Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Bush Secret Order To Send Special Forces Into Pakistan
Fear of escalating regional conflict
A secret order issued by George Bush giving US special forces carte blanche to mount counter-terrorist operations inside Pakistani territory raised fears last night that escalating conflict was spreading from Afghanistan to Pakistan and could ignite a region-wide war.
An observation post sits in the mountains over looking Speray on one side, and the Pakistan border on the other. (Photograph: John D McHugh) The unprecedented executive order, signed by Bush in July
after an intense internal administration debate, comes amid western
concern that the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and its
al-Qaida backers based in "safe havens" in western Pakistan's tribal
belt is being lost.
Following Bush's decision, US navy Seals commandos, backed by attack helicopters, launched a ground raid into Pakistan last week which the US claimed killed about two dozen insurgents. Pakistani officials condemned the raid as illegal and said most of the dead were civilians. US and Nato commanders are anxious to halt infiltration across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border of insurgents and weapons blamed for casualties among coalition troops. The killing of a US soldier in eastern Afghanistan yesterday brought American losses in 2008 to 112, the deadliest year since the 2001 intervention. The move is regarded as unprecedented in terms of sending troops into a friendly, allied country.
But another American objective is the capture of Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaida leader held responsible for organising the 9/11 attacks. He and his second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are thought to be hiding in the tribal areas of north and south Waziristan.
Bush's decision to extend the war into Pakistan, and his apparent hope of British backing, formed the background to a video conference call with Gordon Brown yesterday. "What's happening on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan is something where we need to develop a new strategy," Brown said before talking to Bush.
Brown said he would discuss the border issue with Pakistan's new president, Asif Ali Zardari, who visits Britain next week.
Bush's unusual move in personally calling the prime minister for an Afghan strategy discussion has led to speculation that the US president was trying to line up British support for the new policy, including the possible involvement of British special forces in future cross-border incursions.
Bush's executive order is certain to cause strains with some Nato allies fearful that a spreading conflict could bring down Pakistan's weak civilian government and spark a wider war. Last night there were indications of open disagreement.
James Appathurai, a Nato spokesman, said the alliance did not support cross-border attacks or deeper incursions in to Pakistani territory.
"The Nato policy, that is our mandate, ends at the border. There are no ground or air incursions by Nato forces into Pakistani territory," he said.
Nato has 53,000 troops in Afghanistan, some of which are American. But the US maintains a separate combat force dedicated to battling al-Qaida and counter-terrorism in general. Nato defence ministers are due to discuss Afghanistan in London next week.
Last week's raid, and a subsequent attack on Monday by a Predator drone firing Hellfire missiles, provoked protests across the board in Pakistan, with only Zardari among leading politicians refusing to publicly condemn it.
Pakistan's armed forces chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, said the army would defend the country's sovereignty "at all costs". He went on: "No external force is allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistan."
He denied there was any agreement or understanding to the contrary. His comments were widely interpreted as a warning to Zardari not to submit to the American importunity. But his tough words also raised the prospect of clashes between US and Pakistani forces if American military incursions continue or escalate.
Until now, Washington has regarded Pakistan as a staunch ally in the "war on terror" that was launched in 2001. But the alliance has been weakened by last month's forced resignation of the army strongman, former general Pervez Musharraf, and his replacement by Zardari, Benazir Bhutto's widower.
Polls suggest most Pakistanis favour ending all counter-terrorism cooperation with Washington, which is blamed for a rising civilian casualty toll in Afghanistan and in the tribal areas.
Yousaf Raza Gilani, Pakistan's prime minister, joined the chorus of condemnation yesterday. He reportedly told state media Kayani's warning that unilateral US actions were undermining the fight against Islamist extremism represented the government's position.
Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs, and Robert Gates, defence secretary, told Congress this week that victory in Afghanistan was by no means certain and the US needed to take the fight to the enemy inside Pakistan.
Mullen called for a "more comprehensive strategy" embracing both sides of the border. "Until we work more closely with the Pakistani government to eliminate the safe havens from which they operate, the enemy will only keep coming," he said.
US and Pakistani forces have clashed by accident in the past during operations to root out militants, although sections of the Pakistani military and intelligence services are said to harbour deep resentment about perceived American interference.
- Posted in
34 Comments so far
Show AllOh good...let's invade another country. And what's Pakistan going to do about it? If Mexico sent Special Forces into Texas the US would rightly view it as an act of war.
These Bushies are just like a barrel of monkeys. All fun, fun, fun.
This means the US has declared war - pre-emptive war - on Pakistan. No?
The Pakistani Army has been given orders to retaliate against any unilateral strike by the Afghanistan-based US troops inside the country.
How does a nuclear armed country 'retaliate' against a more powerful army? Go for the head-of-state maybe...
They're trying to preemptively do what Obama has suggested-- his most misguided suggestion ("Find bin Laden's cave"-- as if eliminating one more terrorist would make any difference at this point). It's a grand chess game played by idiots.
"It's a grand chess game played by idiots."
True, but then again, so is life in general. So, the thing to do is to support the idiot who is closest to our ideals and who has a chance of winning. In that way, we become less like idiots.
"Perhaps the universe is nothing but an equilibrium of idiocies." -- George Santayana.
Actually the US government’s lawyers are claiming that the congressional authorization (2002?) to attack “terrorists” wherever Bush imagines them to be, in Iraq or elsewhere, gave him carte blanche to make war everywhere.
Obama is already onside with this, read his recent speeches on attacking the newly democratic Pakistan.
If the senator or anyone else in congress were, on the other hand, against this “secret” invasion, now would be the time to speak up…Is that crickets I hear chirping?
Arguably, the US has defacto declared war on the entire world.
Of course.
Please say THANK YOU to all the Dems who voted for this. Heck, that even includes Kucinich. Barbara Lee was the only NO vote.
Thanks DEMS!!!!!!
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
So... What happens when units of the Pak military catch these us troops inside their country and fire upon them?
Ya see, Pakistan is a part of the British Commonwealth. That's not a formal military alliance, but the Pak's did send people to defend the mother country in two major wars in the last century. Britain would have more of an obligation to come to Pakistan's defence than it does to ally itself with the usa's wars of terror. So too do the other members of the commonwealth - Canada, Australia, NZ even India - after all, having sent troops to defend England in 1914 and again in 1939, most of us would like to think we'd stand together against a common foe who invaded us.
Yah, I know the empire is long gone and has few teeth left. But I don't like, nor do I accept, that the usa has the right to attack anyone at anytime. Leash the dogs of war, you were fools to let them slip off.
If we have a war with Pakistan, watch what happens to us with hurricane Ike and imagine that all over the U.S. War IS hell.
Pakistan has 50 atomic weapons. What could happen?
Well, a Pakistani general could get disgruntled enough to give one of the a-bombs away to Al-Qaeda.
Pakistan could defend itself from the United States armed forces. A firefight could erupt. Pakistan could pick up a wounded US soldier. Or both sides could escalate the firefight.
We could throw Pakistan's election. If someone invaded the U.S. with a brigade of clandestine soldiers it could affect our elections.
Then what?
The U.S. checks containers coming in at ports for radiation, but it doesn't check boats or pleasure craft just steaming into the harbors. Also, the U.S. has allies with lots of unguarded industrial space, and lots of foreign military bases.
Bushie is home free, because no action could escalate to a disaster in 7 weeks.
I see that the American Government has joined forces with the Somali pirates.
More Conservative Christian Family Values I suppose, yo ho ho!
"The US has offered USD 7m to the pirates, who hijacked an Iranian ship in the Gulf of Aden, to receive entry permission and search the vessel. The US the naval fleet off the Somali coast alleges that The Iran Diyanat was carrying 'uranium and chemical weapons'."
Egad! Not another Niger WMD scam - where's Joe Wilson?
The USA has shown itself to be a rogue nation, dangerous and untrustworthy, hypocritical and self righteous. Aside from the inability to keep their promises, i.e. treaties, they have degenerated to the level (very low level) of the point that they not only will allow a war criminal to continue in office long after his lies have been uncovered they are willing to even nominate another war criminal for the highest office, and bring along with him another fool "waiting for Jesus to return"----this time though, it's a "she fool"....
The USA "makes friends easily", but turn on them with such regularity that one never knows what they will do next.
They go to insane proportions to "protect life while it is in the whom", but consider the innocent lives they kill in their wars to be "collateral damage", and "unfortunately, unavoidable". And if the 'savior soon to come" is not named "Jesus", they look for the "savior" in others with the name of "Ralf" or "Barack", or "Hillary" or even "your neighbor"---"for the Lord works in mysterious ways"-------------------
The list of contradictions could go on much longer than I am willing to go in relaying them.
Perhaps we are seeing the "begining of the end" of the USA. The world at large, and the many innocent lives in any location of the globe one might choose will have a safer, and more healthy place to live when the "Worlds most dangerous rogue nation is dissolved", or a least disarmed and disregarded as a threat.
The USA needs to make major reforms immediately or the world will see that they are placed in the historical text as an everlasting "negative example" to those who study history in the future.
On a personal note, one taken from my own observations and those of so many Native Americans, I do not believe that the USA has enough "good people" in power to make those needed reforms. The current power structure is occupied by what may be revealed later as the most corrupt criminal element in the corrupt US History, as well as the least intelligent. The entire system is and always has been corrupt. The American people as a whole do not seem to have the courage or the integrity to make the needed changes, and since "Jesus" ain't coming back to save any body"; the USA is most likely living on borrowed time, with the due date open-------- but closing fast.
In the end, there will be no one to fault but themselves.
Are you willing to read history?
Find "Operation Cyclone" We, the United States, recruited with the ISI of Pakistan 100,000 Islamic Militants to fight a "Holy War" against the Soviet Union. The Saudis and the Americans put in, at least, 6 billion dollars. The recruits were trained in the states and in camps throughout Pakistan. Pervez Musharraf was very helpful in maintaing this army throughout the 80´s and 90´s and the same army was used to install the Talibans in power in Afghanistan during the 90´s and also helped in Kosovo........
Oh, Milton Bearden, a Director within the CIA, had stated that the U.S. used another man, Osama Bin Laden, to bring in 20 to 25 million dollars a month from other Arab countries. The Sudanese were willing to give him up in the 90´s but the U.S. refused, there were the Talibans to help......The Talibans had offerred up Bin Laden if the U.S. could prove that he was responsible for the 9/11 and the FBI could not prove it.
When the Talibans decided to give the Oil Pipeline contract to Bridas Oil Company of Argentina, Unocal Oil Company cried "Foul" and went to the U.S. Congress....In 1997 a plan to invade Afghanistan was made by the Neo-Conservatives. All they needed was a catastrophic attack to implement their plans.
My,my... rumors were that General Asij (Sp) was in Washington D.C. to collect an extra $100,000 to pass on to his agent Mohammed Atta ("The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Commission" by Philip Shenon) and a Saudi Spy was passing money from the Saudi Royal Family to two of the Saudi Hijackers who were rooming with an FBI Informant (The Shenon book)..........The two countries that should have been attacked were Pakistan and Saudi Arabia not Afghanistan and Iraq.
I see, the whole problem with the wars and indiscriminate slaughter, is that the USA has attacked and invaded and occupied the wrong countries. The wrong innocent civilian are being killed. Looks like the governmemt is on its way to correcting at least one of these oversights.
There are 'good people in power'? Where? Who?
I know of a few powerless, low-ranking, back-bencher Dems who I'd call 'good people'. But no one currently anywhere close to power is what I would call 'good people'.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Is The BS administration trying to kill us all? does he want world war 3 to be part of his beautiful legacy?
Without oil, our army is kaput. And so are ruling war profiteer corporations.
THIS IS SO HEINOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So this is different than the Russians going into Georgia how!
How is Hitler different from Bush both have expansion plans and killed a lot of people.
The only difference is Hitler killed Jews and Bush killed muslims.
We all know in the American eyes the life of a muslim has no value there are 1.1 billion muslims in the world so what if he kills a few million. In his eyes its service to God
I hope the world wakes up from the coma of 9/11 before its too late or is it already too late
Another impeachable offence. Are you listening Pelosi??? Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!.
What a friggin farce....
What's it going to take to hang this SOB in the streets? In ANY third world country, he would have been hung 7 years ago!
Fuck those Pakis just who the hell do they think they're messing with - some third world banana republic or WHAT ?
Those fuckin' Pakis must be punished just for having the gall to remove america's dictator-general-du-jour-en-Pakistan and then they must be further punished for allowing the person elected to take office.
Add in the re-enstatement of 3 of the recently deposed members of the judicuary and one may get the idea that those ungrateful Pakis may want to run their own affairs.
Well fuck them and they will soon realize that the only good Paki is a very dead Paki and we all win by killin' 'em before they are able to walk.
Fuck the special forces send in the MARINES or better still blackwater. Those guys play for keeps and right now there are more blackwater killers than there are MARINES available for killin'.
Time to stop pussy-footin' around. Time to bring down the hammer. Who needs an american coup when it is far better to set the world aflame, sit back and watch some good olde football while counting the profits garnered from the bodies sacked high enough to blot out the horizon.
Just another great day in america.
"Fascism Is Soley A Human Disease"
While Bush Co. is fomenting yet another war now in Pakistan, this complicit corporate media has the American people pre-occupied with the destruction of hurricane Ike, and with the Obama and McCain saga.
Hey, what's another war? The sheep don't recognize hegemony and the horrid game being played of protecting the Caspian oil pipelines.
How are the sheep going to shop & spend if there's no oil?
I love this web site.
Hey , get off King Georges back, God told him to what to do and when, Havn't you guys been listnig to Sara Palin, its all part of the plan, until the world ends 2012.
Well,sooner than 2012 if Mccain/Palin get elected, she thinks we should fight Russia.
Let God release all the Nukes at the same time, to put us all out of our misery in one glorius act of mercy.
Any more of our status quo with this arrogant bunch and we will all commit suiside or want the nukes to fly.I pray for the safe return of all our troops.
BornFreeMen
While you bash the Republicans, you do know that this is exactly the policy that Obama has advocated for close to a year now?
And that, on a secret order like this, Bush has two brief the eight leaders of Congress ... the party leaders and the intel committee leaders from both parties.
Have you heard Pelosi, Reid, Harmon or Rockefeller making any statements saying we shouldn't be doing this? They don't have to give away the secrets. But they would be in a fine position to talk generally about the folly of expanding this war into what has been an ally up till now if they were not in complete agreement.
The problem is, we still get the same status quo if we elect Democrats.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Samson, I love your quote. I gave it to my 12th grade class this week. You don't give any attribution so I didn't either.
yeah, it almost seems like Bush is doing everything Obama said he was going to do. If so, maybe the puppet masters will decide they won't need Obama after all. I mean, Iran (discussions), Iraq (time table), Georgia (Brzezinski and Soros pet project, both backing Obama), Pakistan. Either that or they see no need to wait for elections and lose time. The deadline is Dec 21, 2012, thats the end of the Mayan calender and deadline for One World Government.
Look whats going on in Pakistan. First we weaken Mush and assassinate Bhutto, setting the stage for Bushs buddy Mushs exit over threats of impeachment (well done Mush, time to retire as a reward), and Bhuttos husband is now President. Democracy restored. Our strikes now are destabilizing Pakistan. Democracy in danger in Pakistan. We will then rush in the defend Democracy (LOL) if the military and ISI try a coup. Now we have radical forces in Pakistan with access to nuclear weapons, and voila, a bonafide nuclear terrorism threat. Hey, maybe those who did 9/11 will even nuke a US city (read Nelson Demilles book, can't remeber the name, maybe Wildfire, about right wingers who plan to nuke US cities to justify a nuke attack on the ME) to give us an excuse to nuke Pakistan and Iran (since Iran would have been involved, we would have "evidence").
"On a personal note, one taken from my own observations and those of so many Native Americans"...
Ha.
Bush's secret order is what? Another of his MANY criminal acts. As someone already posted here, the U.S. and/or NATO being responsible for unauthorized incursions into Pakistan is an act of war; only, whether or not it'll be treated that way depends on the Pakistani govt's leadership. For the rest of us, however, we can see it for simply what it [is], an act of war.
Same thing was done to Haiti in Feb. 2004, and ever since; just that the Haitians and their govt didn't have anywhere near the means and training for a war against far more powerful foreign aggressors, while the tribal populations of Pakistan and Afghanistan [do] possess the needed means and training, for fighting in their sort of terrain anyway. The terrain is more favourable for them to resist foreigners' incursions than what can be said about Haiti, likely [much] of which is easy targetting grounds for the U.S. and its allies.
From what little I've read about it, the terrain in Pakistan and Afghanistan is very mountainous and very rugged, etc., no topography any sane, witted, ... foreign troops would ever want to contend with; most of them would not want to go there even for vacation trekking. The US and NATO could certainly kill more people there, but couldn't win even this super-hi-tech war (of aggression) of theirs there; and they're losing the war in and on Afghanistan, already, anyway.
Just read a headline or at least link to a news article and it's about more U.S. troops having been killed in Afghanistan this year than in any prior year in this war there, as well as the rate being higher than it's ever been for U.S. troops in the present war on Iraq. I forget which of the websites I visited tonight or last night, really (it's 7:30am here now), that had this article, but expect it'll be information that gets around shortly enough to plenty of websites.
Another related article is about USN Admiral Mullen being apparently very worried about the war on Afghanistan, officially said to be against the Taliban, but really on the whole country (and more, broader, ultimately anyway). He's worried about the U.S. and NATO failing there.
It's not a morally respectable concern that he has, for it's a totally criminal war of aggression throughout and must be ended and reparations provided asap! But, his worry is still receivable as good news, especially if the Bush adm. continues to worry him as they're doing; they more they worry the U.S. military chiefs the BETTER, imo. He's all gun-ho, including for incusions into Pakistan and likely without first obtaining authorization from the Pakistani govt; but he's at least worried about the U.S. and NATO having well commenced to demonstrate losing a war of aggression that they started and based on lies, distortions, etcetera, plenty more toxic political (and corporatist) bs.
Mullen and his ilk(s) should carefully learn from former USMC Major General Smedley Butler's book; [WAR IS A RACKET]. FOOLS! Maybe they're not all fools, perhaps they are criminally complicit and fully aware of it, which definitely is a faux and faut pas matter; in this case, extremely criminal. But if they're not going to be able to learn from sanity and 34 years of experience, then we should hope for Bush et al to worry U.S. and NATO military commanders as much as humanly possible; the more-so the BETTER! Worry them until they have nervous breakdowns and become incapable of continuing military service; I'll accept! We need them to lose or else (and better) stop these wars one way or another, any reason will do! I won't be fussy about the reason as long as these wars end and asap; even a less, rather than the most, ideal reason would suffice.
Some people have already posted in this page and about Obama being very, if not fully, in favour of expanding, worsening, ... the war on Afghanistan and tribal areas of Pakistan used by the Taliban, and it's true. It's been well reported that Obama has recently spoken in terms that make it very, very clear, i.e., obvious, how extremely militarist, pro-US and Western hegemony, corporatist, etc. That 'etc.' includes Obama clearly having never cared to pay any careful attention to the irrefutable fact that the Bush administration's "official story" on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the USA is extremely bogus accounting. He doesn't care to make sure to investigate the initial cause of the GWoT and which is the Bush administration's LIES, distortions, ... etcetera.
Obama's made it unquestionably clear that he's very militarist. He refuses to consider that the war on afghanistan is wholly criminal, unjustifiable from the start, or pre-start (for the official start anyway; given it really started before what the official date is stated to be by the Bush admin.).
Isn't there an existing precedent for sending in troops to an allied country without asking for permission? Remember troops in New Orleans after Katrina?
saturnalia -- "Britain would have more of an obligation to come to Pakistan's defence than it does to ally itself with the usa's wars of terror. So too do the other members of the commonwealth - Canada, Australia, NZ even India "
Wow ! This gem passes off as analysis here on CD.
Maybe bush can build an Afganistan/Pakistan border fence? doh!
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats