U.S. Prepared To Send Troops To Pakistan

Defense Secretary Robert Gates Offers Military Help In Fighting Insurgency If Requested

(AP)  The Bush administration is willing to send a small number of U.S. combat troops to Pakistan to help fight the insurgency there if Pakistani authorities ask for such help, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday.

"We remain ready, willing and able to assist the Pakistanis and to partner with them to provide additional training, to conduct joint operations, should they desire to do so," Gates told a news conference.

Gates said the Pakistani government has not requested any additional assistance in the weeks since al Qaeda and affiliated extremists have intensified their fighting inside Pakistan. And he stressed that the United States would respect the Pakistanis' judgment on the utility of American military assistance.

"We're not aware of any proposals that the Pakistanis have made to us at this point," he said. "This is clearly an evolving issue. And what we have tried to communicate to the Pakistanis and essentially what we are saying here is we are prepared to look at a range of cooperation with them in a number of different areas, but at this point it's their nickel, and we await proposals or suggestions from them."

Gates made his remarks not as an announcement but in response to questions from reporters at a regularly scheduled news conference in which he also declined to say whether U.S. combat troops have previously crossed the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan to conduct combat operations.

The question of a U.S. troop presence in Pakistan is highly sensitive, although at times senior U.S. officials have acknowledged various arrangements. In an Associated Press interview in January 2002, for example, Gen. Tommy Franks, who headed the U.S. Central Command at the time, disclosed a deal with Pakistan allowing U.S. troops in Afghanistan to cross the border in pursuit of fugitive extremist leaders.

Gates said Pakistani authorities were understandably taking their time in deciding whether to request more military assistance from the United States. He noted the assassination in Dec. 27 of former prime minister and opposition leader Benazir Bhutto and subsequent fears of increased unrest.

"I think that the emergence of this fairly considerable security challenge in Pakistan has really been brought home to the Pakistani government relatively recently and particularly with the tragic assassination of Mrs. Bhutto," Gates said. "So I think it's not particularly surprising that they have not fully thought through exactly how they intend to proceed and their strategy going forward."

The United States has about 28,000 troops in neighboring Afghanistan, and Gates earlier this month ordered another 3,200 to go this spring to train Afghan forces and to help fight Taliban insurgents.

U.S. intelligence believes al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan.

The top American commander in the region, Navy Adm. William J. Fallon, was in Pakistan earlier this week meeting with senior Pakistani officials, including the new army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani. Last week Fallon told reporters that Pakistani officials were more willing to seek U.S. assistance.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who appeared at the news conference with Gates, said he did not know whether Fallon had offered or received any new proposals.

Most of the discussion with the Pakistanis thus far has focused on the possibility of U.S. troops being used to train Pakistani forces, Gates said, but he acknowledged that combat operations might also be included.

"You're not talking about significant numbers of U.S. troops for the kinds of things if you're talking about going after al Qaeda in the border area or something like that," Gates said. "So, in my way of thinking, we're talking about a very small number of troops, should that happen. And it's clearly a pretty remote area. But, again, the Pakistani government has to be the judge of this."

Asked more specifically what he meant by a "very small number" of U.S. troops, Gates declined to comment.

Mullen said talks with the Pakistanis are progressing and that the U.S. military stands ready to provide training or combat forces.

"If asked to assist, I think we could do a lot," Mullen said.

For several years the focus of U.S. concern about al Qaeda elements in Pakistan was their support for Taliban extremists who have received training in western Pakistan and then infiltrated into Afghanistan to foment violence. More recently, al Qaeda in Pakistan has posed more of a threat to the Pakistani government, seeking to destabilize the government of a nuclear-armed Muslim nation.

At his news conference, Gates said the concern about al Qaeda goes beyond its threat to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"We are all concerned about the reestablishment of al Qaeda safe havens in the border area," he said. "I think it would be unrealistic to assume that all of the planning that they're doing is focused strictly on Pakistan. So I think that that is a continuing threat to Europe as well as to us."

[tngreen]

Thank you, samsel3, for sharing with us the only real news on this story that we will see on CBS news online. You are getting to the real heart of the story. It is these often-intricate business deals that are behind our foreign policy and military action--not WMDs or humanitarian concerns. The same factors are also at work in our dealings with Hugo Chavez, with whom we are about to go to war (pay attention, America).

[ioweign]

The U.S. must not be telling the truth about its troop levels and troop strength, because the whole world knows that based on news media reports the U.S. has no additional troops to send to Pakistan! Where are these additional troops coming from?

Posted by tbweb at 12:10 PM : Jan 26, 2008

Advisers and trainers - just like Eisenhower did in 1954 in Vietnam...

[tbweb]

The U.S. must not be telling the truth about its troop levels and troop strength, because the whole world knows that based on news media reports the U.S. has no additional troops to send to Pakistan! Where are these additional troops coming from?

[samsel3]

In 2007 Condoleeza Rice in a meeting with President Musharaf of Pakistan said the administration was not happy with the progress being made on their end of the Caspian Sea Pipeline.
Unkown to the administration at the time, Musharaf was talking to Iran & India.

January 24,2008 India announced a plan for a 2,775 km Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline. Union Petroleum Minister Murli Deora said, "Iranian ambassador spoke to me tuesday and they are very keen that the project takes shape as it is in the interest of all three countries ". Times of India

This is a new twist that does not fit Cheney''''s energy policy for the Caspian Sea Oil & Gas pipelines headed for Pakistan to supply Asian markets.

Will Musharaf dump the USA''s Caspian Sea Pipeline now that he has Iran on line in this new deal? Or will he take both pipelines through Pakistan for Asian markets. We will know soon.

[samsel3]

The Times of India August 2007 reported : " Iran, Iraq signed an agreement to build pipelines for the transfer of Iraqi crude oil and oil products." Under the deal crude will be refined and sent back to Iraq. Bush opposes this agreement and wants the Iraqi Parliment to accept and sign a U.S. designed oil law that would result in huge profits for BIG OIL. Iraqi oil workers and 63% of Iraqis polled are opposed to the Bush law and prefer a hands off Iraq oil policy.

[samsel3]

The Bush administration is trying to stop a new Natural gas deal between Iran and Italy. Next to Russia Iran has the second largest supply of natural gas. The new pipeline will move several billion cubic feet per day across Turkey and then either Greece or Albania. The gas export to Europe is being strongly opposed by Bush & Cheney as it does''nt fit in with their master energy plans.

China National Offshore Oil Corp, the countries third-largest oil producer, will sign an agreement in March for 3 million metric tons of LNG per year from Iran. Liquified Natural Gas will be shipped to Guangdong Zhuhai Jinwan Corp, They are building a gas import terminal in southeastern China''s Zhuhai, two officials at the terminal, asked not to be named in fear of company regulations.

[Con Mohrat]

Not to worry. The U.S. military has been depleted by the draft-dodger administration, and, their equipment worn out.
The British could not rule the FATA of Pakistan, and had to bribe them to enter the area. The Pakistan Government is legally unable to rule over that area.
The U.S. has a record of losing, not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in V.Nam, and Korea is still at a state of war from the 1950''s after the U.S. inability to win.
So, if any "small contingency" is sent there, don''t expect them back again. These people do what they do very well indeed. They have training camps and their graduates make headlines all over.

[psk123-2009]

hmmm... yes... exactly what our over stretched military personal need, another front to fight on. Another imaginary enemy to wage war against so that we can actually create more real enemies. Kind of makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside don''t it?

[prinzowhales]

Benazir Bhutto said on her appearance shortly before her murder on David Frost''s show that OBL was dead. The Asian and Middle Eastern papers ran obits on him years ago. Osama is just the booger-man that the Regime dredges up to justify its attack on Afghanistan to restore opium production (Mission Accomplished!!) Though Afghanistan had been the home of the organization alleged to be responsible for the attacks on our embassies in Africa and on the USS Cole, and Osama had taken up residence there, it was never on the list of nations that aided terrorists... the State Department even gave the Taliban $43 million for its efforts in erradicating opium production.

Soldiers! Sailors! Marines! The real enemy of this nation is in Washington! The borders are open, the Treasury looted and the thieves and lying dogs are holding the reins of power! Your choice, like that of all Americans, is either to support the Constitution and the Republic or the vile Chimp and his associates in Washington and the skulking Oligarchs behind them...

[usbrit-2009]

This is great: Can''t find one ********** in the mountains who actually deserves to be hunted down - make up a story about a bad guy about to use big bombs on us. Invade his country, crush his pathetic army. Oops no big bombs! Better invoke Al Quaeda the lot we told everyone we beat already. Kill thousands of civilians, **** off what was left of Al Quaeda and give them the greatest recruiting tool they could possibly hope for. Oops 6 yrs later and we''re still here. Election''s coming up. Ah, our previous buddy over here looks a little weak - we''ll go help prop him up. We''ll be heroes. Unfortunately the weak guy has not so weak enemies who take over. We **** these guys off by invading their country. They have an honest-to-god army and they DO HAVE BIG BOMBS. Oops - didn''t think that one out did we?

[mcvet]

If we are attacked like we were on 911 by terroists that are based in a foriegn land and not kept in check by the government of that land then as a last resort we have the right to take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate that threat whether by covert, bombing or invading troops.


Posted by sillywilly4 at 01:12 PM : Jan 25, 2008
+ report abuse

They are there BECAUSE of Bush and that bunch of incompetent''s fool! Bush was the jerk who walked away, left them in those mountains, and invaded a country based on PURE lies... an Invasion that same enemy used to completely rebuild the organization. You want to trust THAT government and THAT leader to tell you the truth??? About what??? Sieg Heil Bush!!

[mcvet]

Everyone run out this fall and vote Republican for Third World Status and ENDLESS War!! Do that and you can be assured that they and the Military Industrial Complex will have Al Queda alive and well for 50 years!! Sieg Heil Bush!!

[inventagod]

Learn from Cheney - Invest in Body Bags.

[winnerindia]

If I make it clear to you guys, no one is asking you to INVADE Pakistan. In any case of approval from the Pakistani government, there will be joint operations against the enemy in remote Pakistani tribal areas. Pakistan can''t technically compete the U.S.
In order to make sure that we root out the militants, U.S technology & commandos could be highly effective there.
Its absolutely wrong to think that the U.S has some plans of a full scale war ''Against'' Pakistan or that we will send troops in thousands.

[samsel3]

In 2007 Condoleeza Rice in a meeting with President Musharaf of Pakistan said the administration was not happy with the progress being made on their end of the Caspian Sea Pipeline.
Unkown to the administration at the time, Musharaf was talking to Iran & India.

January 24,2008 India announced a plan for a 2,775 km Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline. Union Petroleum Minister Murli Deora said, "Iranian ambassador spoke to me tuesday and they are very keen that the project takes shape as it is in the interest of all three countries ". Times of India

This is a new twist that does not fit Cheney''s energy policy for the Caspian Sea Oil & Gas pipelines headed for Pakistan to supply Asian markets.

Will Musharaf dump the USA''s Caspian Sea Pipeline now that he has Iran on line in this new deal? Or will he take both pipelines through Pakistan for Asian markets. We will know soon.

[donwyman-2009]

Didn''t we start out in Viet Nam the same way, sending in Special Ops "Advisors"?

[j-whitman]

Should have done it 5 frigging years ago ----- Bush won''t stop using our troops & wars for electioneering

[iceman_1960]

"U.S. Prepared To Send Troops To Pakistan"

Maybe that"s really why they brought Wolfowitz back.

He is going to command the troops in person.

[iceman_1960]

U.S. should be Prepared To Send Troops To U.S.

[terrorislam6]

Iraq PM declares ''final war'' on Al-Qaeda
http://au.news.yahoo.com/080125/19/15n18.html

Iraqi PM Announces Major Offensive in Mosul
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325456,00.html