What's new

Obama tells PM he's 'very fond of Pakistan'

really, what about those f-35s, and civil nuke tech??

What F35?:cheesy:and nuke agreement is civil which will help US companies earn billions from Indian energy market. :toast_sign:

and indian lobby in USA to stop giving pak f-16s,

Did US gave any statement regarding any canceling of the deal? :bounce:

but for better US pak relations US will have to stop drone strikes to win pak people confidence and vacate afghanistan and be sincere and honest in pak india dealings, still then its very late.

I sincerely hope Pakistan and US friendship to grow the more US comes close to Pakistan the more India will distance itself from US and that is my true wish.:cheers:
 
Not really.. The 1st line of the snippet refers to Obama backing India's stance and asks for Gilani's reaction to it. And he promised action. If nothing else this shows that there was some conversation about 26/11. And thats contradictory to the big bold letters ;) in the post that I responded to

That is really clutching at straws - whether Obama said anything or not, Gillani's response would have been the same, 'of course we will act against terrorists'. Did you expect him to say that 'we won't act against terrorists'?

If the reporter had not referenced Obama in her comments, the response would have been identical - that is my point and why I said you are clutching at straws trying to extrapolate anything else out of it.
 
April 12, 2010, 3:38 PM IST
Obama Doesn’t Tell India He’s Very Fond of India By Paul Beckett
Having issued a secret directive in December that U.S. diplomats should push for closeness between India and Pakistan, U.S. President Barack Obama must have been wondering if his envoys were a bit too quick to follow through when he found himself spending Sunday in Washington navigating between simultaneous visits by the prime ministers of India and Pakistan.

For the most part, he seems to have managed the triangulation deftly enough as he prepared to host a nuclear summit, the reason world leaders had gathered in D.C.
Mr. Obama told Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that he was supportive of India’s desire for access to David Coleman Headley, the U.S. citizen who recently pleaded guilty to charges relating to the Mumbai terror attacks in 2008. At least that was according to a briefing given by Nirupama Rao, India’s foreign secretary, who is part of the Indian delegation. (The office White House “readout” of the meeting between Obama and Singh makes no mention of Headley.)
The two leaders also issued fresh pledges of agreement on things they had settled on previously — “the need for India and the United States to work together on global development issues, including economic infrastructure, food security and poverty reduction,” according to the White House statement. And Mr. Obama gave a nod to India’s participation in humanitarian and development assistance in Afghanistan while avoiding a potentially awkward blowup over Iran.
The U.S., United Kingdom and Germany are pushing for tougher sanctions against Iran. India appears to be anti, with Ms. Rao noting that sanctions targeted at ordinary people invariably fail. As disagreements go, though, it was muted. Ms. Rao added that the two sides had agreed to stay in touch over the issue.
Still, as tends to happen when these two countries try to show their closeness, you couldn’t help but notice that Mr. Obama’s choice of language was a few degrees warmer for Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani. Obama opened his meeting with Mr. Gilani “by noting that he is very fond of Pakistan, having visited the country during college,” the White House said in statement.
Mr. Obama also expressed his condolences to Pakistan for the attacks last week on the U.S. consulate in Peshawar and a separate bombing the same day that killed 46. (Any condolences he may have expressed to Mr. Singh about the Maoist slaughter of 76 policemen last week in India were not mentioned by the White House.)
Of course, there was much more said in both meetings than any formal statement is going to express. And the optics of having Mr. Obama meet with Mr. Singh is important now given Indian sensibilities about being left behind China and Pakistan on the list of U.S. priorities in the region.
The White House also noted that “President Obama reiterated his commitment to visit India in 2010.” Maybe at that time Mr. Obama will tell India that he is very fond of it, too.

Obama Doesn’t Tell India He’s Very Fond of It - India Real Time - WSJ

I think now the reality of how this presidency will be for India's interests is dawning on Dr Singh.The problem with US seems to be the GOP-Democrats divide who have divergent views about AFPAKINDCHINAIRANISRAEL etc and change of President changes too much....

Hopefully,Dr Singh wouldnt have given some concession on a platter....Hmm...I never thought I would say this (as I have great dislike for the Hindu mob) but where is BJP...we need a little more spine in our foreign policy even at the expense of making a few mistakes...SOS - Mr Gadkari...if only they could change their views on the minority-majority relations...

Pakistan should be careful that it doesnt become too committed with Obama's Af policy and he goes ahead and loses in 2012.The American boots could be back on the ground with a Bush III presidency...its not so far fetched.
 
That is really clutching at straws - whether Obama said anything or not, Gillani's response would have been the same, 'of course we will act against terrorists'. Did you expect him to say that 'we won't act against terrorists'?

If the reporter had not referenced Obama in her comments, the response would have been identical - that is my point and why I said you are clutching at straws trying to extrapolate anything else out of it.

Instead of me clutching at straws, I think you are being a little nitpicky about it. I am not out to prove anything .. Just sharing an assessment of the video...The reporter started by saying that It seems that Obama has agreed to Indian stance to which Gilani's reaction was of agreement, which indicates to me that there was a conversation about 26/11..Also the body language seemed to be a little held back.. Was he unhappy.. could be.. Was he simply tired and jet lagged.. again possible.....

You think my view on this is not correct..... fine.. we can agree to disagree...
 
April 12, 2010, 3:38 PM IST
Obama Doesn’t Tell India He’s Very Fond of India By Paul Beckett
Having issued a secret directive in December that U.S. diplomats should push for closeness between India and Pakistan, U.S. President Barack Obama must have been wondering if his envoys were a bit too quick to follow through when he found himself spending Sunday in Washington navigating between simultaneous visits by the prime ministers of India and Pakistan.

For the most part, he seems to have managed the triangulation deftly enough as he prepared to host a nuclear summit, the reason world leaders had gathered in D.C.
Mr. Obama told Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that he was supportive of India’s desire for access to David Coleman Headley, the U.S. citizen who recently pleaded guilty to charges relating to the Mumbai terror attacks in 2008. At least that was according to a briefing given by Nirupama Rao, India’s foreign secretary, who is part of the Indian delegation. (The office White House “readout” of the meeting between Obama and Singh makes no mention of Headley.)
The two leaders also issued fresh pledges of agreement on things they had settled on previously — “the need for India and the United States to work together on global development issues, including economic infrastructure, food security and poverty reduction,” according to the White House statement. And Mr. Obama gave a nod to India’s participation in humanitarian and development assistance in Afghanistan while avoiding a potentially awkward blowup over Iran.
The U.S., United Kingdom and Germany are pushing for tougher sanctions against Iran. India appears to be anti, with Ms. Rao noting that sanctions targeted at ordinary people invariably fail. As disagreements go, though, it was muted. Ms. Rao added that the two sides had agreed to stay in touch over the issue.
Still, as tends to happen when these two countries try to show their closeness, you couldn’t help but notice that Mr. Obama’s choice of language was a few degrees warmer for Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani. Obama opened his meeting with Mr. Gilani “by noting that he is very fond of Pakistan, having visited the country during college,” the White House said in statement.
Mr. Obama also expressed his condolences to Pakistan for the attacks last week on the U.S. consulate in Peshawar and a separate bombing the same day that killed 46. (Any condolences he may have expressed to Mr. Singh about the Maoist slaughter of 76 policemen last week in India were not mentioned by the White House.)
Of course, there was much more said in both meetings than any formal statement is going to express. And the optics of having Mr. Obama meet with Mr. Singh is important now given Indian sensibilities about being left behind China and Pakistan on the list of U.S. priorities in the region.
The White House also noted that “President Obama reiterated his commitment to visit India in 2010.” Maybe at that time Mr. Obama will tell India that he is very fond of it, too.

Obama Doesn’t Tell India He’s Very Fond of It - India Real Time - WSJ

I think now the reality of how this presidency will be for India's interests is dawning on Dr Singh.The problem with US seems to be the GOP-Democrats divide who have divergent views about AFPAKINDCHINAIRANISRAEL etc and change of President changes too much....

Hopefully,Dr Singh wouldnt have given some concession on a platter....Hmm...I never thought I would say this (as I have great dislike for the Hindu mob) but where is BJP...we need a little more spine in our foreign policy even at the expense of making a few mistakes...SOS - Mr Gadkari...if only they could change their views on the minority-majority relations...

Pakistan should be careful that it doesnt become too committed with Obama's Af policy and he goes ahead and loses in 2012.The American boots could be back on the ground with a Bush III presidency...its not so far fetched.


We continue making the mistake of comparing India and the Af+Pak focus of U.S in the same breath. There is nothing that India wanted and did not get from the meeting. Okay so what were our broad objectives:

1. Get access to Dawood Gilani
2. Make Obama understand our sensitivity to the involvement in Afganistan reconstruction.

Plus also amongst others:

Have an independent take on Iran vote.
Discuss the implementation of the Nuclear agreement.

Based on the Indian stand on which of the above issues will you think Obama will be "Fond" of India?

There is a need to delineate India from the Af+Pak scenario and hence the expecations of the outcomes from any such discussion. India has to follow an independent foreign policy albeit contingent to securing India's economic and geo-political goals.

Since the last years, the bars for the Indo - US relationship have been raised manifolds relative to the historical scenario and to expect that there will continue to be such jumps every time then it is on the least mere fantasy. There can be no further jumps without consolidating at the current levels and without the boundaries been redrawn.

It is easy, useful and quite cost effective for Obama to be fond of Pakistan. Look at it this way, will a few used Cobras or some F-16s or accepting money per the Kerry Lugar bill be a "fond" thing for India?

So this has to be put in perspective. To make India and U.S fond again the minimum that will be needed will be a UNSC permanent member offering. Nothing less can make the two countries and governments fond of each other.

This approach of fondness with Pakistan has always been the same. Just that different people were being fond earlier and now it is Obama. If by the end of the whole scenario if this Fondness business can be part of the carrot and stick approach to get the Indian objectives met then what more does India want?

Is it not strange that the current developments of India disagreeing with U.S on a few things while the economic and strategic development are on track is being considered a new low for the Indo - U.S relationship?? Is that not self explanatory?

And at the same time, giving money on K.L terms and fond attention to Pakistan while their army is engaging and decimating their own strategic depth instruments is being trumped up as a great level of relationship between U.S and Pakistan. Is the dichotomy not clearly visible folks????

Edit: One last addition to this post = Our predicament today is such that the world thinks that India is ready to go on its own and hence hesitates to support. The hesitation is based on the unknown way India may choose to speak with its growing tenor of voice while within us we Indians think that we are not ready yet and we are not able to find our feet without this support from the world. The day of reckoning has to be near though I think.......
 
Last edited:
We continue making the mistake of comparing India and the Af+Pak focus of U.S in the same breath. There is nothing that India wanted and did not get from the meeting. Okay so what were our broad objectives:

1. Get access to Dawood Gilani
2. Make Obama understand our sensitivity to the involvement in Afganistan reconstruction.

Plus also amongst others:

Have an independent take on Iran vote.
Discuss the implementation of the Nuclear agreement.

Based on the Indian stand on which of the above issues will you think Obama will be "Fond" of India?

There is a need to delineate India from the Af+Pak scenario and hence the expecations of the outcomes from any such discussion. India has to follow an independent foreign policy albeit contingent to securing India's economic and geo-political goals.

Since the last years, the bars for the Indo - US relationship have been raised manifolds relative to the historical scenario and to expect that there will continue to be such jumps every time then it is on the least mere fantasy. There can be no further jumps without consolidating at the current levels and without the boundaries been redrawn.

It is easy, useful and quite cost effective for Obama to be fond of Pakistan. Look at it this way, will a few used Cobras or some F-16s or accepting money per the Kerry Lugar bill be a "fond" thing for India?

So this has to be put in perspective. To make India and U.S fond again the minimum that will be needed will be a UNSC permanent member offering. Nothing less can make the two countries and governments fond of each other.

This approach of fondness with Pakistan has always been the same. Just that different people were being fond earlier and now it is Obama. If by the end of the whole scenario if this Fondness business can be part of the carrot and stick approach to get the Indian objectives met then what more does India want?

Is it not strange that the current developments of India disagreeing with U.S on a few things while the economic and strategic development are on track is being considered a new low for the Indo - U.S relationship?? Is that not self explanatory?

And at the same time, giving money on K.L terms and fond attention to Pakistan while their army is engaging and decimating their own strategic depth instruments is being trumped up as a great level of relationship between U.S and Pakistan. Is the dichotomy not clearly visible folks????

In a nutshell, I believe you are saying that its 'cheaper' and 'easier' for US to partner Pakistan as compared to India, with whom it has to deliver more....I agree.

Infact, I dont think India should partner US as its unreliable given the political dichotomy as I mentioned earliar.If Pakistan partners US, thats fine too...unless US goes ahead and arms it to its teetth or harbours/encourages Headley's...in other words becomes India's enemy.

The issue is one of policy...you need a decisive policy and not a middling path (esp as India is noew 'big' enough for it). But with Dr Singh we will get slow change and not the revolution thats needed...

Why couldnt Krishna(FM) go and attend the Summit instead of Singh(PM)? To give US the message that Headley's extradition is a pre condition for India to trust US again..(for whatever thats worth:)).To get US to do India's bidding the bar has to be raised...the Govt shows no courage..or gumption..for decisions...its also a matter of perception...if I think GOI is weakneed I wonder what Pakistan/China/US will think...not too differently, Im afraid.

With the recession and leftist policy of the govt (which I support)..all our growth will comeinternally and we need stability for it...without US either controlled (through co-dependency) or be friended...stability wont be forthcoming.
 
And at the same time, giving money on K.L terms and fond attention to Pakistan while their army is engaging and decimating their own strategic depth instruments is being trumped up as a great level of relationship between U.S and Pakistan. Is the dichotomy not clearly visible folks????

The KLL imposes no 'terms' on Pakistan, the conditionalities are for the US President to satisfy Congress over, and even there the President has the option to waive.

Do you really think that if there is a coup tomorrow in Pakistan because of poor domestic governance by the PPP led coalition, that the POTUS will not exercise the right to waiver and continue cooperation with Pakistan (while encouraging a return to democratic rule as soon as possible) because of the need of satisfying US interests?

As for 'decimating Pakistan's strategic depth instruments', the TTP were never Pakistan's 'instruments'. Their focus has been control of Pakistan since inception, and therefore their decimation is advantageous.

The definition of 'Strategic Depth in Afghanistan' outlined by Kiyani also clearly indicates that the absence or presence of the Taliban in Afghanistan impacts our goals little - Pakistan has diversified its tools and options. The goal back when the Soviets left Afghanistan was stabilization of Afghanistan, and the goal now is stabilization of Afghanistan, without having a GoA that is constantly looking to interfere in Pakistan ans support anti-Pakistan activity from its soil.

On those broad goals there is no quibble between the US and Pakistan.
 
They are fond & seems they are ready to prove it :)


clinton_foundation608.jpg


WASHINGTON: The United States has urged both India and Pakistan to limit the number of their nuclear weapons and secure their stockpiles, while emphasising that Pakistan needs to be ‘invested’ in the non-proliferation regime rather than being singled out as a violator.

In a speech at the University of Louisville in Kentucky on Friday evening, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton broached this issue rather carefully, noting that the United States and Russia had “so many more weapons than any of the other countries by a very, very big margin”.

And before mentioning the two South Asian nuclear states, she noted that there were other countries that pursued nuclear weapons too.

“India and Pakistan, for example, have done so in a way that has upset the balance of nuclear deterrent,” she said.

“And that’s why we’re working with both countries very hard to try to make sure that their nuclear stockpiles are well tended to and that they participate with us in trying to limit the number of nuclear weapons.”

At a separate briefing, Assistant Secretary of State P. J. Crowley approached the issue of Pakistan’s refusal to endorse the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in a different way, indicating the possibility that the United States would like to see Pakistan included in a new arrangement rather than singling it out as a pariah state.

Mr Crowley, when asked to explain the reasons for inviting Pakistan to the nuclear summit and for Washington’s confidence in Islamabad’s commitment to non-proliferation, argued that the US “wants to see Pakistan be part of the solution in the future”.

“We’ve had significant discussions with Pakistan on these issues. But if we’re going to strengthen the non-proliferation regime going forward, we want to see Pakistan invested in this process,” he stressed.

“And to the extent that other countries demonstrate through their cooperation with the international community that they are willing to assume that same responsibility, then the door would be open for further cooperation,” the spokesman added.Both statements – important on their own – assume a greater significance because of a two-day nuclear summit US President Barack Obama inaugurates in Washington on Monday.

A total of 47 countries, including India and Pakistan, are attending the conference, which focuses on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and on preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear materials.

In her speech, Secretary Clinton indicated that the participation of India and Pakistan in the nuclear summit provides the United States with an opportunity to discuss both the issues — proliferation and nuclear terrorism — with them.

Her decision to talk about both India and Pakistan — despite a US nuclear deal with New Delhi — indicates a realisation in Washington that singling out Islamabad on an issue of such a strategic importance to both will send negative signals and harm US interests in the region.

Also while talking about nuclear terrorism, she avoided naming any country. Instead, she described nuclear terrorism and proliferation as a challenge confronting the entire international community. “A challenge that is bigger than any one administration or any political party. It is protecting our families, our neighbours, our nation and our allies,” she observed.

Mr Crowley went a step ahead, expressing confidence in Pakistan’s ability to protect its atomic programme. While doing so, he also highlighted Islamabad’s cooperation in shutting down the A. Q. Khan network, coupled with the safeguards put in place for its strategic assets.

“Pakistan recently has demonstrated a willingness to help the international community shut down the A. Q. Khan network. We still have questions about that and we still pursue those with Pakistan,” he said.

The US official said that Dr Khan’s activities had made Pakistan a source of concern in the past, but since then Islamabad had “demonstrated that it can secure its own nuclear weapons programme, and we have confidence in the steps that Pakistan has taken”.

Mr Crowley said the three countries - Iran, North Korea, Syria that were not invited to the nuclear security summit – were currently not cooperating with the international community on the security question, while Pakistan was.

Secretary Clinton also stressed this point, pointing out that nuclear proliferation, including the programmes pursued by North Korea and Iran, also endangered US troops and its allies.

“Proliferation endangers our forces, our allies and our broader global interests. And to the extent it pushes other countries to develop nuclear weapons in response, it can threaten the entire international order,” she added.

Hillary Clinton also spelled out the Obama administration’s new nuclear policy released this week, noting that the main elements of the US strategy were “to safeguard our country and allies against nuclear attack” by supporting the basic framework of the NPT.
 
In a nutshell, I believe you are saying that its 'cheaper' and 'easier' for US to partner Pakistan as compared to India, with whom it has to deliver more....I agree.

Infact, I dont think India should partner US as its unreliable given the political dichotomy as I mentioned earliar.If Pakistan partners US, thats fine too...unless US goes ahead and arms it to its teetth or harbours/encourages Headley's...in other words becomes India's enemy.

The issue is one of policy...you need a decisive policy and not a middling path (esp as India is noew 'big' enough for it). But with Dr Singh we will get slow change and not the revolution thats needed...

Why couldnt Krishna(FM) go and attend the Summit instead of Singh(PM)? To give US the message that Headley's extradition is a pre condition for India to trust US again..(for whatever thats worth:)).To get US to do India's bidding the bar has to be raised...the Govt shows no courage..or gumption..for decisions...its also a matter of perception...if I think GOI is weakneed I wonder what Pakistan/China/US will think...not too differently, Im afraid.

With the recession and leftist policy of the govt (which I support)..all our growth will comeinternally and we need stability for it...without US either controlled (through co-dependency) or be friended...stability wont be forthcoming.

Bro, the immediate needs of U.S are more served with mollycoddling Pakistan than anything else. That said, their is no true test of a relationship except for convergence of existential objectives. The difference is clear when you consider any "fondness" that U.S develops for Pak against the "rocky" relationship that it has with India.

Re the approach of the GOI, I am sure that you would have your reasons to be dissatisfied with the current approach but my take is: With organic and fundamental growth of the relationship with U.S, the returns will always be of a diminishing rate per event. With the broader base of the relationship, the growth will always be slow.

Club that with the fact that the urgent is always attended to before the important and you will see a well laid picture of today's scenario in international relationships of Pakistan.

India needs to look beyond it. I agree with you, there is no strength compared to what is derived internally and that is what we need to focus on. We never went to U.S or for that matter to any country (except for to erstwhile USSR in 1971) for anything and yet we today have a completely free hand in our foreign policy. It has been slow but with 2 nations on your borders quite insistent up on "hum to doobenge sanam par tumhe zaroor saath leke jaayenge" then the task becomes even more ardous.

Maturity does no complement a "fly by night" or "musical chairs" sort of approach. Slow but decisive is what is needed.
 

WASHINGTON, April 12 (APP): President Barack Obama is all for the stability and progress of Pakistan and desires to take Pakistan-US cooperative relations to “unprecedented heights,” Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said. The Foreign Minister, who accompanied Prime Minister Syed Yusaf Raza Gilani at Sunday’s bilateral meeting with President Obama at the Blair House, said the US leader had accepted Pakistani premier’s invitation to visit the country.

“The talks were comprehensive during which President Obama said he wants to see a strong and prosperous Pakistan,” Qureshi told Pakistani journalists after the 40-minute meeting with Prime Minister Gilani on the sidelines of Nuclear Security Summit.

Qureshi said President Obama recalled fond memories of his visit to Pakistan in college days.

During the meeting, Obama recognized the need to draw a linkage between security and economic relations as they impact each other, observing that the two can improve in tandem, the Foreign Minister said.

Obama said he was alive to Islamabad’s economic priorities and its emphatic calls for greater market access to the United States and the European Union. The American leader said his administration “wants to give importance to the Reconstruction Opportunity Zones initiative in the interest of bringing economic development to areas affected by terrorism”.

The two leaders got a positive feedback from the Pakistan-US strategic dialogue, held last month, with Obama noting that the two countries have agreed on a follow-up mechanism. The two sides will ensure that it is seen through so that the momentum is maintained on taking forward the bilateral relationship.

Prime Minister Gilani raised the energy issue, underscoring the crucial significance of dealing with energy shortages facing the country.

President Obama concurred with Pakistani leader’s emphasis on the critical importance of Pakistan’s stability.

“President Obama appreciated that Pakistan has taken some tough economic decisions and that he is familiar that economic reforms agenda is in Pakistan ‘s interests but at the same time he noted that the United States does not want to see instability in Pakistan,” said the Foreign Minister.

On Pakistan’s pivotal security efforts, Obama acknowledged and appreciated the Pakistani army’s strategy and the recent successes achieved in anti-militant operations in Swat, Malakand and tribal regions along the Afghan border.


The United States values the fact that the Pakistani people and its armed forces have paid huge price in the ongoing struggle, he said.

During the meeting Pakistan-India relations and their impact on regional stability also came under discussion, the foreign minister said.

The foreign minister said he saw a desire on part of the United States to encourage both of its sovereign South Asian friends normalize their bilateral relations, which will be in the interest of the two neighbors and the whole region.

To a question, Qureshi said there was no mention at all of nuclear scientist Dr A Q Khan and the US president reaffirmed his confidence in the security and safety of Pakistan’s nuclear programme.

“The impression I have drawn is that they are fully aware of the steps we have taken (for nuclear safeguards) and the (effectiveness of) our command and control structure--- they are fully aware and satisfied,” Quresh said.

In response to another question, the foreign minister said there was no mention of the sort that the US assistance for Pakistan could be used against India. :P
 
The KLL imposes no 'terms' on Pakistan, the conditionalities are for the US President to satisfy Congress over, and even there the President has the option to waive.

You are correct in your interpretation of the fineprint Sir. My only submission to that = this was exactly the waiver option which the U.S President needed to exercise to authorize delivering the F-16s for which Pakistan paid years back.

Do you really think that if there is a coup tomorrow in Pakistan because of poor domestic governance by the PPP led coalition, that the POTUS will not exercise the right to waiver and continue cooperation with Pakistan (while encouraging a return to democratic rule as soon as possible) because of the need of satisfying US interests?

That is a first = POTUS.:)

U.S has long back given up on the civilian government in Pakistan and the Army is clearly identified as an establishment to be dealt with. Even India is also more comfortable dealing with the Army in Pakistan. So I do not personally think that any coup in Pakistan will make any difference to the current US approach or the signing of the waiver if needed by the incumbent U.S President (at least on the short horizon). However, any such scenario does not concern India. There is one clearly stated goal of the Indian establishment = Curb state support to anti India terrorists groups operating out of Pakistan and it is my firm belief that U.S being in Afganistan or not being there will not stand in the way of its support to India on this front.

As for 'decimating Pakistan's strategic depth instruments', the TTP were never Pakistan's 'instruments'. Their focus has been control of Pakistan since inception, and therefore their decimation is advantageous.

I will disagree with you on that Sir. Taliban is a wilful creation of Pakistan to create a state of benevolent anarchy in Afganistan (when looking at is from the Pakistan's perspective I mean). So any action against them even though remotely cosmetic is in effect decimation. Even if these arrests and air strikes are role plays ("even if" being the operative) still this will antagoize the Taliban against the Pakistani state and defence forces and the leverage will only diminish.

Also it might end up creating situations like the ones that we are witnessing in NWFP (Khyber - Pakhtoonkwah??) now. What was it today, the Hazaras?? It is though seemingly inconsequential today, but it is another straw on the proverbial camel's back.

The definition of 'Strategic Depth in Afghanistan' outlined by Kiyani also clearly indicates that the absence or presence of the Taliban in Afghanistan impacts our goals little - Pakistan has diversified its tools and options. The goal back when the Soviets left Afghanistan was stabilization of Afghanistan, and the goal now is stabilization of Afghanistan, without having a GoA that is constantly looking to interfere in Pakistan ans support anti-Pakistan activity from its soil.

On those broad goals there is no quibble between the US and Pakistan.

Permission to disagree on that too Sir. The end result of the conflict is what set aside Gen. Kiyani's perspective from that of the U.S.

Though the U.S expectations from the end game in Afganistan are diminshing but they were never based on Afganistan being Pakistan's backyard. Even the expectations of stability have been quite different while U.S expecting a utilatarian state out of Afganistan compared with the Pakistan's view = Does not matter what kind of state as long as it is towing Pakistan's line.

So, not dwelling on that too much, to me the current "fondness" in U.S Pak relations is actually quite satisfying and encouraging. If in this way, India can push thru her mere objective of ceasing Pakistani state support to the terror groups wantonly killing Indians, then it is a nice development. And for sure in this mix, U.S will not be able to make India yield anything that India does not get the right return for.....
 
You are correct in your interpretation of the fineprint Sir. My only submission to that = this was exactly the waiver option which the U.S President needed to exercise to authorize delivering the F-16s for which Pakistan paid years back.

That is a first = POTUS.:)

U.S has long back given up on the civilian government in Pakistan and the Army is clearly identified as an establishment to be dealt with. Even India is also more comfortable dealing with the Army in Pakistan. So I do not personally think that any coup in Pakistan will make any difference to the current US approach or the signing of the waiver if needed by the incumbent U.S President (at least on the short horizon). However, any such scenario does not concern India. There is one clearly stated goal of the Indian establishment = Curb state support to anti India terrorists groups operating out of Pakistan and it is my firm belief that U.S being in Afganistan or not being there will not stand in the way of its support to India on this front.
Agreed then that the KLL tangibly does little in terms of imposing any conditions on Pakistan that Pakistan does not agree with.

As far as dealing with the military vs GoP, I think the current setup is to everyone's advantage for the time being. The GoP has its hands full domestically, and attempts to focus on those issues, while the Military sits behind the scenes and influences foreign policy. The US can point to a 'democratic government' , the GoP gets to not play in an area where it is out of its depth (for now) and the Pakistani military is assured that the the GoP won't muck up walking a very delicate tightrope on foreign policy.


I will disagree with you on that Sir. Taliban is a wilful creation of Pakistan to create a state of benevolent anarchy in Afganistan (when looking at is from the Pakistan's perspective I mean). So any action against them even though remotely cosmetic is in effect decimation. Even if these arrests and air strikes are role plays ("even if" being the operative) still this will antagoize the Taliban against the Pakistani state and defence forces and the leverage will only diminish.
There are several inaccuracies in your comments. First, there are two entities here that you are mixing up. The Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani Taliban (TTP). The TTP rose in the Tribal areas of Pakistan after the US invasion of Pakistan, and the focus of their activities has been Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Pakistan had nothing to do with this group, and their decimation is, as I said, very advantageous in that it frees up Pakistan from an internal threat.

The Afghan Taliban were supported by Pakistan (though we did not create them either) in the pursuit of stabilizing Afghanistan through a pro-Pakistan regime. The goal was the opposite of this 'benevolent anarchy' you attribute to Pakistan. Pakistan wanted trade, oil and gas pipelines from the CAR's, and it wanted a return of the millions of Afghan refugees on its soil and the lawlessness in Afghanistan that was impacting Pakistani businessmen seeking to do business in Afghanistan and through Afghanistan. The alternate opinions on Pakistan's rationale for supporting the Taliban after the Soviets are distorted concoctions meant to demonize and dehumanize Pakistan, mostly by the Indian intelligentsia.

Also it might end up creating situations like the ones that we are witnessing in NWFP (Khyber - Pakhtoonkwah??) now. What was it today, the Hazaras?? It is though seemingly inconsequential today, but it is another straw on the proverbial camel's back.
We have been hearing about 'proverbial straws on the camels back' for years now, and none of it has come true now has it? This straw on the camel thing is like a fetish for those who wish to see Pakistan dismembered, and every little event in Pakistan sends these people, already salivating at the thought of Pakistan's implosion, into raptures - but you know what they say, 'if wishes were horses ...'

The Afghan Taliban, if they do outlast NATO in Afghanistan, will end up courting Pakistan again, regardless of the arrests and bombings - interviews with Afghan Taliban leaders posted after the Baradar arrest suggest as much. If the Taliban do not outlast NATO, well then, that is why we have an outreach campaign with Karzai and others going on, and why we are successfully, so far, restricting India's military footprint in Afghanistan and an increased Indian role in training the Afghan military.

The Taliban in Pakistan have completely lost support from the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa population, more so than the rest of the country. As such the possibility of the Taliban redirecting their movement into a nationalist Pashtun movement is almost impossible at this point. The protests in Hazara are based on intra-provincial domestic politics of ethno-linguistic identity and have little to do with the Taliban.
Permission to disagree on that too Sir. The end result of the conflict is what set aside Gen. Kiyani's perspective from that of the U.S.

Though the U.S expectations from the end game in Afganistan are diminshing but they were never based on Afganistan being Pakistan's backyard. Even the expectations of stability have been quite different while U.S expecting a utilatarian state out of Afganistan compared with the Pakistan's view = Does not matter what kind of state as long as it is towing Pakistan's line.

How is the end result of the conflict in Afghanistan, as outlined by Kiyani, different from that of the US? I assume you have read the comments attributed to Kiyani?

I think the dream by some in the US of a 'Jeffersonian democracy' in Afghanistan is long gone - what is left is a pragmatic idea of what can be accomplished, and on that count there is synergy between broad US and Pakistani goals.
So, not dwelling on that too much, to me the current "fondness" in U.S Pak relations is actually quite satisfying and encouraging. If in this way, India can push thru her mere objective of ceasing Pakistani state support to the terror groups wantonly killing Indians, then it is a nice development. And for sure in this mix, U.S will not be able to make India yield anything that India does not get the right return for.....
Pakistan cannot cease that which does not exist, i.e 'State support for terrorist groups'. And as reports around the events in the US suggest, the US isn't really pushing that line either, so Indian is really having no luck with its propaganda being pushed by the US government through tangible pressure on Pakistan.

On the Pakistan side, the arrest and trials of Shah, Lakhvi and others more than establish the intent to take the alleged Mumbai attack masterminds to task.
 
Last edited:
The muslims are quite aware of that... they don't need to openly make too much noise about their support for him, but their numbers now are quite large. By almost all accounts, larger than the jewish population in the US. And muslim communities are very wealthy also. Obama can get a significant shot in the arm without either the muslims, or Obama, having to be overly vocal about this.

That said, it is unfortunate that in a democracy and supposedly enlightened and educated nation like the US, people are still so significantly prejudiced that they can't get over Obama's middle name.

Until and unless the Christian right's support for Israel is de-linked, no US president would be able to overcome the nonobjective bias that exists in the ranks of the US lawmakers. So the Muslim population being larger than that of the Jews may not have as big an impact as it is thought. The Jewish lobbies send the Christian right leaders on all sorts of junkets to Jerusalem to ensure that these Christian leaders use their constituencies to support Israeli causes. This is far more important to the Israelis than what the pro-Israeli lobbies like AIPAC can accomplish on their own.
 
Spread the word: Obama says he digs Urdu poetry

090622_poetry_obama_ap_297.jpg


If you want to make high-brow small talk at one of President Barack Obama’s cocktail parties, don’t bother brushing up your Shakespeare. Try reading Urdu poetry.

As POLITICO’s Ben Smith points out in his blog, Obama showed off his intellectual flair by evoking a standard of Pakistani culture in a recent interview with Dawn, a popular English-language newspaper in Pakistan.

“‘I would love to visit. As you know, I had Pakistani roommates in college who were very close friends of mine. I went to visit them when I was still in college; was in Karachi and went to Hyderabad. Their mothers taught me to cook,’ said Mr Obama.

‘What can you cook?’

‘Oh, keema ... daal ... You name it, I can cook it. And so I have a great affinity for Pakistani culture and the great Urdu poets.’

‘You read Urdu poetry?’

‘Absolutely. So my hope is that I’m going to have an opportunity at some point to visit Pakistan,’ said Mr Obama.”

It may sound somewhat esoteric, but this ancient form of mystical and oft-times philosophical love poetry has been popular in Pakistan and parts of India for centuries. And there are a few things to know before you try to impress the poetry-lover-in-chief.

One of the most popular poets was Mirza Ghalib, whose work dates from the mid-19th century. The still-popular art form usually features the story of a lover scorned by his beloved. And there is almost never a happy ending. “Often the beloved is often a total witch,” says Gwen Kirk, a University of Texas master’s candidate in the subject of Urdu poetry. “She breaks the lover’s heart all the time; she neglects him. It’s all about the process of trying to get closer to the beloved, and it’s got a lot of Sufi and mystical elements as well.”

The ghazal is the most common form of Urdu poetry, and, like sonnets, it follows strict rules of form: four to 12 couplets with a meter and rhyme scheme. But the similarities end there. Couplets in an Urdu poem can sometimes be completely unrelated to each other, each delving into themes that range from unrequited love to the meaning of life.

Fear not if your Urdu — one of two official languages in Pakistan — is a little rusty. Obama likely reads one of the many translated compilations of the texts, according to Kirk. Or if he is a truly savvy Urdu poetry enthusiast, he may choose to listen to the poems recited or sung, as it is commonly performed in the region.

Obama’s admission that he shares an affinity with the “great Urdu poets” may get him further in the region than most think. The language and poetry are commonly associated with Pakistan’s and India’s Muslim population, according to Kirk, and it remains intensely popular in the region — poetry recitals sometimes attract gatherings of thousands of people.

“It does show a willingness to understand that part of the world,” says Kirk.

And in general, it gives Obama further credibility as a supporter of the arts. Not only is he one of three American presidents to have poetry read at their Inaugurations, but he reads the stuff, too!

Want to dig into Urdu poetry? Here’s an example of what awaits you:

To hell with all hindering walls and doors!

Love’s eye sees as feather and wing, walls and doors.

My flooded eyes blur the house

Doors and walls becoming walls and doors.

There is no shelter: my love is on her way,

They’ve gone ahead in greeting, walls and doors.

The wine of your splendor floods

Your street, intoxicating walls and doors.

(Translated by Shamsur Rahman Faruqi and Frances W. Pritchett)

I think we're being trolled by Obama.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom