No more ground Attacks in Pakistan: Why did Bush back off & change US policy?

Posted on 03 November 2008. Tags: Pakistan, US attackes on Paksitan, USA

US gives up ground raids into Pakistan * NYT report says White House now relying on CIA Predator airstrikes in Tribal Areas. LAHORE: The United States is refraining from using its special forces on Pakistani territory following a raid nearly two months ago that resulted in civilian casualties and vehement protests from Islamabad, The New York Times (NYT) reported on its website late Sunday.

“The White House has backed away from using American commandoes for further ground raids into Pakistan after furious complaints from its government, relying instead on an intensifying campaign of airstrikes by the Central Intelligence Agency against militants in the Pakistani mountains,” the report said.There were at least 18 Predator strikes since the beginning of August, some deep inside Pakistan’s tribal areas, compared with five strikes during the first seven months of 2008, the report noted. Many of the Predator strikes were taking place as deep as 25 miles into Pakistani territory, not just along the border.

The report said US officials had complained that relying on airstrikes alone, the US would be unable to weaken Al Qaeda’s grip in the Tribal Areas. It said that following a US attack on September 3, National Security Adviser Mahmud Ali Durrani made an unannounced visit to Washington and expressed Pakistan’s anger in person to top White House officials, including his counterpart Stephen Hadley. It said Pentagon officials had publicly praised the Pakistan Army’s aggressive campaign against the Taliban in Bajaur Agency. However, some US officials were ‘wincing’ at a full-scale military operation taking a heavy toll on civilians. “They don’t have a concept of counter-insurgency operations,” one senior US official said. “It’s generally a heavy punch and then they leave.” daily times monitor

After the February elections Islamabad had a new fragile and fractious coalition government in place which was learning the ropes. Additionally the new government was busy in some domestic issues which did not allow it to focus on Afghanistan immediately. Things were not going well in the Afghan war. ISAF, NATO and US forces had briefed the US Administration that they were unable to win the war against the 38 insurgent groups fighting in Afghanistan. They anti-occupation forces are lumped together by the media as “the Taliban”. However they are not the Taliban. The Taliban were Talibs (students) who were raised in refugee camps in Pakistan. The Talibs/Taliban were recruited by the CIA and the Pakistani intelligence services to go back into Afghanistan and try to bring peace to the war torn region–still caught up in a fratricidal civil war after the departure of the Soviet forces. The birth of the Talibs is usually lumped into the basket of Pakistan. The other parent is seldom mentioned. Congressman Rohrabaker in a s Senate briefing said “let me repeat, the CIA created the Taliban”. Congressman Rohrabacker was as active in recruiting, arming, training the Talibs/Taliban as Congressman Charlie Wilson was in arming their predecessors the Afghan Mujahideen. Both groups were highly valued by the US politicians and were invited to the corridors of power in Washington. Unable to bring about an Afghan surge, President Bush sensing an opportunity decided to escalate the war and expand the the theater of war to put pressure on Islamabad.

One reason for the attack could have been the expropriation of the hawkish stance of Senator Barack Obama who had on multiple occasions declared that “in the presence of actionable intelligence, if high value targets had been identified, and if the Pakistanis will not or cannot cooperate, I will go into Pakistan to pick up Osama Bin Laden“. President Bush wanted to pull the rug from under Senator Obama’s bluster and prove that the Bush bravado was bigger than the Democratic aggressive statements. The attack failed to achieve any purpose other than to really piss off the Pakistanis

The US was taken aback by the ferocity of the Pakistani response to President Bush’s push into Pakistan. The response included the following actions by the Pakistan Army.

1) The US Ambassador was summoned and an unusually strong damarche (diplomatic rebuff) was handed to him.

Zardari’s tour de force on his visit to New York was not his flirtation with Sarah Palin. His masterpiece was not even his speech at the UN General Assembly at which he proclaimed to the world the “Bhutto Doctrine of Reconciliation” as the silver bullet to defeat terrorism, the Western world’s current bugbear. The real jewel, because it was not a personal peccadillo but reflected the policy of President Zardari’s government, was his remark on Sept 26, during a brief appearance before the media alongside Condoleezza Rice, that he looked upon US support as a “blessing.” A blessing we can do without Wednesday, October 15, 2008, Asif Ezdi

2) Pakistan’s National Security Advisor to the USA (he is the Security “Ambassador” to America) made a special trip to Washington and lodged a formal protest.

NEW YORK, Oct 27: Following “furious complaints” by Islamabad, Washington has backed away from using American commandos for further ground raids into Pakistan, relying instead on an intensifying campaign of airstrikes by the CIA against militants in the mountains, the New York Times reported on Monday. However, the newspaper quoted American and Pakistani officials as saying that the attacks by remotely piloted Predator aircraft had increased sharply in frequency and scope over the past three months.

Through Sunday, there were at least 18 Predator strikes since the beginning of August, some deep inside tribal areas, compared with five strikes during the first seven months of this year. At the same time, however, officials told the newspaper that relying on airstrikes alone, the United States would be unable to weaken Al Qaeda’s grip in the tribal areas permanently. Within the government, advocates of the ground raids have argued that only by sending Special Operations forces into Pakistan can the United States successfully capture suspected operatives and interrogate them for information about top Qaeda leaders.

The decision to focus on an intensified Predator campaign using Hellfire missiles appears to reflect dwindling options on the part of the White House for striking a blow against Al Qaeda in the Bush administration’s waning days. After months of debate within the administration and mounting frustration over Pakistan’s reluctance to carry out more aggressive operations, President Bush finally gave his approval in July for ground missions inside Pakistan.

But the only American ground mission known to have taken place was a Special Operations raid on Sept 3, in which the roughly two dozen people killed included some civilians. American officials say there has not been another commando operation since. American officials acknowledge that following the Sept 3 raid they were surprised by the intensity of the Pakistani response, which included an unannounced visit to Washington, three weeks after the incursion, by National Security Adviser Mahmud Ali Durrani. He registered his anger in person with top White House officials.

But the newspaper quoted a senior administration official as saying that no tacit agreement had been reached to allow increased Predator strikes in exchange for a backing off from additional American ground raids, an option the officials said remained on the table. Protests led US to stop ground attacks: paper By Masood Haider

3) The invading US forces were fired upon and some forces had to retreat back across the Durand Line into Afghanistan

4) Unconfirmed reports say that one US helicopter was shot down. This was denied by the US commanders who claimed that the chopper had mechanical failure

5) Pakistani jets forced some of the drones back to Afghanistan.

6) Perhaps the most important and most potent response was the cutoff of supplies to the American forces in Afghanistan. More than 70% of the US logistics goes through Pakistan. This includes water, oil, food all the basic ingredients for survival and for fighting a war. The US has about a weeks supply of water and essentials. If the embargo on supplies had been halted, the war in Afghanistan would have come to a screeching halt. The other routes to land locked Afghanistan are not economically or logistically feasible. Pakistan has charged $5 Billion for the logistical support provided to ISAF, NATO and US forces. In a three trillion Dollar war $5 billion as reimbursement is a good deal for the countries fighting a war in Kabul. The US DOD in 2001 calculated that Pakistan suffers a loss of $20 Billion per year (2001 Dollars). The $5 Billion in US Aid to Pakistan is no favor to Pakistan, it is to compensate for the huge loss to Pakistani business and machinery.

7) The Pakistani National Assembly (Majlis e Shoora) and the Aiwan e Bala (Senate) passed a resolution condemning the U S intrusion.

* Resolution says attacks in Pakistan unfortunate, gross violation of sovereignty
* Kamil Agha says no need for new resolution, government should implement joint parliamentary resolution

ISLAMABAD: The Senate on Monday strongly condemned missile attacks by US drones in Pakistani territory amidst parliamentarians’ demands for implementation of the resolution unanimously passed at the conclusion of the in-camera parliamentary session last week.

Leader of the House in Senate Raza Rabbani tabled a resolution in the House to condemn US drone attacks, which was endorsed unanimously. He assured the House that the US ambassador would be summoned to register Pakistan’s protest. He said the National Assembly speaker would constitute a committee to oversee the implementation of the unanimous resolution against terrorism passed by the in-camera session.

Unfortunate: The Senate resolution against drone attacks said strikes inside Pakistan were unfortunate and a gross violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. The resolution underlined that continued incursions were harming the government’s efforts to seek a political solution through dialogue.

The House said such strikes were an effort to undermine parliament. It called on the government to ensure such attacks did not recur. The House called on the government to protest with the US as well as NATO and ISAF authorities, and to seek assurances for full respect of Pakistan’s sovereignty.

The senators urged the government to implement parliament’s earlier resolution against US drone attacks inside Pakistani territory, rather than merely passing resolutions. Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz Senator Ishaq Dar asked the government to ensure implementation of Monday’s resolution, which guarantees sanctity of the Pakistani territory. He demanded the government should inform the House of any action taken to stop such violations.

Jamaat-e-Islami Senator Khursheed Ahmad said foreign forces should know parliament was warning them through a unanimous resolution. He wondered if parliament was capable in checking such attacks. He said the government was ignoring parliament’s verdict and demanded implementation of the parliamentary resolution in letter and spirit. Senator Azam Swati said, “Let us call an enemy an enemy now.”

No need: Leader of the Opposition Kamil Ali Agha argued there was no need to move a resolution after parliament had already passed a joint resolution on the issue reflecting the support of the whole nation for the government on the issue. He said the government should ensure implementation of the parliamentary resolution passed at the conclusion of the joint in-camera session instead of repeating such resolutions.

Agha said the government should talk in clear terms with those responsible for such violations of national sovereignty. He demanded the government take notice of what he called trampling of the sentiments and verdict of the people of Pakistan in the form of a joint resolution. Unanimous Senate resolution blasts US attacks By Tahir Niaz. The News

US Air Force unmanned predator aerial vehicle with a hellfire missile attached The US continues to bomb targets in Pakistan with increasing frequency. This has created great hardship for the Pakistanis living in FATA. 30,000 have been killed , most of them innocent civilians, women and children. 300,000 have been displaced. Just like the 2 million who died fighting the USSR, these brave Pakhtuns have gotten no recognition, and no help from America or any of the other forces that are fighting in Afghanistan.

The US continues to attack Pakistani territory via drones, even though it knows that the strikes are counterproductive and extremely inaccurate. The bombs on the drones have actually never hit any target and usually rain down on civilian homes, schools and hospitals. As the number of drone attacks increases, the Pakistan Government, Senate and National Assembly is now reacting in a more robust manner.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) — Pakistan’s foreign ministry said Wednesday that it has lodged a “strong” protest with the U.S. ambassador over missile attacks conducted on Pakistani soil by unmanned drones.

The aftermath of a suspected U.S. drone attack on a building in North Waziristan.

The ministry said it summoned Ambassador Anne Patterson to underscore that such attacks violate Pakistan’s sovereignty and should be stopped immediately.A statement from the ministry said Patterson was also told that the attacks have cost lives and undermined public support for Pakistan’s counter terrorism efforts.

The ministry lodged its protests three days after a missile strike from a suspected U.S. drone on a compound in South Waziristan killed 20 people. Pakistan has repeatedly raised objections to foreign nations violating its sovereignty to pursue terrorists. A U.S. ground operation in September that left several civilians dead rankled relations between the two countries. Last week, Pakistan’s parliament passed a resolution that condemned any incursion on Pakistani soil by foreign forces.

The resolution called for a review of the country’s national security strategy and said the government needs to safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The ministry said it handed Patterson a copy of the resolution.

The U.S. and NATO, which have troops in Afghanistan, have been seeking a way to effectively battle militants who launch attacks from Pakistan’s swath of tribal areas along the border. They have become frustrated with Islamabad over the years, saying it is not being proactive enough against militants — a claim Pakistan denies. The United States is the only country operating in the region known to have the capability to launch missiles from drones, which are controlled remotely.

Don’t Miss

Syria has also responded very strongly to US attacks inside its territory. Neither the Laosification of the Iraqi war into Syria nor the Cambodiazation of the Afghan war into Pakistan will change the realities on the ground-defeat:

The U.S. embassy in Syria’s capital has issued a warning to Americans in the country to be alert following a raid on eastern Syria that Damascus blames on U.S. forces. The embassy says “unforeseen events” could prompt officials to close the embassy to the public indefinitely.

Syrians carry coffins of their realtives who were killed yesterday in a US military raid on the village of Sukkiraya, on the Syria-Iraq border, 27 Oct 2008

Syria has protested to the United Nations about Sunday’s deadly helicopter raid. In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon released Tuesday, Syria urged U.N. member states to prevent a repeat of the attack, calling it a serious violation of Syria’s sovereignty. Syria’s letter also says the U.N. Security Council should take action against those responsible for the raid, saying it killed eight Syrian civilians, including children. The identity of the casualties has not been independently verified. Syria Warns it May Close US Embassy By VOA News 29 October 2008

Maleeha Lodhi, the current Pakistani Ambassador to the UK, and the former Pakistani Ambassador to the USA says the following:

For most Pakistanis however, the litmus test of the next American administration will be whether it is prepared to treat Pakistan with respect. In the final analysis this intangible may count for as much as finding the right mix of trade and aid that goes beyond advancing America’s own interest. If there is a consensus in Pakistan about future dealings with the US, it is that the advent of a new Administration will offer a window of opportunity for Islamabad to recalibrate relations with Washington on the basis of national honour, respect and reciprocity. If the new American president could understand that, it would be a major step forward for such a critical relationship.

The Afghan war was considered unwinnable by the USA and talks were initiated by the US in Saudi Arabia.

Western officials, led by Britain, have pushed for negotiations with the Taliban in recent weeks after the violence in Afghanistan has reached a seven-year high. Some officials claim Mullah Omar and the Taliban have split from al Qaeda, but US military and intelligence officials told The Long War Journal they see no evidence of such a split.

Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, the outgoing commander of British forces in Afghanistan, said winning the war was “neither feasible nor supportable” and the West should work to reduce the level of violence in the country.

Over the last week, several senior Western officials have said the International Security Assistance Forces could not win the war militarily and that negotiations with the Taliban were necessary to secure the peace. Brigadier Richard Blanchette, a British general who serves as the spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force, advocated negotiations with the Taliban and said no military solution was possible in Afghanistan.

Kai Eide, the United Nation’s Special Representative in Afghanistan, echoed Blanchette’s statements. “I’ve always said to those that talk about the military surge … what we need most of all is a political surge, more political energy,” Eide said on Oct. 6. “We all know that we cannot win it militarily. It has to be won through political means. That means political engagement.” Taliban mock West for calling Afghanistan unwinnable

By Bill RoggioOctober 14, 2008 4:00 PM

This is how the Taliban have been responding.

“The Islamic Emirate wants to make it clear that the only solution and the most successful path for resolving the Afghanistan problem is for the foreign forces to leave Afghanistan unconditionally and to respect Afghanistan’s national independence and Islamic faith,” the statement, issued in English, read. “Surely it is only then that peace, stability and prosperity would return to Afghanistan, otherwise all hue and cry and slogans will be empty, fruitless and ineffective.”

“If the Americans, British, and at their behest the United Nations wish to keep the invading forces of 38 countries in Afghanistan, and at the same time ensure peace and reconciliation to their liking, they are dreaming an immature and empty fantasy.”

The Taliban said the al Qaeda-linked group is “on the verge of victory” while the West is engaged in “a series of artificial gestures and a hue and cry about talks.” Taliban mock West for calling Afghanistan unwinnable By Bill RoggioOctober 14, 2008 4:00 PM