Gen Wynne: US Pressure not to be accepted

[VCheng]

.........Both the nations are convinced that they need each other and wowed to maintain a relationship that is durable and respectful towards each other’s interests. Pakistan has a firm resolve to remain engaged with the US on all divergent issues in the bilateral relationship however, in the process US must respect the decisions taken by Pakistan people in the best interest of their country and help the relationship wriggle out from the eras of coercions and extortions.

A reasonable article, but it fails to present just how can it be demonstrated that American and Pakistani interests coincide sufficiently for both sides to respect each other's plans. Without such realignment, the present impasse is not going to be easy to resolve.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

A reasonable article, but it fails to present just how can it be demonstrated that American and Pakistani interests coincide sufficiently for both sides to respect each other's plans. Without such realignment, the present impasse is not going to be easy to resolve.

Can you specifically define long term US interests in the region?

Once we are clear on what US interests in the region actually are, we can better determine which side (if not both) is being the more intransigent of the two and must realign to meet the other.

 

[VCheng]

Can you specifically define long term US interests in the region?

Once we are clear on what US interests in the region actually are, we can better determine which side (if not both) is being the more intransigent of the two and must realign to meet the other.

I posted this thread just now, perhaps to get some idea of what long term thinking could or could not be:

These concluding paragraphs from a detailed article, with a good historical perspective, should make for a good discussion:

from: What's Wrong with Pakistan? - By Robert D. Kaplan | Foreign Policy

 

[Awesome]

So you have no proof. And among the dead are certain leaders of terrorist groups certainly. Pardon me, but your bias is showing again, while you see my fairness in the wrong light, as always. Sigh.

Keep shooting at a random crowd in the US and you would eventually kill rapists and serial killers. Anyone who blindly has a default position against Pakistan is not fair as they don't talk on the merit of the argument.

My proof is in CIA's confession of drone bombings which is the biggest act of terror and you are not only mum on it you are supporting it as evidenced just now when you pointed out the leaders that have been killed.

I repeat, I'd exchange the life of Ayman Zawahiri right now for your first born. Deal? This is a pathetic horse pucky argument. The people dying in drones attack may just all be innocent, we don't know, you just randomly shot people.

And I don't say this three dozen current and former White house aides have outed this out. It is a damning indictment of your positions and your person if you continue to support this horrific act against my country.

Aka Summary 2011

 

[regular]

To quote Agnostic Muslim: "Where's the proof?"

Plz see the post # 38 by IRFAN BALOCH that gives some hints of the proofs of CIA's involvement in terrorism within our country.
plus here are some proofs of the CIA's involvement in terrorism around the world against the peaceful countries of the world.....

John Stockwell - CIA's War on Humans - YouTube

Frank Dorrel - The War Against the Third World-3 - YouTube

TalkingStickTV - John Perkins - Confessions of an Economic Hit Man - Part I - YouTube

I guess the above movies and the interviews by the ecret agents of the USA will be very good proof for U to understand and get ureself right on track......

 

[VCheng]

.............. you are not only mum on it you are supporting it as evidenced just now when you pointed out the leaders that have been killed.

.................. It is a damning indictment of your positions and your person if you continue to support this horrific act against my country...............

I merely presented a fact: that drone strikes have taken out many AQ leaders and mid-level commanders.

Firstly, how can opinions be damnation of a person, unless a diversity of views cannot be tolerated at all?

Secondly, my positions are not taken lightly, but are trying to figure out a way forward that will work for both sides. (Yes, I do care for Pakistan.)

One cannot do that unless able to see both sides of an issue dispassionately.

 

[E Pencho]

The general used the occasion to remind the Americans that there could be no peace without a resolution of the Kashmir issue.

In other words, paks can't let the terrorists go unless the Kashmir issue is resolved. I must say this general is an honest man.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I posted this thread just now, perhaps to get some idea of what long term thinking could or could not be:

That is more of a historical piece on Pakistan than any tangible or clear articulation of US goals in the region.

Surely US objectives are not so obtuse and/or covert as to not be clearly definable?

 

[VCheng]

That is more of a historical piece on Pakistan than any tangible or clear articulation of US goals in the region.

Surely US objectives are not so obtuse and/or covert as to not be clearly definable?

It does have a historical background, but the concluding paragraphs indicate that US policies and goals need to conform to the roots of Pakistan's positions rather than directly confronting them.

 

[illusion8]

That is more of a historical piece on Pakistan than any tangible or clear articulation of US goals in the region.

Surely US objectives are not so obtuse and/or covert as to not be clearly definable?

Sir, can someone give an assessment as to what is the US goals in that region, surely not just the AQ, there has to be something more. It would be great if we can get some inkling about this.

 

[cyphercide]

That is more of a historical piece on Pakistan than any tangible or clear articulation of US goals in the region.

Surely US objectives are not so obtuse and/or covert as to not be clearly definable?

You do know as well as I do that Americans never think that far ahead....

Given the lukewarm reception from New Delhi and elsewhere on Washington dropping a permanent anchor on Asian shores,the United States undoubtedly will reassess it's relation with nations already on it's payroll.The second they pull out from the ******* region,the extremists will be issued a blanket pardon and things will go back to the way it were.All Pakistan needs to do is to sit tight for a couple of years.What say?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

... the concluding paragraphs indicate that US policies and goals need to conform to the roots of Pakistan's positions rather than directly confronting them.

So are you arguing that the author views the current US policies towards Pakistan as being 'confrontational and counterproductive', and if so, why was this not obvious years ago?

And how do the views of this author indicate either a change in US policy towards Pakistan, or for that matter explain actual US goals and interests in the region? What are the stated US goals for the region?

 

[VCheng]

So are you arguing that the author views the current US policies towards Pakistan as being 'confrontational and counterproductive', and if so, why was this not obvious years ago?

And how do the views of this author indicate either a change in US policy towards Pakistan, or for that matter explain actual US goals and interests in the region? What are the stated US goals for the region?

I presented the piece for this very discussion. How do you think you will answer the two questions in bold above?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I presented the piece for this very discussion. How do you think you will answer the two questions in bold above?

I am looking for answers, hence the questions.

The piece you linked to does not answer either of the questions I posed, and as someone who so ardently defends US foreign policy towards Pakistan, I had expected you to be able to answer those questions.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The second they pull out from the ******* region,the extremists will be issued a blanket pardon and things will go back to the way it were.All Pakistan needs to do is to sit tight for a couple of years.What say?

The Pakistani assessment appears to be, and has been for a while, that the US will in fact have to arrive at some sort of accommodation with the various insurgent groups in Afghanistan (this might be an accommodation solely through the GoA initially, with the official US stamp only being applied after a period of relative 'success' in the 'accommodation of insurgent groups'), and hence has been loathe to burn its own bridges and contacts with the same groups.