Obama Advisor: Pak Terror Groups Worst Threat to US

[haviZsultan]

We really need to cut the chord with the Americans, they're doing us great damage by continuously passing off these statements. A major factor towards our economic woes are statements such as these that tend to drive the investors away.

I agree. We need to distance ourselves from the Americans in every way possible.

 

[anonymous1]

Cut ties with US? And what will happen to Pakistan's economy, it is still not in self sufficient mode and would take some time to be in. WHy not rather exploit relation with US to benefit. And it is not only US, UK's chief recently said 3/4th of terror investigations lead to Pakistan. Australia echoes same opinion, no country can stand isolation today then why cut ties with US and if so, please suggest a way out for economy.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan has not, to date, gotten out ahead of this issue and persists in believing that it can out-wait ISAF and then resume it's past activities.

I disagree somewhat there.

Pakistan is indeed keeping all its options open, but not because it is enamored with the Taliban and impatient to 'resume past activities'. Pakistan is keeping its options open because she has little faith that NATO/US will be in Afghanistan for as long as it takes, or invest the resources that it takes to achieve the end goals as understood currently.

If the above comes true, Pakistan does not want to be left sitting next to a war torn state and destroyed society that functions as a drugs, weapons and criminal supermarket and haven. The US can afford to speak in absolutist terms of what is right or wrong, she does not have to live next door and bear the repercussions from a demolished state in the aftermath of a Western withdrawal.

Pakistan does not have that luxury, and quite frankly, as of now, the US/NATO has nothing to show in terms of tangible progress towards a stable self-sustaining Afghan state, nor any realistic roadmap that might offer policies and strategy that attempt to significantly jar the dynamics in Afghanistan and the region out of the status quo rut we find them in.

This may change with the US reassessment being undertaken, but Pakistan cannot be faulted for maintaining a fall back option.

 

[muse]

AGnostic


Even this the coming reassesment, Reidel's statements signal that there will not be a significant change when it comes to the US view of Pakistani security apparatus. American policy is not succeeding and Pakistan is at fault for that, curiously, Pakistani policy is not succeeding and the US is to blame for that -- go figure!

The series of exchanges highlights the opposing points of view and are most informative, they are suggestive of positions in which neither side wants to accept anything other the maximum demands and in that, they are unrealistic.

Neither Pakistan nor the US maintain relations with each other because they find in each other anything other than utility and that does not have to be a bad thing.

The US has crafted and assisted Kabul and Delhi's policy to deny Islamabad political and strategic space in Afghanistan, even in parts of Pakistan; there is little point in denying this. US is convinced, persuaded, if you like, that Pakistan are unable to craft and execute policy that will provide US with security assurances and Pakistan with leverage.

It seems Pakistan are similarly convinced of their inability. The vacillation with regard to the Taliban movement has afforded that movement and its backers, a strategic opportunity. This opportunity holds the promise of the most severe punishment for the Pakistani state and nation - much like Pakistani politicians; our forum members are arguing merits instead of reality.

Perhaps circumstances can be shaped that may allow Pakistan to repay the US in the coin it thinks the US is paying it in, richly deserved for the strategic blunder Pakistan seem to think the US is committing, once bitten, twice... Pakistan and the US seem to have in common.

That Pakistan and the US have no business being involved with each as they are, it seems to me, is a given, however; the situation at hand is not theoretical; this engagement is seen as vital to the US and an existential imperative for Pakistan, it is what it is.

Can Pakistan deliver what the US wants? certainly it cannot deliver the totality of what the US wants, if it did so, it would for certain be inviting aggression on the Western border, this aggression is a given, however; Pakistan can still shape events such that when this aggression does come, Pakistan will be better prepared.

Can the US deliver to Pakistan what Pakistan want? 100 percent, no! The US does not want to see a Pakistan better prepared for the coming aggression against it; it does on the other hand want an even more pliant Pakistan in the near term. Whereas Pakistan seem to think that US policy ought to focus on armed militants, the US policy is more generally focused on the eradication of Islamism, which means Pakistan cannot but be in the US cross hairs.

So what can Pakistan do to help herself not be painted in negative tones, while depositing the source and causes of US policy failure where Pakistan think these should be deposited, as far as public opinion is concerned?

 

[A1Kaid]

We should take the toughest stance possible yet remain flexible to further options here...

Let's take a step back here, let's remember why the US says it's in Afghanistan. "To fight the War on Terror..."

This includes in the eyes of US Policy makers Al Qaeda, Taliban, and "Islamic Militants" or any group of bearded man carrying an assault weapon...

Now years later, it's about establishing democracy in Afghanistan and fighting off the remaining Taliban forces...

What I would like to see is Iran, China, Pakistan, Russia, and Saudia Arabia come together and tell all NATO and US Forces to withdraw the bulk of their forces, if not all from Afghanistan. Enough is enough, they cannot stay in Afghanistan forever!!!

Set up a time line, stating NATO and U.S Troops must withdraw my let's say Sept. 2009. If they refuse to Iran and Pakistan both countries who have had enough of the US/NATO presence in Afghanistan should threaten to attack their troops, point and simple, don't be fearful of these troops, their supply lines run through our territory and seas...Besides you threaten NATO troops and Europe will pull out faster than you can say "Afghanistan"....Once they leave US will most likely leave too...Yes there are consequences to this...

Then a regional approach must be taken by Iran and Pakistan and China to help rebuild Afghanistan. If the Euros and Americans want to supply subsidies, because we all know how much they care about the people of Afghanistan then they can go ahead and contribute financial support...


As far as the remaining Taliban or "radical forces" that pose a "threat" to the US which is 7,000 miles west of Afghanistan, allow Pakistani and Iranian troops to manage that problem, Force is not always needed people, use it when you must though... Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan must all cooperate in this together, allow the Pakistani, Iranian, and Afghanistan Armies to work with one another, trust me we are more than capable of fixing this problem (A broken Afghanistan) ourselves, we understand the region better, it's history, it's people, it's languages, religion, and culture.

Pakistan can be influential amongst the Sunnis in Afghanistan and the majority Pashtun population and Iran can play it's influence over the Shia in western Afghanistan...

Ultimately it is the countries within the region that must take care of their neighbors...

Maybe you agree or think I'm crazy...I just wan't to see all US/NATO forces out of Afghanistan ASAP, there existence there is shameful...

 

[Awesome]

"Friend or Foe S-2? Are you a terror supporter or not... Prove it, don't just talk about it."

That's not a serious question but I doubt that you'd want the U.S. as Pakistan's foe and should best hope it doesn't ever occur.

If otherwise then you've forgotten just how bad war can become.

It's not about what WE want... I'm asking you a simple question. Are you a friend or a foe right now? A friend would not sit idle while Indian consulates carry onto infiltrate into our territories and assist the BLA.

The UK has recognized the BLA as a terror outfit but America continues to ignore our please to label it and freeze its accounts in America. Its operations are freely conducted within Afghanistan with Indian support.

You're totally ignoring our grievances...

That is a very serious question. Your actions have caused the deaths of 5000+ Pakistanis. If you were under the perceptions our grievances are there to humor you, you got it wrong. Before you ask Pakistan to do more, show us some love too.

 

[Awesome]

Cut ties with US? And what will happen to Pakistan's economy, it is still not in self sufficient mode and would take some time to be in. WHy not rather exploit relation with US to benefit. And it is not only US, UK's chief recently said 3/4th of terror investigations lead to Pakistan. Australia echoes same opinion, no country can stand isolation today then why cut ties with US and if so, please suggest a way out for economy.

When we say cut ties, we mean from this war.

If all parties are willing we'd still like to continue in mutually beneficial trade. And we should reject all aid. However dependent Pak economy may be on it, its really not worth it. There will be many such people who'll justify bombing you, and ignoring terrorism upon you, because they claim they've given us aid... Just as we saw one member throw the aid argument right off the bat as a justification for everything. There's no such thing as a free meal recognize that.

I don't know where this silly figure of 3/4th attacks in UK came from Pak thing has emerged. Most terror links are in fact traced to UK itself. UK citizens were involved, they came to Pakistan, thats damaging for Pakistan! Why is UK not stopping terrorists and letting them come to Pakistan. We should be demanding explanations from them!

Oh and 3/4th attacks... How many attacks have been there on UK since 9/11? 3-4?

We've had 5000 such incidents. Sheikh Omar Saeed (SOS), who killed daniel pearl, orchestrated many anti-Shia bombings within Pakistan. He tried to kill Musharraf thrice and killed General Alawi too. SOS is a British Mi6 agent gone rogue. So seriously UK owes explanations to us and stop cribbing about the handful or so incidents... It's peanuts compared to what we've had to pay.

 

[Ratus Ratus]

UK's chief recently said 3/4th of terror investigations lead to Pakistan. Australia echoes same opinion

Taking what you have said here as ‘semi fact’, any chance of a reasonable source to this as I sort of get the feeling something has been missed in translation.

The way I have read things, comments by people and nations have said that various terrorist investigations have lead to groups of undesirables, (read terrorists), that have taken unwanted residence in Pakistan. It has also been strongly noted that Pakistan as a nation and the GoP don’t want these outsiders either. Add to that the GoP has also conducted actions against theses undesirables.

Also read terrorists as people who are stateless people and organisations with agendas that are not to the advantage of Pakistan or other nations.

Again clarity of comment helps keep the tensions of discussion down.

 

[pkpatriotic]

Rice expresses concern over Pakistan-India tense relations
2008-12-30 06:30:33

WASHINGTON, Dec. 29 (Xinhua) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had telephone talks with Pakistani President AsifAli Zardari and Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee, expressing her concerns over tense relations between India and Pakistan, State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid said on Monday.

"She has made it part of her conversations to note that tensions are already high, that neither side should be taking actions that increase those tensions," Duguid said.

In her telephone talks, Rice also said that Pakistan had "made some positive steps" to ease the tension after the Mumbai attacks, However, "these steps need to be continuous, that we need to have both sides work together to find the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks," according to the spokesman.

Pakistan-India tensions were heightened as the Indian side accused Pakistan-based militant groups of involvement in last month's Mumbai terror attacks, which killed more than 170 people.

Pakistan moved around 20,000 troops from its tribal areas bordering Afghanistan to its eastern border with India amid tensions with its neighboring country.

 

[S-2]

"...the US/NATO has nothing to show in terms of tangible progress towards a stable self-sustaining Afghan state, nor any realistic roadmap that might offer policies and strategy

This is correct and it's likely up to America to devise such a policy. The problem there remains a multi-national board of players that requires input to the design and, consequently, a likely muted, diffuse product which is poorly understood by all and incoherantly and haphazardly implemented. Forty-one nations to be exact, a U.N. membership which provides the mandate, and the GoA all demanding a say.

We carry the largest profile and our own remembered raison d'etre but the continuing friction associated with multi-national peacekeeping plays heavily into happenings across your western border. I don't know how or when that might change.

I don't believe that a multi-national approach will be abandoned either. This might be good, though, despite the attendant friction. Afghanistan, for all it's corruption and brutality, engenders a special place in the hearts of westerners it seems. Certainly there seems a difference with Americans as compared to, say, Iraq.

"Pakistan is keeping its options open because she has little faith that NATO/US will be in Afghanistan for as long as it takes, or invest the resources that it takes to achieve the end goals as understood currently."

You always know the beginning of a project. You usually know the end of a project. You never know where the middle of a project is until you reach the end.

We've been in Afghanistan seven years now. If we're there forty years I imagine that we'll still hear and read about how America once abandoned our "obligations" and didn't show the patience/fortitude to see the task through. But then you say this-

"...that attempt to significantly jar the dynamics in Afghanistan and the region out of the status quo rut we find them in."

Now who's the impatient one? Sorry but the functional requirements of rehabilitation which exist for FATA extend to Afghanistan in spades. So whatever timeframe you envision for FATA's rehabilitation can be used to extrapolate a reasonable but larger time for Afghanistan. That would be the case very fairly even without an insurgency. The endemic crime and corruption, largely associated with opium, precedes ALL. That alone will represent a seismic shift in acculturalization to remove and may be a required component of success.

Then there must be some cultural reconciliation across ethnic, tribal, and even religious lines. If once possessing a degree of harmony, Afghanistan is fractured along rather stark lines which only promote confrontation and very little cooperation. After thirty years of war there are some very hard feelings all the way around.

Institutions remain smashed-most notably public health and education. Infrastructure was once non-existant and is now worse. You get the drift. Oh! And an insurgency of some note. Believe it or not but NATO is hardly trying to replicate the Soviet model of quelling insurrection.

Fifty years read well? That's what I'm thinking.

My point is this- your need for immediate improvement isn't likely to happen.

For the near term, I'd look to support the Afghani elections next year in every way possible while getting out the pashtu vote. Funny enough, if the taliban had the pashtu interests at heart and a solid platform they might be able to sweep into power. It says much about how they assess their electoral chances to note their vehement opposition to voter registration.

S-2's Narcotics Control Policy- buy the dope direct from the farmer at above market prices. Create teams of U.N.O.D.C./ISAF/GoA that make the purchases at the farmer's door and convoy the drug to the nearest ISAF facility for destruction or transfer to commercial medicinal markets.

Arm the farmer to protect his crop. His price is better with NATO but he must deliver product. The farmer mustn't allow his crop to be stolen and likely won't if prices are sufficiently high. This policy of buying from and arming the farmer attacks the distribution networks and ALL involved above the farmer- government crook, taliban convoy commander, narco drug lab syndicates, etc. Dare the afghan farmer to turn the nation into one big poppy field just so long as ISAF is the customer and the product is sold above the prevailing rate.

Oh! And offer them expertise on saffron. Yup- grow AND package it so that the azzholes in Italy and Spain don't triple the markup for some packaging. Huge legit money and the Iranians are into it. Herat is starting to get it too.

Might drive the price of a good plate of paella down.

 

[AliFarooq]

Where were these terrorist before 9/11, there were no problems in pakistan no bombings in pakistan by terrorist, things got worse after the invasion of afghanistan and the terrorist started takin refugee in FATA and made it its stronghold, it is not pakistan at fault, it is Amercia at fault.

 

[waraich66]

Afghanistan, for all it's corruption and brutality, engenders a special place in the hearts of westerners it seems

Well said S2,

What is your ideas about below story

Afghan Massacre - Convoy of Death

The film was researched by award-winning journalist Najibullah Quraishi.
Produced and directed by Irish filmmaker and former BBC producer Jamie Doran, the film tells the story of thousands of prisoners who surrendered to the US military’s Afghan allies after the siege of Kunduz. According to the film, some three thousand of the prisoners were forced into sealed containers and loaded onto trucks for transport to Sheberghan prison. When the prisoners began shouting for air, U.S.- allied Afghan soldiers fired directly into the truck, killing many of them. The rest suffered through an appalling road trip lasting up to four days, so thirsty they clawed at the skin of their fellow prisoners as they licked perspiration and even drank blood from open wounds.
Movie is here
Afghan Massacre - The Convoy of Death - Afghan Massacre - The Convoy of Death

 

[S-2]

I think that you're off topic here and trolling to boot.

Welcome back.

 

[Awesome]

Where were these terrorist before 9/11, there were no problems in pakistan no bombings in pakistan by terrorist, things got worse after the invasion of afghanistan and the terrorist started takin refugee in FATA and made it its stronghold, it is not pakistan at fault, it is Amercia at fault.

Why Pakistan declared as the most dangerous place | Asian Tribune

Why Pakistan declared as the most dangerous place
Thu, 2008-12-18 03:33
By Asif Haroon Raja

As per US assessment Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world. Notwithstanding US sinister design behind it, the general policy of appeasement followed by our leaders have led to this jaundiced opinion. All along our leaders have strongly felt that Pakistan’s interest can best be safeguarded by keeping USA and India in good humour. Governed by this mindset they behave obsequiously and condescend to all legal and illegal demands of USA and India. Of all our rulers former President Musharraf left others far behind in this race. In his insatiable hunger to prolong his rule he danced to American and Indian tunes reverently and unwittingly played a key role in reinforcing the impression that Pakistan is the most dangerous. This perception has grave ramifications to its security. Let us have a look at the unwise policy of appeasement and blundering of our leaders that has pushed Pakistan to such an impasse.

In response to US request, Pakistan agreed to allow its soil to be used for training Jihadis to fight US proxy war in Afghanistan in eighties. It brought in Kalashnikov and drug cultures and militarised the society. Kashmiri fighters also took part in Afghan Jihad which led to bondage between the Afghan and Kashmiri Mujahideen. After ousting Soviet forces from Afghanistan, the US took no interest in forming a stable government in Afghanistan because of which violence continued unabated. Little effort was made by Pakistan to ensure return of Jihadis from other Muslim countries thereby allowing them to settle down on permanent basis.

Commencement of armed freedom struggle in occupied Kashmir in 1989 led to emergence of several voluntary Pakistan-based Jihadi groups which were allowed to flourish because of prevalent culture promoted by USA. Pakistan provided political and moral support to freedom fighters. India drummed up charges of cross border terrorism, training camps in AJK and involvement of ISI and tried hard to get Pakistan declared as a terrorist state as a result of which Pakistan was put on the watch list of terrorist states.

Sectarian war which raged throughout the nineties was stoked by foreign powers, but Pakistan took no concrete measures to stop outside interference. Pakistan’s attainment of nuclear capability in 1998 miffed USA, Russia, western world, Israel and India and it came on their wrong side. Kargil venture executed by Gen Musharraf gave ammunition to our adversaries to dub Pakistan army as a rogue army. After 9/11, Musharraf agreed with Bush that it was Pakistan’s wrong policy to get affiliated with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and that Pakistan would dissociate with it and become part of US led coalition to bring down Taliban regime. He accepted all the demands put forward by USA at his own and allowed unbridled American influence to permeate into Pakistan by way of handing over four air bases in Baluchistan to US forces and giving free licence to CIA and FBI agents to establish posts wherever they wanted and to comb the entire length and breadth of the country in search of terrorists. Even the security of airports including immigration of incoming/outgoing passengers was monitored by FBI. He agreed that Pakistan suffered from threat of religious extremism from within and agreed to secularise educational syllabus and remove hate mongering and Jihadi texts from schools/colleges syllabi and to promote his concept of enlightened moderation to secularise the society.

As a consequence to military standoff with India for ten months in 2002 in which our armed forces played a commendable role in keeping the Indian forces at bay, Musharraf again buckled under Indo-US pressure and accepted all the charges of Pakistan’s adversaries. He accepted that Pakistan suffered from religious extremism and its Jihadi organisations were involved in Kashmir Jihad. To defuse tensions he banned six religious groups and froze their funds and thus gave an official affirmation to Indian charges that Pakistan had been involved in terrorism.

While signing peace accord with India, he agreed in writing not to permit Pakistani soil for cross border terrorism and that he would take steps to eliminate all the groups engaged in Kashmir Jihad and close down terrorist camps and put an end to cross border terrorism in Kashmir. He promised to eliminate all traces of Jihad from the society and turn it into an enlightened moderate state. He allowed India to fence the entire length of Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir and to construct posts. He de-escalated the LoC and withdrew extra forces from AJK. He took another u turn on Kashmir policy and suggested an out of box solution to give a deathblow to the age-old UN resolution of holding plebiscite in Kashmir.

When USA mounted pressure on him, he agreed to induct over 100,000 troops into FATA for the first time and agreed that groups within FATA were supporting the Afghan Taliban. He agreed to hand over all the Al-Qaeda operatives and Pakistanis suspected of terrorism without any trials. Over 600 personnel were given in the custody of USA and his efforts were lauded but it formed the basis of the impression that FATA was the hub centre of terrorists. Hundreds went missing and so far many have not been traced. He also agreed that AQ Khan was involved in nuclear proliferation and made AQ Khan give a confessional statement on TV. Pakistan was thus declared a nuclear proliferating state that had clandestinely shipped nuclear material to Iran, Libya and North Korea. He kept contesting the allegation that Pakistan’s command and control apparatus was weak and that its nuclear assets were unsafe by explaining the entire mechanism and nuclear doctrine to convince the accusers who never got convinced. USA kept tightening the noose and all the time alleging that nuclear bombs were prone to theft by extremist forces and hence a threat to world security.

Having made him accept all the allegations leveled against Pakistan, it was simple for USA to frame charges and indict Pakistan on all these counts. It became easy for Washington to keep applying pressure and asking Musharraf to do more and more to combat extremism and terrorism and never getting satisfied. Musharraf having fallen in the trap was left with no defence to fight back and hence kept ceding ground. To further weaken him, he was made to sign a power sharing deal with Benazir and issue infamous NRO. Threat of religious extremism was drummed up in conjunction with threat of loss of nuclear bombs. Establishment of Tehrik Pakistan Taliban, first under Abdullah Mahsud and then under Baitullah Mahsud together with Fazlullah under the sponsorship of CIA and RAW was masterminded to weaken and defame the army as well as religious forces. Spate of suicide attacks most of which were sponsored by RAW and RAM were undertaken to destabilize Pakistan and to give a message that religious forces had become too strong.

Despite procuring incontrovertible evidence of involvement of RAW and RAM backed by CIA in sabotage and subversive activities in Baluchistan, FATA and Swat, the responsible countries were not even named what to talk of launching any protest. All terrorist attacks were pasted on home-grown extremists. No question was asked and no noise made on establishment of six Pakistan-specific Indian consulates in southern Afghanistan which rose to 19 and having learnt that dozens of training camps had been established in Afghanistan to train and launch saboteurs into Pakistan. No effort was made to close down BLA HQ based in Kabul and declared a terrorist organization or to get the members of it extradited to Pakistan.

A subtle understanding was arrived at with USA allowing it to fly its spy drones inside Pakistan for purposes of intelligence acquisition. When it started to fire missiles from January 2006 onwards, no protest was made. Rather in the October 2006 attack on a Madrassa in which 80 young students were killed, Pakistan army owned the responsibility. It sparked insurgency in FATA and shifted centre of gravity of war on terror from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Intelligence sharing with CIA continued even after having learnt that it had married up with RAW and Mossad and was working against the interests of Pakistan.

Screening of conservative elements within the ISI and nuclear set ups was done in response to the demand made by USA. This was the first step to weaken ISI. Charges made against the army and ISI about their alleged linkage with the Taliban and in cross border terrorism into Afghanistan by USA and Karzai were taken lightly. No wilful efforts were made to fence and mine the Pak-Afghan border in the face of mounting allegations. Neither a befitting response was given to Karzai for bad mouthing against Pakistan.

In response to 7/7/2005 bombings in London in which Pakistan was accused, Musharraf went out of the way to hound, harass and persecute religious elements. Punitive raids were conducted on all religious seminaries and all the foreigners receiving religious education were deported. The ousted candidates were gladly accepted by religious Madaris in India. It was a knee-jerk reaction to appease Tony Blair. While Musharraf led regime rejoiced over their successes in nabbing and handing over so-called terrorists to USA and receiving pats, Pakistan pre-planned nomination as most dangerous got credence with each catch.

The new PPP led government has appointed American lackeys in key appointments to earn goodwill of their mentors. India loving PPP, MQM and ANP are following policies of Musharraf in letter and spirit. Rather, they are doing their utmost to prove that they are more loyal to USA than Musharraf and would not take any step to displease India under any circumstances. Like Musharraf the new regime also sings the same tune that the biggest threat to Pakistan is not external but from within and that the extremists and terrorists would be crushed. It says that war on terror is Pakistan’s war and is not imposed by USA. Zardari has ignored closure of water in River Chenab by India and has not even made a protest. He has declared Kashmiri freedom fighters as terrorists; he says that India poses no threat and has unilaterally consented to abstain from retaining the option of first- nuclear-strike, which is the key to our deterrence.

In the wake of Mumbai attacks, Zardari has admitted that stateless elements based in Pakistan could be involved in terrorist attacks in other countries and has offered fullest cooperation despite India’s churlish bellicosity and blatant accusations without providing any proof. As a consequence, the factor of non-actors is being drummed up by USA, India and western world with a sinister design to establish direct involvement of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) in Mumbai carnage masterminded by ISI or by former chief of ISI.

The purpose is to not only get ISI declared as a rogue institution and hence get it disbanded, but also to get an authorisation from UNSC to allow US and Indian military to hit at any suspected site anywhere in Pakistan. Such sanctification would allow Indo-US-Israeli air to carryout surgical strikes against our nuclear and missile assets and render Pakistan defenceless at the mercy of nuclear India. Jamaatud-Daawa (JuD) together with three other affiliated groups having no connection with LeT have been declared as terrorist outfits and its leaders placed on watch list by UNSC on the complaint of India. No sooner the unjust verdict was given by UNSC; Pakistan government came into action and started hounding and persecuting JuD members under the misplaced plea that had it not done so Pakistan would have been declared a terrorist state. This knee-jerk reaction has given ammunition to USA and India to accuse Pakistan that the said outfit was involved in Mumbai attacks. Policy of appeasement and apologetic and repentant attitude of our leaders has emboldened our adversaries to give all sorts of names to Pakistan.

Mumbai episode has uncovered India?s host of internal weaknesses which is being concealed under the barrage of barefaced media offensive and blame-game and USA is helping her in this futile exercise. The world has become much better informed about India’s home-grown terrorism and Hindu extremism and its mindless xenophobia. USA must reconsider its assessment as to whether it is India or Pakistan which is the most dangerous country.

While some of the Pakistani TV channels have played a commendable role in checkmating Indian media senseless belligerence, it is high time that our leadership should also shun its regretful and defensive stance and muster courage to give a befitting reply to Indo-American uncalled for offensive psychological warfare aimed at holding Pakistan guilty for the crime it has not committed. The MQM and ANP have refrained from uttering a single word of protest against Indian belligerence. State relations should be based on reciprocity, equity and respect for each other’s sovereignty and dignity and not on one-sided degrading conciliation.

Asif Haroon Raja is Rawalpindi based retired Brig and a defence and political analyst.

- Asian Tribune -

Nato has allowed Indian intel agencies complete control of anti-Pakistan elements within Pakistan, we may be the most dangerous country in the world but its not because of our inaction on the war on terror, its because of Nato's inaction against Indian terror.

 

[S-2]

"Its operations are freely conducted within Afghanistan with Indian support.

You're totally ignoring our grievances...

That is a very serious question."

No. Our government believes the BLA is an indigenous insurrection. Our information suggests that they haven't willfully targeted innocents and have largely limited their actions to attacks upon your military and infrastructure. They also possess very basic grievances against the GoP-most of which have nothing to do with establishing sharia or emirates and closer to sharing in their own mineral wealth and addressing longstanding human rights grievances like the alleged rape of a Baluchi doctor by P.A. soldiers.

Your government hasn't, regardless of whatever Rupee news has otherwise convinced you, made a very compelling case for RAW operatives directing BLA operations from Indian consulates in Afghanistan. Oddly, the GoP has remained almost entirely muted regarding the Iranians in Baluchistan but that's to digress.

Here's a nice perspective, Asim, of the how the U.S. sees it's relations with Pakistan as of August, 2008. It's my Christmas present just for you. Hope it fits-

Pakistan-U.S. Relations- CRS Report For Congress