Did the US blink?

[Awesome]

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-n...S-and-NATO-military-leaders-assure-restraints

ISLAMABAD - Top US military commander Admiral Mike Mullen and Head of Nato’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) General David McKiernan Tuesday landed here on an unannounced visit ostensibly to pacify Pakistan’s military leadership.

Well-placed diplomatic sources told TheNation that General David McKiernan held an informal meeting with Pakistani military leadership shortly after his arrival and assured maximum restraints in future.

“ISAF Chief has expressed regrets over what has been described as ‘erroneously made incursions inside Pakistan,” an informed source added.
Informed sources further said that Admiral Mullen and General McKiernan would hold formal meeting with Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani today (Wednesday) to hold out categorical assurance that maximum restraints would be exercised in future.
It was further learnt that a high-level delegation from Pakistan would visit the USA to further consolidate the strategic partnership between the two countries.

Diplomatic sources said that purpose of visit of Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen was to discuss ways to reduce tension over recent border violations by the US-led NATO forces.

The visit comes amid tensions between the US and Pakistan’s new government, which has angrily reacted to recent missiles strikes by American drones, killing scores of people including women and children.

Admiral Mullen warned earlier this month that the US forces would launch unilateral actions in the tribal regions against the al Qaeda linked militants.
Sources said that the security situation and war against terror would come under discussion in the talks scheduled for Wednesday, official sources said.
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Admiral Mullen is also expected to call on Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani to discuss cooperation between Pakistan and United States in the war against terror.

 

[blain2]

Asim,

I do not think the issue is one of blinking. I think the stakes are so high for the GoP and the US alike that it makes sense to take a step back and think this through.

US cannot win in Afghanistan when the pot is boiling in Pakistan. Every single short sighted step taken to gain tactical success will result in undermining of the GoP and the prestige of the Pakistani armed forces. By conducting strikes across the border, it will result in the militants becoming more emboldened and increasingly supported by masses (they will stop looking at the GoP and Pakistani armed forces as the guarantors of their security and openly and tacitly support those who are taking the war into Afghanistan and inflicting casualties on the occupation forces).

This hurts both the US and ISAF interests in the long term. Maybe certain people in the US want the gloves to come off, however I am pretty darn sure that once they come off, this will be another major fiasco in line with what went on in Iraq (times 3).

 

[ejaz007]

The question is not of blinking but of long term interests US has in the region. Perhaps they have realized that what they wished to do would have created more problems then solutions. Remember there is a limit beyond which no government can tolerate compromise on its territorial sovereignity. Perhaps Pakistan told them that they have crossed the limit and future incursions shall be met with force. This already has been demonstrated by Pakistan.

Hopefully this is tha case.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

US ground force option may be limited in Pakistan
​

Wednesday, 17 Sep, 2008 | 05:29 AM PKT |

WASHINGTON: The Bush administration is unlikely to use commando raids as a common tactic against militant safe havens in Pakistan due to the high-stake risks to U.S. policy in the region according to Reuters.

Bush approved a U.S. commando assault in Pakistan's South Waziristan on Sept. 3, without Islamabad's permission, as part of a presidential order on clandestine and covert operations, officials and sources familiar with the matter said.

Bush's authorization for the use of ground forces without Pakistani approval was part of a larger ramp-up in U.S. strikes against militant safe havens along the shared border with Afghanistan.

Days later, Pakistani officials and villagers near the site of the initial attack said U.S. helicopters crossed the border from Afghanistan in a second incursion but were forced back by Pakistani ground fire. The incident was denied by both Pakistani and U.S. military officials.

But officials and sources said any future raids must be approved on a mission-by-mission basis by a top U.S. administration official because of the political sensitivities involved and the calculated risk of U.S. troops being killed or captured on Pakistani soil.

It was not clear whether permission must be given by the president or can be relegated to the defense secretary.

“This is extremely sensitive. You can't have soldiers in the field, or even their commanders, making this kind of decision,” said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the topic involves classified information.

PAKISTAN 'UNABLE AND UNWILLING'

Analysts said U.S. special operations and paramilitary forces have operated inside Pakistan in small numbers for years, mainly in conjunction with the Pakistani military.

But U.S. involvement escalated on Sept. 3 when about two dozen U.S. special operations forces backed by an AC-130 gunship raided a suspected al Qaeda compound near the village of Angor Adda in what U.S. officials privately described as a stepped-up campaign to disrupt increasingly dangerous militant safe havens in Pakistan's tribal region.

The Bush administration had grown impatient at Pakistan's reluctance to take military action against militant bases.

“The U.S. military and intelligence community in Afghanistan was getting increasingly concerned that the Pakistan government was not only unable but unwilling to conduct operations against the militants,” said an analyst involved in U.S. government deliberations.

“This meant that if we were to deal effectively with one of the most serious concerns about the Afghan insurgency, we needed to step up activity. And that meant we needed a presidential order,” the analyst said.

The United States has 33,000 troops in Afghanistan and plans to send fresh forces that will increase the overall number by nearly 2,000 by next year, a fraction of the 10,000 troops sought by U.S. commanders on the ground.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Sri Lanka Teresita Schaffer said the use of U.S. ground forces could increase political turmoil by inflaming the rivalry between Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and opposition leader Nawaz Sharif.

“If this is a one-off or two-off, you can get past it. But as a regular modus operandi, I don't think the Pakistani government can sustain it,” she said.
Steve Coll of the New America Foundation said the use of U.S. ground forces posed particular problems for the Pakistani military, which the Bush administration is pressing for more assistance against militants.

“It's hard for an army that is as sensitive as Pakistan's is to issues of sovereignty to stand passively before its own public and accept these kinds of incursions,” Coll said.

DAWN.COM | Pakistan | US ground force option may be limited in Pakistan

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

yes, by making the US "blink", Kiyani has all of a sudden become a hero in his own country and perhaps some parts of the world. he's treading where no man has dared to go, picking a bone with the world's only superpower.

 

[muse]

Three strikes & he’s out?
By Cyril Almeida

ASIF is batting on two strikes. Another swing and a miss, and he’s going home. The first strike was the bizarre, abortive handover of the ISI to Rehman Malik.

The second was Kayani’s rebuke the day after Asif was sworn in as president. Ostensibly Kayani’s condemnation was of the Americans, but between the lines was the real target: Asif. Get your act together, the army chief was telling his supreme commander.

Asif has stumbled badly on Afghanistan. The macho men who wanted to defy the American juggernaut on the warpath the day after 9/11 are still amongst us, still advising defiance. The day after 9/11 this was sheer foolishness. But it is no longer the day after 9/11. Seven years of the Americans in Afghanistan and reality has changed. Pick up any report on the West’s adventure in Afghanistan and you will find two things: one, US policy in Afghanistan has been a failure; two, US policy in Afghanistan will not succeed without Pakistan being on board.

In the world of realpolitik, this is known as an opportunity. So why must Asif so cravenly accept the Americans letting loose their Special Ops troops and raining down missiles in Waziristan when he can happily unleash? He had every chance at his debut press conference; instead, he bizarrely chose to speak alongside Karzai. The Afghan president is about as popular in the Pakistani Army as George W. Bush in an Al Qaeda training camp.

What is the problem in Afghanistan? In a word: Karzai. Don’t take my word for it, here’s what The New York Times had to say in an Aug 20 editorial: “Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, must rein in his government’s rampant corruption that has all but driven his people into the hands of the Taliban and criminal warlords.” What then was Asif doing at the side of a man not only discredited in the West but hated by the Pakistan Army?

Another thing: the western — read American — strategy in Afghanistan has failed. Again, don’t take my word for it. Francesc Vendrell, the EU envoy in Kabul for six years, had this to say over the weekend: “We are not destined to fail, but we are far from succeeding.” Earlier, Vendrell told Stephen Sackur of BBC’s ‘HARDtalk’: “I do leave with a sense of regret that we’ve made so many mistakes. ... we’ve got to do a hell of a lot to make things right.” In the euphemistic world of diplomacy, this is the equivalent of saying “we’re a disaster.”

Given this record of western failure why does Asif have to be so apologetic for Pakistan’s failure to help out the Americans in Afghanistan? There are 26 Nato and 14 non-Nato countries contributing troops to Isaf. Each country’s rules of engagement are so complex and dense that were the Taliban to walk right up to some Isaf troops and dance a little jig, certain countries would still not allow their soldiers to shoot. Why then must Pakistan always ‘do more’?

Perhaps if Pakistan wasn’t actually doing something about its Taliban problem — somewhere, anywhere — the supine cravenness of Asif before the Americans would be understandable. Except that we are. Bajaur and Swat are being pounded mercilessly, militants are being flushed out, leaders are being knocked off. But the Americans aren’t satisfied because Bajaur is at the northern tip of the tribal belt while they are more concerned with the southern bit. Waziristan, north and south, and the Haqqani, Hekmatyar and Nazir networks exercise the Americans. Meanwhile, 300,000 Bajauris flee the bombing and Ambassador Patterson, de facto American leader in Pakistan, announces that $50,000 has been set aside for “gas stoves, pots, utensils and plastic sheeting”. Well, fantastic. That’s less than the cost of a Hellfire missile fired from a predator. So for Asif to denounce the American forays into Pakistan wouldn’t be jingoistic nationalism — it’s common sense. For one, Asif need only imagine how much less common sense than nationalism there is in the army. For another, he has an unbelievable luxury — he can. Everyone knows the Americans can’t really afford to be on the wrong side of Pakistan. Jack Straw and the French have already distanced themselves from the strikes inside Pakistan. Here’s more from that NYT editorial, with the alarmist headline ‘Afghanistan on Fire’: “Sending American troops or warplanes into Pakistani territory will only feed anti-American furies. That should be the job of Pakistan’s army, with intelligence help and carefully monitored financial support from the United States.” If all these important — western — folk think American Special Ops running around Pakistan and blowing up the place is such a bad idea, why must Asif be so tepid in his criticism?

There’s another reason for Asif to unleash against the Americans. The same NYT story on Bush’s secret authorisation of strikes inside Pakistan, also had a staggering allegation against Kayani: that he knew of the plot to bomb the Indian embassy in Kabul. In living memory, a Pakistan army chief has not been directly implicated by the Americans in a criminal plot.

This then is the scenario that Asif is confronted with: angry Americans who can only rattle the Pakistani cage so much; an army chief who is under American fire; and a failed American policy in Afghanistan. Why can’t Asif connect the dots? Figure out who’s your enemy, who’s your friend and when to take a hit for the team, friendly or otherwise. Asif should make the Americans squirm a little. The next time Patterson, Boucher, Negroponte — or even Bush — is on the phone, ask your secretary to tell them you’re on the phone with your daughter at college.

And get a better team. We were made to believe that Chaudhry Mukhtar was passed over for prime minister because he was too much of his own man. None of that is on display as defence minister. Mukhtar must still be sulking over being passed over because every time he opens his mouth someone somewhere in a uniform gets angry. Then there’s the oily Husain Haqqani. Listen to the man long enough and you’ll be confused: is he the Pakistani ambassador to the US or the US ambassador to Pakistan? So incompetent is Asif’s defence team that the intellectual nobody with the connections to die for, Rehman Malik, has come out the brightest of the lot. At least you have to hand it to the indefatigable Malik: he does try, even if he’s out of his depth.

The survival lesson for Asif is clear: push back against the Americans, or else be pushed out by the army.

cyril.a@gmail.com

 

[muse]

And now for more complications

US official makes public demand for reforming ISI
By Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON, Sept 16: A proposal for reforming the ISI – now publicly articulated by a senior US official – was discussed thoroughly between Pakistani and American authorities during Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s visit to Washington in July.

CIA chief Michael V. Hayden had an exclusive meeting with the prime minister during his visit, presenting him with a “charge-sheet” on the spy agency’s alleged involvement in jihadi activities.

Later, in an interview to Washington Times, Mr Gilani said that CIA deputy director Stephen R. Kappes and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael G. Mullen visited Islamabad in mid-July with reports of some ISI officials’ alleged links with the militants.

And on Monday, US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Richard Boucher said at a private luncheon in Washington that the controversial spy agency needed reform but there’s no indication this was happening.

“It has to be done,” said Mr Boucher in his speech at the Thomson Reuters Bureau. Asked if he had seen signs of reform, he told Reuters: “No, I don’t have anything in particular I would point to right now.”

Asked why the new Pakistani government was more likely to act than its predecessor, Mr Boucher replied: “It’s sad to say, but the problem has become more and more acute.”

Mr Boucher warned that “as long as you have organisations, or pieces of organisations, that work in different directions, then it’s harder for the government to accomplish the goal” of defeating terrorists based in the tribal region and elsewhere in Pakistan.

According to diplomatic sources here, the United Stats is trying to work out an arrangement with Pakistan for curtailing ISI’s power.

Under this new arrangement, the ISI wing which deals with internal security is to be transferred to the interior ministry and the agency is to be asked to reduce its role in the war on terror.

The US administration believes that this arrangement should be acceptable to the new civilian government in Islamabad as well because it can end the agency’s interference in Pakistan’s domestic politics and thus prevent future military takeovers.

Taking away the authority to deal with the militants, a power the ISI has enjoyed since the Afghan war, could help the United States meet its goal of severing the agency’s alleged links to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

When the proposal was first discussed with Pakistan’s civilian government, they were not sure they could accomplish this task. They felt that the civilians were still too weak to take on the ISI.

Mr Boucher’s decision to go public with a demand so far discussed privately between the two governments, however, is an attempt to tell the civilians that Washington expects them to act now.

It is also linked to Washington’s decision to increase the heat on the militants and is part of the same policy that has led to renewed US military actions against militant hideouts in Fata.

The Americans feel that while Pakistan’s civilian government may not have been strong enough to take on the ISI when the prime minister visited Washington in July, it is now. They believe that Asif Ali Zardari’s thumping victory in the presidential elections earlier this month has created a civilian set-up in Islamabad which has all the powers it needs to reform the ISI.

 

[PakWatan]

So much for the 'trust me I know' from certain internet resident military 'professionals' lol ... looks like not only have the Americans have had to stand down they are now whining about the ISI!

ahahah quite a climb down from the big talk r a t mullen was doing a few days back

 

[muse]

Failing! Why? What relation does it have with policy, why do a majority or even a significant minority not accept the American Satrap's govt?? - well, of course it's all Pakistan's fault,...



NATO tries to reduce Afghan casualties
By Thom Shanker

Wednesday, September 17, 2008
KABUL, Afghanistan: The senior American military commander in Afghanistan said Tuesday that in an effort to reduce civilian casualties, he had tightened the rules around when NATO troops here may use lethal force.

The commander, General David McKiernan, also said that the military mission in Afghanistan was still short-handed by thousands of troops. McKiernan was speaking to reporters traveling with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who arrived here after attending the ceremony for the change of American commanders in Baghdad.

President George W. Bush has ordered that an additional Marine Corps battalion and an army brigade combat team arrive in Afghanistan by early next year. But even then, McKiernan said, the Afghan mission requires at least three more combat brigades. The total of additional combat and support troops needed could exceed 15,000.

The additional forces are required to stem violence across Afghanistan, which is up about 30 percent compared with this time last year, the general said in an interview at his headquarters here.

Because of the troop shortage, he said, the military was relying more on air power; that has contributed to the rise in civilian casualties, which has outraged Afghans and brought international condemnation.

The civilian casualties have also become one of the greatest sources of tension between NATO forces and the Afghan government.

Hoping to reduce that toll, McKiernan said, he issued a "revised tactical order" to NATO troops on Sept. 2, which emphasized putting Afghan forces out front in searches of homes and requiring multiple sources of information before attacking targets.

It also set rules calibrating how quickly troops may increase their use of force to lethal levels, the general said.

Most of the rules were already in place, McKiernan said, but the revised order also was meant to re-emphasize proper procedures, especially as new forces are scheduled to enter the combat zone in the coming months.

The revised order was issued after an American strike in Western Afghanistan in August, but fell short of the formal status-of-forces agreement demanded by the Afghan government in the wake of that strike.

The Afghan government and the United Nations said that the strike had killed about 90 civilians. The United States military says only 5 to 7 civilians were killed, along with more than 30 insurgents. But McKiernan has reopened the military's investigation of the episode.

For civilians and American and NATO forces, this year has been the deadliest since the Taliban were ousted in 2001, according to the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, which released its latest casualty figures on Tuesday.

It said 1,445 civilians were killed in the first eight months of this year, compared with 1,040 for the same period in 2007.

Of those deaths, 800, or 55 percent, were attributed to the Taliban and other insurgent forces, twice the number from last year, as they press a campaign of intimidation aimed at civilians who support the government.

In a common refrain of military commanders, McKiernan said ultimate success in the war depended on competent government and economic development.

He also acknowledged that a particularly vexing problem facing the military effort was that the insurgents have found a haven across the border in tribal areas of Pakistan, where American commandos carried out an incursion from Afghanistan on Sept. 3.

That incursion, along with a rising number of strikes by unmanned drones, has severely strained relations between the United States and Pakistan.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, made a hastily arranged visit to Pakistan on Tuesday for talks aimed at easing those tensions. Like Gates, he arrived after attending the ceremony in Baghdad where General Ray Odierno took over command of American forces in Iraq from General David Petraeus.

Mullen's visit also coincided with conflicting accounts about a possible second American raid on Monday, as well as a warning by the Pakistan military that it would shoot at any foreign forces that crossed the border.

A Pakistani military spokesman, Major General Athar Abbas, said the Pakistani Army reserved the right to use force to defend the country and its people, but he said there was "no change in policy."

Asked what the Pakistan military would do if there was a future incursion by American troops, he said: "There is a big 'if' involved. We will see to it when such a situation arises."

A Pakistani governor made a televised appearance on Tuesday to insist that American forces had tried to cross the border early Monday and had been repulsed by Pakistani fire, as local residents and a Pakistani government official had said the day before.

But the Pakistani and United States military publicly denied any such incursion, and a Pakistani intelligence official said an American helicopter had mistakenly crossed the border briefly, leading Pakistani ground forces to fire into the air.

In an interview on Pakistani television on Tuesday, the governor, Owais Ahmed Ghani of North-West Frontier Province, said that only Pakistan had "a right to conduct operations on its soil."

He said that Pakistan "will jealously guard its right," and that incursions will not be tolerated.

The Pakistani leadership, meanwhile, has warned that American attacks on Pakistani soil threaten to undermine the country's democratically elected government.

"This situation doesn't help democracy," Pakistan's newly elected president, Asif Ali Zardari, was quoted as saying after meeting in London on Tuesday with Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain.

Asked about future cross-border raids, Zardari said, "I don't think there will be any more."

 

[muse]

Ok - we have read from one point of view - lets look at the other side's polemic - yeah it's a lose - lose equation ith them, but lets hear them out:


Romancing the Taliban
By Adil Zareef


PAKHTUNKHWA is in flames. Suddenly, we are at the epicentre of a conflict — and there exists a feeling of total helplessness.

Suffering is writ large on the handsome faces of ordinary folk at the mercy of raging gunfire, bombs and explosions for no fault of theirs — except for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Such is the pitiless hand of fate.

With repeated US threats and incursions into Pakistan’s tribal territories, GHQ’s sound and fury has become a whimper, reflecting both the limits of power and the odds confronting Pakistan. An unequal patron-client relationship exists between the US and Pakistan. Democratic niceties apart, the Bush administration always considered it expedient to carry on business with its chosen strongman military dictator, at the peril of the long-term national interests of both countries.

In a calculated move, when the nation’s economy and foreign policy became totally bankrupt, Gen Musharraf went away. What did the elected leaders inherit? Plundered national assets (privatisation, deregulation) a destabilised Afghanistan, and worse, a militarised state with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan unleashed on the Pakhtunkhwa landscape. This is not the first time Pakistan has been ditched and all’s fair in love and war. Two lovers turned antagonists is not novel. So why then are we cursing our stars and the US?

What has actually touched our hearts is the human suffering. The helpless non-combatants have nothing to gain from the shenanigans of the merciless powerbrokers in Washington D.C. or Islamabad. They have everything to lose. It is yet another numbers’ game for the US. What with Iraq, Afghanistan and the bloody trail of human tragedies America has inflicted on one civilisation after another in its quest for unbridled power, it is not surprising that we are now at the receiving end.

What makes matters really worrisome is the national discourse on terrorism and our outright rejection of the global opprobrium being heaped on us. From Kashmir to Delhi and from Afghanistan to the capitals of Western Europe, the footprints of Islamic militants have been traced to Pakistan and Afghanistan hinterlands. The jihad policy of various governments in Islamabad, with regard to the destabilisation of Indian-administered Kashmir and Afghanistan, has been flawed. Surviving on monthly IMF rations, Pakistan cannot afford to have grandiose ambitions. The jingoism and bravado instilled in the minds of common Pakistanis by successive governments, whether democratic or otherwise, have proved self-destructive.

While ANP’s central leadership was consumed by Zardari’s presidential elections, innocent Pakhtuns and their party activists and local leadership were being killed brutally in the Swat valley by Taliban fanatics. Their homes, hujras and livelihoods were being blown up. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were displaced in Bajaur as the Taliban advanced towards Dir and Buner. Hangu and Kurram have become irredeemable. A worthwhile effort against this onslaught is seen lacking by both Islamabad and their Pakhtun coalition partners.

Credible reports confirm that most high-value Taliban leaders remain unharmed, while the fleeing innocent population bears the brunt of guns and bombs. It seems that the establishment, led by the agencies, is now earnestly clinging on to its pipe dream that the home-grown Taliban will defeat the advancing US forces. This policy of ‘strategic depth’ has not waned, despite changed actors, and the ‘cloak and dagger’ policy remains intact. Governor Owais Ghani lashes out at the Taliban as enemies of the state, but also tells the BBC that Afghanistan has to come to terms with the Taliban as ‘a legitimate political force’.

This double-dealing discredits the entire military operation. The fumbling anti-terrorist policy is marked by a disconnect among several state agencies, often working at cross purposes and creating confusion. As one policy expert said, the federal government, intelligence agencies, provincial government, Fata administration and the military are not on the same wavelength. Under these circumstances, quite naturally the brunt of militancy and the military operation is borne by the population.

Take for instance the operation in Swat and Bajaur. Reportedly, the military is not targeting hideouts of the Taliban as it should. When Taliban fanatics were killing the family members of ANP legislator Waqar Khan in Swat, blowing up their homes and hujra, military personnel, according to some reports, were present across the hill near a government school. The extremists walked over, ordered the victims to stand in a line and then mowed them down. Evidently, no military personnel came to save them. Meanwhile, Mullah Fazullah still roams around freely and so do other leaders of the TTP openly addressing the media.

Likewise in Bajaur, the Taliban leadership remains as elusive as ever. The refrain of government functionaries blaming RAW and KHAD agents takes one back to the Afghan jihad period. With millions of dollars pouring in to hunt down the militants, if the intelligence operatives cannot trace the Taliban leaders and perhaps a handful of hardcore militants who are responsible for countrywide bombings and suicide attacks witnessed almost on a daily basis, then they need to quit their jobs.

Writer Ahmed Rashid has graphically described the involvement of our jihadis in the “comprehensive destruction” of Afghanistan. Most vexing is the role of the ulema and religious parties who refuse to openly disown these dastardly acts of terrorism. In the same vein, enlightened representatives like Imran Khan by terming the entire TTP movement a reaction to the US presence in Afghanistan, and absolving Pakistan’s policy blunders, are trivialising a serious issue.

The question of ‘national sovereignty’ becomes irrelevant each time a drone hits a Taliban sanctuary inside Pakistan territory. As we have miserably failed, despite gobbling up billions of dollars in this “war against terror”, does not our defence of the ‘borders’ become tenuous?Having jettisoned an independent judiciary that is meant to promote transparency and credibility in the affairs of the state, the role of the political parties has become questionable. Without checks and balances, the discredited and personalised politics of the Musharraf period persist. And so will the Kafkaesque ‘war against terror’.

adilzareef@yahoo.com

 

[muse]

UPDATE:

US drones prowl as Pak Army bombs Taliban positions

* 10 killed as helicopter gunships, fighter jets fire shells in Bajaur

KHAR: Ten Taliban were killed and several others injured on Tuesday as Pakistan Army helicopter gunships and fighter jets fired shells at militant hideouts in Bajaur Agency as United States’ drones prowled the sky over another Taliban sanctuary on the Afghan border.

In a statement issued by the media cell, Frontier Corps NWFP headquarters said security forces had pounded Taliban positions in the Loyesam, Tang Khata and Shakai areas of Bajaur Agency. Military spokesman Major Murad Khan said ground troops were also searching house-to-house for Taliban. “They have constructed underground bunkers and are putting up stiff resistance. Troops are clearing each and every house in the area,” he said.

Khan said he had no information about casualties in the current fighting, but the military has said that 117 people have been killed in Bajaur over the past week. An intelligence official in Bajaur said a helicopter gunship had killed nine militants in an attack on a vehicle east of Khar. Residents said US drones had flown over the region, but had not fired any missiles.

Curfew: The statement said an indefinite curfew had been enforced in the area, adding that people were fleeing to safer places. It said the Frontier Corps had seized various types of ammunition and large amounts of Afghan currency notes during a search of militant compounds around Tang Khata.

Helicopter gunships and fighter jets had killed 24 Taliban in raids on their hideouts in Bajaur Agency on Monday. Several Taliban strongholds had been destroyed in attacks on bunkers in Loyesam, Tang Khata, Rashakai, Tandar Gat, Kirala, Bai Cheena, Tangai and Khazana.

Security forces had also patrolled Loy Khwar, Tangi, Kotkai and Charmang but had not made ground advances. Curfew had been relaxed in parts of the agency earlier in the day. staff report/reuters

 

[muse]

Rules of engagements don’t permit attacks in Pakistan: Straw

* British law secretary says UK fully supports Pakistan’s multi-pronged strategy to fight terrorism

By Muhammad Bilal

ISLAMABAD: The rules of engagement do not permit coalition forces to launch attacks inside Pakistan, British Secretary of State for Law and Justice Jack Straw said on Tuesday. He, however, said there might be an agreement between the United States and Pakistan to hunt terrorists in the Tribal Areas.

Delivering a lecture at International Islamic University Islamabad on ‘Pakistan and the United Kingdom: A Living Bridge’, Straw said the North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces could only operate inside Afghanistan, as the rules of engagement did not permit them to launch any offensive inside Pakistani territory. He denied that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had supported US President George Bush’s statement regarding launching attacks inside Pakistan. “We are friends with the US and Pakistan. We have the same enemy that is Al Qaeda,” he said and added that the US president should respect the sovereignty of Pakistan.

Strategy: Straw said the United Kingdom fully supported Pakistan’s multi-pronged strategy for fighting terrorism, but said the strategy had to include military intervention. “If you are dealing with maniacs like Al Qaeda, than you will have to use force,” he responded to a question by a university student asking whether the use of force was appropriate to handle the situation in the Tribal Areas. However, he said there should be a dialogue with law-abiding people.

He acknowledged Pakistan’s sacrifices in the war on terror as a frontline ally. “The people of Pakistan have lost more lives than any other country in the war on terror.” The British secretary linked Pakistan’s security and future with that of the United Kingdom. “There is an increasing sense of partnership between the two countries. Ties between our two countries are strong and growing,” he said. Straw said democracy and the rule of law were integrated and there should be effective public institutions, including the judiciary, in an effective democratic set up.[/FONT]

 

[RabzonKhan]

yes, by making the US "blink", Kiyani has all of a sudden become a hero in his own country and perhaps some parts of the world. he's treading where no man has dared to go, picking a bone with the world's only superpower.

I think you are forgetting Iranian President Ahmadinejad, Venezuelan Pres Hugo Chavez, Bolivian President Evo Morales and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, just to name a few.

 

[muse]

"It's all planned, a stage show, a tamasha, trust me, I 'm in the know, Be afraid, very affraid, we'll this and we'll that and blow your house down"

Now that the arm chair "military pros" have been shown for what they are - lets see what they will make of this



US military chief meets Pakistani officials By PAUL ALEXANDER, Associated Press Writer
21 minutes ago



ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - The U.S. military chief vowed Wednesday to respect Pakistan's sovereignty, the American Embassy said — a commitment apparently aimed at easing controversy over a rash of U.S. attacks on militant havens near the border with Afghanistan.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, arrived in Pakistan late Tuesday to discuss a range of issues, including ways to improve coordination and cooperation, in the wake of Pakistani anger over a Sept. 3 ground attack by U.S. commandos in a border area.

He met separately with army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani for what an embassy statement called "extremely frank, positive and constructive" discussions.

Mullen arrived the same day that Pakistan's army said its forces have orders to open fire if U.S. troops launch another raid across the Afghan border, raising the stakes in a dispute over how to tackle militant havens in Pakistan's unruly border zone.

"The Pakistani leaders reviewed the progress of Pakistan's efforts to combat militancy, violence and terrorism," the embassy statement said. "Adm. Mullen appreciated the positive role that Pakistan is playing in the war on terror and pledged continued U.S. support to Pakistan.

"In this context, Adm. Mullen reiterated the U.S. commitment to respect Pakistan's sovereignty and to develop further U.S.-Pakistani cooperation and coordination on these critical issues that challenge the security and well-being of the people of both countries," it said.

Pakistan's government has faced rising popular anger over the Sept. 3 attack by U.S. commandos into South Waziristan, a base for Taliban militants who have been killing increasing numbers of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Pakistan says about 15 people were killed in the raid, all civilians.

The new firing orders were disclosed by Pakistani army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas in an interview Tuesday with The Associated Press.

Abbas said Pakistani field commanders have previously been tolerant about international forces crossing a short way into Pakistan because of the ill-defined and contested nature of the mountainous frontier.

"But after the (Sept. 3) incident, the orders are clear," Abbas said. "In case it happens again in this form, that there is a very significant detection, which is very definite, no ambiguity, across the border, on ground or in the air: open fire."

The statement was the strongest since Kayani raised eyebrows last week by vowing to defend Pakistani territory "at all cost." Abbas would not say whether the orders were discussed in advance with U.S. officials.

The Democratic chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on South Asia, Gary Ackerman, and other U.S. lawmakers expressed concern about Abbas' comments at a hearing Tuesday to examine a White House request to fund an upgrade of Pakistan's aging fleet of F-16 fighter planes.

Responding to the concerns, Donald Camp, deputy assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs, said: "I cannot envision a situation where we would find ourselves in a shooting situation with Pakistan."

U.S. military commanders complain Islamabad has been doing too little to prevent the Taliban and other militant groups from recruiting, training and resupplying in Pakistan's lawless tribal belt.

Pakistan acknowledges the presence of al-Qaida fugitives and its difficulties in preventing militants from seeping into Afghanistan. However, it insists it is doing what it can and paying a heavy price, pointing to its deployment of more then 100,000 troops in the increasingly restive northwest and a wave of suicide bombings across the country.

Pakistani troops backed by jet fighters continued targeting militant positions Wednesday outside Khar, the main town in the Bajur tribal area, killing at least 10 insurgents and wounding 13 others, said Iqbal Khattak, a government official in Bajur.

Also Wednesday, police said a homemade bomb went off outside a home late Tuesday in the northwestern city of Dera Ismail Khan, damaging several houses and killing a woman and wounding seven others. No one claimed responsibility.


"And the colored girls go (Indian military pros - cheer leaders) doop, da doop doop" - Walk on the wild side

 

[fatman17]

Three strikes & he’s out?
By Cyril Almeida

ASIF is batting on two strikes. Another swing and a miss, and he’s going home. The first strike was the bizarre, abortive handover of the ISI to Rehman Malik.

The second was Kayani’s rebuke the day after Asif was sworn in as president. Ostensibly Kayani’s condemnation was of the Americans, but between the lines was the real target: Asif. Get your act together, the army chief was telling his supreme commander.

Asif has stumbled badly on Afghanistan. The macho men who wanted to defy the American juggernaut on the warpath the day after 9/11 are still amongst us, still advising defiance. The day after 9/11 this was sheer foolishness. But it is no longer the day after 9/11. Seven years of the Americans in Afghanistan and reality has changed. Pick up any report on the West’s adventure in Afghanistan and you will find two things: one, US policy in Afghanistan has been a failure; two, US policy in Afghanistan will not succeed without Pakistan being on board.
In the world of realpolitik, this is known as an opportunity. So why must Asif so cravenly accept the Americans letting loose their Special Ops troops and raining down missiles in Waziristan when he can happily unleash? He had every chance at his debut press conference; instead, he bizarrely chose to speak alongside Karzai. The Afghan president is about as popular in the Pakistani Army as George W. Bush in an Al Qaeda training camp.

What is the problem in Afghanistan? In a word: Karzai. Don’t take my word for it, here’s what The New York Times had to say in an Aug 20 editorial: “Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, must rein in his government’s rampant corruption that has all but driven his people into the hands of the Taliban and criminal warlords.” What then was Asif doing at the side of a man not only discredited in the West but hated by the Pakistan Army?

Another thing: the western — read American — strategy in Afghanistan has failed. Again, don’t take my word for it. Francesc Vendrell, the EU envoy in Kabul for six years, had this to say over the weekend: “We are not destined to fail, but we are far from succeeding.” Earlier, Vendrell told Stephen Sackur of BBC’s ‘HARDtalk’: “I do leave with a sense of regret that we’ve made so many mistakes. ... we’ve got to do a hell of a lot to make things right.” In the euphemistic world of diplomacy, this is the equivalent of saying “we’re a disaster.”

Given this record of western failure why does Asif have to be so apologetic for Pakistan’s failure to help out the Americans in Afghanistan? There are 26 Nato and 14 non-Nato countries contributing troops to Isaf. Each country’s rules of engagement are so complex and dense that were the Taliban to walk right up to some Isaf troops and dance a little jig, certain countries would still not allow their soldiers to shoot. Why then must Pakistan always ‘do more’?

Perhaps if Pakistan wasn’t actually doing something about its Taliban problem — somewhere, anywhere — the supine cravenness of Asif before the Americans would be understandable. Except that we are. Bajaur and Swat are being pounded mercilessly, militants are being flushed out, leaders are being knocked off. But the Americans aren’t satisfied because Bajaur is at the northern tip of the tribal belt while they are more concerned with the southern bit. Waziristan, north and south, and the Haqqani, Hekmatyar and Nazir networks exercise the Americans. Meanwhile, 300,000 Bajauris flee the bombing and Ambassador Patterson, de facto American leader in Pakistan, announces that $50,000 has been set aside for “gas stoves, pots, utensils and plastic sheeting”. Well, fantastic. That’s less than the cost of a Hellfire missile fired from a predator. So for Asif to denounce the American forays into Pakistan wouldn’t be jingoistic nationalism — it’s common sense. For one, Asif need only imagine how much less common sense than nationalism there is in the army. For another, he has an unbelievable luxury — he can. Everyone knows the Americans can’t really afford to be on the wrong side of Pakistan. Jack Straw and the French have already distanced themselves from the strikes inside Pakistan. Here’s more from that NYT editorial, with the alarmist headline ‘Afghanistan on Fire’: “Sending American troops or warplanes into Pakistani territory will only feed anti-American furies. That should be the job of Pakistan’s army, with intelligence help and carefully monitored financial support from the United States.” If all these important — western — folk think American Special Ops running around Pakistan and blowing up the place is such a bad idea, why must Asif be so tepid in his criticism?

There’s another reason for Asif to unleash against the Americans. The same NYT story on Bush’s secret authorisation of strikes inside Pakistan, also had a staggering allegation against Kayani: that he knew of the plot to bomb the Indian embassy in Kabul. In living memory, a Pakistan army chief has not been directly implicated by the Americans in a criminal plot.

This then is the scenario that Asif is confronted with: angry Americans who can only rattle the Pakistani cage so much; an army chief who is under American fire; and a failed American policy in Afghanistan. Why can’t Asif connect the dots? Figure out who’s your enemy, who’s your friend and when to take a hit for the team, friendly or otherwise. Asif should make the Americans squirm a little. The next time Patterson, Boucher, Negroponte — or even Bush — is on the phone, ask your secretary to tell them you’re on the phone with your daughter at college.

And get a better team. We were made to believe that Chaudhry Mukhtar was passed over for prime minister because he was too much of his own man. None of that is on display as defence minister. Mukhtar must still be sulking over being passed over because every time he opens his mouth someone somewhere in a uniform gets angry. Then there’s the oily Husain Haqqani. Listen to the man long enough and you’ll be confused: is he the Pakistani ambassador to the US or the US ambassador to Pakistan? So incompetent is Asif’s defence team that the intellectual nobody with the connections to die for, Rehman Malik, has come out the brightest of the lot. At least you have to hand it to the indefatigable Malik: he does try, even if he’s out of his depth.

The survival lesson for Asif is clear: push back against the Americans, or else be pushed out by the army.

cyril.a@gmail.com

WITH DUE RESPECT TO OUR WESTERN COLLEAGUES OF THIS FORUM - THEY WANT US ON THE WALL