Free Soil Party Blog

31 Responses to “Fear of losing drove US ground raid in Pakistan”

1. Aletha Says:
   September 12th, 2008 at 11:23 pm

   Now Pakistan is threatening to pull out of the war on terror. Is this an empty threat? This AP story is from Yahoo News

   Pakistan could end cooperation in war on terror
   By PAUL ALEXANDER, Associated Press Writer
   Fri Sep 12, 6:34 PM ET

   The furor intensified Friday over Washington’s decision to pursue Islamic militant targets inside Pakistan, with opposition lawmakers threatening the country could pull out of the war on terror if the U.S. refuses to respect its borders.

   About 100 protesters burned American flags after the latest missile attack left at least 12 people dead in the North Waziristan region of the troubled northwest. Residents said they heard the sound of propeller-driven U.S. Predator drones circling overhead before the explosions.

   President Bush secretly approved more aggressive cross-border operations in July, current and former American officials have told The Associated Press.

   Since Aug. 13, there have been at least seven reported missile strikes as well as a raid by helicopter-borne U.S. commandos that Pakistani officials claim killed 15 civilians in tribally governed territory where the government has little control. The frontier region is considered a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri.

   Pakistan’s government and military have issued stiff protests to Washington over the recent rash of cross-border strikes, although the criticism appeared to be mostly rhetoric aimed at soothing domestic anger, given that Pakistan has few options for stronger action.

   Domestic media have criticized the government for not reacting more strongly, even suggesting the public criticism is just lip service and that a secret deal has been reached with Pakistan’s leadership allowing cross-border incursions.

   Pakistan army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has denied that and vowed to protect the country’s sovereignty “at all cost.”

   Leaders, including new President Asif Ali Zardari, have reiterated their commitment to fighting violent Islamic extremism and have aired no threats to withdraw their cooperation.

   However, they are sensitive to public opinion in Pakistan, which is hostile to U.S. policy in the region.

   Agitation on the issue by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who heads the main opposition party and has a large popular following, could make it hard for Islamabad to maintain the close alliance with Washington forged by Zardari’s predecessor, Pervez Musharraf.

   “We need at this time to make it clear to foreign countries that Pakistan will not tolerate such actions,” said Ahsan Iqbal, a lawmaker in Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-N party. “If it continues, then Pakistan can consider pulling out completely from this war on terror.”

   Iqbal and another party leader called for an urgent parliament session to debate how Pakistan can respond.

   “The parliament must be convened on a one-point agenda, because the nation is under a threat of war,” said lawmaker Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan. “Irrespective of where the threat is, every inch of this country is sovereign. Every inch of this country is sacred.”

   Defense Minister Chaudhry Ahmad Mukhtar said Pakistan’s armed forces were “ready to meet any such eventuality if this is repeated” and evoked Pakistan’s war against India in 1965.

   Pakistani commentators have been near-unanimous in predicting that unilateral U.S. strikes and civilian casualties will wreck the moderate government’s effort to persuade its citizens that fighting violent Islamic extremism is in their own national interest.

   “America is daily deepening the well of resentment against itself that no amount of aid or pious diplomatic platitudes will ever fill,” The News daily said in an editorial Friday.

   Some analysts suggest the Bush administration is turning up the heat in Pakistan, hoping for last-minute victories in the face of a growing Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

   But such cross-border operations are a “risky maneuver” and the U.S. has to be careful not to dismiss the help it is getting from Pakistan, said Robert Hathaway, director of the Asia program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.

   “Too many of these operations will make the Pakistani army less willing to work with us, which could negatively affect future U.S. leadership,” he said.

   Zardari and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, at a joint news conference Tuesday, emphasized the need to eliminate civilian casualties, which fuel anti-government sentiment.

   US politicians are playing a reckless game of chicken. Bush is being egged on by Democratic calls for escalation. How many of these futile attempts to turn the tide of that lost war will Pakistan tolerate? If Pakistan turns against USA, or descends into civil war, that will be far more costly than having to give up the conquest of Afghanistan.

2. Aletha Says:
   September 15th, 2008 at 10:39 pm

   Today Pakistani security officials claimed troops fired on invading helicopters, forcing them back to Afghanistan. Officials are denying the report. This story is from Reuters

   Pakistan says troop fire turns U.S. helicopters back
   Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:11pm EDT

   By Zeeshan Haider

   ISLAMABAD (Reuters) – Pakistani security officials said on Monday that troops had fired on U.S. military helicopters and forced them to turn back to Afghanistan, but both the Pakistani and American militaries denied the incident.

   According to the security officials, the incident took place near Angor Adda, a village in the tribal region of South Waziristan where officials have said U.S. commandos in helicopters raided a suspected al Qaeda and Taliban camp earlier this month.

   “The U.S. choppers came into Pakistan by just 100 to 150 meters at Angor Adda. Even then our troops did not spare them, opened fire on them and they turned away,” said one security official.

   While Angor Adda villagers and officials supported that account, the U.S. and Pakistani military denied the report.

   Pakistan’s military spokesman Major Murad Khan confirmed there had been a shooting but said the American helicopters had not crossed into Pakistani airspace and Pakistani troops were not responsible for the firing.

   Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman and a U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan said American helicopters had not come under fire.

   “I’ve checked into that and find it to be a spurious report,” Whitman told reporters. “Did not happen. I’ve checked all the places that would know about something like that and it doesn’t appear to be accurate.

   “(I) cannot find any mission that correlates to the report I saw out of Pakistan. I can’t find any (military) report of helicopters being fired upon,” Whitman said.

   Pakistani army chief General Ashfaq Kayani said in a strongly worded statement last week that Pakistan would not allow foreign troops on its soil and Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be defended at all costs.

   Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani have both endorsed the stand taken by General Kayani.

   At some point, Pakistan will decide it has had enough of US meddling. It may not be there yet, but it is getting steadily closer with every affront. Will Barack Obama declare war on a nuclear power? If he meant his belligerent pronouncements, he may have no choice.

3. Aletha Says:
   September 16th, 2008 at 10:32 pm

   Today the army of Pakistan said its troops have orders to fire on US invaders. This AP story is from Yahoo News

   Pakistan troops ordered to open fire on US raiders
   By STEPHEN GRAHAM, Associated Press Writer
   Tue Sep 16, 6:34 PM ET

   ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Pakistan’s army said Tuesday that 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.

   Pakistan’s government has faced rising popular anger over a Sept. 3 ground attack by U.S. commandos into South Waziristan, a base for Taliban militants killing ever more U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Pakistan says about 15 people were killed, all of them 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 Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan’s army chief, 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.

   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.”

   “We are partners with Pakistan. We have been close friends for years,” he said.

   President Asif Ali Zardari, the newly elected successor to U.S. ally Pervez Musharraf, declined to comment on the order to use lethal force on American troops, telling reporters in London: “I don’t think there will be any more” cross-border operations by the U.S.

   American officials have confirmed U.S. forces carried out the Sept. 3 raid near the town of Angoor Ada in South Waziristan but have given few details of what happened.

   Abbas said that Pakistan’s military had asked for an explanation but received only a half-page of “very vague” information that failed to identify the intended target.

   He said the dead all appeared to be civilians, adding: “These were truck drivers, local traders and their families.”

   Abbas said Pakistani officials had to consider public opinion, which is skeptical of American goals in the region and harbors sympathy for militants fighting in the name of Islam.

   “Please look at the public reaction to this kind of adventure or incursion,” Abbas said. “The army is also an extension of the public, and you can only satisfy the public when you match your words with your actions.”

   However, some analysts forecast that the consequences of alienating the United States would stay the army’s hand.

   “If an American soldier were to die because of Pakistani military firing that would damage the Pakistani-American relationship for years to come,” said Craig Cohen, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

   The threat “might stir nationalist sentiment in Pakistan and play well politically, but it’s just not realistic,” he said.

   Abbas denied the new order had been put into practice before dawn on Monday, when U.S. helicopters reportedly landed near Angoor Ada only to fly away after troops fired warning shots.

   Abbas insisted no foreign troops had crossed the border and that “trigger-happy tribesmen” fired the shots. Pakistani troops based nearby fired flares to see what was going on, he said.

   The U.S. military in Afghanistan said none of its troops were involved.

   Officials are desperately trying to avoid the inevitable. Bush, egged on by Obama, cannot back down, and can only hope Pakistan is bluffing. At this point it might be more of a warning, but at some point, when that bluff has been called too many times, it will no longer be a bluff. Then USA will have a real war on its hands, with a nuclear power with a powerful army, which just might escalate into a world war.

4. Aletha Says:
   September 22nd, 2008 at 11:29 pm

   Another denied story about Pakistan firing on US helicopters, forcing them back to Afghanistan is in the news today. This AP story is from Yahoo News

   Did Pakistan soldiers shoot at US helicopters?
   By CHRIS BRUMMITT, Associated Press Writer
   Mon Sep 22, 6:07 PM ET

   ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – U.S. helicopters flew into Pakistan’s militant-infested border region, but returned to Afghanistan after troops and tribesmen opened fire, intelligence officials said Monday. Washington denied the account.
   ADVERTISEMENT

   The alleged incident late Sunday threatened new rifts between the United States and its key ally against terrorism days after a truck bomb struck a luxury hotel in Islamabad, killing 53 people.

   Late Monday, Dubai-based TV channel Al-Arabiya said it had received a tape from a shadowy group calling itself “Fedayeen Al-Islam” — Arabic for “Islam commandos” — claiming responsibility for the bombing and urging Pakistan to end cooperation with Washington.

   In the northwestern city of Peshawar, gunmen kidnapped Afghanistan’s ambassador-designate Monday and killed his driver.

   Pakistan is under growing U.S. pressure to act against al-Qaida and Taliban insurgents sheltering in its border region and blamed for rising attacks on coalition troops in Afghanistan and suicide bombings in Pakistan.

   U.S. officials believe that al-Qaida’s leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are hiding somewhere along the border.

   A series of suspected U.S. missile strikes into the lawless region and a Sept. 3 raid by U.S. commandos said to have killed 15 people have highlighted U.S. impatience and angered many Pakistanis.

   Two intelligence officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media said two U.S. helicopters crossed one mile into Pakistan in the Alwara Mandi area in North Waziristan on Sunday.

   Citing informants in the field, they said Pakistani troops and tribesmen responded with small arms fire, but it was not clear whether it was aimed at the choppers or just warning shots.

   The helicopters did not return fire and re-entered Afghan airspace without landing, the officials said.

   That account was denied by Pentagon officials. “There was no such incursion; there was no such event,” said Defense Department spokesman Col. Gary L. Keck.

   White House press secretary Dana Perino, talking to reporters on Air Force One about the report, said: “I would question that report, and I’m going to refer to the Department of Defense for the veracity of the report, but that has been debunked.”

   Pakistan’s army said it had no information on the reported incursion across the poorly demarcated border.

   Its military chief and newly elected President Asif Ali Zardari have said the missile strikes and incursions were violations of Pakistan’s sovereignty and only fueled extremist violence.

   Zardari, who is expected to meet President Bush in New York on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly this week, reiterated that he welcomed U.S. intelligence help, but not its troops.

   “Give us the intelligence and we will do the job,” he said in an interview with NBC. “It’s better done by our forces than yours.”

   US politicians are not listening. Pakistan is not doing enough, they say, so USA must take matters into its own hands. This is plain denial of reality. The situation in Pakistan is constantly aggravated by US policy, so the politicians think the only answer is to escalate that policy. No good can come of this, but politicians do not care; they only care to make it appear that the war on terror is going well. It is not, no matter how many extremists are killed. The battle for hearts and minds is long since lost, but USA learns nothing, keeps right on digging itself a deeper grave.

5. Aletha Says:
   September 23rd, 2008 at 10:08 pm

   Another story denied, this time of Pakistan shooting down a US drone. While US politicians have such a conflict of interest in trying to deny the obvious consequences of these incursions into Pakistan, open hostilities may be on the verge of breaking out. Once that happens, these facile denials will be revealed as the blatant propaganda they are, spin doctoring vainly attempting to put a good face on these violations of Pakistani sovereignty. This AP story is from Yahoo News

   Pakistanis say suspected US drone shot down

   By ASIF SHAHZAD, Associated Press Writer
   Tue Sep 23, 6:54 PM ET

   ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Pakistani soldiers and tribesman shot down a suspected U.S. military drone close to the Afghan border Tuesday night, three intelligence officials said.
   ADVERTISEMENT

   If verified, it apparently would be the first time a pilotless aircraft was brought down over Pakistan and likely would add to tensions between Washington and Islamabad over recent American cross-border incursions into the country’s lawless tribal regions.

   The three officials said the aircraft was hit at the village of Jalal Khel in South Waziristan after circling the area for several hours. Wreckage was strewn on the ground, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief the media.

   The United States challenged the account. “We’re not aware of any drones being down,” said a senior U.S. official, who speaking on condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic sensitivity of disputing a U.S. ally in the war against terrorist groups.

   The report came a day after intelligence officers said two U.S. helicopters crossed a mile into Pakistan late Sunday over North Waziristan, but flew off after Pakistani troops and tribesmen opened fire. The Pentagon denied any incursion by U.S. helicopters.

   While causing widespread anger among Pakistanis, the apparent raids by U.S. forces, including missile strikes and a ground assault, have underlined Washington’s concerns that the government is unwilling or incapable of rooting out the Taliban and other extremists on the border.

   The U.S. is known to operate drones in neighboring Afghanistan that are sometimes used to conduct surveillance of suspected militant hideouts inside Pakistan and occasionally launch missile attacks on the havens. Washington generally does not acknowledge the strikes, which Pakistani officials say often miss their targets and fuel support for the militants.

   Washington wants Islamabad to do more to root out the extremists, but Pakistan says it has deployed tens of thousands of soldiers to the area and they regularly battle insurgents.

   In the latest fighting, troops backed by helicopter gunships and artillery killed at least 50 militants in the Kohat region since Monday, an army spokesman, Maj. Murad Khan, said. One solider also died, he said. Khan said the military regained control of a mountain road tunnel seized by insurgents several days ago.

   In the nearby Bajur tribal region, security forces killed at least 10 militants Tuesday in the latest round of a major offensive there, government official Iqbal Khattak said.

   The surge in violence is the biggest challenge facing Pakistan’s new civilian government, which is having to balance Washington’s demands against deep unhappiness among his people over the alliance with the United States.

   In a speech to Muslim scholars late Tuesday, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said terrorists are “enemies of Islam with no faith” and vowed to get tough on militants sheltering in the border region.

   “We will not allow them to challenge the writ of the government and create a law of the jungle and a life of the stone age,” he told a gathering of Muslim scholars in the capital, Islamabad.

   The Pakistani government is trying to pull off this balancing act, while every day US policy makes that harder. No good can come of this. The best outcome would be to make a martyr of Osama bin Laden, but that cure could prove worse than the disease. More likely USA will find itself with a real war on its hands, one it could only make an appearance of winning by bombing Pakistan back to the stone age, the strategy that has worked so well in Afghanistan and Iraq. It has worked out fine for war profiteers, but not the people supposedly liberated from tyranny, nor the supposed liberators.

6. Aletha Says:
   September 25th, 2008 at 10:24 pm

   Today there was a five minute ground battle after Pakistani troops fired at US helicopters. This story is from Associated Press

   Pakistani troops fire on US helicopters at border
   By JASON STRAZIUSO and FISNIK ABRASHI – 8 hours ago

   KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Pakistani soldiers fired at American reconnaissance helicopters that were escorting Afghan and U.S. ground troops along the volatile border Thursday, sparking a five-minute ground battle between the countries which have been allies in the war on terrorism, officials said.

   Attempting to play down the incident — the first serious exchange with Pakistani forces acknowledged by the U.S. — Pakistan’s president said only “flares” were fired at foreign helicopters that he said had strayed across the border from Afghanistan into his country.

   The five-minute exchange, which could have easily escalated into a much bigger conflict, could heighten tensions at a time the U.S. is stepping up cross-border operations in a region known as a haven for Taliban and al-Qaida militants.

   It also came as new Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari was in New York meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai was scheduled to meet with President Bush on Friday.

   Two American OH-58 reconnaissance helicopters, known as Kiowas, were on a routine patrol in the eastern province of Khost when they received small arms fire from the Pakistani border post, said Tech Sgt. Kevin Wallace, a U.S. military spokesman in Bagram. There was no damage to aircraft or crew, officials said.

   U.S. Central Command spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith said the helicopters had been escorting U.S. troops and Afghan border police. When the helicopters were fired on, the ground forces fired rounds meant not to hit the Pakistani troops, but “to make certain that they realized they should stop shooting,” Smith said from Centcom headquarters in Florida.

   The Pakistani forces fired back during a skirmish that lasted about five minutes. The joint patrol was moving about a mile inside Afghanistan, with the helicopters flying above, Smith said.

   The Pakistani military disputed the U.S. version, saying its troops fired warning shots when the two helicopters crossed over the border — and that the U.S. helicopters fired back.

   “When the helicopters passed over our border post and were well within Pakistani territory, own security forces fires anticipatory warning shots. On this, the helicopters returned fire and flew back,” a Pakistani military statement said.

   In New York, Zardari said his military fired only “flares” at foreign helicopters that he claimed had strayed across the border from Afghanistan.

   Zardari said his forces fired only as a way “to make sure that they know that they crossed the border line.”

   “Sometimes the border is so mixed that they don’t realize they have crossed the border,” he said before his meeting with Rice.

   The Pakistani military said the matter was “being resolved” in consultations between the army and the NATO force in Afghanistan. A NATO statement said the militaries were “working together to resolve the matter.”

   The shooting comes amid a string of cross-border incidents, including a raid by American commandos into Pakistan’s tribal areas Sept. 3 that angered many in Pakistan, and the apparent crash landing because of possible mechanical failure of a U.S. spy drone this week in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

   Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, a Pakistani army spokesman, said last week that Pakistani field commanders have previously tolerated international forces crossing a short way into the country 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.”

   On Wednesday, Pakistan’s army said it had found the wreckage of a suspected surveillance drone in South Waziristan, but denied claims by Pakistani intelligence officials that troops and local residents shot it down.

   “We must fight this epic battle together as allies and as partners. But just as we will not let our territory be used by terrorism for attacks on our people and neighbors, we cannot allow our territory and sovereignty to be violated by friends,” Zardari said in a column for The Boston Globe.

   Shuja Nawaz, a prominent Pakistani military analyst, said Pakistan is in no position to seek a confrontation with the vastly superior U.S. military. But he said it “certainly doesn’t want to be drawn in a situation where it allows the U.S. to act with impunity” because of the impact on its already-dented morale.

   Nawaz said cross-border strikes could deepen animosity in Pakistan toward its alliance with Washington and strengthen the hand of Islamists and right-wing nationalists. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, perhaps Pakistan’s most popular politician, could then be tempted to join those calling for Pakistan to break its ties with Washington, he said.

   “That would be very dangerous,” Nawaz said. “The United States needs to be very careful that it doesn’t tip the balance.”

   US politicians should heed this warning, but they will not. Soon the point of no return will be crossed. It may not happen before Bush leaves office, but neither Obama nor McCain is likely to back off. Escalation is far more likely. Pakistan has no easy answers. It could break its ties, but that would mean a cutoff of aid. Pakistan is in a horrible bind, no matter what it does. USA is determined to win the war on terror, come hell or high water, and it looks like both are looming just over the horizon.

7. Aletha Says:
   September 26th, 2008 at 11:46 pm

   Today Pakistan warned USA to stay out of its territory. This AP story is from Yahoo News

   Pakistan to US after clash: Stay away from border
   By CHRIS BRUMMITT, Associated Press Writers
   Fri Sep 26, 6:15 PM ET

   ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Pakistan sought to reassure Washington on Friday that it remained an ally in fighting terrorism, but it also warned the U.S. to stay out of Pakistani territory while hunting down militants along the volatile border with Afghanistan.

   Emphasizing that it doesn’t need American firepower, a Pakistani general said an offensive along the frontier has killed more than 1,000 militants and predicted the region would be “stabilized” within two months.

   He also showed photos of militant tunnel systems and trenches in Bajur, suggesting more tough fighting ahead in an area that is considered a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders.

   Washington has launched a flurry of missiles and a ground assault on targets within Pakistan recently, infuriating ordinary Pakistanis and their leaders.

   In the first serious exchange with Pakistani forces acknowledged by the U.S., American helicopters and Pakistani ground troops briefly traded fire Thursday on the border. The aircraft were not hit and no one was hurt.

   U.S. officials said the two choppers were inside Afghanistan when the troops opened fire. Pakistan insisted the aircraft had crossed the ill-defined and contested border.

   Pakistani government spokesman Akram Shaheedi urged U.S.-led coalition forces “not to violate (the) territorial sovereignty of Pakistan as it is counterproductive to the war on terror.”

   “It has been Pakistan’s policy that we will not allow anyone to violate our sovereignty, and we will continue to defend our territorial sovereignty,” he said.

   President Asif Ali Zardari addressed the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday and warned that Pakistan cannot allow its territory to “be violated by our friends.” But he struck a more conciliatory note Friday at a brief appearance alongside Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

   “I look at U.S. support as a blessing. I look at the world support as a blessing to Pakistan,” Zardari said.

   Rice did not answer when asked about the border clash, but expressed unwavering U.S. support for Pakistan.

   “We know that Pakistan has many challenges in security, in the economy, and in bringing stability to this young democracy,” she said. “But we hope that the president and Pakistani people were assured today that the international community will be by their side as they take difficult decisions and move toward a more stable and prosperous Pakistan.”

   Analysts said while the incident had added to tensions, there was little chance it would herald a wider breakdown, noting that both parties needed each other.

   More wishful thinking. Pakistan has its limits. Its moderate leaders are walking a tightrope, teetering on the edge of the precipice. Whether it is Bush, Obama, or McCain who pushes them over that edge will hardly matter. Obama said in the debate tonight, nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Really. That must be news to Pakistan. The new Mr. Slick thinks the kind of bombing raid he proposes would not constitute an attack? Invading the airspace of a sovereign nation is an attack, regardless of what he wants to call it. Perhaps he means that attacking Taliban or al Qaeda leaders would not be attacking Pakistan, because the militants do not represent the government of Pakistan? Spare me the spin doctoring, Senator Obama.

8. Aletha Says:
   October 4th, 2008 at 12:48 am

   Another missile attack near the border was reported today. This AP story is from Yahoo News

   Suspected US strikes kill 20 in Pakistan
   By ISHTIAQ MASHUD, Associated Press Writer
   1 hour, 58 minutes ago

   DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan – Suspected U.S. missiles hit buildings in two Pakistani villages close to the Afghan border, killing 20 people, most of them alleged militants, officials said Saturday.

   The United States has launched a flurry of strikes in recent weeks against suspected al-Qaida and Taliban targets in northwestern Pakistan, straining ties between the two anti-terror allies.

   Pakistan has been unwilling or unable to eliminate militant sanctuaries blamed for rising violence on both sides of the frontier. The region is a possible hiding place for al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden.

   Two Pakistani intelligence officers said two missiles believed to have been fired from American unmanned drones launched from neighboring Afghanistan hit two villages in the same district of the North Waziristan tribal region just before dusk on Friday.

   One attack in Mohammadkhel village about 28 miles west of Miran Shah, the region’s main town, killed about 19 people, most of them alleged militants but also including about a half-dozen foreigners, the officials said, citing agents in the field.

   There were no reported casualties in the other strike in the village of Khata Kaly.

   Lt. Nathan Perry, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, said he had “no information to give” about the reported attacks. He did not deny U.S. involvement.

   Friday’s attack appeared to be the deadliest of 11 reported cross-border operations by U.S.-led forces since Aug. 20.

   U.S. officials have acknowledged some of the strikes. However, they have provide few details, and casualty reports from the dangerous and remote border region are nearly impossible to verify.

   Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders have complained that the attacks violate the country’s sovereignty, kill civilians and anger the local population, making it harder to crack down on the militants.

   Somehow I doubt US politicians put any credence in that argument, though it is plain as day. Violating sovereignty, killing civilians, and angering the locals is just par for the course for this empire. The empire must win the war on terror, no matter what it takes, right? Never mind that the only way to gain any headway against extremism is to win over hearts and minds, or that this strategy could only be expected to harden hearts and minds against the empire. What makes an empire is instilling fear, callously disregarding the wishes and dignity of those who might be allies, because one is either with the empire or against it, so being on the fence is equivalent to being against it. That is a self-fulfilling prophecy. USA is steadily making it harder for any self-respecting citizen of Pakistan to oppose the militants, proving their case every time the sovereignty of Pakistan is violated, by threat or deed. Are you listening, Obama, Biden, or the rest of you chickenhawks? No, of course not! I tried to hold their feet to the fire, only to be dismissed with a sales pitch! Their foreign policy differs from Bush only in the fine print!

9. Aletha Says:
   October 10th, 2008 at 12:56 am

   Another US missile strike was reported yesterday. This story is from Associated Press

   Suspected US missile strike reported in Pakistan
   15 hours ago

   DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan (AP) — Intelligence officials say a suspected U.S. missile strike has been reported in a Pakistani tribal region along the Afghan border.

   There was no immediate word on casualties.

   The two local Pakistani intelligence officials said the strike occurred Thursday in Tappi village in North Waziristan, a region considered a stronghold for al-Qaida and Taliban militants.

   The officials requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to media.

   The U.S. is suspected in a surge of recent missile strikes in Pakistani territory. Pakistan, a U.S. ally in the war on terror, has protested such strikes as violations of its sovereignty.

   THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

   ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — Bombings targeting police killed 10 people and wounded 14 in Pakistan’s volatile northwest and the capital on Thursday — vivid reminders of the challenge facing the U.S.-allied country as its lawmakers pursue a national consensus on battling terrorism.

   One attack, an apparent suicide car bombing, occurred in a police complex in Islamabad. It wrecked an anti-terror squad building and wounded at least four police while lawmakers met elsewhere in the capital for a rare, private military briefing about domestic militancy.

   Meanwhile, a roadside bomb struck a prisoners’ vehicle in the Dir region near Afghanistan and killed two police, four inmates and four children. Ten people were wounded, said Sher Bahadur Khan, a senior government official.

   Al-Qaida and Taliban militants have established bases in Pakistan’s northwest near the Afghan border, and it is that region that bears the brunt of the violence in the country. But in recent weeks, the militants have repeatedly demonstrated their reach extends farther.

   In September, a massive suicide truck bombing in Islamabad killed 54 people and severely damaged the Marriott Hotel, a favorite spot for foreigners. Security has been beefed up since in the capital, and it was especially high Thursday for the parliament session.

   Police were investigating how the attacker breached security in the police complex. They were also looking into a potential link to an unknown man who delivered sweets to the building moments before the explosion, according to senior Islamabad police official Asghar Gardaizi. Gardaizi said body parts found indicated a suicide bomber.

   The facade of the three-story, red-brick building was destroyed and a staircase had collapsed. Gardaizi said at least four people were hurt; others said up to nine were wounded.

   Police commando Gulshan Aftab told The Associated Press he was sitting nearby when a “Suzuki car hit the anti-terror squad barrack and exploded with a big bang.” He said the main building was largely empty because many officers were guarding Parliament and other areas of Islamabad.

   “About 10 people were inside at the time, and we saw six or seven injured,” he said.

   State media reported that Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and President Asif Ali Zardari insisted attacks like those Thursday would not deter Pakistan from battling extremists. But many citizens believe Pakistan’s support of the U.S.-led war on terror is what’s spurring the violence.

   The U.S. has shown impatience with Pakistan’s efforts against insurgents by launching cross-border operations in the northwest, where al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden is rumored to be hiding. Such attacks — usually missile strikes — have further angered Pakistanis.

   It is sad and frightening to watch Pakistan descending into the abyss, about to be pushed off the cliff by US policy making the attempts of the newly formed government to deal with its extremists impossible. Every violation of Pakistani sovereignty strengthens the arguments of those extremists. Every time Obama talks about how he will deal with those extremists if Pakistan cannot or will not also strengthens those arguments. Obama means business. He decries the Bush strategy as muddling through, coddling the Pakistani dictator Musharraf who had no intention of crushing the enemies of USA. He neglects to mention the Pakistani government has had the impossible task of maintaining the appearance of striking a fair balance between being an ally in the war on terror and defending national sovereignty. None of these mainstream candidates give a hoot about the sovereignty of other nations. If they harbor terrorists, their sovereignty is forfeit. The Bush Doctrine is triumphant; any nation not one hundred percent behind US policy can be treated as an enemy. That is one method of assuring the empire will never lack for enemies.

10. Aletha Says:
    October 16th, 2008 at 1:23 am

    The latest intelligence report paints a bleak picture of the situation in Pakistan. This story is from McClatchy

    New intelligence report says Pakistan is ‘on the edge’
    Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott | McClatchy Newspapers
    last updated: October 14, 2008 07:51:41 PM

    WASHINGTON — A growing al Qaida-backed insurgency, combined with the Pakistani army’s reluctance to launch an all-out crackdown, political infighting and energy and food shortages are plunging America’s key ally in the war on terror deeper into turmoil and violence, says a soon-to-be completed U.S. intelligence assessment.

    A U.S. official who participated in drafting the top secret National Intelligence Estimate said it portrays the situation in Pakistan as “very bad.” Another official called the draft “very bleak,” and said it describes Pakistan as being “on the edge.”

    The first official summarized the estimate’s conclusions about the state of Pakistan as: “no money, no energy, no government.”

    The Afghanistan estimate warns that additional American troops are urgently needed there and that Islamic extremists who enjoy safe haven in Pakistan pose a growing threat to the U.S.-backed government of Afghan Prime Minister Hamid Karzai.

    The Iraq NIE is more cautious about the prospects for stability there than the Bush administration and either John McCain or Barack Obama have been, and it raises serious questions about whether the U.S. will be able to redeploy a significant number of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan anytime soon.

    Together, the three NIEs suggest that without significant and swift progress on all three fronts — which they suggest is uncertain at best — the U.S. could find itself facing a growing threat from al Qaida and other Islamic extremist groups, said one of the officials.

    About the only good news in the Pakistan NIE is that it’s “relatively sanguine” about the prospects of a Pakistani nuclear weapon, materials or knowledge falling into the hands of terrorists, said one official.

    However, the draft NIE paints a grim picture of the situation in the impoverished, nuclear-armed country of 160 million, according to the U.S. officials who spoke to McClatchy.

    The estimate says that the Islamist insurgency based in the Federally Administered Tribal Area bordering Afghanistan, the suspected safe haven of Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, is intensifying.

    However, according to the officials, the draft also finds that the Pakistani military is reluctant to launch an all-out campaign against the Islamists in part because of popular opposition to continuing the cooperation with the U.S. that began under Pervez Musharraf, the U.S.-backed former president, after the 9/11 attacks.

    Anti-U.S. and anti-government sentiments have grown recently, stoked by stepped-up cross-border U.S. missile strikes and at least one commando raid on suspected terrorist targets in the FATA that reportedly have resulted in civilian deaths.

    The Pakistani military, which has lost hundreds of troops to battles and suicide bombings, is waging offensives against Islamist guerrillas in the Bajaur tribal agency and Swat, a picturesque region of the North West Frontier Province bordering Afghanistan. U.S. officials said insurgent attacks on Pakistani security forces provoked the Pakistani army operations.

    Moreover, widespread anti-U.S. anger has left the coalition deeply divided over whether to unleash a major military assault on the Islamists, the U.S. officials said.

    The government is also facing an accelerating economic crisis that includes food and energy shortages, escalating fuel costs, a sinking currency and a massive flight of foreign capital accelerated by the escalating insurgency, the NIE warns.

    The Pakistani public is clamoring for relief as the crisis pushes millions more into poverty, giving insurgent groups more opportunities to recruit young Pakistanis.

    No relief is in sight for Pakistan. Obama thinks Pakistan has been coddled, and he has no intention of letting minor details like sovereignty or international law stop him from going after anyone he considers an enemy. McCain claims he knows how to get Osama bin Laden. That is a bluff, but it is hard to imagine either of these candidates would do anything but escalate the hostilities with Pakistan. To risk antagonizing a failed state with nuclear weapons, with so little to gain and so much to lose, is supposed to demonstrate good judgment? If either candidate thinks Afghanistan and Pakistan can be transformed into reliable allies, or that a war on either can be won, they are lost in grandiose delusions of empire. World domination may sound like a US birthright to such fools, but that dream is a nightmare for the vast majority of the people of the world. US citizens will not escape the fallout of this disintegrating empire.

11. Aletha Says:
    October 23rd, 2008 at 1:14 am

    Another missile attack was reported today on a school in northwest Pakistan. This AP story is from Yahoo News

    5 dead in suspected US missile strike in Pakistan
    By MUNIR AHMAD, Associated Press Writer
    52 mins ago

    ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Suspected U.S. missiles struck a Taliban-linked school in northwest Pakistan on Thursday, killing nine people in an apparent sign of U.S. frustration with the country’s anti-terror efforts, intelligence officials said.

    The strike came hours after Parliament warned against “incursions” on Pakistani soil in a resolution that also called for reviewing the national security strategy and making dialogue with militants the highest priority.

    Nuclear-armed Pakistan is also in the midst of an economic crisis brought on by high fuel prices, dwindling foreign investment, soaring inflation and militant violence.

    Late on Wednesday, the government formally requested financial help from the International Monetary Fund to avoid a possible meltdown, a decision that could cost the government political support.

    The suspected U.S. missiles hit the religious school on the outskirts of Miran Shah, the main town in the militant-infested North Waziristan region, four intelligence officials said.

    Relying on informants and agents in the area, two officials said nine people were killed, including four pulled lifeless from the rubble hours after the strike, and two others were wounded.

    The religious school belonged to a local pro-Taliban cleric, the intelligence officials said. The cleric has been linked to veteran Taliban commander Jalaluddin Haqqani, considered a top foe of the United States, they said.

    The parliamentary resolution was vague and lacking in details, apparently a result of political compromise after two weeks of closed-door debate.

    The document did not directly mention two of the most divisive issues surrounding the terror fight: army offensives in the northwest and calls for unconditional talks with the extremists.

    The major opposition parties recognize the need for military action against the insurgents but rarely forcefully express this because they need to maintain support among ordinary Pakistanis who are deeply suspicious of the war.

    The seven-month old government — which is desperate for lawmakers to support its military offensive — hailed the 14-point document as a “historic moment for the country.”

    “This will definitely help to improve the situation and to rid the country of the menace of terrorism,” Information Minister Sherry Rehman said.

    The resolution calls for an “independent foreign policy,” a sign of wariness of American influence. But it also states Pakistan will not let its soil be used for terrorist attacks elsewhere — an apparent nod to U.S. complaints about militants hiding in northwest Pakistan.

    The resolution also alludes to the U.S. missile attacks, stating that Pakistan “stands united against any incursions and invasions of the homeland, and calls upon the government to deal with it effectively.”

    While saying dialogue “must now be the highest priority,” it stipulates that talks should be pursued with those “elements” willing to follow the constitution and the “rule of law.”

    The Pakistani army is engaged in two major offensives in the northwest — one in the Swat Valley and one in the Bajur tribal area. The latter has killed more than 1,000 militants, officials say, including 25 in an ongoing operation begun on Wednesday. The U.S. has praised the crackdowns while warning that peace deals simply let militants regroup.

    Peace deals? What are those Pakistanis thinking? Peace is the last thing USA wants between the government of Pakistan and the militants. Pakistan must kill them, or USA will do it for them, right? This illustrates the profound quandary US policy has created for Pakistan. They cannot win; no matter what they do, USA will never be satisfied, and neither will the militants. Never mind the war on Afghanistan is hopelessly lost. Never mind the Pakistani militants might have good reason to sympathize with Afghans trying to throw out the invaders from the Western empire. US policy insists the war on terror must be won, regardless of what it costs! And Barack Obama has the nerve to say Bush coddled Pakistan, because it has not done enough to crush the enemy. Who is the enemy of peace in the world? USA presents itself as the victim of terrorism, fighting the good fight, the just war. This is all projection, the dying gasps of empire trying desperately to maintain the image of its innocence and goodness. Pakistan is caught in the middle, trying desperately not to antagonize its insatiably demanding ally while that policy rends its social fabric and economy. It needs Western aid in the worst way, but eventually the price of that aid will be too high to pay. For many in Pakistan, the price has been too high for a long time already.

12. Aletha Says:
    October 29th, 2008 at 10:10 pm

    Pakistan has filed a formal protest over the drone attacks. This story is from the New York Times

    Pakistan Tells U.S. to Stop Airstrikes in Tribal Zone
    By JANE PERLEZ

    PESHAWAR, Pakistan — The Pakistani government lodged a formal protest on Wednesday over American missile attacks on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the nation’s tribal areas and told the American ambassador the strikes should be “stopped immediately,” the Foreign Ministry said.

    Ambassador Anne Patterson was summoned to the ministry two days after a missile strike by a drone in South Waziristan killed 20 people, including several local Taliban commanders.

    Last Friday, a similar strike hit a religious school in North Waziristan, killing eight people, all of them militant fighters, according to local residents. There have been at least 19 American strikes against the militants in the tribal region since August.

    The escalation of the missile attacks has shaken the Pakistani public, and the new government led by President Asif Ali Zardari has been under pressure to distance itself from what is perceived as an American-led fight against terrorism inside Pakistan.

    Many Pakistanis, including representatives of political parties in the government coalition, say they believe the increase in suicide attacks, including the bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad on Sept. 20, is in retaliation for the American strikes.

    The Pakistani government has taken several steps in the last week to show its sensitivity to public hostility over the missile strikes. A two-week, on-and-off parliamentary debate on how to tackle terrorism resulted in a broad resolution last Thursday that called for talks with militants who renounced violence. The resolution also said the Pakistani Army, which is fighting the militants in the Bajaur region of the tribal area, should withdraw as soon as possible, and be replaced by civilian law enforcement agencies.

    On Tuesday, Afghan and Pakistani leaders pledged to seek talks with Taliban forces who lay down their weapons.

    Meanwhile, the Bush administration stepped up the missile strikes from Predator remotely piloted aircraft after Taliban forces in the Pakistani tribal belt conducted increasingly lethal attacks against American and coalition forces in Afghanistan.

    The Bush administration has also expressed concern that Al Qaeda is using the ungoverned tribal areas to prepare attacks against the United States and Europe. A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Mohammed Sadiq, said Ms. Patterson was told that the missile strikes were “counterproductive” to Pakistan’s efforts to win the allegiance of the residents of the tribal areas and to reduce their support of the militants.

    “The drone attacks have negative repercussions when the Pakistani government tries to get the support of the people in the tribal area,” Mr. Sadiq said. “They are not helping meet the objectives of the war on terror.”

    After Ms. Patterson left the ministry, the Pakistanis said in a statement, “It was emphasized that such attacks were a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and should be stopped immediately.”

    US politicians do not give a hoot about violating sovereignty. The war on terror trumps all such considerations. Never mind how counterproductive these violations are, or how they make the case that bin Laden has been arguing, that USA is waging a new crusade against Islam. The Bush doctrine is expanding, no doubt emboldened by reckless belligerent posturing from Obama and Biden. This is from another New York Times article, on Robert Gates announcing that the United States would hold “fully accountable” any country or group that helped terrorists to acquire or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. There has been talk that Mr. Gates might be held over to serve under Obama.

    On Monday, senior officials justified a weekend attack against a suspected Iraqi insurgent leader in Syria by saying the administration was operating under an expansive new definition of self-defense. The policy, officials said, provided a rationale for conventional strikes on militant targets in a sovereign nation without its consent — if that nation were unable or unwilling to halt the threat on its own.

    Congratulations, Bush, Obama, McCain, and all your colleagues standing meekly by. You have all helped make USA a rogue state, with no regard for international law. Just imagine if other nations were to adopt this rationale. The law of the jungle is being embraced by US politicians, to expand illegal wars of occupation into neighboring nations. If they are not 100% with us, they are against us, thus they deserve whatever they get? At this rate, USA will deserve the ignominy of starting the next world war in its vain attempts to maintain its military superiority. Will the peace candidate do anything to reverse this slippery slope? I would not hold my breath.

13. Aletha Says:
    November 1st, 2008 at 1:06 am

    Another missile attack has killed almost thirty people in Pakistan. This story is from Associated Press

    Suspected US missile strikes kill 27 in Pakistan
    By ISHTIAQ MASHUD – 15 hours ago

    DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan (AP) — Intelligence officials say suspected US missiles have hit two houses in northwest Pakistan, killing 27 people.

    Two suspected missiles hit a house in North Waziristan on Friday, killing 20 people, the officials said.

    A second house in northwest Pakistan was hit late Friday, killing seven including suspected foreign militants. That strike took place in Kari Kot in South Waziristan.

    THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

    DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan (AP) — Suspected U.S. missiles hit a house frequented by an Arab militant near the Afghan border Friday and killed 20 people, intelligence officials said, in the latest alleged American attack on targets inside Pakistan.

    It was unclear if the Arab, identified as Abu Kasha Iraqi, was among those killed in the attack, the officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

    Suspected U.S. unmanned planes have fired at militant targets in Pakistan at least 16 times since mid-August, putting pressure on extremists accused of planning attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan — and perhaps terror strikes in the West.

    But the marked uptick in their frequency is straining America’s seven-year alliance with Pakistan, where rising violence is exacerbating economic problems gnawing at the nuclear-armed country’s stability.

    The United States rarely confirms or denies firing the missiles and the identities of those killed are also rarely made public. Locals frequently say civilians, sometimes women and children, are among the dead.

    Two missiles were fired Friday into Mir Ali village in North Waziristan after drones had been flying overhead for several hours, the officials said, citing reports from agents and informers in the area.

    They said 20 people were killed in the attack, but their identifies were unknown.

    The first missile hit the house frequented by the Arab militant, while seconds later another blew up a car parked close by, the officials said.

    Pakistan says the strikes are violations of its sovereignty and insists it is tackling the militants, pointing out an ongoing military offensive just north of Waziristan that has killed some 1,500 insurgents.

    US politicians must think Pakistan is protesting for domestic consumption, so no big deal. How the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims will be won by this strategy is a mystery. It must be, that is besides the point; politicians say they are trying to win hearts and minds for domestic consumption, since they must know these raids are having the opposite effect. Why should Bush or Obama care about that? They want to win the war on terror at all costs. Since the hearts and minds are already lost, the only option is to escalate the war. If Pakistan does not like it, too bad. If these incursions violate international law, who cares? Obama makes such a big deal about improving the standing of USA in the world. Has he protested these attacks? That would make him a total hypocrite, since he has been calling for such attacks all along, while chiding Bush for coddling Pakistan. Bush may have been reluctant to antagonize Pakistan, but Obama forced his hand. The ouster of Pervez Musharraf and the attempts of the new government to talk peace with the militants probably helped Bush decide to take on the Obama strategy. After all, it would never do to be outhawked by the Democrats!

14. Aletha Says:
    November 7th, 2008 at 11:23 pm

    Another drone missile attack today killed at least ten. This story is from the New York Times

    U.S. Missile Attack Kills at Least 10 in Pakistan
    By PIR ZUBAIR SHAH and ALAN COWELL
    Published: November 7, 2008

    ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Missiles fired from a remotely piloted United States aircraft slammed into a village in the North Waziristan region of Pakistan along the Afghan border on Friday and killed 10 to 13 people, according to a local intelligence official, a Pakistani reporter and two Pakistani television channels.

    State television put the death toll at 10, and other news reports said the dead included eight local people and five foreigners. The deaths were the latest fatalities in a series of American missile attacks that have drawn increasingly irate protests from Pakistan to senior American officials, including the head of the United States Central Command, Gen. David H. Petraeus, and the American ambassador here, Anne W. Patterson.

    The Pakistani president, Asif Ali Zardari, and the prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, both condemned Friday’s attack.

    Since an American commando raid on Pakistani soil in early September, there have been reports of more than 15 American strikes directed at militants hiding out in the Waziristan region.

    The authorities accuse militants of using Waziristan as a base for attacks both in Pakistan and against the American-led coalition fighting an intensifying war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But Pakistan maintains that the American strikes undermine its own efforts to curb the violence.

    Pakistani state television said the latest attack hit the village of Kumshaam in the Razmak area of North Waziristan at 10:30 a.m. Friday. Four missiles struck a compound and adjoining guest rooms belonging to a local man identified as Alif Khan.

    A television station said remotely guided aircraft were seen flying over parts of North Waziristan. The strike was close to the border of North and South Waziristan, the intelligence and television channels said.

    While the missile strikes have caused many casualties, there have been no reports of fatalities among the most senior Qaeda and Taliban figures.

    What is this bombing campaign accomplishing, besides infuriating the people of Pakistan, and proving that USA is a rogue nation with no regard for international law? How long can Pakistan be expected to take this before it tells USA to take its aid and stuff it? Presumably Obama will find out. When Pakistan finally draws the line and means it, will Obama start a real war with this desperate nation with nuclear weapons? If he sticks to his policy, he will have no choice.

15. Aletha Says:
    November 8th, 2008 at 2:21 am

    This is a YouTube video of a report from the Pakistan border by an Al Jazeera reporter, Kamal Hyder. Traveling to Pakistan’s unsettled N Waziristan – 7 Nov 08

16. Aletha Says:
    November 14th, 2008 at 12:19 am

    Another missile attack killed at least a dozen people a few hours ago, targeting a Pakistani Taliban commander. This story is from Reuters

    U.S. missile attack kills at least 12 in Pakistan
    Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:33am EST

    MIRANSHAH, Pakistan (Reuters) – U.S. drones fired missiles into a Pakistani tribal region on Friday, killing 12 people, including five foreigners, in an area known as a stronghold of Pakistani Taliban commander Baitullah Mehsud.

    Pakistani officials said the attack targeted a house in a remote village on the border between North and South Waziristan, where Mehsud, an ally of al Qaeda, has been bottled up by Pakistani forces since early this year.

    “We have reports that 12 people were killed, including five foreigners,” a paramilitary official told Reuters by telephone from the area.

    A relative and aides to Mehsud, and Pakistani government and paramilitary officials said the attack happened at around 1:45 a.m. (2045 GMT), and at least three missiles were fired.

    The latest attack coincided with a visit by the commander of NATO-led forces in Afghanistan to Islamabad.

    General David McKiernan met with Pakistani parliamentarians at the U.S. embassy on Thursday to brief them on the security situation and efforts to combat the militancy threat, according to a lawmaker who attended, but requested anonymity.

    It seems Bush was stung by criticism from Obama of muddling through stamping out the Taliban. Is Bush trying to make up for lost time? Perhaps if these efforts snare Osama bin Laden, Bush will have a proud legacy after all. Not that he would deserve it. People might hope the extremists would be demoralized by losing their leader, but he would simply become a martyr, and that might result in a recruiting bonanza of people wishing to retaliate. Every violation of Pakistani sovereignty and every civilian casualty in Afghanistan or Pakistan is causing more Muslims to agree with the argument that USA is waging a crusade against Islam, and makes it that much harder to dispute that argument. The battle for Muslim hearts and minds is already too far gone to hope for a reversal on that score, especially since Obama promises more of the same.

17. Aletha Says:
    November 20th, 2008 at 12:02 am

    The missile attacks are moving deeper into Pakistani territory. This story is from the Washington Post

    Suspected U.S. Airstrike Kills 6 Fighters in Pakistan
    By Candace Rondeaux
    Washington Post Foreign Service
    Thursday, November 20, 2008; Page A18

    KABUL, Nov. 19 — A suspected U.S. airstrike deep inside Pakistani territory Wednesday killed six insurgent fighters and wounded several others, according to a Pakistani security official.

    The airstrike in the district of Bannu in the North-West Frontier Province appears to be the first such attack outside Pakistan’s tribal areas. It came as the country’s top military officer met with NATO officials in Brussels to discuss the cross-border missile strikes, which have been increasingly frequent in recent months and which the United States considers necessary for combating al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The attacks have stoked tensions in Pakistan and drawn public rebukes from the government.

    An unmanned U.S. Predator drone fired at least two missiles early Wednesday morning at a house near North Waziristan, one of seven semi-autonomous tribal territories that line Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. A Pakistani security official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly said the six who were killed were believed to be foreigners with suspected links to al-Qaeda.

    Frustrated by stalled progress in the seven-year Afghan war and by an increase in attacks emanating from Pakistan, the United States has carried out an estimated 26 strikes on targets in Pakistan so far this year. At least 20 of those attacks have occurred since August.

    U.S. military officials privately tout the drone strikes, saying they have damaged insurgent safe havens in Pakistan’s rugged tribal areas, and have killed a number of al-Qaeda and Taliban commanders.

    Shortly after Wednesday’s strike, Quazi Hussain Ahmad, head of the Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami, vowed to block a vital NATO supply route if the U.S. attacks continue, the Associated Press reported. NATO supply routes from Pakistan into Afghanistan have become targets for Taliban fighters in recent months. Last week, a Taliban raid on a NATO convoy near the Khyber Pass shut down military supply traffic for several days. The route was reopened Monday after Pakistani authorities assigned more security to the convoys.

    The attacks will continue. Bush is evidently still smarting over the remarks Obama has made about the neglect of the Afghan front. Frustration over the deteriorating war effort there is no excuse to violate the sovereignty of Pakistan, regardless of who there might be opposed to NATO occupying Afghanistan. However, rogue states like USA do not feel any need for an excuse to violate international law; by definition, that does not apply to rogue states. Obama has made a big deal over violations of the Geneva Conventions with regard to the treatment of prisoners, but the prohibition of violating the sovereign borders of another nation officially not at war with USA, in fact officially an ally, means no more to Obama than Bush. Since Bush has not done enough to stamp out the enemies of USA, Obama feels it will be his role to finish the job. Never mind that job is not feasible, and that trying creates more enemies and stiffens their resolve, a surefire way to lose more hearts and minds. Obama thinks he needs to prove he is just as Machiavellian as any neocon. Pakistan will not be getting a break until it becomes too clear to miss that the conquest of Afghanistan has utterly failed.

    Obama likes to mock the failed policies of Republicans; he is all set to go about compounding those failures. He talks about restoring the moral standing of USA, but his proposed changes in foreign policy will be too selective, too little, too late to impress anyone but allies aggrieved by such embarrassments as US unilateralism and torture of prisoners. Those who are predisposed to give Obama the benefit of the doubt may fall for his charm, but any objective observer will note how the changes are all on the surface. As long as Obama is intent on maintaining military superiority, USA will have no moral standing to stand upon.

18. Aletha Says:
    November 22nd, 2008 at 1:22 am

    After yet another drone attack, the chief minister of Pakistan is calling for an end to the missile strikes, and says Obama should be more understanding. This is wishful thinking, but he could be forgiven for believing Obama inspires hope. This story is from Agence France-Presse

    Pakistani chief minister urges end to US missile strikes
    HONG KONG (AFP) — The chief minister of Pakistan’s most populous province called Saturday for Washington to stop aerial missile strikes on the nation’s soil, as the latest raid killed four more suspected militants.

    Shahbaz Sharif, chief minister of Punjab and the president of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz party, said the strikes targeting Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants were only stoking tensions with Washington’s “war on terror” ally.

    “This is creating anger in Pakistan. This is creating friction between our two countries,” Sharif, the brother of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, told AFP in an interview.

    “I hope there’s no further tension and escalation of friction, but no sovereign country can allow this to happen,” he said. “Pakistan is a sovereign, independent country and our territory, our independence cannot be flouted.”

    Sharif said he hoped the incoming administration of US president-elect Barack Obama would stop such strikes and help reduce the current tensions with the Pakistan government of President Asif Ali Zardari.

    “President-elect Obama taking over the reins next January should result in better understanding of Pakistan’s problems and difficulties and sensitivities and should result in better cohesion between the two countries,” he said.

    He said Obama should “disallow his forces to enter Pakistan and engage with Pakistan in a manner where we consult with each other.”

    “We should be given a free hand. We are a sovereign country. There should be no intrusion and we should consult with each another like two friendly countries as we have always been,” he added.

    US spy planes have carried out more than 20 attacks in recent months and Islamabad this week lodged a strong protest with Washington over the strikes.

    “It is for Pakistan and Pakistanis to deal with this problem within the country,” Sharif said.

    Mr. Sharif can hope, but Obama has no intention of letting up. He means to stamp out al Qaeda and the Taliban, though he has hinted there may be moderate elements of the Taliban that could be spared if they negotiate for peace with the Afghan government. Pakistan may fight the militants as much as it dares, but this will not satisfy Obama. He is determined to show up Bush, who he has accused of neglecting Afghanistan and muddling through stamping out the Taliban. Obama means business. He wants to finish the job. Pakistan is already on the verge of civil war. Obama will push it over the edge, if Bush does not beat him to it. Despite his talk of diplomacy and opposition to the war on Iraq, he has surrounded himself with hawks, not the least of whom may be the next Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Obama seems bound and determined to prove he has no empathy for Muslims.

19. Aletha Says:
    December 23rd, 2008 at 12:01 am

    The drones are at it again. Today at least seven Pakistanis were killed by a missile attack. This story is from Reuters

    Suspected U.S. drones kill 7 in Pakistan: agents
    Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:31pm EST

    By Hafiz Wazir

    DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan (Reuters) – Suspected U.S. drones fired at least two missiles into Pakistan’s South Waziristan region on the Afghan border on Monday, killing seven people, intelligence agency officials and residents said.

    U.S. forces in Afghanistan, frustrated by a spreading Taliban insurgency that is getting support from militant enclaves in northwest Pakistan, have stepped up strikes by pilotless drones despite Pakistani objections.

    One missile hit a vehicle in a village near Wana, the main town in the region, killing four people, while three were killed in another strike in a nearby village, two Pakistani intelligence agency officials said.

    “Tribesmen opened fire on the drones after the attacks,” a Wana resident told Reuters by telephone.

    U.S. forces have carried out nearly 30 air strikes in Pakistan this year, according to a Reuters count, more than half since the beginning of September.

    The attacks have killed more than 220 people, including foreign militants, according to a tally of reports from Pakistani intelligence agents, district government officials and residents.

    Pakistan, under mounting international pressure to eliminate militants after last month’s assault on the Indian city of Mumbai, says the U.S. strikes violate its sovereignty and undermine efforts to fight militancy by inflaming public anger.

    Pakistan must eliminate its militants, or USA will do it for them? Such strange terms in the lexicon of warfare. Just how is Pakistan supposed to achieve that? It is already on the verge of civil war, and all the attempts to eliminate militants just create more sympathy for them. Pakistanis rightly wonder how do they benefit from fighting their own people to placate USA, an extremely unreliable ally to say the least. USA has its own pride and interests in mind, which do not mesh well with the well-being of the people of Pakistan. As this becomes more and more apparent, the fragile US-friendly government will lose its grip on power, as the people decide they have taken enough punishment from the arrogant superpower holding Pakistan hostage for desperately needed economic assistance. USA is taking a huge risk of overplaying its hand. Its hold on Afghanistan is rapidly dissolving, and taking out its frustration on Pakistan can only backfire.

20. Aletha Says:
    January 24th, 2009 at 2:04 am

    Obama has moved with alacrity to implement his policy of bombing Pakistan. Two strikes from Predator drones Friday killed at least eighteen people. This story is from the Guardian

    President orders air strikes on villages in tribal area
    Ewen MacAskill in Washington
    The Guardian, Saturday 24 January 2009

    Barack Obama gave the go-ahead for his first military action yesterday, missile strikes against suspected militants in Pakistan which killed at least 18 people.

    Four days after assuming the presidency, he was consulted by US commanders before they launched the two attacks. Although Obama has abandoned many of the “war on terror” policies of George Bush while he was president, he is not retreating from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders.

    The US believes they are hiding in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan, and made 30 strikes last year in which more than 200 people were killed. In the election, Obama hinted at increased operations in Pakistan, saying he thought Bush had made a mistake in switching to Iraq before completing the job against al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    Obama has warned that he is prepared to bomb inside Pakistan if he gets relevant intelligence about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. He had also said he would act against militants along the border if the Pakistan government failed to.

    The strikes will help Obama portray himself as a leader who, though ready to shift the balance of American power towards diplomacy, is not afraid of military action.

    The first attack yesterday was on the village of Zharki, in Waziristan; three missiles destroyed two houses and killed 10 people. One villager told Reuters of phonethat of nine bodies pulled from the rubble of one house, six were its owner and his relatives; Reuters added that intelligence officials said some foreign militants were also killed. A second attack hours later also in Warizistan killed eight people.

    The Pakistan government publicly expressed hope that the arrival of Obama would see a halt to such strikes, which stir up hostility from Pakistanis towards the government; in private, the government may be more relaxed about such attacks.

    There is a lot of nervousness in the new administration about the fragility of Pakistan, particularly as it has nuclear weapons, but it also sees Afghanistan and Pakistan as being linked. In the face of a Taliban resurgence, there is despair in Washington over the leadership of the Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai, and there will not be much disappointment if he is replaced in elections later this year.

    But Washington insists on seeing as one of its biggest problems the ability of the Taliban and al-Qaida to maintain havens in Pakistan. Obama on Thursday announced he was making veteran diplomat Richard Holbrooke a special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan. The secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, spoke by phone to the Pakistan president, Asif Ali Zardari.

    Anyone who thought Obama was afraid of military action was either dreaming or tossing around that old canard about Democrats being soft on terrorism. There was never any reason to believe Obama did not mean what he said about attacking Pakistan, though how he would justify such attacks he deliberately obfuscated. Obama clearly feels there is no need to justify violating the borders of Pakistan, since it is sheltering resistance fighters he deems terrorists, continuing the legacy of the Bush doctrine. Obama may find diplomacy a dead end as long as he insists on maintaining military supremacy. People are rightly suspicious of leaders of an empire. Obama will find there is no way to finish the job. Even with help from Russia and NATO, the battle to crush resistance in Afghanistan and Pakistan is hopeless and will surely backfire. Obama has shown once again that his bold talk of change is just talk. The empire is still bound and determined to defend not only its way of life, but its foolhardy ambitions of world domination. There may be nervousness in the new Administration about the fragility of Pakistan, but not enough sense to stop exacerbating that fragility.

21. Aletha Says:
    February 14th, 2009 at 2:45 am

    Another drone attack has killed at least twenty-five people in northwestern Pakistan. Obama means business. This story is from BBC News

    ‘US strike’ kills 25 in Pakistan
    At least 25 people have been killed in a suspected US missile attack in north-west Pakistan, officials say.

    The missile strike hit a house in the South Waziristan area, near the Afghan border, which officials said was used as a hide-out for Taleban militants.

    The Taleban confirmed 25 militants were killed in the attack. The US has not confirmed it launched the strike.

    The US has carried out more than 20 air strikes from drones in north-western Pakistan in recent months.

    Islamabad has long argued that such attacks complicate its own fight against insurgents, and say the strikes violate its sovereignty.

    Pakistani leaders had expressed hope that the new US administration of Barack Obama would halt the controversial manoeuvres.

    But earlier this week Mr Obama said there was no doubt militants were operating in safe havens in Pakistan’s tribal belt and that the US would make sure Pakistan was a strong ally in fighting that threat.

    Obama will make sure Pakistan lives up to the promises of its leaders to combat the Taliban. Pakistan is in a no-win situation. It cannot convince Obama it is doing enough, so Obama will help them along. Sooner or later Pakistan will either decide not to cooperate or descend into chaos, if not all-out civil war. Then what will Obama do? Take over Pakistan? This strategy cannot succeed except in proving to Muslims all over the world that USA is waging a war against Islam, just as Osama bin Laden has been saying. Bush used to be the best recruiter for Islamic extremists. Obama may prove to be a better one. President Zardari acknowledges the Taliban is trying to take over Pakistan. The Obama strategy just might make that happen. Pakistanis are sick of fighting a proxy war for USA, and the more USA violates the sovereignty of Pakistan, the sicker they will get, making the case for the Taliban.

22. Aletha Says:
    February 18th, 2009 at 12:13 am

    Another drone attack killed at least twenty-six yesterday. This story is from Reuters

    Suspected U.S. missile strike kills 26 in Pakistan
    Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:23pm GMT

    By Javed Hussain

    PARACHINAR, Pakistan (Reuters) – A suspected U.S. missile strike killed at least 26 people, many of them Taliban militants, in Pakistan’s Kurram tribal region on the Afghan border on Monday, intelligence officials said.

    The missiles, believed to have been fired by a pilotless drone aircraft, hit a school that was once used by Afghan refugees’ children, before militants moved in around two years ago, according to villagers.

    “Afghan Taliban were holding an important meeting there when the missiles were fired,” one of intelligence official in the area said.

    The target was in a mountainous north-western region called Sarpul, on the outskirts of Baggan village. A militant in Kurram put the death toll lower, but said Afghan and Pakistani Taliban were among those killed.

    The attack was the first in the Kurram tribal region and came two days after a missile strike in the South Waziristan tribal region killed at least 25 mostly Central Asian fighters believed to have al Qaeda links.

    This was the fourth attack since U.S. President Barack Obama took office last month, showing there was no change in policy since the last year of the Bush administration, when drone attacks against militant targets on Pakistani soil multiplied.

    Pakistan’s civilian government, elected a year ago, and the army have complained that the U.S. missile strikes are counterproductive and have fanned an Islamist insurgency across northwest Pakistan.

    A senior U.S. lawmaker, Senator Dianne Feinstein, kicked off a fresh controversy when she told a Senate hearing last week that drones were being operated and flown from an air base inside Pakistan.

    Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi denied this.

    “Pakistan has not allowed these drone attacks, there was no permission before nor is there any now,” he told reporters in the central city of Multan late on Sunday.

    “This is happening without any understanding and it is affecting our sovereignty, and we think that it is causing collateral damage.”

    That is an interesting revelation by Senator Feinstein. Perhaps USA is using an air base in Pakistan for such purposes without informing Pakistani authorities. There is so much intrigue going on there, it would not surprise me, but it would show even less regard for the requirements of international law than the attacks themselves, which are clearly aggressive, not in self-defense, thus forbidden under international law. Obama is determined to show he can wage the war on terror better than his predecessor, so he has no compunctions about preemptive attacks on a country ostensibly not at war with USA, at least not yet. He decided to send the first contingent of 17000 troops to shore up the war effort in Afghanistan.

    This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires.

    Yes, but the direction Obama is going will not stabilize the situation. It may do as much to destabilize USA as a similar attempt to conquer that nation destabilized the former Soviet Union.

    Meanwhile, Pakistan is trying to make peace with the Taliban in the Swat province, allowing them to impose Islamic law. NATO is alarmed.

    NATO cautions Pakistan over truce with Taliban
    By SHERIN ZADA, Associated Press Writer Sherin Zada, Associated Press Writer
    Tue Feb 17, 4:20 pm ET

    MINGORA, Pakistan – NATO led a growing chorus of international concern Tuesday by warning that a truce between the government of Pakistan and Taliban militants in a restive region near the Afghan border risks giving the extremists a “safe haven.”

    A hard-line cleric sent to the battle-scarred Swat Valley to negotiate with the Taliban received a hero’s welcome there by crowds shouting “Long live Islam! Long live peace!”

    The cleric, Sufi Muhammad, expressed hope the militants would give up their arms to honor the pact, which imposes Islamic law and suspends a military offensive in the former tourist haven and nearby areas.

    NATO has 55,000 troops in Afghanistan, and many face attacks by Taliban and al-Qaida fighters believed to find refuge in pockets of Pakistan’s northwest.

    In the last few months, Swat has largely fallen to militants who have beheaded opponents, burned scores of girls’ schools and banned many forms of entertainment. Gunbattles between security forces and militants have killed hundreds, while up to a third of the valley’s 1.5 million people have fled.

    The truce “is certainly reason for concern,” NATO spokesman James Appathurai said in Brussels. “We should all be concerned by a situation in which extremists would have a safe haven. Without doubting the good faith of the Pakistani government, it is clear that the region is suffering very badly from extremists and we would not want it to get worse.”

    “We will soon open dialogue with the Taliban. We will ask them to lay down their weapons. We are hopeful that they will not let us down,” Muhammad told reporters. “We will stay here in the valley until peace is restored.”

    Muhammad was detained in 2002 after he sent thousands of volunteers to fight the U.S. in Afghanistan, but Pakistan freed him last year after he agreed to renounce violence. It is unclear how much influence he has over Fazlullah or exactly where and when they would meet.

    The Swat Taliban said Sunday they would observe an initial 10-day cease-fire as a goodwill gesture.

    Pakistan’s inability to regain Swat has embarrassed the shaky civilian government. However, Pakistani leaders insisted the deal was not a concession, but an attempt to fulfill demands by locals for a more efficient justice system.

    “Those who want to live in a peaceful world will take steps like ours, and those who want to live in a violent world will take opposite steps,” said Mian Iftikhar Hussain, information minister for the North West Frontier Province. “The need of the hour is to put water on fire, not to fuel it.”

    The government of Pakistan is desperate, but it appears they are working harder for peace than NATO, which is busily pouring fuel on that fire.

23. Aletha Says:
    February 27th, 2009 at 12:33 am

    The new CIA chief, Leon Panetta, is optimistic about the results of attacking Pakistan with missiles from drones. This story is from the Washington Post

    Drone Attacks Inside Pakistan Will Continue, CIA Chief Says
    By Karen DeYoung and Joby Warrick
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Thursday, February 26, 2009; Page A10

    CIA Director Leon Panetta said yesterday that U.S. aerial attacks against al-Qaeda and other extremist strongholds inside Pakistan would continue, despite concerns about a popular Pakistani backlash.

    “Nothing has changed our efforts to go after terrorists, and nothing will change those efforts,” Panetta said in response to questions about CIA missile attacks, launched from unmanned Predator aircraft. Although he refused to discuss details of the attacks — and the CIA will not confirm publicly that it is behind the strikes — Panetta said that the efforts begun under President George W. Bush to destabilize al-Qaeda and destroy its leadership “have been successful.”

    “I don’t think we can stop just at the effort to try to disrupt them. I think it has to be a continuing effort, because they aren’t going to stop,” Panetta said in his first news briefing since taking the job. The CIA has launched about three dozen Predator strikes in Pakistan since late last summer, two of them during the Obama administration.

    Panetta’s comments came as senior Pakistani and Afghan leaders held lengthy talks here with each other and with their U.S. counterparts. Obama administration officials said that the unprecedented consultations were as important as any substantive agreements that may emerge from them.

    “We have two goals,” a senior administration official said. One is to receive their input for the Obama administration’s ongoing strategy review on Afghanistan and Pakistan, he said. “But it’s also to hear commitments — the Pakistanis on taking on terrorists themselves, and the Afghans on cleaning up their government.”

    “There are not too many brand-new ideas,” the official said. “But our expectations of what they have to do are not just based on what we want them to do, but what they say they’re going to do. It gives us a different basis for going back to them in the future.”

    The difference between the Obama and Bush administrations, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said, is that “the present administration is willing to listen. They are very frank. They’re saying, ‘We do not have a magic formula. . . . Let Pakistan, let the U.S., let Afghanistan — let’s all stick together and find a solution,” Qureshi told CNN.

    The meetings have not been without conflict. Panetta, who has participated in the sessions, said he had voiced concerns about Pakistan’s recently announced truce with local Taliban leaders in that country’s Swat Valley region, and noted that similar agreements with militant groups in the past had allowed al-Qaeda to strengthen its base. “They assured me that this is not the same as past agreements,” Panetta said. “I remain skeptical.”

    In a series of interviews yesterday, Qureshi said that Pakistan objected to the Predator strikes and that he has asked the United States to supply his country with drones to carry out its own missile attacks against extremists. Pakistan has also requested other sophisticated weaponry, including Cobra attack helicopters, communications and night-vision equipment. Although the drones are unlikely — and both U.S. and Pakistani officials say they are privately in agreement on continuation of the CIA strikes — the administration and Congress are likely to approve more military assistance along with a multibillion-dollar aid package.

    Legislation introduced in the Senate last year by Vice President Biden, and soon to be sponsored by his successor as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), and Sen. Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), ranking Republican, calls for about $1.5 million (sic) a year in economic and development assistance for Pakistan over the next five years.

    A report released yesterday by the Atlantic Council said that at least double that amount is needed from the United States and the international community if Pakistan is to be brought back “from the brink.” Pakistan, it said, “is on a rapid trajectory toward becoming a failing or failed state.”

    In a report last year, under the leadership of James L. Jones, who is now the national security adviser, the Atlantic Council warned that the West was “not winning in Afghanistan.”

    Obama, while calling for improved governance in Afghanistan, has publicly suggested that the United States adopt the “very limited goal” of ensuring that “Afghanistan cannot be used as a base for launching terrorist attacks” against the United States.

    That goal may be limited, but its vagueness is not. Just how does Obama intend to accomplish this? He is bound to make more enemies in both Afghanistan and Pakistan than Bush ever did. Obama may appear willing to listen, but he will not be swayed by reason. If he were, he would soon realize his policy is utterly untenable. Officials in Afghanistan and Pakistan will not put it that bluntly, because they are dependent on US aid, but willingness to listen will mean nothing if his policy is to win this war that he accuses Bush of neglecting. Perhaps Bush had a reason for putting the conquest of Afghanistan on the back burner. Perhaps for his purposes, he had accomplished what he intended to do, get the Taliban out of the way so a pipeline could be built through Afghanistan. That the country was a total wreck probably did not concern him, but Obama will make a bigger mess trying to fix things, finish the job as he puts it.

    Meanwhile Pakistan is well on the road to utter chaos, pushed beyond endurance by US demands, which Obama has no business or moral high ground making. He and Panetta share skepticism of Pakistani assurances of cooperation, for good reason. Pakistan cannot deliver, and the more USA pushes Pakistan, the less able it will be to deliver on its promises. This is a recipe for disaster, and Obama is intelligent enough to comprehend that, but something in him must prove he and his party can do better at fighting the war on terror. He will find escalating the quagmire Bush started will only deepen it.

    People may be frustrated that Obama seems reticent to prosecute his predecessor for war crimes. How can he, when his policy is to continue them? His reckless rhetoric during the campaign probably encouraged Bush to initiate the drone attacks, in clear violation of international law. Pakistan has no appetite to crush the Taliban; it has close ties with them. Why should it violate the wishes of its own people to satisfy US demands? Only out of desperation is it cooperating at all, but even desperation has its limits. When those limits are reached, USA will be facing a real enemy, with a strong army and many nuclear weapons. Even during the Cold War, USA and Soviet Union only fought proxy wars. This looming confrontation Obama is provoking could be much worse.

24. Aletha Says:
    March 3rd, 2009 at 1:03 am

    Another drone attack yesterday killed at least eight people inside Pakistan. This story is from the Los Angeles Times

    Pakistan says missile strike kills 8 near Afghan border

    By Laura King
    March 2, 2009
    Reporting from Islamabad — A missile attack Sunday near Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan, believed to have been carried out by a U.S. drone aircraft, killed at least eight people, Pakistani officials said.

    The strike, the first of its kind since a high-level Pakistani military delegation visited the United States last week, suggested that the Obama administration intended to press ahead with a campaign of targeting militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

    Two missiles hit a compound near the Sararogha area of South Waziristan. The area is a stronghold of Baitullah Mahsud, the leader of Pakistan’s Taliban movement.

    Local and intelligence officials said at least some of those killed were “foreigners” — the term usually used to describe militants from Central Asia or Arab countries who often have links to Al Qaeda.

    Drone attacks in the tribal areas intensified toward the end of the Bush administration; about 30 such strikes were carried out in the last six months of 2008. Pakistan has publicly protested the raids, but it is widely believed that the government of President Asif Ali Zardari allows them.

    The attacks, highly unpopular with Pakistanis, have been politically sensitive for Zardari’s government, which is fending off a strong challenge from opposition leader Nawaz Sharif. Pakistan’s Supreme Court, in a controversial verdict, last week banned Sharif and his brother, Shahbaz Sharif, from running for office.

    Supporters of the two rioted for days in Punjab province, their stronghold. On Saturday, during a stormy session of parliament, backers of the Sharifs denounced Zardari, and jeers echoed through the chamber.

    Zardari was not present for the session. Except for trips abroad, he has lately stayed mostly out of sight.

    The Sharifs’ political party has gained considerable public support because of Nawaz Sharif’s fiery calls for the reinstatement of the Supreme Court chief justice dismissed in 2007 by then-President Pervez Musharraf. Sharif has accused Zardari of carrying on the legacy of the onetime military leader with his failure to reinstate the justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry.

    Many commentators believe that Zardari does not want Chaudhry back on the bench because he fears corruption charges against him would be reinstated.

    Keep going, President Obama, if you want Pakistan to become an enemy. Zardari may be trying to appease US demands, but this is making him more and more unpopular, to the point that he may become equivalent to the US puppet in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, generally derided as the mayor of Kabul, since that is about all he controls, and only that by dint of US support, as opposed to the support of his people. When will US leaders realize they cannot win the hearts and minds of the people by propping up corrupt puppets? Obama at least seems to realize there is a problem with that policy, but what is his plan to change it? Send in more troops and drones to kill as many Taliban as possible? USA has no business trying to occupy Afghanistan, or attack resistance fighters taking refuge across the border in Pakistan. Obama talks a good game about change, diplomacy, not relying solely on military might, but his foreign policy tells a different tale, just a different style of imposing the will of the empire.

25. Aletha Says:
    April 3rd, 2009 at 9:38 pm

    Two more drone attacks this week. This story is from BBC News

    ‘Deadly air strike’ in Pakistan

    A suspected US missile strike in north-west Pakistan has killed 13 people, local security officials have said.

    The apparent drone attack targeted a home in the North Waziristan region near the Afghan border, officials said.

    Pakistan is critical of drone use because, it says, civilians are often killed, fuelling support for militants.

    The latest missile strike occurred at 0300 local time (2200 GMT on Friday), officials said.

    It targeted a local tribesman’s compound near the region’s main town of Miranshah, according to reports.

    A number of foreign militants were among those killed, security officials said.

    The latest incident comes only three days after a missile fired by a suspected US drone killed at least 14 people in Pakistan’s Orakzai tribal area, near the Afghan border.

    Correspondents say that more than 35 suspected drone strikes have killed more than 340 people since August 2008, shortly before the election of President Asif Ali Zardari.

    It really makes me wonder what about the new strategy Obama announced President Zardari likes. Reportedly Zardari is pleased about the offer of continued aid, which he might have feared would be cut off, since USA is constantly hinting, with words and bombs, that Pakistan is not doing enough to fight the extremists. Zardari is so notoriously corrupt, perhaps all he cares about is the money. It is hard to tell, because he is in an impossible position, trying to placate USA without antagonizing his own people. Obama and the generals seem unconcerned about destabilizing Pakistan, or that Afghanistan is likely to become the new Vietnam. This is the folly of imperial hubris that always destroys empires. Even for me, having expected this, it is disheartening to see how little has changed, after all the high hopes people had for Obama.

26. Aletha Says:
    June 23rd, 2009 at 9:10 pm

    The most deadly drone attack on Pakistan yet occurred today, according to Pakistani intelligence officials, though accounts of the death toll vary from ten to at least sixty. As usual, USA is denying any involvement. This story is from Al Jazeera

    Pakistan Taliban hit by US drones

    At least 45 people have been killed and dozens wounded in a series of missile raids by US drones in northwest Pakistan, Pakistani intelligence officials have said.

    The first missile attack early on Tuesday hit what authorities said was a “Taliban training centre” in the South Waziristan tribal region that borders Afghanistan.

    Several hours later a second attack was carried out during a funeral procession for those killed in the first raid.

    There have reportedly been more than 20 US drone attacks against targets in Pakistan so far this year, although Tuesday’s strikes are the deadliest to date.

    Pakistan officially objects to strikes on its territory by the pilotless US aircraft, although Tuesday’s attacks came as the Pakistani army was preparing to launch an offensive against the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud.

    US denial

    Asked by Al Jazeera to comment on Tuesday’s reported attacks, the Pentagon denied any US involvement.

    “There are no US military strike operations being conducted in Pakistan,” a statement said.

    Al Jazeera’s Kamal Hyder, reporting from Islamabad, said reports suggested that the leader of the Pakistani Taliban may have been attending the funeral ceremony when it was hit.

    “There are reports that Mehsud himself was at that congregational prayer and escaped the attack.

    “However, we are told that a number of people present at that particular moment were killed,” he said.

    “There were unconfirmed reports that the death toll is much higher because a number of the bodies are badly mutilated.”

    The missile strikes came on the same day a key rival of Mehsud, Qari Zainuddin, was assassinated the northwestern town of Dera, police said.

    Zainuddin, a Taliban commander, had spoken out strongly against the Taliban chief and may have been about to mount a challenge against him.

    Potential backlash

    Pakistan’s military mounted an operation earlier this month against Mehsud in South Waziristan.

    But our correspondent said Tuesday’s attack is likely to cause considerable anger and backlash in the country.

    “It may play into the hands of elements like Mehsud because the attack took place on a funeral – there are cultural sensitivities here as well,” he said.

    “Such attacks are likely to complicate the situation for the Pakistani military because they have to be equally sensitive to public opinion in that area – something that is not going to be helped by the drones.”

    Frequent attacks by pilotless US drone aircraft have been heavily criticised by Pakistani leaders for killing innocent bystanders and infringing upon national sovereignty.

    What does it take for the blood on the hands of President Obama to register? Bombing a funeral is a war crime, plain and simple. It does not matter if the funeral is for an enemy. USA is not at war with Pakistan, at least not officially, yet. Is that what Obama wants? What else could he realistically expect from this continual provocation? Does he expect the Taliban to roll over and give up? Pakistan is rapidly descending into the utter chaos of civil war, as its military attempts to do the bidding of its dubious ally, USA. This is no way to win hearts and minds. If the Islamic extremists were not also killing civilians, they would have no trouble painting USA as the enemy of all Muslims. As it stands, nobody has any reasonable claim to the moral high ground, so moderate Muslims have not yet flocked to the call of jihad. That may well be in the cards if Obama does not change course, and that could spell a new world war. Perhaps the only reason that did not happen under Bush was because Muslims hoped things would get better once Bush left office. Once they realize how little the lofty rhetoric of Obama about diplomacy and mutual respect actually means, all hell could break loose.

27. Aletha Says:
    September 25th, 2009 at 10:48 pm

    The war on Afghanistan is steadily losing support, but there is no letup in the drone attacks. This story is from Reuters

    U.S. missile strike kills 12 Afghans in Pakistan
    Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:27am EDT

    MIRANSHAH, Pakistan (Reuters) – A U.S. drone aircraft killed 12 Afghan militants in a missile strike in Pakistan near the house of an Afghan Taliban commander allied to al Qaeda, intelligence officials and residents said on Friday.

    Four missiles hit a house shortly before midnight on Thursday in a North Waziristan, about 15 km (10 miles) from the Afghan border.

    Pakistani security officials initially said three people had been killed but an intelligence agency official said on Friday 12 Afghan militants were killed.

    “All those killed were Afghans; men who had come from Logar,” a villager said referring to an Afghan province south of the capital, Kabul.

    Frustrated by an intensifying Afghan insurgency getting support form bases in lawless northwestern Pakistani border enclaves, the United States stepped up its attacks with pilotless drones last year.

    There have been about 57 such strikes since the beginning of 2008 in which about 500 people have been killed, many of them militants, according to a tally of reports from Pakistani security agents and residents.

    Many of them militants? Frustration with rebellion against an illegal occupation is no excuse for killing anyone, let alone civilians, but that will not stop President Obama from trying to crush al Qaida and the Taliban. Presumably nothing will stop this futile, illegal, immoral effort until people at home have had enough. This may come about sooner than anyone in the Administration thinks. Obama asks for patience. Where have we heard that before? His reasons for carrying on are as phony as any excuse for war has been. Afghanistan did not attack USA. The Taliban may despise USA, but they did offer to turn over Osama bin Laden if given evidence of his culpability. This was rewarded by the destruction and occupation of Afghanistan. That was an act of imperial hubris, not a necessary war as Obama likes to call it. No empire has lasted, and this one will meet the same fate if it does not radically change its attitude, which means it must stop trying to dominate the world.

28. Aletha Says:
    October 27th, 2009 at 10:54 pm

    UN human rights investigator Philip Alston has warned USA of what should be obvious, that its use of drones for targeted executions is violating international law. This AP story is from Yahoo News

    UN investigator warns US on use of drones
    By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer
    Tue Oct 27, 9:16 pm ET

    UNITED NATIONS – A U.N. human rights investigator warned the United States Tuesday that its use of unmanned warplanes to carry out targeted executions may violate international law.

    Philip Alston said that unless the Obama administration explains the legal basis for targeting particular individuals and the measures it is taking to comply with international humanitarian law which prohibits arbitrary executions, “it will increasingly be perceived as carrying out indiscriminate killings in violation of international law.”

    Alston, the U.N. Human Rights Council’s investigator on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions, raised the issue of U.S. Predator drones in a report to the General Assembly’s human rights committee and at a news conference afterwards, saying he has become increasingly concerned at the dramatic increase in their use, especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan, since June.

    He said the U.S. response — that the Geneva-based council and the General Assembly have no role in relation to killings during an armed conflict — “is simply untenable.”

    “That would remove the great majority of issues that come before these bodies right now,” Alston said. “The onus is really on the government of the United States to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions, extrajudicial executions are not, in fact, being carried out through the use of these weapons.”

    Alston said the U.S. should provide details on use of drones, disclose what precautions it takes to ensure the unmanned aircraft are used strictly for purposes consistent with international humanitarian law, and what measures exist to evaluate what happened when their weapons have been used.

    “Otherwise, you have the really problematic bottom line — which is that the Central Intelligence Agency is running a program which is killing significant numbers of people, and there is absolutely no accountability in terms of the relevant international laws,” he said.

    Alston calls the US response untenable. It is worse than that; it shows the utter contempt USA has for international law. Like its erstwhile ally Israel, USA simply dismisses UN jurisdiction. One might have expected President Obama to show a bit more respect for international law than Bush, but that would be naive. Obama is hell bent on winning the war on terror, though he dislikes that terminology, and he is not about to let details like accountability to international law get in the way. Obama gave Bush cover to escalate the drone attacks on Pakistan, then Obama ramped them up considerably as he turned the focus of the war efforts from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Finally someone at UN is raising the issue of extrajudicial murder. Alston is softpedaling his criticism, pointing out some ways USA could justify the attacks, though he must know full well USA is simply a international scofflaw and could never meet the standards he has outlined. There is no way the drone attacks are consistent with international law, and they obviously are being used to carry out extrajudicial executions, with considerable arbitrary collateral damage, i.e. plenty of dead and wounded civilians.

    During the campaign, Obama stressed he would act on what he called actionable intelligence. Not only are the standards the drone commanders use to determine what is actionable rather loose, the intelligence is often wrong. The result is a few enemy leaders dead, accompanied by the inevitable much larger bunch of indiscriminate killings. Not only is this no way to win over hearts and minds, it demonstrates that whatever has changed in US foreign policy since the election is just on the surface; USA is still one of the leading international scofflaws, and shows no signs of mending its imperial ways. It was a sad day when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to another war criminal, but it would be naive to expect that Henry Kissinger would be the last example. He and Obama have some characteristics in common, both smooth talking diplomats responsible for war crimes while talking a good game about peace.

29. Aletha Says:
    October 29th, 2009 at 11:34 pm

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in Pakistan, ostensibly on a fence-mending mission, though it seems she is bristling at some of the criticism of US policy, and threw out a few barbs of her own. This story is from the New York Times

    Clinton Challenges Pakistanis on Al Qaeda
    By MARK LANDLER
    Published: October 29, 2009

    LAHORE, Pakistan — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, on a visit meant to improve relations with Pakistan, strongly suggested Thursday that some Pakistani officials bore responsibility for allowing Al Qaeda terrorists to operate from safe havens along this country’s frontier.

    “I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are, and couldn’t get to them if they really wanted to,” she said to a group of Pakistani journalists on her second day here. “Maybe that’s the case; maybe they’re not gettable. I don’t know.”

    It is extremely rare for an official of Mrs. Clinton’s rank to say publicly what American politicians and intelligence officials have said in more guarded ways for years. The remarks upset her hosts, who have had hundreds of soldiers and civilians killed as Pakistan has taken on a widening campaign against certain militant groups that have threatened the state from the country’s tribal areas.

    But they gave voice to the long-time frustration of American officials with what they see as the Pakistani government’s lack of resolve in rooting out not only Al Qaeda but also the Taliban leadership based in Quetta, and a host of militant groups that use the border region to stage attacks on American and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

    Mrs. Clinton’s statement was only one of several pointed remarks on issues ranging from security to poor tax collection during a day in which she ran into a wall of distrust and mostly hostile questioning in public appearances intended to soothe relations, suggesting she was no longer willing merely to listen to Pakistan’s grievances.

    Rarely in her travels as secretary of state has Mrs. Clinton encountered an audience so uniformly suspicious and immune to her star power as the polite, but unsmiling university students that challenged her at Government College University in this edgy Pakistani city.

    One after another, they lined up to grill Mrs. Clinton about what they see as the dysfunctional relationship between Pakistan and the United States — a litany of slights, betrayals, and misunderstandings that add up to a national narrative of grievance, against which she did her best to push back.

    Why the United States abandoned Pakistan after the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan? Why the Bush administration supported the previous military government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf? What about reports in the Pakistani news media that American contractors illegally carried weapons in Islamabad?

    At times during this three-day visit, Mrs. Clinton has sounded less like a diplomat than a marriage counselor. But her soothing approach has won her few friends. She got tepid applause from the students here, some of whom groaned audibly when she defended American policies.

    Here, even her fans came armed with spears. A young female medical student thanked Mrs. Clinton for being an inspiration to women, then asked her how the United States could justify ordering Predator strikes on targets in Pakistan without sharing intelligence with its military.

    Mrs. Clinton declined to comment on the program, which is run by the Central Intelligence Agency. But she said, “The war that your government and your military are waging right now is an important one for the country.”

    At the university, a young man, after asserting that President Obama failed to fix policies on Iraq or detainees, told Mrs. Clinton that the United States was forcing Pakistan into a ruinous war.

    She noted that the government decided to fight only after its efforts to cut a deal with militants failed. “Slowly, but insidiously, you were losing territory,” Mrs. Clinton said. “If you want to see your territory shrink, that’s your choice. But I don’t think that’s the right choice.”

    USA lecturing Pakistan about the right choice, that is a good one. Is it the right choice to bomb Pakistan in violation of international law? Is it even remotely tenable for Pakistan to try to kill all its militants, as USA is heavily pressuring the government to do? No, it is a ruinous war, both for Pakistan and USA. Clinton declined to comment on the drone attacks. Even for someone of her considerable verbal skills, defending that particularly indefensible policy is something she prudently decided not to attempt. Pakistan might be able to make a deal with its militant factions if USA were not determined to undercut such a deal in every way it could.

    USA does not have clean hands, nor the moral high ground in its dealings with Pakistan. Despite what Obama claims, defeating the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan is not a war of necessity, and will not help make USA safer from terrorist attacks. That effort is wrongheaded, reckless, futile, and bound to backfire, eventually costing USA whatever good will Obama has garnered through his efforts to distinguish himself from Bush. US officials may feel Pakistan could root out al Qaeda, but Pakistan is full of good places to hide, not to mention people sympathetic to those fighting against USA. The control the Pakistan government has over much of its territory is tenuous to nonexistent. Pakistan has tried and failed to assert control over its lawless regions on several occasions, but under heavy US pressure, it is trying again. How this will benefit Pakistan is not at all clear to its people; it is more likely to result in civil war or utter chaos than a victory for the government. If that government falls, Pakistan will be worse than an unreliable ally of USA; it will be an enemy nation with nuclear weapons and one of the largest armies in the world. This is what Obama is risking, and for what end? The purpose he states is unattainable, which he probably knows full well, so there must be another purpose. Is it to keep the military industrial complex humming along? Obama shows no sign of trying to rein that in, scrapping a few useless weapon systems notwithstanding. His rhetoric may have won him the Nobel Peace Prize, but his actions speak louder than his words.

30. Aletha Says:
    January 14th, 2010 at 1:39 am

    This month has already seen seven drone attacks. Perhaps the CIA is smarting over its recent losses in the suicide attack by a double agent. US officials have the gall to protest that Pakistan is publicly attacking these drone attacks. This story is from Agence France Presse

    US missile strike kills 10 in NW Pakistan: officials
    By S.H. Khan (AFP) – 3 hours ago

    PESHAWAR, Pakistan — Missiles fired by US drone aircraft hit a militant training camp in northwest Pakistan Thursday, killing at least 10 people, officials said, as Washington and Islamabad clash over the strikes.

    It was the seventh bombing raid by unmanned US planes this month as Pakistan sees a surge in the strikes, which fuel anti-American sentiment in the nuclear-armed Muslim nation and draw public condemnation from the government.

    US officials say the attacks are necessary to protect NATO troops fighting over the border in Afghanistan, and are urging Pakistan to do more to dismantle militant safe havens carved out along the lawless frontier.

    All seven strikes this year have hit North Waziristan, a bastion of Al-Qaeda fighters, the Taliban and the Haqqani network which launches attacks on the 113,000 US and NATO troops fighting the Taliban in neighbouring Afghanistan.

    The administration of US President Barack Obama has put Pakistan at the heart of its fight against Al-Qaeda and Islamist extremists and says the war in Afghanistan cannot be won without Islamabad’s help, but tensions simmer.

    A US senator on Wednesday scolded Pakistan’s leaders for privately supporting US drone strikes while publicly denouncing them.

    “What troubles me is the public attack on these drone attacks when at the same time they’ve privately obviously not told us that we must stop,” said Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee.

    Pakistan’s leaders “not only understand and acquiesce, but in many cases privately support the drone attacks,” Levin said, adding that “the minimum we should expect is a silence on their part rather than a public attack on us.”

    Such criticism “creates real problems for us in terms of the Pakistani public and helps create some real animosity towards us — a sense of revenge, the implication that we’re violating Pakistan’s sovereignty,” he said.

    On Wednesday, Pakistan’s foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said the strikes sour relations with Washington, while President Asif Ali Zardari has warned they undermine public support for their own military operations.

    Senator Levin ignores the obvious, that it is not an implication that USA is violating the sovereignty of Pakistan, it is a fact. How convenient to blame criticism from the leaders of Pakistan for creating animosity toward USA. Since the government of Pakistan is heavily dependent on US aid, it is not surprising the leaders talk one way in private and another in public. USA has created a no-win situation for Pakistan; if it appears to be cooperating with US efforts, its people will revolt, and if it stops cooperating, USA has threatened to cut off aid. Levin asks for silence at minimum, as if that will help matters. It is interesting that he implies not all of the leaders of Pakistan support these drone attacks, even privately. Levin probably knows that those who do support the attacks do so out of desperation, since the government is on very shaky ground, perhaps less likely to survive than the government of Afghanistan.

    US officials claim these attacks are necessary to protect NATO troops over the border. It is true enough that when one nation is trying to occupy another, it is vulnerable to attacks from unfriendly neighboring nations. This does not justify violating the sovereignty of those neighboring nations, especially when the occupation is itself violating international law. USA does not have the moral high ground, so it cannot claim necessity as a justification for these attacks, since the occupation is unjustifiable to begin with. Even if it were justifiable, it is abjectly self-serving to justify expanding a war on the grounds that the war would be lost otherwise. The war is hopelessly lost, illegal, unjustifiable, and chock full of war crimes, all to support a grossly corrupt and misogynistic government. The only things this can possibly accomplish are to satisfy the US desire for revenge for the 9/11/01 attacks, and to make lots of money for the military industrial complex. Where is the change Obama promised? Is this his idea of change, switching US focus from one quagmire to another?

31. Aletha Says:
    February 4th, 2010 at 12:03 am

    Three US Marines were killed today as the convoy they accompanied in Pakistan was bombed. This story is from the Washington Post

    Blast kills 3 U.S. troops in northwest Pakistan
    By Karin Brulliard and Haq Nawaz Khan
    Washington Post Foreign Service
    Thursday, February 4, 2010

    ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN — Three American troops were killed Wednesday in a bombing in the volatile northwest region of Pakistan, a nation where U.S. military involvement is a highly sensitive matter and where American ground personnel rarely suffer casualties.

    The attack targeted forces who were part of a contingent of U.S. military trainers. They were traveling to Lower Dir, a district in North-West Frontier Province that Pakistan’s military has said it wrested from Taliban control.

    The American military deaths were the first in Pakistan in recent years and shined a light on a joint training program that U.S. and Pakistani military officials have strived to keep quiet.

    As many as 100 U.S. Special Forces members are in this country, most of them instructing the weak and poorly equipped Pakistani paramilitary forces battling insurgents in the rugged areas bordering Afghanistan.

    The convoy attacked Wednesday was headed for the inauguration of a girls school that had been destroyed by the Taliban and recently restored with U.S. assistance, Pakistani and U.S. officials said.

    The blast leveled another new girls school that the convoy was passing. One member of Pakistan’s paramilitary Frontier Corps and three schoolgirls were killed, and dozens of people were injured, including two U.S. military personnel and schoolchildren, U.S. and Pakistani officials said. One Pakistani military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the slain Americans were Marines.

    The U.S. military has provided counterinsurgency training to Pakistan since 2008, but it is a highly sensitive partnership for both countries. Anti-American sentiment is rising here, fueled by media reports and public anger over perceived slights to Pakistan’s sovereignty by the United States. Pakistan does not allow U.S. combat operations on its soil, and while it privately condones CIA missile strikes targeting insurgents in the tribal areas, it publicly condemns them.

    Wednesday’s bombing seemed destined to incite more animosity toward the United States. The Pakistani Taliban, which has carried out a spate of attacks on civilian and security targets in recent months, asserted responsibility in a statement to news services. It said the slain U.S. personnel were employees of the American security company formerly known as Blackwater, a frequent subject of suspicion and scorn among segments of the Pakistani media.

    The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, the capital, said in a statement that the American military personnel were in Pakistan to “conduct training at the invitation of the Pakistan Frontier Corps. . . . The United States and Pakistan are partners in fighting terrorism — and our people are working together to build schools.”

    The training program is controversial within Pakistan’s military, said Mahmood Shah, a security analyst and retired army general. It gives “a reason for the Taliban to fight the Pakistan army,” he said, adding that many military officials here believe the Americans have little to teach about counterinsurgency.

    Partners in fighting terrorism? The US presence is inflaming the civil war in Pakistan, while US drones routinely carry out assassinations USA calls progress in fighting terrorism, but which could just as easily be called terrorism by an objective observer. US officials think their ways of spinning the facts justify US actions. The truth does not lie, and has no need of spin. Is it any wonder USA does not realize how counterproductive its policies are, if the goal is to win the hearts and minds of moderates within Pakistan and Afghanistan? Since that is not really the goal, the policies are not really counterproductive at all. As long as the region is in such chaos, USA can continue to justify its interventions, claiming the moral high ground, though any objective observer can see right through these claims as the self-serving propaganda of a dying empire.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

(Visited 832 times)