Pak Tribune : US meddling

US meddling

Kamran Kiani | Rawalpindi | October 30, 2007

Pakistan was never as unstable and vulnerable as it is today. The most important of the reasons for this is America`s interference in our internal matters. Condoleezza Rice and Richard Boucher and other US officials, as well as the American ambassador to Pakistan, exceed diplomatic prerogative when they issue statements on Pakistani affairs. This is extremely annoying to the people of Pakistan, which is why we have such intense anti-American sentiment today.

Then there is Benazir Bhutto, who hastily returned to the country following her deal with the government. May I ask why she went into self-imposed exile, in the first place? She pretends as if no one loves Pakistan as much as she does, which is why she has returned from her life of luxury abroad. As for the people of Pakistan, the Oct. 18 carnage would not have taken place if their memory were not so short.

Why did the multitude have to attend the homecoming rally of such a politician? She would surely have been grilled by the media about the deal and the National Reconciliation Ordinance if everything else had not been overshadowed by the tragedy of the bombings. People should not attend such rallies in the future because they only benefit opportunistic politicians and the participants end up being killed or maimed. The blood spilled in turn gives an opportunity to such politicians, who themselves escape unhurt, to gain sympathy.

Nawaz Sharif left the country under a deal and Benazir Bhutto came back as the result of one, in either case with the same military dictator. All these players have made this country a banana republic. Pakistan needs someone who can lead it to stability. Otherwise the increasing American interference, the threats from the neighbours and from within the country will ultimately lead to its destruction.

NDTV : Boucher urges democracy in Pak

Boucher urges democracy in Pak

Sarah Jacob | New York | September 29, 2007

The Pakistan Supreme Court's decision on Friday has paved the way for General Musharraf, America's pre-eminent ally in the 'war on terror', to seek re-election while still in uniform.

In New York, the US state government insists the matter is internal to Pakistan's politics and their only concern is the smooth return to democracy.

''Our desire is to see Pakistan succeed as a modern society and part of that success is making a smooth transition to a democratic and civilian government. That transition is underway. There have been a lot of questions raised in different forums politically and in the courts about how it is going to proceed,''said Richard Boucher, Assistant Secretary of State.

''We have been watching it but this is an internal matter for Pakistan's people, courts and politicians. We are observers of this phenomenon. Our only hope is that the process goes through smoothly and successfully,'' added Boucher.

The United States enlisted General Pervez Musharraf as a crucial ally after the World Trade Centre attacks and has backed the General's regime with over $10 billion to fight extremists.

Despite mounting criticism in Congress that Pakistan is not doing enough to curb the Taliban in Afghanistan the US government is not yet giving up on the General.

''It is very important to pay tribute to every thing the Pakistani Security forces have done in the fight on terror. They have made an enormous effort and have lost a lot of people doing that. They have had a fair amount of success.

''Unfortunately, there are still a lot of dangerous people out there and they are a threat to Pakistan, the United States and the whole world. They still have a way to go before they can get control of some of the groups that are threatening all of us. But I think we all need to recognise how much Pakistan has accomplished and the sacrifices the Pakistani forces have made in order to do that,'' said Boucher.

While it calls for democracy in Myanmar and Iran, the US is caught in a bind in Pakistan. Just as much as it wants democracy, it also needs the Generals of the Army on its side to fight extremists in the war on terror.

Daily Times : US to legislate for fata ROZs in Sept: Boucher

US to legislate for fata ROZs in Sept: Boucher

APP | August 17, 2007

ISLAMABAD: US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher said on Thursday that the US Congress would legislate for the establishment of ‘Reconstruction Opportunities Zones’ (ROZs) in the tribal areas of Pakistan in September.

Interior Minister Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao told reporters after meeting with Mr Boucher that he had briefed the US official on the Kabul Jirga.

Mr Sherpao said Mr Boucher expressed satisfaction over the successful jirga and said it would improve people-to-people contact.

Mr Sherpao also briefed the US official about the law and order situation in the country, the Lal Masjid operation, the situation in the tribal areas and counter terrorism and narcotics measures.

Reuters : Pakistan warns U.S. on damage to relations

Pakistan warns U.S. on damage to relations

By Zeeshan Haider | August 15, 2007

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - A U.S. law linking aid to Pakistan to progress in the fight against militancy and some comments from U.S. politicians were detrimental to cooperation between the countries, Pakistan said on Wednesday.

The warning on relations between the United States and one of its most important allies in the fight against terrorism came in talks in Islamabad between Foreign Minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri and U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher.

"The foreign minister ... stressed that certain recent U.S. statements were counter-productive ... (and) also expressed concern regarding the recent U.S. legislation," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

The ministry did not elaborate on the statements but relations with Pakistan have become a hot topic in the U.S. presidential election campaign.

Democratic candidate Barack Obama said this month that if elected, he would be willing to attack al Qaeda militants inside Pakistan without the approval of its government.

U.S. President George W. Bush described talk of such action as "unsavoury" and said he respected Pakistan's sovereignity.

But Bush also signed into law a bill on implementing the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, which contained the provision tying aid to Pakistan to its progress in cracking down on al Qaeda and Taliban militants.

The law and tough talk have cast a shadow on the countries' relations. Kasuri told Boucher the law "was contrary to the spirit of Pakistan-U.S. strategic relationship".

He said it was also reminiscent of U.S. legislation, known as the Pressler Amendment, which blocked the sale of paid-for F-16 aircraft to Pakistan because of its nuclear programme in 1989.

Boucher, who arrived in Pakistan earlier on Wednesday on his fourth visit this year, was not available for comment. He was due to meet President Pervez Musharraf on his two-day visit.

PROBLEMS

Pakistan dropped support for the Taliban and joined the U.S.-led war on terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

It provided logistical help to foreign forces who overthrew the Taliban government in Afghanistan weeks later. Pakistan also arrested hundreds of al Qaeda members and supporters.

But Afghan and some U.S. officials say both the Taliban and al Qaeda are operating from remote tribal lands on Pakistan's Afghan border.

Musharraf, speaking at a gathering of politicians and tribal elders from Pakistan and Afghanistan in Kabul on Sunday, acknowledged that militants in Afghanistan were drawing support from bases in Pakistan.

But he has ruled out allowing foreign troops to operate on Pakistani territory and said his forces were fully capable of dealing with the militants.

Strained relations with one of his most important allies is one of several problems Musharraf faces as he prepares to try to secure a second term in office.

He has also been dealing with a wave of militant attacks and public anger over his attempt to dismiss the country's top judge. He went to the brink of declaring a state of emergency last week.

The Bush administration has consistently supported Musharraf while calling for free and fair elections due late this year or early next.

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.

APP : Pakistan important strategic partner, Boucher to visit next week: US

Pakistan important strategic partner, Boucher to visit next week: US

APP | WASHINGTON | August 11, 2007

Pakistan is a close strategic ally in wide-ranging areas and top American official for South Asia, Richard Boucher will visit the country next week as part of regular consultations in the region, the State Department said.

“Pakistan is an important strategic partner on a broad range of matters - education, economic investment, counternarcotics, security and counterterrorism. We appreciate the Pakistanis’ sacrifices in confronting extremists and fighting terrorist threats,” a State Department official said while confirming Boucher’s visit to Pakistan.

Boucher, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, will have meetings with Pakistani officials, civil society members, political parties, etc to “discuss political developments, regional security and counterterrorism cooperation,” the official added.

“The visit is part of regular consultations in the region,” the US official said, adding that South and Central Asia is a region of great importance to the United States.

“It’s only fitting that Assistant Secretary Boucher and his staff would make visits to the region regularly,” the official said.

WaPo : Senior U.S. official to visit Pakistan next week

Senior U.S. official to visit Pakistan next week

Reuters | August 9, 2007

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior U.S. diplomat will visit Pakistan next week on a previously scheduled trip that comes shortly after the Pakistani president rejected calls to declare a state of emergency, a U.S. official said on Thursday.

The visit by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, the top U.S. diplomat for South Asia, was scheduled for after this week's meeting of Afghan and Pakistani political and tribal leaders, the official said.

He said its timing was not related to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's decision on Thursday against declaring a state of emergency, a step that if taken would probably have delayed Pakistani elections due by the turn of the year.

"Boucher will travel late next week to Pakistan for one of his regular consultations that falls now at a very interesting time," said the U.S. official, who spoke on condition that he not be identified because the trip has not been announced publicly.

The official declined to say exactly when Boucher would be in the country or whether he was expected to meet Musharraf or Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, saying that the U.S. diplomat's schedule is not yet finalized.

There have been a series of high-level U.S. visits to Pakistan this year, including by Vice President Dick Cheney, amid U.S. concerns that Pakistan has not done enough to fight Taliban militants on its side of the largely porous Afghan-Pakistani border.

U.S. officials are also increasingly concerned about the political situation in Pakistan, where Musharraf's standing has eroded since he tried to sack the chief justice. The Pakistani Supreme Court delivered a blow to Musharraf on July 20 when it ruled to reinstate the chief justice.

NYT : Bush Aides See Failure in Fight With Al Qaeda in Pakistan

Bush Aides See Failure in Fight With Al Qaeda in Pakistan

By MARK MAZZETTI and DAVID E. SANGER | July 18, 2007

WASHINGTON, July 17 — President Bush’s top counterterrorism advisers acknowledged Tuesday that the strategy for fighting Osama bin Laden’s leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan had failed, as the White House released a grim new intelligence assessment that has forced the administration to consider more aggressive measures inside Pakistan.

The intelligence report, the most formal assessment since the Sept. 11 attacks about the terrorist threat facing the United States, concludes that the United States is losing ground on a number of fronts in the fight against Al Qaeda, and describes the terrorist organization as having significantly strengthened over the past two years.

In identifying the main reasons for Al Qaeda’s resurgence, intelligence officials and White House aides pointed the finger squarely at a hands-off approach toward the tribal areas by Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who last year brokered a cease-fire with tribal leaders in an effort to drain support for Islamic extremism in the region.

“It hasn’t worked for Pakistan,” said Frances Fragos Townsend, who heads the Homeland Security Council at the White House. “It hasn’t worked for the United States.”

While Bush administration officials had reluctantly endorsed the cease-fire as part of their effort to prop up the Pakistani leader, they expressed relief on Tuesday that General Musharraf may have to abandon that approach, because the accord seems to have unraveled.

But American officials make little secret of their skepticism that General Musharraf has the capability to be effective in the mountainous territory along the Afghan border, where his troops have been bloodied before by a mix of Qaeda leaders and tribes that view the territory as their own, not part of Pakistan.

“We’ve seen in the past that he’s sent people in and they get wiped out,” said one senior official involved in the internal debate. “You can tell from the language today that we take the threat from the tribal areas incredibly seriously. It has to be dealt with. If he can deal with it, amen. But if he can’t, he’s got to build and borrow the capability.”

The bleak intelligence assessment was made public in the middle of a bitter Congressional debate about the future of American policy in Iraq. White House officials said it bolstered the Bush administration’s argument that Iraq was the “central front” in the war on terror, because that was where Qaeda operatives were directly attacking American forces.

The report nevertheless left the White House fending off accusations that it had been distracted by the war in Iraq and that the deals it had made with President Musharraf had resulted in lost time and lost ground.

While the assessment described the Qaeda branch in Iraq as the “most visible and capable affiliate” of the terror organization, intelligence officials noted that the operatives in Iraq remained focused on attacking targets inside that country’s borders, not those on American or European soil.

In weighing how to deal with the Qaeda threat in Pakistan, American officials have been meeting in recent weeks to discuss what some said was emerging as an aggressive new strategy, one that would include both public and covert elements. They said there was growing concern that pinprick attacks on Qaeda targets were not enough, but also said some new American measures might have to remain secret to avoid embarrassing General Musharraf.

Ms. Townsend declined to describe what may be alternative strategies for dealing with the Qaeda threat in Pakistan, but acknowledged frustration that Al Qaeda had succeeding in rebuilding its infrastructure and its links to affiliates, while keeping Mr. bin Laden and his top lieutenants alive for nearly six years since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The intelligence report, known as a National Intelligence Estimate, represents the consensus view of all 16 agencies that make up the American intelligence community. The report concluded that the United States would face a “persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years.”

That judgment was not based on any specific intelligence about an impending attack on American soil, government officials said. Only two pages of “key judgments” from the report were made public; the rest of the document remained classified.

Besides the discussion of Al Qaeda, the report cited the possibility that the militant Lebanese group Hezbollah, a Shiite organization, might be more inclined to strike at the United States should the group come to believe that the United States posed a direct threat either to the group or the government of Iran, its primary benefactor.

At the White House, Ms. Townsend found herself in the uncomfortable position of explaining why American military action was focused in Iraq when the report concluded that main threat of terror attacks that could be carried out in the United States emanated from the tribal areas of Pakistan.

She argued that it was Mr. bin Laden, as well as the White House, who regarded “Iraq as the central front in the war on terror.”

Richard A. Boucher, the assistant secretary of state, acknowledged that Al Qaeda had prospered during the cease-fire between the tribal leaders and General Musharraf last September, a period in which “they were able to operate, meet, plan, recruit, and obtain financing in more comfort in the tribal areas than previously.”

But Mr. Boucher also described General Musharraf as America’s best bet, and several administration officials on Tuesday cited his recent aggressive actions against Islamic militants at a mosque in Islamabad.

The growing Qaeda threat in Pakistan has prompted repeated trips to Islamabad by senior administration officials to lean on officials there and calls by lawmakers to make American aid to Pakistan contingent on a sustained counterterrorism effort by General Musharraf’s government.

Some members of Congress argue that concern for the stability of General Musharraf’s government had for too long dominated the White House strategy for dealing with Pakistan, thwarting American counterterrorism efforts.

“We have to change policy,” said Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, a Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee who has long advocated a more aggressive American intelligence campaign in Pakistan.

In an interview on Tuesday, the New York Police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, called the report a “realistic and sobering assessment,” but said it had not caused officials in New York to take any specific steps to tighten security in the city.

“There is no surprise here for us,” he said. “Would we rather it be another way? Yes. But this is the world, as it is, and this is what we are guarding against.”

Al Baker contributed reporting from New York.

Times of India : US renting Pak army for $100 million a month

US renting Pak army for $100 million a month

CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA | TNN | July 14, 2007

WASHINGTON: The United States is paying around $100 million a month for the deployment of 80,000 Pakistani troops on its border with Afghanistan ostensibly for the war on terrorism, a key US official revealed on Thursday.

The money is meant to be "reimbursements" to Pakistan "for stationing troops and moving them around, and gasoline, and bullets, and training and other costs that they incur as part of the war on terror," US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, told a Congressional panel.

"That's a lot of money," Boucher admitted before the panel about what amounts to a $ 1.2 billion per year reimbursement. "I don't know if it comes to the whole amount of their expenses, but we support their expenses, yes."

In all, US aid to Pakistan is now close to $2 billion a year, according to figures provided by Boucher, the top U S diplomat for South Asia.

Besides, the $1.2 billion reimbursements, Washington also gave Pakistan an addition $ 738 million in 2006 in assistance programs, including $300 million in separate military aid.

The overall figure would put Pakistan on par with Israel and Egypt -- with a higher component ($1.5 billion) in overall military assistance -- as the top three recipients of US aid.

The Pakistan allocations are being met with deep misgivings and scepticism in Congress and strategic circles where there are growing demands on the Bush administration to tie aid for Islamabad's military to its performance and delivery in the war on terror.

"There are far more jihadists, extremist madrassas, Al Qaida operatives, Taliban safe havens and international terrorist training camps than Pakistani government officials are willing to admit. Is our current aid package, one in which we are providing at least 10 times more for military aid than for basic education assistance, in the best long-term interest of United States national security?" asked Congressman John Tierney, who chaired the hearing that for focused exclusively on the Pakistan question.

"And how do we in Congress justify to the American people writing checks for billions of dollars to a regime that may not be the partner against terrorism the United States needs it to be, but may actually be hurting national security interests of the United States and our allies?" added Congressman Christopher Shays, after some of his colleagues pointed out that Pakistan was host to the world's most wanted men like Osama bin Laden and A.Q.Khan.

Boucher maintained that the money was well spent and there was some accountability involved.

"Some of our money that we give Pakistan is reimbursements and so there is, you know, conditions that we pay for things," he said, later elaborating that "Pentagon is in charge of getting receipts and making sure they know how that money is being spent in the right places."

"If they didn't have the 85,000 troops in the border area, God knows what would be going on out there -- not anything we could deal with ourselves, I'm sure," Boucher added.

Still, law-makers remained sceptical of the Bush administration's Pakistan policy, even as the White House reviewed the situation in a special meeting on Thursday. Tierney urged the administration to ensure that the military support money went towards supplying equipment to fight terrorism, as opposed to bombers and submarines aimed at India.

But Boucher bluntly told the committee "we do try to do both...help Pakistan with legitimate defensive needs, with its ability to patrol in the Arabian Sea," and finance equipment and reimburse expenses for the war on terror.

WaPo : Early Warning: Standing Up to Pakistan?

Early Warning: Standing Up to Pakistan?

William Arkin | July 16, 2007

In nearly six years since 9/11, al-Qaeda has rebuilt its infrastructure in a mountainous and remote part of northwest Pakistan and gathered a larger set of affiliates around the world. Those are two of the unclassified "key judgments" of a new National Intelligence Estimate on Terrorism released yesterday.

Normally I'd be quite cynical about such a government pronouncement, seeing it as a giant subject-changer or as an attempt to mobilize public opinion and maintain fear. But in this case, by saying that Pakistan's approach to al Qaeda is "not working," the United States seems poised to stand up to President Pervez Musharraf for the first time since 9/11. It could also be on the verge of a sea change -- shifting its counterterrorism attention from Iraq to Pakistan and Afghanistan, where it sees the greater threat to America.

The United States intelligence community and administration officials, minced no words yesterday calling for a change in approach. They located Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan and criticized the Musharraf regime for its handling of terrorism in northwest Pakistan.

In identifying the main reasons for al-Qaeda's resurgence, intelligence officials and White House aides pointed the finger at a hands-off approach Musharraf adopted years ago toward Pakistan's tribal areas. Last year, he further brokered a cease-fire with tribal leaders in an effort to deny Islamic extremists a foothold in the region. Pakistani armed forces largely withdrew to allow tribal leaders an opportunity to take matters into their own hands; the hope was that al-Qaeda would be pushed out and that greater controls would be exerted over movement across the Afghanistan border.

Instead, as Assistant Secretary of State Richard A. Boucher said yesterday, al Qaeda has prospered during the near yearlong cease-fire. "They were able to operate, meet, plan, recruit, and obtain financing in more comfort in the tribal areas than previously," he said. Homeland Security Adviser Frances Fragos Townsend said that the strategy "hasn't worked for Pakistan" and "hasn't worked for the United States."

For years, U.S. officials have been making excuses for Musharraf: that he quietly allowed U.S. forces to operate on Pakistani soil after 9/11, that he defied his own extremists and closet Taliban supporters in the army and intelligence ranks, that he survived numerous assassination attempts in his continuing cooperation, that Pakistan was a good friend and ally and so we needed to understand the difficult domestic circumstances he faced.

The excuses sound quite similar to those offered about Saudi Arabia in the 1990's and after 9/11. Through terrorist attacks on U.S. forces and contractors in 1995 and 1996, the U.S. government made excuses for the kingdom's non-cooperation. Those U.S. forces were there and living under jail-like existence because of Saudi domestic "requirements," and whatever their government did, Washington made excuses for it.

After the 2005 terrorist attacks inside Saudi Arabia, U.S. officials say that country finally got the message that its approach wasn't working. Saudi terrorism, once segregated to small circles and mostly directed externally, had finally come home. It remains to be seen whether the Saudi change in dealing with its own domestic discontents will be enough to save the kingdom.

From the U.S. perspective, this change was profound: previous U.S. policy held that stability and the survival of the ruling monarchy were the most important objectives in the preservation of the oil status quo. We might actually be witnessing the emergence of a U.S. foreign policy that holds U.S. physical security and genuine counterterrorism efforts as more important than oil.

In the case of Pakistan, U.S. policy now follows a similar path: Military-ruled Pakistan, in addition to housing Terror, Inc. for decades, has nuclear weapons, and U.S. policy for more than a decade has been gloves off because of fear of some kind of descent into nuclear disaster or war. The United States has gone to great lengths to protect Musharraf, who came to power in a military coup.

Now the U.S. position seems to be changing: weapons of mass destruction are important, but not so important that we let global terrorism flourish while we stay stuck in the past. A more aggressive U.S. strategy in Pakistan, one that we should have pursued months or years ago, may indeed threaten Musharraf's rule. But it's not without risks. And I doubt I doubt most in the Washington fray will get the significance of this shift.

Forbes : Pakistan rejects 'unsubstantiated' US report on Al-Qaeda

Pakistan rejects 'unsubstantiated' US report on Al-Qaeda

July 18, 2007

ISLAMABAD (Thomson Financial) - Pakistan today said a US intelligence report alleging that Osama Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network has regrouped in safe havens in the country's northwest is unsubstantiated.

The US report warned yesterday that the terrorists had regained strength by sheltering in Pakistan's troubled tribal areas and are determined to inflict mass casualties through new attacks on the United States.

But foreign office spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said the report contained 'some unsubstantiated assertions' and asked for evidence to back up Washington's claims.

'We would firmly act to eliminate any Al-Qaeda hideout on the basis of specific intelligence or information,' Aslam said in a statement.

'It does not help simply to make assertions about the presence or regeneration of Al-Qaeda in bordering areas of Pakistan. What is needed is concrete and actionable information and intelligence sharing,' she added.

Aslam said Pakistan had done more than any other country to combat extremism and 'is determined not to allow Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist entity to establish a safe haven on its territory.'

She rejected criticism over a peace deal the government signed with tribal militants in Waziristan region last year which pro-Taliban militants unilaterally renounced on Sunday, triggering a spate of attacks.

She also ruled out the involvement of foreign troops -- for example NATO- and US-led soldiers fighting Taliban insurgents in neighbouring Afghanistan -- in the fight against terrorism.

'Our position is very clear that any counter-terrorism action inside our territory will be taken by our own security forces. This is the basis of our cooperation,' Aslam said.

Senior US intelligence officials said Al-Qaeda's 'operational space' in the tribal areas has grown since President Pervez Musharraf struck a non-aggression pact with tribal leaders in September.

US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian affairs, Richard Boucher, said yesterday that 'some military action is necessary, and will probably have to be taken.'

AFP : US asks Pakistan to launch military offensive against extremists

US asks Pakistan to launch military offensive against extremists

Agence France Presse via Raw Story | July 17, 2007

The United States on Tuesday prodded Pakistan to launch a military offensive against fighters hiding in tribal areas after Washington hinted at a lack of commitment from its ally to hunt down violent extremists.

US officials said Pakistan military ruler Pervez Musharraf should send his troops into the tribal border region with Afghanistan to flush out Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants, following the collapse of a 10-month peace accord between Islamabad and tribal elders.

"I think first and foremost we have to remember that some military action is necessary, and will probably have to be taken," Assistant Secretary of State for South and central Asian affairs Richard Boucher said.

The United States, he said, was also prepared to help upgrade the Pakistan military, particularly its "frontier corps" that forms the bulk of the estimated 85,000 military forces in the tribal and border regions.

Boucher spoke after a week of violence in North Waziristan, a remote frontier region where militant leaders over the weekend renounced a September accord with Islamabad.

The peace pact in the stronghold of Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants had been heavily criticized by the United States and Afghanistan.

Pakistani authorities have made intense efforts to shore up the peace accord since the Taliban pulled out on Saturday, knowing that without it, they risk fresh violence in a region thought to contain many militants.

Boucher said Washington was less concerned about whether the agreement worked or not, pointing out that "it's the facts of what happens.

"There are elements in these areas that are extremely violent and are out to kill government people, out to kill government leaders, and will not settle for a peaceful way forward," he said.

"Whether it is through an agreement or through the imposition of government will or whatever, they remain the key: no Talibanization, no cross-border activity, no Al-Qaeda plotting and planning from the tribal areas," he said.

"And we're going to help the government of Pakistan achieve that through whatever -- all these different means that might be necessary," he said citing joint US-Pakistan plans to develop the isolated areas in tandem with possible military action.

The United States has promised 150 million dollars a year for the next five years to develop the tribal areas on top of a Pakistani funding of about 100 million dollars a year.

US officials said it would be timely for Musharraf to step up his offensive against extremists hiding in the tribal areas, especially after he had ordered an assault on a pro-Taliban mosque compound in Islamabad last week.

The assault resulted in the deaths of 11 soldiers and 75 people inside the compound, mainly militants.

"We think the time is now," one official told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"We think with the movement on the Red Mosque, Musharraf feels a sense of momentum and he's got the tools in place -- he's got the construction money, he's got the military starting to creep forward into forward positions," the official said.

"Whether the peace deal (in the tribal areas) is on or off, it doesn't matter."

Amid US concerns over the militants' presence in the tribal areas, President George W. Bush's top counter-terrorism aide said Tuesday Washington rarely got all of the help it wanted from allies like Pakistan in efforts to hunt down violent extremists.

"When people ask me about our counterterrorism cooperation, our allies around the world, the suggestion is: 'Do they give you everything you want?' That is almost never the case," said Bush's homeland security and counterterrorism advisor, Frances Townsend.

"And you know what? If I only cooperated with those who gave me 100 percent of what I thought I needed or wanted, I wouldn't have a whole lot of allies around the world," she said during a briefing at the White House on the latest National Intelligence Estimate of terrorist threats to the United States.

NYT : Bush Aides See Failure in Fight With Al Qaeda in Pakistan

Bush Aides See Failure in Fight With Al Qaeda in Pakistan

By MARK MAZZETTI and DAVID E. SANGER | Published: July 18, 2007

WASHINGTON, July 17 — President Bush’s top counterterrorism advisers acknowledged Tuesday that the strategy for fighting Osama bin Laden’s leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan had failed, as the White House released a grim new intelligence assessment that has forced the administration to consider more aggressive measures inside Pakistan.

The intelligence report, the most formal assessment since the Sept. 11 attacks about the terrorist threat facing the United States, concludes that the United States is losing ground on a number of fronts in the fight against Al Qaeda, and describes the terrorist organization as having significantly strengthened over the past two years.

In identifying the main reasons for Al Qaeda’s resurgence, intelligence officials and White House aides pointed the finger squarely at a hands-off approach toward the tribal areas by Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who last year brokered a cease-fire with tribal leaders in an effort to drain support for Islamic extremism in the region.

“It hasn’t worked for Pakistan,” said Frances Fragos Townsend, who heads the Homeland Security Council at the White House. “It hasn’t worked for the United States.”

While Bush administration officials had reluctantly endorsed the cease-fire as part of their effort to prop up the Pakistani leader, they expressed relief on Tuesday that General Musharraf may have to abandon that approach, because the accord seems to have unraveled.

But American officials make little secret of their skepticism that General Musharraf has the capability to be effective in the mountainous territory along the Afghan border, where his troops have been bloodied before by a mix of Qaeda leaders and tribes that view the territory as their own, not part of Pakistan.

“We’ve seen in the past that he’s sent people in and they get wiped out,” said one senior official involved in the internal debate. “You can tell from the language today that we take the threat from the tribal areas incredibly seriously. It has to be dealt with. If he can deal with it, amen. But if he can’t, he’s got to build and borrow the capability.”

The bleak intelligence assessment was made public in the middle of a bitter Congressional debate about the future of American policy in Iraq. White House officials said it bolstered the Bush administration’s argument that Iraq was the “central front” in the war on terror, because that was where Qaeda operatives were directly attacking American forces.

The report nevertheless left the White House fending off accusations that it had been distracted by the war in Iraq and that the deals it had made with President Musharraf had resulted in lost time and lost ground.

While the assessment described the Qaeda branch in Iraq as the “most visible and capable affiliate” of the terror organization, intelligence officials noted that the operatives in Iraq remained focused on attacking targets inside that country’s borders, not those on American or European soil.

In weighing how to deal with the Qaeda threat in Pakistan, American officials have been meeting in recent weeks to discuss what some said was emerging as an aggressive new strategy, one that would include both public and covert elements. They said there was growing concern that pinprick attacks on Qaeda targets were not enough, but also said some new American measures might have to remain secret to avoid embarrassing General Musharraf.

Ms. Townsend declined to describe what may be alternative strategies for dealing with the Qaeda threat in Pakistan, but acknowledged frustration that Al Qaeda had succeeding in rebuilding its infrastructure and its links to affiliates, while keeping Mr. bin Laden and his top lieutenants alive for nearly six years since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The intelligence report, known as a National Intelligence Estimate, represents the consensus view of all 16 agencies that make up the American intelligence community. The report concluded that the United States would face a “persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years.”

That judgment was not based on any specific intelligence about an impending attack on American soil, government officials said. Only two pages of “key judgments” from the report were made public; the rest of the document remained classified.

Besides the discussion of Al Qaeda, the report cited the possibility that the militant Lebanese group Hezbollah, a Shiite organization, might be more inclined to strike at the United States should the group come to believe that the United States posed a direct threat either to the group or the government of Iran, its primary benefactor.

At the White House, Ms. Townsend found herself in the uncomfortable position of explaining why American military action was focused in Iraq when the report concluded that main threat of terror attacks that could be carried out in the United States emanated from the tribal areas of Pakistan.

She argued that it was Mr. bin Laden, as well as the White House, who regarded “Iraq as the central front in the war on terror.”

Richard A. Boucher, the assistant secretary of state, acknowledged that Al Qaeda had prospered during the cease-fire between the tribal leaders and General Musharraf last September, a period in which “they were able to operate, meet, plan, recruit, and obtain financing in more comfort in the tribal areas than previously.”

But Mr. Boucher also described General Musharraf as America’s best bet, and several administration officials on Tuesday cited his recent aggressive actions against Islamic militants at a mosque in Islamabad.

The growing Qaeda threat in Pakistan has prompted repeated trips to Islamabad by senior administration officials to lean on officials there and calls by lawmakers to make American aid to Pakistan contingent on a sustained counterterrorism effort by General Musharraf’s government.

Some members of Congress argue that concern for the stability of General Musharraf’s government had for too long dominated the White House strategy for dealing with Pakistan, thwarting American counterterrorism efforts.

“We have to change policy,” said Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, a Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee who has long advocated a more aggressive American intelligence campaign in Pakistan.

In an interview on Tuesday, the New York Police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, called the report a “realistic and sobering assessment,” but said it had not caused officials in New York to take any specific steps to tighten security in the city.

“There is no surprise here for us,” he said. “Would we rather it be another way? Yes. But this is the world, as it is, and this is what we are guarding against.”

Al Baker contributed reporting from New York.

NYT : Aid to Pakistan in Tribal Areas Raises Concerns

Aid to Pakistan in Tribal Areas Raises Concerns

The hospital in Ghalanai, Pakistan, is supported by American aid, but many local residents have no way of getting there. Many doctors have left because of inadequate security and low pay, a doctor there said.

By JANE PERLEZ | Published: July 16, 2007

GHALANAI, Pakistan — The United States plans to pour $750 million of aid into Pakistan’s tribal areas over the next five years as part of a “hearts and minds” campaign to win over this lawless region from Qaeda and Taliban militants.

But even before the plan has been fully carried out, documents and officials involved in the planning are warning of the dangers of distributing so much money in an area so hostile that oversight is impossible, even by Pakistan’s own government, which faces rising threats from Islamic militants.

Who will be given the aid has quickly become one of the most contentious questions between local officials and American planners concerned that millions might fall into the wrong hands. The local political agents and tribal chiefs in this hinterland on the Afghan border have for years accommodated the very groups the American and Pakistani governments seek to drive out.

A closely scripted visit to the hospital here, used for a pilot project by the United States Agency for International Development, showed the challenges on full display. The one-story hospital here was virtually empty on a recent day.

Local people had no way to get there. Three of the 110 beds were occupied. Two operating tables had not been used in months. Many doctors had left because the pay was too meager and security too precarious, said Dr. Yusuf Shah, the chief surgeon.

Sher Alam Mahsud, the local political boss who escorted this reporter on a rare visit, said he wanted all the American aid money “delivered to us.” But the precarious security does not allow the Americans to assess the aid priorities firsthand, or to provide oversight for the first installment of $150 million allocated by the Bush administration.

“Delivering $150 million in aid to the tribal areas could very quickly make a few people rich and do almost nothing to provide opportunity and justice to the region,” said Craig Cohen, the author of a recent study of United States-Pakistan relations at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Yet it is here in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA, as the region is formally called, that Washington is intent on using the development aid as a counterinsurgency tool, according to a draft of the Agency for International Development plan given to The New York Times by an official who worked on it.

The draft warns that the “severe governance deficiencies” in the tribal areas will make it virtually impossible for the aid to be sustainable or to overcome the “area’s chronic underdevelopment and consequent volatility.”

The ambitious plan was publicly highlighted during a visit to Pakistan in June by Richard A. Boucher, the assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, as a measure of Washington’s support for Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

“The objective driving this decision is the hope that by bringing the FATA into the mainstream and assuring that basic human services and infrastructure are on par with the rest of Pakistan, the people of FATA would be less likely to welcome the presence of Al Qaeda and Taliban,” the draft states. The projects include health and education services, water and sanitation facilities, and agricultural development, it says, making clear that these are a means to a broader end. “The main goal of the United States government in relation to the FATA is counterterrorism,” it says.

One way to improve the chances of the aid’s efficacy would be greater emphasis on political reform in the tribal areas, according to the draft. The Pakistani government has created a panel to study reform of the political structure in the areas, the draft noted, adding that “Usaid should explore opportunities for contributing its substantial experience in local government capacity building to any reform efforts the government of Pakistan decide to undertake.”

Even if the tribal areas were not under the sway of the Taliban, which they increasingly are, the development challenge here would be steep enough, the document and interviews make clear.

The area, home to 3.2 million people, remains a desolate landscape where women are strictly veiled. Female literacy — at 3 percent — is among the lowest in the world. Schools are often used to run businesses. There is no banking system. Smuggling of opium and other contraband is routine.

The hostility to almost anything that smacks of foreign influence is such that money from the modest development agency program, administered by the charity Save the Children at the hospital here, was being delivered anonymously, undercutting any potential public relations benefit for the United States.

“We can’t do branding,” said Fayyaz Ali Khan, the program manager for Save the Children, in an interview in the city of Peshawar. “Usually we say the aid comes from the American people, but here we can’t.”

Suspicions about modern medicine are rife. A Pakistani doctor was blown up in his car in June after trying to counter the anti-vaccine propaganda of an imam in Bajaur, one of the tribal agencies, Pakistani officials said.

The Pakistani government has virtually no authority here. After years of fighting to assert its authority, at the cost of about 600 soldiers, it negotiated peace accords with tribal authorities that have all but confined Pakistani troops to their barracks.

Tribal elders, local imams and governors known as political agents — their title goes back to the British colonial days — are the on-the-ground arbiters of all decisions in many districts. The political agents are widely considered corrupt.

A senior American official in Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital, who would not speak for attribution, defended the plan’s goals as necessary and achievable. The official said that “Pakistani firms, consulting organizations and nongovernmental organizations” would be the main deliverers of the assistance.

The official said, referring to the international aid agency, that these would in turn be “managed under Usaid direct contracts and grants to American and international organizations.”

Mr. Cohen, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was skeptical. Almost every potential recipient of the money was suspect in the eyes of the people it was supposed to help, he said. “The notion that there’s going to be $150 million a year to Pakistani nongovernmental organizations who are going to be out in the open seems naïve to me,” he said.

“The insecurity of the area will require a heavy reliance on local partners” like Pakistani nongovernmental organizations to administer projects, he added. “But the nongovernmental organizations don’t trust the military, the military doesn’t trust the tribal chiefs, and the tribal chiefs won’t trust us unless they’re getting a cut of the money.”

Such Pakistani groups were often targets of the Islamic militants in the tribal areas. The militants are increasingly destroying CD shops and attacking small efforts to gain advantages for women.

Mr. Mahsud, the political agent for the tribal agency, or district, of Mohmand, where the hospital is, had his own ideas. Any aid money from Western donors should be “pooled here,” he said, during an interview at the FATA secretariat headquarters in Peshawar, meaning it should be distributed through local officials.

His power was evident when he drove in his impressive new four-wheel-drive vehicle through the heavy metal black gates that mark the boundary to his tribal agency. Armed men in heavy gray uniforms, wearing black felt berets in the summer heat, snapped to attention.

The hospital itself was barren, and silent. Dr. Shah, the chief surgeon, and other doctors who had come to the hospital for the visit of an outsider, said water was a luxury trucked in by tanker, arriving at best every other day.

One doctor, Aaquila Khan, brimmed with passion about helping the poor and feeble women who came to visit the woefully underequipped hospital, but she lives in Peshawar, more than an hour’s drive away, and so comes in just two or three days a week, mornings only, to treat those female patients.

“They are very much anemic,” she said of eight women she treated during a recent visit. “They are not educated, they are not aware of family planning, they have no money.” Only the women living within walking distance could come, she said.

The aid program run by Save the Children, a small $11 million starter project that hints at the bigger things planned by the Americans, formally began last December with a signing of a memorandum of understanding with the tribal authorities.

The idea is for Pakistani doctors to train health care workers who will go into the field and train traditional health assistants on more modern methods.

But the first training sessions have only just begun, said Mr. Khan, the program manager for Save the Children. The only sign of the program was a “resource room” with a large blond wood table and a dozen or so chairs still in their plastic wrapping.

The training sessions take place in Peshawar, over the tribal boundary, to ensure the safety of the doctors.

AP : Intel report: Al-Qaida takes aim at US

Intel report: Al-Qaida takes aim at US

By KATHERINE SHRADER | Associated Press Writer | July 12, 2007

WASHINGTON - Al-Qaida is stepping up its efforts to sneak terror operatives into the United States and has acquired most of the capabilities it needs to strike here, according to a new U.S. intelligence assessment, The Associated Press has learned.

The draft National Intelligence Estimate is expected to paint an ever-more-worrisome portrait of al-Qaida's ability to use its base along the Pakistan-Afghan border to launch and inspire attacks, even as Bush administration officials say the U.S. is safer nearly six years into the war on terror.

Among the key findings of the classified estimate, which is still in draft form and must be approved by all 16 U.S. spy agencies:

• Al-Qaida is probably still pursuing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and would use them if its operatives developed sufficient capability.

• The terror group has been able to restore three of the four key tools it would need to launch an attack on U.S. soil: a safe haven in Pakistan's tribal areas, operational lieutenants and senior leaders. It could not immediately be learned what the missing fourth element is.

• The group will bolster its efforts to position operatives inside U.S. borders. In public statements, U.S. officials have expressed concern about the ease with which people can enter the United States through Europe because of a program that allows most Europeans to enter without visas.

The document also discusses increasing concern about individuals already inside the United States who are adopting an extremist brand of Islam.

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative written judgments that reflect the consensus long-term thinking of senior intelligence analysts.

Government officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not been finalized, described it as an expansive look at potential threats within the United States and said it required the cooperation of a number of national security agencies, including the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security Department and National Counterterrorism Center.

National security officials met at the White House on Thursday about the intelligence estimate and related counterterrorism issues. The tentative plan is to release a declassified version of the report and brief Congress on Tuesday, one government official said.

Ross Feinstein, spokesman for National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell, declined to discuss the document's specific contents. But he said it would be consistent with statements made by senior government officials at congressional hearings and elsewhere.

The estimate echoes the findings of another analysis prepared by the National Counterterrorism Center earlier this year and disclosed publicly on Wednesday. That report — titled "Al-Qaida better positioned to strike the West" — found the terrorist group is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," a counterterrorism official familiar with the reports findings told the AP.

On Thursday, news of the counterterrorism center's threat assessment renewed the political debate about the nature of the al-Qaida threat and whether U.S. actions — in Iraq in particular — have made the U.S. safer from terrorism.

At a news conference Thursday, President Bush acknowledged al-Qaida's continuing threat to the United States and used the new report as evidence his administration's policies are on the right course.

"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on Sept. 11," he said. "That's why what happens in Iraq matters to security here at home."

Yet Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said Iraq has distracted the United States. He said the U.S. should have finished off al-Qaida in 2002 and 2003 along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Instead, "President Bush chose to invade Iraq, thereby diverting our military and intelligence resources away from the real war on terrorism," Rockefeller said. "Threats to the United States homeland are not emanating from Iraq. They are coming from al-Qaida leadership."

Rockefeller, who voted in favor of toppling Saddam Hussein, called for the U.S. to end its involvement in what he called the Iraqi civil war.

In recent weeks, senior national security officials have been increasingly worried about an al-Qaida attack in the United States.

Appearing on a half-dozen morning TV shows Thursday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff laid out a list of factors contributing to his "gut feeling" that the nation faces a higher risk of attack this summer: al-Qaida's increased freedom to train in South Asia, a flurry of public statements from the network's leadership, a history of summertime attacks, a broader range of attacks in North Africa and Europe and homegrown terrorism increasing in Europe.

"Europe could become a platform for an attack against this country," Chertoff told CNN, although he and others continue to say they know of no specific, credible information pointing to an attack here.

National security officials are frustrated by an agreement last year between Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and tribal leaders in western Pakistan, which gave tribes near the Afghan border greater autonomy and has led to increased al-Qaida activity in the region.

Nevertheless, Bush administration officials still view Musharraf as a partner.

Speaking to a congressional hearing, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher said that Pakistan under Musharraf has captured more al-Qaida operatives than any other country and that several major Taliban leaders were captured or killed this year.

"There is a considerable al-Qaida presence at the border, but they are under pressure," Boucher told a House national security subcommittee.

Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., was skeptical, saying al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders apparently feel safe there. "Is this a Motel 6 for terrorists?" he asked.

Associated Press writers Matthew Lee, Lara Jakes Jordan and Barry Schweid contributed to this report.

People's Daily Online : Pakistan, U.S. to continue fight against terrorism

Pakistan, U.S. to continue fight against terrorism

November 7, 2006

Pakistan and the United States will determine to continue in fighting against terrorism with Washington assuring Islamabad of all possible assistance in economic and defense sectors, the Pakistani newspaper The Nation reported Tuesday.

During Monday's meetings between the visiting U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard A. Boucher and Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri, the two sides reaffirmed their commitment to fight against terrorism, the report said.

Boucher assured the Pakistani official of continued U.S. assistance to Islamabad in economic and defense sectors, it added.

During talks, the two sides discussed the latest situation in Afghanistan, including India-Pakistan peace process, nuclear energy cooperation and the recently carried out air strike on a religious seminary in Bajaur tribal region bordering Afghanistan.

Both sides also exchanged views on counter-terrorism cooperation, according to the report.

Source: Xinhua

Pak Tribune : NATO to meet on Afghanistan but few new troops likely

NATO to meet on Afghanistan but few new troops likely [link lost?]

September 14, 2006

BRUSSELS: NATO members are set to meet to try to boost troop numbers to combat an increasingly violent Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, but they were unlikely to secure considerable reinforcements.

On the eve of the meeting at NATO�s military headquarters in Belgium, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice issued a rallying call not to abandon Afghanistan as it struggles to build a stable democracy.

"If you allow a failed state in that strategic location, you will pay for it," she warned, speaking on a trip to Canada where she expressed her gratitude for Canada�s 2,300-strong troop deployment to Afghanistan.

Her comments coincided with stark warnings of the threat posed by fighters of the Islamist Taliban militia who are waging a bitter insurgency against foreign forces posted there after the Taliban regime was ousted in 2001.

Pakistan�s President Pervez Musharraf said the Taliban had overtaken Osama bin Laden�s Al-Qaeda network as his region�s biggest threat to security, AFP reported.

"The centre of gravity of terrorism has shifted from Al-Qaeda to Taliban," he told European parliamentarians Tuesday in Brussels.

"It is a new element that has emerged, a more dangerous element because it has roots in the people. Al-Qaeda did not have roots in the people," he told the EU assembly�s foreign affairs committee.

The surge in fighting that has seen more than 90 foreign soldiers killed so far these year prompted the alliance�s military chief, US General James Jones, to appeal last week for up to 2,500 reinforcements.

NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer chaired an extraordinary meeting on Monday to urge the alliance�s 26 members to contribute additional troops.

But Britain�s The Daily Telegraph reported that the Wednesday meeting was unlikely to see pledges of considerable troops to bolster the NATO-led international force. It currently has more than 20,000 troops from 37 countries including 8,000 troops confronting Taliban militants in the restive south.

"At the moment there�s no indication of any substantive offers. The signs are that the conference will not produce what is needed," an unnamed senior NATO official told the newspaper.

The Times, meanwhile, quoted an unnamed senior official in US President George W. Bush�s administration as saying: "Germany, Norway and Poland could do more."

But a German defence ministry spokesman told The Financial Times that the country does "not have the capacity to send more".

Major NATO members Turkey and Italy are unlikely to make any contributions, given their roles in the peacekeeping force in Lebanon, The Financial Times reported, and the same is expected of France.

Spain�s defence minister said this week that his country�s deployment of troops in Afghanistan were "more than sufficient", the newspaper said.

According to The Globe and Mail newspaper, Canada is preparing to send 15 Leopard tanks and an additional 120 soldiers to Afghanistan.

NATO�s manning difficulties also come amid deep concern that nations which promised aid and donations in January to the conflict-torn country may be preparing to renege on their pledges.

Although a NATO spokesman earlier this week described Wednesday�s gathering at the headquarters in Mons as a "troop generation meeting", officials were trying to play down expectations of pledges of reinforcements.

Richard Boucher, the assistant US secretary of state for south and central Asian affairs, told journalists in Brussels that it was "probably a little too early" to "draw any conclusions about the efforts to get more troops".

Wednesday�s meeting comes less than two months after NATO�s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) took command of six restive southern provinces where the Taliban are active, the toughest mission the Alliance has taken on yet.

The deployment, for which NATO military chiefs had difficulty securing adequate troops from alliance members, is widely seen as a key test of its credibility that is likely to have ramifications on how it reinvents itself and abandons its Cold War origins.