The United States and Pakistan reached tacit agreement in September on a don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy that allows unmanned Predator aircraft to attack suspected terrorist targets in rugged western Pakistan, according to senior officials in both countries. In recent months, the U.S. drones have fired missiles at Pakistani soil at an average rate of once every four or five days.

The officials described the deal as one in which the U.S. government refuses to publicly acknowledge the attacks while Pakistan’s government continues to complain noisily about the politically sensitive strikes.

The arrangement coincided with a suspension of ground assaults into Pakistan by helicopter-borne U.S. commandos. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari said in an interview last week that he was aware of no ground attacks since one on Sept. 3 that his government vigorously protested.

Officials described the attacks, using new technology and improved intelligence, as a significant improvement in the fight against Pakistan-based al-Qaeda and Taliban forces. Officials confirmed the deaths of at least three senior al-Qaeda figures in strikes last month.

Zardari said that he receives “no prior notice” of the airstrikes and that he disapproves of them. But he said he gives the Americans “the benefit of the doubt” that their intention is to target the Afghan side of the ill-defined, mountainous border of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), even if that is not where the missiles land.

Civilian deaths remain a problem, Zardari said. “If the damage is women and children, then the sensitivity of its effect increases,” he said. The U.S. “point of view,” he said, is that the attacks are “good for everybody. Our point of view is that it is not good for our position of winning the hearts and minds of people.”

A senior Pakistani official said that although the attacks contribute to widespread public anger in Pakistan, anti-Americanism there is closely associated with President Bush. Citing a potentially more favorable popular view of President-elect Barack Obama, he said that “maybe with a new administration, public opinion will be more pro-American and we can start acknowledging” more cooperation.

The official, one of several who discussed the sensitive military and intelligence relationship only on the condition of anonymity, said the U.S-Pakistani understanding over the airstrikes is “the smart middle way for the moment.” Contrasting Zardari with his predecessor, retired Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the official said Musharraf “gave lip service but not effective support” to the Americans. “This government is delivering but not taking the credit.” Read more »

We are posting this for a few reasons. First, because every news outlet in Pakistan is reporting the story of a “Secret US Order” that allowed military raids into Pakistan. Second, former President Musharraf’s stand that neither he, nor anyone in his government, approved these raids. Third, the current government’s regular complaints to the US over the ever increasing drone attacks in the tribal areas of Pakistan going unheard.

The NY Times story, re-produced below, gives the world the details of a 2004 confidential order signed by Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush. According to the news story, this order gave the US military open orders to enter and operate within any country where the US felt al-Qaeda was hiding, including Pakistan and Syria. 

And the American’s wonder why there is so much anti-Americanism in the world today…. I guess when you categorically decided to attack anywhere in the world, kill innocent civilians and destroy people’s homes, people should welcome you with parades and guards of honor… I guess that only happens in Pakistan….

Additionally, this should make us very suspicious of any of the IMF conditions, especially the demand to decrease our military forces by 1/3 and re-vamp, shut down in US terms, our Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). These terms were never acceptable in the past and should not be considered as part of any IMF support package. 

Secret Order Lets U.S. Raid Al Qaeda in Many Countries By ERIC SCHMITT and MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON - The United States military since 2004 has used broad, secret authority to carry out nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks against Al Qaeda and other militants in Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere, according to senior American officials.

These military raids, typically carried out by Special Operations forces, were authorized by a classified order that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signed in the spring of 2004 with the approval of President Bush, the officials said. The secret order gave the military new authority to attack the Qaeda terrorist network anywhere in the world, and a more sweeping mandate to conduct operations in countries not at war with the United States.

In 2006, for example, a Navy Seal team raided a suspected militants’ compound in the Bajaur region of Pakistan, according to a former top official of the Central Intelligence Agency. Officials watched the entire mission - captured by the video camera of a remotely piloted Predator aircraft - in real time in the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorist Center at the agency’s headquarters in Virginia 7,000 miles away.

Some of the military missions have been conducted in close coordination with the C.I.A., according to senior American officials, who said that in others, like the Special Operations raid in Syria on Oct. 26 of this year, the military commandos acted in support of C.I.A.-directed operations.

But as many as a dozen additional operations have been canceled in the past four years, often to the dismay of military commanders, senior military officials said. They said senior administration officials had decided in these cases that the missions were too risky, were too diplomatically explosive or relied on insufficient evidence.

More than a half-dozen officials, including current and former military and intelligence officials as well as senior Bush administration policy makers, described details of the 2004 military order on the condition of anonymity because of its politically delicate nature. Spokesmen for the White House, the Defense Department and the military declined to comment.

Read more »

In the 9/11 terrorist attacks on twin towers in New York in which about 3000 persons died, no Afghan or Pakistani was involved. All the 19 perpetrators of the crime were Arabs, mostly hailing from Saudi Arabia. Yet the wrath of USA fell on Afghanistan for a bizarre reason that the so-called master mind behind the attacks was Osama bin Laden based in Afghanistan. Mullah Omar kept requesting that proof of his complicity should be furnished to enable him to hand over his guest but none was provided.

Terrorism became a buzzword and the fuming sole super power pounced upon militarily extremely weak and economically impoverished Afghanistan with utmost ferocity and decimated it. The whole world including UNSC supported the ghoulish invasion and its occupation under the hope that it would help in eliminating global terrorism.

Iraq too was pulverised on a cooked up story of WMDs and linkage with Al-Qaeda. Both charges turned out to be totally fabricated. Saddam as well as UN inspectors kept saying till the last that there were no WMDs, but Bush and Blair ignored them as well as world protests and went ahead with the second invasion without UNSC blessing. After destroying the two countries, USA is now bent upon destroying one of its close allies Pakistan which had played a key role in ousting Taliban and in getting Karzai elected. Without Pakistan?s all out military support, it may not have been possible for US-NATO forces to stay in Afghanistan for that long.

In case of Afghanistan and Iraq, both Mullah Omar and Saddam Hussein refused to buckle under US repeated threats followed by troop mobilisation. Instead of submitting to US diktat they opted to fight the aggressor well knowing that they were non-nuclear states and their conventional means were no match to the military prowess of sole super power duly aided by all the advanced nations of the world. In our case, we had nuclear weapons and adequate conventional means to defend our homeland. However, our commando General who never tired of bragging about his boldness, turned into a kitten when he received a phone call from Washington. He hastily threw in his towel and provided US spy agencies and its military forces large-scale facilities to make easy USA task of achieving its long term objectives. He justified his cowardly act of ditching the friendly Taliban and befriending USA on the premise that had he not done so Pakistan for sure would have been destroyed. Read more »

My dear Ali:

You have been bombarding me with questions about the US and NATO attack on us. Look, son, they attacked us a long time ago. The only difference is that now they have escalated and exacerbated the situation by actually putting boots on our soil. Given Admiral Mullen’s remorseless statement, its entirely possible that this will happen again. Given Bush’s statement that the next president’s biggest challenge would be Pakistan and if there were another 9/11 it would come from FATA, it is certain. Given General Kiyani’s admirable response, it is also entirely possible that Pakistan will retaliate. Then America may escalate from helicopter gunships to F-16s or even stealth bombers. I hope this doesn’t happen, for it spells near total destruction for us, or at least part of our country, all of which are equally dear to us. The situation is so dangerous that apparently European NATO has distanced itself from it, except Britain. They know that Pakistan will make Iraq look like a picnic and Afghanistan like a massage parlour. The New York Times, which reflects the US establishment’s thinking, claims that Bush authorised entry of American military personnel into Pakistan. To discredit Kiyani, whom they were lionising only a few days ago, they also claimed that he knew about the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul, allegedly by the ISI.

Can we stand up to them, you ask, and cite the example of Iran? I have told you that Iran has the most potent weapon in the world. It’s called Unity. They demonstrated it in their war with America’s puppet Saddam’s Iraq. They are undefeatable. So were the Vietnamese for exactly the same reason. Unity is one of the three words of our national motto, the others being faith and discipline. We have none of them. But if we can forge unity in our ranks, faith and discipline will inevitably follow. Then no power on earth can defeat us. Though we seem incapable, an American attack might do just that: bring us together as a nation like nothing ever has. I told you I am an incorrigible optimist in even the bleakest situations. So should you be. So should all young men and women.

If we cannot forge unity, then we will face a situation far more dangerous than in 1971 when our country was rend asunder. We refused to respect the verdict of the people, lost a war against India and half our country with it. Why? Because we attacked our own people for the ‘crime’ of having voted for their choice so they were not with us when war came. Then India was backed by a the Soviet Union, while our great friend and ally the United States stood by twiddling its thumbs. Now we are being attacked directly by the sole and strongest-ever superpower, our old friend and ally America. And again the people of the Frontier may not be with us for the grievous harm that has been caused to them. There is still time to reclaim their emotional allegiance.

General Kiyani’s statement was the voice of the people, just what they wanted to hear. They have become sceptical over the years, and who can blame them? If American soldiers set foot in Pakistan again and Kiyani’s words become bullets, the people will be galvanised instantaneously. It will then be for the government to mobilise a galvanised people, unify them and fire them with nationalist zeal. It will have to open many other fronts, diplomatic and media especially. Which means it will have to open the strategic communications front to manage perceptions in our favour before they are formed against us. The war will be won. So, finally, will real independence, for we would have paid a price for it. And that is when we will treasure Pakistan as more precious than our lives, not precious because it has been good to live off for a few. If we fail, then we are staring certain slavery in the face.

Let’s get down to brass tacks. The US wanted five things from Musharraf. When he wouldn’t comply they engineered his removal. Read more »