US Military Planning DOA

Path:

free.teranews.com!sam.nntpserver.com!be3.nntpserver.com!10.1.1.100.MISMATCH!nntpserver.com!zeus.nntpserver.com!storethat.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!news.germany.com!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeedt0.toon.t-online.de!newsmm00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail

From: UseNetOnly@t-online.de

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:07:20 +0100

Organization: T-Online

13:07:20

X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@t-online.de

X-ID: Zw6k-oZYwekZASofGXkK78te0x-PC1JWB33HIvV4bb+A-eplfGv+rd

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118

X-No-Archive: yes

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:07:20 +0100, UseNetOnly@t-online.de wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:41:09 -0500, http://www.freedomtofascism.com

><truth@r.us> wrote:

>>They're reading your mind you know.

>>

>I am do not fear

Good, because if you think something or plan something, it will be posted to

the internet before it happens so everyone in the world can read it.

To wit:

Covert bid to push US troops into Pak

25 Jan 2008, 0209 hrs IST,CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA,TNN

WASHINGTON: The United States will soon have boots on the ground inside

Pakistan following a decision by the Pentagon to send Special Forces,

ostensibly to train Pakistani troops to meet the terrorist challenge that is

threatening to destabilise the country.

An internal communication called a planning order has been issued by Admiral

William Fallon, commander of the US Central Command, asking US military

commanders to develop "new approaches" to help Pakistan combat terrorism,

senior defense officials revealed in a background briefing on Wednesday.

"New approaches" appeared to be a euphemism for covert US intervention in

Pakistan where anti-American sentiment is high. AP reported that the program

envisages a timeline stretching to 2015.

US officials put plenty of gloss on the intervention plan to save Pakistan's

face, saying a central assumption in the approach is that no such US

training contribution would be made without the Pakistani government's prior

approval.

But they have also indicated that Pakistan has accepted the new US plan,

having left Washington with little choice as its vaunted military ceded

territory to Al Qaeda and Taliban elements on its western border, amid

reports of troop desertion and surrender.

Details of the US plans were not revealed but Admiral Fallon has been in

Pakistan this week holding talks with Pakistan's new army supremo Ashraf

Kiyani, even as it's "President" Gen. (Retd) Musharraf is on an eight-day

tour of Europe.

US officials are now letting it be known that they have Kiyani's green

signal for the operation, even as Musharraf has been protesting any direct

US action. Before leaving for Pakistan, Fallon cryptically said US

assistance will now be "more robust" and Pakistan had shown greater

willingness to accept that help.

Publicly, US officials are repeating ad nauseum that US forces would go to

Pakistan only with the approval and at the invitation of the Pakistani

government, and their mandate would be strictly to train the Pakistani

military in counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operation.

But the real motive - hand's on monitoring and control -- is evident from

the fact that such training could be imparted any other place, including in

the United States itself, as it happens in the case of joint exercises

between India and the US.

Most interventions in Third World countries begin with such ventures

involving advisors and trainers, as it happened with the Soviet involvement

in Afghanistan and Cuba. Although widely regarded as a vassal state,

Pakistan had avoided direct involvement of US troops inside its territory to

avoid a public backlash from an increasingly anti-American mood in the

country.

The US too has been trying to keep the operation low-key but the information

has been dribbling out.

On Thursday, the LA Times ran a story saying "the Pentagon is making plans

to send military personnel to Pakistan to train its security forces, taking

advantage of promising ties with the country's new top general."

Across the continent, a Washington Post columnist wrote a spot report from

Rawalpindi on the meeting between Fallon and Kiyani that clearly undermined

Musharraf, and virtually spelt his political obituary.

In contrast with the Musharraf years, it quoted Fallon saying, "I would

expect the army gets a lot more attention now because the guy who's in

charge only has one job...I'm encouraged that he seems to understand the

necessity of doing counterinsurgency."

The reference was to Kiyani, who had emerged as a Washington favorite with

glowing portrayals in the U.S media even as Musharraf is being trashed as a

has-been who is now a serious liability to the United States.

On his European tour, Musharraf too has been spitting fire, saying the US

will be "sadly mistaken" if it thinks a few of its forces can do what

100,000 Pakistani troops is finding it difficult. He has gone as far as

saying the US will regret it if it puts boots in the ground inside Pakistan.

Washington's cover story so far: US troops and planners will go there just

to train Pakistani forces.

Musharraf has also been trying to sell Pakistan as a stable entity even as

the country is falling apart economically and politically amid widespread

shortages of essential commodities and rising anger against his leadership.

On Wednesday, an organization of retired military personnel, including some

top generals, asked Musharraf to quit the scene, a demand the itinerant

president contemptuously dismissed.

But judging by the noises coming from Washington, the United States has

started to shift its attention to Musharraf's successor as army chief, Gen.

Ashraf Kiyani with the intention of bidding its long-favored dictator

goodbye.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Covert_bid_to_push_US_troops_into_Pak/articleshow/2729511.cms

--

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com