See other War, War, War Articles
Title: The U.S. military has 200 troops on the ground in Pakistan
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/201 ... und-in-pakistan/#ixzz0egpf2QEa
Published: Feb 5, 2010
Author: Staff
Post Date: 2010-02-05 14:05:31 by Horse
Keywords: None
Views: 153
Comments: 14
The U.S. military has 200 troops on the ground in Pakistan. That’s about the double the previously-disclosed number of forces there. It’s a whole lot more than the “no American troops in Pakistan” promised by special envoy Richard Holbrooke. And let’s not even get into the number of U.S. intelligence operatives and security contractors on Pakistani soil. The troop levels are one of a number of details that have emerged about the once-secret U.S. war in Pakistan since three American troops were killed yesterday by an improvised bomb. The New York Times reports that the soldiers were disguised in Pakistani clothing, and their vehicle was outfitted with radio-frequency jammers, meant to stop remotely-detonated bombs. “Still, the Taliban bomber was able to penetrate their cordon. In all 131 people were wounded, most of them girls who were students at a high school adjacent to the site of the suicide attack,” the paper reports. The military tells the Times that in addition to yesterday’s deaths, “12 other service members had been killed in Pakistan since Sept. 11, 2001.” The slain U.S. troops have been referred to alternately as Special Operations forces as and as “civil affairs” troops — military nation-builders. It’s quite possible they were both. American forces “have been quietly working on development projects” in Pakistan. It’s supposedly part of an effort to train local forces in population-centric counterinsurgency. But the effort has been kept low-key, out of fears that it could hand the Taliban a propaganda win. “Last summer, for example, the American military trainers helped distribute food and water in camps for the more than one million people displaced from the Swat Valley by the fighting [there]. But that American assistance, too, was kept quiet.” But keeping the American involvement secret — only to have it revealed in such dramatic fashion — may give militants an even bigger propaganda victory. “People are going to be very suspicious,” said Khalid Aziz, a former chief secretary of the North-West Frontier Province. “There is going to be big blowback in the media.” http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/02/us-says-200-troops-on-the-ground-in-pakistan/#ixzz0egpf2QEa
Poster Comment: The military tells the Times that in addition to yesterday’s deaths, “12 other service members had been killed in Pakistan since Sept. 11, 2001.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Horse (#0)
Pakistan has no oil, few drugs, very poor, what on earth could we be doing there? What is there of interest???
Nukes Our whole adventure in the ME is aimed at Pakistan, it's been that way from day 1 and it's been in the plans for over 10 years. Look for a joint US/India invasion somewhere down the road
Show Me Obama's Birth Certificate!
They are keeping China away from reliable sources of Mideast oil. This is Tarpley's view. There is no way the Pashtuns can take over Pakistan.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
Some oaf told me that we were in more than 120 nations because "we were invited." Nah....we're not an empire.
That's a pretty "sneaky" way of putting it
Show Me Obama's Birth Certificate!
You been thinking about this. India has ...ONE...foreign military base, it is located just north of Pakistan, it is an air mobility wing of helicopters for use of... in depth insertion of troops... Good heavens. One has to wonder what is the logic in that.
Pakistan has about 80 various nuke weapons, the only Muslim country in the world to do so. NO ONE, including China wants to see those nukes let loose or in the wrong hands. Pakistan would not be able to resist India with masses of troops and the US firepower, a combination that is already in being. Were the US and India to take possession of those nukes, the entire world would breathe a lot easier. Some might whine and gripe in public but in reality they would agree.
Brzezinski is in charge of Obama's foreign policy. He knows we have no ability to take on Pakistan. What we can do is de-stabilize Pakistan by sending in drones and paying the Pakistani government billions of dollars (borrowed from China) to create millions of refugees in the border area making any Chinese pipeline impossible.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
Obummers' Viet-Nam.
_________________________________________________________________________ To my mind we do, especially for the goal we have in mind, namely the nukes. It is the last thing we have in mind, to occupy Pakistan.. Take the nukes and leave.
"Early this summer, a consultant to the Department of Defense said, a highly classified military and civil-emergency response team was put on alert after receiving an urgent report from American intelligence officials indicating that a Pakistani nuclear component had gone astray. The team, which operates clandestinely and includes terrorism and nonproliferation experts from the intelligence community, the Pentagon, the F.B.I., and the D.O.E., is under standing orders to deploy from Andrews Air Force Base, in Maryland, within four hours of an alert. When the report turned out to be a false alarm, the mission was aborted, the consultant said. By the time the team got the message, it was already in Dubai."
India has ...ONE...foreign military base, it is located just north of Pakistan, it is an air mobility wing of helicopters for use of... in depth insertion of troops... You mean in Tajikistan. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farkh or_Air_Base Good heavens. One has to wonder what is the logic in that. In line with your perspective here, they should have a bunch more. Is that your meaning?
Nah....we're not an empire. Looks like the "NEWS" is accomplishing their mandate.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" I suspect this consideration and or contingency has been years in planning and formulation. What I find odd is that Obama, before he became president, made several remarks about Pakistan, a hint of what was to come. Now, how did he know, understand and promote Pakistan as a field of future operation???? More bases for India? No. If the insertion goes wrong, the triggers are not secured, then we have civil war in Pakistan at the least, or Pakistan at war with India. Recall how Carters rescue mission went awry???
The U.S. military has 200 troops on the ground in Pakistan. That’s about the double the previously-disclosed number of forces there.
#2. To: Cynicom, Horse (#1)
What is there of interest???
#3. To: Flintlock, Cynicom (#2)
What is there of interest???
#4. To: All (#3)
#5. To: Jethro Tull (#4)
Some oaf told me that we were in more than 120 nations because "we were invited."
#6. To: Flintlock (#2)
Look for a joint US/India invasion somewhere down the road
#7. To: Horse (#3)
. This is Tarpley's view. There is no way the Pashtuns can take over Pakistan.
#8. To: Cynicom, Flintlock (#6)
Look for a joint US/India invasion somewhere down the road
#9. To: Horse (#0)
The U.S. military has 200 troops on the ground in Pakistan. That’s about the double the previously-disclosed number of forces there. It’s a whole lot more than the “no American troops in Pakistan” promised by special envoy Richard Holbrooke. And let’s not even get into the number of U.S. intelligence operatives and security contractors on Pakistani soil.
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#10. To: Horse (#8)
He knows we have no ability to take on Pakistan.
#11. To: Horse (#8)
#12. To: Cynicom (#6)
(Edited)
#13. To: Jethro Tull (#4)
Some oaf told me that we were in more than 120 nations because "we were invited."
#14. To: randge (#12)
In line with your perspective here, they should have a bunch more. Is that your meaning?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest