Pakistan US Relations After the US attack on PA Soldiers

[Devil Soul]

US determined to recover ‘essential’ Pakistan ties
APP (45 minutes ago) Today

WASHINGTON: Describing the US-Pakistan relationship as “complicated but essential,” the US State Department on Saturday has said it is working hard to get back to cooperative work with the South Asian country.

Following last month’s deadly Nato strike which killed 24 Pakistani soldiers and led to a sharp decline in bilateral ties between both countries.

“This relationship is complicated, but it’s also essential to both the United States and Pakistan. And we are working very hard to keep open channels and to get back to work together,” Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokesperson, said.

On efforts towards repairing the relationship, the spokesperson referred to ongoing US-Pakistani contacts including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s call to Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani as well as the latest meeting between US Ambassador in Islamabad Cameron Muner and Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar.

“We are continuing our intensive engagement, including through the recent meeting between Ambassador Munter and Foreign Minister Khar. Obviously, we are both trying to roll up our sleeves and get back to work together,” said Nuland.

“With regard to what might emerge from any internal review, I would refer you to the Government of Pakistan on that. But we are obviously making very clear that we think we have hard work to do together, and we need to get back to it as quickly as we can.”

In reaction to the November 26 attacks on two Pakistani border posts, which infuriated the Pakistani public and government, Islamabad shut down two routes for Nato supplies. The United States has also reportedly vacated the Shamsi airbase in Balochistan province, as asked by Pakistan in the aftermath of the Nato strikes.

In addition to seeking anti-militant cooperation along the porous Afghan border, the United States and its allies rely greatly on Pakistan for transportation of fuel and other supplies for the Nato mission in Afghanistan.

Despite recent efforts to ramp up supplies from Central Asian northern route into landlocked Afghanistan, a large percentage of supplies must still pass through Pakistani border routes to sustain the 10-year-old war.

 

[Major Sam]

wat should i say ???????

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

We collected all the past memories and stuffed them in a bag , US can send a courier and collect this trash

 

[VelocuR]

Working hard to get Pakistan trust.....I thought US can survive without Pakistan, they now act like complaining teenagers who begging angry teacher.


----------------------------

War of words with the US

Thus far, the US, a few unguarded moments of intemperance aside, has kept private its growing anger and disappointment at the unravelling relations with Pakistan, preferring instead to go the indirect route to make plain its position. All that might be about to change. At a press conference in Washington DC, the US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, made plain his, and by extension his government’s, anger at Pakistan in the wake of the Nato attack that killed 26 Pakistani soldiers. Leaving aside the chutzpah of Dempsey for using an incident where the US attacked Pakistani soldiers to launch verbal volleys in our direction, we have to pay close attention to his words and try to stem the growing anger on both sides. One of the first things both countries can do is keep plain-speaking military men far away from microphones. Dempsey’s angry and defensive press conference, where he asserted that the US did not need Pakistan as a route for Nato supplies and that they didn’t care about burned Nato trucks since they didn’t pay for the fuel until it reached them, has only matched in tone and rhetoric what Major-General Ishfaq Nadeem, the director general of military operations, told journalists in a briefing soon after the Nato attack. Nadeem’s insistence that the attack was a deliberate one, before an investigation into the incident even had time to start, publicly provoked the US at a time when quiet diplomacy was needed.

As the junior partner in this alliance, it is unfortunately incumbent on Pakistan to take most of the steps required to bring things back on track. It should start by agreeing to be a part of the joint investigation into the Nato attack. If the findings of that investigation show, as the US claims, that the attack was accidental, it will then be time to reopen supply routes for Nato trucks. The only other alternative is to go it alone. That wouldn’t mean an end to US military incursions in our territory and drone attacks on suspected militants based in the tribal areas since the US has never needed anyone’s acquiescence to guard its interests. It would simply mean that we wouldn’t be given the aid that keeps our treasury afloat. Once we are ready to do that, we can feel free to engage in an escalating war of words with the Americans.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 11th, 2011.

 

[MiloMayor]

wat should i say ???????

Going back 60 years, what has Pakistan achieved by all these wars and covet wars? Nothing where her big neighbor's are leaping forward. Kashmir is not going to get resolved by military solution. Even if Pakistan gets control of Afghanistan by bringing the Taliban to power, How will it benefit Pakistan economically? Not in a big way. Pakistan used be compared with India like India-Pak and now it has come down to ******. The big neighbor is concentrating in her economy's development while Pakistan is trying to take control of Taliban and play double game. China is using Pakistan for her benefits and has grown economically and now its flexing its muscle over the issues with its neighbors.

Its time for Pakistan to realize that the best way to talk to the world is by becoming an another South Korea/China. Get rid of all those crap support for terrorists and religion fundamentalism that is blinding the eyes of common man and concentrate on your economy. Once you become a SK the issues can be resolved using the economy might. Money brings power and it speaks a lot.

This is what you should say. Take a depth breadth and think about this.

 

[Omar1984]

^ Pakistan was doing way better than India before it was dragged into this war OF terror, and leave Afghan Taliban out of this, those guys helped you defeat the SOviets and never harmed Pakistan or any American in American soil.

 

[imranm71]

What have they been doing for last ten years. Fooling their public?

 

[W.11]

Afghanistan happens to be the "backyard" of a number of nations, not just Pakistan. Obviously, all those nations need to focus on that "backyard" as well.

and unfortunately india doesnt fall on its backyard so STFU

 

[rohailmalhi]

I will say only one thing , U people are trying so very hard to do eridicate Pakistan's influence from Afghanistan.

Keep trying and when u will be tired then come to Paksitan and ask with respect , Pakistan will try to save ur a** in Afghanistan.

The equation of Peace in Afghanistan cannot be completed without Pakistan.Try to prove it otherwise u are wasting ur resources, ur time as well as ur man power.The earlier u realize this the more better it is for US.

 

[unicorn]

General Martin Dempsey in his last interview very openly speaks his mind.He said

Todays enemy doesn't come in masses to attack instead they form a network to disrupt us.So In order to defeat a network we have to become a network.

Clearly suggesting that CIA along with the Afghan intelligence are involved in Pakistan Tribal and other areas to disrupt things.

 

[unicorn]

Afghanistan is for afghans. Its not anyone's "BACKYARD".

Millions of Afghans live in Pakistan too.So regard less of what people say or understand ground realities are totally different.

---------- Post added at 07:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:57 AM ----------

Afghanistan happens to be the "backyard" of a number of nations, not just Pakistan. Obviously, all those nations need to focus on that "backyard" as well.

India no way near comes in the picture.

 

[American Pakistani]

Watch this carefully, how can anyone tackle Pakistan's influence???? It is only a dream in my opinion.

 

[ramu]

“When they torch fuel, it is not our fuel they are torching. We do not pay for fuel until it gets to us.”

Surprising to know that.
In the Iran Pakistan India pipeline, India insists the same. They pay for what they get. It is a good way to dealing with an unreliable environment.

 

[Al Bhatti]

December 10, 2011

Saving the Pakistan-US alliance

Despite the recent bad blood, both countries need each other's support on Afghanistan

Had US President Barack Obama expressed regret over the killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers in a drone strike immediately, Islamabad's fears might have been assuaged. And Pakistan would have probably attended the meeting on Afghanistan in Bonn.

It is no use crying over spilt milk. However, many in India wonder why Islamabad did not accept ‘regret'. Regret is not exactly an apology but it comes close. It does mean a feeling of sorrow for wrong-doing.

Islamabad would have probably accepted regret if there was no history of deliberate violations by US and Nato forces in the face of Pakistan's protests. The fact is that America and its allies care two hoots for Pakistan's sovereignty or its people's sentiments.

Right from the 9/11 attack on New York, Pakistan has been treated as a country which is at the beck and call of the US. At that time, US secretary of state Colin Powell allegedly rang up the then Pakistan foreign secretary Abdul Sattar to inform his government that they would begin carpet bombing in Pakistan instead of Afghanistan if Islamabad was not on their side.

Pakistan could not dare say ‘no' then. How can it resist the pressure now? True, Pakistan has played tough and has even got an American drone base vacated. But it is bowing to enraged public opinion. I am still unsure how long Pakistan army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani would stay intractable. Over the years, Pakistan's armed forces have become so inured to American weapons as well as aid that a U-turn does not look plausible.

Some rationalisation has already started taking place. Limited cooperation is visible on the ground. A Nato commander has said the tragic incident has not disrupted their operations or cooperation with Pakistan. America's annoyance does not suit Islamabad because China cannot fill the vacuum created by its absence, nor will India help because relations between the neighbours are nowhere at the stage where New Delhi would assist.

Despite the regret over the killings, I do not see Washington behaving differently. It is fighting a war against the Taliban who have a presence in Pakistan. The US and Nato forces will continue to hunt them down, with Islamabad's cooperation if possible or without it if necessary.

Status quo

I do not see the drone attacks stopping or the supply lines to American and Nato forces snapping because they can use Afghan territory for the drones and the old Soviet republics for supplies.

The target is the Taliban. Both sides realise that they face a situation which they cannot handle single-handedly nor can they go back to the equation which existed before the killing of the soldiers.

Still, both America and Pakistan may go to the brink — they have done so many times before — but will not jump. Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has already said that Pakistan wants to reconstruct its relations with the US, which in turn has welcomed the statement.

The problem that confronts the world is the withdrawal of 130,000 American and Nato troops in 2014. The long-term international commitment to Afghanistan at the Bonn conference should have been more categorical.

The absence of Pakistan has been like Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. No commitment adds up to much if Islamabad is not a signatory.

This is when the absence of normalcy between India and Pakistan is felt all the more. Both could have asked foreign troops to withdraw as quickly as possible because they have only aggravated the situation. But then the problem is that Pakistan does not want India in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, New Delhi has signed a ‘strategic partner' agreement with Kabul. It cannot leave Afghanistan alone and unaided, if and when Taliban begin to move into the country after America's withdrawal. Both Delhi and Islamabad can be on the same page if Pakistan accepts the sovereignty and independence of Afghanistan without seeking strategic depth.

Therefore, the American interference even after 2014 cannot be ruled out. Willy-nilly, the Pakistan army, already overstretched, has to find common ground with India to eliminate at least the Taliban who are making life in the region hell.

The Pakistan army is already having a hard time sorting out what has come to be known as Memogate. President Asif Ali Zardari, Kayani and ISI head Lt General Ahmad Shuja Pasha have been named respondents in a petition filed by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif in the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

The petition is based on an unsigned memo by the then Pakistan's envoy to the US, Hussain Haqqani, to the American military command to rescue the Zardari government from the army and the ISI. The army saw to it that Haqqani resigned.

The problem, however, is bigger than Haqqani's exit. It is how to make Washington repose its faith once again in the Zardari government which America sees as completely under the Pakistan army. I have no doubt that Haqqani's successor Sherry Rehman has the ability and finesse to re-establish a rapport with Washington and also convince it that the elected government cannot be pushed away by the army.

She is also Islamabad's trump card for good relations with India, where she is trusted.


Kuldip Nayar is a former Indian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom and a former Rajya Sabha member.

gulfnews : Saving the Pakistan-US alliance

---------- Post added at 08:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 AM ----------

December 11, 2011

US plans Afghan presence after 2014

Nato states are in discussions with Kabul on continuing support until 2024, top general says

"America plans to have a robust military presence in Afghanistan after the 2014 deadline for the withdrawal of ISAF troops," said General John Allen, Commander of the International Security Force in Afghanistan (ISAF).

The ISAF mission will end in 2014, and that structure will close. But Nato member states such as the US, Britain and France are in active discussions with the Afghan government about how to continue their support for Afghanistan, either individually or through Nato, Gen Allen said on the sidelines of a Nato security conference in Dubai.

They are currently discussing how to continue their presence for at least a decade until 2024 at the minimum, said Gen Allen, working under the long-term aims of the Strategic Partnership Accord.

The commitment to a long-term presence in Afghanistan has been important to what Gen Allen described as ISAF's success in dismissing Taliban claims that all they have to do is wait it out till 2014 and then they can walk back into Kabul and reclaim what they lost when Nato toppled their government in November 2001.

gulfnews : US plans Afghan presence after 2014

 

[Ali.009]

Has Gen. Dimpsey’s lost is marbles?​

Dimpsey's rhetoric analyzed.​

The chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff Gen Martin Dempsey has sharply increased the rhetoric by saying “In Pakistan, the sanctuary for these militants persists. We have to work hard to end its influence on our Afghan mission.”

General Dimpsey also said “We can adjust and we can get it done. It will be more expensive. It will be time-consuming but we have the time to do it…The real problem for me is not the cost. What is troubling me is that they would close the route. What it says about the (US-Pakistan) relationship is troubling for us.”

These sentences confirm the growing level of frustration of the US Army in Afghanistan and shows a huge schism between the US State Department that wants tempers to cool down and the Pentagon that seems to continue its line of antagonizing Pakistan.

Mr Dimpsey needs to learn the history of the Hindu Kush. 3 million Afghans still live in Pakistan. 3-5 million Afghans were born in Pakistan. Most Pakhtuns live in Pakistan. Pakistan has an open border with Pakistan with over 50,000 people crossing the border without any travel documents. The Pakhtuns are in the Pakistani Army in disproportionate numbers with respect to their population. The Pathans are very powerful in the Pakistani Army. There is a large propendrance of Paktuns in the Frontier Corp and the Frontier Constabulary. The major portion of every tribe in Afghanistan lives in Pakistan, with the approx ratio of 1:4–so would Mr. Dimpsey explain with which majic wand with he be able to reduce the Pakistani influence in Afghanistan and how he would do it.

The fact of the matter is that NATO is hurting very badly because of the supply line halting. The fact remains that the US cannot run Afghanistan through the Northern Alliance. They have tried to do it for the past decade and have failed miserably. The current rhetoric is a sign of the increasing level of frustration.

There are one million armed men in FATA. Only five or ten thousand belong to organizations. Less than that number belong to organizations that the US thinks are “hostiles”. The US has more than 130,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, and probably about 100,000 mercenaries under their control. Most of Afghanistan is under the control of the Talibs. Some surveys have said that more than thre fourths of Afghanistan is not in the control of ISAF/NATO/US and the regions that are under the control of NATO–are only minimally under the control of NATO.

So will the general defeated in Afghanistan explain how he can diminish the influence of Pakistan in Afghanistan.

It is also a matter of fact that Pakistan is totally aligned with China. It is also a fact that Russia and Iran have supported the Pakistani stance that the US presence should end in Afghanistan. All four major powers in the region do not want US bases in Afghanistan. Would Gen. Dimpsey explain the new geo-political situation where Pakistan is a member of the SCO, and doesn’t want US aid. Would Gen Dimpsey qualify his statement in light of the fact that while the US is reducing about 40,000 soldiers in Afghanistan next year, and the Afghan National Army (ANA) has no significance in Afghanistan today, how will Gen Dimpsey change the scenario–something he has not been able to do in a decade.

As the US loses its footprint in Pakistan, and has fewer soldiers in Afghanistan, how will he have more strength in Afghanistan and how will he be able to reduce Pakistan’s influence in Afghanistan.

We predict that the US will leave Afghanistan before 2014, and that attempts to keep bases in Afghanistan wil fail and they will be overrun by many factions in Afghanistan.