Thursday, December 22, 2011
Both sides to blame for NATO attack: U.S.
From The Hindu
The United States has ironically risked escalating anger in
Pakistan over the November 26 North Atlantic Treaty Organisation attack, as it
issued a half-baked apology for the “misunderstanding,” and defended NATO for
acting in “self defence and with appropriate force after being fired upon.”
Following the killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers the shooting
incident in Mohmand near the Afghan border tensions were inflamed and Pakistan
subsequently closed down a vital NATO supply route and denied the U.S. any
further access to an important air base in Shamsi in Baluchistan.
In a formal statement the Pentagon did however echo earlier
sentiments expressed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of
Defence Leon Panetta when it said it felt “deepest regret... for the loss of
life and for the lack of proper coordination between U.S. and Pakistani forces
that contributed to those losses.”
While the Pakistani establishment was reported to have called for
an outright apology from U.S. President Barack Obama the White House has thus
far refused to oblige. Mr. Obama spoke with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari
on the telephone and offered his condolences a further response from the
President was shelved pending the outcome of the military probe.
Reporting back on an investigation that the U.S. undertook
following the attack, the Pentagon also said that the findings and conclusions
had been shared with the Pakistani and Afghan governments, as well as key NATO
leadership.
Further diluting its apology the U.S. noted that the investigating
officer found that U.S. forces, had acted based on what information they had
available to them at the time and there was no intentional effort to target
persons or places known to be part of the Pakistani military, or to deliberately
provide inaccurate location information to Pakistani officials.
Placing blame squarely on inaccurate information about “the true
location of Pakistani military units,” officials said that such gaps in
information about the activities and placement of units “from both sides,”
contributed to the tragic result.
Seeking to douse growing anti-American sentiment in Pakistan the
U.S. also sought to reach out directly to its people, saying, “We further
express sincere condolences to the Pakistani people, to the Pakistani
government, and most importantly to the families of the Pakistani soldiers who
were killed or wounded.”
Commenting on its future course of action the Pentagon statement
noted that its focus would be to “learn from these mistakes and take whatever
corrective measures are required to ensure an incident like this is not
repeated.” While this might entail a review of outstanding questions of
accountability, the U.S. said that it would seek to work with Pakistan to
improve the level of trust between our two countries.
“We cannot operate effectively on the border -- or in other parts
of our relationship -- without addressing the fundamental trust still lacking
between us. We earnestly hope the Pakistani military will join us in bridging
that gap,” the Pentagon statement emphasised.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Gates finds Europe wanting in NATO
United States Defence Secretary Robert Gates launched a stinging critique of European countries' inadequate contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, even as he wound up a last tour abroad before his June 30 retirement.
Speaking to media in Brussels after the Shangri-La conference in Singapore, Mr. Gates said NATO faced a “dim, if not dismal” future and risked “collective military irrelevance”.
Warning that the U.S.' support for NATO operations may be reconsidered in light of the domestic economic situation, Mr. Gates said: “America's serious fiscal situation is now putting pressure on our defence budget, and we are in a process of assessing where the U.S. can or cannot accept more risk as a result of reducing the size of our military.”
Citing NATO engagement in both Afghanistan and Libya as examples of the U.S.' disproportionately large support relative to European members' contributions, Mr. Gates spoke of how the organisation had become a “two-tiered alliance between members who specialise in ‘soft' humanitarian, development, peacekeeping and... those conducting the ‘hard' combat missions.” This dichotomy was “unacceptable”, he added.
Mr. Gates admitted that in Afghanistan the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force comprised approximately 40,000 non-U.S. troops of whom more than 850 “have made the ultimate sacrifice”.
Yet, he pointed out the Afghanistan experience had exposed serious alliance shortcomings in military capabilities and in political will and “Despite more than two million troops in uniform — not counting the U.S. military — NATO has struggled, at times desperately, to sustain a deployment of 25,000 to 45,000 troops.”
In a sharply-worded criticism of European NATO-members' military capabilities in Libya, Mr. Gates said despite all the alliance member voting for the Libya mission, “less than half have participated, and fewer than a third have been willing to participate in the strike mission... Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can't.”
Highlighting the U.S.' frustration with prolonged military engagements where it had to take the lead, Mr. Gates also said the “blunt reality” was there would be “dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress and in the American body politic writ large to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defence.”
Labels: Europe-U.S. ties, NATO, Robert Gates, Shangri-La conference
Sunday, April 24, 2011
NATO takes over mililtary operations
Command and control of military operations in Libya, in particular, the enforcement of the no-fly zone imposed under a United Nations Security Council resolution, will transfer to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Thursday.
In a statement Mr. Rasmussen said, “We are taking action as part of the broad international effort to protect civilians against the attacks by the [Muammar] Qadhafi regime,” adding that NATO would seek to cooperate with its partners in the region and welcome their contributions.
Mr. Rasmussen also said that all NATO allies were committed to fulfil their obligations under the U.N. resolution and that is why the alliance decided to assume responsibility for the no-fly zone.
Mr. Rasmussen’s announcement of the second phase of the military operations came after more than five days of aerial bombardment of targets in Libya by the Western alliance comprising the United States, the United Kingdom, France and other nations.
Even as the transfer of command and control was outlined, the U.S. State Department, in a conference call with journalists on Friday, denied that any cracks had emerged in the Western alliance, or in the international community’s support for military action against the Qadhafi regime.
Specifically, State Department Spokesperson Mark Toner said in response to a question from The Hindu that notwithstanding suggestions that nations such as Russia had disputed the U.S.’ claims surrounding civilian casualties resulting from the air strikes, the key backers of UNSCR 1973, authorising the no-fly zone, were on board.
Mr. Toner said that even if some countries had differing views on the ongoing action in Libya, it was due to the rapid deployment of force and actions taken on the ground by the Western alliance that a humanitarian crisis in Benghazi been averted.
Labels: Libya, Libya no fly zone, Libya unrest, NATO
Friday, July 30, 2010
FBI to help probe Wikileaks source
From The Hindu
In what could mark the start of an accelerating backlash from the administration, the release of sensitive military documents by the WikiLeaks whistleblower website was attacked by senior Department of Defence officials.
The criticism by top DoD staff, such as Defence Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, was also accompanied by an announcement that the military had asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation to help Pentagon authorities investigate the sources of the leak of the classified documents.
Describing the release as a “breach of national security”, Mr. Gates said the use of the FBI would ensure the investigation could go wherever it needed to go.
Regarding the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, Admiral Mullen said, “Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.”
Mr. Gates however expressed the opposite view on the importance of the documents, “These documents represent a mountain of raw data and individual impressions, most several years old, devoid of context or analysis... They do not represent official positions or policy.” He further emphasised that in his view, the documents’ revelations did not fundamentally call into question the efficacy of the allied strategy in Afghanistan and its prospects for success.
However, Secretary Gates noted that the 90,000-plus documents released by WikiLeaks still had battlefield consequences for United States, Afghan troops and civilians, and also may damage U.S. relationships in Central Asia and the Middle East.
In particular, Mr. Gates expressed concern that they might damage the U.S.’ relationships with Afghanistan and Pakistan. “Both nations remember that the U.S. walked away from the region in 1989, and U.S. military and civilian leaders have been trying hard since 2001 to repair those relationships and close the trust deficit,” he said.
Admiral Mullen corroborated this sentiment, noting, “In addition to making sure we understand the tactical risks from these leaks, I think it is incumbent upon us not to let the good relationships we have established and the trust we have worked so hard to build throughout the region also become a casualty.”
Labels: Afghan war, NATO, Robert Gates, Taliban, Wikileaks
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
White House condemns release of Afghan war documents
From The Hindu
A hacker-founded whistleblower website, WikiLeaks, has released close to 75,000 documents, from the battlefront in Afghanistan, which purportedly show the complicity of Pakistani spy agencies and the Taliban in waging a war against Western military forces. The site said it would soon be releasing another 15,000 documents.
In a development that could well rock the United States-Pakistan relationship or have far-reaching consequences for the U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan, the WikiLeaks release was said to show that Pakistan had permitted agents of intelligence services to hold secret planning sessions with the Taliban, aimed at agreeing a military strategy against American and other forces in the country. Unconfirmed reports also said that evidence of war crimes and a higher-than-expected civilian casualty rate could be found in the reports.
The White House reacted strongly within hours of the release. National Security Advisor General James Jones said in a statement that the U.S. "strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organisations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security".
He especially criticised WikiLeaks for making "no effort to contact us about these documents", complaining that the U.S. government had learned of the release from news organisations. General Jones was also quick to reassure that such "irresponsible" leaks would not impact the U.S.' ongoing commitment to deepen its partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan, to defeat common enemies and to support the aspirations of the Afghan and Pakistani people.
Speaking to The Hindu, Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former officer at the Central Intelligence Agency, said, "The documents underscore what we have known for years — Pakistan has an intimate relationship with the Taliban. The former head of Afghan intelligence has been saying this for the last month. The Obama administration has understood this from its first days in office." He added that the White House did understand there was no viable alternative to a policy of engagement with Pakistan to try to "coerce and entice Islamabad to cut those ties".
Shift in Af-Pak region
General Jones appeared to corroborate this view, noting that there had been a shift in the Af-Pak region under President Obama which entailed a "substantial increase in resources for Afghanistan, and increased focus on al-Qaeda and Taliban safe-havens in Pakistan, precisely because of the grave situation that had developed over several years". He further said that while there were still "serious challenges" ahead, the U.S. was focused on breaking the Taliban’s momentum and building Afghan capacity so that the Afghan government could begin to assume responsibility for its future.
Lisa Curtis, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation think tank and formerly with the State Department’s South Asia Bureau, told The Hindu that some of the challenges the documents pointed to, such as high Afghan civilian casualties, had been rectified in the new counterinsurgency strategy first introduced in August 2009 by General Stanley McChrystal.
She said, "The WikiLeaks expose should not be used to argue that the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is doomed to failure... [It was] refined over the last year and... the new counterinsurgency strategy is sound and should be given time to succeed."
Ms. Curtis added, however, that the leaked documents revealed "a level of U.S. frustration with Pakistan's dual policy of fighting some extremists while harbouring others", a view that was not always apparent in official statements praising Pakistan as a steadfast ally in the war on terrorism.
She further noted that given the continuing challenges posed by Pakistan's ambiguous policy toward terrorism in the region, the Obama administration ought to consider carefully whether its current Pakistan policy should be recalibrated in ways that convince the Pakistanis to shift their strategy toward the Taliban more fundamentally.
In a similar vein, addressing those in Pakistan who might have worried about the impact of the leak, General Jones added that especially given the country’s willingness to work with the U.S. since 2009, "counter-terrorism cooperation has led to significant blows against al-Qaeda’s leadership... [and] the Pakistani military has gone on the offensive in Swat and South Waziristan, at great cost to the Pakistani military and people".
However, in what might have been a tacit acknowledgement of the veracity of some of the reports leaked, General Jones cautioned: "Yet the Pakistani government – and Pakistan’s military and intelligence services – must continue their strategic shift against insurgent groups."
Linking actions to annual aid
Implicitly linking such actions to the $1.5 billion annual aid that the U.S. is currently providing Pakistan, the General also said, "The balance must shift decisively against al-Qaeda and its extremist allies. U.S. support for Pakistan will continue to be focused on building Pakistani capacity to root out violent extremist groups, while supporting the aspirations of the Pakistani people."
According to the New York Times, which was said to be in possession of the documents a week ago, much of the information released by WikiLeaks could not be verified and likely comes from sources aligned with Afghan intelligence, which considers Pakistan an enemy, and paid informants.
The newspaper added that however, "many of the reports rely on sources that the military rated as reliable" and current and former American officials interviewed, said the portrait of the Pakistani spy agency’s collaboration with the Afghan insurgency was broadly consistent with other classified intelligence.
The report came close on the heels of a decision by the U.S. Treasury to impose sanctions against three key leaders and financiers for the Haqqani Network and the Taliban, for supporting acts of terrorism linked to the militant groups based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the United States Department of the Treasury announced this week.
In targeting the three individuals, the Treasury noted last week that the Haqqani Network was a Taliban-affiliated group of militants operating out of North Waziristan Agency, and that "Pakistan has been spearheading insurgent activity in Afghanistan".
Labels: Afghan war, NATO, Taliban, Wikileaks
Subscribe to Comments [Atom]
