Obama's New Policy Souring US-Pak relationship?

[notorious_eagle]

We are not talking about Iraq here, we are talking about Afghanistan. You can thank George Bush for Iraq because he wanted to settle an old score. Anyways coming back to the point, we have lost more than 2000 soldiers. If you combine all the casulaties that NATO has suffered, that is less than how many soldiers we have lost. So dont you dare question our commitment, we have done more for this war than any other nation on this planet. Constant suicide bombings and this terror has literally crippled our nation. Yes our soldiers have died on our soil because we are fighting the war on our soil. You can ask your politicians this question that why the heck are your soldiers deployed 6000 miles away from home. Its just plainly funny that your nation wants us to do more but simply refuses to give us the resources needed to fight these terrorists.

 

[S-2]

"You can ask your politicians this question that why the heck are your soldiers deployed 6000 miles away from home."

So that we're not fighting this scum on OUR soil. 9-11 was plenty, thank you. Had you mentored your protege, Omar, a tad better, we might still have 3,000 citizens and residents alive.

Act of war to us and a damned good excuse to whack Saddam in the process. Iraq is in the hands of Iraqis now to decide their future. We'll see what transpires but I couldn't be more pleased.

2,000? Last I heard it was 1600. Over seven years that equates to a reinforced company per year. Clearly sustainable, I'd think.

With all due respect to those men, this is YOUR state. Nobody else's. If he can't be victorious, what higher honor has a soldier than dying on his own land in defense of his people? What other responsibility has he in the face of such threat?

"Its just plainly funny that your nation wants us to do more but simply refuses to give us the resources needed to fight these terrorists."

Gosh, if you think that's rib-tickler get a load of this-it's even funnier to think that a nation who'd charge the Indians with sticks, knives, stones, brooms and anything else handy were they to cross your border suddenly can't move off it's AZZ in Punjab to fight a real war against a bunch of well-armed hill-billies out west without NVGs, helicopters, precision munitions, and body armor-and won't until it's received...and then may not anyway!

It took seven years to attack Bajaur for your army. Those forces were gone in the blink of an eye to the east post-Mumbai. STUNNING speed.

NOW that's just a barrel-full of laughs there...

 

[TruthSeeker]

Whats just plainly funny that your nation wants us to do more but simply refuses to give us the resources needed to fight these terrorists.

Where do you think the resources are coming from that support your "opponent" in Pakistan? Where are they getting their arms and money from? Do you think the ISI and the GoP know the answer to this? If they don't, how competent can they be to not know such basic facts about an internal enemy? If they do know, why are they not screaming the news to the world? It seems pretty obvious that the lack of success is not from lack of resources but from lack of commitment of the nation to the task. It is truly a classic "civil insurrection" that the GoP is divided about how to fight. The US can't give Pakistan the resolve that it needs. That's the only resource that is lacking.

 

[notorious_eagle]

"You can ask your politicians this question that why the heck are your soldiers deployed 6000 miles away from home."

So that we're not fighting this scum on OUR soil. 9-11 was plenty, thank you. Had you mentored your protege, Omar, a tad better, we might still have 3,000 citizens and residents alive.

Act of war to us and a damned good excuse to whack Saddam in the process. Iraq is in the hands of Iraqis now to decide their future. We'll see what transpires but I couldn't be more pleased.

2,000? Last I heard it was 1600. Over seven years that equates to a reinforced company per year. Clearly sustainable, I'd think.

With all due respect to those men, this is YOUR state. Nobody else's. If he can't be victorious, what higher honor has a soldier than dying on his own land in defense of his people? What other responsibility has he in the face of such threat?

"Its just plainly funny that your nation wants us to do more but simply refuses to give us the resources needed to fight these terrorists."

I condemn 9-11 with all my heart and i wish it would have never happened, only cowards target innocent people and these terrorists are cowards. But that being said, 9-11 Commision ruled that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11 so ask yourself this question why did George Bush attack Iraq? Majority of your own countrymen are against this Iraq war.
We are definitely proud of our men but many of my countrymen believe that we are fighting America's war and not ours. Our soldiers are fighting in our own state but just look at the backlash that our nation has suffered. Constant suicide bombings which has literally crippled our nation, our economy has suffered more than $35 billion in losses. Your nation is 6000 miles away so your citizens are safe but thats clearly not the case in Pakistan.

Gosh, if you think that's rib-tickler get a load of this-it's even funnier to think that a nation who'd charge the Indians with sticks, knives, stones, brooms and anything else handy were they to cross your border suddenly can't move off it's AZZ in Punjab to fight a real war against a bunch of well-armed hill-billies out west without NVGs, helicopters, precision munitions, and body armor-and won't until it's received...and then may not anyway!

It took seven years to attack Bajaur for your army. Those forces were gone in the blink of an eye to the east post-Mumbai. STUNNING speed.

NOW that's just a barrel-full of laughs there...

We have already seen how successfull the NATO forces have been, i believe as compared to them our FC forces have done exceptionally well considering the fact that they are severely ill equipped and trained. Why should we move our troops from the East to the West, India is still our biggest enemy. These terrorists might capture a town or a village but Indians simply want to destroy our entire nation. The reason why Post Mumbai troops were moved to East is because we had to prepare ourselves, the tone that Indian politicans were using was very dangerous. As long as the FC is never trained properly and not given the proper equipment, the Americans shouldnt be asking us to do more. We have suffered more from this war on terror than any other nation in the world, but i guess this is one fact that Westerners love to ignore.

P.S. I apologize but i am going to be a bit critical here, you have to let go off your arrogance to get a good idea of how the world works.

 

[notorious_eagle]

Where do you think the resources are coming from that support your "opponent" in Pakistan? Where are they getting their arms and money from? Do you think the ISI and the GoP know the answer to this? If they don't, how competent can they be to not know such basic facts about an internal enemy? If they do know, why are they not screaming the news to the world? It seems pretty obvious that the lack of success is not from lack of resources but from lack of commitment of the nation to the task. It is truly a classic "civil insurrection" that the GoP is divided about how to fight. The US can't give Pakistan the resolve that it needs. That's the only resource that is lacking.

Well at first, they are coming from the consulates that our neighbours have opened up in Afghanistan. But since the Americans are so GAGA over their relationship with India, they dont want to provoke the Indians. The resolve is their my friend, we have suffered the most in this war on terror. We have suffered far more than your nation, so you cant be the one asking us to do more. We have captured and killed more terrorists than NATO, what more do you want. RAW is supporting anti Pakistan elements, on the other hand the Taliban are making good chunk of money from drug money. But another point that can be brought in is that Taliban control more than half of Afghanistan, i am sure they collect enough money from there.

 

[S-2]

"I condemn 9-11 with all my heart...Your nation is 6000 miles away so your citizens are safe but thats clearly not the case in Pakistan."

That's how you began and ended a paragraph. Do you see a problem with it's logic?

"...ask yourself this question why did George Bush attack Iraq?"

It was our belief that Iraq couldn't counter-weight against Iran without a societal transformation. As we must insure our hegemony over Persian gulf oil, we used the weakness of the lesser threat (Iraq) to seed the future balance to the greater threat (Iran).

In so doing we dismantled a neo-fascist regime, ended the state-sponsored slaughter and misery wrought on the Kurds and shias, stopped the irridentist ambitions that had led to invasions of Kuwait and Iran, and ended for the foreseeable future any vestiges of a coherant WMD program.

Iraq is now a democracy with a very legitimate chance to become a stable and great nation if it can survive it's internal schisms. That will be their choice. This year, though, despite the precipitous drop in oil prices, Iraq BANKED $66B in reserves.

They can be as great as they wish now. It's up to them and I'm quite pleased. Should they continue, Iraq may indeed emerge as a rather shining counter-weight to a grey and dreary mullah-dominated Iran.

Hope that helps.

"...our economy has suffered more than $35 billion in losses"

We lost at least that in the blink of an eye on 9-11. Then we got mad. Real mad.

What did you do? Surrender FATA and SWAT?

"We have already seen how successfull the NATO forces have been, i believe as compared to them our FC forces have done exceptionally well..."

Don't be a silly fool. You are looking at, on the whole, the finest forces in NATO's order of battle to fight in Afghanistan. Largely light infantry, mountain, special forces, and airborne/air assault troops that are impeccably trained, highly capable and intensely eager to kill bad guys...and do on a routine basis.

Over seven years we've collectively lost about 1,000 men and women while dispatching thousands of these vermin to hell. Nobody's been over-run. We've had some very hard fights but none where the outcome was in dispute.

In short, there is no comparison and our forces are nothing short of EXCEPTIONAL. I say that humbly but I've never seen better-ever.

So I sorta dispute that point just a wee tad...

"These terrorists might capture a town or a village but Indians simply want to destroy our entire nation."

How are things going there? Doing well curbing the ambitions of both? I've not noted the Indians capturing a thing. OTOH, the militants seem to have captured a little bit more than a town or village.

"The reason why Post Mumbai troops were moved to East is because we had to prepare ourselves..."

For what? To escape SWAT with your dignity intact? How are your preparations in the east proceeding? Well, I hope.

Any brigades of windmills attacking on your eastern horizon?

"...the tone that Indian politicans were using was very dangerous."

But you are satisfied that the tone of Mullah Faizullah and Baitullah Mehsuds messages are conciliatory and amenable?

"We have suffered more from this war on terror than any other nation in the world, but i guess this is one fact that Westerners love to ignore..."

Me in particular. No people have SUFFERED more than the Afghanis. From sanctuaries on your former lands in Waziristan these members of the DEFEATED taliban army of Afghanistan make war daily on the afghanis and those of the U.N., N.A.T.O./I.S.A.F. and America.

You may cease your "preparations" against the Indians in the east and move your army west any time you please.

No NVGs. No helicopters. Nada except the will to find, fix, fight, and finish these vermin is acceptable. As I wrote previously, were they Indians you'd be charging with anything you could lay your hands on.

You don't and that says it all.

Thanks.

 

[notorious_eagle]

As i have said before Sir, your arrogance is impairing your judgment and that is what is withholding you from getting a grasp of the situation. You still have the old mentality that this world belongs to America and the whole world should revolve around America. I am not even going to bother getting into an argument with you, because posters on this forum who are much more smarter than me have already explained our side of the story to you.
Good Day to you

 

[S-2]

"As i have said before Sir, your arrogance is impairing your judgment and that is what is withholding you from getting a grasp of the situation."

No, my arrogance is an opinion of yours, sir. Nothing more. It's hardly proven by virtue of objecting to your onerous views of matters.

"...grasp of the situation."

Your grip seems tenuous.

"You still have the old mentality that this world belongs to America and the whole world should revolve around America."

No. We only want Pakistan and her nukes. Our ambitions are focused and limited.

Thanks.

 

[muse]

[


FONT="Arial"]Obama’s AfPak quandary [/FONT]
Ashley J Tellis



Despite opposition from many within the Democratic Party and even within the White House against deepening US involvement in Afghanistan, President Obama has courageously decided to fight this war — using, as he put it, “all elements of our national power to defeat Al Qaeda, and to defend America, our allies, and all who seek a better future.”

In a White Paper, his administration has affirmed that Washington aims “to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually destroy extremists and their safe havens” within the “AfPak” region because doing so constituted America’s “vital national security interest”.

All this is good, but by failing to admit, out of political convenience, that the United States will engage in nation-building in Afghanistan — even as Obama embarks on just that mission — the president risks undermining his own strategy.

Comprehensive engagement in Afghanistan, of course, was opposed by a variety of constituencies. Senator John Kerry, for example, warned against any reconstruction intended “to make [Afghanistan] our 51st state”, suggesting instead that allied objectives in that country be limited to ensuring that “it does not become an Al Qaeda narco-state and terrorist beachhead capable of destabilising neighbouring Pakistan.”

Others, such as the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Leslie Gelb, urged Obama “to explore a strategy of power extrication” by which the United States would “leave Afghanistan” because “trying to eliminate the Taliban and [Al] Qaeda threat [therein] is unattainable.”

Some other alternatives were proposed as well. David Boaz of the libertarian Cato Institute wondered whether the US would “be able to extricate [itself] sooner if we accept a decentralised Afghanistan with some regions ruled by groups that are currently fighting against our troops?”

And one senior NATO official, reflecting the view of many European governments eager to end their involvement in Afghanistan, has been quoted by The Guardian as arguing that Kabul “doesn’t need to be a democracy, just secure”.

It is to President Obama’s credit that, despite strong pressures emerging from various quarters, he has rejected all of these alternatives in favour of building an effective democratic state in Afghanistan. That is the good news. If success in Afghanistan –understood as the extirpation of Al Qaeda and the marginalisation of the Taliban as an armed opposition — is to be achieved, Washington and its partners will have no choice but to erect an effective Afghan state that can control its national territory and deliver its citizens security, responsive governance, and economic development necessary to ensure internal stability. Nothing less will suffice for attaining even the most minimal strategic aim in Kabul.

Obama’s new “AfPak” policy suggests that he has understood this clearly and his administration’s White Paper corroborates his intention to pursue precisely this goal. The bad news, however, is that the administration has spelled this out only indistinctly and by circumlocution.

President Obama has asserted that the United States will have a “clear and focused goal”, namely, “to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.” Toward this end, he has rejected any “return to Taliban rule”; he has upheld the need for “a more capable, accountable, and effective government in Afghanistan that serves the Afghan people”; and he has endorsed the objective of “developing increasingly self-reliant Afghan security forces that can lead the counterinsurgency and counterterrorism fight with reduced US assistance.”

Whether explicitly admitted or not, these propositions indicate that the United States will not abdicate state building in Afghanistan; will not recognise the Taliban as an acceptable Islamist group in contrast to, for example, Al Qaeda; and will not exit Afghanistan either as an end in itself or to better focus on Pakistan, as some analysts have suggested.

The administration’s reiteration of the need for a “a more capable, accountable, and effective government in Afghanistan” also implicitly conveys a rejection of all ambiguous strategies of governance, a refusal to integrate an unrepentant Taliban into any Afghan organs of rule, and a decisive repudiation of authoritarianism as a solution to the political problems in Kabul.

But, the failure to transparently declare that the United States is committed to building an effective democratic state in Afghanistan — a circumvention owed probably as much to appeasing fears within the Democratic Party as it is to calming NATO partners about nation-building — has opened the door to unreasonable expectations that his strategy for defeating terrorism in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) can be implemented without, what the New York Times calls, “the vast attempt at nation-building [that] the Bush administration had sought in Iraq.”

As the civilian surge already underway in Afghanistan suggests, the administration understands that successful counterterrorism needs successful state building. But the failure to own up to this could prove to be the strategy’s undoing –within Congress and among the allies. Accordingly, the president should clarify this ambiguity at the earliest opportunity.

Other doubts need to be cleared up as well: besides affirming the importance of a democratic regime in Kabul, the president needs to tell the American people clearly that the necessary task of state building will almost by definition be a long term enterprise and, accordingly, will demand an extended American presence in Afghanistan.

Entertaining the notion of “exit strategy”, as President Obama himself has done previously, is dangerous because it will spur the insurgents to outlast the international coalition; encourage important Afghan bystanders to persist in their prevailing ambivalence; and be a disincentive to Islamabad to relinquishing its support for the Taliban because after the US withdrawal they may once again be required to protect Pakistan’s interests in Kabul.

To demonstrate that he is serious, however, Obama must also do more beyond what he has already committed to doing. He needs to commit far more American troops to Afghanistan than the 55,000-odd soldiers that will soon be present in the theatre, if the counterinsurgency campaign in the southern and eastern Afghan provinces is to be successful. He needs to build the Afghan National Army to an end-strength of about 250,000 soldiers (vice the 134,000 now targeted) if the appropriate force-to-population ratios needed for the counterinsurgency are to be sustained. He needs to revamp considerably the current command and control arrangements pertaining to both military operations and civil-military coordination in Afghanistan. He needs to work with Kabul to improve quickly the quality of governance and the delivery of services to the people most hit by the Taliban insurgency.

And, he needs to jettison those old and tired saws that reconciliation with the Taliban or better counterterrorism performance by Pakistan will be essential for success in Afghanistan; although both may well be true, neither is particularly likely and, consequently, Obama ought to refocus on securing victory in Afghanistan by “hardening” it from the inside out rather than by counting on either Taliban or Pakistani cooperation.

Old Washington hands ruefully note that all incoming administrations usually get their first reviews of pressing policy problems mostly wrong. Obama seems to have beaten that rap. While his policy has got it mostly right, it is still tarred by risky ambiguities and incomplete actions. That’s the unfinished business Obama must now attend to.

Ashley J Tellis is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the author of Reconciling with the Taliban? Toward an Alternative Grand Strategy in Afghanistan

 

[S-2]

This was a superb op-ed.

Not to brag, but the exposition is profound neo-conese, and that's a good thing. America will have a long-term presence in Afghanistan. I've known that for four months.

This is no less than democratic transformation. It is the only true barrier to these islamo-fascists so en vogue these days. It will take an interminable time to accomplish but there really is no acceptable alternative that doesn't assure the return of Afghanistan and the descent of Pakistan into the sheer brutal hell that otherwise awaits.

Afghanistan isn't really going to be given much choice in this matter nor does it need one. The alternative is sufficiently stark that America's vision will be amenable to the relevant segment of afghani society.

There is a clear demarcation in Afghanistan between the Pashtu and others. We can work with the others to diminish the plurality of the pashtus until they're politically neutered. It will take many years but this strategy will assure a good portion of goodwill from large segments of the population opposed to a taliban takeover. This will enable our extended stay.

That's all we need...a foothold. With time, the rest will follow.

Pakistan, though, is all on you. We can't decide your fate for you. Nor would we try. We will attempt to influence or shape events but the ball is squarely in YOUR court. Nobody else.

I can imagine how we'll be forced to react in twelve months if events continue apace. PREDATOR may seem a fond memory. Judging by the board, I'm pleased to see the emerging polarization. It's a necessary pre-condition to the ensuing "debate".

Should prove fascinating.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Obama team on wrong foot with Pakistan?
​

11 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — US President Barack Obama has made rooting out extremism from Pakistan a key priority, but experts from both countries warn that his team is off to a shaky start.

Japan on Friday holds a major donors meeting for Pakistan, but Islamabad has already bristled at proposed conditions in the US aid package.

US envoy Richard Holbrooke, who will take part in the Tokyo talks, and Admiral Mike Mullen, the top US military commander, last week visited Islamabad, where they faced a storm of protest over US drone attacks that have killed both wanted militants and civilians.

Pakistani analyst Shuja Nawaz, director of the South Asia Center at the Washington-based Atlantic Council, was not charitable about the Obama team's debut in Islamabad.

"This was probably the worst ever visit by an American team to South Asia in history," Nawaz said. "It was a complete disaster.

"If this is how you are going to win friends, I just wonder how you are going to create enemies," Nawaz told a seminar at The Jamestown Foundation, another think-tank.

Nawaz faulted Holbrooke and Mullen for publicly demanding that Pakistan's civilian President Asif Ali Zardari rein in elements of the intelligence service believed to support extremists.

Obama has thrown his support behind a bill before Congress to pump 1.5 billion dollars annually into Pakistan for at least five years to build schools and infrastructure that can nurture democracy.

With the United States in a painful recession, the Obama administration has made clear to US taxpayers that it would set benchmarks on Pakistan's progress in fighting extremism.

But Nawaz said such conditions made the aid politically untenable for Zardari, widely seen to be in a weak position faced with Pakistan's powerful military and intelligence service.

Ahmed Rashid, a leading Pakistani journalist and Taliban expert, said that the United States would do well to set more general parameters for aid.

He said he was "absolutely shocked" by the conditions in drafts of the US congressional aid bill to his country.

"No political government can accept a bill like this in Pakistan, even if it is on its knees -- which it is, economically speaking," Rashid said.

Obama, announcing his new strategy last month, said that the United States should take a broader regional approach that encompasses both Pakistan and Afghanistan in the fight to eliminate Islamic extremism.

Leading members of the Al-Qaeda movement -- including its leader Osama bin Laden -- are widely believed to be holed up in Pakistan's lawless tribal areas near the Afghanistan border.

Pakistan was the premier supporter of the extremist Taliban regime in Afghanistan, but military ruler Pervez Musharraf switched sides overnight and became a key US ally after the September 11, 2011 attacks.

Marin Strmecki of the Smith Richardson Foundation warned that the United States ran the risk of telling Pakistan that "having security problems in the region is a good way to get paid to alleviate the problem."

The United States should instead signal that "we want to build a positive long-term relationship with Pakistan for its own sake" and only quietly lay out US goals for Islamabad to fight militants, Strmecki said.

Obama has also backed a bill to give duty-free access to US markets for some goods made in the troubled tribal regions of Pakistan.

Stephen P. Cohen, an expert on South Asia at the Brookings Institution, said that the United States has made excessive demands of a weak Pakistani leadership -- from fighting extremists to safeguarding its nuclear program to treating women better and reforming its economy.

"We've asked the Pakistanis to do too much -- there are limits to what a government can do that can barely stay in power," Cohen said.

"If we think that they can do everything, they will wind up doing nothing well."

AFP: Obama team on wrong foot with Pakistan?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

We can work with the others to diminish the plurality of the pashtus until they're politically neutered. It will take many years but this strategy will assure a good portion of goodwill from large segments of the population opposed to a taliban takeover.

I think I have asked this question of you before without receiving a proper answer- how exactly do you plan on 'diminishing' the Pashtun plurality?

I can imagine how we'll be forced to react in twelve months if events continue apace.

Indeed - and about twelve months ago there was the refrain of 'Times Up!'.

 

[Patriot]

President Barack Obama has now taken full ownership of the Afghanistan War. Gone are Washington’s pretenses that a western `coalition’ was waging this conflict. Gone, too, is the comic book term, `war on terrorism,’ replaced by the Orwellian sobriquet, `overseas contingency operations.’
Obama’s announcement last week of deeper US involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan – now officially known in Washington as `Afpak – was accompanied by a preliminary media bombardment of Pakistan for failing to be sufficiently responsive in advancing US strategic plans.

The `New York Times’ in a front-page story last week that was clearly orchestrated by the Obama administration charged that Pakistan’s military intelligence agency, Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), has been secretly aiding Taliban and its allies in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In 2003, the `NY Times’ severely damage its once stellar reputation by serving as a primary conduit for fake war propaganda put out by the Bush administration over Iraq. The `Times’ has been beating the war drums for more US military operations against Pakistan.

Even so, these latest angry charges being hurled by Washington at Pakistan’s spy agency ring true. Having covered ISI for almost 25 years, and been briefed by many of its director generals, I would be very surprised if ISI was not quietly working with Taliban and other Afghan resistance movements.

Protecting Pakistan’s interests, not those of the United States, is ISI’s main job.

According to Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Washington threatened war against Pakistan after 9/11 if it did not fully cooperate in the US invasion of Afghanistan. Pakistan’s bases and ports were and remain essential for the US occupation of Afghanistan.

Pakistan was forced at gunpoint to accept US demands though most of its people supported Taliban as nationalist, anti-Communist freedom fighters and opposed the US invasion. Taliban, mostly composed of Pashtun tribesmen, had been nurtured and armed by Pakistan.

Many of Pakistan’s generals and senior ISI officers are Pashtun, who make up 15-18% of that nation’s population and form its second largest ethnic group after Punjabis. ISI routinely used Taliban and militant Kashmiri groups Lashkar-i-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed.

Pakistan was enraged to see its traditional Afghan foes, the Communist-dominated Northern Alliance of Tajiks and Uzbeks, put into power by the Americans. The Northern Alliance was strongly backed by India, Iran, Russia, and the Central Asian post-Communist states.

Pakistan has always considered Afghanistan it's `strategic hinterland’ and natural sphere of influence. The 30-million strong Pashtun people straddle the artificial Pak-Afghan border, known as the Durand Line, drawn by Imperial Britain as part of its divide and rule strategy.

Pakistan supports the Afghan Pashtun, who have been excluded from power in US-occupied Afghanistan. But Pakistan also fears secessionist tendencies among its own Pashtun. The specter of an independent Pashtun state - `Pashtunistan’ – uniting the Pashtuns of Afghanistan and Pakistan has long been one of Islamabad’s worst nightmares.

Pakistanis are outraged by US bombing attacks against their own rebellious Pashtun tribes in the frontier agencies. Most also strongly oppose Washington’s `renting’ 130,000 Pakistani troops and aircraft to attack pro-Taliban Pashtun tribesmen. A majority believe the increasingly unpopular and isolated government of President Asif Zardari serves the interests of the US rather than Pakistan.

Pakistan is bankrupt and now lives on American handouts.
Its last two governments have been forced to do Washington’s bidding though most Pakistanis are opposed to such policies.

The US has ignored intensifying efforts by India, Iran, and Russia to expand their influence in Afghanistan. India, in particular, is arming and supplying Afghan foes of Pakistan.

Washington sees Pakistan only as a way of advancing its own interests in Afghanistan, not as a loyal old ally. Obedience, not cooperation, is being demanded of Islamabad.

President Barack Obama announced that more US troops and civilian officials will go to Afghanistan, and more billions will be spent sustaining a war against the largely Pashtun national resistance in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

None of this will benefit Pakistan. In fact America’s deepening involvement in `Afpak’ brings the threat of growing instability and violence, even the de facto break-up of Pakistan as the US tried to splinter fragile Pakistan just as it did Iraq.

It is ISI’s job to deal with these dangers, to keep in close touch with Pashtun on both sides of the border, and to counter-act the machinations of other foreign powers in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s tribal belt.

Many Pakistanis also know that one day the US and its allies will quit Afghanistan, leaving a bloody mess behind them. Pakistan’s ISI will have to pick up the pieces and deal with the ensuing chaos. Pakistan’s strategic and political interests are quite different from those of Washington. But few in Washington seem to care in the least.

ISI is not playing a double game, as Washington charges, but simply assuring Pakistan’s strategic and political interests in the region. The Obama administration is making an historic mistake by treating Pakistan with imperial arrogance and ignoring the concerns and desires of its people. We seem to have learned nothing from the Iranian revolution.



copyright Eric S. Margolis 2009
-
Eric Margolis

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

US policies alienating Pakistan, warn scholars​

By Anwar Iqbal

Monday, 20 Apr, 2009 | 02:37 AM PST |

WASHINGTON: The United States has alienated Pakistan by demanding that they divert troops from the Indian border to fight the Taliban, says former US ambassador to Islamabad Robert Oakley.

‘We’ve alienated them tremendously. Whether we agree or not, the Pakistanis consider India to be the biggest threat to their security,’ Oakley told a US think-tank, the Atlantic Council.

Oakley, who served in Islamabad from 1988 to 92, also criticised the restrictions proposed in a congressional bill on US aid to Pakistan.

‘What we’re calling ‘benchmarks’ remind them very much of the ‘sanctions’ they had hanging over their heads for so many years,’ he said.

Ahmed Rashid, a leading Pakistani journalist and Taliban expert, said that the United States would do well to set more general parameters for aid.

Rashid told another US think-tank, the Jamestown Foundation, that he was ‘absolutely shocked’ by the conditions in drafts of the US congressional aid bill to his country.

‘No political government can accept a bill like this in Pakistan, even if it is on its knees -- which it is, economically speaking,’ he said.

The proposed restrictions require Pakistan to improve its relations with India, whether New Delhi reciprocates those efforts or not. Pakistan also needs to undertake not to support any person or group involved in activities meant to hurt India.

Another proposed requirement will allow US investigators access to individuals suspected of engaging in nuclear proliferation, such as Dr AQ Khan.

Oakley, in his interview to the Atlantic Council, also criticised the US drone attacks inside Pakistan.

The US, he said, needed to ask itself: ‘Are we creating more terrorists than we’re killing?’ And the drone attacks, he said, were probably creating more terrorists.

‘The drones may be killing a lot of Taliban and al Qaeda but they’re alienating the tribesmen we need to win the war,’ he said.

‘We’ve pushed the Pakistani army to fight our war and created a huge backlash. They’re not trained or equipped for counterterrorism and they’re getting killed and killing the wrong people, essentially fighting their own.’

Oakley said that right now, the Pakistani military had control over their nukes. ‘But, if the Islamists gain ground, who knows what’s going to happen?’ he asked.

Oakley was also unhappy with the current Pakistani leadership, particularly the president. They were ‘both incompetent and corrupt and had no clue on the economic side of things.’

Oakley said that unless the US contained the problem in Pakistan, ‘we don’t have any chance in Afghanistan.’

At the Jamestown Foundation, analyst Shuja Nawaz said the Obama team did not make a positive impression during their last two visits to Islamabad.

‘This was probably the worst ever visit by an American team to South Asia in history,’ said Nawaz, director of the South Asia Center at the Washington-based Atlantic Council. ‘It was a complete disaster.’

If this is how the Obama planned to ‘win friends, I just wonder how you are going to create enemies,’ he said.

Nawaz faulted US special envoy Richard Holbrooke and Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen for publicly demanding that Pakistan’s civilian President Asif Ali Zardari rein in elements of the intelligence service believed to support extremists.

Stephen P. Cohen, an expert on South Asia at the Brookings Institution, said that the United States has made excessive demands of a weak Pakistani leadership -- from fighting extremists to safeguarding its nuclear program to treating women better and reforming its economy.

‘If we think that they can do everything, they will wind up doing nothing well.’

At a separate seminar at the Woodrow Wilson Centre for Scholars, Khalid Aziz, a former chief secretary of NWFP who heads the Regional Institute of Policy Research, screened ‘Cries of Anguish,’ a short documentary about Fata.

The film recounted the many unsuccessful foreign attempts to conquer the region. It also focused on the tribal society of Fata’s 3.5 million ethnic Pashtuns.

A major theme of the documentary was Fata’s lack of development, which the film’s commentators attributed to the region’s inaccessibility but also to a lack of funds from Islamabad.

While development aid has increased in recent years, this assistance was now threatened by the rapid spread of extremism.

The documentary depicted Fata’s Pashtuns as demoralized, their hopes shattered ‘for reasons beyond their control’ and their lives threatened ‘by a war not of their own asking.’

After the film, Aziz addressed what he described as the ‘burning issue:’ How to pacify the region.

He noted that, historically, ‘scorched earth’ campaigns and other strictly military approaches had failed. More ‘indirect political approaches,’ however, had succeeded.

Aziz said that current pacification policies, such as the use of unmanned US drones, had increased radicalization not just in FATA but across all of Pakistan.

Aziz offered a range of solutions: Strong US rhetoric should be tempered, while better trust should be promoted between the American and Pakistani militaries. Tight border controls should be introduced. Counterinsurgency methods should be better implemented. Pakistani institutions should be strengthened.

And as for the drones, Aziz acknowledged their effectiveness and value. He championed their continued use -- though under a Pakistani flag.

DAWN.COM | World | US policies alienating Pakistan, warn scholars

 

[ajpirzada]

everyone is sayin that US policies are pushing pakistani society towards anti american forces. enemy of my enemy is my friend. more and more ppl are gettin radicalised. they are not only alienating Pakistan in international arena but also alienating GoP within the country.
i wonder if something lik iranian revolution happens, which religious group will take over. hope they are not talibans