U.S-Pakistan Brainstorm on WoT

[batmannow]

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Unhurt After Shooting
By SALMAN MASOOD
Published: September 3, 2008
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Shots were fired at the motorcade of Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani Wednesday afternoon near the capital, Islamabad, but Mr. Gilani was not in the motorcade at the time, Pakistani officials said.

The attack took place in Rawalpindi, a garrison city near the capital. However, Sherry Rehman, the Pakistani information minister, said Mr. Gilani was not traveling in any of the cars in the motorcade. “This motorcade had left Islamabad to pick him up from the airport. But the prime minister used a different route," she said.
Footage of a black Mercedes in the motorcade broadcast on Pakistani television showed two bullet marks on the bulletproof right window near the driver’s seat. The highway where the motorcade was traveling is considered a high security zone where extra police and intelligence forces are deployed to protect the motorcades of senior government officials.

A senior official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Mr. Gilani did not travel by the road. "He used the aerial route to reach the Prime Minister House,” the official said.
There were conflicting reports about whether Mr. Gilani, who was returning to Islamabad after a visit to the city of Lahore, had flown into Chaklala Air Base in Rawalpindi, where the motorcade was expected to collect him, or whether the motorcade was on its way to Lahore to collect him. There was also initial confusion about whether Mr. Gilani was in the motorcade or not when the attack occurred, between 1:30 p.m. and 2 p.m.

A statement issued by the prime minister’s office said: “Of the multiple sniper shots fired on the prime minister’s vehicle, two hit the window on the driver side. However, because of the robust and comprehensive security measures, the prime minister and all the members of his motorcade remained unharmed.”

The angle of the bullet marks on the Mercedes suggests that the car was heading on the main road in the direction of the airport in Rawalpindi.

Ms. Rehman said it was too early to identify the attackers or the motive for the attack. "It would be irresponsible to speculate without details," she said.

However, immediate suspicion fell on the Taliban. The Pakistani military has carried out a major air operation against Taliban forces in the Bajaur area of the tribal region in the country’s north along the Afghanistan border in the last three weeks. A ceasefire was put in place by the government last weekend. But the Taliban had vowed during the air campaign that they would seek revenge.
Last month, two suicide bombers killed at least 80 people outside Pakistan’s biggest weapons factory complex, in an attack claimed by the Pakistani military.
With the growing militant threat, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, secretly convened a highly unusual meeting of senior American and Pakistani commanders, including Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, chief of staff of the Pakistani Army, on an aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean on Tuesday to discuss how to combat the escalating violence along the border shared by Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Also, IASF forces landed & lanch an attach on pakistani terrotry in wazistan area, killed many... civillians, and go back to afghanistan.

So, as for now this brain stromming starting clear, what was the purpose our rushed to aircraft carrier...

 

[fatman17]

the PM was not in the motorcade according to Kamran Khan of Geo!

 

[batmannow]

the PM was not in the motorcade according to Kamran Khan of Geo!

U.S., Afghan Troops Kill 20 in Pakistan

Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, September 3, 2008; 10:16 AM

ISLAMABAD, Sept. 3 -- At least 20 people were killed in northwest Pakistan on Wednesday after U.S. and Afghan troops crossed from Afghanistan to pursue Taliban insurgents in an early morning attack that marked the first known instance in which U.S. forces conducted an operation on Pakistani soil since the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan began, according to witnesses and a Pakistani official.
The United States has conducted occasional air and artillery strikes against insurgents lodged across the border in Pakistani territory, and "hot pursuit" rules provide some room for U.S. troops to maneuver in the midst of battle. But the arrival of three U.S. helicopters in the village of Musa Nika, clearly inside the Pakistani border, drew a sharp response from Pakistani officials.

"We strongly object to the incursion of ISAF troops on Pakistani territory," said Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, chief spokesman for the Pakistani military,
referring to the International Security Assistance Force, the coalition of U.S. and other NATO troops that has been battling the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan since 2001.

A U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan referred requests for comment on the incident to U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa. A CENTCOM spokesman reached by phone in Tampa on Wednesday declined to comment.


Many details of the incident remain unclear, including the number of ground troops and helicopters involved, and whether U.S. troops were among those that left the helicopters and conducted a ground operation in the village. Pakistani military officials said two helicopters landed at Musa Nika, while villagers said there were three.

According to Pakistani military and other sources, the attack began a little after 3 a.m. when three U.S. army helicopters carrying American and Afghan troops landed in Musa Nika in the Pakistani tribal area of South Waziristan. According to a Pakistani security official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly on the incident, several of the troops then left the helicopters and launched a ground assault on three houses where Taliban fighters were believed to be hiding.

One of the homes belonged to a villager named Pao Jan Ahmedzai Wazir, a local tribesman, said Anwar Shah, a resident of a neighboring village. Several women and children who were inside Wazir's house and two other homes nearby were killed when U.S. and Afghan troops opened fire on the buildings. "The situation there is very terrible. People are trying to take out the dead bodies," Shah said.
Maj. Murad Khan, a spokesman for the Pakistani military, said Pakistani authorities have verified that an attack took place in South Waziristan a little before 4 a.m. But he could not confirm whether U.S. troops were involved until an investigation into the incident is complete.
Khan said that coalition troops in Afghanistan are generally barred from crossing into Pakistan's tribal areas. "We don't allow foreign troops to operate in our area. Our troops are quite capable of handling the militants on our side," Khan said.

The attack in Musa Nika comes amid debate over the rules of operation along the area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. In recent months, U.S. officials have intensified pressure on Pakistan to clamp down on Taliban insurgents and al-Qaeda fighters sheltering in areas along the 1,500-mile-long border.

Owais Ghani, governor of Pakistan's North-West Frontier province, immediately condemned the attack in Musa Nika, saying that several women and children had been killed in the skirmish. Ghani called the cross-border incursion a "direct assault on Pakistan's sovereignty" and demanded a response from Pakistan's military.

The Pakistani military appears to have acceded recently to U.S. pressures to step up attacks on extremists in its border areas, launching major offensives on Taliban and al-Qaeda strongholds in two of the country's Federally Administered Tribal Areas within the past two months.
Yet analysts here in Pakistan's capital say the incursion into South Waziristan could augur a new strategic turn aimed at cutting off an insurgency that threatens to engulf large swaths of Pakistan and reverse any gains made by U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Last week, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, held a secret meeting with Pakistani Gen. Ashfaq Kayani aboard a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean in the wake of several devastating setbacks for Western and Afghan forces in Afghanistan.
U.S. and Pakistani officials have released few details about discussions at the high-level meeting, which was also attended by Gen. David D. McKiernan, NATO's top commander in Afghanistan. But a senior Pakistani military official with knowledge of the meeting said that talks between Mullen and Kayani focused in large part on the threat to coalition forces in Afghanistan emanating from insurgents operating inside Pakistan's borders. The Pakistani military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly on the matter, said the meeting touched on a possible agreement to allow U.S. Special Forces to begin ground operations in Pakistan's tribal areas. Abbas denied reports of any agreement for U.S. troops to operate inside Pakistani territory.
A NATO spokesman in Afghanistan said foreign forces are generally prohibited from mounting cross border attacks into Pakistan. The spokesman, who only gave his name as Sgt. Yates, said NATO forces occasionally employ artillery or aerial missiles to target insurgents who attack coalition troops from Pakistani territory, but the rules of engagement are very carefully proscribed. "Our area of operations stops at the border. We don't go over the border period," Yates said.


So , its is a result of the brain stroming on the ship...

 

[Munir]

And stil they wonder why Pakistani are anti USA...

 

[batmannow]

TODAY'S PAPER > EDITORIAL
What, no utopia after Musharraf?
Thursday, 04 Sep, 2008 | 9:57 PKT
By Sayeed Hasan Khan and Kurt Jacobsen

dawn.com

GETTING what you want, Oscar Wilde remarked, can be as much a tragedy as not getting what you want.
Nawaz Sharif some day may come to appreciate this exotic western wisdom. Anyone who imagined that Musharraf’s departure would improve daily life in Pakistan one iota was sadly mistaken.

An utterly Alice-in-Wonderland political scenario since February has pitted two billionaires, whose fortunes were obtained, each other suspects, by rather questionable means, against a solid career soldier who, whatever his faults and glaring missteps, seems to have failed to feather his own nest in the traditional manner.
From the start the world press, out of routine laziness or pure ignorance, equated the ejection of Musharraf with the epic ousting of a Ceausescu or an Idi Amin or, one hopes one day, Robert Mugabe. Therefore, the major parties — mostly Sharif’s, really — were celebrated abroad for dumping the former dictator because, so the storyline goes, all dictators are alike in their vices, and all democrats are alike in their virtues.
What then has this single-issue zealotry accomplished? Now that Musharraf has gotten the heave-ho, which was fun while it lasted, the squabbling parties face the distressing fact that the public now will have no one to blame for the escalating internal mess but them.
Musharraf, a useful distraction, soon will be missed even by his very worst enemies. If the parties revert to the same inside-dealer style in play before Musharraf, they hardly will find themselves hailed in the streets. One of Sharif’s few accomplishments during his last inglorious stint as prime minister was to laboriously build a case against Zardari, then arrest and imprison him. Zardari has shown admirable forbearance. Since democracy formally returned, food and energy prices have been punishing all but the super rich while Taliban activity has crept up to the edges of Islamabad. The western powers — with the known quantity of Musharraf gone — are clearly nervous.
Musharraf declined to exploit Islam for political gain. He remained a sincere secular leader — Ataturk was his hero — although he was tentative when it actually came to implementing those secular principles. Sharif, by contrast, openly courts religious fundamentalists. Less commendable on Musharraf’s part was his installation of clueless army personnel in too many civilian posts, to no good effect for anyone. But his handling of the judges was indeed woeful and, finally, politically fatal.

Wily Sharif clearly was a financial backer for the former chief justice’s restoration both as a hammer blow against Musharraf and ultimately against Zardari too. Sharif must be extremely proud that he whipped up the public atmosphere into a hostile one that made Zardari buckle and go along with the pretty pointless impeachment. You didn’t need a political genius, however, to tell you that Zardari would drag his heels so as not to reappoint an unpredictable foe like Chaudhry to the Supreme Court.

The stock market is down, so that makes the news. Public finances too are in their usual parlous state. Less newsworthy is that Pakistan remains a country with a per capita income slightly over $500 annually. A third of the population is classified as absolutely-no-doubt-about-it poor, with the next third not doing enviably well either. Almost 50m people scratch by on two dollars a day or less. Half the population is illiterate. As much as half the population has no access to safe drinking water, let alone healthcare of any kind. These people need attention. So far there is little sign that they will get any.
The race for the presidency is the next distraction. Zardari is a shoe-in and soon we will see if as president he will relinquish to parliament all the powers that Musharraf wielded as president. Power, when in one’s own hands, no longer seems so obscene. Sharif certainly will not be thrilled if an elected Zardari retains Musharraf’s presidential powers. Indeed, the People’s Party may have missed an opportunity at this dangerous time when, in the interest of soothing the western regions, it could have backed a smaller party’s candidate from the Frontier or Balochistan for president.
The NWFP government, for example, is allied with Zardari and could patch up the broken down peace treaty there. Neither an NWFP or Balochistan candidate — lacking a nationwide constituency — would be tempted to abuse his presidential powers.
One can find pragmatic secularists among the leaderships in the Frontier and Balochistan like Mengal or the Awami National Party leader Asfandyar Wali. These savvy people can deal with local problems that neither the army nor political figures outside the provinces can manage. The war against terrorism can be won only through strategic reconciliations.

Fazlur Rehman’s party ruled the Frontier province before the elections but lost to secular forces. Yet he is still in parliament and has much sway over the madressahs. The agitation of the Taliban has taken the complicated form of Pakhtun nationalism. Baloch nationalists plus a section of pragmatic ulema is the best combination to sort out the problems.
Zardari was refreshingly frank when he told the BBC that the Taliban had the “upper hand” at the moment and that the war against terror was being lost. The whole point of Bush’s war on ter

ror is to fight it in such a way as to go on losing it for as long as possible, thereby creating many more highly motivated enemies than ever before, which justifies a growing repressive American domestic apparatus and the breakneck shovelling of public money into defence contractor pockets. Indeed, Bush and Cheney seem to view Pakistan as a civic model to which to aspire.
What will the American strategy be in the near future? America doesn’t know quite how to get out of the Afghan quagmire. The Americans trained the Mujahideen to drive out the Russians in the 1980s. Now they need Russia’s help to enable them to exit Afghanistan even as they cynically condemn Russia as the aggressor in Georgia. Will the PPP strive to bring about an economic structure in Pakistan which enables it to escape dependence on America or the IMF?
Otherwise, you have to make concessions to whoever is in office there. US policy towards a comparatively minor player like Pakistan hardly changes no matter who occupies the White Office. US raids hurt cause, anger in Pakistanis.

 

[batmannow]

Plan Would Shift Forces From Iraq to Afghanistan
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and THOM SHANKER
Published: September 4, 2008
NYTIMES.COM

WASHINGTON — The United States would carry out a modest shift of American forces from Iraq to Afghanistan by early next year under a confidential recommendation to President Bush by the Pentagon’s top civilian and military leaders, according to Bush administration officials.

The number of American combat brigades in Iraq would shrink to 14 in February from 15, according to the recommendation. All told, the number of American forces in Iraq, currently about 146,000, would drop by nearly 8,000 by March.

The reduction is smaller than some officials had earlier suggested might be possible before President Bush leaves office in January, given the significant decline in violence in Iraq. But it reflects the caution of Gen. David H. Petraeus, who is leaving his post as the senior American commander in Iraq this month, about the still-unsettled situation in Iraq.
The recommendation on the troop shift was presented to Mr. Bush on Wednesday in a video conference by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. American officials said the recommendation was the product of extensive consultations between the Pentagon officials and General Petraeus.
Under the proposal, an Army brigade and a Marine battalion would be sent to Afghanistan by early next year, adding about 4,500 troops to American forces there. They would represent a partial but still significant move toward meeting repeated requests from American commanders in Afghanistan for three more brigades, a reinforcement that the commanders say is necessary to carry out the mission there and to combat a resurgent Taliban.
The recommendation indicates that the next president will inherit a force in Iraq that has slightly more troops than in January 2007, when President Bush announced his troop reinforcement plan. Some administration officials voiced hope in July that the additional troop withdrawals by the end of Mr. Bush’s term could amount to as many as three brigades.
As the consultations over troop cuts began, General Petraeus took a very cautious approach about further reductions in Iraq, recommending that 15 brigades be maintained in Iraq through next June, administration officials said. But Mr. Gates endorsed a recommendation by Admiral Mullen that the number of brigades be reduced to 14 early next year. Other administration officials argued that such a reduction was necessary to demonstrate to the American public that there was a return from the security gains made during the so-called surge and to keep the pressure on Iraqi officials to make political progress.
The recommendation reflected a common approach that was arrived at following extensive discussions between the Pentagon and General Petraeus, the officials said. Mr. Bush is expected to approve the recommendation, though officials said that adjustments might be made as events in Iraq unfold.
The cautious approach taken by General Petraeus and his successor, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, reflects concern about a variety of uncertainties ahead in Iraq following the departure this summer of the last of the five brigades deployed as part of Mr. Bush’s troop reinforcement plan. Those concerns include what might happen if provincial elections are held as expected late this year or early next year; the fate of tens of thousands of Sunni volunteers who as Awakening Councils have volunteered for neighborhood watch groups; tensions between Kurds and Arabs over Kirkuk; and the possibility that Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents might step up their attacks.
Another concern of American commanders is the reduction in allied troops. Two thousand Georgian troops left unexpectedly during the recent clash between Russia and Georgia, and 800 Polish troops are scheduled to leave by October. There are still some 4,000 British troops near the southern city of Basra, but American officials are uncertain how active a role they will play and how long they might be in Iraq. That has added to the responsibilities of American forces south of Baghdad.
If provincial elections are held in December, as the Bush administration hopes, the United States and its coalition partners would have tens of thousands fewer troops than they did during the 2005 elections in Iraq. On the other hand, the number of Iraqi soldiers and police officers has more than doubled since the end of 2005.

The recommendations signaled that American commanders weighing troop levels in Iraq are focusing more closely on political milestones like elections and security developments than on the calendar. That approach could have bearing on the continuing political debate over the wisdom of setting strict timetables for troop withdrawals, an issue in the American election campaigns. Iraq and the United States have been negotiating an agreement that calls for the departure of American combat forces by the end of 2011 depending on security conditions — or as a draft of the accord puts it, subject to the review of a joint American and Iraqi commission.

According to the recommendation, the reductions in American forces in Iraq would be made as follows: a Marine battalion that is scheduled to leave Anbar Province this fall would not be replaced. (A Marine battalion that had been earmarked to replace it would be sent to Afghanistan instead.)

In addition, the United States would withdraw several aviation units and some military police companies from Iraq, among other units. In the early weeks of 2009, the United States would redirect to Afghanistan an Army combat brigade that had been preparing to go to Iraq, which would have the effect of reducing the number of American brigades in Iraq by February.
“All of these moves are not set in stone,” said a senior Defense Department official who asked not to be named because he was discussing confidential deliberations. “There will be a continuous assessment of the conditions on the ground, and we will have the flexibility to adjust as required.”
The proposed increases in American troop levels for Afghanistan go part of the way toward satisfying the requests from American commanders there. There are about 15,000 American troops in Afghanistan assigned to the NATO-led stabilization mission, which has 45,000 troops in all. Another 19,000 American troops are in Afghanistan carrying out combat, training, counterterrorism and detainee operations.Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon spokesman, confirmed that Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen had provided their recommendation to Mr. Bush and had also shared the views of General Petraeus, the Joint Chiefs and Lt. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the acting head of the Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East and which General Petraeus will soon head.
“Without getting into what specifically they advised the president, I can tell you that all these leaders are fundamentally in agreement on how we should proceed in Iraq,” Mr. Morrell said.
He said that the recommendation followed “serious and lengthy discussions” about the security gains and threats in Iraq. “Based on all that they collectively decided on what they believed to be the best approach going forward, of course now it is up to the commander in chief to decide the way ahead.”

 

[fatman17]

DAWN has reported that according to Defence Minister Ahmed Mukthar, Pakistan has stopped oil supply to NATO forces in Afghanistan with immediate effect. this is in retaliation to the unilateral actions / attacks by US/NATO forces on pak soil in recent days.

 

[fatman17]

Pakistan stops NATO supplies

* Khyber Agency PA says Torkham Highway closed due to Taliban threats to trucks
* Says decision not a reaction to US attacks

By Iqbal Khattak

PESHAWAR: Pakistan stopped supplies to the United States and NATO forces in Afghanistan through its western Torkham border on Friday, citing security concerns.

A senior official said the measure followed increasing Taliban threats to trucks carrying the supplies.

“All Afghanistan-bound supplies for the International Security Assistance Force have been stopped as the [Torkham] highway is vulnerable,” Khyber Agency Political Agent Tariq Hayat told Daily Times, dismissing the impression that the decision is a reaction to continued United States attacks in Waziristan.

“This decision has nothing to do with the situation in Waziristan or the US attacks. This is purely a security issue and we want no untoward incident to take place as far as supplies for ISAF are concerned.” The international Torkham Highway was closed for “vulnerable vehicles”, he said referring to trucks carrying ISAF supplies, and the supplies would resume after the highway was cleared.

The political agent did not say how long the highway would take to be cleared, but added that other traffic would be allowed on the road.

A senior border official at Torkham, 58 kilometres west of Peshawar, said the closure of the highway would also affect the US forces, which get fuel, food and other military supplies through Torkham crossing points.

The coalition forces also get supplies through the Chaman border in Balochistan, but the bulk of the supplies goes through Torkham – a shorter route for Kabul where the US and NATO forces are based.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[IceCold]

Pakistan stops NATO supplies

* Khyber Agency PA says Torkham Highway closed due to Taliban threats to trucks
* Says decision not a reaction to US attacks

By Iqbal Khattak

PESHAWAR: Pakistan stopped supplies to the United States and NATO forces in Afghanistan through its western Torkham border on Friday, citing security concerns.

A senior official said the measure followed increasing Taliban threats to trucks carrying the supplies.

“All Afghanistan-bound supplies for the International Security Assistance Force have been stopped as the [Torkham] highway is vulnerable,” Khyber Agency Political Agent Tariq Hayat told Daily Times, dismissing the impression that the decision is a reaction to continued United States attacks in Waziristan.

“This decision has nothing to do with the situation in Waziristan or the US attacks. This is purely a security issue and we want no untoward incident to take place as far as supplies for ISAF are concerned.” The international Torkham Highway was closed for “vulnerable vehicles”, he said referring to trucks carrying ISAF supplies, and the supplies would resume after the highway was cleared.

The political agent did not say how long the highway would take to be cleared, but added that other traffic would be allowed on the road.

A senior border official at Torkham, 58 kilometres west of Peshawar, said the closure of the highway would also affect the US forces, which get fuel, food and other military supplies through Torkham crossing points.

The coalition forces also get supplies through the Chaman border in Balochistan, but the bulk of the supplies goes through Torkham – a shorter route for Kabul where the US and NATO forces are based.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Well it has been now reported on the tv that those supplies have resumed after the initial hault because of security threats.

 

[batmannow]

U.S. Spied on Maliki, Book Says, Upsetting Iraq

NYTIMES.COM


By STEPHEN FARRELL
Published: September 5, 2008
BAGHDAD — The Iraqi government reacted with concern and dismay on Friday to allegations that American officials spied on Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, and warned that it could affect negotiations over the continuing American troop presence in the country.
The claims about espionage against senior Iraqi government figures appear in Bob Woodward’s book “The War Within: A Secret White House History, 2006-2008,” The Washington Post reported Friday.

Ali al-Dabbagh, a government spokesman, said Mr. Maliki’s government would seek explanations and assurances about the conduct of the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies.

“If it is a fact, it reflects that there is no trust and it reflects also that the institutions in the United States are used to spying on their friends and their enemies in the same way,” he said. “If it is true, it casts a shadow on the future relations with such institutions.”

Haidar al-Abadi, a member of Mr. Maliki’s Dawa Party and a senior adviser to the prime minister, said that he preferred to wait until the American government answered the accusation officially. But he added, “If it is true, we will demand guarantees that this will not happen again.”

He also indicated that the concerns may run deep enough for Iraqi negotiators to seek guarantees in the continuing discussions to frame a long-term security agreement governing the continuing presence of American troops in Iraq.

The White House press secretary, Dana M. Perino, said early Friday that the White House “would not comment on any of the assertions in the book,” adding that “we have a good idea of what Prime Minister Maliki is thinking, because he tells us very frankly and very candidly, as often as he can.”

However, criticism came not only from members of Mr. Maliki’s government, but also from politicians close to the prime minister before him, Ibrahim al-Jaafari.

“This rumor is dangerous if it is true, and it will shake the credibility of the U.S. and what it stands for about building democracy and a free world,” said Faleh al-Fayadh, a member of Dr. Jaafari’s new party, the National Reform Movement.

He pointed out that Iraq “faced such things during Saddam’s era, things such as random arrests and spying without warrants.” But, he added, “This is something that the U.S. is supposed not to do, and then talk about creating democracy.”

Riyadh Mohammed and Atheer Kakan contributed reporting.


Thats how , amreicans likes to play. after all the support ,they give to anyone ! they will cut you off?

 

[Kharian_Beast]

Well it has been now reported on the tv that those supplies have resumed after the initial hault because of security threats.

I can't believe turning around and going back to base was not an option.

 

[batmannow]

U.S. Envoy Cites 'Fog of War' in Afghan Tolls
Ambassador to U.N. Also Denies He Gave 'Advice and Help' to Pakistani CandidateBy Colum Lynch
Washington Post
Thursday, September 4, 2008; Page A10

UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 3 -- Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said Wednesday that widely divergent U.S. and U.N. estimates of the death toll from American airstrikes in Afghanistan may reflect the difficulties of obtaining an accurate account in a war zone.

"I believe that there is a bit of a fog of war involved in some of these initial reports," Khalilzad said. "Sometimes initial reports can be wrong. And the best way to deal with it is to have the kind of investigation that we have proposed, which is U.S., coalition, plus the Afghan government, plus the United Nations."

The remarks provided the strongest expression of skepticism by a top U.S. official over conflicting assertions by the United Nations and the Afghan government on one side, which claimed that a U.S. airstrike in western Afghanistan two weeks ago killed 90 civilians, and the U.S. military on the other, which said five people died in the operation.

In his first public appearance in weeks, Khalilzad also defended himself against allegations that he had improperly provided "advice and help" to a Pakistani presidential candidate, Asif Ali Zardari. Zardari, the husband of assassinated former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, is seeking to replace Pervez Musharraf as president. The United States is officially neutral in the race.


Richard A. Boucher, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for South Asia, scolded Khalilzad in a recent e-mail when Zardari informed him of his plans to meet with Khalilzad in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Boucher said Zardari told him Khalilzad had provided him with "advice and help." The contents of the e-mail were first reported by the New York Times.

The Afghan-born Khalilzad, who again denied rumors that he intends to run for president of Afghanistan and wishes to undermine Afghan President Hamid Karzai, emphasized that he has a long-standing personal friendship with the Bhutto family and that he has spoken to Zardari six or seven times since the family returned to Pakistan to reenter politics.

"No, I've not offered him any political advice," Khalilzad told reporters. He said communications with Zardari "have been social contacts, for the most part. It has been 'How are you?' . . . 'When can we get together?' "

The U.S. envoy said that he has an extensive network of friendships with influential figures in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan. "Those contacts and relationships have been useful for the United States," he said.

"I have many contacts and friends around the world," Khalilzad said. "And just because I am a government official now doesn't mean that I should end those friendships and relationships."

Khalilzad said that he is an experienced enough diplomat to know "the difference between being a channel with these friends on behalf of the United States or having social contacts."

He said that Zardari has only raised substantive political issues in one or two conversations with him and that he reported the substance of those discussions to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other U.S. officials.

"I'm also aware of the phone being an unreliable, untrustworthy instrument for communicating, in terms of security," Khalilzad said. "So I wouldn't see somebody as experienced as myself offering advice to a friend on an open line, on behalf of the United States. . . . You'll have to give me a little more credit than that."
and thats how, USAs uses its admin staff, to get rght peoples?

Dear COAS sir, plz wake up.....

 

[Neo]

US looking for ways to improve arrangement with Pakistan​

WASHINGTON, Sept 5: The United States is looking for ways to improve the current arrangement with Pakistan for fighting terrorists along the Afghan border, said a State Department official while responding to questions on a US commando raid earlier this week that seems to have strained Washington’s relations with Islamabad.

The department’s deputy spokesman Robert Wood, who has worked at the US Embassy in Islamabad, also conceded that the situation on both sides of the Afghan border was neither “perfect” nor “easy”.

Mr Wood spoke of the need for improving cooperation with Pakistan when asked if the United States would seek a new arrangement with Islamabad to formalise cross-border raids on suspected terrorist targets in Fata.

“Well, I’m not going to talk about what we may or may not do in terms of our cooperation with the government of Pakistan. But we will look for ways that we can both work very closely and work better in terms of fighting these extremist elements,” he said.

“Things are not perfect in terms of our efforts to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda,” he said, but both the US and Pakistan “continue to work hard and look for ways to improve our efforts, and that’s ongoing”.

Replying to another question, he said: “It’s not an easy situation. The government of Pakistan takes the threat from the Taliban and Al Qaeda very seriously, as we do.”

Mr Wood also emphasised that the militants were not operating in Pakistan alone but were active inside Afghanistan as well.

“We’re looking for ways that we can improve (and) enhance our cooperation (with Pakistan) in defeating these extremist elements that are operating not only in Pakistan, but across the border in Afghanistan,” he said.

A US commando raid into South Waziristan on Wednesday killed dozens of people and caused a strong reaction from Islamabad.

Identical resolutions in the upper and lower houses of parliament on Thursday said the attack was a gross violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

“I just wondered whether the condemnation by parliament raised this to a different level from your vantage point?” asked a journalist.

“I don’t have anything else to add to that,” said Mr Wood who had said earlier that he did not wish to comment on issues related to the raid.

Mr Wood, however, did not agree with the suggestion that the raid had strained US relations with Pakistan, which is a key ally in the US-led war against terrorism.

“Our relationship … it’s a very good one,” he said. “It’s complex, like a lot of our relationships with governments around the world. But it’s a good one and we both have, obviously, important interests, interests that coincide with regard to fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda.”

The State Department official also refused to disclose what message Ambassador Anne Patterson received when she was called to the Pakistan Foreign Office on Wednesday, hours after the Angoor Adda raid.

“We refer you to the Pakistani government. And we have continuing contacts with the government of Pakistan through our embassy in Islamabad,” he said.

Asked if the ambassador had apologised for the loss of lives in the raid, Mr Wood said: “I don’t have anything more” on that.

Another journalist asked Mr Wood if the US was worried about a blowback against the Pakistani government for US military operations inside Pakistan.

“I have nothing for you on that (either),” he said. “But let me just say, as our overall policy toward Pakistan in terms of the war on terror, we cooperate very closely with Pakistan in fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda elements that are operating not only in Pakistan, but across the border in Afghanistan.”

Another journalist reminded the State Department official that the Angoor Adda raid was not a solitary incident. There has been a series of such attacks.

“Is this not causing great embarrassment to the State Department and your relationship with the Pakistani government?” he asked.

“I would just reiterate that our relationship with the government of Pakistan is a strong one,” he said. “Pakistan is an important ally of the United States in the war on terror. We will continue to work with Pakistan.”

 

[Kharian_Beast]

“Our relationship … it’s a very good one,” he said. “It’s complex, like a lot of our relationships with governments around the world. But it’s a good one and we both have, obviously, important interests, interests that coincide with regard to fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda.”

Assholes...they've narrowed down what keeps us on their side to 1 reason, 2 if you count Taliban and Al Qaeda seperate.

 

[batmannow]

US looking for ways to improve arrangement with Pakistan​

WASHINGTON, Sept 5: The United States is looking for ways to improve the current arrangement with Pakistan for fighting terrorists along the Afghan border, said a State Department official while responding to questions on a US commando raid earlier this week that seems to have strained Washington’s relations with Islamabad.

The department’s deputy spokesman Robert Wood, who has worked at the US Embassy in Islamabad, also conceded that the situation on both sides of the Afghan border was neither “perfect” nor “easy”.

Mr Wood spoke of the need for improving cooperation with Pakistan when asked if the United States would seek a new arrangement with Islamabad to formalise cross-border raids on suspected terrorist targets in Fata.

“Well, I’m not going to talk about what we may or may not do in terms of our cooperation with the government of Pakistan. But we will look for ways that we can both work very closely and work better in terms of fighting these extremist elements,” he said.

“Things are not perfect in terms of our efforts to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda,” he said, but both the US and Pakistan “continue to work hard and look for ways to improve our efforts, and that’s ongoing”.

Replying to another question, he said: “It’s not an easy situation. The government of Pakistan takes the threat from the Taliban and Al Qaeda very seriously, as we do.”

Mr Wood also emphasised that the militants were not operating in Pakistan alone but were active inside Afghanistan as well.

“We’re looking for ways that we can improve (and) enhance our cooperation (with Pakistan) in defeating these extremist elements that are operating not only in Pakistan, but across the border in Afghanistan,” he said.

A US commando raid into South Waziristan on Wednesday killed dozens of people and caused a strong reaction from Islamabad.

Identical resolutions in the upper and lower houses of parliament on Thursday said the attack was a gross violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

“I just wondered whether the condemnation by parliament raised this to a different level from your vantage point?” asked a journalist.

“I don’t have anything else to add to that,” said Mr Wood who had said earlier that he did not wish to comment on issues related to the raid.

Mr Wood, however, did not agree with the suggestion that the raid had strained US relations with Pakistan, which is a key ally in the US-led war against terrorism.

“Our relationship … it’s a very good one,” he said. “It’s complex, like a lot of our relationships with governments around the world. But it’s a good one and we both have, obviously, important interests, interests that coincide with regard to fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda.”

The State Department official also refused to disclose what message Ambassador Anne Patterson received when she was called to the Pakistan Foreign Office on Wednesday, hours after the Angoor Adda raid.

“We refer you to the Pakistani government. And we have continuing contacts with the government of Pakistan through our embassy in Islamabad,” he said.

Asked if the ambassador had apologised for the loss of lives in the raid, Mr Wood said: “I don’t have anything more” on that.

Another journalist asked Mr Wood if the US was worried about a blowback against the Pakistani government for US military operations inside Pakistan.

“I have nothing for you on that (either),” he said. “But let me just say, as our overall policy toward Pakistan in terms of the war on terror, we cooperate very closely with Pakistan in fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda elements that are operating not only in Pakistan, but across the border in Afghanistan.”

Another journalist reminded the State Department official that the Angoor Adda raid was not a solitary incident. There has been a series of such attacks.

“Is this not causing great embarrassment to the State Department and your relationship with the Pakistani government?” he asked.

“I would just reiterate that our relationship with the government of Pakistan is a strong one,” he said. “Pakistan is an important ally of the United States in the war on terror. We will continue to work with Pakistan.”

U.S. Missiles Killed at Least Six People on Afghanistan-Pakistan Border, Residents Say

By PIR ZUBAIR SHAH and JANE PERLEZ
Published: September 5, 2008

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A missile strike from a remotely piloted United States reconnaissance aircraft killed 6 to 12 people in a group of houses in southern Afghanistan, very close to the border with Pakistan, Pakistani residents of the area said Friday.

The strike came after the United States carried out a commando raid by Special Operations forces in South Waziristan in Pakistan on the border with Afghanistan on Wednesday.
It was the first of what American military officials said could be more raids to attack Taliban insurgents in Pakistan’s tribal region. After the raid on Wednesday, Pakistan lodged a “strong protest” with the American government and said it reserved the right of retaliation.

The spokesman for the Pakistani Army, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, said the missile strike Friday did not take place on Pakistani territory. “There was no airstrike in Pakistan, or near Miran Shah or in North Waziristan,” General Abbas said. Miran Shah is the capital of North Waziristan, a tribal region in Pakistan that borders Afghanistan.

Residents in Miran Shah also said the missile strike on Friday morning hit a target inside Afghanistan, and not inside Pakistan. They said the attack struck two residential compounds in the village of Al Must, less than a mile from the Pakistani border.

According to reports from Al Must reaching Miran Shah, 6 to 12 people, including men of Arab descent, were killed, said Ahsan Dawar, a journalist in Miran Shah. Among the dead were two women and three children, Mr. Dawar said.

He said three missiles hit the two compounds, which he said belong to two residents of Al Must, Hakeem Khan and Arsala Khan. It is common for families in these areas to rent part of their compound to foreigners, especially Arabs who are involved in planning attacks against NATO forces in Afghanistan, residents said.

Mr. Dawar said that on Thursday, a pilotless American aircraft struck a large house in another village, Chaar Kehl, about 16 miles west of Miran Shah. In that attack, about 5 p.m. Thursday, seven Arab men were killed, he said.

Al Must is on the Afghan side of the border region called Gurwak, which is considered the demarcation line between Pakistan and Afghanistan and is locally known as Ground Zero, Mr. Dawar said.

Another local resident, Mahmood Khan, said that pilotless aircraft were seen over Al Must at 9 a.m. Friday.

The strikes on Friday appeared to indicate that the United States was forging ahead with a tougher strategy to curb the escalating numbers of Taliban fighters crossing from Pakistan to attack American and NATO soldiers fighting in Afghanistan.

Maj. Gen. Jeffrey J. Schloesser, the commander of American forces in eastern Afghanistan, told reporters at the Pentagon by teleconference on Friday that attacks against allied forces in Afghanistan had increased by 20 to 30 percent in the first eight months of this year, compared with the same period last year.

“The people that they’re killing, first and foremost, are innocent civilians, and then Afghan national security forces, predominantly police, Afghan National Army less so, and then the coalition forces even less after that,” General Schloesser said.

“They’re going to continue to drive a wedge between our international partners by deliberately causing civilian casualties, as well as attempting to weaken international resolve by targeting our alliance partner nations, their forces here,” he said.

The general said attacks on symbols of government authority were up 40 percent over last year, a trend he expected to continue.

Top American military commanders have warned Pakistan that they would start attacking Taliban havens in Pakistan’s tribal areas if the increased Taliban infiltration into Afghanistan did not stop.
The Pakistani foreign minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, told Parliament on Thursday that the American commando raid into South Waziristan on Wednesday violated national sovereignty and failed to attack militants.

No “high value target or known terrorist was among the dead,” he said. “Only innocent civilians, including women and children, have been targeted.”

Although the foreign minister used strong language, there was a growing belief that Pakistan was sharing more intelligence with the United States that allowed for more accurate targeting of Arab and other foreign militants who live among civilians in South and North Waziristan.

The Pakistani government summoned the American ambassador, Anne W. Patterson, to the foreign office on Thursday and formally complained about the commando raid on Wednesday.

The raid by the Special Operations forces, which killed at least 20 people in the Angoor Adda area of South Waziristan on Friday, was broadly criticized in the Pakistani press. “A go-it-alone strategy by the U.S. inside Pakistan will spell nothing but trouble for everyone,” said an editorial in the Friday edition of Dawn, an English-language newspaper.

Reuters reported on Friday that health officials were seeing an outbreak of cholera in refugees in northwest Pakistan. An estimated 300,000 people have fled the fighting in the area, the International Committee of the Red Cross said.

Pascal Cuttat, an agency official, said Friday at a news briefing: “The most immediate need remains access to clean water and sanitation. No food, health care or shelter is going to be of any good if people get water-borne diseases,” Reuters reported.

The, ground realities cannot be change by just, the farewell faxes & statments sent by a under sec.s office in washington to pakistani external affairs office or some pakistani newspappers. we had to adress the problums on the ground not on the papers?