US, Pakistan agree to disagree on Waziristan offensive

Christian Science Monitor by Issam Ahmed | Oct. 19, 2009 (News Analysis)

"As the Pakistani Army continues its massive offensive against the Taliban's base in South Waziristan, top US officials including CENTCOM chief David Petraeus and Sen. John Kerry (D) of Massachusetts, are meeting with military and civilian leaders here. While the Army's action is in line with US encouragement to rout out the militants, key differences appear to remain between the US and Pakistan on how to tackle the insurgency". Full Story »

Posted by Emma Asomba - via Google News (World), Christian Science Monitor

More Info

Tags Help
Subjects: World, U.S.
Topics: Pakistan, War, Taliban, Foreign Policy
Member Tags: Pakistan, US, Aid, waziristan
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Emma Asomba - Oct 19, 2009 - 10:48 AM PDT
Reviewed by: Kaizar Campwala (review), Manfred Ostrowski (review)
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Kaizar Campwala - Oct 19, 2009 - 12:02 PM PDT
Like | | | Comments

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Member_photo_thumb
3.5
 by Kaizar Campwala - Oct. 19, 2009
See Full Review » (10 answers)
Dscf1547_thumb
3.7
 by Manfred Ostrowski - Oct. 20, 2009

This rather short article gives basic and valuable information concerning Pakistan and the conflict in South Waziristan. The issue is seen in the context of relations between U.S. politicians and the Pakistani government, and Issam Ahmed does not delve into the fate and opinions of ordinary Pakistani people.

I am impressed by these $7.5 billion the Kerry-Lugar bill offers to Pakistan in nonmilitary aid. The article provides no information about Senator ... More »

..the construction of refugee camps .. now seems likely. More »

See Full Review » (8 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

Sort by: Oldest | Newest Hide All Replies
NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.6

not enough reviews
from 2 reviews (31% confidence)
Quality
3.5
Facts
3.5
Fairness
3.5
Sourcing
3.5
Style
3.0
Context
4.0
Depth
3.0
Enterprise
3.0
Relevance
4.0
Popularity
3.9
Recommendation
3.5
Credibility
4.5
# Reviews
1.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!