Wednesday
Nov052008
Return to the World: The Stories We're Watching
Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 15:44
US BOMBING RAIDS IN NORTHWEST PAKISTAN:
General David Petraeus, who has just taken over the US Central Command, met Pakistani officials on Monday. The Pakistani Defence Minister claimed that he warned, "Launching further missile strikes in the country's troubled tribal areas could increase tensions between the two nations." Pakistani President Asif Zardari warned, ""Continuing drone attacks on our territory, which result in loss of precious lives and property, are counter-productive and difficult to explain by a democratically elected government. It is creating a credibility gap." Petraeus offered no public reaction.
The meeting should be set against a significant if curious column by David Ignatius of the Washington Post. Ignatius claimed that Pakistani officials were quietly endorsing the US attacks: "The country's new chief of intelligence, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, visited Washington last week for talks with America's top military and spy chiefs, and everyone seemed to come away smiling."
Ignatius added, "The secret accord was set after the September visit to Washington by Pakistan's new president, Asif Ali Zardari. It provided new mechanics for coordination of Predator attacks and a jointly approved list of high-value targets. Behind the agreement was a recognition by the Zardari government, and by Pakistan's new military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, that the imminent threat to Pakistan's security comes from Islamic terrorists rather than from arch-rival India.
The Ignatius piece is clearly the case of a reporter being used by the US military and intelligence stories to put out their version of events. What is unclear is whether that version corresponds with the Pakistani understanding. If both the civilian, military, and intelligence branches of the Islamabad Government are all on the same page, then the US Government may have finessed a situation where Pakistan publicly condemned unilateral American action but privately accepts the operations. On the other hand, if some in the Pakistani Government are working with Washington but others are opposed to the acceptance of US bombing, then there could be turmoil within the Government which dwarfs the unrest in the Northwest Frontier.
US BOMBING AND CIVILIAN DEATHS IN AFGHANISTAN:
href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/afghan-villagers-say-airstrikes-killed-civilians-993287.html">Associated Press reports that a US attack on Monday killed or wounded dozens of women and children in a wedding party. Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressed his concern in a message to Barack Obama: "We cannot win the fight against terrorism with air strikes. This is my first demand of the new president of the United States -- to put an end to civilian casualties."
US TO MEND FENCES WITH AFGHAN OPPONENT?:
The Washington Post reports: "With casualties among foreign forces at record highs, and domestic and international confidence in Karzai's government at an all-time low, U.S. and Afghan officials may have little choice but to grant [Gulbuddin] Hekmatyar a choice seat at the bargaining table."
Hekmatayar has been a player, often a dangerous and chaotic one, in Afghan politics from the 1980s. He was a leader of the US-supported insurgency against Soviet occupation but, after the Soviet withdrawal, he fought other Afghan factions for power. His rule in Kabul, marked by bloodshed, was ended by the Taliban's accession to power in 1996. Hekmatayar was opposed to the US strategy, including support of the Northern Alliance, to oust the Taliban in 2001; within months, US forces were seeking his assassination.
If true, the report could herald a modified version of General David Petraeus's strategy of talking to former anti-American insurgent groups to turn them against "real" enemies, in this case, the Taliban rather than al-Qa'eda.
General David Petraeus, who has just taken over the US Central Command, met Pakistani officials on Monday. The Pakistani Defence Minister claimed that he warned, "Launching further missile strikes in the country's troubled tribal areas could increase tensions between the two nations." Pakistani President Asif Zardari warned, ""Continuing drone attacks on our territory, which result in loss of precious lives and property, are counter-productive and difficult to explain by a democratically elected government. It is creating a credibility gap." Petraeus offered no public reaction.
The meeting should be set against a significant if curious column by David Ignatius of the Washington Post. Ignatius claimed that Pakistani officials were quietly endorsing the US attacks: "The country's new chief of intelligence, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, visited Washington last week for talks with America's top military and spy chiefs, and everyone seemed to come away smiling."
Ignatius added, "The secret accord was set after the September visit to Washington by Pakistan's new president, Asif Ali Zardari. It provided new mechanics for coordination of Predator attacks and a jointly approved list of high-value targets. Behind the agreement was a recognition by the Zardari government, and by Pakistan's new military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, that the imminent threat to Pakistan's security comes from Islamic terrorists rather than from arch-rival India.
The Ignatius piece is clearly the case of a reporter being used by the US military and intelligence stories to put out their version of events. What is unclear is whether that version corresponds with the Pakistani understanding. If both the civilian, military, and intelligence branches of the Islamabad Government are all on the same page, then the US Government may have finessed a situation where Pakistan publicly condemned unilateral American action but privately accepts the operations. On the other hand, if some in the Pakistani Government are working with Washington but others are opposed to the acceptance of US bombing, then there could be turmoil within the Government which dwarfs the unrest in the Northwest Frontier.
US BOMBING AND CIVILIAN DEATHS IN AFGHANISTAN:
href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/afghan-villagers-say-airstrikes-killed-civilians-993287.html">Associated Press reports that a US attack on Monday killed or wounded dozens of women and children in a wedding party. Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressed his concern in a message to Barack Obama: "We cannot win the fight against terrorism with air strikes. This is my first demand of the new president of the United States -- to put an end to civilian casualties."
US TO MEND FENCES WITH AFGHAN OPPONENT?:
The Washington Post reports: "With casualties among foreign forces at record highs, and domestic and international confidence in Karzai's government at an all-time low, U.S. and Afghan officials may have little choice but to grant [Gulbuddin] Hekmatyar a choice seat at the bargaining table."
Hekmatayar has been a player, often a dangerous and chaotic one, in Afghan politics from the 1980s. He was a leader of the US-supported insurgency against Soviet occupation but, after the Soviet withdrawal, he fought other Afghan factions for power. His rule in Kabul, marked by bloodshed, was ended by the Taliban's accession to power in 1996. Hekmatayar was opposed to the US strategy, including support of the Northern Alliance, to oust the Taliban in 2001; within months, US forces were seeking his assassination.
If true, the report could herald a modified version of General David Petraeus's strategy of talking to former anti-American insurgent groups to turn them against "real" enemies, in this case, the Taliban rather than al-Qa'eda.