were we at war with Pakistan as we were with Germany ? On Sep 21, 6:57 am, flamestar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
