quote: Pakistani troops have fired shots into the air to stop US troops crossing into the South Waziristan region of Pakistan, local officials say.
Reports say nine US helicopters landed on the Afghan side of the border and US troops then tried to cross the border.
South Waziristan is one of the main areas from which Islamist militants launch attacks into Afghanistan.
The incident comes amid growing anger in Pakistan over increasingly aggressive US attacks along the border.
...
A Pakistani military spokesman in Islamabad confirmed that there was firing but denied that Pakistani troops were involved. ... It emerged last week that US President George W Bush has in recent months authorised military raids against militants inside Pakistan without prior approval from Islamabad. ...
Locals in the Musa Nikeh area said American soldiers attacked a target with gunfire and bombs, and said women and children were among some 20 civilians who died in the attack.
In the latest incident, the tribesmen say they grabbed their guns and took up defensive positions after placing their women and children out of harm's way.
Pakistan's army has warned that the aggressive US policy will widen the insurgency by uniting the tribesmen with the Taleban.
This may be old news, but a naive search of the forums doesn't show anything. Along with the stock market turmoil, there is this little tidbit of news.
Sounds fun. (Please don't drag us in too)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are we still antagonizing other countries so blatantly again? I mean... this is starting to get really annoying now.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This one is sketchy. We know where they are, and Pakistan's government doesn't seem to really care much about the problem, despite the large sums of money we're giving them in exchange for their "help."
Bush has always said that any country harboring terrorists is our enemy, and even if Pakistan claims they don't like the terrorist element hiding out in Waziristan, they aren't doing anything about it, and won't let us, so where does that leave things?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a position where apparently you want to antagonise an allied (if ineffective) government without actually accomplishing anything? Another enemy in the region would be just what you needed.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not privy to the intel, but from what I've read, it's much more concrete than the flimsy evidence we had for WMDs, especially considering the boots on the ground have engaged them at the border.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Though clearly some people still do. Pakistan has admitted that they're in places like Waziristan, and clearly countries like France, who for some odd reason bears the brunt of American anti-European ire, feels the threat is real because they have thousands of troops and an aircraft carrier in and around Afghanistan helping NATO efforts.
But it's hardly the wealth of trust we used to enjoy with the world. That'll take a decade to repair.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what it's worth Bob Woodward of The Washington Post very recently stated that he has been apprised of a top secret technology that he can't detail yet, but which he compared in magnitude to The Manhattan Project for WWII.
posted
Also Pakistan had attempted although half heartedly to clamp down on the region and got their nose punched, they're not in any hurry to have it bloodied again.
IP: Logged |
posted
After having read Greg Mortenson's book "Three Cups of Tea", I have to say this area is personal to me now, and it disturbs me very much that this is going on. I confess I think more of the villagers, especially the children, and what their lives are like and what their view of the U.S. will be, than I do of terrorists.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pakistan is far from a simple issue. For example, Obama has been more hawkish than McCain or Palin when it comes to the US's right to defend themselves by pursuing Taliban and al-Qaeda into Pakistan.
Personally, on a "fairness" level I feel like if Pakistan is unable to secure their border sufficiently to keep these fighters from crossing back and forth at will, the US is completely justified in following the fighters into Pakistan.
On a pragmatic level, however, I feel really uncomfortable violating the national sovereignty of a nuclear state. I'd love to pursue bin Laden to the cave where he lives (to borrow Obama's phrase), but if doing so starts a nuclear stand-off between the US and Pakistan, I'm not sure it'd be worth it.
Another pragmatic thing to consider is how India views these actions, and whether it improves or strains our relationship with them. If Pakistan uses these incursions to recruit more jihadists to the fight in Kashmir, it might alienate India. Or it might embolden Indian nationalists who might use it to justify their own aggressions. Or perhaps it'll be an effective motivator to get Pakistan to clean up ISI and rein in the tribal regions.
quote:Personally, on a "fairness" level I feel like if Pakistan is unable to secure their border sufficiently to keep these fighters from crossing back and forth at will, the US is completely justified in following the fighters into Pakistan.
On a pragmatic level, however, I feel really uncomfortable violating the national sovereignty of a nuclear state. I'd love to pursue bin Laden to the cave where he lives (to borrow Obama's phrase), but if doing so starts a nuclear stand-off between the US and Pakistan, I'm not sure it'd be worth it.
That's a succinct summary of how I feel about the subject.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
