Thread FULL!!!__AMERICA AT WAR!__Use New Thread!

Top 1705. May 9, 2002 5:29 PM

» BPyles - Jihad against chicken & burgers!

Jen:

Out of touch for a few days and thing happening around the world - the terror in Pakistan, today the Russia news, and of course the Israel homicide. Then top it off with the Lebanon attacks. Takes awhile to get caught up. Thanks for all the info on the news around the war world. Suppose the world will ever wake up to what is facing every civilized country?

Can't help but wonder how many have been re-arrested in Pakistan. Remember all those they rounded up only to turn many loose after they signed something...forgotten what it was called.

Regarding Europe's terror alert. Imagine they are getting all sorts of info from their recent arrests and are simply afraid to ignore any of it. Does sound like it is escalating everywhere tho and, of course, the Pakistan bombing was about same as bombing France.

Need a world war on terror!

-- posted by BPyles

Top 1706. May 9, 2002 6:42 PM

» JenL_2 - Re: Jihad against chicken & burgers!

In response to message posted by BPyles:

Need a world war on terror!

Betty - Like it or not - and it wasn't our choice - but I think that's what we're in the midst of - A World War on Terror.....Jen

-- posted by JenL_2

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1576/...

Top 1707. May 9, 2002 8:10 PM

» Steven_Russell - Hekmatyar survives CIA missile near Kabul, Mon., Day 212

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar ---------------------------- possible sought refuge in Iraq, disappeared in Iran February 27, 2002; Iran closed his offices February 11, 2002; in exile in Iran as of 1996; rogue warlord at Serobi, devastated Kabul in civil war 1996; ruler of Logar Province, as of November 20, 2001, leader of Hezb-i-Islami political party

--------------------------------------------------

CIA tries to kill Afghan factional leader

New York Times

Published May 9, 2002
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The CIA, using a missile fired from an unmanned surveillance drone, tried Monday to kill an Afghan factional leader who has vowed to topple the current government, Pentagon and administration officials said Wednesday.

U.S. officials said Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the leader of a militant and predominantly Pashtun party called Hezb-i-Islami, was the target of a U.S. missile strike outside Kabul. The officials said he survived the attack, which was carried out by a Predator drone carrying Hellfire antitank missiles.

The attack on Hekmatyar was a new tactic in the war and evidence of the Bush administration's determination to support the country's new government. It was the first confirmed mission to kill a factional leader who was not officially part of the fallen Taliban government or the Al-Qaida terrorist network.

U.S. officials said they had gathered ample intelligence of Hekmatyar's efforts to bring down the current government, led by Hamid Karzai, and to strike at allied troops in Afghanistan.

"We had information that he was planning attacks on American and coalition forces, on the interim government and on Karzai himself," one Pentagon official said.

Details of the attack remained sketchy and contradictory Wednesday. One official said Hekmatyar was traveling in a convoy at the time of the attack, while another said he was standing with a group of people.

In April, the interim government detained scores of Hezb-i-Islami members after the police reported discovering documents outlining plans to attack Karzai and Muhammad Zahir Shah, the former Afghan king.

Afghan officials stopped short of accusing Hekmatyar of directing the conspiracy, but they noted that he had sworn to topple the Karzai administration and expel all foreigners from Afghanistan. Hekmatyar returned to Afghanistan in recent weeks after a long exile in Iran, officials said.

In a February interview with Reuters, Hekmatyar accused Karzai of being a puppet leader under the control of foreigners.

"While foreign troops are present, the interim government does not have any value or meaning," he said. "We prefer involvement in internal war rather than occupation by foreigners and foreign troops."

-- posted by Steven_Russell

Philippines using old immigration law to hold foreign terror suspects

Top 1708. May 9, 2002 11:35 PM

» JenL_2 - Re: Philippines - Indonesia

Some background on the Philippines Indonesian Terrorists Arrest.

Philippines doesn't have an Internal Security Act (ISA) like Singapore & Malaysia - but instead are using a 1940's immigration act patterned after US immigration law as a tool to hold suspected terrorists.

P. Parameswaran
Copyright 2002 by Agence France-Presse (via ClariNet)

MANILA, March 22 (AFP) - The Philippines is using an old but powerful immigration law to keep suspected foreign terrorists in jail indefinitely in the absence of anti-terrorism legislation, officials say.

At least 11 foreign suspects are languishing in prison for breaking immigration laws even though they were primarily charged with the more serious offence of possession of explosives.

Officials said the 60-year-old Philippine Immigration Act had proved useful following the September 11 terror attacks in the United States.

Since then, the authorities have arrested four Middle Eastern nationals, four Indonesians, two Vietnamese and one Japanese.

Some of them are believed to be linked to the al-Qaeda network of Saudi militant Osama bin Laden.

While lacking the Internal Security Act (ISA) of neighbouring Malaysia and Singapore, which allows indefinite detention without trial, Immigration Commissioner Andrea Domingo has blanket powers to detain a foreigner believed to have violated conditions of entry.

"While the ISA can cover both locals and foreigners, the Philippine Immigration Act can be used against foreigners only," Winnie Quidato, the immigration department's chief investigative officer, told AFP.

Malaysia is holding under the ISA more than 30 people involved in a militant group called KMM, which is allegedly made up of members trained in Afghanistan to overthrow the government by force.

Singapore has also used its own ISA to detain 13 members of an umbrella militant group called Jemaah Islamiyah, believed to be al-Qaeda's Southeast Asian chapter.

Quidato said the Philippine law, modelled on US immigration law, was promulgated in 1940 when Manila was still a US colony.

It was expected to be used against three Indonesians arrested in Manila last week on suspicion of being involved in terrorism, he added.

They have been charged with illegal possession of explosives -- but without the immigration law they would have obtained provisional liberty.

Agus Dwikarna, Tamsil Linrung and Abdul Jammal Balsas signed papers late Thursday to post bail of 200,000 pesos (3,921 dollars), officials said.

But it is understood Domingo has asked the police not to free the trio, as they were technically under the custody of the immigration bureau.

Philippine police say Dwikarna had admitted being a member of the Jemaah Islamiyah and all three had reportedly met with associates of another Indonesian, Fathur Rohman al-Ghozi, being detained here for illegal possession of one tonne of explosives.

Al-Ghozi, who allegedly worked for the Jemaah Islamiyah, is also being held under the immigration law after charges brought against him of possessing explosives were thrown out due to lack of evidence.

Triyogo Jatmiko, the Indonesian embassy's press attache, said Dwikarna had told him at a meeting at his detention centre this week that he was never a member of Jemaah Islamiyah.

"He denied that he had come here for any suspicious activities and said his visit here is purely for business interests," Jatmiko told AFP.

A foreign ministry ministry spokesman in Jakarta said the Indonesians were due to stand trial in Manila on April 3 and have hired their own local lawyers instead of using one provided by a court.

"The government is taking steps to make sure that the rights of our citizens are respected in the judicial process," spokesman Marty Natalegawa said.

Domingo said the Philippine authorities could not afford to take lightly cases of possession of explosives.

"Even those who are safekeeping the explosives for them, we regard them as terrorists and supporters of terrorists," she said.

Al-Ghozi has been convicted of possession of illegal explosives and false passports with more convictions coming. Looks like they have lots of evidence to hold Agus Dwikarna.....but his associates, Abdul Jamas Balfas & Tamsil Linrung.... have already been released due to pressure from Indonesia.....so in that case the Philippines Immigration law wasn't much help....Jen

-- posted by JenL_2

Top 1709. May 10, 2002 5:00 PM

» BPyles - Ammo destroyed

http://www.afghannews.net/
Forces Blow Up Four Afghan Caves
May 10, 2002
AP

PAKTIA PROVINCE, Afghanistan In a thunderous blast heard and seen for miles, coalition forces blew up four caves Friday packed with tens of thousands of rockets, shells and grenadesthat once belonged to the Taliban and were apparently still being used.

"There's no way they'll be able to go in there and use those caves now," said Sgt. Iain Murison from Britain's 59 Commando as a huge, tan dust cloud spread across the desolate hills and valleys of southeastern Afghanistan.

About 220 pounds of plastic explosives, fortified with anti-tank mines, were set off by remote control after people were evacuated from within a mile of the caves.

Ordnance inside the manmade caves continued to explode for hours; at least three rockets shot out and went whizzing across the sky.

British forces discovered the cache earlier this week. The caves are 6 to 9 feet high and about 100 to 150 feet deep. Near Soram, south of Gardez, they were hacked out years ago by Muslim fighters and then taken over by the Taliban. Marks from pickaxes were still visible on inside walls.

The caves were sealed shut with metal doors, but at least one was left open apparently by guards hired by local warlords who fled when the British troops approached, said Lt. Col. Tim Chicken,
commander of the 45 Commando.

"You can see things have been moved around recently, but we don't know by whom," he said. "Dust has been disturbed and stuff's been dragged outside."

The area near the Afghan border has been beset by factional fighting, including artillery duels between warlords.

Most of the materiel, stacked floor to ceiling, was Chinese or Russian-made, Murison said. He estimated the total at more than 20 truckloads, including 30,000 to 40,000 rockets, mortar shells
and projectiles.

All of it was destroyed, along with the four caves.

The find came as part of Operation Snipe, a 1,000-man, British-led mission in the mountains of Paktia and Paktika provinces. So far, the troops haven't had any enemy contact.

Also Friday, Afghan officials delayed the release of hundreds of Pakistani prisoners amid worries about attacks on them as they made their way home.

Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, the deputy defense minister who controls the notorious northern prison of Shibergan, had said he would release up to 400 Pakistani prisoners this week.

But he put it off for a second day while he met with a "foreign representative" to discuss the safety of the prisoners once they are released, according to Mohammed Salam, an officer who
answered the phone at Dostum's base in Shibergan.

The first group of Pakistanis released from Afghan jails 30 men, all wounded or elderly left from prisons in Kabul last month, and were taken home aboard a Pakistani military cargo plane.

Thousands of Pakistanis came to Afghanistan to fight with the Taliban, and hundreds were arrested. Supporters of the northern alliance, against whom they fought, do not look kindly on their presence in Afghanistan.

If the men were to go home by road, some fear they would be attacked by former soldiers.

In all, there are 1,500 Afghans and 800 Pakistanis being held at Shibergan, known for atrocious conditions. Prisoners who have been released have told of beatings, starvation rations and cells so tightly packed that the inmates couldn't all lie down at once.

The Red Cross recently started an emergency feeding program because some inmates were on the verge of starvation.

Dostum released about 600 Afghan prisoners from the south last week after an appeal from interim Prime Minister Hamid Karzai.

In the capital, Kabul, Australian Defense Minister Robert Hill said returning Afghanistan to peace and stability was going well. "Very
significant progress has been made in terms of destroying the al-Qaida network and those who are supporting it," he added.

Australia has contributed troops to the coalition fighting the remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaida and has participated in the humanitarian aid effort. Hill said his country was considering
contributing troops to the international peacekeeping force in the capital.

"At the moment we're still concentrating on combat," he said, but added: "We're looking at appropriate roles in which Australia can assist in the future."

-- posted by BPyles

Top 1710. May 11, 2002 9:29 PM

» JenL_2 - Re: SE Asia Terror Pact

More on SE Asian cooperation against Terrorism from 5/11 Asia Times:

The fear behind Southeast Asia's terror pact

By Alan Boyd

Southeast Asia's first terrorism pact, soon to be ratified by its four founding members, will be a battle of perceptions as much as a blow against extremism. For politicians know that to become effective, it first must be sold to restive Muslim populations. Trouble is, everyone is working to a different political agenda, and some of these don't have an awful lot to do with suppressing terrorism.

Malaysian leaders have found that their security powers offer a convenient means of cracking down on the opposition Parti Se-Islam Malaysia (PAS). Indonesia is preoccupied with a leadership split and in sending the right murmurs of support to Western countries without upsetting the Islamic moderates who prop up its ruling class. The Philippines is targeting more US development aid, while Thailand wants to displace Indonesia as the region's de facto powerbroker. There is even a constant state of denial over the existence of terrorists in Southeast Asia. Thailand and Indonesia say that they don't have a homegrown problem at all; the Philippines has "religious separatists" and Malaysia misguided politicians who strayed to the wrong cause.

Only Singapore has eschewed political posturing and given terrorism the full attention it deserves since the September attacks in the US. Yet the republic has chosen - temporarily at least - to remain outside the pact. Foreign Minister S Jayakumar said that his country wanted to evaluate the geographical coverage for the proposed exchange of security data, and was looking at the potential legal issues.

He might also have mentioned that Southeast Asia already has a clutch of security cooperations that involve the same types of information exchanges. Why the need for a new one? Probably because of the two conflicting signals that have been coming out of the region. On one hand, security agencies have been quietly working together on an issue that transcends national borders; on the other, governments have done their best to pretend it doesn't exist. Signing a formal accord will satisfy both camps, by putting intelligence cooperation on an official footing and giving the politicians some breathing space from external critics. Little, though, will change at an operational level. There is no provision for joint policing activities, and the intelligence swaps will essentially be on an unsolicited basis, though cross-border warrants will be honored in second countries. All parties have been careful to avoid using the word "treaty", which can carry wider military connotations. Like all such arrangements in Southeast Asia, the agreement works by consensus and can be permitted to quietly lapse if it no longer meets expectations.

Even this relatively modest system of liaison could falter if it is sucked into domestic politics, especially in restless Indonesia. Caught between her Muslim clerics and the more pragmatic security chiefs, President Megawati Sukarnoputri is being undermined by conservative hardliners who are increasingly setting the domestic agenda on terrorism. Her own deputy, Hamzah Haz, caused a stir by publicly visiting Jafar Umar, jailed leader of the archipelago's biggest Islamic extremism movement. He is reportedly lobbying for the release of Umar, whose Laskar Jihad has been blamed for the deaths of hundreds of Christians in the volatile Moluccas.

Separately, the Supreme Court quashed subversion charges against Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Bashir, accused by Singapore and Malaysia of having terrorist links, on the grounds that the cited legal statutes were no longer valid. Another court did pass a death sentence on alleged bomber Taufik Abdul Halim, but that was probably because he is a Malay and thus did not create an internal political dilemma. Prosecutors had sought only a 20-year jail term. Diplomats say that Jakarta is passing intelligence on local extremist groups to neighboring countries, but is slow to act on evidence against its own nationals. Which raises immediate questions over the efficacy of the new cooperation pact.

The same envoys also charge that Kuala Lumpur has adopted a selective response to cross-border terrorism activity, despite having recourse to tougher security regulations than Indonesia, whose statutes were watered down several years ago to pacify human rights activists.

Alleged members of the Jemaah Islamiah cell are being held indefinitely without trial in Malaysia, prompting charges that they have intentionally been isolated while the government milks the ostensible PAS link. Several of the detainees may have had religious contacts with known terrorists in the US or Europe, according to foreign security analysts. However, there is no evidence that Malaysian Mujahedin Group (KMM), the PAS's reputed extremist arm, has ever existed. A by-election has already been won from the publicity fallout against PAS, and Kuala Lumpur, unlike Jakarta, is in no danger of suffering a political setback if it embraces the regional security agreement.

Philippines leader Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is also on firm ground after staking her political future on a sensitive joint operation with US special forces against Abu Sayyaf guerrillas in southern provinces that appears to be succeeding. Nationalist sentiment is running high against the return of US troops, who were ejected a decade ago from naval and air bases in the Philippines. However, Arroyo has the backing of business leaders and the influential middle classes. It was no surprise that Manila, as the biggest victim of terrorism, should be the prime instigator of the anti-terrorism pact.

Nor that Thailand, the least-affected, would be the last to join. Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra has been less than forthright, despite persistent evidence that Thailand acts as a staging area for a motley collection of extremist organizations, ranging from Muslim saboteurs to Tamil separatists and rightwing Vietnamese factions. Reports in diplomatic circles indicate that he is worried at the potential impact of a terrorism alert on foreign business confidence. Yet the evidence suggests it is the countries staying on the sidelines, and thus avoiding their security responsibilities, that will suffer the biggest exodus of investment. With only two million Muslims in an overwhelmingly Buddhist population, Thailand could easily set the terrorism agenda, and gain a headstart in the regional leadership stakes without risking a loss of domestic support. But like other Southeast Asian leaders, Thaksin is not looking only at the immediate political angle. He knows the comfort zone could easily evaporate if, as many anticipate, the level of security cooperation grows beyond mere information exchanges.

The main flaw in the current arrangement is that it does not offer a formula for preempting terrorism threats. Although suppression agencies will be able to pool intelligence for the first time, most are geared up only to respond to existing threats. Taking the framework to the next level would require a bigger commitment, and probably closer links with security entities in the US and Europe. Then one would be talking of genuine political risks if it all went wrong.

One potential hazard lies in the wide definition of activities covered by the existing agreement, which theoretically is not restricted to terrorism. An over-zealous security agency could broaden the net to cover weapons transactions, illegal immigration and even drug trafficking, areas that have traditionally been viewed as too hot for domestic leaders to tackle.

More inter-action also invites greater scrutiny. Hence, the participating governments will come under pressure to plug loopholes in money-laundering legislation that does not proscribe activities by extremist groups.

Is Southeast Asia ready to go the whole hog against transnational crimes? Surprisingly, the answer is a guarded yes, though only because the perceived security threat no longer fits squarely into a national context.

Fear that a regional Islamic state could emerge from the scattered extremist cells throughout the region has created an extraordinary sense of shared apprehension between government leaders, even if the supporting evidence for this threat is circumspect.

A linkup between Middle East financiers, Philippine separatists, Indonesian ethnic insurgents and Thai gun-runners is the stuff of policing nightmares, no matter how implausible the scenario might be to some foreign strategists.

Having an identifiable target would promote a level of unprecedented cooperation within the region, and counter some of the criticisms being levelled by Washington and its Western allies.

There would also be a political dividend, as government leaders display a rare streak of statesmanship and - in a few cases - exploit the situation to bolster their power bases against opposition parties. That should get the attention of politicians, if nothing else does.

....Jen

-- posted by JenL_2

http://news.scotsman.com/international.c...

Top 1711. May 12, 2002 12:54 AM

» Steven_Russell - rocket attack on US in Pak, late Fri., Day 216

Also below, evidence found of an attempted SA-7 rocket attack possibly directed at a plane over an American air field at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, late Thursday.

Sun 12 May 2002

Pakistan rocket attacks aimed at US troops

DAVID MAHONEY IN ISLAMABAD

AMERICAN troops hunting Taliban and al-Qaeda fugitives in Pakistan were the target of a rocket attack.

A rocket fired late on Friday missed a vocational college in the town of Miranshah in North Waziristan where seven US personnel were staying - the second such attack in two weeks.

A government official said the seven US personnel were living at the college and had earlier watched a traditional Katthak dance on the lawn of a nearby fort.

Two rockets aimed at the fort were placed in nearby woods by suspected Islamic militants opposed to the presence of US forces in the area.

The first rocket missed its target while the other, timed for 2.25am on Saturday, was defused.

The last rocket attack in the area, on May 1, also missed its target and caused no casualties.

US-led coalition forces are prowling rugged mountains along the Pakistan-Afghan border to hunt for members of Afghanistan’s former ruling Taliban movement and the al-Qaeda network of Osama bin Laden, prime suspect in the September 11 attacks on the United States.

--------------------------------------------------

American officers were also pondering evidence of an attempted attack on US forces in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi soldiers found an empty tube from a shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile near a military base used by US warplanes.

A patrol discovered the missile launcher tube about half a mile from Prince Sultan Air Base in the Saudi desert "at the end of the week". The officials did not give a day, but the Saudi working week ends on Thursday.

The Saudi officials said they had no details of how the launcher came to be near the base. An investigation is under way.

Rear Admiral Craig Quigley, spokesman for US Central Command, said that a cover on the front of the launcher tube was intact, but the back of the tube had scorch marks, indicating it could have been used to fire or try to fire a missile.

Saudi forces photographed the three-feet long tube, designed for a Soviet-made SA-7 anti-aircraft missile, before destroying it, Quigley said.

Someone firing an SA-7 from the spot where the tube was found could possibly have hit a plane taking off or landing at the base, he added.

"It’s not an ideal spot to put yourself if you wanted to shoot down a plane. You could do better. It’s hard to know what to make of it."

Quigley said he had no reports of threats against the base, used by about 4,500 US troops and an unspecified number of American warplanes. No pilots reported seeing, hearing or detecting any missile firing.

"Right now it’s a mystery about what it all means, whether it was used or meant to be used," said Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Dave Lapan.

-- posted by Steven_Russell

Top 1712. May 12, 2002 7:23 AM

» JenL_2 - Re: rocket attack on US in Pak, late Fri., Day 216

In response to message posted by Steven_Russell:

Steven - glad the al-Qaeda seem to be bad shots with those rocket launchers! We need to push Pak to step up to the plate - either with us or against us - they can't play on both sides. This from 5/12 Washington Post and published at MSNBC.com:

Pakistan reluctant to pursue al Qaeda

Military and political pressures at home are cited

By Thomas E. Ricks and Kamran Khan
THE WASHINGTON POST

U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded that the major remaining concentrations of al Qaeda fighters are in western Pakistan, rather than in Afghanistan, but Pakistan has resisted U.S. pressure to launch large-scale attacks against them, officials in Washington and Pakistan said.

U.S. OFFICIALS HAVE pressed Pakistan to act against what they believe are groups of al Qaeda fighters concentrated in the Waziristan area of western Pakistan, near the Afghan border.

“We know where there is a large concentration of al Qaeda,” one Pentagon official said last week, noting that there were several hundred in one border town, which he asked not be identified. But, he added, “Our guys haven’t been getting the cooperation” requested from the Pakistani government.

The Pakistani government’s reluctance to go after the pockets of terrorists on its territory is the first major difference to surface in the U.S.-Pakistani alliance against terrorism, which has been surprisingly strong since September.

If the intense U.S. pressure to mount an offensive along the Pakistani side of the border succeeds, it would mark a major widening of the eight-month-old U.S. counteroffensive against terrorism, in which overt combat has taken place only in Afghanistan. Pakistani officials also said it is possible the United States could decide to act unilaterally against the terrorist pockets.

PAKISTANIS MOVING SLOWLY

Defense officials said the Pakistani military has been moving very slowly, despite U.S. offers to provide intelligence, helicopters, Special Operations troops or even conventional military units. For the last two weeks, one senior official said, “We’ve been after them [the Pakistanis] to attack, and we haven’t made much progress.”

Another added: “We are trying to encourage, wheedle, coerce, urge the Pakistanis to move more aggressively” against al Qaeda fighters. “We’ve had some success, but movement is slow.”

Pakistani officials responded that, with or without U.S. aid, they are reluctant for several reasons to launch the attacks. They said they fear an internal political backlash, both in the unruly border area and from Islamic extremists across the nation. They said their military already is strained by the standoff with India.

In addition, they said they lack confidence in U.S. intelligence reports about the supposed buildup of al Qaeda forces on their territory. “There can’t be any such large-scale concentrations in any area of Pakistan,” Pakistani Brig. Javed Iqbal Cheema, director of the Interior Ministry’s crisis management cell, said Friday. “It isn’t possible.”

Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, met with his top military commanders last week in Rawalpindi to consider how to deal with the U.S. push to begin wide-ranging military operations in the semi-autonomous border area. The meeting has been reported in the Pakistani press, but not its subject or conclusions.

But speaking privately, Pakistani officials disclosed the military leaders concluded that no operation would be launched in the volatile border region - known as the Tribal Areas - without more specific intelligence that the Pakistani government deemed credible. Even then, they decided, U.S. military involvement in the area should be kept to a minimum.

PRESENCE ALREADY IN PAKISTAN

A small number of U.S. Special Forces are already operating along the Pakistani side of the border, and covert U.S. patrols have crossed into Pakistan from Afghanistan. On Friday night, a rocket was fired at a building in North Waziristan in which U.S. personnel are believed to be staying. It was the second rocket attack this month against U.S. forces in the area. No casualties were reported in either assault.

The commanders’ meeting also concluded that the United States should be told that until tensions relax between Pakistan and India - about 80 percent of Pakistan’s troops are deployed on its eastern border, with India - the Pakistani military could not mount large-scale operations along its western border, with Afghanistan.

“There was almost a consensus during this meeting that extreme care be taken before launching any security operation in the tribal areas, and in the event of any such action, the involvement of foreign personnel be kept at the minimum level,” said an official familiar with the conference proceedings.

A Pakistani security official also discounted the U.S. conclusion that several hundred al Qaeda fighters have concentrated in two or three areas near the border. The U.S. intelligence, he said, is “very general and lacks specifics.”

He added that recent small-scale raids launched jointly by the United States and Pakistan in the Tribal Areas already have created a “revolt-like situation” there.

“The territory is hostile to the U.S. forces and sympathetic to Taliban and Arabs,” a Pakistani military official agreed. He indicated that the United States should reconsider before pushing Pakistan “to launch a military assault against thousands of well-armed, religiously motivated people.”

FRUSTRATION IS STRIKING

The frustration U.S. officials have expressed about Pakistan is especially striking because it comes after eight months in which the United States - especially its military - has been consistently pleased with the breadth and depth of Pakistani cooperation.

Even though the Pakistani government, and especially its intelligence service, had nurtured Afghanistan’s Taliban movement, Pakistan agreed in September to support the U.S. attack on the Taliban. It permitted U.S. warplanes to fly over its territory and even allowed the Americans to base troops and aircraft at at least four locations on its territory. It also helped capture Taliban and al Qaeda fighters: Close to half the detainees held at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were originally in Pakistani custody.

The first hint of a change in the extent of Pakistan’s cooperation came after its military failed to catch scores of al Qaeda and Taliban fighters fleeing the Shahikot battle in March. The United States and its allies then staged the biggest ground attack of the war, against a large, heavily armed and dug-in opponent.

That failure was in sharp contrast to the Tora Bora fight in December, when swift action by the Pakistani army netted hundreds of suspected al Qaeda fighters as they crossed into Pakistan.

Since Shahikot, results of the U.S.-led offensive on the Afghan side of the border have been sparse. Earlier this month, the U.S. military prepared to launch a major operation in southeastern Afghanistan. Preliminary movements by British and Canadian forces were intended to force enemy concentrations to fight or to move.

The Pakistani military was supposed to complement the attack by pushing al Qaeda members back across the border into Afghanistan. Troops from the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne went on alert to reinforce any allied unit that became engaged in combat.

RELOCATION ACROSS BORDER

To the U.S. commanders’ surprise, the sweeps by British and Canadian forces ran into almost no opposition. The Americans have concluded that most of the al Qaeda opposition has relocated in small villages along the Pakistani side of the border.

“Given the choice of facing U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan, or nothing in the ungovernable provinces, where would you go?” asked one U.S. official involved in the war.

Despite its resistance, the Pakistani government has indicated it understands that the United States ultimately may choose to bomb the pockets of enemy fighters unilaterally, especially if solid intelligence points toward the location of Osama bin Laden or other al Qaeda leaders.

“We’ve made it very clear” to tribal leaders that providing sanctuary to terrorists and their allies “would bring great harm to them,” Moeenuddin Haider, Pakistan’s interior minister, told Washington Post reporters and editors on Friday - although he said he was not aware either of large groups of al Qaeda in Pakistan or of U.S. pressure to do more against them. He also said he does not believe bin Laden is in Pakistan.

Tribal leaders in Waziristan said they have been warned in far harsher terms. One said that last week, after local youths posted armed bands outside schools and mosques to resist searches by U.S. forces, Pakistani military intelligence officials told them that giving refuge to al Qaeda invited “carpet bombing of the area by the U.S. B-52 bombers.”

Special correspondent Khan reported from Karachi, Pakistan.

we're getting a lot of Pak double-talk - but IMHO these words are key... Despite its resistance, the Pakistani government has indicated it understands that the United States ultimately may choose to bomb the pockets of enemy fighters unilaterally and the tribal leaders have been warned by Pak military intelligence officials that giving refuge to al Qaeda invited “carpet bombing of the area by the U.S. B-52 bombers.”

....Jen

-- posted by JenL_2

Top 1713. May 12, 2002 11:33 AM

» Steven_Russell - Re: Re: rocket attack on US in Pak, late Fri., Day 216

In response to message posted by JenL_2:

It seems to me that we are not reading the signals from Pakistan correctly. They are washing their hands of our requests for them to actively engage al Qaeda in their border areas, but at the same time they are repeatedly saying that US coalition forces will act unilaterally - so let's just go in and do it. And if we quickly find and take out the al Qaeda that we know are there, Pak won't really be able to complain about it, while they stood by and refused to act.

-- posted by Steven_Russell