Obama widening missile strikes inside pak against Anti Pak Insurgents

[afriend]

Obama widening missile strikes inside Pak: Report
21 Feb 2009, 1107 hrs IST, IANS

NEW YORK: The Obama administration has expanded the covert war run by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) inside Pakistan by attacking a militant
network seeking to topple the Pakistani government, the New York Times reported on Saturday.

Two missile strikes over the last week, on training camps run by Baitullah Mehsud, represent a broadening of the American campaign inside Pakistan, which has been largely carried out by drone aircraft, the influential US daily said in a report from Washington.

Under President George Bush, the US frequently attacked militants from al-Qaida and the Taliban involved in cross-border attacks into Afghanistan, but had stopped short of raids aimed at Mehsud and his followers, who have played less of a direct role in attacks on American troops.

The strikes are another sign that President Obama is continuing, and in some cases extending, the Bush administration policy of using American spy agencies against terrorism suspects in Pakistan, as he had promised to do during his presidential campaign, the Times said.

Mehsud was identified early last year by both American and Pakistani officials as the man who had orchestrated the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister and wife of Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari.

Bush included Mehsud's name in a classified list of militant leaders whom the CIA and American commandos were authorised to capture or kill. The Times said it was unclear why the Obama administration decided to carry out the attacks, which American and Pakistani officials said occurred last Saturday and again on Monday, hitting camps run by Mehsud's network.

The Saturday strike was aimed specifically at Mehsud, but he was not killed, the Times said citing Pakistani and American officials.

The Monday strike, officials cited by the Times said, was aimed at a camp run by Hakeem Ullah Mehsud, a top aide to the militant.

By striking at the Mehsud network, the US may be seeking to demonstrate to Zardari that the new administration is willing to go after the insurgents of greatest concern to the Pakistani leader. But American officials may also be prompted by growing concern that the militant attacks are increasingly putting the civilian government of Pakistan, a nation with nuclear weapons, at risk, the daily said.

The strikes came after a visit to Islamabad last week by Richard C. Holbrooke, the American envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Obama widening missile strikes inside Pak: Report-US-World-The Times of India

 

[PeacefulIndian]

I wonder, was Pakistani government taken into confidence before the attack?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Some reports suggest that the increased efficiency of the attacks is because Pakistan intelligence is more involved now.

The original article in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/washington/21policy.html

 

[KnightRyder]

This news shows the U.S. is obviously very desparate to sabotage any peace deals between GoP and local militias. The US is simply not interested in peace.

Which is very good idea.Instead of sending our soldiers just send in drones.It will save a lot of soldier's life!

Good idea? Ha!


This is a terrible idea. Infact this idea smells of fitna of militancy and suicide blasts expanding in all of Pakistan.

Killing is never a good solution when it involves ethnic based groups.

Sure it will save soldiers lives but US made missiles launched from drones will kill a helluva lot more civilians and give more recruiters to the militants that would fuel the militancy beyond FATA..

 

[Awesome]

If he really wants to help us, fire at those consulates!

 

[roadrunner]

Even if they hit all the bad guys, drone strikes have a bad PR now that they've killed so many innocent people. The Pakistani Army should surround areas, offer the choice of surrender.

I don't really buy the needing to shoot quickly hypothesis. If a drone can fly there in enough time, gunships and transport helicopters can too.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Even if they hit all the bad guys, drone strikes have a bad PR now that they've killed so many innocent people. The Pakistani Army should surround areas, offer the choice of surrender.

I don't really buy the needing to shoot quickly hypothesis. If a drone can fly there in enough time, gunships and transport helicopters can too.

Choppers will be heard a mile away, and even if the first few raids resulted in little resistance, after the MO was established, there is no way a raid into a 'training camp' or any other location with a heavy concentration of militants would not result in a major firefight, and hold out the possibility of even more collateral damage than that from UAV attacks with good intelligence. Look at the results of the last US SF raid for example.

Surrender may also not be an option with the high profile leadership given the experience with Abdullah Mehsud and Mullah Ghazi of LM fame. These people are ideologically driven enough to commit horrendous acts, and surrender will likely not appeal to them, though it may to the lower level militants who are in it for the money and 'fame'.

Anyway you look at it you will have collateral damage, however, if Pakistan can contribute with better intelligence, then the risk for collateral damage is minimized through drone attacks. Ideally of course we should own these operations and conduct them ourselves. That however will mean that we openly declare war against the pro-Govt. Taliban groups of Nazir, Gul Bahadur etc. We then given them common cause with Baitullah's TTP, and that will strengthen his reach and resources many fold.

No easy answers here.

 

[roadrunner]

Choppers will be heard a mile away, and even if the first few raids resulted in little resistance, after the MO was established, there is no way a raid into a 'training camp' or any other location with a heavy concentration of militants would not result in a major firefight, and hold out the possibility of even more collateral damage than that from UAV attacks with good intelligence. Look at the results of the last US SF raid for example.

How much of an issue is the noise, in reality? Several times when the US have been seen blowing up insurgents in Iraq, the targeter has been sitting having a conversation with the controller for around 5 minutes before deciding to strike the target. Example

I don't know what was used for those attacks,whether they were helicopters and what distance they were from the targets but what is the problem with using one of those things in these situations?

I'll agree there will be collateral damage in any firefight. However what the drones do is blast anything without giving any choice to surrender. A piloted helicopter (or whatever those things are in Iraq), can offer this choice, which would help take away the bad press by demonstrating any civilians caught in the cross fire were held by the targets and used as shields. Yes, collateral will still occur, but the moral victory goes to the attacking force.

Surrender may also not be an option with the high profile leadership given the experience with Abdullah Mehsud and Mullah Ghazi of LM fame. These people are ideologically driven enough to commit horrendous acts, and surrender will likely not appeal to them, though it may to the lower level militants who are in it for the money and 'fame'.

I don't care whether Ghazi or Mehsud surrender. Whether they are blasted isnot the point. It's the innocent people around them that need to be given the chance to surrender.

Anyway you look at it you will have collateral damage, however, if Pakistan can contribute with better intelligence, then the risk for collateral damage is minimized through drone attacks. Ideally of course we should own these operations and conduct them ourselves. That however will mean that we openly declare war against the pro-Govt. Taliban groups of Nazir, Gul Bahadur etc. We then given them common cause with Baitullah's TTP, and that will strengthen his reach and resources many fold.

No easy answers here.

Collateral damage will occur, but the Pakistani government, by not giving the option to the radicals to release or at least warn these militants that they take full responsibility for the civilians killed if they do not release them, is acting in the same way as the militants.

 

[Neo]

End the US romance before it destroys us ​

Shireen M Mazari

Two drones fired on the same day soon after Obama's swearing in have made the new US administration's intentions towards Pakistan clear – there will be no respect for international law in this part of the world. This is the historic duality (recall the Monroe Doctrine) that prevails in the very foundations of the much-touted US values! So it is time for our leaders to accept certain ground realities and shape their policies accordingly.

Accept that Obama has nothing positive to offer Pakistan. On the contrary, following the drone attacks, he moved to name Holbrooke as Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to cut off a major chunk of money owed to Pakistan for military services rendered. And what has our reaction been? Without looking at Holbrooke's record, we have welcomed his appointment, and in response to the cutting of money owed, we have declared that we will appeal to them again–as if this is part of a bargain hunt or a sale! Is this what a nuclear sovereign state does?

For heaven's sake, our military and civilian ruling elites need to salvage some national dignity. It is time the military stopped acting as a mercenary force for the Americans. The price we are paying is simply too high–not simply in money terms but in social and political terms. This is as good an opportunity as any to reclaim our bases and applaud the US in gaining a new route for NATO supplies (though that is not yet a done deal), which we should stop immediately. This supply route has been a major factor for violence and instability in Peshawar and beyond.

It is not simply the cutting off of payments that is a pointer to the new Obama-Biden policies. Biden, much touted as Pakistan's friend, has begun sounding a more strident tone vis-a-vis this hapless country with its bunch of servile leaders. This new aggressive tone on Pakistan was all too apparent in his Jan 25 interview on CBS where he reiterated Obama's election campaign viewpoint that if there is an actionable target in Pakistan the US would send its troops there.

And to clarify any doubts about what the US thinks of Pakistan's sovereignty, he refused to answer the question whether the US would notify the Pakistan before a potential US troops' cross-border movement. He also predicted increasing US casualties, which clearly means the US intends to up the military ante and in all probability send troops across the international Pakistani-Afghan border.

As for Holbrooke, it would do well to recall that the much-touted Dayton Accord was only put in place when NATO had replaced the UN in Bosnia, and the Bosnians had been militarily abused so much by the Serbs that they eventually accepted a truncated Bosnian state. I met Holbrooke at a conference in Kazakhstan a few years earlier alongside the arch-neocon Richard Perle. And I was surprised by the similarity of views they both held towards the Muslim world in general, and towards what the US was doing post-9/11 in Afghanistan. Also, if we remember that Holbrooke was Hillary Clinton's senior policy advisor, we will understand where he is really coming from. After all, Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq war till it became unpopular in the US!

Again, it was Holbrooke, as the US ambassador at the UN, who arranged for Israel to be admitted into a regional grouping of Western European and other nations–to allow Israel access to membership of crucial committees and other privileges. Interestingly, Scott Ritter, a UN Weapons' Inspector in Iraq (1991-1998), has recalled how, in a television discussion in October 2001, Holbrooke had rejected any form of diplomacy in Afghanistan and had favoured only military action. Hardly the sort of man who will be open to the sensitivities of Pakistan!

The hard reality is that the US is going to become an increasingly hostile state towards Pakistan under Obama. So it is time to alter course. We need to renegotiate the entire cooperation with this new US administration, keeping in mind the now-established Indo-US strategic partnership. We need to find our own means of countering the drone attacks–rather than helplessly waiting for US goodwill.

Our Air Chief had declared we have the technical capability, and we certainly do, including our cruise missiles. So use them to attack the drones in defence of our territory. If the military is too timid for this defence of our national soil, then at least stop the mercenary intelligence sharing, close the clandestine CIA stations and troop actions in FATA and our western border. Reclaim the bases and end access to NATO supplies. All these moves can be done incrementally and we will realise the limitations of US ability to move against us without damaging their own cause. The most painless beginning can be made by recalling our ambassador to the US "for consultations."

Meanwhile, it would be more relevant if we began focusing on national policies for Swat and FATA. The military needs to be withdrawn from both these areas and paramilitary forces under civilian command need to be put in place within an overarching political framework. We need to differentiate between Swat and FATA also, since the ground realities are different in the two areas. It would appear that in FATA the locals have coalesced with the militants and "foreigners" as a result of the erroneous policies of the Pakistani state, whose military is seen as fighting America's war, and also as a result of the drone attacks, which have increased the operational space and recruitment of the militants.

In Swat Fazlullah initially got support from the local people. However, with the bloodshed and attacks on schools and the horrific killings and mutilation of bodies, the present relationship between the locals and the militants in Swat is one based primarily on fear and on a distrust of the military. They see the military as having failed to protect them against a Taliban force that primarily comprises outsiders, local criminals, and the unemployed and war-affected–that is, those who have lost family as a result of military action.

Unless we seek truthful answers to some crucial questions, we will not be able to restore peace in Swat. Where is the funding for the militants coming from since it runs into tens of millions? Reports from people on the spot put the daily payment for Taliban fighters anywhere between Rs300 and Rs1,000. Add to this cost of food, arms and ammunition and transport. And if we accept that there are between 5,000-10,000 Taliban, this is a costly enterprise even if we calculate on averages. Secondly, where are the weapons coming from, along which supply routes? Why, when the media can access the militant leaders, the intelligence and military seemingly cannot act against them? Is it inability or unwillingness and, if it is the latter, then the crux question: Why?

The total failure of the state to protect its citizens and assert its writ has led to the present despicable situation where the most vulnerable are being targeted: women and girls in particular, and children in general. While the militants are blowing up schools, the military is using schools as their trenches, and thereby as targets for the militants. If one looks at the casualty figures one will see who is really suffering, who is losing and who is winning. Approximately 12,000 civilians have so far been killed in Swat–again, according to the local viewpoint, mainly by firing from security forces. Around 200 security forces (FC, army and police) have been killed while approximately 75 Taliban have been killed.

The biggest losers are the civilians caught in the middle and the military, which is not only suffering high casualty rates but is being undermined in the long term by a growing chasm between itself and the nation's civil society. This is what Pakistan's enemies want; why are we seeking the same?

Tailpiece: The hypocrisy of the BBC is truly legendary. They refuse to broadcast a humanitarian appeal for Gaza but BBC World was broadcasting ads for the Indian army immediately before and after their news services during the Kargil crisis.



The writer is a defence analyst. Email: callstr@hotmail.com

 

[Bane Blade]

The Drone attacks are really destroying our reputation with our citizens but it is still not breaking international law unfortunately and the allied can continue their attacks in Pakistan what I don't understand is how can Obama offer muslims a hand of welcome and also continuing to humiliate their rights.

 

[Solomon2]

Ideally of course we should own these operations and conduct them ourselves. That however will mean that we openly declare war against the pro-Govt. Taliban groups of Nazir, Gul Bahadur etc. We then given them common cause with Baitullah's TTP, and that will strengthen his reach and resources many fold. No easy answers here.

Maybe the "easy answer" is that Pakistan really is running these drone strikes but the U.S. has offered to take the blame.

It seems mighty odd that all the drone attacks seem to be happening on the Pakistani side of the border, doesn't it? When battle occurs on the Afghan side U.S. troops usually call in manned aircraft to hit their opponents.

 

[Captain03]

if its the better of pakistan i approve it
but risking a citizen's life and its support for the government is too much

 

[S-2]

Comparative advantage in warfare. You can't use jets over Pakistan. Perhaps a high altitude drop from the Afghan side or a glide bomb attack that avoids Pakistani airspace but, if so, then it makes sense to pick as many missions as possible in Afghanistan by CAS.

Still, our fleet is expanding, we've other UAVs up on recon in A-stan and PREDATOR may have made the recent strike in Farah Province. Any resource available is the correct answer on the Afghan side. Pakstan requires specific resources.

PREDATOR and REAPER are most responsive because of their loiter. The P.A. would need to maintain a couple of companies ready to launch in order to equate-maybe more.

They'd launch cold, without intell, into a potential mini-war if not careful. Air assaults to objectives that haven't been studied aren't recommended. That's a big maybe that you'd reach the efficacy of a hellfire.

Don't for a minute believe that you'll gain any moral high ground by the taliban using human shields. It'll never come out that way regardless of the footage displayed. That's a very poor operational premise to justify relative advantages. It just isn't there.

 

[roadrunner]

Don't for a minute believe that you'll gain any moral high ground by the taliban using human shields. It'll never come out that way regardless of the footage displayed. That's a very poor operational premise to justify relative advantages. It just isn't there.

The moral high ground will be lost (not gained) by bombing innocent people who are on the same side. That's an utter disregard of human life which is what supposedly the "bad guys" do. If one attacks one's own citizens or allies, one needs to take every precaution only the bad guys are hit (not entirely practical, but it needs to be seen as such by the public).

Being a notch more moral than the enemy is one of the most important requirements in any war. People flock to the morally superior side (some flock to the more powerful side, morals unimportant - Dostum, your guy in Afghanistan).

By losing the moral high ground, you end up antagonizing even the neutral people.

The point is by bombing first, asking questions later, you're not achieving anything.

It's definitely not in Pakistan's interest to be taking this policy. Citizens come first, or should come first in any country. Apaches can do the job, and questions need not be asked later.

 

[S-2]

"If one attacks one's own citizens or allies, one needs to take every precaution only the bad guys are hit..."

Not when they enter a compound. That family has done so by invitation. If not, then the father should die with a weapon in his hands or run for the hills with his family. If not, they aid and abet the enemy. Understandable as citizens of Pashtunistan and no longer Pakistan that this may occur.

We have a right to self-defense and we'll exercise it. You may help or not as you see fit but until attacks cease upon Afghanistan, it's citizens, our allies, and ourselves, we'll do so.

Reconquer Pashtunistan. Warn your "citizens" that harboring these men put their families and themselves at severe risk. Make clear to your "citizens" that these men are no friends to Pakistan.

Too many targets "cordoned" after attacks by militants to be missing much. You're a fool to live in FATA and allow yourself to be within 100 meters of these men at any time.