1. Raven
    Offline

    Raven Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Messages:
    9,755
    Likes Received:
    68
    Location:
    The NetherWorld

    Pakistan says won't let in foreign troops

    Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Raven, Jan 8, 2008.

    Pakistan will not allow any country to conduct military operations on its territory, officials said on Monday, rejecting a report that said the United States was considering authorising its forces to act in Pakistan.

    The New York Times said on Sunday the U.S. government was considering expanding the authority of the CIA and the military to conduct far more aggressive covert operations in Pakistan.

    The U.S. officials considering the move were concerned over intelligence reports that al Qaeda and the Taliban were more intent on destabilising Pakistan, the newspaper said.

    Pakistani government and military officials dismissed the report and said Pakistan would not permit any such action.

    "Pakistan's position in the war on terror has been very clear -- that any action on Pakistani soil will be taken only by Pakistani forces and Pakistani security agencies," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Sadiq.

    "No other country will be allowed to carry out operations in Pakistan. This has been conveyed at the highest level," he said.

    Military spokesman Major-General Waheed Arshad rejected the report as baseless, saying no U.S. military operations, overt of covert, were allowed.

    Pakistan's lawless tribal belt on the Afghan border is a haven for al Qaeda and Taliban members who fled from Afghanistan when U.S.-led forces overthrew the Taliban weeks after the September 11 attacks on the United States.

    Pakistan's security forces have been fighting the militants since then, but its alliance with the United States is deeply unpopular among many Pakistanis.

    Some Pakistanis support al Qaeda and the Taliban while others, while not supporting militancy, object to what they see as Pakistan doing the bidding of the United States.

    Pakistan fears allowing foreign troops to operate on its territory along the Afghan border would incite a backlash among the fiercely independent Pashtun tribes living there.

    U.S. MEETING

    The New York Times, citing senior Bush administration sources, said U.S. officials met in the United States on Friday.

    While no decision was made at the meeting, options under discussion included the CIA working with the U.S. military's Special Operations forces.

    Among those reported at the meeting were Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the Times said.

    Several participants argued that the threat to President Pervez Musharraf's government was so acute that he and Pakistan's military leaders were likely to grant Washington more latitude, the Times said.

    U.S. spokesmen declined to discuss the meeting but one official said the discussion reflected concern that a new al Qaeda haven was solidifying in parts of Pakistan and needed to be countered, the paper said.

    While no new options had been formally presented by Washington to Musharraf, the newspaper said officials from the White House to the Pentagon saw an opening in Pakistan's changing political structure for Washington's expanding authority in the nuclear-armed country.

    Bush administration aides said that Pakistani and U.S. officials shared concerns about a resurgent al Qaeda, and that U.S. diplomats and senior military officers had been working closely with Pakistani officials to strengthen Pakistan's counterterrorism operations, the newspaper said.

    New options for expanded covert operations under consideration included loosening reins on the CIA so it could strike at targets in Pakistan, officials told the newspaper.

    If the CIA were given wider latitude, it could call in military help or charge Special Operations forces to act under its authority, the Times said.

    Any expanded U.S. operations by the CIA or Special Operations forces would be small and specifically tailored, military officials said.
     
  2. Banzai
    Offline

    Banzai One-time Mod, but on the road to recovery Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    12,871
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    Reading, UK
    Hmmm. I can see why Pakistan wouldn't want foreign troops. Iraq is a poignant reminder of where that can lead. But I think there needs to be someone enforcing order, and making sure it doesn't decay into civil war- perhaps the UN taking a greater action in the situation. But the US certainly isn't the country to go in, given their view in the eyes of Muslims in general.
     
  3. Raven
    Offline

    Raven Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Messages:
    9,755
    Likes Received:
    68
    Location:
    The NetherWorld
    Or The British.
     
  4. Cogito
    Offline

    Cogito Former Mod, Retired Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    35,935
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Location:
    Massachusetts, USA
    Well, I can't see the US inviting foreign troops within its borders either, so I can't say it's terribly upsetting to me.
     
  5. Raven
    Offline

    Raven Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Messages:
    9,755
    Likes Received:
    68
    Location:
    The NetherWorld
    Trouble is this is starting to happen all across that part of the world. Who's next? is my only guess.
     
  6. PrincessGarnet
    Offline

    PrincessGarnet Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Messages:
    335
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    St Andrews, Scotland
    What worries me is the west using 'al queda' to justify military operations in which there are alternative motives - generally speaking, i don't know enough about this specific case to comment

    Also, I'm curious where is this article from?
     
  7. Banzai
    Offline

    Banzai One-time Mod, but on the road to recovery Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    12,871
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    Reading, UK
    I'd have to agree, PrincessGarnet. Al Qaeda does more and more seem to be an excuse for western nations taking ethically questionable actions.

    I think the real issue here is one of principle, at core. The west wants democracy- but it recognises the fundamental flaw of democracy: if you give people the choice, some of the time they will make the "wrong" choice (which the west fears the people of Pakistan might). In the Pakistan situation, the alternative to democracy is the western-friendly dictatorship of Musharraf, which according to the west's self-declared mantra of democracy is an oxymoron.

    In the end, it's going to come down to what's more important to the west: democracy, or the co-operation of Pakistan. That's my (probably under-informed) view on matters, anyway.
     

Share This Page