PM Imran Khan's WaPo OP-Ed: Pakistan is ready to be a partner for peace in Afghanistan, but we will not host U.S. bases

[Xestan]

Good to read this. So our stated policy is that we wont accept Taliban overrunning Kabul. And if they do, we'll be with other International powers to condemn them.

 

[Path-Finder]

one major issue I have is, the two faced policy. Forcing us to do their bidding and cozying up with the vedicks. blaming us for their own F'ups. which are countless.

This was a missing piece and a vital piece.

I don't see any kind of positive outlook with the yanks in the future as they are Pakistan belligerents.

 

[GumNaam]

Opinion: Imran Khan: Pakistan is ready to be a partner for peace in Afghanistan, but we will not host U.S. bases


Opinion by Imran Khan

June 22, 2021 at 1:57 a.m. GMT+5

Imran Khan is the prime minister of Pakistan.
Pakistan is ready to be a partner for peace in Afghanistan with the United States — but as U.S. troops withdraw, we will avoid risking further conflict.

Our countries have the same interest in that long-suffering country: a political settlement, stability, economic development and the denial of any haven for terrorists. We oppose any military takeover of Afghanistan, which will lead only to decades of civil war, as the Taliban cannot win over the whole of the country, and yet must be included in any government for it to succeed.
In the past, Pakistan made a mistake by choosing between warring Afghan parties, but we have learned from that experience. We have no favorites and will work with any government that enjoys the confidence of the Afghan people. History proves that Afghanistan can never be controlled from the outside.


Our country has suffered so much from the wars in Afghanistan. More than 70,000 Pakistanis have been killed. While the United States provided $20 billion in aid, losses to the Pakistani economy have exceeded $150 billion. Tourism and investment dried up. After joining the U.S. effort, Pakistan was targeted as a collaborator, leading to terrorism against our country from the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and other groups. U.S. drone attacks, which I warned against, didn’t win the war, but they did create hatred for Americans, swelling the ranks of terrorist groups against both our countries.
While I argued for years that there was no military solution in Afghanistan, the United States pressured Pakistan for the very first time to send our troops into the semiautonomous tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, in the false expectation that it would end the insurgency. It didn’t, but it did internally displace half the population of the tribal areas, 1 million people in North Waziristan alone, with billions of dollars of damage done and whole villages destroyed. The “collateral” damage to civilians in that incursion led to suicide attacks against the Pakistani army, killing many more soldiers than the United States lost in Afghanistan and Iraq combined, while breeding even more terrorism against us. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province alone, 500 Pakistani policemen were murdered.
There are more than 3 million Afghan refugees in our country — if there is further civil war, instead of a political settlement, there will be many more refugees, destabilizing and further impoverishing the frontier areas on our border. Most of the Taliban are from the Pashtun ethnic group — and more than half the Pashtuns live on our side of the border. We are even now fencing this historically open border almost completely.


If Pakistan were to agree to host U.S. bases, from which to bomb Afghanistan, and an Afghan civil war ensued, Pakistan would be targeted for revenge by terrorists again. We simply cannot afford this. We have already paid too heavy a price. Meanwhile, if the United States, with the most powerful military machine in history, couldn’t win the war from inside Afghanistan after 20 years, how would America do it from bases in our country?
The interests of Pakistan and the United States in Afghanistan are the same. We want a negotiated peace, not civil war. We need stability and an end to terrorism aimed at both our countries. We support an agreement that preserves the development gains made in Afghanistan in the past two decades. And we want economic development, and increased trade and connectivity in Central Asia, to lift our economy. We will all go down the drain if there is further civil war.
This is why we have done a lot of real diplomatic heavy lifting to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table, first with the Americans, and then with the Afghan government. We know that if the Taliban tries to declare a military victory, it will lead to endless bloodshed. We hope the Afghan government will also show more flexibility in the talks, and stop blaming Pakistan, as we are doing everything we can short of military action.


This is also why we were part of the recent “Extended Troika” joint statements, along with Russia, China and the United States, unambiguously declaring that any effort to impose a government by force in Kabul would be opposed by us all, and also would deprive Afghanistan access to the foreign assistance it will need.
These joint statements mark the first time four of Afghanistan’s neighbors and partners have spoken with one voice on what a political settlement should look like. This could also lead to a new regional compact for peace and development in the region, which could include a requirement to share intelligence and work with the Afghan government to counter emergent terrorist threats. Afghanistan’s neighbors would pledge not to allow their territory to be used against Afghanistan or any other country, and Afghanistan would pledge the same. The compact could also lead to a commitment to help Afghans rebuild their country
I believe that promoting economic connectivity and regional trade is the key to lasting peace and security in Afghanistan. Further military action is futile. If we share this responsibility, Afghanistan, once synonymous with the “Great Game” and regional rivalries, could instead emerge as a model of regional cooperation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...tan-imran-khan-peace-security-cooperation-us/

translation: no role for india!

 

[Cash GK]

Its not about who is right or wrong, its about noting the difference in his tone. Frankly I'm not interested in ever seeing a situation where an airstrike is ever needed, and even if it were needed. If it were up to me, I would not do it.

If there is chaos and a political vacuum like a lot of clownish people here are hoping for with a civil war, frankly the snakes that will spawn in this pit will bite the ones that are nearest to them, which will be inside China, Russia, Pakistan and Iran. The US is probably the most insulated from that fallout than any other state, sitting two oceans away on a completely different continent, worst case scenario you ban travel and flights from Afghanistan. The fallout of refugees fleeing the chaos will first and foremost affect Pakistan as Imran Khan noted. So to the people foolishly hoping for a civil war here, go ahead, spark your own destruction.

Man y you keep insisting. Don't you know no means no. What da **** is wrong with you Americans

 

[MajesticPug]

We will see. The truth cannot be hidden. You think that a deal can be concealed? LOL We will see who is right and who is wrong.

Perhaps he will allow covert operations that fly over Pak airspace. Otherwise, he will be disposed of after some unrests in the foreseeable future. That'd be my prediction and I don't need a crystal ball.

 

[El Sidd]

One thing is certain that there are no neutral positions on Afghanistan but as highlighted, Afghanistan is dependent on a favorable Pakistan government than vice versa.

Terrorism and counter terrorism have both evolved beyond a mere discussion on providing base of operations. Any such operation need legitimacy of approval from Afghan government yet to be formed.

We are discussing the problem without actually discussing the problem that is the current Afghan government.

 

[CriticalThinker02]

did you actually bother to watch the axios interview? here let me give you a link.

notice how first he tries dodging the question, but then asked again he squirms and doesn't give a straight answer when pressed, saying "this hasn't been discussed" when asked "what is your feeling about that"? he says "I don't know, we will discuss this".

a very different answer from the Absolutely Not that he replied with, with regards to bases inside Pakistan.

Air travel from the Middle East is logistically almost impossible over a relatively long period of time, do you really think a drone will loiter for over 1600 KM before being able to hit it's target, even air strikes will take hours to reach and will be hundred of times more expensive, and any type of rapid response is out the window, that is why the Americans are so adamant for asking a base in Pakistan and even Imran Khan knows this, he does not need to give a flat out NO for the use of the air space because it's not even a viable option.

 

[araz]

did you actually bother to watch the axios interview? here let me give you a link.

notice how first he tries dodging the question, but then asked again he squirms and doesn't give a straight answer when pressed, saying "this hasn't been discussed" when asked "what is your feeling about that"? he says "I don't know, we will discuss this".

a very different answer from the Absolutely Not that he replied with, with regards to bases inside Pakistan.

What can Pakistan or any one else do if US decides to place a carrier battle group and make flights over Pakistani territory to bomb Afghanistan? I think it is safe to say that it will be a lot more costlier to the US but other than that we will protest and they will simply ignore us. This is the-reality of what an potentially happen and it will be beyond Pakistan's power to oppose it. However the blame for it will lie with the US and not Pakistan. Bases in Pakistani terrain will be an act of war perpetrated from Pakistani soil and will not be allowed.
A

 

[fitpOsitive]

Opinion: Imran Khan: Pakistan is ready to be a partner for peace in Afghanistan, but we will not host U.S. bases


Opinion by Imran Khan

June 22, 2021 at 1:57 a.m. GMT+5

Imran Khan is the prime minister of Pakistan.
Pakistan is ready to be a partner for peace in Afghanistan with the United States — but as U.S. troops withdraw, we will avoid risking further conflict.

Our countries have the same interest in that long-suffering country: a political settlement, stability, economic development and the denial of any haven for terrorists. We oppose any military takeover of Afghanistan, which will lead only to decades of civil war, as the Taliban cannot win over the whole of the country, and yet must be included in any government for it to succeed.
In the past, Pakistan made a mistake by choosing between warring Afghan parties, but we have learned from that experience. We have no favorites and will work with any government that enjoys the confidence of the Afghan people. History proves that Afghanistan can never be controlled from the outside.


Our country has suffered so much from the wars in Afghanistan. More than 70,000 Pakistanis have been killed. While the United States provided $20 billion in aid, losses to the Pakistani economy have exceeded $150 billion. Tourism and investment dried up. After joining the U.S. effort, Pakistan was targeted as a collaborator, leading to terrorism against our country from the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and other groups. U.S. drone attacks, which I warned against, didn’t win the war, but they did create hatred for Americans, swelling the ranks of terrorist groups against both our countries.
While I argued for years that there was no military solution in Afghanistan, the United States pressured Pakistan for the very first time to send our troops into the semiautonomous tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, in the false expectation that it would end the insurgency. It didn’t, but it did internally displace half the population of the tribal areas, 1 million people in North Waziristan alone, with billions of dollars of damage done and whole villages destroyed. The “collateral” damage to civilians in that incursion led to suicide attacks against the Pakistani army, killing many more soldiers than the United States lost in Afghanistan and Iraq combined, while breeding even more terrorism against us. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province alone, 500 Pakistani policemen were murdered.
There are more than 3 million Afghan refugees in our country — if there is further civil war, instead of a political settlement, there will be many more refugees, destabilizing and further impoverishing the frontier areas on our border. Most of the Taliban are from the Pashtun ethnic group — and more than half the Pashtuns live on our side of the border. We are even now fencing this historically open border almost completely.


If Pakistan were to agree to host U.S. bases, from which to bomb Afghanistan, and an Afghan civil war ensued, Pakistan would be targeted for revenge by terrorists again. We simply cannot afford this. We have already paid too heavy a price. Meanwhile, if the United States, with the most powerful military machine in history, couldn’t win the war from inside Afghanistan after 20 years, how would America do it from bases in our country?
The interests of Pakistan and the United States in Afghanistan are the same. We want a negotiated peace, not civil war. We need stability and an end to terrorism aimed at both our countries. We support an agreement that preserves the development gains made in Afghanistan in the past two decades. And we want economic development, and increased trade and connectivity in Central Asia, to lift our economy. We will all go down the drain if there is further civil war.
This is why we have done a lot of real diplomatic heavy lifting to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table, first with the Americans, and then with the Afghan government. We know that if the Taliban tries to declare a military victory, it will lead to endless bloodshed. We hope the Afghan government will also show more flexibility in the talks, and stop blaming Pakistan, as we are doing everything we can short of military action.


This is also why we were part of the recent “Extended Troika” joint statements, along with Russia, China and the United States, unambiguously declaring that any effort to impose a government by force in Kabul would be opposed by us all, and also would deprive Afghanistan access to the foreign assistance it will need.
These joint statements mark the first time four of Afghanistan’s neighbors and partners have spoken with one voice on what a political settlement should look like. This could also lead to a new regional compact for peace and development in the region, which could include a requirement to share intelligence and work with the Afghan government to counter emergent terrorist threats. Afghanistan’s neighbors would pledge not to allow their territory to be used against Afghanistan or any other country, and Afghanistan would pledge the same. The compact could also lead to a commitment to help Afghans rebuild their country
I believe that promoting economic connectivity and regional trade is the key to lasting peace and security in Afghanistan. Further military action is futile. If we share this responsibility, Afghanistan, once synonymous with the “Great Game” and regional rivalries, could instead emerge as a model of regional cooperation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...tan-imran-khan-peace-security-cooperation-us/

What does that mean?

 

[hyperman]

Air travel from the Middle East is logistically almost impossible over a relatively long period of time, do you really think a drone will loiter for over 1600 KM before being able to hit it's target, even air strikes will take hours to reach and will be hundred of times more expensive, and any type of rapid response is out the window, that is why the Americans are so adamant for asking a base in Pakistan and even Imran Khan knows this, he does not need to give a flat out NO for the use of the air space because it's not even a viable option.

usually the airstrikes that have been carried out from the gulf have been ones involving tankers and those launched from aircraft carriers. While you are right that delays are an issue, unless the aircraft carrier is really close and at the ready, range and cost isn't too much of an issue for the US. Though I do think a base in Uzbekistan like the Karshi-Khanabad Air Base which was previously used would probably make more sense, if they did decide to use an airbase.

 

[Saifullah]

Bases in Pakistani terrain will be an act of war perpetrated from Pakistani soil and will not be allowed.
A

We need to wait 10 more years to see what will be done. Gernailz does not give a rats *** about sovereignty or act of war or people of Pakistan, if that was the case there wouldn't have been any base in Pakistan in the first place and Pakistan wouldn't have been part of this bloody war. Gernailz knew how much blood of Pakistanis and people in general will be split and they didn't care.

Making excuses for their sellout acts and pathetic crimes is their hobby and you will get to hear one out in 10 years.

 

[mingle]

Pakistan showed his cards to Biden administration now its up to them what they after other than boots on ground everything is there for them

 

[Vapnope]

Pakistan has stated that US and Pakistan have a shared interest in Afghanistan i.e. To ensure that Afghan soil is not used against their respective countries. The question is if Pakistan is not going to provide air bases to US, what arrangement can be done to tackle this issue?

 

[Verve]

did you actually bother to watch the axios interview? here let me give you a link.

notice how first he tries dodging the question, but then asked again he squirms and doesn't give a straight answer when pressed, saying "this hasn't been discussed" when asked "what is your feeling about that"? he says "I don't know, we will discuss this".

a very different answer from the Absolutely Not that he replied with, with regards to bases inside Pakistan.

Watch the full interview released by PM house instead of a heavily edited version for American duffers consumption!

Unedited version below:

 

[VCheng]

Pakistan has stated that US and Pakistan have a shared interest in Afghanistan i.e. To ensure that Afghan soil is not used against their respective countries. The question is if Pakistan is not going to provide air bases to US, what arrangement can be done to tackle this issue?

Overflights and intelligence sharing.