Crooks and Liars:
Following a couple of very high-profile attacks on suspected terrorists into Pakistan in recent days - both of which the Pakistanis say hit civilians instead - the Pakistani military has said it reserves the right to strike back.
General Tariq Majid, chairman of Pakistan’s Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, said cross-border strikes such as the one on Wednesday would alienate ethnic Pashtuns, who live on both sides of the border, and be counter-productive. “Pakistan reserves the right to appropriately retaliate,” he told visiting German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung.
Growing Pakistani hostility to their nation’s role in the US-led “war on terror” isn’t just confined to the military, and may well be the reason behind a hurried top-level conference aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Indian Ocean on Tuesday. Participants included Admiral Mullen, General Petraeus and Pakistan’s military chief, General Kiyani.
“The meeting was mainly to continue to discuss ongoing operations against extremists in the border region and to work together to find better ways to solve those problems,” said one American military official who was briefed on the talks. Admiral Mullen met with General Kayani just a month ago in Islamabad, Pakistan. It was then that this week’s meeting was scheduled, the military official said.
In Islamabad, he said, Admiral Mullen had bluntly warned General Kayani that Pakistan had to do more to combat militants in the restive tribal areas. The gathering aboard the Abraham Lincoln was less confrontational in tone, aides said. “It was one of those meetings to help clear up the situation, get an understanding of the issues, and look for a way forward,” said a senior Pakistani officer briefed on the discussions. Military officials from both countries declined to say whether commanders had reached any new agreement to allow American Special Operations forces greater access to Pakistan’s tribal areas to conduct missions to kill or capture top leaders of Al Qaeda who have found sanctuary there.
2 comments:
Hey SP, I have a little problem with your current poll in which you asked about change in Pakistan. I wanted to say the country will be going downhill into a more violent and lawless climate. I wanted to say, yes I think the country will change, like it's going from the frying pan under strong man Musharif to the fire. But the question implies that change is good.
Anon:
It is the way one looks at the defintion of change. In Western culture, we have are own defintion of change. Whereas others outside of Western culture have their own defintion of change. The poll is center around change in a new President of Pakistan under Bhutto's widower. You have to understand what was the late Bhutto's principals for the people in Pakastan.
The question to my poll doesn't imply that change is good. It is depends on one's interpretation of change in that particular country. That question can be ask here in the U.S. or in another country. Will U.S. change under a new President {McCain or Obama]? And of course, there would be a very different interpret from other countries with that question.
Post a Comment