A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan

[Righteous_Fire]

US is more concern about Pakistan 's nukes , new strategy is formulated to get control of our nukes,that is reason is 1998 US put santions and then planned to attack Afghanistan to drop forces in our back yard now trying to internally weaken our defence through insurgencies, but Allah is protecting Pakistan that is reason all strategies are failing one by one.

We should not afraid of any super power as long our courts are providing justic and amir bil marouf nahi munkir is continued .

I would like to indulge myself in the same hopeful and feel good state that you use bro BUT the reality is far bitter, let me just explain it to you in your own words:

as long our courts are providing justic.

Justice? what brand? Yeah the courts are independent now but it has been more than 60 years and we still havent found out that Usury ( Sood ) is HARAM HARAM HARAM ,

The Prophet PBUH said(using my words here): of the 70 levels of punishment that will be given to those who eat usury, the punishment for the lowest level will be a punishment equivalent to someone who had raped his own mother

and amir bil marouf nahi munkir is continued .

Really! you stand just for a single moment and do amir bil marouf nahi munkir as is said by God not the type the weirdos in Swat have been carrying out and they ( our muslim brothers) will fry you for it

So, we my friend are far from the grace of God IF Truth be told

 

[waraich66]

I would like to indulge myself in the same hopeful and feel good state that you use bro BUT the reality is far bitter, let me just explain it to you in your own words:



Justice? what brand? Yeah the courts are independent now but it has been more than 60 years and we still havent found out that Usury ( Sood ) is HARAM HARAM HARAM ,

The Prophet PBUH said(using my words here): of the 70 levels of punishment that will be given to those who eat usury, the punishment for the lowest level will be a punishment equivalent to someone who had raped his own mother



Really! you stand just for a single moment and do amir bil marouf nahi munkir as is said by God not the type the weirdos in Swat have been carrying out and they ( our muslim brothers) will fry you for it

So, we my friend are far from the grace of God IF Truth be told

Thanks for useful thoughts

Riba,music,taxes,corrupt government,war between muslims,free use of alcohal,and adultary(FREE SEX) are the sins which are root cause of bloodshed,corrupt ruler, hunger,deceases , draughts and earthquakes .

Presently all these sins are prevailing in PAKISTAN ,We need to eliminate these sins from our society to protect our country completely .

Amir Bil Marouf nahi munkir is only weapon for cleaning of society from sins.

We have seen recently total distruction of Afghanistan and Iraq , now question why still Allah SWT protecting Pakistan even all these sins are prevailing in country because of Dawah.

Thankfull to Tableeg Jamat .

 

[RabzonKhan]

Taliban built on years of 'mistakes': analysts

By Sardar Ahmad (AFP) – 1 day ago

KABUL — The Taliban have been able to build an insurgency that threatens elections three weeks away because of years of mishandling Afghanistan, Afghan analysts say.

While it may be too soon to judge the new US strategy of sending in more troops and aid to stem the mounting violence, the shift could be too late, with signs of a rift between the United States and Pakistan, observers say.

This year has seen record attacks since the Taliban were ousted in a US-led invasion in late 2001, even as the size of the international force has grown to more than 100,000.

And just weeks before Afghans vote for a new leader on August 20 in a milestone on its rocky road to democracy, July broke records as the deadliest month for foreign soldiers here with 75 killed.

The spiralling conflict has led to new backing for negotiations with "moderate" Taliban -- a position pushed by President Hamid Karzai for years.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, his country suffering heavy casualties in Taliban strongholds in the south, called last week for talks with militants "who can be reconciled to live within the Afghan constitution."

Karzai has long urged respected Saudi King Abdullah to host talks with Afghan Taliban who are not part of Al-Qaeda.

There has been no announcement on progress but Karzai's office trumpeted as a sign of things to come a pre-election ceasefire that was reached with local Taliban in remote northwestern Badghis province last month.

It raised hope that with the mediation of the Saudi king and Afghan elders "we will have great achievements in this regard," his spokesman Siamak Herawi told AFP.

"We are standing firm by our position which is to talk to Taliban. And we will use all methods that lead us to peace and stability," he said, adding negotiations were also under way in an area of the south he would not name.

Taliban have, however, repeatedly refused to enter peace talks unless international troops leave. On Thursday the militia urged voters to boycott the elections and instead "free their invaded country" through holy war.

Prominent Afghan parliamentarian Daud Sultanzoi said the new focus on talks "shows the weakness of the government."

"The government has not been able so far to persuade the Taliban to (attend) talks," he told AFP. "Why did it not reconcile with some Taliban leaders in the earlier years when it was possible to reconcile with them?" he asked.

Nasrullah Stanikzai, a professor of law and politics at Kabul University, said this was one of several errors made largely by the Western nations on which Afghanistan relies for aid, reconstruction and security.

"The West, when it toppled the Taliban, mistook the Taliban defeat for its elimination. It was a big mistake," he said.

He blamed foreign powers for defaulting on promises to reconstruct the war-shattered country, instead launching punishing military operations that took a high toll on civilians and alienated the population.

"The West's wrong policies, their unjust approach in post-Taliban Afghanistan, helped the Taliban to reshape, recruit new fighters and offer something better than the government offered," he added.

Backing powerful warlords with blood on their hands also sidelined more moderate Taliban affiliates who may have been open to talks.

"Back in 2001, lots of Taliban commanders could have been reconcilable," said Stanikzai.

Haroun Mir, an analyst from the Afghanistan Centre for Research and Policy Studies, says foreign forces did not fill the void created after the 2001 toppling of the Taliban.

The United States did not commit enough troops, then diverted resources and attention too quickly to Iraq.

"The Taliban were there, they found the villages empty and filled the vacuum right away and from there they managed to regroup," Mir told AFP.

US President Barack Obama is this year sending in 21,000 more troops in a revamped strategy that also puts pressure on Pakistan to deal with Islamist bases on its side of the border.

But analysts say troops in Afghanistan fall well short of the number outlined in US General David Petraeus's counter-insurgency manual that had some success in Iraq.

And respected author Ahmed Rashid said in a recent BBC article that a rift is growing between Washington and Islamabad over fighting the Taliban, including over claims that Pakistan's military shelters Taliban leaders.

"The US strategy in Afghanistan cannot work, it is too late," said Mariam Abou Zahab, an analyst at France's Centre for International Studies and Research.

"The Taliban want to create more insecurity in order to deter people from voting," said Zahab.

Sultanzoi added: "It is too early to see if Obama's new strategy has worked. Militarily, yes, we see he has sent more troops but non-militarily the benefit of his strategy can be only gauged when there's a new government."

 

[muse]

Withgin the last week Mr. Miliband, the foreign Minister of UK has called for negotiations with Moderate Taliban (whatever those are), Mrs. Clinton has publically referred to Mr. Miliband's comments as "important" and the Afghan president is seeking talks with the talib. A intellectual framework for these events may be found in the Foreign Affairs article, "Flipping The Taliban".

We should welcome comments by retired and active US services personnel who are members of our forum - what is their take on these developments??

Note to readers: the article in question "Flipping The taliban" does not refer to the single digit salute

 

[muse]

Perhaps this will help focus the kinds of resposes we should be hearing about soon:

Conditional truce offer to US stands: Zawahri

DUBAI: Al Qaeda’s second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri said a truce offered to the last US administration was still on the table, but President Barack Obama must withdraw troops from Muslim lands. “If Obama wants to (reach) an understanding then he should respond to Osama’s two offers,” Zawahri said in an interview with Al Qaeda’s media arm As-sahab, posted on a website on Monday. He warned that militants would continue to fight “until doomsday” unless their conditions were met. He said Western countries stop backing “corrupt and apostate regimes in the Muslim world”. reuters


Is it just me, or do others readers also find the timing of this statement in light of Mr. Miliband, Mrs CLinton and Mr. Karzai calling for talks with Talib, meaningful -- Does Mr. Zawahiri think that he may lose the Talib if the US talks to the Talib ? Is Mr. Zawahiri hoping to prevent such an eventuality by creating a IO of his own??--How might retired and active US services personnel react to this - this should be interesting

 

[Developereo]

Pakistan doesn't need lectures from the US or anyone else about how to conduct its own foreign policy or manage internal security.

I agree that we should rein in the Taliban and eliminate fundamentalism from within Pakistan, but we cannot leave Afghanistan alone once NATO leaves.

The threat from India has been, and continues to be, real. Both Karzai and his main challenger Abdullah Abdullah, are Indian puppets and Pakistan cannot allow an Indian client state at its back.

The mistake we made was to put all our eggs into one basket, i.e. Taliban. When they turned out to be bad eggs, we had no plan B. Pakistan needs to develop a democractic counterweight to the Indian puppets. If the Taliban control so much of the Afghan countryside, why can't they field a democractic candidate and win hands down?

Once again, the Pakistani government demonstrates utter and complete lack of sophistication or finesse. They only know how to fight with guns, not with ideas or subtlelty.

Finally, despite NATO's bravado, the Pakistani supply route to Afghanistan is far, far more preferable compared to the tortuous overland routes from the north. In fact, it was precisely these supply routes that the Taliban destroyed in the 80s and caused the Soviets to withdraw. If the Russians couldn't guarantee these supply routes for their own armies, what makes NATO think they can do it for them?

 

[Developereo]

Karzai has long urged respected Saudi King Abdullah to host talks with Afghan Taliban who are not part of Al-Qaeda.

Several clarifications:

- Actually it is Pakistan that has long urged talks with Taliban instead of using military force. The Indian puppet-dork mayor-of-Kabul Karzai has resisted these suggestions.

- Saudi Arabia is unlikely to listen to Karzai who fought with the Indian/Iranian/Russian backed Northern Alliance against the Pakistani/Saudi/American backed Taliban.

- Karzai has developed a solid reputation as a two-faced, double dealing jackass. His own brother is the biggest drug lord in Afghanistan; neither the Pakistanis, nor the Americans trust anything he says because he never keeps his word.

Here's what Ashraf Ghani, one of his Presidential election rivals, says about him in a recent interview on Fareed Zakaria GPS.

ZAKARIA: You said recently to George Packer of The New Yorker, that Shakespeare is in some ways the best guide to what happened in Afghanistan.

What did you mean by that?

GHANI: The palace is full of intrigues. It's all about tactical play, who gets closer to the king, because the style that Karzai has created in the palace is much more like a medieval kingship, where there is intrigue all around. Somebody gets close in order to out- maneuver somebody else.

All is a game of pretension, and King Lear does not understand that he is being fooled. So, it's there where we're really getting the sense of a Shakespearian tragedy, because it truly is tragic.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Time to stem the rot

By Faizullah Jan
Thursday, 06 Aug, 2009

WITH Pakistan facing an existential threat it is time to look for the rot in our own ranks. The protégés we groomed for others have returned as mentors of our youth and as killing machines striking terror in the country’s towns and cities. Indoctrinated to ‘trap the bear’ in Afghanistan, they have, in fact, trapped Pakistan in a deadly bear hug.

Since the end of the Afghan war in 1989 when the Soviet forces left Afghanistan, Pakistan had been looking for strategic depth in the war-torn country. First a government of so-called Mujahideen was cobbled together in Peshawar. Although it held the reins of power in Kabul, it turned out to be more of a disaster than a unifying force for Afghanistan’s different ethnic groups. Divided on ethnic grounds, it was no wonder that Afghanistan once again became a turf for proxy wars. Iran, wary of the growing Wahabi influence in its neighbourhood, rallied behind the non-Pakhtuns since the Saudi lobby had more influence with the dominant Pakhtuns comprising more than 40 per cent of the Afghan population.

India had been enjoying cordial relations with Afghanistan since 1947, but lost touch with Kabul when the PDPA (People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan) government was toppled to be replaced by a motley set of warlords. The daily barrage of rockets by the Hekmatyar group reduced Kabul to rubble and caused ethnic divisions to be entrenched in Afghanistan which hitherto had been immune to such fissures. This strife caused more damage than the intrusion of the Soviets. Every neighbouring country bet on a separate faction to get a foothold in Afghanistan in order to compensate themselves for their ‘sacrifices’ since 1979. Pakistan was a major contender because it had hosted — and still hosts — the largest number of Afghan refugees. Pakistan was not only the staging post for the Afghan ‘jihad’, it was also the biggest centre of guerilla training.

And then came the Taliban, the root of all our militancy-related troubles today. Emerging in Kandahar they started their march on Kabul in the mid-1990s. One after the other province fell to the rag-tag forces of Mullah Omar bringing Iran and Pakistan face to face in Afghanistan: Pakistan supporting the Taliban, ethnic Pakhtuns with a hardline Sunni creed and Iran the Northern Alliance. But Iran’s involvement in Afghanistan was logistic, while Pakistan invested more in ideological and military aims than diplomatic or political.

This is the reason that today there is almost no fallout of the Afghan war in Iran whereas Pakistan continues to pay a heavy price for its strategic follies in the shape of Talibanisation. To deny a space to India in Afghanistan — a genuine worry — Pakistan aimed for a government in Kabul whose strings it could pull easily. Its forced U-turn since 9/11 and at least official abandonment of the obscurantist forces it helped nurture has not resolved the problem. After all, it is not easy to completely disown a force in which the country had invested heavily.

The general view today is this: while Pakistan now has to deal with its own version of the Taliban who declared a war on their own country to settle scores for their betrayal, Iran is facing no such problem. India, which had been all these years sitting on the fence, too, appears non-partisan. The Northern Alliance in its animosity with Pakistan came close to India which was looking for this opportunity. India reportedly opened a string of ‘consulates’ in areas close to the Durand Line, thus encircling Pakistan effectively.

The chickens have come home to roost. Right now Pakistan is facing a double jeopardy. It must tackle India’s growing influence in Afghanistan on the one hand — which it can do only through the Taliban — and counter spreading Talibanisation in its own territory, on the other. That is the reason why Pakistan is believed to have a soft corner for the Afghan Taliban and almost zero tolerance for the Taliban within. This has landed Pakistan in a catch-22 situation — it cannot eliminate the Taliban within without snapping their links with the Taliban across the border; while snapping ties with the Afghan Taliban will deprive Pakistan of a vital card for future use.

Growing Talibanisation inside the country is the blowback of using jihadi indoctrination for strategic goals. With strategic depth no longer anywhere in sight, Pakistan’s own social fabric is in tatters with extremists posing an existential threat to the country. Little did our policymakers know that their policies formulated so many years ago for a strategic objective could boomerang with such force.

Pakistan should reassess its Afghan policy and befriend the Afghan nation by joining hands with the Karzai government in fighting the scourge of extremism. Now that the Karzai government has offered talks, and even power-sharing, to those among Taliban ranks who renounce violence, Pakistan can extend a helping hand by facilitating this exercise. In fact, why should Pakistan not facilitate an intra-Afghan dialogue which will work in two ways: Pakistan will be seen in Afghanistan as a peace broker and at home it can easily drive a wedge between local and Afghan Taliban.

The time for ‘jihad’ is over in the unipolar world because jihadists have an unending agenda that does not confine itself to a single nation state. With one country under its sway it tries to spill over its boundaries in all directions, with the same country their first target. This is what has happened to us in Pakistan.

 

[RabzonKhan]

EDITORIAL: Will the US leave Afghanistan in two years?

August 09, 2009

David Kilcullen, a counter-insurgency expert who is expected to become a senior adviser to the top US general in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, predicts that “the United States will see about two more years of heavy fighting and then either hand over to a much improved Afghan fighting force or lose and go home”. He has been taken on board probably because of his highly critical view of the war’s management in Afghanistan. He expressed his “two-year” opinion at the US Institute of Peace on Thursday.

The first version of his timeline is that the allied forces “would turn the corner” in two years, followed by about three years of transition to a newly capable Afghan force and about five years of “over-watch”. This means that the US and its allies will maintain an interest in Afghanistan till almost 2020. The second version is that in the next two years the US and its allies will “lose and go home”. The idea of “defeat in two years” is based on the “inability” of the US and the NATO countries to spend the kind of money Afghanistan will need and the number of troops the war will require. It is pointed out that the allies are under pressure at home to “curtail spending” and “stop despatching troops”.

If General McChrystal wants a blunt assessment of the theatre of war, then Mr Kilcullen is just the man for him. He may present President Barack Obama with a request for American troops (in addition to the 21,000 already pledged) on the basis of the scenario described above. The message will most probably be: get tougher if you want a victory against the Taliban or cut and run now and forget about Al Qaeda. According to Mr Kilcullen, “if Afghanistan crumbles, nuclear-armed Pakistan will probably follow”. He believes that Taliban-led resistance is pursuing a classic strategy in which “a militarily weaker force avoids direct warfare and sits back to wait us out till we get tired and go home”.

He spoke just when the news about warlord Baitullah Mehsud’s death in Pakistan was being processed. He might have to speak again to reassess his view because Baitullah was the linchpin of Al Qaeda’s empire in Pakistan. There is no question that the success of the Taliban in Afghanistan depends on developments in Pakistan. First it used to be “official” Pakistan calling the shots in Afghanistan; now it is the “unofficial” Pakistan of the terrorists who calls the shots in the jihad going on there. Given the tradition of “heroic disorder” among the Pashtuns, Al Qaeda will have a tough time finding Baitullah’s replacement; remember, it could not get a replacement in the case of Mufti Shamzai of the Banuri mosque in Karachi.

The “drone policy” has paid off and it will be extended, given the reluctance of everyone in the alliance to send in more troops. Pakistan is predictably launched on an anti-Taliban course and will need encouragement and help to persist. After a complex mental gymnastics — which redefined Baitullah Mehsud as an agent of the US and India — there is national consensus behind the military operations against the Taliban. The warlords of North Waziristan who fight inside Afghanistan and don’t bother Pakistan too much will be the big mission left for the US to complete. The sequence offered by Mr Kilcullen — Afghanistan to go down first followed by nuclear Pakistan — should be reversed: Pakistan must not be allowed to go down if the Afghan policy is to remain on rails.

The key to the Pakistan problem lies in the Indo-Pak equation that has gone haywire after the Mumbai attacks of 2008. The US will have to focus more attention on the restoration of normal order between the two states who are fighting proxy wars against each other. Given the speed with which Pakistan has recovered from the fallout of the military operation in Malakand one can hazard the advice that the timeline of the long-term Afghan policy till 2020 could be revised. The death of Baitullah Mehsud has changed many of the projections that analysts were making about the persistence of the Taliban terror and the continuation of the influence of Al Qaeda in the region. But it all depends on whether America stays on or cuts and runs.

 

[Developereo]

US general urges rethink of war gone badly wrong

PAUL MCGEOUGH, KABUL
September 2, 2009

WASHINGTON'S top general in Kabul has called for a fundamental rethink of the war in Afghanistan, underscoring the waste of international money and blood in which a near-defeated Taliban-led insurgency was allowed to regroup as a formidable guerilla force.

''The situation in Afghanistan is serious,'' General Stanley McChrystal warned, urging a ''revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort''.

In a caustic assessment of a war gone badly wrong, General McChrystal likened the faltering US-led campaign to pacify and rebuild Afghanistan, to an American bull being weakened by each cut in its repeated charges at a matador-like insurgency.

His comments marked the delivery to the Obama Administration of a long-awaited review. The general has not made an immediate call for additional troops or funding, but he is expected to request both in a second document on which he is working.

General McChrystal already has urged a reduction in air strikes, which rile Afghan public opinion because of the civilian casualties they cause. He has also called for a new emphasis on protecting Afghan communities instead of chasing insurgents around the deserts and mountains, and for drug traffickers to be the key targets in the counter-narcotics war - not the poppy farmers.

In a note to troops last week, General McChrystal defined the new American credo: ''The conflict will be won by persuading the population, not by destroying the enemy.''

The report has not been released. But General McChrystal's terse comment on its completion amounts to a condemnation of the effort by a 40-plus country coalition that, he says implicitly, ought to have known better: why did it take till the eve of the ninth year of the war to see that the strategy was wrong? Why is there insufficient commitment and resolve? Why was the lack of unity not addressed?

Given the reluctance of many of his NATO and other allies to commit more to Afghanistan, the report and that which is expected to follow are a headache for President Barack Obama, trapped as he is between resurgent Taliban, a corrupt, ineffectual Kabul Government and, at home, diminishing political will and public support.

In this, the most violent year of the war to date, he had already committed an extra 21,000 troops. To send more will test his voter base and a restive Congress.

The McChrystal plan has been delivered to Washington amid growing consternation over rampant fraud in the August 20 presidential elections in Afghanistan and the prospect that President Hamid Karzai likely will be returned to office as a discredited stuffer of ballot-boxes. A painfully slow vote count still has Mr Karzai a few percentage points short of the 50 per cent he needs to avoid a run-off poll with his nearest rival.

Writing in The Guardian, Anthony Cordesman - a US analyst who has advised General McChrystal - warned against elements in the White House, State Department and other agencies that he said were determined to ignore reality. He accused them of seeking from General McChrystal broad strategic concepts instead of specific requests for troops, more civilians, money and an integrated civil-military plan for action.

''If these elements succeed, President Obama will be as much a failed wartime president as George Bush. He may succeed in lowering the political, military and financial profile of the war for up to a year, but in the process he will squander our last hope of winning.''

 

[waraich66]

US general urges rethink of war gone badly wrong

PAUL MCGEOUGH, KABUL
September 2, 2009

WASHINGTON'S top general in Kabul has called for a fundamental rethink of the war in Afghanistan, underscoring the waste of international money and blood in which a near-defeated Taliban-led insurgency was allowed to regroup as a formidable guerilla force.

''The situation in Afghanistan is serious,'' General Stanley McChrystal warned, urging a ''revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort''.

In a caustic assessment of a war gone badly wrong, General McChrystal likened the faltering US-led campaign to pacify and rebuild Afghanistan, to an American bull being weakened by each cut in its repeated charges at a matador-like insurgency.

His comments marked the delivery to the Obama Administration of a long-awaited review. The general has not made an immediate call for additional troops or funding, but he is expected to request both in a second document on which he is working.

General McChrystal already has urged a reduction in air strikes, which rile Afghan public opinion because of the civilian casualties they cause. He has also called for a new emphasis on protecting Afghan communities instead of chasing insurgents around the deserts and mountains, and for drug traffickers to be the key targets in the counter-narcotics war - not the poppy farmers.

In a note to troops last week, General McChrystal defined the new American credo: ''The conflict will be won by persuading the population, not by destroying the enemy.''

The report has not been released. But General McChrystal's terse comment on its completion amounts to a condemnation of the effort by a 40-plus country coalition that, he says implicitly, ought to have known better: why did it take till the eve of the ninth year of the war to see that the strategy was wrong? Why is there insufficient commitment and resolve? Why was the lack of unity not addressed?

Given the reluctance of many of his NATO and other allies to commit more to Afghanistan, the report and that which is expected to follow are a headache for President Barack Obama, trapped as he is between resurgent Taliban, a corrupt, ineffectual Kabul Government and, at home, diminishing political will and public support.

In this, the most violent year of the war to date, he had already committed an extra 21,000 troops. To send more will test his voter base and a restive Congress.

The McChrystal plan has been delivered to Washington amid growing consternation over rampant fraud in the August 20 presidential elections in Afghanistan and the prospect that President Hamid Karzai likely will be returned to office as a discredited stuffer of ballot-boxes. A painfully slow vote count still has Mr Karzai a few percentage points short of the 50 per cent he needs to avoid a run-off poll with his nearest rival.

Writing in The Guardian, Anthony Cordesman - a US analyst who has advised General McChrystal - warned against elements in the White House, State Department and other agencies that he said were determined to ignore reality. He accused them of seeking from General McChrystal broad strategic concepts instead of specific requests for troops, more civilians, money and an integrated civil-military plan for action.

''If these elements succeed, President Obama will be as much a failed wartime president as George Bush. He may succeed in lowering the political, military and financial profile of the war for up to a year, but in the process he will squander our last hope of winning.''

It is better NATO and UN peace keeping forces deployed in Afghanistan to restore peace and creat a condusive environment for political stability , Afghan jirga system will be a better option , Talaban should also be involved in political system .

Afghans can not be supressed by bullet , US should quit from Afghanistan immediately.

 

[WarProfessor]

It is better NATO and UN peace keeping forces deployed in Afghanistan to restore peace and creat a condusive environment for political stability , Afghan jirga system will be a better option , Talaban should also be involved in political system .

Afghans can not be supressed by bullet , US should quit from Afghanistan immediately.

I don't know. But it seems to me Chinese prefer them to stay and watch how much more money Jews can print, as long as they consider the Afghan/Pakistan border the new 38th parallel in the 21st century.

Unity In Diversity.

 

[Watani]

US is more concern about Pakistan 's nukes , new strategy is formulated to get control of our nukes,that is reason is 1998 US put santions and then planned to attack Afghanistan to drop forces in our back yard now trying to internally weaken our defence through insurgencies, but Allah is protecting Pakistan that is reason all strategies are failing one by one.

What I don't get is why USA would help Pakistan with aid from the beginning in first place if they are against a stable Pakistan?

We have seen recently total distruction of Afghanistan and Iraq , now question why still Allah SWT protecting Pakistan even all these sins are prevailing in country because of Dawah.

Maybe because Pakistan has got an strong Army and can defend it's own country?


And to those who think Pashtuns are the trouble makers at the moment; Think again my friend.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Why a Terrorist Strike on Europe Risks Geopolitical Meltdown

By Tony Karon Wednesday, Oct. 06, 2010


Bad as they are, right now, relations between the U.S. and Pakistan could get a whole lot worse if a feared Mumbai-style terrorist plot materializes in Europe.

One reason for the fraying of ties is the dramatic escalation in the Obama Administration's drone war in Pakistan's tribal areas. September saw more missiles fired from drone aircraft than any month on record, purportedly aimed at disrupting possible terrorist attacks planned for European cities — fear of which has also prompted travel alerts by the U.S. and allied governments. And the campaign has not relented. Pakistani officials claim that eight suspected militants of German citizenship were killed in a drone strike on a Waziristan mosque on Monday.

The drone attacks have fueled outrage on Pakistan's streets, and presumably within its armed forces too. The anger has only grown with news of Pakistani soldiers killed as the U.S. pursues Afghan Taliban fighters fleeing into Pakistan (last Thursday, such a chase resulted in the death of three Pakistani soldiers). Pakistani authorities appeared to be sending out a warning by closing their Khyber Pass border with Pakistan, choking off the main supply line to the NATO mission in Afghanistan. And militants kept up their own retaliation on Wednesday by destroying NATO-contracted fuel trucks for the sixth time in a week. But tensions could rise from both ends, should a successful attack be staged in Europe. (See a viewpoint on the Pakistani militants' revenge.)

Explaining the recent terrorism-threat alerts and travel advisories announced for European cities, security officials have been widely quoted in the media suggesting that intelligence points to a coordinated attack, originating in Pakistan, that would see gunmen deployed to wreak havoc on the streets of major European cities in the way that they did in the Indian city of Mumbai two years ago. Drone attacks have reportedly been stepped up in the hope of disrupting that plot, allegedly revealed by a captured German of Afghan descent. (See TIME's photo essay "The Mumbai Attacks: One Year Later.")

Following the Mumbai massacre, carried out by the Pakistan-based jihadist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, the U.S. had to work hard to restrain India from retaliating by bombing facilities in Pakistan used by the various Kashmir jihadist groups long cultivated by Pakistani intelligence — mindful of the danger that such an action could provoke a war between the nuclear-armed neighbors. But if Western cities were the target of a successful strike, it would be NATO that would be under pressure to respond. Indeed, according to Bob Woodward's book Obama's Wars, Obama's National Security Adviser General Jim Jones told Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari that if Faisal Shahzad (the Pakistani-American sentenced to life imprisonment in New York City on Tuesday) had succeeded in his attempt to bomb Times Square last year, the U.S. "would [have] been forced to do things Pakistan would not like." Woodward wrote that retribution would entail the bombing of "up to 150 known terrorist safe havens inside Pakistan." If Jones' warning, as reported by Woodward, is to be taken seriously, it's not hard to deduce that a series of attacks in Europe that emanate from Pakistan would force a similar response.

The context of Jones' conversation with Zardari, of course, was to push the Pakistanis to do more to tackle militants based in North Waziristan, a cancer that U.S. officials warn could metastasize to topple the nuclear-armed state. But Pakistan has been reluctant to mount a full-blown offensive, fearing that going to war in the tribal areas is the riskier option. And the dramatic uptick in drone attacks is a reflection of the fact that the Administration's entreaties have failed to persuade Pakistan's generals to march into North Waziristan, a hotbed of Taliban and al-Qaeda activity but also of a Pashtun tribal militancy deeply hostile to outside authorities, whether they be the central government of Pakistan or the U.S. military.

While U.S. officials like to argue that the war in Afghanistan is necessary to help prevent Pakistan falling to the militants, the Pakistani security establishment tends to see that war — and the resultant demands it has placed on Pakistan by a popularly detested American ally — as the cause of, rather than the solution to, Pakistan's domestic instability. Open cooperation with the U.S. war effort is politically risky for a government living on borrowed time amid widespread outrage over its performance in the wake of recent flooding. So the Pakistanis see ending that war (on terms relatively favorable to their Afghan Taliban allies) as a precondition to restoring their stability. But whichever way the relationship between the Afghan war and Pakistan's stability is framed, the effort to prevent another terrorist strike emanating from Pakistani soil — or to retaliate if one occurs — can be expected to add further strain to an already fraught relationship in the weeks ahead.

 

[somebozo]

We have seen recently total distruction of Afghanistan and Iraq , now question why still Allah SWT protecting Pakistan even all these sins are prevailing in country because of Dawah.

Dude??? Are you for real??

Pakistani moulvi and dawah are like halal and haram together.. Pakistani moulvi are mostly interested in multiple wives, bribery, weapons, terrorism and occasionally some fiery protests. In between if they find time, they like to mislead innocent youth and flee in burkha..

A lot of dawah represented in pictures above! HMM??