http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7611705.stm
Chavez acts over US-Bolivia row
Mr Chavez also threatened to oil supplies to the US
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is expelling the US envoy to Caracas, amid an escalating regional diplomatic row.
Mr Chavez said US ambassador Patrick Duddy had 72 hours to leave, adding the move was in solidarity with Bolivia.
It came just hours after Washington ordered out the Bolivian ambassador, in response to its own envoy being told to leave Bolivia.
Bolivia accuses the US envoy of inciting growing violent protests against President Evo Morales.
At least eight people were killed and some 20 injured in clashes between pro- and anti-government groups in Bolivia on Thursday.
Bolivia has seen large numbers of protests in recent weeks by opponents of Mr Morales's economic and social policies.
'Go to hell'
President Chavez used coarse language to describe his feelings about Washington as he ordered the expulsion of US envoy Patrick Duddy.
Violence has flared in eastern Bolivia
Enlarge Image
"The Yankee ambassador to Caracas has 72 hours to leave Venezuela, in solidarity with Bolivia, with the Bolivian people, and with the Bolivian government," Mr Chavez said.
"Go to hell 100 times," he said.
Mr Chavez also announced that he was recalling his envoy from Washington.
Earlier, the US state department declared that the Bolivian ambassador in Washington, Gustavo Guzman, was "persona non grata".
State department spokesman Sean McCormack said the decision was taken "in response to unwarranted actions, and in accordance with the Vienna Convention [on diplomatic protocol]".
He referred to Wednesday's move by Bolivia to expel US Ambassador Philip Goldberg.
President Morales accused Mr Goldberg of "conspiring against democracy" and encouraging the break-up of Bolivia, but Mr McCormack said the expulsion was a "grave error", describing the accusations as "baseless".
Military protection
The eight deaths in Bolivia's remote northern jungle region of Pando happened as pro- and anti-government protesters fought each other with clubs, machetes and firearms, officials said.
Mr Morales wants to carry out land reforms to bring wealth to poor areas
Seven of the victims were farmers killed by opposition activists, reports say.
A government spokesman described the killings as a massacre.
Protesters have also been blocking roads and occupying buildings in eastern regions, which are home to Bolivia's important natural gas reserves.
Opposition groups want greater autonomy as well as more control over revenues of natural gas in their areas.
They object to Mr Morales's plans to give more power to the country's indigenous and poor communities, by carrying out land reform and redistributing gas revenues.
On Monday, the government announced it was sending the military to protect gas fields and infrastructure from demonstrators and guarantee exports to neighbouring countries.
On Wednesday, officials said saboteurs had caused a blast on a pipeline, forcing them to cut natural gas exports to neighbouring Brazil by 10%.
The Brazilian foreign ministry said in a statement that the government was taking the necessary measures to guarantee gas supplies in the country.
The statement also expressed Brazil's "grave concern" at the events in Bolivia, and deplored the outbreak of violence and attacks on state institutions and public order.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
911 commission stuff
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html
Stonewalled by the C.I.A.
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL OR SAVE THIS
PRINT
SHARE
By THOMAS H. KEAN and LEE H. HAMILTON
Published: January 2, 2008
Washington
Related
Blogrunner: Reactions From Around the Web
MORE than five years ago, Congress and President Bush created the 9/11 commission. The goal was to provide the American people with the fullest possible account of the “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001” — and to offer recommendations to prevent future attacks. Soon after its creation, the president’s chief of staff directed all executive branch agencies to cooperate with the commission.
The commission’s mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.
There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the C.I.A. — or the White House — of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations.
When the press reported that, in 2002 and maybe at other times, the C.I.A. had recorded hundreds of hours of interrogations of at least two Qaeda detainees, we went back to check our records. We found that we did ask, repeatedly, for the kind of information that would have been contained in such videotapes.
The commission did not have a mandate to investigate how detainees were treated; our role was to investigate the history and evolution of Al Qaeda and the 9/11 plot. Beginning in June 2003, we requested all reports of intelligence information on these broad topics that had been gleaned from the interrogations of 118 named individuals, including both Abu Zubaydah and Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, two senior Qaeda operatives, portions of whose interrogations were apparently recorded and then destroyed.
The C.I.A. gave us many reports summarizing information gained in the interrogations. But the reports raised almost as many questions as they answered. Agency officials assured us that, if we posed specific questions, they would do all they could to answer them.
So, in October 2003, we sent another wave of questions to the C.I.A.’s general counsel. One set posed dozens of specific questions about the reports, including those about Abu Zubaydah. A second set, even more important in our view, asked for details about the translation process in the interrogations; the background of the interrogators; the way the interrogators handled inconsistencies in the detainees’ stories; the particular questions that had been asked to elicit reported information; the way interrogators had followed up on certain lines of questioning; the context of the interrogations so we could assess the credibility and demeanor of the detainees when they made the reported statements; and the views or assessments of the interrogators themselves.
The general counsel responded in writing with non-specific replies. The agency did not disclose that any interrogations had ever been recorded or that it had held any further relevant information, in any form. Not satisfied with this response, we decided that we needed to question the detainees directly, including Abu Zubaydah and a few other key captives.
In a lunch meeting on Dec. 23, 2003, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, told us point blank that we would have no such access. During the meeting, we emphasized to him that the C.I.A. should provide any documents responsive to our requests, even if the commission had not specifically asked for them. Mr. Tenet replied by alluding to several documents he thought would be helpful to us, but neither he, nor anyone else in the meeting, mentioned videotapes.
A meeting on Jan. 21, 2004, with Mr. Tenet, the White House counsel, the secretary of defense and a representative from the Justice Department also resulted in the denial of commission access to the detainees. Once again, videotapes were not mentioned.
As a result of this January meeting, the C.I.A. agreed to pose some of our questions to detainees and report back to us. The commission concluded this was all the administration could give us. But the commission never felt that its earlier questions had been satisfactorily answered. So the public would be aware of our concerns, we highlighted our caveats on page 146 in the commission report.
As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.
Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton served as chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 commission.
Stonewalled by the C.I.A.
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL OR SAVE THIS
SHARE
By THOMAS H. KEAN and LEE H. HAMILTON
Published: January 2, 2008
Washington
Related
Blogrunner: Reactions From Around the Web
MORE than five years ago, Congress and President Bush created the 9/11 commission. The goal was to provide the American people with the fullest possible account of the “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001” — and to offer recommendations to prevent future attacks. Soon after its creation, the president’s chief of staff directed all executive branch agencies to cooperate with the commission.
The commission’s mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.
There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the C.I.A. — or the White House — of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations.
When the press reported that, in 2002 and maybe at other times, the C.I.A. had recorded hundreds of hours of interrogations of at least two Qaeda detainees, we went back to check our records. We found that we did ask, repeatedly, for the kind of information that would have been contained in such videotapes.
The commission did not have a mandate to investigate how detainees were treated; our role was to investigate the history and evolution of Al Qaeda and the 9/11 plot. Beginning in June 2003, we requested all reports of intelligence information on these broad topics that had been gleaned from the interrogations of 118 named individuals, including both Abu Zubaydah and Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, two senior Qaeda operatives, portions of whose interrogations were apparently recorded and then destroyed.
The C.I.A. gave us many reports summarizing information gained in the interrogations. But the reports raised almost as many questions as they answered. Agency officials assured us that, if we posed specific questions, they would do all they could to answer them.
So, in October 2003, we sent another wave of questions to the C.I.A.’s general counsel. One set posed dozens of specific questions about the reports, including those about Abu Zubaydah. A second set, even more important in our view, asked for details about the translation process in the interrogations; the background of the interrogators; the way the interrogators handled inconsistencies in the detainees’ stories; the particular questions that had been asked to elicit reported information; the way interrogators had followed up on certain lines of questioning; the context of the interrogations so we could assess the credibility and demeanor of the detainees when they made the reported statements; and the views or assessments of the interrogators themselves.
The general counsel responded in writing with non-specific replies. The agency did not disclose that any interrogations had ever been recorded or that it had held any further relevant information, in any form. Not satisfied with this response, we decided that we needed to question the detainees directly, including Abu Zubaydah and a few other key captives.
In a lunch meeting on Dec. 23, 2003, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, told us point blank that we would have no such access. During the meeting, we emphasized to him that the C.I.A. should provide any documents responsive to our requests, even if the commission had not specifically asked for them. Mr. Tenet replied by alluding to several documents he thought would be helpful to us, but neither he, nor anyone else in the meeting, mentioned videotapes.
A meeting on Jan. 21, 2004, with Mr. Tenet, the White House counsel, the secretary of defense and a representative from the Justice Department also resulted in the denial of commission access to the detainees. Once again, videotapes were not mentioned.
As a result of this January meeting, the C.I.A. agreed to pose some of our questions to detainees and report back to us. The commission concluded this was all the administration could give us. But the commission never felt that its earlier questions had been satisfactorily answered. So the public would be aware of our concerns, we highlighted our caveats on page 146 in the commission report.
As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.
Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton served as chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 commission.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Anomaly
http://news.trendaz.com/index.shtml?show=news&newsid=1285125&lang=EN
Moscow Says Russia-Georgia Relations are Anomaly: Foreign Ministry
03.09.08 15:46
Russia, Moscow, 3 September /Trend News corr. R.Agayev/ Moscow takes the situation regarding the relations between Russia and Georgia as an anomaly, an official of the Russian Foreign Ministry Andrei Nesterenko said at a briefing in Moscow on 3 September.
“ Russia had to think about the future of our relations. We do not want to undermine the relationships,” Nesterenko.
According to Nesterenko, Saakashvili’s statements are sometimes interpreted into Russian more strictly than they are. Anti-Russian campaign is at its height.
“Those in Georgia try to develop nationalism. Operation of Russian TV channels and almost all Russian-language sites has been stopped. Blockade of Russian channels violates international media rights,” he said.
In the early morning of 8 August, large-scale military actions commenced in the unrecognized republic of South Ossetia. Georgian troops entered Tskhinvali. Later Russian troops occupied Tskhinvali and forced back the Georgian servicemen.
On 12 August, Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev said he had decided to complete the operation on constraining Georgia to peace.
Russia unilaterally recognized independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
FROM JUNKIE: Anomaly: dissent from the normal
Moscow Says Russia-Georgia Relations are Anomaly: Foreign Ministry
03.09.08 15:46
Russia, Moscow, 3 September /Trend News corr. R.Agayev/ Moscow takes the situation regarding the relations between Russia and Georgia as an anomaly, an official of the Russian Foreign Ministry Andrei Nesterenko said at a briefing in Moscow on 3 September.
“ Russia had to think about the future of our relations. We do not want to undermine the relationships,” Nesterenko.
According to Nesterenko, Saakashvili’s statements are sometimes interpreted into Russian more strictly than they are. Anti-Russian campaign is at its height.
“Those in Georgia try to develop nationalism. Operation of Russian TV channels and almost all Russian-language sites has been stopped. Blockade of Russian channels violates international media rights,” he said.
In the early morning of 8 August, large-scale military actions commenced in the unrecognized republic of South Ossetia. Georgian troops entered Tskhinvali. Later Russian troops occupied Tskhinvali and forced back the Georgian servicemen.
On 12 August, Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev said he had decided to complete the operation on constraining Georgia to peace.
Russia unilaterally recognized independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
FROM JUNKIE: Anomaly: dissent from the normal
See?! Georgia DID attack first!
http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=53185
Russia, Georgia shut down respective embassies
Georgian parliament lifts 'state of war'
Afp, Tbilisi
Russia and Georgia have shut their embassies in each other's capitals following Tbilisi's decision to cut diplomatic ties with Moscow, officials and news agencies said yesterday.
"The Russian embassy in Georgia is no longer functioning. The consular section is closed as well, pending future directives from Moscow," embassy spokesman Alexander Savonov told AFP in Tbilisi.
In Moscow, Georgia's charge d'affaires Givi Shugarov told the Interfax news agency that the country's embassy had also ceased its diplomatic functions.
"As of now the embassy has stopped its diplomatic activity," he said, adding that "the consulate of Georgia continues to work as usual."
Georgia on Tuesday formally broke diplomatic relations with Russia following its occupation of parts of the country and recognition of two rebel regions.
Meanwhile Georgia's parliament voted yesterday to lift a "state of war" imposed last month during the ex-Soviet republic's conflict with Russia, a spokeswoman said.
"The Georgian parliament has unanimously approved a resolution lifting the state of war in Georgia," parliamentary spokeswoman Maka Gigauri told AFP.
"A state of emergency is declared on those Georgian territories where Russian occupation forces are still present, including in Abkhazia and the former South Ossetian autonomous district," she said.
The state of war was declared on August 9 as Russia bombed the country and the Georgian and Russian armies battled for control of South Ossetia, a Moscow-backed breakaway region.
Russia sent tanks and troops into Georgian territory in what officials say was a response to a Georgian offensive on August 7 to retake South Ossetia.
Moscow withdrew the bulk of its forces from Georgia under a French-brokered ceasefire agreement, but thousands of Russian troops remain deployed on its territory.
Russia describes the troops as peacekeepers but Georgia says they are an occupying force.
Russia later recognised South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another breakaway region, as independent states, drawing condemnation from Georgia and many Western countries.
Georgia's foreign ministry announced last week that it was planning to cut diplomatic ties but maintain consular relations to serve hundreds of thousands of Georgians living in Russia.
Russia, Georgia shut down respective embassies
Georgian parliament lifts 'state of war'
Afp, Tbilisi
Russia and Georgia have shut their embassies in each other's capitals following Tbilisi's decision to cut diplomatic ties with Moscow, officials and news agencies said yesterday.
"The Russian embassy in Georgia is no longer functioning. The consular section is closed as well, pending future directives from Moscow," embassy spokesman Alexander Savonov told AFP in Tbilisi.
In Moscow, Georgia's charge d'affaires Givi Shugarov told the Interfax news agency that the country's embassy had also ceased its diplomatic functions.
"As of now the embassy has stopped its diplomatic activity," he said, adding that "the consulate of Georgia continues to work as usual."
Georgia on Tuesday formally broke diplomatic relations with Russia following its occupation of parts of the country and recognition of two rebel regions.
Meanwhile Georgia's parliament voted yesterday to lift a "state of war" imposed last month during the ex-Soviet republic's conflict with Russia, a spokeswoman said.
"The Georgian parliament has unanimously approved a resolution lifting the state of war in Georgia," parliamentary spokeswoman Maka Gigauri told AFP.
"A state of emergency is declared on those Georgian territories where Russian occupation forces are still present, including in Abkhazia and the former South Ossetian autonomous district," she said.
The state of war was declared on August 9 as Russia bombed the country and the Georgian and Russian armies battled for control of South Ossetia, a Moscow-backed breakaway region.
Russia sent tanks and troops into Georgian territory in what officials say was a response to a Georgian offensive on August 7 to retake South Ossetia.
Moscow withdrew the bulk of its forces from Georgia under a French-brokered ceasefire agreement, but thousands of Russian troops remain deployed on its territory.
Russia describes the troops as peacekeepers but Georgia says they are an occupying force.
Russia later recognised South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another breakaway region, as independent states, drawing condemnation from Georgia and many Western countries.
Georgia's foreign ministry announced last week that it was planning to cut diplomatic ties but maintain consular relations to serve hundreds of thousands of Georgians living in Russia.
Rain in Pakistan
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jIE0IUn4WIiaMBpjG8SI_6H5RXzgD92VM75G0
US confirms raid inside Pakistan
By PAUL ALEXANDER – 48 minutes ago
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — American forces launched a raid inside Pakistan Wednesday, a senior U.S. military official said, in the first known U.S. ground assault in Pakistan against a suspected Taliban haven. The government condemned the attack, saying it killed at least 15 people.
The American official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of cross border operations, told The Associated Press that the raid occurred on Pakistani soil about one mile from the Afghan border. The official didn't provide any other details.
Pakistan's Foreign Ministry protested saying U.S.-led troops flew in from Afghanistan for the attack on a village in the country's wild tribal belt. A Pakistan army spokesman warned that the apparent escalation from recent foreign missile strikes on militant targets along the Afghan border would further anger Pakistanis and undercut cooperation in the war against terrorist groups.
The boldness of the thrust fed speculation about the intended target. But it was unclear whether any extremist leader was killed or captured in the operation, which occurred in one of the militant strongholds dotting a frontier region considered a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahri.
U.S. military and civilian officials declined to respond directly to Pakistan's complaints. But one official, a South Asia expert who agreed to discuss the situation only if not quoted by name, suggested the target of any raid like that reported Wednesday would have to be extremely important to risk an almost assured "big backlash" from Pakistan.
"You have to consider that something like this will be a more-or-less once-off opportunity for which we will have to pay a price in terms of Pakistani cooperation," the official said.
Suspected U.S. missile attacks killed at least two al-Qaida commanders this year in the same region, drawing protests from Pakistan's government that its sovereignty was under attack. U.S. officials did not acknowledge any involvement in those attacks.
But American commanders have been complaining publicly that Pakistan puts too little pressure on militant groups that are blamed for mounting violence in Afghanistan, stirring speculation that U.S. forces might lash out across the frontier.
Some administration officials have been pressing President Bush to direct U.S. troops in Afghanistan to be more aggressive in pursuing militants into Pakistan on foot as part of a proposed radical shift in regional counterterrorism strategy, the AP learned. The debate was the subject of a late July meeting at the White House of some of Bush's top national security advisers.
Circumstances surrounding Wednesday's raid weren't clear, but U.S. rules of engagement allow American troops to pursue militants across the border into Pakistan when they are attacked.
However, Pakistan army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said hot pursuit wasn't an issue, adding that the attack "was completely unprovoked." He said Pakistani troops were near the village and saw and heard nothing to suggest the U.S. forces were pursuing insurgents.
The raid comes at a particularly sensitive time for the Pakistan government which is trying to overcome political divisions and choose a new president on the one hand, while the army is battling the militants on the other.
In other signs of Pakistan's precarious stability three days before legislators elect a successor to Pervez Musharraf as president, snipers shot at the prime minister's limousine near Islamabad and government troops killed two dozen militants in another area of the restive northwest.
Pakistani officials said they were lodging strong protests with the U.S. government and its military representative in Islamabad about Wednesday's raid in the South Waziristan area, a notorious hot bed of militant activity.
The Foreign Ministry called the strike "a gross violation of Pakistan's territory," saying it could "undermine the very basis of cooperation and may fuel the fire of hatred and violence that we are trying to extinguish."
Prior to the U.S. military confirming the U.S. raid, Pakistan government and military officials had insisted that either the NATO force or the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan — both commanded by American generals — were responsible. A spokesman for NATO troops in Afghanistan denied any involvement.
The army's spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, said the attack was the first incursion onto Pakistani soil by troops from the foreign forces that ousted Afghanistan's hard-line Taliban regime after the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S.
He said the attack would undermine Pakistan's efforts to isolate Islamic extremists and could threaten NATO's major supply lines, which snake from Pakistan's Indian Ocean port of Karachi through the tribal region into Afghanistan.
"We cannot afford a huge uprising at the level of tribe," Abbas said. "That would be completely counterproductive and doesn't help the cause of fighting terrorism in the area."
The Pakistani anger threatens to upset efforts by American commanders to draw Pakistan's military into the U.S. strategy of dealing harshly with the militants.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met last week with Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the Pakistani army chief. Mullen said he came away encouraged that Pakistanis were becoming more focused on the problem of militants using the country as a safe haven.
However, Abbas, the army spokesman, said Wednesday that cross-border commando operations were not discussed and he reiterated Pakistan's position that its forces should be exclusively responsible for operations on its territory.
Pakistani officials say the U.S. and NATO should share intelligence and allow Pakistani troops to execute any raids needed inside Pakistan. However, Washington has accused rogue elements in Pakistan's main intelligence service of leaking sensitive information to militants.
American officials say destroying militant sanctuaries in Pakistani tribal regions is key to defeating Taliban-led militants in Afghanistan whose insurgency has strengthened every year since the fundamentalist militia was ousted for harboring bin Laden.
But there has been debate in Washington over how far the U.S. can go on its own.
Citing witness and intelligence reports, Abbas said troops flew in on at least one big CH-47 Chinook transport helicopter, blasted their way into several houses and gunned down men they found there.
He said there was no evidence that any of those killed were insurgents or that the raiders abducted any militant leader, but he acknowledged Pakistan's military had no firsthand account.
There were differing reports on how many people were killed. The provincial governor claimed 20 civilians, including women and children, died. Army and intelligence officials, as well as residents, said 15 people were killed.
Habib Khan Wazir, an area resident, said he heard helicopters, then an exchange of gunfire.
"Later, I saw 15 bodies inside and outside two homes. They had been shot in the head," Wazir said by phone. He claimed all the dead were civilians.
Near Islamabad, meanwhile, snipers fired at a motorcade near the capital as it headed to the airport to pick up the prime minister, hitting the window of his car at least twice, officials said. Neither Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani nor his staff were in the vehicles.
Muslim Khan, a spokesman for the banned militant organization Tahrik-e-Taliban, claimed responsibility and pledged more attacks in retaliation for army operations in tribal areas and the Swat Valley along the border with Afghanistan.
In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declined to comment on the claimed cross-border raid, but she said the U.S. would continue to work with Gilani's government.
"I am relieved, of course, that the incident aimed at the Pakistani prime minister did not succeed," Rice said.
"We're going to be in continued contact with the Pakistanis as we both try to help them to build a strong economic foundation, to build a strong democratic foundation and to fight the terrorists who are a threat not just to the United States and to Afghanistan but to Pakistan as well."
Associated Press writers Pamela Hess, Pauline Jelinek and Matthew Lee in Washington, Ishtiaq Mahsud in Dera Ismail Khan, Munir Ahmad and Stephen Graham in Islamabad and Fisnik Abrashi in Kabul contributed to this report.
US confirms raid inside Pakistan
By PAUL ALEXANDER – 48 minutes ago
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — American forces launched a raid inside Pakistan Wednesday, a senior U.S. military official said, in the first known U.S. ground assault in Pakistan against a suspected Taliban haven. The government condemned the attack, saying it killed at least 15 people.
The American official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of cross border operations, told The Associated Press that the raid occurred on Pakistani soil about one mile from the Afghan border. The official didn't provide any other details.
Pakistan's Foreign Ministry protested saying U.S.-led troops flew in from Afghanistan for the attack on a village in the country's wild tribal belt. A Pakistan army spokesman warned that the apparent escalation from recent foreign missile strikes on militant targets along the Afghan border would further anger Pakistanis and undercut cooperation in the war against terrorist groups.
The boldness of the thrust fed speculation about the intended target. But it was unclear whether any extremist leader was killed or captured in the operation, which occurred in one of the militant strongholds dotting a frontier region considered a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahri.
U.S. military and civilian officials declined to respond directly to Pakistan's complaints. But one official, a South Asia expert who agreed to discuss the situation only if not quoted by name, suggested the target of any raid like that reported Wednesday would have to be extremely important to risk an almost assured "big backlash" from Pakistan.
"You have to consider that something like this will be a more-or-less once-off opportunity for which we will have to pay a price in terms of Pakistani cooperation," the official said.
Suspected U.S. missile attacks killed at least two al-Qaida commanders this year in the same region, drawing protests from Pakistan's government that its sovereignty was under attack. U.S. officials did not acknowledge any involvement in those attacks.
But American commanders have been complaining publicly that Pakistan puts too little pressure on militant groups that are blamed for mounting violence in Afghanistan, stirring speculation that U.S. forces might lash out across the frontier.
Some administration officials have been pressing President Bush to direct U.S. troops in Afghanistan to be more aggressive in pursuing militants into Pakistan on foot as part of a proposed radical shift in regional counterterrorism strategy, the AP learned. The debate was the subject of a late July meeting at the White House of some of Bush's top national security advisers.
Circumstances surrounding Wednesday's raid weren't clear, but U.S. rules of engagement allow American troops to pursue militants across the border into Pakistan when they are attacked.
However, Pakistan army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said hot pursuit wasn't an issue, adding that the attack "was completely unprovoked." He said Pakistani troops were near the village and saw and heard nothing to suggest the U.S. forces were pursuing insurgents.
The raid comes at a particularly sensitive time for the Pakistan government which is trying to overcome political divisions and choose a new president on the one hand, while the army is battling the militants on the other.
In other signs of Pakistan's precarious stability three days before legislators elect a successor to Pervez Musharraf as president, snipers shot at the prime minister's limousine near Islamabad and government troops killed two dozen militants in another area of the restive northwest.
Pakistani officials said they were lodging strong protests with the U.S. government and its military representative in Islamabad about Wednesday's raid in the South Waziristan area, a notorious hot bed of militant activity.
The Foreign Ministry called the strike "a gross violation of Pakistan's territory," saying it could "undermine the very basis of cooperation and may fuel the fire of hatred and violence that we are trying to extinguish."
Prior to the U.S. military confirming the U.S. raid, Pakistan government and military officials had insisted that either the NATO force or the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan — both commanded by American generals — were responsible. A spokesman for NATO troops in Afghanistan denied any involvement.
The army's spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, said the attack was the first incursion onto Pakistani soil by troops from the foreign forces that ousted Afghanistan's hard-line Taliban regime after the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S.
He said the attack would undermine Pakistan's efforts to isolate Islamic extremists and could threaten NATO's major supply lines, which snake from Pakistan's Indian Ocean port of Karachi through the tribal region into Afghanistan.
"We cannot afford a huge uprising at the level of tribe," Abbas said. "That would be completely counterproductive and doesn't help the cause of fighting terrorism in the area."
The Pakistani anger threatens to upset efforts by American commanders to draw Pakistan's military into the U.S. strategy of dealing harshly with the militants.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met last week with Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the Pakistani army chief. Mullen said he came away encouraged that Pakistanis were becoming more focused on the problem of militants using the country as a safe haven.
However, Abbas, the army spokesman, said Wednesday that cross-border commando operations were not discussed and he reiterated Pakistan's position that its forces should be exclusively responsible for operations on its territory.
Pakistani officials say the U.S. and NATO should share intelligence and allow Pakistani troops to execute any raids needed inside Pakistan. However, Washington has accused rogue elements in Pakistan's main intelligence service of leaking sensitive information to militants.
American officials say destroying militant sanctuaries in Pakistani tribal regions is key to defeating Taliban-led militants in Afghanistan whose insurgency has strengthened every year since the fundamentalist militia was ousted for harboring bin Laden.
But there has been debate in Washington over how far the U.S. can go on its own.
Citing witness and intelligence reports, Abbas said troops flew in on at least one big CH-47 Chinook transport helicopter, blasted their way into several houses and gunned down men they found there.
He said there was no evidence that any of those killed were insurgents or that the raiders abducted any militant leader, but he acknowledged Pakistan's military had no firsthand account.
There were differing reports on how many people were killed. The provincial governor claimed 20 civilians, including women and children, died. Army and intelligence officials, as well as residents, said 15 people were killed.
Habib Khan Wazir, an area resident, said he heard helicopters, then an exchange of gunfire.
"Later, I saw 15 bodies inside and outside two homes. They had been shot in the head," Wazir said by phone. He claimed all the dead were civilians.
Near Islamabad, meanwhile, snipers fired at a motorcade near the capital as it headed to the airport to pick up the prime minister, hitting the window of his car at least twice, officials said. Neither Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani nor his staff were in the vehicles.
Muslim Khan, a spokesman for the banned militant organization Tahrik-e-Taliban, claimed responsibility and pledged more attacks in retaliation for army operations in tribal areas and the Swat Valley along the border with Afghanistan.
In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declined to comment on the claimed cross-border raid, but she said the U.S. would continue to work with Gilani's government.
"I am relieved, of course, that the incident aimed at the Pakistani prime minister did not succeed," Rice said.
"We're going to be in continued contact with the Pakistanis as we both try to help them to build a strong economic foundation, to build a strong democratic foundation and to fight the terrorists who are a threat not just to the United States and to Afghanistan but to Pakistan as well."
Associated Press writers Pamela Hess, Pauline Jelinek and Matthew Lee in Washington, Ishtiaq Mahsud in Dera Ismail Khan, Munir Ahmad and Stephen Graham in Islamabad and Fisnik Abrashi in Kabul contributed to this report.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Russia Supplies Missiles to India
India places two-billion-dollar order for Russian missiles
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/20-08-2008/106153-russian_missiles-0
Designers of the Indo-Russian supersonic cruise missile BrahMos hope to receive an order for the production of missiles for submarines of the Indian Navy, the chairman of board of directors of the joint-venture, Alexander Dergachev said.
“The missiles will be made for submarines of the Indian Navy. The nearest order is seven submarines. We do not know yet when exactly it is going to happen. I hope soon,” the official said at a press conference devoted to ten years since the establishment of the joint venture BrahMos.
Dergachev said that India would announce the tender for seven submarines in the nearest future. Submarine-makers from Russia and other countries of the world will participate in the tender. The tender stipulates BrahMos cruise missiles for the submarines.
Sivathanu Pilai, the chief executive of the Indo-Russian aerospace joint venture BrahMos, stated that India already had a contract for the production of six submarines on the base of Scorpio project (France).
India’s order to the joint enterprise is evaluate at $2 billion, Pilai said. BrahMos makes land and sea-based supersonic cruise missiles for the Indian Armed Forces.
BrahMos Aerospace is a joint Indo-Russian venture established in 1998 to design, develop, produce and market a unique supersonic cruise missile.
BrahMos is a supersonic cruise missile that can be launched from submarines, ships, aircraft or land. The acronym BrahMos is perceived as the confluence of the two nations represented by two great rivers, the Brahmaputra of India and the Moskva of Russia. It is a joint venture between India's Defense Research and Development Organization and Russia's NPO Mashinostroeyenia who have together formed the BrahMos Corp. Propulsion is based on the Russian Yakhont missile, and guidance has been developed by BrahMos Corp. At speeds of Mach 2.5 to 2.8, is the world's fastest cruise missile. It is about three and a half times faster than the American subsonic Harpoon cruise missile.
Between late 2004 and early 2008, the missile has undergone several tests from variety of platforms including a land based test from Pokhran desert, in which the S maneuver at Mach 2.8 was demonstrated for the Indian Army and a launch in which the land attack capability from sea was demonstrated.
BrahMos claims to have the capability of attacking surface targets as low as 10 meters in altitude. It can gain a speed of Mach 2.8, and has a maximum range of 290 km. The ship-launched and land-based missiles can carry a 200 kg warhead, whereas the aircraft-launched variant (BrahMos A) can carry a 300 kg warhead. It has a two-stage propulsion system, with a solid-propellant rocket for initial acceleration and a liquid-fueled ramjet responsible for sustained supersonic cruise. Air-breathing ramjet propulsion is much more fuel-efficient than rocket propulsion, giving the BrahMos a longer range than a pure rocket-powered missile would achieve.
The high speed of the BrahMos likely gives it better target-penetration characteristics than lighter subsonic cruise-missiles such as the Tomahawk. Being twice as heavy and almost four times faster than the Tomahawk, the BrahMos has almost 32 times the initial kinetic energy of a Tomahawk missile (although it pays for this by having only 3/5 the payload and a fraction of the range despite weighting twice as much, suggesting a different tactical paradigm).
Although BrahMos is primarily an anti-ship missile, it can also engage land based targets. It can be launched either in a vertical or inclined position and is capable of covering targets over a 360 degree horizon. The BrahMos missile has an identical configuration for land, sea, and sub-sea platforms. The air-launched version has a smaller booster and additional tail fins for added stability during launch. The BrahMos is currently being configured for aerial deployment with the Su-30MKI as its carrier.
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/20-08-2008/106153-russian_missiles-0
Designers of the Indo-Russian supersonic cruise missile BrahMos hope to receive an order for the production of missiles for submarines of the Indian Navy, the chairman of board of directors of the joint-venture, Alexander Dergachev said.
“The missiles will be made for submarines of the Indian Navy. The nearest order is seven submarines. We do not know yet when exactly it is going to happen. I hope soon,” the official said at a press conference devoted to ten years since the establishment of the joint venture BrahMos.
Dergachev said that India would announce the tender for seven submarines in the nearest future. Submarine-makers from Russia and other countries of the world will participate in the tender. The tender stipulates BrahMos cruise missiles for the submarines.
Sivathanu Pilai, the chief executive of the Indo-Russian aerospace joint venture BrahMos, stated that India already had a contract for the production of six submarines on the base of Scorpio project (France).
India’s order to the joint enterprise is evaluate at $2 billion, Pilai said. BrahMos makes land and sea-based supersonic cruise missiles for the Indian Armed Forces.
BrahMos Aerospace is a joint Indo-Russian venture established in 1998 to design, develop, produce and market a unique supersonic cruise missile.
BrahMos is a supersonic cruise missile that can be launched from submarines, ships, aircraft or land. The acronym BrahMos is perceived as the confluence of the two nations represented by two great rivers, the Brahmaputra of India and the Moskva of Russia. It is a joint venture between India's Defense Research and Development Organization and Russia's NPO Mashinostroeyenia who have together formed the BrahMos Corp. Propulsion is based on the Russian Yakhont missile, and guidance has been developed by BrahMos Corp. At speeds of Mach 2.5 to 2.8, is the world's fastest cruise missile. It is about three and a half times faster than the American subsonic Harpoon cruise missile.
Between late 2004 and early 2008, the missile has undergone several tests from variety of platforms including a land based test from Pokhran desert, in which the S maneuver at Mach 2.8 was demonstrated for the Indian Army and a launch in which the land attack capability from sea was demonstrated.
BrahMos claims to have the capability of attacking surface targets as low as 10 meters in altitude. It can gain a speed of Mach 2.8, and has a maximum range of 290 km. The ship-launched and land-based missiles can carry a 200 kg warhead, whereas the aircraft-launched variant (BrahMos A) can carry a 300 kg warhead. It has a two-stage propulsion system, with a solid-propellant rocket for initial acceleration and a liquid-fueled ramjet responsible for sustained supersonic cruise. Air-breathing ramjet propulsion is much more fuel-efficient than rocket propulsion, giving the BrahMos a longer range than a pure rocket-powered missile would achieve.
The high speed of the BrahMos likely gives it better target-penetration characteristics than lighter subsonic cruise-missiles such as the Tomahawk. Being twice as heavy and almost four times faster than the Tomahawk, the BrahMos has almost 32 times the initial kinetic energy of a Tomahawk missile (although it pays for this by having only 3/5 the payload and a fraction of the range despite weighting twice as much, suggesting a different tactical paradigm).
Although BrahMos is primarily an anti-ship missile, it can also engage land based targets. It can be launched either in a vertical or inclined position and is capable of covering targets over a 360 degree horizon. The BrahMos missile has an identical configuration for land, sea, and sub-sea platforms. The air-launched version has a smaller booster and additional tail fins for added stability during launch. The BrahMos is currently being configured for aerial deployment with the Su-30MKI as its carrier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)