What's new

Pakistan Objects to U.S. Plan for Afghan War

Should Pakistan put USA’s interest first viewing lessons from soviet-afghan war?

  • Pakistan interest first (USA might end aid)

    Votes: 18 85.7%
  • USA interest first

    Votes: 3 14.3%
  • Don't Know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    21

brilTek

FULL MEMBER
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
381
Reaction score
0
Pakistan Objects to U.S. Plan for Afghan War​

Newyork Times
By ERIC SCHMITT and JANE PERLEZ
Published: July 21, 2009


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan is objecting to expanded American combat operations in neighboring Afghanistan, creating new fissures in the alliance with Washington at a critical juncture when thousands of new American forces are arriving in the region.


Pakistani officials have told the Obama administration that the Marines fighting the Taliban in southern Afghanistan will force militants across the border into Pakistan, with the potential to further inflame the troubled province of Baluchistan, according to Pakistani intelligence officials.

Pakistan does not have enough troops to deploy to Baluchistan to take on the Taliban without denuding its border with its archenemy, India, the officials said. Dialogue with the Taliban, not more fighting, is in Pakistan’s national interest, they said.

The Pakistani account made clear that even as the United States recommits troops and other resources to take on a growing Taliban threat, Pakistani officials still consider India their top priority and the Taliban militants a problem that can be negotiated. In the long term, the Taliban in Afghanistan may even remain potential allies for Pakistan, as they were in the past, once the United States leaves.


The Pakistani officials gave views starkly different from those of American officials regarding the threat presented by top Taliban commanders, some of whom the Americans say have long taken refuge on the Pakistani side of the border.


Recent Pakistani military operations against Taliban in the Swat Valley and parts of the tribal areas have done little to close the gap in perceptions.


Even as Obama administration officials praise the operations, they express frustration that Pakistan is failing to act against the full array of Islamic militants using the country as a base.

Instead, they say, Pakistani authorities have chosen to fight Pakistani Taliban who threaten their government, while ignoring Taliban and other militants fighting Americans in Afghanistan or terrorizing India. :cheers:



Such tensions have mounted despite a steady rotation of American officials through the region. They were on display last weekend when, during a visit to India, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said those who had planned the Sept. 11 attacks were now sheltering in Pakistan. The Pakistani Foreign Ministry issued an immediate rebuttal.


Pakistan’s critical assessment was provided as the Obama administration’s special envoy for the region, Richard C. Holbrooke, arrived in Pakistan on Tuesday night.

The country’s perspective was given in a nearly two-hour briefing on Friday for The New York Times by senior analysts and officials of Pakistan’s main spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence. They spoke on the condition of anonymity in keeping with the agency’s policy. The main themes of the briefing were echoed in conversations with several military officers over the past few days.

One of the first briefing slides read, in part: “The surge in Afghanistan will further reinforce the perception of a foreign occupation of Afghanistan. It will result in more civilian casualties; further alienate local population. Thus more local resistance to foreign troops.”

A major concern is that the American offensive may push Taliban militants over the border into Baluchistan, a province that borders Waziristan in the tribal areas. The Pakistani Army is already fighting a longstanding insurgency of Baluch separatists in the province.

A Taliban spillover would require Pakistan to put more troops there, a Pakistani intelligence official said, troops the country does not have now. Diverting troops from the border with India is out of the question, the official said.

A spokesman for the American and NATO commands in Afghanistan, Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith, said in an e-mail message on Monday that there was no significant movement of insurgents out of Afghanistan, and no indication of foreign fighters moving into Afghanistan through Baluchistan or Iran, another concern of the Pakistanis.

Pakistani and American officials also cited some positive signs for the alliance. Increased sharing of information has sharpened the accuracy of strikes against militant hide-outs by Pakistani F-16 warplanes and drones operated by the Central Intelligence Agency. And Pakistani and American intelligence operatives are fighting together in dangerous missions to hunt down fighters from the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the tribal areas and in the North-West Frontier Province.

But the intelligence briefing clearly illuminated the differences between the two countries over how, in the American view, Pakistan was still picking proxies and choosing enemies among various Islamic militant groups in Pakistan.

The United States maintains that the Afghan Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, leads an inner circle of commanders who guide the war in southern Afghanistan from their base in Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan.

American officials say this Taliban council, known as the Quetta shura, is sheltered by Pakistani authorities, who may yet want to employ the Taliban as future allies in Afghanistan.

In an interview last week, the new leader of American and NATO combat operations in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, paused when asked whether he was getting the cooperation he wanted from Pakistani forces in combating the Quetta shura. “What I would love is for the government of Pakistan to have the ability to completely eliminate the safe havens that the Afghan Taliban enjoy,” he said.

The Pakistani intelligence officials denied that Mullah Omar was even in Pakistan, insisting that he was in Afghanistan.

The United States asked Pakistan in recent years to round up 10 Taliban leaders in Quetta, the Pakistani officials said. Of those 10, 6 were killed by the Pakistanis, 2 were probably in Afghanistan, and the remaining 2 presented no threat to the Marines in Afghanistan, the officials said.

They also said no threat was posed by Sirajuddin Haqqani, an Afghan Taliban leader who American military commanders say operates with Pakistani protection out of North Waziristan and equips and trains Taliban fighters for Afghanistan.

Last year, Washington presented evidence to Pakistani leaders that Mr. Haqqani, working with Inter-Services Intelligence, was responsible for the bombing last summer of the Indian Embassy in Kabul that killed 54 people.


Pakistani officials insisted that Mr. Haqqani spent most of his time in Afghanistan, suggesting that the American complaints about him being provided sanctuary were invalid.


Another militant group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, is also a source of deep disagreement.

India and the United States have criticized Pakistan for allowing Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba, to be freed from jail last month.

The Pakistani officials said Mr. Saeed deserved to be freed because the government had failed to convince the courts that he should be kept in custody. There would be no effort to imprison Mr. Saeed again, in part because he was just an ideologue who did not have an anti-Pakistan agenda, the officials said.

Source: Newyork Times
 
Last edited:
. .
It would depend on the number of troops on other side which are just way too much and our Army is already very smaller then IA therefore much harder for us to deploy on western which will still have loopholes as the terrain is tough.
 
.
How many troops does Pakistan really need on the border with India?

Well, top brass definitely knows how many ENOUGH to protect our eastern border. ;).

Previously Pakistan made it clear that unilateral withdrawal of troops from eastern border is out of question until India does the same. The questions could be: Why the USA not using its influence on India? Is India afraid of attack from Pakistan? :smokin:
 
.
Gives us drones and 50cobras heli and 50billion dollor then we might consider this option
 
.
How many troops does Pakistan really need on the border with India?

Hundreds of thousands.Our army has around 500,000 troops(9 corps + Army strategic force command). One particular reason is that we need to protect the middle section of Pakistan (where the horizontal depth/distance between Afghanistan and india is the least) so that Pakistan does not get divided into two halves by an indian attack. This is why we have established important corp level military garrisons in important surrounding locations.
 
.
if you don't send terri from your side may be india consider that opion too.
 
. . .
Well, top brass definitely knows how many ENOUGH to protect our eastern border. ;).

Previously Pakistan made it clear that unilateral withdrawal of troops from eastern border is out of question until India does the same. The questions could be: Why the USA not using its influence on India? Is India afraid of attack from Pakistan? :smokin:

I sure don't get it...Majority of Pakistani troops on the Pakistan/India border, and the Taliban is coming through the back door into Pakistan...I JUST DON'T GET IT! :hitwall:
 
. .
I sure don't get it...Majority of Pakistani troops on the Pakistan/India border, and the Taliban is coming through the back door into Pakistan...I JUST DON'T GET IT! :hitwall:

The Taliban are already in Pakistan - most of the Taliban operating in FATA and Swat are Pakistani.

Plus the Taliban can be contained, as shown by the operation in Swat, and the strikes in SW, and eventually ripped out of any territory they do take.

Hard to retake territory from a much larger conventional military.

By the way, I think all this whining from US analysts, journalists and officials, about Pakistani troops facing the East, is better put to use in putting pressure on/convincing the Indians to come to an agreement to mutually draw down their own troop levels along the LoC and IB, and possibly resolve some of the disputes between the two countries.

But heavens forbid you try to pressure someone you stand to make money off.

Respect for, and champions of, values and freedom my ***.
 
. .
forget about our eastern border for now. y not ask americans to increase deployment on their side or Pak Afghan border? neither are their posts enough nor the total number of troops. i wonder that under such situation do they even have a right to complain about less number of troops on our side.
 
.
AgNoStIc, I have no idea how many divisions India has on the IB or LoC....I'll take a wild guess and say 4 divisions. Am I close??

"According to officials, the Indian Army has 11 divisions deployed on this side of border, while Pakistan has nearly 9 divisions deployed on its side of the frontier."

No thinning of troops by Pakistan: Indian Army

That's the Indian version.

I can't remember what Musharraf suggested the numbers were - need to look up Zakaria's interview with him.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom