Pakistan on Thursday reacted to criticism of its powerful army and most feared intelligence agency (ISI) after the US commando raid on a compound in Abbottabad on Monday in which Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden was killed. The military also reacted admitting intelligence failure and vowing not to tolerate a second such attack with a stern warning to nuclear-armed rival India not to make the Abbottabad raid a precedent and dare attack Pakistan. It also warned the United States that if such an incident occurred again, Pakistan will have to review its over all cooperation.
Here is the text of the press briefing by foreign secretary Salman Bashir and the military statement reproduced in toto given their importance as the first official statements from both civilian and military side.
Press Briefing by Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir
05 May 2011
Bismillah-ir-Rahman-ir-Raheem
Assalamo Alaikum
Thank you very much Spokesperson
Welcome to the Foreign Ministry I thought that I would walk in myself and address some of the current ongoing matters of interest, both to the domestic media as well as to the international media.
Before I proceed to do so, I had in mind issues relating to Osama bin Ladin (OBL), let me make one important announcement. The President of Pakistan will be visiting Moscow on the invitation of President Medvedev from 11 to 14 May. This is an important visit. Pakistan and Russia enjoy close cooperative relations and, besides bilateral matters, this visit will contribute to further strengthening of our comprehensive cooperation, especially in the development domain. Of course, the President looks forward to his meetings with the Russian leadership on issues of regional peace, security and stability as well as other issues.
You have been part of this, all of you, in the commentary/ observations/questions, debates in the media, talk shows pertaining to the circumstances surrounding the death of OBL. Essentially, this matter is of great interest, globally as it is in Pakistan today. This has been the subject of intense discussion and this matter is also being debated in the Pakistan’s Parliament. I have seen some ticker tapes, even now that say that Pakistan remains mired in controversy. I think it is important for us now to start dispelling the notion of controversy, the notion of complicated relations between Pakistan and the United States and start focusing on the bigger picture. Of course, we are prepared. I would be happy to answer your questions. If you want to do a forensic of this particular US operation that led to the killing of OBL, I will be prepared to share our thoughts on the forensic issue but my main point to you is that we have to look forward to the future. We have to look how best we can do individually and collectively, what is necessary to rid our planet of the blight of terrorism. This requires a cooperative approach and that has, I think, been a central point. As far as Pakistan is concerned, what we are saying and what we mean is the way forward through more cooperation.
But let me, having said that, address some of the thematic points, which have emerged in the discussions, both in terms of the international media and of course the local media. Most notably, these pertain as far as Pakistan is concerned: One, with the issue of sovereignty. Second this whole intense discourse in the public domain of complicity and incompetence. Also, there are sub-themes such as credibility, sub-themes nationally here - questions regarding Pakistan’s defense capability and further set of sub-themes, which I would say talk about very interestingly, especially the international media on the legal and other human rights and humanitarian law issues which have started to surface. All of this is important and which need to be addressed.
But before I give you a sense of some of these thematic points which are very current, let me clarify one thing. I think the notion that Pakistan-US relations have nose-dived, this is not quite our understanding. Pakistan considers its relations with the United States as of high importance and significance. We have been strategic partners and we have a process which is called the strategic dialogue process. I have recently been to Washington and Ambassador Marc Grossman was here on Monday. We have had excellent exchange of views that touched on all issues. Both in Washington DC, at the State Department, with the National Security Council, I think we have been able to get the trajectory reaffirmed and more importantly agreed to work the trajectory of our cooperation in the right direction. As you know Osama bin Ladin is history. I have said this before but it has not been enough. So invariably the question has been discussed, not put to me directly, but there is a context to everything. I think we have to see the developments of 2 May in the right context. The context of OBL is a matter for historians. The making of OBL warrants a separate theme. I don’t want to elaborate on that.
Now first of all as far as Pakistan is concerned issue of sovereignty I think there should be no mistake what the people of Pakistan, the Parliament of Pakistan and the leadership of Pakistan hold dearest to them is their dignity, their honour and make no mistake the nation as whole and our state institutions are determined to uphold our sovereignty and safeguard our security. I think construing all this in any other manner is wrong, simply wrong. Of course we have said so in our official statement that this action that led to the death of OBL it was as you know a covert action. Pakistan was not consulted, this is not new, this is all in our statements. More importantly let us briefly go over the facts. This was a covert operation and as has been acknowledged by the US it was conducted, our radars were evaded. As soon as the relevant authorities came to know of this particular matter this was at a time when one of their helicopters crashed, or malfunctioned or was destroyed. The fact is that the Pakistani armed forces they had not been consulted they were not in the know. They did what was required, the air force was scrambled. It is indeed important to note that this debate about the reaction of Pakistan, I do not want any body or the global community to have any wrong impression about our defence capabilities. The armed forces, air force and military leadership and the political leadership they are well equipped and mindful of the defence requirements of our country. There should be no misunderstanding any where on this account.
So on the sovereignty issue besides this particular episode there are legal questions that arise. In terms of the principles of the United Nations charter more specifically in terms of several Security Council resolutions and recently the 2 May Presidential statement of the Security Council. I would like to reiterate that it is probably worth looking at the statement again which deals not only with the issue of OBL but also says one of the relevant paragraphs of the Presidential statement and I quote “The Security Council reaffirms that member states must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law in particular international human rights refugee and humanitarian law”. Reading this quote to you is to remind everybody here and our friends that this matter of sovereignty and violation of sovereignty and the modalities for combating terrorism raises certain moral and legal issues which fall properly in the domain of the United Nations and the domain of the international community. It is interesting that some of the reports that we see today especially those attributed to some discourse already which has started to surface on instruments on how best to execute the war on terror. Of course Pakistan is mindful of its international obligations and we believe that every body concerned ought to be mindful of their international obligations. On the issue of sovereignty another related matter, it is known and I am not making any public disclosure. There has been a very old debate on unilateralism versus respect for the instruments of collective security. Of course United States is a friend and an important partner and especially a partner in the fight against terror. It is worth stating here this has nothing to do with OBL, that any country, any other country that acts on the assumption that it has the might and mimics unilateralism of any sorts will find at least to the extent as far as Pakistan is concerned that it has made a basic miscalculation. We see a lot of bravado in our own region. There have been statements that have come from across by senior people in the military and in the air force who have stated that this can be repeated. We feel that this sort of a misadventure and miscalculation would result in a terrible catastrophe. Now, there should be no doubt that Pakistan has adequate capacity to ensure its own defence. We are proud of our armed forces, of our security agencies and we are proud of the work of the Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI). It is an important arm of the Government which has contributed enormously to the anti terror campaign. So all this debate that we see in the local media, I would like to mention here that there should be no doubt in the minds of any citizen of Pakistan that we do not have adequate capacity to uphold our honour and dignity and to protect our security. How is it that the covert operation succeeds in eliminating one of the most wanted terrorists takes place and still there are a number of questions related to that.
As I said that this was a covert operation –one, two- Abbottabad is a sprawling city, three- the compound where OBL was found and killed is about four kilometers from the Pakistan military academy. Pakistan military academy is a training institute. It is a routine training institution and especially over these last few days with the courses over so there is no body there till the next course starts. This particular institution did not require the sort of defenses that we have on our civil and military assets including our strategic assets in terms of aerial and ground defense. Therefore, I think it is important while we do acknowledge the important results of this US Special Forces action this as I said cannot be taken as a rule. Had something gone wrong it would have led to a terrible catastrophe. So it is good that did not happen. What I am trying to say is that in terms of Pakistan’s inherent capacity to defend its national assets there should be no doubt.
Now let me turn to the other two media themes. One is, both are by the way attributed to the CIA Director Mr. Panetta, for whom we have the highest regards and he is of course entitled to his views. This whole theme of complicity has surfaced periodically at times motivated to pressurize Pakistan to do more. The mantra of do more we have seen over the years has surfaced. It is easy to say that the ISI and elements in the Government are in cahoots with the Al-Qaeda. This is a false hypothesis. This is a false charge. It cannot be validated on any account. It flies in the face of what Pakistan particularly the ISI has been able to accomplish more than any other agency including the CIA. The performance of the ISI in interdicting Al-Qaeda does not compare with any other intelligence agency of the world and I am obliged to repeat all this at this point in time just because we need to get this right in the domain of public and media discourse. Let me take you back to the time of the Tora Bora bombings. Against Pakistan’s advise the military strategy that was adopted in those initial years led to what should have been avoided; the dispersal of Al-Qaeda elements in different directions. When that happened and the Tora Bora bombings were taking place it is for the first time that Pakistan armed forces ever moved into the ‘Tira Valley’ and set up a cordon to pick up those key Al-Qaeda operatives that were fleeing those rugged mountains. It has been some years and people forget but the fact is that 248 of the key Al-Qaeda operatives were picked up in the ‘Tira Valley’ operations by the Pakistan armed forces. Since then all the major catches of Al-Qaeda were by the ISI either in its own separate operations or in some joint operations with the CIA in various places including in some cities and towns and urban centers in Pakistan. This was the effect of the dispersal and a flawed military strategy that was adopted in the first place.
Now how is it that the ISI did not know about the presence of OBL in this compound? This is a matter of speculation but to infer that elements of the ISI were actually providing cover to OBL is absolutely wrong. In fact and this is what has been admitted even by the United States Government that some of the leads that led to the identification of this particular place resulted from information sharing between the ISI and the CIA. In this particular case how did the Abbottabad area surface for the first time? I can mention this to you; it surfaced when one person who happened to be the driver of Faraj Al-Libbi who was the chief operative of Al-Qaeda was found in Abbottabad. This is back in 2004. So that was the time when this particular region surfaced in terms of interest to intelligence community. Mr. Libbi was arrested in 2005 from Mardan. May I also remind especially my friends abroad that of all the pictures that are available on the CIA website of most wanted terrorists many were captured by the ISI that included Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and others. We have a set of names, for those who are interested:
Ramzi from Karachi, Abu Zubaida from Faisalabad 2002, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad from Islamabad 2003, Musaad Arouchi from Karachi 2004, Khurfan Irani from Gujrat 2004, Libbi in 2005, Abu Hamza – he was killed in the tribal region and there are others. As you all know the so called Bali bomber was again picked up by the ISI from Abbottabad. So that is how Abbottabad surfaced from the intelligence point of view.
It has been said by the United States that it was the ISI that provided the information on a person by the name of Al-Kuwaiti and it was Al-Kuwaiti that finally figured in getting the CIA focused on this compound. So we are saying this was not a joint operation, this was an operation launched by the CIA by the US forces. My recalling this history in a brief way I want you to know that much of the media critique on the ISI is not only unwarranted it cannot be validated by one solid argument.
The other point that has surfaced is incompetence. How is it that Mr. Ladin was in Abbottabad under the nose of the Pakistan Military Academy and Military and no body knew about it. Of course that is being looked into. If it was an intelligence failure and the Prime Minister has rightly said then it is a global intelligence failure. After all there was information within the US system about those who were ultimately allegedly responsible for 9/11 so it is not for me to say that the US government or the CIA failed to prevent that. As a matter of fact if any terrorist attack goes through or happens, there is an intelligence failure. However, to infer or to doubt that the ISI is incompetent is a value judgment and now is not the time for anybody to indulge in luxury of passing value judgment. We know that the ISI has done commendable work. It has a brilliant track record in combating terrorism and particularly in interdicting Al-Qaeda.
The other theme that runs through is distrust between United States and Pakistan. Let me address this in a forthright manner. I think what is being said in the realm of the virtual world of media does not conform with our understanding. This is been affirmed and repeatedly reaffirmed recently when I was in Washington myself and the recent visit of Ambassador Marc Grossman. In fact we are looking forward to the visit of Secretary Clinton to Islamabad this very month. We have just concluded an important defense consultative group meeting in Washington DC which has issued an important statement that acknowledges the cooperation. I think the key word here for everybody to understand on the Pakistan-US track is that there is strategic convergence. We believe, I believe the Americans also believe that it is not wise to get distracted, tactical distractions are better avoided. So we are a democracy and have a free press, we have a great talent in academia and analysts who analyze these things use their minds and have asked questions but the fact of the matter is that these are all valid questions but my appeal to you is not to lose sight of the bigger picture.
The President of Pakistan in an article which was published recently in Washington Post mentioned the importance of investing in positive vision of the future of peace, stability , prosperity. In fact this is a theme that we have pursued. Pakistan has done this regionally with all its neighbours. This is a theme that was of special interest to which a lot of time was devoted at the trilateral meeting held here on Tuesday. So this perception of the relationship being at the lowest point is not quite true. I would respectfully submit that this matter was discussed. The importance of separating between what we transact officially with the United States and branches of the US Government and what is being transacted in the public domain, I think it is a mistake to mix these two. It is probably time that our friends who are reporting on these things, it is important for all of us to realize that developments in this region especially on matters relating to reconciliation , peace and stability in Afghanistan, the so called diplomatic process are gaining momentum and speed. We cannot remain mired in history. We would like to look at the significance of the US – Pakistan relationship in the context of how we shape the future in our region and also we acknowledge the United States as an important country and important friend of Pakistan. As I said with which we have shared strategic goals. I have seen articles in the Herald Tribune today which have started to talk about the life of OBL and his impact on the Arab Spring. This is the subject on which we should not be commenting at this point. These are some of the points I wanted to clarify.
Of course I would be happy to answer your questions.
Q: While it is appreciable that you have defined the lines of sovereignty for Pakistan, the White House, in its press briefing last night, has said that the American government reserves the right to retaliate if any information on a high value target is available to them. How will you explain this stance of the US?
Also will a probe be launched to ascertain the facts about this incident?
A: First about the probe, now as far as the question of what you call a probe, I call it review. I think we are in a constant process of reviewing at every level whether it is intelligence, military or diplomatic. Our strategy or approach is constantly reviewed. I think we should not try to give it a slant in terms of an inquiry. There is no such thing as an inquiry. Of course as you know the compound is still in Abbotabad. It has not been taken away by the Special Forces. There were family members who were found in that compound. They are with us. In the spirit of cooperation and in our own interest we will be looking into all this and ensure that more information surfaces on how long did OBL stay in this compound? Who was with him? What was the local support if any? And things like that. I think what we need is to be patient. On the other issue, it is well known that all intelligence agencies share what is necessary. Second, building intelligence is a tedious process. There could be leads which are developed and some that are lost in the way. It is only when there is a composite picture and certainty that an action is taken. This is not only true of our intelligence but also for every other agency in the world. It is important for the international community to remain mindful of the fact that cooperation is a two way street. To demand cooperation is one thing, and to demand cooperation I would like to repeat that to achieve shared objectives on terms which are, to say the least requirement is civility. Pakistan remains committed as a nation as a government to anti terror campaign. We have made it clear a number of times and I would like to repeat that our determination is not to allow the use of our territory for any terrorist activity. As far as a repeat of actions is concerned, as I said earlier it falls in the domain of international law. We have cooperated with the United States in the past. We look forward to continuing this cooperation at all levels. I think basically the Pakistan-US relations are moving in the right direction. Our position on the violation of our sovereignty by the drones is clear and I can say that this cooperation is based on certain parameters or red lines and those lines need to be respected. It is important to remain in a cooperative mode and not get judgemental.
Q: You have said that it is wrong to perceive that the Pakistan- US relations have nose dived and much on this has been exaggerated. You have also questioned the legality of this operation. First question.
Are you saying by this that the raid was illegal? How do you see the US Pakistan sharing information and cooperating in the same way as they have been doing in the past after you and other officials have expressed frustration on the unilateralism of the US?
A: I think the United States and others friends that are members of the ISAF. Those countries that have been in the forefront of the anti terror campaign globally and more particularly in Afghanistan are all in the same situation. As I just quoted from the President of the Security Council's statement and also if you look at other security council resolutions there is a clear reference and also there is an increasing emphasis both in the US and in Europe and in some forums within the United Nations about tampering the campaign against terror with the dictates and requirements of the international law, international humanitarian law and human rights law. I want to say that Pakistan is cognizant of human rights law and international law. These things require introspection. You have to collectively as international community revisit what are the best modalities of pursuing this. Today, I think there is an increasing acknowledgement all around that you got to work the diplomatic process for stability and peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan so these are the sort of things which require attention. We are mindful of it. We are not saying here that unilateralism is the only way forward. That if it is in Pakistan's national interest we could go and bomb the territory of any other state. I think no sensible person anywhere in the world would endorse such a point of view. Can you think of a NATO member state bombing another NATO member country? So it has to be seen objectively. We are not saying that what would be the most important instrument. We do however recognize that the dispensations already decreed by the Council, the UN and the principles of the UN Charter, the declaration of human rights are the dictates of justice ought to be respected by everybody including Pakistan.
(But are you suggesting that it's illegal?)
I am not saying whether it is legal or illegal. It is for the jurists and the historians to judge and decide. There are many people within the US even who are now debating this issue.
Q: Intelligence sharing between Pakistan and the US has been the center point of cooperation in this war on terror. Despite that the US conducted this raid. In this context what justification remains with us to continue the intelligence sharing when the US went ahead and conducted a provocative operation on our soil that has demoralized our nation?
A: My whole purpose of appearing here today is to dispel the notion of demoralization that you are talking about. There is no reason for any Pakistani to feel demoralized. This is the whole pitch of my presentation today. We are proud of our achievements and our defense capabilities. We are proud of our track record in the anti terror campaign which is equaled by none. We have to look to the future and not remain mired in the past. The way forward is to go ahead and do as the President said, invest in the positive future for our countries and for the people of the world.
Q: As you know that many people simply do not believe that the Pakistani security forces did not know about this operation. Can you explain how it is that four helicopters were hovering over this quiet suburb and there were loud explosions yet no police and army reached the spot? You respond to a domestic house fire faster than that. Secondly, how many bodies did you recover from the compound and who were they?
A: On second part of the question, I am not privy as to how many bodies were recovered from the compound. The first part of your question is very important. Whether there were two or four I can briefly recap for you the scenario we have learnt. As you know it was a covert operation. The helicopters evidently had the technology to evade and adopt very low flights to evade the radar. The first information that we received was when one helicopter went down. It is interesting and shows the strength of the media that immediately there was a ticker tape on some of our channels that one helicopter has crashed. Immediately the relevant departments that include the armed forces, the aviation wing and the ISI were alerted to ascertain that whether it was a Pakistani helicopter that had met an accident. It took about 5-10 minutes to do that. Usually the Pakistani helicopters do not fly at night. Once it became clear that it was not our helicopter then from the GHQ relevant departments issued instructions to the army and the intelligence units in that area to rush. Simultaneously the Pakistan air force was ordered to scramble the aircrafts. Two F-16 were airborne. Now it took about 15 minutes for those units to reach the site. The site is about 4 kms by road from the military academy. By that time of course the operation was over and the helicopters had made their way back. When our personnel entered the compound they were able to see what had happened , report it back to the headquarters and that is where we found out from the family of Osama bin Ladin that it was he who had been taken. This happened very quickly. It is fortunate that a major tragedy that could have happened was averted. I can share with you that as soon as the operation was over Admiral Mullen called the Chief of Army Staff around 3 o clock Pakistan time. He told him that they have conducted the operation and had succeeded in this operation. Arranging that call also took some time because they need to get a secure line and it gets time to do so. There were matters that were raised by Admiral Mullen and among them of course it was the American side that pointed out the sovereignty issue. I want to mention this particularly because it is not only our concern but even the Americans are really concerned about this issue. I am not saying legal or illegal but it is a global issue and we need to work it out in the best interest of international peace and security. Subsequently President Obama telephoned our President and there was a brief conversation in which the President said that OBL and Al Qaeda had declared war against Pakistan and have been responsible for so many deaths of innocent people all over the country. Pakistan does not want, does not seek compassion of the international community. I think it is somewhat callous when we talk of our sacrifices and our achievements. 30,000 civilians have lost their lives. Nearly every second or third day a suicide bomb is unleashed by Al Qaeda and their affiliates. I think it is not seen and read in the proper perspective by our friends. We are not seeking compassion we are not seeking acknowledgement. What we are doing is in our own national interest and we will continue to prosecute the anti terror campaign.
Q: In the aftermath of this incident that we are discussing now Pakistani security forces don’t want to be seen as incompetent or in complicit with Al-Qaeeda. At the same time they don’t want themselves to be seen as collaborators in this operation. So how would you describe this bizarre behaviour of our security forces?
A: Well that’s an important question. The whole point is as I said the Pakistan security forces are neither incompetent nor they are in complicit with the Al-Qaeeda. They have a sacred duty to protect Pakistan and are alive to their responsibilities. The hand of friendship and cooperation that we have extended to the international community including the US, United kingdom and other important countries in working the common objectives of eliminating terror. We have done so in good faith believing in the importance of eliminating this mess whether from Pakistan, the region or the world. I think this is the point that needs to be recognized. International cooperation can only succeed if it is not reduced to a sham activity. By blackmailing Pakistan and its institutions we get nowhere. We will still do what is required but all we expect is some decency and some civility in the public domain. I, must say that we appreciate very much the important statements that were made by the President of the US, the Secretary of State and other important official s of the US government which do acknowledge Pakistan's contribution and which affirm the importance of the relationship. Currently it is being played out wrong in the media domain. My point is that is not the case. We have still a lot to do. We are prepared to do more together to change the picture in this part of the world and also globally. We value our strategic partnership. There are two key words, strategic convergence not only with the US but every other country and two let's not be distracted by these tactical issues.
Q: As you just mentioned that the Pakistani government is currently fighting a war on terror campaign. We also understand that after the death of Osama Bin Ladin, the Taliban have renewed their threat to mount terrorist attacks in Pakistan. In this context how do you see the future security environment in Pakistan?
A: As you know that we have remained vigilant for many years. It was Pakistan which actually suffered the blow back from the al Qaeda and whether it is the Pakistani Taliban or any other terrorist they will not succeed. Pakistan will not be intimidated. We are a strong and resilient nation. We have achieved major successes. As I said the birth place of al-Qaida was not Pakistan. I think in this information age people have short memories and what occupies is the moment. In the making of Al Qaeda, there is a lot of history. This particular event should not be seen as an isolated event.
Q: In the aftermath of this attack by the US, the Indian side has made some statements that even they are capable of pulling off such operations. Your comments please?
A: We are in a process of dialogue with India. We have had good meetings recently between the home and interior secretaries of the two countries on counter terrorism and counter narcotics. We have done many things and we are continuing to cooperate with our neighbors to eliminate the possibilities of terrorism between our two countries. This requires a serious constructive approach. The statements that you refer to are a matter of concern. I only see them as symptomatic of tendencies within the Indian establishment and their armed forces trying to subvert the agenda of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. I don’t think the Indian leadership would subscribe to this. In terms of Mumbai, will it be labeled as incompetence as well? Mumbai happened so did 9/11. Was this an intelligence failure or a security failure on part of India or the US.
Q: You mentioned that 2 F-16 s were scrambled by the Air force. Were there any other jets those were scrambled? Wasn’t this an event of magnitude large enough to have a larger mobilization of assets on our part, and was there at any point an opportunity to block the fleeing US forces, but a conscious policy decision was taken not to do so.
A: My understanding is that, there was an element of surprise. This was a covert operation. The media picked it up, and within 30-35 minutes the necessary steps were taken, not realizing that this was an ongoing US operation and the fact that aircrafts were scrambled, was a standard response.
Q: It is a defining moment in Pakistan's history after 9/11. We are confronted with a grave situation. A country like America has been violating our sovereignty since long and has also done so in Abbottabad. We have not been able to send a strong message to Washington in this case. What if India decides to do so the same and attack Pakistan. How will we respond than?
A: Well I think it is not about strong or soft messages, it is about pragmatic cooperation. If we are endeavoring in a certain direction which we believe is correct than we think that those of our friends or adversaries, if they think that Pakistan's cooperation is required that Pakistan is moving and doing its best then they should also be in the cooperative mode. I have no intention to send any strong or soft message to anybody here. I am just stating that we are proud of our armed forces and of our own capacities and capabilities and have said it very clearly and I request you to look at the statement issued by the Foreign Office on 3 May. So there should be no misunderstanding on part of anybody especially within our region about Pakistan's defense capabilities and resolve.
Q: We have been talking a lot about the mistrust that exists between the ISI and the CIA. What steps do you think Pakistan can take on its part to reduce this deficit or is it now impossible?
A: I think everything is possible. I think what you are seeing is not the exact picture. When we are saying that we are talking to them we have had a defence consultation group meeting which has just concluded yesterday in Washington. I think there is a whole of government dialogue taking place and that has not been reflected by the media. Let me also point out the fact that on that very day when OBL was killed US Special Representative for Pakistan Ambassador Grossman was here. We spent about 6-7 hours in dialogue. We are in constant contact with the US government as we are with other governments. I don’t think that there is a sense of helplessness that has been projected is really desirable.
Q: Last night we saw some reports mentioning that the Pakistani authorities shared some information with the USA on the compound housing Osama Bin Ladin as far back as 2009. Are these reports correct?
A: I tried to cover that because we referred to the year 2009. Also in our press statement we talked about this. More specifically I had mentioned earlier on this person who was the so called courier for OBL. He was an important lead. The cell phone used by this man was probably one of the important factors for not only directing the CIA attention to this compound but to tracking it as well. Their technological assets are much superior to those of ours. They were able to get a composite picture resulting in the elimination of OBL.
Rawalpindi, May 5: 138th Corps Commanders’ Conference was held today at General Headquarters Rawalpindi. General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Chief of Army Staff (COAS) chaired the meeting.
One point agenda was the Abbottabad incident in which Osama Bin Laden was killed by US forces. The Forum discussed the incident and its implications and on military to military relations with the United States.
While admitting own shortcomings in developing intelligence on the presence of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan, it was highlighted that the achievements of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), against Al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates in Pakistan, have no parallel. The Forum was informed that around 100 top level Al Qaeda leaders / operators were killed / arrested by ISI, with or without support of CIA. However, in the case of Osama Bin Laden, while the CIA developed intelligence based on initial information provided by ISI, it did not share further development of intelligence on the case with ISI, contrary to the existing practice between the two services. Nonetheless, an investigation has been ordered into the circumstances that led to this situation.
COAS made it very clear that any similar action, violating the sovereignty of Pakistan, will warrant a review on the level of military / intelligence cooperation with the United States.
The Corps Commanders were informed about the decision to reduce the strength of US military personnel in Pakistan to the minimum essential.
As regards the possibility of similar hostile action against our strategic assets, the Forum reaffirmed that, unlike an undefended civilian compound, our strategic assets are well protected and an elaborate defensive mechanism is in place.
The Forum, taking serious note of the assertions made by Indian military leadership about conducting similar operations, made it very clear that any misadventure of this kind will be responded to very strongly. There should be no doubt about it.
The Forum reiterated the resolve to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan and to fight the menace of terrorism, with the support and help of the people of Pakistan.
Comments