The idea mooted by US Central Command chief Gen Tommy Franks that US troops should be allowed to cross into countries neighbouring Afghanistan in pursuit of al-Qaeda has not gone down well in the Pakistani press.
It acknowledged the FBI’s help in capturing terrorist suspects in Pakistan, but added that the country was “no banana republic”.
The pro-Muslim League Nawa-i-Waqt described General Franks’ remarks as a “dangerous signal”.
The mass circulation Jang said that President Pervez Musharraf should raise the issue in Washington and make it clear that an operation in Pakistan is “totally impossible”.
Islamabad-based Asas accused the USA of ingratitude.
“If Pakistan is a committed ally in the war against terrorism, why do US officials issue such dubious and irresponsible statements about the presence of al-Qaeda?” it asked.
And Peshawar-based Subh said the suggestion of an al-Qaeda presence in the country was insulting.
“Instead of cooperation and a further strengthening of friendship, it seems the US has turned the tables on Pakistan,” it declared.
Several papers argued that the US was using the hunt for al-Qaeda as a pretext to expand its regional influence.
“It seems the US is eager to enter Pakistan with intentions other than to hunt down al-Qaeda,” pro-Islamist Ausaf commented.
“The US believes Pakistan and Iran could resist its plans in the region. Therefore it is mulling the option of extending its operation to these Islamic countries, in the name of combating terrorism.”
It called for close collaboration between Iran and Pakistan “to foil such conspiracies”.
Karachi-based Dawn argued that the Bush administration was using Afghanistan as a pretext to consolidate its strategic interests more widely and “could well conjure up any number of reasons only thinly linked to the war on terror to extend its influence”.
“It is time Pakistan and the region generally… started looking beyond the immediate financial, commercial or political gains that might have accrued to them because of US interest in the area,” it said.
“A prolonged US or Western military presence in the area is fraught with many unsettling possibilities,” it concluded.