A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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

As should you.

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

I think we have a very recent example of the US govenment having told its citizens lies to build a case for war, and that lying has a precedent going back decades - just look up US intervention in Nicaragua, Iran Contra, the overthrow of a democratic government in Iran in favor of a tyrant.

I don't think you have any space to be talking about the GoP lying to her people.

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

Ask Mullen and Patraeus, since they used the term. Perhaps they are lying to the American public again?

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.

Intelligence officers in the field would have a tremendous amount of freedom and flexibility to operate - they are obviously not punching in and out at 9 an 5 every day. It is possible that ethnic and/or religious loyalties, in SOME cases, supersede GoP policy of limiting interaction to maintaining contacts and turn into tangible support.

 

[Mark&Porus]

Wow, alrite, I get it. You guys are interested in sparring with the nearest American rather than being honest. Great....

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Wow, alrite, I get it. You guys are interested in sparring with the nearest American rather than being honest. Great....

I could argue the same about the Americans on this forum.

If you cannot engage with respect and pointless asides about Pakistanis and the other members then you are just a troll.

Stick to the arguments made in the posts please, I'm not interested in your generalizations about Pakistanis.

 

[S-2]

I've no doubt that Mullen, Holbrooke et al. are hard at work. I know this because I've seen no military action by India despite what now appears attacks directed by LeT from within your lands.

That's good and I'm sure a reflection of India's considerations of our views on remaining "helpful".

Beyond that, I've lost faith. I don't think your army, who would be the judge of "reduced tensions", would EVER suggest that conditions have relaxed short of a comprehensive agreement on Kashmir.

Doing so would mean having to fight a real war on your lands against many, many of your people and it would be awful.

Who wants that? Better to posture in the east with your tanks and cannons against the one threat whom your public can really sink their teeth into.

Sit in the east while you are consumed from within...or not. It's your country-your risk. The plan caveats say if you don't go west, we cut military aid. We won't unless we've a supply source able to sustain your counter-vailing actions.

Should that happen, all bets are absolutely off to include a continuation of civil aid too. That's my suspicion so I hope none of this comes to past but we'll see.

Whack Mark&Porus please.

 

[mhacsan]

Look we got to stop looking at US, after all they ar after their own interest, we can not rely on them at all times. the amount of help irrespective of grudges they provided us in the past is fine and they continue to do so. it is us who are at guilt

we ask for help so many time that we lose dignity and others are right to point fingers at us as they take us incompetent. what are we, beggers, nutshells? for me we do not have leaders who can realize that by taking problems solving n decision making in their own hand can glorify the country in longer term, we will definately have problems initially but this is what real leader are born for.

US provide solutions on their own term, which we have to accpet becz we do not have other options to go by, a clear example of it is our economy, if we were in better position, Obama might not tempt us into money, but asking us how we can help them determinig the solution for the problem(if he understands strategy, as we being the important stakeholder), but at this time they are imposing what they think the solution is in first place.

ISI will not heed to President so as army (the two compitent org in the country)beceasue they are skeptical of the presidnt abilities to take us on a formidable path, the right direction, he is illiterate, does not have christma, leading by example, vision, direction and most importantly the ability to sovle problems, having the ability of solving problems people look at u in difficult situations and tend to follow them whatever leader do becz of past success and mutual trust .

now US in this case is problem solver, n we heapilly walk behind it with our eyes closed, coz we never came up with any in the first place(by this i mean our political leadership) so we have no body to balme except us, US only do what they think is right for them first and then for us.

no grudges for US, they might be doing it right, but we let ourselves down

 

[muse]

We arhued so many times about what can work as counter insurrgency policy - and it seems that ptotecting the civilian population is what everyone can agree with -- how about Pakistan concentrating on that?

If we can protect pakistani citizens from the islamist terrorists, won't that be a step towards reclaiming Pakistani sovereignty over areas in which this sovereignty has been usurped by the islamist terrorists?

American interlocutors are hot under the collar, Pakistani interlocutors, the same -- meanwhile, the Islamist terrorist enemy makes advantage or has made common cause with those who do not wish Pakistan well -- in any case, it's Pakistan that is and will end up losing - is it worth it to point to the east while bit by bit we lose the country??

 

[mhacsan]

Wow, alrite, I get it. You guys are interested in sparring with the nearest American rather than being honest. Great....

its not like that my friend, if u have the ability to ask question then u must have courage to receive a bit. its not personal but discussion.

we can have disagreements but that does not include body blows, nationalities, etc hope u understand.

on personal note, ISI can not, one or two incidents are fine, but not hundered of them literly, they are not barbarians, but human being like us

If RAW can do to us, then we have right to respond back in certain cases, it is between the two and let it remain their, dont jump in it coz u will not understand

talking abt indian military actions, i would like to remind other poseter of Siachen, Bagladesh scenario where we had direct indian military involvment first and then we had to respond let alone all the three wars with india, plz go through some of the history to find out

cheers, hope our young recruit is not furious on advice

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

- is it worth it to point to the east while bit by bit we lose the country??

Beyond that, I've lost faith. I don't think your army, who would be the judge of "reduced tensions", would EVER suggest that conditions have relaxed short of a comprehensive agreement on Kashmir.

It is absolutely not worth being in a face off with India while the militants rampage in the East. However, I would like to point out that the PA did have several brigades deployed in the West that were moved back to the East after Mumbai.

Had Mumbai not occurred we may have seen even more assets deployed in the East, therefore I cannot share S-2's pessimistic assessment of the PA's intentions.

I do think that the tensions post Mumbai between India and Pakistan need to be ratcheted down some more, and the two sides need to start talking again.

On a slightly unrelated note, a question S-2;

Given the principles that the US stands for (at least in 'principle'), that I believe you personally strongly subscribe to, freedom and all that, why is it that such an axiomatic solution to the Kashmir imbroglio - of a plebiscite, of letting the people determine which nation they wish to be a part of - has never found much support from the US or US interlocutors?

 

[roadrunner]

Given the principles that the US stands for (at least in 'principle'), that I believe you personally strongly subscribe to, freedom and all that, why is it that such an axiomatic solution to the Kashmir imbroglio - of a plebiscite, of letting the people determine which nation they wish to be a part of - has never found much support from the US or US interlocutors?

.....................

 

[A1Kaid]

On a slightly unrelated note, a question S-2;

Given the principles that the US stands for (at least in 'principle'), that I believe you personally strongly subscribe to, freedom and all that, why is it that such an axiomatic solution to the Kashmir imbroglio - of a plebiscite, of letting the people determine which nation they wish to be a part of - has never found much support from the US or US interlocutors?

Sir I think we all have ponder this question.

The reason is because allowing the Kashmiri people to hold free and fair election/plebiscite on their decision of either joining Pakistan or India or Independence...India knows the Kashmiri people will never choose them.

So in other words to give freedom and 'democracy' and justice to Kashmir is a major loss and counterproductive result to India, India does not benefit when Kashmir is free.

Please AM understand the Indian hegemony mindset.


Another reason why India does not hold a plebiscite in Kashmir, even though PM Nehru promised he would, is they are afraid this will spark off other freedom movements in India...Though I would argue is the other Indian provinces seeking Independence is different because they are not really consider "disputed territory" like Kashmir is.



I was sick to read somewhere on this forum, that Indians consider Kashmir "their land"....

Kashmir is not apart of India and Kashmiris are NOT Indians. Kashmir historically has been a separate entity from Hindustan. It's people, language, culture, and religion (Islam) are different.


But you bet having the Kashmiri people decide for themselves is India's worst nightmare!!!



EDIT: And as far as why the US has not strongly supported a Free Plebiscite in Kashmir, that is because the US policy is "do what we say not act as we do". They (US) benefit from this conflict, because then they are able to sell war supplies in a subcontinent Arms Race. Americans will argue so does China, well China does not benefit from Nuclear Radio activity spilling over into it's borders and a massive Nuclear war in South Asia...so no they don't but US does.

 

[A1Kaid]

"New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan"


Haa! There's no new strategy, same gift different wrapper.

 

[S-2]

A plebiscite is axiomatic, eh? Your way or the highway.

Nevermind that U.S. policy to support a bi-lateral solution has been long-standing and you should know that given your interest here. A bi-lateral accord also offers the only hope for a real solution that can be effectively implemented.

Something modest for your reading pleasure. You're sure to like it-

America's Chance For Peace In Kashmir- Farhana Ali Middle East Times March 29, 2009

Had to remove a Steve Coll article because a subscription was required for the New Yorker. Maybe you can read it at school. New story by him.

 

[Tang0]

The problems with plebiscite have already been discussed. First, all interested parties have to agree to its outcome for it to actually matter. Probably not going to happen. Second, lets assume the Indians agree. Most people in India probably don't want to be occupying the territory in the first place. Who do you think fills in the vacuum left by the Indian Army? The PA? We have seen their track record in NWFP when it comes to suppressing militants the GoP formally sponsored.

It is a bit like Iraq. If at any given time over the last 6 years a plebiscite of the Iraqi public was held, it probably would have amounted to a demand that US forces leave within 6 months. Of course, immediately the power vacuum would have resulted in a horrifying civil war with a strong man in power just as bad or worse than the one so recently toppled.

Most people are not into long term strategic thinking. They want bad things to stop happening, and will vote for bad things to stop. However, they usually don't think about the "Worse Things" the "Bad Things" are preventing.

I am going to shut my trap right there, since I don't know much about the actual situation in Kashmir.

I believe that the US first and foremost is busy looking out for its own interests, and by extension, the interests of its citizens. It is willing to deal with alot of pain and suffering elsewhere to stop a little bit of discomfort at home. However, it is not pointlessly evil, because the individuals who make up the government are not any more evil than the individuals who make up any government. So maybe, just maybe, the US State Department is actually thinking about the well being of the people of all the countries involved and making what it considers to be well reasoned decisions?

Trust me on this, the US makes more money in a year of outsourcing cheap tech support than it ever will selling weapons to South Asian nations. As such, stability in the region is actually in its best interests. The human capital of 1.3 billion people is a vastly greater resource to be exploited than any amount of capital that the US could extract from the impoverished governments concerned.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Obama to seek NATO support for Afghan plan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama will urge European allies to support his new strategy for Afghanistan, telling NATO partners this week their security could be at risk if the country falls into chaos. Making his first major foreign trip since taking office on January 20, Obama will discuss the economic crisis at the London Group of 20 summit of major economic powers on Thursday. He will then attend the NATO summit in Strasbourg, France, on Friday and Saturday, marking the alliance's 60th anniversary.

washingtonpost.com

 

[Kasrkin]

Given the principles that the US stands for (at least in 'principle'), that I believe you personally strongly subscribe to, freedom and all that, why is it that such an axiomatic solution to the Kashmir imbroglio - of a plebiscite, of letting the people determine which nation they wish to be a part of - has never found much support from the US or US interlocutors?

Allow me to answer that for you AM, since S-2 is obviously incapable of doing so. The reason the idea of a plebiscite hasn't found much support in the US is because to most of the people who're in charge of S-2's country, notions like 'freedom' and 'democracy' are only ever justifications to look down on rivals with; not ideals worthy of self-less commitment to.

What you know as America's 'stand' is merely lip-service to ideals whose implementation is subject to great amounts of discrimination, not to mention convenience. On one hand American leaders have used what they call ‘lack of freedom’ in an enemy state to justify inflicting horrific quantities of death and destruction, but on the other hand we have fan-boys like S-2 lecturing us on merits of a ‘bilateral arrangement’ in complete disregard to voices of the subjected Kashmiri people. Then he also goes on to say it's us Pakistanis who were devilishly selfish when 'suppressing' Afghan ‘freedom’ by helping the Taliban fight some war/drug lords.

Captain America here is also fond of reminding us how ‘un-democratic’ and ‘primitive’ our state is because our generals are not grilled by politicians infront of parliament. But on the other hand Pakistani democracy is not of much consequence to him as you’d note during his traditional cheering of drone attacks in Pakistan that have been unanimously condemned by the very same provincial and federal assemblies (who’ve even called for preventive or retaliatory action). This behavior is disgusting but not entirely unexpected.

We’ve tried bilateral before. If we could’ve solved this bilaterally we would’ve done so decades ago. Musharraf himself in the not so distant past pretty much forsake his political career at home suggesting numerous ‘out of the box’ solutions for Kashmir through a bilateral median. He negated Pakistan’s age told stance in regards to UN RESOLUTIONS in the hopes that the Indians would come their half of the way. But guess what? Indians didn’t compromise. Heck, they can’t even compromise in regards to a small strategically useless desolate piece of frozen wasteland where their soldiers can barely breathe, or supply themselves without spending ridiculous amounts of money. Fact is they don’t need to as long as they have enough resources to suppress Kashmiri aspirations through military means; and as long as no one is willing to compel them to do so. Might is right, that’s how they think, and no one has proved them wrong (yet) because after all Kashmir is no Kuwait. Indians say Kashmir is part of India, period. As a result Kashmir was, is and will continue to be the greatest nuclear flashpoint in the world.

This is not me trying to attribute blame on India (even though they do deserve it). This is a reality check for those who obviously have no idea of what they talk about; but they need to talk because someone here might have suggested that their country’s involvement (or lack of it) is less than angelic. The UN exists for a reason, so does the US’s power and influence which (according to rhetoric at least) is meant to be a constructive, and an unselfish, influence in the world. No wonder it’s hard for us liberals to argue against the fact that the Irhabis aren’t the only bad guys in the world.