The top two U.S. intelligence officials traveled secretly to Pakistan this month to press President Pervez Musharraf to allow the CIA greater latitude to operate in the tribal territories where Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other militant groups are all active.
But in the unannounced meetings on Jan. 9 with the two U.S. officials – Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, and General Michael Hayden, the CIA director – Musharraf rebuffed proposals to expand any U.S. combat presence in Pakistan, either through unilateral covert CIA missions or by joint operations with Pakistani security forces…
In the White House, the Pentagon and the CIA, frustrations remain high, and there is concern that Musharraf’s political problems will distract him from what the administration regards as its last chance to take aggressive action…
Despite the insistence of administration officials that the United States and Pakistan have a common goal in fighting Al Qaeda, Musharraf has made clear in public proclamations that it is far from his first priority. At the Davos World Economic Forum in Switzerland last week, Musharraf said several times that the 100,000 Pakistani troops that he said were now along the border were hunting for Taliban extremists and “miscreants,” but he also said there was no particular effort being put into the search for Qaeda fighters.
I hope I don’t sound more cynical than usual, but – Musharraf is an opportunist dictator who plays everyone he gets near.
Wouldn’t you think our “leaders” – might just have figured that out a while back? Instead of founding their Freedom Crusade on Musharrafistan?
cmon ppl…getting the leader of another sovereign nation to agree to allow foreign soldiers to fully operate on their soil is political suicide. No chance he would willingly have permitted this.
As an example, how would you like it if the US allowed Pakistani special ops to conduct operations in Texas?
Sure, let us in, we won’t do anything. Oh don’t use Iraq as an example. That was er.. um.. a test run that’s it. CIa has to have a pair to ask to run around someone else’s country. I wanna see It would be like Sealand asking for diplomatic immunity in the US
Musharraf says no.
Why?
Because like Saudi Arabia, THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT REALLY OUR ALLIES!!!!!
Two possible outcomes:
a) A repeat of the Saddam Hussein saga, where he is our ally and then our worst enemy.
b) A repeat of the Shah of Iran saga, where the country is our ally and then our enemy.
In either case, this is one relationship that we will regret for decades to come… another Bush legacy that will cost America dearly.
#4 – Right…
And the there will be a movie made about it with James Edward Olmos as Musharraf.*
.
.
.
*My comment adds no value to the thread except that I think the picture of Musharraf above looks like Commander Adama in a Bizzaro World episode of Battlestar Galactica.
#1 – the Cold War mentality continues apace in Foggy Bottom. And, sadly, the history-challenged like yourself have no knowledge of how our troops ended up stationed around the globe from Germany to Okinawa.
You’d think when the GOUSA coerces a foreign dictator gaining office by coup, that they would stay coerced?
But NOOoooooo! They just keep on doing what is in their own perceived interests detached from the GOUSA!!
Damn foreigners!
Hey God—what does positioning of troops following the winning of WW2 in 1944 got to do with stationing troops in an independent country in 2007?
Please connect those dots.
Al Qaeda means “The Database”. As the geeky folks here know, databases are not necessarily your enemy. Just because someone is in Al Qeada — a list of our former CIA backed freedom fighters– doesn’t mean they are our enemy. The military-industrial complex has a bogeyman so you can part with your money and freedom.
just another case of history repeating itself, we enabled him to become powerful and will have to go to war with him in 10 years or less…you’d think we would learn from our mistakes…
#10 – Learn from mistakes?
Where’s the fun in that?
#6 – god
Being God I’m sure your concept of history goes alot further than a regular chap like myself who is history challenged. My comment stated to “actively operate”. the cold war legacy of us bases around the globe came about with countries aligned with the US that required additional security to DEFEND against a common foreign threat to their own and US interests.
Firstly, the cold war is long over – the commies are no longer out to get the world. Secondly, as far as I can tell this is not a deterrence force and not something the Pakistani military isn’t capable of handling on their own – they’ve been at war with India a lot longer than the cold war has been going on, after all. I’m sure they’re as competent as the USA.
Hmmmm. Back a military strong man for short term gain. What could possibly go wrong?