View Full Version : Paki PM Warns of Full Force Response
Full force in this case would mean nukes...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/09/pakistan-backlash-mounts-does-opportunity-new-terror-targets/
Pakistan's prime minister warned the United States Monday that his country could respond to any future U.S. raids on its soil with "full force," in the latest escalation of rhetoric in the wake of Usama bin Laden's death.
Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, like other officials in Islamabad, said the killing of bin Laden in northern Pakistan was a positive step. But, reflecting concerns that the unilateral strike violated his country's sovereignty, Gilani sent a clear message to the United States. He warned any "overt or covert" attack would be met with a "matching response" in the future.
"Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force. No one should underestimate the resolve and capability of our nation and armed forces to defend our sacred homeland," Gilani said.
Pakistani officials are taking a firm stance on the raid, as the United States analyzes the trove of evidence collected from the bin Laden compound. That evidence -- described as the largest intelligence find ever from a senior terror leader -- could lead the United States to other terrorists on Pakistani soil, once again forcing President Obama to decide whether to go around the Pakistanis to capture or kill a high-value terror target.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has said the president reserves the right to enter Pakistani territory to act against terror suspects if Pakistan will not, and reiterated that message when asked about Gilani's speech. He said Monday that while the U.S. takes Pakistanis' concerns seriously, the U.S. does "not apologize" for the raid.
"It's simply beyond doubt in his mind that he had the right and the imperative to do this," Carney said Monday.
With analysts combing through the bin Laden files for clues on the whereabouts of Al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri or Taliban chief Mullah Omar, some are calling on Obama to strike again while Al Qaeda and its allies are staggering.
"We have no right to keep our troops on the defense dying, when we know where some of the highest-ranking people in the Taliban are," Bing West, former assistant defense secretary, told Fox News on Monday.
Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said that if the U.S. gets bin Laden's deputy -- presumed to be al-Zawahiri -- in its sights, "the same calculus" that was used on bin Laden should apply.
But the thought already has Pakistani leaders fuming.
Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S., told ABC's "This Week" that the Pakistani government wants to continue "joint operations," but is concerned about the nature of the raid last weekend.
"Nobody said that we didn't want Usama bin Laden taken out. What we are offended by is the violation of our sovereignty," he said. "Now, we've heard the American explanation. But at the same time, try and put yourself in the position of a Pakistani leader who has to go to votes from the same people who will turn around and say, 'You know what? You can't protect this country from American helicopters coming in.'"
U.S. officials have made clear that they did not loop in the Pakistanis on the raid out of concern that somebody would tip off bin Laden.
Asked about the Pakistanis' concerns, Carney said repeatedly Monday that the U.S. continues to view its relationship with the country as "important."
Obama, in an interview with CBS' "60 Minutes," confirmed that he did not inform Pakistani officials of the raid in advance, though he praised Pakistan's cooperation considering "we've been able to kill more terrorists on Pakistani soil than just about any place else."
However, Obama also questioned whether anybody inside the Pakistani government might have known about bin Laden's location all along.
"We were surprised that he could maintain a compound like that for that long without there being a tip-off," Obama said. "We think that there had to be some sort of support network for bin Laden inside of Pakistan. But we don't know who or what that support network was. We don't know whether there might have been some people inside of government, people outside of government, and that's something that we have to investigate and, more importantly, the Pakistani government has to investigate."
...... after all, it was Allah's will that the US take out OBL at that place, at that time and with a couple of shots to the head.
Seems like posturing to me. I'm sure they don't want to lose the 3.5 billion we give them in aid.
:munchin
Roguish Lawyer
05-09-2011, 15:09
I don't know what they're so uptight about. We didn't complain much when James Bond killed all those SPECTRE dudes in Vegas and New Orleans . . .
MTN Medic
05-09-2011, 15:09
we've been able to kill more terrorists on Pakistani soil than just about any place else
Well, if this is a posture meant to satisfy the Pakistani radicals, they just failed miserably. :D
Utah Bob
05-09-2011, 16:35
He forgot to take his shoe off and pond it on the desk.:rolleyes:
In my best Soup Nazi voice...No aid for you!
mark46th
05-09-2011, 17:25
If the Paki's don't want us coming inside their borders, they shouldn't allow bad guys to set up house keeping....
"Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force. No one should underestimate the resolve and capability of our nation and armed forces to defend our sacred homeland," Gilani said.
Total BS. Paki mil has the "utmost respect" for American ability to hit the intended target. American resolve on the other hand, well, that's different (how long was Ray detained?).
Let's see if our Pred strikes continue at current levels but I wager we'll see a decrease, if not a "tactical halt" all together.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/09/osama-bin-laden-us-pakistan-deal
The deal was struck between Pervez Musharraf and George Bush in 2001 and renewed during the 'transition to democracy' – a six-month period from February 2008 when Musharraf was still president but a civilian government had been elected. Photograph: Joshua Roberts/Reuters
The US and Pakistan struck a secret deal almost a decade ago permitting a US operation against Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil similar to last week's raid that killed the al-Qaida leader, the Guardian has learned.
The deal was struck between the military leader General Pervez Musharraf and President George Bush after Bin Laden escaped US forces in the mountains of Tora Bora in late 2001, according to serving and retired Pakistani and US officials.
Under its terms, Pakistan would allow US forces to conduct a unilateral raid inside Pakistan in search of Bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the al-Qaida No3. Afterwards, both sides agreed, Pakistan would vociferously protest the incursion.
"There was an agreement between Bush and Musharraf that if we knew where Osama was, we were going to come and get him," said a former senior US official with knowledge of counterterrorism operations. "The Pakistanis would put up a hue and cry, but they wouldn't stop us."
The deal puts a new complexion on the political storm triggered by Bin Laden's death in Abbottabad, 35 miles north of Islamabad, where a team of US navy Seals assaulted his safe house in the early hours of 2 May.
Pakistani officials have insisted they knew nothing of the raid, with military and civilian leaders issuing a strong rebuke to the US. If the US conducts another such assault, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani warned parliament on Monday, "Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force."
Days earlier, Musharraf, now running an opposition party from exile in London, emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the raid, terming it a "violation of the sovereignty of Pakistan".
But under the terms of the secret deal, while Pakistanis may not have been informed of the assault, they had agreed to it in principle.
A senior Pakistani official said it had been struck under Musharraf and renewed by the army during the "transition to democracy" – a six-month period from February 2008 when Musharraf was still president but a civilian government had been elected.
Referring to the assault on Bin Laden's Abbottabad compound, the official added: "As far as our American friends are concerned, they have just implemented the agreement."
The former US official said the Pakistani protests of the past week were the "public face" of the deal. "We knew they would deny this stuff."
The agreement is consistent with Pakistan's unspoken policy towards CIA drone strikes in the tribal belt, which was revealed by the WikiLeaks US embassy cables last November. In August 2008, Gilani reportedly told a US official: "I don't care if they do it, as long as they get the right people. We'll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it."
As drone strikes have escalated in the tribal belt over the past year, senior civilian and military officials issued pro forma denunciations even as it became clear the Pakistani military was co-operating with the covert programme.
The former US official said that impetus for the co-operation, much like the Bin Laden deal, was driven by the US. "It didn't come from Musharraf's desire. On the Predators, we made it very clear to them that if they weren't going to prosecute these targets, we were, and there was nothing they could do to stop us taking unilateral action.
"We told them, over and again: 'We'll stop the Predators if you take these targets out yourselves.'"
Despite several attempts to contact his London office, the Guardian has been unable to obtain comment from Musharraf.
Since Bin Laden's death, Pakistan has come under intense US scrutiny, including accusations that elements within Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence helped hide the al-Qaida leader.
On Sunday, President Barack Obama said Bin Laden must have had "some sort of support network" inside Pakistan.
"We don't know whether there might have been some people inside of government, outside of government, and that's something we have to investigate," Obama said.
Gilani has stood firmly by the ISI, describing it as a "national asset", and said claims that Pakistan was "in cahoots" with al-Qaida were "disingenuous".
"Allegations of complicity or incompetence are absurd," he said. "We didn't invite Osama bin Laden to Pakistan."
Gilani said the army had launched an investigation into how Bin Laden managed to hide inside Pakistan. Senior generals will give a briefing on the furore to parliament next Friday.
Gilani paid lip-service to the alliance with America and welcomed a forthcoming visit from the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, but pointedly paid tribute to help from China, whom he described as "a source of inspiration for the people of Pakistan".
The Reaper
05-09-2011, 18:24
Have any of you "screw Pakistan" fans looked at how most supplies for our troops get to Afghanistan? I wouldn't pull the pin on that till I had a Plan B.
Might be time to offer the Indians some more HSLD weapons if the Pakis give us static though.
BTW, I must have missed all of those protesters when the helicopters came to their towns post typhoon, offering water and chow. They seemed to love America pretty good then.
TR
Pakistan's govt is much weaker than the mil/ISI consortium and walks a very fine line between appeasing and governing in a very unstable cultural climate. I would not want to be in their shoes.
Richard :munchin
Have any of you "screw Pakistan" fans looked at how most supplies for our troops get to Afghanistan? I wouldn't pull the pin on that till I had a Plan B. TR
The way of burning and looting them in route (via PAK)...then goods for the COP/FB show up with NSNs from the local contractor charging ten times the amount it should be and supposedly no clue of how he got a hold of something with a NSN and then the cojones to sell it back us! And we still buy it!!! :confused:
That's the way i remember things getting to us. ;)
Pakistan's govt is much weaker than the mil/ISI consortium and walks a very fine line between appeasing and governing in a very unstable cultural climate. I would not want to be in their shoes.
True, but stability wise, the world's largest democracy is sitting next door, same peoples, separated only by religion if they need a cultural role model. I understand their need to chirp, we went into their country and killed some of their nationals (who deserved their fate), and would do it again if need be, let them save face in the interim.
As TR pointed out, until we have some other logistics highway to supply our troops in Afghanistan, Pakistan gets more slack than most, though as mentioned India would love the $3.5 billion in aid.
Team Sergeant
05-09-2011, 20:19
Yup kinda the same Paki response we had during the Russian invasion of A-Stan, pakistan steal 90% of everything that flows through pakistan and give 10% of arms and money to the Afgans. Yeah, the truth.
I was laughing my ass off during the Iran-Contra media affair..... that was in the millions, the Afgan-Russian-paki affair was in the billions.......with pakistan stealing billions in arms and aid meant for A-Stan.
What could Pakistan do? I mean, it's not like they're going to start "outting" senior intelligence officers in Islamabad.
Wait, they did what (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pakistani-pm-failure-to-locate-bin-laden-not-incompetence-or-complicity/2011/05/09/AFKg0nYG_story.html)? :confused:
mark46th
05-11-2011, 12:25
What really scared the Paki's about the U.S. raid is the Paki's realize we can do the same thing to their nuclear arsenal and POOF!! Pakistan is just another third world sewer...
I think this is absolutely crowd pleasing rhetoric. They have a populace that is divided against itself but in an atmosphere where it can be agreed upon that Americans are arrogant, etc., to speak out against us, takes the issue away from another terrorist hiding in their boarders (loosely defined as hiding) and puts it back on their national sovereignty, wave the Paki flag, and we told them really good didn't we... just takes away the continued sting that our arguments that they are infiltrated with bad guys, incompetent and often corrupt, is entirely valid.
To even think that any of their leaders seriously have a nuke strike on the table as a response to border incursion is laughable. Unless that is just an excuse for a group of whatever enemies we have embedded there. In that case, maybe we do need to repeat the raid, but this time on their nuke assets.
I know we have to play this dancing game for staging areas and supply lines but sometimes it would great to have allies and common purpose more clear cut and black and white. But I guess I might as well wish for my winning lotto ticket, beach front house and a Q course inspired Disney theme park.
Old Dog New Trick
05-11-2011, 13:35
What really scared the Paki's about the U.S. raid is the Paki's realize we can do the same thing to their nuclear arsenal and POOF!! Pakistan is just another third world sewer...
Wait a minute, I'm missing something here...:D LOL
mark46th
05-11-2011, 16:01
What this raid pointed out to Pakistan is the vulnerability Pakistan has from a first class military.They are defenseless. I don't think Pakistan has a "Nuke Strike on the table" to use against the U.S., even though one of the main reasons the United States is tolerant of their double dealing is the nuclear threat they posess.
If Pakistan is stripped of its nuclear arsenal, a couple of things present themselves. Firstly, their military could be overrun by India if another border conflict escalates to a full blown war. India has a population over 1 billion While Pakistan has just under 170 million people. Without the threat of nuclear retaliation, Pakistan is, as I stated previously, a third world country with a second rate military. The only reason I didn't call their military third rate is because they do have a semi-modern Air Force. Secondly, as pointed out in another post, Pakistan receives a bribe of $2-3 Billion a year called Foreign Aid, to behave. If they are no longer a threat, the mordida would be greatly reduced, if not entirely erased. We let Pakistan act like a lion but deep down , they now know they are powerless to stop us from doing what the U.S. deems necessary inside their borders.
Team Sergeant
05-11-2011, 16:54
You know no one has ever "verified" North Koreas nuclear capability. And to my knowledge no one has ever verified Pakistan's either.
So let me get this straight, if tomorrow Somalia were to detonate a hundred tons of TnT below ground and then said: "We have just detonated our first successful nuclear weapon "
We just going to say "ok, you're now a nuclear power."
Both of these countries have great reasons to rattle" nuclear" sabers. And both possess the intellectual capacity of a troop of baboons.:rolleyes:
mark46th
05-11-2011, 17:30
This site has a pretty thorough history and timeline for Pakistan's nuclear program. TS, you are right, no one has actually verified Pakistan's nuclear capability but they probably do have some nukes built with assistance from China.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/chron.htm
dr. mabuse
05-11-2011, 20:09
*
Lets get back to what works :D
mark46th
05-12-2011, 08:27
Ah yes, The Raj. God Save the Queen.
Sparty On
05-12-2011, 10:23
More posturing. The dude's gotta get re-elected. A politician is a politician, no matter what country he's a politician in.
It is in neither America’s interest nor Pakistan’s for relations to become more adversarial. But Pakistan’s strategy of being both friend and adversary is no longer acceptable.
Zalmay Khalilzad, a counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was an ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and the United Nations during the George W. Bush administration.
Richard :munchin
Demanding Answers From Pakistan
Zalmay Khalilzad, NYT, 11 May 2011
Since the 9/11 attacks, Pakistan has behaved toward the United States as both friend and adversary — and gotten away with it. The latest evidence of its duplicity is the revelation that Osama bin Laden lived for years in a house near Pakistan’s national military academy and a local branch of its intelligence service without any evident interference.
Even before the American raid last week on Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan had a huge credibility problem. It provides arms and safe haven for Afghan insurgent groups and pays their commanders to carry out attacks, but denies doing so.
In the broader war on terrorism, Pakistan says it is completely on our side. In fact, its record is very uneven. It has been helpful in arresting some high-value Qaeda operatives and has allowed the United States to wage Predator drone attacks. But it has refused to move decisively against groups that Washington regards as terrorists and has put limits on American unilateral operations. It is not surprising, then, that no one took seriously Pakistan’s protestations of innocence after the discovery of Bin Laden.
The killing of Bin Laden only 60 miles from Islamabad, its capital, has put Pakistan on the defensive, and the nature of our strike capability is not lost on Pakistani leaders and their terrorist and insurgent clients. With American influence now at its peak and our troops still at full strength in Afghanistan, we have the leverage to force Pakistan to reconsider.
The United States should pursue a two-stage strategy. First, we should formally present any information about Pakistani complicity in shielding Bin Laden to Pakistan’s leaders.
Then we should follow up with demands that Pakistan break the backbone of Al Qaeda in Pakistan by moving against figures like Bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri; remove limits on the Predator drone campaign; uproot insurgent sanctuaries and shut down factories that produce bombs for use against American and Afghan soldiers; and support a reasonable political settlement in Afghanistan.
Such a settlement would ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a haven for terrorists, allay Pakistan’s legitimate security concerns and provide amnesty — and allow political participation — for insurgents who lay down their arms and accept the Afghan constitution.
In pursuing these goals, the United States should undertake a major diplomatic campaign, involving regional players like China and Saudi Arabia.
If Pakistan fulfills these demands, the United States should reward it with long-term commitments of assistance, through trade benefits, programs run by the World Bank and the United States Agency for International Development and similar efforts to promote development and education. But if Pakistan refuses to cooperate, the United States must put an end to its duplicity.
First, the United States should reduce its dependence on supply lines running through Pakistan to Afghanistan. We should expand alternative supply routes through Azerbaijan and other countries in Central Asia. Also, as we draw down forces in Afghanistan, our logistical requirements will diminish; this will give the United States more leeway to consider unilateral attacks against terrorists and insurgents in Pakistan.
Second, the United States should stay on the course set by President Obama to build, train and support Afghan security forces and reduce our own military presence while retaining the capacity to provide air support, intelligence collection and other capabilities that the Afghans currently lack. Such a posture can strengthen Afghanistan against Pakistani interference and help persuade Pakistan to embrace a settlement.
Third, the United States should conclude a longer-term agreement with Afghanistan to maintain a small, enduring military presence that would give us the capability to conduct counterterrorism operations and respond to possibilities like Pakistani nuclear weapons falling into the hands of extremists.
Fourth, the United States could consider seeking a United Nations Security Council resolution to authorize an investigation into how Bin Laden managed to hide in plain view. The inquiry should examine the presence of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Pakistan.
This strategy requires an improvement in the troubled relationship between the United States and Afghanistan. The impending arrivals of a new American ambassador, Ryan C. Crocker, and commander, Lt. Gen. John R. Allen of the Marine Corps, provide an opportunity to make progress. The challenge for the Afghan leadership and the new team is to achieve a partnership in which the United States sustains its commitment at much lower cost over time, while Afghanistan does its part by improving governance and the rule of law.
It is in neither America’s interest nor Pakistan’s for relations to become more adversarial. But Pakistan’s strategy of being both friend and adversary is no longer acceptable.
While the killing of Bin Laden was an important success, a greater achievement would be to transform United States-Pakistani relations into a true partnership that fights terrorism, advances a reasonable Afghan settlement and helps stabilize the region.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/12/opinion/12khalilzad.html?ref=opinion