The Bush Administration's `No Knock' Policy

MayorBob.

Posted to Etcetera on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:17:28 PM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Remember those cross border raids US Special Forces troops pulled off in Pakistan recently? The good news is they reportedly bagged some bad guys. The bad news is they might have also killed some innocent people and managed to piss the Pakistanis off more than a bit. The significant thing is they they ushered in another new wrinkle in the War on Terror. According to Pentagon sources, the Bush administration has quietly implemented a new policy in going after Taliban and al-Qaeda types who camp out on the Pakistan side of the border with Afghanistan. That new policy involves sending in troops without bothering to ask permission from our friends and allies in Islamabad.

The new policy involves the US informing the Pakistanis that raids were going on but permission is not a requirement. According to one official the location of Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in the tribal areas of Pakistan "is intolerable" and these "limited combat operations" are a sign that the US is going to be "more assertive" in taking the fight to the enemy. As a matter of fact, the same official said the Pakistani government had given their assent to the raids. Not to our knowledge, according to the Pakistani Army Chief of Staff who said no such permission was given. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani seconded his military leader adding, "the government will take all steps to defend the country's borders." Pakistan's ambassador to the US, Husain Haqqani, said this type of "unilateral action" by the US is counterproductive because it merely "enrages public opinion."

US authorities have long mistrusted members of Pakistan's military and intelligence services, believing them to be more on the side of the Taliban and al-Qaeda than for the US. One of the things they believe high level Pakistani officials were up to their necks in was the recent bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul. Up until last month, the US at least had one person with a bit of power in Pakistan they could rely upon - Pervez Musharraf. But since his early departure just ahead of impeachment, it's a whole new ball game. The US has also become increasingly concerned that the strategy being employed in Afghanistan wasn't going to get the job done. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullins, recently said he's "not convinced we're winning it in Afghanistan" but "I am convinced we can." So, with renewed dedication to getting the job done comes a "new comprehensive military strategy" aimed at improving the border situation.

< Master Cheaters Pay The Price

"Once In A Century" Economic Crisis Afoot [Breaking News] >

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by MayorBob, Afghanistan, War on Terror, cross border raids, Taliban, al Qaeda, Pakistan, war (all tags)

Add this story to:

This story: 6 comments (1 from subqueue)

Post a Comment

2	pakistan is no friend of ours wetkarma. Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:51:03 AM EST 5.00 (astute)

Pakistan has been playing the US for arms and cash while supporting terrorists for years. We should never have allied ourselves post-9/11 (even if it was an alliance of convenience) with Pakistan. I say we go after terrorists where we have actionable intelligence and the ruling government either cannot act or will not act.

If Pakistan wants to pretend that it has not given us permission -- it can go right ahead and do that. Lets see the nation survive without US aid propping it up.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

5 2	Re: pakistan is no friend of ours DEMachina. Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:09:01 PM EST none

I hate to say it but I think you're right. I have never been able to understand our blind loyalty to Pakistan. It's that whole "he may be a son of a bitch but he's our son of a bitch" mentality in U.S. foreign policy that has consistently come back to bite us on the ass, yet we somehow keep falling into.

We did the exact same thing on a much larger scale with Afghanistan and Iraq (one of which was actually justified). At least in this case it does seem like there's a legitimate reason to be doing this, and since Pakistan has probably done more harm than good in the "war" on terror (e.g. giving nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.).

Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

6 5	It's a Cold War creation. MayorBob. Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:15:22 PM EST none

In my memory it goes back to the Nixon administration and Kissinger's opening towards China. Back then (late 60s, early 70s) we were not on good terms with India which was viewed as being almost a butt buddy to the Soviets. When things came to blow when East Pakistan seceded and became Bangladesh, India intervened on behalf of the Bangladeshis. China was on good terms with Pakistan and we sort of threw our hat in the ring on the side of Pakistan.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

1	Re: The Bush Administration's `No Knock' Policy skeptic. Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:31:31 PM EST none

Since the government of Pakistan is also under attack by the same Muslim militants who are crossing the border into Afghanistan to attack NATO forces there, and to attempt to bring down the government of Afghanistan and to reinstate theocratic (and pro-terrorist) rule, there does seem to be a common interest between the US and Pakistan. With some suitable diplomacy (which has never been Bush's strong point) it should be possible to obtain an agreement on joint action. But acting unilaterally without any such prior agreement could be a big mistake.

3 1	Re: The Bush Administration's `No Knock' Policy gerrymander. Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:56:36 AM EST none

With some suitable diplomacy (which has never been Bush's strong point) it should be possible to obtain an agreement on joint action.

The emphasis in that sentence belongs to "should" because it presumes rational negotiations. Unfortunately, diplomatic agreements for joint action are certain to buck up against two specific problems in Pakistan:

They're touchy about foreign action taking place in provinces they barely control. We've seen it for decades over Kashmir; the same applies here.
Parts of the government of Pakistan is compromised. There are plenty of people who have ties to and/or sympathies with the tribes and militants in the border provinces, and who will seek to sabotage any joint action agreement.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just very difficult. Very difficult diplomatic problems take lots of time to reach accommodation -- time which will be measured in bodies and wartime levels of expense.

4 3	Re: The Bush Administration's `No Knock' Policy skeptic. Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:47:11 PM EST none

I agree that these are serious problems which would have to be overcome in order to reach a useful agreement. I would add that due to the urgency of the problem, which, as I have noted, is a threat to both the NATO alliance and to the government of Pakistan, perhaps there is a strong enough motive for people to do what is necessary to overcome these obstacles. But perhaps not.

This story: 6 comments (1 from subqueue)

Post a Comment

The Bush Administration's `No Knock' Policy

MayorBob.

Posted to Etcetera on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:17:28 PM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

pakistan is no friend of ours

wetkarma.

Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:51:03 AM EST

5.00 (astute)

2

Re: pakistan is no friend of ours

DEMachina.

Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:09:01 PM EST

none

5

It's a Cold War creation.

MayorBob.

Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:15:22 PM EST

none

Re: The Bush Administration's `No Knock' Policy

skeptic.

Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:31:31 PM EST

none

1

Re: The Bush Administration's `No Knock' Policy

gerrymander.

Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:56:36 AM EST

none

3

Re: The Bush Administration's `No Knock' Policy

skeptic.

Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:47:11 PM EST

none