CIA director, national security adviser to meet with officials in Pakistan

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

OK - threads merged and a more appropriate headline retained

 

[deckingraj]

I believe that is what I have said & saying in each post, that India is going towards this thing, but it will take time. All what you have said is gonna come in future and will be fully operational by end of the decade.

And once done, even still all these things can still be used against Pakistan, be it aircraft carriers or nuke subs or other stuff.

I am talking about right now and coming 5-10 years, after 10 years, then we can say that Indian military is now not just Pakistan centric, rather China as well as can take on other threats too.

Taimi Sir i beg to differ...We are China centric now and that's why all our major defence deals are keeping China military might...Yes the results will come in some time however such deals would not have seen light had there be any confusion about who are we more focused about...


Some links as back as 1998-99

China is threat number one: Fernandes

CHINA: INDIA?S ENEMY NO. 1 | Gauhar.com

In other words our strategist started looking at China way back in late 90's...For example Agni III and V does not give us any edge over Pakistan... Also it was India who went nuclear first...There was no need for us to go nuclear and face sanctions had China not in our mind....

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Returning to the one line speculation by an anonymous source in the DT article, that the Indian Express chose to focus on for its headline:

"however, he said demands to end Islamabad’s India-centric approach might also be taken up strongly by the US officials."

The language clearly indicates that the anonymous official was speculating in his personal capacity on what the agenda of the US officials might be.

This is the latest from the Daily Times:

Pakistan, US vow to step up efforts against terrorism​

* Officials discuss measures to confront extremism, prevent potential attacks
* Both countries agree to continue govt-to-govt contact, enhance senior-level engagement
* Zardari says Pakistan desires long-term, multifaceted ties with US

ISLAMABAD: Militancy and terrorism are the common enemies of the United States and Pakistan and it is important that the existing robust cooperation between the two countries continues to fight the menace, President Asif Ali Zardari said on Wednesday.

He expressed these views during a meeting with a US delegation led by US National Security Adviser General James Jones at the Presidency.

General Jones was accompanied by Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta, US Ambassador Anne Patterson and other senior US officials.

The Pakistani side was represented by Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Kayani and Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir.

Sources told Daily Times that the US and Pakistani leadership discussed the second part of the Pak-US strategic dialogue, under which secretary-level talks between the two countries will kick off next month.

Preventing attacks: The meeting discussed measures the two countries undertaking to confront the common threat from extremists and prevent such potential attacks from occurring again. Both the sides acknowledged the extreme challenge of thwarting all plots and terrorist acts, pledged to intensify efforts, increase cooperation and do everything possible to protect their people.

Long-term ties: President Zardari noted that Pakistan desires a long-term, multifaceted and durable relationship with the US, which no incident should be able to adversely impact.

General Jones and Director Panetta also provided an update on the ongoing investigation into the failed Times Square bombing incident.

Jones appreciated the excellent cooperation the US is receiving from Pakistan as well as the tremendous sacrifices rendered by the Pakistani military, law enforcement and people in their efforts to combat extremists.

He also reiterated the United States’ long-term commitment to the strategic partnership with Pakistan, including support for creating economic opportunity for the Pakistani people.

According to sources, both the countries would explore ways and means to enhance cooperation in the fields of energy, environment, oil and gas during the second part of the strategic dialogue.

According to a joint statement, the productive meeting covered Pak-US relations, situation in the region, shared terrorist threat and fight against extremists, and the strategic dialogue between the two countries.

Keeping in touch: Both the sides agreed to continue frequent government-to-government contacts and enhance senior-level engagement in order to advance common interests and provide a better, more secure future for their people.

The Obama administration has been pressing Islamabad to widen its crackdown on the Taliban. iqbal choudhry/agencies

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

======

The drumbeat of 'don't focus on India' is a very old one in US-Pak relations in the context of the WoT, and quite frankly received a polite but firm 'mind your own business' from the Pakistani Military leadership months ago, when COAS Gen. Kiyani stated that '“We plan on adversaries’ capabilities, not intentions.”

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect...ut-threat-posed-by-indian-doctrine-420--bi-08

The comments by Gen. Kiyani from February of this year in the link above, coupled with the Azm-e-nau exercises, are pretty categorical on how Pakistan will continue to treat the Indian threat, given the current Indo-Pak dynamics, and regardless of what the US 'wishes' Pakistan's approach to be.

For the US to continue to harp on 'India centric' (and at this point there is nothing to suggest that US officials raised that issue during their visit) without any change in the Indo-Pak dynamics is like beating a dead horse - its just not going to change anything.

 

[deckingraj]

For the US to continue to harp on 'India centric' (and at this point there is nothing to suggest that US officials raised that issue during their visit) without any change in the Indo-Pak dynamics is like beating a dead horse - its just not going to change anything.

I just confused over what is US asking for?? I mean what do they want when they say Pak should not be India centric?? As far as i know it has to be just more troops allocated for Taliban...However is Taliban issue really that big which cannot be solved by already commited 100000 Pakistani troops???

Can you throw some more light on what the heck is this demand for which as per me is very unfair???

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I just confused over what is US asking for?? I mean what do they want when they say Pak should not be India centric?? As far as i know it has to be just more troops allocated for Taliban...However is Taliban issue really that big which cannot be solved by already commited 100000 Pakistani troops???

Can you throw some more light on what the heck is this demand for which as per me is very unfair???

The entire reason for the US, and for its apologists in the media and commentators across the blogosphere, to harp on Pakistan's focus on India is because they want more Pakistani troops deployed in FATA, NWFP and possible Baluchistan (not that Pakistan doesn't want the same as well, given that we would like to end the militancy as soon as possible as well). The reason behind that demand for more troops is for the Pak Mil to expand into North Waziristan and possibly deploy even more troops to patrol the Afghan-Pakistan border.

The Taliban issue is very big. Most estimates put Taliban militant numbers (talking about the TTP and all associated organizations) in the thousands, with the larger estimates going into the tens of thousands. Couple that with a very harsh terrain, porous border with Afghanistan, with Baluchistan and between the various agencies as well, and the continued support of some tribes for the Taliban (yes, some tribes would actually prefer Taliban rule) and it is a very complex issue that requires a lot of manpower.

The Pak Military, with the 150000 troops deployed so far, is not just fighting, holding and securing, but also engaged in reconstruction, development and training of local law enforcement. Secondly, all 150,000 troops are not engaged in combat - a large chunk are also obviously involved in logistics.

Compare this to the several hundred thousand Indian troops+paramilitary deployed in J&K to control a much smaller insurgency.

 

[T-Faz]

I just confused over what is US asking for?? I mean what do they want when they say Pak should not be India centric?? As far as i know it has to be just more troops allocated for Taliban...However is Taliban issue really that big which cannot be solved by already commited 100000 Pakistani troops???

Can you throw some more light on what the heck is this demand for which as per me is very unfair???

Their demand is that Pakistan should directly engage with the Afghanistani Taliban on the both sides of the border, a very unreasonable and potential life threatening requirement. They want us to declare war in North Waziristan where many Mujahideen are currently based.

These demands are unreasonable as USA cannot be trusted because it has many times in the past abandoned us. If we engage all the Mujahideen groups, these groups will cause so much damage in the long run that even with a clear win, we would suffer. US has abandoned all the checkpoints and many areas in south Afghanistan where taliban has a strong hold.

Potentially all their demands lie with their own interest in mind and they cannot think of the repercussions for others with their plan. It is because the taliban are getting deadlier by the day and USA just wants a quick solution where they can achieve victory and maintain their presence in Afghanistan for geopolitical and economic purposes.

What they want is so unreasonable that it is offensive.

 

[deckingraj]

The entire reason for the US, and for its apologists in the media and commentators across the blogosphere, to harp on Pakistan's focus on India is because they want more Pakistani troops deployed in FATA, NWFP and possible Baluchistan (not that Pakistan doesn't want the same as well, given that we would like to end the militancy as soon as possible as well). The reason behind that demand for more troops is for the Pak Mil to expand into North Waziristan and possibly deploy even more troops to patrol the Afghan-Pakistan border.

The Taliban issue is very big. Most estimates put Taliban militant numbers (talking about the TTP and all associated organizations) in the thousands, with the larger estimates going into the tens of thousands. Couple that with a very harsh terrain, porous border with Afghanistan, with Baluchistan and between the various agencies as well, and the continued support of some tribes for the Taliban (yes, some tribes would actually prefer Taliban rule) and it is a very complex issue that requires a lot of manpower.

The Pak Military, with the 150000 troops deployed so far, is not just fighting, holding and securing, but also engaged in reconstruction, development and training of local law enforcement. Secondly, all 150,000 troops are not engaged in combat - a large chunk are also obviously involved in logistics.

So in other words if there were no tentions with India you would have commited more troops to FATA??? I was under the impression that you are not doing it because you are not comfortable in opening up new fronts without consolidating the current one...

Am i correct in my assertion???

Compare this to the several hundred thousand Indian troops+paramilitary deployed in J&K to control a much smaller insurgency.

I did n't get what you are trying to say...I know you don't flame but fail to understand the logic in above comment...

Are you saying demand for more troops in FATA by US is legitimate??? or Are you saying that PA is doing much better job then IA...or Are you saying that such operations require far more troops then 150,000 committed by PA...rest about all troops not involved in operations is true for every Army and not specific to Pakistan....Secondly one of the reasons of prolonged Army presence in Kashmir is because of 1965, 1999 and many other skirmishes that we have in the past and is not only committed to take on insurgents...

 

[deckingraj]

Their demand is that Pakistan should directly engage with the Afghanistani Taliban on the both sides of the border, a very unreasonable and potential life threatening requirement. They want us to declare war in North Waziristan where many Mujahideen are currently based.

These demands are unreasonable as USA cannot be trusted because it has many times in the past abandoned us. If we engage all the Mujahideen groups, these groups will cause so much damage in the long run that even with a clear win, we would suffer. US has abandoned all the checkpoints and many areas in south Afghanistan where taliban has a strong hold.

Potentially all their demands lie with their own interest in mind and they cannot think of the repercussions for others with their plan. It is because the taliban are getting deadlier by the day and USA just wants a quick solution where they can achieve victory and maintain their presence in Afghanistan for geopolitical and economic purposes.

What they want is so unreasonable that it is offensive.

I agree with you..but didn't you join the war for your own personal interests??? In other words no one can force you to join a war...it is all give and take...However does pakistan want defeat of Afghan Talinban at all??

rest i agree it would be suicide to take on every body at the same time...Where trust deficit lies is the will to defeat Afghan Taliban and operation being selective to Anti-pak groups...How true/false this si only time will tell however Pakistan will do her a world of good if she can take care of this trust deficit...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So in other words if there were no tentions with India you would have commited more troops to FATA??? I was under the impression that you are not doing it because you are not comfortable in opening up new fronts without consolidating the current one...

Am i correct in my assertion???



I did n't get what you are trying to say...I know you don't flame but fail to understand the logic in above comment...

Are you saying demand for more troops in FATA by US is legitimate??? or Are you saying that PA is doing much better job then IA...or Are you saying that such operations require far more troops then 150,000 committed by PA...rest about all troops not involved in operations is true for every Army and not specific to Pakistan....Secondly one of the reasons of prolonged Army presence in Kashmir is because of 1965, 1999 and many other skirmishes that we have in the past and is not only committed to take on insurgents...

The operations would ideally have more troops than those deployed, and the PA reasons for not expanding are directly related to the number of troops and resources. The reason behind not being 'comfortable opening new fronts' is that you need more troops for those new fronts, and if you pull them from existing Operations you undermined those OPs, and if you pull them from the Indian border and LoC you undermine your defence there.

The fact that the LoC is heavily militarized on both sides does in fact make help make cross-LoC insurgent traffic lower and harder to accomplish. Were the Afghan-Pak border this heavily militarized cross border movement and support (weapons, drugs etc.) for the other side would be much, much lower. And what I was pointing out was not that Indian troops are not doing as good a job, but that India's size allows it to deploy a much larger number of troops to handle a smaller insurgency, and it continues to struggle with it.

Extrapolate from that to the Taliban insurgency, and you can see why the US and Pakistan would want to deploy a greater number of troops, ideally.

 

[T-Faz]

I agree with you..but didn't you join the war for your own personal interests??? In other words no one can force you to join a war...it is all give and take...However does pakistan want defeat of Afghan Talinban at all??

rest i agree it would be suicide to take on every body at the same time...Where trust deficit lies is the will to defeat Afghan Taliban and operation being selective to Anti-pak groups...How true/false this si only time will tell however Pakistan will do her a world of good if she can take care of this trust deficit...

Our interests in this war are purely for our security purposes because a group by the name of Tehreen-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) sprung up out of nowhere in 2005, militants groups as you should know develop and mature over decades unless they get help to rise quickly into a position of challenging the government or army of a country.

TTP as we know is a splinter group of thugs using Islam as a means of furthering their cause, I will not go into who arms them or funds them for now. Afghan Taliban did not do anything wrong except for harboring a man who has supposedly masterminded the 911 attacks. They were willing to give up Osama but US refused and it had wanted to invade Afghanistan even before 911 occured and they went in straight after the attacks, we could not do anything as we cannot match USA's clout on world stage in any sense.

What you and others describe as Afghani Taliban is in reality any one from Afghanistan who picks up a gun against the invading forces. We cannot fight anyone who opposes NATO in afghanistan and why should we. Our duty is simple, help with intelligence, catch terrorists and seal the border. We have done all three, infact all the members caught who were worth while were caught by Pakistan, we gave them intelligence on all matters and use our agency at a great cost to find them. As for the imaginary durand line, we have said that we are willing to put up a fence but US does not want that.

Negotiating with the Afghani Taliban is the best option, from there development, education and assimilating the people into the modern life will be the most ideal strategy. If the fighting continues, the insurgency will continue to spread at great human and material cost to many countries. Do you not think that after 9 years and no clear benchmark for victory, it would be best to negotiate. All strategies have been employed and plans used but nothing has worked.

Pakistani has enough clout with the taliban to bring them to the negotiating table and US has negotiated with them before.

This unreasonable request and their strange behavior is the cause of trust deficit. They have continually left us after using us and we know the way they are. Who is to say that after we engage all groups that USA will not run away again leaving us with adversaries on all sides.

We have to look out for our own interest too you know.

 

[deckingraj]

The operations would ideally have more troops than those deployed, and the PA reasons for not expanding are directly related to the number of troops and resources. The reason behind not being 'comfortable opening new fronts' is that you need more troops for those new fronts, and if you pull them from existing Operations you undermined those OPs, and if you pull them from the Indian border and LoC you undermine your defence there.

The fact that the LoC is heavily militarized on both sides does in fact make help make cross-LoC insurgent traffic lower and harder to accomplish. Were the Afghan-Pak border this heavily militarized cross border movement and support (weapons, drugs etc.) for the other side would be much, much lower. And what I was pointing out was not that Indian troops are not doing as good a job, but that India's size allows it to deploy a much larger number of troops to handle a smaller insurgency, and it continues to struggle with it.

Extrapolate from that to the Taliban insurgency, and you can see why the US and Pakistan would want to deploy a greater number of troops, ideally.

yup that brings me to earlier question...If India and Pak had better relations then you could have released more troops from eastern border to your western border...In other words it makes the US demand right...However what they are ignoring is current situation in which Pakistan cannot move troops from Indian border because of mistrust that we have...So far i think i am right???

From Pakistan perspective they would also like to move troops but higher priority is India since India is enemy number 1... I think i am right here as well...

Now let me move to part where you would disagree

- Agno Taliban is hitting you right now...They are killing Pakistani civilians right now....don't you think they should be your first priority??? These are peace times and you can defnitely move more troops from eastern border to western border...With Nukes, Potent Air Force, Good enough number of Missiles to strike deep inside India...US being an ally and any mischief by India pissing off Uncle Sam i fail to understand what are your worries???

Can you please suggest when you yourself say that it is in Pakistan interest to move troops from Eastern to Western Border then what phantom worries are stopping you from doing this??? In other words how wrong is US when she says your immediate enemy is Taliban and not India...

 

[TechLahore]

Pakistani friends, take a look at this story that just showed up on CNN.

'Reason to believe' Pakistani Taliban plotting to strike U.S. – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

Now we are being told that a strike on the US is being planned and the threat is emanating from the Pakistani Taliban. Everything I have seen so far with respect to the Faisal Shahzad incident suggests that the Taliban in Pakistan have almost no international capacity. Even if one believes the story of Faisal's trip to meet with Qari H, the Pakistani Taliban were essentially lucky to find a misguided person who was already in the US... whether or not they used him is still up for debate, but the point is that the Pakistani Taliban do not have any significant capability in the US.

What the hell is going on here? Is Pakistan being set-up? The more I see the news unfolding and the sentiment that is being created in the US, the more I tend to believe that this might be so. I worry for Pakistanis in the US in particular, because they are having to bear the brunt of this vilification. If there is a Great Game afoot here to somehow prepare the environment for action that would be detrimental to Pakistan, GHQ needs to sit up and take notice.

The Faisal Shahzad fiasco happens, then Hillary alludes to "consequences", then we hear that the Pakistani Taliban allegedly provided $12,000 to Shahzad, and now there is news that other attacks against the US might be in the works sponsored by Taliban based in Pakistan... the chain is being assembled rapidly, with each event forming the next link not even a couple of days apart...

Thoughts?

May God keep our citizens and our country safe from harm.

 

[Patriot]

I think Obama wants a operation in NW Before he starts withdrawl in Afghanistan and he wants it badly before the midterm elections hence the pressure being applied.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

As critical as I have been of Hillary and the Obama administration's handling of the response with respect to Pakistan, this may just be an overenthusiastic media pouncing on a speculative comment and blowing it out of proportion.

If the story moves out of the CNN blog to the NYT, WaPo, WSJ etc. then I think it would be credible to argue that the Obama administration is feeding propaganda to further a particular agenda.

On the NW situation, it appears that the Pak Mil stood their ground on being solely responsible for determining the time and manner of action there, with the US, NATO and Pakistani officials reiterating that the NW offensive will happen when Pakistan determines is comfortable with going ahead with it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

yup that brings me to earlier question...If India and Pak had better relations then you could have released more troops from eastern border to your western border...In other words it makes the US demand right...However what they are ignoring is current situation in which Pakistan cannot move troops from Indian border because of mistrust that we have...So far i think i am right???

From Pakistan perspective they would also like to move troops but higher priority is India since India is enemy number 1... I think i am right here as well...

Yes and yes.

Now let me move to part where you would disagree

- Agno Taliban is hitting you right now...They are killing Pakistani civilians right now....don't you think they should be your first priority??? These are peace times and you can defnitely move more troops from eastern border to western border...With Nukes, Potent Air Force, Good enough number of Missiles to strike deep inside India...US being an ally and any mischief by India pissing off Uncle Sam i fail to understand what are your worries???

Can you please suggest when you yourself say that it is in Pakistan interest to move troops from Eastern to Western Border then what phantom worries are stopping you from doing this??? In other words how wrong is US when she says your immediate enemy is Taliban and not India...

The US is not an ally, and will not do anything in case of a limited invasion/aggression by India. The US cannot even act to force Israel to end occupation and come to a fair settlement on such an obvious FP issue as the Israel-Palestine conflict, so nobody (in Pakistan at least) believes it'll come to Pakistan's rescue in case of aggression by India.

With respect to the nuclear deterrent, there is already plenty of literature on both the Pakistani and Indian sides of South Asian conflicts being fought under a nuclear umbrella - these conflicts would not result in existential threats to the other nation, and therefore would not cross the nuclear threshold, but, if successful, could offer tactical and strategic victories.

Limited territorial and/or strategic losses in such conflicts will be almost impossible to recoup for either side once one side is entrenched in new positions. Given Indian capabilities deployed against the Pakistani border and LoC, such scenarios are a real concern and threat, and must be catered to with an adequate conventional deterrent.

Whatever else the Taliban do, they cannot hold on to territory as can a conventional military.Yes the deployment of less than ideal numbers of troops slows down the COIN effort, but a longer COIN effort may be preferable to a permanent loss of territory/strategic advantage in case of a limited conflict initiated by India.