US attacks 5th time in a week! | PAF patrols Pak skies

[Neo]

White House refuses to comment on rules of engagement​

By Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON, Sept 12: The United States continues to refuse to talk about US military actions inside Fata with the White House saying that it does not want to comment on rules of engagement with the enemy.

But unnamed Pentagon officials, in interviews to CNN, BBC, Fox News and other channels, confirmed that President Bush had authorised cross-border operations, involving both drones and ground troops, inside Pakistan.

And a former Pentagon expert on Afghanistan, Col David Hunt, told Fox News that a particular unit of the US Marine Corps Special Operations called ‘Detachment One’ conducted last Wednesday’s ground attack in South Waziristan that killed 20 people, including militants and civilians.

Also on Friday, yet another US missile attack was carried out, this time in North Waziristan.

Friday’s attack was particularly embarrassing for Pakistan’s Ambassador Husain Haqqani who told reporters on Thursday that he had been assured “at the highest levels” at the White House and the State Department that the US had no intention to carry out unilateral strikes inside Fata.

The issue was raised at the White House on Friday as well when reporters asked deputy spokesman Tony Fratto under what authority did President Bush order cross-border operations in Pakistan.

“I’m aware of the reports that you’re talking about. It’s not a story that I’m going to comment on,” he said. “And I’m not going to comment on rules of engagement with the enemy.”

His comments, particularly those about “rules of engagement with the enemy” can be interpreted as an indirect confirmation of media reports that recent US attacks were not “knee-jerk” reactions, as the Pakistan Embassy in Washington says, but are part of a new strategy for combating terrorists.

In a related development, a senior State Department official told reporters that there were no differences among various sections of the US administration on how to deal with the militants in Fata.

“We are all on this together,” said Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher when asked if the US military’s decision to go public with the new strategy of increasing attacks inside Pakistan made his task tougher.

“The administration speaks on it in one voice,” said Mr Boucher who looks after South Asian affairs at the State Department.

Mr Boucher, however, dispelled the impression that the US had tried to bypass Pakistan while making a decision to launch military strikes inside its border.

“We are working closely with the Pakistanis,” said Mr Boucher while talking to reporters after giving a talk on the US-India nuclear deal on Capitol Hill.

As officials at the White House and the State Department refused to confirm or deny whether President Bush had authorised cross-border operations into Pakistan, a senior Pentagon official told BBC that he had.

An unnamed senior Pentagon official told the BBC the classified order had been made within the past two months.

The official said that President Bush’s order included authorisation to conduct military raids against militants inside Pakistan without prior approval from Islamabad.

Another official told AFP news agency that the US-led coalition ground troops in Afghanistan had been “given the green light to undertake unilateral cross-border operations against militants in Pakistan”.

Yet another senior US official told the Reuters news agency that the US military had the right to go after sponsors of cross-border attacks.

“What you’re seeing is an increased activity (by) our troops taking our rules of engagement to them,” the official said.

Reports like these that are attributed to unnamed officials come from background briefings held by senior Pentagon, State Department or White House officials. In such background briefings, a reporter is authorised to report what the officials say without identifying them.

Lisa Curtis, a former senior adviser on South Asian issues in the State Department, told reporters that Pakistan’s inability to dismantle “terrorist safe havens” in Fata had caused the US administration to decide “that ‘enough is enough’ and they needed to take these steps in order to try to take care of the problem on their own”. The move, she said, could be attributed to Pakistan’s attempt to forge peace deals with militants in the tribal areas recently that followed heavy casualties suffered by US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan.

Col. David Hunt, a former Pentagon expert on Afghanistan, in an interview to Fox News, claimed that US intelligence sources, particularly CIA, had warned Pakistan before last Wednesday’s attack by US ground forces.

“We didn’t ask permission. We told them we were coming,” he said.

Col Hunt said US authorities decided to send troops into Fata after they concluded that they “cannot solve what’s going on in Afghanistan without solving the border region along the Pakistan-Afghan border”. Meanwhile, The Washington Post noted that the number of missile attacks by pilotless Predator drones in Pakistan had more than tripled in the past year.

The Post reported officials involved in the operations called the attacks part of a renewed effort to cripple Al-Qaeda’s central command. The drones were targeting top Al Qaeda members in the hope that they could lead authorities to Osama bin Laden, the report said.

 

[Neo]

Another US drone strike kills 14 in N Waziristan​

* 14 wounded as missiles target house rented by Al Badar terrorist group in Miranshah
* Army confirms attack, says it has informed government​

​

MIRANSHAH: A missile from a suspected United States drone killed 14 people when it hit a house in the outskirts of Miranshah in North Waziristan tribal area on Friday.

It was the fourth such strike in a week.

The pre-dawn strike destroyed the house and 14 people were killed, an official told Reuters, adding that another 14 people were wounded.

Al Badar terrorist group: The men were believed to be terrorists, locals said, adding that the house hit in the Tol Khel area had been rented by an Afghan terrorist organisation, Al Badar, and was being used as an office.

Army confirms: “We confirm a missile attack at around 5.30 in the morning (on Thursday) ... We have informed the government,” said military spokesman Major Murad Khan.

Khan gave no more details but security officials in the region said 14 people had been killed and about 12 wounded.

Residents said two missiles were fired at a former government school where terrorists and their families were living.

Gul Zaman Wazir, a local resident, told AP by phone that drone aircraft were heard before the attack.

“They kept on circling in the sky for about two hours,” Wazir said. “Then we heard a big bang.”

A large number of terrorists later sealed off the area, he said.

Al Badar, backed by former guerrilla leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, has previously conducted operations against Afghan and international forces based across the border in Afghanistan, residents and a security official said.

Hekmatyar was briefly prime minister of Afghanistan in the 1990s after the end of its Soviet occupation. He has backed the Taliban since the regime was removed from power following the US-led invasion of the country in 2001, after the September 11 attacks in the United States, and has demanded the withdrawal of foreign forces.

Missile strikes targeting terrorists in Pakistan in recent weeks have been blamed on US-led coalition forces or CIA drones based in Afghanistan. Pakistan does not have missile-equipped drones.

Thirty-eight people, including women and children, have been killed in the past week’s missile attacks.

Fears about Afghanistan’s future and frustration with Pakistani efforts to tackle the terrorists have led to more US missile attacks by drone aircraft in Pakistan.

About a dozen strikes this year have killed scores of terrorists and civilians. agencies

 

[Neo]

Pak faces danger of schism in army if unilateral US strikes continue ​

United States World News

Islamabad, Sep 13: Pakistan faces the potential danger of a schism in the army as there is a growing anti-American sentiment largely fuelled by the indiscriminate missile attacks and cross-border incursions.

The Pakistani military’s top brass finished a two-day summit on Friday that was called to consider how to respond to the US incursions in Tribal Areas bordering Afghanistan.

Army chief General Ashfaq Kayani issued a strong statement before the meeting, calling the ground assault “reckless.”

Analysts believe it is possible that General Kayani gave tacit consent for limited ground raids, but it is unlikely that a majority of the corps commanders, who each control thousands of men and from whom the Army Chief derives his authority, are on board.

“What would probably endanger General Kayani most; is if he continued to support, or be viewed as supporting, incursions, and they appeared ineffective and corps commanders were increasingly unhappy,” said Seth Jones, an analyst at Rand Corp.

“If this split widens, then I think you'll get a very serious problem.” The globeandmail quoted Jones, as saying.

US and NATO commanders have made clear that the fight against the Taliban can't be won in Afghanistan if they continue to enjoy sanctuary in Pakistan’s tribal belt.

But hit-and-run raids by US troops, like the operation seen in North Waziristan last week, can only eliminate a few Taliban or al-Qaeda leaders, not clear the territory of militants or hold it.

To do so would require the Pakistani Army to act, which may be the response the United States is trying to provoke. But there’s a danger the tactic could snuff out what little support remains in Pakistan over participation in the “war on terror.” (ANI)

 

[Neo]

Pakistan pursues diplomacy with US on border raids​

By Paul Alexander, AP
Saturday, Sep. 13, 2008

Supporters of Pakistan's opposition Tahrik-e-Insaf party chant slogans during a rally to condemn U.S. strikes in Pakistani tribal areas along Afghanistan border, Saturday, Sept. 13, 2008 in Lahore, Pakistan. Pakistan is backing off suggestions it might confront U.S. troops making raids into its territory in search of Islamic militants, saying Saturday it will deal diplomatically with Washington over the stepped-up tactics.

A resident of Pakistani tribal area Bajur, who was injured in the fighting between Pakistani forces and militants, lies on the bed at a local hospital in Peshawar, Pakistan on Saturday, Sept. 13, 2008. Pakistan's military said Saturday it had killed at least 72 militants in three days of fighting near the Afghan border, where Taliban and al-Qaida militants are believed to be hiding.

Supporters of Pakistan's opposition Tahrik-e-Insaf hold a banner reading: "we condemn the killing of innocent people in U.S. strikes in Pakistani tribal areas" during a rally in Lahore, Pakistan, Saturday, Sept. 13, 2008. Pakistan is backing off suggestions it might confront U.S. troops making raids into its territory in search of Islamic militants, saying Saturday it will deal diplomatically with Washington over the stepped-up tactics.

Supporters of a Pakistani opposition party Pakistan Tahrik-e-Insaf chant slogans in front banners reading "we condemn the killing of innocent people in U.S. strikes in Pakistani tribal areas" during a rally in Karachi, Pakistan, Saturday, Sept. 13, 2008. Pakistan is backing off suggestions it might confront U.S. troops making raids into its territory in search of Islamic militants, saying Saturday it will deal diplomatically with Washington over the stepped-up tactics.

Supporters of Pakistan's opposition Tahrik-e-Insaf party chant slogans during a rally to condemn U.S. strikes in Pakistani tribal areas along Afghanistan border in Lahore, Pakistan, Saturday, Sept. 13, 2008. Pakistan is backing off suggestions it might confront U.S. troops making raids into its territory in search of Islamic militants, saying Saturday it will deal diplomatically with Washington over the stepped-up tactics.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan Pakistan's government eased its rhetoric Saturday against unilateral U.S. attacks on militant havens near the Afghan border, saying it hopes quiet diplomacy will persuade Washington that the raids only inflame sentiment against leaders of both countries.

Defense Minister Ahmad Mukhtar claimed Washington already has agreed to curtail its military activities against militants in Pakistan, although a missile strike Friday killed at least 12 people.

Most U.S. cross-border activity has been limited to missiles fired by unmanned drone aircraft. But in a Sept. 3 attack, helicopter-borne U.S. ground forces were used in an operation that killed at least 15, an escalation of U.S. military force.

"As far as my information, we have taken it up at the highest level with the State Department and Pentagon," Mukhtar said in an apparent reference to the U.S. using ground forces.

"They have given us assurance that it would not be repeated. The agreement we have with them is that we will exchange information and the Pakistan military or (paramilitary) forces will take action against terrorists in Pakistan," Mukhtar added.

The White House declined comment on the remarks, as it largely has done since reports emerged Thursday that President Bush secretly approved more aggressive cross-border operations in July as part of a strategy to fight the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.

Since Aug. 13, there have been at least seven reported missile strikes, as well as the ground forces operation, in tribally governed territory where the government has little control. The border region is considered a likely hiding place for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri.

Top government officials indicated Pakistan was trying to avoid an outright confrontation with Washington, its ally and financial supporter, after the main opposition party suggested the country should consider dropping out of the war on terror if cross-border attacks continue.

Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani told reporters late Friday Pakistan would prefer to resolve any issue with Washington through diplomatic channels, adding that the issue will be discussed on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York later this month.

"Due to this American policy, the tribal people will join militants and our work will be damaged," he said hours after the latest missile strike. "We will not allow anyone to interfere inside our country.

"It is not that we will launch any attack. We will try to convince America, we will try to convince Britain that they should respect the sovereignty of Pakistan, and God willing, we will be able to convince them."

However, Pakistan's army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has vowed to protect the country's sovereignty "at all cost."

A group of tribal elders representing about a half-million people in the North Waziristan area, where most of the missile attacks have occurred, threatened Saturday to join forces with Taliban militants in Afghanistan.

"If America doesn't stop attacks in tribal areas, we will prepare an army to attack U.S. forces in Afghanistan," chief tribal elder Malik Nasrullah told a news conference in Miran Shah, the area's largest city. "We will also seek support from the tribal elders in Afghanistan to fight jointly against America."

Small demonstrations against the U.S. incursions, each drawing about 50 people, were held Saturday in Karachi, Lahore and Quetta. They were organized by the Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf party of cricket star-turned-politician Imran Khan. Some carried placards reading "Bush worst example of human rights violations."

The government and military have issued stiff protests to Washington, although the criticism appeared to be mostly aimed at soothing domestic anger because Pakistan really has few options to influence U.S. policy short of opening fire on allied forces or severing relations.

Mukhtar reiterated Pakistan's contention that it is doing all it can to fight militancy and is suffering as a result, with more than 1,000 security forces killed since the country allied itself with Washington in its war on terror after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Pakistan's military said Saturday it killed at least 96 militants and lost eight forces in four days of fighting in the Bajur tribal area near the Afghan border.

Robert Hathaway, director of the Asia program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, said the U.S. has to be careful not to dismiss the help it is getting from Pakistan.

He called the raid by ground forces a "risky maneuver" and said "too many of these operations will make the Pakistani army less willing to work with us," which could negatively affect future U.S. leadership.

 

[niaz]

Like all Pakistanis, it pains me greatly to see US carrying on its will despite protests from Pakistan. My first reaction was; to hell with it, we must counter any violation of our borders whether by air or by land thru use of force.

This is the normal knee jerk reaction to any action that really hurts and justifiably so. However, after serious deliberations and after listening to various discussions on the TV, I would like to present an alternate view.

Lets us face it. FATA, even though nominally a Pakistani territory was never considered as part of Pakistan by the general populace of the area. They had their own laws. Always indulged in whatever suited their fancy such as smuggling, gun running and also a haven for the terrorists and murderers. How many times have you heard that after a serious crime, the perpetrator ran away to hide in the tribal area and was thus out of reach of Pakistan authorities or the motor car after being taken away by force is being hidden in the tribal belt? I have personally seen the notice “

“Beware you are now entering the tribal area and at your own Risk”.

During the Afghan war this area became a safe haven for the Mujahids where Soviets expected to meet armed resistance from PA if pursued. This is true that terrorist acts were never carried out by these people inside Pakistan before 9/11. However there was strong support for the sectarian violence. Even to this day Shia/Sunni fighting is going on in the Kurran Agency and Deobandi/Braelvi power struggle in the Landi Kotal area.

The situation after Pakistan’s U-turn against the Taliban became worse. A large section of the populace does not accept being part of Pakistan and want to create Taliban style Islamic Emirate. Bajour, Swat and Waziristan are virtually independent. These people are actively fighting and killing Pakistan Army! If this not out and out rebellion, then what is it??? You can’t say that Pakistan laws don’t apply here, this is our land and next minute cry about violation of sovereignty when bombed by a Predator. Why don’t these people accept GOP writ and stop using this territory for attacks inside Afghanistan as agreed in many jirgas?

There is little doubt that US has realized that PA is incapable of controlling these terrorists and has decided to take the matter in their own hands. I have therefore changed my views and firmly believe that as long as this cancer of Taliban is not eliminated from Pakistan society, Pakistan is doomed. Since PA is incapable of doing it due to whatever reasons, let US do it.

There is no doubt that ordinary activists are fighting PA and the US as a revenge ( Pakthoon Valee ). Nevertheless, master minds behind this insurgency want to create a Taliban State in Pakistan itself. These are the brains of the movement such as Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omer and Aiman Zawari; whereas front line such as Baitullh Mahsood are mere tools in their nefarious design.

Pakistan media and the MMA seldom openly condemn terrorist acts inside Pakistan. Where is sovereignty when non Pakistanis are provided haven inside FATA against the wishes of GOP? This is hypocritical of Geo TV and IMO Hamid Mir (he has admitted meeting Osama) is an agent of the Taliban and his agenda is to whip up support for the anti state elements such as Lal Masjid thugs.

For those who want to resist US by force I ask.

Pray tell me, when PA is not capable of controlling a few tribesman carrying nothing but small arms, how in hell do you expect it to resist the might of US. We could shoot down Russian planes because we had US backing. Who is backing us now?

Even when we were united, how did we fare against India? Common sense suggests that the policy announced the PM is correct. That is, we should not resist US/Nato action by force, only alternative is negotiation and persuasion. However we would have to demonstrate to the world that we are truly trying to eliminate Taliban cancer from Pakistan and the first step would be to close down all the madrassahs as these are the breeding grounds of the militancy.

 

[Munir]

Niaz,

In any nation if a external force is entering and killing your people the reaction would be a lot more direct then the undemocratic elected Zardari's... Gilani is a puppet anyway. And the defence minister is hardly intellectual. The entire government is blaming the past but the economy is ruined in a few months onl by them. They have no idea how to fight Talebanism, Al Qaida... They have no idea how to handle USA or other powers. These guys are more busy with personal greed and meetings outside Pakistan. You call us to support them?

 

[niaz]

Niaz,

In any nation if a external force is entering and killing your people the reaction would be a lot more direct then the undemocratic elected Zardari's... Gilani is a puppet anyway. And the defence minister is hardly intellectual. The entire government is blaming the past but the economy is ruined in a few months onl by them. They have no idea how to fight Talebanism, Al Qaida... They have no idea how to handle USA or other powers. These guys are more busy with personal greed and meetings outside Pakistan. You call us to support them?

Hon Munir,

If there was no insurgency going on against Pakistan State in FATA, I would support resisting any foreign power by force and to hell with the consequences.

However, Baithullah Mahsud and his allies have no respect for Pakistani borders anyway. How it is okay for an Afghan Taliban or a Chechen fighter to cross Pakistan's border and not okay for the Nato or US forces? Sovereignty is compromised either way. When Indian fishermen stray into our waters, even though by mistake, we impound their boats and put them in prison; why the exception for the Uzabeck, Chechen and Afghan terrorists?

We have to accept ground reality. Zardari is now the President and Gilani the PM. PPP is now responsible for the Pakistan's destiny. What choice do we have but to support them in a diplomatic solution? If you have a better alternate solution to this problem, please let us have the benefit of reading it.

 

[Skywalker]

PAF Should be ordered to shot it down the next time it violates our airspace and the wreckage should be sent back to afganistan with a note attached to it: FROM THE PEOPLE OF PAKISTAN.

I think the wreckage should be sent to china

 

[Muradk]

First thing Pakistan should do to deter cross-border attacks is to stop the NATO supply line through Pakistan.

Second, Pakistan can force the US to vacate one of the airfields that they are using. If it does not work, ask them to vacate all the airfields within Pakistan.

Thirdly, most of the military and civil hardware (like PIA) purchases be directed towards Asian and European suppliers rather than US.

Like Iran, Pakistan can even declare Euro as the main international trading currency of Pakistan instead of dollar.

Military options include the deployment and use of shoulder-fired SAMs of Pakistani origin to test their effectiveness. They can be deployed by small groups of people or soldiers.

A helicopter can be most vulnerable when dropping soldiers. Then it can be hit by almost anything. All expected helicopter landing zones around the villages or inside villages can be brought under fire with careful planning.

For anti-aircraft guns, the standard technique for shooting down helicopter is triangulation. This uses at least three AA guns positioned at the corners of a triangle. Any helicopter coming inside the triangle cant escape.

A more robust configuration is to place camoflagued guns in a circle or pentagon and wait for the helicopter to come inside. Pilot is going to detect one or two guns and when he shall come in for the attack, he is going to get fire from all sides.

Hellfire operates by laser guidance and we need simple laser warning receivers for the operators of AA guns, if not radar-guided. Rather for surprise, they should be manned.

For added security, radar warning receivers can also be provided. These receivers should not be costly. The post can be vacated quickly over the warning of impending strike.

As most weapon's guidance is through line-of-sight, all guns should be placed such that a line of sight cant be established from 4-5km distance for anyone coming from Afghanistan. This should be easy in hilly terrain.

For added safety, the teams of AA guns and MANPADS should work together, guns taking out terrain-hugging helicopters and MANPADS taking out the ones out of range of guns or flying a bit higher.

Guns and MANPADS can force them to fly at least higher than 10,000 feet and if they are flying at more than 10,000feet, then they can neither land their troops nor employ all the weapons. The choice of weapons will become limited.

Right now US is not using any of our bases , They vacated PAF base Shabaz last year in september.

 

[batmannow]

Pak faces danger of schism in army if unilateral US strikes continue ​

United States World News

Islamabad, Sep 13: Pakistan faces the potential danger of a schism in the army as there is a growing anti-American sentiment largely fuelled by the indiscriminate missile attacks and cross-border incursions.

The Pakistani military’s top brass finished a two-day summit on Friday that was called to consider how to respond to the US incursions in Tribal Areas bordering Afghanistan.

Army chief General Ashfaq Kayani issued a strong statement before the meeting, calling the ground assault “reckless.”

Analysts believe it is possible that General Kayani gave tacit consent for limited ground raids, but it is unlikely that a majority of the corps commanders, who each control thousands of men and from whom the Army Chief derives his authority, are on board.

“What would probably endanger General Kayani most; is if he continued to support, or be viewed as supporting, incursions, and they appeared ineffective and corps commanders were increasingly unhappy,” said Seth Jones, an analyst at Rand Corp.

“If this split widens, then I think you'll get a very serious problem.” The globeandmail quoted Jones, as saying.

US and NATO commanders have made clear that the fight against the Taliban can't be won in Afghanistan if they continue to enjoy sanctuary in Pakistan’s tribal belt.

But hit-and-run raids by US troops, like the operation seen in North Waziristan last week, can only eliminate a few Taliban or al-Qaeda leaders, not clear the territory of militants or hold it.

To do so would require the Pakistani Army to act, which may be the response the United States is trying to provoke. But there’s a danger the tactic could snuff out what little support remains in Pakistan over participation in the “war on terror.” (ANI)

September 14, 2008 Sunday Ramazan 13, 1429

Three-phase American plan to capture Al Qaeda leaders
By Anwar Iqbal and Masood Haider

WASHINGTON, Sept 13: The Bush administration has approved a three-phase plan to capture top Al Qaeda leaders and has increased military strikes inside Pakistan to achieve this target, a media report said on Saturday.]“The plan represents an 11th-hour effort to hammer Al Qaeda until the Bush administration leaves office,” reported National Public Radio.
NPR is America’s largest and most respect radio network which provides news to 797 radio stations across the country.

According to it, the raid by helicopter-borne US Special Operations forces in Pakistan last week was not an isolated incident but part of this three-phase plan approved by President Bush.

The plan calls for a much more aggressive military campaign and authorises US forces in Afghanistan to take part in operations inside Fata.

“Definitely, the gloves have come off,” a US official who has been briefed on the plan told NPR. “This was only phase 1 of three phases.”

The US intelligence community already had approval from President Bush to carry out operations inside Pakistan, including attacks by Predator drones, which can carry 100-pound Hellfire missiles.

Additional authority came from the president just recently that allowed incursions by US Special Operations forces, the report said.

A second source told NPR that lawmakers on Capitol Hill were briefed on the new plan shortly before The New York Times broke the story this week about the Special Operations’ raid from Afghanistan into Pakistan. The source also said that CIA personnel from around the world were being pulled into the Afghan-Pakistan border area, an intelligence-community “surge” to go after Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda figures.

Some US lawmakers, however, were concerned about the political ramifications of this plan in Pakistan.

NPR noted that the Pakistan government was offering some cooperation in halting the cross-border attacks by the militants hiding in Fata. And Pakistan is a key logistics route for US equipment heading into Afghanistan.

“Should the US raids continue on Pakistani soil, there is fear that the Pakistani government may halt -- or at least curtail -- its cooperation with American counter-terrorist efforts in the border area,” the report said.

A US military officer told NPR that the Pakistani government was given little prior notice of the American military activity.

The report noted that recently Islamabad refused to allow more US Special Operations forces inside Pakistan to train the country’s security forces. Currently, the Pentagon does some limited training of short duration, defence sources say.

US military sources told NPR that the raid last week by an elite US Navy SEAL team was a planned operation that took place miles inside Pakistan and led to the deaths of at least nine and as many as 20 individuals -- some of them civilians. Sources said the raid was part of a “snatch and grab” operation aimed at Taliban or Al Qaeda figures.

A powerful AC-130 gunship, essentially a flying battleship, was used in the operation. The SEAL team members were flown out of Pakistan by helicopter into Afghanistan. A western military source said that a SEAL team remained on standby in Afghanistan for similar missions.

NPR, however, noted that some in the US intelligence community and on Capitol Hill were raising questions about the political intent of this new aggressive stance.

“The question is,” said one of NPR’s sources, “why wasn’t this done a year ago?”
DAWN. COM

That is the best post, according to the situation, and according to the reality what pakistan is facing now. i guss this is time when , pakarmy have to show some power which it posses. statments are not going to solve the situation, nor going to stop the horrible attacks on pakistanis.
i think, time is running out for pakarmy very fast, pakitanis are becomming hopeless day by day, minute by minute as they cant understand why they became the target of this US nonsence.

if, GEN. KIYANI is doing the job for CIA, then yes !its in pakistan's intersts to remove him as soon as possible. pakistani nation wants to see the pakarmy in action against the enemy. if pakarmy cant do this job then, they should announce that people can defend themselves.

We should stop thinking, our army same as (holy cow).
pakarmy was created for the defence and the protection of pakistan & pakistanis not for issuing statments. there are people's who were talking about talks and diplomcy, but what we got till now from diplomcy?
its not diplomcy its, DICTATION?
We had to stop it, if we need diplomcy , we need for china, for iran or we need for Russia. world has wakeup, if we continue ourselves to be a stalite state for west , then iam affraid we would be wipped out from the world map very soon , in the comming future?

Any way thats a very good and very valid post by hounrable NEO, thanks for that wakeup call, i guss we need to strat thinking in this direction.

 

[batmannow]

Riedel: U.S. Needs to Tread Carefully in Pakistan

Interview
Interviewee: Bruce O. Riedel, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution
Interviewer: Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor, CFR.org

September 12, 2008

Bruce O. Riedel, a former high-ranking CIA and Pentagon official who helped shape U.S. policy in South Asia in previous administrations, says the United States faces a very frustrating situation in Pakistan, and the recent U.S. cross-border attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan are risky given the anti-Americanism in Pakistan. He says that "in that kind of charged political atmosphere, these kinds of operations can easily incite even further anti-Americanism." His advice for whoever is the next president is "to work with the civilian government, show them we want democracy in Pakistan," and to "increase our assistance to Pakistan, especially in economic areas." He also urges putting pressure on Afghanistan to accept the border with Pakistan imposed in 1893 by the British and get the Indians to work toward a Kashmir solution acceptable to all sides.

In recent days there've been a number of reports about U.S. drones hitting al-Qaeda targets within Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan. And more recently, there have been reports of Navy Seals going into Pakistan, staying a few hours on the ground killing many Taliban or al-Qaeda operatives, and then being flown out by helicopters. Are these cross-border attacks good or bad in the longer run for the United States? What do you think?

Well let me say, first of all, it's very different going into the sovereign territory of a nuclear weapons state. We have heard from the Pakistani army chief Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani that the Pakistani army doesn't approve and will resist. Now some of that may be playacting, part of a very complicated Pakistani internal game that's going on. But my experience with the Pakistani military is that they will jealously try to guard their nation's sovereignty and their own perceived prestige. So it's risky. I think that we're doing it because the situation is deteriorating rapidly in Afghanistan and because the related fear that this sanctuary that al-Qaeda and the Taliban have built in Pakistan can and will be, sooner or later, used to target American interests outside of South Asia, possibly including in the United States itself. So, our military faces a very frustrating situation. It cannot defeat the Taliban as long as they have a sanctuary across the border, and it fears that al-Qaeda in that sanctuary is developing plans and plots that go far beyond Afghanistan.

It's seemingly a very difficult dilemma, I think, for American policymakers. You would think by now the Pakistani military would be happy for help on this issue, but what is preventing them from working with the United States on this?

Pakistanis in general, but the Pakistani army in particular, does not have a lot of confidence in the United States. They feel that the United States has let them down, over and over again, over the last fifty years. We don't have a lot of friends in Pakistan. What we have is a lot of people that think the Americans are not reliable. There's been a poll in Pakistan in last several days that say the majority of Pakistanis think the violence in their country is the result of the United States. And only a handful of Pakistanis think that it's the result of al-Qaeda and its allies. And in that kind of charged political atmosphere, these kinds of operations can easily incite even further anti-Americanism. We are, as you said it, in a very, very difficult situation. I think any American leader that was told that we had very good intelligence, at a certain point and a certain time, will act on that intelligence. And they should. But, you have to be sure it's really, really good intelligence. And not a set up that someone is deliberately trying to put you in.

It was reported that the Pakistani head of the army met with U.S. officials on an aircraft carrier not too long ago. Presumably, they must have discussed this kind of action.

I think that's a safe presumption. I think, though, we also have to understand we don't have a track record with the Pakistanis that leaves them feeling we're reliable. And there is a very complex political game going on inside Pakistan today, including the civilian leadership, President Asif Ali Zardari, the opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif, and the Army High Command led by General Kiyani are all maneuvering. This issue becomes a billiard ball in this political atmosphere, and if you can portray your political opponent as America's man, that's good politics in Pakistan today. You don't want to look to be George Bush's best friend in Pakistan and I think that there are games being played within games here and American policymakers need to be extremely shrewd in how they maneuver in this political atmosphere.

There seems to be a growing consensus among U.S. strategic thinkers that the war in Afghanistan is being lost right now. And that's why I suppose the desire to hit targets in Pakistan is so strong at this moment. There's going to be a new president in the United States in a few months. What do you think that either Sen. John McCain or Sen. Barack Obama can do about this situation?

I'm going to answer that in two parts. Let's look first at the actual situation. The Afghanistan war is a really an extraordinary one for the United States, because we've actually fought this war from the other side in living memory. In the 1980s, we backed an insurgency against the Soviets from Pakistan. We know from that experience—those of us that were in it—that you cannot lose that war as long as you have your sanctuary in Pakistan. You may not be able to win in Afghanistan, but you can't lose, because you always have a place to regroup and you can make life miserable for the ruling government in Afghanistan. And it's paralyzed in Afghanistan as long as you have that sanctuary. The next president has to find a way to reverse Pakistani attitudes about America, to get the Pakistanis to change from being half-hearted supporters—or not being supporters at all—of our struggle against the Taliban. We have got to get them on our side. There is no unilateral American solution to the problem of these sanctuaries in Pakistan. We cannot hope to invade and occupy all of Pakistan to cleanse it of the Taliban and al-Qaeda since Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state. We just simply cannot occupy the entire country. We need to get the Pakistanis to work with us.

And that means the next administration, whether he is McCain or Obama, has got to reverse the distrust and the lack of faith in America that has accumulated, not just during President Bush's administration—though he hasn't helped—but over decades now. That can be done, I think, if we work with the civilian government, show them we want democracy in Pakistan, if we increase our assistance to Pakistan, especially in economic areas as Sen. Joseph Biden and Sen. Richard Lugar have proposed. We should also be sensitive to some of Pakistan's diplomatic needs. Pakistan, for example, would like the Durand Line, the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, to be accepted as a real international border by Afghanistan. It never has. No Afghan government has ever accepted this border. We have some leverage in Afghanistan now with the Kabul government. And we ought to think about whether we should use that leverage to make this border line drawn by the foreign secretary of British India in 1893 into a real border. That would be in Pakistan's interest and I think in the long term it's in everyone's interest.

I didn't realize that was still a live issue.

That is still a live issue for Pakistanis.

I thought it was a problem for the Afghanis.

The Afghans don't accept the border as an international border. They feel it was imposed by the British. Actually they're right. It was imposed by the British. That's how Britain ruled the region. But it's been more than a century; it's time to accept it's an international border. That's what Pakistanis would argue, it's time to realize this is an international border and for Afghanistan to acknowledge that it's an international border. That's a diplomatic objective that the United States ought to encourage, which would be of utility to Pakistan and which is a coming to grips with reality. If we want Pakistan to enforce border controls and to guard its border to prevent infiltration, a good first step would be to have that border become a real international border.

Of course the Pakistanis are also unhappy about their other border which is in Kashmir, which is a hot bed right now as well.

There's another place where I feel creative American diplomacy could be helpful. We ought to try to encourage a long-term settlement between India and Pakistan of the Kashmir dispute, based again on the principle that the existing line of control ought to become an international border with some special status reserved for Kashmiris. We can't expect Pakistan to behave like a normal state, unless it has normal borders. And we can't expect Pakistan to behave the way we would like it to while it's obsessed and fixated on its neighbor and the problem in Kashmir. The problem in Kashmir has been in the doldrums for the past several years. It is now starting to boil really quickly, and when Kashmir boils, the result is Indian-Pakistani tensions that can produce war. We've seen that over and over again.

I've noticed that at President Zardari's inauguration the other day, his honored guest was President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan. Does that mean anything special?

It's a striking reversal. It would have been inconceivable that Karzai would have shown up at former President Pervez Musharraf's inauguration. The two men detested one another. It's a hopeful sign. Whether it becomes more than that, remains to be seen. It's certainly a hopeful sign.

I guess it's a truism that the civilian government in Pakistan, having gone through all these problems to get where they are now, has virtually no control over their military and the intelligence services, right?

Absolutely. Zardari this summer tried to put the Pakistani Intelligence Service, ISI, under his control, and the army slapped him down right away and told him, "no way." Zardari, though, should not be underestimated. He is a clever politician. It's in the United States' interest to have a healthy civil-military relationship in Pakistan, where the civilian government that runs the show is accountable for the actions of both the army and the ISI. It is not in our interests, in the long term, to continue to have an unhealthy civil-military relationship where the Army and the Intelligence Services are on their own, except when their hand-picked general is the military dictator.

Do you see any threat of another military coup?

Not immediately. But if the Zardari government looks like it's failing—it faces extremely serious economic problems now— if it looks like it is unable to manage Americans, if it looks like it's soft on India and Kashmir, I could envision a situation in the midterm where the Army once more comes back and takes over the country. We've seen this story before. This is the fourth attempt in Pakistan's history at a civilian government. Three previous attempts failed. There was a coup in 1958 led by Ayub Khan, martial law imposed by General Yahya Khan in 1969, and martial law imposed by General Zia ul-Haq in 1977, and most recently General Musharraf's coup in 1999. The track record of civilian government in Pakistan is pretty depressing. On the other hand, the track record of military dictators is also equally depressing. The country's caught in a cycle of failed civilian and military regimes. And that's a cycle which is progressively taking the country downhill.

Just to sum up here. I think what you're saying is that the United States should be extremely cautious about repeating the cross-border activity, at least in the last months of this administration until we can get a new dialogue started. Am I reading you correctly?

Correct. Pakistan is an extremely dangerous and unstable country. We need to tread carefully. We need to get the Pakistanis to see this as their war. And that's going to require some major new initiatives on the American side. Commando raids and Predator strikes are not a long term solution to this problem.
Copyright 2008 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved

 

[Spring Onion]

batmannow US know very well it will need Pakistan again and again.

But its time Pakistan should revive its foreign policy.

 

[IceCold]

But its time Pakistan should revive its foreign policy.

Yeah we should but we wont and for the obvious reasons that you know off(politicans).

 

[IceCold]

Like all Pakistanis, it pains me greatly to see US carrying on its will despite protests from Pakistan. My first reaction was; to hell with it, we must counter any violation of our borders whether by air or by land thru use of force.

This is the normal knee jerk reaction to any action that really hurts and justifiably so. However, after serious deliberations and after listening to various discussions on the TV, I would like to present an alternate view.

Lets us face it. FATA, even though nominally a Pakistani territory was never considered as part of Pakistan by the general populace of the area. They had their own laws. Always indulged in whatever suited their fancy such as smuggling, gun running and also a haven for the terrorists and murderers. How many times have you heard that after a serious crime, the perpetrator ran away to hide in the tribal area and was thus out of reach of Pakistan authorities or the motor car after being taken away by force is being hidden in the tribal belt? I have personally seen the notice “

“Beware you are now entering the tribal area and at your own Risk”.

During the Afghan war this area became a safe haven for the Mujahids where Soviets expected to meet armed resistance from PA if pursued. This is true that terrorist acts were never carried out by these people inside Pakistan before 9/11. However there was strong support for the sectarian violence. Even to this day Shia/Sunni fighting is going on in the Kurran Agency and Deobandi/Braelvi power struggle in the Landi Kotal area.

The situation after Pakistan’s U-turn against the Taliban became worse. A large section of the populace does not accept being part of Pakistan and want to create Taliban style Islamic Emirate. Bajour, Swat and Waziristan are virtually independent. These people are actively fighting and killing Pakistan Army! If this not out and out rebellion, then what is it??? You can’t say that Pakistan laws don’t apply here, this is our land and next minute cry about violation of sovereignty when bombed by a Predator. Why don’t these people accept GOP writ and stop using this territory for attacks inside Afghanistan as agreed in many jirgas?

There is little doubt that US has realized that PA is incapable of controlling these terrorists and has decided to take the matter in their own hands. I have therefore changed my views and firmly believe that as long as this cancer of Taliban is not eliminated from Pakistan society, Pakistan is doomed. Since PA is incapable of doing it due to whatever reasons, let US do it.

There is no doubt that ordinary activists are fighting PA and the US as a revenge ( Pakthoon Valee ). Nevertheless, master minds behind this insurgency want to create a Taliban State in Pakistan itself. These are the brains of the movement such as Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omer and Aiman Zawari; whereas front line such as Baitullh Mahsood are mere tools in their nefarious design.

Pakistan media and the MMA seldom openly condemn terrorist acts inside Pakistan. Where is sovereignty when non Pakistanis are provided haven inside FATA against the wishes of GOP? This is hypocritical of Geo TV and IMO Hamid Mir (he has admitted meeting Osama) is an agent of the Taliban and his agenda is to whip up support for the anti state elements such as Lal Masjid thugs.

For those who want to resist US by force I ask.

Pray tell me, when PA is not capable of controlling a few tribesman carrying nothing but small arms, how in hell do you expect it to resist the might of US. We could shoot down Russian planes because we had US backing. Who is backing us now?

Even when we were united, how did we fare against India? Common sense suggests that the policy announced the PM is correct. That is, we should not resist US/Nato action by force, only alternative is negotiation and persuasion. However we would have to demonstrate to the world that we are truly trying to eliminate Taliban cancer from Pakistan and the first step would be to close down all the madrassahs as these are the breeding grounds of the militancy.

How exactly did you come to this conclusion that PA is not capable to handle these terrorists. Also have you even bothered to analyze, how capable the US is which even after the passing of seven years has failed miserably in both Iraq and Afghanistan and now to cover this shame is shifting all blame on to Pakistan and wants to make Pakistan as its next scape goat. Pakistanis maybe divided and that too for obvious reasons but when it comes to external threat, somehow the nation gets untied. Till date i have met not a single Pakistani both from educated class and uneducated who was against the remarks of the army chief. The nations reaction is so strong that you cant imagine. PA might be inferior to both NATO and US when it comes to equipment but thats not all that makes PA the best in the business. When it comes to defending the mother land and specially when the whole nation is backing it up, you should be able to predict results what will happen to these yanks once they decide to cross the border.

 

[batmannow]

The War in Pakistan
U.S. attacks on Taliban and al-Qaeda targets are risky -- and necessary
Sunday, September 14, 2008;
washingtonpost.com


FOR MORE than six years, the Bush administration has relied on Pakistan's government and army to combat Taliban and al-Qaeda networks based in the country's tribal territories along the border with Afghanistan. The result has been the strengthening of both networks in the rugged and virtually lawless region; a steady increase in Taliban assaults on U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan; and ominous reports that al-Qaeda is using its bases to prepare for new attacks on Western targets, including the United States. By now it is clear that Pakistani army and security forces lack the capacity to defeat the extremists -- and may even support some of the Taliban commanders. Pakistan's army has arranged truces with some of the extremists that don't preclude them from fighting in Afghanistan. U.S officials say that the Pakistani intelligence service was complicit in a July 7 suicide bomb attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul.

In these circumstances President Bush's reported decision in July to step up attacks by U.S. forces in the tribal areas was both necessary and long overdue. According to a count by the Associated Press, there have been seven missile strikes by remotely controlled Predator aircraft in the past month, as well as one ground assault by helicopter-borne American commandos. At least two of the targets have been Taliban commanders reportedly considered friendly by Pakistani intelligence -- including Jalaluddin Haqqani, the alleged author of the Indian embassy bombing. The results of the attacks are hard to gauge, since U.S. officials refuse to discuss them; reports from the remote areas, often by sources sympathetic to the Taliban, frequently allege that most or all of the casualties are civilians.
To its credit, the Bush administration has tried to execute this shift in tactics while preserving its alliance with the Pakistani army and the new civilian government. It's a tricky balancing act: The latest attacks have prompted outraged public statements by the army commander in chief and the prime minister, and there have even been threats to retaliate against American forces. But army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani was briefed by senior U.S. commanders at a summit meeting on an aircraft carrier last month, and his forces still are in line for billions of dollars in U.S. aid. Pakistan's newly elected president, Asif Ali Zardari, also will desperately need U.S. support to extract the country from a worsening economic crisis and move forward with an ambitious program to counter extremism in the tribal territories with economic development.

There's a risk that the missile strikes will prompt a breach between the U.S. and Pakistani armies, or destabilize Mr. Zardari's democratically elected administration, which is the friendliest Washington could hope for in a country with strong anti-American sentiment. Some experts argue that U.S. attacks only increase support for the Taliban. But the group already appears to have a stranglehold on large parts of the tribal territories. U.S. commanders say that victory in Afghanistan is impossible unless Taliban bases in Pakistan are reduced. And no risk to Pakistan's political system or its U.S. relations is greater than that of a second 9/11 staged from the tribal territories. U.S. missile and commando attacks must be backed by the best intelligence and must minimize civilian casualties. But they must continue.


Come guys for godsake, open your eyes time is gone for diplomcy, talks, shift in external policy, this and that, pakistan became a big joke already.
Its time to fight, stand up and fight let the enemy know you can fight, dont put gold badges on uniforms to attend meetings on aircraft carriers, put iron helmet on the head , and chamber the gun to meet the enemy.

stop excuses , be brave and defend the mother land. thats it.