What's new

U.S. Weighs Strikes Into Baluchistan

TruthSeeker

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
6,390
Reaction score
3
Country
United States
Location
United States
U.S. Weighs Taliban Strike Into Pakistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/world/asia/18terror.html?ref=world

By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: March 17, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama and his national security advisers are considering expanding the American covert war in Pakistan far beyond the unruly tribal areas to strike at a different center of Taliban power in Baluchistan, where top Taliban leaders are orchestrating attacks into southern Afghanistan.

According to senior administration officials, two of the high-level reports on Pakistan and Afghanistan that have been forwarded to the White House in recent weeks have called for broadening the target area to reach the Taliban and other insurgent groups to a major sanctuary in and around the city of Quetta.

Mullah Muhammad Omar, who led the Taliban government that was ousted in the American-led invasion in 2001, has operated with near impunity out of the region for years, along with many of his deputies.

The extensive missile strikes being carried out by Central Intelligence Agency-operated drones have until now been limited to the tribal areas, and have never been extended into Baluchistan, a sprawling province that is under the authority of the central government, and which abuts the parts of southern Afghanistan where recent fighting has been the fiercest. There remains fear within the American government that extending the raids would worsen tensions. Pakistan complains that the strikes violate its sovereignty.

But some American officials say the missile strikes in the tribal areas have forced some leaders of the Taliban and Al Qaeda to flee south toward Quetta, making them more vulnerable. In separate reports, groups led by both Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of American forces in the region, and Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, a top White House official on Afghanistan, have recommended expanding American operations outside the tribal areas if Pakistan cannot root out the strengthening insurgency.

Many of Mr. Obama’s advisers are also urging him to sustain orders issued last summer by President George W. Bush to continue Predator drone attacks against a wider range of targets in the tribal areas, and to conduct cross-border ground actions, using C.I.A. and Special Operations commandos. Mr. Bush’s orders also named as targets a wide variety of insurgents seeking to topple Pakistan’s government. Mr. Obama has said little in public about how broadly he wants to pursue those groups.

A spokesman for the National Security Council, Mike Hammer, declined to provide details, saying, “We’re still working hard to finalize the review on Afghanistan and Pakistan that the president requested.”

No other officials would talk on the record about the issue, citing the administration’s continuing internal deliberations and the politically volatile nature of strikes into Pakistani territory.

“It is fair to say that there is wide agreement to sustain and continue these covert programs,” said one senior administration official. “One of the foundations on which the recommendations to the president will be based is that we’ve got to sustain the disruption of the safe havens.”

Mr. Obama’s top national security advisers, known as the Principals Committee, met Tuesday to begin debating all aspects of Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy. Senior administration officials say Mr. Obama has made no decisions, but is expected to do so in coming days after hearing the advice of that group.

Any expansion of the war is bound to upset those in Mr. Obama’s party who worry that he is sinking further into a lengthy conflict in Afghanistan, even while reducing forces in Iraq. It is possible that the decisions about covert actions will never be publicly announced.

Several administration and military officials stressed that they continued to prod the Pakistani military to take the lead in a more aggressive campaign to root out Taliban and Qaeda fighters who are attacking American forces in Afghanistan and increasingly destabilizing nuclear-armed Pakistan.

But with Pakistan consumed by political turmoil, fear of financial collapse and a spreading insurgency, American officials say they have few illusions that the United States will be able to rely on Pakistan’s own forces. However, each strike by Predators or ground forces reverberates in Pakistan, and Mr. Obama will be weighing that cost.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on “The Charlie Rose Show” on PBS last week that the White House strategy review addresses the “safe haven in Pakistan — making sure that Afghanistan doesn’t provide a capability in the long run or an environment in which Al Qaeda could return or the Taliban could return.” But another senior official cautioned that “with the targets now spreading, an expanding U.S. role inside Pakistan may be more than anyone there can stomach.”

As part of the same set of decisions, according to senior civilian and military officials familiar with the internal White House debate, Mr. Obama will have to choose from among a range of options for future American commitments to Afghanistan.

His core decision may be whether to scale back American ambitions there and simply assure that it does not become a sanctuary for terrorist groups. “We are taking this back to a fundamental question,” a senior diplomat involved in the discussions said. “Can you ever get a central government in Afghanistan to a point where it can exercise control over the country? That was the problem Bush never really confronted.”

A second option, officials say, is to significantly boost the American commitment to train Afghan troops, with Americans taking on the Taliban with increasing help from the Afghan military. President Bush pursued versions of that strategy, but the training always took longer and proved less successful than plans called for.

A third option would involve devoting full American and NATO resources to a large-scale counterinsurgency effort. But Mr. Obama would be bound to face considerable opposition within NATO, whose leaders he will meet with early next month in Strasbourg, France. At the very time the United States is seeking to expand its presence in Afghanistan, many of the allies are scheduled to leave.

As for American strikes on militant havens inside Pakistan, administration officials say the Predator and Reaper attacks in the tribal areas have been effective at killing 9 of Al Qaeda’s top 20 leaders, and the aerial campaign was recently expanded to focus on the Pakistani Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud, as well as his fighters and training camps. Many American intelligence officials say that several of the top Taliban commanders remain in hiding either in the sprawling Afghan refugee camps near Quetta or in some of the city’s Afghan neighborhoods.

Missile strikes or American commando raids in the city of Quetta or the teeming Afghan settlements and refugee camps around the city and near the Afghan border would carry high risks of civilian casualties, American officials acknowledge.

Thom Shanker contributed reporting from Washington, and Carlotta Gall from Islamabad, Pakistan.
 
.
U.S. Weighs Taliban Strike Into Pakistan



By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: March 17, 2009


Thom Shanker contributed reporting from Washington, and Carlotta Gall from Islamabad, Pakistan.


I think US is bent upon destabilizing pakistan. share the intelligence and pakistan will do the work if you have some...

Pakistan in previous occassion accussed US of not taking action against mashud when given intelligence to US troops...

Pakistan should operate Reaper drones and strike any insurgent target that it gets intelligent on.

US is bent upon undermining pakistani army and instigating pakistan people against central govt rule.

all these childish behavious will harm the integrity of bi lateral relationships and will create more taliban then US can imagine. US should think from brain not from happy trigger feelings...
 
.
10 years ago the US didn't even care about Pakistan and now US has put its entire attention on Pakistan in the worst way possible.

Quit trying to be our enemy and bring back the U.S.-Pakistan relations of the time John F Kennedy was President of the United States.
 
.
10 years ago the US didn't even care about Pakistan and now US has put its entire attention on Pakistan in the worst way possible.

Quit trying to be our enemy and bring back the U.S.-Pakistan relations of the time John F Kennedy was President of the United States.

Believe it or not, all this shyt going on is because of Osama bin Laden. If he hadn't attacked the US, none of this would be happening. Pakistanis should be so over the top angry with him for all the "collateral damage" they have suffered for him that they find him and turn his sorry a$$ over. I'm amazed that some Pakistani patriot hasn't dropped a dime on him yet.
 
.
Believe it or not, all this shyt going on is because of Osama bin Laden. If he hadn't attacked the US, none of this would be happening. Pakistanis should be so over the top angry with him for all the "collateral damage" they have suffered for him that they find him and turn his sorry a$$ over. I'm amazed that some Pakistani patriot hasn't dropped a dime on him yet.


Its very hard to believe that especially when every time a video is released of Bin Laden his facial features suddenly changes.
 
.
I'm sorry but you seem unaware that there are two recent threads devoted to the duplicitous magic we've worked on Islam by perpetuating the image of a dead OBL. We need to maintain our raison d'etre.

After all, how do we sustain our nation's sagging morale without a demi-god figure to rally against?:lol:

Now bear in mind that I wear the shame of this accusation from Kasrkin when suggesting that we've reason to suspect some elements of the Pakistani gov't have maintained relations with the insurgents-

"...you mean paranoia, distrust, insecurity, downright contempt and tendency to attribute your own failures to another party."

These are the basis, therefore, of my thoughts on the Quetta shura and others. Happily, my gov't must be drinking the same kool aid...and MORE. Glad somebody there has tired of Omar's long-term lease.:agree:

If only America had met it's proper responsibilities and secured Pakistan's borders in 2001, none of this would happen.:rolleyes:

Let's make amends...

On to Quetta.:angry::usflag:
 
.
U.S. Weighs Taliban Strike Into Pakistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/world/asia/18terror.html?ref=world

By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: March 17, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama and his national security advisers are considering expanding the American covert war in Pakistan far beyond the unruly tribal areas to strike at a different center of Taliban power in Baluchistan, where top Taliban leaders are orchestrating attacks into southern Afghanistan.

According to senior administration officials, two of the high-level reports on Pakistan and Afghanistan that have been forwarded to the White House in recent weeks have called for broadening the target area to reach the Taliban and other insurgent groups to a major sanctuary in and around the city of Quetta.

Mullah Muhammad Omar, who led the Taliban government that was ousted in the American-led invasion in 2001, has operated with near impunity out of the region for years, along with many of his deputies.

The extensive missile strikes being carried out by Central Intelligence Agency-operated drones have until now been limited to the tribal areas, and have never been extended into Baluchistan, a sprawling province that is under the authority of the central government, and which abuts the parts of southern Afghanistan where recent fighting has been the fiercest. There remains fear within the American government that extending the raids would worsen tensions. Pakistan complains that the strikes violate its sovereignty.

But some American officials say the missile strikes in the tribal areas have forced some leaders of the Taliban and Al Qaeda to flee south toward Quetta, making them more vulnerable. In separate reports, groups led by both Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of American forces in the region, and Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, a top White House official on Afghanistan, have recommended expanding American operations outside the tribal areas if Pakistan cannot root out the strengthening insurgency.

Many of Mr. Obama’s advisers are also urging him to sustain orders issued last summer by President George W. Bush to continue Predator drone attacks against a wider range of targets in the tribal areas, and to conduct cross-border ground actions, using C.I.A. and Special Operations commandos. Mr. Bush’s orders also named as targets a wide variety of insurgents seeking to topple Pakistan’s government. Mr. Obama has said little in public about how broadly he wants to pursue those groups.

A spokesman for the National Security Council, Mike Hammer, declined to provide details, saying, “We’re still working hard to finalize the review on Afghanistan and Pakistan that the president requested.”

No other officials would talk on the record about the issue, citing the administration’s continuing internal deliberations and the politically volatile nature of strikes into Pakistani territory.

“It is fair to say that there is wide agreement to sustain and continue these covert programs,” said one senior administration official. “One of the foundations on which the recommendations to the president will be based is that we’ve got to sustain the disruption of the safe havens.”

Mr. Obama’s top national security advisers, known as the Principals Committee, met Tuesday to begin debating all aspects of Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy. Senior administration officials say Mr. Obama has made no decisions, but is expected to do so in coming days after hearing the advice of that group.

Any expansion of the war is bound to upset those in Mr. Obama’s party who worry that he is sinking further into a lengthy conflict in Afghanistan, even while reducing forces in Iraq. It is possible that the decisions about covert actions will never be publicly announced.

Several administration and military officials stressed that they continued to prod the Pakistani military to take the lead in a more aggressive campaign to root out Taliban and Qaeda fighters who are attacking American forces in Afghanistan and increasingly destabilizing nuclear-armed Pakistan.

But with Pakistan consumed by political turmoil, fear of financial collapse and a spreading insurgency, American officials say they have few illusions that the United States will be able to rely on Pakistan’s own forces. However, each strike by Predators or ground forces reverberates in Pakistan, and Mr. Obama will be weighing that cost.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on “The Charlie Rose Show” on PBS last week that the White House strategy review addresses the “safe haven in Pakistan — making sure that Afghanistan doesn’t provide a capability in the long run or an environment in which Al Qaeda could return or the Taliban could return.” But another senior official cautioned that “with the targets now spreading, an expanding U.S. role inside Pakistan may be more than anyone there can stomach.”

As part of the same set of decisions, according to senior civilian and military officials familiar with the internal White House debate, Mr. Obama will have to choose from among a range of options for future American commitments to Afghanistan.

His core decision may be whether to scale back American ambitions there and simply assure that it does not become a sanctuary for terrorist groups. “We are taking this back to a fundamental question,” a senior diplomat involved in the discussions said. “Can you ever get a central government in Afghanistan to a point where it can exercise control over the country? That was the problem Bush never really confronted.”

A second option, officials say, is to significantly boost the American commitment to train Afghan troops, with Americans taking on the Taliban with increasing help from the Afghan military. President Bush pursued versions of that strategy, but the training always took longer and proved less successful than plans called for.

A third option would involve devoting full American and NATO resources to a large-scale counterinsurgency effort. But Mr. Obama would be bound to face considerable opposition within NATO, whose leaders he will meet with early next month in Strasbourg, France. At the very time the United States is seeking to expand its presence in Afghanistan, many of the allies are scheduled to leave.

As for American strikes on militant havens inside Pakistan, administration officials say the Predator and Reaper attacks in the tribal areas have been effective at killing 9 of Al Qaeda’s top 20 leaders, and the aerial campaign was recently expanded to focus on the Pakistani Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud, as well as his fighters and training camps. Many American intelligence officials say that several of the top Taliban commanders remain in hiding either in the sprawling Afghan refugee camps near Quetta or in some of the city’s Afghan neighborhoods.

Missile strikes or American commando raids in the city of Quetta or the teeming Afghan settlements and refugee camps around the city and near the Afghan border would carry high risks of civilian casualties, American officials acknowledge.

Thom Shanker contributed reporting from Washington, and Carlotta Gall from Islamabad, Pakistan.

WOW...thats gr8...whatelse is there to disclose......operation like in Iraq.

SO much for helping there allies....


tx
 
.
I see you mentioned the secret drink kool aid again. Dangerous stuff that. Pity they did not use it years ago.

I see you have managed to Predatored it nicely on target.
Not only, only part payload used too.
Nice work.

Though I thought it might be nice to get OBL et al all running into Iran for a nice warm welcome.
 
.
I'm sorry but you seem unaware that there are two recent threads devoted to the duplicitous magic we've worked on Islam by perpetuating the image of a dead OBL. We need to maintain our raison d'etre.

After all, how do we sustain our nation's sagging morale without a demi-god figure to rally against?:lol:

Now bear in mind that I wear the shame of this accusation from Kasrkin when suggesting that we've reason to suspect some elements of the Pakistani gov't have maintained relations with the insurgents-

"...you mean paranoia, distrust, insecurity, downright contempt and tendency to attribute your own failures to another party."

These are the basis, therefore, of my thoughts on the Quetta shura and others. Happily, my gov't must be drinking the same kool aid...and MORE. Glad somebody there has tired of Omar's long-term lease.:agree:

If only America had met it's proper responsibilities and secured Pakistan's borders in 2001, none of this would happen.:rolleyes:

Let's make amends...

On to Quetta.:angry::usflag:

Maybe you can fool people in southern and mid-western United States with those Bin Laden tapes but you can't fool Pakistanis, we know not all Arabs look the same.

U.S. dreams of invading Pakistan like they invaded Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan but Pakistan is nothing like these three countries U.S. invaded in recent history. The only reason why US wants to come into Pakistan in the first place is to get hold of Pakistan's nukes.

You wonder why U.S.' popularity went down the drain after Kennedy was killed by AMERICAN TERRORISTS. Kennedy was the only fair president after Lincoln and both were killed by AMERICAN TERRORISTS but American terrorists dont seem to lay a finger on presidents like Bush...I wonder why.

Fix your own home first!
 
.
Believe it or not, all this shyt going on is because of Osama bin Laden. If he hadn't attacked the US, none of this would be happening. Pakistanis should be so over the top angry with him for all the "collateral damage" they have suffered for him that they find him and turn his sorry a$$ over. I'm amazed that some Pakistani patriot hasn't dropped a dime on him yet.

After almost eight years, the U.S and its allies STILL haven't been able to achieve a victory in Afghanistan. It's a fact that over 70% of Afghanistan is still under Taliban control. Who's to say that Osama Bin Laden is not hiding in Afghanistan?

You people need to get your priorities straight. U.S and it's allies haven't been able to achieve squat in Afghanistan and it's been eight years. Contemplating a war within Pakistan using Osama Bin Laden as a scapegoat sounds like a laughable Idea.

If America is planning to target BLA terrorists in Baluchistan then by all means, you're more than welcome. But unfortunately, we all know that's not in America's interest.
 
.
After almost eight years, the U.S and its allies STILL haven't been able to achieve a victory in Afghanistan. It's a fact that over 70% of Afghanistan is still under Taliban control. Who's to say that Osama Bin Laden is not hiding in Afghanistan?

You people need to get your priorities straight. U.S and it's allies haven't been able to achieve squat in Afghanistan and it's been eight years. Contemplating a war within Pakistan using Osama Bin Laden as a scapegoat sounds like a laughable Idea.

If America is planning to target BLA terrorists in Baluchistan then by all means, you're more than welcome. But unfortunately, we all know that's not in America's interest.

Gwadar is also a city in the province of Baluchistan. Of all the places in Pakistan, US wants to come into the province of Baluchistan...its clear what US' agenda is.
 
.
Looks like people of pakistan would have to do another "Long March" this time to stop this war on terror on pakistani soil.
 
.
"It's a fact that over 70% of Afghanistan is still under Taliban control."

IIRC, that was a "heavy presence". How it shakes out, I don't know. If your comment above, though, stems from the map here, then I'd suggest a more careful inspection.

Here's what I see. Little presence means one insurgent, civilian, or allied casualty incident. Light indicates a very modest number of incidents. Heavy is most ambiguous though. The incidents achieved in some areas to constitute "heavy" pale by comparison to others.

We have two clear loci of attacks by viewing the ICOS map. the Kandahar-Lashkar Gal complex and the environs around Kabul extending east through Jalalabad. Large areas of INTENSE activity. Removed though, and I think the picture within the rest of the nation is altered dramatically. Secondly, for however large they are, they constitute nowhere near 72%.

More accurately, though, I'd suggest that those two intense concentrations probably represent 72% of the population...

...and that's more important. The taliban are extremely interested in these relatively densely populated areas. Makes sense that they'd expend their effort where it's most important.
 
.
a. Us spy agencies are useless.
b. Us attack Iraq on the bases the CIA has the intelligence about Iraq weapon of mass destruction but soon Us found out there is no weapon of mass destruction only the blood of Iraqi civilians same in Afghanistan (if American did n t find out those weapon they should left Iraq) .
c. America only interest in Afghanistan is to have military presence in Asia.
d. Now they are trying to make statement to take away Pakistan nuclear technology (which they will never successes).
e. Taliban was the creation of Americans to defeat Russia now US is acting that it all Pakistan fault.
f. Since 2001 American losses in Afghanistan is less than 700 and seeing Pakistan on other side who send army on 2004 had suffer more than 1500 soldiers martyred(it seems like Pakistan is more serious on war on terror).
g. American is found of killing civilians like in world war 2 by dropping atomic boom on Japan , killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan.(American bring people to justice and hang people for war crimes now who will bring justice to these people about American army war crime in Pakistan Iraq and Afghanistan) now do you allow these people to attach on Americans for war crimes committed by US.
h. American is responsible for revolution in Iran (now they hate US) same is going to happen in Pakistan if US do not stop drone attacks.
i. American lives such peaceful lives because they took the peace away from many nations.(there was so peace in Pakistan but after American friendship no peace. same happen in Iraq war with Iran no peace in Iraq. and same with Iran with US gone they are in peace.)
j. actual fanatics are American who imposes there will , there thought and there system on every countries. And American are fanatics about to get total world domination.
k. Do not attach weak countries, attack countries like Russia which you Americans have a good history of hate.

LONG LIVE PAKISTAN
PAKISTAN FOR EVER
 
.
Foreign Office has just reported that this just speculation of US Media and US have not informed us about it and are not considering it.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom