End to US drone hits if military launches North Waziristan operation

[foxbat]

This mean US will continue drone attacks. Mullen's earlier talks in this visit were also strong. But they should stop killing civilians. That makes situation worse and led people towards terrorism.

With Taliban operating freely in NW, intermixing with the civvies, its impossible to ensure 0% civilian casualties specially if operating from air and firing missiles. The only way to avoid/reduce civilian deaths is a ground operation which USA is pressurizing Pakistan to do. But that has its own political and religious ramifications for the Pak govt and military..

Pak govt is stuck pretty much between the devil and the deep blue sea..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is the issue of ability and intent here.. NATO and USA are making their efforts in Afghanistan.

Obviously not if Taliban fighters can organize in their thousands and hundreds as they did in attacking Bajaur and now Dir.

However if they think that the success there is linked to removing safe havens in Pakistan for the Taliban, then your argument of getting their house in order does not hold any water.

How can the above argument hold any water when Taliban militants operate freely in their thousands in Afghanistan itself? Until the US can control Afghanistan based militants, it cannot accuse safe havens in Pakistan for being the cause of instability. If the US has 'constraints' that prevent it from eliminating these groups that I mentioned, then so does Pakistan, as Pakistan has argued repeatedly.

This doesnt have to be sequential if its linked to each other. The relationship between Pakistan and Taliban is well known and the reluctance of Pak govt to move against them due to the presence of extremist elements in Pak govt, Army and Intelligence agencies is obvious. Hence the difference in the 2 situations.. i.e. Safe havens in Afghanistan that Taliban hold with force and safe havens in Pakistan which exist with Pakistan govts permission (explicit or implicit)

There is nothing known (credibly at least) about any current 'relationship between the Taliban and Pakistan', and Pakistan's constraints have been articulated time and again. As I told someone else, if you have anything new to offer WRT those constraints, read through the multiple existing threads on them and address the arguments made in support of the Pakistani position.

And the safe havens in Pakistan are also a result of 'force'. It is because they are held with force that acting against them requires significant military resources.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

BTW, i also find it interesting that the Tribune Express, where I posted comments identical to my first two posts on this thread, has refused to publish them.

Nor is this the first time they have done so in cases where I have criticized the US.

Given that the majority of comments that do get published on the Tribune are of a particular viewpoint highly critical of the Army and ISI, I have to wonder if that is the result of a deliberate censorship of a certain POV, and promotion of a pro-US propaganda POV.

This could be either through editorial policy, or perhaps, more subtly, through the US 'buying out' the individuals moderating the comments posted on the site.

 

[Kinetic]

With Taliban operating freely in NW, intermixing with the civvies, its impossible to ensure 0% civilian casualties specially if operating from air and firing missiles. The only way to avoid/reduce civilian deaths is a ground operation which USA is pressurizing Pakistan to do. But that has its own political and religious ramifications for the Pak govt and military..

Pak govt is stuck pretty much between the devil and the deep blue sea..

I am not saying they are doing it intentionally but as there is no sight of joint operation than they should be more careful targeting the terrorists. US said to have the best resources by all means from money to technology, how they are making so many mistakes? Even single innocent death is very much uncalled for.

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

THE NEWS SAYS THAT THEY KILLED ABOUT 25 PEOPLE IN NW JUST NOW AND 3 OF THEM WERE CHILDREN. . .

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Haqqani has always had an interesting equation with the Pakistan Army.

The DAWN article here:
DAWN.COM | Archive | Your Source of News on the World Wide Web

Haqqani has had a long history with Saudi, American and Pakistani intelligence agencies.

He is a tenacious and an effective fighter.

One wonders if anyone will launch any attack on him. He is useful to the Pakistan Army and the ISI, even though he has an independent streak.

One may also read this:

Through the eyes of the Taliban
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FE05Ag02.html

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

BTW, i also find it interesting that the Tribune Express, where I posted comments identical to my first two posts on this thread, has refused to publish them.

Nor is this the first time they have done so in cases where I have criticized the US.

Given that the majority of comments that do get published on the Tribune are of a particular viewpoint highly critical of the Army and ISI, I have to wonder if that is the result of a deliberate censorship of a certain POV, and promotion of a pro-US propaganda POV.

This could be either through editorial policy, or perhaps, more subtly, through the US 'buying out' the individuals moderating the comments posted on the site.

Thanks to Elmo, found out the answer to my question:

US media in Pakistan | Media Monitor Times

Apparently the Express Tribune does censor anti-US content. It also pulled the story of the attack on the Pakistan security post, by militants from Afghanistan. Apparently they did not want that story to run right next to Mullen talking about safe havens in Pakistan.

That would also explain why the tone of most of their content and comments is the way it is.

 

[foxbat]

Obviously not if Taliban fighters can organize in their thousands and hundreds as they did in attacking Bajaur and now Dir.

So would you say Pakistan govt is not making efforts against TTP as TTP is able to attack Pakistani cities at will.. As I said, its the question of intent and ability (success)

How can the above argument hold any water when Taliban militants operate freely in their thousands in Afghanistan itself? Until the US can control Afghanistan based militants, it cannot accuse safe havens in Pakistan for being the cause of instability. If the US has 'constraints' that prevent it from eliminating these groups that I mentioned, then so does Pakistan, as Pakistan has argued repeatedly.

Intent and ability. Atleast USA is trying in Afghanistan.. USA is not pushing Pakistan for lack of success, but is doing that for lack of attempt.

There is nothing known (credibly at least) about any current 'relationship between the Taliban and Pakistan', and Pakistan's constraints have been articulated time and again. As I told someone else, if you have anything new to offer WRT those constraints, read through the multiple existing threads on them and address the arguments made in support of the Pakistani position.

And the safe havens in Pakistan are also a result of 'force'. It is because they are held with force that acting against them requires significant military resources.

Again, there has been no attempt what so ever to dislodge them to even know the extent of that so called force. And I wonder like a lot of other people on whether its lack of resources or lack of intent in going up against the force that most of the Military establishment in Pakistan still considers its most strategic asset.

 

[StingRoy]

Pressure on??

US drone strike kills at least 22 in NW Pakistan - TODAY News - TODAY.com

 

[foxbat]

I am not saying they are doing it intentionally but as there is no sight of joint operation than they should be more careful targeting the terrorists. US said to have the best resources by all means from money to technology, how they are making so many mistakes? Even single innocent death is very much uncalled for.

I am by no means saying these deaths are justified. Its just that the blame lies as much at the doors of Pakistan for inaction as it lies at the doors of USA for its actions..

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Express Tribune apparently understand the realpolitik of the issue.

These attacks will continue since it serves all concerned in Pakistan or so it appears.

The usual 'anger' will surface, but nothing will be done.

If Pakistan was serious, then it would have done something concrete.

Even the 'blocking' of the Us supply to ISF is cosmetic!

It is in Pakistan's interest to break this independent streak of the Frontier and all the special understandings. Once they are vowed down adequately, then the writ of Pakistan will reign supreme and all the special understanding of governance will be over.

Hinterland Pakistan, or more explicitly, Punjabi overrule will be complete.

 

[KS]

Perhaps Mullen, and you, should read the article in my second post here.

Nor have you answered the questions asked in my first post.

US drones would be better utilized controlling and attacking terrorists in Afghanistan. But please, continue with your support for duplicitous US behavior and policies - don't let the facts get in your way.

Does Adm.Mullen have to answer the questions or take suggestions from Pakistan where to use the drones ?

Unfortunately,you seem to be speaking as if Pakistan 'has' a choice.

 

[T-Faz]

BTW, i also find it interesting that the Tribune Express, where I posted comments identical to my first two posts on this thread, has refused to publish them.

Nor is this the first time they have done so in cases where I have criticized the US.

Given that the majority of comments that do get published on the Tribune are of a particular viewpoint highly critical of the Army and ISI, I have to wonder if that is the result of a deliberate censorship of a certain POV, and promotion of a pro-US propaganda POV.

This could be either through editorial policy, or perhaps, more subtly, through the US 'buying out' the individuals moderating the comments posted on the site.

Your comments have been posted, I read them and thought that the comments sound familiar, AM gave it away.

So yes, your comments are there now.

 

[Spring Onion]

Thanks to Elmo, found out the answer to my question:

US media in Pakistan | Media Monitor Times

Apparently the Express Tribune does censor anti-US content. It also pulled the story of the attack on the Pakistan security post, by militants from Afghanistan. Apparently they did not want that story to run right next to Mullen talking about safe havens in Pakistan.

That would also explain why the tone of most of their content and comments is the way it is.

ET is joint venture with US. primarily its aim is to promote US ideology and policy.

 

[Spring Onion]

Haqqani has always had an interesting equation with the Pakistan Army.

The DAWN article here:
DAWN.COM | Archive | Your Source of News on the World Wide Web

Haqqani has had a long history with Saudi, American and Pakistani intelligence agencies.

He is a tenacious and an effective fighter.

One wonders if anyone will launch any attack on him. He is useful to the Pakistan Army and the ISI, even though he has an independent streak.

One may also read this:

Through the eyes of the Taliban
Asia Times Online - The trusted source for news on Central Asia

He is NOT at all useful to Pakistan or even Pakistani army. his group people had been attacking and killing Pakistani soldiers in the recent years.

many suicide bombers and Baitullah people were sheltered by them when Pakistani army started operation in South against terrorists.


Now why Pakistan should not go for operation in North has some sound reasons starting from lack of availability of adequate military equipment to issue of already stretched army.

above all there is NO NIL guarantee that US will not use drones against innocent Pakistanis even if we start operation.

Besides its solely our right when and why we should start operation and NOT for or because US wants us to carry it out