Barack Obama gave the go-ahead for his first military action yesterday, missile strikes against suspected militants in Pakistan which killed at least 18 people.

 

Four days after assuming the presidency, he was consulted by US commanders before they launched the two attacks. Although Obama has abandoned many of the "war on terror" policies of George Bush while he was president, he is not retreating from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders.

 

The US believes they are hiding in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan, and made 30 strikes last year in which more than 200 people were killed. In the election, Obama hinted at increased operations in Pakistan, saying he thought Bush had made a mistake in switching to Iraq before completing the job against al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

The US marine corp commander said yesterday that his 22,000 troops should be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan. Gen James Conway said "the time is right" to leave Iraq now the war had become largely nation-building rather than the pitched fighting in which the corps excelled; he wanted the marines in Afghanistan, especially in the south where insurgents, and the Taliban and al-Qaida, benefit from both a nearby safe haven in Pakistan and a booming trade in narcotics.

 

Obama has warned that he is prepared to bomb inside Pakistan if he gets relevant intelligence about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. He had also said he would act against militants along the border if the Pakistan government failed to.

 

The US missiles were fired by unmanned Predator drones, which hang in the sky gathering intelligence through surveillance and, when commanded and directed by remote control, to launch attacks.

 

The strikes will help Obama portray himself as a leader who, though ready to shift the balance of American power towards diplomacy, is not afraid of military action.

 

The first attack yesterday was on the village of Zharki, in Waziristan; three missiles destroyed two houses and killed 10 people. One villager told Reuters of phonethat of nine bodies pulled from the rubble of one house, six were its owner and his relatives; Reuters added that intelligence officials said some foreign militants were also killed. A second attack hours later also in Warizistan killed eight people.

 

The Pakistan government publicly expressed hope that the arrival of Obama would see a halt to such strikes, which stir up hostility from Pakistanis towards the government; in private, the government may be more relaxed about such attacks.

 

There is a lot of nervousness in the new administration about the fragility of Pakistan, particularly as it has nuclear weapons, but it also sees Afghanistan and Pakistan as being linked. In the face of a Taliban resurgence, there is despair in Washington over the leadership of the Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai, and there will not be much disappointment if he is replaced in elections later this year.

 

But Washington insists on seeing as one of its biggest problems the ability of the Taliban and al-Qaida to maintain havens in Pakistan. Obama on Thursday announced he was making veteran diplomat Richard Holbrooke a special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan. The secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, spoke by phone to the Pakistan president, Asif Ali Zardari.

 

 

from The Guardian

Why is this the first time I have heard of this?

 

:mellow:

 

Something's a bit fishy.

Why is this the first time I have heard of this?

 

:mellow:

 

Something's a bit fishy.

Well remember this is somewhere the world's armed forces NEED to be and somewhere where America and everyone else involved actually had permission to go into as well.

 

Obama has said he wants to pull out of Iraq by the end of next year and wants to focus the troops on Afghanistan and Pakistan to get rid of Al Queda and Bin Laden. No need to worry I don't think.

Well remember this is somewhere the world's armed forces NEED to be and somewhere where America and everyone else involved actually had permission to go into as well.

 

I'm not really sure the UN gave US permission to bomb targets in Pakistan though.... The incumbent Pakistan govt who took over from Musharraf dont really seem all that keen on US doing this either.....

 

 

 

interesting, i could only find the new york times reporting on this in the us. wonder why the secrecy? this is the first i've heard of this as well.

interesting, i could only find the new york times reporting on this in the us. wonder why the secrecy? this is the first i've heard of this as well.

 

Hmmm, well, it really IS strange that this isn't being widely reported... If it had been Bush, it would've been all over the media, not just the broadsheets..... Is the media in your country afraid to challenge its new darling Obama on this issue.....? After all, the US and UK media has been treating the guy like the second coming of the bloody Messiah..... :rolleyes:

 

Hmmm, well, it really IS strange that this isn't being widely reported... If it had been Bush, it would've been all over the media, not just the broadsheets..... Is the media in your country afraid to challenge its new darling Obama on this issue.....? After all, the US and UK media has been treating the guy like the second coming of the bloody Messiah..... :rolleyes:

 

I still haven't forgiven the US media for its atrocious behavior during the 2003 Iraq invasion (and most of Bush's first term). Although the American media has improved recently, the British media are generally much better (more comprehensive world coverage, less biased reporting). I'm talking about The Guardian, The Economist and BBC here.

 

For anyone who wants to keep in touch with current events, just forget the major networks, forget CNN... New York Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor and National Public Radio are the only decent American media outlets left, in my opinion. And some periodicals like Atlantic Monthly. WSJ isn't my thing but its decent.