Pakistan says last payment from US for fighting Taliban delayed

[jeypore]

"Your army could have made a better effort, IMHO. It would have dramatically reduced the influx of radicalized and trained soldiers to this area. What happens to these men once captured, I'm unsure. That would have been an interesting "what if?"

That's how I saw events unfold then.

Isn't that one of the key issue regarding Pakistan, did they really try to capture them. Instead large amounts of report came of harbouring them. What would be the purpose of the drone attacks today.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

One more time pakistan gets what it deserves for its incompetence in negotiating a better deal----

Here is how it works with the americans----when you agreed to help them and they agreed to pay you----this is how you set it up-----in order to lease the resources----they have to pay the first installment upfront---that is one years rent upfront an approximate ammont----then you charge them one year upfront as a security deposit as well---the security deposit works as a good faith and shows as a good faith and sincere effort on part of the americans.

Nopw just because we are asking for money upfront---it does not mean that we are not sincere---just being prudent---we are just being cautious----just protecting the rights of the pakistanis.

So---those of you who are bickering and crying about not being paid---tough luck----you need to get an american car salesman to do your negotiation about money issues with the americans administration.

 

[jeypore]

Hi,

One more time pakistan gets what it deserves for its incompetence in negotiating a better deal----

Here is how it works with the americans----when you agreed to help them and they agreed to pay you----this is how you set it up-----in order to lease the resources----they have to pay the first installment upfront---that is one years rent upfront an approximate ammont----then you charge them one year upfront as a security deposit as well---the security deposit works as a good faith and shows as a good faith and sincere effort on part of the americans.
Nopw just because we are asking for money upfront---it does not mean that we are not sincere---just being prudent---we are just being cautious----just protecting the rights of the pakistanis.

So---those of you who are bickering and crying about not being paid---tough luck----you need to get an american car salesman to do your negotiation about money issues with the americans administration.

This is what I really do not understand at all. The true question is, is terrorism a global threat or a local threat. Every country is paying the price!

Since, it is a global threat, that is the sole reason Pakistan is getting paid to fight these terrorist, but what it was just a local threat. Where would pakistan go to ask for money to fight them, or complain about soldier and lives losts. It truly would become a mendatory issue, wouldn't it?

And another paradox to this whole situation is, that pakistan does perceive this war on terror as a local war, yet acts like it is a global war on terror.

 

[RedBaron]

S-2:
...
I strongly support building bridges with the NA folk now, and to that extent it seems the new DG ISI has initiated contacts. Obviously it will take a while before trust is rebuilt, on both sides. I think getting the GoA to accept the Durand line and increasing contacts between the Intelligence and security agencies of the two sides will go a long way in that direction.
...

This is the first post I've read where cooperation with the Afghan Intel has been proposed. When I've mentioned Afghan Intel chief Amrullah Saleh in a few posts in the past, members have roundly bashed him as an incompetent nincompoop, paid Indian agent, etc...

Saleh on his part is not very enthusiastic about PA/ISI either. In an interview with Al Jazeera in Sep-08, he blames PA/ISI for training Afghan insurgents, claims that he has "piles of evidence", and hints that they are also soft on Haqqani, mastermind of the Indian embassy bombings.

Of course, a lot has happened since last year and maybe the two agencies are indeed talking...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Red Baron:

Read the Der Spiegel interview of the DG ISI, Gen Pasha. His comments about his meeting with Saleh in Afghanistan are extremely illuminating. So is the noticeable and dramatic toning down of accusations against Pakistan from Saleh and the GoA in the past few months.

Again, whether it is India or Afghanistan, long term stability in the region can only be achieved if every side is part of the dialog and has its concerns addressed.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I am sorry if I used the wrong terminology, I certainly didn't mean to cast a blanket on the entire entity of Islam or all of its followers in Pakistan. But what I am referring to is the consensus among Zia and some of his top military aids (particularly Hamid Gul and Mirza Aslam beg) to assemble and retain a vast irregular force motivated purely by a radicalized version of Islam, and then use it as a tool to attain foreign policy objectives. This was far more pronounced against India (a topic that would require a separate thread) than Afghanistan considering the adversaries in the latter (Masoud, NA) were Muslims themselves. The point however is these people were in fact successful in assembling an irregular army of fighters motivated purely by radicalized Islam who were considered as "assets" and then used against neighboring countries at the state's behest. It is also well known that this idea was conceived at the early stages of the Afghan conflict; hence by default it is a pre-meditated intention of weaponizing radicalized Islam to be used for national gains.

The motivation was to use an irregular forces against India (hopefully you aren't referring to Operation Topac) to force her to the negotiating table on Kashmir, beyond that I am not convinced any credible argument on the use of 'proxies for foreign policy objectives' exists.

As I said above, in Afghanistan the focus was on finding a faction (pro Pakistan of course, especially given Afghan scheming against Pakistan early in our history - with respect to Pashtunistan, the Baloch militancy and the Durand) that would stabilize the country and allow Pakistan to fulfill the long term trade and energy corridor view. The desire for a pro-Pakistan government in Afghanistan, along with the historical reasons I mentioned, did for a time find some justification through the idea of 'strategic depth', but I would argue that it was always secondary to the larger interest of stability in Afghanistan for trade purposes.

If you're trying to say that a bunch of "foreigners" just forced their way in and held West Pakistan hostage then I'm not buying it, nor does that opinion conform to what most experts on the region do believe (including Rashid, Ruben and Coll). Fighters from Afghanistan came into Pakistan in seek of refuge knowing very well that they have a lot of local ideological support there. Many of them were even born in Western Pakistan, trained there or have families there. Western Pakistan was the breeding and launching ground for the radicalization and militant movement that eventually gave rise to the groups like Taliban. The chickens came home to roost. Again this is a fact that has been elaborated upon by countless experts time and time again.

When I referred to the Tribesmen, I was referring to Pakistani tribesmen. The influx of Afghan Taliban (and the Pakistani ones who had joined them to fight) woudl have caused problems but given the fiercely independent tribes, they would not have caused the problems we see today by virtue of being 'outsiders'.

It was the local Pakistani tribes that became inflamed over the US invasion, and it was out of that dynamic, of local anti-US sentiment and the influx of the Taliban, that the Pakistani Taliban movement was able to grow unopposed locally, through local figures, and not have any one question it as it cast itself in the mold of fighting US oppression in the name of Islam.

Btw, I'm not trying to vilify Pakistan or single it out for the sake of demonization; what I am trying to say is that a disease cannot be cured until there's a definitive diagnosis; and in this case the correct diagnosis happens to be an autoimmune disease and not an infection. By attempting to consider and treat it as the latter to stave embarrassment will only perpetuate the problem; and this is exactly what many in Pakistan are trying to do (your arguments resemble theirs).

Interesting analogy, but I think you misunderstood my argument, which I tried to clarify above.

But on your larger point, it is true that many people in Pakistan, and a few on this forum, consider the US presence to be the problem, and do not consider the fact that the Pakistani Taiban movement has become self sustaining and ingrained locally. Whether the US stays or leaves in Afghanistan, the Pakistani Taliban are not going to meekly pack their bags and surrender to the State.

If there was ever any doubt over this, the statement of the TTP Spokesman, Maulvi Umar, in which he argued that the TTP would not welcome any organization on its territory that was more interested in fighting in Kashmir or Afghanistan, instead of against the PA, should put it to rest. That directive also threatened to kill the Kashmiri militant leaders, along with any Islamic scholars that refused to endorse the TTP position of fighting the Pak. Mil in Pakistan.

Of course this statement of his has opened the floodgates on speculation over the motives of the TTP's alleged real sponsors (India) since the directive is at complete odd's with what the perceived Taliban goal was.

 

[Flintlock]

Saleh is right. Its a bloody joke, isn't it?

 

[RedBaron]

Red Baron:

Read the Der Spiegel interview of the DG ISI, Gen Pasha. His comments about his meeting with Saleh in Afghanistan are extremely illuminating. So is the noticeable and dramatic toning down of accusations against Pakistan from Saleh and the GoA in the past few months.
...

Okay, it does say they spoke for four hours and Saleh accepted an invitation from Islamabad. And the rhetoric may have lessened recently, but does that indicate a fundamental shift in relations, especially when Pasha still obviously considers the Taliban, who directly threaten the Karzai regime, as assets?

But then again, it's possible Karzai and his cohorts have resigned themselves to dealing with the Taliban as coalition partners in a future government...its hard to believe the Taliban will change their ways, especially when they sense the chinks in GoA and ISAF/NATO resolve.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Excerpt from his interview:

Shortly after assuming his new position, the three-star general traveled to the United States to meet with his counterparts there. But first he visited Amrullah Saleh, the Afghan intelligence chief, who told SPIEGEL a few months ago that he had "piles and piles of evidence" that Pakistan's intelligence agency is behind the insurgency in his country. The meeting lasted more than four hours, and when it ended Saleh had accepted an invitation to Islamabad.

Pakistan's New Intelligence Chief: 'Terror Is Our Enemy, Not India' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

I wonder what will happen to Saleh's 'piles and piles of evidence'.

Afghan intelligence is probably going to have to change the dates and names on the 'evidence' again if the relationship goes south once more.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Okay, it does say they spoke for four hours and Saleh accepted an invitation from Islamabad. And the rhetoric may have lessened recently, but does that indicate a fundamental shift in relations, especially when Pasha still obviously considers the Taliban, who directly threaten the Karzai regime, as assets?

But then again, it's possible Karzai and his cohorts have resigned themselves to dealing with the Taliban as coalition partners in a future government...its hard to believe the Taliban will change their ways, especially when they sense the chinks in GoA and ISAF/NATO resolve.

Its a beginning, and like I said, the toning down of accusations from the GoA and Saleh and his agency has been dramatic (makes you wonder whether there ever was anythign to it , since the insurgency and the attacks have continued unabated).

I don't think Gen. Pasha suggested that the Taliban were assets, or did I miss that??

On possible negotiations with the Taliban, read this:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/war-terror/22180-us-pakistan-style-truce-afghanistan-acceptable.html

 

[RedBaron]

...
I don't think Gen. Pasha suggested that the Taliban were assets, or did I miss that??

Not explicity in Der Spiegel, but he did seem to defend Mullah Omar...and an ISI officer specifically mentioned Haqqani as an ISI asset. I can't recollect the reference, maybe Coll, maybe not...

On possible negotiations with the Taliban, read this:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/war-terror/22180-us-pakistan-style-truce-afghanistan-acceptable.html

Yeah, what's with that? Why make a statement that he knows is false - Gates knows that the Taliban will never disarm, why make that a pre-requisite? Is it again a case of good/bad Taliban? And again, contrary to Holbrooke's views on the subject...I'm surprised.

 

[MastanKhan]

This is what I really do not understand at all. The true question is, is terrorism a global threat or a local threat. Every country is paying the price!

Since, it is a global threat, that is the sole reason Pakistan is getting paid to fight these terrorist, but what it was just a local threat. Where would pakistan go to ask for money to fight them, or complain about soldier and lives losts. It truly would become a mendatory issue, wouldn't it?

And another paradox to this whole situation is, that pakistan does perceive this war on terror as a local war, yet acts like it is a global war on terror.

Hi,

Deceit and deception by the american righteousness is the name of the game---they came into afghanistan aswinging---on high testosterone---arrogant as any super power could be---putting fear of God into any person living by their weapons of death---high on their born again talking to god chirtian doctrine---self righteous---attacking the poorest of the worst---a third world nation which actually didnot even belong in the third world---so poor that maybe there had to be a new category of a fifth world nation be created for it. And americans attacked that nation without any shame or conscience with all their weapons of shock and awe---the nation that didnot have any food to feed its people a meal for three times a day on a regular basis---a nation with hardly any medicine and hospital---just a land mass that barely existed as a nation--.

What was the war on terror---the war on terror was a war on al qaeda---not the taliban---that is what they told the world---the al-qaeda ran away---the taliban leadership disappeared---the poor afghans were left to face the wrath of the neocons and the born again christian zealots---.

The war on terror lingered on---without any direction---without any form---when you have idiots like George and arrogant rascists like Chenney and Rumsfeld running a nation like the u s of a as their personal fiefdom and the american public suddenly is offered the "STUPID PILL" for the morning after and everyone of its citizens swallows the whole bottle full of it in one gulp---leading themselves into a war hysteria and the daze that they had to live through for six years plus in a row---.

So my question to you is---what war is it---whose war is it---no sense of direction---no cohesion in action---no end in sight even after six plus years of action---haven't the american killed a thousand times more muslims in return---how many more do they want to kill---is this thing ever going to end---is everybody else going to take the blame of what is going on except for the americans---even after six years hardly any more troops---americans barely have enough control of the land---only around their millitary bases---what kind of fools paradise are the yankees living in---.

The more the war lingers on---the more every nation of the world will face the threat of terrorism---the war is not and end to the means---as the war has no time period set to end except for an abstract one---therefore the threat of terrorism will saty on and will increase.

The bottomline question is ----how many muslims need to be killed to keep the christians happy---do they want to kill all of us or would they be satisfied with another million or two.

This war on terror is not for or by pakistan. Pakistan is kowtowing out of fear---it has seen what happened to iraq---it has seen what happened to afghanisatn---at least give us some credit for not being so stupid---at least give us credit for trying to come out of it still in one piece against all odds---this war was forced upon us---given more time---al qaeda would have been neutralized in afghanistan by the pakistani isi and taliban in the days after 9/11.

But then what can you do---when the leader of the world is frat brat---a junkie---an alcoholic---a loser---and to top it all---a born again christian had regular conversations with god---this tragedy had the makings of never ending.

 

[S-2]

Nice rant. Very "think-tanky". Yup.

Wonder if you or anybody in your government has the cajones to go off in Obama or Biden's face as you did playing to the home audience?

Your crocodile tears for Afghanistan were disgusting. Pakistan has never been a friend to that people and I remain amazed that you fail to see the massive difference between NATO's mandate and Afghanistan's civil war or the Soviet-Afghan conflict.

"haven't the american killed a thousand times more muslims in return"

This was exceptionally "think-tanky". 3000 9/11 dead x 1000= 3,000,000.

B.S. and you should be ashamed. I can only presume you got caught up in the moment while playing to the home crowd.

You can't imagine my thoughts at times of your leaders. Collective paragons of virtue and altruism. Expressed honestly and with far greater empirical evidence to support myself and I'd find the door rather quickly. Expressed with your inaccurate and vitriolic poison, I'd never be allowed back.

Home field advantage to you.

Congratulations.

 

[muse]

Mr. Saleh Will soon seek Asylum in a third country, it is quite possible that 3rd country may be Pakistan, which will be in the interest of Pakistan and Afgganistan.

 

[belarusian]

you know I always find myself taking the pakistani side when I read through this stuff.

nation states are overrated. you are victims of the nation state system and because of the characteristics of your country you will always be a weak nation state.

pakistan exists because the british empire receded and the united states is not the successor to the british empire.
there simply is no capacity to successfully manipulate the internal politics of pakistan. you have an unbalanced political system and we cannot help you balance it. you cant be an ally of america (like japan say) because you have no conception of your own national interest. you are not the enemy either. at least not yet. making you the enemy would just cause a bigger problem and i think we are just too crude compared to the crafty british to manage this. I mean people get sent to pakistan who dont know anything about it. there isnt much sophistication or cleverness in american foreign policy but there is no actual malice either. look at how the chinese deal with their own uigurs or tibet or how the russians deal with the Caucasus. look at how the gulf states treat their immigrant labor. they are world powers but they are also sick. they would beat the crap out of you if they had a reason to and no one else would stop them. you should judge other countries based on how they treat their own people which means we are the closest thing to a friend you are going to have in this cold mean world.