In World War II the US conducted military operations in Germany without Berlin's permission. Needless to US popularity in Germany and Japan hit a new low. Remember being liked it more important then being alive and the only good American is a dead American.
On Sep 21, 5:10 am, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > US-Pakistani relations remain on the boil > By Keith Jones > 20 September 2008 > > Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author > > During an impromptu visit to Islamabad this week, the chairman of the > US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, reputedly gave > Pakistan’s government and military assurances that the US will respect > Pakistan’s sovereignty. But only hours later the US staged another > predator-drone attack inside Pakistan, killing at least six people in > a South Waziristan village. > > Pakistani Prime Minister Raza Gilani denounced the drone strike, which > Pakistani authorities insist was mounted without their having been > warned, let alone giving it their sanction. > > Mullen’s visit was described as an attempt to “defuse tension”—a > euphemism for the crisis in US-Pakistani relations provoked by the > unprecedented September 3 US military raid on Pakistan and the > subsequent revelation that George W. Bush signed a presidential order > in mid-July authorizing US Special Operations forces to carry out > missions in Pakistan without Islamabad’s permission. > > In the days following the September 3 raid Pakistan’s parliament > unanimously passed a motion calling for any further attacks to be > repelled by force and members of the Pakistani top brass, including > Pakistan military chief General Ashfaq Kayani, pledged future US > incursions would be resisted. > > On Monday, gunfire from Pakistani forces reportedly forced two US > military helicopters that were attempting to cross into Pakistan—very > near the site of Wednesday’s drone strike and the September 3 raid—to > turn back. > > A Reuters report cited a Pakistani security official as saying, “The > US choppers came into Pakistan by just 100 to 150 meters at Angor > Adda. Even then our troops did not spare them, opened fire on them and > they turned away.” > > The US and Pakistani governments have emphatically denied such an > encounter took place. The official Pakistani military account is that > US choppers did come under fire, but from local tribesmen, not > Pakistani military forces and that the choppers never entered into > Pakistani air space. “Like others,” Major Murad Khan, told the Dawn, > “our forces stationed in the region also heard firing but where it > came from and what was the target, we have no idea.” > > This is belied by other reports. The governor of the nearby North-West > Frontier Province, Owais Ahmed Ghani, said forthrightly in a > television interview broadcast Tuesday, “My political administration > has reported that an incursion took place. In the reaction, people and > law enforcing officials took part.” > > The day after the thwarted US incursion into Pakistan, Major-General > Athar Abbas, the head of the military’s press liaison branch (ISPR), > told Associated Press that in the event of an attempt by US forces to > cross into Pakistan, “The orders are clear. ... [If] there is a very > significant detection, which is very definite, no ambiguity, across > the border, on ground or in the air: open fire.” > > Mullen flew Tuesday from Baghdad to Islamabad—his fifth visit to > Pakistan in the 11 months since he became US military chief. According > to the New York Times, the decision that Mullen should visit Pakistan > was made only after he had left for Iraq, strongly suggesting it was a > response to Monday’s incident. > > A US embassy statement claimed that “the conversations” Mullen had > with Pakistani government and military leaders “were extremely frank, > positive and constructive.” > > An act of war > > The September 3 attack and the presidential order constitute nothing > less than an act of war. They underscore that Washington arrogates to > itself the unbridled right to militarily intervene anywhere in the > world—state sovereignty and international law be damned. > > If they have elicited little political and press comment in the US, it > is because there is a strong bipartisan consensus in Washington in > favor of the US intensifying the war in Afghanistan and extending it > into Pakistan’s border region. Democratic presidential nominee Barack > Obama has repeatedly said he would be prepared to order unilateral US > military strikes in Pakistan. > > The US and many of its NATO allies have latched on to the argument > that Pakistan is serving as a “safe-haven” for Afghan insurgency under > conditions where the US-imposed government in Kabul is increasingly > isolated and discredited. > > The reality is the US occupation of Afghanistan has given rise to an > insurgency in Pakistan’s border regions, whose local populace have > never recognized the British colonial-imposed border. This insurgency > is fueled by outrage over the US intervention in Afghanistan, chronic > socioeconomic backwardness and Islamabad’s traditional indifference > toward the region, and last but not least the brutal methods the > Pakistani military have employed at Washington’s behest in trying to > stamp out support for the Afghan insurgency. These methods have > included carpet-bombing, “disappearances” and colonial-style > collective punishments. > > In recent weeks, hundreds of people have been killed as the Pakistani > military seeks to exert greater control in FATA, the Federally > Administered Tribal Area. Tens of thousands have fled the region, > swelling the refugee population in FATA, which is home to little more > than 3.5 million people, to over 300,000. > > Mounted just days before Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) chairperson > Asif Ali Zaradari was set to be officially sworn in as president, > replacing the ex-army chief and dictator Pervez Musharraf, the > September 3 US raid roiled the Pakistani elite. > > Zardari was in effect being put on notice that the US will work with > him, but only insofar he does its bidding and intensifies the > counterinsurgency war in the country’s border areas. > > For years, Washington strongly backed the dictator Musharraf, calling > him an indispensable ally in the “war on terror.” Now that his regime > has unraveled under the combined weight of popular opposition and > economic crisis, Washington is ratcheting up the pressure, demanding > that the new “democratic” government wage war on its behalf > irrespective of the wishes and aspirations of its own people. > > Opinion polls have repeatedly shown that Zardari and the PPP have > already suffered a huge drop in popularity because of their > subservience to the US in respect to the war and their long dalliance, > at Washington’s urging, with Musharraf. > > As for the military, which has a decades-long intimate relationship > with the Pentagon, the US incursions are a tremendous blow to its > prestige and can only exacerbate tensions within its ranks over its > role in the counterinsurgency war. > > Many within the officer corps subscribe to a fierce Islamic Pakistani > nationalism that was cultivated by General Zia ul-Huq, the dictator > who with Washington’s full-support ruled Pakistan from 1977 to 1988 > and presided over the Pakistani military’s emergence as the conduit > for US and Saudi support for the Islamic fundamentalist opposition to > the Soviet-backed government in Kabul. > > Also, there is a strong Pashtun presence in the officers corps. Press > reports suggest that this layer is particularly angered over having to > suppress their own brethren—the Pashtun bestraddle the Pakistani- > Afghan border—on the US’s behalf. > > For the military as a whole the US violations of Pakistani sovereignty > constitute a challenge to its legitimacy. For decades the Pakistani > military has sought to justify its claim to a massive budget and > decisive share of political power on the grounds that it is the only > institution able to uphold the integrity of Pakistan. > > A new understanding? > > According to articles that have appeared in recent days in various > well-connected newspapers, including the Dawn, New York Times, and > Washington Post, the intensity of the Pakistani military’s opposition > to Washington’s bald assertion of a right to conduct manned military > operations within Pakistan has given the Bush administration pause. > > In the immediate aftermath of the September 3 raid, Pakistani > authorities temporarily closed the most important land route for > transporting supplies via Pakistan to US and NATO forces in > Afghanistan, citing vague security concerns. > > British Law and Justice Secretary Jack Straw made reference to the > issue during a visit to Islamabad. After claiming Britain supports > Pakistani sovereignty, Straw, reports the Pakistani press, “expressed > the hope that Pakistan would continue providing passage to NATO supply > convoys through its territory on their way to Afghanistan.” > > If the press reports, which all cite unnamed sources, are correct, > Washington has agreed—at least for the moment—not to stage further > Special Operations incursions in Pakistani territory in return for > increased “cooperation” in mounting offensive operations in FATA and > increased leeway to unleash predator drones. > > It is an open secret that under Musharraf the CIA was given the right > to stage drone missile strikes in Pakistan’s border regions. Indeed, > the New York Times reported earlier this year that the CIA has a drone > base inside Pakistan. > > “A senior Pakistani diplomat, who did not want to be identified,” > reported Friday’s Dawn, said “while Pakistan would not allow US ground > forces inside its territory, it would be more tolerant of US missile > strikes ... > > “The diplomat said that public perceptions of US military actions in > FATA would, however, force Pakistani authorities to sometimes condemn > air strikes as well.” > > Perhaps signaling such a deal, US Deputy Secretary of State John > Negroponte said Thursday, “Unilateral actions are probably not a > durable or a viable solution over a prolonged period of time. I think > the best way forward for both of our countries is to try to deal with > the situation in that border area on a cooperative basis.” > > Even if the Bush administration has drawn back from a reckless, > flagrantly illegal policy of mounting large-scale raids into Pakistan, > any patched-up agreement between Washington and Islamabad will be > highly unstable. > > The US-installed Afghan regime of Hamid Karzai is rapidly losing > support, and both it and the US have a strong political and military > interest in seeking to shunt as much of the burden of the war onto > Pakistan as possible. > > The US persists in making other demands likely to increase frictions > between Pakistan’s military and its civilian government, such as > removing ultimate control over the principal intelligence agency, the > ISI, from the military. > > India, recognizing Pakistan’s weakness and acting at least in part in > concert with Washington, continues to ratchet up pressure on its > archrival. In recent days, New Delhi has insinuated Pakistan had a > role in a terrorist bombing in India’s capital, stationed new fighter > jets in Kashmir, and unilaterally reduced the flow of the Chenub River > into the Pakistani Punjab. > > Last but not least, anti-US sentiment—fuelled by the occupation of > Afghanistan, the counterinsurgency war inside Pakistan war and the > US’s decades-long policy of sustaining military rule in Islamabad and > using Pakistan as a pawn in its global imperialist strategy—continues > only to grow. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
