Drones are Key Weapons in Obama's Counter-terrorism Strategy

The United States government has made a series of attacks on targets in northwest Pakistan since 2004 using drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) controlled by the Central Intelligence Agency's Special Activities Division. These attacks are part of the United States' War on Terrorism campaign, seeking to defeat Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants in Pakistan. Most of these attacks are on targets in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Afghan border in Northwest Pakistan. These strikes have increased substantially under the Presidency of Barack Obama. Some media refer to the series of attacks as a "drone war." Drone strikes were halted in November 2011 after NATO forces killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in the Salala incident. Shamsi Airfield was evacuated of Americans and taken over by the Pakistanis the next month. The incident prompted an approximately two-month stop to the drone strikes, which resumed on January 10, 2012.

According to unnamed counterterrorism officials, in 2009 or 2010 CIA drones began employing smaller missiles in airstrikes in Pakistan in order to reduce civilian casualties. The new missiles, called the Small Smart Weapon or Scorpion, are reportedly about the size of a violin case (21 inches long) and weigh 16 kg. The missiles are used in combination with new technology intended to increase accuracy and expand surveillance, including the use of small, unarmed surveillance drones to exactly pinpoint the location of targets. These "micro-UAVs" (unmanned aerial vehicles) can be roughly the size of a pizza platter and meant to monitor potential targets at close range, for hours or days at a time. One former U.S. official who worked with micro-UAVs said that they can be almost impossible to detect at night. "It can be outside your window and you won't hear a whisper," the official said. The drone operators also have changed to trying to target insurgents in vehicles rather than residences to reduce the chances of civilian casualties.

The U.S. Government believed that 1,300 militants and only 30 civilians had been killed in drone strikes since mid-2008, with no civilians killed since August 2010. According to the Long War Journal, as of mid-2011, the drone strikes in Pakistan since 2006 had killed 2,018 militants and 138 civilians. The New America Foundation stated in mid-2011 that since 2004 2,551 people have been killed in the strikes, with 80% of those militants. The Foundation stated that 95% of those killed in 2010 were militants. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism based on extensive research found in mid-2011 that at least 385 civilians were among the dead, including more than 160 children.

[Source: Wikipedia]

Exclusive: Senior al Qaeda Figure Killed in Drone Strike

Reuters
January 20, 2012

A militant who acted as a senior operations organizer for al Qaeda was targeted and killed in one of two U.S. drone strikes launched against targets inside Pakistan last week, a U.S. official said.

U.S. and Pakistani sources told Reuters that the target of the attack was Aslam Awan, a Pakistani national from Abbottabad, the same town where Osama bin Laden was killed last May by a U.S. commando team. They said he was targeted in a strike by a U.S.-operated drone on January 10 directed at what news reports said was a compound near the town of Miranshah in the border province of North Waziristan.

That strike broke an undeclared eight-week hiatus in attacks by the armed, unmanned drones that patrol Pakistan's tribal areas and are a key weapon in U.S. President Barack Obama's counter-terrorism strategy.

The sources described Awan, who also was known by the nom-de-guerre Abdullah Khorasani, as a significant figure in the remaining core leadership of al Qaeda, which U.S. officials say has been sharply reduced by the drone campaign. Most of the drone attacks are conducted as part of a clandestine CIA operation.

Pakistani officials could not confirm that Awan was killed in the drone attack, but the U.S. official said he was.

One of the sources described Awan as an associate of al Qaeda's current chief of external operations, whose identity is known to intelligence officials but not to the general public.

"Aslam Awan was a senior al-Qaeda external operations planner who was working on attacks against the West. His death reduces al-Qaeda's thinning bench of another operative devoted to plotting the death of innocent civilians," a U.S. official said.

Several previous alleged chiefs of external operations for al Qaeda have been caught or killed in drone attacks or counter-terrorism operations, the most notorious being Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington D.C. Mohammed was captured and is being held by U.S. authorities in the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detention facility.

Because their role in arranging operations involves interacting with militants in the field, external operations chiefs of al Qaeda have found themselves more vulnerable to exposure and counter-attacks by security forces than the movement's most senior leaders, who until bin Laden's demise last year appeared to be able to move about the region and issue provocative audio and video messages with near-impunity.

A Pakistani security source based in the country's border region said that Awan was the remaining member of an al Qaeda cell Pakistani authorities have been trying to roll up since 2008.

"We thought he was very close to Ayman al-Zawahiri," the source said, referring to al Qaeda's current leader and bin Laden's long-time deputy, a former Egyptian doctor.

However, a U.S. source said that American experts did not believe that Awan was particularly close to al-Zawahiri.

The drone strike that targeted Awan was one of two such attacks last week, in what U.S. sources indicated was a resumption of the U.S. drone campaign following the eight-week pause. In the other drone strike, also in North Waziristan, a group of "foreign fighters" sympathetic to the Taliban and al Qaeda, some of Uzbek ethnicity, were targeted on January 12.

MILITANTS HIT NEAR BORDER

The targeted militants were believed to be travelling, possibly in preparation for an operation near Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, and some were injured or killed in the attack, the U.S. source said.

U.S. officials said they could not confirm news reports, based on claims from Pakistani sources, that Hakimullah Mehsud, leader of the TTP, Pakistan's most potent domestic affiliate of the Taliban movement, was also killed in the June 12 attack. Pakistani and U.S. sources said that Mehsud was not targeted in the drone strike, and one Pakistani source said:

"He is alive. Hakimullah is alive."

U.S. officials insisted that the drone strike lull did not represent an official moratorium on such operations by the Obama administration. The officials maintained that any fall-off in the pace of such operations was related to the availability of intelligence and operating conditions, such as weather.

However, some officials did privately acknowledge that the drone lull was at least in part calculated to try to improve strained relations between Washington and Islamabad, which had been on a downswing for much of last year in the wake of Pakistan's detention of a CIA operative and the secret U.S. commando raid on bin Laden's Pakistani hideout.

Relations plummeted to a new low following a late November incident in which 24 Pakistani troops were killed accidentally in a NATO aerial attack on border outposts.

Some U.S. and Pakistani officials say that both governments are making efforts to improve relations. As part of this process, a U.S. official said, it is possible that some permanent tweaks could be made in the U.S. drone program which could slow the pace of attacks.

For Our Allies, Death from Above

The New York Times
November 3, 2011

LAST Friday, I took part in an unusual meeting in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad.

The meeting had been organized so that Pashtun tribal elders who lived along the Pakistani-Afghan frontier could meet with Westerners for the first time to offer their perspectives on the shadowy drone war being waged by the Central Intelligence Agency in their region. Twenty men came to air their views; some brought their young sons along to experience this rare interaction with Americans. In all, 60 villagers made the journey.

The meeting was organized as a traditional jirga. In Pashtun culture, a jirga acts as both a parliament and a courtroom: it is the time-honored way in which Pashtuns have tried to establish rules and settle differences amicably with those who they feel have wronged them.

On the night before the meeting, we had a dinner, to break the ice. During the meal, I met a boy named Tariq Aziz. He was 16. As we ate, the stern, bearded faces all around me slowly melted into smiles. Tariq smiled much sooner; he was too young to boast much facial hair, and too young to have learned to hate.

The next day, the jirga lasted several hours. I had a translator, but the gist of each man’s speech was clear. American drones would circle their homes all day before unleashing Hellfire missiles, often in the dark hours between midnight and dawn. Death lurked everywhere around them.

When it was my turn to speak, I mentioned the official American position: that these were precision strikes and no innocent civilian had been killed in 15 months. My comment was met with snorts of derision.

I told the elders that the only way to convince the American people of their suffering was to accumulate physical proof that civilians had been killed. Three of the men, at considerable personal risk, had collected the detritus of half a dozen missiles; they had taken 100 pictures of the carnage.

In one instance, they matched missile fragments with a photograph of a dead child, killed in August 2010 during the C.I.A.’s period of supposed infallibility. This made their grievances much more tangible.

Collecting evidence is a dangerous business. The drones are not the only enemy. The Pakistani military has sealed the area off from journalists, so the truth is hard to come by. One man investigating drone strikes that killed civilians was captured by the Taliban and held for 63 days on suspicion of spying for the United States.

At the end of the day, Tariq stepped forward. He volunteered to gather proof if it would help to protect his family from future harm. We told him to think about it some more before moving forward; if he carried a camera he might attract the hostility of the extremists.

But the militants never had the chance to harm him. On Monday, he was killed by a C.I.A. drone strike, along with his 12-year-old cousin, Waheed Khan. The two of them had been dispatched, with Tariq driving, to pick up their aunt and bring her home to the village of Norak, when their short lives were ended by a Hellfire missile.

My mistake had been to see the drone war in Waziristan in terms of abstract legal theory — as a blatantly illegal invasion of Pakistan’s sovereignty, akin to President Richard M. Nixon’s bombing of Cambodia in 1970.

But now, the issue has suddenly become very real and personal. Tariq was a good kid, and courageous. My warm hand recently touched his in friendship; yet, within three days, his would be cold in death, the rigor mortis inflicted by my government.

And Tariq’s extended family, so recently hoping to be our allies for peace, has now been ripped apart by an American missile — most likely making any effort we make at reconciliation futile.

Q&A: The Use of Drones to Kill Terrorists Comes Under Fire

New Jersey On-Line
October 2, 2011

EPA Site/Intelligence HandoutAn undated handout photograph provided by the Site Intelligence Group on September 30 shows Anwar al-Awlaki speaking in a video message posted on an internet website in an unkown location.

The U.S. government on Friday trumpeted the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born cleric who rose to the top of al Qaeda in Yemen. He was taken out by a CIA-operated drone missile as he sat in a vehicle with another American radical, reportedly the editor of an online jihadist magazine.

Awlaki’s death comes in the midst of a contentious debate between the State Department and the Pentagon: In its ongoing efforts to prevent another terrorist attack, can the United States use drone missiles to kill suspected terrorists? And what if those suspects are far from any battlefield, in countries with whom we are not at war? Getting Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking al Qaeda officials has been the focus of U.S. efforts so far, but that soon may change.

David Cole, a professor of constitutional law, national security and criminal justice at Georgetown University Law Center, recently wrote about the implications of that discussion for the New York Review of Books. Editorial writer Linda Ocasio spoke with Cole about his thoughts on what the shift in strategy might mean for the United States and its relations with other nations.

Q. We’ve been told for the last 10 years that the war on terror is a war like no other. We’re fighting stateless terrorists, so why is it a problem to chase after them, no matter where they are?

A. First of all, it’s not a war on terror. That’s like having a war on murder; it doesn’t make sense. Obama has avoided that rhetoric. It’s a war with the organization that attacked us on 9/11, al Qaeda, and the group that harbored it, the Taliban.

Using military force against them is one thing. When you start saying you can target anyone, not just members of groups against which Congress authorized military action, in any country, we’re overstepping the authority that international law and the U.S. Constitution give us.

In a military conflict, the U.S. unquestionably has the authority to kill those fighting against us on the battlefield. But where do we get the right to target and kill a member of al Shabab, a militant group in Somalia, where we are not at war? Is it enough that the group is believed to have some al Qaeda sympathies?

The use of military force is permitted within the confines of war, not outside it. From my view, it’s critical we have clear lines about when it is appropriate to use these practices and when it is not. And thus far, the policy has operated in secret, without any clear lines that we can see.

Q. Was the killing of al-Awlaki legal?

A. The killing of al-Awlaki may or not have been legal. He was far from any battlefield, but news reports state that he was involved in encouraging or directing several attacks, including that of the "Christmas Day bomber," and may have been planning future attacks. If that is true, and if he was effectively a "co-belligerent" fighting with al Qaeda, and if Yemen could not detain him, the attack may well have been legal. But because the entire drone program operates under a shroud of secrecy, we just don’t know.

And regardless of the legality of this particular attack, it ought to be a matter of grave concern to all Americans that our government is killing its own citizens pursuant to a program that it has yet to delineate or defend publicly.

Q. Was there any question that we had a right to assassinate Osama bin Laden?

A. No, he’s the leader of al Qaeda, and we targeted him in Pakistan, from which many attacks have been launched by al Qaeda, so that was permissible. What’s troubling about the debates within the Obama administration is that they’re not talking about targeting al Qaeda leaders, but rank-and-file members of other groups that never attacked us, in countries far from the military conflict, like Yemen and Somalia.

Q. What would be the consequences to the U.S. of pursuing that strategy?

A. We have to ask: Is this a strategy we would be comfortable with other countries employing? Other countries may already have, or will soon develop, drone capability.

Do we want China, Russia or Pakistan to use targeted missiles to kill people, in other countries, they claim they suspect of terrorism? It’s a very dangerous sort of strategy, which could create more military conflict, war and instability around the world.

Q. How then do we effectively pursue those plotting against the United States?

A. Outside of a specific ongoing war, the state generally may not simply kill those it suspects of wrongdoing. We require a trial and appeals process so we don’t punish, much less kill, the wrong people — even for terrorist offenses.

We have successfully dealt with many terrorist threats through the criminal process, working with allies and other nations to bring people to justice. It is dangerous to put that aside and adopt a strategy that allows us to kill without any process.

While killing is an inevitable part of war, it is critical that we have clear lines that distinguish war and peacetime authorities. And the fact that the current policy has been maintained in secret means that we the people have no opportunity to judge whether our government is overstepping its bounds.

Read More...

Pakistan Demands U.S. Vacate Air Base

NATO Attack Allegedly Kills 24 Pakistani Troops

Associated Press
November 26, 2011

Pakistan on Saturday blocked vital supply routes for U.S.-led troops in Afghanistan and demanded Washington vacate a base used by American drones after coalition aircraft allegedly killed 24 Pakistani troops at two posts along a mountainous frontier that serves as a safe haven for militants.

The incident was a major blow to American efforts to rebuild an already tattered alliance vital to winding down the 10-year-old Afghan war. Islamabad called the bloodshed in one of its tribal areas a "grave infringement" of the country's sovereignty, and it could make it even more difficult for the U.S. to enlist Pakistan's help in pushing Afghan insurgents to engage in peace talks.

A NATO spokesman said it was likely that coalition airstrikes caused Pakistani casualties, but an investigation was being conducted to determine the details. If confirmed, it would be the deadliest friendly fire incident by NATO against Pakistani troops since the Afghan war began a decade ago.

A prolonged closure of Pakistan's two Afghan border crossings to NATO supplies could cause serious problems for the coalition. The U.S., which is the largest member of the NATO force in Afghanistan, ships more than 30 percent of its non-lethal supplies through Pakistan. The coalition has alternative routes through Central Asia into northern Afghanistan, but they are costlier and less efficient.

Pakistan temporarily closed one of its Afghan crossings to NATO supplies last year after U.S. helicopters accidentally killed two Pakistani soldiers. Suspected militants took advantage of the impasse to launch attacks against stranded or rerouted trucks carrying NATO supplies. The government reopened the border after about 10 days when the U.S. apologized. NATO said at the time the relatively short closure did not significantly affect its ability to keep its troops supplied.

But the reported casualties are much greater this time, and the relationship between Pakistan and the U.S. has severely deteriorated over the last year, especially following the covert American raid that killed Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani garrison town in May. Islamabad was outraged it wasn't told about the operation beforehand.

The government announced it closed its border crossings to NATO in a statement issued after an emergency meeting of the Cabinet's defense committee chaired by Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

It also said that within 15 days the U.S. must vacate Shamsi Air Base, which is located in southwestern Baluchistan province. The U.S. uses the base to service drones that target al-Qaida and Taliban militants in Pakistan's tribal region when they cannot return to their bases inside Afghanistan because of weather conditions or mechanical difficulty, said U.S. and Pakistani officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive strategic matters.

The government also plans to review all diplomatic, military and intelligence cooperation with the U.S. and other NATO forces, according to the statement issued after the defense committee meeting.

The Pakistani army said Saturday that NATO helicopters and fighter jets carried out an "unprovoked" attack on two of its border posts in the Mohmand tribal area before dawn, killing 24 soldiers and wounding 13 others. The troops responded in self-defense "with all available weapons," an army statement said.

Pakistan army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani condemned the attack, calling it a "blatant and unacceptable act," according to the statement.

A spokesman for NATO forces, Brig. Gen. Carsten Jacobson, said Afghan and coalition troops were operating in the border area of eastern Afghanistan when "a tactical situation" prompted them to call in close air support. It is "highly likely" that the airstrikes caused Pakistani casualties, he told BBC television.

"My most sincere and personal heartfelt condolences go out to the families and loved ones of any members of Pakistan security forces who may have been killed or injured," said Gen. John Allen, the top overall commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, in a statement.

The border issue is a major source of tension between Islamabad and Washington, which is committed to withdrawing its combat troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

Much of the violence in Afghanistan is carried out by insurgents who are based just across the border in Pakistan. Coalition forces are not allowed to cross the frontier to attack the militants. However, the militants sometimes fire artillery and rockets across the line, reportedly from locations close to Pakistani army posts.

American officials have repeatedly accused Pakistani forces of supporting — or turning a blind eye — to militants using its territory for cross-border attacks. But militants based in Afghanistan have also been attacking Pakistan recently, prompting complaints from Islamabad.

The two posts that were attacked Saturday were located about 1,000 feet apart on a mountain top and were set up recently to stop Pakistani Taliban militants holed up in Afghanistan from crossing the border and staging attacks, said local government and security officials.

There was no militant activity in the area when the alleged NATO attack occurred, local officials said. Some of the soldiers were standing guard, while others were asleep, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

Pakistan army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said map references of all of the force's border posts have been given to NATO several times.

Pakistan's prime minister summoned U.S. Ambassador Cameron Munter to protest the alleged NATO strike, according to a Foreign Ministry statement. It said the attack was a "grave infringement of Pakistan's sovereignty" and could have serious repercussions on Pakistan's cooperation with NATO.

Munter said in a statement that he regretted any Pakistani deaths and promised to work closely with Islamabad to investigate the incident.

The U.S., Pakistan, and Afghan militaries have long wrestled with the technical difficulties of patrolling a border that in many places is disputed or poorly marked. Saturday's incident took place a day after a meeting between NATO's Gen. Allen and Pakistan army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani in Islamabad to discuss border operations.

The meeting tackled "coordination, communication and procedures ... aimed at enhancing border control on both sides," according to a statement from the Pakistani side.

The U.S. helicopter attack that killed two Pakistani soldiers on Sept. 30 of last year took place south of Mohmand in the Kurram tribal area. A joint U.S.-Pakistan investigation found that Pakistani soldiers fired at the two U.S. helicopters prior to the attack, a move the investigation team said was likely meant to notify the aircraft of their presence after they passed into Pakistani airspace several times.

A U.S. airstrike in June 2008 reportedly killed 11 Pakistani paramilitary troops during a clash between militants and coalition forces in the tribal region.

Pakistan Defies U.S. Over Iran Gas Deal

Pakistan says it will press ahead with its Iran gas pipeline deal despite a strong opposition by the United States, Press TV reports.

PressTV
November 25, 2011

Pakistan's Information Minister Firdous Ashiq Awan said on Friday that Islamabad will not accept any dictation regarding its internal affairs from any foreign country, adding that exporting gas from Iran is in the country's best interest.

The remarks came as a reaction to earlier pleas by Washington's Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter that the Pakistani government abort its multi-billion dollar gas pipeline project with Iran.

“Pak-Iran gas pipeline is not a good idea….However, the plan to get gas from Turkmenistan is a better idea,” Press TV correspondent quoted Munter as saying on Friday.

The USD 7.6 billion gas pipeline deal, which was signed in June 2010, aims to export a daily amount of 21.5 million cubic meters (or 8.7 billion cubic meters per year) of Iranian natural gas to Pakistan.

Last month, Pakistan's Minister of Oil and Natural Resources Asim Hussain said the Iran-Pakistan natural gas pipeline would be inaugurated before the end of 2013, one year ahead of the original schedule.

Maximum daily gas transfer capacity of the 56-inch pipeline, which runs over 900 km of Iran's soil from Asalouyeh in Bushehr Province to the city of Iranshahr in Sistan and Baluchestan Province, has been given at 110 million cubic meters.

Iran and Pakistan finalized the details of the deal during bilateral talks held in Tehran in October 2007.

The deal comes in the face of Washington's efforts to isolate Iran economically through UN Security Council sanctions and its own unilateral penalties over Tehran's nuclear programs.

Iran ranks second in the world in natural gas resources after Russia with available gas reserves estimated at over 33 trillion cubic meters.

In addition to exporting gas to Turkey, Armenia, and Pakistan, the country is currently negotiating gas exports to Iraq.

China-Pakistan Alliance Strengthened Post Bin Laden

Pakistan's Gilani Visits Ally Beijing Amid U.S. Rift

Associated Press
May 16, 2011

Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani began a visit to China on Tuesday with his country's old ally looking more attractive after the U.S. killing of Osama bin Laden further strained Islamabad's ties with Washington.

The sentiment is mutual, with China now in the process of shoring up its relations with Islamabad, Afghanistan and several other Central Asia states in step with an expected diminished U.S. presence as it winds down military operations in Afghanistan.

For Pakistan, Beijing represents an uncritical friend ready to provide aid, investment and military assistance. To the leaders in Beijing, ties with Pakistan and other countries in its neighborhood offer a bigger diplomatic footprint, better access to resources and a larger stable of allies to challenge U.S. supremacy.

"Pakistan wants to give a show that it is an independent actor and has options, and China offers a model of a functioning non-democratic state," said Indiana University China scholar Elliot Sperling.

Gilani arrived in Shanghai on Tuesday evening, the official Xinhua News Agency reported.

Although Gilani's four-day visit was planned well in advance, it comes at a critical time for his country's relations with the U.S., which have been thrown into crisis over the American raid that killed bin Laden in the northern Pakistani city of Abbottabad on May 2. Pakistan has called it a violation of its sovereignty and threatened to retaliate if there are any similar operations in the future.

While American politicians served up withering criticisms of Pakistan's failure to find bin Laden's hide-out — or the possibility that officials were protecting him — China offered welcome reassurance, praising Pakistan as resolute in the fight against terrorism.

Gilani made Pakistan's appreciation clear, singling out China in a testy May 9 speech to parliament as Islamabad's "all-weather friend." China-Pakistan ties were forged shortly after the founding of the People's Republic in 1949 and have thrived in part on both countries' distrust of their mutual neighbor India.

Gilani's visit is formally pitched as part of celebrations of the 60th anniversary of diplomatic ties, and he is scheduled to meet with top Chinese leaders and oversee the signing of a series of agreements beginning Wednesday.

"Further consolidating and developing our friendship and cooperation is the common aspiration of the two peoples," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said at a regularly scheduled news briefing Tuesday.

Along with billions of dollars in investment — up to $30 billion over the next five years, according to agreements signed last year — China supports Pakistan's nuclear power industry and sells it military hardware including surface-to-air missiles, navy frigates and fighter jets.

China for its part receives strong diplomatic backing from Pakistan in the region and among Islamic nations who might otherwise be more critical of China's repressive policies toward its Muslim Uighur minority.

Among other benefits: Pakistani officials have suggested they might offer Chinese experts a chance to examine the wreckage of a sophisticated U.S. helicopter that crashed during the operation to take out bin Laden. Strong Pakistan ties also help anchor China's improving relations with other countries in the region.

A visit by Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmay Rasoul this month put a fresh sheen on bilateral relations at a time when the reduction in U.S. troop strength is expected to open up space for other countries to expand their influence there.

Days earlier, Beijing had underscored its regional heft by hosting forces from Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan for joint anti-terrorism drills in the western Chinese region of Xinjiang, part of its embrace of Central Asia through the Chinese and Russian-dominated Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Still, there are questions as to how much further China is willing to go in building up relations with Islamabad. China also needs to keep its crucial but delicate relationship with Washington in balance, and wouldn't want to be seen as exacerbating tensions between the U.S. and Pakistan.

Sperling said he doesn't expect much of substance to result from the visit, although China is happy to accommodate Pakistan's desire to alter perceptions.

China is also deeply concerned about radical Islamic threats on its border and has little interest in backing Pakistan's support for the Taliban in Afghanistan to counter Indian influence. Greater turmoil in Afghanistan would be a "challenge instead of an opportunity for China," said Zhao Gancheng, director of South Asia studies at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies.

"China is willing to have cooperation with any Afghanistan government and provide help within its ability, but the role will be limited," he said.

China-Pakistan Alliance Strengthened Post bin Laden

AFP
May 15, 2011

Tensions between the US and Pakistan over the killing of Osama bin Laden and a speedier US withdrawal from Afghanistan are likely to reinforce China and Pakistan's already strong ties, analysts say.

When Chinese leaders welcome Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to Beijing this week, they will likely praise Sino-Pakistani "friendship" over the past 60 years -- a stark contrast to recent Western criticism of Islamabad.

Analysts say Gilani's visit starting Tuesday will help Islamabad deflect mounting pressure from Washington and elsewhere, as Pakistan stands shoulder-to-shoulder with its long-time ally and neighbour.

"China is the only country that has taken a sympathetic stand for Pakistan after the bin Laden operation," Talat Masood, a political analyst and retired Pakistani general, told AFP.

"This visit is important in the sense that it could counter (US) pressure on Pakistan. It shows Pakistan wants to say we also have some cards to play."

China has shown unswerving support for Pakistan since US special forces killed bin Laden at a compound near the country's top military academy on May 2, sparking speculation that Islamabad may have known about his whereabouts.

Foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu pointed out a few days after the Al-Qaeda chief's killing that Pakistan was nevertheless "at the forefront of the international counter-terrorism effort".

Beijing's goodwill has not gone unnoticed.

"At this crucial juncture of history, I cannot say anybody is standing with Pakistan except for China," Pakistan's popular opposition leader Nawaz Sharif told reporters.

Many in Pakistan, outraged by the unilateral US raid, are increasingly convinced that their nation's strategic alliance with the United States since 2001 has been less than positive and has only made the country less stable.

It could therefore be tempting for the nuclear-armed Islamic republic to move away from the United States and get closer to faithful ally Beijing, analysts say.

"If US and Indian pressure continues, Pakistan can say 'China is behind us. Don't think we are isolated, we have a potential superpower with us'," Masood said.

China is the main arms supplier to Pakistan, which sees Beijing as an important counter-balance to India -- which has recently tightened its ties with the United States.

Beijing has also agreed to build several nuclear reactors in Pakistan.

Kerry Dumbaugh, an analyst at the Center for Naval Analyses, said Pakistan's pro-China stance on issues such as Taiwan, which Beijing considers part of its own territory, is also a key factor in Beijing's support for Islamabad.

"Pakistan serves as an advocate or a conduit for China in the Islamic world," Dumbaugh said.

According to other experts, China is convinced that Pakistan will increase its influence in Afghanistan by 2015, taking advantage of the planned withdrawal of US troops.

China also needs Islamabad's cooperation in stemming potential terrorist threats in its mainly Muslim region of Xinjiang, which borders Pakistan.

Ultimately, China wants calm to reign, particularly in the Pakistani province of Baluchistan, through which it plans to transport oil from the Middle East in a pipeline linking Xinjiang to the Arabian Sea.

But experts warn that friendship between China and Pakistan has its limits.

"China is important for Pakistan and will remain so, but when it comes to hi-tech you have to go to the US and the West, also because of their clout in the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund," political analyst Hasan Askari said.

Andrew Small, an expert on China-Pakistan relations at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, agreed.

The Chinese "get what they want out of the relationship already -- having Pakistan to provide balance in the region to try to keep India tied down in South Asia rather than becoming a broader Asian or global power," Small said.

"They're not going to want to be in a position where they end up with Pakistan on their plate to deal with."

China, Pakistan Move Closer as Gilani Visit Ends

China signaled its intent to deepen strategic ties with Pakistan and back the country’s counter-terrorism efforts against international pressure, with the “all-weather” allies signing a number of defence agreements to mark the conclusion of Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani’s four-day visit. Pakistani officials confirmed on Friday that China agreed to speed up the delivery of 50 JF-17 fighter jets to the country, a deal analysts said.

The Siasat Daily
May 21, 2011

China signalled its intent to deepen strategic ties with Pakistan and back the country’s counterterrorism efforts against international pressure, with the “all-weather” allies signing a number of defence agreements to mark the conclusion of Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani’s four-day visit.

Pakistani officials confirmed on Friday that China agreed to speed up the delivery of 50 JF-17 fighter jets to the country, a deal analysts said underscored the importance of Chinese assistance to Islamabad at a time when relations with Washington have come under strains, with some U.S. legislators calling for a scaling back support.

A joint statement issued on Friday said China believed that Pakistan’s “efforts for promoting peace and stability in South Asia should be recognised and supported.”

It also reiterated Chinese support to Pakistan in the wake of criticism following the May 2 killing of Osama bin Laden, repeating Beijing’s displeasure at the United States for violating Pakistan’s sovereignty by conducting the raid in Abbottabad.

China believed “Pakistan’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity should be respected,” the statement said, adding that China “recognised the tremendous efforts and the great sacrifice that Pakistan has made in fighting terrorism.”

On Friday, Chinese President Hu Jintao also voiced strong support for Pakistan’s counterterrorism strategy in talks with Mr. Gilani, pushing back against recent international criticism.

In talks earlier this week, Chinese officials told Mr. Gilani they had taken up the country’s concerns over the May 2 raid in meetings with U.S. officials, calling on them to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty.

Chinese officials said “there should be no harm to the Pakistani sovereignty and the US should understand and appreciate concerns of Pakistan,” Mr. Gilani told reporters.

While his visit has been seen as underscoring the deepening ties between the two countries, Chinese analysts downplayed its significance on the rest of the region, and particularly on the two countries’ relations with the U.S.

“The focus of this visit was the sixtieth anniversary of ties between the two countries, and to deepen economic and trade ties” and not defence or terrorism, Rong Ying, vice president of the China Institute for International Studies (CIIS), told The Hindu.

He, however, added that “China has made clear that Pakistan’s policy on counterterrorism is based on national conditions and interests.”

“This,” he said, “has to be respected by relevant countries.”

• China brushes aside criticism against Pakistan on terror [DNA India]
• Pak, China display camaraderie amid strain in US-Pak ties [DNA India]
• Pak has sacrificed to control terror, is victim: China [Indian Express]
• Wen says China friends 'forever' with Pakistan [Yahoo Daily News]
• China defends Pak terror fight, Gilani praises 'best friend' [Indian Express]
• Pakistan PM declares China as 'true and a time-tested friend' following strains with US [The Times of India]

Read More...

Demonstrators in Afghanistan Yell 'Death to America!'

Eleven Die in Afghan Protests Over Nato Killings

Eleven people were killed and over 50 others injured, including two German soldiers, at protests in Afghanistan on Wednesday over the deaths of four people in a Nato raid, officials said.

According to The Associated Press: Demonstrators swarmed the road leading into the northern city of Taloqan early Wednesday, running through a cloud of dust as they pumped their fists and shouted insults at Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the United States. "Death to Karzai! Death to America!" they yelled. The crowd carried aloft the bodies of four people — two men and two women — killed overnight in a NATO raid on the outskirts of the city.

May 18, 2011

AFP - Police opened fire as around 2,000 people took to the streets in Taloqan, capital of the usually peaceful northeastern province of Takhar. The troubles erupted after Nato-led forces said they killed four insurgents including two armed women in an overnight raid in the town.

A spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said the raid targeted the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), a militant group that operates from bases including in Afghanistan. But the protesters claimed those killed during the Nato raid were civilians.

The issue of civilian deaths during foreign military operations is explosive in Afghanistan and has drawn repeated, sharp criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

During the Taloqan protest, demonstrators threw rocks at the Provincial Advisory Team (PAT) compound, Afghan interior ministry spokesman Zemerai Bashary told AFP.

The local PAT is a German-led group of soldiers and civilians working to help Afghan government institutions improve their performance.

“We have 11 dead and over 50 other people admitted with injuries to hospital,” acting provincial health director Hassan Basij told AFP.

It was not immediately clear whether the casualties were victims of police bullets or from another source.

Two German soldiers were also injured in the disturbances, the country’s contingent in Afghanistan said, but did not give details on how badly they were hurt, how they were injured and whether they had intervened in the violence.

Lal Mohammad Ahmadzai, a regional police spokesman, blamed “some opportunists and violence-seeking elements” for infiltrating the protests and turning them bloody.

At the interior ministry in Kabul, spokesman Bashary told AFP:

“There have been demonstrations, about 2,000 have demonstrated over the operation overnight. The demonstrations have turned violent.”

Although relatively peaceful compared to Taliban strongholds in the south, the north of Afghanistan has seen an increase in violence in recent years.

Seven UN staff were killed when their compound in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif was stormed during a protest against the burning of the Quran by an evangelical pastor in the United States.

Afghan and Nato forces have said that central Asian militant groups such as the IMU are active in the region. ISAF said the operation against the house in Taloqan which triggered the protests targeted a key facilitator for the IMU who was involved in procuring and making weapons and explosives in the area. It said it was a joint operation with Afghan forces and that weapons including a suicide vest and an AK-47 assault rifle were found at the scene.

All US-led international combat troops are due to withdraw from Afghanistan by 2014 although this month’s killing of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden by US troops in Pakistan has led to calls for this process to be speeded up.

Control of seven more peaceful Afghan areas is due to be handed to the fast-growing Afghan military and police from July.

There are currently around 130,000 international troops, the majority from the United States, stationed in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan-Pakistan Conflict

Pakistan Military Bombs Afghanistan

PressTV
February 3, 2011

Pakistani forces have bombarded residential areas and police checkpoints in eastern Afghanistan one day after Afghan and Pakistani troops exchanged fire across border, a top Afghan official says.

Major General Aminullah Amarkhel, commander of first zone of border force in eastern Afghanistan, said Pakistani jets targeted the areas in Gushte district in Nangarhar province on Thursday, a Press TV correspondent reported.

Pakistani troops also attacked residential areas and government buildings in the area, damaging two police checkpoints in the Thursday attack, according to the report.

The aerial and ground assaults have left no casualties, General Amarkhel went on to say.

The Afghan official condemned the attacks and warned that Afghan forces would respond to them if repeated.

On Wednesday, one Pakistani soldier was killed and three others were left injured after Afghan and Pakistani troops exchanged fire across the border.

The two sides blame each other for provoking the shootout in North Waziristan's Ghulam Khan District.

Afghan and Pakistani border troops have previously exchanged fire.

The incident was the most serious cross-border clash since May 2007, when clashes between Afghan and Pakistani troops left three civilians and a police officer dead.

Afghan and Western officials say Taliban militants hiding in Pakistan's border areas are behind the attacks inside Afghanistan.

Pakistan

Suicide Blast at Pakistan Navy Base

Al Jazeera
December 2, 2009

A suicide bomber has attacked Pakistan's navy headquarters, killing one security guard and wounding four others, police say.

The attacker detonated his explosives after he was stopped at the entrance to the heavily fortified naval complex at around 1.30pm (0830GMT) on Wednesday.

Bin Yameen, a senior police official, said: "The bomber was on foot. We have reports of four wounded."

Fazil Asghar, Islamabad's police commissioner, said the security guard was killed after he asked the man to remove his coat.

Witnesses say the bomber was a teenager.

Security forces quickly cordoned off the area. The naval installation suffered no damage because it was a safe distance from the gate, officials said.

The attack comes a day after a suicide bomber killed a provincial politician, detonating his explosives as he received guests at his home in Pakistan's northwest Swat valley.

More than a dozen people were wounded in that attack in Kanju town, police said.

Khan, 59, was a member of the Awami National Party, part of a coalition that rules the North West Frontier Province (NWFP).

The attacker struck as guests gathered to mark the end of the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha, and the force of the blast damaged parts of the house and grounds.

Kanju town was the former headquarters of Mullah Fazlullah, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban.

Both attacks come during a Pakistani army offensive in Swat which began in April.

Pakistan's Concerns Over U.S. Plan

Al Jazeera
December 2, 2009

Pakistani government officials have expressed concern about President Barack Obama's new Afghan strategy, which calls for Pakistan to step up its co-operation against the Taliban in exchange for a pledge of a long-term partnership.

The Pakistani foreign affairs ministry issued a cautious response on Wednesday that stressed the "need for clarity" in the new US policy.

"Pakistan looks forward to engaging closely with [the] US in understanding the full importance of the new strategy and to ensure that there would be no adverse fallout on Pakistan," the ministry said in a statement on Wednesday.

"Pakistan and the US need to closely co-ordinate their efforts to achieve shared objectives. There is certainly the need for clarity and co-ordination on all aspects of the implementation of the strategy."

In an address to unveil a new strategy for the eight-year conflict in Afghanistan, Obama said on Tuesday a cancer had taken root in Pakistan's border region with Afghanistan and promised US help to end it.



Obama's announcement has raised fears that Pakistan could be further destabilised by a reinvigorated military campaign in next-door Afghanistan, complicating Islamabad's own battle against the Taliban.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the first reinforcements will land in southern Afghanistan by Christmas, kicking off an 18-month surge that the administration plans to begin reversing in July 2011 when it transfers responsibility to the Afghan government.



A growing tide of bombings and suicide attacks, meanwhile, have killed hundreds of people in Pakistan in the past several months since the Pakistani army launched a major offensive against Taliban strongholds in South Waziristan.

Earlier on Wednesday, Islamabad was shaken by a suicide bombing at the entrance to National Naval Headquarters in a highly guarded area.

A teenage boy blew himself up as a guard approached him. Officials said the blast killed the bomber and two guards.

Pakistan fears a US troop surge in Afghanistan would force fighters to flee to its border areas, particularly in the southwestern Baluchistan province where the government is already struggling to end a low-level insurgency by tribal fighters.

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

Pakistan

Pakistan Vows Offensive After Bomb Kills 49

Associated Press
October 9, 2009

PESHAWAR, Pakistan – Pakistan vowed to launch a new offensive against militant strongholds along the Afghan border after a suicide bomber blew up a car near a crowded outdoor market on Friday, killing 49 people in the bloodiest attack to hit the country in six months.

The United States has been pushing Pakistan to take strong action against insurgents who are using its soil as a base for attacks in neighboring Afghanistan. A push into the rugged mountains of South Waziristan could be risky for the army, which was beaten back on three previous offensives into the Taliban heartland there and forced to sign peace deals.

But the army may have been emboldened by a reasonably successful military campaign in the Swat Valley and adjoining Buner district and by the killing in a U.S. missile strike of Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud. The military also appears committed to destroying Mehsud's group, as opposed to its often ambivalent position toward other insurgents in the past.

Islamic militants have been carrying out nearly weekly attacks in Pakistan, but the sheer scale of Friday's bombing — which killed nine children — pushed the government to declare it would take the fight to South Waziristan, part of the lawless tribal belt where al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden may be hiding.

Interior Minister Rehman Malik said the militants had left the government "no other option" but to hit back. "We will have to proceed," he told a local television station. "All roads are leading to South Waziristan."

The massive blast tore through a busy road in the heart of Peshawar, a city of more than 3 million people about 150 miles northeast of South Waziristan along the Afghan border. The force of the bomb flipped a bus on its side, ripped apart a motorbike and flung charred debris down the street.

Passers-by pulled out the wounded and the dead, covering the bodies of victims whose clothes were burned. One man staggered down the road, his face covered with blood.

Another man dashed from the scene carrying an 8-year-old girl dressed in a bright orange outfit in his arms. The child, Amna Bibi, was heading to a wedding when she was caught by the blast. Her family, sobbing at the main Peshawar hospital in their wedding finery, said later that she had died. Amna's mother, Zareen, kissed her daughter's bandaged face and wept.

"I understood for the first time in my life what doomsday would look like," said Noor Alam, who suffered wounds to his legs and face.

The hospital was overwhelmed by the wounded, with many forced to share beds. Some of the dead were laid out on nearby gurneys, covered with sheets.

"I pray to Allah, please destroy all these people who are killing the innocents," said Sher Akbar from his hospital bed.

Zafar Iqbal, a doctor at the hospital, said 49 people were killed and more than 100 were wounded.

Peshawar Police Chief Liaqat Ali Khan said the attacker drove a car packed with a massive amount of explosives and artillery rounds. The blast was heard for miles around.

There was no claim of responsibility for the bombing and its target was not immediately apparent. Militants typically attack government, military or Western targets, but previous blasts have hit public places as well.

The bombing, along with an attack Monday at a U.N. aid agency in Islamabad that killed five, highlighted the insurgents' ability to hit major cities despite previous army offensives and Mehsud's death in August.

In April, the military launched a three-month offensive in the Swat Valley and largely cleared the region of the thousands of Taliban reportedly based there. That operation followed an August 2008 offensive in the semiautonomous Bajur tribal area along the Afghan border that ended six months later with the army declaring success. The militants have fought back with scores of suicide attacks.

For months, officials have been hinting at a new operation in South Waziristan, blockading roads there and carrying out targeted airstrikes as thousands of civilians fled the area.

But until Malik's comments Friday, no Pakistani official had publicly declared the military was preparing a full offensive.

Malik did not give a timeline for an offensive that is likely to be far fiercer than the Swat and Bajur battles.

The army has launched three operations in South Waziristan since 2001 but each time has been forced to abandon the push and sign peace deals with the militants.

The region is considered the epicenter of militant resistance in the country, and new Taliban chief Hakimullah Mehsud, who pledged to repel any attack, is reported to have 10,000 guerrilla fighters on his side. An Associated Press reporter visiting the area this week saw Taliban taking up key vantage points, and residents said fighters were digging trenches along routes the military was expected to traverse.

The area is filled with independent, heavily armed Pashtun tribes hostile to outsiders — including the Pakistani army — and any offensive that led to high civilian casualties could spark a quick public backlash and bolster the Taliban.

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

Afghanistan

Taliban Under NATO-Afghan Counter-Attack After Killing 8 US Troops

DEBKAfile Special Report
October 5, 2009

The governor of the remote eastern Afghanistan province of Nuristan, Jamaluddin Badr, reported Monday, Oct. 5, that NATO and Afghan soldiers had besieged a Taliban force in the Kamdesh district the day after eight US soldiers and two Afghans were killed in two deadly attacks in the province.

He said police officers, including the top district commander were missing. The Taliban say they are holding 13 police including the police chief.

The Taliban attacked the US-Afghan force Sunday with rocket propelled grenades, machine guns and rifles from a mosque and a nearby village. US Col. Randy George reported the joint force had repelled the attack in a gun battle that inflicted heavy enemy casualties. He added:

"Coalition forces' previously announced plans to depart the area as part of a broader realignment to protect larger populations remains unchanged."

US forces have suffered some of their worst casualties in the east, where they have tried to control remote mountain passes used by Taliban fighters as infiltration routes from Pakistan.

The number of NATO casualties in the eight-year conflict peaked in the year 2009 to 386 including 228 Americans. Gen. McChrystal's request for more troops to determine its outcome awaits a White House decision on strategy

War in Afghanistan: Next Steps Will Hit Home in North Carolina

By Barbara Barrett, newsobserver.com
October 4, 2009

As President Barack Obama huddles with top advisers about the future of Afghanistan, he must figure out how best to approach a troubling and complicated conflict.

Should he blanket the nation with up to 40,000 more troops, as recommended by the top commander in Afghanistan? Or should he focus on a more narrow counterinsurgency campaign, aided by Special Forces and drone Predators, as advised by Vice President Joe Biden?

Whatever approach Obama takes will have repercussions in North Carolina, home to two of the military's top bases, the Marines' Camp Lejeune and the Army's Fort Bragg. Nearly 17,000 troops from the twobases now serve in Afghanistan -- about one-fourth of the nation's military presence there.

Beyond the full-time military, hundreds of N.C. National Guard soldiers have cycled through the country, flying Apache helicopters in combat, running detention centers and sending C-130 supply missions into the nation's far-flung rural regions.

Members of North Carolina's congressional delegation are considering the president's decision. Nearly half its members sit on committees related to the war effort. North Carolina's lawmakers are talking with generals, reviewing intelligence reports and hosting visitors from Afghanistan's parliament.

Many say that before choosing a military solution, they first must figure out the United States' long-term goals in Afghanistan.

"The core question is: What is the threat to the United States?" said Democratic Rep. Larry Kissell of Biscoe.

No matter what, said Republican Rep. Sue Myrick of Charlotte, "We can't walk away from it. We cannot just leave, because if we did, [the Taliban] would totally take over."

North Carolina's lawmakers said in interviews that they want to achieve as much as possible -- a stable Afghanistan, a defeated terrorist network -- but acknowledged that the path to success is lined with pitfalls.

Sen. Kay Hagan, a Greensboro Democrat, and other senators met last week with Obama's national security adviser, Gen. Jay Jones, to talk about Afghanistan. Hagan is scheduled to meet this week with Obama's diplomat for the region, Richard Holbrooke.

"We've got to be sure the Taliban is not using Afghanistan for terrorism, and we've got to defeat the al-Qaida extremists along the Afghanistan and Pakistan border," Hagan said.

Hagan, who serves on the Armed Services committee, in May visited Afghanistan's Helmand province, the region of some of this summer's most intense fighting.

Although she has read the internal report of Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who has recommended up to 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan, Hagan isn't ready to endorse it.

"We're not here for nation-building. I'm not into that," Hagan said. But, she added, she wants to help Afghans develop the country's economic stability and national security.

Hands off, or on?

Most of the state's lawmakers hesitated to make a recommendation for Obama.

"I don't want to be prejudging or presuming anything," said Kissell, a member of the House Armed Services committee whose district includes part of Fort Bragg.

But an expert on Afghanistan at UNC-Chapel Hill said lawmakers ought to have a role in shaping policy on the issue.

"All these discussions revolve around having a clear-headed picture of what the strategic goal is from a U.S. perspective: What do you want to happen in Afghanistan?" said Andrew Reynolds, a political scientist who visited Afghanistan frequently between 2003 and 2007.

"There are different strategic goals," he said. One goal would be to create an Afghanistan that will not harbor international terrorists who could attack the United States.

Another, far-reaching goal would develop a stable democracy in the country, he said.

But Reynolds, who returned from Pakistan a week ago, said he isn't sure any long-term plan exists.

"It's not clear the White House or Congress has an idea of where we're going from here," he said.

Myrick, who serves on the House Intelligence committee, said she worries about terrorists expanding their networks beyond Afghanistan -- not only into Pakistan, but also North African countries such as Somalia and Yemen.

"I have real concerns that we're not paying enough attention to that," she said.

Myrick says Obama should step up the nation's human intelligence-gathering network even as he pushes ahead in Afghanistan. She said the primary focus should be on protecting the United States.

"It's not our job to decide what the government ofAfghanistan should be," Myrick said.

Last month, Democratic Rep. David Price of Chapel Hill led a seminar for members of Afghanistan's parliament who were visiting Congress as part of an exchange program that Price helps run for emerging democracies.

Price, who traveled to Afghanistan in 2006, sees the nation's parliament as a bright spot in an otherwise struggling government -- one that gives him hope for the country's future as a democracy.

Afghanistan needs to become a state that can control its own borders and serve its citizens, he said.

"I'm not expecting a Jeffersonian democracy," Price said. "We're talking about a government that's legitimate in the eyes of its people."

State's high stakes

Whatever Obama decides, it's certain that North Carolina's military community will continue to play a role.

The Army's elite Special Forces troops, which are used for high-risk counterinsurgency work, train at Fort Bragg. Members of the 82nd Airborne learned last month their tour in Afghanistan would be extended 50 days.

And this week, the Department of Defense announced its 773rd casualty in Afghanistan. Lance Cpl. Jordan L. Chrobot, 24, killed in Helmand province, was stationed at Camp Lejeune.

By now, an estimated 68,000 troops are serving in Afghanistan, but they continue to face challenges in equipment, reinforcements and rest, said Rep. Mike McIntyre, a Democrat whose district includes a part of Fort Bragg.

"You've got to be sure they're taken care of," McIntyre said.

McIntyre, who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, said he wants to root out terrorism, improve intelligence, and ensure that Afghanistan's military and police forces are properly trained.

But he already knows that he supports McChrystal's request for additional troops to bolster those now serving in the war zone.

"Clearly we are at a crossroads," McIntyre said. "Now is not the time to downsize."

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

Pakistan

Has the Back of the Pakistani Taliban Been Broken?

Reuters
October 5, 2009

A suicide bomber dressed as a paramilitary soldier attacked an office of the U.N. World Food Programme (WFP) in the Pakistani capital on Monday killing five staff members, government and U.N. officials said.

Violence has been picking up in Pakistan after a relative lull that followed the killing of the Pakistani Taliban leader in a U.S. drone attack last month, and after troops made gains in an assault launched in the Swat region in April.

There was no claim of responsibility for Monday's attack but Interior Minister Rehman Malik repeated his assertion that the back of the Pakistani Taliban had been broken, saying they were striking out like a wounded snake.

Here are some questions and answers about the Pakistani Taliban.

WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT TRUMPETING SUCCESS?

The army largely cleared the former Taliban bastion in the Swat valley, 120 km (80 miles) northwest of Islamabad, with an offensive launched in April.

Another militant enclave, the Bajaur ethnic Pashtun tribal region on the Afghan border, was largely cleared earlier although intermittent clashes and bomb attacks occur in both places.

The biggest blow to the Taliban was the killing of their overall leader, Baitullah Mehsud, in an attack by a missile-firing U.S. drone aircraft in his South Waziristan stronghold on the Afghan border on Aug 5. Several top Taliban members, including one of Mehsud's aides and former spokesman and the spokesman from Swat, have been captured.

HAS THE MILITANTS' BACK REALLY BEEN BROKEN?

While largely forced out of Swat and Bajaur and, according to Pakistani and U.S. officials, in disarray after Mehsud's death, there are still thousands of well-armed fighters in South Waziristan and other regions.

The new overall Taliban leader, Hakimullah Mehsud, put to rest U.S. and Pakistani speculation he may have been killed in a power struggle last month by meeting reporters in South Waziristan on Sunday.

He vowed revenge for Baitullah's killing. Monday's bomb and similar attacks over the past couple of weeks have set back hopes the militants were on the back foot.

Some analysts say the militants have been given time to regroup because the army has put off an offensive against their South Waziristan bastion.

WHAT WILL PAKISTAN DO NEXT?

The army is preparing an offensive on the militants' South Waziristan stronghold but it has declined to say when it would begin.

Over recent months, security forces have been launching air and artillery strikes, while moving in troops, blockading the region and trying to split off factions.

The army says it has two divisions, or up to 28,000 soldiers, in place preparing to take on an estimated 10,000 hardcore Taliban in South Waziristan. Analysts say fighting would be intense against the tough militants, including up to 1,000 Uzbeks, and the army could expect heavy casualties.

WHAT IMPLICATIONS FOR AFGHANISTAN?

Many analysts say Pakistan is acting only against the militants which threaten it, like the Pakistani Taliban, while leaving alone those focused on fighting in Afghanistan.

Whatever the truth of that, Pakistan can argue that it can only focus on one area at a time -- South Waziristan. If and when the Pakistani Taliban are defeated in South Waziristan, the United States will push Pakistan to shift attention to the Afghan Taliban factions operating out of western Pakistani enclaves.

Pakistan rejects U.S. complaints that the Afghan Taliban led by Mullah Mohammad Omar are operating from the town of Quetta in Pakistan's Baluchistan province, in the so-called "Quetta shura," or leadership council.

Despite such denials, analysts say some Pakistanis see Afghan Taliban groups as a useful tool to counter the growing influence of old rival India in Afghanistan.

With U.S. and Afghan officials increasingly raising the possibility of talks with the Afghan Taliban to end that war, analysts say Pakistan is unlikely to move with full force against the groups that might be part of a negotiated settlement and would provide it with leverage in Afghanistan.

Flanked by heavily armed fighters, the new leader of the Pakistani Taliban sat on a blue blanket, amiable and relaxed as he cracked jokes and mixed in threats of vengeance for deadly U.S. airstrikes.

Pakistan Taliban Head Cracks Jokes, Vows Vengeance

Associated Press
October 5, 2009

Flanked by heavily armed fighters, the new leader of the Pakistani Taliban sat on a blue blanket, amiable and relaxed as he cracked jokes and mixed in threats of vengeance for deadly U.S. airstrikes.

One day later, a suicide bomber attacked a U.N. office in Islamabad.

Hakimullah Mehsud met with reporters Sunday for the first time since winning control of the militant group, quashing speculation that he had been slain in a succession struggle following the killing of his predecessor in a U.S. drone attack.

He also described his group's relationship to al-Qaida as one of "love and affection." Osama bin Laden and other top al-Qaida leaders are believed to be hiding out in the remote border region with Afghanistan, possibly in territory controlled by Hakimullah.

The militant vowed to retaliate against the U.S. and Pakistan for deadly attacks on his allies and said his fighters will repel an anticipated Pakistani offensive into his stronghold.

Hakimullah made his threat of vengeance hours before a suicide bomber disguised as a security officer killed five people at a U.N. office in Islamabad on Monday. There was no immediate claim of responsibility, but authorities blamed Islamic militants.

Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik has said several times that officials believed Hakimullah _ and possibly his deputy, Waliur Rehman _ had been killed in fighting over who would replace Baitullah Mehsud after his Aug. 5 death in a missile strike. Malik said that Hakimullah was being impersonated by his brother, including in calls to media organizations.

Western diplomats in Islamabad had also said their intelligence indicated he may have been killed, while Western media reports over the weekend quoted American officials as saying they believed he may be dead.

Hakimullah was very much alive, speaking calmly as he sat under a tree on a blanket surrounded by top Taliban commanders, including Waliur Rehman, in a show of unity in South Waziristan, where the Pakistani state and security forces have little or no presence. Also present were Qari Hussain, the head of the Taliban's suicide bomb faction, and Azam Tariq, a Taliban spokesman.

He told five Pakistani reporters, including one from The Associated Press, that the group's leadership remained intact and unified.

"We all are sitting before you, which proves all the news about myself ... was totally baseless and false," he said.

Pakistani security authorities were not immediately available for comment.

Pakistan has largely beaten back a Taliban insurgency in the northwestern Swat Valley in recent months and intelligence officials say the country is preparing a major offensive against al-Qaida and the Taliban in South Waziristan. The military has been blockading the region and seeking to encourage other tribes to rise up against Hakimullah.

Hakimullah said his forces were ready for such an attack, which would likely be far tougher than the Swat campaign. The army has been beaten back there three times since 2004. Analysts say some 10,000 well-armed militants, including foreign fighters, are in the mountainous region and well dug in.

"We are fully prepared for that operation and we will give full proof of those preparations once the offensive is launched," he said.

On the drive to and from the interview, the AP reporter could see fighters taking up positions at key vantage points. Residents said the militants were digging trenches along routes the army was expected to travel.

Fearing the coming offensive, civilians were fleeing the area via backroads and traveling at night because the military had already sealed most of the main routes out.

While Baitullah avoided the glare of media and was only photographed once _ from a side angle _ Hakimullah showed no such modesty.

He did not appear to be a nervous fugitive in hiding from Pakistan soldiers and U.S. drones.

His tunic was clean, white and freshly pressed, and his manner at ease as he spent more than seven hours chatting and eating with the reporters. Two goats were brought out for slaughter for lunch.

At one point, he pulled out a laptop to show his guests an Afghan comedian's standup routine about jihadi _ or holy war _ groups. On the serious side, he also showed pre-attack video testimony made by a suicide bomber.

Hakimullah spoke flanked by fighters wielding automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades. He agreed to be interviewed on condition his comments not be published until the reporters left the area Monday.

One of Baitullah's deputies, Hakimullah was known for brazen strikes on civilians, claiming responsibility for the June 9 bombing of the Pearl Continental Hotel in Peshawar and the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore earlier this year.

U.S. officials are watching closely to see whether Hakimullah will direct more fighters across the border where U.S. and NATO forces face attacks by insurgents. Baitullah was believed to have mainly concentrated on attacking Pakistani targets.

Hakimullah did not address that issue directly, only saying there were no "difference between Taliban of Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said the Pakistani Taliban were fighting for the imposition of Islamic law in Pakistan and to rid it from the "clutches of the Americans and the Jews."

"For this very purpose, we will enhance and prolong our jihadi efforts," he said.

Hakimullah also introduced a man he identified as Qari Mohammad Zafar, who has a $5 million bounty on his head from the U.S. Justice Department in the 2002 bombing of the U.S. consulate in Karachi that killed three Pakistanis and a U.S. diplomat.

"See, we have such people with us. And they are saying that we have differences. It is an example that we are united," he said.

He vowed his forces would avenge Baitullah Mehsud's killing and would strike back at Pakistan and the U.S. for the increasing airstrikes.

Unmanned drones have carried out more than 70 missile strikes in northwestern Pakistan in the last year in a covert program, killing several militant commanders along with sympathizers and civilians. The Pakistani government publicly protests the attacks but is widely believed to sanction them and provide intelligence for at least some.

"There is no doubt that American spy planes are being used in these attacks, but we know all the intelligence is being provided by Pakistan," Hakimullah said. "We have taken revenge for the past attacks and we will definitely take revenge for the remaining drone attacks."

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

Afghanistan

Fighting Rages Across Afghanistan as U.S. Military Buildup Continues

By Patrick Martin, WSWS
September 14, 2009

Attacks by anti-occupation forces spread across Afghanistan over the weekend, with major armed clashes, bombings and other incidents in at least 10 provinces, including eight that are outside the southern region where the US and NATO forces have launched a major military offensive.

Rather than directly confront the greatly increased US ground forces in provinces like Helmand, the Taliban and other resistance forces are employing typical guerrillas tactics, striking at “soft” targets well away from the main combat zone, in many cases in areas where there has been relatively little insurgent activity.

The bloodiest single incident took place Saturday in Farah province, in western Afghanistan, where dozens were killed in US air strikes after a Taliban ambush killed three American soldiers and seven Afghan army troops. The guerrillas staged a complex assault involving two separate roadside bombs, gunfire and grenade launchers.

US military officials said that the firefight raged for as long as six hours, with repeated air strikes called in to assist the ambushed US-led force. Press accounts cited military claims of 50 dead Taliban fighters and local reports of civilian casualties. This is a regular pattern in the war, as the Pentagon routinely categorizes all those killed by US firepower as “insurgents,” regardless of their actual role in the fighting.

There was another clash in the west in Herat province, with one Afghan policeman and two Taliban killed.

In southern Afghanistan, at least 20 civilians were killed, reportedly by roadside bombs. In Uruzgan province, 14 people in a minivan were killed, while six others died in a similar attack in Kandahar province. In the city of Kandahar, the country’s second largest and the provincial capital, three suicide bombers hit the office of the national intelligence police in a coordinated but largely unsuccessful attack, killing one officer.

There were incidents in six provinces of eastern Afghanistan, which had been considered a military “success story” for the US forces, at least compared to the south. In Wardak, a roadside bomb killed two American troops. In Kunar, a Taliban ambush killed six private security guards working for a construction company, and wounded ten. In Nangarhar, four policemen died when militants attacked a border checkpoint. In Khost, a rocket attack killed three civilians. In Ghazni, five Afghan army troops were killed by gunfire and mine explosions. And in Paktika, a suicide bomber attacked, but killed only himself.

In the previously quiescent north, there was an extremely bloody incident in Kunduz province that suggests the degree of insurgent infiltration of the local armed forces. A district policeman poisoned eight other officers at a guard post, killed his commander, and then handed over the other seven to the Taliban, who beheaded or shot them and then burned the guard post.

Kunduz was the site of last week’s atrocity when US war planes hit two hijacked gasoline tanker trucks, creating a fireball that killed as many as 150 people in the village of Omar Kheil.

In another incident that gives a glimpse of the popular hatred of the US-NATO occupation, a fight broke out in Kabul, the capital city, when several Afghan National Police officers objected to a US soldier drinking in front of them while they were observing the Ramadan fast. The argument turned into a shootout, in which the US soldier and his interpreter were seriously wounded and one Afghan policeman was killed.

The Washington Post noted, “The geographical diversity of the assaults was a fresh indication of the Taliban’s widening reach, which now extends to about 80 percent of the country, according to the International Council on Security and Development (ICOS), a London-based research organization.”

The ICOS data, as reported by Reuters, found that there was “substantial” insurgent activity in 97 percent of Afghanistan, and “heavy” activity in 80 percent. Almost half of the country was classified as either “high risk” or under “enemy control.” The most significant change from a year ago was the increased guerrilla activity in areas of the north.

The increasingly grim position for the US-backed Afghan puppet regime of President Hamid Karzai has produced a crisis for the Obama administration, which is deliberating how much to increase the US military intervention, under conditions where support for the Afghan war among the American people is collapsing.

Since Obama ordered 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan early in his presidency, there have been a series of additional, incremental increases that have not been as widely reported. In September alone, for instance, there have been several such additions to the forces available to the US Afghan commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

The New York Times reported Thursday that Defense Secretary Robert Gates was preparing to send more US counter-explosive forces to Afghanistan, in a move that would be separate from any request by McChrystal for additional troops.

The Los Angeles Times reported September 2 that as many as 14,000 additional combat troops would be deployed in Afghanistan by sending home troops working in support functions and replacing them with “trigger pullers.” The support duties would be handed over to private contractors, who now outnumber the actual uniformed soldiers. This would greatly increase the firepower of the US occupation force while allowing the White House to conceal the escalation.

In a statement on Capitol Hill Friday after a visit to Afghanistan, Democrat Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called for the Obama administration to focus its escalation of the war on the buildup of Afghan troop strength, from 134,000 now to 240,000 by 2012—essentially conceding, with this time frame, that US military forces will be in Afghanistan in huge numbers at least until then.

Levin said that such an increase should be prepared before any additional US ground combat forces were dispatched. General McChrystal is believed to be requesting as many as 40,000 additional US troops, in a report now being reviewed in the Pentagon and White House, and to be delivered to Congress by September 24.

The Obama administration is requesting more money for Afghanistan-Pakistan operations in its 2010 military budget than for Iraq, the first time that spending for the “Afpak” theater has exceeded that in Iraq.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday, “I don’t think there’s a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or the Congress.” Such warnings are becoming increasingly common from congressional Democrats, not because they oppose further escalation—they have, on the contrary, fervently supported the war in Afghanistan for eight years.

The Democrats are concerned that as antiwar sentiment mounts, those opposed to the US occupation of Afghanistan will draw the correct political conclusion—that both big business parties are irrevocably committed to advancing the interests of US imperialism—and will seek a political alternative.

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

Afghanistan

Charity: U.S. Troops Stormed Through Afghan Hospital

Associated Press
September 7, 2009

KABUL – A Swedish charity accused American troops Monday of storming through a hospital in central Afghanistan, breaking down doors and tying up staff in a search for militants. The U.S. military said it was investigating.

The allegation that soldiers violated the neutrality of a medical facility follows the reported deaths of Afghan civilians in a U.S. airstrike in the country's north last week. An Afghan human rights group said Monday the strike on two hijacked fuel tankers may have killed as many as 70 civilians in Kunduz province.

Civilian deaths and intrusive searches have bred resentment among the Afghan population nearly eight years after the U.S.-led coalition invaded to oust the Taliban's hard-line Islamist regime for sheltering al-Qaida terrorist leaders.

Foreign forces are working to persuade the population to support the Afghan government after last month's presidential election, which has yet to be decided amid allegations of vote-rigging.

On Monday, the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan said the U.S. Army's 10th Mountain Division entered the charity's hospital without permission to look for insurgents in Wardak province, southwest of Kabul.

"This is simply not acceptable," said Anders Fange, the charity's country director.

The U.S. troops came to the hospital looking for Taliban insurgents late at night last Wednesday. Fange said they kicked in doors, tied up four hospital employees and two family members of patients, and forced patients out of beds during their search.

When they left two hours later, the unit ordered hospital staff to inform coalition forces if any wounded militants were admitted, and the military would decide if they could be treated, Fange said.

The staff refused, he said.

"That would put our staff at risk and make the hospital a target."

The charity said on its Web site that the troops' actions were not only a violation of humanitarian principles but also went against an agreement between NATO forces and charities working in the area.

"We demand guarantees ... that such violations will not be repeated and that this is made clear to commanders in the field," a statement said.

U.S. military spokeswoman Lt. Cmdr. Christine Sidenstricker confirmed that the hospital was searched last week but had no other details. She said the military was looking into the incident.

"We are investigating and we take allegations like this seriously," she said. "Complaints like this are rare."

Violence has surged across much of Afghanistan since President Barack Obama ordered 21,000 more U.S. troops to the country this year. Two foreign troops were killed Sunday when their patrol hit a roadside bomb in the country's south, NATO said without giving their nationalities.

NATO was also investigating last week's U.S. airstrike. The strike came despite new rules for foreign forces limiting use of airpower to avoid civilian casualties.

The provincial government said most of the dead were militants, but on Monday, the Afghan Rights Monitor said interviews with 15 villagers indicate that only a dozen gunmen died and 60-70 villagers were killed. The group called for further investigations.

"Even if all the victims were supporters of the Taliban, the fact that most of them were unarmed and were not engaged in any combat activity does not warrant their mass killing," said Ajmal Samadi, the rights group's director.

A spokesman for the provincial government, Ahmad Sami Yawar, said Monday that only five of the estimated 70 killed were civilians.

The increasingly violent insurgents have killed more civilians in bombings and other attacks. On Monday, the government said three militant rockets landed overnight in the capital, Kabul, hitting a house and killing three people. In central Uruzgan province, a remote-controlled bomb targeting a police vehicle exploded in a busy market, killing two children and wounding 16 other people, according to local police official Gulab Khan.

A United Nations report in July said the number of civilians killed in conflict in Afghanistan has jumped 24 percent this year, with bombings by insurgents and airstrikes by international forces the biggest killers. The report said 1,013 civilians were killed in the first half of 2009, 59 percent in insurgent attacks and 30.5 percent by foreign and Afghan government forces. The rest were undetermined.

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page