[Peace-discuss] Sabre-rattling vs. real enemy

[E.Wayne Johnson]

It's all those distasteful and demeaning jokes that the Polish tell about 
Americans
that are a threat to American dignity.

Like "How many American soldiers does it take to kill a civilian?" or
How many American presidents does it take to maintain perpetual war? or
How many media whores does it take to bamboozle the American public?...etc.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
To: "peace discuss" <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 1:56 AM
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Sabre-rattling vs. real enemy


> [We're finally going to have to attack Poland to counter threats to our 
> nationals...]
>
> Options studied for a possible Pakistan strike
> By Greg Miller
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Saturday, May 29, 2010; A01
>
> The U.S. military is reviewing options for a unilateral strike in Pakistan 
> in the event that a successful attack on American soil is traced to the 
> country's tribal areas, according to senior military officials.
>
> Ties between the alleged Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, and elements 
> of the Pakistani Taliban have sharpened the Obama administration's need 
> for retaliatory options, the officials said. They stressed that a U.S. 
> reprisal would be contemplated only under extreme circumstances, such as a 
> catastrophic attack that leaves President Obama convinced that the ongoing 
> campaign of CIA drone strikes is insufficient.
>
> "Planning has been reinvigorated in the wake of Times Square," one of the 
> officials said.
>
> At the same time, the administration is trying to deepen ties to 
> Pakistan's intelligence officials in a bid to head off any attack by 
> militant groups. The United States and Pakistan have recently established 
> a joint military intelligence center on the outskirts of the northwestern 
> city of Peshawar, and are in negotiations to set up another one near 
> Quetta, the Pakistani city where the Afghan Taliban is based, according to 
> the U.S. military officials. They and other officials spoke on the 
> condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity surrounding U.S. 
> military and intelligence activities in Pakistan.
>
> The "fusion centers" are meant to bolster Pakistani military operations by 
> providing direct access to U.S. intelligence, including real-time video 
> surveillance from drones controlled by the U.S. Special Operations 
> Command, the officials said. But in an acknowledgment of the continuing 
> mistrust between the two governments, the officials added that both sides 
> also see the centers as a way to keep a closer eye on one another, as well 
> as to monitor military operations and intelligence activities in insurgent 
> areas.
>
> Obama said during his campaign for the presidency that he would be willing 
> to order strikes in Pakistan, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham 
> Clinton said in a television interview after the Times Square attempt that 
> "if, heaven forbid, an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan 
> were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences."
>
> Obama dispatched his national security adviser, James L. Jones, and CIA 
> Director Leon Panetta to Islamabad this month to deliver a similar message 
> to Pakistani officials, including President Asif Ali Zardari and the 
> military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani.
>
> Jones and Panetta also presented evidence gathered by U.S. law enforcement 
> and intelligence agencies that Shahzad received significant support from 
> the Pakistani Taliban.
>
> The U.S. options for potential retaliatory action rely mainly on air and 
> missile strikes, but could also employ small teams of U.S. Special 
> Operations troops already positioned along the border with Afghanistan. 
> One of the senior military officials said plans for military strikes in 
> Pakistan have been revised significantly over the past several years, 
> moving away from a "large, punitive response" to more measured plans meant 
> to deliver retaliatory blows against specific militant groups.
>
> The official added that there is a broad consensus in the U.S. military 
> that airstrikes would at best erode the threat posed by al-Qaeda and its 
> affiliates, and risk an irreparable rupture in the U.S. relationship with 
> Pakistan.
>
> "The general feeling is that we need to be circumspect in how we respond 
> so we don't destroy the relationships we've built" with the Pakistani 
> military, the second official said.
>
> U.S. Special Operations teams in Afghanistan have pushed for years to have 
> wider latitude to carry out raids across the border, arguing that CIA 
> drone strikes do not yield prisoners or other opportunities to gather 
> intelligence. But a 2008 U.S. helicopter raid against a target in Pakistan 
> prompted protests from officials in Islamabad who oppose allowing U.S. 
> soldiers to operate within their country.
>
> The CIA has the authority to designate and strike targets in Pakistan 
> without case-by-case approval from the White House. U.S. military forces 
> are currently authorized to carry out unilateral strikes in Pakistan only 
> if solid intelligence were to surface on any of three high-value targets: 
> al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, or Taliban chief 
> Mohammad Omar. But even in those cases, the military would need 
> higher-level approval.
>
> "The bottom line is you have to have information about targets to do 
> something [and] we have a process that remains cumbersome," said one of 
> the senior military officials. "If something happens, we have to confirm 
> who did it and where it came from. People want to be as precise as 
> possible to be punitive."
>
> U.S. spy agencies have engaged in a major buildup inside Pakistan over the 
> past year. The CIA has increased the pace of drone strikes against 
> al-Qaeda affiliates, a campaign supported by the arrival of new 
> surveillance and eavesdropping technology deployed by the National 
> Security Agency.
>
> The fusion centers are part of a parallel U.S. military effort to 
> intensify the pressure on the Taliban and other groups accused of 
> directing insurgent attacks in Afghanistan. U.S. officials said that the 
> sharing of intelligence goes both ways and that targets are monitored in 
> both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
>
> In the Peshawar fusion cell, which was set up within the last several 
> months, Pakistanis have access to "full-motion video from different 
> platforms," including unarmed surveillance drones, one official said.
>
> The fusion centers also serve a broader U.S. aim: making the Pakistanis 
> more dependent on U.S. intelligence, and less likely to curtail Predator 
> drone patrols or other programs that draw significant public opposition.
>
> To Pakistan, the fusion centers offer a glimpse of U.S. capabilities, as 
> well as the ability to monitor U.S. military operations across the border. 
> "They find out much more about what we know," one of the senior U.S. 
> military officials said. "What we get is physical presence -- to see what 
> they are actually doing versus what they say they're doing."
>
> That delicate arrangement will be tested if the two sides reach agreement 
> on the fusion center near Quetta. The city has served for nearly a decade 
> as a sanctuary for Taliban leaders who fled Afghanistan in 2001 and have 
> long-standing ties to Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence 
> directorate.
>
> U.S. officials said that the two sides have done preliminary work 
> searching for a suitable site for the center but that the effort is 
> proceeding at a pace that one official described as "typical Pakistani 
> glacial speed." Despite the increased cooperation, U.S. officials say they 
> continue to be frustrated over Pakistan's slow pace in issuing visas to 
> American military and civilian officials.
>
> One senior U.S. military official said the center would be used to track 
> the Afghan Taliban leadership council, known as the Quetta shura. But 
> other officials said the main mission would be to support the U.S. 
> military effort across the border in Kandahar, Afghanistan, where a major 
> U.S. military push is planned.
>
> Staff writers Greg Jaffe and Karen DeYoung contributed to this report.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/28/AR2010052804854_pf.html
>
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.