High Level US team lead by Clinton Visiting Pakistan

[regular]

hmmm... that preemptive strike by Gen Kayani did not work then??

Yea! Gen knows how to defend himself against any intrusion/strike...after all he got imported technology from US....

 

[ashok321]

You might be able to answer my question in my last post if you first try and determine what US objectives in the region currently are - outline those objectives, and then try and answer how military aggression against Pakistan would help achieve them.

After what happened during suicide attack on 73 US soldiers (thats the turning point) who were luckily unharmed. But my gally if they would have been dead. Hell would have let loose. US is doing everything it can for these kind of attacks to not take place again, and for that Haqanis are supposed to be restrained. Now, to restrain Haqani, its obvious that US would force Pakistan, who has leverage with Haqanis.

The other factor that excerbated this is Mullens remarks. Remember, Mullen is no politico, he is a real man of action, and Americans heard him, its election time too, why would Obama ruin his chances of relection?

Prominent Pakistanis are on the record saying these people are our soldiers without uniform.

US wont take anything lying down on this - this is something that I know, and thats why high level delegation is due for Islamabad.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think the apologists for the US position need to ponder why it is that the US has so far not even tried to publicly pressure karzai and the GoA into officially accepting the Durand Line as a formal border and/or sign a 'non-aggression pact' with Pakistan.

I mean here we have US officials berating Pakistan every day, despite Pakistani public opinion becoming more and more anti-US, and yet the US stays completely mum on some of Pakistan's legitimate demands from Afghanistan in terms of respecting Pakistani sovereignty.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

After what happened during suicide attack on 73 US soldiers (thats the turning point) who were luckily unharmed. But my gally if they would have been dead. Hell would have let loose. US is doing everything it can for these kind of attacks to not take place again, and for that Haqanis are supposed to be restrained. Now, to restrain Haqani, its obvious that US would force Pakistan, who has leverage with Haqanis.

The other factor that excerbated this is Mullens remarks. Remember, Mullen is no politico, he is a real man of action, and Americans heard him, its election time too, why would Obama ruin his chances of relection?

Prominent Pakistanis are on the record saying these people are our soldiers without uniform.

US wont take anything lying down on this - this is something that I know, and thats why high level delegation is due for Islamabad.

Again, you are talking around my question, what will US military action against Pakistan accomplish? What will unilateral military action against the Haqqani network (by the US) accomplish, other than driving them deeper into Pakistan and potentially making them even more powerful and earning them more support in Pakistan?

As I said earlier, Pakistan's position is 'either talk, or fight' - if the US wants to keep targeting the Taliban leadership and insurgents, then it should not be complaining about the Taliban targeting US soldiers and the US embassy - the US/Taliban need to agree to a ceasefire for a limited period of time to get negotiations started.

 

[regular]

I think the apologists for the US position need to ponder why it is that the US has so far not even tried to publicly pressure karzai and the GoA into officially accepting the Durand Line as a formal border and/or sign a 'non-aggression pact' with Pakistan.

I mean here we have US officials berating Pakistan every day, despite Pakistani public opinion becoming more and more anti-US, and yet the US stays completely mum on some of Pakistan's legitimate demands from Afghanistan in terms of respecting Pakistani sovereignty.

Sir,
If they were our true sincere friends they would have respected our legitimate demands but time and again we are getting betrayed and bullied against our sovereignity and freedom by the Champions of freedom , Civil rights and liberties. Looks like we are facing a great tradegy of our times...

 

[rockstarIN]

Tesing time for US military & leadership...

They never faced such problem in 80' Afganistan, Korea or Vietnam.

All other wars were fought for alleys, but here they have to make sure that there is no more attack on US, which makes things interesting.

I think one more large scale attack/attempt on US, the US Public's attitude will change towards the Afgan war.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Sir,
If they were our true sincere friends they would have respected our legitimate demands but time and again we are getting betrayed and bullied against our sovereignity and freedom by the Champions of freedom , Civil rights and liberties. Looks like we are facing a great tradegy of our times...

Absolutely - the lack of pressure on Karzai, at the same time as lecturing Pakistan on 'not worrying about India or this and that', speaks volumes to the duplicity of the US policy in the region. When US officals or commentators are questioned about this lack of pressure on Afghanistan to officially respect Pakistani sovereignty, the answer is that 'it is not politically feasible for karzai or the GoA to accept the Durand line as the permanent border' - well, under that argument it is not 'politically feasible for Pakistan to do what the US demands it to do either'.

Bunch of hypocrites and duplicitous liars is what we have in the US establishment.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think one more large scale attack/attempt on US, the US Public's attitude will change towards the Afgan war.

And they will do what, with whose help, and accomplish what exactly?

Rhetoric like yours plays well, but means nothing.

 

[Bratva]

And they will do what, with whose help, and accomplish what exactly?

Rhetoric like yours plays well, but means nothing.

Might be another attack on Pakistani soldiers from Afghanistan areas, well armed and well supplied ignored by ANA and Nato and even Predators are blind to see them. I wonder if they wear Invisibility cloak which is borrowed from Harry Potter

 

[Omar1984]

Unlike the Swat and South Waziristan operation, no one will support operation in North Waziristan. No Haqqani ever harmed a Pakistani ever and if we start an operation there, we will create another enemy for Pakistan, which means more suicide bombings in our cities. As of now we are seeing peaceful times in Lahore, Islamabad and even Peshawar, no bombings no fire....lets keep the peace alive. NO MORE WAR!!!

 

[regular]

Absolutely - the lack of pressure on Karzai, at the same time as lecturing Pakistan on 'not worrying about India or this and that', speaks volumes to the duplicity of the US policy in the region. When US officals or commentators are questioned about this lack of pressure on Afghanistan to officially respect Pakistani sovereignty, the answer is that 'it is not politically feasible for karzai or the GoA to accept the Durand line as the permanent border' - well, under that argument it is not 'politically feasible for Pakistan to do what the US demands it to do either'.

Bunch of hypocrites and duplicitous liars is what we have in the US establishment.

Yes! absolutely right.
A pure and utter discrimination against the sovereignty of our land and our rights/liberties .
I don't know if we have any choice left for us? in order to save us from getting stabbed by the US establishment.
We are continuosly bitten by their most hypocritical and duplictuos behaviours time and again. Shame on them for such attitude towards us decieving the true and sincere ally of war.

 

[regular]

Again, you are talking around my question, what will US military action against Pakistan accomplish? What will unilateral military action against the Haqqani network (by the US) accomplish, other than driving them deeper into Pakistan and potentially making them even more powerful and earning them more support in Pakistan?

As I said earlier, Pakistan's position is 'either talk, or fight' - if the US wants to keep targeting the Taliban leadership and insurgents, then it should not be complaining about the Taliban targeting US soldiers and the US embassy - the US/Taliban need to agree to a ceasefire for a limited period of time to get negotiations started.

I guess we have one simple solution left for the US and Talibans problem. Either they shold resolve their problems by themselves. We sholdn't involve us within their differences. They both shold be blamed for not been able to resolve their differences peacefully. US shold be given ultimatum as being a bigger and wise country. Either solve their problem peacefully and not to disturb our peace or we must disassociate ourselves from their self orchestrated war aginst our peaceful region.

 

[Emmie]

Clinton arrives in Pakistan, meets Gilani, Kayani

ISLAMABAD: US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has arrived in Pakistan on a two-day state visit with Pakistan-US relations and regional security high on the agenda.
She met with Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani along with other high level officials of the government and army including Chief the Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, DG-ISI General Shuja Pasha, Minister for Finance Abdul Hafeez Sheikh, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir along with other officials in a meeting at the PM House in Islamabad.
Clinton was accompanied by a high powered contingent that included Central Intelligence Agency chief David Petraeus, and US Joint Chiefs of Staff Committe chairman General Martin Dempsey.
She will later meet with Prsident Asif Ali Zardari.
Clinton is on a scheduled tour of the region stopped over in Afghanistan on her way to Pakistan where she held talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
Clinton revealed that her talks in Pakistan will focus on “how to increase pressure on the safe havens there” while at the same time urging Pakistan to support efforts at negotiations.
(Read: Clinton steps up pressure on Pakistan, Taliban)
The two sides are expected to discuss the strained relationship between the two countries in the wake of increased US demands for expanding the scope of operations against the Haqqani network.
Pakistan is likely to stress that it would conduct military operation in North Waziristan, if and whenever required.
CIA chief David Petraeus and US JCSC Gen. Martin Dempsey will hold talks with Pakistan’s top military brass.

Clinton arrives in Pakistan, meets Gilani, Kayani – The Express Tribune

 

[Omar1984]

Clinton arrives in Pakistan, meets Gilani, Kayani

Why is the girl wearing a dulhah ki topi

 

[Meengla]

All other wars were fought for alleys, but here they have to make sure that there is no more attack on US, which makes things interesting.

I think one more large scale attack/attempt on US, the US Public's attitude will change towards the Afgan war.

Al-Qaida, according to Panetta himself, is at its death bed. Talibans have no goals beyond ruling Afghanistan and/or driving away what they think are the invaders of their soil.
But if the real objectives are about containing China and/or access to the vast natural resources in and/or around Afghanistan then it requires a different paradigm to see the conflict.