'tis the season to pile on Pakistan…
Re: Barack Obama says he will order invasion of Pakistan
OP’s title: will invade
News title: may invade
Within quotes: no explicit mention of invasion
Re: Barack Obama says he will order invasion of Pakistan
politics
Re: Barack Obama says he will order invasion of Pakistan
I think Obama is trying to show that he will tough against terrorism even in instances where Bush seem to have gotten cold feet. His statement is full of qualifications (If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will) and does not specifiy what action he will take.
The real issue, I think is the US bill with specific policy directives regarding Pakistan. Here is an excellent analysis of this bill by Najmuddin Shaikh:
http://www.dawn.com/2007/08/01/op.htm
Concerns on new US law
By Najmuddin A. Shaikh
THERE has been a strong reaction in Pakistan to the passage in the American Congress of the bill on implementing the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States — the 9/11 commission.
The furore centres on the provisions of the bill that require the US president not to provide assistance to Pakistan in 2008 and 2009 unless at least 15 days before the granting of such assistance the “president determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that the government of Pakistan is making all possible efforts to prevent the Taliban from operating in areas under its sovereign control, including in the cities of Quetta and Chaman and in the Northwest Frontier Province and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.”
It should be noted that the president has been granted the authority to waive the requirements of this provision one year at a time if he “determines that it is important to the national security interest to do so”.
The second area of concern for our experts is the requirement that the president must, within 90 days of the implementation of this legislation, submit to Congress a report on the strategy that the administration would follow in engaging with Pakistan as part of a “long-term strategic partnership” to achieve the objectives the Congress has laid out in the bill.
These are: curbing the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology; combating poverty and corruption; building effective government institutions, especially secular public schools; promoting democracy and the rule of law, particularly at the national level; addressing the continued presence of Taliban and other violent extremist forces throughout the country; maintaining the authority of the government of Pakistan in all parts of its national territory; securing the borders of Pakistan to prevent the movement of militants and terrorists into other countries and territories; and effectively dealing with Islamic extremism.
The bill also talks of working with Pakistan “to combat international terrorism, especially in the frontier provinces of Pakistan, and to end the use of Pakistan as a safe haven for forces associated with the Taliban” and of “dramatically” increasing its own assistance and that of the international community to achieve these objectives if “the government of Pakistan demonstrates a commitment to building a moderate, democratic state, including significant steps towards free and fair parliamentary elections in 2007.”
The foreign office has said the references and provisions in the bill “cast a shadow on the existing cooperation between Pakistan and the United States, regardless of the fact that the bill emphasises the importance attached by the United States to a long-term strategic relationship with Pakistan.”
Presumably, the foreign office is objecting to the implicit assertion that Pakistan is “a safe haven” for forces associated with the Taliban and to the requirement that the president certify Pakistan’s efforts to fight the Taliban on its soil before aid is given to Pakistan.
Unofficial experts testifying before an emotional foreign relations committee of our Senate called for attenuating US-Pak relations. Apparently, one expert went so far as to say that in asking for presidential certification regarding Pakistan’s actions against the Taliban and the opening of secular schools, Congress had imposed conditions even more severe than the Pressler Amendment.
The reaction in Pakistan is understandable. For the man on the street, the daily headlines on the civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the growing instability in both these countries are evidence of ham-handed policies and of a focus on the use of force to resolve problems that need to be addressed at least in part through other means.
Until recently, the government of President Musharraf never really tried to explain that its volte face on the Taliban issue was dictated as much by the realisation of the dangers that Talibanisation could pose to Pakistan as exigent American demands.The public perception was that Pakistan had capitulated under American pressure which, according to President Musharraf, included a threat to bomb Pakistan back into the Stone Age. He did talk then, particularly after the stand-off with India, about the dangers of extremism, but never linked this clearly and forcefully to the activities of the Taliban and their supporters.
Even on this, his stand appeared ambivalent since it is now an open secret that in the 2002 elections the MMA won its seats only because the government agencies were prepared to help it and the government chose not to enforce the graduate degree requirement on the MMA candidates. The latter claimed that the “sanad” they had obtained from religious schools had to be recognised as good enough to qualify them as graduates.
We were in a constant state of denial regarding the extent to which our tribal areas and the Balochistan border belt had been Talibanised, despite the fact that Taliban committees were administering large parts of the tribal areas and Baloch cities like Chaman were Taliban strongholds.
While we claimed credit for having arrested more Al Qaeda leaders and workers in Pakistan than any other country, we refused to acknowledge that this showed the extent to which Al Qaeda had dug roots in Pakistan. We made no particular note when publicising arrests that most of those detained had been sheltering with our own religious extremists.
Our belated campaign to cleanse the tribal areas militarily was ill-prepared and ill-coordinated. The political effort needed was missing because in the Frontier, the provincial government was under the control of the MMA for whom maintaining religious fervour among the tribals and encouraging the local Taliban was a political plus. In Balochistan, too, the MMA was an important coalition partner. Moreover, the crisis was exacerbated by military action against Baloch nationalists.
Against this background, it was only natural for the masses, disgruntled by military rule, to perceive all Pakistan’s problems as arising from the government’s unholy alliance with the Americans and from America’s anti-Muslim activities.
While it is understandable for parliamentarians to reflect the public mood, it is also incumbent upon them to guide opinion, in this case on the question of what US-Pakistan ties mean to Pakistan and to what extent have these been affected by the latest legislation.
First, it should be clear that in the new legislation the American president has to certify no more than what the Pakistan government has promised to do — to prevent the use of Pakistan territory by the Taliban to prepare for and to launch operations in Afghanistan.
This certification will have to be added to two other “determinations”. It was in the US national interest to waive the requirement mandatory under American law to give no assistance to a country where a legitimately elected government has been overthrown in a military coup. Such a certificate has been provided every year by President Bush since 2002. There has also to be, if memory serves correctly, a waiver from the nuclear sanctions that came into force after the 1998 nuclear tests.
Second, this is the only certification expected from the American president. There is nothing in the legislation that requires the president to certify, for instance, the progress that America makes in talks with Pakistan on the proliferation issue, or indeed on any other of the issues that Congress has said should be made part of the US strategy for developing a long-term strategic partnership with Pakistan.
Third, Congress has talked of a dramatic increase in assistance if Pakistan is seen as moving towards building a moderate democratic state and holding free and fair elections in 2007. This surely should be seen by all circles in Pakistan as a condition that is good for Pakistan’s future just as much as the expression of hope that in a new strategy Pakistan would be helped to end its use as a safe haven for Taliban associates.
Fourth, the Americans are convinced that the National Intelligence Estimate prepared jointly by all US intelligence agencies is correct in maintaining that Al Qaeda has found safe haven in Pakistan’s tribal areas and that the group is now as strong as it has ever been since 9/11.
It should be pointed out that the CIA was dead wrong in asserting that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. It could also be so in locating Al Qaeda in Pakistan and in assessing its strength, although there is some evidence to suggest that we should not dismiss US assertions out of hand. However, the important point is that American policy is going to be conditioned by what is accepted there as the gospel truth.
Fifth, the Americans have seized upon our partial acknowledgement of the failure of the Sept 2006 agreement reached with some people in the tribal areas to bolster their earlier assertions that the agreement has provided a freer hand to the Taliban for cross-border activity and to extend Talibanisation to the settled districts. It appears from the actions the government is now taking that they are prepared to share this view.
Sixth, the Americans have always felt that in seeking to eliminate the Taliban in Afghanistan their objective is not merely the stabilisation of the country but, more importantly, preventing the rise to power of a similar movement in Pakistan. There are some among us who would dismiss this as an unwarranted fear. Given what happened at Lal Masjid last Friday, I am not brave enough to do so.
Seventh, the Americans feel Al Qaeda will carry out another terrorist attack on the US this year — an apprehension based on the terrorist plots recently foiled in the UK. The fact that the perpetrators of the Glasgow airport bombing had no connections with Pakistan and appeared to be prompted by the Iraq situation, has not changed the view that it is somehow in Pakistan that Al Qaeda is planning nefarious deeds against the US.
Under these circumstances, one could argue that the normally exigent American legislators have been fairly cautious in the demands they have made.
Our case against this legislation should be that there is need for the Congress and the Bush administration to recognise that Pakistan cannot insulate itself from the pernicious Afghan influence unless it is helped to close down Afghan refugee camps and fence those parts of the border that cannot be patrolled. Our legislators and officials should be focusing on this.
The Americans have clearly not been able to get the cooperation they need from their allies including the Afghan government and Nato countries. Their policies, too, are sorely in need of revision if the battle for hearts and minds is to be won. Perhaps, they will fail in Afghanistan also. There is every possibility that the US will be further reviled by our masses as the situation in the Middle East continues to unravel.
We cannot afford to react emotionally at the decision-making level. In the battle against the forces of extremism, we can do battle on our own but it would be helpful if we continue to receive assistance from the US. All our brave words about the turnaround in the economy should not blind us to the fact that we are still politically and economically fragile. We need political reconciliation internally and a continuance of economic backing to enable us to take a holistic approach to resolving this problem.
The writer is a former foreign secretary.
Re: Barack Obama says he will order invasion of Pakistan
Bhai meray, The intent is clear. Sending troops = invasion. See the quote "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will"
Re: Barack Obama says he will order invasion of Pakistan
Doesnt even say invade, but attack sshould the opportunity arise and mushy saab in his kushy fail to act.
Re: Barack Obama says he will order invasion of Pakistan
Ooohh, we're really scared of Barack "Hussain Osama" as CNN once called him. :D
Re: Barack Obama says he will order invasion of Pakistan
It is not about one man. Pakistani leaders should be worried about how easily even US candidates are talking about invading our homeland. The longer this kind of talk becomes common in US circles, the more linkely there will be action should another attack happen.
Re: Barack Obama says he will order invasion of Pakistan
There is a difference between "invasion of Pakistan" which implies an attack against Pakistan as a state and a nation. This is not what he was talking about. He expressed intentions to send troops into Pakistan to fight the Taaliban/AQ, which means that while this act will be in violation of Pakistan's sovereignty (if it isn't approved by the Govt. of Pakistan), but it won't be an attack 'against' Pakistan. Please avoid sensationalizing the issue.
Re: Barack Obama says he will order invasion of Pakistan
*** The real question is IF "Barrak" is Man enough to beat Bibi Clinton in the race for president, assuming he does then we will find out if He is Man enough to confront BB who maybe the next PM of Pakistan.............:D ***
Re: Barack Obama says he will order invasion of Pakistan
^ he isn't strong enough. During the debates, clinton just seemed so calm, cool and collected.
in terms of invading pakistan, we all know that won't happen. It would cause world war 3 in my opinion afterall pakistan does have nuclear weapons and plus India would also suffer being its neighbor because of the complete destabilzation it would cause.
Re: Barack Obama says he will order invasion of Pakistan
What's the problem? Others will try to tackle the problem if we can't.
Re: Barack Obama says he will order invasion of Pakistan
What! Eyraq was not enough....... seems like amreeka produce retards dime a dozen and they all candidates for whitehouse...
Re: Barack Obama says he will order invasion of Pakistan
well if there is actionable information and that is handed to Pakistani forces they will do something, thats what Musharraf says.
actionable information may not be that some alleged atleban caught believes that he heard soemone mention that OBl or soemone may be in one agency...or errr maybe anoether one.
I think some definition needs to be placed on actionable intelligence :)
Re: Barack Obama says he will order invasion of Pakistan
Question is, will the US troops be able to find Obama bin Laden in Pakistan?
Re: Barack Obama says he will order invasion of Pakistan
well if there is actionable information and that is handed to Pakistani forces they will do something, thats what Musharraf says.
actionable information may not be that some alleged atleban caught believes that he heard soemone mention that OBl or soemone may be in one agency...or errr maybe anoether one.
I think some definition needs to be placed on actionable intelligence :)
well yeah.. but again America has a long history of formulating and manipulating information. It's not a question of 'if it happens' but 'when they want to declare that it happened'
Re: Barack Obama says he will order invasion of Pakistan
Bhai Fraudz,
This is not 2001. Today, if we ask for "actionable intelligence" it is like a man standing outside a house covered with bloodstains telling the police "I won't let you in unless you tell me which room has dead bodies"
The fact is that our own government has agreed that FATA is a haven for terrorists. We also regularly catch Arabs, Chechens and all sorts of people when pressure is applied. Then we say "Give us proof of terrorism" This is simply not credible.
If another attack happens in America, do you think anyone will wait for proof connecting Mohammed Khan Afridi from Miranshah to Ahmed bin Misri of Al Qaeda? There is a preponderance of evidence, increasing daily, connecting FATA to terrorism. If we don't clean it up, we will have to face the world's wrath one day.
2 Likes
Re: Barack Obama says he will order invasion of Pakistan
Re: Barack Obama says he will order invasion of Pakistan
Well there goes whatever respect i had for him. Pakistan must stand up for itself....
We cant allow the US to turn Pak into another Iraq.. We should make it clear that they will have a brand new enemy in the Muslim world if they go through with any attack.
Re: Barack Obama says he will order invasion of Pakistan
PP1, thanks for being patriotic.
Pakistani in general do funny stuff when it comes to Pakistan's interests like:
Prez. Bush strongly supports Pakistan (with $$ and statements). But many vocal Pakistanis hate him.
Democrats (from Pelosy to Obama) are clearly anti-Pakistan, but many vocal Pakistanis suck up to them.
Looks many vocal Pakistanis are not using their faculties!