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

Skip to comments.

SECRET PAKISTANI AIRLIFT AIDED TALIBAN, AL QAEDA FIGHTERS
The DrudgeReport ^ | January 20, 2002

Posted on 01/20/2002 9:25:53 AM PST by CreekerFreeper

MAG: SECRET PAKISTANI AIRLIFT AIDED TALIBAN, AL QAEDA FIGHTERS

Sun Jan 20 2002 12:15:41 ET

American intelligence officials and high-ranking military officers say that Pakistani Army military and intelligence advisers who had been working with the Taliban in Afghanistan were flown to safety in Pakistan during the siege of Kunduz last November, in a series of nighttime airlifts by the Pakistani Air Force!

Controversial Seymour Hersh returns to the pages of the NEW YORKER, according to publishing sources, in the January 28, 2002 edition, hitting racks Monday.

The airlifts "were approved by the Bush Administration," Hersh reports.

The evacuation, which had been conceived of as a limited operation, "apparently slipped out of control, and, as an unintended consequence, an unknown number of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters managed to join in the exodus."

MORE

One American defense adviser tells Hersh, "Everyone brought their friends with them. You're not going to leave them behind to get their throats cut."

As one senior intelligence official puts it, "Dirt got through the screen."

Indian intelligence officials tell Hersh that they number the escaped officials and fighters at four or five thousand; American intelligence officials put the total far lower. But "the Bush Administration may have done more than simply acquiesce in the rescue effort," Hersh reports.

"At the height of the standoff, according to both a C.I.A. official and a military analyst who has worked with the Delta Force...the Administration ordered the United States Central Command to set up a special air corridor help insure the safety of Pakistani rescue flights from Kunduz to the northwest corner of Pakistan."

The Department of Defense did not respond to a request for comment.

Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf won American support for the evacuation, Hersh reports, by warning that losing a large number of Pakistanis would jeopardize his political survival.

In India, a recently retired Indian diplomat tells Hersh, the feeling is that "Musharraf has two-timed you. What have you gained? Have you captured Osama bin Laden?"

A senior Indian intelligence official says, "Musharraf can't afford to keep the Taliban in Pakistan. They're dangerous to his own regime. Our reading is that the fighters can go only to Kashmir."

Kashmir remains the flashpoint. "The situation is bloody explosive," a senior Pakistani diplomat says, suggesting that Musharraf has not been given enough credit by the Indian government for the "sweeping changes" he's brought to Pakistan.

A retired C.I.A. officer who served as a station chief in South Asia tells Hersh he found it especially disturbing that each country had "imperfect intelligence" about the other. "Couple that with the fact that these guys have a propensity to believe the worst of each other, and have nuclear weapons, and you end up saying, 'My God, get me the hell out of here.'"

Developing...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-184 next last
To: muawiyah
None of these people can be trusted.

Very true. No other nation will ever truly have our interests at heart. They will serve our interests insofar as our interests coincide with theirs, but no further. I'm sure the Bush WH knows this very well; I don't believe they're prone to Clintonian naivete.

101 posted on 01/20/2002 4:30:52 PM PST by AM2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
We must also note that there are Indians on all sides as well. None of these people can be trusted.

The Indians haven't been grooming the likes of the Taliban and nurturing terrorist/extremist/jihadi religious schools. Neither has their government been sponsoring the likes of OBL and Al Quaida. I would trust the Indians before I would the Pakistanis a mile away.

What exactly do you find about the Indians that you can't trust in relation to the Pakistanis? Or are they both of the same extremist-infested, terrorism-sponsoring group of countries in your mind?

102 posted on 01/20/2002 4:34:13 PM PST by mikeIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: AM2000
See post #102.
103 posted on 01/20/2002 4:38:06 PM PST by mikeIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: mikeIII
There are plenty of elements in the Indian polity that can't be trusted - all of them with not insignificant political power. That right now a coalition of pragmatic nationalists hold power in New Delhi means nothing as an indicator of who will hold power there in the future. Indian politics is volatile, as you (presumably) know. Some of those elements to look out for are..
  1. the right-wing swadeshi crowd, an Indian version of the Buchananites. Cultural conservatives, they hate foreign influences of all kinds. They are a strong, but currently sidelined, force in the BJP.
  2. The left-wing crowd, basically socialists and communists. They are a strong force in the main opposition party (the Congress), and are the driving force behind many of the smaller parties on which any future Congress-led government would look for support. They hate America/capitalism as a matter of doctrine.
  3. The populist crowd, politicians whos appeal is based on being against the Indian elite; this almost always translates to being anti-America. These people have an alliance with the socialist crowd. They hate America, and due to their dependence on the Muslim vote, they will hate America even more, if a Congress-led government were to come to power that depended on these folk for Parliamentary support.
Bottom line, there is plenty of reason to doubt the continuity of Indian foreign policy. It is still hostage to their domestic situation, so they can not be trusted. Nor can the Pakistanis, but you already know why.
104 posted on 01/20/2002 5:03:30 PM PST by AM2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: AM2000
The parallels you draw in themselves support the democratic nature of Indian politics. If you are saying we can't depend on India being an ally, it is understandable, based on history - although alliances now have a whole new basis and motive. But it does not amount to a question of "trust" as in the case of Pakistan! It's a big mistake to think that these two countries are the same! I notice you referring to the Indian press frequentyly enough. How often do you refer to the Pakistan media and why not?
105 posted on 01/20/2002 5:19:19 PM PST by mikeIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: mikeIII
But it does not amount to a question of "trust" as in the case of Pakistan!

If you're saying we have no reason to fear that a group of Indians will fly planes into buildings, your point is well taken. I was referring more to the continuity of India as an ally. They can't be trusted to always be "friendly". This "biggest democracy in the world" thing is a double-edged sword.

I notice you referring to the Indian press frequentyly enough. How often do you refer to the Pakistan media and why not?

The Pakistani media is a joke.

106 posted on 01/20/2002 5:23:11 PM PST by AM2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Srpska Vatra
The deal was that Schwarzenegger and Stallone raised a whole big bunch of money for Bill Clinton on behalf of Bosnian Gypsies.

Then, when the time came for the war, Bill betrayed them, and the Gypsies were among the first people to suffer from the attack.

We might note that Bill took the Gypsy money and didn't help them because they are not one of his tribes. Actually, most of the Gypsies in Billzo's background left Bosnia in the late 1500s for Germany when they became Mennonites.

Any Bosnian or Serbian Gypsy who thought they could pay Alms to Billzo and get aid had failed to come to grips with his or her own history.

107 posted on 01/20/2002 5:29:32 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

Comment #108 Removed by Moderator

To: AM2000
You seem somewhat better informed on the Indian political scene than I. Nonetheless, I think it's not a matter of trust or consistency. Heck, they have been "faithfully" aligned to the Soviets for decades! I believe this was as a result of an equally sustained alliance that we had with Pakistan, and with China also being aligned to Pakistan. Now that we all know the Pakistani situation and the problems in that neighborhood, India's thinking has to change.

Once this cleanup is over and there are no serious flare-ups, I think US and India will have a much closer relationship. Alliance? Idon't know.

109 posted on 01/20/2002 5:34:45 PM PST by mikeIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

Comment #110 Removed by Moderator

To: Srpska Vatra
You know, there's stuff going down all the time in the Balkans that you folks totally ignore because you are very much immersed in what we identify as class system politics.

If someone tells you Bill Clinton was a direct descendant in the male line from a gentleman in the mid 1800s called Billy Blythe who was "king of the Gypsies" in North America, you just ignore it because Gypsies are at the bottom of the social order in the Balkans.

In fact, you people used to keep them as slaves didn't you?

On the other hand, America was very, very good to the Gypsies. They did very well financially. Bill Clinton's homestate, Arkansas, has some very wealthy Gypsy families - worth billions and billions of dollars. He took care of them. They took care of him.

Even his wife is some kind of traditional royalty - but neither one of them is very closely related to your Gypsies. That's why when they offered him a bribe to help them during the Kosovo War, he took their money and ignored them.

Now, what was it you were saying about gullibility? Those bad boys flip you people one side and then the other.

BTW, where are the "7 Golden Hills"? Bet you haven't got an idea do you?

111 posted on 01/20/2002 5:46:56 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: AngrySpud
I'm sure everyone recalls the sketchy news reports at the time. I think it's best to fess up that they agreed to very limited evacuation of Pakistanis, but that it got out of hand.

Translation: the U.S. agreed to allow Pakistan to evacuate its ISI officers, and then Pakistan chose to evacuate everybody it could.

112 posted on 01/20/2002 5:53:05 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Comment #113 Removed by Moderator

To: Srpska Vatra
You watch too many Hollywood movies, dude...
114 posted on 01/20/2002 5:58:28 PM PST by AM2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

Comment #115 Removed by Moderator

To: Srpska Vatra
I was referring to your use of the terms 'blackie' and 'cubano' and 'whitey'. It's very revealing.
116 posted on 01/20/2002 6:07:49 PM PST by AM2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Srpska Vatra
Look, you'd last about 15 seconds in a beer joint in Gary, Hammond or East Chicago - probably because one of your Serbs'd cut your guts out for mouthing off.

It's not like we don't know something about you guys.

On the other hand, you live up to the ancient Serbian reputation for not recognizing "friendly forces". (We actually have comedians with routines concerning that characteristic.)

I would have much preferred lining up some of those old Albanian SS guys and putting them on trial long before anybody got around to your latest problem - Milosovic.

Note, from the American perspective, the Balkan prejudice against Gypsies seems to be totally meaningless - after all, all of you people look alike, have the same accent in English, and are otherwise not different culturally, or in terms of religion.

So, tell me, what is the difference between a Serb or Albanian and a Gypsy? Do you see something the rest of the world doesn't?

117 posted on 01/20/2002 6:08:35 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Serbs are Christians. Most Albanians and, I believe, Gypsies are not.
118 posted on 01/20/2002 6:13:21 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Srpska Vatra
Look, you'd last about 15 seconds in a beer joint in Gary, Hammond or East Chicago - probably because one of your Serbs'd cut your guts out for mouthing off.

It's not like we don't know something about you guys.

On the other hand, you live up to the ancient Serbian reputation for not recognizing "friendly forces". (We actually have comedians with routines concerning that characteristic.)

I would have much preferred lining up some of those old Albanian SS guys and putting them on trial long before anybody got around to your latest problem - Milosovic.

Note, from the American perspective, the Balkan prejudice against Gypsies seems to be totally meaningless - after all, all of you people look alike, have the same accent in English, and are otherwise not different culturally, or in terms of religion.

So, tell me, what is the difference between a Serb or Albanian and a Gypsy? Do you see something the rest of the world doesn't?

119 posted on 01/20/2002 6:13:28 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

Comment #120 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-184 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