What's new

US to hit militant safe havens in Pakistan


ARTICLE (September 09 2008): Yes, our close allies in "war against terror" did just that on our soil. Coming within days of a "secret" meeting, on a US warship near our coast, between the US Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and our own General Kiyani, in which we received a pat on the back for our part in killing our own people, it makes one wonder if an "understanding" had been reached in the Army-to-Army meeting, that attacks like these were on the cards.

The attack was different from anything that had happened in the past. Three helicopters carrying American soldiers, landed on Pakistani soil in the early hours (4 AM) of the morning of 3 September, in the holy month of Ramazan as people were getting ready for Sehri.

For sheer timing, this was worse than what civilised people do to their enemies, even in warfare. The soldiers got down, and attacked the inmates of a house killing three women and two children among ten members of the families of local people, Payo Jan and Nazar Jan, who, according to neighbours, had no connection with militants.

For good measure, the brave soldiers, apparently in great panic (because they are more happy firing missiles from a safe distance above the clouds than fighting on the ground), also killed ten other bystanders of the neighbourhood, who had come near to see what was happening.

The reaction to the blatant aggressive act by our ally that our worthy Defence Minister could come up with, was a masterpiece of docility, hesitation and indecisiveness. He even appeared to be offering a justification of the attack by saying that there must be some reason behind the attack which would be investigated! Was he momentarily under the delusion that he was representing US?

There was a lot of hot air from our Foreign Minister and a protest was lodged with the US ambassador to Pakistan. The Governor of NWFP expressed anger over the incident and resolutions were passed by Provincial Assemblies condemning the act.

However, as a Persian proverb runs in translation: a beggar's anger is on himself! American awareness of the total dependence of our leaders on American dole for salvaging the country's flagging economy, rather than on bold, courageous and innovative steps and a spirit of belt-tightening and sacrifice till things got better, makes that country treat us like dirt.

What can we expect other than this from a leadership which is itself under the stigma of alleged corruption? Condoleezza Rice, US Secretary of State, apparently in her reaction to the incident remarked cryptically that America is "working very closely with the civilian government". The response of our "civilian government" to this categorical statement, is still awaited.

Soon after the visit to America of our Prime Minister Gilani, to meet President Bush, I had ventured to suggest that having taken full measure of our leadership and its moral fiber, through this visit and otherwise, America would not hesitate to intrude more openly, more frequently and more violently into our tribal areas. As if to prove the point there were two more incidents of American aggression on our soil following the one above.

On Thursday a missile fired from an unmanned plane hit a house in Mohammad Khel killing at least five and on Friday three children and two women were killed when a spy plane rained three missiles on a house in Gorewek, near the Afghan border, some 60 kilometers west of Miran Shah. There was no concrete action from Pakistan till Sunday except for a report which said that fuel supplies to Nato forces, which go from Pakistan, were suspended.

The reason given for the action was not American aggression but the law and order situation in the Khyber tribal region due to which the supplies had been suspended "only temporarily" and that "when we have enough troops on the ground to ensure safety of oil tankers, the supplies would be allowed to go through"!

Asif Zardari's election as President was a foregone conclusion, given the numbers commanded by PPP and allies and turncoats in the Parliament and the fact the opposition could not muster a joint candidate. Nevertheless, it was a big win in which he swept all three smaller provinces. As expected he could not carry Punjab, though he managed a respectable tally even there.

However, Asif Zardari would be well-advised to get rid of the baggage he carries in the shape of various accusations. Mushahid Hussain, another presidential hopeful, had openly challenged him to reveal his assets before the election. These, as yet unverified, accusations coming on the top of allegations of having reneged on solemn promises to his erstwhile political allies as well as doubts cast on his mental health, make it imperative that he move fast to clear the air and establish his moral credibility and authority.

He will also be watched to see how fast he moves on his promise to reduce the powers of the President, including removal of 58(2)(b) amendment to the constitution, which he had said should be one of the first things the president-elect would do. A number of deposed judges taking oath in the High Courts of Sindh, Lahore and Peshawar, apart from three judges in the Supreme Court, is seen as a setback for the lawyers' cause.

The lawyers staged a Dharna in front of the Parliament house and when some of them wanted to enter the Supreme Court premises they were viciously lathicharged. The Dharna was staged as decided by the newly formed National Co-ordination Council (NCC) of which Aitzaz Ahsan, President, Supreme Bar Council, was recently elected Chairman.

This followed a virtual break from the policies of Pakistan Bar Council, which was at best lukewarm towards reinstatement of the judiciary and has now come out more openly against the lawyers' movement. Lawyers were also smarting from a recent categorical statement by Farooq Naek, the Law Minister, that Abdul Hameed Dogar was the CJP and since there could not be two CJPs, the deposed CJP Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry could not be reinstated as CJP.

Asif Zardari apparently now felt strong enough to thus openly, through his trusted lieutenant, defy the main demand of the lawyers' movement in categorical terms contrary to what he had been saying all along. But that would cause no surprise. Amin Fahim appears to have been placated by Zardari. He no longer goes about looking miffed and making negative remarks about PPP's policies in general and about Zardari's attitude towards him in particular.

By what promises he has been won over, we do not know yet. Likewise Babar Awan has become suddenly active in defending Zardari in various forums. What role is he destined to play in the immediate future, we should know shortly. There are unsettling news about political strife in the Punjab province. ML(N) have made no secret of their wish to see PPP ministers quit the government in the province and sit in the opposition. PPP is unmoved.

In fact Wattoo has been talking of the possibility of ML(N) losing its majority in the Punjab if it comes to a showdown. Governor Salman Taseer has also been talking with renewed aggression against the ML(N) government, claiming that its continuance is dependent on PPP support without which it would not last "24 hours". Is he talking on his own or only carrying on instructions in the doublespeak environment that prevails in PPP politics?

Revival of several years old NAB cases against Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif are souring relations between the erstwhile coalition partners. The motive behind this move at this juncture is not clear. The cases could be used as a card in the political give and take and perhaps withdrawn as a favour or in return for some political concession. In the current state of our judiciary any unfavourable decision will be seen by ML(N) as directed by the PPP government. Stage could then be set for serious confrontation.

Balochistan insurgents have offered to suspend insurgency which is good news. Visits by Rehman Malik and PM Gilani to the province on the eve of the Presidential election ensured almost hundred percent vote in favour of Zardari which indicates that substantial promises may have been made to placate disgruntled Baloch leaders. If seen through in a fair manner this move could be good news for the federation and a feather in Zardari's cap. If mishandled, however, this could lead to a disastrous situation.

Attack on PM's car in the convoy going to receive him at the Islamabad airport is to be condemned. It is reminiscent of the times we are living in, in this part of the world. Suicide attacks are again becoming a regular feature. The Power situation has deteriorated further. The problem so far was lower capacity with the IPPs.

A new phenomenon is their refusal to operate even to their existing capacity due to higher cost of oil which means the more power they produce the greater is their loss, at least according to their claim. Removal of subsidies is a persistent demand of world lending bodies like IMF and World Bank and big increase in tariff is about to hit the long suffering consumer who must now pay more without promise of any relief from loadshedding for at least a year and a half.(yawajid@yahoo.com)
 
.
France slams missile strikes in Pakistan




Wednesday, September 10, 2008

News Desk

PARIS: France warned on Tuesday that missile strikes by suspected US drones in the tribal areas were undermining international efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"Not only are these creating human tragedies but also situations that have counterproductive effects on the political dynamics that we would like to see, and that means a partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and the international community," said foreign ministry spokesman Eric Chevallier.

"Anything that creates suffering in the civilian population creates problems in trying to reach an understanding and an acceptance of these populations of the international presence in the region," said the foreign ministry spokesman.

Chevallier did not single out the United States for criticism, but referred to the "bombings that took place in Pakistan and left civilian casualties, in particular in the Pakistani tribal areas on Monday."


France slams missile strikes in Pakistan
 
.
The message is loud and clear that the people and the armed forces of Pakistan will not tolerate US ground forces on its soil.



Pakistan orders end to foreign incursions


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistan's military chief said Wednesday that no foreign forces will be allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistan in light of last week's "reckless" U.S. military ground operation.

Pakistan's "territorial integrity ... will be defended at all cost and no external force is allowed to conduct operations ... inside Pakistan," according to a military statement attributed to Chief of Army Staff Gen. Parvez Kayani -- who succeeded Pervez Musharraf after he stepped down as Pakistan's army chief last year.

The announcement came as Pakistan's military resumed its battle against Taliban militants in its tribal region, two army spokesmen said. More than 20 militants and four security forces were killed in Monday's fighting in Bajaur Agency, they said.

The anti-Taliban operation was initiated on August 6 but was suspended September 1 for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, with the exception that security forces would respond if attacked.

A ground incursion last week by U.S. forces into Pakistan strained relations between the two countries. Pakistan summoned the U.S. ambassador in Islamabad to complain about the incident, which it said killed 15 civilians.
The Pentagon has not confirmed the raid, but a senior U.S. official -- who declined to be named -- told CNN's Barbara Starr that U.S. helicopters dropped troops into the village of Angoor Adda in South Waziristan, which borders Afghanistan. The official said there was no evidence of any civilian deaths.

The U.S. official who spoke to CNN said the operation was launched fairly quickly without formal permission from Pakistan's government after it became clear there was sufficient intelligence to take the risk of putting U.S. troops on the ground in a potentially hostile area of Pakistan.

In the U.S., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, warned Congress on Wednesday that cross-border attacks into Afghanistan by militants in Pakistan's tribal region are a problem, and the U.S. has deployed Predator drones to attack targets in Pakistan.

Mullen said Afghanistan can't be referenced without "speaking of Pakistan," where, he said, the militant groups collaborate and communicate better, launch more sophisticated attacks, employ foreign fighters and use civilians as human shields.

"In my view these two nations are inextricably linked in a common insurgency that crosses the border between them," he said,

He added the U.S. is "running out of time" to win the war in Afghanistan, and sending in more troops will not guarantee victory. On Tuesday, President Bush announced the deployment of 4,500 additional troops in Afghanistan.
 
.
Pakistan's frontiers to be safeguarded: COAS

Updated at: 2350 PST, Wednesday, September 10, 2008

ISLAMABAD: The Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani has said that Pakistan’s borders will be safeguarded at all cost.

General Kayani has said that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country will be defended at all cost and no external force is allowed to conduct operations against inside Pakistan. He was commenting on the recent incident where innocent civilians were killed in a cross-border raid by the Coalition Forces.

He said that the rules of engagement with the Coalition Forces are well defined and within that, the right to conduct operations against the militants inside own territory is solely the responsibility of the respective armed forces. There is no question of any agreement or understanding with the Coalition Forces whereby they are allowed to conduct operations on our side of the border.

Referring to his meeting with United States senior officers on USS Abraham Lincoln on 27th August, Kayani said that they were informed about the complexity of the issue that requires understanding in depth and more patience for evolving comprehensive solution. He said that own viewpoint was elaborated in detail and it was stressed that in such situations, military action alone cannot solve the problem. Political reconciliatory effort was required to go along with the military prong to win hearts and minds of the people.

During the discussion, the imperative of public support at large for the military operations also came under focus. Later, United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen acknowledged the better understanding of ground realities by the COAS, and remarked, “he (the COAS) is committed to doing what is best for Pakistan and he is going to stay the same”. He reiterated that ultimately it is our national interest, which would always guide our policy.
 
.
‘US to hit militant safe havens in Pakistan’
Thursday, September 11, 2008


WASHINGTON: Defence Secretary Robert Gates and Adm Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, conceded before the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee on Wednesday that the US military was not winning the fight against an increasingly deadly insurgency in Afghanistan, saying it would revise its strategy to combat militant safe havens in Pakistan.

Mullen said he was "looking at a new, more comprehensive strategy for the region" that would cover both sides of the border, including Pakistan's tribal areas. "These two nations are inextricably linked in a common insurgency that crosses the border between them," Mullen said. "We can hunt down and kill extremists as they cross over the border from Pakistan but until we work more closely with the Pakistani government to eliminate the safe havens from which they operate, the enemy will only keep coming."

Robert Gates said the United States' relationship with Pakistan is not confined to anti-terrorism assistance alone but it is much broader in range and takes into account the interests of Pakistani people.

He cited Washington's plans for massive economic assistance for Pakistan and said it would bolster the confidence of the new government in the United States having a long-term commitment to the South Asian country.

"We are in this to help Pakistan over the long-term and it is not just a relationship based on military relationship that is focused on the border with Afghanistan but it is much broader and has the interests of Pakistani people in mind," Gates told the House Armed Service Committee.

The top Pentagon leader said the United States has a multi-year package for economic development of Pakistan. "A broader kind of assistance package that helps the Pakistani people, I think will not only give their new government the confidence that we have a long range plan in mind in terms of partnering with them but that it is multi-faceted and is not just focused on the military fight," he stated.

Gates said the Pakistan military and the government were focused on the instability in the border region and it was critical to continue to work with the new Pakistan government. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman Joints Chiefs of Staff, said the United States will sustain relations with Pakistan over the long haul.

Defence Secretary Robert Gates and Adm Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee success in Afghanistan would require more civilian effort beyond the military fight. "Frankly, we're running out of time," Mullen said. "I'm not convinced we are winning it in Afghanistan. I am convinced we can," he said, offering a sober assessment nearly seven years since the US-led forces toppled the Taliban after the Sept 11, 2001 attacks.

The officials said the West should do more to help Afghans with new investments in roads and other infrastructure, education and crop assistance. "These are the keys to success in Afghanistan," said Mullen. "We cannot kill our way to victory." He said Afghanistan badly needed a national security force supported by local leaders. Gates supports an Afghan government proposal to double the size of the country's army by creating an active-duty force of 122,000 troops by 2014.

‘US to hit militant safe havens in Pakistan’
 
.
Kayani vows to defend Pak sovereignty
Thursday, September 11, 2008

Denies agreement with US on conducting operations inside Pakistan
RAWALPINDI: Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani on Wednesdays said the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country will be defended at all costs and no external force is allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistan.

He was commenting on the recent incident where innocent civilians were killed in a cross-border raid by the coalition forces. He said the rules of engagement with the coalition forces are well defined and within that, the right to conduct operations against the militants inside own territory is solely the responsibility of the respective armed forces.

"There is no question of any agreement or understanding with the coalition forces whereby they are allowed to conduct operations on our side of the border," says an ISPR press release issued here.

Referring to his meeting with United States senior officers on USS Abraham Lincoln on Aug 27, he said they were informed about the complexity of the issue that requires understanding in depth and more patience for evolving comprehensive solution.

He said it was stressed that in such like situations, military action alone cannot solve the problem. Political reconciliatory effort was required to get along with the military prong to win hearts and minds of the people.

During the discussion, the imperative of public support at large for the military operations also came under focus.Later, United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, acknowledged the better understanding of ground realities by the COAS, and remarked, "he (the COAS) is committed to doing what is best for Pakistan and he is going to stay the same". He reiterated that ultimately it is our national interest which would always guide our policy.

Gen Kayani also regretted the killing of innocent civilians in the incident of Angoor Adda on Sept 4.He said such like reckless actions only help the militants and further fuel the militancy in the area.

He said the Pakistan Army has conducted successful operations against the militants in the past and at present is committed to eliminate them from the affected areas of Fata and Swat.He said our security forces have given huge sacrifices in this war and it is the presence of the Army which has denied the freedom of movement and operation to al-Qaeda and the affiliates.

He said it is support of the people of Pakistan which would be decisive.The COAS reiterated the need for a collaborative approach for better understanding of a highly complex issue. He said that the trust deficit and misunderstandings can lead to more complications and increase difficulties for all. The constraints of operating in these areas must never be lost sight of.

He reemphasised that there are no quick fixes in this war. Falling for short-term gains while ignoring our long-term interest is not the right way forward.To succeed, the coalition would be required to display strategic patience and help the other side the way they want it; rather, than adopting a unilateral approach which may be counter productive. He said it is the multi-pronged approach, fully supported by the people of Pakistan which will help us defeat the threat of internal terrorism.

Kayani vows to defend Pak sovereignty
 
.
The US has upped the ante - they have now publicly identified General Kiyani as part of the problem -- Why? Will Pakistani security establishment fold, call or raise??



Bush said to give orders allowing raids in Pakistan
By Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti

Thursday, September 11, 2008
WASHINGTON: President George W. Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, according to senior American officials.

The classified orders signal a watershed for the Bush administration after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and after months of high-level stalemate about how to challenge the militants' increasingly secure base in Pakistan's tribal areas
.

American officials say that they will notify Pakistan when they conduct limited ground attacks like the Special Operations raid last Wednesday in a Pakistani village near the Afghanistan border, but that they will not ask for its permission.

"The situation in the tribal areas is not tolerable," said a senior American official who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the missions. "We have to be more assertive. Orders have been issued."

The new orders reflect concern about safe havens for Al Qaeda and the Taliban inside Pakistan, as well as an American view that Pakistan lacks the will and ability to combat militants. They also illustrate lingering distrust of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies and a belief that some American operations had been compromised once Pakistanis were advised of the details.

The Central Intelligence Agency has for several years fired missiles at militants inside Pakistan from remotely piloted Predator aircraft. But the new orders for the military's Special Operations forces relax firm restrictions on conducting raids on the soil of an important ally without its permission.

Pakistan's top army officer said Wednesday that his forces would not tolerate American incursions like the one that took place last week and that the army would defend the country's sovereignty "at all costs."

It was unclear precisely what legal authorities the United States has invoked to conduct even limited ground raids in a friendly country. A second senior American official said that the Pakistani government had privately assented to the general concept of limited ground assaults by Special Operations forces against significant militant targets, but that it did not approve each mission.

The official did not say which members of the government gave their approval
.

Any new ground operations in Pakistan raise the prospect of American forces being killed or captured in the restive tribal areas and a propaganda coup for Al Qaeda. Last week's raid also presents a major test for Pakistan's new president, Asif Ali Zardari, who supports more aggressive action by his army against the militants but cannot risk being viewed as an American lap dog, as was his predecessor, Pervez Musharraf.

The new orders were issued after months of debate inside the Bush administration about whether to authorize a ground campaign inside Pakistan. The debate, first reported by The New York Times in late June, at times pitted some officials at the State Department against parts of the Pentagon that advocated aggressive action against Qaeda and Taliban targets inside the tribal areas.

Details about last week's commando operation have emerged that indicate the mission was more intrusive than what had previously been known.

According to two American officials briefed on the raid, it involved more than two dozen members of the Navy Seals who spent several hours on the ground and killed about two dozen suspected Qaeda fighters in what now appears to have been a planned attack against militants who had been conducting attacks against an American forward operating base across the border in Afghanistan.

Supported by an AC-130 gunship, the Special Operations forces were whisked away by helicopters after completing the mission
.

Although the senior American official who provided the most detailed description of the new presidential order would discuss it only on condition of anonymity, his account was corroborated by three other senior American officials from several government agencies, all of whom made clear that they support the more aggressive approach.

Pakistan's government has asserted that last week's raid achieved little except killing civilians and stoking anti-Americanism in the tribal areas.

"Unilateral action by the American forces does not help the war against terror because it only enrages public opinion," said Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, during a speech on Friday. "In this particular incident, nothing was gained by the action of the troops
."

As an alternative to American ground operations, some Pakistani officials have made clear that they prefer the CIA's Predator aircraft, operating from the skies, as a method of killing Qaeda operatives. The CIA for the most part has coordinated with Pakistan's government before and after it launches missiles from the drone. On Monday, a Predator strike in North Waziristan killed several Arab Qaeda operatives.

A new American command structure was put in place this year to better coordinate missions by the CIA and members of the Pentagon's Joint Special Operations Command, made up of the Army's Delta Force and the Navy Seals.

The move was intended to address frustration on the ground about different agencies operating under different marching orders. Under the arrangement, a senior CIA official based at Bagram air base in Afghanistan was put in charge of coordinating CIA and military activities in the border region.

Spokesmen for the White House, Defense Department and CIA declined to comment on Wednesday about the new orders. Some senior congressional officials have received briefings on the new authorities. A spokeswoman for Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who leads the Armed Services Committee, declined to comment.

American commanders in Afghanistan have complained bitterly that militants use sanctuaries in Pakistan to attack American troops in Afghanistan.

"I'm not convinced we're winning it in Afghanistan," Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday. "I am convinced we can."

Toward that goal, Mullen said he had ordered a comprehensive military strategy to address the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan
.

The commando raid last week and an increasing number of recent missile strikes are part of a more aggressive overall American campaign in the border region aimed at intensifying attacks on Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the waning months of the Bush administration, with less than two months to go before November elections.

State Department officials, as well as some within the National Security Council, have expressed concern about any Special Operations missions that could be carried out without the approval of the American ambassador in Islamabad.

The months-long delay in approving ground missions created intense frustration inside the military's Special Operations community, which believed that the Bush administration was holding back as the Qaeda safe haven inside Pakistan became more secure for militants.

The stepped-up campaign inside Pakistan comes at a time when American-Pakistani relations have been fraying, and when anger is increasing within American intelligence agencies about ties between Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, known as the ISI, and militants in the tribal areas.

Analysts at the CIA and other American spy and security agencies believe not only that the bombing of India's embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, in July by militants was aided by ISI operatives, but also that the highest levels of Pakistan's security apparatus including the army chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani had knowledge of the plot.

"It's very difficult to imagine he was not aware," a senior American official said of Kayani.

American intelligence agencies have said that senior Pakistani national security officials favor the use of militant groups to preserve Pakistan's influence in the region, as a hedge against India and Afghanistan.

In fact, some American intelligence analysts believe that ISI operatives did not mind when their role in the July bombing in Kabul became known. "They didn't cover their tracks very well," a senior Defense Department official said, "and I think the embassy bombing was the ISI drawing a line in the sand.
"
 
.
I think the pentagon and state department are testing the waters to see what the response will be diplomatically and militarily from Pakistan. I have no idea what Kiyani will allow secretly and what he spoke with secretly with US military officials but I do know that no matter what he promised or was asked to allow, he cannot publicly approve of permitting land incursions because then he could be overthrown in a military coup at some future point. So Kiyani even if he is a collaborator has to keep talking tough to make sure his job stays secure.
 
.
The emergency meeting of the corps commanders is in progress. Its a good sign that now they had realized the danger.

Its time the nation should get united. Throw your support behind those standing against US aggression and agenda.
 
.
Bush sanctions US strikes on Pakistan soil
US war against terror today took an unexpected turn with President Bush permitting US strikes on Pakistan soil. The authorisation, says TV sources, was cleared two months back and a policy to this effect is already underway.

The statement issued by US Government says, “Pakistan lacks will and capability to take on the militants and the situation in tribal areas of Pakistan has become intolerable." US move is being viewed as a first major departure from an otherwise soft US policy towards Pakistan in the past seven years. Pakistan government is yet to be informed about US decision. Pakistan Defence Minister reportedly told TV sources that they will respond at an appropriate time. Diplomatic analysts indicate that Pakistan President has come to power with the support of US and hence is likely to tow US policy to the hilt.
 
.
If the message was meant indeed the way it sounded, definately we would have heard something from the US as well. Since we did not, it means that both parties have agreed to mutual understanding i.e You attack, we Protest. Other then that there is nothing to it. These are all empty words by the COAS to humble the opinion of the already very emotional nation.
 
.
Pakistan’s Military Chief Criticizes U.S. Over a Raid


By JANE PERLEZ
Published: September 10, 2008
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — In an unusually strong statement criticizing the United States for sending commandos into Pakistan to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the chief of the Pakistani Army said Wednesday that his forces would not tolerate such incursions and would defend the country’s sovereignty “at all costs.”



Pakistan“No external force is allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistan,” the military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, said in what amounted to a direct rebuff to the United States by the Pakistanis, who are regarded by the Bush administration as an ally in the campaign against terrorism.


When General Kayani took over as chief of the army in November, American officials spoke highly of him and were counting on him to be their ally in much the same way, perhaps even to a greater degree, as President Pervez Musharraf had been. Mr. Musharraf was president and army chief for almost all of his nearly nine-year rule.

General Kayani’s statement on Wednesday seemed to call into question the extent of his cooperation and that of Pakistan’s army.

The warning came the day after the swearing in of the new Pakistani president, Asif Ali Zardari, and was interpreted here as a swift repudiation of Mr. Zardari, who is widely viewed as being pro-American.

There was widespread criticism in the Pakistani press on Wednesday of Mr. Zardari’s performance at his first presidential news conference, during which he refused to condemn the raid by American Special Operations forces into Pakistan’s tribal areas on Sept. 3.

That raid involved commandos, based in Afghanistan, attacking a compound in South Waziristan where Taliban and Qaeda forces were believed to be.

After the attack, American officials said it was the first of what was likely to be a stepped-up campaign by the United States against the Taliban fighters who have been using Pakistan’s tribal areas to stage attacks against American and NATO soldiers in southern Afghanistan.

A senior Pakistani official with responsibility for national security said the Pakistani Army was told of the commando raid only after it happened. The official said the army was fully aware of a new American policy to inform the Pakistanis about American plans but not to seek their approval.

In a rejection of those plans, General Kayani said, “There is no question of any agreement or understanding with the coalition forces whereby they are allowed to conduct operations on our side of the border.”

General Kayani met last month with top American military commanders, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, and Gen. David H. Petraeus, who will soon take over as head of the United States military’s Central Command, on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. Alluding to that session, General Kayani said he had told the Americans of the “complexity” of the situation with the militants.

In another jibe at the Americans, General Kayani said public support was necessary in finding a solution. He called the commando action “reckless.”The no-nonsense tone by General Kayani brought into the open the increasing mistrust between the Americans and the Pakistanis over how to handle the Taliban and Qaeda forces in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

American military officers have said for months that they could no longer tolerate the increasing attacks against their forces in Afghanistan by the Taliban from Pakistan. They said they had concluded that the Pakistani military was unable or unwilling to deal with the militants.

While Mr. Zardari has said he understands the scourge of terrorism and wants to defeat it, most Pakistanis are opposed to American raids in their territory.

Moreover, General Kayani’s statement made clear the tentativeness of his relations with Mr. Zardari, whose political party has traditionally had a difficult relationship with the army.

A senior Pakistani politician, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of getting in the middle of a divisive political battle, said General Kayani’s statement amounted to an opening salvo against Mr. Zardari. The general was also responding to unease in the ranks of the Pakistani military after the session on the American carrier, the official said.

“He is reflecting massive internal pressure,” the politician said of General Kayani’s statement. “He had a jarring meeting with the Yanks who told him that attacks are going to increase manifold. He doesn’t want to take the blame for these attacks. The statement is saying, ‘Watch out, trouble ahead, and I am not part of it.’ ”

Describing the anger in the Pakistani Army over the American raid, a senior Pakistani official with responsibility for national security said in an interview on Wednesday that the raid was particularly “stupid” because it lacked a serious target.

Four “foot soldiers” in the nexus of Taliban and Qaeda forces and an estimated 16 civilians, including women and children were killed, said the official, who declined to be named because of the delicate relationship between Pakistan and the United States.
The political impact of the ground raid was compounded by airstrikes by American remotely piloted drones in the tribal area on three subsequent days.

So far, there have not been huge demonstrations in Pakistan against the American attacks.

This is in part, political analysts said, because the main Islamic religious party, Jamia Ulema-e-Islam, led by Maulana Fazal-ur-Rehman, was no longer in the opposition but was now part of the governing coalition with the Pakistan Peoples Party. Further, Pakistanis are observing Ramadan, a time of few rallies.

But the Pakistani elite have begun to object. An influential figure in the North-West Frontier Province, Khalid Aziz, wrote in the newspaper The News on Wednesday that “there is something quite bizarre about what is happening between two nations which consider themselves friends.”

Mr. Aziz, who is considered pro-American, was among a select group of Pakistanis invited to meet Adm. Eric T. Olson, head of Special Operations Command, when he visited last year.

Mr. Aziz, a former chief secretary of the province, said it was time for the United States and Pakistan to “re-examine” what had become a “brittle alliance.”

On Wednesday, Mr. Aziz said the American attacks in the tribal belt were counterproductive because they could end up pushing out most of the civilians and leaving the area a free zone for the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Most of the questions at Mr. Zardari’s news conference dealt with the American-Pakistani relationship. “Isn’t America a terrorist, will you declare America a terrorist?” one reporter asked the new president.

Mr. Zardari avoided answering that and most other questions directly.


After the raid last week, the Pakistani government sent a stiff protest to the Bush administration, saying that the event was damaging to Pakistan’s military because it created morale problems, the Pakistani official said.

The message was, “You’ve taken a retrograde step, and don’t do this, it creates problems with our troops,” the Pakistani official said. The raid was based on “bad intelligence,” he said. “It was not a smart thing.” So far, there had been no response from Washington to the Pakistani protest, he said.

Pir Zubair Shah contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/world/asia/11pstan.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
 
.
All those articles in the US papers about how Kiyani is the man they can do bidnes with - now he's just "no damn good" :wave: This ad hoc BS passes for policy - that's the real shame.
 
.
something from INDIAN MEDIA

US authorises ground assaults inside Pak-USA-World-The Times of India



US authorises ground assaults inside Pak
11 Sep 2008, 1210 hrs IST, Chidanand Rajghatta,TNN

WASHINGTON: The United States and Pakistan are all but on the brink of a one-sided war, following President Bush authorizing ground assaults inside the country and Pakistan’s army chief Pervez Kiyani threatening to repulse any attack on its territory.

In swift moving developments, the US President has begun to move the focus of the seven-year old war on terror from Iraq back to the Afghan-Pakistan theatre, and in the process put Washington’s notional ally on notice over its inaction and/or covert support to terrorist elements.

In a speech at the National Defense University on Tuesday, Bush stopped short of calling Pakistan a terrorist state, while nominally saying it remained an ally. He warned that ''extremists are increasingly using Pakistan as a base from which to destabilize Afghanistan's young democracy.''

''Defeating these terrorist and extremists is in Pakistan's interest... also Pakistan's responsibility -- because every nation has an obligation to govern its own territory and make certain that it does not become a safe haven for terror,'' Bush said, in the starkest indictment of Washington’s waning ally. Some US officials have said Pakistan has not only failed to act against terrorism, but promoted it, including last month's attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul.

In fact, for the first time, Bush identified ''parts of Pakistan'' as a separate component in the war on terror, distinct from Afghanistan, with which it was hitherto hyphenated. ''Each of these three places I've discussed today -- Iraq, Afghanistan, and parts of Pakistan -- pose unique challenges for our country,'' he said.

The reason for Bush’s grim denunciation became apparent a few hours after his speech when the New York Times reported that he secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval from Islamabad.

The order was confirmed publicly by Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen who told a Congressional hearing that he was ''looking at a new, more comprehensive strategy for the region'' that would cover ''both sides'' of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Mullen’s remark also corroborated a new policy that was evident on the ground last week when American Navy Seals, part of the Special Operations Forces, swept into Pakistan in an air-borne attack to take out terrorists. Some two dozen people were killed. The raid caused outrage in Pakistan, which said civilians, including women and children, were killed.

There was no immediate official confirmation -– or denial -- from Washington about the ground assault, until much later when unnamed officials acknowledged the raid and signalled a change in US policy. The gloves were off against Pakistan.

The new policy evidently involves accepting some collateral damage if intelligence inputs point to confirmed terrorist presence.

Washington’s changed policy re-directing the war on terror on Pakistan brought forth a huffy response from Islamabad where army chief Kiyani vowed to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country at all costs and insisted no external force is allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistan.

But the statement appeared to be made more for public consumption and saving face considering the Pakistan’s parlous condition -- its economy has virtually collapsed -- and Washington’s unforgiving mood. ''The situation in the tribal areas is not tolerable,'' one official was quoted as saying. ''We have to be more assertive. Orders have been issued.''

The ground assault has also been accompanied by stepped up air attacks by unmanned Predator drones almost every day that have killed scores of people, mostly civilians according to Pakistan.

Speculation is rife in American security circles that the Pentagon and CIA have honed new techniques that enable them to hunt terrorists more effectively -- the principle reason being advanced for the sharp decline of violence in Iraq. The same techniques appear to be applied in Pakistan.

The new Bush policy to re-direct the war on terror on Pakistan follows the prescription of Democratic nominee Barack Obama, who has been calling for such re-orientation for several months now. The change also comes on the eve of the 7th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, whose footprints led to US allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

In an editorial on the anniversary headlined ''Pakistan and the next September 11,'' the right-wing Washington Times , which faithfully echoes the conservative Republican view, observed that the ''security situation in Pakistan is deteriorating, so much so that American officials need to consider the unthinkable - that Pakistan in a worst-case scenario could become a launching pad for another strike against this country.''
 
.
All those articles in the US papers about how Kiyani is the man they can do bidnes with - now he's just "no damn good" :wave: This ad hoc BS passes for policy - that's the real shame.

THATS HOW Necon media play the policy of Zions
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom