What's new

Oil, Obama, And Pakistan

Ali.009

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
965
Reaction score
-6
Oil, Obama, And Pakistan



America’s military policy is following its foreign policy which follows the smell of oil. Forget freedom and democracy. That’s for fools. Pakistanis are fooling themselves if they think President Obama will be able to change this. Let’s pray he does. The Karachi-Torkham-Afghanistan supply route and the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline means that U.S. will have to take effective control of Balochistan, Gwadar and Karachi. This will also help deny Iran and China any stake in their own pipelines across Pakistan. America can’t do this by going to war with a strong Pakistani military. Destabilization is part of the plan, with some margin for unintended consequences. Now you understand the game.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—Publicly, America’s most immediate challenge after the government change is Afghanistan and Pakistan. Privately, in Washington’s power corridors, it is oil.



Oil, and not al Qaeda, is threatening to knock America off global leadership. President Obama takes over a country whose global economic leadership is threatened by dwindling oil reserves and a dogfight over whatever remains.



Oil is running out, fast. And the remaining oil, including new reserves, lie in other people’s lands, closer to Russia, China, Europe and other powers. America’s global supremacy rests on an economic system based on easy access to oil. If someone else gets that oil, America loses.



Jon Thompson, an American oil veteran ExxonMobil Exploration Company’s former president, has written in June 2003 that by next decade the world will need 80% more oil than we have today to keep the world going.



Luckily for President Obama, his predecessor, George W. Bush, has done an excellent job in: One, securing new oil, and, Two, warding off threat from other oil hungry powers.



Under the guise of spreading freedom and democracy, Bush’s eight years saw the biggest expansion of American military bases across the world. And the trail follows the smell of oil. This riddle is as mysterious as the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.



America’s foreign policy was also adjusted to follow the footprint of oil, going where the oil is, be it Angola, Sudan/Darfur, Central Asia, Russia, Colombia, Georgia, Venezuela, and of course Iraq. Somalia is fast becoming the latest battlefield in this secretive global dogfight over oil and transport routes.



In the words of veteran American oil industry correspondent William Engdahl, ‘U.S. military and foreign policy was now about controlling every major existing and potential oil source and transport route on earth […] One superpower, the United States, would be in a position to decide who gets how much energy and at what price.’



The Taliban government was not an enemy of America. It sent delegations to United States and lobbied for U.S. State Department’s attention. Its removal was decided much before 9/11, according to Pakistan’s former top diplomat Niaz Naik, who was told so explicitly by U.S. officials in July 2001. Taliban fell out of favor because they put terms and conditions on the pipelines that American oil giants planned to construct on Afghan territory. Taliban were replaced by U.S. oil consultants Zalmay Khalilzad and Hamid Karzai.



Pakistan was and continues to be the next target. U.S. diplomatic meddling has already disturbed the natural progression of the Pakistani government system, leading to instability and creating local players who look to America for support. U.S. military intervention is softening up the country through regular missile attacks and drone flights. The last time this method proved effective was in Iraq during the 1990s. The chatter in the U.S. think tanks and media about Pakistan’s division along ethnic lines has never been this high. Pakistan has to be subdued in order for American energy and military transport lines to become secure. America needs to secure Pakistani transport routes from the sea to the Afghan border.



Balochistan is an interesting case. Destabilizing this Pakistani province disturbs Iran’s plans to lay down pipelines to Pakistan and beyond. The instability also helps destroy China’s chances of using Gwadar, the new Pakistani port city overlooking oil-rich Gulf, to dock its commercial and naval ships. In fact, the entire area between Gwadar and the Sino-Pakistani border is up in insurgencies of all sorts, known and unknown. This is the same route that a future Chinese oil pipeline is supposed to take, linking China to oil supplies from Africa and the Gulf. This entire area was peaceful before 2005, until meddling by unknown actors began from the U.S.-controlled Afghan soil, exploiting Pakistani internal problems.



The United States is playing a big role in ‘softening’ Pakistan. It is trying to pitch the country’s elected governments against the military to reduce the military’s ability to decide Pakistani interest on Afghanistan, China and India. Outside meddling is easy thanks to Pakistan’s weak political and government structure.



Stopping American intervention in Pakistan, while continuing the cooperative relationship, is the biggest challenge facing President Obama.



Will he do it? The facts on the ground are not encouraging. After gaining unprecedented access inside Pakistan – both diplomatically and militarily – it is doubtful that an Obama administration would scale back U.S. gains.



Pakistan will have to tell the U.S. that it has legitimate security and strategic interests in the region and that it cannot allow the U.S. to decide those for Pakistan. This includes the shape of the future government in Kabul, the expansion of the Indian role in the region, and the relationship with China.



Obama’s Washington has to understand, respect and work with Pakistani interests and concerns. Any other type of relationship won’t work. President Obama needs to wean his policy planners off the idea of reproducing the pliant regimes Baghdad and Kabul.



Those things require war. And President Obama doesn’t want another war, does he?
 
.
The US only goes where its interest lies very simple !!
 
. .
That's right, but isn't that how all countries operate?...Pakistan included. :pakistan:

Waging two illegal wars within a couple of years for the sake of resources isn't exactly how Pakistan operates.
 
.
Waging two illegal wars within a couple of years for the sake of resources isn't exactly how Pakistan operates.

Does "Interests" mean wars only?. Tell me, doesn't Pakistan operate in her interests as well? just like other countries?.
 
.
Does "Interests" mean wars only?. Tell me, doesn't Pakistan operate in her interests as well? just like other countries?.

You're right, it's not limited to wars only. But current track record of America suggests that wagging illegal wars to drain out resources of foreign countries is an "acceptable" idea for the sake of her "Interests". That's all.

But you're right. Every country acts according to her Interests. Only AMERICA interferes in other countries "Interests" for the sake of her OWN interests.
 
Last edited:
.
Waging two illegal wars within a couple of years for the sake of resources isn't exactly how Pakistan operates.

Pakistan's war with India is, at least, as "illegal" as the US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which are approved by the UN. Pakistan's war with Afghanistan is also "illegal". Anyway, your whole belief that the US does almost everything because of oil is illogical. The US can simply buy whatever oil it needs. The US could also explore for and develop oil and natural gas within its own territories and adjacent coastal shelves, if it wanted to. Further the US could use its abundant coal resources to replace much of the oil it needs, if it wanted to. finally the US could use nuclear energy to replace aa lot of domestic natural gas and oil usage if it wanted to. Oil does not explain US foreign policy. It is very unsophisticated and superficial to believe that it does.
 
.
It's all about maintaining the global trading network that's so benefited American commerce. To do so, everybody needs equal and unfettered access to market-priced oil. That means everybody-right down to the smallest and most insignificant nation-equally and without impediment. That, btw, is a primary interest of everybody else too. So when blighly dismissing actions as acting in America's interests, please understand what those interests actually entail.

Anything less than equal and unfettered access at market prices will result in great power competition to seize secure arenas of supplies at the expense of others. Doing so will fracture the global commerce network, skewing pricing, and increase military friction between powerful armies at decisive energy choke-points.

A global loser.
 
.
Pakistan should look for its own best interst, I dont think it does as other nations do.

The leaders of Pakistan should always put Pakistan first.

I think the current China-Pakistan partnership will be the best for Pakistan. :china::pakistan:
 
.
Omar,

"I think the current China-Pakistan partnership will be the best for Pakistan."

How did you feel when the PRC gov't chose not to provide a direct loan nor aid to Pakistan during Zardari's visit to Beijing last fall. Were you pleased?

Why did this happen?

Thanks.:)
 
.

Mr Barack Obama, the new American president, is expected to bring about changes in the foreign policy of his predecessor, President George W Bush. The most prominent item in Mr Obama’s agenda of change is to gradually switch off the war in Iraq and reinforce the NATO-ISAF military presence in Afghanistan. But most Pakistanis don’t think that is a good idea because they think the US should just pack up and leave the region to its devices.

However, at the policy level in Pakistan, things are not so simply defined. The Obama administration will come in armed with Vice-President Joe Biden’s $1.5 billion a year for economic and social development in Pakistan. Mr Obama’s reading of the deteriorating Afghan crisis also highlights his priority of “human development” there. In addition to sending 30,000 more American troops to Afghanistan he is expected to focus on the infrastructure of the country.

His earliest line on Pakistan was simplistic: an invasion of the tribal areas if Pakistan could not go after Al Qaeda on its territory. But that has changed a bit and now it is the “prevention of Al Qaeda from preparing and launching another attack on the United States”. This is supposed to be the crux of his policy of changing President Bush’s obsession with Iraq and bringing it around to the original anti-terrorist focus. But Iraq will continue to be strategically important, more so in proportion as it becomes pacified and amenable to economic function.

Mr Obama may find some resistance inside NATO on the subject of carrying out anti-terrorism activities in Afghanistan. The last summit in Bucharest in April 2008 was reported optimistically by the western press, but apart from disagreement over the candidacy of Georgia and Ukraine as future members of NATO, there were differences of opinion over Afghanistan, the possible future enhancement of NATO troops and their placement nearer the frontline positions there. The US policy on Afghanistan is expected to become crystallised after the next NATO summit in Germany in April this year when a recession-hit Europe is asked to send more troops and spend more money on Afghanistan.

Pakistan’s status for the generality of Americans is nearer to the pain that comes from persistent migraine, but President Obama has begun by focusing on the capacity-building of the state for facing up to terrorism. An American package has enabled army operations through which Pakistan is so far keeping the Taliban from breaking out of its fastness of the Tribal Areas into the rest of Pakistan, but an unravelling economy undermines anything that Pakistan may do to stop the retreat of the state in the face of violence. In the coming days, as its industries pack up and the armies of the unemployed increase, Pakistan will need crucial external help to keep its minimal economy going.

There will be problems no doubt, especially in relation to Pakistan’s and India’s willingness to reengage in peace talks, not merely to resolve old disputes but to move quickly to trade and cultural relations. Pakistan’s growing suspicion of a US-Indian “conspiracy” to beat down Pakistan and get hold of its nuclear assets is going to throw up psychological barriers. These barriers also include Pakistan’s perception that a withdrawal of NATO-ISAF forces from Afghanistan will bring immediate peace to its Tribal Areas where the entrenched warlords will gracefully bow out to allow Pakistan to re-establish its writ of the state there.

The biggest problem will not emanate so much from Washington as from Islamabad where politics has once again become conflictual, with politicians going back to their reflex of toppling elected governments and inviting the army to find solutions which they are in the process of destroying today.
 
.

ISLAMABAD, Jan 20: US Central Command chief Gen David Petraeus stressed here on Tuesday it was in the interest of the world that Pakistan succeeded in meeting internal challenges.

“It is clearly in the interest of all countries involved that Pakistan succeeds in dealing with its internal problems,” Gen Petraeus said while talking to reporters after meeting President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Army Chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani also attended the meetings.

The Centcom chief was on a daylong visit to Islamabad on the fifth leg of a trip to the region that took him to Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Later in the evening, he proceeded to Kabul.

This was General Petraeus’ second visit to Pakistan after assuming the Centcom command in October last year.

While talking to reporters, General Petraeus said his discussions focussed on ways the US and the international community could assist Pakistan in meeting various challenges and in acting against militancy and extremism in Fata, NWFP and other parts of the country and help the “new democracy get itself established as it undertakes the difficult decisions that it has recently reached to be in compliance with the International Monetary Fund agreement”.

Although the US general touched on the strain in Pakistan-India ties in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks and its impact on Pakistan’s cooperation in the war on terror, he mainly focussed on increasing collaboration between the two allies in the war in Afghanistan.

“We discussed further possible activities in the overall effort to counter terrorism and extremism.”

Gen Petraeus said he had conferred with his Pakistani interlocutors about coordination and cooperation between military elements of Pakistan and the US so that actions in eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan were in harmony to prevent the cross-border movement of militants who moved back and forth the Pakistan-Afghan border to strike targets in both the countries.

He expressed the hope that cooperation in countering extremism would increase between Pakistan and the United States, with the new administration in White House.

New supply route

Alluding to unreliability of Pakistani route for military supplies to Afghanistan where militants over the past couple of months had attacked Nato convoys, Gen Petraeus said the US was seeking additional logistical routes.

During his four-nation visit to the Central Asia, the Centcom chief tried to “solidify understanding and reach agreements on northern lines of communication” because, he said, the US felt it was important that there were multiple routes getting into Afghanistan as it increased its contribution to the war in Afghanistan.

Gen Petraeus said that an agreement had been reached with Kyrgyz leaders for continuing and strengthening the use of the Minas airbase in Kyrgyzstan.

General Petraeus discussed with President Zardari regional security matters.

Prime Minister Gilani discussed with the US general the situation in the region with particular focus on Pakistan-US cooperation in counter-terrorism. The security situation in Afghanistan and escalation of tensions between Pakistan and India were also discussed.

General Petraeus praised the actions taken by Pakistan to uncover full facts relating to the Mumbai attacks and said these were most “heartening”.

He said the US was working to defuse tensions in South Asia and welcomed the restraint and responsibility demonstrated by Pakistan
 
.
they are making kill us our own people its an old streagedy for war to turn our own people against us and they are playing thier cards right its us we are completely blind n crook leadership and democracy is just a big joke "Zardari is the most currupt leader in Pakistan history.Obama cant do anything the whole Jewish lobby is still in place.
 
.
How did you feel when the PRC gov't chose not to provide a direct loan nor aid to Pakistan during Zardari's visit to Beijing last fall. Were you pleased?

Why did this happen?

Thanks.


Russia and China are two countries that have the potential to help Pakistan.

But the problem is that they think that we are still very good friends with the US.

The moment the thing gets cleared they will start a new level of friendship with us.

US is a threat to both Russia and China, but they will come after them only when they have gone through Pakistan.
 
.
Russia and China are two countries that have the potential to help Pakistan.

But the problem is that they think that we are still very good friends with the US.

The moment the thing gets cleared they will start a new level of friendship with us.

US is a threat to both Russia and China, but they will come after them only when they have gone through Pakistan.

"the GOD help those who help themselves" PAF is outnumber and in Quality by USAF n IAF so as army n Navy ; sooner or later they are coming for us :sniper:
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom