Obama Advisor: Pak Terror Groups Worst Threat to US

[TruthSeeker]

Behind Analyst’s Cool Demeanor, Deep Anxiety Over American Policy

By MARK MAZZETTI, December 26, 2008 , NY Times

BRUCE RIEDEL was a 28-year-old Middle East analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency on Oct. 6, 1981, the day a band of gunmen assassinated President Anwar el-Sadat of Egypt during a military parade in Cairo. He retired from the C.I.A. in 2006 after 29 years, and no longer has access to the nation’s most sensitive information. But his career as an analyst is far from over. As an influential terrorism adviser on President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team, he dispenses counsel to the administration-in-waiting on some of the thorniest problems it will face: as varied as the hunt for Al Qaeda’s senior leaders like Mr. Zawahri, the likelihood of another attack on American soil, and how to stave off nuclear Armageddon between India and Pakistan.

Mr. Riedel is one of a chorus of terrorism experts who see the terrorist network’s base in the mountains of Pakistan as America’s greatest threat, and perhaps the biggest problem facing Mr. Obama’s new team. He speaks angrily about what he calls a savvy campaign by Pakistan’s government under President Pervez Musharraf to fleece Washington for billions of dollars even as it allowed Al Qaeda to regroup in Pakistan’s tribal lands.

“We had a partner that was double-dealing us,” he said during an interview in his house in a Washington suburb. “Anyone can be snookered and double-dealt. But after six years you have to start to figure it out.”

MR. RIEDEL struggles at times to lay out a path for the president-elect on Pakistan — the foreign policy headache he calls “the hardest part of this whole thing” — that is vastly different from the course the Bush administration has charted in recent months. For example, he believes that the C.I.A.’s campaign of airstrikes using remotely controlled Predator aircraft should continue if there is solid evidence about the whereabouts of militant leaders inside Pakistan.

Washington must approach Pakistan with a “subtle and deft touch,” he said, and strengthen the civilian government of President Asif Ali Zardari, the husband of Benazir Bhutto, the slain former prime minister, to act as a counterweight to Pakistan’s military and intelligence apparatus, which still dominates Pakistan’s political life.

Winning over the generals, Mr. Riedel said, could require a tough-love approach: overhauling military aid to Pakistan and cutting sales of the big-ticket weapons the country has used to keep pace with its archrival, India. Instead, he argues, the United States should be providing equipment like helicopters and night-vision goggles to help Pakistan’s military navigate the mountain passes where militants have established their base.

It was Washington’s too cozy relationship with Mr. Musharraf’s military government, he argues, that fueled the intense hatred for the United States in Pakistan. He cites polls that more Pakistanis blame the United States than either India or Al Qaeda for the recent surge of violence in the country.

Today, however, he is in lockstep with his former C.I.A. colleagues on at least one matter: the necessity for Pakistan’s pre-eminent spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, to sever its longstanding ties to militants operating in Pakistan’s tribal areas. These are ties the Bush administration never found a way to break, as the ISI has used the militants as a proxy force there for decades. And they will not be broken, Mr. Riedel said, until Pakistan’s generals and spy agencies acknowledge what Pakistan’s president learned only through heartbreak — that the struggle against Al Qaeda and its ilk is “their war” as much as it is America’s.

“Zardari knows it’s his war, because he buried his wife,” he said. “That tragedy is also an opportunity.”

____________________________

This ex-CIA officer, Bruce Riedel, is purportedly one of Obama's chief advisers on WoT issues.

 

[Awesome]

We really need to cut the chord with the Americans, they're doing us great damage by continuously passing off these statements. A major factor towards our economic woes are statements such as these that tend to drive the investors away.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

Bruce Riedel!? is this some kind of a joke? the guys been talking against Pakistan for a long time, he was in cahoots with the Clinton administration, and they were in bed with india! His ideas call for cutting down pakistan's army to a counter-insurgency force and letting india face off china.

 

[S-2]

"We really need to cut the chord with the Americans..."

Oh but if only you were munificent and magnificant ruler for the day. YOU'D DO SO!

I'm all for monies to Pakistan being managed better. You should be too. I'm all for supporting the civilian elected government in asserting it's primacy over state matters. Aren't you?

What bothers you about Mr. Riedel? Is it that he suspects, probably with very good reason, that Pakistan's efforts were less than forthcoming over the preceding seven years? Most of us think that most of you were wrong for wishing to negotiate again and again with men who had no intention of honoring their agreements or control over those beneath them. You did so to no good purpose anyway. Your ISI failed to advise you of the extensive preparations being made for you in your own nation. How did Loe Sam escape the attention of tribal agents, ISI, and other government officials? It didn't happen overnight, you know.

America has good reason to revisit the manner in which are relationship is managed from your end.

You're very welcome to do the same. I encourage that you resist all ISAF supplies through your nation, refuse all American aid-military and civil, remove your troops and sign a non-interference agreement with the various militias, ceding Baluchistan, NWFP, FATAland, the N.A. and Kashmir to the writ of AQAM.

Yup. That's the ticket. At least then you'd be honest with yourselves and others whatever the consequences.

After all, in the end you've your conscience to consider.

 

[TruthSeeker]

We really need to cut the chord with the Americans, they're doing us great damage by continuously passing off these statements. A major factor towards our economic woes are statements such as these that tend to drive the investors away.

I think a very large part of it is that Americans, by our cultural nature, are impatient for results. The American political leaders are frustrated that they can't go back to their "electorate" and show good results for all the $ Billions and US service force lives that have been spent. So, it is much easier (and safer politically) to blame Pakistani, Afghani and Iraqi leaders for the state of affairs than to admit that that they (the US leaders) made mistakes in judgment. And in this particular instance, the WoT, the pro-Israel bias in our news media will amplify anything that promotes an Israeli agenda. It will be very interesting to see if Obama changes the balance of things any. Personally, I doubt that his policies will be any different than the neo-conservative ones we have been following, although his rhetoric may be more clever.

 

[muse]

A major factor towards our economic woes are statements such as these that tend to drive the investors away

.

That's no accident - while "sutle" and "deft touch" are advocated, such statements make policy and intent clear. Cutting the cord is not any kind of solution, perhaps a productive policy may be to have an overall message to the international media delivered frequently by multiple players, the message must play on questions with regard to the success or lack thereof of US policy and the lack of accountablity of those who craft and execute policy and seek refuge and utility in media pieces - why not play them at their own game? can one lose what they do not have?

 

[A1Kaid]

We really need to cut the chord with the Americans, they're doing us great damage by continuously passing off these statements. A major factor towards our economic woes are statements such as these that tend to drive the investors away.

I agree with most of what you have said Asim...

I would like to point out and make a historical approach/connection here.

Many Geo-Political analysts including myself, believe that ultimately the United States wants to break up Pakistan and reduce Pakistan to an anemic, weak, and fragmented country, this will allow for India and United States to easily disarm Pakistan's Nuclear power by targeting key Nuclear Facilities.

One of the main reasons why Pakistan is being targeted is because one it is the only Muslim Nuclear Power and most importantly it is China's #1 most trusted Military ally. See the Western world fears the rise of this mighty Eastern Power China, because China is to surpass the West and become the World Global power; hence replacing the U.S.

In order for them to weaken China they must weaken China's allies first, they cannot directly target China when it is strong, and it's Allies are strong...Therefore just like what the British did in WWI against the Axis powers, is they attacked the Ottoman Empire first!!! The Ottoman Empire was considered to be the more weaker power and ally of Germany, it was considered the "soft belly", therefore making it a more feasible target...This is just an old WWI Western Military Doctrine on how to destroy a powerful country in this case China.

In this case the "soft belly" is Pakistan and China is the Germany if I may say so...Therefore the CIA, MOSSAD, and RAW, are all hellbent on making attacks in Pakistan to make Pakistan appear unstable, weak, fragile, and in front of the international audience a "Loose Nuke" Country, which naturally brings fear into many peoples minds...Once Pakistan is seen unstable and weak, the U.S will find justification to destroy Pakistan's Nuclear assets...

This will leave China all alone without it's #1 Military Ally Pakistan...The Chinese understand this, and this is one reason why they consider their relationship with Pakistan of utmost important in their national security equation.


That is All I will say...

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

What bothers you about Mr. Riedel? Is it that he suspects, probably with very good reason, that Pakistan's efforts were less than forthcoming over the preceding seven years? Most of us think that most of you were wrong for wishing to negotiate again and again with men who had no intention of honoring their agreements or control over those beneath them. You did so to no good purpose anyway. Your ISI failed to advise you of the extensive preparations being made for you in your own nation. How did Loe Sam escape the attention of tribal agents, ISI, and other government officials? It didn't happen overnight, you know.

America has good reason to revisit the manner in which are relationship is managed from your end.

You're very welcome to do the same. I encourage that you resist all ISAF supplies through your nation, refuse all American aid-military and civil, remove your troops and sign a non-interference agreement with the various militias, ceding Baluchistan, NWFP, FATAland, the N.A. and Kashmir to the writ of AQAM.

first, why don't you try hitting Baitullah Mehsud and Fazlullah with your hellfire missiles, especially when we give you their coordinates, like last time when you ignored the whole thing. Then you can worry about the ISI and "double dealing". stop the inflow of arms coming from Afghanistan to the militants that are fighting against the PA and FC. you can also stop the inflow of balochi separatists seeking refuge in Afghanistan. of course, you're not responsible right? I mean, how the hell are these sandal-wearing fanatics slipping right under your nose?

Oh yeah, as for your supplies, I don't think we have to say "no" to NATO. If you ask me, I think we'll just ignore your supply lines.
Militants torch 150 Nato supply vehicles -DAWN - Top Stories; December 08, 2008
I think in english, we say, "how you like them apples?"

 

[Awesome]

"We really need to cut the chord with the Americans..."

Oh but if only you were munificent and magnificant ruler for the day. YOU'D DO SO!

I'm all for monies to Pakistan being managed better. You should be too. I'm all for supporting the civilian elected government in asserting it's primacy over state matters. Aren't you?

What bothers you about Mr. Riedel? Is it that he suspects, probably with very good reason, that Pakistan's efforts were less than forthcoming over the preceding seven years? Most of us think that most of you were wrong for wishing to negotiate again and again with men who had no intention of honoring their agreements or control over those beneath them. You did so to no good purpose anyway. Your ISI failed to advise you of the extensive preparations being made for you in your own nation. How did Loe Sam escape the attention of tribal agents, ISI, and other government officials? It didn't happen overnight, you know.

America has good reason to revisit the manner in which are relationship is managed from your end.

You're very welcome to do the same. I encourage that you resist all ISAF supplies through your nation, refuse all American aid-military and civil, remove your troops and sign a non-interference agreement with the various militias, ceding Baluchistan, NWFP, FATAland, the N.A. and Kashmir to the writ of AQAM.

Yup. That's the ticket. At least then you'd be honest with yourselves and others whatever the consequences.

After all, in the end you've your conscience to consider.

If you think we're assisting the terrorists and not fighting the WoT, then you guys should cut the chord. We know that we're honest, we know what the effort against terrorism is costing us... Most Pakistanis are against the war on terror because its causing us to be blown into smithereens every now and then.

Thats why negotiations are tried out and are still being tried out. Recently the government has drastically reduced the number of bombings through negotiating and dividing up the tribals into the RAW terrorists and the tribes that don't want to fight Pakistan.

Your tacit support to TTP is well documented. When we launched a major offensive in Bajaur recently, the TTP heads, especially Baitullah Mehsuf fled to Afghanistan. Why couldn't the Americans seal the border then? When we DID ask for you to bomb one of our territories with UAVs, why did you not bomb out Baitullah Mehsud?

Either we can assume that America is in cahoots with the anti-Pakistan elements or is just not interested in catching them. We need to FIRST protect ourselves and then we'll bother with the Afghan problem. Pakistan first!

If America wants to speed up our action against the Taliban that are attacking you guys then it needs to shut down Indian consulates that support cross border terrorism.

 

[Awesome]

I think a very large part of it is that Americans, by our cultural nature, are impatient for results. The American political leaders are frustrated that they can't go back to their "electorate" and show good results for all the $ Billions and US service force lives that have been spent. So, it is much easier (and safer politically) to blame Pakistani, Afghani and Iraqi leaders for the state of affairs than to admit that that they (the US leaders) made mistakes in judgment. And in this particular instance, the WoT, the pro-Israel bias in our news media will amplify anything that promotes an Israeli agenda. It will be very interesting to see if Obama changes the balance of things any. Personally, I doubt that his policies will be any different than the neo-conservative ones we have been following, although his rhetoric may be more clever.

And how does it look like here in Pakistan? After 9/11 nothing has happened in America, we were getting bombed once a month one year ago. America has done nothing to protect our citizens from terror emanating from the soil it controls. We've pretty much had it with lame American statements such as these, we'll do what we need to do to protect our citizens.

Obama's aide can keep the fear mongering going on. That doesn't help anyone but the terrorists. As our economy weakens, the terrorists get stronger. There was a time when our economy was strong enough to deal with Indian as well as Afghan terrorists. Today its not. So we're singling out the Indians only for now. America doesn't like it. It says, you guys should accept being bombed but help us complete our mission instead. We can both help each other if America takes care of the terrorism emanating out Afghanistan and attacking us, we'll control whats going from Pakistan to you guys.

It takes two to tango.

 

[Awesome]

I think a very large part of it is that Americans, by our cultural nature, are impatient for results. The American political leaders are frustrated that they can't go back to their "electorate" and show good results for all the $ Billions and US service force lives that have been spent. So, it is much easier (and safer politically) to blame Pakistani, Afghani and Iraqi leaders for the state of affairs than to admit that that they (the US leaders) made mistakes in judgment. And in this particular instance, the WoT, the pro-Israel bias in our news media will amplify anything that promotes an Israeli agenda. It will be very interesting to see if Obama changes the balance of things any. Personally, I doubt that his policies will be any different than the neo-conservative ones we have been following, although his rhetoric may be more clever.

And how does it look like here in Pakistan? After 9/11 nothing has happened in America, we were getting bombed once a month one year ago. America has done nothing to protect our citizens from terror emanating from the soil it controls. We've pretty much had it with lame American statements such as these, we'll do what we need to do to protect our citizens.

Obama's aide can keep the fear mongering going on. That doesn't help anyone but the terrorists. As our economy weakens, the terrorists get stronger. There was a time when our economy was strong enough to deal with Indian as well as Afghan terrorists. Today its not. So we're singling out the Indians only for now. America doesn't like it. It says, you guys should accept being bombed but help us complete our mission instead. We can both help each other if America takes care of the terrorism emanating out Afghanistan and attacking us, we'll control whats going from Pakistan to you guys.

It takes two to tango.

 

[gezgin]

Pakisatni army is unstopable.The most powerful islamic army in the world.Who is pakistani terror groups.Indian terror groups worst threat to usa.

 

[Patriot]

Also Pakistan tried to mine the border but the ******* Afghanistanis with Americans support stopped mining process.I have no doubt that Americans will go back to US like this

 

[Solomon2]

America has done nothing to protect our citizens from terror emanating from the soil it controls.

Please explain what you mean and how you can make such a sweeping judgment.

 

[Anwar2]

BRUCE RIEDEL and similar elk of neo-Zionists are doing Obama in, even before he moves to the White house!

No one invited the USA to Afghanistan, they themselves volunteered to do a bit of nation building there. In their eagerness for instant gratification they threw their lots with the Tajiks and Northern alliance, in the bargain earning them perpetual enmity of majority of Afghan Pushtoon populace. . Rather than deploying 300-400,000 troops and pumping some serious money to wash out the “cancer cells” of Taleban, the US decided to fight the war on the cheap. To quell the resistance they resorted to indiscriminate bombing, creating more enemies.

To cover their “boots on ground” shortfalls they worked out deals with Gen Musharraf to get Pak Army employed, by creating a full-scale insurgency. It was hoped that with bloodshed between Pak Army and the Pushtoon tribesmen they would get an extra 150,000 troops at no charge!.

Now that the strategy failed, the US is using Pakistanis as scapegoats for their failures.

Mr. RIEDEL better know that the US has to pump in some serious money in the campaign. Pakistan needs at least US$ 10 b / year to stabilize its economy; and Afghanistan needs an equal amount for economic stabilization. The US also has to invest in Pakistani armed forces to better build their conventional capability against India so that it can continue to relive pressure on the US / NATO forces.