+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Results 106 to 112 of 112

Thread: Militants overran observation post in attack that killed 9 US troops

  1. #106
    Dirty Kiwi Parihaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Posts
    15,723
    Country: New Zealand
    Raids into Pakistan: What U.S. authority?

    WASHINGTON - Orders President Bush signed in July authorizing raids by special operations forces in the areas of Pakistan controlled by the Taliban and Al Qaeda and undertaking those raids without official Pakistani consent, have roots stretching back to the days following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

    In an address to a joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush said, "From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

    But even before that declaration, two key steps had been taken: One, Congress had authorized the use of US military force against terrorist organizations and the countries that harbor or support them. Two, Bush administration officials had warned Pakistan's leaders of the dire consequences their country would face if they did not unequivocally enlist in the fight against radical Islamist terrorism.

    What Mr. Bush's July orders signify is that, after seven years of encouraging Pakistan to take on extremists harbored in remote areas along its border with Afghanistan and subsidizing the Pakistani military handsomely to do it, the US has become convinced that Pakistan is neither able nor willing to fight the entrenched Taliban and Al Qaeda elements. Indeed, recent events appear to have convinced at least some in the administration that parts of Pakistan's military and powerful intelligence service are actually aiding the extremists.

    "We've moved beyond the message stage here. I think the US has had it with messages that don't get any action, and that is why the president authorized this," says Kamran Bokhari, director of Middle East analysis for Stratfor, an intelligence consulting firm in Washington. "This says loud and clear, 'We're fed up.' "

    Even before the July order, the US had undertaken covert operations in Pakistan's tribal areas. Moreover, the CIA over the past year has stepped up missile attacks by the unmanned Predator drones it operates to hit targets in the region. That increase has coincided with a deterioration of the war in Afghanistan, where the Afghan Army and NATO forces have come under increasing attack from militants crossing over the rugged and lawless border from Pakistan.

    But Bush's orders, first reported in The New York Times Thursday, mean that operations against insurgent sanctuaries will become overt and probably more frequent. A Sept. 3 ground assault involving US commandos dropped from helicopters targeted a suspected terrorist compound. Missile attacks by the CIA's unmanned drones, including one Friday reported by Pakistani officials to have killed at last 12 people, are also on the rise.

    Precedence for the orders authorizing the attacks on terrorist havens can be found in President Bill Clinton's authorization of retaliatory attacks in 1993 (against Iraqi intelligence facilities) and in 1998 (against terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Sudan), and in President Ronald Reagan's bombing of Libya, legal scholars say.

    The administration has debated the use of commando raids in Pakistan for years, but the tipping point came in July, as relations with Pakistan's civilian and military leaders deteriorated, intelligence sources say. The "kicker," according to one source who requested anonymity over the sensitivity of the issue, was two July events: the bombing of India's embassy in Afghanistan's capital, Kabul, an act that US intelligence officials concluded was aided by Pakistani intelligence operatives; and a July 13 attack on a US military outpost in eastern Afghanistan that killed nine US soldiers. The outpost attack was carried out by Taliban militants who had crossed over the nearby border from Pakistan.
    The evolution of operations in Pakistan from covert to overt actions is reminiscent of a trajectory followed in some aspects by the Vietnam War, some analysts note.

    Patrick Lang, a former Middle East analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency, says the evolution in Pakistan is similar to what occurred in Cambodia during the Vietnam War, when US operations against Vietcong sanctuaries there were initially covered up.

    "We initially crossed into Cambodia as covert forces, but that changed," says Mr. Lang, who was part of special forces that carried out the Cambodia operations. By 1970, cross-border operations against enemy sanctuaries were being carried out in the open. Looking at the evolution in operations in Pakistan, the national security analyst says, "We are letting [Pakistanis] know this could evolve into bigger things."

    Adds the intelligence source who requested anonymity, "The message is to the new civilian leadership and the military, 'We have bought all these toys for you – if you don't use them and do things in these areas that are causing us problems, we'll do them for you.' "

    The new orders reflect flagging confidence in Pakistan's civilian and military leadership to address the problem of the Taliban and terrorist havens, which are thought to harbor Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. For seven years the Bush administration focused its Pakistan policy on President Pervez Musharraf and his assurances that he was battling the militant sanctuaries. But Mr. Musharraf was forced to resign last month after suffering a crushing electoral defeat earlier in the year, and the US appears to have little confidence in the new civilian and military leaders.

    "Musharraf was a one-stop shopping center for US relations with Pakistan, but that no longer exists," says Stratfor's Mr. Bokhari. Senior State Department officials have met with Pakistan's new civilian leaders, he notes, while top Pentagon officials have met with the military leadership including Army chief of staff Gen. Ashraf Parvez Kayani, the top military commander.

    "The sense I get is they were given the runaround, and they came away from all these meetings convinced the leadership structure has become much more complex at a time when the Taliban are becoming stronger and the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating," Bokhari says. "The feeling was the US couldn't sit by and see how the leadership sorts itself out."

    Bush's orders authorizing cross-border incursions into Pakistan mean in a sense that the rules governing US special operations have shifted from yellow to green. The military will no longer need a presidential "finding" for each operation – and that, military analysts say, means the handling of forays into Pakistan will fall increasingly into military rather than CIA hands.

    That has some intelligence officials worried that the consequences of stepped-up US operations in Pakistan – in terms of Pakistani public opinion and the stability of the government – will get short shrift. According to intelligence sources, officials from the National Intelligence Council recently briefed the Bush administration's national security team on the potentially dire consequences of US actions that could destabilize the government of a country with nuclear weapons.

  2. #107
    Dirty Kiwi Parihaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Posts
    15,723
    Country: New Zealand
    Pakistan: Now or Never?

    There has been much hesitation in the world’s media about how to label U.S. military action inside Pakistan’s borders, including a reported ground raid and a series of missile strikes. Do you call it an “invasion”? Or use the more innocuous-sounding “intervention”? In an editorial, the Washington Post gives it a name which is rather striking in its directness. It calls it quite simply, The War in Pakistan.

    President George W. Bush’s reported decision in July to step up attacks by U.S. forces in Pakistan’s tribal areas, the newspaper says, was both necessary and long overdue. It acknowledges there is a risk the strikes might prompt a breach between the U.S. and Pakistani armies, or destabilize the new civilian government in Pakistan. But, it says, ”no risk to Pakistan’s political system or its U.S. relations is greater than that of a second 9/11 staged from the tribal territories. U.S. missile and commando attacks must be backed by the best intelligence and must minimize civilian casualties. But they must continue.”

    Others are lining up to condemn the new U.S. strategy in Pakistan.

    Protesting against U.S. strikes“The Americans are probably right in claiming that Al-Qaeda and the Taleban have regrouped and using bases in Pakistan to launch cross-border raids into Afghanistan,” says Saudi-based Arab News. “They are certainly right in thinking that there will be no peace in Afghanistan while that remains the case. But they have to let the Pakistanis deal with this. If they continue the raids, they risk not merely losing what dwindling support they have in Pakistan but, far worse, alienating the country so thoroughly than no government even vaguely sympathetic to the US and the West can survive there.”

    Pakistan’s Daily Times takes this argument further by suggesting that if public opinion turns even more against the United States, “the country will become more vulnerable to Al Qaeda and we will face unpredictable odds. According to nuclear theory, Pakistan is a nuclear power and cannot be attacked. If the US attacks Pakistani territory, battles with the Pakistan army, stops military assistance to Pakistan, and thus ends up making Al Qaeda supreme in Pakistan, the nuclear theory might then apply to Al Qaeda.”

    In the Huffington Post, Shuja Nawaz writes that “the next time the US physically invades Pakistani territory to take out suspected militants, it may meet the Pakistan army head on. Or it may face a complete cut-off of war supplies and fuel in Afghanistan via Pakistan. With only two weeks supply of fuel available to its forces inside Afghanistan and no alternative route currently available, the war in Afghanistan may come to a screeching halt.”

    Nawaz adds that both Pakistan and the United States need to rethink their actions. ”Otherwise, the US will not only lose an ally in Pakistan but ignite a conflagration inside that huge and nuclear-armed country that will make the war in Afghanistan seem like a Sunday hike in the Hindu Kush.”

    Scary stuff then, with lots of massive risks being talked about on both sides of the argument, from another 9/11 to al Qaeda taking charge of Pakistan.

    So here is a completely different view from Juan Cole in Informed Comment. “The original al Qaeda is defeated,” he says. Do read his post before leaping to judgment on this assertion, as he makes some interesting points, including arguing that the Taliban are driven more by Pashtun nationalism than by a desire to spread terrorism around the world.

    “Although the US is worried about the Arab volunteers who take refuge among the resurgent Taliban, they are a tiny element and cannot easily launch international terrorist operations from FATA (Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas),” he writes. Based on an analysis of al Qaeda’s capabilities around the world, including in Iraq, he concludes; “For now, our war is over. Time to come home, and train and fund locals to do the clean-up work.”

    Just suppose for a minute that his argument were to turn out to be correct. Then is the United States opening up a third front after Iraq and Afghanistan, but this time on the territory of a nuclear-armed country, for the wrong reasons?

  3. #108
    Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind Senior Contributor Tronic's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Dec 04
    Location
    Patiala, Punjab
    Posts
    2,839
    Country: India
    Quote Originally Posted by We The People View Post
    India is a fine democratic, pluralistic society but that was a disgraceful chapter in their history to stand behind Russian killing of millions of almost defeseless Afghans while much of free world stood with Afghan people
    Errmm... no it wasn't. India was right to support the Soviet invasion; simply because the country was going to the dogs as politicians were being rounded up and killed by the despot rulers of Afghanistan. The late 70s and all throughout the 80s was probably the one time that Afghanistan had a true secular regime which did not persecute other religions or treat women worse then dogs. The country would not have turned into the hell hole it became during the 90s had the PDPA managed to take over; but sadly, it was the cold war, and the Americans had to check communism, even if it meant feeding the country to the dogs. I see no reason why India should not have supported the PDPA in Afghanistan. Oh and the much of the free world did not stand "with" the Afghan people as you claim; they merely stood against the Russians. It was no love for Afghanistan which made them take that stance. India supported the Democratic Party of Afghanistan, because in the end, they were fighting for the Afghan people and the Afghan nation as a whole, not for their own tribe; although tribalism led to their slow demise.
    Last edited by Tronic; 16 Sep 08, at 19:20.
    Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
    -Touch The Sky With Glory

  4. #109
    S2
    S2 is offline

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    8,254
    Country: United States

    Dept. Of Army Overrules Independant Investigation Findings

    In a move that's inexplicable except, at first glance, prevasive careerism the Dept. Of Army has over-ruled the findings regarding the Battle Of Wanat as determined by an independant investigation appointed by General Petraeus-

    Army Overrules Inquiry Faulting Officers In Wanat Ambush-WAPO June 24, 2010
    "This aggression will not stand, man!"
    Jeff Lebowski

  5. #110
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    1,449
    Country: England
    Surely some contradiction in this statement: "Centcom conducted an intensive, three month independent investigation..."

  6. #111
    Regular
    Join Date
    26 Sep 09
    Posts
    71
    Country: United States
    Hard from the outside to know what the right thing to do here was. Scapegoating commanders is no more attractive than whitewashing them. But having a blame assignment published then overruling it has got to be close to the worst possible outcome.

  7. #112
    S2
    S2 is offline

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    8,254
    Country: United States

    Kasmir Reply

    It was a high-profile investigation that had already warranted the attention of congress. Petraeus signed off on the findings. Maybe he's a sleaze-bag and was looking to scape-goat certain officers but I'm thinking NOT. He's certainly not far removed from divisional command nor doing so in a combat zone.

    I have to think, therefore, that scapegoating was far from his mind and that the responsible officers did violate certain dictums that he expects commanders at all levels instinctively or by training to understand. It's a big army and a lot of things slip through the cracks. Wanat had more than a few of those. Further, one has to wonder at institutional inertia. We'd gotten away with so much.

    I truly felt for the company C.O. Unlike the brigade and battalion commanders, his career is finished IMV regardless of D.A. over-ruling the findings.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!"
    Jeff Lebowski

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1067
    Last Post: 30 Aug 08,, 12:09
  2. Analysis: Chechnya
    By Ironduke in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 29 Jul 08,, 01:30
  3. Liberals Blame America for Nick Berg's Death
    By Leader in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 20 Aug 07,, 10:30
  4. Pentagon under fire for waste of military supplies
    By troung in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09 Jun 05,, 18:40
  5. Efforts to mend relations hit roadblock in France
    By Leader in forum International Politics
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 29 Nov 04,, 03:53

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts