US CENTCOM chief in Pakistan for anti-terror talks

[fatman17]

South Asia News
US CENTCOM chief in Pakistan for anti-terror talks
Nov 1, 2007, 12:28 GMT
Islamabad - United States Central Command (CENTCOM) Commander Admiral William Fallon arrived in Pakistan's garrison town Rawalpindi on Thursday to review the security situation in the terrorism-hit tribal belt and bordering Afghanistan, officials said.

'It's a routine visit as the CENTCOM commander undertakes such visits off and on to discuss issues of mutual interest and US troop deployment in Afghanistan,' Pakistan military's chief spokesman Major General Waheed Arshad told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.

Not disclosing Fallon's schedule due to security reasons, Arshad said, 'He will be meeting all important people he generally meets.'

The CENTCOM chief's visit comes at a time when the government of Pakistan's President General Pervez Musharraf is battling growing militancy in the north-west tribal areas that has also spilled over into the country's central regions.

Musharraf's unflinching support for the US-led war against terrorism and the July 10-11 raid on a radical mosque in Islamabad had frustrated pro-Taliban militants, who were now in direct conflict with the government security forces.

Hundreds of security personnel have been killed in suicide bombings and ambushes taking place even at military camps in major urban cities.

On Thursday, a suicide bomber struck a minibus of the Pakistan Air Force in the central town of Sargodha, killing at least nine people and wounding more than 35, most of whom were air force personnel.

As some senior US officials describe Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan as 'safe havens' for fleeing Taliban and al- Qaeda fighters, Washington continues to term the first Muslim nuclear power a close ally.

'Pakistani forces have given their lives in the fight against terrorist networks, which is a fight that is as important for Pakistan and the United States as it is for every country in the world,' the US embassy in Islamabad said in a statement issued late Wednesday.

The US were grateful for Pakistan's significant contributions to disabling terrorist networks, the statement added.


© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

 

[IceCold]

Every now and then assholes like him come to pakistan to review the progress made by pakistan like we are some kind of employees, no thanks to musharraf government we have lost complete respect. And that is the reason they say musharraf is an ally on WOT and not pakistan. How pathetic

 

[dahmed0]

this is the time all the pakistani nation is waiting for the answers from our top leadership? for thier comming role in near future,and in ever changing relationship with usa,and deep impacts on our nation. the (war of oil and gas )should not be called war on terror,as, we were told by the hotshots, sitting,in pentagon,us senete,capitolhill,or in the us media,all were trying to get, into our, judicial, political,and defence, systems,,,, and tht is a common goal of usa,to dismentle pakistan,from its nuecler power, cut size its military, and should become a dancing doll kind of state under the influnce of india,and also provide usa, base to influence china,oneside and to wage a war against iran?genral falcon came to islamabad not to disscus the situation in our nwfp, province, but he came here to tell genral musharf, that mr, musharf can go on longleave on longisland , but he have give power to bb, so tht all the game usa wanted to play,will be played.???????????????????

 

[Always Neutral]

Every now and then assholes like him come to pakistan to review the progress made by pakistan like we are some kind of employees, no thanks to musharraf government we have lost complete respect. And that is the reason they say musharraf is an ally on WOT and not pakistan. How pathetic

Sounds more like a school master visiting the classes. The best thing would be if before they talk to him they take him to the cemetary where the 4000 odd soldiers are buried and make him put a wreath (i am not sure if Islam allows that ) on each grave. He will be too tired to review the progress and will go back with a bad back. On a broader issue its good that both US and PA people meet more often to develop better co-ordination in their operations.

LOL.

 

[blain2]

4000 and odd? When did this happen?

 

[Always Neutral]

4000 and odd? When did this happen?

Dear Blain,

I would say 4000 over the last 10 years should be resonable figure for military, paramilitary and police casualties ? BBC stated that more than 700 casualties in 2004 itself. See below

BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Pakistan crisis 'hits army morale'

The last time the army attacked Fata in 2004 more than 700 soldiers were killed and dozens of Pashtun soldiers and Frontier Corp men deserted, while some army helicopter pilots refused to bomb their own fellow citizens. As a result, Gen Musharraf was forced to do a deal with the militants that took the troops out of Fata - much to the chagrin of the American forces based in Afghanistan.

This year to has been even worse. With that include the army chaps deputed to help Taliban against Shah Mahsood etc, people who died due to suicide attacks on Army trainees, SSG, PAF etc.

Best Regards

 

[fatman17]

the brunt of the casaulties have been taken by the FC and civil Police cadres. nonetheless 700 is a very high casaulty figure in one year. we must continue to remind the west esp the biased western media of these sacrifices by the para-military forces till they go numb.

 

[blain2]

The number is high but does not exceed 2000 ever since action started.

 

[Spring Onion]

I guess this Mr Qudrati has mistaken these casulaities with the over all casualties both millitary and civilian in this war of terror in one year which well
Guess what that is also not correct as from Jan, 2007 to 31st October 2007 about 2000 people both military and civilans in different attacks both suicide and bomb blasts.

 

[Awesome]

Mr Qudrati

Sorry, AN, that was really funny if you knew the language.

Jana, it's Neutral not Natural

 

[roadrunner]

Every now and then assholes like him come to pakistan to review the progress made by pakistan like we are some kind of employees, no thanks to musharraf government we have lost complete respect. And that is the reason they say musharraf is an ally on WOT and not pakistan. How pathetic

Patheticness that will lead to some more military hardware. I find this mentality ridiculous really..the "freeze" relationship with the US mentality. Both Pakistan and the US have common goals..to get rid of Al Q. They are not Pakistan's friends. You think that they will stop when Musharraf is gone?? NO WAY. Whenever someone comes in power, they will start issuing more edicts to kill the government for not forcing everyone to grow beards, or for not passing more Hudood type laws. If Musharraf does not get rid of Al Q, the place will get infested by them, and then there will be no going back. They need to be kept from getting a foothold in Pakistan, which is precsely wat Musharraf is doing, else they will have too much power. Is it that difficult to understand?

 

[Always Neutral]

Sorry, AN, that was really funny if you knew the language.

Jana, it's Neutral not Natural

Dear AA and Jana,

I have said 4000 over a period of 10 YEARS whereas BBC said it was 700 only for the year of 2004. If this year it is 2000 as per Jana then the joke is on you both. Anyway my point was that the US General should be shown the price Pakistan is paying for supporting US ideas.

Best Regards

 

[Always Neutral]

Dear Jana,

Hope you will take the time an enlighten me with your comprehensive knowledge of NWFP why you were rolling over with mirth when I said that Durand line touches Balochistan ?

Regards

 

[IceCold]

Patheticness that will lead to some more military hardware. I find this mentality ridiculous really..the "freeze" relationship with the US mentality. Both Pakistan and the US have common goals..to get rid of Al Q. They are not Pakistan's friends. You think that they will stop when Musharraf is gone?? NO WAY. Whenever someone comes in power, they will start issuing more edicts to kill the government for not forcing everyone to grow beards, or for not passing more Hudood type laws. If Musharraf does not get rid of Al Q, the place will get infested by them, and then there will be no going back. They need to be kept from getting a foothold in Pakistan, which is precsely wat Musharraf is doing, else they will have too much power. Is it that difficult to understand?

I wonder how people think when it comes to about pakistan Anyhow my question to you is we need to differeniate between terrorism and people who were actually in favour of pakistan. Tailban were not terrorist while AQ is. Pakistan was more secure during tailbans regime then now during the karzai government.
One more thing how many times did we see our security forces getting killed and becoming hostages before musharraf or how many times did we see sucide bombing in pakistan before Musharraf?
My only objection to mushaaraf's polices as a pakistani is about his US pleasing one. He should had drawn a line and that he failed to do so. Secondly he gave the world the wrong impression just to let him stay in power with uniform, that pakistan is going towards militancy and if he is not there perhaps nuclear asernal of pakistan can fall into the wrong hands. He has actually endangered pakistan, because god for bid something happens to him, one may expect US bombing on nuclear installions of pakistan. And that is the only reason today only pakistan's topic is on the world agenda, who should rule pakistan, and what happens to nuclear weapons of pakistan if musharraf is gone.

 

[roadrunner]

I wonder how people think when it comes to about pakistan Anyhow my question to you is we need to differeniate between terrorism and people who were actually in favour of pakistan. Tailban were not terrorist while AQ is. Pakistan was more secure during tailbans regime then now during the karzai government.

I'll try and make it simple. If Taliban are hiding Al Q, then both Al Q and Taliban must be targetted. Because Al Q is not in Pakistan's interests. It is not in Pakistan's interest to support the Taliban now, and it will not lead to a more secure Pakistan by supporting the Taliban, because Americans will eventually get tired and bomb Pakistan, sucking it into a wider war that will end up in a mass war in Pakistan, no infrastructure. That surely is not what you want, is it?

One more thing how many times did we see our security forces getting killed and becoming hostages before musharraf or how many times did we see sucide bombing in pakistan before Musharraf?

You have serious narrowed vision. There was no Al Q in Pakistan prior to 2001. Since the American invasion which occurred during Musharraf's rule, Al Q dispersed, some of the them going into Pakistan. That is why suicide bombings have increased since Musharraf's take over. If Musharraf did not do what Al Q wanted, they would have suicide bombed Pakistan anyway. As it turned out, Musharraf tried to eliminate them, just as they are trying to eliminate Pakistanis. So why justify the approach of Al Q in this case by blaming something on Musharraf for which he had no power over?

My only objection to mushaaraf's polices as a pakistani is about his US pleasing one. He should had drawn a line and that he failed to do so.

He didn't have a choice. He was either with them or against them. But it so happens that the US goal in the region to get rid of Al Q, is a common goal it has with Pakistan.

Secondly he gave the world the wrong impression just to let him stay in power with uniform, that pakistan is going towards militancy and if he is not there perhaps nuclear asernal of pakistan can fall into the wrong hands. He has actually endangered pakistan, because god for bid something happens to him, one may expect US bombing on nuclear installions of pakistan. And that is the only reason today only pakistan's topic is on the world agenda, who should rule pakistan, and what happens to nuclear weapons of pakistan if musharraf is gone.

If he didn't stay in power, NS would have continued or Bhutto. It doesn't really matter how it is achieved in this case, so long as the best man is at the helm. And that's the situation, so if he lied, or of he told the truth, it makes not a bit of difference to me. The best man is leading the country.