U.S. May Move Vs. Pakistan Terror Areas

[Eye and Monkey]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-US-Afghanistan.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pakistan must eliminate terrorist sanctuaries or this country will step in and do its part in obliterating them, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad said Monday.

Unless the issue of sanctuaries is solved, it will be difficult to fully abolish security problems in the southern and eastern parts of Afghanistan, he said.


``We cannot allow this problem to fester indefinitely,'' Khalilzad told about 100 people at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. ``We have told the Pakistani leadership that either they must solve this problem or we will have to do it for ourselves.''

About 2 1/2 years after the Taliban-led government was toppled in a U.S.-led bombing campaign, Khalilzad gave a status report. He said ``Afghanistan is succeeding

[ScrewyRabbit]

1. Read: We're desperate to get Bin Laden

[Djinn]

2. well it makes a nice change

from paying for and arming them I guess

[Valkyrie55]

3. So do I take it we'll be invading Pakistan next?

Oh yeah, that's a smart move.

[Robbien]

4. The army is a littly busy right now.

Maybe later, much much later.

[Eye and Monkey]

5. There's always that little corpoRATion in NC - Blackwater.

[Robbien]

7. Oh yea that's right

Didn't I just read in the WaPo that it took only six of them to hold off hundreds of armed Iraqis? Just the thing for this little problem in Pakistan. It will only cost a wee bit more, but worth it doncha think?

[Eye and Monkey]

10. 8. It seems that there are diminishing returns on such an investment.

I've read that there are currently as many as 15,000 "private security contractors" in Iraq. I've read that their pay is 500 $US per day, minimum. That works out to 7,500,000 $US per day. That seems a bit excessive for security that doesn't seem to be providing much improvement in security.

Of course, I don't have 7,500,000 $US per day to pay for this kind of security. Actually, neither does the US. Maybe we should ask our unborn grandchildren if they have an extra 7,500,000 $US per day, and if they mind if we BORROW AND SPEND.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Our Ambassador was speaking of an "imaginary" army

like the imaginary army units Hitler thought he had during the Soviet assault on Berlin.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Ok office pool

how long until P. Musharaff is deposed and AQ gets a working nuke?

One month, six months, or a year? I go for the year, at the latest.

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

8. If Bush is reelected,

six months...

[KAZ]

13. One must first be elected to be reelected. n/t

Sorry, picking nits. :)

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

20. Oops

meant "reselected". Probably by machines. ;)

[thebigidea]

9. "We cannot allow the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," eh, Condi?

[keopeli]

11. Why doesn't the press cover the REAL WMD THREAT more?

Pakistan HAS nukes. Iran is within a couple of years, tops. India is a real ally of ours in view of the REAL THREAT of this nuclear disaster. Perhaps there's a monatery issue in why so much outsourcing to India is such a good thing, eh? Just a thought.

Bin Laden is hiding in the Nuclear Forest, deep in a cave, surrounded by allys. Iraq was, frankly and militarily, an easy target. The inner workings of getting US soldiers on the ground in that Nuclear Forest must be incredibly difficult. Lack of faith in our CIA has posed a real problem.

The Bush* administration knows now that their target is bin Laden. They absolutely must get him before the election, preferrably in October.

I hate to say it, but I think we're in for some real fireworks.

God save America.

Keo

[keopeli]

12. kick

[varun]

14. What? Attack the Frontline Ally?

What happened to them being the "Non-NATO Ally"?

[varun]

15. *'s foreign policy is screwed up

Read this article and tell me why Pakistan is a Major-Non-NATO ally of USA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/05/international/europe/05SPIEGEL.html

The Masters of Jihad
By ERICH FOLLATH,
Der Speigel

Published: April 5, 2004

poorhouse and a nuclear power, an ally of the United States and an incubator for Islamist violence: Pakistan is a land of contradictions and poses a danger to the world. Washington is backing Musharraf, who indulges radical mullahs but allows the CIA's special forces to hunt for bin Laden.

Betrayal, say the American members of congress. And the members of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States are convinced they know who the traitor is. In a report that is currently making waves in Washington, the politicians claim that the former Pakistani chief of intelligence, Hamid Gul, promised Taliban leaders in July 1999 that he would give them "three to four hours of advance warning" prior to each planned American missile attack...

...The Swiss weekly Die Weltwoche calls Pakistan "the world's most dangerous country," and CIA advisor Robert Galluci says that it poses "the greatest threat to the future of the United States." Of the 620 suspected terrorists currently in detention at the US base in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, 540 were arrested on Pakistani soil.

Islamabad has made global headlines three times during the last three months alone, in each case for increasingly alarming incidents. In December, there were two attempts in the space of twelve days to assassinate President Musharraf, 60. In both cases, Musharraf survived the attacks, apparently planned by a member of his innermost circle, by a hair's breadth. In February, nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, responding to international pressure, swore an oath of disclosure. He admitted to having passed on top secret nuclear secrets to North Korea, Libya and Iran, supposedly on his own and without the knowledge of Pakistan's military or political establishment. By the day after his confession, the president had already pardoned the sinner, referring to him as "my hero." ...

[snippy]

16. If Bush sends troops into Pakistan, Musharraf will be replaced and killed.

His replacement likely would be much more friendly to bin Laden and the Taliban than to Bush and the US. And India will not welcome an Islamic fundamentalist government in Pakistan. I hope this Ambassador is talking on his own and not actually stating our foreign policy. However, since this idea is so overwhelmingly stupid and arrogant, I am afraid this probably is Bush's idea.

[varun]

18. I prefer a fundamentalist, elected government...

...in Pakistan to a tinpot dictator like Musharraf.

It is a fallacy that a fundamentalist govt. in Pakistan will be more trigger happy. Iran is a good example.

[snippy]

21. I see the fundamentalists in Pakistatn as more dangerous than Musharraf.

However, I do not have any armed forces or nuclear weapons. India does.

[Aidoneus]

22. I agree, but..

You'd really prefer President Fazlur Rahman to Busharraf? At least the latter does what he's told (one of the things I hold against him).

[Aidoneus]

17. "Terror Areas"?!

The Times has the regime's propaganda down pretty well. But what is their value except on their knees like this?