| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| India might not show restraint if terrorists attack again, Gates says |
| 2010-01-20 |
| Even as he warned against allowing extremist groups to provoke a regional clash in South Asia, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Wednesday that he would not expect the Indian government to show restraint should it be attacked again by terrorist groups based in Pakistan. Gates has praised the "statesmanship" of India in the wake of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, which have been attributed to Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan-based extremist group aligned with Al Qaeda. At a news conference Wednesday in New Delhi, Gates repeated those comments but said India's ability to continue that policy would be "in question" should militants strike again. "I think it is not unreasonable to assume Indian patience would be limited were there to be further attacks," Gates said. The defense secretary painted a detailed picture of extremist groups operating in Pakistan, arguing that some were focused on Afghanistan, some on India and some on Pakistan. But he argued that all operated under the direction of Al Qaeda and shared a goal of fomenting regional instability. "The success of any one of these groups leads to new capabilities and new reputations for all these groups," Gates said. "A victory for one is a victory for all." As other officials have done, notably Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Gates described the various extremist groups as a "syndicate" that uses common tactics and a common base in Pakistan's North Waziristan area to conduct operations. Gates said the militant groups were trying to provoke conflict between India and Pakistan by mounting terrorist acts. "It is very complicated situation; it is dangerous for the region as a whole," Gates said. "They are a syndicate of terrorist operators, intending to destabilize the whole region." Gates was asked if the Indians had pressed him to push Pakistan to take more action against Lashkar-e-Taiba or other extremist groups. He signaled that he intended to try to help reduce Pakistani anxiety over India, to help Islamabad continue its focus on the militant threat. "Clearly one of the subjects of discussion for my next visit is how to ally their concerns, so they can focus on what has become a real existential threat to Pakistan, these different terrorist groups operating in its territory," Gates said. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #10 NEWS KERALA > GATES: SOUTH ASIAN SITUATION IS VERY DANGEROUS | ANOTHER 26/11 COULD PROVOKE INDO-PAK WAR. * SAME > [US Senate Report]US OFFICIALS: AL-QAIDA EXPANDING BEYOND ITS ITS NERVE CENTRE IN PAKISTAN, AGHANISTAN [Yemen + Somalia /Horn of Africa]. * SAME > NORTH AFRICA PROVING TO BE GREATEST TERROR THREAT: ITALIAN FM FRATTINI. AL-QAEDA IN MAHGREB[AQIM-GSPC now detected = established in ITALY since 2006-2007, + have been active in illegal immigrant activities-smuggling in Italy + around Mediterranean. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-01-20 23:27 |
| #9 ION PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUMS/DAWN.PK > MEHSUD TRIBE [ruling Jirga] READY TO HAND OVER HAKIMULLAH + 378 OTHERS, in exchange for stoppage by Islamabad of PAK Army offensive + peace in South Waziristan; + PAKISTAN REJECTS INDIAN ALLEGATIONS, WARNS OF RETALIATION [military]IFF INDIA DOES NOT STOP FIRING ACROSS ITS BORDER. * SAME > DRASTIC DECLINE IN CHENAB WATER FLOWS, due to Indian dams, declines in normal rainfall, + various Govt-Local water diversion projects mainly for agriculture, land development. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-01-20 21:19 |
| #8 I do agree that the 9/11 attacks were intended to force America to respond, but they expected President Bush to respond ineffectively. Sadly for them, Bush responded relatively effectively, instead, and so they lost both the core of the Caliphate in Afghanistan and what they pronounced the main battlefield for the future Al Qaeda world government that was Iraq. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-01-20 17:57 |
| #7 Before 9/11 Al Qaeda had Afghanistan, openly. Now Al Qaeda has Pakistan, but covertly, and their people are at the receiving end of Predator missiles. Before 9/11 Al Qaeda jihadis were arrested if their attacks did not succeed (eg the first attack on the World Trade Center); now Al Qaeda jihadis are picked up as they plan their attacks (eg Mr. Zazi and his little Afghan friends who planned to blow things up on 9/11/09). On 9/11 Al Qaeda had something like 90% approval ratings in much of the Ummah, now that's dropped, among those still living. Better now or better then for the jihadis, gromky? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-01-20 17:52 |
| #6 On the contrary, 9/11 was done to force the USA to respond (bad) or do nothing and appear weak (even worse). When USA makes war, Muslims get angry and join Al-Qaeda and the USA spends itself dry airfreighting 100lb artillery shells to Kabul. Try this: how strong was AQ before 9/11, and how influential are they now? |
| Posted by: gromky 2010-01-20 12:36 |
| #5 Ramp up that alliance w India. I suspect Barry would have completely trashed it as part of his reach-out-to-Islam effort had it not been for Gates. Gates is going to make a bundle off his next memoirs. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-01-20 11:38 |
| #4 The defense secretary painted a detailed picture of extremist groups operating in Pakistan, arguing that some were focused on Afghanistan, some on India and some on Pakistan. But he argued that all operated under the direction of Al Qaeda and shared a goal of fomenting regional instability. All have the backing of the ISI! |
| Posted by: Paul2 2010-01-20 11:34 |
| #3 Ramp up that alliance w India. |
| Posted by: lex 2010-01-20 10:39 |
| #2 I think the head terrorist in charge thought the same thing when executing 9/11, that America wouldn't massively respond. How'd that work out for their grand strategy? /rhet question |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-01-20 10:36 |
| #1 A largescale retribution against Pakistan is exactly what the terrorists want. |
| Posted by: gromky 2010-01-20 09:23 |