US ready to bomb 150 Pak terror camps? Read more: US ready to bomb 150 Pak terror ca

Discussion in 'International Politics' started by SHASH2K2, Sep 28, 2010.

  1. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    WASHINGTON: The United States has a secret "retribution" plan to bomb more than 150 terror camps in Pakistan in the event of another major terrorist attack originating from that country.

    This startling disclosure about Washington's "all bets off" policy towards an ostensibly dubious ally in the war on terror is contained in Bob Woodward's opus " Obama's War," which details an evolving US approach in the region.

    The plan pre-dates the Obama presidency, going back to the Bush White House, but elements of policy, aimed at wiping out terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan, is evident in the current administration's ruthless bombing by unmanned drones of terrorist targets inside Pakistan, which far surpasses the Bush approach in terms of frequency and intensity.

    The US threat also places in context secretary of state Hillary Clinton's dire warning to Islamabad earlier this year that there would be severe consequences for Pakistan if another 9/11-type attack were traced back to that country.

    According to Woodward, then President Bush did not see much difference between 9/11 and 26/11; a foundation of his presidency was zero tolerance for terrorists and their enablers and he was extremely proud of the hard-line doctrine.

    Although plans for punitive strikes against Pakistan was initially linked to another 9/11 type attack on US, it evidently evolved after the 26/11 Mumbai carnage, when Bush asked his aides for contingency plans for dealing with Pakistan.

    He called his national security team into the Oval Office and told his advisers, "You guys get planning and do what you have to do to prevent a war between Pakistan and India." The order suggests that the US would undertake the bombing to prevent India from retaliating against Pakistan leading possibly to an all-out war.

    "This is like 9/11, he (Bush) said," Woodward writes. "The United States military did not have "war" plans for an invasion of Pakistan. Instead, it had and continues to have one of the most sensitive and secret of all military contingencies, what military officials call a "retribution" plan in the event of another 9/11-like attack."

    In fact, such is the anger within the US administration about Pakistan's double-faced approach that the plan calls for a no-holds-barred approach. "Some locations might be outdated, but there would be no concern, under the plan, for who might be living there now. The retribution plan called for a brutal punishing attack on at least 150 or more associated camps," Woodward writes.

    So how did Pakistan escape the wrath of US' "zero tolerance" policy? According to Woodward, CIA intelligence with 48 hours of the attack showed no direct ISI link. Bush himself called Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to tell him that the new Pakistani government was not involved in the attack.

    But the CIA later received reliable intelligence that the ISI was directly involved in the training for Mumbai, Woodward writes in a footnote. ISI chief Ahmed Shuja Pasha flew to Washington later to admit that at least two retired Pakistani army officers who planned the Mumbai attack had ISI links "but this had not been an authorized ISI operation. It was rogue."

    "There may have been people associated with my organization who were associated with this," Pasha argued. "That's different from authority, direction and control." This argument, long attributed to Islamabad's practice of "plausible deniability" which practicing a policy of state terrorism, saved Pakistan's bacon.

    Woodward's 417-page book provides a fly-on-the-wall view of the Obama Presidency's evolving AfPak policy that is more Pak than Af. In an ABC interview, Woodward described how Obama was told of deep problems in the US relationship with Pakistan at his very first intelligence briefing, likening it to a "cold shower" for the President coming just two days after his 2008 presidential victory.

    "Imagine the high of being elected on that Tuesday and they come in two days later and say, by the way, here are the secrets, and one of the secrets is Pakistan," Woodward writes. "We're attacking with a top-secret, covert operation, the safe havens in Pakistan, but Pakistan is living a lie. And this is a theme throughout the whole Obama presidency: 'How do you get control of Pakistan?' "

    Soon after, in an Oval Office meeting with Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari, Obama bluntly tells him his country has to get over its obsession with India. "We do not begrudge you being concerned about India," Obama tells Zardari, but "we do not want to be part of arming you (Pakistan) against India, so let me be very clear about that."

    Zardari's response: "We are trying to change our world view but it's not going to happen overnight."

    From all accounts, Zardari's attempt to change Pakistan's chronic pathology towards India has been thwarted by the country's military, described as a rapacious, over-fed force which fattens itself on an anti-India posture at the expense of the people who pay for it. From exchanges detailed in Woodward's book, Washington is all too aware of it, but has failed to effect a change in Pakistan's behaviour despite billions of dollars in aid and a vague threat of retribution.

    Read more: US ready to bomb 150 Pak terror camps? - The Times of India US ready to bomb 150 Pak terror camps? - The Times of India
    US ready to bomb 150 Pak terror camps? - The Times of India
     
  2.  
  3. Rage

    Rage DFI TEAM Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,407
    Likes Received:
    968
    My first reaction: is to call bullshit on this one.

    My second reaction: is to ponder whether another imminent attack on U.S. soil is in the making.

    If debilitating the Pakistani state is the long-term plan for the region, a series of blows would work best.
     
  4. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,640
    Likes Received:
    17,121
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Very well thought. I, for one, refuse to jump the bandwagon right now.

    If there is repeat of 26/11 type incidents, India should attack. In fact, India should have already attacked, "US plans to bomb 150 targets in Pakistan" notwithstanding.

    On one side they keep supplying arms to Pakistan, including weapons that are not meant to be used in the mountains, and on the other hand, they keep publishing reports to keep India from acting, instead hoping US will do something. India should tell the US, should US ever communicate to India about it's so called Grand-Plans, that "Uncle Sam, you have been dangling this carrot for way too long; give your arms some rest now bud!"
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2010
  5. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,272
    Likes Received:
    11,275
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Actually is really laughable this and the American people should actually be up in arms after hearing this. What was the war on terror for? To eliminate AQ and Taliban. So if there was known intel about 150 sites in Pak about safe havens of these scums, why didnt they NOT bomb and eliminate back then? Why are they waiting for another 9/11 for it? Beats the hell out of me.
     
  6. sesha_maruthi27

    sesha_maruthi27 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,884
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Location:
    Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh(INDIA)
    This is what I told in some topic or thread or post here in DFI, that U.S. President Obama made a clear statement that he or they(U.S.) would attack pakistan if he is elected to power.:emot154:
     
  7. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    This is all Nautanki just to please indian govt. before obama visit.USA will nevr attack pakistan and it dont ve any such plans either.coz daily its goose is getting cooked in afganistan.
     
  8. Illusive

    Illusive Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    2,335
    Likes Received:
    1,418
    Aggression from the west is on a rise against Pakistan. Also US must have intel on a possible attack on it , and its warning Pakistan to warn Taliban. As long as US is not hurt, it doesn't cares or maybe this time US is serious that Pakistan must stop it double game or else it really gonna happen.
     
  9. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    Lets analyze the sincereity of usa pertaining to above issued statement....This is what US Ambassador to India David Mulford said on Pakistan's role in 26/11 in January 2009......

    Devil's Advocate: David Mulford on Pak role in 26/11

    Now following report claims that CIA knew about ISI's role in 26/11 in December 2008 itself...

    ISI involved in 26/11, chief Pasha told CIA shortly after attacks: Book


    Thus David mulfrod did not want to get specifi about pakistan's role in jan 2009.And now they claim that they were ready to attack 150 targets in pakistan.One thing is clear usa along with pakistan has made 26/11 a joke and any such statement coming out of usa should be taken with truck load of salt.If really india wants to get justice for 26/11 then india has to conspire with usa's enemies to bring it down and that will do the true justice to mumbai victims.


    US role in 26/11 is very murky. Especially arresting Daud gilani aka david headly and giving him plea bargain. Smacks of ensuring their agent doesn't fall into Indian hands.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2010
  10. hit&run

    hit&run Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    4,667
    It was always in the plane before and after 9/11. Pakistanis may cry day and night but establishment has already given consent to it. Pakistani rioting on the streets is already in the simulation and ministers beating chest is already in the script.
     
  11. Illusive

    Illusive Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    2,335
    Likes Received:
    1,418
    Then isn't US also playing double games here, since it could have been done earlier, why wait for so long. US war on terror is crap, they could have taken down those terror camps if they are willing to, US only wants to threaten Pakistan, their policies are now suddenly favoring India. Don't trust them until they do it.
     
  12. sesha_maruthi27

    sesha_maruthi27 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,884
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Location:
    Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh(INDIA)
    INDIA will do nothing to its victims of terror, instead they are giving money to the stone pelters who threw stones on the security personals in Kashmir. INDIA also provides Z-security to AJMAL KASAB. This is how they spend there money to encourage terrorists and other anti-INDIAN outfits. The present political establishment is more concerned about protection of terrorists rather than protection from terrorists.:emot154:
     
  13. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    I agree with you . There is a saying that "Laton ke bhoot baton se nahi mante " meaning donkies needs to be kicked to make them work. same is state of Pakistan until or unless they are not kicked they will do nothing. USA should not plan rather they should bomb at least 2-3 of these camps and next day all camps will be closed.
     
  14. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    And even after all the knowledge of terrorists usa wont let go its old ways.....So all such statements of usa are like pulling wool over indian's eyes.Actions speaks louder than words....


    For better or worse, White House bets on Pakistan's civilian government

    Posted By Josh Rogin Monday, September 27, 2010 - 3:02 PM Share

    The Obama administration has always been clear that the path to winning the war in Afghanistan goes through Pakistan. But if Bob Woodward's new book is accurate, the White House considers its war effort much more dependent on the success and survival of Pakistan's civilian government than was previously known.

    Woodward's "Obama's Wars," which hit bookstores Monday, sheds new light on the Obama administration's vast outreach to the Pakistani civilian government led by President Asif Ali Zardari. It paints a picture of an administration working hard to court the Pakistanis while remaining somewhat confused about Pakistani thinking on a range of issues.

    Obama himself was confused about the nature of Pakistani intentions during two crucial decision points in his administration's Afghan policy -- the March 2009 strategy rollout and the deliberations in November 2009, which resulted in a troop surge and a huge expansion of covert operations in Pakistan. However, based on advice from the majority of his key advisers, he nonetheless tried to entice Pakistan to commit to a deep and long-term partnership with the United States by offering the Zardari government incentive after incentive, with relatively few pressures.

    According to Woodward's account, the centrality of Pakistan was championed early on by Bruce Riedel, the Brookings scholar who was brought on as a key figure in the Obama administration's March 2009 Afghanistan strategy review.

    Riedel, who referred to Islamist extremists in Pakistan as the "real, central threat" to U.S. national security, personally convinced Obama, only two months after he took office, that Pakistan needed to be the centerpiece of his new strategy. Riedel's plan involved arming the Pakistani military for counterinsurgency and increasing economic and other forms of aid to the civilian government. This marked the beginning of the term "Af-Pak," which drove the administration's belief that stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan were inextricably linked.

    Riedel's Pakistan focus was not due to his confidence that the civilian government could control the military and intelligence services. In fact, he referred to Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani as a "liar" with regards to the activities of the secretive Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI), which is widely suspected of aiding the Taliban insurgency. Then Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reportedly echoed Riedel's views on this matter.

    Inside the administration, Blair argued that Obama was approaching Pakistan with too many carrots and not enough sticks. He at one point advocated bombing inside Pakistan and conducting raids there without the Pakistani government's approval. "I think Pakistan would be completely, completely pissed off and they would probably take actions against us ... but they would probably adjust," he once told Obama.

    Obama, however, opted to pursue a less confrontational path. He concluded the central task would be convincing the Pakistani leadership to throw its lot in with the United States He said at the time of the initial strategy review in March 2009, "that we had to have a serious heart-to-heart with Pakistani civilian, military and intelligence leaders."

    Later that year, when making the decision to send an additional 30,000 "surge" troops to Afghanistan, Obama knew that his plans to also expand the U.S. military presence in Pakistan and widen drone strikes would be a hard sell to the Zardari government. In an attempt to sweeten the deal, Obama framed the policy as a new "strategic partnership" with Pakistan, even tying the success of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan to the survival of Zardari and the legacy of his deceased wife Benazir Bhutto.

    "I know that I am speaking to you on a personal level when I say that my commitment to ending the ability of these groups to strike at our families is as much about my family's security as it is about yours," Obama wrote in a letter to Zardari delivered by National Security Advisor Jim Jones and counterterrorism advisor John Brennan.

    Zardari's response to that letter reinforced what many in the administration already suspected: Pakistan's government was in the grips of an internal struggle over whether to embrace the United States. Zardari's initial response focused heavily on India, though the Pakistani president only referred obliquely to his country's strategic rival. Woodward reports that the White House believed the letter was written by the Pakistani military and the ISI. However, the Zardari government did end up accepting Obama's offer.

    Obama's top advisors told the U.S. president that he would have to accept something short of complete success in convincing Pakistan to turn away from its longstanding obsession with the military threat it perceives from India.

    When Obama had a meeting with Zardari in May 2009, he told the Pakistani president the he did not want U.S. taxpayers to be funding Pakistan's military buildup against India "We are trying to change our world view," Zardari told Obama, "but it's not going to happen overnight."

    At times, Obama was downright puzzled by his advisors' advice regarding Pakistan. For example, intelligence reports confirmed that Pakistani officials were afraid that the United States would leave Afghanistan too early, as they believed had occurred after the end of the resistance to the Soviet regime in the 1980s. On the other hand, Pakistan worried that if the United States was too involved in Afghanistan, it might aid in the establishment of a larger Afghan army than Islamabad was comfortable with.

    "What am I to believe?" Obama asked his senior staff. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Special Representative Richard Holbrooke, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates all told him these were the types of contradictions that were commonplace when dealing with Pakistan.

    For its part, the Pakistani government was just as confused and puzzled by the Obama administration. Woodward recounts one anecdote, in which Zardari tells the former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad that he believed the United States was involved in orchestrating attacks by the Pakistani Taliban against the Pakistani civilian government.

    Pakistan's Ambassador to Washington Husain Haqqani, a key go-between, tried several times to explain to the Obama administration how to court Pakistani leaders, comparing the dynamic to "a man who is trying to woo a woman."

    "We all know what he wants from her. Right?" Haqqani said in a meeting with Jones, Deputy National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and the NSC's Gen. Doug Lute.

    "But she has other ideas. She wants to be taken to the theater. She wants that nice new bottle of perfume," Haqqani told them. "If you get down on one knee and give the ring, that's the big prize. And boy, you know, it works."

    Haqqani said the "ring" was official U.S. recognition of Pakistan's nuclear program as legitimate. He also warned that the Pakistanis would always ask for the moon as a starting point in negotiations. He compared it to the salesmanship of rug merchants.

    "The guy starts at 10,000 and you settle for 1,200," Haqqani told the Obama team. "So be reasonable, but never let the guy walk out of the shop without a sale."

    Although the Obama administration has had some success improving the relationship between the two governments, Pakistan's civilian leadership still faces a series of difficulties in its goal of exerting control over its entire national security structure. Stability has also been threatened by the enormous pressures resulting from the war that it is waging inside its own borders, and political attacks leveled against it from the media and the courts. Zardari's perceived sluggish response to the devastating flood crisis has cost him even more credibility among the Pakistani public.

    But while the end of Zardari regime has often been predicted, it appears that he will remain in place for the foreseeable future. The Obama administration, meanwhile, is aware of how crucial his cooperation remains for the success of the mission in Afghanistan.

    When Woodward sat down for his interview with Obama earlier this year, he asked the president if the situation was still that Pakistan is the centerpiece of the U.S. strategy. "It continues to this day," Obama replied.
     
  15. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    US general warns Pak of entering its land to stop terror

    A top US military commander has warned the Pakistan army that America could launch ground operations in the tribal areas, if Islamabad refused to dismantle the militant network in North Waziristan. The New York Times (NYT) reports the warning by General David H Petraeus, the Commander of


    US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, indicates US officials' belief that the Pakistanis are unlikely to launch a military operations in North Waziristan, which is considered to be a haven for al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives.
    "Petraeus wants to turn up the heat on the safe havens," a senior official was quoted as saying, and this was the reason that US forces had sharply stepped up drone strikes in the area.

    "He has pointed out to the Pakistanis that they could do more," NYT reports.

    The official said that the drone operations had also been intensified to pre-empt a possible terrorist attack in several European countries. US and European intelligence agencies are evaluating the intelligence data of a possible al-Qaeda or Taliban attack on the European mainland.

    As part of its covert war in the region, the CIA has launched 20 drone attacks in the last 24 days, killing more than 100 Taliban and foreign militants. The strikes have been mainly targeted to hit the Haqqani network, which the Americans believed is based in the area.

    "There are some pretty notable threat streams," one US military official, was quoted as saying by The Wall Street Journal.

    Beyond the CIA drone strikes, the war in the region is escalating in other ways. American military gunships have launched three strikes into Pakistan that military officials estimate killed more than 50 people suspected of being members of the Haqqani network, which is responsible for the spate of deadly attacks against American troops.

    Such air strikes by the US and NATO military forces remain rare, the US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke has defended them saying that Western Pakistan is becoming one of the most dangerous parts of the world.

    The NYT said the strikes point to a new willingness by military officials to expand the boundaries of the campaign against the Taliban and Haqqani network, while American "surge" forces are in Afghanistan.

    Pakistani officials have angrily criticised the helicopter attacks saying that NATO's mandate in Afghanistan does not extend across the border into Pakistan.

    The NYT said that special operations Commanders have also been updating plans for cross-border raids, which would require approval from President Obama.

    For now, official said it remains unlikely that US would make good on such threats to send America troops over the border, given the blowback inside Pakistan, an ally.

    But, the NYT said that could change, if Pakistan based militants were successful in carrying out terrorists attacks on American soil.
     
  16. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,272
    Likes Received:
    11,275
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Now we are talking.. US ground troops in Pak..I wonder when Obama will say rock and roll!!
     
  17. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    This kind of actions in Pakistani territory will increase and will be on peak at time of Obama Visit. They know that terrorism in Pakistan will be biggest topic on his visit so they are trying to strengthen their position prior to visit .
     
  18. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    C.I.A. Steps Up Drone Attacks in Pakistan to Thwart Taliban

    WASHINGTON — The C.I.A. has drastically increased its bombing campaign in the mountains of Pakistan in recent weeks, American officials said. The strikes are part of an effort by military and intelligence operatives to try to cripple the Taliban in a stronghold being used to plan attacks against American troops in Afghanistan.
    As part of its covert war in the region, the C.I.A. has launched 20 attacks with armed drone aircraft thus far in September, the most ever during a single month, and more than twice the number in a typical month. This expanded air campaign comes as top officials are racing to stem the rise of American casualties before the Obama administration’s comprehensive review of its Afghanistan strategy set for December. American and European officials are also evaluating reports of possible terrorist plots in the West from militants based in Pakistan.

    The strikes also reflect mounting frustration both in Afghanistan and the United States that Pakistan’s government has not been aggressive enough in dislodging militants from their bases in the country’s western mountains. In particular, the officials said, the Americans believe the Pakistanis are unlikely to launch military operations inside North Waziristan, a haven for Taliban and Qaeda operatives that has long been used as a base for attacks against troops in Afghanistan.

    Beyond the C.I.A. drone strikes, the war in the region is escalating in other ways. In recent days, American military helicopters have launched three airstrikes into Pakistan that military officials estimate killed more than 50 people suspected of being members of the militant group known as the Haqqani network, which is responsible for a spate of deadly attacks against American troops.

    Such air raids by the military remain rare, and officials in Kabul said Monday that the helicopters entered Pakistani airspace on only one of the three raids, and acted in self-defense after militants fired rockets at an allied base just across the border in Afghanistan. At the same time, the strikes point to a new willingness by military officials to expand the boundaries of the campaign against the Taliban and Haqqani network — and to an acute concern in military and intelligence circles about the limited time to attack Taliban strongholds while American “surge” forces are in Afghanistan.

    Pakistani officials have angrily criticized the helicopter attacks, saying that NATO’s mandate in Afghanistan does not extend across the border in Pakistan.

    As evidence of the growing frustration of American officials, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Afghanistan, has recently issued veiled warnings to top Pakistani commanders that the United States could launch unilateral ground operations in the tribal areas should Pakistan refuse to dismantle the militant networks in North Waziristan, according to American officials.

    “Petraeus wants to turn up the heat on the safe havens,” said one senior administration official, explaining the sharp increase in drone strikes. “He has pointed out to the Pakistanis that they could do more.”

    Special Operations commanders have also been updating plans for cross-border raids, which would require approval from President Obama. For now, officials said, it remains unlikely that the United States would make good on such threats to send American troops over the border, given the potential blowback inside Pakistan, an ally.

    But that could change, they said, if Pakistan-based militants were successful in carrying out a terrorist attack on American soil. American and European intelligence officials in recent days have spoken publicly about growing evidence that militants may be planning a large-scale attack in Europe, and have bolstered security at a number of European airports and railway stations.

    “We are all seeing increased activity by a more diverse set of groups and a more diverse set of threats,” said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano before a Senate panel last week.

    The senior administration official said the strikes were intended not only to attack Taliban and Haqqani fighters, but also to disrupt any plots directed from or supported by extremists in Pakistan’s tribal areas that were aimed at targets in Europe. “The goal is to suppress or disrupt that activity,” the official said.

    The 20 C.I.A. drone attacks in September represent the most intense bombardment by the spy agency since January, when the C.I.A. carried out 11 strikes after a suicide bomber killed seven agency operatives at a remote base in eastern Afghanistan.

    According to one Pakistani intelligence official, the recent drone attacks have not killed any senior Taliban or Qaeda leaders. Many senior operatives have already fled North Waziristan, he said, to escape the C.I.A. drone campaign.

    Over all the spy agency has carried out 74 drone attacks this year, according to the Web site The Long War Journal, which tracks the strikes. A vast majority of the attacks — which usually involve several drones firing multiple missiles or bombs — have taken place in North Waziristan.

    The Obama administration has enthusiastically embraced the C.I.A.’s drone program, an ambitious and historically unusual war campaign by American spies. According to The Long War Journal, the spy agency in 2009 and 2010 has launched nearly four times as many attacks as it did during the final year of the Bush administration.

    One American official said that the recent strikes had been aimed at several groups, including the Haqqani network, Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban. The United States, he said, hopes to “keep the pressure on as long as we can.”

    But the C.I.A.’s campaign has also raised concerns that the drone strikes are fueling anger in the Muslim world. The man who attempted to detonate a truck filled with explosives in Times Square told a judge that the C.I.A. drone campaign was one of the factors that led him to attack the United States.

    In a meeting with reporters on Monday, General Petraeus indicated that it was new intelligence gathering technology that helped NATO forces locate the militants killed by the helicopter raids against militants in Pakistan.

    In particular, he said, the military has expanded its fleet of reconnaissance blimps that can hover over hide-outs thought to belong to the Taliban in eastern and southern Afghanistan.

    The intelligence technology, General Petraeus said, has also enabled the expanded campaign of raids by Special Operations commandos against Taliban operatives in those areas.
     
  19. smartindian

    smartindian Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    52
    Location:
    Mysore, Karnataka, India
    what make you believe that america will not attack Pakistan, when clinton herself has said if there is an terror attack rooted to pakistan , pakistan will face serious consequences .
    two date back at least 50 terrorist killed in nato helicopter attack inside pakistan,
     
  20. hit&run

    hit&run Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    4,667
    No they are not, they were upfront asking Musharaf to cooperate or be ready to be annihilated to stone age. Also sterilizing Afghanistan from Taliban was more important and war was never expected to be very long therefore Pakistan was spared for long. Soon ANA be taking charge of many provinces, the NATO forces be able to conduct more operations Inside or Pakistan has to kill insurgents (read own assets) themselves.

    Adding later: The real purpose of WOT was to make USA safe against future attacks by sending message to all anti US forces or nations by destroying weakest nations of this contemporary age. This what was told to convince other participants those who were already concerned due to global terrorism. The deal was done and Guess what who were those two nations ''The weakest one'. Taliban was mix of both; an accuse and excuse. WMD was an excuse but the real purpose was safe America while crushing Iraq.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2010
  21. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    Question is that this taliban and Pakistan links are known to entire world right from the beginning . Clinton said it long back but did we see any sincere effort for USA to address Indian need ? NO .
    regarding NATO attack I would say that they were forced to attack as they come under fire from across the border . Obama and its biography is just a stunt to please India and world that USA is sincere against terrorism.
     

Share This Page