

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"The deaths of three American soldiers in a Taliban suicide attack on Wednesday lifted the veil on United States military assistance to Pakistan." So began a Feb 4th piece by Jane Perlez in the New York Times.
But even all these days on, it's been a very discreet unveiling.
"The deaths of three American soldiers in a Taliban suicide attack on Wednesday lifted the veil on United States military assistance to Pakistan." So began a Feb 4th piece by Jane Perlez in the New York Times.
But even all these days on, it's been a very discreet unveiling.
Lest we forget, US servicepeople are not supposed to be dying in Pakistan. It's not Iraq, it's not Afghanistan. There's no agreement for combat troops to operate. Until recently, U.S. officials have repeatedly officially denied having any combat troops in place. This month's killing exposed that lie -- so what were the US troops doing there?
What we've learned so far is the soldiers were part of what federal officials say is a small contingent of American soldiers who've been training Pakistan's army for 18 months now.
As the Times puts it, "the trainings has been acknowledged only gingerly by both the Americans and the Pakistanis.....so as not to trespass onto Pakistani sensitivities about sovereignty and not to further inflame high anti-American sentiment."
For a taste of that gingerly-acknowledging, read the Times story. In more than 1, 000 words Perlez quotes roughly a dozen sources, all but two of them US officials, or Pakistanis working implicitly or explicitly with the US embassy. Of two non-official sources, one makes the obvious point:
The American soldiers were probably made targets as a result of the drone strikes, said Syed Rifaat Hussain, professor of international relations at Islamabad University. "The attack seems a payback for the mounting frequency of the drone attacks," Professor Hussain said.
It's an obvious point because the Pakistani press and local activists have been making it loudly, n the press and in street protests for months now. In the same week that Perlez's piece appeared, the country's English daily, The News, ran a long editorial on the rapid increase in US drone attacks, making the point that roughly 41 civilians have been killed for every alleged Al Qaeda or Taliban target.
The Taliban's rewarding its fighters with new cars when they bring down US drones -- "The shooting down of the drone has lifted the morale of our fighters. It's a huge success for the poorly armed Taliban against a powerful enemy," remarked a senior Taliban commander, at the car-award ceremony.
Among the Pakistani public, surveys constantly show that Pakistanis consider the US a greater threat than the Taliban, despite 3,021 Pakistani deaths in terrorist attacks last year. If the drones are controversial, the presence of US soldiers on Pakistani soil is far more so.
If the US war is quietly shifting, it's not quiet inside Pakistan. People are kicking up a stink. Yet Perlez's piece, which is bylined Islamabad, reads more like an Embassy hand-out than a Pulitzer Prize-winner's research. Times readers get only the barest whiff of local reaction, and that may be the most dangerous strike yet.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
"The deaths of three American soldiers in a Taliban suicide attack on Wednesday lifted the veil on United States military assistance to Pakistan." So began a Feb 4th piece by Jane Perlez in the New York Times.
But even all these days on, it's been a very discreet unveiling.
Lest we forget, US servicepeople are not supposed to be dying in Pakistan. It's not Iraq, it's not Afghanistan. There's no agreement for combat troops to operate. Until recently, U.S. officials have repeatedly officially denied having any combat troops in place. This month's killing exposed that lie -- so what were the US troops doing there?
What we've learned so far is the soldiers were part of what federal officials say is a small contingent of American soldiers who've been training Pakistan's army for 18 months now.
As the Times puts it, "the trainings has been acknowledged only gingerly by both the Americans and the Pakistanis.....so as not to trespass onto Pakistani sensitivities about sovereignty and not to further inflame high anti-American sentiment."
For a taste of that gingerly-acknowledging, read the Times story. In more than 1, 000 words Perlez quotes roughly a dozen sources, all but two of them US officials, or Pakistanis working implicitly or explicitly with the US embassy. Of two non-official sources, one makes the obvious point:
The American soldiers were probably made targets as a result of the drone strikes, said Syed Rifaat Hussain, professor of international relations at Islamabad University. "The attack seems a payback for the mounting frequency of the drone attacks," Professor Hussain said.
It's an obvious point because the Pakistani press and local activists have been making it loudly, n the press and in street protests for months now. In the same week that Perlez's piece appeared, the country's English daily, The News, ran a long editorial on the rapid increase in US drone attacks, making the point that roughly 41 civilians have been killed for every alleged Al Qaeda or Taliban target.
The Taliban's rewarding its fighters with new cars when they bring down US drones -- "The shooting down of the drone has lifted the morale of our fighters. It's a huge success for the poorly armed Taliban against a powerful enemy," remarked a senior Taliban commander, at the car-award ceremony.
Among the Pakistani public, surveys constantly show that Pakistanis consider the US a greater threat than the Taliban, despite 3,021 Pakistani deaths in terrorist attacks last year. If the drones are controversial, the presence of US soldiers on Pakistani soil is far more so.
If the US war is quietly shifting, it's not quiet inside Pakistan. People are kicking up a stink. Yet Perlez's piece, which is bylined Islamabad, reads more like an Embassy hand-out than a Pulitzer Prize-winner's research. Times readers get only the barest whiff of local reaction, and that may be the most dangerous strike yet.
"The deaths of three American soldiers in a Taliban suicide attack on Wednesday lifted the veil on United States military assistance to Pakistan." So began a Feb 4th piece by Jane Perlez in the New York Times.
But even all these days on, it's been a very discreet unveiling.
Lest we forget, US servicepeople are not supposed to be dying in Pakistan. It's not Iraq, it's not Afghanistan. There's no agreement for combat troops to operate. Until recently, U.S. officials have repeatedly officially denied having any combat troops in place. This month's killing exposed that lie -- so what were the US troops doing there?
What we've learned so far is the soldiers were part of what federal officials say is a small contingent of American soldiers who've been training Pakistan's army for 18 months now.
As the Times puts it, "the trainings has been acknowledged only gingerly by both the Americans and the Pakistanis.....so as not to trespass onto Pakistani sensitivities about sovereignty and not to further inflame high anti-American sentiment."
For a taste of that gingerly-acknowledging, read the Times story. In more than 1, 000 words Perlez quotes roughly a dozen sources, all but two of them US officials, or Pakistanis working implicitly or explicitly with the US embassy. Of two non-official sources, one makes the obvious point:
The American soldiers were probably made targets as a result of the drone strikes, said Syed Rifaat Hussain, professor of international relations at Islamabad University. "The attack seems a payback for the mounting frequency of the drone attacks," Professor Hussain said.
It's an obvious point because the Pakistani press and local activists have been making it loudly, n the press and in street protests for months now. In the same week that Perlez's piece appeared, the country's English daily, The News, ran a long editorial on the rapid increase in US drone attacks, making the point that roughly 41 civilians have been killed for every alleged Al Qaeda or Taliban target.
The Taliban's rewarding its fighters with new cars when they bring down US drones -- "The shooting down of the drone has lifted the morale of our fighters. It's a huge success for the poorly armed Taliban against a powerful enemy," remarked a senior Taliban commander, at the car-award ceremony.
Among the Pakistani public, surveys constantly show that Pakistanis consider the US a greater threat than the Taliban, despite 3,021 Pakistani deaths in terrorist attacks last year. If the drones are controversial, the presence of US soldiers on Pakistani soil is far more so.
If the US war is quietly shifting, it's not quiet inside Pakistan. People are kicking up a stink. Yet Perlez's piece, which is bylined Islamabad, reads more like an Embassy hand-out than a Pulitzer Prize-winner's research. Times readers get only the barest whiff of local reaction, and that may be the most dangerous strike yet.