U.S. general: Time ‘running out’ for bin Laden

[igloo]

This is the key:

Barno also confirmed reports that the Pakistani military has entered tribal areas of the border region in the last two months in an effort to uncover and disrupt terrorist operations.

The U.S. has zero chance of catching this mutt without true Pakistani assistance, and MUST go into the tribal areas if we are ever going to get Bin Laden. Ironically, Al Qaeda has made it possible for Pakistan to go into the tribal areas with their ill-advised attempts at killing Musharaf.

U.S. general: Time ‘running out’ for bin Laden

Commander in Afghanistan says effort to root out al-Qaida renewed

NBC News and news services

Updated: 1:10 p.m. ET Feb. 17, 2004WASHINGTON - The commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan said Tuesday that his troops are stepping up efforts to capture Osama bin Laden and ousted Taliban leader Mullah Omar, maintaining that the "sand in their hour glass is running out."

advertisement

Briefing Pentagon reporters via teleconference from Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan, Army Lt. Gen. David Barno said the United States and Pakistan are improving cooperation in efforts to eradicate al-Qaida elements, using a "hammer and anvil approach" that will drive the terrorists out of Pakistan and across the Afghan border.

Barno also confirmed reports that the Pakistani military has entered tribal areas of the border region in the last two months in an effort to uncover and disrupt terrorist operations.

"I think that's one of several new initiatives that I see the Pakistanis undertaking that are very encouraging and I think will have effective results," he said.

Attacks expected to increase

According to Barno, attacks against the 11,500-strong coalition force and Afghan civilians are expected to increase this spring as Taliban and al-Qaida fighters shift tactics from operating in large groups to conducting smaller-scale targeted attacks.

INTERACTIVE

• Torn by conflict

Afghanistan's tumultuous history

The attacks already have been intensifying, with more than 550 people killed in the past six months. The violence has raised concerns that elections due in June may be delayed.

Meanwhile, a senior Pentagon official touring Afghanistan said Tuesday that remnants of the Taliban military have been so badly battered that they have been reduced to “cowardly†acts such as bicycle bombings.

U.S. Undersecretary of Defense Dov Zakheim, the fourth-ranking official at te Pentagon, also said that Washington was pushing ahead with plans to pattern a national guard in Afghanistan after one being built in Iraq.

Although the last six months have been the most violent in Afghanistan since the Taliban was overthrown in 2001 for harboring al-Qaida and bin Laden, Zakheim said the nature of the attacks by remnants of the hard-line movement had changed.

‘We are beating them’

“A year ago the Taliban still thought it could mount attacks with numbers of people,†he told a news conference. “Now it tries even more cowardly things like a kidnapping or a bicycle bomb. It is a very different kind of operation and that is because we are beating them.â€

Zakheim said planning was proceeding for a national guard that would fill holes while a new Afghan National Army is formed, a process that is proceeding more slowly than expected.

“We are looking at that, we have put together a program that we hope to model on what we consider to be very successful in Iraq,†he said.

“We have 200,000 Iraqis now in different kinds of units. We have a civil defense unit, we have a unit that protects facilities, we have a border protection unit as well as the Iraqi army.

“So we have seen a lot of success there, and this is building on that idea, and with time you will see it will materialize. We are asking our Congress for funds to support that.â€

Afghan army plagued by desertions

Nearly 10,000 soldiers have been trained for the fledgling Afghan National Army, but it has seen many desertions because of low pay and tough conditions. The goal is an army of 70,000 soldiers.

Zakheim said the army desertion problem had been resolved and there were now more applicants than training spaces.

The approaching elections have added urgency to the need for security in a country racked by war for more than three decades.

NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski and Scott Foster and Reuters news service contributed to this report.

[pattbateman]

if or when we catch him i cannot wait to hear the left cry foul on what we did wrong and hjow we didint treat him fairly

its gonna be great!!!

[jamiroguy1]

He's already been caught.

[mrmatas2277]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

He's already been caught.

i truly hope so...

[cintron]

when they parade his ass on TV, that'll make me a little happier.

he's the one we wanted in the first place.

then Bush will have his men, we can elect someone else to office to clean up the shit he's created with the international community and Osama and Saddam can be the brunt of butt-buddy jokes for years to come

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by cintron

.

then Bush will have his men, we can elect someone else to office to clean up the shit he's created with the international community

I don't understand your thinking bud... You say France isn't our allie in another thread but then feel Bush shouldn't be relected because we pissed off France & Germany in acting unilaterally?

[cintron]

its not france. i could care less about them. Bush did what he did and that's the end of it. I dont want him re-elected though.

[pattbateman]

I DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D

[mrmatas2277]

Originally posted by cintron

Bush did what he did and that's the end of it. I dont want him re-elected though.

Rock The Vote....

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by cintron

its not france. i could care less about them. Bush did what he did and that's the end of it. I dont want him re-elected though.

I concur.

[pattbateman]

ROCK OUT WITH YOUR COCKOUT!!!

[igloo]

Originally posted by cintron

its not france. i could care less about them. Bush did what he did and that's the end of it. I dont want him re-elected though.

Cintron,

We have had this disagreement before. The whole "international" vs "unilateral" debate is the most absurd, baseless debate. When speaking of Iraq, yes, it is France, and to a lesser extent, Germany and France. France votes yes (even though they did with 1441) and all of a sudden, the US has "international" support. Absurd.

And let's not forget that the ONLY reason they were antiwar is because they wanted Saddam Hussein to remain in power. Funny how those who scream "internationalize" do not have a problem with that. ANd do we even need to discuss the irrelevant, toothless, UN who cut and run from Iraq and their responsibilities, now and for the past decade?

It is shameful to the many countries who have committed troops to Iraq to say the U.S. went at it alone. Anyone who says so has no fucking clue what they are talking about.

I know you believe that Bush's "Cowboy" image has hurt the U.S.......but I ask you, does his cowboy image and the so-called "unilateral" action in Iraq hurt the coalition of countries fighting the broader war on terror?.....Not one bit.

Quite frankly, the majority of the people who are really pissed off are the marksimons clones, detached Hollywood, and the losers who have hit the streets (defined accurately in many of my posts as to their true profiles)....

And of course the media, especially the elites, who just love the "anti-American" play in their reporting.....and let's not forget about the Dems primary and political season, with ridiculous rhetoric being thrown around.....

And you know what, you think Bush is a "Cowboy"....excellent. That is exactly what this country needs, and exactly what our enemies do not want.

After 8 years of Clinton and half-measures and weak responses that emboldened enemies and gave the the U.S. the "paper tiger" label backed by citizens without the resolve to face reality, we need a Cowboy.

Cowboy up Bush!!!!

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by igloo

Cintron,

We have had this disagreement before. The whole "international" vs "unilateral" debate is the most absurd, baseless debate. When speaking of Iraq, yes, it is France, and to a lesser extent, Germany and France. France votes yes (even though they did with 1441) and all of a sudden, the US has "international" support. Absurd.

And let's not forget that the ONLY reason they were antiwar is because they wanted Saddam Hussein to remain in power. Funny how those who scream "internationalize" do not have a problem with that. ANd do we even need to discuss the irrelevant, toothless, UN who cut and run from Iraq and their responsibilities, now and for the past decade?

It is shameful to the many countries who have committed troops to Iraq to say the U.S. went at it alone. Anyone who says so has no fucking clue what they are talking about.

I know you believe that Bush's "Cowboy" image has hurt the U.S.......but I ask you, does his cowboy image and the so-called "unilateral" action in Iraq hurt the coalition of countries fighting the broader war on terror?.....Not one bit.

Quite frankly, the majority of the people who are really pissed off are the marksimons clones, detached Hollywood, and the losers who have hit the streets (defined accurately in many of my posts as to their true profiles)....

And of course the media, especially the elites, who just love the "anti-American" play in their reporting.....and let's not forget about the Dems primary and political season, with ridiculous rhetoric being thrown around.....

And you know what, you think Bush is a "Cowboy"....excellent. That is exactly what this country needs, and exactly what our enemies do not want.

After 8 years of Clinton and half-measures and weak responses that emboldened enemies and gave the the U.S. the "paper tiger" label backed by citizens without the resolve to face reality, we need a Cowboy.

Cowboy up Bush!!!!

:clap2:

[cintron]

didnt say i felt like we needed to crawl back into a safe hole.

I just think it's time for a change of Guard.

[igloo]

Originally posted by cintron

didnt say i felt like we needed to crawl back into a safe hole.

I just think it's time for a change of Guard.

I know you do not think we should crawl in a hole, but I think there could not be a worse time for a changing of the guard---something that Al Qaeda and the regimes of Iran, Syria, and Iran would absolutely love.

I thought I would post this here again, because it is very relevant as to why this is not a good time to change the guard, but to keep up the pressure:

Just Imagine...

Trying to believe in the make-believe world of the present age.

After listening to a variety of American, Middle Eastern, and European pundits, I wish that their understanding of the way the world works were true — or at least even that they believed it to be true. If so, just imagine the following...

That when all the Israelis vacate the Gaza Strip and, like most of the Arab world elsewhere it is free of Jews, indigenous Palestinian consensual government will at last quickly bring peace and tranquility there to its own delighted native citizenry.

That Arab-Israeli communities near the border are agitating to be annexed by Palestine in order to join their brethren under the aegis of Mr. Arafat's non-Zionist utopia.

That with the promised two-state solution and a return to the so-called Green Line, a few thousand Jewish émigrés can choose to live in safety in newly autonomous Palestine in the same manner as hundreds of thousands of their Arab counterparts now do in Israel.

That Pakistan, Iran, and Libya, either in fear or out of admiration, bowed to pressure from the EU and the UN to release information about their WMD programs.

That Saudi Arabia is now hunting down al Qaedists due to belated sympathy and concern about 9/11.

That Syria and Iran believe that the United States is in a "quagmire" in Iraq, and that because of such failure there they are now more bold and aggressive in their relationships with America.

That in accordance with the angry themes of the Arab state-run media, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia will shortly announce that they can no longer allow their citizens to visit such a satanic place as the United States.

That had Mr. Carter been allowed to employ his patented Nobel-Prize winning Korean model of curbing nuclear proliferation with Muammar Khaddafi, Libya would now be free of nukes.

That Democratic senators in anguish over zealous scrutiny of immigrants from the Middle East will soon repeal their near-unanimous prior support for the Patriot Act and demand a return to a more enlightened pre-9/11 visa policy.

That there will be a special inquiry of Senate and House members who voted for regime change in Iraq on the basis of their flawed analyses of intelligence information — as well as post-facto investigations of Operation Desert Fox in December 1999 and other previous preemptory strikes against perceived terrorist threats.

That South Korea will further promote its Sunshine Policy by asking the rest of the American forces on the DMZ to relocate to Pusan or return home.

That in exasperation with American unilateralism and in accordance with the "German Way" Mr. Schroeder will ask the United States to transfer its remaining troops to Eastern Europe.

That smaller European countries like Holland, Denmark, Spain, Poland, and others are bewildered by Mr. Rumsfeld's crude suggestion of an "Old Europe" — and his equally inappropriate hint of a bullying Paris-Berlin Axis that purportedly tries to stifle expression and independence in Europe.

That Greece and Turkey, after the fiasco in Iraq, find a "unilateral" United States "intrusive" and "disruptive" to their efforts to adjudicate problems in the Aegean and on Cyprus — and thus jointly ask for a withdrawal of American troops from their shores.

That in humanitarian concern over 50,000 needless civilian deaths last year from heat and earthquake, France will ask the United States for cooperation in installing air conditioners in Paris and Iran will request building inspectors and American architects for advice on seismic retrofitting.

That the Europeans will invest $100 billion or so in an EU rapid-reaction strike force to provide the United Nations at last with some real muscle that can be used in a more sober and judicious fashion under the proper aegis of Security Council wisdom.

That after Iraq we can now agree that the careful, multilateral, and decade-long approach toward Mr. Milosevic is the lawful and most humane way to deal with a purported mass-murderer.

That the United Nations has emerged stronger and won respect for its institutions as a resolute and disinterested adjudicator of the world's problems.

That because Mr. Kerry voted against the 1991 war, he opposed sending troops under U.N. auspices to the Middle East; that because he voted for the 2003 deployment, he advocated sending American troops without the U.N. to the Middle East; and that because he later voted in 2003 to deny funds to troops in the field, he opposed U.S. deployment unless it was under the auspices of the U.N.

That the Democrats will end the mistaken Iraqi commitment, bring home the troops, turn Iraq over to the U.N., craft a new burden-sharing agreement with our a host of willing allies in Afghanistan, and pledge that the United States renounces any sort of further preemption

That we will reopen investigations into why we removed Mr. Noriega, Mr. Milosevic, the Taliban, and other late fascists who, in fact, may have not really posed an "imminent" threat to the safety of the people of the United States.

That bin Laden will shortly announce an end to his war against America just as the last American soldier in Saudi Arabia — his oft-stated prime grievance against the United States — leaves the kingdom.

That when bin Laden is captured, critics of the administration will praise American efforts to have taken out both the Taliban and the Baathists, along with the capture of both their odious leaders.

That the suicide bombing of the last three years in the United States, Russia, Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Bali may be attributable to a variety of unconnected Christian, Jewish, and Hindu religious extremists — and is a reaction to understandable provocation.

That a long-term, scholarly study of the social and economic background of the Hamas suicide bombers, the Hezbollah killers, the al Qaeda leadership, and the suicide-murderers of September 11 will soon reveal a consistent, predictable, and unfortunate pattern of impoverishment, lack of education, and absence of contact with or knowledge of the West.

That the newly created intelligence commission finds that Mr. Bush is too gullible and ignores inferences from raw intelligence and thus is culpable for September 11 — and that Mr. Bush is too hair-triggered and over interprets inferences from raw intelligence and thus is culpable for invading Iraq.

From what I read and hear, I would expect that all these propositions might be credible. But if these logical inferences do not come to pass, then there is something else going on that suggests what many people are writing and saying is not quite plausible — or even what they themselves privately believe to be true.

* * *

Why is this? For all the most recent invective about his lack of spontaneous televised eloquence, almost every necessary and dangerous initiative Mr. Bush has undertaken since 9/11 — protect American shores, destroy the Taliban, scatter al Qaeda, take out Saddam Hussein, promote democracy in the Middle East, put rogue regimes with weapons of mass destruction on notice — has worked or is in the process of coming to fruition.

In response to that success often we have met dissimulation, pretext, and rhetoric of those who have much to lose and very little to gain by seeing the old way of business — status quo alliances, deductive anti-Americanism, corrupt Middle East policies, and bankrupt ideologies such as moral equivalence, utopian pacifism, and multiculturalism — go by the wayside.

And so we get fantasy in place of reality.

[pattbateman]

or or or or the way i like

[igloo]

Originally posted by igloo

I know you do not think we should crawl in a hole, but I think there could not be a worse time for a changing of the guard---something that Al Qaeda and the regimes of Iran, Syria, and Iran would absolutely love.

I thought I would post this here again, because it is very relevant as to why this is not a good time to change the guard, but to keep up the pressure:

Just Imagine...

Trying to believe in the make-believe world of the present age.

After listening to a variety of American, Middle Eastern, and European pundits, I wish that their understanding of the way the world works were true — or at least even that they believed it to be true. If so, just imagine the following...

That when all the Israelis vacate the Gaza Strip and, like most of the Arab world elsewhere it is free of Jews, indigenous Palestinian consensual government will at last quickly bring peace and tranquility there to its own delighted native citizenry.

That Arab-Israeli communities near the border are agitating to be annexed by Palestine in order to join their brethren under the aegis of Mr. Arafat's non-Zionist utopia.

That with the promised two-state solution and a return to the so-called Green Line, a few thousand Jewish émigrés can choose to live in safety in newly autonomous Palestine in the same manner as hundreds of thousands of their Arab counterparts now do in Israel.

That Pakistan, Iran, and Libya, either in fear or out of admiration, bowed to pressure from the EU and the UN to release information about their WMD programs.

That Saudi Arabia is now hunting down al Qaedists due to belated sympathy and concern about 9/11.

That Syria and Iran believe that the United States is in a "quagmire" in Iraq, and that because of such failure there they are now more bold and aggressive in their relationships with America.

That in accordance with the angry themes of the Arab state-run media, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia will shortly announce that they can no longer allow their citizens to visit such a satanic place as the United States.

That had Mr. Carter been allowed to employ his patented Nobel-Prize winning Korean model of curbing nuclear proliferation with Muammar Khaddafi, Libya would now be free of nukes.

That Democratic senators in anguish over zealous scrutiny of immigrants from the Middle East will soon repeal their near-unanimous prior support for the Patriot Act and demand a return to a more enlightened pre-9/11 visa policy.

That there will be a special inquiry of Senate and House members who voted for regime change in Iraq on the basis of their flawed analyses of intelligence information — as well as post-facto investigations of Operation Desert Fox in December 1999 and other previous preemptory strikes against perceived terrorist threats.

That South Korea will further promote its Sunshine Policy by asking the rest of the American forces on the DMZ to relocate to Pusan or return home.

That in exasperation with American unilateralism and in accordance with the "German Way" Mr. Schroeder will ask the United States to transfer its remaining troops to Eastern Europe.

That smaller European countries like Holland, Denmark, Spain, Poland, and others are bewildered by Mr. Rumsfeld's crude suggestion of an "Old Europe" — and his equally inappropriate hint of a bullying Paris-Berlin Axis that purportedly tries to stifle expression and independence in Europe.

That Greece and Turkey, after the fiasco in Iraq, find a "unilateral" United States "intrusive" and "disruptive" to their efforts to adjudicate problems in the Aegean and on Cyprus — and thus jointly ask for a withdrawal of American troops from their shores.

That in humanitarian concern over 50,000 needless civilian deaths last year from heat and earthquake, France will ask the United States for cooperation in installing air conditioners in Paris and Iran will request building inspectors and American architects for advice on seismic retrofitting.

That the Europeans will invest $100 billion or so in an EU rapid-reaction strike force to provide the United Nations at last with some real muscle that can be used in a more sober and judicious fashion under the proper aegis of Security Council wisdom.

That after Iraq we can now agree that the careful, multilateral, and decade-long approach toward Mr. Milosevic is the lawful and most humane way to deal with a purported mass-murderer.

That the United Nations has emerged stronger and won respect for its institutions as a resolute and disinterested adjudicator of the world's problems.

That because Mr. Kerry voted against the 1991 war, he opposed sending troops under U.N. auspices to the Middle East; that because he voted for the 2003 deployment, he advocated sending American troops without the U.N. to the Middle East; and that because he later voted in 2003 to deny funds to troops in the field, he opposed U.S. deployment unless it was under the auspices of the U.N.

That the Democrats will end the mistaken Iraqi commitment, bring home the troops, turn Iraq over to the U.N., craft a new burden-sharing agreement with our a host of willing allies in Afghanistan, and pledge that the United States renounces any sort of further preemption

That we will reopen investigations into why we removed Mr. Noriega, Mr. Milosevic, the Taliban, and other late fascists who, in fact, may have not really posed an "imminent" threat to the safety of the people of the United States.

That bin Laden will shortly announce an end to his war against America just as the last American soldier in Saudi Arabia — his oft-stated prime grievance against the United States — leaves the kingdom.

That when bin Laden is captured, critics of the administration will praise American efforts to have taken out both the Taliban and the Baathists, along with the capture of both their odious leaders.

That the suicide bombing of the last three years in the United States, Russia, Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Bali may be attributable to a variety of unconnected Christian, Jewish, and Hindu religious extremists — and is a reaction to understandable provocation.

That a long-term, scholarly study of the social and economic background of the Hamas suicide bombers, the Hezbollah killers, the al Qaeda leadership, and the suicide-murderers of September 11 will soon reveal a consistent, predictable, and unfortunate pattern of impoverishment, lack of education, and absence of contact with or knowledge of the West.

That the newly created intelligence commission finds that Mr. Bush is too gullible and ignores inferences from raw intelligence and thus is culpable for September 11 — and that Mr. Bush is too hair-triggered and over interprets inferences from raw intelligence and thus is culpable for invading Iraq.

From what I read and hear, I would expect that all these propositions might be credible. But if these logical inferences do not come to pass, then there is something else going on that suggests what many people are writing and saying is not quite plausible — or even what they themselves privately believe to be true.

* * *

Why is this? For all the most recent invective about his lack of spontaneous televised eloquence, almost every necessary and dangerous initiative Mr. Bush has undertaken since 9/11 — protect American shores, destroy the Taliban, scatter al Qaeda, take out Saddam Hussein, promote democracy in the Middle East, put rogue regimes with weapons of mass destruction on notice — has worked or is in the process of coming to fruition.

In response to that success often we have met dissimulation, pretext, and rhetoric of those who have much to lose and very little to gain by seeing the old way of business — status quo alliances, deductive anti-Americanism, corrupt Middle East policies, and bankrupt ideologies such as moral equivalence, utopian pacifism, and multiculturalism — go by the wayside.

And so we get fantasy in place of reality.

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by igloo

I know you do not think we should crawl in a hole, but I think there could not be a worse time for a changing of the guard---something that Al Qaeda and the regimes of Iran, Syria, and Iran would absolutely love.

I thought I would post this here again, because it is very relevant as to why this is not a good time to change the guard, but to keep up the pressure:

thats a very dangerous argument you are presenting. after Al-Qaeda is gone, there will be something else around the corner. The US and its interests have constantly been under threat, from imperialistic rivalry to "communism" to terrorism.

using that twisted logic you are presenting, the US's guard should not be changed...ever.

[igloo]

Originally posted by bigpoppanils

thats a very dangerous argument you are presenting. after Al-Qaeda is gone, there will be something else around the corner. The US and its interests have constantly been under threat, from imperialistic rivalry to "communism" to terrorism.

using that twisted logic you are presenting, the US's guard should not be changed...ever.

Twisted logic???...are U kidding me?....what fucking planet are you on?....who the fuck is saying that the guard should never be changed......sometimes the time is right, sometimes the time is not right....and at this particular time, the time is not right ...

If anyone is trying to twist something out of nothing it is you....

Stay out of the big boy room son..it is painful when you attempt to step up

The second article I posted about those living in a fantasy world is YOU....

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by igloo

sometimes the time is right, sometimes the time is not right....and at this particular time, the time is not right ...

so we should bend to the will of the terrorists and live in fear? Fear of change?

[pattbateman]

i got it

lets all light a fucking candle hug a tree and pray for peace!!

[igloo]

Originally posted by bigpoppanils

so we should bend to the will of the terrorists and live in fear? Fear of change?

Stop posting on this thread. Seriously.

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by igloo

Stop posting on this thread. Seriously.

never!

[igloo]

Originally posted by bigpoppanils

never!

[igloo]

Good!!!!.....This should have been done two years ago by the Pakistani's. Yes, this is difficult for them, and yes the fallout could be huge for Musharaf, but it must be done.

"The fact that they are now there, that they've got a presence, that they're confronting the tribal elders, and they're holding them accountable for activities in their areas of influence is a major step forward," he said.

General: Pakistan aiding al Qaeda hunt

U.S. commander says finding bin Laden remains high priority

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Pakistan's recent clampdown along its border with Afghanistan could help crush the al Qaeda terrorist network, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan said Tuesday.

Pakistani troops are confronting tribal leaders along the Afghan frontier and destroying the homes of those who do not cooperate with them, Lt. Gen. David Barno told reporters at the Pentagon during a video news conference from Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.

Barno said the hunt for al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden remains a "very, very high priority" for U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

But he seemed to back off a previous statement that the coalition would capture bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar this year, saying "there are no certainties in the war-fighting business out here."

"Fundamentally, there's still unfinished business in this part of the world," Barno said. "We're making every effort here during the coming months to close those efforts out."

U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan reportedly are planning a spring offensive against the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters remaining in Afghanistan.

The Taliban religious militia ruled much of Afghanistan from the mid-1990s until a coalition of U.S. and allied forces drove them from power in November 2001. The Taliban had given haven to al Qaeda before the attacks of September 11, 2001, on New York and Washington.

Barno would not discuss specifics, but "the sand in their hourglass is running out."

Bin Laden and Omar are believed to have taken refuge in the mountainous tribal areas of northwestern Pakistan.

Barno said Pakistani troops have made "a very serious effort" to assert their authority in the tribal regions in recent months.

"The fact that they are now there, that they've got a presence, that they're confronting the tribal elders, and they're holding them accountable for activities in their areas of influence is a major step forward," he said.

"And it's something that we're watching with great interest and with some cautious optimism it will have a positive effect."

He said U.S. and Pakistani forces are operating on each side of the border in hopes of producing "a hammer-and-anvil approach" in which Pakistan would drive al Qaeda fighters toward U.S. and Afghan forces across the frontier.

Barno said U.S. troops have shifted tactics in order to counter smaller-scale attacks by Taliban and other forces.

The attacks have targeted peacekeepers, aid workers and civilians "because they are essentially powerless to confront the coalition out here."

American units now will spend more time in the Afghan countryside and less in their bases, establishing ties with local leaders and the Afghan people.

"The units then ultimately get great depth of knowledge, understanding and much better intelligence access to the local people in those areas, by owning, as it were, those chunks of territory," Barno said.

"That's a fairly significant change in terms of our tactical approach out there on the ground."

He said U.S. troops and British, New Zealand and German forces have set up "provincial reconstruction teams" to provide security for aid workers.

A pilot "regional development zone" has been set up in Kandahar, once the Taliban's base of support, he said.