What's new

The Pak-US strategic dialogue

hmm yeah if the front row seat got tea biscuit, i feel bad for your people..what'd they get broccoli ? :rofl:

As to your first point, bravo...your a moron

We are not starving for biscuit and tea.

It is difficult to fight with TTP when they melt into general population. It is going to happen in 6-12 months and you will see effect all over pakistan. IMO.
 
We are not starving for biscuit and tea.

It is difficult to fight with TTP when they melt into general population. It is going to happen in 6-12 months and you will see effect all over pakistan. IMO.

So, u wana admit that India is behind that ?????.....n launching a new mission
 
May be General Kiyani will ask

Milraty Deals

1) 30 - 40 more F16.
2) 10 - 15 UAV's like Predator
3) 4 - 5 more USS McInerney (FFG-8)
4) 10 - 15 Apachi
5) Training of Afgan forces
6) More weapon deals
........
........
........
________________________________
Civilian Deals

1) Open new ways in world trade.
2) Support for economy boost and improve money value
3) Civilian Nuclear Power projects
4) Water issues\dialogues with India
.......
.......
.......
 
You know, In this world nothing is free.:coffee:

where is the money for pakistan to buy all these weapons.

Looks like exchange of $$ for the talibans arrasted recently.

I know one thing..................where ever u see Indians...They are trolling and their stomach is upset since we won and praised by world community.

Pakistan have a segregated miltary and civilian budget......we are weaker in economy but not that, that we cant afford 30-40 F-16 (may be used) or old USS McInerney (FFG-8) (cost 60 m).

Now coming to ur point..............we have spend almost 35billion $ in war against terror. That was not the only war of Pakistan......other nations who were involved in the war directly or indirectly also giving us money for the fight which we fought for every one. :cheers:
 
U.S. Sees Hope in Pakistan Requests for Help


By MATTHEW ROSENBERG And PETER SPIEGEL

Pakistan sent a 56-page document to the U.S. ahead of strategic talks scheduled for Wednesday, seeking expanded military and economic aid in what some American officials believe is an implicit offer to crack down in return on the Afghan Taliban.

The previously undisclosed document includes requests ranging from U.S. help to alleviate Pakistan's chronic water and power shortages to pleas for surveillance aircraft and support in developing the country's civilian nuclear program.

View Full Image

Reuters
Pakistani Special Police Force cadets during a parade Saturday in Swat, one area where Pakistan has toughened its campaign against the Taliban.

U.S. officials say the document and the talks surrounding it could help redefine one of America's thorniest foreign-policy relationships, if it leads to a serious Pakistani clampdown on the Taliban.

The Taliban uses Pakistan, a U.S. ally, as its rear base in its fight against American and allied forces in neighboring Afghanistan, and has often relied on clandestine support from elements of Pakistan's national security establishment. But in the past few months, Pakistan has rounded up several senior leaders of the Afghan Taliban on its soil, and last year it began a series of offensives against the Pakistan offshoot of the Afghan movement.

U.S. officials are keen to see those moves broadened as a key to shifting the momentum of the Afghan war. "Right now, we're looking at something that could deliver a big part of our success in Afghanistan," said a senior U.S. military official, speaking of the document and talks.

The document outlines a range of aid Pakistan is seeking from the U.S., say American and Pakistani officials who have seen it or been briefed on its contents. A high-level meeting between senior Pakistani and U.S. officials in Washington on Wednesday aims to stitch together their fraying alliance.

Many of Pakistan's requests build on longstanding demands for more U.S. assistance. But officials on both sides say that by detailing them in a single comprehensive document, Islamabad is trying to signal its willingness to align its interests with those of Washington, its vision for a partnership—and its price.

Among the requests is greater cooperation between its spy agency and U.S. intelligence outfits, more helicopter gunships and other military hardware needed to battle its own Taliban insurgency, and improved surveillance technology, such as pilotless drone aircraft.

Pakistan also wants a civilian nuclear energy cooperation deal with the U.S., and a role in any future peace talks between the Western-backed Afghan government and the Taliban.

Many U.S. officials remain wary of such deals with Pakistan. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., Pakistan has received more than $17.5 billion in U.S. aid, the majority earmarked for the military and security, while insisting it was doing all it could to combat the Taliban and its Islamist allies.

U.S. officials have complained that Pakistan's intelligence services continued to offer clandestine support for the Taliban, which it has long viewed as a proxy it could use to secure its influence in Afghanistan and keep archrival India out after an eventual U.S. withdrawal.

"Everything with the Pakistanis is two steps forward and one step back," said a senior U.S. military official involved in talks with the Pakistanis. "Anybody who expects straight linear progress out of a strategic dialogue between these two nations is really kind of naïve. What it will be is a step forward and then we'll see where they go with it."

Pakistan's fears of being outflanked by India, which has forged close ties to the Afghan government, are reflected in the document's indirect language about regional security issues, Pakistani officials say. The document raises concerns about India's effort to modernize its military, in part through buying U.S. equipment and weapons. It urges Washington to take a direct role in reviving the peace process between India and Pakistan, which stalled after the November 2008 terror attacks on Mumbai.

If officials this week can begin setting the U.S. relationship with Pakistan on a footing of greater trust and military cooperation, it would mark a success for the Obama administration's foreign policy at a time when key relations with other nations, from ally Israel to nemesis Iran, are strained.

In response to the document, officials say the Pentagon is considering up to $500 million in additional military aid to Pakistan, paid through the Coalition Support Fund, an account used to reimburse Pakistan for military activities taken in support of U.S. operations in Afghanistan. Last year, the U.S. provided $2.8 billion in economic and security aid to Islamabad.

A spokesman for Pakistan's military, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, confirmed the document's existence and the military's input, but he declined to discuss its contents. Aides to Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Pentagon's primary interlocutor with Pakistan's military leadership, confirmed his staff had received the document and were analyzing it.

Michael Hammer, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said the White House looked forward to this week's talks, but would not comment on any specific proposals made during meetings between "scores" of senior U.S. officials and Pakistani counterparts over the last year.

"During the course of those discussions, a considerable number of ideas, initiatives, and opportunities have been brought up by both sides," Mr. Hammer said. "We are not prepared to comment on any one set of ideas other than to say that we are encouraged by an open and robust dialogue."

The document comes out of months of delicate and often secret negotiations between top political and military officials from both countries., to continue Wednesday at a so-called Strategic Dialogue in Washington. The meeting is to cover issues from the fight against Islamist militants to bolstering Pakistan's struggling economy.Among officials slated to attend are Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the head of Pakistan's army.

"Pakistan and the United States have been partners and allies without always having a complete understanding of each other's strategic and security priorities," said Pakistan's ambassador in Washington, Husain Haqqani, in a telephone interview. "This time we want to build an understanding that can serve as a foundation for the day-to-day relationship."

It remains unclear what has fueled Pakistan's recent apparent shift on the Taliban. Some Western officials believe recent coalition gains in Afghanistan have prompted the Pakistanis to hedge in a new direction. Afghan officials and other Western officials say the Pakistanis may be trying to take control of nascent Taliban peace efforts by detaining the most pragmatic insurgent leaders.

The senior U.S. military official involved in recent talks with Pakistani officials , including Gen. Kayani,said the new seriousness in Pakistan's approach seems to be part of a realization that the U.S. has a limited time frame for directly assisting Islamabad. The official said Gen. Kayani in recent talks has focused on getting U.S. assistance to efforts that the Afghan and Pakistani governments can sustain as U.S. forces and investment in Afghanistan wane.

Some of Pakistan's requests are likely non-starters. India has steadfastly refused any outside mediation in its decades-long dispute with Pakistan. And U.S. officials say a civilian nuclear deal would be a tough sell given Pakistan's history of nuclear weapons proliferation.

To assuage the Pakistanis, the State Department has suggested setting up a bilateral working group to discuss the issue, in essence pushing a decision into the distant future. But U.S. officials, especially in those in the Pentagon, are eager to encourage Pakistan's re-engagement after nearly two years of growing tension between the allies,and say many of the other requests may be doable.

The U.S. may, for example, be willing to give Pakistan drone aircraft, although not the high-end, armed Predator and Reaper drones that have been used by the Central Intelligence Agency to kill hundreds of militants in Pakistan's tribal areas, according to a U.S. official.

The official said Pakistan already gets a few hours a week of surveillance time on those drones, and they're often "not looking at the same targets we'd necessarily want to be looking at."

"We want the U.S. to recognize Pakistan's nuclear status and give us assurances not to undermine the (weapons) program," said a senior Pakistani military officer who serves as an aide to Gen. Kayani. "Energy security is crucial, and we need U.S. help."

Among the proposals the Pentagon is considering is asking Pakistan to allow the U.S. to support expanded Pakistani counterterrorism efforts within their country. Currently, about 150 U.S. Special Operations forces are in Pakistan training the Pakistani military in counterinsurgency tactics. In addition, the U.S. may press the Pakistani government to end what they view as a negative information campaign against the U.S. by elements of Pakistan's powerful intelligence agency, the Inter-Service Intelligence directorate.

—Tom Wright and Zahid Hussain in Islamabad and Jay Solomon in Washington contributed to this article.
Write to Matthew Rosenberg at matthew.rosenberg@wsj.com and Peter Spiegel at peter.spiegel@wsj.com


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...od=WSJ_WSJ_US_World#articleTabs%3Darticle
 
Pak to US: Terror bill worth $35 billion, nuke deal ..LOL.

Was the LOL part of the headline? Because if it wasn't you need to edit it out.

Try to verbalize your perspective rather than indulging in petty one liners and flame baits. I have seen several of your posts and they are overwhelmingly baits that do nothing other than lower the quality of discussion on the forum. Keep this up and you will get banned.
 
Don't make him Hero. If army can't fight internal insurgency how can they fight with India. BTW army is using tanks and airforce to crush its own people.

What pakistan got by getting front row seat in london conference. May be tea/biscuit before other?

Pure rubbish coming from someone whose country has 600,000 troops in Kashmir that routinely shoot and kill young school-going girls and boys. A territory that now has the dubious distinction of being the most highly militarized area on the globe.

Nonsense coming from someone whose country has to deploy over 100,000 troops to deal with Naxalites... and their numbers and area of influence continues to grow.

How did the Indian Army deal with the Sikh rebellion? Did you use rubber bullets at the Golden Temple?

Apnay giraibaan mein jhaanko.

Go run a campaign to get that modern-day Hitler, Modi, out of office before you talk about your fake concern for Pakistan and how we are dealing with foreign funded terrorists. India is the one country where someone who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of muslim natives becomes even more popular and gets re-elected. Look at yourself in the mirror before you spew this sort of crap here.
 
We are not starving for biscuit and tea.

Biscuits and tea are a bridge too far for you... Indians are dying of hunger.

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Dying of hunger in Indian state

It is difficult to fight with TTP when they melt into general population. It is going to happen in 6-12 months and you will see effect all over pakistan. IMO.

Keep your expert opinions to yourself and maybe direct your wonderful strategic acumen to the dozens of internal problems and insurgencies that are afflicting you.

Naxal menace growing, admits Chidambaram
 
Biscuits and tea are a bridge too far for you... Indians are dying of hunger.

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Dying of hunger in Indian state



Keep your expert opinions to yourself and maybe direct your wonderful strategic acumen to the dozens of internal problems and insurgencies that are afflicting you.

Naxal menace growing, admits Chidambaram

I did not say that india has no problem. Don't bring india into the discussion. That was just my opinion. BTW it is discussion forum right??
 
Pure rubbish coming from someone whose country has 600,000 troops in Kashmir that routinely shoot and kill young school-going girls and boys. A territory that now has the dubious distinction of being the most highly militarized area on the globe.

Nonsense coming from someone whose country has to deploy over 100,000 troops to deal with Naxalites... and their numbers and area of influence continues to grow.

How did the Indian Army deal with the Sikh rebellion? Did you use rubber bullets at the Golden Temple?

Apnay giraibaan mein jhaanko.

Go run a campaign to get that modern-day Hitler, Modi, out of office before you talk about your fake concern for Pakistan and how we are dealing with foreign funded terrorists. India is the one country where someone who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of muslim natives becomes even more popular and gets re-elected. Look at yourself in the mirror before you spew this sort of crap here.

Again don't bring india into discussion. If india displace entire population of kashmir valley then Indian army will crush the insurgency in 1-2 months.
See for few terrorist we need 600000 troops since they are infiltrated in local population even they have no local support.

Real problem for Pakistan starts when they (TTP) melt in local population.
 
Daily Times - analysis: Dialogue about Pakhtuns without Pakhtuns! —Shahid Ilyas

Talking is not a bad thing, but when it is done without the participation of those who are the subject of such talks, it will most likely result in a disaster

Pakistan’s political and military top brass will soon be in Washington for a ‘strategic dialogue’ with the US. Obviously, the main item on the agenda will be the prevailing situation in Pakhtunkhwa and Afghanistan. The US will convey its concerns regarding Pakistan’s role in the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan and the growing grip of terrorists on Pakhtunkhwa and its spread to Lahore, Islamabad and Karachi. Pakistan will appraise its interlocutors about its concerns and ‘national interests’ in Afghanistan. It will mainly focus on airing its fears about the increasing cooperation between India and Afghanistan and will likely request a sustained supply of financial handouts and military equipment that the army so badly feels like having against its perceived enemy, India.

Talking is not a bad thing, but when it is done without the participation of those who are the subject of such talks, it will most likely result in a disaster. The Pakhtun and the turmoil on their lands — supposedly the theme of the dialogue — are reportedly not being represented in the upcoming Pak-US strategic dialogue. The delegation heading for the US does not include either the Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PKMAP) led by Mahmud Khan Achakzai or the Awami National Party (ANP) led by Asfandyar Wali. These are the mainstream political parties of Pakhtunkhwa having a deep bearing on the events of their ethnic constituency. These parties represent the most influential and educated class of Pakhtun society. What benefit can a dialogue bring without the participation of the Pakhtun leadership and intelligentsia?

If indeed the purpose of the dialogue is the ongoing terrorism-related turmoil in Pakhtunkhwa, it can only be counterproductive without the participation of the Pakhtuns. Already, the prevailing thinking among them is that they are being ruled like a colony by the Punjab-dominated establishment in Rawalpindi-Islamabad. The Pakhtuns are increasingly complaining that the American opinion of them is formed by the establishment in Islamabad and Rawalpindi. They argue that under a well thought-out strategy, they are being presented to the world as terrorists through the media. The planned strategic dialogue without them will only reinforce their belief in their (perceived or real) exploitation by the bigger province. An added factor now will be that they will consider the US a co-culprit, responsible for their sufferings.

Pakhtun civil society was alarmed last month by Richard Holbrooke’s remarks that “almost every Pakhtun family has someone involved with the [Taliban] movement”. They believe that Holbrooke’s remarks represent the US government’s understanding of the Pakhtuns. A dialogue between the US and Pakistan without any Pakhtun representation will further deepen that belief and suspicion. Among the Pakhtun intelligentsia — and it represents the bulk of Pakhtun public opinion — there is a concern that this kind of moves can only incite a section of the Pakhtun youth to fight against the US and the Pakistani state on the Taliban side.

These concerns can only be addressed if the US assures them — through concrete actions — that it is their friend. These steps could include, among others, appointing someone as its representative to Afghanistan who knows the Taliban issue well. Mr Holbrooke certainly does not know the Taliban well if he thinks that every Pakhtun family has some links with the Taliban, without any consideration for those thousands of Pakhtun families who suffered, and are still suffering, at the hands of militants. If he does not understand the problem, how can he be expected to solve it? Second, the US should make sure that any negotiations that aim at discussing Pakhtunkhwa and its problems must include the genuine representatives of the Pakhtuns. The Pakhtuns are mainly represented by the ANP and the PKMAP. The latter currently has no representatives in parliament because of its boycott of the 2008 elections. However, it is a popular party of the Pakhtuns. Therefore, the leadership of these parties needs to be taken on board if any dialogue has to be successful.

Another move through which the US can assure the Pakhtuns of its friendship can be the disbursement of funds that the US Congress approves for the terrorist-affected areas directly to their representatives (the government of Pakhtunkhwa) in Peshawar. The representative government sitting in Peshawar knows better than anyone else where the funds could best be utilised in order to improve the lives of those who can join the Taliban anytime due to economic hardships.

The writer is a freelance columnist based in Waziristan. He can be reached at ilyasakbarkhan@gmail.com
 
Again don't bring india into discussion. If india displace entire population of kashmir valley then Indian army will crush the insurgency in 1-2 months.
See for few terrorist we need 600000 troops since they are infiltrated in local population even they have no local support.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda... didn't. Sounds like an excuse to me. Don't talk about hypotheticals. The fact is that India couldn't manage the situation in Kashmir and 600,000+ troops have been positioned there for decades.


Real problem for Pakistan starts when they (TTP) melt in local population.

Two ops have been conducted and this didn't happen. Intelligence operatives were positioned in all IDP camps. If you can think of these scenarios with no on-the-ground experience, no knowledge about Pakistan and no COIN experience, it would be comical of you to assume that these assumptions have not been worked into the Pakistan military calculus. The fact of the matter is that the Pakistan Army's performance has been one of the world's most successful examples of COIN operations. Your comments on this forum can't change reality.
 
Keep the discussion to the topic, for all the other discussion, other threads are available.

Anymore off topic post, will get deleted.
 
Qureshi & Kayani meet key US officials




WASHINGTON: The United States and Pakistan engaged in preparatory talks on Monday, ahead of a strategic dialogue which US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says will forge even closer ties between the two allies.

Meanwhile, Chief of the Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Kayani concluded his consultations with senior American military commanders in Florida on Monday morning and went straight to the Pentagon for talks with US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates.

General Kayani will also attend the opening ceremony of the talks between Secretary Clinton and Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi at the State Department on Wednesday.

“What we are interested in is looking at the long-term in the relationship between the US and Pakistan,” Mr Gates told journalists before his meeting with Gen Kayani.

“How we can strengthen our relationship and how we can help Pakistan in dealing with the security challenges that face them but also face us and Nato as well.”

Mr Gates said that the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue, which begins on Wednesday, will enable the two sides to talk about the full range of their relationship.

In a message on the Pakistan Day, Secretary Clinton noted that the broad partnership between the US and Pakistan was based on “mutual respect and mutual interest” and the first ministerial-level strategic dialogue in Washington would be an “opportunity to forge even closer ties between our nations”.

The US, she said, was already supporting Pakistan’s efforts to strengthen “democratic institutions, foster economic development, expand opportunity, and defeat the extremist groups who threaten Pakistan, the region, and even our own country.

Also on Monday, Foreign Minister Qureshi, who heads the Pakistani delegation to the dialogue, met US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke.

The two reviewed the agenda for the dialogue and noted that both sides had a strong desire to further strengthen their relationship.

But The New York Times reported on Monday that a strong military presence in the talks indicated that Gen Kayani “will be the dominant Pakistani participant in important meetings in Washington this week”.

The US media also reported that just 48 hours before the dialogue, the Pakistani government filed a petition in a High Court seeking to investigate Dr A. Q. Khan over recent reports about his ties to Iran’s nuclear programme.


The move follows indications from Washington that it is open to discussions with Pakistan on the nuclear energy front at the strategic dialogue.

Quoting recent statements by senior US officials, the media reported that the talks were expected to help define the relationship between the United States and Pakistan as the war against the Taliban reached its endgame phase in Afghanistan.


DAWN.COM | Front Page | Qureshi & Kayani meet key US officials
 
Last edited:
US undecided on offering nuke deal to Pak

US undecided on offering nuke deal to Pak: Rediff.com India News

Amid speculations that the United States might offer Pakistan a civil nuclear deal similar to India [ Images ] during the upcoming strategic dialogue on March 24, the US embassy in Islamabad [ Images ] has rejected such reports, saying there are no negotiations on between the two countries on the issue.

"The US has not entered negotiations on a civil nuclear agreement with Pakistan. The United States is committed to helping Pakistan address its real and growing energy needs, and we look forward to cooperating with Pakistan in ways that are compatible with Pakistan's economic, environmental and security needs and with US international commitments and policies," a US Embassy spokesman told a private television channel.

Reports regarding the Obama [ Images ] administration offering a India-like nuclear deal to Islamabad gained momentum after US ambassador to Pakistan, in a interview with a newspaper, described the March 24 talks as "working level talks", and hinted a change of heart on part of Washington.

"We are beginning to have a discussion with the Pakistan Government on the country's desire to tap nuclear energy," Patterson had said. "Earlier on, non-proliferation concerns were quite severe. I think we are beginning to pass those and this is a scenario that we are going to explore," she added.

India has already expressed concerns over reports regarding the White House' overtures to Pakistan. "America needs to take a holistic view on the US-Pak nuclear deal. The US should consider Pakistan's track record before any deal," External Affairs Minister SM Krishna had said referring to the history of Pakistan's nuclear proliferatio
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom