Two remote U.S. missile strikes that killed at least 20 people at suspected terrorist hideouts in northwestern Pakistan yesterday offered the first tangible sign of President Obama's commitment to sustained military pressure on the terrorist groups there, even though Pakistanis broadly oppose such unilateral U.S. actions.

The shaky Pakistani government of Asif Ali Zardari has expressed hopes for warm relations with Obama, but members of Obama's new national security team have already telegraphed their intention to make firmer demands of Islamabad than the Bush administration, and to back up those demands with a threatened curtailment of the plentiful military aid that has been at the heart of U.S.-Pakistani ties for the past three decades.

The separate strikes on two compounds, coming three hours apart and involving five missiles fired from Afghanistan-based Predator drone aircraft, were the first high-profile hostile military actions taken under Obama's four-day-old presidency. A Pakistani security official said in Islamabad that the strikes appeared to have killed at least 10 insurgents, including five foreign nationals and possibly even "a high-value target" such as a senior al-Qaeda or Taliban official.

It remained unclear yesterday whether Obama personally authorized the strike or was involved in its final planning, but military officials have previously said the White House is routinely briefed about such attacks in advance.

At his daily White House briefing, press secretary Robert Gibbs declined to answer questions about the strikes, saying, "I'm not going to get into these matters." Obama convened his first National Security Council meeting on Pakistan and Afghanistan yesterday afternoon, after the strike.

The Pakistani government, which has loudly protested some earlier strikes, was quiet yesterday. In September, U.S. and Pakistani officials reached a tacit agreement to allow such attacks to continue without Pakistani involvement, according to senior officials in both countries.

But some Pakistanis have said they expect a possibly bumpy diplomatic stretch ahead.

"Pakistan hopes that Obama will be more patient while dealing with Pakistan," Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, said in an interview Wednesday with Pakistan's Geo television network. "We will review all options if Obama does not adopt a positive policy towards us." He urged Obama to "hear us out."

At least 132 people have been killed in 38 suspected U.S. missile strikes inside Pakistan since August, all conducted by the CIA, in a ramped-up effort by the outgoing Bush administration.

Obama's August 2007 statement -- that he favored taking direct action in Pakistan against potential threats to U.S. security if Pakistani security forces do not act -- made him less popular in Pakistan than in any other Muslim nation polled before the election.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton indicated during her Senate confirmation hearing that the new administration will not relent in holding Pakistan to account for any shortfalls in the continuing battle against extremists.

Linking Pakistan with neighboring Afghanistan "on the front line of our global counterterrorism efforts," Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "we will use all the elements of our powers -- diplomacy, development and defense -- to work with those . . . who want to root out al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other violent extremists." She also said those in Pakistan who do not join the effort will pay a price, adding a distinctly new element to the long-standing U.S. effort to lure Pakistan closer to the West.

In blunt terms in her written answers to the committee's questions, Clinton pledged that Washington will "condition" future U.S. military aid on Pakistan's efforts to close down terrorist training camps and evict foreign fighters. She also demanded that Pakistan "prevent" the continued use of its historically lawless northern territories as a sanctuary by either the Taliban or al-Qaeda. And she promised that Washington would provide all the support Pakistan needs if it specifically goes after targets such as Osama bin Laden, who is believed to be using Pakistani mountains as a hideout.

At the same time, Clinton pledged to triple nonmilitary aid to Pakistan, long dwarfed by the more than $6 billion funneled to Pakistani military forces under President George W. Bush through the Pentagon's counterterrorism office in Islamabad.

"The conditioning of military aid is substantially different," as is the planned boost of economic aid, said Daniel Markey, a Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow who handled South Asian matters on the State Department's policy planning staff from 2003 to 2007.

Bush's focus on military aid to a Pakistani government that was led by an army general until August eventually drew complaints in both countries that much of the funding was spent without accountability or, instead of being used to root out terrorists, was diverted to forces intended for a potential conflict with India.

A study in 2007 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies reported that economic, humanitarian and development assistance under Bush amounted to no more than a quarter of all aid, less than in most countries.

The criticism helped provoke a group of senators who now have powerful new roles -- Joseph R. Biden Jr., Clinton and Obama -- to co-sponsor legislation last July requiring that more aid be targeted at political pluralism, the rule of law, human and civil rights, and schools, public health and agriculture.

It also would have allowed U.S. weapons sales and other military aid only if the secretary of state certified that Pakistani military forces were making "concerted efforts" to undermine al-Qaeda and the Taliban. In her confirmation statement, Clinton reiterated her support for such a legislative restructuring of the aid program, while reaffirming that she opposed any "blank check."

Some Pakistanis have been encouraged by indications that Obama intends to increase aid to the impoverished country, said Shuja Nawaz, a Pakistani who directs the South Asia Center of the Washington-based Atlantic Council of the United States. Nawaz said Pakistanis may be willing to overlook an occasional missile lobbed at foreign terrorists if Obama makes a sincere attempt to improve conditions in Pakistan.

"He can't just focus on military achievements; he has to win over the people," Nawaz said. "Relying on military strikes will not do the trick." Attaching conditions to the aid is wise, Nawaz said, because "people are more cognizant of the need for accountability -- for 'tough love.' "

source

President OBAMA orders air strikes on Pakistani villages in tribal area


Barack Obama gave the go-ahead for his first military action yesterday, missile strikes against suspected militants in Pakistan which killed at least 18 people.

Four days after assuming the presidency, he was consulted by US commanders before they launched the two attacks. Although Obama has abandoned many of the "war on terror" policies of George Bush while he was president, he is not retreating from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders.

The US believes they are hiding in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan, and made 30 strikes last year in which more than 200 people were killed. In the election, Obama hinted at increased operations in Pakistan, saying he thought Bush had made a mistake in switching to Iraq before completing the job against al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The US marine corp commander said yesterday that his 22,000 troops should be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan. Gen James Conway said "the time is right" to leave Iraq now the war had become largely nation-building rather than the pitched fighting in which the corps excelled; he wanted the marines in Afghanistan, especially in the south where insurgents, and the Taliban and al-Qaida, benefit from both a nearby safe haven in Pakistan and a booming trade in narcotics.

Obama has warned that he is prepared to bomb inside Pakistan if he gets relevant intelligence about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. He had also said he would act against militants along the border if the Pakistan government failed to.

The US missiles were fired by unmanned Predator drones, which hang in the sky gathering intelligence through surveillance and, when commanded and directed by remote control, to launch attacks.

The strikes will help Obama portray himself as a leader who, though ready to shift the balance of American power towards diplomacy, is not afraid of military action.

The first attack yesterday was on the village of Zharki, in Waziristan; three missiles destroyed two houses and killed 10 people. One villager told Reuters of phonethat of nine bodies pulled from the rubble of one house, six were its owner and his relatives; Reuters added that intelligence officials said some foreign militants were also killed. A second attack hours later also in Warizistan killed eight people.

The Pakistan government publicly expressed hope that the arrival of Obama would see a halt to such strikes, which stir up hostility from Pakistanis towards the government; in private, the government may be more relaxed about such attacks.

There is a lot of nervousness in the new administration about the fragility of Pakistan, particularly as it has nuclear weapons, but it also sees Afghanistan and Pakistan as being linked. In the face of a Taliban resurgence, there is despair in Washington over the leadership of the Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai, and there will not be much disappointment if he is replaced in elections later this year.

But Washington insists on seeing as one of its biggest problems the ability of the Taliban and al-Qaida to maintain havens in Pakistan. Obama on Thursday announced he was making veteran diplomat Richard Holbrooke a special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan. The secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, spoke by phone to the Pakistan president, Asif Ali Zardari.

source Guardian

Having elected the worst govt in Pakistani history, the future looks bleak!

I dont even think the Pakistani military or the Govt want the US to stop bombing these guys.

Even though they are suggesting they have said this and that, its hard enough fighting the militants in Swat. If America stops pounding them from the west, thats even more work for the Army to do.

By the way Obama doesnt make all the policies, its not a one man show. They cannot stop one day and go home the next. Continuity is essential as they are many factors to consider.

__________________
“Be careful what you wish for, you might actually get it.”

Pakistan military or govt don't object to it because they don't want the stop of inflow of dollars coming in to the country. Remember we sold people who were foreigners on our soil. Never tried them in the rule of law but sold for dollars. This is how low we have gotten ourselves. A few billion dollars can buy loyalty. That is exactly our govt and army is doing to. You easily forgot the civilian casualties which has resulted of these drone attacks. The civilians take revenge from our army and our people in the form of suicide attacks.

I don't know why Obama talks about freedom just like Bush when US wants to be judge, jury and executioner at the same time. Military action solely is not the solution to the problem. You will be very glad to know the drone attacks you advocate has created more problems for Pakistan when suicide attacks happen in different cities of Pakistan.

Great Going Obama........ I had expected him to choose the Bush way of clearing the world from millitents and he has clearly shown signs of choosing that path.... I would just say Go Obama GO

I dont necessarily agree. The militants which are residing in the FATA area are mostly not of Pakistani origin even though the locals are being exploited and have to choose sides and they dont have much of a choice in all fairness.

Do keep this in mind, in a place where there is nothing like the rule of law and an eye for the eye is the only way things have been run for centuries. The same people who have fought greater enemies like the soviets. These hardline extremist elements have forcibly manipulated and brought them down to their knees.

These tribals are far more patriotic than most Pakistanis from other places are, they have previously bleed for our country and defended the western borders bravely.

Just to give you an example, according to one of my friend who hails from this area and who has lost half his family in the conflict. What happens is, firstly when you are having a local jirga, or a gatherting of elders which happens mostly after the friday prayers. A messenger comes bringing a letter which suggests a few demands. Such as

- The town adheres to a stricter islamic code.
- The use of all TV's should be banned.
- No women should be seen outside their houses.
- No schools for girls.
- Men should not wear shalwars to certain lengths.
- A single and able male from each family in the village is needed to volunteer and join them for the Islamic cause.
- Etc Etc ....

The elders ask for time to think and respond. The messenger leaves. He returns after a few days to ask their decision and is sent back with a NO.

They have another jirga and the elders suggest they will take up arms and fight them. During which a bomb goes off and half the ppl attending the jirga die, wheras some of the injured lose limbs etc etc.

As you may or might not know, these villiages are small and almost one person at least from a family does take part.

Unfortunatly they have no other choice or alternative than to join them, and those families who are fortunate enough to have an able male send them to join the jihadists, which are whisked away to other villages away from their home town.

The jihadists arrive with ppl from other parts near and far all from different villages, often headed by foreigners. They set up their courts and their daily sermons start.

Thus this is how they take over villiages. Thus this is how they get the ordinary ppl to pick up arms for their cause, because they know if they do not their familes are in for it.

Fortunatly this is not something i have witnessed myself but imagine there must be a fair few things lost in translation aswell?

This is how they rule, by putting fear into the hearts of the common people.

Now just imagine a truck full of these extremists appear in Jinnah Market in Islamabad or Saddar in pindi or in a sector where your family lives. What in the world would you possibbly be able to do then?

It is very easy to suggest the Army takes money and this and that. The Army is the only line of defense you have. They are doing a mighty good job and giving their lives so that we are spared from these extremists.

So keeping the current circumstances in view, and having a better insight and a close view, i would not at all wish for the Americans to leave and get these bastards going full frontal with our troops. They keep em occupied from the east, we from the west just until things are more in control.

Obviously the things can be better managed, coordinated and looked upon.

__________________
“Be careful what you wish for, you might actually get it.”