CIA Escalates in Pakistan

[bhramos]

WASHINGTON—The U.S. military is secretly diverting aerial drones and weaponry from the Afghan battlefront to significantly expand the CIA's campaign against militants in their Pakistani havens.

The shift in strategic focus reflects the U.S. view that, with Pakistan's military unable or unwilling to do the job, more U.S. force against terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan is now needed to turn around the struggling Afghan war effort across the border.

In recent months, the military has loaned Predator and Reaper drones to the Central Intelligence Agency to give the agency more firepower to target and bombard militants on the Afghan border.

The additional drones helped the CIA escalate the number of strikes in Pakistan in September. The agency averaged five strikes a week in September, up from an average of two to three per week. The Pentagon and CIA have ramped up their purchases of drones, but they aren't being built fast enough to meet the rapid rise in demand.

View Full Image

The escalated campaign in September was aimed, in part, at disrupting a suspected terrorist plot to strike in Western Europe. U.S. officials said Friday their working assumption is that Osama bin Laden and other senior al Qaeda operatives are part of the suspected terror plot—or plots—believed to target the U.K., France or Germany. They said they are still working to understand the contours of the scheme.

U.S. officials say a successful terrorist strike against the West emanating from Pakistan could force the U.S. to take unilateral military action—an outcome all parties are eager to avoid.

Although the U.S. military flies surveillance drones in Pakistan and shares intelligence with the Pakistani government, Pakistan has prohibited U.S. military operations on its soil, arguing they would impinge on the country's sovereignty. The CIA operations, while well-known, are technically covert, allowing Islamabad to deny to its unsupportive public its involvement with the strikes. The CIA doesn't acknowledge the program, and the shift of Pentagon resources has been kept under wraps.

Pakistan has quietly cooperated with the CIA drone program which started under President George W. Bush. But the program is intensely unpopular in the country because of concerns about sovereignty and regular reports of civilian casualties. U.S. officials say the CIA's targeting of militants is precise, and that there have been a limited number of civilian casualties.

U.S. officials said there is now less concern about upsetting the Pakistanis than there was a few months ago, and that the U.S. is being more aggressive in its response to immediate threats from across the border.

"You have to deal with the sanctuaries," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D., Mass.) said after meeting with Pakistan's foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, in Washington this week. "I've pushed very, very hard with the Pakistanis regarding that."

Tensions between the U.S. and Pakistan have been exacerbated in recent days by a series of cross-border attacks by North Atlantic Treaty Organization helicopter gunships. Islamabad responded by shutting a key border crossing used to supply Western troops in Afghanistan and threatening to halt NATO container traffic altogether. On Friday, militants in Pakistan attacked tankers carrying fuel toward another border crossing, in another sign of the vulnerability of NATO supply lines crossing Pakistani territory.

Because U.S. military officials say success in Afghanistan hinges, in large part, on shutting down the militant havens in Pakistan, the surge in drone strikes could also have far-reaching implications for the Obama administration, which is under political pressure to show results in the nine-year Afghan war and has set a goal of beginning to withdraw troops in July.

The secret deal to beef up the CIA's campaign inside Pakistan shows the extent to which military officials see the havens there, used by militants to plan and launch attacks on U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, as the primary obstacle to the Afghan war effort.

"When it comes to drones, there's no mission more important right now than hitting targets in the tribal areas, and that's where additional equipment's gone," a U.S. official said. "It's not the only answer, but it's critical to both homeland security and force protection in Afghanistan."

The idea of funneling military resources through the CIA was broached during last year's Afghanistan-Pakistan policy review, officials say. The shift in military resources was spearheaded by CIA Director Leon Panetta and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a former CIA director himself. It also has the backing of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, and the new commander of allied forces in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus.

Mr. Gates helped smooth over initial dissent among some at the Pentagon who argued that the drones were needed in Afghanistan to attack the Taliban.

Since taking command in Afghanistan in July, Gen. Petraeus has placed greater focus on the tribal areas of Pakistan, according to military and other government officials.

The U.S. military has been focused on trying to persuade the Pakistan army to step up its actions against militants in the tribal areas. That effort led to operations in some areas, but not North Waziristan, which is used by the Haqqani militant network to mount cross-border attacks and is believed by U.S. officials to be the hiding place of senior al Qaeda leaders.

Pakistan says its army has been spread thin, limiting its ability to carry out additional large-scale operations. Its resources have also been diverted to responding to the worst flooding in the country's history.

The U.S. now sees the need for a stronger American push in Pakistan because of the growing belief that Pakistan isn't going to commit any more resources to fighting militants within its borders, said a former senior intelligence official. The Pakistani military is tapped out, the former official said. "They've gone as far as they can go."

U.S. officials are also increasingly frustrated by what they see as Islamabad's double-dealing. Some elements of the country's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency continue to support the Haqqanis as a hedge against India's regional influence, and the government has rebuffed U.S. calls for a crackdown on the group.

Pakistani government officials have repeatedly denied that they provide any support to the Haqqanis and said their military is too overstretched to take them on directly in their North Waziristan base.

Gen. Petraeus has taken a hard line on the Haqqani network, calling them irreconcilable. He has also met with top Pakistani military leaders and presented intelligence tying the Haqqanis operating out of North Waziristan havens to attacks on U.S. and Afghan troops, according to a military official.

The Pentagon has allowed loaned equipment and personnel to the CIA several times since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to former intelligence officials.

In addition to drone aircraft, officials said the military was sharing targeting information with the CIA from surveillance over-flights.

CIA Escalates Campaign in Pakistan - WSJ.com

 

[Vulcan]

This was expected. When obama said that they will be moving out of Afg by 2011 they did not say where they will be going. Now it is understood that they will be moving to pakistan. Enjoy the show

 

[ajtr]

Maddow: US quietly test driving escalation of war in Pakistan | Video Cafe

Gen. David Petraeus, the top US commander in Pakistan, suggested last year that the US reserves the right to send troops into the country.

"I think we would never give up, if you will, the right of last resort if we assess something as a threat to us, noting that what we want to do is enable the Pakistanis, help them, assist them to deal with the problem that we now think, and their leaders certainly now think, represents the most important existential threat to their country, not just to the rest of the world," he said.This all led Pakistan's foreign minister to ask, "If you are being attacked are you fighting a war or are you in war together?"
"If the United States decides that where it wants to fight happens to be in your country, the idea of what we're doing may transcend national boundaries, but the fighting doesn't. The fighting happens in specific places," explained Maddow."If what's going on with this escalation that no one is talking about is that the war in Afghanistan is sort of officially expanding into Pakistan, then this isn't just ho-hum, another chapter in the global war that's everywhere, this is Laos and Cambodia, 1970," she continued.
"What it seems like is going on right now is that the US is testing, US officials and US military leaders are testing the idea of the war in Afghanistan being extended to Pakistan. And they're doing it quietly. But they're talking about it like it's unavoidable as if it's some natural extension of what it is we are already doing in the other war," she said."If that is what's happening, if that is what's happening, if they're test driving, floating this idea of the war expanding into Pakistan, it is not a secret, and it is not going to be a secret. I guarantee it. I don't plan on being quiet about it. In fact, I plan on screaming bloody murder about it," Maddow concluded.

 

[ajtr]

US and Pakistan, Not Allies But Enemies | NowPublic News Coverage

When the bell of possible 26/11 Mumbai style terror attack on three European countries, France, Germany and England. The various European intelligence agencies including American agencies became active and cooperative. After Mumbai and failed car bomb terror attack on New York, this was supposed to be the third high profile Pakistan based cross ocean attack, but the updated and cooperative information foiled their plans of spreading terror once again
.Increase in US bombing of the Pakistan bordering with Afghanistan, led to sharing of bitter words between Pakistan and America. Pakistan is blamed of giving safe-haven to Taliban while posing as fighting a war against the group (Read detailed analysis and opinion: Pakistan or Taliban, Brothers or Rivals?). Pakistan warned US of a strong reaction to what they were doing. "let's see, we have to make it clear now, whether we are allies or enemies?" said a Pakistani official. The bombing though killed many suspected militants, but resulted in the blockage of NATO fuel and daily supply route, via Pakistan, to its troops in the land-locked country of Afghanistan.
This was one of the strongest steps Pakistan has taken against American continued strikes in Pakistan in the war against terrorism. No nation of course cannot tolerate such strikes on its own land. US terms the attacks as the inability of Pakistani troops in countering or destroying the terrorism camps.NATO supplies have several other routes to Afghanistan via Central Asia and Russia, but the route via Pakistan is the most comfortable. Pakistan blocked one of the major route to Afghanistan while other routes through its land remained open. NATO supplier tanks when going through alternative route to Afghanistan were attacked by a group of Pakistani gunmen who destroyed 28 tankers. Such a huge loss of supplies, though not a new thing in Pakistan, has attracted strong attention of America, that today on 2nd Oct, 2010 CIA's chief visited India, and met Indian intelligence agency RAW's (Research and Analysis Wing) chief

 

[ajtr]

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security

Has the nine-year deal for Pakistan to serve US-led NATO forces fighting in Afghanistan as their primary logistics and supply base - while pursuing competing goals - run aground? This may be so after US officials intimated in the last three days that more remote-controlled aircraft and helicopters were being relocated from other Afghan sectors to the new front opening up now against Taliban strongholds in the Pakistan tribal area of North Waziristan.

Islamabad has responded by blocking the main frontier crossing to NATO supply convoy on Oct. 2, for the second day and refusing to stop armed Taliban fighters torching the trucks after a US cross-border air strike killed three Pakistan soldiers at a frontier post Thursday.

Even after some 30 Afghanistan-bound oil tankers were set ablaze Friday, Oct. 1, US air strikes over North Waziristan were redoubled that night and early Saturday, destroying a stronghold of the highly effective Haqqani network and killing at least six of its members.
debkafile's military sources do not rule out the US drive into North Waziristan escalating into ground incursions, especially if it is proved that Islamist terrorists are being trained and directed to carry out strikes inside America from networks sheltering in northwest Pakistan.

Thursday, Sept. 30 debkafile reported:
A new crisis in relations between Islamabad and Washington was triggered by the recent US tactical escalation from drones to helicopters for destroying insurgent and terrorist concentrations in Pakistan's lawless North Waziristan province, debkafile's military sources report. Pakistan had accepted the drone attacks but, even after they were nearly doubled to 21 this month, the high-flying unmanned aircraft were not up to their mission - especially against the Haqqani network.
Early Thursday, Sept. 30, Islamabad was angry enough to block a convoy of dozens of NATO trucks at the Torkham check post on the Khyber pass into Afghanistan, accusing NATO of killing three Pakistan frontier troops in a helicopter strike against a military checkpoint close to the border. The "hot pursuit" pretext was roughly rejected.
Through their many ups and downs during the nine-year Afghanistan war, Pakistan has served as NATO's main supply base for fuel, ammunition, spare parts and other provisions. An average 580 trucks with goods imported through Karachi and other Pakistani ports roll through Torkham west of Peshawar every day.

The resort to helicopters was ordered by the new Afghanistan commander, Gen. David Petraeus. He soon saw that the 30,000-troop surge was not up to turning the tide of the war against the Taliban - mainly because the bulk of its men, supplies and training facilities are located on the Pakistani side of the border in North Waziristan. He therefore petitioned President Barack Obama for permission to shift the brunt of combat into Pakistan and begin using helicopters against these targets.

The general explained that the Predator and Reaper drones were unequal to the task of demolishing large bases or catching insurgent forces on the move into Afghanistan or on their way back to their Pakistani havens. The capabilities of these high-tech weapons are limited. Needed now were droves of conventional helicopters able to scatter and fly close enough to the ground to chase and pin down small groups of insurgents on the move.

Before assenting to Gen. Petraeus' request, the White House made a final effort to persuade the Pakistani government and its military commanders to go into decisive action against the Taliban concentrations sheltering in North Waziristan.

They had little hope of a positive reply because the foremost US war target is the Haqqani network, the largest and best organized insurgent militia fighting NATO today. This militia's 12,000 men fight under the command of Maulvi Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son Sirajuddin Haqqani. It maintains independent sources of supply, funding and recruits and is protected by its close operational and intelligence links with Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence - ISI - service.
The Haqqani network enjoys ISI protection as Islamabad's trump card for guaranteeing Kabul is governed by a pro-Pakistan regime after US troops start pulling out of Afghanistan in August 2011.

An ally\ied Afghanistan would give Pakistan the military edge over India, its strategists calculate, whereas its loss would be an unacceptable strategic setback.

At the same time, no one in Islamabad sneezes at the great benefits gained from good relations with the United States. Washington keeps Pakistan safe from war with India and a good flow of some $2 billion per year to keep its economy from breaking down. So when American drones attacked the Haqqani network in North Waziristan, its rulers gritted their teeth and kept quiet for as long as the damage was small enough for the Haqqanis to sustain.

But American cross-border Apache raids were another matter. The first helicopter attack over Pakistan on Monday, Sept. 27, killed 50 Taliban fighters, most of them members of the Haqqani network. The second, the following day, hit a Haqqani base in the Kurram district of North Waziristan. The third hit the wrong target, killing three Pakistani soldiers at a military check point near the Afghanistan border.
That was too much for Islamabad. Without even a word to the visiting US Central Intelligence Agency chief Leon Panetta, the NATO convoy was blocked at the border and the supply route threatened until the Americans promised to give up using helicopters and targeting the Haqqani network for "hot pursuit" operations.

Washington has not reacted publicly to the Pakistan demand. But Saturday, Oct. 2, US military sources disclosed that more troops were being piled up on the frontier against North Waziristan. Islamabad does not look like taking increased US encroachments of its territory lying down for now. The US command's promise of a joint probe with Pakistan to assign guilt for the killing of three Pakistani frontier will not be enough to keep Pakistani tempers at bay.