Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Taleban attack during Cheney trip

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Taleban attack during Cheney trip

    Taleban attack during Cheney trip

    At least nine people have died in a suicide bombing at the main US base in Afghanistan during US Vice-President Dick Cheney's stay, US officials say.

    Mr Cheney, who was unharmed, was staying at the Bagram base near Kabul.


    The US military said the bomber was also killed. Some reports say 14 people died - more than 20 others were hurt.

    The Taleban said they carried out the attack and that the attacker was trying to get to Mr Cheney, who was on an unannounced visit to the region.

    A US spokesman described it as a "direct attack" on the base, which was put on red alert for a while.

    Mr Cheney was said to be safely inside the compound at the time. He described hearing a "loud boom" and told reporters he had been briefly moved to a bomb shelter.

    One US and one South Korean soldier were among the dead as well as a US government contractor who was a US national.

    The others killed were Afghan civilians, many of whose distraught relatives gathered later outside the base.

    Base operations commander Lt Col James Bonner said the bomber could not have got inside the base, 60km (40 miles) from Kabul.

    "Our security measures were in place and the killer never had access to the base," he said in a statement.

    "When he realised he would not be able to get onto the base he attacked the local population."

    Talks delayed

    Mr Cheney had breakfast with troops at the base and left about 90 minutes after the blast.

    He held talks with President Hamid Karzai in Kabul on the deteriorating security situation before flying out of the country. It was "never an option" to scrap the talks, he said.

    Shortly before the Bagram blast, there was another suicide bomb in the southern city of Kandahar, killing at least one person.

    Elsewhere, Nato said it had killed three civilians in clashes in the south.

    One person was shot dead by Nato troops in "self defence" near Kandahar on Tuesday, while two others had been hit by mortar fire in Helmand province a day earlier, a statement said.

    The BBC's Charles Haviland in Kabul says Bagram is one of the most heavily guarded sites in Afghanistan and such incidents there are extremely rare.


    The surrounding territory is heavily mined and people, including children, have frequently been injured by such devices.

    Officials said the explosion occurred between the outside security gate and an inner gate guarded by US troops, some distance from living quarters at the base.

    A trader in a market outside the base described the explosion as "huge", saying it shook market stalls.

    Tough message

    Mr Cheney's visit came amid increasing concern about insurgent activity in several areas of Afghanistan.

    There are fears of a spring offensive by the Taleban and its allies as the snows clear.

    There are 27,000 US troops in Afghanistan, the highest number since the invasion of 2001, to combat any offensive.

    Mr Cheney arrived in Afghanistan on Monday after holding talks with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf during a brief stop in Islamabad.


    He urged Pakistan to do more to combat the Taleban near the Afghan border, but also praised its role in the "war on terror".

    His visit comes as the US seeks to send a tough message to Pakistan that aid to the country could be cut unless efforts to catch militants are stepped up.

    Afghanistan and Pakistan share a 1,400-mile (2,250km) border, and many Taleban fighters operate from bases on the Pakistani side.
    BBC NEWS | South Asia | Taleban attack during Cheney trip
    Most audacious!

    It appears no amount of palavers with Musharaff can contain the Terrorists since another report states that the Islamists have a sizable number of supporters within the Army as also in the ISI.

    Karzai, too, apparently, has no control of the country since apart from the military actions, the other aspects that are being addressed like the economy as also civic action do not seem to be making headway. Importantly, the promised pledges are yet to be redeemed.

    More than Bush, Cheney seems to be taken as the real power behind the throne and hence this attack was attempted. Nothing like this has ever happened when Bush came and the security for both is believed to be the same.
    __________________


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  • #2
    Opposition shows concern over Cheney’s surprise visit



    * Demands parliamentary debate on govt’s foreign policy

    By Zulfiqar Ghuman and Mohammad Imran

    ISLAMABAD: Major opposition parties expressed concern on Tuesday over the surprise visit of US Vice President Dick Cheney to Pakistan and Afghanistan and the government’s reluctance to discuss the country’s foreign policy in parliament.

    They strongly criticised the government for ignoring parliament over Pakistan’s foreign policy vis-à-vis US policies in reference in Afghanistan and Iran and their impact on Pakistan.

    Cheney paid a surprise visit to Pakistan on Monday ahead of his visit to Afghanistan on Tuesday, during which he reportedly pressed the government to ‘do more’ to stop the Taliban resurgence in its tribal belt bordering Afghanistan or face a cut in military aid.

    “It is a sorry state of affairs that different stories regarding Cheney’s visit are coming out through media and the people of Pakistan and its parliament are not being taken into confidence,” said Mian Raza Rabbani, leader of the opposition in the Senate and deputy secretary general of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP).

    “Its (Cheney’s visit) a very sensitive issue and should not be taken in isolation. Rather it should be taken as a follow-up of Congress Speaker Nancy Pelosi and US commanders’ visits viz-a-viz the regional situation with special focus on the situations in Aghanistan and Iran. It could have far reaching effects on the region in particular and the whole world in general,” Rabbani said.

    He said that the US polices on Afghanistan and Iran would have a drastic impact on Pakistan and its people.


    Ahsan Iqbal, the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) information secretary, said that Cheney’s visit had yet again proved that non-democratic president could not see eye-to-eye with the sole superpower and “foreign policy works with dignity only under a democratic government.”

    “General Musharraf’s regime has become a target of the US, India and Afghanistan, all accusing Pakistan of harbouring terrorists. Growing instability in the region demands that a representative government be installed through free and fair elections,” Iqbal added.

    Liaquat Baloch, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) deputy parliamentary secretary, said that Pakistan had come under increased pressure from the US after Cheney’s surprise visit to Pakistan and Afghanistan and the blast at Bagram Airbase on Tuesday.

    He urged opposition parties to requisition sessions of the National Assembly and Senate to discuss the “complex situation” with special focus on reported preparations by the US to attack Iran.

    In a letter addressed to leaders of opposition parties, Baloch said that the requisitioned sessions should also discuss law and order in the country, and suicide attacks, besides the foreign policy and the regional situation.
    Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
    The Pakistani opposition is real scared of what magic Cheney may have played on Musharraf in the hope that he 'abandons' Pakistan!


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

    Comment


    • #3
      EDITORIAL: Musharraf’s importance and his limits

      Even if it is an inspired plant, the news in The New York Times on Sunday that Washington had sent a ‘tough message’ to Islamabad threatening to cut aid unless it ‘does more to crack down on Al Qaeda operatives’, reflects the uncertain nature of President General Pervez Musharraf’s relationship with the Bush administration. Since the NYT item came just as Vice President Dick Cheney was in Islamabad on an unannounced or unscheduled visit to Pakistan, the occasion was described as a ‘rap on the knuckles’.

      The press in Washington has long been tilting at President Musharraf and his ambivalences since he has talked a lot about doing the right thing in an environment where such talk is rare, but has failed to deliver. While there is ample evidence that he has put himself at risk trying to roll back all the wrong things Pakistan has done all these decades, Washington has always been sceptical about whether or not he meant what he said.

      The NYT story summarises the following sentiment: Instead of beating down the militant groups on the border and the Tribal Areas General Musharraf has began making deals with them. After catching a few Al Qaeda terrorists he has allowed it to rebuild the infrastructure it lost after 2001 and now Al Qaeda is about to launch another campaign of terrorism. The ‘peace deals’ he made in Waziristan with the warriors that he first tried to confront have actually resulted in an increase in the raids conducted by the Taliban into Afghanistan.

      Meanwhile, the US Congress has heard again and again state functionaries reporting unwillingness or inability on General Musharraf’s part to strike vigorously at the Taliban. The House of Representatives has now responded by passing a bill making military aid to Pakistan conditional to a presidential certification. But President Bush has yet to voice his personal dissatisfaction with General Musharraf. He is officially still the man upon whom the US is relying. Indeed, it is quite probable that President Bush’s position was reflected by the views expressed by the outgoing US ambassador to Pakistan, Ryan C Crocker, when he said that General Musharraf “was sincere but lacked capacity”.

      The Cheney visit, far from being the ‘final handshake’ call, could therefore be aimed at encouraging General Musharraf to take firm action now that intelligence coming out of Pakistan indicates a reinvigorated Al Qaeda and a Taliban force ready to launch even more lethal attacks into Afghanistan with the onset of spring. But the fact is that even without the US vice president knocking at the portals of Islamabad, General Musharraf must have been aware of the anxiety levels in Washington. After all, neither Pakistan’s performance against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, nor the country’s image as an extremist nation, has tended to change over time.

      Unfortunately, inside Pakistan too, public expectations have described a similar graph. After a popular beginning, General Musharraf has gradually appeared to become politically inflexible. He tried to shape events in the country to yield a certain sort of governance with him permanently at the head of the governing pyramid. But for some time his growing unpopularity at home has contrasted with the favours showered on him by Washington. Now he must feel the heat from both sides.

      The present moment is actually the right time to create a political consensus against the religious-extremist forces he is fighting. Instead, he has taken to ‘answering back’ to American objections to his modus operandi, possibly for home consumption in view of the widespread anti-American sentiment. He obviously thinks he might strengthen his position with the Pakistani masses if he tells America that the “international community is collectively responsible for defeating terrorism and curbing militancy in Afghanistan”. But the truth is that this approach will simply not work. It will only create a confrontation that will weaken him vis-à-vis his enemies inside Pakistan and the region.

      The Foreign Office spokesperson has proudly claimed that Pakistan “takes no dictation from any country”. The statement should have been more carefully couched. Pakistan marked a historic moment in its history when General Musharraf took the post-9/11 dictation from Washington and put Pakistan on the right track. He was brave in getting rid of the generals who were devoted to what Pakistan was doing in tandem with the Taliban in Afghanistan. He then swooped down on the Al Qaeda agents that the army had allowed to establish themselves in Pakistan earlier.

      General Musharraf continues to be important and, in some ways, indispensable to Washington. This is because the political alternatives to him have shown little wisdom in failing to make it clear to the world that they were ready to run the country without letting it fall back into isolationism. Indeed, the political parties have persisted in their preoccupation with votes which they think only an isolationist agenda will attract. They hope that they will be able to correct themselves after coming to power. But that is easier said than done, as past experience shows, since political opportunism is a process of strategic habit rather than a tactical device.

      It is for this reason that General Musharraf has erred most grievously by predetermining the shape of Pakistani politics. His agenda is supposedly for a liberal Pakistan but he has pushed the liberal forces of the country into opposition to him. Now he can hold the country together only by perpetuating himself in power. But we cannot go along with him on that. And in a year or so, the outside world will also come to the same conclusion.
      Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
      This is an interesting viewpoint from Pakistan to the Bush's chagrin that Musharraf is not doing enough against the Taleban!

      But what is actually worrying those of Pakistan is that if indeed the US stops the economic and military aid, then it would be curtains for them.

      And if US levers the World Bank and the IMF to stop salvaging the Pakistani economy, then it would regress to the days of being declared a near failed state.

      The economy and the better lifestyle engined by the US munificence is too good a feeling to get abandoned for a few scruffy tribal yahoos; at least for the chatterati class!

      Hence, the worry!
      Last edited by Ray; 28 Feb 07,, 17:22.


      "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

      I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

      HAKUNA MATATA

      Comment


      • #4
        Another view from Pakistan on Bush's missive that Pakistan should do more against the Terrorist Taleban!

        Who should ‘do more’?


        IT is amazing that it is the US that should tell Pakistan to ‘do more’ in the war on terror. If Washington had not been guilty of what can be called a virtual abandonment of Afghanistan and opened a new front in Iraq, things to the west of Pakistan and in the tribal belt itself would have been vastly different. There is now a “surge” in American troops in Iraq, and having already ploughed 300 billion dollars into that country, the Bush administration has asked for a similar amount for a war that most observers consider unwinnable. If the US had spent a fraction of that amount on Afghanistan and made serious efforts to win the Afghan people over, the allies would not be bracing themselves today for a spring offensive by the Taliban. These are the obvious thoughts that come to one’s mind when one finds Mr Dick Cheney making a sudden appearance in Islamabad on the heels of press reports that Washington was going to “talk tough” to President Pervez Musharraf and warn Islamabad of an aid cut if it did not “do more”. The White House later denied the press reports, though the denial itself was nebulous, lacked substance and equivocated in a manner that only tended to confirm the reports.

        A pattern now seems to have emerged: the administration leaks reports to sections of the American media about the “tough talk” and America’s unhappiness with Pakistan’s purported unwillingness to do all it could to crush the Taliban and check the cross-border movement which is supposed to be only in one direction. This is followed the next day by a White House or State Department cliché-ridden denial, which also contains a bit of plaudits for Islamabad’s role in the war on terror. President Musharraf’s meeting with the US vice-president on Monday was not followed by a joint press conference, and it was only an official handout that let the world know what had happened during the meeting. However, the American press said that Pakistan had “lashed out” and made

        it clear that it “does not accept dictation from any side or any source”. President Musharraf also said, according to the handout, that the international community was collectively responsible for the war on terror. The truth of this assertion must be seen in the context of the president’s earlier remark that guarding the Durand Line was not Pakistan’s sole responsibility.

        What the Americans fail to realise is that the war on terror is in Pakistan’s own interest. It is not that Pakistan is a front-line state because it borders Afghanistan; it is a front-line state because, if unchecked, the wave of religious obscurantism could overwhelm Pakistan and tear apart the very fabric of civil society. Zille Huma was not an American; she was a Pakistani killed by a fanatic who believed that women could not be “rulers” and must wear the hijab. It is insane obscurantism of this kind that is Pakistan’s problem, in addition to the militants who continue to move across the Durand Line. Irrespective of what the allies on the other side of the border do, Pakistan must

        not waver. It has to fight the war on two fronts: the Afghanistan-based Taliban and the obscurantist elements within the country. Those who want Pakistan to ‘do more’ should have an appraising look at their own performance.
        DAWN - Editorial; February 28, 2007
        Ah well.

        From the Pakistani point of view, they do indicate that they are not responsible for all that has happened or is happening around the Afghanistan issue. And their contention is that the USA is to blame!

        Could it be so?


        "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

        I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

        HAKUNA MATATA

        Comment


        • #5
          SUICIDE ATTACK AIMED AT CHENEY
          Not a Good Omen for Afghanistan


          By Matthias Gebauer in Peshawar, Pakistan

          It may have been little more than a 'loud bang' for US Vice President Dick Cheney. But it signals that the Taliban may be much more sophisticated than thought. And that more may be yet to come.

          US Vice President Dick Cheney took his explosive morning in stride. Arriving in Oman at lunchtime on Tuesday following his brief visit to Kabul, Cheney told of his adventure at Bagram Air Base a few hours earlier. He had been sitting in his room, located in an ultra-secure section of the largest US military base in Afghanistan. Cheney reported he heard a "loud bang" at about 10 a.m., adding that Secret Service agents briefly took him to a bunker before he continued working.

          Yet what sounds almost harmless in Cheney's account was far from it -- rather it was a massive and hitherto unheard of attack near the US military base, located about 60 kilometers (37 miles) north of Kabul. Despite countless checkpoints on the road to Bagram, the attacker managed to drive his carload of explosives all the way to the base's outermost security perimeter. The bomb in his car caused a tremendous explosion that could be seen from kilometers away. In addition to the attacker himself, the bomb killed at least 12 Afghans -- and possibly more -- in addition to two international soldiers, though casualty reports varied widely.

          Not even an hour had passed before the radical Islamists from the Taliban had proudly taken credit for the attack. Their myriad press spokesmen went into action, contacting wire services by sat-phone make sure credit was given where credit was due.

          "We knew Cheney had remained at the base overnight," said Kari Yousef Ahmadi, adding that "our man wanted to get through to him and kill him." As if to prove his words, Ahmadi also cited the identity of the attacker. It is still unclear, however, whether the identity given is correct.

          But even if the Taliban's claims don't prove 100 percent accurate, the incident on Tuesday morning is disconcerting news for the troops in Afghanistan. "The fact that the attacker was able to get all the way to the gate troubles us," says a NATO officer. "But we're even more startled by how much the Taliban know." It was clearly "a planned attack," the officer said, since the planners knew "that Cheney was still in the base" -- and even if the goal was not achieved, the message was understood.

          The details of the attack bespeak a new, hitherto unknown logistical skill on the part of the Taliban. Cheney's visit was shrouded in secrecy from the beginning with reporters travelling with him being asked to observe embargoes on revealing the Vice President's whereabouts. The fact that Cheney had to cancel a meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai -- originally scheduled for Monday evening -- because of strong snowfall and spend the night in Bagram only became known on Monday evening.

          Observers see a clear sign that the Taliban now dispose of a well-organized information network that allows them to track the movements of prominent political decision-makers like Cheney. "Of course plenty of information is available via the Internet," the NATO officer said, "but you need to be able to use that tool." This was apparently what happened in the case of the attack on Bagram Air Base, the officer added, claiming there is no other way of "explaining the exact timing." It's hardly appropriate to continue characterizing the Taliban as simple guerrilla soldiers, in the officer's view.

          6,000 suicide attackers ready to strike

          The spontaneity of the attack also gives new weight to the threats issued by Taliban. For weeks now, the radical group have used propaganda videos to announce the training of thousands of suicide attackers, ready to jump into action as soon as the snow melts in Afghanistan. Until now, the threats had seemed exaggerated. But given that Cheney's whereabouts could only have been known just a short time prior to the actual attack, the threats now seem more credible.

          Especially active on the propaganda front is Taliban commander Mullah Dadullah. The fighter even recently invited reporters from the Arab TV station al-Jazeera to visit him in the mountains near Kandahar. After presenting his troops, Dadullah -- noted for his brutality -- said he had 6,000 men ready to carry out suicide attacks. As if to prove the claim, his propaganda videos repeatedly show young Afghans and Arabs signing their names on lists and announcing they are prepared to sacrifice their lives for Dadullah.

          The new Taliban strategy is partly the product of the bitter lessons learned last year. The Taliban suffered heavy losses in 2006, especially during the last months of the year. Previously, their guerrilla troops had been able to seize entire villages in the south of the country. Then, almost 3,000 Taliban died during NATO air attacks in late 2006. "The Taliban can no longer afford large numbers of casualties and loss of equipment," says Afghanistan expert Raimullah Yusufzai, "so they're opting for the cheaper option of suicide attacks."

          Last year, there were 139 such attacks in Afghanistan. Western intelligence agencies say that is a five-fold increase on the previous year. Even prior to Tuesday's attack, the new commander of US forces in Afghanistan David Rodriguez said he expected a further jump in deadly suicide attacks this year.

          The well-timed attack on Bagram Air Base seems to mark the beginning of what could become a bloody spring in Afghanistan.

          Suicide Attack Aimed at Cheney: Not a Good Omen for Afghanistan - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News
          Indeed it is surprising that the Taleban information is not only accurate but also capable of monitoring changes in schedule of VIPs which are totally shrouded in secrecy!

          They are getting to be sophisticated and of course no one is helping them (sic!)!


          "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

          I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

          HAKUNA MATATA

          Comment


          • #6
            Let me come up with an alternative view. The Jews and Crusaders did this attack themselves so that they could get media and public support to apply ppressure on the belivers in 'Pak' land.
            I rant, therefore I am.

            Comment


            • #7
              In this attached report it states that analysts are saying, the US is seeking to send a tough message to Pakistan, in so much as aide could be cut if they do not increase there efforts in catching miitants......Anyone think it might happen ?

              BBC NEWS | South Asia | 'Taleban leader held' in Pakistan
              sigpicFEAR NAUGHT

              Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?

              Comment


              • #8


                An Uneasy Alliance
                By: Zahid Hussain | The Wall Street Journal

                The U.S.-Pakistan partnership that came into being on Sept. 12, 2001 was a shotgun marriage and remains an uneasy alliance. Vice President Dick Cheney's surprise visit to Pakistan earlier this week underscores Washington's frustration with President Pervez Musharraf's inability to contain the activities of al Qaeda and the Taliban in the Afghan border region.

                WSJ.com - Login
                The US can keep telling Pakistan to shape up or ship out.

                And Pakistan, though will not have the guts to be say it to the US' face, will still nonetheless tell the US to whistle for the favourable wind to blow! ;)


                "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                HAKUNA MATATA

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ray View Post
                  The US can keep telling Pakistan to shape up or ship out.

                  And Pakistan, though will not have the guts to be say it to the US' face, will still nonetheless tell the US to whistle for the favourable wind to blow! ;)
                  Sir,
                  So how long before the the patience of the US runs out?
                  sigpicFEAR NAUGHT

                  Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    US is in a bind as far as Pakistan is concerned.

                    Pakistan is material because the US is dead keen on having the oil pipeline from the Central Asian Republics (CAR) through Afghanistan to Balochistan's Gwadar port. This is because the oil companies planning this and other pipelines from the CAR are US Consortiums.

                    It (the oil and the pipeline) is also essential for the US economy since the the oil would be US owned and it would feed the oil hungry and growing Asian markets; China and India in particular (There are enough thread on CAR oil on this forum,but should you need details I will hunt for them on my computer and post them for your info). NIC 2020 also indicates the same.

                    The fact that US is doing its best to scuttle the Iran - Pakistan - India oil and gas pipeline is an indicator of how serious the US is about commissioning the CAR - Afghanistan - Gwadar pipeline as also that the US wants no competition!

                    If Pakistan is not keep humoured, it can have serious repercussions on the success of this pipeline.

                    However, the US, to be on the safe side, lest Pakistan bucks like a wild bronco and does not play ball, it is alleged is behind the unrest in Balochistan and their independence movement. It would be ideal for the US if this could happen since Balochistan is dirt poor except for their gas and minerals (it is highly endowed with strategic minerals) and hence would be an easy cherry to pick and have it in the bag as a dependent ally. It is totally feudal in character and so it would be as reliable as the Saudi satraps!

                    FATA borders Balochistan and it is the route through which the Taleban sends its terrorists. Therefore, if Balochistan is independent and is totally beholden to the US, pressure could be brought to bear on FATA from both the sides i.e. Afghanistan and Balochistan and the Taleban crippled.

                    A very interesting is being played out in the Pakistan Balochistan and Afghanistan area.

                    Patience is the key word! ;)


                    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                    HAKUNA MATATA

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Agreed Sir so lets hope the "patience" lasts....a strong suit of the US?
                      sigpicFEAR NAUGHT

                      Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X