PTI opposes NOC for Raheel to head Saudi-led military alliance

[313ghazi]

I am a staunch PTI supporter but I think opposition for oppositions sake is stupid. I might not trust PMLN but I trust Raheel Sharif. If Raheel Sharif thinks it's a good idea to take on this post, I believe he has done so after taking into consideration the national interest. He spent his life putting his body between Pakistan and it's enemies, he won't be bought now.

We have a deep historical and cultural link to Iran but Iran's current leadership is as tainted. They cannot be trusted. Iran is active in sectarian conflict and supporting militias in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. They are raising militias to use in Syria in Pakistan too. The current leadership cannot be trusted, much in the same way the Gulf Arabs shouldn't be trusted.

 

[BRAVO_]

and thats what i was waiting for ...

General Bajwa’s successful diplomacy with SA, UAE, Iran

39 countries military alliance

ISLAMABAD: General Headquarters (GHQ) unanimously supported General (retd) Raheel Sharif’s joining the military alliance of 39 Muslim countries as its chief after incumbent Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa had direct interaction with Saudi Arabia, UAE and Iran on the issue, Lt Gen (retd) Amjad Shoaib told The News.

Referring to his recent exchanges with the military leadership, Lt Gen (retd) Shoaib said that Iran has been assured even by the GHQ that there is no truth in the propaganda that the military alliance would be used against Iran.

“It (the alliance) will neither be used against Iran nor has any connection with Yemen,” Shoaib said on behalf of his military connections. The retired general is a well-known defence analyst.

Shoaib disclosed that the recent lit up of Dubai’s Burj Al-Khalifa with the green and white colours of the pattern of Pakistan’s flag was the consequence of the army chief’s successful meetings with UAE rulers. The army chief, he said, was informed on 22nd March about this event by Dubai on 23rd March. On 23rd March, the DG ISPR in a tweet message said, “Pakistan and UAE share strong and cultural ties,” and thanked the UAE government and said that Dubai-based Pakistanis felt Dubai their home.

“Thanks to @BurjKhalifa, UAE authorities & people of UAE for adding colours to our #PakDay celebrations,” said the ISPR message. General (retd) Shoaib said the army chief’s visits to Saudi Arabia and UAE were also of great help to remove some recent past misunderstandings.

Regarding Iran, the defence analyst who is generally considered close to military and defends establishment in TV talk shows, said the Iranian ambassador during his recent meeting with the army chief was told that Pakistan would never be part of any anti-Iran military alliance.

Shoaib said Iran was told that Tehran’s closeness with Pakistan’s enemy India and the agreement between the two countries on Chabahar have not been considered by Islamabad as anti-Pakistan because of close relations between Pakistan and Iran.

On similar lines, Shoaib said, the Iranian envoy was told that Tehran should have trust on Pakistan, which could never be part of any anti-Iran alliance. Instead, it was said that Pakistan would help defuse tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Ambassador of Iran Mehdi Honardoost early this month called on the Gen Bajwa to discuss “matters of regional security and mutual interest”. An ISPR press release said that Ambassador Honardoost acknowledged and appreciated Pakistan Army’s contributions to regional peace and stability and expressed his appreciation for Operation Raddul Fasaad.

While thanking the ambassador, Gen Bajwa said Pakistan Army "greatly values the historical relationship between the two brotherly countries which can never be compromised on any cost”. He also said that enhanced military-to-military cooperation between the two countries would have a positive impact on regional peace and stability.

Lt Gen ® Shoaib said that the decision of Pakistan joining the 39 countries military alliance and allowing General ® Raheel Sharif to lead it is not only in the best interest of Pakistan but also for Muslims all over the world. He explained that the main objective of the alliance is to target ISIS.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/195144-General-Bajwas-successful-diplomacy-with-SA-UAE-Iran

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

and thats what i was waiting for ...

General Bajwa’s successful diplomacy with SA, UAE, Iran

39 countries military alliance

ISLAMABAD: General Headquarters (GHQ) unanimously supported General (retd) Raheel Sharif’s joining the military alliance of 39 Muslim countries as its chief after incumbent Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa had direct interaction with Saudi Arabia, UAE and Iran on the issue, Lt Gen (retd) Amjad Shoaib told The News.

Referring to his recent exchanges with the military leadership, Lt Gen (retd) Shoaib said that Iran has been assured even by the GHQ that there is no truth in the propaganda that the military alliance would be used against Iran.

“It (the alliance) will neither be used against Iran nor has any connection with Yemen,” Shoaib said on behalf of his military connections. The retired general is a well-known defence analyst.

Shoaib disclosed that the recent lit up of Dubai’s Burj Al-Khalifa with the green and white colours of the pattern of Pakistan’s flag was the consequence of the army chief’s successful meetings with UAE rulers. The army chief, he said, was informed on 22nd March about this event by Dubai on 23rd March. On 23rd March, the DG ISPR in a tweet message said, “Pakistan and UAE share strong and cultural ties,” and thanked the UAE government and said that Dubai-based Pakistanis felt Dubai their home.

“Thanks to @BurjKhalifa, UAE authorities & people of UAE for adding colours to our #PakDay celebrations,” said the ISPR message. General (retd) Shoaib said the army chief’s visits to Saudi Arabia and UAE were also of great help to remove some recent past misunderstandings.

Regarding Iran, the defence analyst who is generally considered close to military and defends establishment in TV talk shows, said the Iranian ambassador during his recent meeting with the army chief was told that Pakistan would never be part of any anti-Iran military alliance.

Shoaib said Iran was told that Tehran’s closeness with Pakistan’s enemy India and the agreement between the two countries on Chabahar have not been considered by Islamabad as anti-Pakistan because of close relations between Pakistan and Iran.

On similar lines, Shoaib said, the Iranian envoy was told that Tehran should have trust on Pakistan, which could never be part of any anti-Iran alliance. Instead, it was said that Pakistan would help defuse tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Ambassador of Iran Mehdi Honardoost early this month called on the Gen Bajwa to discuss “matters of regional security and mutual interest”. An ISPR press release said that Ambassador Honardoost acknowledged and appreciated Pakistan Army’s contributions to regional peace and stability and expressed his appreciation for Operation Raddul Fasaad.

While thanking the ambassador, Gen Bajwa said Pakistan Army "greatly values the historical relationship between the two brotherly countries which can never be compromised on any cost”. He also said that enhanced military-to-military cooperation between the two countries would have a positive impact on regional peace and stability.

Lt Gen ® Shoaib said that the decision of Pakistan joining the 39 countries military alliance and allowing General ® Raheel Sharif to lead it is not only in the best interest of Pakistan but also for Muslims all over the world. He explained that the main objective of the alliance is to target ISIS.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/195144-General-Bajwas-successful-diplomacy-with-SA-UAE-Iran

May Allah-u Azimushshan bestow HIS Rahmet and Bereket upon this new duty of Raheel Pasha. Somewhere I read that when he became the Chief his mother asked him to fulfill the duties. Being a wife, sister and mother of military officers she knew exactly what it meant. InshaAllah Raheel Pasha will also fulfill this new duty with success.

On a personal note, I can't hold my ecstatic feelings!!! After a pause of 100 years again a unified command is being slowly groomed. The last Pasha, commanding the forces in Haremain, was war weary and the supplies were almost nonexistent. But the present Pasha is full of energy, fresh from war successes, and full of logistics. That's how Divine provision works for the believers no matter how weak they're. They may be weak in Amel, but still hold Iman!!

As for taking command in the Haremain, it's not that simple. It requires some approvals and permissions. Let me finish with this historical note. Hasan Aga was the Chief of Staff at the court of Yavuz Sultan Selim. The Muslim world was in turmoil as usual!! Shah Ismail of Iran was leaving no stone unturned for Fitne and Fesat. Rulers in Egypt were weak and the Europeans could outrun them. So, the Sultan decided to put a stop to this. Now, it required to take the hold of Haremain. Sultan was particularly worried whether Resulullah (PBUH) would approve it. In these circumstances, Hasan Aga had the following dream. He heard that some folks were knocking at the main door of the Topkapi Saray. As he opened the door he found that 4 persons in the traditional white Arab dresses were standing there. One of them was holding a Sanjak and three others were standing behind him. The person gave that Sanjak to Hasan Aga and said, "Ask the Sultan not to worry. Resulullah (PBUH) has given his approval and this is his Sanjak". Hasan Aga asked in astonishment, "Who are you?" The person replied, "I am Ali. The persons behind me are Osman, Omar and Ebu Bakr"......

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

1. Iran can be misused by India, therefore we need to be close to Iran

Are you really serious? Iran is already close with India, heck even without being India, Iranians have problem with Pakistan...

Uzair Baloch, Baba ladla, Kulbhushan Jhadev. All had Iranian connection...Still you need proof of Iran being a problem for Pakistan ?

These Iranians are using Pakistani citizens for spying...No wonder Pakistan is pissed off at Iranians...

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Not an issue as PTI is minority party , can't stop such mandate approved by Majority

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

Are you really serious? Iran is already close with India, heck even without being India, Iranians have problem with Pakistan...

Uzair Baloch, Baba ladla, Kulbhushan Jhadev. All had Iranian connection...Still you need proof of Iran being a problem for Pakistan ?

These Iranians are using Pakistani citizens for spying...No wonder Pakistan is pissed off at Iranians...

Pak is bulldozing it's way out of the "isolation"!!! They're the descendents of the Empire makers for centuries after centuries. Now, is it up to the Iranian folks, whose major contribution has always been creating Fitne and Fesat at the backyards, to advise them???????

One good thing about this episode is that everything's being done in the utmost secrecy. Just imagine that a giant coalition of 40 different forces will be ultimately molded in the image of the Pak Ordu!!! It's weapons, training, tactics, strategies, standards etc. will be adopted. What a mouth watering opportunity!!! No wonder folks with Bed Nazar toward Pak have gone into overdrive with jealousy!!!!

 

[Finer]

Thanks God IK is not shia, Otherwise Al Saud sympathiser would have issued a kafr fatwa.

Being Shia is not issue as being supporter of Khawarij aka TTP is the issue in Pakistan, as Terrorist-outfit aka TTP aka Khawarij is the certified enemy of Pakistan and already declared as enemy of GOD 1400 years ago.

Jinnah (R.A) was Shia, beloved hero for the entire Pakistan and possibly the entire Muslim worlds. And majority of population are Sunni that is loyal to the Jinnah and His Pakistan.

 

[unleashed]

Being Shia is not issue as being supporter of Khawarij aka TTP is the issue in Pakistan, as Terrorist-outfit aka TTP aka Khawarij is the certified enemy of Pakistan and already declared as enemy of GOD 1400 years ago.

Jinnah (R.A) was Shia, beloved hero for the entire Pakistan and possibly the entire Muslim worlds. And majority of population are Sunni that is loyal to the Jinnah and His Pakistan.

Jinnah was Ismaili Muslim born to khooja family. But who cares these days, the people who are hardcore sympathisers of TTP were used to issue fatwa against Jinnah as well.

 

[The Usman]

The government it seems has finally decided to allow the former army chief General (Retd) Raheel Sharif to head the Saudi led “NATO like’ 34 member 'Muslim nations military alliance'. The alliance it is being said ‘will combat terrorism and emerging threats like ISIS.’ The hot question though is can this alliance combat terrorism or fight ISIS without doing anything about the four (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen) ongoing full blown civil wars in Middle East? To fight terrorism and to fight against ISIS the Saudi led military alliance will not only have to eliminate these civil wars but also in doing so prevent the spillover of these civil wars in the neighboring countries (Turkey, Egypt, South Sudan, Algeria, Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia). So would this alliance be able to achieve what the world led by Americans so far has not been able to? The four ‘mother civil wars’ of the Middle East are not only feeding low level civil wars in adjoining countries but also exporting refugees, terrorists and a culture of extremism and radicalization. Ending these civil wars would be an operational necessity – something that the military alliance will not be able to achieve without deploying troops on ground. Pakistan, as is now apparent has shown its willingness to readily export its retired general to head the grand alliance but will it show equal readiness to export its troops too to become part of this military alliance? Considering that most of the roles that this Saudi led military alliance will be performing will have nothing to do directly with Pakistan’s security would it be wise to risk entrapping our troops in this unwanted and unnecessary 'fourth front war'? We are already fighting war on our eastern and western fronts with the internal war against host of miscreants and militants constituting our third front.
There are a number of questions regarding this Saudi led military alliance that for now are unanswered. Why would Saudi Arabia create and lead a grand military alliance (also being termed NATO like) if it is not to fight any battles or achieve any military victories? Can any battlefield victories be ever achieved without having any military boots on ground? And can any general command a 34 nation’s military alliance without his country and military contributing troops to such an alliance? Will Pakistan eventually contribute troops to this alliance given that the Pakistani Parliament has already disapproved the joining of this Saudi led military force? If this alliance is not being created to fight any wars (its involvement in mitigating and eventually ending ongoing civil wars in Middle East cannot be ruled out) would it be worthwhile for General Raheel Sharif to lead such a ‘do nothing – toothless military alliance’ of Muslim countries?
We know that Saudi Arabia has deep pockets (spends 25% of its budget, about $88 billion on its military) and threatened by insecurities such as spillover from civil war in Iraq or from its vulnerable southern flank (Yemen) it can well arm and equip itself to prevent destabilization of the Kingdom – Is the 34 nations military alliance one such deterrent that is deployed and structured to keep any such threats away?
Is the creation of this grand military alliance a step forward to address Saudi Kingdom’s own insecurity or is it for guaranteeing the stability and security of the entire world of Islam? Can we even call it a Muslim military alliance when countries with significant Muslim population such as Indonesia (200 million people), Malaysia, Iran, Iraq and Syria are not part of it? Also many countries that are part of this alliance such as Palestine, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Chad and Islamic Republic of Comoros may be too weak to add any meaningful military value or contribute any significantly trained strong military contingents to it.
If this Pan-Islamic alliance is to replace NATO as the dominant security organization in Middle East how is it going to treat one of the great US interest in the region – Israel? Safety of Israel is most important to Americans whereas the strong military alliance of Muslim countries will eventually be seen as not only to counterbalance ISIS and terrorism but Israel as well. For this reason no matter how militarily powerful the 34 nations Saudi led military alliance of Muslim countries in the Middle East becomes it is NATO that will remain the dominant security organization in Middle East (always ready to challenge those threatening US and Israeli interests). United States, most likely will cut down on the costs of its involvement in the ongoing civil wars in Middle East if the 'alliance of Muslim countries' demonstrates its willingness to take over its dirty work. However, the Saudi led alliance is most likely to only struggle if asked to undertake military interventions such as the ones that were undertaken by United States in Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya and even Iraq and without any military interventions it is least likely to mitigate any terrorist threats may it be ISIS or others.
Terrorism in Middle East flourishes because more and more people in the region feel aggrieved by the policies followed by Americans and the Israeli’s. Even United Kingdom, France and other European countries face terrorist attacks because they are US allies and support such policies. If such attacks continue and countries like Israel take post attack military actions what will be the response of this military alliance? Can it deter Israel from say carrying out military interventions in Palestine (Gaza, West bank) or Lebanon?
If Pakistan (a nuclear power) deploys its forces as part of this Saudi led military alliance will this mean for most Muslim countries that are threatened by a nuclear armed state of Israel to draw comfort in taking shelter under an alliance members nuclear umbrella? How will Israel respond to Pakistan (a nuclear power) becoming part of this alliance? After all NATO deploys both conventional as well as nuclear weapons to deter threats - Isn't this alliance going to be NATO like?
For Pakistan the cost of joining this military alliance it seems is far greater than the benefits of stepping back and staying away. After all countries like Indonesia (victim of deadly 2002 Bali bombing) and Malaysia (where police claims to have neutralized 14 terrorist attacks only in 2016) have chosen to stay away from this alliance presumably to prevent inviting any unnecessary terrorist attacks in their countries. If these countries don’t want to deploy their forces abroad why should Pakistan?
Lastly, this Saudi led military alliance may have little military utility but one should not miss one of its important benefits: it also provides a political framework for cooperation on non-military issues. utilizing a think tank to gain advantages as does NATO which uses ‘Atlantic Council’ that enables United States and the European countries not only to exchange ideas but to do business as well. Similarly, this Saudi led alliance can prove to be of great value in many other matters including 'environmental disasters' where it can do a lot by contributing force assistance.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

The government it seems has finally decided to allow the former army chief General (Retd) Raheel Sharif to head the Saudi led “NATO like’ 34 member 'Muslim nations military alliance'. The alliance it is being said ‘will combat terrorism and emerging threats like ISIS.’ The hot question though is can this alliance combat terrorism or fight ISIS without doing anything about the four (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen) ongoing full blown civil wars in Middle East? To fight terrorism and to fight against ISIS the Saudi led military alliance will not only have to eliminate these civil wars but also in doing so prevent the spillover of these civil wars in the neighboring countries (Turkey, Egypt, South Sudan, Algeria, Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia). So would this alliance be able to achieve what the world led by Americans so far has not been able to? The four ‘mother civil wars’ of the Middle East are not only feeding low level civil wars in adjoining countries but also exporting refugees, terrorists and a culture of extremism and radicalization. Ending these civil wars would be an operational necessity – something that the military alliance will not be able to achieve without deploying troops on ground. Pakistan, as is now apparent has shown its willingness to readily export its retired general to head the grand alliance but will it show equal readiness to export its troops too to become part of this military alliance? Considering that most of the roles that this Saudi led military alliance will be performing will have nothing to do directly with Pakistan’s security would it be wise to risk entrapping our troops in this unwanted and unnecessary 'fourth front war'? We are already fighting war on our eastern and western fronts with the internal war against host of miscreants and militants constituting our third front.
There are a number of questions regarding this Saudi led military alliance that for now are unanswered. Why would Saudi Arabia create and lead a grand military alliance (also being termed NATO like) if it is not to fight any battles or achieve any military victories? Can any battlefield victories be ever achieved without having any military boots on ground? And can any general command a 34 nation’s military alliance without his country and military contributing troops to such an alliance? Will Pakistan eventually contribute troops to this alliance given that the Pakistani Parliament has already disapproved the joining of this Saudi led military force? If this alliance is not being created to fight any wars (its involvement in mitigating and eventually ending ongoing civil wars in Middle East cannot be ruled out) would it be worthwhile for General Raheel Sharif to lead such a ‘do nothing – toothless military alliance’ of Muslim countries?
We know that Saudi Arabia has deep pockets (spends 25% of its budget, about $88 billion on its military) and threatened by insecurities such as spillover from civil war in Iraq or from its vulnerable southern flank (Yemen) it can well arm and equip itself to prevent destabilization of the Kingdom – Is the 34 nations military alliance one such deterrent that is deployed and structured to keep any such threats away?
Is the creation of this grand military alliance a step forward to address Saudi Kingdom’s own insecurity or is it for guaranteeing the stability and security of the entire world of Islam? Can we even call it a Muslim military alliance when countries with significant Muslim population such as Indonesia (200 million people), Malaysia, Iran, Iraq and Syria are not part of it? Also many countries that are part of this alliance such as Palestine, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Chad and Islamic Republic of Comoros may be too weak to add any meaningful military value or contribute any significantly trained strong military contingents to it.
If this Pan-Islamic alliance is to replace NATO as the dominant security organization in Middle East how is it going to treat one of the great US interest in the region – Israel? Safety of Israel is most important to Americans whereas the strong military alliance of Muslim countries will eventually be seen as not only to counterbalance ISIS and terrorism but Israel as well. For this reason no matter how militarily powerful the 34 nations Saudi led military alliance of Muslim countries in the Middle East becomes it is NATO that will remain the dominant security organization in Middle East (always ready to challenge those threatening US and Israeli interests). United States, most likely will cut down on the costs of its involvement in the ongoing civil wars in Middle East if the 'alliance of Muslim countries' demonstrates its willingness to take over its dirty work. However, the Saudi led alliance is most likely to only struggle if asked to undertake military interventions such as the ones that were undertaken by United States in Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya and even Iraq and without any military interventions it is least likely to mitigate any terrorist threats may it be ISIS or others.
Terrorism in Middle East flourishes because more and more people in the region feel aggrieved by the policies followed by Americans and the Israeli’s. Even United Kingdom, France and other European countries face terrorist attacks because they are US allies and support such policies. If such attacks continue and countries like Israel take post attack military actions what will be the response of this military alliance? Can it deter Israel from say carrying out military interventions in Palestine (Gaza, West bank) or Lebanon?
If Pakistan (a nuclear power) deploys its forces as part of this Saudi led military alliance will this mean for most Muslim countries that are threatened by a nuclear armed state of Israel to draw comfort in taking shelter under an alliance members nuclear umbrella? How will Israel respond to Pakistan (a nuclear power) becoming part of this alliance? After all NATO deploys both conventional as well as nuclear weapons to deter threats - Isn't this alliance going to be NATO like?
For Pakistan the cost of joining this military alliance it seems is far greater than the benefits of stepping back and staying away. After all countries like Indonesia (victim of deadly 2002 Bali bombing) and Malaysia (where police claims to have neutralized 14 terrorist attacks only in 2016) have chosen to stay away from this alliance presumably to prevent inviting any unnecessary terrorist attacks in their countries. If these countries don’t want to deploy their forces abroad why should Pakistan?
Lastly, this Saudi led military alliance may have little military utility but one should not miss one of its important benefits: it also provides a political framework for cooperation on non-military issues. utilizing a think tank to gain advantages as does NATO which uses ‘Atlantic Council’ that enables United States and the European countries not only to exchange ideas but to do business as well. Similarly, this Saudi led alliance can prove to be of great value in many other matters including 'environmental disasters' where it can do a lot by contributing force assistance.

Going by this logic Babur Han should have never left Fergana valley, and Sultan Abdali should have never taken on the Marathas!!! And, the British should have never ventured out of their tiny island. And, the list continues. Fortune, unfortunately, favors the brave who can take calculated risks. Pak has got this rare opportunity to outflank her arch enemy by breaking the shackles to have a "small" domain of her own influences. Who would just turn it down with the backside of his hand??? Iran/Irak/Syria/Indonesia/Malaysia can afford to opt out for they never built empires thousands and thousands of miles away from their places of birth!!!!!

 

[Thorough Pro]

I think Pakistanis who have served on high/sensitive government posts need government NOC to work for a foreign government.

That's a nice question right. I don't know that is why asked.

 

[Arsalan mehmud]

Jab mian biwi razi toh kya karega Imran

 

[Samlee]

Source?

PTI has lost its marbles, Imran Khan who isn't politician in any sense. Being corruption free doesn't make you good politician. He go from playing provincial card in local politics to sectarian card in international politics. He doesn't see anything else apart from how to bring Nawaz down at any cost.

Hopefully supreme court remove Nawaz Sharif then maybe Imran Khan will retire from politics.

I Remember PTI Use To Claim That They Can Make Metro Bus Within Rs 8 Billion and Now They Are Making Peshawar BRTS In Rs 57 Billion.Sad Bunch Of Losers

 

[nadeemkhan110]

I am not a supporter of PTI but I agree with PTI in this

 

[litman]

https://www.dawn.com/news/1324597/i...of-saudi-led-military-alliance-envoy#comments