Instability In Pakistan- Merged Thread

[tomahawk6]

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/69230/post-654774.html#msg654774

Every so often a blind squirrel finds a nut. ;D

 

[Cheshire]

T6....buy you a pint mate. Good call. ;D

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Back on topic folks.....

 

[Mike Baker]

Pakistan opposition leaders urge Musharraf to resign

Pakistan opposition leaders urge Musharraf to resign
Updated Thu. Jan. 3 2008 7:30 AM ET

The Associated Press

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Pakistan's U.S.-allied president must resign before next month's elections or the country could risk slipping into civil war, opposition leaders and a leading independent research institute said Thursday.

The calls came after the government pushed back polls to Feb. 18 from the planned Jan. 8 date due to unrest following the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.

Bhutto's death in a suicide bomb and gun attack plunged already volatile Pakistan deeper into crisis and stoked fears of political meltdown as the nation struggled to contain an explosion of Islamic militant violence.

The government -- which had initially ruled out the need for foreign involvement in the assassination probe -- has been criticized over its security arrangements for Bhutto, who had claimed elements in the ruling party were trying to kill her. The party vehemently denies such a plot.

 

[tomahawk6]

Kind of expected really.First the opposition wanted Musharraf to retire as a condition for being President. He did so. Now they want him to leave the Presidency. Musharraf leaving office is not good for the West nor is it good for Pakistan - unless you want an islamic takeover.

 

[NL_engineer]

Musharraf leaving office is not good for the West nor is it good for Pakistan - unless you want an islamic takeover.

I can think of a couple countries that may want that, Iran being on  the top of the list

 

[geo]

was listening to the news today,  it would appear that even Musharaf in not happy with the report on Bhutto's assasination.... wonder if he's just rolling with the punches OR been blindsided?

 

[tomahawk6]

It was a stupid report that couldnt pass the smell test and only made the government look more culpable.

 

[TCBF]

I can think of a couple countries that may want that, Iran being on  the top of the list

- Nothing would drive Iran to develop nukes faster than an Al Quaeda influenced government in Pakistan.  Iran has 70,000,000 people and most are under thirty.  They surf the web.  They blog.  They are literate.  They do NOT want to return to the dark ages of yesteryear.  They will wait out their current tormentors, then there will be no holding them back. 

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

- Nothing would drive Iran to develop nukes faster than an Al Quaeda influenced government in Pakistan.  Iran has 70,000,000 people and most are under thirty.  They surf the web.  They blog.  They are literate.  They do NOT want to return to the dark ages of yesteryear.  They will wait out their current tormentors, then there will be no holding them back. 

If they are so intelligent and wordly why are they allowing themselves to be governed by the mental midgets who currently call the shots there?

 

[George Wallace]

A corrupt Religious/Political regime.  The combination/partnership of Political bullies and fanatical Religious mullahs have taken over the State.  The people have taken the low ground and are waiting it out.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

If they are so intelligent and wordly why are they allowing themselves to be governed by the mental midgets who currently call the shots there?

I hardly think the Iranian people have the market cornered on this.....

 

[TCBF]

If they are so intelligent and wordly why are they allowing themselves to be governed by the mental midgets who currently call the shots there?

- For the same reason we did?

 

[geo]

- For the same reason we did?

$hit happens?

 

[tomahawk6]

Another candidate for a Hellfire missile.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080118/ap_on_go_ot/us_pakistan

WASHINGTON - The CIA has concluded that a Pakistani tribal leader's network was behind the assassination of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, according to a U.S. intelligence official.

The tribal leader, Baitullah Mehsud, is an extremist with strong ties to al-Qaida and an alliance with the Taliban. He heads up a network in South Waziristan, a lawless border region abutting Afghanistan. He has been blamed for an organized campaign of assassinations of Pakistani officials and suicide bombings in the country.

The CIA concluded that Mehsud was behind the Dec. 27 killing of Bhutto shortly after it occurred, according to an intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

The Washington Post first reported the CIA's take on Friday, in an interview with CIA director Michael Hayden. "This was done by that network around Baitullah Mehsud. We have no reason to question that," Hayden told the newspaper.

The intelligence official said Mehsud, believed to be in his early 30s, is a "committed jihadist" who recruits and trains suicide operatives for the Taliban and al-Qaida. His network carries out suicide attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan, primarily along the border. The attacks have stretched from Nuristan province in northeast Afghanistan to Helmand province in the south.

He has bragged of having 3,000 would-be suicide bombers. His suicide squads have taken credit for attacks against the military and police in northwestern Pakistan, as well as bombings at a hotel in the capital of Islamabad that killed a security guard and at the Islamabad international airport.

Mehsud's men kidnapped nearly 250 Pakistani soldiers in August and held them until November, when he negotiated the release of two dozen jailed tribesmen, a group that included extremists and would-be suicide bombers.

Mehsud's forces also are believed to be behind an attack Wednesday on a Pakistani army fort near the Afghan border that left at least 22 soldiers dead or missing. The insurgents later abandoned the fort.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has blamed Mehsud's movement, Tehrik-e-Taliban, for 19 suicide attacks that killed more than 450 people over the last three months.

Mehsud, whose tribe of the same name is the most violent in South Waziristan province, signed a peace pact with Pakistan's army in February 2005. In it, he promised to deny shelter to foreign al-Qaida fighters in exchange for an end to military operations in the region and compensation for tribesmen killed by the military.

"It was a disaster for the U.S. The bad guys had more operational freedom," said Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan, the senior Republican on the House Intelligence subcommittee on terrorism. Rogers has made more than a dozen trips to Pakistan and Afghanistan in the last two years.

Al-Qaida has since re-established its headquarters in the sanctuary of the tribal area, and suicide bombers and Taliban fighters are believed to cross into Afghanistan regularly to attack civilians and U.S. and Afghan forces.

Mehsud fought in the late 1990s for the Taliban against the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, according to U.S. intelligence.

The Musharraf government fingered Mehsud for Bhutto's death in December, but some members of her political party and her family have questioned those assertions. There have been complaints that the government failed to provide her adequate security and vague allegations that elements within the government might have been involved in the assassination.

In December, the Pakistani government released the transcript of a purported conversation in which an al-Qaida operative reported to Mehsud that his men carried out the attack on Bhutto.

Rogers, who receives frequent intelligence briefings on Pakistan, told AP he has not seen definitive proof Mehsud's organization carried out the attack.

"We had good information that he was at least making the attempt to do it. If his folks were the first ones to do it, I haven't seen that yet. I do believe he had every intention to kill Bhutto. I don't think you can say (he did it) that definitely."

Bhutto was a secular politician popular in the U.S. and other Western countries for her opposition to hard-line Islam. Mehsud has denied involvement in her death.

 

[PMedMoe]

Pakistan security forces arrest teen suspect in Bhutto's assassination.

Article Link from Canoe News

A 15-year-old detained near the Afghan border has confessed to joining a team of assassins sent to kill Benazir Bhutto, officials said Saturday, announcing the first arrests in the case since the attack that killed the opposition leader.

 

[gordjenkins]

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 


What can Scotland Yard contribute - the victim is buried - the crime scene completely disturbed - no wonder they have quietly gone back to UK. Why were they sent in first place?- PR? politics??
           
Three more Scotland Yard officials leave for UK
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Daily Times Pakistan

RAWALPINDI: Three more members of Scotland Yard (SY) team probing into Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Chairwoman Benazir Bhutto’s assassination left for Britain on Sunday, leaving only one member back in Pakistan, police sources told Daily Times. Six members of the team had left for home on Jan 15. The sources said that the British investigators would re-examine the video footage of the attack and the evidence collected from the crime scene soon. The team would compile a report on their preliminary investigations in the UK, they said. During their stay in Pakistan, the SY team had examined the crime scene four times. The British investigators would soon get back to submit a detailed report on their investigations to the Pakistani Government. staff reporthttp://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\01\22\story_22-1-2008_pg7_51

 

[tdr_aust]

(Not sure if I have put this in the correct thread)

The concepts presented in the part article below indicate an interesting conceptual operational development toward both Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and specifically their, (Taliban and al Qaeda), operation within the borders of Pakistan in the SWFP.
Add to this the various comments that presidential hopeful, Obama has placed in his Speech on Counter-Terrorism Strategy in August 2007. Here he did suggest US forces enter Pakistan ‘when the Pakistan Army was not able to deal with the situation’. The speech does put this in a better way but it comes to the same point.
I used Obama here as I suspect he has a better chance of getting the hot seat compared to his rival based on current voting.
The article is long and some points raised seem to be in place at present. US forces providing training to Pakistan SF.

The following comes from
http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3714

US, NATO poised to move against Al Qaeda and Taliban in Pakistan
Dated 30/01/2008
(Strategic Intelligence Estimates.com) Our intelligence analysts have observed several trends and occurrences that indicate the United States and its NATO allies may be preparing to take significant action against the Pakistan-based al Qaeda Central (AQC) and Taliban in 2008 and beyond. In the following estimate, we have outlined these trends and occurrences, along with the US and NATO’s likely courses of action.

II. The following attitudes among American and NATO leadership lead our analysts to conclude that the allies will be more aggressive in targeting AQC and the Taliban within Pakistan’s borders:

A) Many in Washington have become increasingly impatient with the Musharraf government because of: a) its lack of progress in battling these Islamist terrorists; and b) its increasing unpopularity among pro-democracy moderates; both of which have lead to increased instability in the nuclear state. Musharraf will soon travel to meet with the leaders and representatives of the leading NATO powers such as the United States, Britain, and France. These NATO leaders will likely pressure Musharraf to allow a greater NATO presence in his country, and to more aggressively pursue democratic reforms.

B) Many NATO policymakers have also become increasingly concerned about the threat posed by AQC, the Taliban, and other Salafi terrorists that are using Pakistan as a base of operations. All of the major terrorist attacks against the US and Europe starting with the 9/11 can be traced back to Pakistan. Almost all the recently foiled plots in the West can also be traced back to Pakistan, including the British Airline Plot, the shoe-bomb plot, the attacks on US military bases in Germany, and several other recently thwarted attacks. Pakistan also serves as a launching point for the Taliban’s insurgency in Afghanistan.

C) Many American politicians, including several the Presidential candidates from both major parties, have called for a greater US presence in Pakistan's tribal areas. These comments almost certainly reflect the advice these politicians are receiving from their foreign-policy and national-security advisors, thus indicating many American policymakers view the current situation in Pakistan as a major strategic concern.

III. These following events indicate the US and NATO are preparing to take more aggressive in Pakistan.
.....

Continues at above link (but is not the whole article)

A full complete text is found here
http://www.strategicintelligenceestimates.com/pakistan2.html
3 pages long..


Much will also depend on the stability within Pakistan as the elections there get closer, what happen re NATO and more troops in the south of Afghanistan and the ongoing behaviour of the Afghan Taliban

 

[CougarKing]

(Not sure if I have put this in the correct thread)


Add to this the various comments that presidential hopeful, Obama has placed in his Speech on Counter-Terrorism Strategy in August 2007. Here he did suggest US forces enter Pakistan ‘when the Pakistan Army was not able to deal with the situation’. The speech does put this in a better way but it comes to the same point.
I used Obama here as I suspect he has a better chance of getting the hot seat compared to his rival based on current voting.
The article is long and some points raised seem to be in place at present. US forces providing training to Pakistan SF.

This possibility is also explored in the ff. commentary link by William Arkin:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/08/obama_attacks_pakistan_pakista.html?nav=rss_blog

Obama Attacks Pakistan; Pakistan Retaliates
This week saw the unusual spectacle of a foreign government criticizing a U.S. presidential candidate. The government is Pakistan and the candidate is Sen. Barack Obama -- and while such criticism is rare, Obama's remarks were pretty strange, too.

Speaking at Woodrow Wilson Center on Wednesday, Obama said that, as president, he would not hesitate to order unilateral military action against al-Qaeda inside Pakistan if he had intelligence information that warranted a strike. Pakistani Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri called his remarks "very irresponsible." Sher Afgan, minister for parliamentary affairs, said it was a matter of "grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election."

The relevant portion of Obama's speech is as follows:

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Obama focused on Pakistan and the war in Afghanistan, and generally his position is that withdrawal from Iraq will facilitate a shift in counterterrorism to this part of the world and a refocus on al-Qaeda central. The United States should not "repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal."

It's an interesting reading of history -- and a strange view of U.S. foreign policy, especially for someone who is essentially arguing that America should turn its back on Iraq.

First, some history: When Mikhail Gorbachev decided to give up the Soviet fight in Afghanistan, the U.S. government was quick to abandon its efforts there. Of course one of the reasons it could walk away was that Pakistan had actually done most of the work on the ground to organize the mujahadeen to fight the Soviets. Pakistan subsequently supported the Taliban, which in the mid-1990s welcomed Osama bin Laden and his Arab fighters back to the country. Afghanistan by then had returned to being a backwater in American foreign policy, as so many countries are.

I'm not defending anything about the George H.W. Bush's or Bill Clinton's priorities, but come on, Obama: Would you really have stayed in Afghanistan in 1989? Al Qaeda didn't even exist then. After Desert Storm, Bin Laden returned to his native Saudi Arabia (where he became aghast at the U.S. military presence in the center of Islam).

So, historically speaking, it is a strange statement. The United States turns its back on countries all the time. Another way of putting it is that it sets other priorities and moves on. In fact, Obama himself is now arguing we should do the same in Iraq today. Whether he is right or wrong, the point is that right now, Iraq is just as important as Afghanistan was in 1989. We've created a mess, and turning our back on it (as much as I support an orderly withdrawal) would be foolish.

Obama says that "Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan." He also says the United States must not "hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America." The U.S. must "recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same."

"Substantial progress"? The phrase sounds familiar. It will just prompt a debate about whether the progress is substantial enough. That's Washington in a nutshell. In the end, Obama's perspective is a confused muddle that sounds to me a lot like the policies of the Bush administration -- and is no different than the "Bush-Cheney Lite" Obama has accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of pursuing.

I know, I know, Obama will bomb the world with American values and slay the planet with his eloquence. But as long as he fails to challenge the basic premise of U.S. national security today -- that the threat of terrorism is the only threat, and that it is so grave it demands preemptive and unilateral American action -- he is just sewing his own straitjacket.

By William M. Arkin |  August 3, 2007; 8:12 AM ET

If Obama would actually authorize such an action into Pakistan to flush out Al-Qaeda, it would prove that some US Democrats are also willing to make a "unilateral military action" that a number of them later criticized Bush for doing when he sent US forces into Iraq. Well it's good that Obama is willing to act, though Pakistan seems to be its own can of worms, as discussed before on the Bhutto assasination thread.

 

[geo]

Unilateral decision to Invade Pakistan is just gonna create a situation where the Muslim world will declare a global JIHAD against everyone else....