Did the US blink?

[muse]

Can you explain further? They want Pakistan on the wall? Why?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I'm waiting for Mark Mazetti's next rendition of Pakistani complicity in terrorism.

Lets see, according to him, 'anonymous sources' have already alleged that Gen. Kiyani was in the know of the embassy bombing. So what else - perhaps a revelation that Pakistan is behind the new NK missile test announcements, we are probably selling tech. to them.

Gen. Kiyani probably goes on recon missions personally to pick out targets for the Taliban to attack, and uses his personal cell phone to contact Haqqani. The two then get together for Chai Biscuits in a stall in FATA somewhere.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So now we have Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Admiral Mullen, US embassy, British PM Gordon, Jack Straw, Gen. McKiernan and other NATO countries all stating that "Pakistan's sovereignty will be respected". The non-US parties going so far as to state that unilateral strikes and raids are "counterproductive".

I don't doubt the air strikes will continue, but then Pakistan never had a huge issue with those so long as the Americans were hitting the right targets and minimizing collateral damage. The rubicon was crossed with the SF raid, which to my knowledge still served absolutely no purpose, and could not have accomplished anything (even if the intel was correct) that the usual UAV strikes could not have - unless they thought they had OBL.

Top US commander reassures Pakistan over sovereignty​

8 hours ago

ISLAMABAD (AFP) — US military chief Admiral Michael Mullen Wednesday reiterated Washington respects Pakistan's sovereignty after a row sparked by recent cross-border raids by US forces based in Afghanistan.

Mullen held talks with Pakistan's top army official and the prime minister amid tensions over US raids on tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, known hideouts of Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants.

"Admiral Mullen reiterated the US commitment to respect Pakistan's sovereignty and to develop further US-Pakistani cooperation and coordination on these critical issues that challenge the security and well-being of the people of both countries," a US embassy statement said after talks.

Mullen, who flew in to Islamabad on an unannounced trip late Tuesday, met General Ashfaq Kayani and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, who was accompanied by several top government officials including defence and foreign ministers.

"The conversations were extremely frank, positive, and constructive," the embassy said and added that Mullen "appreciated the positive role that Pakistan is playing in the war on terror and pledged continued US support to Pakistan."

"The ongoing war against terrorism and the situation on the Afghan border came under discussion," a Pakistani official said, without giving further details.

Security sources in Islamabad said Pakistan conveyed to the US military chief that unilateral cross-border strikes and raids by ground forces based in Afghanistan would be counter-productive.

"Such raids will be a setback to our efforts against the militants' network," the official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told AFP.

It followed anger in the country over a September 3 ground attack by US commandos in tribal South Waziristan district in which 15 people were killed.

Kayani, in a strongly worded statement, previously warned Pakistani armed forces would protect the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity "at all cost."

Military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas said that Pakistan's policy of defending its borders was very clear.

"We have repeatedly said we will defend our territory and we reserve the right to retaliate in case of any aggression," Abbas told AFP ahead of the talks on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters in Kabul that his country will work with Pakistan to address the problem of terrorist sanctuaries in the border tribal areas.

Gates said he was encouraged by recent Pakistani military operations which had put pressure on extremists.

AFP: Top US commander reassures Pakistan over sovereignty

 

[fatman17]

Can you explain further? They want Pakistan on the wall? Why?

why? do they have another choice?

 

[Munir]

I did not hear any sorry... So you rape and then say it wil not happen again (openly)... Good joke.

 

[Munir]

Time...

As Wall Street collapsed with a bang, almost no one noticed that we're on the brink of war with Pakistan. And, unfortunately, that's not too much of an exaggeration. On Tuesday, the Pakistan's military ordered its forces along the Afghan border to repulse all future American military incursions into Pakistan. The story has been subsequently downplayed, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Mike Mullen, flew to Islamabad, Pakistan's capital, to try to ease tensions. But the fact remains that American forces have and are violating Pakistani sovereignty.

You have to wonder whether the Bush administration understands what it is getting into. In case anyone has forgotten, Pakistan has a hundred plus nuclear weapons. It's a country on the edge of civil war. Its political leadership is bitterly divided. In other words, it's the perfect recipe for a catastrophe.

All of which begs the question, is it worth the ghost hunt we've been on since September 11? There has not been a credible sighting of Osama bin Laden since he escaped from Tora Bora in October 2001. As for al-Qaeda, there are few signs it's even still alive, other than a dispersed leadership taking refuge with the Taliban. Al-Qaeda couldn't even manage to post a statement on the Internet marking September 11, let alone set off a bomb.

U.S. forces have been entering Pakistan for the last six years. But it was always very quietly, usually no more than a hundred yards in, and usually to meet a friendly tribal chieftain. Pakistan knew about these crossings, but it turned a blind eye because it was never splashed across the front page of the country's newspapers. This has all changed in the last month, as the Administration stepped up Predator missile attacks. And then, after the New York Times ran an article that U.S. forces were officially given the go-ahead to enter Pakistan without prior Pakistani permission, Pakistan had no choice but to react.

On another level the Bush Administration's decision to step up attacks in Pakistan is fatally reckless, because the cross-border operations' chances of capturing or killing al Qaeda's leadership are slim. American intelligence isn't good enough for precision raids like this. Pakistan's tribal regions are a black hole that even Pakistani operatives can't enter and come back alive. Overhead surveillance and intercepts do little good in tracking down people in a backward, rural part of the world like this.

On top of it, is al-Qaeda worth the candle? Yes, some deadender in New York or London could blow himself up in the subway and leave behind a video claiming the attack in the name of al-Qaeda. But our going into Pakistan, risking a full-fledged war with a nuclear power, isn't going to stop him.

Finally, there is Pakistan itself, a country that truly is on the edge of civil war. Should we be adding to the force of chaos? By indiscriminately bombing the tribal areas along the Afghan border, we in effect are going to war with Pakistan's ethnic Pashtuns. They make up 15% of Pakistan's 167 million people. They are well armed and among the most fierce and xenophobic people in the world. It is not beyond their military capabilities to cross the Indus and take Islamabad.

Before it is too late, someone needs to sit the President down and give him the bad news that Pakistan is a bridge too far in the "war on terror."

Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^^^ Good article - summarizes quite well how ridiculous, and for how small of a gain, the recent US escalation has been.

I'm not sure if this is entirely Bush making yet another hash of things in the twilight of his presidency, or the trigger happy cowboys in the Pentagon/CIA prevailing over more sound minds elsewhere.

 

[BATMAN]

I did not hear any sorry... So you rape and then say it wil not happen again (openly)... Good joke.

Stay with us, show will resume after the interval....Time will settel the score...
Afghan govt. has not been able to establish its rit beyond kabul, if Afghan security forces leave kabul than they will loose it too.
When US will resume bombing Kabul, NATO will call their armies back, than it will be only US and indian army left in Afghanistan, surviving on choclates and wood fire.
For india it may not be serious issue to disown few 100 thousand soldiers, but for US it can be difficult to immitate their anti-Pakistan buddies.

 

[BATMAN]

US needs strong rejoinder for violating Pak sovereignty

Hafiz Sanaullah

PESHAWAR: Historians tell us that the elephants of Pores fighting enemy forces turned back abruptly and began trampling their own soldiers.

In the present age, US President Bush seems to be an elephant of Pores otherwise he could have hardly thought of turning the heat on his frontline ally Pakistan in his war on terror.

Perhaps Bush forgot his frontline enemy in Afghanistan and pointed his guns towards Islamabad. One wonders whether US is fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban or Pakistan in the wake of a series of US missile attacks in Waziristan from across the Durand Line.

Now Islamabad better ask Bush, "You are with us or against us. You have left the Taliban and Al Qaeda and started killing Pakistani tribal civilians including women, children and old men.

"You are sending propeller driven US Predator drones day in and day out. Angoor Adda in South Waziristan is witness to your deceptive role in the war on terror.

"Your forces violated the sovereignty of Pakistan and physically entered the place where grapes loaded trucks could only land from Afghanistan. You are sending helicopters and dropping US soldiers to massacre tribesmen. Pakistan's patience is exhausted.

"There is no more military general to toe your line against the will of Pakistanis. There exists a democratic government for the people, of the people and by the people. There is an elected parliament. There is an elected president and prime minister."

Now Bush would have to knock at their doors. It was mainly due to democratic Pakistan that the army chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, came out with a strong rejoinder to the US for its violation of the sovereignty of the frontline ally.

Even this rejoinder was taken light as the US Predator drones continued violations next day in Waziristan. Then there was no way for the new army chief but to order Pakistan Army to retaliate if any violation is committed in the future. Pakistan planes appeared in the sky as the drones became visible, forcing the drones to retreat. It raised the morale of the demoralised tribesmen of Waziristan. The tribesmen were so emboldened by the incident that they opened aerial firing on the drones.

But early Monday was an eye opener for White House when US troops were made to turn tail as Pakistan forces and tribesmen opened firing on US helicopters, foiling an attempt on their part to enter Pakistani territory in Angoor Adda in South Waziristan.

US soldiers were dropped by helicopter not far from Angoor Adda and were forced to retreat to their base camp in the Paktika province of Afghanistan. Pakistan army fired shells, sounded a bugle call and opened aerial firing to warn US soldiers that they are there to defend the integrity, solidarity and sovereignty of Pakistan and as such they are in action.

The US soldiers showing their tails was an interesting aspect of the retaliatory action of the Pakistan army. But more interesting was an exchange of words between the Waziristan-based Pakistani commander and the Paktika-based US commander.

The US commander contacted Pak commander via satellite and conveyed his displeasure over Pakistan's action.

US commander: Why have you taken this action?. Why did you not allow US soldiers to enter Angoor Adda? You have an agreement with us.

Pakistani commander: We are here to defend the motherland against any foreign aggression. We have no such agreement.

US commander: You will have to face the US wrath.

Pakistani commander: O common.

US Commander: We will bomb your area.

Pakistani commander: Go ahead.

The Post came to know about this interesting exchange of words between the two military commanders just two three hours after Pakistan Army took action which gave tremendous boost to the morale of down in the dumps Pakistanis particularly tribesmen.

Later, it was learnt, the US conveyed an apology to Islamabad.

What can one say except that a bully will first terrorise you. If you are not frightened and if you begin to terrorise him the bully will turn his tail and run away.

I wonder if such conversation really took place or is invented by the blogger.. but a lesson for US that even Zardari govt. cannot hold longer for US interests if such killing of civilians continued.

 

[muse]

is it worth the ghost hunt we've been on since September 11?

Is just me or does anyone else find that a person with Mr. Baer training has used "ghost hunt" to characterize the U.S effort, interesting. What might Mr. Baer be saying about Mr. Bin Laden where abouts?

 

[muse]

Editorial: Reform ISI? Not like this

The US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Mr Richard Boucher, said Tuesday that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) needed to be reformed. He did not point to any specific flaw in the conduct of the ISI but the general impression is that his remark sprang from a deep US suspicion that the ISI “retained links to the Taliban”.

The initial reaction against the suggestion has been negative in the Pakistani media, and it was of a piece with the reaction that met Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s attempt in July to place the ISI under the control of the Interior Ministry.

The American press had charged earlier that the ISI was allegedly using the privileged information it had about American attacks against the Afghan Taliban to forewarn the latter. In fact, the American government and most Western governments believe that a recent suicide-bombing at the Indian embassy in Kabul was carried out by the ISI. In India, the case is even worse; the ISI is blamed for anything violent that happens inside India which the Indian government cannot explain.

There is no doubt that all state institutions need a periodic review of their performance and have to face internal changes to make them more effective and responsible. But the problem arises when someone else tells you to do it. The act of reforming the ISI has to be initiated by Pakistan and its elected parliament, and it should not be seen as prompted or “ordered” by another state. Since the US and Pakistan are partners in their fight against terrorism — and the success of this partnership in the past has depended solely on the ISI — it would be normal to consult on intelligence and its effectiveness. But it would be counterproductive to make public calls for corrections within the ISI. This is what has happened. If the idea was to bring the PPP government under pressure, the Boucher statement has in effect had the effect of putting it on the defensive. The PPP cannot afford to carry out any reform now.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that politicians across the political divide don’t have their complaints against the ISI. They have used the ISI against one another so many times that the ISI has to some extent become tainted because of the use that has been made of its “political wing”. (One suggestion of reform has been the clipping of this wing.) Political “signalling” has taken place through the sudden blowing up of a car’s tyres or the car catching fire all by itself; and the politicians have not minced their words in accusing the ISI of wrong-doing. The PPP has been specially targeted in the past and it has given proof that the ISI has its share of “rogue” elements. Remember Operation Midnight Jackals against the ruling prime minister, Benazir Bhutto?

Nor is evidence lacking about the ISI becoming subject to “reverse indoctrination”. Some retired ISI chiefs put off everyone when they appear on TV and speak unrealistically about what Pakistan should do to get out of trouble. If you dwell on the past, there is no doubt that these senior officers became infected with the dangerous virus of jihad they were handling. One army chief, General Asif Nawaz, had actually complained that an ex-ISI chief while still serving as a corps commander had advised the mujahideen to reject a change of policy mandated by the GHQ. Under General Pervez Musharraf, an ISI chief, sent out to Kandahar to advise Mullah Umar against war, gave him the opposite message!

Then there are some lower-ranking officers like Mr Khalid Khwaja who left the ISI to become mouthpieces of the very elements that the world associates with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Perhaps the most damaging aspect — which may need reform — is the amount of bragging some ex-ISI men do on TV channels, spreading doubt and disappointment about the ruling government by forwarding unrealistic prescriptions of what Pakistan could or should do but was “criminally” neglecting to undertake.

It is unfortunate that when terrorist blasts occur in Pakistan some people name the ISI as the culprit behind them. Just like the US, which has forgotten what the ISI did for it after 9/11, Pakistanis too often forget that the organisation has also done some good work in the cause of the security of Pakistan

 

[dr.umer]

Spec ops raids into Pakistan halted​

By Sean D. Naylor - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Sep 27, 2008 7:24:36 EDT

U.S. special operations forces have paused ground operations in Pakistan’s tribal areas, but military and civilian government officials differ over why the cross-border raids have been halted.

The issue of U.S. raids into the tribal areas was thrust into the international spotlight by a Sept. 3 raid in Angor Adda, in the South Waziristan tribal agency, by Navy SEALs working for a Joint Special Operations Command task force. (JSOC is the secretive military organization that oversees the military’s special mission units such as the Army’s 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment–Delta and the Navy’s Naval Special Warfare Development Group, or DevGru, also known as SEAL Team 6.)

“We have shown a willingness starting this year to pursue those kinds of missions,” said a Pentagon official. However, he said, after temporarily granting JSOC greater latitude to conduct cross-border missions, U.S. leaders had decided to again restrain the command, at least as far as raids using ground troops are concerned, to allow Pakistani forces to press home their attacks on militants in the tribal areas.

“We are now working with the Pakistanis to make sure that those type of ground-type insertions do not happen, at least for a period of time to give them an opportunity to do what they claim they are desiring to do,” the Pentagon official said, adding that this did not apply to air strikes launched from unmanned aerial vehicles at targets inside the tribal areas.

Although JSOC is the organization tasked, along with the Central Intelligence Agency, with finding and killing or capturing al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Sept. 3 raid was not aimed at “a huge type of target,” the Pentagon official said. “There were just consistent problems in that area that had come to a point where there was significant evidence that there was complicity on the part of the [Pakistani military’s] Frontier Corps and others in allowing repetitive raids and activities to go on. And there was a firm desire to, one, send a message, and two, also establish any intelligence audit that could be established that would be useful to respond to a frequent question that we get from the other side of the border, which is, ‘Well, show us and tell us where the problem is, then we’ll deal with it.’”

But a U.S. government official closely involved with policy in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region said the military had underestimated the Pakistani response and was reconsidering its options.

The official’s comments were echoed by a field grade special operations officer with Afghanistan experience. The Sept. 3 raid “was an opportunity to see how the new Pakistani government reacted,” the officer said. “If they didn’t do anything, they were just kind of fairly passive, like [former Pakistani President Pervez] Musharraf was … then we felt like, okay, we can slowly up the ante, we can do maybe some more of these ops. But the backlash that happened, and especially the backlash in the diplomatic channels, was pretty severe.”

The raid represented “a strategic miscalculation,” the U.S. government official said. “We did not fully appreciate the vehemence of the Pakistani response,” which included the Pakistan government’s implication that it was willing to cut the coalition’s supply lines through Pakistan. “I don’t think we really believed it was going to go to that level,” the government official said.

The military’s comments about the Sept. 3 raid sending a message represented a smokescreen, said the government official, who added that the mission “was meant to be the beginning of a campaign.” “We miscalculated, and now we’re trying to figure out how to walk the dog back. One way to do that is to say, ‘Oh well, we wanted to send a message; we’ve now sent that message, and so we’re going to not send it as much in the future, yet we’re still sort of leaving it on the table, because as we all know, we never admit to a mistake.’

“Once the Pakistanis started talking about closing down our supply routes, and actually demonstrated they could do it, once they started talking about shooting American helicopters, we obviously had to take seriously that maybe this [approach] was not going to be good enough,” the government official said. “We can’t sustain ourselves in Afghanistan without the Pakistani supply routes. At the end of the day, we had to not let our tactics get in the way of our strategy. … As much as it may be good to get some of these bad guys, we can’t do it at the expense of being able to sustain ourselves in Afghanistan, obviously.

“Senior uniformed people recognize that,” as do senior officials in the State Department and the intelligence agencies, the U.S. government official said. In the latter categories, the official said, “People are looking at this in terms of its propensity for destabilizing the situation in Pakistan and unifying all these disparate anti-this and anti-that elements into one anti-American element in Pakistan.”

“The raid got a lot more attention than they expected,” a Washington source in government said. “They do have to walk it back and go about it a different way, because obviously that didn’t work. … We can’t afford these backlashes every time a raid occurs.” However, the Washington source added, “I don’t think there’s been another strategic decision to back off.” Instead, JSOC would “go about it a different way.”

U.S. Central Command spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith declined to comment for this story.

Under questioning on Capitol Hill on Sept. 23, Defense Secretary Robert Gates did not deny that U.S. forces had made cross-border strikes.

“We will do what is necessary to protect our troops,” he said, acknowledging the Pentagon had been granted “authorities” for such action.

INTO TRIBAL AREAS

The Sept. 3 raid was not the first time JSOC forces have launched into the tribal areas. In the past, small JSOC elements have operated with the Pakistani Special Services Group in the tribal areas, and the special operations officer with Afghanistan experience said he was aware of “two or three” cross-border operations similar to the Angor Adda raid. “They have happened, but it was by no means a common occurrence,” he said.

However, said the government official closely involved with Afghanistan/Pakistan policy, JSOC “has been pushing hard for several years” to step up their raids into the tribal areas, said the U.S. government official closely involved with policy in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. JSOC’s argument has been “Give us greater latitude, we’ve got to hit where their sanctuaries are,” the official said.

“In the wake of the increased Taliban attacks we’ve seen over the last several months and the sense of frustration that we haven’t been more successful, their point of view has finally gained traction,” the government official said.

Two government sources identified the Taliban’s July 13 attack on a U.S. outpost in the Korengal valley as a turning point in the debate.

“Clearly we saw what happened in the Korengal valley as a watershed moment,” said the government official closely involved with policy in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. Together with the Taliban’s July 7 bombing of the Indian embassy and their Jan. 14 attack on the Serena hotel (both in Kabul city) and the June 13 escape of an estimated 900 inmates, including perhaps 400 Taliban from a Kandahar jail, the Korengal fight gave the impression that things were spinning out of control.

“Suddenly you have an American outpost — not Canadian or British or Dutch — that is almost overrun,” the official said.

BUSIER OP TEMPO, MORE TARGETS

The Sept. 3 raid into Pakistan is part of a heightened operational tempo for JSOC forces based in Afghanistan, several sources said. JSOC’s target list has expanded from the original “big three” of bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and Taliban leader Mullah Omar to a broader list that includes figures in the Taliban-allied network of Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hezb-i-Islami group (sometimes referred to as HiG by the U.S. military).

The U.S. government official involved with policy in the area described JSOC’s targets as fitting into two categories: the “big guys” with whom the U.S. has “unfinished business” and “those people that threaten us operationally and tactically on the ground right now.”

Several sources said the Sept. 3 raid appeared to have been aimed at the Haqqani network, along with some of its Uzbek allies.

“Because of the nature of those types of operations, there generally has to be — and in this case there was — an involvement of a foreign fighter element,” the Pentagon official said. “And the traditional ones in that area are the Uzbeks and the Chechens. Their interpenetration with Talibs in that area is the mixture that is most at play.”

JSOC is “targeting a range of actors, but one of the big ones is Haqqani,” said a civilian expert on Afghanistan, adding that targeting the Haqqani network represented “payback” for its alleged involvement in the Indian embassy bombing, the hotel attack in Kabul and an assassination attempt against Afghan President Hamid Karzai. (Nothing about TTP or Baitullah Masud???)

The U.S. government official closely involved with policy in the region agreed that U.S. forces were targeting Haqqani as “payback,” but also because the network — now mostly controlled by Haqqani’s son, Sirajuddin — “is seen as … the low-hanging fruit,” because its bases in Waziristan are more easily accessible than the mountainous terrain of the Bajaur tribal agency where Hekmatyar’s fighters operate.

“None of the JSOC activity has been going on in the areas around the sanctuary for Mullah Omar’s Taliban,” which is located in and around the Pakistani city of Quetta, the civilian expert on Afghanistan said. “It’s all happening in the tribal areas… The target has not been the Omar Taliban.”

The government official closely involved with policy in the region agreed that the change in the rules of engagement that allowed JSOC to operate more freely across the border applied only to the tribal areas, and not to “Pakistan proper.”

As a result, he said “The cross-border activity, by virtue of where these target sets are located, favors actions against HiG and against the Haqqani network, and not against the Quetta Shura [of Mullah Omar].”

A senior military official said that the JSOC task force was using a similar approach along the border to that which served JSOC so well in Iraq: a combination of technical and human intelligence driving multiple missions per night, with each target quickly exploited for intelligence that then prompts further missions.

But the Taliban are not standing still, according to the government official involved with policy in the region. “Both sides have taken the gloves off and are going at it hard,” the official said.

The increased pace of operations has come with a significant cost: Three DevGru SEALs have died in Afghanistan in recent weeks: Petty Officer 1st Class Joshua Harris, who drowned while crossing a river Aug. 30, and Senior Chief Petty Officer John Wayne Marcum and Chief Petty Officer (select) Jason Richard Freiwald, who both died Sept. 12 of injuries suffered in combat Sept. 11.

The two DevGru casualties who died Sept. 12 were killed “on the Afghan side of the border in one of those small, minor ambush-type things,” the Pentagon official said.

When JSOC forces cross the border into Pakistan, they do so only after receiving clearances from the highest levels of the U.S. government, sources said. However, exactly who has the authority to approve JSOC’s missions into Pakistan is shrouded in secrecy.

Asked at what level JSOC’s cross-border missions must be authorized, the Pentagon official said he knew the answer, but added, “I can’t talk to you about that, given the level of classification.” However, he said, the authority rested far above the JSOC task force commander in Afghanistan.

“It’s long been that way,” the Pentagon official said. “That’s not done in a cavalier [way] or without a very high level of authority. … Neither the aerial-type missions nor the ground-type missions, short of hot pursuit, which has some very finite restrictions on it, can take place without there being a high level of authority.”

The Washington source in government said the issue’s sensitivity was related to diplomacy. “There’s a very linear chain of command … but it can make things diplomatically stressful if these things are made public,” the source said.

“Even a missile strike requires the highest level of authority,” a special operations officer with Afghanistan experience said.

Asked who would have to sign off on a mission into Pakistan, he replied: “The president, no doubt in my mind. The president.”

 

[DarkStar]

Very Enlightening. Some people have suspected as much, as a few posts in this forum have shown. It is obvious that the US is targetting very selectively.
Reminds me of the Israelis. When Fatah was in power, they would leave them alone but bomb Hamas ( two of their civilian leaders have been killed only a few years ago). And when Hamas came into power and sued for peace, they started to targed IJ and PFLP instead.
Divide and Rule - the classical strategy and tactics used by the British colonialists, and now used by the British Empire's spiritual child, Pax Americana.

Seems like there is a grand conspiracy being hatched here. Pakistan is being destabilised with the intention of creating a security vacuum, only to be filled by our "savior" Uncle Sam's mercenaries.
It is to the strength of our Armed Forces that we should be thankful to, otherwise we would have been overrun already. Our very own Asif "Mandela" Zardari did his best to ruin our tough response by saying "it wasn't me?" It was the coloured flairs. A colourful game of border holi (indian colour celebration) is what we were playing there. Somebody should remind Mr Asif "Mandela" that our army of half a million are not toy soldiers, and the guns that the nation has given them while entrusting their security and wellbeing to them, are not made of plastic.

How long does it take for a drone to fly from the AFghan border to lahore, or Rawalpindi? As long as our army sends a tough message to any such infiltrations, we surely won't find out.

 

[AliFarooq]

Good, to here