A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes, it considers itself vulnerable to both attacks and the tyranny of constrained logistics upon ops and size.

A.M., modestly, I'm not a simplistic nor inaccurate guy, IMO. It is a major constraint and the same would exist with Iran open and you shut. As I've indicated, that won't come without cost and I've yet to apprise myself of that particular calculus. We lack logistical flexibility and are determined, it appears, to get it.

Point being, moving your supply lines out of Pakistan does not really expand your leverage significantly enough to be of concern to the Pak Mil. The real constraints for US policy vis a vis Pakistan have always been elsewhere.

But if it cuts down on your pilferage and helps you sleep better, all power to you, but past discussions on this were pretty thorough, and its not a major concern on the Pakistani side, nor do I see any reason at this point for it to be a major concern in terms of US leverage.

Not a very en vogue concept these days but very much still dominating the far end of the decision template. At this point I wouldn't be so openly dismissive. It has it's place in the order of things.

Anything is technically 'possible', but the fact is that your rationale for war as expressed in your earlier post is a self defeating and illogical one.

Could the dynamics change enough to actually make a justifiable case for war? Sure, its also technically possible that the Taliban could overrun Pakistan and B Mehsud appoint himself Amir-ul-Momineen, though very, very unlikely.

Till some drastic shift in the regional dynamics, specifically in the internal Pakistani dynamics, I think my labeling of talk of war as braggadocio was apt.

In the interest of not having threads fly off into flame wars, I think tempering talk of war when it is extremely unlikely would be helpful.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

The Service which Pakistan provides is more than the worth of 1.5b$ aid for five years.

There is a great chance for improoving relations btw Pak and US but US has to do more inorder to regain the confidance of ISI or PakArmy coz that confidancebuilding measure has has not been adressed since the Preseller Amendements were pased.

We can defeat AlQaida in this reagion only if we intend to do but that Intention costs even more than 1.5billion$ .
There are many areas which also needs attention like the American View on KashmirProblem. And Indian Consulates operating in Afghanistan.

I personally think that due to some geopolitical events LIKE Iran Launching Sattalite and NorthKorea on the verge of joining ICBM group Led to the failure of American Diplomatic Aproach and now the yanks fear that Our frontline ally also might not fell to the Rising Russia and China thats why the doors to the aid are opened to much deserving Pakistan

 

[S-2]

The trust is gone. Evaporated after seven and one-half years.

It's not just about America, A.M. A whole lot of nations don't "trust you".

The Islamic Caliphate of Pashtunistan is a lesser theatre of war for the P.A. It's possibly not a theatre of war at all despite Bajaur, SWAT, and the evident corrosion in Mohmand, Kurrum, Khyber, Waizistans, and FCs Kohat, Peshawar, Dera Ismail Khan, Tank, Bunnu, and Lekki. Did I miss anybody?

They're all up sh!t creek without a paddle and the rest of NWFP is right behind them.

Still you don't move.

Never seen anything like it.

A cancer from within and your army wails at windmills...

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

The trust is gone. Evaporated after seven and one-half years.

It's not just about America, A.M. A whole lot of nations don't "trust you".

Look you trust us or not your success depends upon our comitment in this war.

There will be 825+ C-17 sorties monthly into Kandahar by August. 650+or by May or so. The strain on our C-17 fleet will be huge. Unlike the Canadians, we're not afforded a "time-out".

The cost of war would tripple and i think your economy is goin through some bad times.

Believe it or not you cant win this war without Pakistan in your camp and inorder to do that you guys need to adress the confidance building measure.

And one thing more If you guys think that can get into that dance with Indians in Afghanistan then you are truely mistaken.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Still you don't move.

Never seen anything like it.

A cancer from within and your army wails at windmills...

Pakistan is not your nation, nor have you had to deal with a neighbor as demonstrably hostile as we have. One could make the same 'windmill' argument about US fears of the Soviets, and the resulting carnage and mayhem the two of you sowed around the world.

I am not arguing against the PA fighting the Taliban with all its might, I am arguing for assurances, on way or another, that our Eastern flank remains safe while we do so, which is by no means an invalid concern.

I am not sure what issue you have with the US and NATO engaging diplomatically with the Indians and coming to an understanding that assures/guarantees Pakistan that her Eastern flank shall remain safe from Indian aggression.

I quoted the NYT earlier on Holbrooke and Mullen ostensibly going to the region for this purpose. Here is Mullen talking about the same:

But top US military official Admiral Mike Mullen acknowledged that lessening tensions over Kashmir would allow Pakistan to focus on fighting the militants hiding along the Pak-Afghan border...

...‘We don’t intend to get involved in that issue, but we do intend to help both countries build more trust and confidence so that Pakistan can address the issues that it confronts on the western side of the nation,’ said Gen. Jones...

...‘But we think that the times are so serious that we need to build the trust and confidence in the region, so that nations can do what they need to do in order to defeat the threat that I discussed a few minutes ago,’ he said.

Admiral Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN he hope the new US ‘regional approach’ would try to reduce tensions over Kashmir, allowing Pakistan to re-deploy troops away from arch-enemy India and to Afghan border areas.
DAWN.COM | World | No Kashmir talks: US

For some reason you tend to display an extremely hostile reaction every time the issue of the US engaging with the Indians to facilitate Pakistani deployments in the West comes up.

I almost think you want the Indians to take punitive action when we aren't paying attention and grab chunks of land, why else the utter opposition to this, when the US government and military leadership realizes the importance of the issue as well?

Surely if the Indians are sincere about helping defeat the Taliban they would welcome such a move. As discussed elsewhere, this does not in anyway suggest a denuding of forces on the LoC or IB, nor does it give the Pakistanis any offensive military advantage vs the Indians, so why not test their commitment to this effort?

 

[Mark&Porus]

Hi, um, here's what I gotta say - clearly the bigger threat to Pakistan is the Taliban/Al Qaida stuff rite? Then why is the ISI helping its own biggest threat?

After all of that, you guys complain that the US isn't sincere or something - weird. I mean, clearly its Pakistan which is not sincere about saving its own butt you know.

Second, India won't want to occupy the Pakistanian part of Kashmir, because its hostile territory - and no country today wants to occupy territory that would put it in a position of disadvantage - politically or economically. India isn't an ideological state, so its actions would be practical rather than nationalistic.

 

[Mark&Porus]

India is trying to be friendly I think:
Manmohan wants friendly ties with Pakistan
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[S-2]

"For some reason you tend to display an extremely hostile reaction every time the issue of the US engaging with the Indians to facilitate Pakistani deployments in the West comes up."

The only hostile reaction I hold is to your unwillingness to engage an army whom has already invaded and taken your lands for the defense against an army who will not conventionally invade your lands.

I am convinced that the Indian Army has no intention whatsoever to use land forces in any way along your eastern borders-whether invasion or "punative raid".

I am not convinced that your "concerns" aren't exacerbated to delay an inevitable reckoning in the west.

I am completely convinced that your regular army wants no part of that fight for fear of sullying their peerless reputation among the Pakistani public in a dirty war which has little perceived glory and too much perceived cost by association with Afghanistan and America.

I'm convinced that's because your army and government have common cause in crassly ceding the moral and informational highground to the militants instead of arguing the obvious collective and existential value of the U.N. Afghan mission.

All of those years of talking up the islamist defense of Pakistan while talking sh!t about America has made difficult you backtracking now. So you don't.

Thanks.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Hi, um, here's what I gotta say - clearly the bigger threat to Pakistan is the Taliban/Al Qaida stuff rite? Then why is the ISI helping its own biggest threat?

No evidence has been presented that the ISI, specifically the institution itself, is helping Al qaeda or the Taliban.

The Pakistani Military has never really tried to hide the fact that it maintains contacts with some of the Taliban factions, especially the ones that are not fighting it. That is completely different from 'supporting Taliban and Al Qaeda'.

After all of that, you guys complain that the US isn't sincere or something - weird. I mean, clearly its Pakistan which is not sincere about saving its own butt you know.

The above point I made makes your argument here a non sequitur.

Second, India won't want to occupy the Pakistanian part of Kashmir, because its hostile territory - and no country today wants to occupy territory that would put it in a position of disadvantage - politically or economically. India isn't an ideological state, so its actions would be practical rather than nationalistic.

That is a completely flawed argument since India is already occupying two thirds of Kashmir, and is fighting an insurgency for Kashmiri Freedom - i.e occupying hostile territory.

Your last point is just an astounding reflection on the lack of information you possess.

If India's actions were so practical then why did she renege on her commitments and agreement under the UNSC resolutions to let the people of Kashmir decide which nation they wished to be a part of, and continued an occupation that Amnesty International and HRW have suggested has resulted in Indian Security Forces committing thousands of atrocities?

If India's actions are so practical then why did she support terrorism in East Pakistan in the 1960's and then invade East Pakistan to dismember it from Pakistan?

If India's actions are so practical then why did she invade the Siachen glacier (1984) in a blatant violation of the Simla Agreement signed in 1972?

I'm sorry, but you could do a quick google search to educate yourself before spouting such rubbish.

 

[Mark&Porus]

Okies, maybe I'm out of my depth. But from what i know, the Indian part of Kashmir is an old dispute, and obviously they won't let go of that. I'm talking about occupying new terrritory, not retaining the old one.

Second, I looked up Siachen and its an uninhabited glacier - comeon dude!

East Pakistan? I dunno I'll look it up.

I think India is trying to be friendly, while Pakistan is making excuses to not fight its Talibanic allies by making India out to be a monster waiting to devour Pakistnians.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The only hostile reaction I hold is to your unwillingness to engage an army whom has already invaded and taken your lands for the defense against an army who will not conventionally invade your lands.

I am convinced that the Indian Army has no intention whatsoever to use land forces in any way along your eastern borders-whether invasion or "punative raid".

I am not convinced that your "concerns" aren't exacerbated to delay an inevitable reckoning in the west.

I am completely convinced that your regular army wants no part of that fight for fear of sullying their peerless reputation among the Pakistani public in a dirty war which has little perceived glory and too much perceived cost by association with Afghanistan and America.

I'm convinced that's because your army and government have common cause in crassly ceding the moral and informational highground to the militants instead of arguing the obvious collective and existential value of the U.N. Afghan mission.

All of those years of talking up the islamist defense of Pakistan while talking sh!t about America has made difficult you backtracking now. So you don't.

Thanks.

Well you just validated my point about 'hostile reactions' by going off on another pointless rant.

Whatever deluded 'convictions' you possess about the Pakistani military's intentions, one would think that you would love to see the US engage with India to do what I argued (and what it seems Hollbrooke and Mullen are out to attempt) just to deny Pakistan this 'excuse' as you put it.

Once again, why so much hostility to this approach?

 

[Mark&Porus]

Obama thinks that Pakistanian army supports the Taliban:


From the BBC :
BBC NEWS | South Asia | US warns Pakistan on Taleban link


The US military says it has evidence elements within Pakistan's military intelligence, the ISI, continue to provide support for the Taleban

I dunno about you guys, but I'm gonna take the US Mil's word on this one.

So Agnostic, I don't trust your claims that your army is not supporting the Taliban terrorists.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Obama thinks that Pakistanian army supports the Taliban:


From the BBC :
BBC NEWS | South Asia | US warns Pakistan on Taleban link


The US military says it has evidence elements within Pakistan's military intelligence, the ISI, continue to provide support for the Taleban

I dunno about you guys, but I'm gonna take the US Mil's word on this one.

So Agnostic, I don't trust your claims that your army is not supporting the Taliban terrorists.

I'm sorry, but I do not trust your military, intelligence or government officials - they after all lied in front of the UN, to the American people and the world on the Iraqi WMD's.

Secondly, read beyond the headline, IIRC, the statements of US military officials have mentioned 'elements of the ISI', and Patraeus I believe said that they were certain that 'some elements had links (contacts) to the Taliban'.

So even if we take the quotes by the US Mil, to be true this time around, my argument of the ISI as an institution not being involved in supporting the Taliban is still valid.

 

[Mark&Porus]

Wow, so you don't trust the US huh? Then why are you our allies? You should stop being our allies right?

You should first stop trusting your own government, because they've been telling you nothing but lies for a long long time.

Second, what do you mean by 'elements'? I don't get it? Doesn't the ISI know what their own guys are doing?

I think the ISI does know what its own guys are doing, but this "elements" excuse is just so that they can deny things like these.

 

[Mark&Porus]

You didnt' bother to read the whole BBC article. I'll just copy the relevant parts:

He said there was evidence that "in the fairly recent past" the ISI had tipped off militants when their positions were in danger.

The newspaper said electronic surveillance and informants had shown that the level of co-operation was deeper and more extensive than earlier thought.