Ex-Pakistani Official Says Policy on Taliban Is Failing
By JANE PERLEZ
New York Times
SHERPAO, Pakistan — In the walled courtyard of the modest whitewashed mosque, a suicide bomber worked his way into in the middle of a packed congregation and unleashed his explosives during prayers last month, killing 53 villagers and wounding 143 others.
The target of the attack, the former interior minister, Aftab Khan Sherpao (pronounced Share-POW), whose ancestral village sits at the foothills of the tribal region where the Taliban and their partners in Al Qaeda roam largely unfettered, was left unscathed.
But the second attack in eight months on Mr. Sherpao, 64, who was until recently his nation’s most senior law enforcement official, left him more frustrated and more outspoken about the failure of the government to respond aggressively to the rapidly spreading Taliban insurgency that is seeking to destabilize Pakistan.
The weakness of the Pakistani police and the army response to determined and religiously motivated Taliban fighters was allowing the insurgency to get stronger day by day, he said.
“The police are scared,” Mr. Sherpao said. “They don’t want to get involved.” The Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force that could help in tracking down leads on suicide bombers, was “too stressed, fighting all over,” he said. The Pakistan Army has forces in the tribal areas where the militants have built their sanctuaries but the soldiers have remained in their headquarters. “They are not moving around,” he said. “That’s their strategy.”
(Continued here.)
New York Times
SHERPAO, Pakistan — In the walled courtyard of the modest whitewashed mosque, a suicide bomber worked his way into in the middle of a packed congregation and unleashed his explosives during prayers last month, killing 53 villagers and wounding 143 others.
The target of the attack, the former interior minister, Aftab Khan Sherpao (pronounced Share-POW), whose ancestral village sits at the foothills of the tribal region where the Taliban and their partners in Al Qaeda roam largely unfettered, was left unscathed.
But the second attack in eight months on Mr. Sherpao, 64, who was until recently his nation’s most senior law enforcement official, left him more frustrated and more outspoken about the failure of the government to respond aggressively to the rapidly spreading Taliban insurgency that is seeking to destabilize Pakistan.
The weakness of the Pakistani police and the army response to determined and religiously motivated Taliban fighters was allowing the insurgency to get stronger day by day, he said.
“The police are scared,” Mr. Sherpao said. “They don’t want to get involved.” The Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force that could help in tracking down leads on suicide bombers, was “too stressed, fighting all over,” he said. The Pakistan Army has forces in the tribal areas where the militants have built their sanctuaries but the soldiers have remained in their headquarters. “They are not moving around,” he said. “That’s their strategy.”
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
As we look at the Bush presidency, we see failures. So who has a better chance to have less failures in the future – Clinton, Obama, McCain, or Romney ?
Domestically, Bush proved his failures. His goals were : revamping the tax system, cutting taxes, revamping Social Security & Medicare, immigration reform, No Child Left Behind, a prescription drug benefit for seniors, etc. Everyone a failure … even those that have been enacted have had horrible effects based on the deficit. His lone accomplishment is in the regulatory area including judicial appointments. Whatever vision Bush had, he could not get the Republicans to go along … every “accomplishment” was done with a significant backing of the Democrats. Effectively, Congress controls domestic policy … so the President really has little impact.
They say there is little difference between Clinton and Obama on domestic issues. Well, not exactly, if you look at their health care plans, Obama’s would be more acceptable to Republicans … so if you want a change to health care, there is a better chance with Obama.
That stated, the President controls foreign policy.
And if you want to see how Bush has fared there, today’s MUST READ is Parag Khanna NY Times Magazine . It clearly points out how America is becoming more and more irrelevant.
That said, who do you support for President?
So why would anyone vote for Romney who clearly would change his mind based on the opinion of the last person to which he talked ?
That leaves three choices. As this article that you cited, the real question is not Iraq, but Pakistan. Pakistan not only has nuclear weapons, but as NYTimes story describes “tribal region where the Taliban and their partners in Al Qaeda roam largely unfettered”) and the current policy is failing.
Are you comfortable with Billary’s judgment ?
Would McCain go on the offensive with Pakistan’s leadership and force military action inside Pakistan ?
Would Obama’s engagement strategy of talking with Iran and Syria create a united front to combat al Qaeda ?
That said, Iraq cannot be ignored.
McCain would trod on but be more successful than Bush, but there still is the gnawing question of how would he handle Iran. Would the Neo-Cons force the issue?
Clinton will never leave (okay some troop withdrawal) until the end of her second term. Billery wants to continue to dominate the region and that can best be accomplished with a lot of troops in Iraq. Plus she knows that if she even appears soft that she will be tormented by the Neo-Cons. And her plans for Iran?
Obama once again has a legitimate plan … engage Iran and Syria. Yes, troops will still be in Iraq, but for a much shorter time.
Politically, Frank Rich’s column today asked if Democrats know what they are doing. A Clinton nomination is bad for the country … but even more so, a Clinton presidency does not improve America’s standing in the world or bode well for a more peaceful future. With McCain, at least we know what we get and possibly, the world may respect a McCain administration.
The Democrats have a clear choice … not the voters … we’re stuck with whomever is on the ballot … the Democrats – specifically the entrenched superdelegates – have to decide, do you want a peaceful future with a growing number of supporters or to incur another four years of a Republican presidency. Oh and remember I stated that Bush’s only accomplishment was in the regulatory area including Judicial appointments … guess what, McCain is a conservative and the scales of Justice will tilt even more to the Right.
Post a Comment
<< Home