I saw this today on cnn.com. Interesting to say the least. Unless he's grandstanding for his own political gain this is highly undesirable. Even if it is for political gain, the end result could still be the same.

It may make the hunt for OBL a whole lot tougher if not impossible. If I'm OBL, I'm heading for Paki. If this occurs, what do we do with Bush's stated position that any country that knowingly harbours terrorists is subject to attack policy? Where did this policy go any way? On the Dems side, it calls Obama's policy about going after the guy into question too.

Just what the US needs to hear. Kurdish Iraq is sufferying foreys into it's autonomous land and now Paki is taking a stand against US efforts to get OBL.

Discuss.

BT

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has made it clear that a U.S. military mission to capture Osama bin Laden or other top al Qaeda leaders on Pakistani soil would be unwelcome and "against the sovereignty of Pakistan."


President Musharraf says the United States would regret attempting to hunt for Osama bin Laden in western Pakistan.

President Musharraf told the Singapore Straits Times that his military has the experience to operate in the mountainous terrain near the Afghan border and if the United States went in they would "regret that day."

The New York Times reported last Sunday that the Bush administration is considering expanding covert operations in the western part of Pakistan to shore up support for Musharraf's government and to find bin Laden and his second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

"Nobody will come here until we ask them to come and we haven't asked them," Musharraf told the Strait Times this week.

Strait Times reporter Anthony Paul asked Musharraf: "If the Americans came, would you treat that as an invasion?"

"Certainly," Musharaff said. "If they come without our permission, that's against the sovereignty of Pakistan."

He said if there is good intelligence that bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan "the methodology of getting him will be discussed together and we'll attack the target together."

Don't Miss
Pakistan bombings reach 'unprecedented' level
Pakistan rejects nuke weapon fears
Lahore suicide bomb blast kills 23
Musharraf: Bhutto to blame for her assassination
Musharraf told CNN's Wolf Blitzer last month that "it is Pakistan's forces which will act" if there is "actionable intelligence" that senior al Qaeda leaders are in Pakistan, although he would consider U.S. assistance.

In the latest interview, Musharraf noted that U.S. forces were having trouble chasing al Qaeda in similar terrain in southern Afghanistan.

"The United States seems to think that what our army cannot do, they can do," he said. "This is a very wrong perception. I challenge anybody to come into our mountains. They would regret that day. It's not easy there."

Musharraf said every tribes in Pakistan's FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) "has its own armoury and they don't like intrusions into their privacy at all."

He said the British never dared go there and the Pakistan government waited 50 years after gaining independence to enter.

"It was only after we dealt with them and reached an agreement with them that we moved in the army in 2001," he said.


"We do operate in these areas. It's within the capacity of the Pakistan armed forces. And yet some people think U.S. or coalition forces from Afghanistan will come in and they will hunt him down...This is a misperception.

"It's better if they ask some military or intelligence commander of their own whether their army, their people, coming into our mountains will operate better than our army." E-mail to a friend

From CNN's Alan Duke

Honestly, what else could he say about it? It sounds like the report is being spun heavily.

Discuss.




Ok, for the moment let us assume that it is a true case that Musharraf will act in some ways to protect those areas and those in them.

If that is true, then how can Bush's war be anything but a failure? OBL still alive and active. Taliban reorganized. Opium production through the roof. Every goal of the invasion of Afghanistan has failed, no?

Plus Pakistan, a nuclear power, is destablized by the influx of taliban forces, and AQ forces.

Net loss. Net failure. Costly, stupid failure.

Now, let us consider what the case is if Musharraf actually wants the taliban and AQ out of his borders. They are there now, after all. If he did not want them there, it seems he could not stop them being there.

Not much better of a situation, is it?

Ok, for the moment let us assume that it is a true case that Musharraf will act in some ways to protect those areas and those in them.

If that is true, then how can Bush's war be anything but a failure? OBL still alive and active. Taliban reorganized. Opium production through the roof. Every goal of the invasion of Afghanistan has failed, no?

Plus Pakistan, a nuclear power, is destablized by the influx of taliban forces, and AQ forces.

Net loss. Net failure. Costly, stupid failure.

Now, let us consider what the case is if Musharraf actually wants the taliban and AQ out of his borders. They are there now, after all. If he did not want them there, it seems he could not stop them being there.

Not much better of a situation, is it?


There is no evidence that Musharraf is protecting anyone in the tribal areas. He is a politician and a smart one, he knows that if he gives Bush a carte blanch in the tribal areas he will loose popularity with the people of Pakistan, and further antagonize the Islamist cause - it could well be the end of him.

Also I dislike this way that AQ and the Taliban are always discussed as almost one and the same. The Taliban is a vehicle to power for the Pashtun, and there is no evidence they had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attack by AQ. AQ is an international terrorist organization.

Afghanistan is I agree a colossal fail now. It continues to be a military success whenever the small NATO force engage the Taliban, but politically it has been a failure with the Pashtun alienated and so still needing to throw their weight behind the Taliban...and like you said the Opium production etc etc.

I firmly believe through that if the US feels justified it should violate Pakistan sovereignty. This could be in the form of a cruise missile attack for example to take down OBL. Putting in troops (other than covert special forces) would probably be militarily and politically inadvisable however.

I believe this is being misread.

Mostly, he's saying "trust me, it's ugly operating up there. No way to be militarily successful given the on-the-ground conditions there."

The "would regret" language is not to be understood as a veiled threat. That's inconsistent with his usage.

Secondarily, he's saying, "If anyone's going in, it's us. It might be a co-venture, but they're not going in alone." Both in terms of US practicality and Pakistani soverignity, that makes perfect sense.

He also needs to be seen as something less than a complete puppet. Otherwise, he couldn't be a complete puppet.

No news here.