U.S. Ambassador slams Pakistan for lack of support.

This outburst shows little gratitude for the sacrifices that Pakistan made just recently in driving the Taliban out of the SWAT valley. It remains to be seen whether Pakistan can keep control of the area and certainly that offensive created a humanitarian disaster. The U.S. shows very little concern for Pakistani's own concerns or the increase in anti-American feeling that their policies engender in Pakistan. Pakistani governments face an unenviable task of trying to placate US policymakers without endangering their own political power.

US Ambassador Slams ‘Reluctant’ Pakistan for Lack of Support
Posted By Jason Ditz
Raising the stakes in the growing diplomatic divide between the two nations, US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson publicly condemned the Pakistani government, saying it was too “reluctant” in acting against Afghan insurgents.
Patterson, who last week publicly clashed with Pakistan’s largest media outlet, claiming they were “endangering Americans” with their opinion articles, said Pakistan is refusing to target the “biggest threat” to the US-led war in Afghanistan.
This presumably refers to the Haqqani faction in North Waziristan. The Pakistani military has expressed concern that a broader war in North Waziristan would prove unwinnable, as historically the tribes have resisted outside interference.
For the US the war in Afghanistan is priority #1 in the region, while Pakistan has to worry about its own internal stability and tense relations with India. Though the US will likely continue to pressure Pakistan to go “all-in” against the militants along the Afghan border, it will likely only underscore how different their respective priorities are and fuel resentment of the growing US impact on Pakistan’s security situation.

CIA expands its covert war in Pakistan

It sounds as if these extended attacks may have been welcomed by Pakistan since they are aimed at those who are claimed to have assasinated Bhutto. However, such bombings produce collateral damage that often simply recruits more militants.


CIA expands its covert war in Pakistan
By MARK MAZZETTI and DAVID E. SANGERNEW YORK TIMES
­­LOS ANGELES TIMES
WASHINGTON — Over the past week, the Obama administration has expanded the covert war run by the CIA inside Pakistan, launching attacks against a militant network seeking to topple the Pakistani government.
The two missile strikes on training camps run by Baitullah Mehsud represent a broadening of the American campaign inside Pakistan, which has been largely carried out by unmanned drone aircraft. Under President George W. Bush, the United States frequently attacked militants from al-Qaida and the Taliban involved in cross-border attacks into Afghanistan, but had stopped short of raids aimed at Mehsud and his followers, who have played less of a direct role in attacks on American troops.
Strikes continue
The strikes are another sign that President Barack Obama is continuing Bush administration policy in using the military and intelligence agencies against suspected terrorists in Pakistan, as he had promised to do during his presidential campaign. At the same time, Obama has begun to scale back some of the Bush policies on the detention and interrogation of terror suspects, which he has criticized as counterproductive.
Mehsud was identified early last year by both American and Pakistani officials as the man who orchestrated the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister and the wife of Pakistan’s current president, Asif Ali Zardari. Bush included Mehsud’s name in a classified list of militant leaders whom the CIA and American commandos were authorized to capture or kill.
It is unclear why the Obama administration decided to carry out the attacks, which American and Pakistani officials said occurred last Saturday and again on Monday, hitting camps run by Mehsud’s network. The Saturday strike was aimed specifically at Mehsud, according to Pakistani and American officials. The Monday strike, officials say, was aimed at a camp run by Hakeem Ulah Mehsud, a top aide to the militant.
By striking at the Mehsud network, the United States may be seeking to demonstrate to Zardari that the new administration is willing to go after the insurgents of greatest concern to the Pakistani leader. But American officials may also be prompted by growing concern that the militant attacks are increasingly putting the civilian government of Pakistan, a nation with nuclear arms, at risk.
Mehsud a target
For months, Pakistani military and intelligence officials have complained about Washington’s refusal to strike at Mehsud, even while CIA drones struck al-Qaida figures and leaders of the network run by Jalaluddin Haqqani, a militant leader believed responsible for a campaign of violence against American troops in Afghanistan.
According to one senior Pakistani official, Pakistan’s intelligence service on two occasions in recent months gave the United States detailed intelligence about Mehsud’s whereabouts, but, he said, the United States did not act on the information. Bush administration officials had charged that it was the Pakistanis who were reluctant to take on Mehsud and his network.
The strikes came after a visit to Islamabad last week by Richard Holbrooke, the American envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan.
On Friday, Holbrooke declined to talk about the attacks on Mehsud. The White House also declined to speak about Mehsud or the decisions that led up to the new strikes.
Tension over truce
Senior Pakistani officials are scheduled to arrive in Washington next week at a time of rising tension over a declared truce between the Pakistani government and militants in the Swat region of Pakistan.
While the administration has not publicly criticized the Pakistanis, several American officials said in recent days that appeasing the militants would only weaken Pakistan’s civilian government. Holbrooke, who returned to Washington earlier this week, said that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and others would make clear in private, and in detail, why they were so concerned about what was happening in Swat, the need to send more Pakistani forces to the West, and why the deteriorating situation in the tribal areas added to instability in Afghanistan.

Pakistan seeks US nuclear deal

This is from Gulfnews.
This demand is not surprising although the U.S. is not likely to pay any attention to it. The stronger ties now between India and the US are just exacerbating relations between Pakistan and the U.S. However Pakistan receives considerable aid military and otherwise from the U.S. so it is unlikely to do much unless the political situation requires a stronger reaction. So far the reaction is mostly rhetorical and the US seems not to be paying the least attention.


Pakistan seeks US nuclear deal
AgenciesPublished: October 02, 2008, 13:43
Islamabad: Pakistan has said it has the right to demand a nuclear deal with the United States, following the rubber stamping of an agreement with India.
Reacting to the US Senate’s decision to approve the pact with India, prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said the deal means Pakistan now "has the right to demand a civil nuclear agreement with America."
The Prime Minister added that the move would ensure that there was "no discrimination."
However the US has yet to express a desire to strike a deal with Pakistan over civilian nuclear technology.

Zardari: World safer place because of Bush

Zardari obviously wants to curry favor with the U.S. Zardari is famous for getting his cut of everything. Maybe he wants to increase the flow of U.S. aid. For now the U.S. and NATO seem to be confining their actions in Pakistan to drone operations although there have been some reports of more helicopter overflights. It remains to be seen if Zardari will be able to create any sort of stable government in Pakistan. In some border areas the army is pursuing an offence against militants but this has driven many over the border into Afghanistan. Some militants may have gone with them.

World safer place because of Bush’
* Zardari warns ‘the axis of evil is growing’ * Afghan president says world community should have paid more attention to FATABy Khalid HasanNEW YORK: President Asif Ali Zardari has said that the world is a ‘safer place’ because of President George W Bush’s leadership, adding, “It could have been much worse.”In an interview published by the Washington Post on Saturday, Zardari warned that “the axis of evil is growing”, but did not specify who constituted that ‘axis’. He denied that Pakistan had fired at two United States helicopters that had strayed into Pakistani territory from Afghanistan, saying that only warning flares had been fired, contradicting what Admiral Michael Mullen has alleged.Zardari said Pakistan has the opportunity to ‘do the job’ and has the ‘right credentials’ and so has he, having been through a ‘tough life’ that has prepared him ‘to become even tougher’.Attention: In another interview published by the Washington Post, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said there are Taliban sanctuaries ‘in the region’, while agreeing with the interviewer that the international community and the West should have paid more attention to the Tribal Areas. “They should have done all that was needed to be done — political, diplomatic, the right concentration. All those areas where the training (was taking place),” he added. Asked if former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf had tried “quite a few options and if they had all failed”, the Afghan president replied, “Maybe he did try, but we did not see the results. Karzai went on to say, “I have faith in Zardari, and I am sure he will deliver. I am hearing good things about Gen Kayani as well. Afghanistan will do everything to give them a sense of confidence.”

Pakistani troops fire on US Helicopters.

There seems not to be much discussion of this in the US press. It is simply an example of Bush's post 9/11 doctrine that any country that harbors terrorists (the Taliban apparently) will be a foe and not safe from attack. Of course the US harboring anti-Cuban terrorists does not count nor Iraq harbouring anti-Iranian terrorist groups. However, Pakistan receives much military aid from the U.S. and is regarded as an ally. Apparently, Pakistan has a failing grade and so the U.S. is acting on its own. This may plunge Pakistan into civil war but then I guess that is just collateral damage. As a post earlier shows, US intelligence has advised against these actions but then what do they know compared to the Bush neo-con geniuses.

Officials: Pakistani Troops Fired on US Helicopters Trying to Cross Border
Posted September 15, 2008
Early this morning, US helicopters crossed the border into Pakistan’s South Waziristan Agency and attempted to land in Angor Adda, in a raid reminiscent of September 3rd’s unprecedented attack by US helicopters and ground forces in the same region, which killed 20 civilians. This was seen as the beginning of America’s so-called “gloves are off” strategy of escalating attacks along the Pakistani border. But this incident ended quite differently from the previous raid.
Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff Parvez Kayani announced last week that the Pakistani military would no longer allow foreign forces to operate on Pakistani soil. On Thursday, another high ranking Pakistani official, Major-General Athar Abbas confirmed the order, and said the army had been ordered to retaliate against foreign operations. If the Bush Administration was unclear on the sincerity of this position prior to today, it is no doubt clarified as Pakistani troops opened fire on the invading helicopters, forcing them to retreat into Afghanistan.
Officially, Pakistan’s military denies that the Americans ever crossed the border or that their forces fired on them, but several news agencies cite local officials and anonymous military personnel who confirm the incident. One of the local residents told DPA that they had advanced warning of the impending American attack, and that “thousands of armed tribesmen” had amassed on the Pakistani side of the border intent on fighting them off.
The latest border incident comes with newly elected President Asif Ali Zardari en route to Britain for talks with Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Brown has said that he will press Pakistan to allow NATO forces into its territory, though NATO has insisted that it won’t participate in any US cross-border raids.
President Zardari announced in an editorial published the day after the first Angor Adda attack in the Washington Post that he “stands with the United States,” a position that seems increasingly untenable as the unpopular US air strikes continue and tribesmen in the South Waziristan area threaten to abandon a long-standing peace deal if his government doesn’t end the US attacks on them.

Pakistani military to Bar Foreign Operations

This is from Antiwar.com.
It is not clear how the Pakistani military is going to bar these operations. Will they shoot down drowns or attack the U.S. forces? The U.S. seems bound and determined to make the situation in Pakistan even worse than it is. Perhaps they think they can buy off the new Pakistani president. However, Pakistan has already cut off NATO supply lines in retaliation for these attacks. Meanwhile discussion in the US is about pigs and lipstick.

Pakistani Military to Bar Foreign Operations
Posted September 10, 2008
With drone attacks already up over threefold from 2007 the US desire to ramp up attacks inside Pakistan even further has run into another wall today as Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff General Parvez Kayani announced that foreign forces would no longer be allowed to conduct missions inside of Pakistani territory. Gen. Kayani said the rules of engagement were well defined and did not permit coalition forces to operate in Pakistan.
The announcement comes just one week after US helicopters and ground troops attacked a small village in South Waziristan, killing at least 20 civilians according to one Pakistani official. The strike produced a myriad of harsh comments from Pakistani officials and days later the Pakistani government cut supply lines to NATO troops in Afghanistan, a move which Defense Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar said would show “how serious we are”. Earlier this week, a drone strike against a school in North Waziristan which was reportedly carried out by the CIA killed at least 23.
This comes amid reports that the National Intelligence Council warned President Bush last month that attacks in Pakistan were liable to further destabilize Pakistan’s government and military. However, speaking before the House Armed Services Committee today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs head Admiral Michael Mullen stressed the need for striking the “safe havens” of militants inside Pakistan, and recent activities suggest this strategy has won out despite the NIC’s warnings.