Musharraf rules out U.S. strikes in Pakistan

Source: Reuters

Musharraf rules out U.S. strikes in Pakistan
Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:06AM EDT

By Zeeshan Haider

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf
said on Friday his forces were fully capable of dealing with
al Qaeda militants and dismissed the possibility of U.S. forces
taking anti-terrorism action on Pakistani soil.

Musharraf's remarks came after a spate of statements from
U.S. officials suggesting the U.S. military kept open the
option of a strike against Taliban and al Qaeda targets on
Pakistani territory.

"It is very clear that here on Pakistani territory only Pakistani
troops will operate. Nobody should have any doubt on it,"
he told reporters before departing for a visit to Saudi Arabia
and the United Arab Emirates.

"It is the arrangement (with the U.S.) and we are capable to
defend in our area. We don't need any other force to help or
assist us."

-snip-

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSISL29693920070727

is.:eyes:

there may be a "sleeper" living right next door. :eyes:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6427
...

In a bitter irony, it was to this Northern region of Pakistan that the estimated 4000 "foreign fighters" had been airlifted, in the first place, in November 2001, on the orders of (former) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. And these Al Qaeda units were being supplied by Pakistan's ISI. (UPI, 1 November 2001)

In other words, the same units of Pakistan's military intelligence, the ISI, --which coordinated the November 2001 evacuation of foreign fighters on behalf of US military --- are now involved in the "hammer and anvil" search for Al Qaeda in northwestern Pakistan, with the support of Pakistani regular forces.

From a military standpoint, it does not make sense. Evacuate the enemy to safe-haven, and then a few years later "go after them" in the tribal hills of Northwestern Pakistan.

Why did they not arrest these Al Qaeda fighters in November 2001?

Was it incompetence or poor military planning? Or was it a diabolical covert op to actually safeguard and sustain "enemy number one"?

Because without this "outside enemy" personified by Osama bin Laden, there would be no "war on terrorism".

The operation certainly makes sense from the point of view of war propaganda

The terrorists are there, we put them there.

And then "we go after them" and show the World that we are committed to weeding out the terrorists.

The Bush campaign needs more than the rhetoric of the "war on terrorism". It needs a "real" "war on terrorism", with an Al Qaeda headquarters in the chosen theater of the tribal areas of Waziristan.

...

Think Saddam Hussein even got a chance to voice his opinon?

:evilgrin:

Don't mess with Big Daddy Cuz we pay your bills.

Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan found out the exact same thing.