the "FOX" propaganda line..... or K. Rupert Mud-Duck... will fire the
lot of them....
nominal9
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704696304575537281933054918.html
The Long War in Pakistan
Progress in Afghanistan will be fleeting if it comes at the cost of
creating more enemies for Islamabad in the border regions..Article
Comments (2) more in Opinion ».EmailPrintSave This ↓ More.
.Twitter
Digg
+ More
close Yahoo!
BuzzMySpacedel.icio.usRedditFacebookLinkedInFarkViadeoOrkut Text By
IMTIAZ GUL
It took the destruction of almost 100 oil tankers and more than a week
of suspended supplies before U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne
Patterson apologized for a Sept. 30 NATO helicopter incursion which
killed three Pakistani soldiers. A U.S. Embassy statement late
Wednesday said a joint investigation showed American pilots had
mistaken the soldiers for Afghan insurgents they had been pursuing.
While Wednesday's apology may momentarily defuse anger in Islamabad,
the prospects for a smoother working relationship are grim. That's
because America's short-term objectives are at odds with the Pakistani
government's long-term strategic interests.
Acrimony between hawks in Islamabad and Washington, where a new White
House assessment sharply criticized Pakistan for being "unwilling to
take action against al Qaeda and like-minded terrorists," has been
growing for months. As an Obama administration official told the
Journal earlier this week, "there are real challenges we have with
Pakistan."
View Full Image
Associated Press
Burning oil tankers in Quetta, Oct. 6, 2010.
.The stated American objective is to destroy al Qaeda and Taliban
sanctuaries in the border regions of Pakistan and stabilize
Afghanistan. Gen. David Petraeus, America's commander in Afghanistan,
has hinted that his forces will do all they can to intercept and kill
insurgents moving across the porous border between Afghanistan and
Pakistan.
But there's a political angle to the General's mission: He needs
tangible military success ahead of Congressional elections in November
and the strategic review in December. That review will presumably
focus on whether and how to gradually extricate the bulk of U.S.
forces from Afghanistan in July next year. That goal has raised
concerns in Islamabad and elsewhere that the Americans will leave
prematurely.
Meanwhile, Pakistan is resisting American calls for all-out warfare
against militants in and around North Waziristan. No one contests the
fact that this mountainous area spread over roughly 5,000 square
kilometers offers sanctuary for insurgents of all types—Afghans,
Pakistanis, Arabs and Uzbeks. Several Pakistani militant groups—such
as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi—are also hiding there, under
the protection of the Haqqani terrorist network. The question is what
can be done.
Gen. Petraeus and the Obama administration view these militants as a
significant source of instability in Afghanistan, where violence has
tripled so far this year compared to the same period last year. Mr.
Obama has suggested, according to Bob Woodward's new book "Obama's
Wars," that the "safe haven" in Pakistan represents the biggest hurdle
to a decisive victory in Afghanistan.
The Pakistani military establishment, however, believes that a head-on
confrontation in North Waziristan will do more harm than good. It
would not only antagonize dozens of wily tribes in the border region,
but could also trigger a retaliation among Pakistan's militant
networks, who have shown a growing willingness to turn their wrath on
civilians.
Scores of militants from the vicious Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and
Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, crucial allies of al Qaeda in the border regions,
have inflicted heavy human and material losses in roughly 50 suicide
bombings so far this year. It is understandable that Pakistanis would
not want to invite more. Targeted killings of liberal scholars such as
Dr. Mohammad Farooq, a vocal critic of suicide bombings gunned down a
week ago at his clinic, and continued bombing of girls schools
underscore how violence plagues Pakistan.
The recent torching of fuel tankers thus inflamed an already
combustible situation. Around two-thirds of all NATO cargo destined
for Afghanistan passes through Pakistan, the shortest route for these
consignments. Almost 6,500 trucks currently transport cargo from the
Arabian Sea port of Karachi to Afghanistan, making it one of the
largest cargo operations in recent decades. The Tehreek-e-Taliban
claimed responsibility for these acts of arson but hard-line
nationalists within the Pakistani security establishment may have
prompted these attacks.
Continuing U.S. drone strikes, like the one that allegedly killed the
German mastermind of a "Euro-terror plot," further complicate the
relationship. The new rage against America is not restricted to the
militants and their backers within the establishment. From right to
left, almost every Pakistani is up in arms against the mounting
pressure from Washington. Almost 27 drone strikes since early
September and at least three border violations seem to have united
most analysts, electronic media, columnists, politicians and members
of civil society, who feel that the government must defend its
sovereignty.
Reconciling the conflicting Pakistani and U.S. policy objectives
therefore represents a formidable challenge. Most Pakistani analysts
believe that Gen. Petraeus has shifted the focus of war from
Afghanistan to their country in an effort to suck the Pakistan army
into North Waziristan. But it is highly questionable whether a frontal
assault by the Pakistan army on militants there would bring stability
to Afghanistan. Pakistan has paid a high price for America's long and
unpopular war across its border.
The U.S.-Pakistan relationship may not be at the breaking point yet.
After all, Pakistan remains a crucial link in the U.S. strategy in
Afghanistan. But Pakistan's own instability is also a source of
concern to the administration. Washington has to remember that
progress in Afghanistan will be fleeting if it comes at the cost of
creating more enemies for Pakistan's weak and unpopular government in
the border regions.
Mr. Gul heads the Centre for Research and Security Studies, Islamabad,
and is the author of "The Most Dangerous Place" (Viking, 2010).
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution
and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and
by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies,
please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
www.djreprints.com
More In Opinion EmailPrinter FriendlyOrder Reprints
On Oct 7, 3:06 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Pakistan-Border-Crossing-Still-Sh...
>
> The United States has apologized to Pakistan for last week's
> helicopter raid that killed Pakistani soldiers near the Afghan
> border. Despite the apology, the key border crossing for NATO's
> overland supply lines border remains closed and Taliban militants have
> destroyed more than 100 trucks in the past week. Thousands of other
> trucks now sit idle, waiting for the main crossing to reopen.
>
> Gunmen stormed a truck depot on Nowshera district late Wednesday,
> burning some 26 vehicles. Earlier, another group of vehicles was
> attacked near the southern city Quetta. NATO supply routes have long
> been targeted by Pakistani militants, but the cluster of attacks
> following the Torkham border closure has highlighted the vulnerability
> of the route.
>
> Truck drivers at the Torkham crossing on Wednesday said they had been
> left stranded by the closure, with many forced to stay with their NATO
> supply containers to try to protect them from theft or attack. Driver
> Haider Khan Afradi said drivers are now at risk throughout their
> journey.
>
> "We are always in danger when we start from Karachi towards Torkham up
> to Kabul. There is no security for us and we are suffering a lot,"
> Khan told the Associated Press.
>
> NATO pays Pakistani contractors to unload fuel and supplies from cargo
> ships and fuel tankers arriving in the southern port Karachi. Truckers
> then drive the supplies hundreds of kilometers across the Hindu Kush
> mountains to landlocked Afghanistan. Parts of the routes pass through
> areas controlled by the Taliban and Pakistani officials have said in
> recent days that the government is not responsible for ensuring the
> trucks safety.
>
> Pakistani officials also have not indicated when the border will
> reopen. Pakistan's Foreign Ministry Spokesman Abdul Basit said
> Thursday that officials are still evaluating the security situation
> and will reopen the supply route "in due course."
>
> NATO authorities insist that the closure of their main land supply
> route is not hindering the Afghan war effort. But analysts say the
> extended closure is affecting the already tense relationship between
> Pakistan and the United States.
>
> Harsh Pant, an analyst and lecturer at the Department of Defence
> Studies at King's College in London, predicts the border closure
> incident will lead to worsening relations between the two nations.
>
> "I think they are very tense and perhaps at one of their lowest ebbs
> that we have seen in recent times. And the problem, of course, is on
> both sides," Pant said. "There is a sense about the impending end game
> in Afghanistan and what the other side is planning to do."
>
> The United States has pressed Pakistan to more aggressively go after
> militant safe havens on the Pakistani side of the border. While
> Pakistani forces have launched assaults in parts of the border region
> and elsewhere in the northwest, the army has not attacked the main
> militant strongholds in the North Waziristan tribal region. Instead,
> the United States is increasingly targeting fighters there with drone
> attacks, pounding the region last month with a record number of
> strikes against suspected militant hideouts.
>
> Pakistan officially opposes the drone policy, and the foreign ministry
> spokesman Thursday said authorities continue to raise the issue with
> Washington.
>
> "About drone attacks, I have very clearly articulated and cited our
> position," Basit said. "We do have strong differences with the U.S.
> on these attacks as well, and there are ongoing consultations with the
> U.S. on this issue, and we hope that the U.S. would reflect on this,
> would re-visit its position."
>
> Despite the denials, Pakistani authorities are believed to privately
> condone the practice and secretly work with the United States
> intelligence agency, the CIA, to help target Islamic extremists.
>
> The United States has provided more than $15 billion in aid to
> Pakistan since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and in
> return, Pakistan has allowed coalition forces to use the country as a
> key transit route for supplies.
>
> Publicly, top U.S. and Pakistani officials say the key relationship
> between the U.S. and Pakistani remains productive. But throughout the
> war, there has also been evidence that the two countries have
> fundamental differences over their goals in Afghanistan.
>
> The Wall Street Journal newspaper reported on Thursday that members of
> Pakistan's intelligence agency are pressuring militants to continue
> fighting against NATO and the United States, despite Afghan efforts to
> begin peace talks. Pakistani authorities denied the allegation, made
> by an anonymous Taliban commander quoted by the newspaper. An unnamed
> Pakistan official told The Wall Street Journal that the Pakistani spy
> agency is an easy scapegoat for failures in Afghanistan.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment