Bush to warn Pakistan on combating militants

[HASEEB66]

US rules out direct action in northern areas of Pakistan


WASHINGTON: The United States on Wednesday ruled out a direct role in areas of Northern Pakistan witnessing rising al-Qaeda activities and said it was working with Islamabad to ensure that the region does not become a safe haven for terrorists.

Appearing before the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee on War Funding, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Pakistan has a strong interest in not allowing extremism breed in the area.

"The vice president will come back and report to the president on what he learned. But I do think that we need to remember that the Pakistanis have a very strong interest, also, in not having extremism breed in that area," Rice said.

Rice, Defence Secretary Robert Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace, were appearing before the Senate panel when she was asked to comment by Republican Senator Sam Brownback on the latest trip of US Vice President Dick Cheney to Pakistan.

Senator Brownback, who at one time Chaired the Senate Foreign Relations' Sub Committee on Near East and South Asia, observed that much of the trouble on the Pakistan Afghanistan border is "mostly coming from the Pakistani side."

"We believe that we have the commitment of the Pakistanis to fight these extremists because they threaten Pakistan as well," she said.

Rice and General Pace also ruled out the use of American forces in parts of Northern Pakistan with a view to wiping out or eliminating the leadership of the al Qaeda.

http://www.geo.tv/geonews/details.asp?id=2785&param=2

makes sense

 

[gray wolf]

US rules out direct action in northern areas of Pakistan


WASHINGTON: The United States on Wednesday ruled out a direct role in areas of Northern Pakistan witnessing rising al-Qaeda activities and said it was working with Islamabad to ensure that the region does not become a safe haven for terrorists.

Appearing before the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee on War Funding, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Pakistan has a strong interest in not allowing extremism breed in the area.

"The vice president will come back and report to the president on what he learned. But I do think that we need to remember that the Pakistanis have a very strong interest, also, in not having extremism breed in that area," Rice said.

Rice, Defence Secretary Robert Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace, were appearing before the Senate panel when she was asked to comment by Republican Senator Sam Brownback on the latest trip of US Vice President Dick Cheney to Pakistan.

Senator Brownback, who at one time Chaired the Senate Foreign Relations' Sub Committee on Near East and South Asia, observed that much of the trouble on the Pakistan Afghanistan border is "mostly coming from the Pakistani side."

"We believe that we have the commitment of the Pakistanis to fight these extremists because they threaten Pakistan as well," she said.

Rice and General Pace also ruled out the use of American forces in parts of Northern Pakistan with a view to wiping out or eliminating the leadership of the al Qaeda

makes sense

Ain't life a bummer it wasen't that long ago we were in bed with these same people fighting the Russian's,now we"re all pissed-off at them and trying to kill them.One thing I'll bet on those Airfields the NATO troops are using in Afghanistan will make a dandy part of the landscape overlooking Russia and China for decades to come...

 

[kidwaibhai]

an american attack on the trible belt will create real problems for musharraf and might even cauz his regime to come to an end so an attack by the US seems unlikly.

 

[Regal]

this kid reminds me of 'pirateofthecarribean'

Would you care to elaborate on this

 

[Regal]

Even if one assumes for the sack of an argument that the taliban were infiltrating from Pakistani side of the border and weren’t really part of the local resistance within Afghanistan against the Karazai government it would still be counter productive to put pressure on Pakistani government.

What west needs to consider before saying “Pakistan is not doing enough” is that if it was so easy to seal off borders then Americans would have done it in Iraq by closing Iraqi border with Iran and Syria. Not to mention Israel would’ve secured its borders ages ago.

Before measuring success of Pakistani army one needs to analyze the level of success America has achieved in suppressing the insurgents and policing Iraq. The advantage American army has in Iraq verses Pakistani army in the western area is that it is an occupying force. It can carry out all the desired tasks without any kind of political ramifications. It can go in an area, sweep it completely, use extra ordinary force if necessary, detain suspected people, and move out. Yet we all know insurgency in Iraq is on the rise to say the least. On the other hand Pakistani army simply cant do the same. It just cant go door to door detaining people, and looking for weapons cache. One cant expect Pakistan to use brut force on its population. It needs to make sure that the people it is targeting are indeed the bad guys.

At the end west has little chance in succeeding in war on terror without the help of Pakistan. Instead of pointing fingers and putting pressure, American intelligence agencies along with NATO need to work in collaboration with Pakistani security agencies in apprehending the rebels. Also Pakistan must do a better job on the diplomatic front, because even after doing all it could it almost seems like its back to where it started from five years ago.

 

[Spring Onion]

Even if one assumes for the sack of an argument that the taliban were infiltrating from Pakistani side of the border and weren’t really part of the local resistance within Afghanistan against the Karazai government it would still be counter productive to put pressure on Pakistani government.

Ok even if that is considerd as correct thn the Question arises wht the NATO forces or Amrican forces are doing out there failed even to gaurd the high profile area like the one at Bagram base u had seen what happend on the occasion of Cheny's visit. i suppose Pakistan isnt suppose to gaurd their airbases in Afghanistan isnt it ?
It means they hare great loopholes in their own security system also so balming only one nation and not considering own faults.
Its a two-way stragtegy atleast extend ur write in Afghanistan if u think the locals there are not part of the problem.

Before measuring success of Pakistani army one needs to analyze the level of success America has achieved in suppressing the insurgents and policing Iraq. The advantage American army has in Iraq verses Pakistani army in the western area is that it is an occupying force. It can carry out all the desired tasks without any kind of political ramifications. It can go in an area, sweep it completely, use extra ordinary force if necessary, detain suspected people, and move out. Yet we all know insurgency in Iraq is on the rise to say the least. On the other hand Pakistani army simply cant do the same. It just cant go door to door detaining people, and looking for weapons cache. One cant expect Pakistan to use brut force on its population. It needs to make sure that the people it is targeting are indeed the bad guys.

Regal we even did that now tell me whts more there they want?
And the world had seen even US used modern warplans and bombard our areas but wht they had got nothing only killings of civilians.
so it needs to understand that it will only works when u work with ur ally on equal footings not on one hand asking to put ur entire army in front of the attackers and on the other hand threatning them not provde assitance and undue pressur.

At the end west has little chance in succeeding in war on terror without the help of Pakistan. Instead of pointing fingers and putting pressure, American intelligence agencies along with NATO need to work in collaboration with Pakistani security agencies in apprehending the rebels. Also Pakistan must do a better job on the diplomatic front, because even after doing all it could it almost seems like its back to where it started from five years ago.

well Regal the same problem the collaboration is missing on the part of NATO and US. look at their dealings they are relying on Warlords who dont have any other agenda but to fight for rule.

 

[Bull]

Day one - Bush warning to pakistan
Day Two - Mushraff asks foriegn fighters to pack up and leave
Day Three - Taleban's former Defence Minsiter arrested by Security forces in Quetta

What does this tell you? How could the security forces attain such a big success in three days? Doesnt this mean they are aware of Taleban's where abouts. Everytime a threat is passed, Pakistan presents US with a 'trophy'.

 

[Regal]

Regal we even did that now tell me whts more there they want?

lol…… As much as they can “get out of you” be it by arm twisting or hand shaking. Its that simple.

Its hard-nosed diplomacy and they will push you to make you do things that might even seem impossible to you. Like I said in my previous post what Pakistan is lacking is diplomacy not only on this issue, but on all sorts of foreign affairs. There are number of reason for that but that is a different story.

Americans know the weakness of Pakistani establishment which is controlled by a army general/dictator this is not to say they want him out of the picture though. The recent bills that you see coming out of congress are just ways to put indirect pressure on Musharraf, but at the same time you would never see them publicly criticizing him on this issue.

Don’t get me wrong I personally like Musharraf I think he is doing a wonderful job for the country, but If Pakistan was a democratic country like India then they would have hard time pulling stunts like this.

 

[Keysersoze]

Don’t get me wrong I personally like Musharraf I think he is doing a wonderful job for the country, but If Pakistan was a democratic country like India then they would have hard time pulling stunts like this.

Errrr I think what they would do is fund the opposition in a "democracy" or meddle in different ways. Democracy by its very nature is reactionary. You can argue many points but Dictators (including kings and queens) tend to have more stability. On a war footing, more power is focused upon the leader even in a democracy because it is more efficient.(a good example is Churchill during WW2)

 

[Contrarian]

Please dont tell me that your a proponent of dictatorship? and your actually saying that dictatorship is better than democracy?

US doesnt need to fund the opposition, the opposition will jump at any and every chance to fault the government.. Reagal is right, if any one got wind that such a thing was being done, then the opposition, media would have a field day and that government will fall.Period. No government would do it, cuz then they would not get elected in the next elections. A dictator can get away with whatever he wants unless he is overthrown.

 

[Regal]

Errrr I think what they would do is fund the opposition in a "democracy" or meddle in different ways. Democracy by its very nature is reactionary. You can argue many points but Dictators (including kings and queens) tend to have more stability. On a war footing, more power is focused upon the leader even in a democracy because it is more efficient.(a good example is Churchill during WW2)

You are absolutely right even in a democracy they would definitely do every thing they can from funding the opposition to even sponsoring the rogue elements, but to think this would only happen in a democracy is a reason enough to looking back at the presidency of previous dictator General Zia. Even though he was needed to do the dirty work and was a strategic partner, yet that didn’t stop the Americans from providing financial as well as moral support to the political parties.

Bottom line is every country looks after its interests and America is no different. They will do what ever it takes to achieve there objectives using all the tools at its disposal from diplomacy to boots on the ground. Issue at hand is how one responds to it, and what are some of the factors that put you in a favorable position. Pakistan would be able to withstand the diplomatic pressure more effectively, and do a better job in diplomacy if it was a functional democracy. It wouldn’t get used and abused so easily to say the least. Same is true for Saudi Arabia.

In a war scenario to have power in one hand no doubt makes the decision making more swift and efficient. Also bipartisan policy in a event of war would be ideal for any US president, but to hand that power to a dictator where there is no oversight is surely a path to self destruction. ( a good example would be Adolf Hitler during WW2 )

 

[niaz]

This is probelm not going to go away. Who are taliban??. These are indigenous Pashtoons belonging to both sides of the border. Let us assume that there some foreign elements such as Chehchen, Uzbecks etc also present. Even all of these are eleminated, the infilteration probelm is not going to away. Durand Line is an artificial line, no differennt from LOC in Kashmir. How can you stop members of the same tribe from meeting each other???.

Besides there is a Pashtoon tradition called " Pakhtoon Valeey'. Basically this requires "Revenge" no matter how much time has passed. Yes, it is a tradition of dark ages, nevertheless it exists. The same is applied within Pashtoon tribes as well as without. Killings of PA jawans is part of the same revenge tradition.

One has to understand that majority of the people living in the FATA area are either talibans or their sympthisers. They see US forces as an occupational force. Unlike other nationalities, no matter what you think of a Pashtoon, he doesnot take foreign occupation lying down. Besides most of the so called terrorists are hardened fighters trained and armed by CIA. The situation becomes further complicated because a significant portion of Pakistan's civil society sympathises and supports these elements and this support is all thru Pakistan; as far south as Karachi where Pashtoon population is larger than that of Peshawar.

In view of the above can any one suggest a solution??. No matter what US does, whether they attack Pakistan or bomb the hell out of tribal areas; taliban problem is not going to go way unless there is political deal and taliban leadership joins the Afghan government. Something on the lines of deal in Waziristan. It may be hard pill to swallow but IMO that is the truth.

 

[[R]e[b]e[L]]

They are not blaming Pakistan for their failure, they are blaming Pakistan for still allowing terrorists to flourish in their territory, and they are targetting the western countries soldiers in Iraq.

What are you on about? Are you personally trying to say pakistan (which has lost 700 soldiers in anti terrorist battles for no reason) is doing nothing? If this is your flimsy point i couldnt care less, because it means nothing. Who are you? You are of no importance.

 

[Contrarian]

What are you on about? Are you personally trying to say pakistan (which has lost 700 soldiers in anti terrorist battles for no reason) is doing nothing? If this is your flimsy point i couldnt care less, because it means nothing. Who are you? You are of no importance.

Im saying exactly what the the US president, the NATO commanders and the rest of the world are saying. It is hard to stop Taliban just as Niaz sir has said, but on top of that Musharraf is not that keen either.

If i am of no importance then please dont reply to my posts and dont quote them

 

[Cheetah786]

Day one - Bush warning to pakistan
Day Two - Mushraff asks foriegn fighters to pack up and leave
Day Three - Taleban's former Defence Minsiter arrested by Security forces in Quetta

What does this tell you? How could the security forces attain such a big success in three days? Doesnt this mean they are aware of Taleban's where abouts. Everytime a threat is passed, Pakistan presents US with a 'trophy'.

THis tells me that we are excellent poker players.