Pakistani President Asif Zardari again demands U.S. end drone attacks

After talks with special envoy to Pakistan Marc Grossman, President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, called for an end to drone strikes on militants in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

A presidential spokesperson told reporters that Zardari and Grossman:

".. discussed bilateral relations, the fight against militancy, the regional situation, drug trafficking and drone attacks...(Zardari) reiterated his call for an end to the drone attacks, terming them counterproductive in the fight against militancy and in the battle of winning hearts..We need to discuss alternatives on the question of drone attacks,"

Zardari also said that the trust deficit between the two countries needed to be overcome to establish a long-term durable relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan. It is not at all clear how this trust relationship can be easily restored. The U.S. believes that at the very least Pakistani intelligence retains close relationships with the Haqqani network a group that mounts raids into Afghanistan from Pakistan.

Drone attacks are very unpopular in Pakistan as is the United States. There have been many demonstrations against the strikes in Pakistan claiming that the attacks are a violation of Pakistani sovereignty and often kill civilians. Zardari's statements against the attacks probably mean little. There have already been three different resolutions passed through the Pakistani parliament demanding the attacks cease. Ceasing attacks was also a condition of re-opening NATO transit routes through Pakistan. The routes have opened but there was a drone attack almost immediately after the re-opening as if to emphasize that there was no deal with respect to stopping drone attacks.

Grossman also spoke about trade relations saying that they should be based upon market access. The U.S is working on a bilateral investment deal that would improve market access and encourage U.S. investment in Pakistan. Grossman had talks with other Pakistani officials as well including the Foreign Minister, Army Chief Ashfaq Kayani, the Foreign Secretary, and some parliamentarians.

Grossman noted that the U.S. government had nothing to do with the anti-Islam film that has resulted in often violent demonstrations in numerous countries including Pakistan. Anti-U.S. feelings are already extremely high in Pakistan with over 90 per cent of Pakistanis considering the U.S. an enemy. This is one reason why Zardari demands that drone strikes cease while probably agreeing to them in private. Pakistan no doubt often provides intelligence to the U.S. for targeting purposes. As far as trust is concerned, Pakistan can trust the U.S. not to stop drone attacks in the tribal areas.

Top Pakistani official in UK criticizes drone attacks

      Wajid Hasan is Pakistan's High Commissioner to the UK government. He argues that the U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas are weakening Pakistani democracy and create a risk that even more people will choose to join extremist groups. He also suggested that there are some in Washington who would prefer to work with one person rather than have to pass policies through parliament.
       Hasan said: ‘What has been the whole outcome of these drone attacks is, that you have rather directly or indirectly contributed to destabilizing or undermining the democratic government. Because people really make fun of the democratic government – when you pass a resolution against drone attacks in the parliament, and nothing happens. The Americans don’t listen to you, and they continue to violate your territory.’  ‘Please don’t embarrass us by violating our territory because people question why the hell we have such a huge standing army, where we spend so much on our national defence budget, when we can’t defend ourselves?’
  Although the Pakistani parliament passed several resolutions demanding the drone strikes stop and also made stopping strikes a condition for reopening NATO transit routes, the strikes did not stop. NATO transit routes have re-opened.
       Hasan realizes that Pakistan cannot really stop the drone strikes except he says through public opinion. If public opinion in Pakistan could have stopped the strikes they would have stopped long ago since over ninety percent of Pakistanis disapprove of the strikes.
  Sherry Rehman the Pakstaini Ambassador to the U.S. also continued the official Pakistani line:‘We will seek an end to drone strikes and there will be no compromise on that.’ The Pakistani armed forces heads as well as intelligence service officials are apparently trying to negotiate a deal that would allow Pakistani forces to carry out any strikes against terrorists. Such a deal is quite unlikely since the U.S. wants to attack some groups that may have links to Pakistani intelligence. The Pakistanis would not sanction attacks on them even by Pakistani armed forces.
 Hasan says that agreement is necessary because of the high anti-U.S. sentiment in Pakistan. However that sentiment has been present for ages and seems unlikely to have any effect on U.S. policy. It is U.S. domestic attitudes that count for U.S. policy makers and most Americans are concentrated on domestic issues. Pakistan is probably regarded as an unreliable ally and a recipient of undeserved aid if it is given any thought at all.
   Hasan noted that Pakistan is an ally in the fight against Islamic radicals and  that thousands of Pakistanis have died in terrorist attacks and many soldiers have been killed in trying to eliminate extremists.
Hasan claims drone attacks violate Pakistan's national sovereignty. However in the past it is clear that there has been implicit acceptance of the attacks by the government and armed forces. Perhaps this reality is changing although this not certain. If  it were the case Pakistan would hardly have re-opened NATO transit routes. For more see this article in Juan Cole's blog.

Pakistan and U.S. nowhere near a deal on drone attacks

    The Pakistani parliament has several times passed motions demanding that U.S. drone attacks cease. Cessation of drone strikes was also made a condition of reopening NATO transit routes  through Pakistan to Afghanistan. However after Hillary Clinton apologized for a border incident in which 24 Pakistani troops were killed Pakistan reopened thee routes. The drone attacks did not cease. A drone attack was launched shortly after the reopening.
      Since the attacks continued after the NATO routes were reopened it appeared that perhaps Pakistan had tacitly agreed to the attacks. Sherry Rehman the Pakistani ambassador has vehemently denied this and reaffirmed Pakistan's opposition drone attacks as a violation of its sovereignty.
    Negotiations between the U.S. and Pakistan on some type of compromise deal on drones have been ongoing. However a senior official said::. “Cessation of drones is still a high priority for us in the dialogue with the US, but I’m afraid we are nowhere near a deal on the issue,”  “But we’ll keep talking to them about it,” 
   The defense committed of the Pakistani cabinet said after a meeting on July 3 that Pakistan“will continue to engage the US on counter-terrorism co-operation and counter-terrorism tools that are in line with international law and practice”  There have been recent meetings between Pakistani foreign minister Hina Khar and U.S. Secretary of  State Hillary Clinton..
  Just days before the July 3rd deal to reopen transit routes Pakistan suggested that there were alternatives to using drone strikes in the tribal areas although officials did not disclose exactly what they were. Foreign Office spokesperson Mozzam Khan said:“Pakistan’s position on drone attacks is very clear, and very clearly stated. This is an issue and both countries want to resolve it in a mutually acceptable manner,”  The drone attacks are quite unpopular in Pakistan. In the past the government has criticized the attacks in public while tacitly agreeing to them behind the scenes.
     Since the U.S. is adamant that the attacks continue a deal seems unlikely. However it is possible that if Pakistan is given more control over targeting and attacks launched only with Pakistani agreement a deal could be reached. However the U.S. is not likely to be agreeable to cede that much power to Pakistan.

Pakistan calls U.S. ambassador on carpet over continued drone strikes

U.S. Ambassador Richard Hoaglands was summoned to the Pakistani Foreign Affairs Minister to receive a protest against continued drone attacks in the Pakistani Tribal regions. The U.S. has made it clear that the attacks will continue even though Pakistan has already passed three motions through parliament demanding they cease. The protests are becoming a sick charade. One wonders where the U.S. obtains intelligence for the strikes. One wonders too what if any consequences are supposed to happen since the U.S. has constantly crossed this red line.

For good measure the Pakistanis also complained about U.S. diplomats carrying illegal weapons. Several diplomats were found to have illegal weapons at a checkpoint but were quickly released no doubt on the demand of the U.S.

A Pakistani Foreign Office spokesperson said Hoaglands was informed of the government’s serious concern with the drone strikes. The spokesperson said: “Parliament had emphatically stated that they [drone strikes] were unacceptable. Drone strikes represented a clear red-line for Pakistan,” These types of complaints have been ongoing for ages but no action is taken.

While the transit routes through Pakistan have been closed for NATO since November the immediate cause of that was the killing of two dozen Pakistani troops in an attack on a border post. However, the drone attacks and other issues continue to make it difficult for Pakistan to reopen the transit routes without losing face. However since parliamentary motions on drones have been ignored the same could happen on other issues such as the demand for an apology for the border incident.

Releasing some of the several billions the U.S. owes to repay Pakistan for its help in the war on terror might help the situation. No payments have been made since 2010. Meanwhile the U.S. congress is withholding more aid. Meanwhile the U.S. continues to kill Al Qaeda leaders sometimes several times showing the success of the missions to U.S. taxpayers. For more see this article.

Pakistan protests U.S. aid cuts by cancelling meeting with CIA chief

The Senate Appropriations Committee cut 33 million in aid for Pakistan one million for each year of the sentence imposed upon a Pakistani doctor who worked for the CIA to identify Bin Laden's presence in Abbotabad. At the same time drone attacks are becoming more frequent even as talks to reopen supply routes are ongoing. The Senate Committee also withheld 250 million in military aid until supply routes are opened.

The U.S. clearly has not the slightest concern for the difficulties that it is causing to the Pakistani government. Its sole concern is domestic politics where Pakistan is a convenient whipping boy. Even though the Pakistani government has passed three motions demanding that drone attacks stop they continue. Everyone should realize who is boss.

The talks that have been cancelled were scheduled for this week in Washington and would have been the first U.S. visit of chief of Pakistani Intelligence Lt. Gen. Zaheer ul-Islam. The general was to discuss national security concerns of both countries with David Petraeus now CIA head.. General ul-Islam cancelled due to pressing commitments at home he claimed. He did not rub the disagreement in the face of the U.S. government as the Senate did to Pakistan.

Obama's top military adviser Gen. Martin Dempsey said that the Senate made the right choice in trimming aid to Pakistan. He said:“I think . . . choices should result in consequences. And I think the Senate acted appropriately,” Of course Pakistan could also say the same thing that there must be consequences for continuing drone strikes in the face of several motions demanding they stop and that there must be consequences for not sending military aid.

Given that it is impossible for the U.S. to directly occupy Pakistan as has been done in Afghanistan the only way that the U.S. can obtain cooperation to meet their goals is through massive injections of cash in military and other aid. Withdrawing the aid may be regarded as a stick to whip Pakistan back into shape but it may result eventually in a far less cooperative government in Pakistan next elections. For more see this article... In spite of the spat the U.S. and Pakistan are working to reschedule the meeting of Petraeus with General ul-Islam.

U.S. will carry on with drone strikes in spite of Pakistani objections: Leon Panetta

Just to make sure that Pakistan understands that the U.S. will not agree to Pakistani demands that drone strikes cease Leon Panetta U.S. Defense Secretary has again stated that the U.S. will continue the strikes. This makes the Pakistani government's position politically difficult if not impossible. There have been no less than three parliamentary motions demanding the strikes cease. The latest demand makes cessation of drone strikes a condition for re-opening NATO supply routes through Pakistan,

  Meanwhile the Pakistani government reports that the U.S. and the Pakistanis are negotiating solutions to outstanding issues. Yet the U.S. through Panetta is announcing that the drone strikes are not negotiable but will continue. As usual the Pakistani government has fudged on the matter. In a recent article Pakistan while at the same rhetorically denouncing the attacks as violations of sovereignty and counter-productive claims that there are negotiations with the U.S. on alternatives to the drone strikes.

Foreign Office spokesperson Moazzam Khan claims that the two sides are discussing alternatives to drone attacks. Really? Then why is Panetta saying that they will continue? Khan said: "We have raised drone attacks issue with the US at various levels. We are trying to resolve this issue on a priority basis. There is a need to resolve all issues with the US."

Panetta says that the drone attacks defend the U.S. against terrorists. Most of the terrorists being killed however have little interest in attacking the U.S. but of course every intention of driving the U.S. out of Afghanistan. Added to this is the fact that many who are killed may not be terrorists at all. For more see this article.

Pakistani lawyer denied U.S. visa to speak at drone conference

Shahzad Akbar represents civilian victims of drone strikes in a case filed in Pakistan. Akbar was invited to speak at an international conference on drone strikes in Washington D.C. on April 28. However the U.S. government has not so far granted him a visa.

Akbar is a co-founder of the Pakistan-based Foundation for Fundamental Rights. Akbar would have provided information about providing legal aid to civilian victims of the CIA operated strikes in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

Akbar has traveled to the U.S. in the past. However, this is not the first time the U.S. simply refused even to answer his application for a visa. Columbia University invited him to speak there about drone strikes. Akbar filed an application in May 2011 but has yet to hear anything back. He has asked the U.S. embassy in Pakistan why his application is being held up. He has received no answer.

Come on Akbar. Don't you get the message? The U.S. does not want you in the U.S. criticizing drone strikes! For more see the full article here.

Pakistani opposition leader opposed to reopening NATO supply routes

According to a report by SANA(South Asian News Agency) the leader of the Pakistan opposition in the National Assembly Chaudry Nizar Ali Khan , Pakistan should not at this time re-open NATO supply routes. Chaudry claims that restoring the routes would create unrest in the country.

Chaudry is particuarly angry at the government for doing nothing about two resolutions passed by parliament that demanded the end of drone attacks. Instead of doing anything concrete to ensure the resolutions were carried out, the Pakistani government has now tabled another resolution demanding the same action!

Passing another resolution claims Chaudry dishonours the parliament. He also claims that nothing in the recommendations of the parliamentary committee on restoring U.S. Pakistan relations does anything to balance to U.S. Pakistan relations. Given that the U.S. provides a lot of aid both military and otherwise to Pakistan, the country can probably not expect much balance.

Chaudry also said:“I am saying continuously that foreign intelligence agents are working in Pakistan without any license, Government should bring the details of those before the masses. "" He noted too that the government continually passed laws in its own interests. Surely that is not a crime but common everywhere! For more see this article.

Pakistan demands that U.S. stop drone attacks

At least this is so according to Bloomberg's Business Week. The report is based upon statements by anonymous U.S. officials.According to the article the officials must remain anonymous because the drone program is classified. I doubt that the officials would want to reveal who they are in any event when they are reporting on ongoing talks!

The use of drones has been a key part of Obama's counter terror strategy especially in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S. Sherry Rehman met with Antony Blinken national security adviser on March 9. She told him that Pakistan's political parties agree that the drone flights must end. The parliament actually passed a motion demanding the drone attacks end ages ago. After a pause of several months they are now happening again.

The drone attacks are seen as a violation of Pakistani airspace as well as being responsible for the deaths of many civilians as collateral damage. Public opinion is heavily in favor of ending the missions.

The attacks are unlikely to end. The U.S. provided 4.4 billion dollars in aid in 2010. This aid can be used as leverage to force Pakistan into some sort of explicit or implicit agreement that the attacks continue

Pakistan is pressing for an agreement that would have the U.S. agree to share intelligence about the strikes and carry out the attacks only in coordination with the Pakistani military and intelligence. So far the U.S. has refused to give information to Pakistan fearing that targets might be forewarned of attacks. This complete lack of trust makes the situation even worse.

In spite of the questionable legality let alone morality of the drone attacks, Obama has greatly increased their use compared to Bush. In 2008 under Bush there were only 35 attacks. Under Obama there were 117 in 2010.

Pakistan has constantly complained of the attacks but secretly approved them and even helped with targeting. However relations now are very strained. The killing of Bin Laden with no coordination or prior notice to Pakistan is one irritant. The killing of 2 Pakistanis by a CIA contractor is another. Finally there was the killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers in a border incident. This time the Pakistani's may be serious. Personally, I doubt that the U.S. will agree to stop the attacks. However, having another tacit agreement may be politically difficult for Pakistani politicians. For more see this article.

Obama defends U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan Tribal Areas

Perhaps now that Obama admits that the U.S. is carrying out drone attacks in the tribal areas of Pakistan the news media will finally report them as actually U.S. attacks. Up to now many reports are phrased cautiously as suspected U.S. attacks as if perhaps U.S. alllies such as Israel or Saudi Arabia might be responsible!

The casualties in these attacks will no doubt continue to be classified as "suspected militants" even though the evidence is that there are many civilians killed as collateral damage.

Obama says that the targets are: "people who are on a list of active terrorists". Of course one does not know how correct those lists are. Probably, Pakistani intelligence sources co-operate in determining targets even though officially Pakistan has for long criticised the attacks.

Reporters are not allowed in to the tribal areas although some locals have taken photos purportedly showing damage and the dead as a result of the attacks. Rights groups such as Amnesty have been critical of the attacks and questioned their legality under International Law.

The Pakistani parliament has passed a motion demanding the attacks stop but to no avail. The drone attacks began in 2004 under George W Bush but have escalated considerably under Obama. Under Obama the attacks have more than doubled reaching 118 in 2010 and 70 in 2011. Although there was a pause of a couple of months attacks have resumed now. For more see this article. Obama is extending drone attacks to other areas as well such as Somalia and Yemen. Their use fits in with Obama's plan for a leaner but high tech military. Drone attacks involve no U.S. casualties and are thus not likely to be a political problem domestically.

While no doubt some militant leaders have been killed in drone attacks the reports are often too optimistic. Some militant leaders have about as many lives as cats. Civilian deaths are hardly ever cited in official reports and come only from locals.

Pakistani Doctor acted for CIA to gather DNA evidence on Bin Laden family

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta admitted in CBS interview that a Pakistani doctor was recruited by the CIA to collect DNA evidence that established that Osama was in the compound subsequently attacked by Navy Seals who killed bin Laden.

The doctor Shakil Afridi is in jail on suspicion of treason. The doctor set up a fake hepatitis vaccination program whose actual purpose was to collect DNA samples from the occupants of the compound. A nurse was allowed into the compound.

Once the DNA material was verified Obama authorised the attack that killed Bin Laden. The whole episode was quite embarassing to Pakistan since it was not informed of the operation until it was well under way. Also, it seems that Pakistan should have known about Bin Laden being at the compound.

Since the doctor helped the U.S. fight against terrorism a cause that Pakistan too claims to support, it will be problematic to find him guilty of treason. Perhaps there will be some quiet diplomacy with the good doctor as with President Saleh of Yemen coming to the U.S. for medical reasons. His health may be in danger if he stays in Pakistan! For more see this article.

Pakistan Supreme Court Threatens to Call in Army!

No doubt the US is scrambling to make contacts with opposition members and within the governing party to prepare for what will happen if Zardari is forced to resign, a situation that seems to be more likely as the days go by. Pakistan US relations seem destined to be unsettled during 2010.





- News From Antiwar.com - http://news.antiwar.com -

Pakistan’s Supreme Court Threatens to Call in Army Over Zardari Immunity

Posted By Jason Ditz

In a move that could greatly up the ante in the clash between the Zardari government and the Pakistani judiciary, A top lawyer of the Pakistani Supreme Court warned that they could call in the army to enforce their rulings in the administration declined to do so.

Last month the Supreme Court declared the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) unconstitutional, stripping several key members of the ruling party of legal immunity from a littany of corruption charges stemming from their roles in the previous administrations.

Though President Zardari hypothetically retains immunity through his office, it has also been argued that Zardari’s election was itself illegal because he would have been unable to run without the NRO in place.

Zardari’s ruling Pakistani Peoples Party (PPP) has unsuccessfully petitioned to have Zardari’s immunity retroactively restored, and the court said they could issue another appeal to the decision.

At the same time, Zardari is said to be under growing pressure to resign, with media outlets reporting that he has been sent “umpteen” messages from government institutions, including the military, which have been working with Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani, one of the few top PPP members not currently under charges.

Both Taliban and U.S equally unpopular in Pakistan..

Actually the US is marginally less popular with 9 per cent considering the US positively as a partner but 10 per cent in favor of the Taliban. The U.S. has the same degree of popularity as Al Qaeda!
No doubt Obama's expansion of the drone attacks have not helped his ratings with only 13 per cent having confidence in him. As one commentator summed it up: Obama is like old wine in new bottles. Bush recorked so to speak.


- News From Antiwar.com - http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/13/poll-pakistani-oppose-both-us-and-taliban/ -

Poll: Pakistanis Oppose Both US and Taliban

Posted By Jason Ditz On August 13, 2009 @ 6:52 pm In Uncategorized 1 Comment

The official use of “Af-Pak” to describe the war in Central Asia acknowledges something Pakistanis have known for a long time, that the war over Afghanistan is increasingly taking place in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and the conflict has done material damage to the nation’s security and economy, leaving it one of the least stable nations on the planet.

Polls suggest this increasing strife is dramatically damaging Pakistanis’ view of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the United States, the primary combatants in the conflict. Today’s Pew Global Attitudes poll shows only 10 percent of the nation have a favorable view of the Taliban, down from 27 percent a year ago. Al-Qaeda was slightly lower with only 9 percent approval.

But the United States fared no better, with only nine percent of Pakistanis polled describing the nation as a “partner” and nearly two-thirds characterizing the US as an “enemy.” The number was in keeping with an earlier Gallup poll, which showed Pakistanis identified the US as the biggest threat to Pakistan going forward.

The Pew poll was conducted in 20 countries and showed Pakistanis had the least favorable view of President Obama, with only 13 percent having confidence in him. One lawyer in Lahore told the Associated Press that Obama “is like an old wine in a new bottle.”

Most of the other nations’ view of the US was considerably improved by Obama’s election. Perhaps as a testament to how unpopular the drone strikes, begun under President Bush but dramatically escalated since Obama’s inauguration, remain in the nation and how much they are serving as a driver of popular opinion away from the US.

Eric Margolis: Zardari is the New Musharraf

Zardari probably will not last long. Pakistan may even face civil war. Margolis does not mention that even the US intelligence community warned against these raids. Zardari is corrupt as can be and did not keep his promise to restore all the justices resulting in the departure of Shariz from the coalition government. By signing a nuclear deal with India the U.S. is also alienating Pakistan. Should the U.S. further show its displeasure with Pakistan by cutting off aid no doubt China, Iran, and Russia are waiting in the wings to establish better ties with Pakistan. Discussion of what is happening in the U.S. seems almost nil.


Zardari is the New MusharrafBy Eric S. Margolis 15/09/08 "Khaleej Times" -- - The US has been in a bizarre state of semi-war against its ‘ally’ Pakistan for months, launching covert ground and air raids into its territory while claiming to be a close ally of Islamabad in the so-called war on terror.This week, it was revealed that President George Bush has given the Pentagon the green light to launch major ground attacks inside Pakistan’s tribal territory.Pakistan, first under the US-backed dictator Pervez Musharraf, and now the new, US-backed president, Asif Zardari, has been put in the impossible position of waging a small war at the behest of Washington against its own pro-Taleban Pashtun tribesmen in the frontier zones known as FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) that is bitterly opposed by most Pakistanis and regarded by many as treasonous.Zardari, the widower of the late Benazir Bhutto, is inheriting this dangerous problem and a host of other ones. Pakistan is almost bankrupt, with less than eight weeks of hard currency reserves to pay for vital imports of food and fuel. Half of Pakistan’s 165 million people live on less than $2 daily.Financial and political support from Washington helped engineer Zardari into power. He has been put in charge of the millions a month in overt and secret cash flow from Washington — $11.2 billion officially since 2001 — that Musharraf used to buy influence. Contrary to Washington’s claims it was neutral in the race between Zardari and his rival, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Washington spent a great deal of money and energy trying to sideline Nawaz, who has long been unpopular in Washington as insufficiently responsive to US interests. Zardari became notorious as ‘Mr. 10 per cent’ when he was minister of public contracts during his wife’s tenure as prime minister. Zardari claims all the corruption charges against him were politically motivated and denies any wrongdoing. But many Pakistanis, particularly in the powerful armed forces, are not happy seeing as their new prime minister a man of dubious reputation and a penchant for personal excess. Even so, Zardari has apparently assumed all of the sweeping powers held by former president Musharraf. Now that Zardari is seen as Washington’s new Musharraf, these charges against him will redouble. Few outside his People’s Party see Zardari as an ideal choice for Pakistan’s leader in a time of growing crisis, but he may yet rise to the occasion. He has certainly pleased Washington by vowing to prosecute the internal war against pro-Taleban tribesmen and aid the US-led war in Afghanistan. Rising violence along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border threatens a far wider crisis. There have been frequent clashes between Pakistan paramilitary units and US forces attacking inside FATA. A major overt US commando raid against a Pashtun village inside Pakistan killed up to 20 civilians last week and brought threats from Pakistan’s chief of staff, Gen. Afshaq Kayani, the 650,000-man armed forces would fight to defend the nation’s territory.Deeply frustrated by the failure of its war in Afghanistan and inability to defeat Taleban, the Bush administration wants to expand the war into Pakistan tribal areas which are supposedly serving as a base for the Afghan resistance to western occupation. The Pentagon’s influential Special Operations Command, whose senior ranks hold a number of militant Christian fundamentalists, leads the effort to expand the war into Pakistan. Once again, arrogance and ignorance are misleading the US into another misfortune. Increased US incursions into FATA will almost certainly arouse most of the Pashtun tribes to resist the attackers and eventually involve units of the regular Pakistani armed forces. Pashtuns, 20 per cent of Pakistan’s population, are heavily represented in the higher ranks of the military and intelligence service, ISI.US attacks will inevitably produce ‘mission creep,’ as American forces are sucked ever deeper into Pakistan. Worse, continuing US attacks on FATA could provoke a major Pashtun tribal uprising and re-ignite a simmering secessionist movement for an independent ‘Pashtunistan’ in the strategic northwest frontier that could tear always fragile Pakistan apart and invite Indian intervention as occurred in East Pakistan in 1971. This explosive issue is barely understood in Washington. Meanwhile, Pakistan is a ticking time bomb and the new Zardari government appears headed into a storm of instability and growing opposition. Eric S Margolis is a veteran American journalist who reported from the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan in the ‘80s and ‘90s

Uproar grows over first ground assault by U.S. troops

The U.S. seems to think that it can engage in this type of unilateral action with no punishment just as they (and NATO) carry out operations in Afghanistan with no consultation in many cases, killing civilians in the process. This clear violation of Afghan sovereignty is bound to provoke more unrest. Perhaps the U.S. wants to make it impossible for Pakistan to negotiate a peace treaty with the Tribal Regions because this might provide some safety for radicals. This is from the CSMonitor.


Pakistan: Uproar grows over first ground assault by US troops
Pakistani military officials fear American intervention in the tribal areas could spark a rebellion, derailing counterterrorism operations.
By Liam Stack
posted September 04, 2008 at 9:54 am EDT
United States forces conducted their first ground assaults into Pakistani territory from bases in Afghanistan early Wednesday morning in a raid on a suspected Taliban stronghold in South Waziristan, one of Pakistan's lawless tribal areas. The attack has caused an uproar in Pakistan and raised concerns of a new period of tension between the US and its valuable, nuclear-armed ally in the war on terror, which has entered a period of political uncertainty after the resignation of long-serving president Pervez Musharraf last month.
The US has not officially commented on the raid, and leaders of the US-led NATO peacekeeping force in Afghanistan deny any knowledge of the attack, reports Reuters. But one US official, speaking to CNN on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that the attack had occurred.
The Pentagon has refused to comment officially on the attack, but several defense officials acknowledged that U.S. military activity had taken place inside Pakistan.
The senior U.S. official said a small number of U.S. helicopters landed troops in the village near Angoor Adda in South Waziristan, where Taliban and al Qaeda fighters have hunkered down over the years.
Local media reports said the troops came out of a chopper and fired on civilians. The U.S. official said there may have been a small number of women and children in the immediate vicinity, but when the mission began "everybody came out firing" from the compound.
He said the U.S. troops specifically attacked three buildings in the compound. They were believed to contain individuals responsible for training and equipping insurgents who have been crossing the border into Afghanistan in increasing numbers in recent months and staging large-scale, high-profile attacks against U.S. and coalition forces.
There has been no indication that the US troops were targeting Osama bin Laden or his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Outraged at the violation of sovereignty, the Pakistani government summoned the US ambassador to protest the raid, reports the BBC.
Some officials and analysts say that the raid into Angoor Adda may signal a more aggressive American strategy towards militants in Pakistan's tribal areas and their cross-border raids into Afghanistan, reports The New York Times.
The commando raid by the American forces signaled what top American officials said could be the opening salvo in a much broader campaign by Special Operations forces against the Taliban and Al Qaeda inside Pakistan, a secret plan that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has been advocating for months within President Bush's war council.
It also seemed likely to complicate relations with Pakistan, where the already unstable political situation worsened after the resignation last month of President Pervez Musharraf, a longtime American ally.
"What you're seeing is perhaps a stepping up of activity against militants in sanctuaries in the tribal areas that pose a direct threat to United States forces and Afghan forces in Afghanistan," said one senior American official, who had been briefed on the attack and spoke on condition of anonymity because of the mission's political sensitivity. "There's potential to see more."
But with political uncertainty and the rising tide of violence, some fear that an aggressive American posture could do more harm than good. Speaking to the Associated Press (AP), Pakistani Gen. Athar Abbas said he feared American attacks could provoke a tribal rebellion against Islamabad, which would completely derail counterterrorism operations in the region.
He said the attack would undermine Pakistan's efforts to isolate Islamic extremists and could threaten NATO's major supply lines, which snake from Pakistan's Indian Ocean port of Karachi through the tribal region into Afghanistan.
"We cannot afford a huge uprising at the level of tribe," Abbas told AP. "That would be completely counterproductive and doesn't help the cause of fighting terrorism in the area."
Bloodshed in the tribal areas has become increasingly common in recent weeks. Until a cease-fire was announced last weekend, the Pakistani Army had killed hundreds of militants in the Bajaur tribal region. In a separate incident on Wednesday, Pakistani forces killed 30 militants in a gun battle in the Swat Valley, another site of fierce military-militant clashes, reports Agence France-Presse. On Thursday morning, 25 police recruits were kidnapped by Taliban forces in the tribal areas while on their way to a training center.

Bush praises Pakistan just hours after U.S. strike.

This is from the NY Times.
Gilani may be able to neglect to mention the missile strike on Pakistani soil but it will be noticed in Pakistan as I note in another post. This is the second time that Midhat Umar has been reported killed so we still will need to wait to have the kill confirmed. Apparently seven people were killed including the head of a school. That the U.S. should carried out this attack just hours before Bush met with Gilani is meant to send a message to Pakistan. With other attacks inside Pakistan and with the new nuclear deal with India, the U.S. can expect that whatever Pakistan may say they will probably work for some type of deal with the Taliban and even try to undermine the Karzai government and also the influence of India in Afghanistan.

July 29, 2008
Bush Praises Pakistan Just Hours After U.S. Strike
By STEVEN LEE MYERS
WASHINGTON — President Bush on Monday praised Pakistan’s commitment to fighting extremists along its deteriorating border with Afghanistan, only hours after an American missile strike destroyed what American and Pakistani officials described as a militant outpost in the region, killing at least six fighters.
Mr. Bush, meeting with Pakistan’s prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, at the White House, sought to minimize growing concerns that Pakistan’s willingness to fight extremists was waning, allowing the Taliban and Al Qaeda to regroup inside Pakistan and plan new attacks there and beyond.
Senior American officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just three days ago, publicly scolded Pakistan for not doing more to root out safe havens like the one bombed on Monday in Azam Warsak, a village in South Waziristan near the Afghan border.
Among those believed to have been killed in the missile attack, evidently carried out by a remotely piloted aircraft operated by the Central Intelligence Agency, was an Egyptian identified as a senior Qaeda trainer and weapons expert, according to residents and officials in the area, as well as American officials. Neither the operative’s identity nor that of the others has been confirmed.
The officials spoke anonymously because of the political and diplomatic sensitivities of attacking targets in Pakistan.
The Egyptian operative, Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, appears on the State Department’s list of 37 most-wanted terrorists, with a reward of $5 million for his capture. He is said to be the man who designed the explosives that Richard C. Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, hid in his sneakers during a failed attempt to blow up an airliner on a flight from Paris to Miami in 2001.
He was falsely reported to have been killed in a similar attack in January 2006 in news accounts that attributed the claim to Pakistani officials. The timing of Monday’s strike, the latest in a series by remotely piloted American aircraft inside Pakistan, coincided with the first official visit by Mr. Gilani to the United States.
The meetings on Monday carefully sidestepped the political and diplomatic sensitivities that have strained relations ever since political opponents of the country’s authoritarian president, Pervez Musharraf, won elections this year and formed a governing coalition lead by Mr. Gilani.
Neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Gilani discussed the American strike inside Pakistan, nor recent episodes like the American bombing of a border post in June that killed 11 Pakistani soldiers and inflamed anti-American sentiment. The two leaders appeared eager to show that they were working together closely and respectfully.
With Mr. Gilani by his side on the South Lawn, Mr. Bush praised Pakistan as “a strong ally and a vibrant democracy” and expressed appreciation for “the prime minister’s strong words against the extremists and terrorists.”
“We talked about the need for us to make sure that the Afghan border is secure, as best as possible,” Mr. Bush said before the leaders continued their discussions. “Pakistan has made a very strong commitment to that.”
In his brief remarks and in a joint statement later, Mr. Bush also expressed respect for Pakistan’s sovereignty.
Mr. Gilani, himself seeking to demonstrate his government’s willingness to fight extremism, noted that his party’s leader, Benazir Bhutto, died in an attack by extremists in December.
“This is our own war,” he said, speaking in English. “This is a war which is against Pakistan. And we’ll fight for our own past. And that is because I have lost my own leader, Benazir Bhutto, because of the militants.”
Mr. Bush also announced that the United States would provide $115 million in food aid, including $42 million in the next nine months, to help Pakistan deal with rising food prices, and pledged to support Congressional efforts to expand American aid to areas beyond security and military affairs, including education, energy and agriculture.
The focus of their meetings remained terrorism, though. Asked about tensions in the relationship, the White House press secretary, Dana M. Perino, acknowledged what she described as “the complex issues on the border” between Pakistan and Afghanistan but suggested that differences were overblown.
“It’s tense in that we are working together to try to fight counterterrorism,” she said, “but I think that we are much more on the same page than some people would like to paint.”
In Pakistan, officials and a resident with ties to the Taliban in South Waziristan said Monday’s strike occurred before dawn. At least two missiles hit a compound that had been used as a school, the officials said.
The local resident, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said there had been a meeting at the compound on Sunday, but that many of the attendees had left. A local militant commander, Maulavi Nazir, said the strike left seven people dead, including the head of the school. He complained of frequent American strikes in Pakistan and violations of its airspace.
In Washington, officials were still awaiting confirmation that Mr. Midhat, the Qaeda operative, was among those killed, an American official said.
If so, the official said, it would deal Al Qaeda a significant blow.
“This guy is one of their absolute key specialists in poisons and explosives,” the official said. “He was also a key trainer of people involved in operations inside and outside the tribal areas.”
Mr. Midhat helped Al Qaeda and Taliban plotters tailor bombs or poisons for specific terrorist missions, according to the official and the State Department’s rewards list..
“It doesn’t mean they can’t find other trainers,” the official said, “but they will have lost their most seasoned trainer.”
Ismail Khan contributed reporting from Peshawar, Pakistan, Pir Zubair Shah from Islamabad, and Eric Schmitt from Washington.

Pakistan fury at NATO border raid

Anti-American and anti-NATO feelings in Pakistan run high. Even the party of Bhutto is reacting against U.S. policy and seeking peace with the Taliban. At the same time NATO carries on an operation such as this. Of course drone attacks have been rather common as well.
Sometimes I wonder if U.S. foreign policy makes any sense at all or if it is run by different people on different days of the week!


Pakistan fury at Nato border raid


Pakistan's foreign ministry has said it has lodged a "strong protest" with Nato and the Afghan military after a border skirmish left a Pakistani soldier dead.

At least eight Taleban militants were also killed during the clashes which began when an Afghan border post was attacked before dawn on Wednesday.

During the battle, Nato forces fired shells and carried out an incursion into the Bajaur tribal region, it said.

Nato has not been granted permission to pursue militants over the frontier.

The Pakistani government warned earlier this year that unauthorised incursions by foreign troops would be treated as an invasion.

At a news conference, Pakistani foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Sadiq said Nato and Afghanistan had insisted their troops had only deliberately targeted the militants who initiated the attack. .

We emphasised that military action on Pakistan side is the exclusive responsibility of Pakistani forces

Mohammad Sadiq
Pakistan Foreign Ministry


"We have lodged a strong protest with the Afghan and Isaf (Nato-led International Security Assistance Force) side and told them in clear terms that such incidents must not be repeated," he said.

"We emphasised that military action on Pakistan side is the exclusive responsibility of Pakistani forces," he added.

The US military has in the past, however, launched several missiles targeting Islamist militants based in Pakistan.

A senior al-Qaeda leader in Afghanistan, Abu Laith al-Libi, is believed to have been killed in a such a strike in North Waziristan in January.

U.S. offers Pakistan 7 billion in non-military aid.

This is from The News (Pakistan)The U.S. is obviously abandoning Musharraf. The new government is much more worried about U.S. violation of Pakistani sovereignty and has quite different ideas about how to deal with terrorists. Note that the provocative drone attacks are to cease and that negotiations with the border states is envisioned. The U.S. may not be happy with this but leverage may be limited. There seems to be no clear policy any more from the U.S. side.

US offers Pakistan $7 bn in non-military aid




WASHINGTON: The US has promised to curb air strikes by drones against suspected militants in Pakistan as part of a joint counter-terrorism strategy agreed with the new civilian government in Islamabad, the Guardian has learnt.

That strategy will be supported by an aid package potentially worth more than $7 billon (£3.55 billon), which is due to go before Congress for approval in the next few months. The package would triple the amount of American non-military aid to Pakistan, and is aimed at "redefining" the bilateral relationship, US officials say.

Pakistan will also be given a "democracy dividend" of up to $1 billon, a reward for holding peaceful elections and forming a coalition government. Of that, $200 million could be approved in the next few days.

The aid package, being put together by Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, will mark a decisive break in the US policy on Pakistan, which for much of the past nine years focused on President Pervez Musharraf and the Pakistani military as Washington's primary partners in the "war on terror". Officials in Washington said on Wednesday that the shift had already been made.

"Senator Biden wants to show the relationship is much broader than a military one, and that we are willing to sustain it over time," one of the senator's senior aides said on Wednesday. A US administration official said: "Each day Musharraf's influence becomes less and less. Civilians are in control. People aren't meeting with Musharraf any more ... we are very pleased with the new civilian government."

Pakistani officials say much of the new counter-terrorism aid will be spent on civilian law enforcement institutions, such as the interior ministry, the Intelligence Bureau and the Federal Investigation Agency, rather than being channelled almost exclusively through the Army and the military-run Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

The new government says it has also won American support for its policy of opening a dialogue with tribes along the Afghan border, led by the Awami National Party. The new understanding on air strikes by US Predator drones is seen in Islamabad as a critical benchmark for the new relationship.

In January senior US intelligence officials flew to Islamabad and struck an agreement with Musharraf to give the American military a freer hand in the use of Predators against targets in Pakistan's tribal areas, which have become havens for al-Qaeda and other foreign Jihadists as well as Taliban forces fighting Nato forces and the government in Afghanistan, according to The Guardian.

The subsequent increase in Predator strikes – estimates of the number range up to eight – caused outrage in Pakistan. Britain also broke with Washington over the reliance on air strikes often guided by uncertain intelligence.

Pakistani officials say they have been given assurances by Washington that there will be close consultation with the civilian government, not with Musharraf, before any future strikes. However, the use of Predators is held as a closely-guarded secret and US intelligence is reluctant to share information about targets, and there is some skepticism in Islamabad over whether the deal will stick.

"We'll have to take them at their word, won't we," said Information Minister, Sherry Rehman, in an interview in Islamabad. She added that Washington's previous emphasis on ties to Musharraf and the Pakistani military "hasn't provided the results that were supposed to happen on the ground".

The US has given Pakistan about $10 bn in military aid during the past seven years, but it has not diminished the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, while Pakistani extremism is also on the rise. Some officials in Washington believe most of the money has been used to build up Pakistan's conventional forces for use in a possible future conflict with India, rather than spent on counter-insurgency.

Furthermore, much of the money being used for counter-terrorism is being misspent, both Pakistan and US government officials say. As an example they say that Musharraf distributed the $25 million reward money for capturing or killing "high value" al-Qaeda targets in the form of an "inverted pyramid".

"A few thousand would go to the police constable on the ground, who actually spotted the guy, but the millions go to the generals up the chain," a Pakistani official said. No wonder, he added, the tip-offs stopped coming in and the number of high-profile arrests dropped.