Musharraf: US strike killed senior AQ figures.

#2
:D :D :D :D :D
 
#3
AndyPipkin said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4704436.stm
Andy!

http://www.infopak.gov.pk/news/pidnews/pidnews2006/pid_daily_index.htm

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ... said, President Gen. Pervez Musharraf is not just a US ally in the war against terrorism, he also wants to create a more open, moderate and tolerant Pakistan. Ms.Rice strongly defended the US decision to back a military ruler in Pakistan despite its declared agenda of promoting democracy in the Muslim world.
Musharraf is a typical dictator and badly needs American support. So he can say anything, confirm any version. Who namely was killed only Allah knows.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2006021...uGFOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

Pakistani authorities were unable to confirm the identities of the dead militants immediately after the air strike because the bodies were removed from the scene by suspected sympathizers.
...
Musharraf, a key US ally in the "war on terror", has previously said Pakistan did not give permission for the strike and Islamabad lodged an official protest with Washington after it.
 
#4
Oh Happy Days :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :twisted: :D :D :D :D :twisted: :twisted:
 
#5
Sergey, would you at least CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that the CIA strike MIGHT have hit the right targets? Or is your yankeephobia so ingrained that you believe the CIA randomly goes around blowing up villages in allied countries for no apparent reason, no matter what evidence is put before you?
 
#6
Well said Andy....

Although it still doesn't explain why they need to use missiles instead of some sort of surround & capture/kill operation. It may well be that they only had a few moments notice of the meeting of high-value targets --- But I wonder would they do the same thing if the meeting was in an American suburb? Perhaps Pakistani lives are worth less....

Tricam
 
#7
tricam, we went through that on the thread at the time. None of us were involved in the decision-loop so there's not much mileage in second guessing those who were, although I suspect a ground invasion by US troops would be even more unpopular in Pakistan that a Predator strike.
 
#9
T6 - I don't expect to get anywhere with this line of argument but the answer is to try and minimise civilian casualties if at all possible... Why minimise civvy casualties? Well partly cause its the right thing to do and partly cause civilian casualties don't play very well on the media.

Tricam.

(Apologies Andy - I edited my original post very shortly after making it, you may not have seen the final version)
 
#11
Errr.... Doesn't Waco kinda support my argument? They didn't fire a missile at the Waco compound - they surrounded it and told David Koresh to come out with his hands up. They didn't even request a missile once they started taking casualties... quite a few if I recall correctly....

The right thing to do would have been to do the same thing here. I mean its not as if Al-Queda types have only recently started crossing the border into Pakistan. I wonder why they haven't made some sort of arrangement with Pakistan allowing 'hot pursuits' or perhaps beefing up the Pakistani Army? I think an ARRSE poster is in the Pakistani Army and may be able to answer the question.

Tricam.
 
#12
Hang on a minute, you're saying the right thing to do would have been to surround the compound, besiege it for a few weeks, then try and storm it, setting it on fire and killing everyone? Riiiight...

Think I'd have gone with the Predator strike, thanks.
 
#13
Waco was different - there were a lot of religious fundamentalists in Waco.... there wouldn't be any of them in Pakistan...




Serious answer:
Who started the Waco fire? Koresh's followers or a mistake on the part of the police? Either way I'm not saying that's the part of the Waco job they should be copying. The point I'm making is that the police at least tried to minimise civilian casualities - it failed through either a mass suicide pact or police ineptitude but that's besides the point.

There are lots of arrest operations in Iraq (A recent operation targeted the police in Basra) which manage to go ahead without Predator strikes. Its bad strategy to be relying on them in Pakistan. As I said before its not as if this is some sort of new problem they haven't had time to deal with - Al-Quada types have been crossing into Pakistan for ages.

Tricam
 
#15
tricam said:
Errr.... Doesn't Waco kinda support my argument? They didn't fire a missile at the Waco compound - they surrounded it and told David Koresh to come out with his hands up. They didn't even request a missile once they started taking casualties... quite a few if I recall correctly....
No they didn't. They attempted a no-notice dynamic entry and got their asses handed to them.
 
#16
AndyPipkin said:
Sergey, would you at least CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that the CIA strike MIGHT have hit the right targets? Or is your yankeephobia so ingrained that you believe the CIA randomly goes around blowing up villages in allied countries for no apparent reason, no matter what evidence is put before you?
Andy!

Reread my post please. Where have you find 'yankeephobia'?

Let me say it plainly. I regard Americans as my friends and would like to express my respect to great American nation, its inventive abilities, its science, its leading role in world economy. We have many in common and I belive that later or sooner this stupid (sometimes hidden) rivalty will be only in historical books and memoirs.

Can friends make mistakes. Who can't? If your friend makes a mistake then what should you do? I'm sure that only enemies would say 'OK, you are right, proceed this way'.

Let's llok at concrete example. Iraqi war boosted oil proces and brought billions of $$ to Russia. So true anti-American (there are some nutters of this sort in Russia) would say: 'keep the troops in Iraq and invade Iran just now'. From selfish poilt of view (not my point of view) it would be profitable for Russia.

Personally I believe that war with Iran would be against American interests. Am I right? Is my point of view 'anti-American'. I don't think so.

As to the strike in Pakistan then I guess is was a mistake too. Our American friends indirectly confirmed it. Officially responsibility of USA was not declared. If it was a rightful action then it would be done.

As to your question then I CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that the CIA strike MIGHT have hit some trrorists. And of course I don't mourn their dark souls. As to inevitable deaths of innocent civilians (no doubt they took place and CIA knew about this possibility before the strike) then political damage to USA overweight any (almost invisible) tactical benefits.

As to statements made by Pakistani dictator then they only MIGHT be true because of some reasons that I have outlined. I hope you agree that there is nothing yankeephobic here too.
 
#17
The real question is whether or not the benefits from slotting some members of AQ outweighs the blowback from the methods used. Personally I think not.

The nature of AQ means that shooting those nominally in charge does very little to hinder their activities. Capturing them and tapping them for int would allow you to do far more damage to the organisation. We've killed a lot of "senior members" over the past three years or so and they're still there.

And the reaction in Pakistan is hardly good either - if Musharraf gets overthrown as he is identified too closely with the US then we've just handed AQ the Pakistani nuclear arsenal. This kind of operation by the US is AQs best recruiting tool.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads