Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pakistan not doing enough on terrorism, U.S. says
Reuters ^ | May 6, 2006 | Yousuf Azimy

Posted on 05/06/2006 8:18:51 AM PDT by Saberwielder

Pakistan not doing enough on terrorism, U.S. says
Sat May 6, 2006 7:08 PM IST
By Yousuf Azimy

KABUL (Reuters) - Pakistan is not doing enough to help root out Taliban and al Qaeda leaders who have found safe haven in its lawless tribal lands along the Afghan border, a senior U.S. security official said on Saturday.

Most al Qaeda and Taliban leaders are in Pakistan, and while the United States did not know where Osama bin Laden was hiding, he was probably on the Pakistan side of the border, said Henry Crumpton, State Department coordinator for counterterrorism.

Pakistan, a vital U.S. security ally, has arrested hundreds of al Qaeda members and lost hundreds of its troops battling militants. But Afghan officials have complained insurgents were able to gather support and launch raids from the safety of Pakistani territory.

Violence has intensified in parts of Afghanistan in recent months to its worst level since U.S. and Afghan opposition forces ousted the Taliban in 2001.

"Has Pakistan done enough? I think the answer is 'no'," Crumpton told a news briefing in the Afghan capital, Kabul.

"Not only al Qaeda, but Taliban leadership are primarily in Pakistan, and the Pakistanis know that," Crumpton added.

Relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan deteriorated sharply this year when Afghanistan again said Taliban leaders were operating from Pakistan.

Pakistan rejects accusations it helps the Taliban.

Crumpton said eliminating militant safe havens in Pakistan's tribal lands was crucial.

"It's something we have to help the Pakistanis work through because it cannot remain a safe haven for enemy forces," he said.

"Right now, parts of Pakistan are, indeed, that."

The militants are fighting to oust foreign troops and the government. They have launched a wave of roadside and suicide bombings, attacks and assassinations in recent months.

"We are concerned by the increase in violence in the south and east," Crumpton said.

"We see the alliance of al Qaeda and elements of the Taliban, and, increasingly, narco-traffickers -- a confluence of allies -- is a cause for concern," he said.

More than 7,000 NATO troops, most from Britain, Canada and the Netherlands, are in, or soon arriving in, the dangerous Afghan south.

NATO will take command there from a separate U.S.-led force in July. The deployments will let the United States cut its Afghan force by several thousand, to about 16,500.

Critics say the NATO troops risk getting bogged down in a relentless insurgency, funded in part by the huge opium trade and sustained by havens in Pakistan.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alqaeda; alqaida; alwaeda; gwot; musharraf; nato; obl; osama; osamabinladen; pakistan; taliban; ubl; usama; usamabinladen; waziristan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
Duh
1 posted on 05/06/2006 8:18:56 AM PDT by Saberwielder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Arjun; Gengis Khan; Dog; AdmSmith; CarrotAndStick; razoroccam; sukhoi-30mki

Ping!


2 posted on 05/06/2006 8:20:08 AM PDT by Saberwielder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saberwielder
Amazing how brave our State Department types are to attack our allies yet how strangely silent they are on REAL threats like Iran. Always amazed by how bellicose the Neo-Isolationists are about the most insignificant threats while complete gutless on real issues of concern. For example the Russians and Chinese playing footsie with Iran.
3 posted on 05/06/2006 8:27:42 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (The Democrat Party! For people who value slogans, not solutions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saberwielder
According to Syed Saleem Shahzad

"What the US is asking for, in effect, is a Tora Bora-style aerial bombing of the area, similar to that undertaken in the mountains of that name in Afghanistan during the rout of the Taliban five years ago. (Incidentally, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora long before the bombs began to fall.)

The Taliban are integrated into the local population and there would be high civilian casualties. This is considered acceptable as civilians would be deemed Taliban sympathizers.

According to highly placed officials who spoke to Asia Times Online, the Pakistani military has already drawn up a blueprint for such an attack, which could be implemented in the near future."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HE05Df02.html
4 posted on 05/06/2006 8:29:07 AM PDT by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Saberwielder

In light of the overwhelming illegal alien immigration problems of the US, they shouldn't be talking like the problems of Pakistan are so simple.


5 posted on 05/06/2006 8:30:51 AM PDT by RightWhale (Off touch and out of base)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saberwielder

Muslim nations not helping out? I'm shocked, no really.


6 posted on 05/06/2006 8:32:19 AM PDT by Porterville (I gave at the State Franchise Board; leave me alone you blood sucking liberal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saberwielder; DevSix
PASHTUNS.

Musharraf expends as much blood and treasure extending the writ of Islamabad to the frontier as he deems prudent, and no more.

7 posted on 05/06/2006 8:43:14 AM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith

Good correlation! These are standard pressure tactics to force Musharraf to do what we want. In the last few days we have seen President Bush, a few State Dept officials and Gen. Abizaid meeting Mush. The man has a tendency to not act unless pushed hard. This should get us some "al Qaeda #3s" and a few random terrorist/Talibs bombed.


8 posted on 05/06/2006 8:50:36 AM PDT by Saberwielder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Saberwielder

My guess is that the next person to be ... is Hekmatyar.


9 posted on 05/06/2006 9:17:07 AM PDT by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Saberwielder; Gengis Khan

So reality begins to seep in? Better late than never.


10 posted on 05/06/2006 10:15:43 AM PDT by razoroccam (Then in the name of Allah, they will let loose the Germs of War (http://www.booksurge.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: razoroccam; Coop; DevSix; TBP

I am waiting for the pro-Paks on this forum to turn up and tell us how much Musharraf has done for us on WOT.


11 posted on 05/06/2006 10:31:01 AM PDT by Gengis Khan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan
I am waiting for the pro-Paks on this forum to turn up and tell us how much Musharraf has done for us on WOT.

No one ever says there isn't a need for Pak forces to do more...the question is usually under the understanding that to a large degree they simply don't have the capabilities to do more effectively - (though that is changing over the past 2 years).

But as always, the more the Pak forces can do effectively...the better it is for us. No one has ever suggested anything different.

However, that is completely different then suggesting the Pak forces could capture / kill UBL and Zawahiri any time they want...they simply just haven't done some. That line of thinking is completely BS!

Lastly, people from State have a long history of saying all sorts of BS when in actuality they know very little about what is actually occurring on the ground regarding the region or conflict they are spouting off about -

12 posted on 05/06/2006 11:27:27 AM PDT by SevenMinusOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan

It's a long way from Karachi to Kandahar. If Mushy has done nothing else for us, he has kept that line of communications open. For that reason alone he gets cut a lot of slack.


13 posted on 05/06/2006 12:02:52 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DevSix

the question is usually under the understanding that to a large degree they simply don't have the capabilities to do more effectively

I can understand. You cant possibly operate inside Waziristan without the AMRAAMs, E2 Hawkeyes, PACs 3 Patriot, Phalanx, Perry class frigates and F-16s. Pakistan of course lack the capabilities.  (/sarc.)

However, that is completely different then suggesting the Pak forces could capture / kill UBL and Zawahiri any time they want...they simply just haven't done some. That line of thinking is completely BS!

THAT is the only correct line of thinking and anything else is BS.

Lastly, people from State have a long history of saying all sorts of BS when in actuality they know very little about what is actually occurring on the ground regarding the region or conflict they are spouting off about -

In this case their words echo exactly whatever the Indians are saying. Now tell me India has very little knowledge about what is actually occurring on the ground regarding the region or conflict.


14 posted on 05/06/2006 12:40:31 PM PDT by Gengis Khan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4

Kandahar is just a few kilometers away from Quetta, Pakistan's main military base.


15 posted on 05/06/2006 12:47:45 PM PDT by Gengis Khan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan
I can understand. You cant possibly operate inside Waziristan without the AMRAAMs, E2 Hawkeyes, PACs 3 Patriot, Phalanx, Perry class frigates and F-16s. Pakistan of course lack the capabilities - (/sarc.)

Perhaps the dumbest retort I have ever seen posted on FR (with all due respect).

Not worth my time, I shouldn't have bothered -

16 posted on 05/06/2006 12:50:04 PM PDT by SevenMinusOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4

And for that reason alone Mushy will do nothing except indefinitely keeping the line of communications open.


17 posted on 05/06/2006 12:51:22 PM PDT by Gengis Khan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith

I was just going to post the same article!


18 posted on 05/06/2006 12:54:26 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter (The Stations of the Cross in Poetry ---> http://www.wayoftears.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DevSix

Thats the list of weapon systems America is giving to Pakistan for their "cooperation" on WOT. The reason given was that Pakistan needs these weapons to fight the terrorists.


19 posted on 05/06/2006 12:55:43 PM PDT by Gengis Khan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan

Pakistan isn't doing enough, as I have said repeatedly on this forum and elsewhere. However, they are doing all that the factionalism (including the presence of a Muslim anti-American faction) willl allow them to do, and in some cases their help has been extremely valuable.

If President Musharraf does any more than he is doing, he faces a real possibility of being overthrown and likely killed, and what replaces him will most likely be a lot worse, as happened in China, Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, and other countries.

And we've gotten more from Pakistan inthe WOT than we have from our supposed "natural ally" India. They have given a lot of lip service, but little or no help.


20 posted on 05/06/2006 9:47:48 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson