If I were President Bush, I wouldn't have made them an ally in terror & waste $10 billion dollar for doing nothing.
As john McCain said - "Evil Must be defeated". no matter how. 2001-2008 - 7 years. Those in Pakistan, who would be testing President Bush's patience to get some more billion dollars - they must be day dreaming. If the people of Pakistan are so soverign conscious, they should have supported their Government to get rid of evils from their tribal land. Howcome the universal Islamic brotherhood would go againt 'Jihad' and invite wrath of Allah. When you harbour terrorists, which is the last stop in the war on terror - you are inviting attacks. Fortunately, United States is not being governed by a coward, minority appeaser, politically correct leader like Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh - who , even after back stabbed [1], would hug the Pakistani Prime Minister. When a country harbours terrorists as a state policy (read the following), it automatically vulnerable to BUSH DOCTRINE. And I have no hesitation to say that I am a great admirer of President Bush because of his BUSH Doctrine and terror hunt policy. Now Gov. Palin is also a hunter. I hope she, with John McCain will make a great team of hunter. While John McCain will fly over the tribal areas of Pakistan, Gov. Palin will be hunting the evils. [1] Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11policy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin Analysts at the C.I.A. and other American spy and security agencies believe not only that the bombing of India's embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, in July by militants was aided by ISI operatives, but also that the highest levels of Pakistan's security apparatus ― including the army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani ― had knowledge of the plot. "It's very difficult to imagine he was not aware," a senior American official said of General Kayani. American intelligence agencies have said that senior Pakistani national security officials favor the use of militant groups to preserve Pakistan's influence in the region, as a hedge against India and Afghanistan. In fact, some American intelligence analysts believe that ISI operatives did not mind when their role in the July bombing in Kabul became known. "They didn't cover their tracks very well," a senior Defense Department official said, "and I think the embassy bombing was the ISI drawing a line in the sand." Frank wrote: > President Bush authorises US ground operations inside Pakistan > By Peter Symonds > 12 September 2008 > > Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author > > In a reckless and criminal attempt to suppress the growing insurgency > in Afghanistan, President Bush has secretly authorised the use of US > Special Forces against targets inside the border areas of Pakistan. > The first publicly acknowledged operation took place on September 3 > when helicopter-borne soldiers landed at a village in South > Waziristan, attacked three compounds and slaughtered at least 20 > people. > > The assault provoked widespread outrage throughout Pakistan. According > to yesterday�s New York Times, more than 20 Navy Seals transported in > helicopters and backed by an AC-130 gunship claimed to have killed > �about two dozen Al Qaeda fighters�. Pakistani officials, however, > have produced a detailed list of the victims, which included at least > six women and two children. All of the dead were local villagers; none > were foreigners or �Al Qaeda fighters�. > > The raid, which was followed by three separate US missile strikes in > North Waziristan over the past week, marked a definite shift in White > House policy. American officials confirmed in yesterday�s New York > Times that President Bush signed a secret order in July to allow US > Special Forces to carry out ground assaults in Pakistan without prior > approval from the Pakistani government. > > An unnamed senior US official told the newspaper: �The situation in > the tribal areas is not tolerable. We have to be more assertive. > Orders have been issued.� The presidential decision is the culmination > of a lengthy debate at the top levels of the Bush administration, > during which bitter criticisms were made of the Pakistani government > and military for failing to crack down on militant groups in its > Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). > > The New York Times cautiously noted: �It is unclear precisely what > legal authorities the United States has invoked to conduct even > limited ground operations in a friendly country.� In fact, military > attacks on the territory of any nation�allied or not�constitute an act > of war. While a US official claimed that Islamabad had �privately > assented to the general concept of limited ground operations,� the > Pakistani government has publicly opposed any intrusion by US troops > and issued a formal protest over the September 3 operation. > > The White House has refused to comment on the New York Times article. > However, in a speech at the National Defence University on Tuesday, > President Bush signalled the underlying shift in the US stance, > declaring that parts of Pakistan, along with Iraq and Afghanistan, > were �all theatres in the same overall struggle�. He also announced a > further build up of US troops in Afghanistan. > > Both the BBC and the Associated Press have corroborated the New York > Times story in separate interviews with current and past American > officials. A former intelligence official told the Associated Press > that the Bush administration had also authorised conventional US > ground troops to pursue insurgents across the border into Pakistan. > > Another US official justified Bush�s secret order by claiming that > Pakistan�s military intelligence agency�the Inter Services > Intelligence (ISI)�had previously compromised US operations and may > have assisted insurgent attacks inside Afghanistan. �This [the new > order] is a reaction to that and it was sped up by the revelations > about the penetration of the Pakistani intelligence services. It was > decided that we had no choice but to free up the hands of our > commanders,� the official told the Associated Press. > > Whatever the actions of sections of the ISI, the basic cause of the > rising insurgency inside Afghanistan is the brutal character of the US- > led neo-colonial occupation of the country. Nearly seven years of air > strikes and raids that have resulted in the death or detention of > thousands of civilians have provoked fierce opposition, particularly > among the Pashtun tribes that straddle the border between Afghanistan > and Pakistan. Having laid waste to much of the south and east of > Afghanistan, the Bush administration is launching a dangerous new war > in neighbouring Pakistan. > > The US wars in Afghanistan have already had a deeply destabilising > impact on Pakistan. Under pressure from Washington, the Pakistani > military has dispatched some 120,000 troops to the border areas, where > intense fighting has left many dead on both sides and forced up to > 300,000 people to flee. Local tribes are both fearful and resentful at > the growing number of US missile strikes in the FATA by CIA-controlled > Predator drones, which have indiscriminately killed civilians > including women and children. > > Pakistani anger > > The authorisation of unilateral US ground attacks inside Pakistan is > profoundly embarrassing for the government and the military. Referring > to last week�s US raid, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, head of the > Pakistani military, declared on Wednesday that �such like reckless > actions only help the militants and further fuel the militancy in the > area�. He flatly denied that there was any �agreement or understanding > with the coalition forces whereby they are allowed to conduct > operations on our side of the border�. > > In a chilling warning of potential Pakistani-US clashes, General > Kayani declared: �The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the > country will be defended at all cost.� The fact that Kayani, who > previously has been regarded as sympathetic to Washington, made such a > threat is an indication of deep ruptures within the Pakistani > military. The army�s operations in the FATA have already provoked > opposition in the officer caste, many of whom are ethnic Pashtuns > sympathetic to the local tribes. > > More broadly, there are deep concerns in the army hierarchy that > Pakistan�s backing for the US occupation of Afghanistan and more > broadly the bogus �war on terrorism� has weakened the country�s > strategic position vis-�-vis India, its main regional rival. Following > the September 11 attacks, Washington pressured former Pakistani > strongman Pervez Musharraf to withdraw support from what was regarded > as an important ally�the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Now Pakistan > confronts a situation in Afghanistan where India has established close > links with the US-backed puppet president Hamid Karzai. At the same > time, the US has forged a closer strategic relationship with New > Delhi, even as it has continued to berate Islamabad for failing to do > enough in the �war on terror�. > > As far as the Pakistani military is concerned, US Special Forces > operations inside Pakistani territory set a dangerous precedent for > other powers, especially India, to do the same. The political > establishment in New Delhi routinely brands separatist militias in > Indian-controlled Kashmir as �terrorists�. The most chauvinistic > elements have in the past called for Indian military action against > �terrorist training camps� in Pakistani-held Kashmir. Amid rising > unrest in Kashmir, there are undoubtedly fears in Islamabad that India > may take advantage of the political turmoil in Pakistan and the > virtual civil war along the border with Afghanistan. > > Some commentators have speculated that Kayani�s unusually blunt > comments were simply a shot across the bows of Pakistani President > Asif Ali Zardari, who was formally installed in office the previous > day. Zardari has repeatedly expressed his support for Washington�s > �war on terror� and invited Afghan President Karzai to the swearing-in > ceremony on Tuesday. At the same time, however, Zardari is acutely > aware that most Pakistanis are opposed to the US occupation of > Afghanistan and to US incursions. Following Kayani�s statement, Prime > Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani vowed yesterday to defend the > country�s borders, adding: �I have the same opinion as that of the > army chief on US measures and there is no disparity between our > viewpoints.� > > Whatever Kayani�s immediate motives, his statement reflects the depth > of both anti-US sentiment among Pakistani population and the crisis in > the military and political establishment. Pakistan remains heavily > reliant on American financial and military aid, but the price has been > deepening political turmoil, a weakened strategic position and an > escalating war throughout the FATA region. By authorising the use of > US troops inside Pakistan, the Bush administration is inflaming an > already explosive situation. Having created two quagmires in Iraq and > Afghanistan, the US is well on the way to producing a third. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
