ClydeR
02-16-2009, 05:29 PM
A troubling AP report (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD96CR3980) from Pakistan says that Pakistan has agreed to allow Islamic law in the Taliban conquered parts of the country. The AP article is confusing because it combines information about the Islamic law agreement with reports about a United States air strike in northwest Pakistan. To simplify matters, I have broken out the two issues in the quoted selections below.
Monday's peace agreement applies to the Malakand region, which includes the former tourist destination of the Swat Valley, where extremists have gained sway by beheading people, burning girls schools and attacking security forces since a similar agreement broke down in August.
U.S. officials complained the earlier accord allowed militants to regroup and rearm and urged Pakistan's government to concentrate on military solutions to the insurgency in the rugged frontier region, where al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding.
The new agreement intensified that unease.
"It is hard to view this as anything other than a negative development," a senior Defense Department official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of relations with Pakistan and because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
Elsewhere in the northwest, missiles fired by a suspected U.S. spy plane killed 30 people in a house used by an extremist commander, witnesses said. It was the deadliest of almost three dozen apparent American attacks on al-Qaida and Taliban targets in the semiautonomous tribal lands close to the Afghan border since last year.
The Obama administration has signaled it will continue such attacks, which U.S. officials say have killed several top al-Qaida leaders. Pakistani leaders have voiced strong objections, saying the strikes undercut support for their own war against militants.
How to deal with terrorists on the Pakistan side of the Pakistan/Afghanistan border became a big deal in the presidential election. Candidate McCain said the United States should not attack terrorists on the Pakistan side of the border. Candidate Obama said (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php) the United States should attack terrorists on the Pakistan side of the border if we had "actionable intelligence" and the Pakistan government would not act. Under President Bush, the United States was attacking terrorists on the Pakistan side of the border, but Bush criticized Obama for saying we would do it without the approval of Pakistan's government, and Bush refused to say whether or not Pakistan's government had approved the attacks launched by Bush, and the Pakistan government denied ever granting such permission.
Well now it's clear that the Pakistan government is not going to act in that region of its country. That means, as I interpret Obama's campaign speech, that he will act, even more than he has already.
Monday's peace agreement applies to the Malakand region, which includes the former tourist destination of the Swat Valley, where extremists have gained sway by beheading people, burning girls schools and attacking security forces since a similar agreement broke down in August.
U.S. officials complained the earlier accord allowed militants to regroup and rearm and urged Pakistan's government to concentrate on military solutions to the insurgency in the rugged frontier region, where al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding.
The new agreement intensified that unease.
"It is hard to view this as anything other than a negative development," a senior Defense Department official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of relations with Pakistan and because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
Elsewhere in the northwest, missiles fired by a suspected U.S. spy plane killed 30 people in a house used by an extremist commander, witnesses said. It was the deadliest of almost three dozen apparent American attacks on al-Qaida and Taliban targets in the semiautonomous tribal lands close to the Afghan border since last year.
The Obama administration has signaled it will continue such attacks, which U.S. officials say have killed several top al-Qaida leaders. Pakistani leaders have voiced strong objections, saying the strikes undercut support for their own war against militants.
How to deal with terrorists on the Pakistan side of the Pakistan/Afghanistan border became a big deal in the presidential election. Candidate McCain said the United States should not attack terrorists on the Pakistan side of the border. Candidate Obama said (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php) the United States should attack terrorists on the Pakistan side of the border if we had "actionable intelligence" and the Pakistan government would not act. Under President Bush, the United States was attacking terrorists on the Pakistan side of the border, but Bush criticized Obama for saying we would do it without the approval of Pakistan's government, and Bush refused to say whether or not Pakistan's government had approved the attacks launched by Bush, and the Pakistan government denied ever granting such permission.
Well now it's clear that the Pakistan government is not going to act in that region of its country. That means, as I interpret Obama's campaign speech, that he will act, even more than he has already.