PDA

View Full Version : Pres. Bush to Pakistan: We Don't Need Yer Stinkin' Permission



30 cal slut
09-11-08, 08:20
give 'em hell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11policy.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print



September 11, 2008
Bush Said to Give Orders Allowing Raids in Pakistan
By ERIC SCHMITT and MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON — President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, according to senior American officials.

The classified orders signal a watershed for the Bush administration after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and after months of high-level stalemate about how to challenge the militants’ increasingly secure base in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

American officials say that they will notify Pakistan when they conduct limited ground attacks like the Special Operations raid last Wednesday in a Pakistani village near the Afghanistan border, but that they will not ask for its permission.

“The situation in the tribal areas is not tolerable,” said a senior American official who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the missions. “We have to be more assertive. Orders have been issued.”

The new orders reflect concern about safe havens for Al Qaeda and the Taliban inside Pakistan, as well as an American view that Pakistan lacks the will and ability to combat militants. They also illustrate lingering distrust of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies and a belief that some American operations had been compromised once Pakistanis were advised of the details.

The Central Intelligence Agency has for several years fired missiles at militants inside Pakistan from remotely piloted Predator aircraft. But the new orders for the military’s Special Operations forces relax firm restrictions on conducting raids on the soil of an important ally without its permission.

Pakistan’s top army officer said Wednesday that his forces would not tolerate American incursions like the one that took place last week and that the army would defend the country’s sovereignty “at all costs.”

It is unclear precisely what legal authorities the United States has invoked to conduct even limited ground raids in a friendly country. A second senior American official said that the Pakistani government had privately assented to the general concept of limited ground assaults by Special Operations forces against significant militant targets, but that it did not approve each mission.

The official did not say which members of the government gave their approval.

Any new ground operations in Pakistan raise the prospect of American forces being killed or captured in the restive tribal areas — and a propaganda coup for Al Qaeda. Last week’s raid also presents a major test for Pakistan’s new president, Asif Ali Zardari, who supports more aggressive action by his army against the militants but cannot risk being viewed as an American lap dog, as was his predecessor, Pervez Musharraf.

The new orders were issued after months of debate inside the Bush administration about whether to authorize a ground campaign inside Pakistan. The debate, first reported by The New York Times in late June, at times pitted some officials at the State Department against parts of the Pentagon that advocated aggressive action against Qaeda and Taliban targets inside the tribal areas.

Details about last week’s commando operation have emerged that indicate the mission was more intrusive than had previously been known.

According to two American officials briefed on the raid, it involved more than two dozen members of the Navy Seals who spent several hours on the ground and killed about two dozen suspected Qaeda fighters in what now appeared to have been a planned attack against militants who had been conducting attacks against an American forward operating base across the border in Afghanistan.

Supported by an AC-130 gunship, the Special Operations forces were whisked away by helicopters after completing the mission.

Although the senior American official who provided the most detailed description of the new presidential order would discuss it only on condition of anonymity, his account was corroborated by three other senior American officials from several government agencies, all of whom made clear that they supported the more aggressive approach.

Pakistan’s government has asserted that last week’s raid achieved little except killing civilians and stoking anti-Americanism in the tribal areas.

“Unilateral action by the American forces does not help the war against terror because it only enrages public opinion,” said Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington, during a speech on Friday. “In this particular incident, nothing was gained by the action of the troops.”

As an alternative to American ground operations, some Pakistani officials have made clear that they prefer the C.I.A.’s Predator aircraft, operating from the skies, as a method of killing Qaeda operatives. The C.I.A. for the most part has coordinated with Pakistan’s government before and after it has launched missiles from the drone. On Monday, a Predator strike in North Waziristan killed several Arab Qaeda operatives.

A new American command structure was put in place this year to better coordinate missions by the C.I.A. and members of the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command, made up of the Army’s Delta Force and the Navy Seals.

The move was intended to address frustration on the ground about different agencies operating under different marching orders. Under the arrangement, a senior C.I.A. official based at Bagram air base in Afghanistan was put in charge of coordinating C.I.A. and military activities in the border region.

Spokesmen for the White House, the Defense Department and the C.I.A. declined to comment on Wednesday about the new orders. Some senior Congressional officials have received briefings on the new authorities. A spokeswoman for Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who leads the Armed Services Committee, declined to comment.

American commanders in Afghanistan have complained bitterly that militants use sanctuaries in Pakistan to attack American troops in Afghanistan.

“I’m not convinced we’re winning it in Afghanistan,” Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday. “I am convinced we can.”

Toward that goal, Admiral Mullen said he had ordered a comprehensive military strategy to address the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The commando raid last week and an increasing number of recent missile strikes are part of a more aggressive overall American campaign in the border region aimed at intensifying attacks on Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the waning months of the Bush administration, with less than two months to go before November elections.

State Department officials, as well as some within the National Security Council, have expressed concern about any Special Operations missions that could be carried out without the approval of the American ambassador in Islamabad.

The months-long delay in approving ground missions created intense frustration inside the military’s Special Operations community, which believed that the Bush administration was holding back as the Qaeda safe haven inside Pakistan became more secure for militants.

The stepped-up campaign inside Pakistan comes at a time when American-Pakistani relations have been fraying, and when anger is increasing within American intelligence agencies about ties between Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, known as the ISI, and militants in the tribal areas.

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.”

Cold Zero
09-11-08, 08:27
While I applaud the good news, this should have started 7 years ago.

ToddG
09-11-08, 08:32
Didn't Bush say something about seven years ago regarding how he would deal with nations harboring and supporting the terrorists responsible for 9/11?

Cold Zero
09-11-08, 08:35
Uh, if he did say that he did not mean it.:rolleyes:. It is nice to see that someone finally loaned him a pair.

Business_Casual
09-11-08, 09:02
Here's my guess - we knew, and were told what we already knew by Musharif - that if we went into the tribal areas the ISI would turn on him and kill him. The extremists would take over quickly.

Then you'd have a nuclear-armed state that not only has struck India (an ally) in the past but would probably nuke Mumbai. And then nuke the nearest US base - Manama most likely.

So we probably agreed to let Pervez go after them on his own. Which, considering the foregoing analysis, was rather unlikely to be productive.

Now that Pervez is out of the picture, I'm not sure why we think the nukes are safe but there you go.

M_P

Iraqgunz
09-11-08, 09:24
First of all I would like to thank the New York Times for opening their fat phukking mouths about this. Yes, we know it is happening, but there is no need to broadcast it. With the current political situation in Pakistan I would say that their nukes are not the safest. Musharif had to walk a fine line and so will his successor. One need only to look at the ISI and the turbulent history of Pakistan to understand the situation there.

Tungsten
09-11-08, 09:37
First of all I would like to thank the New York Times for opening their fat phukking mouths about this.

Their SOP, of course.

Cold Zero
09-11-08, 10:24
First of all I would like to thank the New York Times for opening their fat phukking mouths about this. Yes, we know it is happening, but there is no need to broadcast it.

Remember the last time they blew our Op Sec and wrote about Bin Laden's Sat' phone being tapped.:eek:

Iraqgunz
09-11-08, 10:28
Sure do. Funny thing is there is just some stuff that Joe Public doesn't need to know and this is it. I can almost bet that those personnel involved in these OPS are under Non-Dislosure Agreements and such. It's completely asinine to be highlighting this stuff and will possibly put operators in unnecessary peril.


Remember the last time they blew our Op Sec and wrote about Bin Laden's Sat' phone being tapped.:eek:

.357sigger
09-11-08, 11:07
Sure do. Funny thing is there is just some stuff that Joe Public doesn't need to know and this is it. I can almost bet that those personnel involved in these OPS are under Non-Dislosure Agreements and such. It's completely asinine to be highlighting this stuff and will possibly put operators in unnecessary peril.

This is something that most of America needs to grasp...talking about it...let alone publishing something in a freakin international publication puts a lot of things and people in serious jeopardy.

ckmark
09-11-08, 11:16
This is something that most of America needs to grasp...talking about it...let alone publishing something in a freakin international publication puts a lot of things and people in serious jeopardy.

If you think we are just not starting these operations you are sadly mistaken. ;)

Tungsten
09-11-08, 11:58
If you think we are just not starting these operations you are sadly mistaken. ;)

I don't think the timeline really matters, though. The public is obsessed with this misguided notion that we (speaking plainly as someone who has never worn a uniform) are somehow entitled to unfettered access to the battlefield via the media outlet of your choice. That's bullshit. The average Joe has no business knowing this stuff and typically doesn't have the stomach to handle the fact that war is bloody, dirty, violent business. The result is a lot of Monday Morning Quarterbacking of our armed forces and demanding that Congress pull our troops back home, and in essence surrender the fight.

I've got family who have served. Had I not lost sight in one eye as a result of a teenage-years injury, I would have served too. It pisses me off to no end when I see this sort of shit thrown around in the media so casually and then hear the bleeding hearts hover around the water cooler, complaining about the way we've taken the fight to those who deserve it.

Certain media agencies should be tried for treason. :mad:

ckmark
09-11-08, 12:24
I don't think the timeline really matters, though. The public is obsessed with this misguided notion that we (speaking plainly as someone who has never worn a uniform) are somehow entitled to unfettered access to the battlefield via the media outlet of your choice. That's bullshit. The average Joe has no business knowing this stuff and typically doesn't have the stomach to handle the fact that war is bloody, dirty, violent business. The result is a lot of Monday Morning Quarterbacking of our armed forces and demanding that Congress pull our troops back home, and in essence surrender the fight.

I've got family who have served. Had I not lost sight in one eye as a result of a teenage-years injury, I would have served too. It pisses me off to no end when I see this sort of shit thrown around in the media so casually and then hear the bleeding hearts hover around the water cooler, complaining about the way we've taken the fight to those who deserve it.

Certain media agencies should be tried for treason. :mad:

"Certain media agencies should be tried for treason" - That should be quoted throughout history. I remember my senior American Government teacher said "Murder is Treason"

The American public thinks this War is not being won, that we are wasting our time in a country that has been ruled by a tyrant. Our country has a right to know certain things, the status of the war for example should be known. Currently the public has been deceived. We have obliterated all terrorist/extremist forces that have came upon us in the middle east, and we will not stop until they are gone.

I agree 2000000000% that our operations in Middle East should not be disclosed to the public.

This war is a very tactical war for our troops over seas, when you have young children walking out of houses holding Ak-47s firing at you, what do you do? These are things the American public doesn't want to know about. The fact that we have to search house to house for terrorist/extremist leaders/members, which is more then extremely dangerous due to the fact that we have no idea who these people are, what side they are on, or what they have in their houses.

It all just comes down to ignorance on part of the public media, putting out information they just down right shouldn't.

buzz_knox
09-11-08, 12:28
Now that Pervez is out of the picture, I'm not sure why we think the nukes are safe but there you go.

M_P

In Pakistan, a committee controls the nukes, rather than the president. We have been assured that said committee maintains full control over the nukes. :rolleyes:

McQ68
09-11-08, 12:49
In Pakistan, a committee controls the nukes, rather than the president. We have been assured that said committee maintains full control over the nukes. :rolleyes:
We have been "assured" by a politician, that they have complete control of the nukes. OK, now I feel so much better knowing that. "Freedom of the Press". Now there's a controversial concept, unfortuneately controlled by a majority of liberal people. They feel they have the right to inform the general public about any and all topics, no matter who they may put in danger.

.357sigger
09-11-08, 13:05
If you think we are just not starting these operations you are sadly mistaken. ;)

When did I ever say that? I was saying that the public doesnt need to know about every little thing the military does...:confused:

ckmark
09-11-08, 13:09
When did I ever say that? I was saying that the public doesnt need to know about every little thing the military does...:confused:

I was quoting you because I agreed with you, not directing that statment at you. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

BigSam
09-11-08, 16:39
Release the hounds.... a good thing.

It may have been already happening but it's good to know.:D

Sam.

WillC
09-12-08, 04:29
If you think we are just not starting these operations you are sadly mistaken. ;)

ohhh ... a wink ....
Who the F are you?
I am guessing that you are posting this trying to indicate you have some inside knowledge on the topic being covered and if in fact you are indeed in the know (assuming that anything said by some "anonymous gov offical" is fact) how are you being any different than the NY Times?

.357sigger
09-12-08, 05:31
I was quoting you because I agreed with you, not directing that statment at you. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Its all good :D I am a little slow anyways:p

30 cal slut
09-12-08, 07:08
First of all I would like to thank the New York Times for opening their fat phukking mouths about this.

i myself can't stand the Commie Lib Times. big-city dem-booster anti-gun editorials posing as "news" drive me nuts. i might read it when i'm pinching a loaf at the office.

but, to be fair to the CLT i mean NYT, the first raid on 9/3/08 (before the article in my first post in this thread was published) was well-publicized in open source press.




http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080904/ARTICLE/809040357/

Pakistan complains about raid

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


Published: Thursday, September 4, 2008 at 1:00 a.m.

Last Modified: Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 8:10 p.m.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -

Pakistani officials on Wednesday condemned a raid on a village that, according to reports, killed at least 15 people. The officials said U.S.-led troops flew in from Afghanistan for the first known foreign ground assault against a suspected Taliban haven in this country's tribal belt.

The Foreign Ministry protested the attack, and an army spokesman warned that the apparent escalation from recent missile strikes on militant targets along the Afghan border would further anger Pakistanis and undercut cooperation in the war against terrorist groups.

It was unclear whether any extremist leader was killed or captured in the operation, which was reported to have occurred in one of the militant strongholds dotting a frontier region considered a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahri. U.S. military and civilian officials declined to respond to Pakistan's complaints or discuss the matter. U.S. commanders have complained that Pakistan puts too little pressure on militant groups blamed for violence in Afghanistan.

The Pakistani army's spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, said the attack was the first incursion onto Pakistani soil by troops from the foreign forces that ousted Afghanistan's hard-line Taliban regime.

Abbas said Wednesday's attack occurred in a village a little over a mile inside Pakistan. Citing witness and intelligence reports, he said troops flew in on at least one transport helicopter. There were differing reports on how many people were killed. The provincial governor claimed 20 civilians, including women and children, died. Army and intelligence officials, as well as residents, said 15 people were killed.


This story appeared in print on page A5

Iraqgunz
09-12-08, 08:45
.30 Slut,

These raids have been happening even before this. My point is none of this nees to be getting any exposure. It will only serve to further inflame those who want to see us dead. It is happening, has been happening and may well continue to happen. But, it doesn't need to be thrown into peoples faces.

30 cal slut
09-12-08, 08:51
i don't disagree with you IG.

gotta love :rolleyes: the press.

sinister
09-12-08, 09:09
"You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists." GWB, September 12th, 2001.

Per General Pete Schoomaker, former Commander-in-Chief, United States Special Operations Command and retired Chief of Staff of the Army, "There isn't a place on Earth we can't put a Special Forces Operator."