Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !

Home Front: Politix

Ten Things to Know about the McChrystal-Petraeus Switch

2010-06-24

I forsee a lot of discussion. Well, well, well -- where have we seen this before? The indiscreet U.S. commander whose tongue digs his own grave. The stunning resignation submitted within hours of the magazine's online posting of the story. And General David Petraeus -- yet again -- as the go-to choice as America's turnaround specialist. Amidst all the nonstop chatter from pundits, politicians, and former ambassadors, allow me to distance myself from the familiar situation I was in with Admiral William Fallon and sift through the tea leaves to look ahead at Petraeus's new gig. Because there are magazine stories, and then there is war. And because -- who knows? -- Afghanistan may be a lot better off, and Obama may have picked his replacement in more ways than one. There's a bit of foreshadowing in that statement! 1. There won't be a policy shift. Unlike the Fallon saga, this time it was the president who spoke on camera and the general who was restricted to a press statement. That's because this time the Pentagon-White House flap was an issue of perception (Obama: "undermining civilian authority") -- not any fundamental differences on how to fight the war at hand. 2. But the Pentagon now holds the keys to the castle. Obama may have put his foot down, but he's making a serious gamble in anointing Petraeus, much like Bush did after Fallon's resignation. The president needed to make McChrystal's sacking seem like an upgrade in gravitas, which it is when the upgrade is to the boss of Central Command. Just don't forget that Petraeus is the only general capable of making Afghanistan his war, and not Obama's. 3. Petraeus is truly untouchable. Understand this, too: Whatever the general wants, the general will get. After firing his Afghanistan commander twice in just thirteen months, Obama has no choice. Petraeus now outranks every administration player on Afghanistan. Save Obama -- officially, at least. 4. Friends of Dave just became a lot more important. Frankly, the new sheriff's strong personal relationships with the Pakistani military and security forces will matter a helluva lot more than which of McChrystal's lieutenants he keeps on or gets rid of. Hamid Karzai made his bid to keep McChrystal onboard, and was clearly ignored -- as he should be -- so now Obama's Af-Pak strategy will place the most eggs in Islamabad's basket. 5. The administration's review of Af-Pak begins now. Originally scheduled for public release in December, any White House-led effort at a war report will inevitably take its cues from General Petraeus's own review of the situation as he assumes command in the coming weeks and months. Expect to hear the general outline at Petraeus's confirmation hearing next week, along with previews of the GOP's national-security campaign slogans for November. 6. Obama's 2012 campaign could be all about war. If Petraeus says the strategy needs more time, then Obama's running for re-election as a wartime president. Period. There's just no intelligent way that Obama can overrule Petraeus on this one without wounding himself politically. McChrystal had been signaling that Obama's summer 2011 deadline to begin withdrawing combat troops was too optimistic. Expect Petraeus to press that case -- however subtly -- from day one. 7. Two jobs? One job? Same thing. No matter what anyone says in the confirmation hearings, it won't matter if Petraeus steps down from CENTCOM or becomes The General with Two Hats. Nobody who would step in at CENTCOM could overshadow Petraeus, so that kind of a choice is unimportant in many respects. But given the general's recent health issues, it's hard to believe a replacement won't be picked. I'm betting on General James Mattis, whom I profiled in detail a couple years ago. 8. The counterinsurgency lives on. "King David" has no peers when it comes to counterinsurgency credentials, having overseen the creation of the Army-Marine Corps's seminal field manual and commanded its first successful application in Iraq. If anything, Obama has now doubled-down on the COIN path in Af-Pak, so the COINdistas haven't taken any sort of hit. 9. The "Draft Dave" presidential run could live on, too. Can Petraeus pull off his second COIN miracle? If he does, and if it's perceived as such prior to the GOP convention in the summer of 2012, then I guarantee you there will be a groundswell of delegate support to make him the Republican candidate -- assuming he gets out of uniform in time. 10. There is one big winner from this hoopla. This is scary. And her name is Elena Kagan, whose confirmation hearings also happen to begin next week. Hmmmm.... Could this all be orchestrated by The One, as a distraction?

Link

Iraq

Petraeus to hand over Iraq command on Sept 16

2008-09-08

US General David Petraeus, the man credited with curbing sectarian violence in Iraq, will hand the command of US-led forces in Iraq to General Raymond Odierno on September 16, his spokesman said Sunday. Petraeus will take over as the new chief of Central Command in late October, with responsibility for US troops from the Horn of Africa to Central Asia, including live conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, Colonel Steven Boylan said. The expected shift will come at a time when pressure is growing to beef up the US troop presence in Afghanistan, where the level of violence is now higher than in Iraq. In July, Petraeus was approved by the US Senate to head Central Command after Admiral William Fallon abruptly stepped down from the post in March, saying that reports describing him as at odds with the White House over how to deal with Iran had become "a distraction." Before leaving Iraq, Petraeus will offer to US President George W. Bush his recommendations on troop cuts in Iraq amid a drop in violence which is currently at a four-year low. The gains made since late last year have already allowed Washington to withdraw five combat brigades that were deployed as part of the surge. In a recent interview with the Financial Times, Petraeus said US combat troops could be out of Baghdad by July 2009. He told the London-based business daily that Iraq was a "dramatically changed country" since he took over in February 2007, pointing to a "degree of hope that was not present 19 months ago." Petraeus insisted, however, that "innumerable challenges" still remain, particularly the unresolved status of the northern oil city of Kirkuk, persistent sectarian tensions, and the continuing if diminished capabilities of Al-Qaeda.

Link

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

CSM: How Iran would retaliate if it comes to war

2008-06-24

Pressure is building on Iran. This week Europe agreed to new sanctions and President Bush again suggested something more serious – possible military strikes – if the Islamic Republic doesn't bend to the will of the international community on its nuclear program. But increasingly military analysts are warning of severe consequences if the US begins a shooting war with Iran. While Iranian forces are no match for American technology on a conventional battlefield, Iran has shown that it can bite back in unconventional ways. Iranian networks in Iraq and Afghanistan could imperil US interests there; American forces throughout the Gulf region could be targeted by asymmetric methods and lethal rocket barrages; and Iranian partners across the region – such as Hezbollah in Lebanon – could be mobilized to engage in an anti-US fight. Iran's response could also be global, analysts say, but the scale would depend on the scale of the US attack. "One very important issue from a US intelligence perspective, [the Iranian reaction] is probably more unpredictable than the Al Qaeda threat," says Magnus Ranstorp at the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies at the Swedish National Defense College in Stockholm. "I doubt very much our ability to manage some of the consequences," says Mr. Ranstorp, noting that Iranian revenge attacks in the past have been marked by "plausible deniability" and have had global reach. "If you attack Iran you are unleashing a firestorm of reaction internally that will only strengthen revolutionary forces, and externally in the region," says Ranstorp. "It's a nightmare scenario for any contingency planner, and I think you really enter the twilight zone if you strike Iran." Though the US military has since early 2007 accused Iran's Qods Force – an elite element of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – of providing anti-US militias in Iraq with lethal roadside bombs, and of training and backing "special groups" in actions that the US government alleges have cost "thousands" of lives, US commanders have played down Iran's military capabilities. Even Admiral William Fallon, who publicly opposed a US strike on Iran before he resigned in April, dismissed Iran as a military threat. "Get serious," Adm. Fallon told Esquire in March. "These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them." But that has not kept Iran from rhetorical chest-beating, with an active military manpower of 540,000 – the largest in the Middle East – dependent on some of the lowest per capita defense spending in the region. Iran "can deal fatal blows to aggressor America by unpredictable and creative tactical moves," the senior commander Brig. Gen. Gholam Ali Rashid said in late May. "It is meaningless to back down before an enemy who has targeted the roots of our existence." Iran's supreme religious leader Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei also warned of far-reaching revenge in 2006. "The Americans should know that if they assault Iran, their interests will be harmed anywhere in the world that is possible," he said. "The Iranian nation will respond to any blow with double the intensity." Analysts say Iran has a number of tools to make good on those threats and take pride in taking on a more powerful enemy. "This is not something they are shying away from," says Alex Vatanka, a Middle East security analyst at Jane's Information Group in Washington. "They say: 'Conventional warfare is not something we can win against the US, but we have other assets in the toolbox,' " says Mr. Vatanka, noting that the IRGC commander appointed last fall has been "marketed as this genius behind asymmetric warfare doctrine." "What they are really worried about is the idea of massive aerial attacks on literally thousands of targets inside Iran," says Vatanka, also an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute. "Their reading of America's intentions in that scenario would be twofold: One is to obviously dismantle as much as possible the nuclear program; and [the other], indirectly try to weaken the [Islamic] regime." Any US-Iran conflict would push up oil prices, and though Iran could disrupt shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf, its weak economy depends on oil revenues. But nearby US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Gulf provide a host of targets. Iran claimed last October that it could rain down 11,000 rockets upon "the enemy" within one minute of an attack and that rate "would continue." Further afield, Israel is within range of Iran's Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, and Hezbollah claims its rockets – enhanced and resupplied by Iran since the 2006 war to an estimated 30,000 – can now hit anywhere in the Jewish state, including its nuclear plant at Dimona. Closer to home, Iran has honed a swarming tactic, in which small and lightly armed speedboats come at far larger warships from different directions. A classified Pentagon war game in 2002 simulated just such an attack and in it the Navy lost 16 major warships, according to a report in The New York Times last January. "The sheer numbers involved overloaded their ability, both mentally and electronically, to handle the attack," Lt. Gen. K. Van Riper, a retired Marine Corps officer who commanded the swarming force, told the Times. "The whole thing was over in five, maybe 10 minutes." During the 1990s, Iranian agents were believed to be behind the assassinations of scores of regime opponents in Europe, and German prosecutors issued an arrest warrant for Iran's intelligence minister. Iran and Hezbollah are alleged to have collaborated in the May 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires in revenge for Israel's killing of a Hezbollah leader months before. Argentine prosecutors charge that they jointly struck again in 1994, bombing a Jewish community center in the Argentine capital that killed 85, one month after Israel attacked a Hezbollah base in Lebanon. With some 30,000 on the payroll by one count, Iranian intelligence "is a superpower in intelligence terms in the region; they have global reach because of their reconnaissance ability and quite sophisticated ways of inflicting pain," says Ranstorp. "They have been expanding their influence. Who would have predicted that Argentina would be the area that Hezbollah and the Iranians collectively would respond?" Past examples show that "Tehran recognizes that at times its interest are best served by restraint," says a report on consequences of a strike on Iran published this week by Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. But Iran could target the US, too, depending on the magnitude of any US strike. "Iran's capacity for terror and subversion remains one of its most potent levers in the event of a confrontation with the United States," says the report, adding that "success" in delaying Iran's nuclear programs could backfire. If "US and world opinion were so angered by the strikes that they refused to support further pressure against Iran's nuclear ambitions, then prevention could paradoxically [eventually ensure] Iran's open pursuit of nuclear weapons," concludes the report. And the long list of unconventional tactics should not be taken for granted in Tehran, says Vatanka, noting that the Islamic system's top priority is survival. "So the Iranians have to be careful," says Vatanka. "Just because the US doesn't have the will right now, or the ability to produce the kind of stick that they would fear, doesn't mean the way of confrontation is going to pay off for them in the long run."

Link

Home Front: WoT

Secret Bush "Finding" Widens War on Iran

2008-05-09

Salt to taste, but please don't increase blood pressure beyond safe limits. Not my favorite author but he was the WSJ's resident rad back in the day. By ANDREW COCKBURN Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, "unprecedented in its scope." Bush’s secret directive covers actions across a huge geographic area – from Lebanon to Afghanistan – but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines – up to and including the assassination of targeted officials. This widened scope clears the way, for example, for full support for the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, the cultish Iranian opposition group, despite its enduring position on the State Department's list of terrorist groups. Similarly, covert funds can now flow without restriction to Jundullah, or "army of god," the militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan – just across the Afghan border -- whose leader was featured not long ago on Dan Rather Reports cutting his brother in law's throat. Other elements that will benefit from U.S. largesse and advice include Iranian Kurdish nationalists, as well the Ahwazi arabs of south west Iran. Further afield, operations against Iran's Hezbollah allies in Lebanon will be stepped up, along with efforts to destabilize the Syrian regime. All this costs money, which in turn must be authorized by Congress, or at least a by few witting members of the intelligence committees. That has not proved a problem. An initial outlay of $300 million to finance implementation of the finding has been swiftly approved with bipartisan support, apparently regardless of the unpopularity of the current war and the perilous condition of the U.S. economy. $300 million to dump the Mad Mullahs™? Cheap at twice the price! Until recently, the administration faced a serious obstacle to action against Iran in the form of Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon, who made no secret of his contempt for official determination to take us to war. In a widely publicized incident last January, Iranian patrol boats approached a U.S. ship in what the Pentagon described as a "taunting" manner. According to Centcom staff officers, the American commander on the spot was about to open fire. At that point, the U.S. was close to war. He desisted only when Fallon personally and explicitly ordered him not to shoot. The White House, according to the staff officers, was "absolutely furious" with Fallon for defusing the incident. That I can believe, expecially as Fallon has kept a very low profile since his departure and he didn't seem like he would. Fallon has since departed. His abrupt resignation in early March followed the publication of his unvarnished views on our policy of confrontation with Iran, something that is unlikely to happen to his replacement, George Bush's favorite general, David Petraeus. Though Petraeus is not due to take formal command at Centcom until late summer, there are abundant signs that something may happen before then. A Marine amphibious force, originally due to leave San Diego for the Persian Gulf in mid June, has had its sailing date abruptly moved up to May 4. A scheduled meeting in Europe between French diplomats acting as intermediaries for the U.S. and Iranian representatives has been abruptly cancelled in the last two weeks. Petraeus is said to be at work on a master briefing for congress to demonstrate conclusively that the Iranians are the source of our current troubles in Iraq, thanks to their support for the Shia militia currently under attack by U.S. forces in Baghdad. Interestingly, despite the bellicose complaints, Petraeus has made little effort to seal the Iran-Iraq border, and in any case two thirds of U.S. casualties still come from Sunni insurgents. "The Shia account for less than one third," a recently returned member of the command staff in Baghdad familiar with the relevant intelligence told me, "but if you want a war you have to sell it." Even without the covert initiatives described above, the huge and growing armada currently on station in the Gulf is an impressive symbol of American power.

Link

Home Front: WoT

US not seeking war with Iran: White House

2008-03-12

The White House said Wednesday that "there is no one" inside the US government who wants war with Iran, even though US President George W. Bush has not ruled out any options. "There's no one in the administration that is suggesting anything other than a diplomatic approach to Iran," spokeswoman Dana Perino said one day after the commander of US forces in the Middle East resigned. Perino said "it's nonsense" to say that Admiral William Fallon was pushed out because he reportedly disagreed with Bush's hardline approach towards forcing Tehran to end its suspect nuclear program. "The president welcomes robust and healthy debate," she said, adding that there were "dissenting views on a variety of issues that get worked out through our policy process. That is usually not played out in the press." "What the president has said is that all options are on the table is what helps make diplomacy work and makes it more effective," she said. Fallon said in a statement Tuesday that he was stepping down because reports that he differed with Bush over Iran -- chiefly an article in Esquire magazine -- had become "a distraction." Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced he had accepted Fallon's resignation "with reluctance and regret," saying there was a "mis-perception" that the admiral was at odds with the administration over Iran. But the sudden departure of the head of the US Central Command drew an avalanche of criticism from top Democrats who suggested that he had been forced out because of his candor. Asked about Esquire's contention that Fallon's removal would signal the United States was preparing to go to war with Iran, Gates said: "Well, that's just ridiculous." In an admiring profile of the admiral, Esquire writer Thomas Barnett portrayed Fallon as "The Man Between War and Peace," crediting him with calming tensions with Iran last year while bucking a White House move toward war. "Well-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable," said the article. "If that were to happen, it may well mean that the president and vice president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don't want a commander standing in their way." "Submit, human!" Might just mean that the C-in-C wants flag officers to remember who makes policy.

Link

Home Front: WoT

The Pentagon vs. Petraeus

2008-03-12

Yesterday's resignation of Admiral William Fallon as Centcom Commander is being portrayed as a dispute over Iran. Our own sense is that the admiral has made more than enough dissenting statements about Iraq, Iran and other things to warrant his dismissal as much as early retirement. But his departure will be especially good news if it means that President Bush is beginning to pay attention to the internal Pentagon dispute over Iraq. A fateful debate is now taking place at the Pentagon that will determine the pace of U.S. military withdrawals for what remains of President Bush's term. Senior Pentagon officials -- including, we hear, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen, Army Chief of Staff George Casey and Admiral Fallon -- have been urging deeper troop cuts in Iraq beyond the five "surge" combat brigades already scheduled for redeployment this summer. A spate of recent attacks -- including a suicide bombing Monday that left five GIs dead in Baghdad and a roadside bombing yesterday that killed 16 Iraqis -- is a reminder that the insurgency remains capable of doing great damage. An overly hasty withdrawal of U.S. forces would give it more opportunities to do so. It could also demoralize Iraq forces just when they are gaining confidence and need our help to "hold" the areas gained by the "clear, hold and build" strategy of the surge. This ought to be apparent to Pentagon generals. Yet their rationale for troop withdrawals seems to have less to do with conditions in Iraq and more with fear that the war is putting a strain on the military as an institution. These are valid concerns. Lengthy and repeated combat deployments have imposed extraordinary burdens on service members and their families. The war in Iraq has also diverted scarce funds to combat operations rather than investment -- much of it long overdue -- in military modernization. But these concerns are best dealt with by enlarging the size of the Army and Marine Corps and increasing spending on defense to between 5% and 6% of gross domestic product from the current 4.5% -- about where it was at the end of the Cold War. By contrast, we can think of few things that would "break" the military more completely -- in readiness, morale and deterrent power -- than to leave Iraq in defeat, or in conditions that would soon lead to a replay of what happened in Vietnam. This Pentagon pressure also does little to help General Petraeus. The general is supposed to be fighting a frontal war against Islamist militants, not a rearguard action with Pentagon officials. That's why as Commander in Chief, Mr. Bush has a particular obligation to engage in this Pentagon debate so that General Petraeus can make his troop recommendations based on the facts in Iraq, not on pressure from Washington.

Link

Iraq

Admiral Fallon Resigns as Head of Centcom

2008-03-11

Just breaking --- I read an article the other day -- was about Fallon NOT being a person for war -- rather negotiate and didn't won't to attack Iran. Article speculated, that if he stepped down -- Iran is back in the cross hairs. WASHINGTON — Admiral William Fallon, the head of U.S. Central Command, which leads U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is stepping down, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Tuesday. Gates said Fallon said misperceptions about differences between his ideas and U.S. policy are making it too difficult for him to operate. Gates said their differences are not extreme, but the misperception has become too great. I don't know whether he was misinterpreted or whether people attributed views to him that were not his views, but clearly there was a concern," Gates said.

Link

Afghanistan

Taliban surge not expected

2008-03-07

The top U.S. military commander in the Mideast says he doesn't expect the Taliban to launch a spring offensive this year. Admiral William Fallon says that, if anything, he expects the military momentum in Afghanistan to continue to swing in the direction of coalition forces. Fallon told the House of Representatives armed services committee that any spring offensive is going to be carried out by coalition forces. Fallon concedes that while the situation in Afghanistan is still not ideal, he says recent improvements have been encouraging. The United States plans on sending another 3,200 marines to Afghanistan this year, in part to stave off any uptick in violence that might come with the warmer weather. Fallon says the influx will give Gen. Dan McNeil, head of coalition forces in Afghanistan, the "shot in the arm he needs to really go after ... security, particularly in the south, where he intends to deploy those forces."

Link

India-Pakistan

Pakistani forces battle militants, dozens killed

2008-01-25

Pakistani forces have cleared militant strongholds from three areas in the South Waziristan region on the Afghan border and 40 militants and eight soldiers have been killed in the fighting, the military said on Thursday. The army is sending in reinforcements and tanks after a week of fighting with militants loyal to a Taliban commander the government said was behind the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto last month. The clashes, in which nearly 150 militants and more than 20 government soldiers have been killed, has raised fresh concern about the nuclear-armed country in the run-up to a Feb. 18 election that could weaken President Pervez Musharraf's power. Security forces had carried out operations in three parts of South Waziristan, the military said. "These areas have been cleared of militant strongholds and hideouts," the military said in a statement. "Forty miscreants have been killed in the last 24 hours and 30 miscreants have been apprehended while many injured," the military said. Eight soldiers were killed and 32 wounded. The fighting is in strongholds of militant chief Baitullah Mehsud, who the United States has also said was behind Bhutto's assassination in a gun and bomb attack in Rawalpindi on Dec. 27. Mehsud has been blamed for a string of attacks in a suicide bomb campaign that intensified after commandos stormed a radical mosque complex in Islamabad last July. On Wednesday last week, his men attacked and captured another fort in Waziristan. Security forces have been battling al Qaeda-linked militants in South Waziristan for several years. The mountainous region, occupied by conservative, independent-minded Pashtun tribesmen, has never come under the full authority of any government. Militants in South and North Waziristan also attack U.S.- and NATO-led foreign forces and Afghan government troops across the border in Afghanistan. "APPEASING U.S., BRITAIN" Separately, three activists from a Pashtun party opposed to militants were gunned down in the Swat valley in North West Frontier Province, where the military launched an offensive against armed followers of a radical cleric in November. Police in the northwstern city of Peshawar said they found explosives near a bridge shortly before former prime minister and opposition leader Nawaz Sharif was due to address anti-Musharraf lawyers at a nearby court. The United States and other allies hope next month's election will restore political stability after months of turmoil over Musaharraf's manoeuvres to stay on as president, and refocus efforts on tackling militancy. Admiral William Fallon, the head of the U.S. military's Central Command, visited Pakistan for talks with army chief General Ashfaq Kayani on Tuesday. Fallon told reporters in Florida last week that Pakistan was increasingly willing to fight Islamist militants and accept U.S. help, without saying what kind of support. The United States has already announced plans to step up training of Pakistan's Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force recruited from tribal lands. In North Waziristan, which is also on the Afghan border and where militants are also active, about 2,500 tribesmen protested against the military's attacks in South Waziristan. "These operations are unjustified and are only meant to appease America and Britain," a Muslim cleric, Mehmood-ul-Hassan, told the protesters in Mir Ali town. "The government should declare a ceasefire immediately. This can't be resolved through force but only through talks," he said.

Link

India-Pakistan

Pakistan sends reinforcements to Waziristan

2008-01-24

Pakistani reinforcements are heading to the South Waziristan region on the Afghan border where government forces are trying to wipe out strongholds of a militant accused of killing opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. The announcement on reinforcements came a day after a top U.S. commander met Pakistan's army chief General Ashfaq Kayani, and after a week of militant attacks on paramilitary bases in the region and military counter-attacks. More than 100 militants and 15 government soldiers have been killed in the clashes, according to government figures. "In the past one week there was an escalation in attacks by the militants ... therefore it was felt necessary to reinforce these forts," military spokesman Major-General Athar Abbas said on Wednesday, referring to remote paramilitary bases. He declined to say how many reinforcements were being sent. The fighting has pitted government troops against militants loyal to Baitullah Mehsud, a Taliban commander suspected of orchestrating the assassination of Bhutto last month. Abbas denied the military had launched an offensive against Mehsud and his men but said government forces wanted to clear out his hideouts once and for all. "There is no offensive in the region but there are strongholds and hideouts of the militants and they are being engaged so they are knocked out from the area on a permanent basis," he said. Mehsud has been blamed also for a string of attacks in a suicide bomb campaign that intensified after commandos stormed a radical mosque complex in Islamabad in July. On Wednesday last week, his men attacked and captured another fort in Waziristan. Admiral William Fallon, the head of the U.S. military's Central Command, met Pakistani army chief Kayani at his headquarters in Rawalpindi on Tuesday for talks on the security situation. Officials declined to elaborate. Fallon told reporters in Florida last week that Pakistan was increasingly willing to fight Islamist militants and accept U.S. help, without saying what kind of support. But he added that he believed Pakistani leaders wanted a "more robust" effort by the United States to train and advise their forces in counter-insurgency efforts. The United States has already announced plans to step up training of Pakistan's Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force recruited from tribal lands. Abbas said operations were going on in up to three different places on Wednesday and one soldier had been killed in a rocket attack on a camp. Many al Qaeda and Taliban militants took refuge in Waziristan and other border areas after U.S.-led troops drove Afghanistan's Taliban government from power in late 2001.

Link

India-Pakistan

Dozens dead in Pakistan as Musharraf scorns Al-Qaeda threat

2008-01-23

Islamic militants launched new attacks on border forts in Pakistan Tuesday, leaving seven troops and 37 rebels dead even as President Pervez Musharraf dismissed fears of a takeover by Al-Qaeda. The attacks in the rugged belt of mountains bordering Afghanistan underlined growing insecurity across the nuclear-armed nation and came just before a top US commander flew in for talks on tackling the rebels. Fighting has escalated sharply in nuclear-armed Pakistan since former premier Benazir Bhutto was assassinated last month, an attack blamed on an Al-Qaeda-linked tribal warlord based in the tribal region. In Paris for the second leg of a European tour aimed at shoring up his battered image, Musharraf dismissed fears that Pakistan could slip into Al-Qaeda's hands, saying there was a "zero percent chance" of a takeover. The only way for that to happen, he said, would be if Al-Qaeda or the Taliban "defeated the Pakistani army entirely" or if extremist religious groups won next month's elections. Musharraf has been keen to bolster his credibility as a pivotal ally in the fight against terrorism, which has garnered Pakistan more than 10 billion dollars in US aid since September 11, 2001. In the Pakistani garrison city of Rawalpindi on Tuesday, Admiral William Fallon, head of US Central Command which deals with the Middle East, met Pakistan army chief General Ashfaq Kiyani for talks. "He (Fallon) remained with him for some time and discussed matters of professional interest with particular reference to (the) security situation in the region," a Pakistani military statement said. But Pakistan's claims about being tough on militancy have been undermined by the death of Bhutto and by the wave of violence, in which rebels have adopted a new tactic of massing by the hundreds to attack isolated military outposts. Militants early Tuesday tried to raid a fort and observation post at Ladha in South Waziristan, sparking a fierce four-hour gunbattle, chief military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas told AFP. "It was an intense attack," Abbas said, adding that five soldiers were killed and seven injured. He later said 37 militants were also confirmed dead. Two civilians were killed and five wounded when Pakistani jets later pounded suspected militant hideouts in Ladha, said injured resident Dildar Khan, who was brought to a hospital in neighbouring North Waziristan. A clash also erupted in North Waziristan's Razmak town, near Ladha, in which two security personnel were killed and six injured, the army's Abbas said. Last week militants overran another fort in the town of Sararogha in South Waziristan. The army, meanwhile, denied reports that troops abandoned a third border outpost in the region, in the village of Siplatoi. Abbas denied the army was planning an offensive against Baitullah Mehsud, the Al-Qaeda-linked warlord blamed by Pakistani and US officials for orchestrating Bhutto's killing at a political rally on December 27. Mehsud has denied any involvement in Bhutto's killing but warned Pakistani forces not to attack his stronghold and accused the army of killing civilians. "Pakistani forces will face the worst resistance if they try to enter my area," Mehsud said in a statement released by his spokesman, Maulvi Mohammad Omar. Meanwhile British detectives helping Pakistan probe the former premier's murder may question a teenage suspect and his alleged militant handler held in connection with the killing, officials said Tuesday. The 15-year-old, named as Aitezaz Shah, was arrested on Friday in the northwestern city of Dera Ismail Khan and allegedly told police he was part of a back-up squad tasked by Mehsud with killing Bhutto if an initial team failed. "The Scotland Yard team will be at liberty to interrogate the two suspects arrested from Dera Ismail Khan, as they are assisting us in Bhutto's assassination case," Interior Ministry spokesman Brigadier Javed Cheema said.

Link

Israel-Palestine-Jordan

On Sunday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff going to Israel

2007-12-07

to see IDF's nuclear data on Iran. Disappointed after failing to make their case on Iran and influence the outcome of the United States's National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released this week, Military Intelligence will present its hard core evidence on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program on Sunday to the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff during a rare visit he will be making to Israel. Admiral Michael Mullen will land in Israel Sunday morning for a 24-hour visit that will include a one-on-one meeting with IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, as well as with Defense Minister Ehud Barak. According to a Time magazine article published Wednesday, Mullen is a member of the Pentagon's "anti-war [with Iran] group" that includes Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral William Fallon, current commander of the US Central Command. In a recent press briefing in Washington, however, Mullen took a hard-line approach, refusing to rule out the possibility that military force will be used to stop Iran's race towards nuclear power. "I would never take the military option off the table," Mullen told reporters, although he stressed that his remark did not mean that force would be used. Diplomacy, he added, was very important. Mullen's visit to Israel will be exactly a week after the publication of the NIE report that claimed Iran had frozen its nuclear military program in 2003 and has yet to restart it. During his visit, Military Intelligence plans to present him with Israel's evidence that Iran is in fact developing nuclear weapons. "The report clearly shows that we did not succeed in making our case over the past year in the run-up to this report," a defense official said Thursday. "Mullen's visit is an opportunity to try and fix that." In addition to Iran, Ashkenazi and his staff will also discuss with Mullen America's commitment for Israel to retain its qualitative edge in the face of the sale of advanced JDAM missiles to Saudi Arabia. In the past, Israel had asked the Pentagon to permit the sale of the F-22 fifth-generation stealth fighter jet - also known as the Raptor - but the request was rejected. Mullen will be met by an honor guard at the Kirya Military Headquarters in Tel Aviv and will sit through a day of presentations by IDF generals, including Military Intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin and OC IDF Planning Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan. Sunday night he will be honored at a festive dinner hosted by Ashkenazi and will leave Israel Monday morning. The presentations that Mullen will hear will be on a wide range of topics - including the Hamas buildup in the Gaza Strip, Egypt's failure to stop the smuggling of weapons into Gaza, Hizbullah activities in Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Israel plans to take advantage of Mullen's visit to Israel to reinforce the already strong ties the IDF has with the Pentagon and the US armed forces. Appreciation for the IDF has increased within the Pentagon in recent months following the Israeli air strike on the alleged Syrian nuclear reactor. Mullen's visit will be the first time a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has visited Israel in the past decade. Mullen was in Israel with his wife two years ago when he was the commander of the Navy.

Link

Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More