[Peace-discuss] "Believe nothing until it's officially denied"

[C. G. Estabrook]

	Petraeus: Military Reserves 'Right of Last Resort'
	for Threats Inside Pakistan

The head of Central Command speaks with FOX News, as the Obama administration
prepares to step up the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban along the
Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

	FOXNews.com
	Monday, March 30, 2009

The U.S. military will reserve the "right of last resort" to take out threats
inside Pakistan, but it would prefer to enable the Pakistani military to do the
job itself, Gen. David Petraeus said Monday in an exclusive interview with FOX
News.

The commander of U.S. Central Command was interviewed as the Obama
administration prepares to step up the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban
along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Asked about lingering concerns that Pakistan is not fully on board, Petraeus
told FOX News' Bret Baier that the  U.S. military is putting "additional focus"
on rooting out ties between Pakistan's intelligence service and the Taliban.

One incident of obvious cooperation between the Pakistani intelligence community
and extremists has already been uncovered, he said. "There is a case in the past
year or so that we think was unambiguous. There appears to have been a warning
prior to a Pakistani operation," Petraeus said.

But he said trust between the two countries will be key as President Obama seeks
more Pakistani cooperation and calls for billions in aid to the country.

"I think we are building that kind of trust. And that's the way I think is the
best description for that. And it's hugely important that that trust be built,"
Petraeus said, pointing to "gradually increasing intelligence sharing" among
Afghan, Pakistani and U.S. forces along the border.

Obama, in unveiling his regional plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan on Friday,
said the U.S. will "insist that action be taken, one way or another, when we
have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets."

He added on Sunday that "we're going after" such targets, though the U.S. will
need to work with Pakistan's government to do so. He did not specifically say
U.S. troops could be sent into the country.

Asked about the president's comments, Petraeus signaled that all options would
be on the table.

"I think we would never give up, if you will, the right of last resort if we
assess something as a threat to us, noting that what we want to do is enable the
Pakistanis, help them, assist them to deal with the problem that we now think,
and their leaders certainly now think, represents the most important existential
threat to their country, not just to the rest of the world," he said.

The Pakistanis have expressed frustration over unmanned U.S. drone strikes to
take out terrorist targets inside their border.

But Petraeus said the U.S. is mindful of perceptions in the region.

"It's hugely important that we be seen as good neighbors, as friends, certainly
fierce warriors who will go after the enemy and stay after them -- but also as
individuals who try to avoid civilian casualties whenever possible and are seen
again as supporting the people and trying to help them achieve a better life,"
Petraeus said, specifically referring to the fight on the Afghan side of the
border.

On the Pakistani side, Petraeus acknowledged an effort to put a halt to any
collaboration between Taliban members and individuals in Pakistani intelligence.

"There are some relationships that continue. It is not as clear as one would
like. There's certainly additional focus on that," Petraeus said. "Obviously,
we've had these conversations with our counterparts (in Pakistan)."

Obama has announced that he's sending 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan and is
requesting $1.5 billion a year for the next five years in aid for Pakistan -- he
is also planning to call for $2.8 billion just for Pakistan's military.

As to threats elsewhere in the region, Petraeus said Iran is still "some years
away" from a nuclear weapon.

"They have low-enriched uranium that is about the amount that would be required
perhaps to make a weapon, but there are many, many more steps that are required.

You have to highly enrich it," he said. "But are they a threat? Certainly."

Petraeus also dismissed online speculation that he is considering a run for
office (the speculation was fueled by a posting, later revealed to be a joke,
that he is planning a 2010 speaking engagement at the University of Iowa).

"I do not (have interest in running for office)," Petraeus said. "Not at all.
And I've tried to say that on numerous occasions."

He said he's not heading to Iowa.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/30/petraeus-military-reserves-right-resort-threats-inside-pakistan/

C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> I think you're right, and of course I hope you are, but the trouble is that
> there are people in the Pentagon and the State Department working hard this
> weekend on the contingency plans for taking effective control of Pakistan.
> The administration has made it clear in its peculiarly misleading media blitz
> this week (you pointed out the significance of the Friday announcement) that
> Pakistan, not Afghanistan, is the real problem. The "stopping terrorism"
> excuse is a front -- the real task is neutralizing opposition to effective US
> control of the region.
> 
> They're looking at how taking control of an insufficiently active comprador
> government was done in S. Vietnam, how the US client Zia-ul-Haq arranged for
> martial law in Pakistan, and how Musharraf did it.  The consequences of such
> a move were set out by Tariq Ali (author of "The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight
> Path of American Power" [2008]) and Steve Cohen (formerly of UIUC) in a
> discussion a year ago:
> 
> "Tariq Ali: I think it is a dysfunctional state rather than a failed one, but
> the notion of jihadi terrorists capturing the nuclear facility is nonsense.
> They would have to capture the Pakistan army first. This consists of half a
> million men. The nuclear facility is the most heavily guarded place in the
> country. A handful of senior officers know the codes. So its safe. And its
> worth repeating that except for a short period following the break-up of the
> country in 1971, the command structure of the army has never been broken.
> Even in 1971, the generals responsible for the debacle were asked politely to
> resign, which they did. Jihadis could only capture the nuclear facility if
> the army wanted them to and there is no likelihood of that at the moment.
> 
> "Stephen Cohen: I can provide a gloss on Tariq Ali’s answer - I’ve looked at
> the question of failure closely in my recent book on Pakistan and concluded
> that it had failed in pieces, but not comprehensively, as had Afghanistan
> (which was in some ways a murdered, not a failed state) and several African
> states, which are hardly states in any sense of the word. Yet, the nuclear
> assets are perhaps still vulnerable, one scenario for Pakistan would be a
> falling out among the military, or perhaps a politician trying to divide the
> military - in these cases, short of total state failure, nuclear assets could
> be important in a power struggle, and who knows what would happen to them.
> This is, of course, a distant possibility, and Ali is correct in emphasising
> the unity of the armed forces. However, there’s a lot of concern that under
> stress unpredictable things could happen, and Pakistan’s earlier record as
> the wholesaler of nuclear technology to other states does not inspire 
> confidence.
> 
> "Tariq Ali: Cohen is right to say that a split in the army could have 
> catastrophic results, but this is unlikely unless the US decided to invade
> and occupy the country. That would split the army but it is as long a shot as
> jihadis capturing the nuclear weapons. True that Pakistan sold nuclear
> technology in the world market on the assumption that everything was now for
> sale. They weren’t alone. Yeltsin’s Russia did the same.
> 
> "Stephen Cohen: The fact that we are even talking about this is comforting to
> me in a perverse sense: the last sentence of my Idea of Pakistan stated that
> Pakistan could, soon, become America’s worst foreign policy nightmare - I’m
> not pleased to have anticipated this catastrophe."
> 
> http://www.brookings.edu/interviews/2008/0213_pakistan_cohen.aspx?rssid=cohens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Naiman wrote:
>> I don't think U.S. ground troops fighting in Pakistan in any numbers in the
>>  forseeable future is a likely prospect. There are people in the U.S. 
>> government who would very much like to do this, but the Pakistani 
>> government and military have made very clear that this is a red line that
>> they have no intention of allowing the U.S. to cross.
>> 
>> There are many bad things ahead, but this is not likely to be one of them.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Mar 29, 2009, at 10:52 AM, "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> [That maxim is ascribed to a number of experienced journalists, from the 
>>> late I. F. Stone to Alex Cockburn's father, Claud.  Like the 
>>> psychoanalyst, the observer of governments should always ask why
>>> something is denied. --CGE]
>>> 
>>> Obama Rules Out US Troops In Pakistan
>>> 
>>> WASHINGTON (AP) — As he carries out a retooled strategy in Afghanistan, 
>>> President Barack Obama says he will consult with Pakistan's leaders 
>>> before pursuing terrorist hideouts in that country...
> 
>