Pakistan Faces Threat From Terrorism, Not India:US

[godsavetheworld]

Pakistan Faces Threat From Terrorism, Not India, Petraeus Says
Share | Email | Print | A A A

By Brian K. Sullivan

April 22 (Bloomberg) -- The greatest threat facing Pakistan comes from terrorism, not India, U.S. Army General David Petraeus said, as he called on the government in Islamabad to change its mindset toward its neighbor.

The shift in thinking that should take place in Pakistan is similar to what happened in the U.S. after the Cold War, Petraeus said in a speech at Harvard University yesterday, adding America had grown “comfortable” facing off against the Soviet Union.

“The existential threat” facing Pakistan “is internal extremists and not India,” Petraeus, who commands American Forces in the Middle East and Central Asia, said in the speech at the Kennedy School of Government.

The Obama administration is pressing Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari to do more to tackle al-Qaeda and Taliban militants sheltering in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last month that tensions with India over the divided Himalayan region of Kashmir were diverting Pakistan from the fight against extremism.

India realizes the “desirability of reducing tensions” so Pakistan can focus its efforts on combating terrorists, Petraeus told reporters later.

The five-year peace process between the nuclear-armed South Asian neighbors has been stalled since gunmen killed 166 people in India’s financial hub, Mumbai, in November. India blamed the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba for the assault.

‘9/11 Moment’

The Mumbai attack “was a true 9/11 moment” for India, Petraeus said, adding the government in New Delhi “displayed considerable restraint.”

Kashmir, claimed by India and Pakistan, triggered two of the three wars the nations fought since independence in 1947.

The flashpoint has forced Pakistan to maintain a two-front military strategy that is diverting troops from fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda, Mullen told Pentagon reporters March 27.

Many members of Pakistan’s government recognize that extremist elements pose a threat to its authority and must be brought under control, Petraeus said.

Terrorism has cost Pakistan $35 billion in economic losses and damage to infrastructure, according to the government in Islamabad. More than 3,500 terrorist incidents have occurred since 2007, killing an average of 84 people per month this year.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aIiUxXbnM2wM&refer=home

 

[waraich66]

Terrorism has cost Pakistan $35 billion in economic losses and damage to infrastructure, according to the government in Islamabad. More than 3,500 terrorist incidents have occurred since 2007, killing an average of 84 people per month this year.

Alarming!

GoP should review their policy of war on terror.It is not our war ,more then 90% Pakistan's agreed that WOT is not Pakistan's WAR.

 

[godsavetheworld]

^^ You are the biggest victim. To choose not to call it your war, is foolish.

 

[rubyjackass]

The title is confusing at first sight.
I wondered if it meant 'Pakistan, not India, faces threat from terrorism'

 

[Cheetah786]

Terrorism has cost Pakistan $35 billion in economic losses and damage to infrastructure, according to the government in Islamabad. More than 3,500 terrorist incidents have occurred since 2007, killing an average of 84 people per month this year.

Alarming!

GoP should review their policy of war on terror.It is not our war ,more then 90% Pakistan's agreed that WOT is not Pakistan's WAR.

so what you are saying is $35billion dollar loss isnt your loss 10000s of people killed by Terrorist in pakistan werent pakistanies.You are posting the facts your self and at the same time denying it now thats ALarming.

 

[waraich66]

so what you are saying is $35billion dollar loss isnt your loss 10000s of people killed by Terrorist in pakistan werent pakistanies.You are posting the facts your self and at the same time denying it now thats ALarming.

Nations always learn from mistakes , we should review our policy of US support in WOT , This is the door through which they want reach our nukes .

 

[godsavetheworld]

Nations always learn from mistakes , we should review our policy of US support in WOT , This is the door through which they want reach our nukes .

Okay, say you review your policy, say you withdraw support, and leave the WOT alliance. Will you be able to undo what has been done to Pakistan? Can you bring back the lives of 10,000 who have died since 2001?

Its cowardice. Instead, go in for a complete assault. Guirella warfare only favours smaller armies like that of Taliban. And causes enormous damage to a national army.

 

[waraich66]

Okay, say you review your policy, say you withdraw support, and leave the WOT alliance. Will you be able to undo what has been done to Pakistan? Can you bring back the lives of 10,000 who have died since 2001?

Its cowardice. Instead, go in for a complete assault. Guirella warfare only favours smaller armies like that of Taliban. And causes enormous damage to a national army.

WOT is suicidol not only for Pakistan also our neighbours (India), imagine if talaban got Nuke then who will be their first target Israel or India.
Most effected country due to WOT is Pakistan ,that is reason majority Pakistanis are against this WOT.
US should focus on OBL not on Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

“The existential threat” facing Pakistan “is internal extremists and not India,” Petraeus, who commands American Forces in the Middle East and Central Asia, said in the speech at the Kennedy School of Government.

In that case, I am waiting for US/UN guarantees against any Indian aggression against Pakistan.

Put their money where their mouth is.

That said, the threat from extremism is the overriding one at the moment, and has to be addressed.

 

[IceCold]

Man General David Petraeus can shove this theory of his up his ***. This WOT has brought us nothing but misery and its high time, reject the damn ******* aid and get out of WOT. Aid other then going to personal pockets have never really being put to its original use.

 

[Energon]

In that case, I am waiting for US/UN guarantees against any Indian aggression against Pakistan.

The only threat from India is that of a military response (probably an overwhelming one) in the aftermath of a Pakistan based terrorist attack, or a border incursion (post Kargil probability however is rather low). Subsequently the only way to avoid aggression from India is to ensure that not a single terrorist operation is carried out successfully from Pakistan. As long as the probability of avoiding terrorism emanating from Pakistan remains bleak, neither the US/UN nor India can give Pakistan guarantees in this regard. And while it would be really nice, India simply cannot provide assurances that it will not take retributive measures on account of future acts of terrorism.

This situation is rather unique in that both, the problem and the solution are essentially side by side within Pakistan. At this point, Pakistan as a nation state (if it wishes to establish/maintain/retain that identity) is the only entity that can resolve this issue. The rest: India, West, USA etc. can only issue threats, apply diplomatic pressure, enforce sanctions or conduct bombing campaigns; they certainly can't resolve the issues or provide it the sort of guarantees we're talking about here.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The only threat from India is that of a military response (probably an overwhelming one) in the aftermath of a Pakistan based terrorist attack, or a border incursion (post Kargil probability however is rather low).

There is no way to offer a hundred percent guarantee against a terrorist threat. India has plenty of homegrown terrorism that could be used as a pretext for aggression.

The threat of aggression from India, under whatever pretext, therefore remains.

Without guarantees against Indian aggression, especially given Indian involvement with the Baloch terrorists, such pontifications by the US are useless.

Pakistan will, in this situation, have to essentially address both threats simultaneously.

I suspect Pakistan will wait till after the Indian elections (allow the election time histrionics and jingoism to tide over) to gauge the policies of the new Indian government and move from there.

 

[S-2]

The rational response must be that the Pakistani army views no existential threat as per Petraeus but I'm glad to see him remove that cover by stating what we all know elsewhere.

Were the Pakistani army to see such a threat, they'd surrender to save the country from misery or fight. One of the two in the face of an existential threat. What other recourse can their be?

So, rhetorically, the Pakistani army clearly doesn't view this as anything that can't be managed to some mitigating effect...and possibly even to good if they can convince America to care about their security more so than themselves. To that end, there appears a calculated disregard of the patently obvious to some greater goal.

These are not irrational men and one can only imagine what that might be.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

but I'm glad to see him remove that cover

Petraeus's job is to pontificate in favor of US policy and interests, those interests at the moment involve getting more Pakistani troops to be deployed in FATA.

As such his statements are hardly objective or devoid of a deliberate intent to shape opinion a particular way. Since its not his country that would be attacked by India, I'll stick with Pakistan's determination of the extent of the Indian threat.

 

[S-2]

"As such his statements are hardly objective or devoid of a deliberate intent to shape opinion a particular way."

Would you prefer a fiddle to learn while your country burns or a suit of armor as defense against windmills?

I rather believe that your army doesn't dare pick it's scabs in an insurgency that can only reveal the depth of islamist penetration among your disaffected ranks.

Why do you think that your army RAN from SWAT? Battle costs?

Nope. Troop morale. Count on it. A cold slap in your commanders faces how unprepared your men were to enter these communities and win the respect of the people...and they knew it.

You've surrendered the moral high ground to the militants and you retreated to where the focus of your soldiers could be more safely and comfortably shifted upon familiar targets. They much prefer aiming at Indians than irhabists.

I see little point aiding a country which refuses to aid itself. As I've said, were this a true nat'l emergency, your army would fight for your country's survival. As they aren't fighting, there's no problem. Thus no need for aid of any sort.

You'll be fine and this is much ado about nothing. We need to understand this and focus our aid efforts where they most matter-Afghanistan.