'US forces cannot enter Pakistan'

ISLAMABAD: Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat rejected the US military's statement that it was allowed to pursue attackers of its forces in Afghanistan into Pakistan.

Hayat told AFP on Friday: "There is no room or legal sanctions for any cross-border operation by US forces to pursue fugitives into Pakistani territory. We have no such policy. There is no question of allowing any hot pursuit into our territory."

He said the US forces have been working with Pakistani troops along the border to hunt al-Qaeda and Taliban extremists for more than a year. He described the cooperation as 'excellent' and added: "Pakistani agencies and forces have been carrying out the task successfully and there is close liaison with coalition forces operating in Afghanistan."

Information Minister Sheikh Rashid also reacted sharply to the hot pursuit claims. "We would like to remind them (US military) that we are perfectly capable of securing our borders and the question of allowing any foreign troops into Pakistani territory does not even arise," Rashid said.

Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said it is not proper for outside forces to enter Pakistan in search of terrorists without understanding and permission of the government. Responding to a US official's statement that their forces can cross Pakistani border, he said: "It is not proper if anyone claims that it can pursue across Pakistan's border." He said Pakistan is lending support to the international community and the US in the fight against terrorists. "We will give it if they seek our support against terrorists. We have an understanding with them and we will continue our policy," he added.

He vehemently denied that any terrorists were getting shelter in Pakistan. This reaction of the ministers came following a statement of a spokeswoman for US military in Afghanistan who had said on Thursday that the US forces might pursue attackers who attempt to escape into Pakistan. The statement was made in a clarification of events surrounding a US warplane's bombing of a religious school on December 29 on border. In the incident a Harrier jet had dropped a 500-pound bomb on the school after a Pakistani border scout fired on a US patrol and retreated to the school, the spokeswoman said. Islamabad had said that the bomb had fallen in Pakistani territory, while the US spokeswoman said the building was within the internationally recognised Afghan border.

A government official told AFP on condition of anonymity that there was an exchange of fire between the US and Pakistani forces, and that two border scouts were injured. He said tension had been brewing for several days between the two sides at the border over the Pakistani post. "A Pakistani scout had a nasty fight with some members of coalition forces and returned to his base and fired at the coalition patrol. "There was exchange of fire in which two scouts were injured."

The Afghan war was a failure

According to a bunch of Clinton era generals who are trying to hang onto the old days. We have killed or captured at least a third of the Al Queada leadership IDed before the war. My brother in Special Forces. And from his comments it appears to me that everyone who is actually busy with the business of killing terrorists is ticked off with the negative coverage the war has received and believe it's motivated by people in the Pentagon who want to embarass Rumsfeld. "Everything you hear is Bullsh*t" he said. And I have no reason not to believe him.

That's the plan you outlined, 50,000 backed up by 50,000 more. Not sure who you're referring to when you say "our mercenaries".

Uh, I said february 2002, that would have been 6 months after the 9-11 attack. So I guess you've got no bitch there.

It wasn't cowardice it was a trade off. In any battle situation you've got to balance the benefits with the risks and the costs. The benefit of a quick attack focusing on air power and special forces was that it was over a month after it started and the total time ellapsed from 9-11 to the fall of Khabul was a little over 2 months. The risk and cost was greater opportunity for bad guys to escape because we didn't have the troops necessary on the ground to create a secure perimeter. The benefit of going for a 100,000 person assault would be a secure perimeter, the risk and cost would be giving the enemy an additional 5 months (for 6 time the delay) to prepare both defensively and offensively.

Powell is a turd, but this wasn't his call, he's in diplomacy now not in military preperation, the most he had to do with this was lining up allies to provide our troops with staging areas. It wasn't cowardice it was the right strategy. As with all strategies it had a downside, and now we have to deal with that downside. Had we gone your rout the downside we'd deal with was an entrenched enemy and probably more attacks on American soil during the staging months. There was no fear of body bags, soldiers died and their return to America was broadcast on live TV. If any fear played into the decision it was the fear of what OBL would do if he had 6 months of high security to work with as opposed to 1 month.

There should have been 50,000 US troops on the ground sealing off the escape routs before our mercenaries backed up by another 50,000 US troops started the ground offensive. I was saying that back then.

If we had wanted to "blow our wad," that might have been the thing to do.

Were we afraid of large casualties? Damn straight! Were we afraid that dire predictions by hand-wringing lib whiners' that we would become mired, like the Soviets, in an Afghan "quagmire" might come true? Yes we were. THAT'S WHY WE FOUGHT THE WAY WE DID.

Your recommendation might have been marginally acceptable (though I'm not inclined to admit even that much) if Afghanistan had been the beginning and END of the WOT, but it is not. It is essential that we maintain our resolve and carry this on, very possibly for much of the next generation. We can do that, but only by keeping casualties and other costs at a level acceptable to the American public.

Yes, using the North Alliance as a proxy force did cost some escaped rats, but it also won us credit with the Afghans, and with the American public. Giving the Afghans a major part in their own liberation will pay dividends in the long run. You would have shouldered them aside, blundered in with a huge force, incidently providing the irregular jihadi warriors with abundant and juicy targets in the extensive logistical support elements that would have been required, and generally made a huge mess of the whole thing. (IMHO)

Problem is deploying 100,000 troops on the other side of the planet takes a very long time

Even better than the points I made. Additionally, the speed with which we moved against Afghanistan helped to crystalize international awareness that a new era had dawned, at that the WOT was a reality that must be dealt with. The closer in time to 911 that this first object lesson could be delivered, the more powerful it was.

Too bad the same does not go for the United States and securing our borders. :(

There were a lot of messages sent in how we fought in Afghanistan. One was informing observers that the high tech toys we'd developed for low risk warfare didn't necessarily mean we were afraid to put our own people at risk, the previous administration might have been afraid of body bags this administration feared ineffectiveness. Another big message came with the first B1 mission, when we flew them from their base in the middle of America halfway around the world, dropped the load then refueled and came home; that was a dramatic demonstration of our ability to reach out to any enemies that might think we were distracted, and by using stealth bombers we told them there was nothing they could do about it.

the high tech toys we'd developed for low risk warfare didn't necessarily mean we were afraid to put our own people at risk, the previous administration might have been afraid of body bags this administration feared ineffectiveness

Well put! I remember reading an inteview with members of one of the first special forces teams sent into Afghanistan, tasked with establishing contact with elements of the Northern Alliance and directing bombing operations. These soldiers were told that they were not particularly expected to return.

The fall of Kabul was not and should not have been the goal. Killing the enemy was. We failed. We did not kill the enemy.

It was not over when Kabul fell. That was not the goal. It was over when the enemy finished escaping.

The war was a failure because we actively chose to fail and pretend that it was a sucess rather than risk American military lives to defend America against the terrorists that are still out there because we failed.

When another 3000 civilians are killed it will be because we were not willing to risk military volunteers that wanted to go do their job.

It was cowardice. Political cowardice of the likes of Powell. We had the ability. We chose not to use it. It will come back to haunt us.

We didn't need 100,000 to stop them from escaping but we should have been willing to use 500,000 if necessary. With hindsight it wouldn't have required more than 20,000. It doesn't mater. We wern't willing to do what was necessary to win.

We spend 350 billion on the military. If we aren't going to kill 10,000 AlQ and Taliban after they kill 3000 civilians in the US we might as well cut that budget by 75% at least.

Looks like we're not going to get the job done in Iraq either. We'll drop bombs and do just as much as necessary to get the Iraqi's to remove Sadam then we'll pretend that we won and revert to a situation that is likely to degenerate into something just as bad or worse.

Bad politicians just do what is politically expedient and don't look far enough into the future to solve difficult problems. They just look as far as the next election.

What we got was ineffectiveness.

We did demonstrate , once again , that we do fear bodybags. That's why they felt like they could attack America on American soil and get away with it. They rightly believed that we did fear badybags. So much so that they thought that they could get away without being caught. Most of them did. We got a few of them with bombs. I'm sure that they figured that we would.

I don't think that they figured that the Taliban could be removed so quikely. They made the same mistake the Milosovich made. Milosovich didn't have a place to hide. AlQ have many places to hide.

Overthrowing the Taliban and taking away a safe have for terrorists was part of the goal. In order to do that Khabul had to be taken. War is about a hell of a lot more than just killing people, one of the goals is to avoid another war, if we'd have just gone tear assing around Afghanistan killing bad guys and walked away when we were done we would have left it in the same state it was in after we helped kicked the Russians out. We saw just how great it was to leave Afghanistan a mess.

The war was a success, you're just a whining armchair goober that wants to talk down the country. If we'd have done it your way there would have been at least one maybe two more large attacks on America before we ever got troops in Afghanistan, prep time would have taken too long and the bad guys would have had all that time to use against us. We risked American military lives, we're risking them right now, people came home in bodybags and we didn't lose our resolve. WAKE UP, you're wrong.

Your Iraq comment shows just exactly how full of it you are. In Iraq we're going to be doing it your way, we just sent another 50,000 troops over. Make up your mind, how should we be fighting this? Better yet, sit down shut up and listen. We won in Afghanistan, we're going to win in Iraq and you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I didn't have a problem with using mercenaries but mercenaries have to be backed up with regulars in order to be effective. Ask the British. We didn't back them up with regulars and thus we lost. Our goals were not achieved.

We weren't there to liberate Afghanistan or educate woman. We were there to kill the 10,000 or so ALQ that were at war with America. We didn't do that. We may have killed a few hundred. Even the ones that were captured by the Northern Alience were set free still vowing to devote their lives to killing as many Americans.

We kept 300 or so and sent them to Guantanamo. So , we killed a few hundred and we captured a few hundred. It's better than nothing but it's not victory. We could have done much better with a little resolve. The same resolve that the American people showed would have been enough. Our politicians didn't have that much resolve because they are cowards.

We did meet a few of our lessor goals but not the big one - killing the enemy that is hell bent on killing us. We failed that and we did so intentionally.

I am not talking down the country any more than warning that we screwed up the first time we went to war with Sadam by letting him live. I said that that was a mistake at the time and I was right. If anything you are talking down the country by pretending that we won because it makes you feel better. That is the most dangerous thing we can do.

The facts do not support that. In ten years it will be obvious that I was right just like it is obvious now that I was right about Sadam.

"Oh no ! There would have been more body bags ! we did the right thing by leting them go"
Thats what your post reads like. That is exactly what the enemy wants you to believe.

If they provoke us to the point that we need to go to war with them we can not let our enemies live. That is foolishly shortsighted. We had the ability and we didn't use it because of people like you.

" they could have attacked us again while we were sending troops to Afganistan , Oh my ! "

What a pussy.

Sorry I called you a pussy. You were getting personal with me and I responded immaturely.

I forgot to respond to your Iraq comment.

We'll see what the admin does. It looks like I will be right again. I hope I'm not but Powell seems to be wining the argument in the administration. He wants to just remove Sadam and not occupy Iraq. That could be worse than doing nothing at all.

Half assed solutions might get Bush reelected but they don't don't solve them problem in the long run.

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.