Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (42951)	6/30/2002 4:37:33 AM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

The downside of this 'march in shooting' approach- by Christina Lamb.. Senior officials in the British Prime Minister's office have launched an astonishing attack on America's handling of the hunt for Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'eda fugitives. They have told The Telegraph that troops carrying out house-to-house searches in the remote tribal areas of Pakistan along the Afghanistan border were "blundering" with a "march-in-shooting" approach. The US action was "backfiring", increasing support for terrorism and making it harder for bin Laden and his henchmen to be caught. "The Americans think they and the Pakistanis can just march in shooting", said an official closely involved in the direction of the war. "They don't understand the sensitivities. We have years of experience in the tribal areas and we know using force will just backfire and increase sympathy for al-Qa'eda." The comments will put further strain on Anglo-US relations after a week of tensions over the Middle East policy and the introduction of steel tariffs. The scale of the divide between London and Washington was made plain by scathing comments about the Bush administration by one British minister involved in negotiations over the steel tariffs. "You have to remember that this is a rather unpleasant administration," the minister told The Telegraph yesterday. "The fact there has been a full-blooded attempt to forge a relationship with it hasn't changed its fundamental nature - protectionist and self-interested." A spokesman for US Central Command angrily rejected the criticism. Col Rick Thomas said: "Our entire approach to removing the Taliban from power and eliminating the al-Qa'eda threat has been sensitive to regional issues. "We have liaison teams co-ordinating with the Pakistani military but have not been directly involved in any operations in that area." Although officially part of Pakistan, the tribal areas have governed themselves since British colonial times. They live by a strict code of honour, attacking and kidnapping outsiders who stray into their mountain valleys. Federal forces carry no mandate beyond the main highways and disputes with the outside have traditionally been resolved through negotiation between political agents and their chiefs, usually involving large amounts of money. Pakistan and the people of the tribal areas, who are Pathans like the Taliban, with little sympathy for the war on terrorism, refused to allow the search for al-Qa'eda to move there. The Pentagon claims that at least 1,000 al-Qa'eda crossed into the tribal areas late last year, possibly including bin Laden, and are now regrouping. After pressure from Washington, Pakistan agreed to deploy 12,000 troops in April, backed by US Green Berets, CIA paramilitaries and British special forces. Tribal leaders were furious. "This is not how things work here", said Arsallah Hoti, a leading member of the powerful Yusufzai tribe. "They have been raiding our villages with less than an hour's notice and even burst in on a wedding because they heard the traditional firing of Kalashnikovs and assumed it was al-Qa'eda." Mr Hoti visited London last week and expressed his concerns to an adviser to Tony Blair. "I think people who were ambivalent to al-Qa'eda in the tribal areas are now supporting them" he said. "A lot more could have been achieved through the old colonial way of negotiations rather than the American way of bombing and killing. The British understand that." Although Mr Blair and Mr Bush have presented the war on terror as a united stand, the argument over how to proceed in the tribal areas is the latest in a series of clashes between the British and American forces on the ground. The biggest rift came when the Royal Marines launched Operation Condor without telling US commanders. Operation Condor failed to capture any al-Qa'eda and Brigadier Roger Lane, the British commander, was removed from his post. P.S. The report above for me is an indication of how people with little knowledge can write and present views that are not confirming hte ground realities..(She is judging the events from Raj days experiences, during the ‘Raj’ the tribal areas were inapproachable since they refused to be cowed by alien forces, right now just yesterday the Tribal Jirga made an announcement that anyone sheltering Alqaeda within tribal areas will be subject to punishment of the Jirga. Lt. Gen Orakzai the Commanding officer himself is from a very respected tribe and he has been working on the ground to smoothen things out and make this sanctuary for Alqaeda practically out of bound. British Raj and British forces could not enter these areas but Pakistani Army can with the acquiescence of the tribes that is exactly what is happening. I don’t expect a rebellion, the tribes have seen the destruction that was wrought by Talebin in Afghanistan and they don’t wont to be led that way. Just it gives me indication how comparisons can be so faulty, although in the same vein jury is still out on the stability of tribal areas after this massive intervention, however, by using Pakistani tribal chiefs as allies the US policy in my opinion will see dividend soon. And possibly big ones too, the sanctuaries are being denied and signs of these guys who are mass murderers will appear soon)