What's new

NATO Summit: Pakistan Offers No Quarter

Obama is a cool headed guy when it comes to bowing in front of the Japanese emperor, or apologizing to Japan over atomic bombs, or apologizing to Afghanistan over repeated coalition forces war crimes, or BP oil spill disaster.

But when it comes to Pak he behaves like a egotistical maniac and a borderline racist. And thus adding to the mess both Pak and US find themselves in.
 
The full 14 point list, or the three main ones: apology, no drones, and higher transit fees? Even with these three, things may not work out as well as Pakistan is hoping for.

Obviously what the Parliament asked for - however the resumption decision and whether or not Nato is fit to be given a supply route should once again be put to the Parliament.

I am not sure I understand what you mean here. I was responding to a post asking about China's possible role in supporting Pakistan's stance against NATO.

Uhmmm never mind, don't want to put any finer point on it.

Obama is a cool headed guy when it comes to bowing in front of the Japanese emperor, or apologizing to Japan over atomic bombs, or apologizing to Afghanistan over repeated coalition forces war crimes, or BP oil spill disaster.

But when it comes to Pak he behaves like a egotistical maniac and a borderline racist. And thus adding to the mess both Pak and US find themselves in.

Which begs the question, does he have some special hatred towards Pakistan? If so then we should not be helping someone like that.

Obama is a very cool headed guy. It would be a mistake to think that he will make any decisions based on ego rather than US national interests. A huge mistake, in fact.

There's a very high probability that if there is a regime change today the next prez would honor an apology demand.
 
China will be more amenable to yielding to the US view on Afghanistan side of things for certain concessions in the South China Sea if it comes to that. I don't think Pakistan can count on unconditional support on this issue.

What about other players in the area. Lets face it the Americans have made a right royal **** up by practically alienating everyone in the neighbourhood and wanting still to dictate their terms. The only ally proxy they have is India which perhaps Americans forgot is not a neighbour of Afhanistan. But some will sing American prowess and ingenuity. That is called propaganda.

Afghanistan War: Taliban, Pakistan And Iran Could Hamper NATO Exit
By DEB RIECHMANN 05/22/12 03:47 PM ET

The carefully orchestrated exit strategy could come unhinged if the resilient Taliban stage a major comeback or Afghanistan's neighbors interfere with the process to bolster their position in a weak country soon to be without thousands of international combat troops.

In short, the Taliban, Pakistan and Iran still get a vote.

The Taliban, who continue to carry out attacks across the country and have shown little interest in negotiating peace with the Afghan government, described the NATO summit as a "show" with "no result."

"Nobody can trust their statements and lies," Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said in an e-mail to the media on Tuesday, a day after the two-day summit closed in Chicago. "They are claiming that everything is fine in Afghanistan, which is far from the reality."

At the summit, the U.S.-led NATO coalition finalized its plan for Afghan forces to take the lead in providing security in the middle of next year. Foreign troops will move into backup support and training roles, then completely end their combat mission at the close of 2014. The goal is to pull back gradually to avoid a repeat of the civil war that followed the Soviet exit two decades ago – chaos that paved the way for the rise of al-Qaida and the Taliban.

Ivo Daalder, the U.S. permanent representative to NATO, said Tuesday on a conference call with reporters that the U.S. has been paying close attention to the role of Iran and particularly Pakistan in the transition strategy for Afghanistan.

"We are in a very active and in-depth set of dialogues with Pakistan to find ways in which we can cooperate to deal with the problems that exist in order to make sure that our strategy in Afghanistan will succeed," Daalder said. "That's why we have and will continue to find ways to cooperate on dealing with the terrorists."

Pakistan has said repeatedly that it wants a stable Afghanistan, and the U.S. has given that country billions of dollars in aid over the past decade to enlist its support in fighting Islamist militants. But U.S. officials also have accused Pakistan of being a fickle ally and even supporting Taliban insurgents fighting the American troops in Afghanistan. Pakistan has denied this allegation.


Last year, then-Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen said the Haqqani network, which is affiliated with the Taliban and al-Qaida, "acts as a veritable arm" of Pakistan's intelligence agency. Mullen accused the network last year of staging an attack against the U.S. Embassy and NATO headquarters in Kabul and being behind a truck bombing that wounded 77 American soldiers. He claimed Pakistan's spy agency helped the group.

Still, both Afghanistan and the U.S. need Pakistan's help to negotiate a peace agreement with the Taliban.

"It is in Pakistan's interest to work with us and the world community to ensure that they themselves are not consumed by extremism that is in their midst," Obama said in Chicago.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai met with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari on the sidelines of the summit. The main subject was Pakistan's role in the peace process. Karzai's office said in a statement that Zardari invited the head of the Afghan peace process to Pakistan to discuss the issue.

Pakistan is not a NATO member but was invited to the summit because of its influence in Afghanistan and its role until last year as the major supply route to landlocked NATO forces there. Pakistan closed those routes after a U.S. attack on the Pakistani side of the border killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in November. The routes remain closed because of a dispute over how much the U.S. will pay Pakistan to allow each truck to drive across its territory.

Iran also has the ability to complicate NATO's plans. Iran does not like the U.S. military footprint on its eastern border and will be closely watching negotiations on a U.S.-Afghan security agreement that will define the size and parameters of an American military presence in Afghanistan in the years to come.

Although the Iranians are cozier with Afghanistan's ethnic Hazara than with the majority Pashtuns who fill the ranks of the Taliban, NATO has accused Iran of providing the Taliban with weapons used against coalition forces.

Last year, NATO forces seized 48 Iranian-made rockets that officials said were intended to aid the Taliban. NATO officials said the shipment was evidence of a serious escalation in Iran's state support of the Taliban – an allegation Tehran denied. Western officials accuse Iran of conducting a proxy war against the U.S., which is in a standoff with Tehran over its nuclear program.

For now, Afghans are taking a wait-and-see approach to the summit's upbeat assessment of their future.

"We have witnessed a lot of international conferences on Afghanistan – conference after conference after conference," said Mohammad Qassim Zazai, a businessman from Paktia province who is living in Kabul. "The people say `Let's see what's going to happen on the ground.'"

Abdul Khaliq Bala Karzai, a parliament member, said he was pleased that world leaders expressed their commitment to Afghanistan even as they are pulling out their troops.

"I was watching on TV and they said they are going to protect Afghanistan and the Afghan people. Security is like water – very vital," said the lawmaker from Kandahar province, the birthplace of the insurgency.

The world leaders now need to pressure Iran and Pakistan to cooperate, not interfere, in Afghanistan, he said.

"For the time being, the Taliban are not able to fight on the ground against the Afghan and foreign troops. They are able only to launch guerrilla attacks, plant mines and carry out suicide attacks," he said. "When the foreign troops leave, the Taliban will get stronger, especially if these two countries support them – give them weapons and sanctuary, which is going on now."

Mawlana Farid, a political analyst in Kabul, said he also was heartened to hear the international community's strong support going forward.

"The world leaders in Chicago announced their unity in protecting Afghanistan, but we still have concerns about our neighbors – Pakistan and Iran," he said.

Even in front of 60 world leaders, Pakistan was not willing to open up its borders to allow NATO convoys to move through its territory, he lamented.

"These convoys are the ones being used to help fight the terrorism. Pakistan is not ready to cooperate," Farid said. "Pakistan needs to give their word to the international community that they will not support insurgents or terrorism. If not, the situation could get worse."

Afghanistan War: Taliban, Pakistan And Iran Could Hamper NATO Exit


How stupid Nato are to try dictating terms from such a weak position. In fact their attempt to settle the neighbourhood whilst ignoring Taliban Iran Pakistan is the height of folly and destined to failure. In fact I think Iran Pakistan and Taliban are in a better position to deliver peace to Russians and Chinese lol


Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/u-s-de...ran-could-hamper-nato-exit.html#ixzz1vhUUh8u0
 
This editorial is befittingly my 8,000th post here, with its great advice:

from: Back in the fold? | DAWN.COM

That Pakistan was invited to and President Zardari participated in the Chicago summit is no small consolation. Not participating would have sent a terrible signal to the world community, particularly after the boycott of the Bonn conference last December. Not being invited would have confirmed that the international community increasingly views Pakistan as a scofflaw that cannot be reasoned with. And while a one-on-one meeting between Presidents Zardari and Obama was avoided by the American side because no deal on the reopening of the Nato/Isaf supply route was forthcoming, Pakistan’s importance in the withdrawal phase of the war in Afghanistan was reaffirmed by Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Overall, it appears that the international community is still by and large willing to engage Pakistan — provided that the Pakistani side works with the international community to help stabilise Afghanistan and to address some of the internal security challenges that Pakistan has failed to come to terms with as yet.

Nevertheless, the continuing wrangling over a US apology for the Salala attacks and a new fee structure for Nato/Isaf containers epitomise the problems that are detracting from the larger strategic issues at stake in the region. With the focus in Chicago on the withdrawal phase in Afghanistan and the timeline for the reopening of the supply route through Pakistan, Pakistani officials somehow saw fit to once again raise the issue of an apology over Salala. Was this pandering to a domestic audience in Pakistan, a way of shoring up the fight for more money for utilisation of the supply route or a genuine demand by Pakistan reflecting the inflexibility of some inside, and close to, the security establishment?

As for the haggling over the price of the supply route, inexplicable as it seems but the Pakistani position really does seem to be ultimately about money — just a few hundred million dollars a year. Perhaps the negotiators on the Pakistani side are expecting aid and other reimbursements from the US to slow down and so are hoping to make up at least some of the difference through increased fees and tariffs on the ground supply route. But even if Pakistan does succeed in exponentially increasing the money flowing to the national exchequer for use of the supply route, is that worth the price Pakistan will likely pay in terms of lost goodwill and sympathy? What appears to be happening in Pakistan is a paralysis of sorts: the security establishment and the political government seem too afraid to break from positions they publicly took without necessarily thinking them through.

It’s time for some statesmanship in Pakistan.

With that editorial, I think I have said all that I wanted to say on DefPk. I wish this forum, its member and Pakistan all the best, while I go perform my "walkabout" on the InterWebz.
 
This editorial is befittingly my 8,000th post here, with its great advice:


With that editorial, I think I have said all that I wanted to say on DefPk. I wish this forum, its member and Pakistan all the best, while I go perform my "walkabout" on the InterWebz.

Oh stop being a drama queen you know you will be back. Before or after the routes open?

congrats on 8000 posts
 
US-PAKISTAN THAW SWIFTLY BECOMES A DEBACLE


WASHINGTON: A summit meant to symbolize a thaw between the United States and Pakistan has only worsened the bad blood, with the troubled relationship casting a pall over Nato plans on Afghanistan.

The Western alliance at the last minute invited President Asif Ali Zardari to a summit in Chicago on the future of Afghanistan, with officials predicting a deal with Pakistan on reopening supply routes vital for US and allied troops.

But no deal materialised, in an apparent dispute over how much to pay Pakistan. Zardari left Chicago jilted after President Barack Obama only agreed to see him in passing, while US officials increasingly voiced exasperation on finding a way forward with Pakistan.

Obama, speaking Monday at the end of the conference, admitted frustration, saying: “There’s no doubt that there have been tensions between (Nato forces) and Pakistan, the United States and Pakistan over the last several months.”

But Obama said that US priorities remained the same – that “Pakistan has to be part of the solution in Afghanistan that it is in our national interest to see a Pakistan that is democratic, that is prosperous and that is stable.”

Obama, soon after his election, determined to put a new focus on Pakistan amid US concerns that part of the country’s powerful military and intelligence still supports extremists after a decade of war in Afghanistan.

Obama has stepped up drone attacks deep into Pakistani territory but has also hoped to empower civilian institutions. Zardari took office in 2008 after a decade of military-backed rule and, despite deep unpopularity, is on course to be the first democratic Pakistani leader to complete a full term.

Bruce Riedel, who led the administration’s initial strategy review on Afghanistan and Pakistan after Obama took office in 2009, criticized the US decision not to hold a full-fledged meeting with Zardari in Chicago.

“Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but that’s bad form,” said Riedel, a former US policymaker who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

“Zardari is an extremely proud person and to be snubbed in the way that he was, I think is going to come home to haunt us,” Riedel said.


While not uncritical of Zardari, Riedel said that the president was the Pakistani power-broker most in tune with the US vision for the region.

Zardari – whose wife, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated in 2007 – has called on Pakistan to do more to battle extremists and worked to ease tensions with India, last month paying a rare trip to the historic rival.

“I hope that what happened in Chicago won’t discourage him, but I have a bad feeling that this is a very significant setback for us,” Riedel said.[\b]

For Pakistanis, the Chicago snub could reinforce their long-held suspicions – that the United States will abandon their country once it completes its withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in 2014.

Some Pakistani analysts have cited the specter of a US departure to justify maintaining contact with hardliners in Afghanistan. The United States has accused Pakistani intelligence of close coordination with the Haqqani network, which is blamed for attacks on US troops.

Pakistan, which helped create Afghanistan’s Taliban regime, threw its support behind the United States after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

But it shut down its supply routes on the border after US air strikes killed 26 Pakistani troops in November on the border. Obama has voiced regret, calling the deaths an accident, but has refused demands for an apology.

US officials said that plans to reopen the supply routes broke down after Pakistan dramatically raised its demands on payment for each truck going through the border.

The United States has provided Pakistan more than $18 billion in assistance since 2001 and the aid is highly sensitive. A number of lawmakers have sought to end assistance after US forces killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan last year, raising allegations that intelligence services may have abetted the world’s most wanted man.

Some US officials suspected privately that Zardari was being undercut in Chicago by the military, which wanted full control of the war effort and to deprive the civilian leader of a success.

Lisa Curtis, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said there was no “personal snub” to Zardari.

“It was simply making a statement that Pakistan is not helping with the Afghanistan effort. If Pakistan wants to help, it will be welcome at the table, but so long as it remains outside that effort and is in fact undermining that effort, then Pakistan should be snubbed,” she said.
 
political leaders on both sides have one eye on elections. Neither side wants to be seen to be backing down to their voting public

It is all the fault of America and Obama. if they had issued an apology at the time for what they admitted was their fault they would have been fine.
 
Nato didn't want to apologize because they have to much pride they figured Pakistan would bend over backwards within a couple weeks Zardari is many things but he isn't stupid he isn't going to risk the elections especially when they aren't even willing to offer him that extra cash he wants lol
 
political leaders on both sides have one eye on elections. Neither side wants to be seen to be backing down to their voting public
I don't get that vibe here in the U.S.

if they had issued an apology at the time for what they admitted was their fault they would have been fine.
I think there was no apology because the effect would be sanctioning what the Pakistani military appeared to be doing - that is, tolerating and supplying or even being the Afghan Taliban (remember, the terrorists in the area wore Pak Army uniforms) - and that wasn't something the U.S. wanted to do.
 
Well, in coming days NATO or ISAF will apologies , PPP will drumbeat this achievement and open the NATO supply. But Zardari seems over confident. Instead he should have let Khar take control of delegations . She is far better speaker then Zardari. But US should cut all aid program for this regime, the most corrupt in Pak history.
 
Fear and privilege

Zafar Hilaly
Wednesday, May 23, 2012 From Print Edition

What would the Americans have done had Pakistani jets bombed an American military outpost and killed 24 GIs, because the outpost was providing cover for intruding Afghan army patrols chasing the Taliban into Pakistan, and then if Islamabad were to blame the incident as an unfortunate communications screw-up between the two local commands?

It’s not too difficult to guess what the American reaction would have been. After all, to avenge the Al-Qaeda attack in New York the US invaded two countries, devastated dozens of villages and towns, killed and injured tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans and rendered hundreds of thousands homeless, even though only a miniscule fraction of those killed had anything to do with Al-Qaeda, let alone in the planning of the murderous World Trade Centre attacks.

Or consider what would have happened had the deluded American-Pakistani Faisal Shahzad succeeded in exploding his fertiliser laden vehicle in Times Square in 2010, causing casualties. According to American politicians and officials, the reactions would have been severe, to say the least – some 32 pre-selected locations in Pakistan “used by extremists,” including some located in our major cities, would have been destroyed. They went on to add, for good measure, that had Pakistan resisted their military strikes, every military installation in Pakistan would have been fair game for American planes and drones, possibly including our nuclear facilities. And, although they did not specifically say so, who knows, like in Afghanistan, the US could have followed that up with a land invasion and occupied parts of the country and even found someone like Karzai to head another Kabul-like US backed regime in Islamabad.

Viewed thus, what Kayani did – asking for an apology, limiting drone attacks and suspending the Nato supply line till better procedures were worked out – to convey our anger at the murder of 24 soldiers at Salala was hardly excessive. Actually, in comparison to the likely and deadly US response ours amounted to no more than hand wringing.

And yet there are Pakistanis who feel even these puny retaliatory measures were excessive. “Imagine,” one of them said, “these idiots have taken on America.” The “stupidity” and the “foolishness” of it all overwhelmed him. The “stiff preconditions” placed on the reopening of the routes were “totally unrealistic,” wrote another, and asked, what if America does not cave in? What if Pakistan is sanctioned for closing off the routes? And, horrors of horrors, what if America decides to retaliate by cutting off all assistance? As for the 24 murdered jawans, there was not a word from him about their fate.

When, therefore, the “apology” sought from Washington did not come and the mood there turned ugly, these gnomes became frantic. They imagined the worst and, hence, the stock market, in which the rich are heavily invested, plummeted by 400 points in two days and the rupee devalued. Many of this lot, especially those who have a “second home” status in some countries abroad and to which they have transferred their wealth, began to pack up. Others were calling relatives abroad to ask how long a stay was permissible on regular “visit” visas and whether in the case of a multiple-entry visa, they could leave and return the next day. All of a sudden their commitment to the motherland was not merely going or sneaking off, it was oozing out! Hence, when the Nato secretary general’s invitation summoning Zardari to Chicago did arrive, there was an almost audible sigh of relief.

The fears and forebodings of our pusillanimous elite have reached awesome dimensions. What they fear most is to give up their privileges in Pakistan without which life for them would hardly be worth living. Possessing so much, they have few things to desire but so much to be afraid of. Their timorous response to the Salala killings showed once again that, led by them and their ilk, we will neither prevail or be saved.

As for the well-meaning liberals, a lot of whom have their feet firmly planted in the air, they ran amok carping at the mess that the government, parliament and the military had landed us in. They trashed the government’s stance, implying that anyone who agreed with it was a bigot, a fool or a lackey of the regime. And judging by the space they got in our papers, a lot of what they said made sense to some. Be that as it may, the multitude, as we know to our despair, is not governed by reason but rather by emotion and it is to that multitude that governments must cater. Hence, what the liberals say has little impact on governments.

An enduring commandment when dealing with a stronger power is not to let them scare you. That’s fatal, because that way you will always leave the table a loser. Besides, America can no more go “solo” on Afghanistan than it can on Tajikistan today, or it did with tiny Cuba in the past. Congressman Ackerman can go on saying Pakistan is a “black hole” from which “nothing good ever comes out” till he is blue in the face, but even his president dare not think so. And if Ackerman can’t convince his own president that engaging with Pakistan is a waste of time, why is our lot lapping up what he says as gospel?

In the circumstances, for an “indispensable partner” to ask the other partner not to bomb the daylights out of it is not being unreasonable. And doing the one thing that it can – denying supply routes – to prevent that, hardly merits the ire of the international community. And if it still does then, very well, alone is how we should stand. That’s not blimpish patriotism – it’s about retaining a modicum of self-respect.

Samuel Johnson said that whereas you can talk foolishly, you should never think foolishly. And that’s unfortunately what many Pakistanis settled in America in particular are prone to do. One can understand that Pakistani Americans want to be liked in their new homeland. And, if their country of origin is regarded as a friendly country the chances are that their American neighbours will warm up to them. Good relations between their country of origin and the US are important and helpful in all sorts of ways.

Alas, at the moment relations between Pakistan and the US have never been worse and that understandably irks our expats in America. They want to know who is to blame and when told, by a perforce slanted local media, that the blame lies on Pakistan, being Pakistanis they are prone to believe the worst about their governments. That’s the most charitable explanation I have for their hysterical messages wanting us to forsake our present posture and toe the American line mindlessly.


But, reassuringly, it is worth pointing out that many Pakistanis would be very content to be guided in their approach towards America by what the current US Ambassador advised the other day in a magazine interview:

“(The US and Pakistan) should work together to make sure Pakistan’s sovereignty is respected and the US interests are met.... And in fighting the terrorists who are our common enemies...we need to talk together openly, honestly and frankly.”

Unfortunately, Ambassador Munter, who gave the advice, has reportedly decided to quit in disgust because his counsels were not heeded by Washington. So let’s hope our former countrymen abroad as well as Nato also realise what the Obama administration is all about, and what this government is up against.


Email: charles123it@hotmail.com

Fear and privilege - Zafar Hilaly

===

Part of the op-ed, with respect to the mindset of some Pakistani Americans, is an apt response to one of our rather dramatic members
 
I don't get that vibe here in the U.S.

I think there was no apology because the effect would be sanctioning what the Pakistani military appeared to be doing - that is, tolerating and supplying or even being the Afghan Taliban (remember, the terrorists in the area wore Pak Army uniforms) - and that wasn't something the U.S. wanted to do.

taliban aren't rootless, unlike al qaeda (or the turkics or the jews or you anglo-saxons). they fight on their home turf for a piece of land to establish their area of domination and influence; pakistani security forces are also fighting on their home turf and they support some afghan local forces (but not the rootless races like al qaeda or turkics - just so you know, pakistan has done exemplarily in eradicating arabs and turkics who came to pakistan to train as terrorists) to extend pakistan's sphere of influence. cynical? yes. self-interest? yes. but what pakistan has done is classical realpolitik and bears no irrational, ideological opposition to whatever america stands for. and i ask you anglo-americans to back off from all the smearing campaigns against pakistan, all the minds games of international isolation, all the unseemly pressure tactics like refusing to reimburse pakistan's expenses in your war and sponsoring indian infiltration in pakistan's backyard and subverting and planting even more divisive seeds in a pakistani society that already suffered enough at your black hands.
 
The Only Reason Zardari is Reluctant to open the Routs is because he has got A Gun to his head by the Army , who is still mad by the ignorant attitude of Americans , over not apologizing.

US can do all she wants , Call any political leader to whatever conference , However until & unless they dont satisfy Pak Army , The routes are not opening .
 
An excellent suggestion by AQ, exploring a separation of the supply lines for NATO countries other than the US:

We’re isolated?


Ahmed Quraishi
Wednesday, May 23, 2012 From Print Edition


In the world of Pakistani diplomacy, if there is no statement from Washington in six months praising Pakistan, then this means “international” isolation.

In the real world, however, Pakistan did not suffer isolation before Nato’s Chicago summit and wouldn’t have invited one if we skipped the summit, like we did with the Bonn Conference in December.

The six-month ban on American military supplies was, and continues to work in, our favour. It is beginning to bite US military and Nato more than it is hurting us. And we did well by saying publicly that we will reopen the lines pending a new deal.

This helped pull the rug from under the hawks in Washington. But our contacts and good relations with Nato member-counties would not have been hurt if we ignored their summit meeting.

Israel was not invited because Nato member Turkey wants an Israeli apology for killing nine Turk citizens. No one in Israel is sweating it out over supposed isolation for skipping Chicago 2012. Does this mean acting tough and severing ties with US and Nato? Not at all.

There is a better strategy: Separate Nato from the United States. Maybe even consider making our blockade US-specific, allowing in supplies from European countries while blocking those belonging to the US pending a new bilateral deal. Keep in mind that this deal is achievable if the Pentagon and the CIA stop obsessing about humiliating Pakistan.

We can also put the US government on notice by announcing that an American delay in reaching a deal would raise the stakes because we can consider a separate “reverse transit” deal for using our land routes and airspace for the coming withdrawal from Afghanistan.

We have erred by lumping together Nato and the US. Our problem is limited to the United States government and military. We can, and should, separate the two publicly. And it is not too late. Pakistan should shift to this policy despite some damage to our position due to our unnecessary participation in the Chicago summit.

Instead of waxing eloquent about alleged isolation, Pakistani officials and diplomats should engage robustly with Nato’s European members. They should know we want cooperation, but American provocations are a hurdle. After all, what stops Washington from paying Pakistan a fraction of what it is paying for the more costly northern transit routes?

Or render an apology for 26/11, when the US military – and not Nato – hunted down our soldiers one by one in a deliberate act spread over two hours? Europe is aware of how American blunders have endangered the lives of European soldiers in Afghanistan.

There are many in Brussels who can talks sense to the Americans. Most Natocountries do not approve of deliberate American provocations against Pakistan and don’t want to be dragged by the US into a confrontation with Islamabad. To shift pressure on the Americans, we should tell our European friends we’d restore supplies but the Americans should show reason in talks over a new deal.

Ambassador Sherry Rehman has engaged the American media admirably. She should now move on to the next level. The good American people deserve to know how policy hawks in the Pentagon and the CIA are unreasonably dragging the United States into an unnecessary confrontation with Pakistan that would hurt both countries. Many Americans disapprove of this policy and we should stand by their side. It is time to isolate the anti-Pakistan elements in DC.

The writer works for Geo television. Email: aq@paknationalists.com

We
 
Back
Top Bottom