Bush approved raids in Pakistan: former official

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080911/pakistan_bush_080911/20080911?hub=World

WASHINGTON -- President Bush secretly approved U.S. military raids inside Pakistan against alleged terrorist targets, according to a former intelligence official with recent access to the Bush administration's debate about how to fight al-Qaida and the Taliban inside the lawless tribal border area.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the classified order.

The official told The Associated Press that Bush signed the order over the summer. It gives new authority to U.S. special operations forces to target suspected terrorists in the dangerous area along the Afghanistan border.

In addition to the presidential approval for special operations missions, conventional ground troops have new authority to pursue militants across the Afghan border. The "rules of engagement" have been loosened, allowing troops to conduct border attacks without being fired on first if they witness attacks coming from the region. That would include artillery, rockets and mortar fire from the Pakistan side of the border.

The Pakistani government is not told about the targets in advance because of concerns that the Pakistani intelligence service and military are infiltrated by al-Qaida and Taliban supporters, the former official said.

U.S. counterterror operations along the border are highly unpopular in Pakistan, whose new leadership is trying hard to show independence from Washington.

At the same time, the former official said, the Pakistan government recognizes that its settled areas are increasingly targeted by terrorist and militant attacks emanating from the tribal region and its military is not equipped to counter the threat.

This after:

Pakistan PM backs army chief's rebuke to U.S.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/09/11/pakistan.html

Pakistan's prime minister on Thursday backed a harsh rebuke of the U.S. by the Muslim nation's military chief, a sign of a strain in relations seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks forged the two countries' anti-terror alliance.

Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the powerful but media-shy army leader, said nearly a week after a deadly American-led ground assault in Pakistani territory that Pakistan would defend its sovereignty and that there was no deal to allow foreign forces to operate inside its borders.

He said unilateral actions risked undermining joint efforts to battle Islamic extremism.
"Reckless actions" that kill civilians "only help the militants and further fuel the militancy in the area," he said.

"The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country will be defended at all cost and no external force is allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistan," he said in the Wednesday statement.

Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, in comments reported Thursday by state media and confirmed by his office, said Kayani's words reflected government opinion and policy.

The ground assault last week, and a barrage of suspected U.S. missile strikes in Pakistan in recent days, suggest growing American impatience with Pakistan's progress in eradicating militant safe havens in its semiautonomous tribal regions bordering Afghanistan.

U.S. officials say clearing militants from such pockets in Pakistan's northwest is critical to reducing attacks on NATO and American forces in Afghanistan.
Comments show growing frustration

"Until we work more closely with the Pakistani government to eliminate the safe havens from which they operate, the enemy will only keep coming," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday.

A Pentagon spokesman would not directly respond to Kayani's remarks, but said the two countries were co-operating.

Still, the Pakistani leaders' comments indicate growing frustration and fading trust in both countries on the anniversary of the attacks in the United States.

Many Pakistanis blame their nation's alliance with the U.S. for fuelling violence in their country, while U.S. officials worry that Pakistan's government is secretly aiding militant networks — keeping them as a wedge against longtime rival India.

While Pakistan's government earlier issued strident protests over the ground assault, even summoning the U.S. ambassador, Kayani's statement was significant because he so rarely speaks publicly and because he heads Pakistan's most powerful institution.

In his first public criticism of American policy, Kayani indicated he was sensitive to anger among Pakistanis, and possibly even within the military, over the assault and suspected missile strikes, analysts said Thursday.

"It expresses a deep concern in Pakistan and was quite timely because of the feeling in Pakistan as if the army and the government of Pakistan has surrendered to whatever Americans want to do in the tribal regions," political analyst Rasul Bakhsh Rais said.
Bush approved attack: New York Times

The New York Times reported Thursday that President Bush secretly approved orders allowing American Special Operations forces to undertake ground assaults inside Pakistan without getting prior Pakistani government approval.

Asked to comment on the report, the Foreign Ministry referred to Kayani's statement.

U.S. officials have acknowledged that American troops carried out the operation in South Waziristan but have not given details. The mission's goal and results remain unclear. Local residents said at least 15 people died.

The cross-border strike comes at politically sensitive times in both countries.

The Bush administration is on its way out, leading some analysts to speculate it is turning to missiles and ground assaults in Pakistan to try to score last-minute victories in the face of a growing Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

In Britain, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he and Bush would hold a videoconference Thursday to discuss a new approach to policing the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Pakistan, meanwhile, just elected a new president, Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of slain ex-prime minister Benazir Bhutto. He is considered pro-American and has said terrorism is Pakistan's chief challenge.

Zardari was sworn in Tuesday and visited his wife's grave to pay respects Thursday. He has faced some criticism for not being more outspoken in condemning U.S. strikes in Pakistan.
Bodies found

Also Thursday, residents found the bodies of two men believed to be among 25 police recruits reported abducted by militants in northwest Pakistan. The partially beheaded bodies were found in an open area in Orakzai town, said Khan Afzal, the mayor of nearby Hangu district.

Meanwhile, the bullet-riddled bodies of three men active in anti-Taliban activities were found Thursday in the Bajur tribal region, witnesses and officials said.

Government official Jawed Khan said the bodies were found with a letter saying, "This is the result of working against the Taliban and co-operating with the army instead of joining jihad."

Tribal leaders in the Salarzai area of Bajur have denounced the Taliban. Recently, armed tribal members torched and destroyed several suspected militant houses and hideouts.

I'll tell you what's going on..... The US and Bush didn't cross the border at all while that corrupt dictator Mushhead was in power, who did nothing but actually take that money from the US and fund the Taliban.

Now that he resigned to avoid an impeachment (nice timing) and the new government is in power, the money isn't flowing to the Taliban, so the Taliban have been stepping up their attacks inside Pakistan, against the people of Pakistan, because now the military is finally cracking down on them as they should.

This screwed up Bush's plans, so now he's getting US troops to cross the border and cause even more sh*t before he leaves office.

Bush seemed ok with the Taliban attacking from Pakistan in the past and never pulled this stunt..... now suddenly he's done this.

Tell me something..... if the new Pakistan government was funding the Taliban or helping them out..... then why are they suddenly stepping up attacks on Pakistan, as well as Afghanistan, while when Mushbrains, who did nothing at all, had no real problems with the Taliban..... all the while the Taliban increased in size and continually had more and more recruits?

Bush makes me so fk'n sick..... the only justice I can see for all the suffering caused by him, is for someone to drop him from a Helicopter somewhere in a strong Muslim community, and let them have their way with him.
 

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
Too bad bush doesn't resign to avoid impeachment....
He is a murderer and war criminal and should be treated as such.
 

normbc9

Electoral Member
Nov 23, 2006
483
14
18
California
Why should any of this surprise any of us? When I was in Vietnam in the middle sixties we were raiding into Laos and Cambodia frequently. Never told where we were going, just given a Operation Name. We weren't stupid but we did get told to zip the lip. And they meant it too. The worst pseudo General the US military ever had was LBJ. This guy will no doubt steal that position soon.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
"President Bush secretly approved U.S. military raids inside Pakistan against alleged terrorist targets,"


There it is in writing "alleged terrorists" and an alleged terrorista is in Mr Bushes words everyone who is not with him/them. That means me and some others about five and three quarters billion I guess. The preemptive strike becomes more and more sence
ably common as the big picture is revealed one can't help to reach for the phone and inquire of home-depot what they might carry in the line of DIY ballistic missile kits and accesories. Al-Whodhu, that's an old story now. Why can't Canadians settle down and get ready for winter, the real enemy. Fornicate Bush.

 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Has Bush been impeached?

That's apparently up to you guys..... but then again, turning blind eyes doesn't make you guys any less guilty then Bush.

Then again, it's not really us on the internet you guys have to worry about.... well not so much anyways.... it's the people over there who are having their families blown up you got to worry about. It's not just Bush who's going to get their vengance thrown apon, but the people he leads who didn't try and stop him.

And the bigger issue here is that the guys Bush is taking pot shots at with a blindfold, have civilians around them..... what's more, those civilians have families..... and what's different about that compared to Afghanistan and Iraq, is that these families eventually lead back to those who own the Nukes in Pakistan..... Nukes that can reach into Afghanistan where many US troops are located.

And our troops.

Which is why I have been saying as of recent, that we should be hauling our asses out of there now, rather then later..... because the US actions in Afghanistan are only making the situation even more worse for everybody else there.

And now Bush is planning to send more troops from Iraq (With all their wonderful experience there) to Afghanistan to do even more of this.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Well I think...in keeping with the thoughts of some on this thread...there is no Al Queda or terrorists so we should be in the clear. That is unless McCaine or Obama orchrestrate another 9/11 attack as Bush did.

I think Bush is pretty safe from impeachment. He'll be kicking back in Texas soon enough.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
That's apparently up to you guys..... but then again, turning blind eyes doesn't make you guys any less guilty then Bush.

Then again, it's not really us on the internet you guys have to worry about.... well not so much anyways.... it's the people over there who are having their families blown up you got to worry about. It's not just Bush who's going to get their vengance thrown apon, but the people he leads who didn't try and stop him.

And the bigger issue here is that the guys Bush is taking pot shots at with a blindfold, have civilians around them..... what's more, those civilians have families..... and what's different about that compared to Afghanistan and Iraq, is that these families eventually lead back to those who own the Nukes in Pakistan..... Nukes that can reach into Afghanistan where many US troops are located.

And our troops.

Which is why I have been saying as of recent, that we should be hauling our asses out of there now, rather then later..... because the US actions in Afghanistan are only making the situation even more worse for everybody else there.

And now Bush is planning to send more troops from Iraq (With all their wonderful experience there) to Afghanistan to do even more of this.

This is a NATO mission, one sanctioned and supported by the UN.

One can not fight a war if they unilaterally restrict themselves to fight only inside some arbitrary line drawn on a map. If your enemy is operating from somewhere else, you must seek him out and kill him there.

The Americans have done us a favour.......they are (with the Brits) the only ones stepping up to the plate in Afghanistan. They deserve our thanks for this mission, not our derision.

It is our troops they are helping........

You'd think it was our troops they were attacking by the reaction.......
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Hit a sore spot, eh??

Not really. As if "yankee" is supposed to hurt us Americans. You use it so frequently as if it is an insult. Usually the weak fur trapping, syrup makers use that because they want to be American but can't. Ones who are "lacking" if you know what I mean eh.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Well I think...in keeping with the thoughts of some on this thread...there is no Al Queda or terrorists so we should be in the clear. That is unless McCaine or Obama orchrestrate another 9/11 attack as Bush did.

I think Bush is pretty safe from impeachment. He'll be kicking back in Texas soon enough.

I thought that he had intended to retire to Paraguay with his daughters I believe, I could be wrong, he hasn't returned my calls I'm trying to get off the off list. Could you put a word in for me Smack, I don't want to be vapourized in my mud hut this winter when my woodstove infra-red signiture is glowing in some video- geek patriots gunsight.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
This is a NATO mission, one sanctioned and supported by the UN.

One can not fight a war if they unilaterally restrict themselves to fight only inside some arbitrary line drawn on a map. If your enemy is operating from somewhere else, you must seek him out and kill him there.

The Americans have done us a favour.......they are (with the Brits) the only ones stepping up to the plate in Afghanistan. They deserve our thanks for this mission, not our derision.

It is our troops they are helping........

You'd think it was our troops they were attacking by the reaction.......

No no no no, we deserve their thanks for giving them the lives of nearly one hundred of our bravest men......don't ever forget that....ever.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Not really. As if "yankee" is supposed to hurt us Americans. You use it so frequently as if it is an insult. Usually the weak fur trapping, syrup makers use that because they want to be American but can't. Ones who are "lacking" if you know what I mean eh.

What does yankee mean anyway smack? It sounds vaguely as if it refers to some sort of pulling or strokeing motion, perhaps whale boating talk cus it was the New Englanders that was yankees in the old days when we used to burn your villages and make off with yer wimmins whenever we liked. We always washed our feet in your beer though it wasn't and still isn't fit to loot. "Weak fur trapping syrup makers" isn't that Vermont? I know lots of Americans who don't want to be Americans Smack. You're living in the past, with the dream. You are partially right about our lacking, but that's sunshine Smack we'd love the States even if there weren't any Americans in it.
 

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
Not really. As if "yankee" is supposed to hurt us Americans. You use it so frequently as if it is an insult. Usually the weak fur trapping, syrup makers use that because they want to be American but can't. Ones who are "lacking" if you know what I mean eh.
Well I wouldn't want to be one, so there :p
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
No no no no, we deserve their thanks for giving them the lives of nearly one hundred of our bravest men......don't ever forget that....ever.

Absolutely!

Although I think that our sacrifice was made for our own good as well.

I hope you support John McCain, who has already expressed his appreciation of Canada and his gratitude for our help.

Obama just wants to stop us selling anything in the USA.

:)
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Canada's/NATO's adversaries in Afghanistan are trained and armed in Pakistan. We can't defeat them without going into Pakistan.

My problem isn't that the US has taken the war into Pakistan. Its that Pakistan hasn't officially approved US soldiers going into Pakistan. Therefore these raids violate Pakistani sovereignty and are acts of war against Pakistan.

Pakistani Viewpoint:
Territorial, political, economic sovereignty to be protected, Senate told 'Pakistan Times' Political Desk


ISLAMABAD: Leader of the House in Senate Mian Raza Rabbani Monday said the government would protect the sovereignty of Pakistan till last drop of blood and violation of its territory will be tolerated in no way.

Speaking on a point of order raised by Professor Khurshid Ahmed, Rabbani said the government has no ambiguity in its policy rather it has clear cut policy that no one would be allowed to violate sovereignty of the country.

Professor Khurshid had talked about contradictory statements by the Minister for Foreign Affairs Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar and Advisor to Prime Minister on Interior Rehman Malik about the termination of supplies to NATO troops in Afghanistan.

He said the former has stated that supply has been terminated indefinitely while according to the latter it has been suspended temporarily.

Rabbani clarified that the government has made clear before international community that we do not recognize hot pursuits and no one would be allowed to violate Pakistan’s territorial, political and economic sovereignty of Pakistan.

“There is no wavering in government’s commitment. We would take all measures to ensure Pakistan’s sovereignty,” Rabbani told the House.

Earlier, Professor Khurshid condemned alleged strike by NATO troops in Miranshah that claimed seven lives including three women and three children.

He said there is no other option but to prepare ourselves for retaliation otherwise such attempts would continue in future as well....

http://www.pakistantimes.net/2008/09/09/top4.htm

All sovereign nations have the right to defend themselves. I question the wisdom of starting a war with Pakistan.

Even if the US gets official Pakistani approval for these raids, the US is very unpopular in Pakistan. These raids could easily plunge Pakistan into a state of chaos and civil war which could easily lead to Pakistan becoming a radical anti-west Islamic state.

I don't think we can defeat the Taliban without risking loosing Pakistan.

Fighting the Taliban is the wrong way to handle them. The Taliban don't care about what foreigners do in foreign lands and they certainly are not a threat to our sovereignty. They were not our enemy until we attacked them. The Taliban had nothing to do with the events of 9/11.

Very likely we can negotiate a peace deal or at least a truce with them. They agree to let us build schools, mosques and hospitals and we agree not to impose our culture on them. I doubt the Taliban have any interest in Canada.