And Obama thinks Pakistan is our partner

[Value Buy]

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43404265/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times

[Virgil Showlion]

I think you mean: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43404265/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times

[Value Buy]

By ERIC SCHMITT and MARK MAZZETTI
The New York Times
updated 1 hour 19 minutes ago 2011-06-15T23:21:08
Share Print Font: +-WASHINGTON — Pakistan’s top military spy agency has arrested some of the Pakistani informants who fed information to the Central Intelligence Agency in the months leading up to the raid that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, according to American officials.

Pakistan’s detention of five C.I.A. informants, including a Pakistani Army major who officials said copied the license plates of cars visiting Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in the weeks before the raid, is the latest evidence of the fractured relationship between the United States and Pakistan. It comes at a time when the Obama administration is seeking Pakistan’s support in brokering an endgame in the war in neighboring Afghanistan.

At a closed briefing last week, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee asked Michael J. Morell, the deputy C.I.A. director, to rate Pakistan’s cooperation with the United States on counterterrorism operations, on a scale of 1 to 10.

The fate of the C.I.A. informants arrested in Pakistan is unclear, but American officials said that the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, raised the issue when he traveled to Islamabad last week to meet with Pakistani military and intelligence officers.

Blow to military
Some in Washington see the arrests as illustrative of the disconnect between Pakistani and American priorities at a time when they are supposed to be allies in the fight against Al Qaeda — instead of hunting down the support network that allowed Bin Laden to live comfortably for years, the Pakistani authorities are arresting those who assisted in the raid that killed the world’s most wanted man.

The Bin Laden raid and more recent attacks by militants in Pakistan have been blows to the country’s military, a revered institution in the country. Some officials and outside experts said the military is mired in its worst crisis of confidence in decades.

Story: Pakistan parliament condemns bin Laden raid
American officials cautioned that Mr. Morell’s comments about Pakistani support was a snapshot of the current relationship, and did not represent the administration’s overall assessment.

“We have a strong relationship with our Pakistani counterparts and work through issues when they arise,” said Marie E. Harf, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. “Director Panetta had productive meetings last week in Islamabad. It’s a crucial partnership, and we will continue to work together in the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups who threaten our country and theirs.”

Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, said in a brief telephone interview that the C.I.A. and the Pakistani spy agency “are working out mutually agreeable terms for their cooperation in fighting the menace of terrorism. It is not appropriate for us to get into the details at this stage.”

Over the past several weeks the Pakistani military has been distancing itself from American intelligence and counterterrorism operations against militant groups in Pakistan. This has angered many in Washington who believe that Bin Laden’s death has shaken Al Qaeda and that there is now an opportunity to further weaken the terrorist organization with more raids and armed drone strikes.

Drone program in question
But in recent months, dating approximately to when a C.I.A. contractor killed two Pakistanis on a street in the eastern city of Lahore in January, American officials said that Pakistani spies from the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, known as the ISI, have been generally unwilling to carry out surveillance operations for the C.I.A.. The Pakistanis have also resisted granting visas allowing American intelligence officers to operate in Pakistan, and have threatened to put greater restrictions on the drone flights.

It is the future of the drone program that is a particular worry for the C.I.A. American officials said that during his meetings in Pakistan last week, Mr. Panetta was particularly forceful about trying to get Pakistani officials to allow armed drones to fly over even wider areas in the northwest tribal regions. But the C.I.A. is already preparing for the worst: relocating some of the drones from Pakistan to a base in Afghanistan, where they can take off and fly east across the mountains and into the tribal areas, where terrorist groups find safe haven.

Another casualty of the recent tension is an ambitious Pentagon program to train Pakistani paramilitary troops to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban in those same tribal areas. That program has ended, both American and Pakistani officials acknowledge, and the last of about 120 American military advisers have left the country.

American officials are now scrambling to find temporary jobs for about 50 Special Forces support personnel who had been helping the trainers with logistics and communications. Their visas were difficult to obtain and officials fear if these troops are sent home, Pakistan will not allow them to return.

In a sign of the growing anger on Capitol Hill, Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who leads the House Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday that he believed elements of the ISI and the military had helped protect Bin Laden.

Mr. Rogers, who met with senior security officials in Pakistan last week, said he had no evidence that senior Pakistani military or civilian leaders were complicit in sheltering Bin Laden. And he did not offer any proof to support his assertion, saying only his accusation was based on “information that I’ve seen.”

Story: Pakistan detains ex-navy personnel after raid
He warned that both lawmakers and the Obama administration could end up putting more restrictions on the $2 billion in American military aid received annually by Pakistan. He also called for “benchmarks” in the relationship, including more sharing of information about militant activities in Karachi, Lahore and elsewhere and more American access to militants detained in Pakistan.

Taliban fight
American military commanders in Afghanistan appear cautiously optimistic that they are making progress in pushing the Taliban from its strongholds in that country’s south, but many say a significant American military withdrawal can occur only if the warring sides in Afghanistan broker some kind of peace deal.

But the United States is reliant on Pakistan to apply pressure on Taliban leaders, over whom they have historically had great influence.

For now, at least, America’s relationship with Pakistan keeps getting tripped up. When he visited Pakistan, Mr. Panetta offered evidence of collusion between Pakistani security officials and the militants staging attacks in Afghanistan.

Story: Work to foil Kabul attacks starts far from capital
American officials said Mr. Panetta presented satellite photographs of two bomb-making factories that American spies several weeks ago had asked the ISI to raid. When Pakistani troops showed up days later, the militants were gone, causing American officials to question whether the militants had been warned by someone on the Pakistani side.

Shortly after the failed raids, the Defense Department put a hold on a $300 million payment reimbursing Pakistan for the cost of deploying more than 100,000 troops along the border with Afghanistan, two officials said. The Pentagon declined to comment on the payment, except to say it was “continuing to process several claims.”

This article, "Pakistan arrests C.I.A. informants in bin Laden raid," first appeared in The New York Times.

[Value Buy]

The US also told Pakistan to raid a ied bomb making factory that was exporting the explosives to Afghanistan to kill our troops. Pakistan "waited" a couple of days, and then the building was empty, when raided.

I think it is time for the President to tell them, they are either with us, or they, are the enemy.....

[billisonboard]

Jun 15, 2011 19:58:09 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

...

I think it is time for the President to tell them, they are either with us, or they, are the enemy.....

And then?

[Deleted]

And Obama thinks Pakistan is our partner

President Obama is a goody two shoes boy scout that hasn't got a clue. He thinks everybody is our friend (unless he has bombed them). I would have put or invaded their country but we have done that to Pakistan, haven't we?

The goody two shoes boy scout is just goody two with the old saying boy scout. I just wanted to make it clear that I hold boy scouts in higher regard than President Obama.

[Deleted]

Thx, tex. 2 of my boys were Eagle scouts, and they have integrity.

[safeharbor37]

— instead of hunting down the support network that allowed Bin Laden to live comfortably for years, the Pakistani authorities are arresting those who assisted in the raid that killed the world’s most wanted man.

Did it ever occur to anyone that Pakistani authorities are doing this because they don't want to get murdered. The US has good relations with most Middle-Eastern governments. It is the radical groups and Muslim extremists who are the enemy.
Governments in majority Muslim countries respond to Islamists in their midst in order to survive. The only exception to this is Iran where radical Islam in in charge of the government.
It is politically incorrect to say that Islam is the problem rather than the governments, but, in terms of the terrorist problem, that is the truth.

[NoMoreLunacy]

I am sure if Pakistan came into the USA without authorization from the US military and took out a CIA spy protected by the US govt USA would say nothing except congratulate Pakistan.

Incidentally, Pakistan was made an ally in 1989 by Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. did plenty of Pakistan coddling as well. Where were the conservatives then?

[Deleted]

Incidentally, Pakistan was made an ally in 1989 by Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. did plenty of Pakistan coddling as well. Where were the conservatives then?

I get the impression that our country is a lot different than other countries. First off every time one of our officials does anything it's all over the news. Second off the President sets the rules for his staff & they follow them or get fired (or quit).

Now I don't know but I doubt that Pakistan is that open (like us). I've got a feeling that there's not as much visibility to lower level (not the president) people & their actions. I also think that there is a lot of graft that goes on. So even if the President of Pakistan was 100% with us (& I'm sure he isn't NOW) that doesn't mean that lower levels of government are with us or that the president of Pakistan knows what was going on.

Then there's the fact that we tend to buy our friends overseas. The problems then come up that someone else could buy them (cause they are for sale) & we generally pick friends that are either terrorist, crooks, or both.

Of course for all we know President Obama had already offended the leader of Pakistan because we know they had a lot of contact long before we raided their country. Any good will from either of the Bush Presidents could have been gone long before this. After all President Obama has a history of putting his foot in his mouth & pissing on our friends. We will probably never know what really happened though & so it's just speculation for now.

[reasonfreedom]

Jun 15, 2011 20:33:41 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 15, 2011 19:58:09 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

...

I think it is time for the President to tell them, they are either with us, or they, are the enemy.....

And then?

HUG OR BOOM?

[Value Buy]

Jun 16, 2011 15:21:23 GMT -5 reasonfreedom said:

Jun 15, 2011 20:33:41 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

And then?

HUG OR BOOM?

Well Obama has no problem attacking Yemen and Libya, so.......
Talk to India about massing a few hundred thousand troops on Pakistan's eastern border and that will send a message to Pakistan real quick.

[NoMoreLunacy]

Jun 16, 2011 14:39:10 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

Incidentally, Pakistan was made an ally in 1989 by Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. did plenty of Pakistan coddling as well. Where were the conservatives then?

I get the impression that our country is a lot different than other countries. First off every time one of our officials does anything it's all over the news. Second off the President sets the rules for his staff & they follow them or get fired (or quit).

Now I don't know but I doubt that Pakistan is that open (like us). I've got a feeling that there's not as much visibility to lower level (not the president) people & their actions. I also think that there is a lot of graft that goes on. So even if the President of Pakistan was 100% with us (& I'm sure he isn't NOW) that doesn't mean that lower levels of government are with us or that the president of Pakistan knows what was going on.

Then there's the fact that we tend to buy our friends overseas. The problems then come up that someone else could buy them (cause they are for sale) & we generally pick friends that are either terrorist, crooks, or both.

Of course for all we know President Obama had already offended the leader of Pakistan because we know they had a lot of contact long before we raided their country. Any good will from either of the Bush Presidents could have been gone long before this. After all President Obama has a history of putting his foot in his mouth & pissing on our friends. We will probably never know what really happened though & so it's just speculation for now.

Who do you think went the route of buying Pakistan, and more specifically the military dictator of Pakistan, Zia-ul-Haq, in 1989? Bush I, that's who. Zia was hated in Pakistan. USA, for all its BS about supporting freedom, just went with Zia, as it was far harder to get the support of India, the dominant power in South Asia. Why was that? Well, India told the USA that while USA's self interest is important to the USA, India's self-interest is more important to India, and as a democratic country if the USA wants to play with another democratic country, India, it has to compromise and not dictate. USA didn't like it, went next door to Pakistan, bought Zia, and the rest is history. Pakistan went down the tubes as Zia ruthlessly ruined the country using US Dollars. So the people in Pakistan hated the USA, because they hated Zia. And now USA is surprised?

[deziloooooo]

Here is a think piece from a Lebanese news source that is interesting regarding Us/Pakistan relationships, putting it up as a marriage with problems and when that happens, some times best for both partners to step back, go for separate walks around the block to cool down before coming back together..as both parties have a lot at steak, especially if the desire is to not call it quits and go off on their own.
-------------------------------------------------------

What also is interesting, is that to go to normal US media sites..very hard to find such "think "pieces on these type of subjects and these parts of the world..at least for me, thus the scrounging around in of all places, Lebanon's news media..and this author has no Axe to grind with both parties..just his thoughts about what has happened.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Columnist/2011/Jun-18/The-affair-ends-for-the-US-and-Pakistani-militaries.ashx#axzz1PZnDPgTR
-------------------------------------------------
Columnist

The affair ends for the U.S. and Pakistani militaries

June 18, 2011 12:00 AM

The Daily Star

"It’s always painful to watch a love affair go sour, as the unrealistic expectations and secret betrayals come crashing down in a chorus of recrimination.

That’s what’s happening now between the United States and Pakistan, and it has a soap-operatic quality, in Washington and Islamabad alike. “How could they treat us so badly?” is the tone of political debate in both capitals.

If this were a feuding couple, you’d counsel a cooling-off period, as they recover their wounded pride and balance. And that’s probably the right advice for America and Pakistan, too. These two countries have been bitterly disappointed in the relationship – with each seemingly incapable of understanding what upsets the other – but they have overriding common interests, too.

“There are points of friction, but there is no breakdown,” says Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington who has worked hard to avert a crackup, even when that has meant challenging his own military. Most senior U.S. policymakers would agree with his assessment.

After the cooling-off period, the relationship will be different – with a greater show of respect for Pakistani independence. That’s a good thing, even from the standpoint of U.S. interests. The old embrace had become suffocating, with the Pakistani military looking to its public like a lackey of the United States. This was producing growing national shame and indignation, similar to the anger that toppled Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak.

When looking at recent events in Pakistan, it’s important to remind yourself of some basic realities: It’s not surprising that the Pakistanis arrested people suspected as CIA informants on the Osama bin Laden raid and other operations. Working with a foreign intelligence service is a no-no in any country. Just ask Jonathan Pollard, who spied for Israel and is still in a U.S. prison more than two decades later. I’m told that four of the five informants arrested in Pakistan have now been released.

It’s not bad that Pakistani corps commanders (and some leading Pakistani journalists and politicians) are questioning the army chief of staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. This dissent frightens Americans who worry about proto-jihadists in the army, but that fear is overdone. Pushback against the military leadership is healthy, and Pakistan needs more of it, not less.

And it’s not wrong for Pakistanis to bristle over what they see as threats to their sovereignty. In any nation, the military is a symbol of independence and pride. When sovereignty is seen to be compromised – as by the raid on bin Laden’s compound and regular Predator drone attacks – people get upset. The U.S. should continue to take unilateral military action against threats. But secrecy in such matters is important to avoid humiliating our partner.

What should we expect from the “odd couple,” going forward?

First, the two countries this month created what they’re calling a “joint counterterrorism task force” to oversee operations. One goal will be quicker action to avoid tipping off the enemy – as seemed to happen between the May 19 delivery of CIA intelligence about two Taliban bomb factories in the tribal areas and the June 4 Pakistani assault. This joint group is intended to satisfy Pakistani demands that the U.S. curb its unilateral intelligence operations.

Second, the Pakistanis plan to end the CIA’s use of the Shamsi air base in southwest Pakistan as a staging area for Predator drone attacks. But they can’t (and won’t) stop Predator missions that originate in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the U.S. will keep supplying F-16s and may replace two P-3 Orion surveillance planes destroyed in a terrorist attack in Karachi last month.

Third, Pakistani cooperation with U.S. Special Forces will continue but on a less visible scale. The Pakistanis will take over what had been a joint training mission for the Frontier Corps at Warsak, northwest of Peshawar. But over the next few months, the overall U.S. Special Forces presence will probably return to roughly what it was before the recent flap.

Fourth, the U.S. will consult Pakistan as it seeks a political settlement in Afghanistan. A team working for Marc Grossman, the U.S. special representative overseeing those negotiations, recently visited Islamabad to brief officials there.

These arrangements aren’t ideal from the U.S. standpoint, but they should allow continued cooperation against a terrorist adversary that threatens both countries. And over the long run, this new framework is better than a domineering U.S. approach that has the effect of blowing up Pakistan."

David Ignatius is published twice weekly by THE DAILY STAR

[NoMoreLunacy]

Why can't Pakistan just do what the USA tells it to do? Why doesn't it understand that such is in the best interest of the USA? Shouldn't the whole world always do what is in the best interest of the USA?

[deziloooooo]

Jun 17, 2011 20:00:28 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

Why can't Pakistan just do what the USA tells it to do? Why doesn't it understand that such is in the best interest of the USA? Shouldn't the whole world always do what is in the best interest of the USA?

wouldn't that be neat if they did..in fact if all nations did...oh yeah... ;D

[NoMoreLunacy]

Jun 17, 2011 22:42:41 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Jun 17, 2011 20:00:28 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

Why can't Pakistan just do what the USA tells it to do? Why doesn't it understand that such is in the best interest of the USA? Shouldn't the whole world always do what is in the best interest of the USA?

wouldn't that be neat if they did..in fact if all nations did...oh yeah... ;D

Gotta be a law against other nations acting in their own self-interest.

[deziloooooo]

Jun 17, 2011 23:00:32 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

Jun 17, 2011 22:42:41 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

wouldn't that be neat if they did..in fact if all nations did...oh yeah... ;D

Gotta be a law against other nations acting in their own self-interest.

[NoMoreLunacy]

Actually the law should exclude Israel. They should fell free to act in their own self-interest. All other countries should act in US self-interest.

[cme1201]

Jun 17, 2011 23:00:32 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

Jun 17, 2011 22:42:41 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

wouldn't that be neat if they did..in fact if all nations did...oh yeah... ;D

Gotta be a law against other nations acting in their own self-interest.

And yet you choose to piss and moan because Irrael dos not follow Jus soli, dening birthright citizen ship to palestinians simply because they are born there.

Oh I guess you are being facious, posting only one liner responses that have zero merit.

[NoMoreLunacy]

Jun 18, 2011 7:04:03 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Jun 17, 2011 23:00:32 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

Gotta be a law against other nations acting in their own self-interest.

And yet you choose to piss and moan because Irrael dos not follow Jus soli, dening birthright citizen ship to palestinians simply because they are born there.

Oh I guess you are being facious, posting only one liner responses that have zero merit.

Nope, I piss and moan because Israel is committing genocide, practicing apartheid, and colonizing Palestinians.