Bush OK'd Secret U.S. Strikes In Pakistan

President Approved Military Raids In Effort To Fight Al Qaeda And Taliban Along Afghan Border

(CBS/ AP)  President Bush secretly approved U.S. military raids inside Pakistan against alleged terrorist targets, CBS News national security correspondent David Marin confirms.

A former intelligence official with recent access to the Bush administration's debate about how to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban inside the lawless tribal border area also confirmed the presidential order.

The former official spoke Thursday on condition of anonymity to describe the classified order.

A senior U.S. military official last week also confirmed that a special forces attack had taken place about a mile across Pakistan's border with Afghanistan. That official spoke on condition of anonymity because the internal debate over the U.S. response to rising violence along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border includes discussion of classified intelligence.

The former official told The Associated Press that Mr. Bush signed an order over the summer giving new authority to U.S. special operations forces to target suspected terrorists in the dangerous area along the Afghanistan border. More recently, the administration secretly gave conventional ground troops new authority to pursue militants across the Afghan border into Pakistan, the former official said.

The "rules of engagement" have been loosened, allowing troops to conduct border attacks without being fired on first if they witness attacks coming from the region, the former official said. That would include artillery, rockets and mortar fire from the Pakistan side of the border.

The new authority allowed last week's unprecedented U.S.-led ground assault into the volatile region known as the tribal areas. The U.S. forces were apparently seeking specific Taliban or al Qaeda leaders. The senior U.S. military official said the assault targeted "individuals who were clearly associated with attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan."

The Sept. 4 raid left at least 15 people dead, and embarrassed Pakistan's new civilian-led government. Pakistani officials have also said U.S. forces were involved.

The cross-border raids are riskier than strikes by unmanned drones, which until now have been the only means of attacking militant hideouts in Pakistan, reports Martin. In fact, in the one cross-border raid launched so far, some of the commandos were slightly injured during the fire fight.

The aim of the raids is to force the militants back from the border, reports Martin. Some of the compounds being used by the militants are so close to the border that they can easily shell American outposts on the Afghan side. Putting "boots on the ground" has one big advantage over air strikes -- the commandos can gather intelligence from cell phones and lap tops. However, they also create the spectre of another Blackhawk Down -- i.e. an incident in which American soldiers are trapped behind enemy lines, adds Martin.

Mr. Bush's decision to endorse cross-border attacks from Afghanistan without alerting Islamabad leaves Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari with a major foreign policy challenge. He replaced Pervez Musharraf, who had been Washington's point man in Pakistan but resigned under pressure in August.

Zardari and other politicians have called the cross-border attacks unacceptable and a violation of their country's sovereignty. Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the powerful but media-shy army leader, took things a step further Wednesday, when he said Pakistan's territorial integrity would be "defended at all cost."

"Reckless actions" which kill civilians "only help the militants and further fuel the militancy in the area," Kayani said, reflecting the views of many Pakistanis.

At the crux of the dispute are militant havens that have grown on Pakistan's side of the border at the same time that a resurgent Taliban has been increasing its attacks inside Afghanistan, leading Bush to commit Wednesday to sending more troops there. Washington wants Pakistan to do more to crack down on its side of the border.

"Until we work more closely with the Pakistani government to eliminate the safe havens from which they operate, the enemy will only keep coming," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday. "Frankly, we are running out of time."

Pakistan says it is doing all it can.

Pakistan's inability or unwillingness to mount a counterinsurgency campaign inside the tribal area was discussed at a National Security Council meeting held this week, according to notes of the meeting provided to The Associated Press. The notes said Pakistan is still focused on fighting India and is "still denying the counterinsurgency problem."

Top U.S. and Pakistani military officials conducted a secret strategy session in August on an aircraft carrier off Pakistan to discuss the problem.

Senior White House officials this summer were debating whether to adopt a new, more aggressive military stance to attack the maturing al Qaeda safe haven adjacent to the Afghan border.

The old strategy - relying on Pakistan to keep a lid on the tribal areas - was meant to support strong ally Musharraf. The official said Musharraf's waning fortunes heavily influenced the debate in favor of stronger action.

The Pakistani government is not told about the targets in advance because of concerns that the Pakistani intelligence service and military are infiltrated by al Qaeda and Taliban supporters who would leak the information, the former official said.

The arrangement is deliberately ambiguous. While the Pakistan government is left in the dark, it also does not want the United States government announcing that operations were undertaken without Islamabad's approval.

"They said, don't rub our noses in it," the former official said. "It doesn't want to look like they are just letting the United States do whatever it wants."

At the same time, the former official said, the Pakistan government recognizes that its settled areas are increasingly targeted by terrorist and militant attacks emanating from the tribal region and its military is not equipped to counter the threat.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack declined to comment on the matter Thursday but said the U.S., Pakistan and the rest of the world share an interest in cracking down on militants along the Pakistani-Afghan border.

"We have clear interests there. The Pakistanis have clear interests, obviously, in combatting the threat of violent extremism in their own country and how that affects others around them and others globally," he said.

[lasercat-2009]

U.S. Spending per Second - $5,000 in 2008 (per Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on May 5, 2008) Can we afford Afghanistan?

[lasercat-2009]

Iraqi Civilians Killed, Estimated - A UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stating that Iraqi civilian casualties have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualities at over 600,000.

Iraqi Insurgents Killed, Roughly Estimated - 55,000

Who are the terrorists?

[mcdasstheass]

Posted by amrt5016 at 12:21 PM : Sep 12, 2008
+ report abuse

********

come on..who is big on the obama campaign???liberal hollywood..and what is liberal hollywood known for??

[amrt5016]

Using five-year olds as a ploy. That''''s perverse. Karl Rove used McCain''''s then eight-year old daughter to race-bait in the 2000 election campaign. Now McCain has embraced Rove, along with his disgusting tactics.

Dirty and filthy and rolling around in the mud. While the country collapses. Who''''s the pig?
Posted by smart4peace at 11:31 AM : Sep 12, 2008

We know who the pig is. And why should it surprise that McCain is employing tried-and-true Republican tactics of disinformation? When push comes to shove, one''s true color comes to the surface. The GOP is the dirtiest and most corrupt political party in the western world.

[nextgenman]

Posted by Spinster2 at 03:16 AM : Sep 12, 2008
-------

Spending a late night at RNC earning McMiles points, eh?

[spinster2]

As a former Clinton supporter and current Obama supporter I must say that I''m starting to think that the highly educated liberals who have pushed Obama so hard are as stupid as ever.

Presidential elections come down to a few swing states and in case they missed it, Obama didn''t do too well in them. HRC certainly didn''t miss it and tried her best to explain it to democrats without being called a racist for doing so.

In the end, this is starting to look like the same old song and dance the we see every time we nominate a far left yankee. It hasn''t worked since civil rights was a big issue and I have serious doubts that it''s going to work this time.

Omama''s first mistake was to skip over Clinton because he got no boost from Biden whatsoever which is too bad because Biden would have made the best president of any democrat running.

[rushliberal]

Great - Bush''s FINAL legacy - and lets not forget Cheney too - have succeeded in making America the MOST HATED Country on the Planet.

These 2 guys have made Russia look like Goldielocks and the US as the Wolf.

I VOTE for a Constitutional Amendment that FORBIDS a Texan or Oilman from EVER being President or Vice President AGAIN.

[tawpdawg111]

Ok Georgie Peorgie, that was pre-season vs Punkistan. Now step up to the ol plate and smack Pooty-Poot with the BIG BAT! Give im the ol Texas Two-step! the Shaney Shuffle! What are they gonna do, NUKE US?

[tawpdawg111]

Ok Georgie Peorgie, that was pre-season vs Punkistan. Now step up to the ol plate and smack Pooty-Poot with the BIG BAT! Give im the ol Texas Two-step! the Shaney Shuffle!

[tapsettle]

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others had planned to invade Iraq for years. Why do you think the US is still there?
Also, Bin Laden is a saudi, almost all the 9-11 hijackers were saudis. Why not a word of anger (let alone invasion) against Saudi Arabia? Did you know Bush let his saudi friends fly out after 9-11 when no-one else was allowed to fly out?
They ridicule 9-11 conspiracies to detract from a real one. Bush, with the help of his saudi friends, allowed 9-11 to happen. That paved the way for his long-planned invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you think Karzai was democratically elected in Afghanistan? He has been almost a life-long friend and business partner of the Bush family. Go check it out if you dont believe me. Type in Bush Karzai pipeline on a search.
Yes, Bin Ladens mortal status is of little relevance. Watch out for the next justification of a US onslaught ... probably against Iran following a ''''provocation''''.

[nearl4511]

Probably the least controversial thing that Bush ever did in office.

Not really sure what the US plan was for maintaining a friendly relationship w. Pakistan, but it doesn''t seem very stable right now....and we''re considering nuclear cooperation deals with India.....

[tapsettle]

"Bush OK''d Secret U.S. Strikes In Pakistan"

... he also OK''d torture, rendition flights, blowing the cover of a CIA operative, faking Iraq hero reports, warrantless spying in US etc etc etc.

By doing all that he has done, by default he has also OK''d another 9-11. Which will suit the neocons nicely.

[ajmarine111]

Posted by mcdazz at 10:38 PM : Sep 11, 2008


Gotta go, nice talking to you.

Live Long and Prosper.

[ajmarine111]

Of course, that''''s only one instance where he could be impeached - there are others that the Dems have been to gutless to act on.

Posted by mcdazz at 10:38 PM : Sep 11, 2008





House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Defends Her Opposition to Impeachment: %u201CIf Somebody Had a Crime that the President Had Committed, That Would Be a Different Story.%u201D

On Monday, Rep. Pelosi appeared on ABC%u2019s The View and suggested impeachment is off the table because there is no evidence President Bush has committed any criminal acts.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/30/house_speaker_nancy_pelosi_defends_her

[emelder]

One day, we''ll probably learn that Bin Laden has been hiding out in Saudi Arabia all this time ... and that he traveled there with U.S. help ... think about the Michael Moore movie that told of over a hundred members of Bin Laden''s family flying out of America (just after 9/11)while all planes were grounded. We haven''t even gotten part of the truth about Bin Laden. Bet you anything Saudi Arabia is involved somehow in hiding him!!!

[Antwms]

This is a very dangerous republican ticket. This woman has no idea as to what she is involved in. She is a puppet and I hope she would reconsider her ambition and collect the millions she will have earned after the election and get back in her home and become a better mother to her children and hopefully give some values to them.

dakotaclark at 10:26 PM : Sep 11, 2008 wrote:

"The United States and other interested countries should form a "protection alliance," and should make a worldwide PUBLIC NOTICE."

Didn''t Osama use the same principal for his attacks on the US?

AJMarine111 at 10:18 PM : Sep 11, 2008 wrote:

"Could be talk like this that stops them.

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America?s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003"

It certainly wouldn''t help.

Of course, that''s only one instance where he could be impeached - there are others that the Dems have been to gutless to act on.

libluv2whine at 10:00 PM : Sep 11, 2008 wrote:

"like i said, if whatever bush jr did is illegal and out of place..IMPEACH THE FU CKER..but there is none because bush did everything within reason."

It''s a numbers game.

Do you understand that?

[dakotaclark]

Hmmm...

The United States and other interested countries should form a "protection alliance," and should make a worldwide PUBLIC NOTICE.

If an individual or group takes any type of hostile action against the U.S. or other members of the alliance, the U.S. and other alliance members will pursue those offenders no matter where they live or try to hide.

Any country that allows an individual or group, that attacked alliance members, to enter their country, needs to know there will be either hot pursuit, or covert pursuit into that country; with the goal of causing the destruction of the offenders and nearby areas and property.

For example, if Pakistan allows insurgents to live in their mountains and cause attacks in Afghanistan, the government of Pakistan needs to know there will be military action against those insurgents. The only way to prevent such actions would be for Pakistan to prevent insurgents from entering Pakistan.

Enough is enough.