The panel – led by Richard Armitage and Samuel Berger, top aides to former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton – notes that Pakistan’s presence in such groups would enable it “to connect with new power structures and familiarise it with emerging norms and responsible international behaviour”.
In a report released on Friday, the task force, which enjoys support of the administration, endorses the Obama administration’s effort to cultivate cooperation with Pakistan as the best way to “secure vital US interests in the short, medium, and long run”.
It recommends that this approach should include significant investments in Pakistan’s own stability, particularly after this summer’s floods. But in order for US assistance to be effective over the long-term, Washington must make clear that it “expects Pakistan to make a sustained effort to undermine Pakistan-based terrorist organisations and their sympathisers.” The task force warns that “two realistic scenarios” could force a fundamental reassessment of US strategy and policy.
First, it is possible that Pakistan-based terrorists conduct a large-scale attack on the United States and that the Pakistani government – for any number of reasons – refuses to take adequate action against the perpetrators. In the aftermath of a traumatic terrorist attack, it would be impossible for US leaders to accept Pakistani inaction.
The United States most likely would launch a targeted strike on Pakistani territory led by Special Forces raids or aerial attacks on suspected terrorist compounds. Even limited US military action would provoke a strong backlash among Pakistanis. Public anger in both countries would open a rift between Washington and Islamabad.
In a second scenario, Washington could reach the conclusion that Pakistan is unwilling to improve its cooperation on US counter-terrorism priorities. The panel warns that frustration over Pakistan’s persistent relationships with groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Afghan Taliban at some point could cause the United States to shift its approach towards Pakistan.
In this case, Washington will have a number of points of leverage with Pakistan. It could curtail civilian and military assistance. It could also work bilaterally and through international institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the UN, to sanction and isolate Pakistan.
US operations against Pakistan-based terrorist groups could be expanded and intensified.
In the region, the United States could pursue closer ties with India at Pakistan’s expense.
“Sticks would be directed against Pakistan-based terrorists, but also against the Pakistani state, in an effort to alter its policies. The US-Pakistan relationship would become openly adversarial.”
But the panel warns that “Americans and Pakistanis must understand that these options carry heavy risks and costs. Both sides have a great deal to lose”.
Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi made the unusually blunt appeal for Obama to seek a resolution of the dispute when he visits India next month, saying he should ''redeem the pledge'' he made as a candidate.
The conflict over Kashmir has been the main source of friction between India and Pakistan.
Pakkistan has frequently sought outside intervention to resolve it but India vehemently opposes such involvement and the United States has traditionally stayed above the fray.
Qureshi, speaking next to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at the closing day of three days of US-Pakistan talks, said Obama must get involved because a crackdown against suspected militants in Indian-administered Kashmir threatens the entire region.
''It is in the US strategic interest to work for peace, stability and resolution of the disputes in South Asia,'' he said. ''The starting point in this quest is justice for the Kashmiri people.''
''President Obama has always understood the importance of a Kashmir solution,'' Qureshi said. ''His coming visit to the region is the time to begin to redeem the pledge that he made earlier.''
As a presidential candidate in 2008, Obama suggested that the US should encourage India and Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir dispute so Pakistan could better focus on fighting extremists on its own territory and in Afghanistan.
Although he did not advocate direct mediation, his comments were met with disdain in India.
The violence in the region has killed at least 111 people, mostly teenage boys and young men in their 20s. Indian authorities have imposed off-and-on curfews in an attempt to halt the unrest.
Quershi expressed astonishment that the US and other major powers had said little about India's response to the protests.
''People of conscience have protested the use of force against the defenseless people of Kashmir, in particular the targeting of the Kashmiri youth,'' he said.
''But the Kashmiri mothers are baffled by the deafening silence of the world's leadership. History has proved that the force of arms cannot suppress the legitimate aspirations of the Kashmiri people.''
Obama, meeting with a senior Pakistani delegation, said he would not visit when he travels to neighboring India next month. But he committed to visiting Pakistan in 2011 and invited Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to Washington.
Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, speaking afterward at the Brookings Institution think-tank, called his meeting with Obama “very satisfying.”
“The fact that he has agreed to visit Pakistan next year, the fact that he has decided to invite the president of Pakistan to the United States of America, that is the level of engagement that is taking place,” Qureshi said.
The United States has played a delicate balancing act, seeking to show Pakistan it seeks a relationship beyond cooperation on Afghanistan while also trying to broaden its ties with India, the world’s largest democracy.
But Qureshi acknowledged “obviously there are concerns” that remain between Pakistan and the United States.
In a recent report to Congress, the White House said bluntly that, though it had made sacrifices in the US anti-terror campaign, Pakistan could do more to crack down on extremist safe-havens in lawless tribal areas.
Pakistan this month temporarily shut down its main land crossing for war supplies into Afghanistan, outraged after a Nato helicopter killed Pakistani troops along the border.
“Fighting terrorism remains a strategic and moral imperative for us,” Qureshi said, insisting that “our nation has suffered the most” from extremism and was committed to international cooperation.”
But Qureshi warned: “Actions are required that reinforce and not undercut such counter-terrorism cooperation.”
But he insisted helping poor nations was in the US national interest.
He said the US would do its part to help lift millions out of poverty.
But with five years left to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), Mr Obama said the world "must do better".
The eight MDGs were adopted in 2000, and include improving health care, increasing access to education and promoting equal rights for women.
"If the international community just keeps doing the same things the same way, we will miss many development goals," Mr Obama said.
He said it was in America's, and other rich nations', interests to help the world's poorer countries, despite the economic downturn.
"In our global economy, progress in even the poorest countries can advance the prosperity and security of people far beyond their borders, including my fellow Americans."
He said: "When millions of fathers cannot provide for their families, it feeds the despair that can fuel instability and violent extremism."
This would be done by working with co-operative nations to develop their economies over the long term.
Countries that were willing to create attractive environments for investment and trade would be helped, Mr Obama said.
He also said democracy and good governance would be encouraged and corruption fought.
"We know that countries are more likely to prosper when governments are accountable to their people. So we are leading a global effort to combat corruption.
"We will reach out to countries making the transition from authoritarianism to democracy, and from war to peace. The people of Liberia show that even after years of war, great progress can be achieved," Mr Obama added.
BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says this was a restrained, even humble speech, suggesting an America that wants to listen to others whilst still willing to lead on the global stage.
Earlier, US Deputy PM Nick Clegg confirmed that the UK was committed to increasing the money it gave in overseas aid, and called on other rich nations to follow its lead.
Mr Clegg told the UN that the UK would raise its spending on aid from 0.5% of annual economic output to 0.7% from 2013.
Earlier in the day the UN launched a $40bn (£25.5bn) health initiative aimed at saving the lives of 16 million women and children over the next five years.
Announcing the Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said women and children "play a crucial role in development".
“Without a doubt, General McChrystal, as Secretary Gates has said, has made an enormous mistake,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, adding President Barack Obama had summoned the general for talks on Wednesday.
Gibbs would not say whether McChrystal would be fired, but said “all options are on the table.”
A profile in Rolling Stone magazine quoted McChrystal's aides mocking Vice President Joe Biden and one said the general was “disappointed” after his first Oval Office meeting with Obama.
McChrystal was quoted as saying he felt “betrayed” by US Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, a former military commander there, for challenging his strategy in a memo later leaked to the press.
Gibbs said Obama read the Rolling Stone article late Monday. “He was angry.” Asked whether the personality conflicts would have a negative impact on policy, Gibbs said.
“The president doesn't believe that personalities, whatever your disagreements are, or whatever your disagreements were, should distract from the strategy to get Afghanistan right.”
The US president said he would meet company executives later and tell them that they must set up a fund to compensate those affected by the spill.
He described the spill as an assault on the shores and citizens of the US that tested the limits of human technology.
Presidents use the Oval Office for what they regard as vital national issues.
The speech comes as opinion polls suggest a majority of Americans disapprove of how Mr Obama has handled the crisis - the worst environmental disaster in US history. 'Mutual goals'
In his speech, Mr Obama likened the spill to an "epidemic" and reiterated that BP would be made to pay for the damage.
Mr Obama said he would meet BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg on Wednesday and "inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness".
In response to the speech, BP said in a statement that it shared Mr Obama's goal of cleaning up the oil and helping the people affected by the spill.
The firm said it was looking forward to Wednesday's meeting "for a constructive discussion about how best to achieve these mutual goals".
Mr Obama also used the speech to renew calls for the US to embark on a future of clean energy.
But he gave few details and made no pledges about specific legislation, instead promising to look at ideas from Republicans and Democrats on the issue.
He also announced that the national commission he set up to investigate the causes of the oil spill would be headed by Ray Mabus, a former governor of Mississippi.
With this speech, the president has made a lofty appeal to American idealism, analysts say, but that appeal will not be universally welcomed at a time when Americans are mostly worried about the more pressing need simply to stop the leak.
The Republicans were quick to criticise the address, with party chairman Michael Steele accusing Mr Obama of exploiting the crisis for his own political gain.
Oil has been spewing into the Gulf of Mexico since a drilling rig leased by BP exploded on 20 April.
BP managed to place a cap over the leaking oil pipe earlier this month, and is now siphoning off much of the oil.
But estimates of how much oil was gushing out of the well before the cap was put in place have risen dramatically.
Initially experts said about 15,000 barrels were leaking each day, but scientists now believe the figure to be between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels.
US Congressmen have been fiercely critical of BP, accusing its executives of failing to follow proper procedures.
Politicians have spoken of legal action - and even the possibility of criminal charges - against BP.
As the rhetoric has become increasingly bitter, the firm's share price has continued to tumble, with billions of dollars being wiped off its value.
The US government has given BP 72 hours to present its latest plans to clean up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
BP says its containment effort is going well, but there are signs of mistrust between the company and the government.
The US justice department is mulling legal action to make sure BP has enough funds to cover the damage and compensate those affected by the slick.
That could mean shareholders are not paid dividends, which would infuriate investors and hit pension funds.
Amid growing public anger in the US, President Barack Obama will make his fourth visit to the region on Monday. Growing distrust
The Obama administration is applying steadily more pressure on the BP, which claims it will have almost completely contained the ruptured oil well by the early part of next week.
Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, the man in charge of the clean up operation, has given the company three days to present its latest plans for cleaning up the Gulf.
He also wrote to BP on Tuesday demanding "more detail and openness" about how the company was managing claims for compensation payments to individuals and businesses in the region.
Meanwhile, 33 US House lawmakers sent a letter to BP chief executive Tony Hayward, urging the company not to spend money on a dividend and an advertising campaign to improve BP's image.
"We urge you to halt your planned dividend payout and cancel your advertising campaign until you have done the hard work of capping the well, cleaning up the Gulf Coast and making whole those whose very livelihoods are threatened by this catastrophe," the letter said.
Oil has been leaking into the Gulf of Mexico since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and sank off the coast of the US state of Louisiana, killing 11 workers. Oil plumes
Some beaches in Florida are for the first time displaying warning signs telling holiday makers not to swim in the sea here, the BBC's Andy Gallacher reports from the Florida panhandle.
A containment cap placed on the blown-out well last week is now helping to contain some of the leaking oil.
Adm Allen said in a press conference on Wednesday that the operation was catching up to 630,000 gallons (2,800,000 litres) daily.
BP's chief executiveis due to appear before Congress for the first time next week.
The British energy firm's shares fell 3.4% on Wednesday over worries that the company will have to suspend its dividend payments because of the disaster.
Meanwhile, tests have shown that underwater oil plumes have travelled at least 64km (40 miles) from the leaking well, the US government says.
WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama said he wanted to know "whose ass to kick" over the Gulfof Mexico oil spill, adding to the pressure on energy giant BP Plc as it sought to capture more of the leak from its gushing well. "I don't sit around just talking to experts because this isa college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answer so I know whose ass to kick," Obama said in an interview. They were the angriest words yet about the catastrophe from Obama, who has been criticized for his response to the worst oil spill in U.S. history. Obama reiterated that all those affected should be adequately compensated. The stakes remain high for all involved from Gulf Coast communities devastated by the disaster to Obama and his domestic standing to BP and its battered reputation with the public and investors.
The US House of Representatives approved President Barack Obama’s request for $205 million to spur Israel’s production of a system to counter short-range rockets of the type used by Hamas and Hizbullah. The authorisation for the extra funding was part of a defence spending bill that would provide $726 billion next year for US national defence programmes, including funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House gave the bill final passage on Friday by a vote of 229 to 186. The Senate Armed Services Committee likewise voted to provide $205 million for the Israeli system, known as “Iron Dome,” panel chairman Carl Levin told reporters on Friday. Levin said he hoped his committee’s bill would reach the Senate floor before the July 4 Independence Day recess. A congressional staff member said the request for the funding “seems to have come directly from the commander in chief,” Obama. It was not entirely clear what prompted it. Produced by Israeli state-owned Rafael Advanced Defence Systems Ltd., Iron Dome uses small radar-guided missiles to blow up Katyusha-style rockets with ranges of between 3 miles and 45 miles (5-70 km), as well as mortar bombs, in mid-air. Its development was spurred by the 2006 conflict in Lebanon with Hizbullah, and the Gaza Strip war against Hamas a year ago. In both cases, Israeli towns within reach of short-range rockets were in some ways defenseless. A White House spokesman, Tommy Vietor, said earlier this month Obama recognised “the threat missiles and rockets fired by Hamas and Hizbullah pose to Israelis.” As a result, he decided to seek funding from Congress to support the production of the Iron Dome system, Vietor said. Two Iron Dome batteries are under construction, an Israeli defence official said in February. Designed to be towed by vehicle, they will be available for any Israeli front at a few hours’ notice. The Pentagon’s Missile Defence Agency has three initiatives with Israel to boost its home-grown capability to defend against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. The so-called David’s Sling Weapon System is for short-range defence; the Arrow Weapons System targets medium-range missiles; and the Arrow-3 interceptor is an upper-tier system under development. The United States is also developing interoperability between the US ballistic missile defence system and the Israeli architecture to make sure Israeli systems can be stitched in to a global umbrella. In addition, the Obama administration is working toward a Middle East missile defence that envisions adding an advanced radar site in a Gulf state to one already in Israel to thwart any Iranian attack, US officials have told Reuters.The House voted to authorise $10.3 billion for ballistic missile defences overall, $361.6 million more than Obama’s request. The extra funds will strengthen defences against “the most immediate threats from nations such as Iran and North Korea,” said Rep. James Langevin, the Strategic Forces subcommittee chairman.
Speaking on a tour of oil-hit areas, Mr Obama said the US would "do whatever it takes" to help those affected.
The oil company BP says operations to seal the hole in the damaged well is continuing.
BP chief executive Tony Hayward said the outcome would not be clear for another 48 hours.
He said the new "top kill" effort - untested before at this depth of 5,000ft (1.5km) - was "going pretty well according to plan".
Mr Obama said the additional manpower would lay more booms, clean beaches and monitor stricken wildlife.
"Our response will continue with its full force regardless of the outcome of the top-kill approach," he told reporters.
Mr Obama said he would take responsibility for "solving this crisis", though he said BP would be held financially accountable for the "enormous damage".
"I'm the president and the buck stops with me," he said.
Earlier on the tour, Mr Obama visited a beach guarded by a protective boom, and was seen stooping to inspect the sand and picking up a handful of tar balls.
Thousands of barrels of oil have been leaking into the Gulf of Mexico after a Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and sank last month, killing 11 employees.
The thick crude oil has already permeated more than 110km (70 miles) of Louisiana's coastline, threatening fragile wetlands and putting the vital fishing industry at risk.
Earlier, Mr Hayward has said that BP engineers had successfully completed a second phase of the "top kill" procedure - pumping in debris, known as a "junk shot" - which would next allow them to pump in more heavyweight mud.
If the mud works in stopping the flow, BP can then pour cement to seal the well for good.
In a shake-up of the offshore oil industry, Mr Obama on Thursday suspended test drilling on 33 rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as halting exploratory deepwater drilling for another six months.
In addition, he cancelled the sale of some offshore leases off the coasts of Alaska and Virginia.
Correspondents say the move marks a shift in policy since March, when President Obama gave the go-ahead to widen the scope for offshore drilling in order to reduce dependency on oil imports.
About Me
