U.S. Troops Must Not Be Permitted on Pakistan's Soil

[fatman17]

U.S. to expand 'eyes and ears' in Pakistani tribal areas

U.S., Afghan and Pakistani officials plan to meet daily on the Afghan side of the border to share intelligence about militants, an official said.

By Farah Stockman The Boston GlobePublished: February 26, 2008

WASHINGTON: U.S. officials are quietly planning to expand their presence in and around the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan by creating special coordination centers on the Afghan side of the border where U.S., Afghan and Pakistani officials can share intelligence about Qaeda and Taliban militants, according to State Department and Pentagon officials.

The Bush administration is also seeking to expand its influence in the tribal areas through a new economic support initiative that would initially focus on school and road construction projects. Officials recently asked Congress for $453 million to initiate the effort - a larger request for economic support funds than for any country except Afghanistan.

The expansion of U.S. efforts in the tribal areas - made possible, in part, by rising Pakistani anger over a string of suicide attacks by militants from the region - also includes the deployment of about 30 U.S. counterinsurgency trainers to teach an elite Pakistani force to fight Al Qaeda and indigenous extremists.

President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan has long refused to allow U.S. soldiers to operate openly in the semiautonomous tribal areas where Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding. But in recent months, as unrest in Pakistan grew, and he became increasingly unpopular, Musharraf began quietly allowing more American "eyes and ears" into the region, Pakistani officials said in interviews.

U.S. officials said they hoped Musharraf's concessions would evolve into a greater role for U.S. forces in the region over time.

 

[fatman17]

The Nation, Pakistan

U.S. Troops Must Not Be Permitted on Pakistan's Soil

"Tribesmen [in the Northwest Frontier Province] are already up in arms over our military campaign in their region. The presence of American troops would simply add fuel to the fire - and the consequences would be disastrous."

February 27, 2008

CITING State Department officials, The Boston Globe has revealed that the Bush Administration would like to set up special coordination centers on the Pakistani side of the tribal belt - not only for the purposes of intelligence sharing - but to have 30 counterinsurgency experts on the ground to train elite Pakistani units in the fight against terrorists, and ultimately for conducting joint operations with Pakistani troops. The U.S. administration has already asked Congress for $453 million for the project, which also includes an aid package.

[Editor's Note: According to the Feb. 9 edition of the Asia Times, "Wana military airfield in South Waziristan and Miranshah airfield in North Waziristan have been upgraded from makeshift airstrips into proper runways with backup facilities, which indicate plans for a powerful air operation." The article, written by the Asia Times Pakistan Bureau chief Syed Saleem Shahzad, also says that U.S. forces have been deployed at Lowari Mandi and Ghulman Khan checkpoints (both on the Afghan side of the border near North Waziristan) and that a new military camp is being built near Shawal (North Waziristan), on the Afghan side ].

President Musharraf's endorsement of the plan, which sent a shock wave through the nation, undermines the firm stand Pakistan has taken against allowing U.S. troops on its soil since the start of the War on Terror. That's to say nothing about allowing them to operate directly from our territory. Interestingly, the timing of the plan coincides with waning political support for President Musharraf, which leads one to wonder whether his acquiescence is a desperate attempt to help his party cling on to power [Musharraf's party was trounced in Parliamentary elections last week].

American forces working with our elite units would be able to obtain strategically crucial information about our geography, and might eventually control these operations. Tribesmen [in the Northwest Frontier Province] are already up in arms over our military campaign in their region. The presence of American troops would simply add fuel to the fire - and the consequences would be disastrous.

Historically, the United States has always been keen to protect its own interests to the detriment of the feelings of allies, and dumping them in the end. Even after extending its full cooperation for the past seven years, Pakistan is still being reprimanded for not doing enough and is accused of providing safe heaven to militants.

In addition, there is a dire need to understand the collective anger of people living in the tribal areas, who for years have been denied basic civic amenities.

The Pakistan Armed Forces are considered one of the most professional in the world, and hardly require training from U.S. troops who for years now, have failed to stem the tide of militancy in Afghanistan and Iraq. The solution to the problem lies in long-term planning, which includes education and economic development, besides giving people their due in accordance with the Constitution. The idea of a joint military venture into our tribal areas must be sternly rejected.

 

[maqsad]

Why does this training have to be done on Pakistani soil? There must be military schools in the US that these people can be sent to. Like that Blackwater place. Or since there are already troops in Afghanistan then pk army can be sent there to train but everyone knows the hub of physical and academic military training is in the continental US itself.

 

[Spring Onion]

Do you guys know that they are already in process to create another Army of our own tribesmen which according to them can carry operations against Al-qaeda and Taliban in trible belt more efficently.

But if one uses logics they are creating an army of Pakistani tribesmen parallel to Pakistan Army. In other words i feel they are going to make them more poweful to create another headach for Pakistan in particular and for the world in general.

 

[batmannow]

you are so RIGHT MAM JANA.

 

[khanz]

don't need to worry about it much they will not allow american troops in our soil.Winning parties have already said they want to do what the article suggest less on military operations and more on socio-economic development.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Jana:

I thought the Tribesman being trained were not a "new army", but simply capacity building of the FC, who are primarily Tribesmen.

Blain has clarified the US involvement in training Pakistani SF's several times, the training is going to be limited to "Training the Trainer", with Pakistani trainers eventually interacting with the majority of Pakistani troops. There is also no plan at this point to allow US forces to operate in FATA.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

I don't think that it is a parallel army that is being trained.

If it were so, the Pakistan govt would have stopped it long ago. A parallel Army of tribesmen would only assist the war of separatism!

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

i don't think it even matters. the tribesmen wouldn't fight their own. besides the tribal areas do not even care the least bit about separatism. they're fine with where they are and who they are.

 

[MOSABJA]

Yeah they must not be allowed.

I dont understand why the US wants Pakistan to fight with the Tribals.

They always say negotiations are not acceptable.

There statements seems to be suspicious .

Good Thing is.

The new government in the making has already rejected Mr.Robert Gates statement in which he warned the new government to negotiate.


Asfand yar Wali in Marriot hotel said"If there could be negotiations with India then why cant the Taliban".

We all know Shariff's stance.

PPPP too has said that"It will continue the WoT But they will change the strategy and will negotiate."


US SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH Wot.
Rather than
DICTATING US HOW TO FIGHT WoT.

We Should devise our own strategy on Wot.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

i don't think it even matters. the tribesmen wouldn't fight their own. besides the tribal areas do not even care the least bit about separatism. they're fine with where they are and who they are.

You feel so?

What does the preamble of Wali Khan's party's Manifesto read?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Salim:

Copying from your post:

THE PREAMBLE

The Awami National Party draws its inspiration from the example and teachings of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, affectionately known to his people as Baacha Khan. He spent his entire life in the struggle for freedom and justice. He and his Khudai Khidmatgars offered great sacrifices in the fight against colonialism, imperialism and all other forms of oppression. In a broader sense, Baacha Khan saw politics as the highest form of public service and often described himself as only a social worker. His objective was to liberate the masses of South Asia and, particularly, his own people, the Pukhtuns, from the shackles of ignorance and poverty, so that they could rise to their full potential.

In keeping with this spirit, the ANP, like its predecessors, the NAP (National Awami Party) and the NDP (National Democratic Party), looks upon politics primarily as a public service, particularly to the poor and the disadvantaged. Hence the Party is dedicated to the promotion of democracy and freedom, the eradication of poverty, the protection of human rights, the combating of extremism in all its forms and the creation of equal opportunities for all citizens. It firmly believes in peace and non-violence as the best way to resolve all issues. It is committed to securing for all the federating units of Pakistan their full political, social and economic rights as equal partners in the federation and their fair share in national progress and prosperity.

In the pursuit of these goals, the ANP is ready to work together with like-minded forces in Pakistan and to subscribe to partnerships with all peace loving countries of the world.

I think the last two paragraphs highlight how the ANP is resolved to working within the Pakistani federation. The reference to the "teachings of KAGK does not indicate to me a reference to his preference for one side or another after independence, but an adherence to his political philosophy of non violence.

 

[Always Neutral]

Salim:

Copying from your post:


I think the last two paragraphs highlight how the ANP is resolved to working within the Pakistani federation. The reference to the "teachings of KAGK does not indicate to me a reference to his preference for one side or another after independence, but an adherence to his political philosophy of non violence.

AM,

Do you really think some of these areas with their large illiteracy understand what the concept of a Pakistan Federation stands for ?

I doubt atleast in the areas of SWAT, FATA, Waziristan etc. They seem to care more about their tribes and then their religion and then the concept of what is good for their country.

For long the word autonomous areas were used to confuse the West and the World that these tribes had a different way of life but if needed they would put that aside everything for the better of Pakistan, however the recent events have shown that the same is not entirely true.

Regards

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM,

Do you really think some of these areas with their large illiteracy understand what the concept of a Pakistan Federation stands for ?

I doubt atleast in the areas of SWAT, FATA, Waziristan etc. They seem to care more about their tribes and then their religion and then the concept of what is good for their country.

For long the word autonomous areas were used to confuse the West and the World that these tribes had a different way of life but if needed they would put that aside everything for the better of Pakistan, however the recent events have shown that the same is not entirely true.

Regards

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.

My response was to what I interpreted as Salim alluding to an implicit separatist agenda in the ANP manifesto by virtue of a reference to KAGK (who was not necessarily in favor of the NWFP joining Pakistan).

 

[Always Neutral]

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.

My response was to what I interpreted as Salim alluding to an implicit separatist agenda in the ANP manifesto by virtue of a reference to KAGK (who was not necessarily in favor of the NWFP joining Pakistan).

Dear AM,

My post was in the context of your describing Pakistan as a Federation. For states to exist and honor a Federal Govt the people have to be ready to put the interest of country over their religon and tribal brotherhood. This does not seem to be happening in certain parts of Pakistan.

Regards