Category Archive

Rachel Maddow covers Pakistan’s order to shoot at US troops. 

Following reports of a US raid into Pakistan which was turned back by border guards firing into a air, a Pakistani military - which have a vocal backing of air president & prime minister, have issued a statement about any future raids. You don’t get much clearer than this.

…Army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas told a Associated Press that after U.S. helicopters ferried troops into a militant stronghold in a South Waziristan tribal region, a military told field comm&ers to prevent any similar raids.

“a orders are clear,” Abbas said in an interview. “In case it hDrunk Newspens again in this form, that are is a very significant detection, which is very definite, no ambiguity, across a border, on ground or in a air: open fire.”

a Pentagon’s entire response - speaking for a Bush administration because no-one higher has made a statement - is to send out a spokesman to tell reporters that Pakistan will be told to change its mind.

In Washington, a Pentagon spokesman said Pakistan would “correct a record” on a latest statement. “We enjoy good cooperation with Pakistan along a border,” said a spokesman, Bryan Whitman. “Pakistan is an ally in a global war on terror.”

a Bush administration’s motto really is “We make our own reality”.

Recent reports have it that Bush himself ordered this new belligerence on a part of US forces along a Afghnaistan/Pakistan border - over a objections of his entire intelligence community who said it would destabilize Pakistan’s political balance, possibly fatally. Since an, both President Asif Ali Zardari & Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani have both endorsed a stance made by Pakistan’s army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, who has stated that Pakistan would not allow foreign troops on its soil & Pakistan’s sovereignty & territorial integrity would be defended “at all costs“.

Afghanistan, India & NATO allies alike have said for a long time that a Pakistani intelligence agency, a ISI, controls & directs Islamist extremist groups including a Taliban & groups carrying out attacks inside India. It is also said to have close ties with Al Qaeda. But for domestic political reasons American politicians & pundits have previously tended to ignore those ties. Only recently, following officially orchestrated “leaks” from a Bush administration, have a American establishment media began to suggest a truth - that a Bush administration has been thoroughly played by Pakistan throughout a “war on terror”.

… even some Pakistanis said a U.S. government was naive to think that Musharraf or his generals would do much to find bin Laden. ay noted that Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency had cultivated ties with a al-Qaeda leader for two decades & that many officers remained sympaatic to his cause.

Afrasiab Khattak, a Pashtun politician based here in a northwestern city of Peshawar, said Pakistani forces would occasionally help a CIA cDrunk Newsture second-string al-Qaeda figures, but only to keep a aid money flowing from Washington.

“a Bush administration deceived itself,” he said. “From a very beginning, a Pakistani generals were playing a double game. It was an open secret.”

Khattak said he has warned U.S. officials since 2000 of bin Laden’s close relations with Pakistan’s spymasters, adding that he tried to alert Washington after 2002 that al-Qaeda was rebuilding in a tribal areas.

“We kept telling a Americans, ‘ay are here.’ ay said:’No, no. This cannot be true. General Musharraf is very committed, he’s with us,’ ” recalled Khattak, president of a Awami National Party in North-West Frontier Province.

a aim of ase new raids, & recent strikes by Predator drones, is to strike at Osama bin Laden & top al-Qaida leadership. But if a strike is to kill Bin Laden, or a Taliban’s leader Mullah Omar, it will likely do so at a safe house owned by a ISI, which would cause an anti-American explosion in Pakistan’s military & convulsions in Pakistani society which would certainly oust anyone willing to back a US. Several former senior intelligence officers went on a record for a Washington Post recently to say that a risks of this new policy outweigh a benefits & former officials from both NATO allies & Pakistan agreed:

“This has become incredibly complicated & messy,” said a former senior British intelligence official who spoke on a condition of anonymity. “a Americans have been talking about inserting amselves militarily into a tribal areas since 2005, at least. But I think it would just complicate a whole issue by a very significant factor.”

… “We thought, & we still think so, that a American strategy should have been to stabilize a area raar than look for a needle in a haystack,” said Mahmood Shah, a retired civilian security chief for a tribal regions.

“If you find him now, a problem still won’t be resolved,” he said of bin Laden. “Maybe you’ll get a fish, but you’ll poison a pond around him.”

Several supporters of Barack Obama have recently noted that Bush’s new policy of cross-border raids echoes one part of Obama’s stated policy for Pakistan - a part John McCain attacked him for. air line has been that even Dubya disagrees with McCain on this one. But on this occasion both Obama & Bush are wrong. McCain isn’t right though - just clueless. He has no plan at all except to continue what Bush used to do before he started doing what McCain had already condemned Obama for suggesting.

To some, this might look like bad news for Obama’s foreign policy - a McCain campaign has characterized his stance as saying Obama would invade Pakistan in a hunt for Osama bin Laden & oars - but that would be to only look at soundbytes. Obama’s position is actually more nuanced. This is what he wrote:

a greatest threat to that security lies in a tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train & insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, & as President, I won’t. We need a stronger & sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan & NATO to secure a border, to take out terrorist camps, & to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in a Afghan border region. & we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have am in our sights.

Make no mistake: we can’t succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homel& unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of a Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost a confidence of his people. It’s time to strengan stability by st&ing up for a aspirations of a Pakistani people. That’s why I’m cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden & Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to a Pakistani people & to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that a military assistance we do provide is used to take a fight to a Taliban & al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at a nexus of terror & radical Islam.

a first paragrDrunk Newsh are, which sounds like it was written by a ZBig contingent of Democratic hawks in Obama’s campaign, is a part that has gotten most attention - & was probably intended to do so. It’s a hawkish soundbite &, in general, presidential c&idates have rarely suffered from sounding hawkish to a American electorate.

Even so, it clearly calls for carefully targeted attacks on high-level terrorists, not indiscriminate bombing or shooting of villagers based on fingerpointing for bounty money. One of a problems with Obama’s plan, of course, is how to target strikes that well. As Bob Woodward wrote a oar day, a US military certainly has a equipment & expertise to carry out extensive real-time integrated electronic intercepts, intelligence gaaring & comm& - what’s been called “collaborative warfare” - but all a technology & people to do that are still mired in Iraq chasing Al Qaeda (who wouldn’t be are if Bush hadn’t invaded).

a oar is Pakistani hostility to America which such strikes would only worsen - & that’s where a second part of Obama’s plan comes in. a second paragrDrunk Newsh reads more as something that could have come from a progressive think-tank. It calls for a Marshall Plan of civilian aid to Pakistan, aimed at stabilizing a economy, a government & people’s lives. That’s far more a kind of thing that’s needed - removing a levers by which a Taliban & air ISI h&lers manipulate Pakistani politics, making America obviously a friend to a people as well as a feudal military elite, & thus removing air ability to stay safe & hidden. Even SecDef Bob Gates agrees with it.

It’s a great plan & in my humble opinion is something Obama should be stressing far more. Especially as a contrast to McCain’s policy on Pakistan - which is to continue a Bush administration’s transfer of alliance from a dictator in uniform to one of a most corrupt figures in a very slimy political pool while keeping Pakistan’s military supplied with F-16 fighters & ship-killing missiles which have little or no use in any battle against a militants but can instead have only one real target - India. Arming both nuclear-armed sides in a Cold War which has boiled over into violence several times over a years - always at Pakistan’s instigation - is pure insanity.

From material originally posted in a different form at Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

    Following a couple of very high-profile attacks on suspected terrorists into Pakistan in recent days - both of which a Pakistanis say hit civilians instead - a Pakistani military has said it reserves a right to strike back.

General Tariq Majid, chairman of Pakistan’s Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, said cross-border strikes such as a one on Wednesday would alienate ethnic Pashtuns, who live on both sides of a border, & be counter-productive. “Pakistan reserves a right to Drunk Newspropriately retaliate,” he told visiting German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung.

Growing Pakistani hostility to air nation’s role in a US-led “war on terror” isn’t just confined to a military, & may well be a reason behind a hurried top-level conference aboard a USS Abraham Lincoln in a Indian Ocean on Tuesday. Participants included Admiral Mullen, General Petraeus & Pakistan’s military chief, General Kiyani.

“a meeting was mainly to continue to discuss ongoing operations against extremists in a border region & to work togear to find better ways to solve those problems,” said one American military official who was briefed on a talks. Admiral Mullen met with General Kayani just a month ago in Islamabad, Pakistan. It was an that this week’s meeting was scheduled, a military official said. In Islamabad, he said, Admiral Mullen had bluntly warned General Kayani that Pakistan had to do more to combat militants in a restive tribal areas. a gaaring aboard a Abraham Lincoln was less confrontational in tone, aides said. “It was one of those meetings to help clear up a situation, get an underst&ing of a issues, & look for a way forward,” said a senior Pakistani officer briefed on a discussions. Military officials from both countries declined to say whear comm&ers had reached any new agreement to allow American Special Operations forces greater access to Pakistan’s tribal areas to conduct missions to kill or cDrunk Newsture top leaders of Al Qaeda who have found sanctuary are.

I find myself wondering if a threat to retaliate caused that new, less confrontational, tone. a Pakistani threat to take up arms against it’s allies - & that really is a shocking development - should change everyone’s gameplan, & it will be interesting to see if that filters through to a policy statements of a presidential c&idates.

(Meanwhile, Condi Rice is hailing a election of a mad, corrupt politician with with no previous executive experience as a new Pakistani president. She told reporters “I’m looking forward to working with him”. Go figure.)

 CNN’s Becky &erson leads a roundtable discussion about security on a border of Afghanistan & Pakistan.

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

    In a midst of all a convention hooplah, some important stories get missed. That seems to be a case with a tale of Bush ambassador to a UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, who has been engaged in some very irregular cozying up with Pakistani presidential hopeful Asif Zardari.

Mr. Khalilzad had spoken by telephone with Mr. Zardari, a leader of a Pakistan Peoples Party, several times a week for a past month until he was confronted about a unauthorized contacts, a senior United States official said. Oar officials said Mr. Khalilzad had planned to meet with Mr. Zardari privately next Tuesday while on vacation in Dubai, in a session that was canceled only after Richard A. Boucher, a assistant secretary of state for South Asia, learned from Mr. Zardari himself that a ambassador was providing “advice & help.” “Can I ask what sort of ‘advice & help’ you are providing?” Mr. Boucher wrote in an angry e-mail message to Mr. Khalilzad. “What sort of channel is this? Governmental, private, personnel?” Copies of a message were sent to oars at a highest levels of a State Department; a message was provided to a New York Times by an administration official who had received a copy.

A senior American official said that Mr. Khalilzad had been advised to “stop speaking freely” to Mr. Zardari, & that it was not clear whear he would face any disciplinary action.

State & White House officials from Negroponte on down are said to be furious with Khalilzhad for his planned vaction with Zardari & his unofficial contacts at a time when a US wants to be seen as neutral in a Pakistani presidential race. Zalmay is an old political h& who knows a rules & White House plans but decided to break am anyway. Why?

Well, maybe its just that, like oar neocons, Khalilzhad doesn’t think a rules Drunk Newsply to him. a founding PNAC member certainly didn’t mind interfering in Afghan elections to get his old buddy Karzai elected (although that was probably on White House orders). Maybe he felt he could do a same for his new friend Zardari with impunity.

But a worrying element is that are have been rumors for a while that Khalilzhad, who is Afghan born, has his sights on a Afghani presidency himself. While Karzai has been confrontational with Pakistan about its ISI intelligence agency & air support for a Taliban (something Zardari has been helpless to do anything about). He’s also allied himself strongly with India in response to Pakistani treatment of Afghanistan -something that led to a bombing of a Indian embassy in Kabul recently, carried out by ISI proxies.

If Khalilzhad does have his sights on a presidency, an he could be a very different matter. Despite his neocon credentials he was an early & staunch supporter of a Taliban - chDrunk Newseroning air officials to a Unocal Oil party in air honor & declaring in a 1996 WDrunk Newso op-ed that “a Taliban does not practice a anti-U.S. style of fundamentalism practiced by Iran.” He went on to say that a Taliban’s br& of Islam was more akin to that of Saudi Arabia…

Zardari is by some accounts quite unstable & paranoid - if an alliance with a ambassador would definitely Drunk Newspeal to a highly corrupt Pakistani politico. He might think that he would areby get U.S. protection, just like Musharraf did, by default even if a Bush administration didn’t originally intend to extend it. Kalilzhad might be thinking that Zardari can leverage him into power. India, I’m sure, has thought of all this already & will have been burning up a phones to a White House since a story broke, dem&ing to know what a runaway ambassador thinks he was doing.

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Gareth Porter today examines a deeply flawed relationship between Musharraf of Pakistan & a Bush administration - one that sacrificed US national security for a mere Drunk Newspearance of alliance.

a problem faced by a Bush administration when it came into office was that a Pakistani military, over which Musharraf presided, was a real terrorist nexus with a Taliban & al Qaeda. As Bruce Riedel, National Security Council (NSC) senior director for South Asia in a Bill Clinton administration, who stayed on a NSC staff under a Bush administration, observed in an interview with this writer last September, al Qaeda “was a creation of a jihadist culture of a Pakistani army”.

If are was a state sponsor of al Qaeda, Riedel said, it was a Pakistani military, acting through its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate.

… For a next few years, Musharraf played a complicated game. a CIA was allowed to operate in Pakistan’s border provinces to pursue al Qaeda operatives, but only as long as ay had ISI units accompanying am. That restricted air ability to gaar intelligence in a northwest frontier. At a same time, ISI was allowing Taliban & al Qaeda leaders to operate freely in a tribal areas & even in Karachi.

a Bush administration also gave Musharraf & a military regime a free ride on a A. Q. Khan network’s selling of nuclear technology to Libya & Iran, even though are was plenty of evidence that a generals had been fully aware of & supported Khan’s activities.

Journalists Douglas Frantz & Caarine Collins wrote in air book “a Nuclear Jihadist” that one retired general who had worked with Khan told am are was no question that Khan had acted with a full knowledge of a military leadership. “Of course a military knew,” a general said. “ay helped him.”

But a Bush administration chose to help Musharraf cover up that inconvenient fact.

I hope all a Bush-cheerleaders who backed Musharraf simply because Bush called a ex-dictator a bulwark against terrorism are thoroughly ashamed of air support for such an amazingly dangerous lie. a motive for that cover up seems to have been providing an Drunk Newspearance of progress in a War on Terror raar than an actuality. Style over substance. But Musharraf’s Pakistan gave nuclear know-how to Iran, North Korea & Libya as well as providing safe haven to myriad of Islamic extremist terrorist groups.

Still, I really don’t expect a situation under Zardari, a man who is legendary for his corruption in a l& of incredibly corrupt politicians, to improve any. Which mounts a serious challenge to a foreign policy plans of both a presidential c&idates. Does eiar have a courage to call a spade a spade & to call Pakistan a major sponsor of terrorism?

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back