Another good read!

[DougTravels]

Pakistan planning offensive against terror havens
By PAULINE JELINEK and LOLITA C. BALDOR, AP

WASHINGTON — U.S. defense officials said Friday that Pakistan is planning a new assault into South Waziristan aimed at key al-Qaida strongholds, a move tied to the Obama administration's broader strategy for the Afghanistan war.

At the same time, one senior U.S. official said, the U.S. will also be providing increased intelligence and surveillance support to the Pakistanis. That U.S. official and several others spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss planned military operations that have not been announced.

The main focus of the new Pakistani offensive, the U.S. officials said, is to strike at Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud, whose insurgency inside Pakistan poses a serious internal threat to the government. Mehsud has been linked to bombings on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and represents a key target for both countries.

But South Waziristan, a lawless border region, is also considered a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders. The region's high concentration of al-Qaida extremists and Taliban insurgents has made it a frequent target of U.S. missiles fired from unmanned drone aircraft.

While officials would not discuss any U.S. involvement in the coming offensive, one defense official said that "anywhere where there is a growing al-Qaida problem, this is probably an intelligence surge."

Intelligence sharing between Washington and Islamabad has been increasing over the last eight months with Pakistan's change in government and its growing willingness to battle militants and terrorists within its borders.

Top U.S. and Pakistani military officials held a secret strategy session in August 2008 on an aircraft carrier off Pakistan to discuss the problem.

Weeks later, a Pakistan government official said the two countries had agreed to a shared set of targets in lawless western Pakistan. The United States agreed to go after militant tribal leaders who threatened Pakistan's stability_ among them Mehsud_ and Pakistan would target al-Qaida operatives whom the United States considers its top threat.

The U.S. officials said the Pakistani operations would lead to military offensives along both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border stretching down along the Federally Administered Tribal Area.

Officials offered no time frame for the new offensive, but said the initial phases have already begun. There have been persistent rumors in Pakistan about the planned offensive, but no official government announcement.

After six weeks of major combat operations — first in Buner and Upper Dir districts, then in Swat Valley — the Pakistani Army appears to be redeploying forces into the area surrounding South Waziristan, said another official.

And the officials said that while fighting is still raging in pockets of Swat, the looming move into Waziristan may have a better chance of success than previous efforts there.

"The way they're approaching the problem of Waziristan is a little bit different than they approached it in the past," a senior official said.

Previous offensives in 2004, 2005 and 2008 failed, though each effort was slightly larger in scope than previous campaigns.

"The operations that appear to be under way now would be the largest operations that have been undertaken in Waziristan," the official said.

The central element of the U.S. Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, the defense official said, is to have troops put pressure on the al-Qaida and Taliban militants believed to be operating out of safe havens there.

___

Associated Press writer Pamela Hess contributed to this report.

 

[DougTravels]

I see this as a good thing but I am sure some will try and find a way to put an anti-Obama slant to it.

 

[Turtle]

It's a little odd that they would make such a public announcement to let the Taliban know what's coming. Then again, they already know.

The above article is somewhat interesting, but what is vastly more interesting (to me, and hopefully others) is what prompted it, and what enabled it to get to this point. It is a story that is front and center in Pakistan, but hardly talked about here.

As I have said on a few occasions, the only way to defeat this enemy from without, is from within. It's starting to happen right now, before our eyes.

It's a little long, and I'm not normally one to post entire articles like this, but as so often happens, these AP stories go poof after a short time, but you wanna good read, here 'tis.

updated June 11, 2009
Pakistan public opinion turning against Taliban
Video showing Taliban beating woman is undermining support for militants

​

Mobile phone footage released by Dunya TV Channel shows a woman in a (red)
body-covering burqa face-down on the ground with two menholding her arms
and feet and a third man whipping her backside. The video, taken in April, is
believed to be changing some Pakistanis' opinions of the Taliban.
​

ISLAMABAD - The footage was chilling — a woman crying out in pain, held face-down on the ground, as a man with a long beard flogged her in front of a crowd.

It could be the video that changed Pakistan.

That two-minute clip, purportedly shot in the Swat Valley where the Taliban held sway until a recent military offensive, has come to represent the militants and their extreme form of Islam. The footage is increasingly seen here as a turning point — perhaps even more persuasive than all the bombings, beheadings and other violence, most recently Tuesday's suicide attack on a luxury hotel.

The circumstances of the beating are murky. No one is sure where exactly it happened and the woman's identity remains unclear more than two months after the whipping was shown repeatedly on TV.

No matter. She remains irrevocably linked with the Taliban, an instant icon the government has used to ask Pakistanis if this is what they want for their country.

The answer from many seems to be no.

Many no longer support Taliban
There are no scientific polls, but in informal interviews by The Associated Press with more than three dozen Pakistanis across the country Wednesday and Thursday, not a single person expressed sympathy or allegiance toward the Taliban. The most common answer was the militants should be hunted down and killed.

Many people told the AP they used to support the Taliban but no longer do so. The finding is supported by those of Pakistani analysts and commentators, who say they detect a similar shift in public opinion recently against the Taliban.

Certainly, the militants retain some support, particularly in the lawless tribal regions bordering Afghanistan that the Taliban and al-Qaida have used as sanctuary. The extremists would likely retreat to these areas if they continue to suffer defeats elsewhere.

But the change in public mood is empowering the army in its offensive against the militants — a campaign supported by the Obama administration, which believes security in Pakistan is vital to defeating the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan.
Now the army says it has the Taliban on the run, helped by tips from residents in villages under fire. It's quite a change from several months ago, when the Taliban was on the march within 60 miles of the capital, Islamabad, and there was talk of the entire country falling to the militants.

"Like all of us, I was welcoming the Taliban in the beginning," said Abdul Jabbar Khan, a 52-year-old shopkeeper. Khan now lives with eight family members in a relief camp in Mardan, along the northwest border with Afghanistan. They said they were forced from their home by fighting in Mingora, Swat's biggest town.

"When Maulana Fazlullah started giving sermons on the radio, he was talking about good things — heaven and Islamic teachings," Khan said, referring to the Taliban leader in Swat.

"Now we have the result," he continued. "It is very miserable, painful for all of us. We had a good life there. We had a good home and everything. Now we are begging for even daily meals. These people are responsible. They betrayed us and played with our religious emotions."


‘Kill each and every Taliban’
Nadeem Ahmad Awan, a 31-year-old bookseller in the southwestern city of Quetta, said the army should "kill each and every Taliban."

"No Taliban should go unharmed," agreed Asma Arshad, 23, a college student in the central city of Multan. "The killing of Taliban is good for Islam and it is good for Pakistan."

A majority of Pakistanis have always opposed Islamic extremists. Previous army offensives against the militants, however, have resulted in public backlashes as many people concluded the only way to end the bloodshed and destruction was for the weak central government to strike a deal with the extremists.

That may be changing.

"The mood has changed toward the Taliban even among those who had empathy with them," said Mahmood Shah, a retired military officer. "Now I don't think they can talk openly in favor of the Taliban. They will be stoned or something."

Attacks like Tuesday's bombing of the Pearl Continental hotel in Peshawar that killed at least nine people, including two U.N. workers, also have hardened people's resolve.

"I get the sense that setting off bombs on any civilian target in the North West Frontier Province — particularly in a place like Peshawar, which might otherwise be a hotbed of support for the insurgency — is fairly obviously a counterproductive strategy," Shah said.

The militants' efforts to expand their sway beyond Swat also appear to have been a miscalculation. Under a February peace deal signed with the government, they imposed sharia, or Islamic law — the whipping in the video appeared to be punishment for an offense — and have been accused of murders, rapes and pillaging.

Sufi Muhammad, an influential Taliban cleric, further stirred outrage with a speech in which he denounced democracy and elections — an unpopular pronouncement in a country that recently has emerged from a decade of military rule.


Building support for offensive
When the Taliban advanced from Swat into the neighboring Buner district in April, the deal collapsed and the government sent the army to oust the militants from the region.
The rising public sentiment against the militants has played into the government's efforts to build support for offensives against the Taliban that started, with strong encouragement from Washington and other allies, in Swat and may yet head for tougher targets in the tribal areas of North and South Waziristan.

Sheik Maqsood, a 47-year-old social worker in Multan, said he used to like and respect the Taliban, but that over the years their atrocities in the tribal regions have changed his mind.
"These Taliban are unpopular to such an extent that not a single person is willing to utter even one word in their favor," Maqsood said.

The sea change in sentiment appears to have started with the video, said Mehdi Hasan, a journalism professor and political commentator.

The two-minute video, widely aired on local television in early April, shows the woman face down on the ground with two men holding her arms and feet. Her all-enveloping burqa has been hitched up to expose a pair of pink trousers.

Crowd watches silently
A third man in a black turban with a long beard whips her backside more than a dozen times, causing her to scream repeatedly and shout "Stop it, stop it! It is painful!" A crowd of men watches silently in the background.

"After the flogging of the girl in Swat, the people of the country's mood changed," Hasan said. "Before that, the public attitude was apologetic and defensive because of the word Islam."

The Taliban's other actions had an impact, too.
"The militants were blasting saloons, destroying girls' schools. They were stopping women from coming out of their homes or going to the doctor," Hasan said. "People became fed up with this. They are reclaiming Islam. ... For the first time in Pakistan, they are taking a strong stand against the Taliban and the extremists."

Taliban's ‘ugly faces’
Zahid Omar, 37, a local trader in the eastern city of Lahore, said people had been forced to see the Taliban's "ugly faces."Zafar Hilaly, a former Pakistani ambassador, wrote in the influential daily The News that the Taliban's actions already have cost them any chance of destabilizing the government.

"They helped the public make up its mind," he wrote. "They helped the army do what it should have done much earlier, which was to fight. They encouraged parliament to acquire some . Pakistan's victory in the present war against the Taliban is preordained for no other reason than the nation is finally united against the enemy."

The government has shown more savvy than in previous offensives against militants that left civilians dead. They appear to have been careful to avoid collateral damage as much as possible this time, though it's impossible to know for sure because the military has severely restricted access to the combat zones.

In addition, there has been a nearly monthlong pause in U.S. drone-fired missile strikes against militant targets near the Afghan border. Such strikes are unpopular in Pakistan, though U.S. officials say the lull was not timed to allow the government to build good will.

Army has more public support
The Pakistani army — whose reputation took a beating under former military leader Pervez Musharraf — says it's succeeding in Swat partly because it has more public support. Many residents are now more helpful in tipping off security forces to Taliban presence, military officials say.

The military also quickly dispatched helicopter gunships to the Upper Dir region in support of a citizens' militia that sprang up after the bombing last week of a mosque that was blamed on the Taliban. Some similar efforts have foundered for lack of government support.

Still, critics say the Pakistani army does not have the will or ability to vanquish the militants, given its close links to extremist groups.

While the peace deal with the Taliban was widely criticized at the time as a capitulation, President Asif Ali Zardari says he signed off on it because he knew the militants would violate it and show their true colors.

The flogging and other Taliban actions seemed to resonate with Pakistanis because Swat is much more a part of the Pakistan they're familiar with than the tribal areas. People who live in Punjab have vacationed in Swat and gone there to honeymoon. The tribal areas, on the other hand, are like another planet.

Millions displaced by offensive
The surge in support for the offensive still could end if the government fails to address the more than 2 million people displaced by the fighting or to hold Swat once it's cleared. Bringing law and order to that stretch of the northwest is critical to preventing the Taliban's re-emergence.

Residents in the troubled Bajur tribal region cursed the Taliban in interviews with the AP — but also complained the government did nothing for them after a successful military operation last year against the Taliban.

When the militants were in power, "we were facing threats from the Taliban but at least we could still live in our homes," said Dost Mohammed, one of thousands who fled their town of Mamund during the fighting — only to return to find their homes and crops destroyed.

Mohammed still favors army action against the Taliban. But he said that the government should help those who pay a heavy price for the war on terror.

 

[DougTravels]

I read this before and almost posted it. I ran in for the jumbo bag of M&M's (Peanut of course) when I came back out I had forgotten.

All kidding aside it is promising to see the tide turning against them. I agree we probably cannot beat them alone it is up to them, the best thing we can do is help them see that it is in THEIR best interest to beat them.

 

[Turtle]

It's just a very small ripple in the tide, but it's one that could cause a wave. I know it's a long article, and I'm sorry for that, but I encourage everyone to read it carefully.

Notice the comments about things like the public attitude was apologetic and defensive because of the word of Islam, and how things are preordained, including now the fight against the Taliban. They are very defensive and protective of any kind of attack on Islam, whether that attack is from without, or within.

These are the kinds of things I've been talking about, and now they're beginning to happen, if I do saysomyself.

As much as I'm not a fan of his, Obama's speech the other day was dead on insofar as what it did. Not what he said, but what it did. We will not defeat Islam or the extremists by trying to confront it head on. That will only give it more power and resolve. With most enemies, the best defense is a good offense, hence the preemptive hunting down of extremist. But that won't work.

When we stop trying to attack the extremists, and thus attacking Islam, be it verbally or physically, their focus will no longer be on us, and will instead be turned to whatever else is a threat to Islam, i.e., the extremist themselves. So in this case, the best offense is a good defense, and the Muslims themselves will provide the offense for us.

And it's starting to happen right now. I just hope Obama follows up properly. If he does, though, a few here and around the country will just have a melt down, because the correct follow up will be to embrace Islam, to show them that we are not against it, that we are not out to attack it, to give them no reason for a jihad.

Oh, the irony in that I am the classic definition of an infidel. <Turtle looks around, cautiously rubbing his neck prophetically>

 

[greg334]

I seem to think that we forget a lot of things here in the west, Obama's speech may have been all good and well but we can't forget what is at stake in Pakistan and the realization over there that the people now have other issues to contend with. I think they, the people of Pakistan are tired and their public opinion slowly moves from one end of the spectrum to another on key issues. They have a lot to lose if the country changes government, it will agitate the shaky relationship between India and them and may cause a bigger war but the bigger issue will be returning to a more stricter way of life.

Obama's message was not directed to the majority of Muslims, it was directed towards the Arab Muslim, the disenfranchised ones. The war we have against the terrorist (which is the correct term, not all extremist are terrorist) has to be met with consistent force without comprimise. We can't waiver in our committement to Pakistan, like we can't waiver with Iraq.

 

[aristotle]

It's just a very small ripple in the tide, but it's one that could cause a wave. I know it's a long article, and I'm sorry for that, but I encourage everyone to read it carefully.

Notice the comments about things like the public attitude was apologetic and defensive because of the word of Islam, and how things are preordained, including now the fight against the Taliban. They are very defensive and protective of any kind of attack on Islam, whether that attack is from without, or within.

These are the kinds of things I've been talking about, and now they're beginning to happen, if I do saysomyself.

As much as I'm not a fan of his, Obama's speech the other day was dead on insofar as what it did. Not what he said, but what it did. We will not defeat Islam or the extremists by trying to confront it head on. That will only give it more power and resolve. With most enemies, the best defense is a good offense, hence the preemptive hunting down of extremist. But that won't work.

When we stop trying to attack the extremists, and thus attacking Islam, be it verbally or physically, their focus will no longer be on us, and will instead be turned to whatever else is a threat to Islam, i.e., the extremist themselves. So in this case, the best offense is a good defense, and the Muslims themselves will provide the offense for us.

And it's starting to happen right now. I just hope Obama follows up properly. If he does, though, a few here and around the country will just have a melt down, because the correct follow up will be to embrace Islam, to show them that we are not against it, that we are not out to attack it, to give them no reason for a jihad.

Oh, the irony in that I am the classic definition of an infidel. <Turtle looks around, cautiously rubbing his neck prophetically>

Dear Mr. Infidel... are you suggesting we Americans embrace Islam? Am I reading this correctly? Please say it ain't so.

 

[Turtle]

Dear Mr. Infidel... are you suggesting we Americans embrace Islam? Am I reading this correctly? Please say it ain't so.

In the context of "to accept willingly", yes. There are very few religions that America has not embraced, Islam is one of them. The problem is largely lumping all Muslims together with the Islamic terrorists. As soon as we can, at least politically, differentiate between the two, the sooner they will see us as not a threat to Islam.

That doesn't mean let Muslims run roughshod over us, tho.

 

[greg334]

Turtle,
The problem is not that we have to have a willingness to accept, we do for that matter, look around but there has to be an equilibrium on the issue of tolerance and acceptance and it seems that it has happened in most of the large populated areas where Muslims reside. The exception is Minnesota.

Most of the issues we have are caused by the political base trying to compromise in order to gain political capital with a religion. Instead of letting things progress on their own and standing firm on issues, we read and hear our leadership is willing to come to terms with Islamic terrorist and meet them on their level. There is no way we can have any differentiation between a terrorist and a simple follower of Islam, that can only come from the people of the religion who are willing to put a stop to the hijacking of the religion and that only comes when there is no compromising done.

 

[aristotle]

You want a good read about the consequences of allowing Islam to spread unchecked in a major population center? Read "Londonistan" by British journalist Melanie Phillips. This book surveys 20 years of accommodation made to Muslims in the UK.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Denmark accommodates. Look where they are now.

 

[Turtle]

Greg, when I say America, I mean the political leadership, particular that which deals with foreign policy. Not so much individual Americans, or Americans collectively.

Accommodation is another matter. That's what I meant by not letting them run roughshod over us. The way Islam is constructed, it can coexist with other religions and peoples if limits are set, but once you give them an inch, they think they are the owners of the mile, and a far sight past that, too. Limits can't be such that they curb or infringe upon Islam, but they can be where Islam starts to infringe on others.

 

[DougTravels]

Denmark accommodates. Look where they are now.

Has someone moved Denmark?

 

[greg334]

Greg, when I say America, I mean the political leadership, particular that which deals with foreign policy. Not so much individual Americans, or Americans collectively.

Accommodation is another matter. That's what I meant by not letting them run roughshod over us. The way Islam is constructed, it can coexist with other religions and peoples if limits are set, but once you give them an inch, they think they are the owners of the mile, and a far sight past that, too. Limits can't be such that they curb or infringe upon Islam, but they can be where Islam starts to infringe on others.

Turtle,
First is we shouldn't separate the foreign policy from the people in regards of Muslim countries. It is the separation and the change of our government that causes a lot of the problems in the first place. Foreign policy needs to be consistent when dealing with people like this and our political leadership (if you want to call them that) seem to try to compromise all the time because that is the way the west and our government works (that is one reason why senators dont' make good foriegn policy presidents). It is like going to the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul, you barter if you want something, you never compromise on a price - it is the bartering that is the game to watch when both people know what they want and what they will take as part of the deal. I have seen when we walk into a situation as a government, we bring in all this emotion and rhetoric which makes us weak when we open our mouths.

Again the same goes for accommodating people of different cultures, we allow the taking of ten miles when we give inches. It is not that they are wrong in taking advantage of the situation, it is us who can't think beyond the subject of the accommodation to see what the culture is like and what they really want. We are quick to blame others for our faults, it happened when the Irish came here then the Italians and so on.

You did the same thing others do, lumping cultures together based on the religion. It is not the way Islam is constructed that has the effect, it is the differences in the people's culture beyond the religion that matters. The Saudis have a different way of looking at things from the Arabs Turkey. The Muslims of eastern Africa don't act like the Muslims of the UAEs and so on.

 

[Turtle]

Turtle,
First is we shouldn't separate the foreign policy from the people in regards of Muslim countries.

But that's what we do now, and it's what needs to change.

You did the same thing others do, lumping cultures together based on the religion.

Clearly, I failed to properly convey what I meant, as you took the exact opposite to be my views.

 

[greg334]

But that's what we do now, and it's what needs to change.

No not really, we don't tie the two together because our political system is separate from our culture. If we presented a strong front, say for a Palestinian country without Hamas, on both the political front and within the culture of our country, then the message would be clear and without the political comprimising that makes us weak in their eyes.

Clearly, I failed to properly convey what I meant, as you took the exact opposite to be my views.

I think it was me too. Sorry.

 

[Turtle]

No not really, we don't tie the two together because our political system is separate from our culture. If we presented a strong front, say for a Palestinian country without Hamas, on both the political front and within the culture of our country, then the message would be clear and without the political comprimising that makes us weak in their eyes.

That's exactly what I'm saying, actually. Basically, if Christians and Jews and Muslims can live together in peace on the same cul de sac, or certainly together in adjoining neighborhoods, then our political system should be able to recognize why that is and then apply it to foreign policy. But too often pur foreign policy has its own agenda and doesn't take the American people into account.

The example you give here is a really good one, as I think most Americans and the government agree that a Hamas-free Palestine would be better than the alternative. The question, and the key, is how to go about it. If we rally up and go after Hamas, most Muslims will take that as an attack on Islam, and will push those off the fence. If instead we embrace Islam, then Islam will, for the most part, take care of Hamas for us.

But like I said before, unwavering boundaries must be set up front. They cannot change based on some political compromise, because that's giving in, that's the weakness that everyone talks about, and when you give in, give them that inch, then they think they own the mile.

Even culturally there can't be any compromise. Like, schools and business making special accommodations for prayer rooms, which is something we don't do in this culture. Once we do it, it becomes expected, and when it becomes the law of the land, they'll thnk they own the land. If they have to set aside certain times of the day to pray, then they need to make arrangements to have a job (or schedule classes) that doesn't conflict with that. They need to be the ones to accommodate their lifestyle to the culture, not the other way around.

 

[greg334]

If we rally up and go after Hamas, most Muslims will take that as an attack on Islam, and will push those off the fence. If instead we embrace Islam, then Islam will, for the most part, take care of Hamas for us.

Well I know what you were driving at but I couldn't put my finger on it until I typed it out.

Now the problem with this is that it won't happen. Hamas is like Carter and his group, they are bad evil people, they are destructive to the country but they help just the right people at the right time and then look good in the eyes of their supporters enough that their supporters will fight for them. The Muslims won't kick them out unless they attack other Muslims and that won't happen openly.

Now the real problem we face is not the accommodations themselves but the political motivation in not accommodating others equally. Pray rooms in public school (Ford HS here in Dearborn I think has a couple of them), is allowed but pray in school by a Christian is not. It is not the Muslim who protests to get the pray room but the administrator who fears them which is the real problem. The exception to all of this is Minnesota where their politics is strictly run by Somalis and some parts of Maine are getting like that now.