negative. It will build the resolve of Pakistanis to support their government more.
What other messages can one get from the Marriott tragedy? First, we must implement a "zero tolerance" policy on militancy of any kind. It is extremely dangerous to believe that we would benefit from distinguishing between good and bad terrorists, as Gen Musharraf did. Gen Musharraf allowed safe refuge in Waziristan to militants who fled from Afghanistan after the US attack in November 2001. By doing so Musharraf endangered Pakistan's national security. By permitting such war-hardened radicals to fraternise with Pakistani tribes permitted the establishment of a very dangerous type of social networking. It is this association which has spread the virus of militancy throughout FATA and the NWFP and could soon infect other parts of Pakistan. The Jamia Hafsa episode is yet another example of the radical type of networking reaching critical mass right in the heart of Islamabad. American political scientist Paul E Petersen has remarked that "people don't get pushed into rebellion by their ideology. They get pulled in by their social network." If Pakistan wants to move away from this self-created calamity then it needs to transform itself and reject association with proxy warriors of any kind, irrespective of any strategic advantage that they may provide.
If social networking is at the heart of terrorism then the Marriott bombing is a call to put into practice a whole range of policies to counter the anti-Pakistan social networks. It would mean the mobilisation of communities in FATA and the NWFP to protect themselves against the militants. Techniques and plans for such an approach exist and need to be examined for implementation. If one can re-occupy the national space in an average Pakistani's heart, then one could say that the country has achieved the threshold for success. One of the central principles of this approach is to address effectively the everyday problems of a poor Pakistan. In order to do so the leadership will have to become more responsive to the needs of the average Pakistani.
Furthermore, we need to re-examine our security policies related to Afghanistan, FATA and the US. One of the problems of this war is that the operations in Afghanistan are planned by the US military, the CIA and NATO. While there can be coordination between the US military, NATO and Pakistan, the same cannot be said for the CIA, which is a law unto itself. Otherwise, how else can one explain the embarrassment of the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee during his recent meeting with Pakistani authorities? At the very moment Admiral Mullen was making a commitment to the Pakistani leadership that US attacks on the country would cease, US Predators were attacking Waziristan. To end this confusion it is essential for the US to have a single commander in Afghanistan who is in charge of both overt and covert operations. Pakistan must remain in the information loop if we want to win the war on terrorism.
Pakistan needs to carry out a security overview of lapses that occurred during the Marriott bombing. Security was woefully poor and badly compromised. It is time that we emphasised the protection of the people of Pakistan. Only then will we succeed in meeting this challenge.
Email: azizkhalid **********
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
by Khalid Aziz
The writer is a former chief secretary of NWFP and heads the Regional Institute of Policy Research
The suicide attack on the Marriott has brought into question Pakistan's participation in the war on terrorism. In a sense the attack was the consequence of the flawed policies which permitted our territories to be used as a place of refuge by the multinational militants who fled Afghanistan after the US attacked and destroyed the Taliban government in Kabul in November 2001.
From January 2008, Pakistan began to confront the militancy in FATA more vigorously. This new military trend was heralded with the launching of operation "Zalzala," against Baitullah Mahsud and his group. This operation was in the nature of collective punishment in which homes and property worth a considerable amount were destroyed, including the main market in Kotkai Razgai.
After the Mahsud operation the insurgency situation in parts of FATA and the NWFP has aggravated considerably. The operation in Bajaur has developed into a small war and the level of violence there is greater than in past confrontations. There are a considerable number of internally displaced persons generated by this new violence. More than 300,000 people have fled from the battle zones to other parts of Pakistan. Due to the increase in collateral deaths the number of motivated tribesmen seeking revenge by joining the ranks of suicide bombers has also increased. This is probably the cause of the Marriott bombing.
On the other hand Pakistan and its ally, the US, have differences over strategy. Pakistanis are upset by the violation of its sovereignty by the US. However, it is for consideration whether we should criticize others when the militants have already usurped Pakistani sovereignty over large tracts of territory south of Kohat; it barely exists in Waziristan. Obviously the loss of control over territory means that the militants have not only obtained control over people and resources but also have the space to plan and prepare operations in Pakistan.
It is now generally acknowledged that the militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan have mastered the art of communication operations. These aim to shift the perception of Pakistanis and Islamists around the world in their favour. The Marriott bombing is in the nature of an announcement that aims to challenge official Pakistani claims of ascendency in Bajaur and Swat. It is a statement telling the Pakistani political elite that the war and the cooperation with US will cost it dear.
Let us examine some of the other aspects of the Marriott bombing. This hotel is located within a security zone, which includes national institutions like the Supreme Court, the Prime Minister's Office and Parliament. On the day of the bombing the new Pakistani president was making his inaugural address to Parliament and the assembly was packed with Pakistan's civil, military and intellectual elite. One can conclude with a high degree of certainty that the target of the suicide raid was the National Assembly. If the attempt had succeeded the loss to Pakistan would have been great. It is surmised that the failure of the militants to penetrate the security around the Parliament forced them to divert to a secondary target, which happened to be the unfortunate hotel. A more successful militant attack would obviously have spread chaos and disorder causing destabilisation in Pakistan.
Secondly, the attack copied a strategy followed by Al Qaeda in Iraq in the Samarra bombing. That bombing was aimed at causing a Shia-Sunni war, which would have destroyed Iraq. A similar effect would have occurred in Pakistan had the National Assembly been hit. Is there a link between the Marriott bomber and the transnational militants fighting in Khost, Paktika and Paktia provinces of Afghanistan? The existence of such a connection cannot be over ruled.
What are the likely consequences of this tragedy? First, it is clear that its impact on Pakistani people will be one of revulsion and hatred against the militants; this is the sentiment which prevails in FATA when collateral deaths are caused by Pakistani or US attacks. The sufferers are infused with hatred and wish revenge. The families of those who suffered in this attack must feel the same way. Although the militants carried out a strategic information attack but the effect on their cause is negative. It will build the resolve of Pakistanis to support their government more.
What other messages can one get from the Marriott tragedy? First, we must implement a "zero tolerance" policy on militancy of any kind. It is extremely dangerous to believe that we would benefit from distinguishing between good and bad terrorists, as Gen Musharraf did. Gen Musharraf allowed safe refuge in Waziristan to militants who fled from Afghanistan after the US attack in November 2001. By doing so Musharraf endangered Pakistan's national security. By permitting such war-hardened radicals to fraternise with Pakistani tribes permitted the establishment of a very dangerous type of social networking. It is this association which has spread the virus of militancy throughout FATA and the NWFP and could soon infect other parts of Pakistan. The Jamia Hafsa episode is yet another example of the radical type of networking reaching critical mass right in the heart of Islamabad. American political scientist Paul E Petersen has remarked that "people don't get pushed into rebellion by their ideology. They get pulled in by their social network." If Pakistan wants to move away from this self-created calamity then it needs to transform itself and reject association with proxy warriors of any kind, irrespective of any strategic advantage that they may provide.
If social networking is at the heart of terrorism then the Marriott bombing is a call to put into practice a whole range of policies to counter the anti-Pakistan social networks. It would mean the mobilisation of communities in FATA and the NWFP to protect themselves against the militants. Techniques and plans for such an approach exist and need to be examined for implementation. If one can re-occupy the national space in an average Pakistani's heart, then one could say that the country has achieved the threshold for success. One of the central principles of this approach is to address effectively the everyday problems of a poor Pakistan. In order to do so the leadership will have to become more responsive to the needs of the average Pakistani.
Furthermore, we need to re-examine our security policies related to Afghanistan, FATA and the US. One of the problems of this war is that the operations in Afghanistan are planned by the US military, the CIA and NATO. While there can be coordination between the US military, NATO and Pakistan, the same cannot be said for the CIA, which is a law unto itself. Otherwise, how else can one explain the embarrassment of the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee during his recent meeting with Pakistani authorities? At the very moment Admiral Mullen was making a commitment to the Pakistani leadership that US attacks on the country would cease, US Predators were attacking Waziristan. To end this confusion it is essential for the US to have a single commander in Afghanistan who is in charge of both overt and covert operations. Pakistan must remain in the information loop if we want to win the war on terrorism.
Pakistan needs to carry out a security overview of lapses that occurred during the Marriott bombing. Security was woefully poor and badly compromised. It is time that we emphasised the protection of the people of Pakistan. Only then will we succeed in meeting this challenge.
Email: azizkhalid **********
pkpatriotic
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,317
- Reaction score
- 0
Pakistan faces existential threat from militants: Gates
WASHINGTON: Militant safe havens in western Pakistan are threatening the existence of Pakistan's civilian government through increased attacks, including last weekend's Marriott hotel bombing, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday.
"The nature of the threat that they face, beginning with the assassination of the current president's wife and now most recently the attack on the Marriott hotel, makes very clear to the Pakistani government that they face an existential threat in the western part of their country," Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The remote mountainous region believed to be a safe harbour for al-Qaeda and other groups also poses the greatest threat of terrorism against the United States, Gates said in hearing testimony that underscored the dangers posed by the tribal lands along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan.
Gates said Islamabad's new civilian government could not publicly support the US military action against militant targets on the Pakistani soil and warned that any deterioration in the US relations with the nuclear-armed nation would hurt American interests.
"During this time of political turmoil in Pakistan, it is especially crucial that we maintain a strong and positive relationship with the government, since any deterioration would be a setback for both Pakistan and Afghanistan," the US defence chief said. "The war on terror started in this region. It must end there."
US Army Gen David McKiernan, the head of the Nato-led force in Afghanistan, later said he needed three more brigades plus support units -- around 15,000 troops -- in addition to the deployments announced by Bush.
But Gates said a new deployment of that scale would be unlikely before next spring or summer due to US troop commitments in Iraq, where about 150,000 US forces remain.
"Without changing deployment patterns, without changing length of tours, we do not have the forces to send three additional brigade combat teams to Afghanistan at this point," Gates told the lawmakers."My view is that those forces will become available probably during the spring and summer of 2009," he added.
WASHINGTON: Militant safe havens in western Pakistan are threatening the existence of Pakistan's civilian government through increased attacks, including last weekend's Marriott hotel bombing, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday.
"The nature of the threat that they face, beginning with the assassination of the current president's wife and now most recently the attack on the Marriott hotel, makes very clear to the Pakistani government that they face an existential threat in the western part of their country," Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The remote mountainous region believed to be a safe harbour for al-Qaeda and other groups also poses the greatest threat of terrorism against the United States, Gates said in hearing testimony that underscored the dangers posed by the tribal lands along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan.
Gates said Islamabad's new civilian government could not publicly support the US military action against militant targets on the Pakistani soil and warned that any deterioration in the US relations with the nuclear-armed nation would hurt American interests.
"During this time of political turmoil in Pakistan, it is especially crucial that we maintain a strong and positive relationship with the government, since any deterioration would be a setback for both Pakistan and Afghanistan," the US defence chief said. "The war on terror started in this region. It must end there."
US Army Gen David McKiernan, the head of the Nato-led force in Afghanistan, later said he needed three more brigades plus support units -- around 15,000 troops -- in addition to the deployments announced by Bush.
But Gates said a new deployment of that scale would be unlikely before next spring or summer due to US troop commitments in Iraq, where about 150,000 US forces remain.
"Without changing deployment patterns, without changing length of tours, we do not have the forces to send three additional brigade combat teams to Afghanistan at this point," Gates told the lawmakers."My view is that those forces will become available probably during the spring and summer of 2009," he added.
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Mullen counsels caution in working with Pakistanis
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation's top military officer tried Friday to tamp down tensions surrounding the escalating violence along Afghanistan's southern border, including this week's exchange of fire between U.S. and Pakistan forces.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Pakistan's military leaders reassured him in talks there last week that they have no intention of using force against U.S. troops along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
"Things are very tense and very dangerous in Pakistan," Mullen told a Pentagon news conference. "But that doesn't mean the sky is falling, and it doesn't mean we should ever overreact to the hair-trigger tension we are all feeling. Now more than ever is a time for teamwork, for calm."
Mullen's remarks came as Pakistan's president walked a fine line on the issue, saying Friday that he still looks positively on U.S. support to his nation despite the Thursday dustup on the border. But Asif Ali Zardari also warned the U.N. General Assembly Thursday that Pakistan cannot allow its territory to "be violated by our friends."
Asked about the cross-border clash as he appeared alongside Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice after an hour-long meeting with other key foreign ministers, Zardari said that "whenever we meet with our friends, we discuss all the weaknesses and definitely try to make them into our strengths."
The five-minute firefight Thursday underscores the murky nature of the relations between the U.S., Pakistan and Afghanistan and how they interact along what is a long, mountainous, ungoverned border riddled with safe havens for Taliban and al-Qaida insurgents.
Pakistan has become increasingly vocal in its anger over U.S. operations across the border, including a spate of missile and ground attacks aimed at insurgents in the tribal areas. U.S. military commanders complain that Islamabad has been doing too little to prevent the Taliban and other militant groups from recruiting, training and resupplying in the border region.
Mullen acknowledged that the safe havens have gotten safer this year, and the insurgency more sophisticated. And he has launched a review of the military's strategy in Afghanistan insisting that it also focus more broadly on Pakistan and even India, because the three are interwoven and must be dealt with in a comprehensive way.
Thursday's clash began when Pakistanis fired on or sent flares at two American reconnaissance helicopters operating near the border. The Pakistanis said the U.S. choppers, which were escorting Afghan and U.S. troops, had crossed into the tribal Pakistani areas, but Pentagon officials flatly deny that.
In response, officials have said that U.S. ground forces fired warning shots at the Pakistanis, who returned fire. Pressed on whether Pakistan has explained why its troops fired on an allied aircraft, Mullen said he has been assured by its senior military leaders that "there is certainly no intent or plan to fire on (U.S.) forces."
"I am hard-pressed to see a set of circumstances where there would be any kind of sustained fight between two allies," Mullen said, referring to the United States and Pakistan.
Mullen said the Pakistani government realizes it faces a serious insurgent problem inside its borders and is willing to cooperate with Washington on finding a solution.
He said some of the best solutions may not be military in nature. He mentioned that Pakistan faces deep economic problems that make the insurgent threat harder to defeat.
http://www.ap.google.com
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation's top military officer tried Friday to tamp down tensions surrounding the escalating violence along Afghanistan's southern border, including this week's exchange of fire between U.S. and Pakistan forces.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Pakistan's military leaders reassured him in talks there last week that they have no intention of using force against U.S. troops along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
"Things are very tense and very dangerous in Pakistan," Mullen told a Pentagon news conference. "But that doesn't mean the sky is falling, and it doesn't mean we should ever overreact to the hair-trigger tension we are all feeling. Now more than ever is a time for teamwork, for calm."
Mullen's remarks came as Pakistan's president walked a fine line on the issue, saying Friday that he still looks positively on U.S. support to his nation despite the Thursday dustup on the border. But Asif Ali Zardari also warned the U.N. General Assembly Thursday that Pakistan cannot allow its territory to "be violated by our friends."
Asked about the cross-border clash as he appeared alongside Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice after an hour-long meeting with other key foreign ministers, Zardari said that "whenever we meet with our friends, we discuss all the weaknesses and definitely try to make them into our strengths."
The five-minute firefight Thursday underscores the murky nature of the relations between the U.S., Pakistan and Afghanistan and how they interact along what is a long, mountainous, ungoverned border riddled with safe havens for Taliban and al-Qaida insurgents.
Pakistan has become increasingly vocal in its anger over U.S. operations across the border, including a spate of missile and ground attacks aimed at insurgents in the tribal areas. U.S. military commanders complain that Islamabad has been doing too little to prevent the Taliban and other militant groups from recruiting, training and resupplying in the border region.
Mullen acknowledged that the safe havens have gotten safer this year, and the insurgency more sophisticated. And he has launched a review of the military's strategy in Afghanistan insisting that it also focus more broadly on Pakistan and even India, because the three are interwoven and must be dealt with in a comprehensive way.
Thursday's clash began when Pakistanis fired on or sent flares at two American reconnaissance helicopters operating near the border. The Pakistanis said the U.S. choppers, which were escorting Afghan and U.S. troops, had crossed into the tribal Pakistani areas, but Pentagon officials flatly deny that.
In response, officials have said that U.S. ground forces fired warning shots at the Pakistanis, who returned fire. Pressed on whether Pakistan has explained why its troops fired on an allied aircraft, Mullen said he has been assured by its senior military leaders that "there is certainly no intent or plan to fire on (U.S.) forces."
"I am hard-pressed to see a set of circumstances where there would be any kind of sustained fight between two allies," Mullen said, referring to the United States and Pakistan.
Mullen said the Pakistani government realizes it faces a serious insurgent problem inside its borders and is willing to cooperate with Washington on finding a solution.
He said some of the best solutions may not be military in nature. He mentioned that Pakistan faces deep economic problems that make the insurgent threat harder to defeat.
http://www.ap.google.com
Similar threads
