The Battle for Bajaur - PA seizes control

[Vinod2070]

I’m sorry for being part of what hijacked the thread everyone, I will say no more about it unless furthered engaged.

Agreed. No more diversions but look forward to completing this discussion on some other thread, some other time.

 

[S-2]

"Agreed. No more diversions but look forward to completing this discussion on some other thread, some other time."

Concur.

 

[Kasrkin]

Too late for you to concur.

I didn't presume an absolutist position here. Kasrkin did.

What part did you find absolutist? The fact that the US didn't stick around to give a ***'s *** about the Afghan people now that their enemies weren't involved? Or the fact that the view that this particular policy was a mistake is widespread? (You're from the US and you've heard about it and I'm from Pakistan and I've obviously come across this sentiment numerous times, so if that’s not wide spread then I dunno what is)

Doesn't make it accurate nor prevalent.

Good, now tell me why it so is inaccurate? Did the Americans really provide ANYWHERE near adequate humanitarian, social, economic assistance in the form of projects or something between the time the Soviets withdrew and they found new enemies in Afghanistan(Al-Qaeda)? What about the Afghan refugees in Pakistan, was their plight given sufficient attention or commitment?

 

[S-2]

"What part did you find absolutist?...the US IS to blame for not sticking to its commits to Pakistan and Afghanistan. That much is without doubt and is widely acknowledged including within the US itself. It's not so much a matter of blame as it is reality."

What commitments are these that you write about? We'd made no enduring commitments as a matter of policy. You've provided no proof to the contrary. None. Can you do so?

These will help you determine who's gotten what aid by year-

Briefing On Assistance To Afghan Refugees- U.S. Dept. of State Oct. 4, 2001

A couple of points-

1.) U.S. aid to Afghanistan in 2000 was $186m.

2.) The U.S. is the U.N.H.C.R.'s largest donor as of Oct. 4, 2001.

Here's the U.N.H.C.R.'s site indicating contributions for this year-

UNHCR-The U.N Refugee Agency

We're the world's largest contributor by FOUR TIMES over #2 (E.U.) today. We were the world's largest on Oct.4, 2001. Don't know but I bet we were near the top in-between and prior.

Here's the GreenBook from U.S.AID.

GREENBOOK USAID

This is a comprehensive and interactive excel spreadsheet which can show aid by military and/or civil by year by nation in constant or historical dollars. You can manipulate as necessary. Isolating Pakistan and Afghanistan in per capita dollars will indicate that our contributions to Afghanistan even when the taliban were in power at least exceeded those to Pakistan by a considerable amount on a per capita basis.

Enjoy.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Hardly off on a tangent. I didn't presume an absolutist position here. Kasrkin did.

I never argued to the other extreme so don't pin an unascribed position to me, thank you. No doubt that POV exists. I've come across it. Doesn't make it accurate nor prevalent. Certainly not among the world's leaders in the early nineties nor now.

Abrasive? My nation's hands drip with blood, remember?

Oh right, and as always 'white wash' your own comments that led to that point:

"no nation has a record of self-serving and manipulative actions quite like Pakistan's."

'Tap dance' around that all you like.

If you do indeed accept the presence of opinions that advocated continued US engagement with Afghanistan and the region after the Soviet withdrawal, then I didn't see it expressed until this last post.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I would suggest creating a separate thread for the aid to Afghanistan discussion, if you want to continue it. The posts can be moved over.

 

[S-2]

The existance of a POV was never the issue. Wide ranges of POVs exist. Doesn't mean that they transform to policy just because you'd like to pin the donkey after the fact. Doesn't wash. The acceptance of that POV as a policy position established by the U.S. and acknowledged by other nations is the point.

Let your pedanticism drop and make the case that the United States committed it's nat'l prestige to a continuing presence in Afghanistan following the Soviet departure.

Had we done so you could hold my feet to the fire. We didn't nor had any intention to do so. Can you do so?

If not, drop it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The existance of a POV was never the issue. Wide ranges of POVs exist. Doesn't mean that they transform to policy just because you'd like to pin the donkey after the fact. Doesn't wash. The acceptance of that POV as a policy position established by the U.S. and acknowledged by other nations is the point.

Let your pedanticism drop and make the case that the United States committed it's nat'l prestige to a continuing presence in Afghanistan following the Soviet departure.

Had we done so you could hold my feet to the fire. We didn't nor had any intention to do so. Can you do so?

If not, drop it.

Pay attention to the posts for God's sake. Another strawman from you.

Was it my argument that the US had a 'commitment', of any kind, to stay engaged in Afghanistan?

If so, do indicate where. And if not, what exactly do you expect me to 'make the case' for?

The point I did make was that opinion in favor of engagement in Afghanistan existed.

 

[S-2]

"Pay attention to the posts for God's sake. Another strawman from you."

No strawman. My beef's with kasrkin and I'm still waiting for him to make his case as he's apparently unwilling to let this slide.

"Was it my argument that the US had a 'commitment', of any kind, to stay engaged in Afghanistan?"

I'm glad you suggest it isn't as there was no stated policy of which I'm aware.

 

[Kasrkin]

We'd made no enduring commitments as a matter of policy. You've provided no proof to the contrary. None. Can you do so?

Which was exactly the point, American policy and rhetoric was obviously geared towards protecting and looking after the Afghan people. All that simply evaporated and this ideological commitment failed to materialize once their Soviet-oriented objectives were met. It is important that you realize that I'm not trying to be indignant about this, but the fact that the Americans for the most part left the Afghans to their fate is hardly a contested issue. The notion that this ought to be considered morally un-expectable and is what eventually contributed to all the violence, instability there and the rise of Al-Qaeda is a popular and wide-spread prospective, but obviously up for debate. Furthermore I’m sure there are legally binding commitments the Americans made to the region that were not honored i.e. delivery of the Pakistani F-16s (though admittedly that was attempted-ly justified by the “sudden” existence of Pakistan’s nuclear program) is certainly one that comes to mind in relation to my country. I’m sure there’re loads more of ‘em around, I would’ve bothered to look them up too if I thought you capable of at least trying to digest that point of view (I remember what happened last time I bothered looking up proof for you).

1.) U.S. aid to Afghanistan in 2000 was $186m.

I hardly think that can be considered anywhere near sufficient for a war-ravaged country with decimated infrastructure, completely collapsed/non-existent social and educational systems and millions of refugees and landmines, intense civil war, etc. Heck you can’t even buy 2 Raptors in that much money…

were the world's largest on Oct.4, 2001. Don't know but I bet we were near the top in-between and prior.

That doesn’t count, the Americans didn’t conduct their foreign policy in Pakistan and Afghanistan through a particular United Nations Organization. Why should standard US commitment to the UN mechanism suddenly substitute for the bilateral dedication the US displayed before?

Isolating Pakistan and Afghanistan in per capita dollars will indicate that our contributions to Afghanistan even when the taliban were in power at least exceeded those to Pakistan by a considerable amount on a per capita basis.

LOL, I noted you didn’t bother mentioning the ridiculous amounts of money involved in both these cases, besides given the fact that Afghanistan was facing a constant humanitarian and civil war situation with factions leveling cities, massacring prisoners and civilians on a daily basis, severe food shortages, etc it is hardly so shocking that international contributions tended to prioritize Afghanistan as compared to Pakistan. But at the end of the day that means nothing, American dedication and contribution to that region was clearly inconsistent before/after the Soviets left even if you try to pretend that the UN has only ever been the primary means of American foreign assistance.

Now that I’ve made my case and gone through your ‘proof’ about how nothing changed with the US priorities in the region when the Soviets left, I sure think we can get back to the topic. Unless you wish to open another thread, in which case we can go over your links plus others (not from the PoV of the US State Dept) and invite Vinod too. Good Day.

 

[S-2]

I wrote a long reply and whacked it. There's no point. I won't debate a moral midget on our donations to Afghanistan nor Pakistan nor anywhere else. When you remotely approach my nation's sense of generousity, then we'll have this chat. You're not close (another universe?) and I find it a tad offensive to read how you'd piss on $186m in famine relief aid given for a single year to a nation whose government we didn't recognize then and are at war with now.

Makes me certain how you'd view our $15.2Billion appropriation to Pakistan for civil development. I'd likely, based on this conversation, call my senators to advise my concern. Not much impact by myself, but it's a popular and widespread belief in America that money spent in Pakistan is akin to tossing it into a bottomless pit.

Care to challenge THAT "popular and widespread" view?

Anyway, still no links on policy I see.

Kasrkin, I'm done here. You're a circular loop kind o' guy and becoming a drag. See ya' down the road.

Oh, use those links. You clearly need an education on how foreign aid works as a DONOR. You might learn something. Then again...probably not.

Night-night.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...

 

[Kasrkin]

popular and widespread belief in America that money spent in Pakistan is akin to tossing it into a bottomless pit.
Care to challenge THAT "popular and widespread" view?

Hahaha, obviously not popular or wide-spread enough since they are still paying it...

I won't debate a moral midget

If a "moral midget" can bring you down to this pitiful level, then that doesn't say much about your "moral greatness" either. I’ve obviously irked you, I’m sorry, despite what you might think it wasn’t my intention. But you’re constantly condescending, swaggering, superior demeanor isn’t exactly very likeable either...Ta ta.

So Bajaur, I always wanted to know how many brigades we've deployed in the Agency for this operation. I've read in some report that when the Pak Army conducted a counter-insurgency operation here in the 60s, they used 2 whole brigades. Maybe I've missed it, but I'm sure our current force-levels have been documented...

 

[fatman17]

‘Military rift with Pakistan hurts war’

* WT report quotes US generals saying young Pakistani officers reluctant to work with US

LAHORE: Two senior US military officials say the US-led war on terror is facing challenges in part because Pakistan’s young military officers don’t have the same relationship with their US counterparts that their predecessors had, Washington Times reported on Monday.

In a recent interview with the newspaper, Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a top priority for the Pentagon is healing the longtime rift between the two militaries, which he said has deprived both nations of the trust needed to combat extremism.

US Army Major General John M Custer agreed. The commander of the US Army Intelligence Centre at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, said US forces are “dealing with guys who don’t have any exposure to us”.

“The older military leaders love us, they understand American culture, and they know we are not the enemy, but they are aging out of the force,” he said.

“There’s not a Pakistani junior officer that doesn’t know who former Senator Pressler is, and there’s not a junior officer in the US military that knows who Senator Pressler is,” Admiral Mullen said.

According to the Pentagon, from 1980 to 1989, more than 1,300 Pakistani military men attended US war-staff colleges and technical and professional schools in the United States. But US and Pakistani military exchanges virtually came to a halt during the 1990s, depriving those who are now midlevel officers in Pakistan’s military of familiarity with the United States.

Many of these officers still harbour deep resentment toward the United States, the Washington Times said, and may be reluctant to co-operate with the US military. “Disagreement with the US invasion of Iraq and the perception that US policy in South Asia tilts in favour of India have exacerbated the problems,” it said.

The general consensus among many Pakistani citizens is that the US abandoned Pakistan when “we were no longer useful after the Cold War”, a senior Pakistani official told the Washington Times on the condition of anonymity.

Despite his legislation’s impact on US-Pakistan relations, Pressler told The Times that the Clinton administration’s decision to stop implementing the amendment was “one of the great foreign-policy mistakes in recent history”.

Gen Custer worked closely with Army chief Ashfaq Kayani when Kayani was heading the ISI and Custer was at the US Central Command’s Intelligence Directorate. Custer said a US lack of understanding of the political situation in Pakistan has led to a very ‘myopic view’ of the region and a distancing of the two allies.

Mullen said Pakistan’s acceptance in October of 25 American master military trainers to advise selected members of the Frontier Corps was a significant step in rebuilding relations.

“Pakistan is not going to be used as a safe haven for anything or anyone,” Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, told The Times. “We are also working closely with our US counterparts, but this is Pakistan’s war against terror as well.”

Haqqani said that rebuilding the relationship would take time.

“The US has to make it very clear that the US role against terror is a supportive role,” he said. “Everybody is more willing to fight when it is their war, than to fight somebody else’s war.”

http://www.thedailytimes.com.pk

the result of Gen. Zia's policy of islamization and US sanctions on Pakistan.

 

[Kasrkin]

Thanks that was very illuminating Fatman117 sir, I wonder if history will repeat it self after the WoT, but anyho...

 

[fatman17]

Thanks that was very illuminating Fatman117 sir, I wonder if history will repeat it self after the WoT, but anyho...

i hope we can learn from our mistakes and mis-perceptions about each other esp in the military.