US says evidence collected so far doesn’t lead to Pakistan

[53fd]

WASHINGTON: US Defence Secretary and the military chief on Monday blamed the Haqqani network for this week’s terror attacks in Kabul as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed the matter with Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar by telephone.

Afghan Taliban attacked Kabul on Sunday with rockets and explosives in one of the most serious assaults on the capital in the past decade. They occupied high-rise construction sites and using them as bases, fought pitched battles with Afghan security forces.

“The intelligence indicates that the Haqqanis were behind the attacks that took place. And we had received a great deal of intelligence indicating that the Haqqanis were planning these kinds of attacks,” Defence Secretary Leon Panetta told a briefing in Washington.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin E. Dempsey said that evidence collected so far had not led American investigators to Pakistan but this could not be ruled out.

“I’ll just add that, though the evidence leads us to believe that the Haqqani network was involved in this, it doesn’t lead back into Pakistan at this time,” he said. “The Haqqani network exists on both sides of the border, so we’re not prepared to suggest this emanated out of Pakistan.”

But the general added that “the evidence may at some point lead us there, but we’re not there yet”.

In a related development, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland told reporters that Secretary Clinton, who is visiting Brazil, telephoned the Pakistani foreign minister from Brasilia earlier in the day and discussed the attacks with her. Secretary Clinton “discussed the cowardly attacks in Afghanistan” with Ms Khar and “underscored our shared responsibility for robust action … to confront and defeat terrorists and violent extremists,” the spokesperson said.

At another briefing at the State Department, deputy spokesman Mark Toner said that Secretary Clinton spoke with the US ambassador in Kabul before calling the Pakistani foreign minister.

“They, of course, discussed yesterday’s attacks in Afghanistan. But they did (also) raise the parliamentary review process and our willingness to engage in a dialogue with Pakistan,” Mr Toner said.

Mr Toner said that while he could not discuss the specifics of Secretary Clinton’s conversation with Ms Khar, he could spell out the US position on parliamentary recommendations.

“We recognise that this has been a long and difficult road for Pakistan. It speaks, frankly, to the strength of Pakistan’s democratic institutions that this parliamentary review’s taken place,” he said.

Mr Toner noted that the civilian government had taken the lead on this issue, had owned it, and had come up with a series of recommendations.

“I think it’s incumbent on us now to engage with them in a discussion about some of those recommendations,” he said.

The secretary and the Pakistani foreign minister discussed only the parliamentary review and the attacks in Afghanistan, Mr Toner said when asked if the two leaders had also discussed other issues.

At the Pentagon, Secretary Panetta said the US was “always concerned” about the type attacks that took place on Sunday. “They reflect that the Taliban is resilient, that they remain determined.”

Mr Panetta noted that the Taliban made “no tactical gains” from these attacks which were “isolated attacks … done for symbolic purposes”.

The Taliban had not regained any territory and had not been able to really conduct an organised attack since last year, he said.

Yet, Mr Panetta acknowledged, that this was clearly the beginning of the spring offensive that the Taliban engaged in every year.

“What does it mean? It means we’re still in a fight. And I don’t think any of us have ever suggested there wouldn’t be fighting still needing to be done,” Gen. Dempsey added.

US says evidence collected so far doesn

 

[karan.1970]

Defense.gov News Transcript: DoD News Briefing with Secretary Panetta and Gen. Dempsey from the Pentagon

Transcript

Q: Mr. Secretary, I'd like to ask both of you about the multipronged attacks in Afghanistan yesterday. Is it your assessment at this point that these attacks were organized and led by the Haqqani network? And if so, what does it say about the severity of the threat posed by the Haqqanis and about the inability of the Pakistani government to crack down on the Haqqanis?

SEC. PANETTA: The intelligence indicates that the Haqqanis were behind the attacks that took place. And we had received a great deal of intelligence indicating that the Haqqanis were planning these kinds of attacks. And obviously, we're always concerned about the attacks that take place. They reflect that the Taliban is resilient, that they remain determined.

And yet I think we're also confident that the Afghans have increased their capability to deal with these kinds of attacks.

There were no tactical gains here. These are isolated attacks that are done for symbolic purposes, and they have not regained any territory. They haven't been able to really conduct an organized attack since last year. And what it told us -- and I think General Allen pointed this out -- is that it confirms that the Afghan army and police did a great job of reacting to these attacks. They quickly restored order, they quickly restored security in those areas, and it gave us an indication that they really are improving in terms of their capability to provide security. Having said all of that, this is clearly the beginning of the spring offensive that the Taliban engages in, and we are, I think, fully confident that, combined with the Afghan army, we can confront that threat.

GEN. DEMPSEY: And I'll just add, Bob, that though the evidence leads us to believe that the Haqqani network was involved in this, it doesn't lead back into Pakistan at this time. The threat -- you know, the Haqqani network exists on both sides of the border. So I'm -- we're not prepared to suggest this emanated out of Pakistan. I mean, the evidence may at some point lead us there, but we're not there yet.

Secondly, you know, you ask, what does it mean? It means we're still in a fight, and I don't -- I don't think any of us have ever suggested there wouldn't be fighting to -- still needing to be done. In fact, we've been talking quite openly about the fact that we've got three more fighting seasons with which to both build the ANSF and diminish the capability of the Taliban and the associated movements.

Thirdly, as the secretary said, we did have intel. But it -- we weren't trying to protect a discrete moment like we were at the loya jirga.

And if you remember, when President Karzai called for the loya jirga, the security was remarkable. I mean, there wasn't a single incident that occurred around that, even though the ANSF was completely in the lead in that regard. And so this is a little bigger challenge, though, when you have kind of intelligence that is vague about timing and you have to, you know, keep you guard up constantly.

And the last thing is -- and I've worked, as you know, with both the Iraqi security forces and the Afghan security forces. And I'll tell you, the Afghan security forces perform their duties admirably when attacked, even though it was on very short notice over the last 48 hours.

Q: (Off mic) -- I want to follow up on what you had to say about the Afghan ministers here last week, the defense minister and the interior minister. The interior minister told us that he received assurances from you about training assistance and equipment assistance after 2014. And I wonder if you could just expand on those assurances. What do you think the U.S. role and mission will look like after 2014?

SEC. PANETTA: Well, we're going to be discussing that in Brussels and Chicago. And obviously, we'll want to work closely with our ISAF partners to determine what that enduring presence will look like. But clearly, it's -- it -- you know, any future presence will focus on areas like counterterrorism and focus also on training assistance and advice, as we've provided and probably will continue to provide in the future.

Q: Do you assume there'll be hundreds if not thousands of U.S. soldiers still on the ground in 2014?

SEC. PANETTA: I don't -- I don't think we ought to comment on what we're assuming at this point, mainly because we really want to engage in serious consultation with our partners as to what that presence ought to look like.

Q: But there will be some U.S. presence, correct?

SEC. PANETTA: That's -- I think that'll be the case.

 

[INDIAN SOLDIER]

All the investigations should be independent rather then pak centric. Isn't it?

Let's see what come out?

 

[rohailmalhi]

what do u think will come out same old drama...... Haqqani Haqqani................ haha . US of A is embrassing herself with Haqqani.

A group of roughly trained fighters against world class army and intelligencia............ and guess what the world class army and it intellgencia are complaining abt them................ lolz

 

[T90TankGuy]

what do u think will come out same old drama...... Haqqani Haqqani................ haha . US of A is embrassing herself with Haqqani.

A group of roughly trained fighters against world class army and intelligencia............ and guess what the world class army and it intellgencia are complaining abt them................ lolz

its a lot easier to hold down a professional army by these hit and run tactic mate . it takes time to eliminate threats like these . on the other hand should they(the haqqani) have the balls to come out and fight like men , they would be destroyed in a few days.