[iwar] [fc:Blair's.aides.denounce.US.'blundering'.in.Afghan.war]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2002-06-29 21:04:27


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-4936-1025409867-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Sat, 29 Jun 2002 21:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 18183 invoked by uid 510); 30 Jun 2002 04:04:13 -0000
Received: from n28.grp.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.66.84) by all.net with SMTP; 30 Jun 2002 04:04:13 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-4936-1025409867-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [66.218.67.192] by n28.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Jun 2002 04:04:27 -0000
X-Sender: fc@red.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 30 Jun 2002 04:04:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 49764 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2002 04:04:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Jun 2002 04:04:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (12.232.72.152) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Jun 2002 04:04:26 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g5U44RI15943 for iwar@onelist.com; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 21:04:27 -0700
Message-Id: <200206300404.g5U44RI15943@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fcallnet
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 21:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Blair's.aides.denounce.US.'blundering'.in.Afghan.war]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.2 required=5.0 tests=RISK_FREE,FREE_MONEY,DIFFERENT_REPLY_TO version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: ***

news.telegraph.co.uk - Blair's aides denounce US 'blundering' in Afghan war<a href="http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/06/30/wus30.xml&sSheet=/portal/2002/06/30/ixport.html">http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news
/2002/06/30/wus30.xml&sSheet=/portal/2002/06/30/ixport.html</a>

Blair's aides denounce US 'blundering' in Afghan war
By Christina Lamb, Diplomatic Correspondent
(Filed: 30/06/2002) 

Senior officials in the Prime Minister's office have launched an astonishing attack 
on America's handling of the hunt for Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'eda fugitives.
They have told The Telegraph that troops carrying out house-to-house searches in 
the remote tribal areas of Pakistan along the Afghanistan border were "blundering" 
with a "march-in-shooting" approach. 
The US action was "backfiring", increasing support for terrorism and making it harder 
for bin Laden and his henchmen to be caught.
"The Americans think they and the Pakistanis can just march in shooting", said an 
official closely involved in the direction of the war.
"They don't understand the sensitivities. We have years of experience in the tribal 
areas and we know using force will just backfire and increase sympathy for al-Qa'eda."
The comments will put further strain on Anglo-US relations after a week of tensions 
over the Middle East policy and the introduction of steel tariffs. 
The scale of the divide between London and Washington was made plain by scathing 
comments about the Bush administration by one British minister involved in negotiations 
over the steel tariffs.
"You have to remember that this is a rather unpleasant administration," the minister 
told The Telegraph yesterday. "The fact there has been a full-blooded attempt to 
forge a relationship with it hasn't changed its fundamental nature - protectionist 
and self-interested."
A spokesman for US Central Command angrily rejected the criticism. Col Rick Thomas 
said: "Our entire approach to removing the Taliban from power and eliminating the 
al-Qa'eda threat has been sensitive to regional issues.
"We have liaison teams co-ordinating with the Pakistani military but have not been 
directly involved in any operations in that area."
Although officially part of Pakistan, the tribal areas have governed themselves 
since British colonial times. 
They live by a strict code of honour, attacking and kidnapping outsiders who stray 
into their mountain valleys. 
Federal forces carry no mandate beyond the main highways and disputes with the outside 
have traditionally been resolved through negotiation between political agents and 
their chiefs, usually involving large amounts of money.
Pakistan and the people of the tribal areas, who are Pathans like the Taliban, with 
little sympathy for the war on terrorism, refused to allow the search for al-Qa'eda 
to move there. 
The Pentagon claims that at least 1,000 al-Qa'eda crossed into the tribal areas 
late last year, possibly including bin Laden, and are now regrouping. 
After pressure from Washington, Pakistan agreed to deploy 12,000 troops in April, 
backed by US Green Berets, CIA paramilitaries and British special forces.
Tribal leaders were furious. "This is not how things work here", said Arsallah Hoti, 
a leading member of the powerful Yusufzai tribe.
"They have been raiding our villages with less than an hour's notice and even burst 
in on a wedding because they heard the traditional firing of Kalashnikovs and assumed 
it was al-Qa'eda."
Mr Hoti visited London last week and expressed his concerns to an adviser to Tony 
Blair. "I think people who were ambivalent to al-Qa'eda in the tribal areas are now 
supporting them" he said. 
"A lot more could have been achieved through the old colonial way of negotiations 
rather than the American way of bombing and killing. The British understand that."
Although Mr Blair and Mr Bush have presented the war on terror as a united stand, 
the argument over how to proceed in the tribal areas is the latest in a series of 
clashes between the British and American forces on the ground.
The biggest rift came when the Royal Marines launched Operation Condor without telling 
US commanders. Operation Condor failed to capture any al-Qa'eda and Brigadier Roger 
Lane, the British commander, was removed from his post.
28 June 2002: Blair's opposition to Bush puts special relationship to the test
26 June 2002: Rift with US over ousting Arafat 
20 June 2002: Pakistani troops move to wild frontier 
9 June 2002: Britain to withdraw Marines after failure to catch al-Qa'eda 
19 May 2002: Marines' chief under fire for Afghan 'farce' 
13 May 2002: Pakistan faces US pressure to attack al-Qa'eda enclaves 
7 March 2002: Steel tariffs a setback for Blair's US policy 

Next story: Sack for teachers who fail to spot pupils abused at home
Related reports 
 
Matthew d'Ancona: It will take more than Arafat to tear Blair from Bush
 
Simpson on Sunday: 'Arrogant' Bush shakes Alliance 
 
Blair rebuffed as rift with Bush deepens 
 
Nervous America awaits July 4 
 

External links 
 
Hunt for Al-Qa'eda alienates Pashtuns [29 Jun '02] - Washington Post 
 
America's world role: Present at the creation [27 Jun '02] - The Economist
 
US Central Command
 
US Department of Defence
 
News - UK Ministry of Defence
 
White House
 
War on terrorism - 10 Downing Street
 
Army Times [US]
 
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2002. Terms &amp; Conditions of reading.
Commercial information.   Privacy Policy.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Free $5 Love Reading
Risk Free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2002-10-01 06:44:31 PDT