U.S. non-cooperation hinders in war against terror: Pak officials

[Always Neutral]

DhamedO ????? Hold your horses where are you taking this thread ? Carpet Bombing ? WWIII ?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Dear AM,

You could not be further from the truth. The heart of the NVD (Night Vision Device) is the II (Image Intensifier)Tube. The commercial NVD's are at the most Gen II. Anything more than Gen II needs export lisence. The US Govt. must have given the PA probably Gen IV NVD's which are top of the line. Recently NVD's given to Iraq SF was found with Iranian Revolutionary guards who were trying to smuggle it back to Iran. There are only two manufacturers of these tubes and hence the tight control. Keys can probably confirm how superior these US NVD's are.

Best Regards

Yes lets confirm what kind of NVD exactly was supplied to Pakistan, and whether the Chinese already have it or not, before determining whether US controls are realistic or just bad policy.

In fact, your story about the NVD devices being smuggled back to Iran probably indicates that if transfer of technology is an issue, then that has most probably already happened, or the Chinese atleast possess them.

What would the other concerns be, that the PA is supplying the insurgents that are killing its troops? That is a ludicrous suggestion, and if lower level officers were that enamored with the Taliban, then checks or no checks, the equipment would make its way to them.
What else could Pakistan do with the NVD's? Supply the PRCA with it? How many hundreds of thousands of NVD's would we need to "smuggle" to them?

I am not convinced that the Chinese do not already have such NVD's in their possession, and I would be very surprised if the US military thinks they don't - in which case placing restrictions like these again points to bad policy that has a negligible, if not nonexistent, effect on achieving the goals for which it was formulated.

P.S: Don't believe everything Ayaaz Amir has to say.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

energon,

I must return to a point I partially addressed - the fact that the J-10 is attributed with significant LAVI/f-16 input. While Israel may have been refused participation in the JSF program initially, that is a far cry from the sorts of controls that are placed on equipment supplied to Pakistan, despite the concerns being essentially the same -ToT to China. The restrictions are disproportionately against Pakistan, despite evidence that Israel has committed more of the technology transfer violations, and indicate double standards that seemingly have nothing to do with the available evidence of each nations complicity.

Realpolitik notwithstanding, the Pakistani complaints in this regard are justified.

 

[Always Neutral]

Yes lets confirm what kind of NVD exactly was supplied to Pakistan, and whether the Chinese already have it or not, before determining whether US controls are realistic or just bad policy.


P.S: Don't believe everything Ayaaz Amir has to say.

Dear AM,

My post was aimed at the difference between NVD's which the rest of the world use and the US Forces use. As regards the issue of US checks if true I think they are absurd but I am in no position to comment why they (USA) is doing it.

Regards

 

[Energon]

energon,

I must return to a point I partially addressed - the fact that the J-10 is attributed with significant LAVI/f-16 input. While Israel may have been refused participation in the JSF program initially, that is a far cry from the sorts of controls that are placed on equipment supplied to Pakistan, despite the concerns being essentially the same -ToT to China. The restrictions are disproportionately against Pakistan, despite evidence that Israel has committed more of the technology transfer violations, and indicate double standards that seemingly have nothing to do with the available evidence of each nations complicity.

Without a doubt. There is no denying that there are double standards in place. Anybody who says otherwise is either illinformed our outright lying. The relationship the USA has with Israel is nothing like the one with Pakistan for a multitude of reasons. I am not defending these policies in any shape or form; as I've said before, I am completely against them.

Realpolitik notwithstanding, the Pakistani complaints in this regard are justified.

The complaints may be justified, but the stopgap measures in place I feel are important on account of history. Even in the past, flooding Pakistan with weapons hasn't yielded in good results and I don't see how its going to be any different this time around.

Also, as I've said before, the PA right now has all the tools they need to win this conflict and shouldn't really need anything from the US.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

From what I understand, any spare part regardless of its complexity is considered as part of the transfer and hence given just as much credence as the original product itself.

That may be the case, but this is not an issue of "inventorying parts", but the provision itself. If the Cobra's are subject to the "Restrictions", then there would already be a system in place to monitor them. It would be reasonable to assume that the spare parts provided would be included in such a system, so why the delays in provision, since the actual weapon system is already in Pakistani hands?

As far as mass weapons trasfers, the Afghan war still serves as a bitter reminder. Oodles of weapons and monies were sent to Pakistan, most of which went an accounted for and in the hands of people for whom those weapons weren't intended for. In fact it's a falacy and an American generated myth that the Stinger missile won the war. Most of the Stingers were actually held back in Pakistan and sold to third parties while most of the cash was stolen by the ISI officials. Steven Coll's "Ghost wars", the awesomest pulitzer prize winning resource on that conflict details all these problems.

There is absolutely no way the American tax payer will be subject to a similar situation again. At the end of the day the militant problem in west Pakistan is the responsibility of the Pakistan armed forces and their government as it is recieves a lot of aid from the US. If anything, I don't really see why all this hardware is even necessary. The F-16s and Cobras will yield in more collateral damage if the ground forces aren't in there themselves. The PA has to fight and win this conflict with what they already have.

With respect to the weapons transfers to Pakistan during the Afghan war, the only organization the American tax payer has to blame are its government and/or the CIA. It is absurd to suggest that in a covert operation (proxy war) that the CIA itself initiated, to destabilize another government by deliberately using irregular forces, would somehow have any sorts of "checks and balances" in it. Did the American taxpayer know exactly what was being funneled through the CIA to the Mujahideen at the time?

To quote Steve Coll:

Why did the CIA turn over its political program in the jihad to ISI? Partly the Agency was scarred by its experience in Vietnam, and there was a sense of no more "hearts and minds" for us. We’ll let the Pakistanis figure out who the winners and losers are politically. If they have a complicated regional agenda that is even more Islamist than we would like, so be it. We will focus on the main adversary, the Soviet Union. We won’t try to tell the Pakistanis how to run politics in the region.”

That established a pattern in which the United States and the Saudis together turned over enormous sums of money to ISI and said, “You pick the winners.” ISI chose Hekmatyar as their primary winner, and Hekmatyar, in turn, created a nexus in which al Qaeda thrived by the end of the 1980s.

The decision to allow the money and material anyway the Pakistani's wanted was your governments decision, so lets not complain about "misuse of resources" when the entire operation was deliberately set up to allow Pakistan to funnel them where and when it wanted to.

Comparing this situation to the current red tape involved in providing equipment is not apt. The previous experience the US had was in a completely different setting and under a completely different understanding.

Once again, if the American taxpayer has issues with what happens when covert operations are undertaken, without the American publics knowledge and approval, then perhaps you should pass legislation that completely eliminates any such sole for your Intel agencies. I am certain the people of Iran (during Mossadegh's rule) and those of the Latin American nations would have heaved a sigh of relief had such legislation been undertaken decades ago.

 

[Energon]

sory to say, my dear, energon, now we, pakis, in genral think, tht the , war which we r fighting, right,now is a, waste full one, like the old one, and all the support wht we r getting, now is the,only the direct,interference, in our, political, judicial,govermental, systems,in real if u, ra pakistani, and by chance, u gt the, visa, to usa, the time u go sit in the plane,pentagon, starts looking, into ur profile, and u will get a very shamefull, gesture on landing any airport ,in usa, so in real, we the genral people of pakistan, who used to sit in cheap[ , tea stalls, and were the real masses, dont think tht, wht ever u r telling us tht was the real thing, i think u , stop listining, to,amrican, spokesperon,frm whitehouse, it will better 4 us(pakistanis) i hope u dont mind, i think ,the plan, by cia, to get control of the most of oil and gas resourses, is the the real war, and it is translated to us in the name (war on terorr),so 4 tht, usa is more keen to use pakistan, not, to ,give us support, or any assistance in real, wht do u get by imposing a croupt politician on us? because she suits, the objectivty, of cia, to make gen, mushrf,under ,check and balences system, which was introduced by him,,,,,,,,? once....? so my friend i and my uneducated pals, who still sit in small and very cheap tea stalls, wht u r telling, its all big joke.......?bt think we need people like u as a friends to pakistan,thank u. by the way, i like the freedom, u guys have in usa.

I'm sorry I was unable to decode this message. Could you please help me out by making it a bit more understandable?

Thanks

 

[Energon]

That may be the case, but this is not an issue of "inventorying parts", but the provision itself. If the Cobra's are subject to the "Restrictions", then there would already be a system in place to monitor them. It would be reasonable to assume that the spare parts provided would be included in such a system, so why the delays in provision, since the actual weapon system is already in Pakistani hands?



With respect to the weapons transfers to Pakistan during the Afghan war, the only organization the American tax payer has to blame are its government and/or the CIA. It is absurd to suggest that in a covert operation (proxy war) that the CIA itself initiated, to destabilize another government by deliberately using irregular forces, would somehow have any sorts of "checks and balances" in it. Did the American taxpayer know exactly what was being funneled through the CIA to the Mujahideen at the time?

To quote Steve Coll:



The decision to allow the money and material anyway the Pakistani's wanted was your governments decision, so lets not complain about "misuse of resources" when the entire operation was deliberately set up to allow Pakistan to funnel them where and when it wanted to.

Comparing this situation to the current red tape involved in providing equipment is not apt. The previous experience the US had was in a completely different setting and under a completely different understanding.

Once again, if the American taxpayer has issues with what happens when covert operations are undertaken, without the American publics knowledge and approval, then perhaps you should pass legislation that completely eliminates any such sole for your Intel agencies. I am certain the people of Iran (during Mossadegh's rule) and those of the Latin American nations would have heaved a sigh of relief had such legislation been undertaken decades ago.

This is precisely the point. The CIA did give Pakistan full reign under the blessing of the US government only to yield unfavorable results in the long run. There is no denying that the policies of yesteryear were bad. Which brings us back as to why the SAC and congress have these policies in place now. They want to stop all unappropriated arms transfers to Pakistan and make sure that the actions currently supported are discussed more openly. The red tape is a negative side effect that cannot be avoided.

 

[Energon]

The decision to allow the money and material anyway the Pakistani's wanted was your governments decision, so lets not complain about "misuse of resources" when the entire operation was deliberately set up to allow Pakistan to funnel them where and when it wanted to.

I don't follow this argument. True, Pakistan was given free reign to micromanage the effort, but the war against the Soviets was the primary intention. This is what all the money was being spent for. I don't see how anybody can justify being ripped off by the trusted party simply because they were given some autonomy. It's not like Zia wasn't getting his cut. The USA poured in a lot of money into Pakistan in addition to state of the art military hardware during this time; so there was no excuse for poaching the funds and material meant for the Mujahadeen.

I guess the general consensus is that Pakistan (especially under military rule) cannot be entrusted with American weapons without oversight.

Comparing this situation to the current red tape involved in providing equipment is not apt. The previous experience the US had was in a completely different setting and under a completely different understanding.

The conditions and the players may be different, but the parameters are still the same. There is still a military dictator in place and the military itself has strong ties with the enemy they are currently fighting. Also as I said before, the red tape at this point cannot be avoided. They can't make conditional exceptions because that would re hash the "slippery slope" argument.

Let me reiterate my personal feelings however: I think this entire arrangement is horsecr@p. We should never have given Pakistan free reign with cash and weapons back then and we shouldn't be giving any weapons now. The only aid that we should be giving is that for socioeconomic development and that should be contingent upon the PA's success in eliminating the Islamist threat.

 

[kidwaibhai]

i dont understand why dont we buy equipment that is not essential from the us from other contries and why arnt we developing our own NVG's that doesnt make sence even if we cant produce them we can buy them from other countries.
P.S can some one tell me in which paper did this article appea.

 

[Energon]

it will be imposible, 4 usa to, go carpt bombing,of pakistan, if it happen it would be the end of world, world war 111

I've often heard this reasoning that pakistan should simply stop acquiescing to the USA's demands because there is nothing the latter can do. This is absolutely illogical. What makes one think that a trigger-happy bunch of morons sitting in the whitehouse will even blink before sending in all the arsenal at their disposal to scortch Pakistan? And please don't say "because they learnt their lesson in Iraq." The latter can't be carpet bombed because of their valuable resource for which the war was conducted thereby needing at least some level of cooperation from the populace. Such is not the case for Pakistan. This is why Armitage had no problem giving Musharraf the ultimatum.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Energon,

What I am suggesting is that by virtue of the "nature" of the operation itself (covert, proxy war), the US was giving carte Blanche to the parties involved. Did the US know the money and material was going to the Mujahideen? Yes. Did it know that the Saudis were funding religious schools providing a virulent ideological grounding to create more foot soldiers? Yes. Did they care how and where the money was spent, so long as the Soviets were hurt? No.

Steve Coll suggests as much in his remarks I mentioned above:

We’ll let the Pakistanis figure out who the winners and losers are politically. If they have a complicated regional agenda that is even more Islamist than we would like, so be it. We will focus on the main adversary, the Soviet Union. We won’t try to tell the Pakistanis how to run politics in the region.”

That established a pattern in which the United States and the Saudis together turned over enormous sums of money to ISI and said, “You pick the winners.” ISI chose Hekmatyar as their primary winner, and Hekmatyar, in turn, created a nexus in which al Qaeda thrived by the end of the 1980s.

What does that imply? That the US did not care how the resources it was providing were used, so long as the Soviets were hurt, and they were. The US got what it wanted out of the bargain, and turned a blind eye to the rest. Those were the terms and conditions the US set, and there was no issue of "being ripped off", because there were no parameters for the Pakistanis to follow, other than ensure that the war against the Soviets was carried out, "If they have a complicated regional agenda that is even more Islamist than we would like, so be it." .

It really is absurd to expect that a covert operation, conducted through several layers of proxies (Saudi-Pakistan-ISI-Afghan warlords -local commanders-Mujahideen), would not result in resources going to unintended recipients - thats the nature of the conflict the CIA chose to conduct. No one could have guessed at the time what sort of a monster was being created, to try and pan it off as "well we didn't know and we were ripped off" is being disingenuous. It is an attempt to shift the blame from a failure of US policy, onto those who pretty much did what was asked of them, under that policy, and operated within the leeway given them.

Now I have no major issues with oversight, provided the rationale behind it makes sense. I can understand, though I still maintain the concerns are misplaced, the controls placed upon the F-16's, as well as the controls placed, if there are, on the Cobra's, since they still represent equipment and technology that the Chinese might like to have access to and given Pakistan's close relationship with them. But to argue that such "mistrust" is a result of the "experience of the Afghan war" is, as I said, being disingenuous, for the reasons I have mentioned above.

In this case, the weaponry is being acquired for legitimate purposes, with full congressional oversight, and knowledge of the American Taxpayer - whereas before the aim was to fund an illegal proxy war, through guerrillas against a communist foe, without any oversight or knowledge, or care, of how and where resources were used.

The aim now is to use the equipment to fight a mutual enemy, that the government has lost over a thousand soldiers to, and the equipment is being provided with the expectation and condition that it will be used for purposes related to that, whereas there was only one loose condition before. Your argument of "strong ties" to the taliban, is one that is oft repeated due to Pakistani reluctance to conduct the sort of operation that the US is doing (and we can see how many hearts and minds it has won with that approach), but is unsubstantiated. There are genuine Pakistani concerns that prevent an increase in the tempo.

I would disagree with your assessment of "dictator", as well as your suggestion that the presence of a "dictator" implies that the exact same concerns that existed with his predecessor are present today. What matters is not that Musharaf is a "dictator", but what his policies are, and on that count there could not be more of a difference between Zia and him. Americans have this tendency to view everything through eyes jaundiced by "democracy". Democracy in the Gaza has brought about Hamas,and in Egypt would bring about the Muslim brotherhood, nothing wrong with that, so long as it is people freely choosing their representatives, but both would have an ideology and policy similar to that f Zia. So to simply compare "Military dictator" in past to " military dictator" currently, is fallacious, and therefore, I would argue that the current restrictions on items such as NVD's, if due to the "Afghan War", are completely unjustified.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi Energon,

Your comment about coalition force aka US forces carpet bombing pakistan is a stupid comment. You have been speaking intelligently on this board but suddenly your venom pours out.

Pakistan won't be carpet bombed. Consequences of another misadventure are going to be extremely severe on the world economy. Unlike iraq, pakistan does have the ability to react. Pakistan is stated to have 50 plus nuclear weapons plus delivery system----if only 25% of them reached their target, the whole of the world could kiss their economy good bye.

You seem to be talking with reason at times but then the typical arrogant american comes out of you----I have heard this talk before------can't fix anything---nuke it---destroy it----a typical arrogant american talking here. Your personal feelings here mean horse cr-p, because you have no influence of what decision the amerrican admin will make and american admin are not that stupid---I would say not all the time.

America found out the hard way----Turkey----that they cannot have any democratic governments as allies in time of conflict in the middle east region. Even a country like india, which is in dire need of energy, has electorate which is against american partnership in peacetime.

Buddy, my thing is that pakistan and president Musharraf didnot have the sales skills to deal with the americans when Armitage called. Pakistanis needed an american used car salesman mentality to make a deal for them at that time. Musharraf just gave too much away without getting any thing in return. These F 16's that we are talking about, they should have been parked on pakistani tarmac in the first three months of the conflict.

Every major al qaeda criminal captured should have been bargained for x number of aircraft to keep the pakistanis quiet and america shows how sincere they are.

The problem over here is, that you are blaming your incompetence on pakistanis. At Tora Bora, you didnot have any troops. You didnot have any troops that could fight at high altitude in 2001. The problem with pakistan is that they do not have enough people and resources to market their investment and time and sacrifices over the years. The sacrifices that pakistan didnot have to make if america had done its job right at Tora Bora.

Oh, Buddy, the al qaeda leader just slipped out of Tora Bora in june or july of this year again---he was pictured by the spy plane----again the reaction time was poor.

I truly believe that your posts would bring too much reaction from the pakistani posters-----I think that you want to bring out a very negative reaction from the pakistanis over here----

 

[IceCold]

Hi Energon,

Your comment about coalition force aka US forces carpet bombing pakistan is a stupid comment. You have been speaking intelligently on this board but suddenly your venom pours out.

Pakistan won't be carpet bombed. Consequences of another misadventure are going to be extremely severe on the world economy. Unlike iraq, pakistan does have the ability to react. Pakistan is stated to have 50 plus nuclear weapons plus delivery system----if only 25% of them reached their target, the whole of the world could kiss their economy good bye.

You seem to be talking with reason at times but then the typical arrogant american comes out of you----I have heard this talk before------can't fix anything---nuke it---destroy it----a typical arrogant american talking here. Your personal feelings here mean horse cr-p, because you have no influence of what decision the amerrican admin will make and american admin are not that stupid---I would say not all the time.

America found out the hard way----Turkey----that they cannot have any democratic governments as allies in time of conflict in the middle east region. Even a country like india, which is in dire need of energy, has electorate which is against american partnership in peacetime.

Buddy, my thing is that pakistan and president Musharraf didnot have the sales skills to deal with the americans when Armitage called. Pakistanis needed an american used car salesman mentality to make a deal for them at that time. Musharraf just gave too much away without getting any thing in return. These F 16's that we are talking about, they should have been parked on pakistani tarmac in the first three months of the conflict.

Every major al qaeda criminal captured should have been bargained for x number of aircraft to keep the pakistanis quiet and america shows how sincere they are.

The problem over here is, that you are blaming your incompetence on pakistanis. At Tora Bora, you didnot have any troops. You didnot have any troops that could fight at high altitude in 2001. The problem with pakistan is that they do not have enough people and resources to market their investment and time and sacrifices over the years. The sacrifices that pakistan didnot have to make if america had done its job right at Tora Bora.

Oh, Buddy, the al qaeda leader just slipped out of Tora Bora in june or july of this year again---he was pictured by the spy plane----again the reaction time was poor.

I truly believe that your posts would bring too much reaction from the pakistani posters-----I think that you want to bring out a very negative reaction from the pakistanis over here----

Sir all thumbs up to you Very well said. Adding my two cents in it, do you really think Energon that without pakistan's help you could win a war in afghanistan, you are so seriously mistaken. The credit goes to all pakistan that tailban movements have been limited to a stop, all top al-queda leaders captured and handed over to you, you think attacking pakistan, you could have achieved that. No way in hell, instead the only thing you would had got in such a misadventure was PA joining tailban and afghanistan would had been made a grave yard for the american and nato soliders.
Other thing americans often talk about carpet bombing pakistan, one fact that you fail to realize is that pakistan isnt iraq where you had achieved complete air superiority, and iraqi pilots were flying their jets to iran to safe there ***. You are up against PAF, we would had been destroyed but not untill we gave you a bloody hell fight. The odds here would had been 50 50 interms of comapring your success. US was in no position to fight at three ends, if it would had been possible US would had attacked iran by now. Not to forget that we are able to hit you at sea as well.

 

[Energon]

Energon,

What I am suggesting is that by virtue of the "nature" of the operation itself (covert, proxy war), the US was giving carte Blanche to the parties involved. Did the US know the money and material was going to the Mujahideen? Yes. Did it know that the Saudis were funding religious schools providing a virulent ideological grounding to create more foot soldiers? Yes. Did they care how and where the money was spent, so long as the Soviets were hurt? No.

Steve Coll suggests as much in his remarks I mentioned above:

What does that imply? That the US did not care how the resources it was providing were used, so long as the Soviets were hurt, and they were. The US got what it wanted out of the bargain, and turned a blind eye to the rest. Those were the terms and conditions the US set, and there was no issue of "being ripped off", because there were no parameters for the Pakistanis to follow, other than ensure that the war against the Soviets was carried out, "If they have a complicated regional agenda that is even more Islamist than we would like, so be it." .

It really is absurd to expect that a covert operation, conducted through several layers of proxies (Saudi-Pakistan-ISI-Afghan warlords -local commanders-Mujahideen), would not result in resources going to unintended recipients - thats the nature of the conflict the CIA chose to conduct. No one could have guessed at the time what sort of a monster was being created, to try and pan it off as "well we didn't know and we were ripped off" is being disingenuous. It is an attempt to shift the blame from a failure of US policy, onto those who pretty much did what was asked of them, under that policy, and operated within the leeway given them.

Now I have no major issues with oversight, provided the rationale behind it makes sense. I can understand, though I still maintain the concerns are misplaced, the controls placed upon the F-16's, as well as the controls placed, if there are, on the Cobra's, since they still represent equipment and technology that the Chinese might like to have access to and given Pakistan's close relationship with them. But to argue that such "mistrust" is a result of the "experience of the Afghan war" is, as I said, being disingenuous, for the reasons I have mentioned above.

In this case, the weaponry is being acquired for legitimate purposes, with full congressional oversight, and knowledge of the American Taxpayer - whereas before the aim was to fund an illegal proxy war, through guerrillas against a communist foe, without any oversight or knowledge, or care, of how and where resources were used.

The aim now is to use the equipment to fight a mutual enemy, that the government has lost over a thousand soldiers to, and the equipment is being provided with the expectation and condition that it will be used for purposes related to that, whereas there was only one loose condition before. Your argument of "strong ties" to the taliban, is one that is oft repeated due to Pakistani reluctance to conduct the sort of operation that the US is doing (and we can see how many hearts and minds it has won with that approach), but is unsubstantiated. There are genuine Pakistani concerns that prevent an increase in the tempo.

I would disagree with your assessment of "dictator", as well as your suggestion that the presence of a "dictator" implies that the exact same concerns that existed with his predecessor are present today. What matters is not that Musharaf is a "dictator", but what his policies are, and on that count there could not be more of a difference between Zia and him. Americans have this tendency to view everything through eyes jaundiced by "democracy". Democracy in the Gaza has brought about Hamas,and in Egypt would bring about the Muslim brotherhood, nothing wrong with that, so long as it is people freely choosing their representatives, but both would have an ideology and policy similar to that f Zia. So to simply compare "Military dictator" in past to " military dictator" currently, is fallacious, and therefore, I would argue that the current restrictions on items such as NVD's, if due to the "Afghan War", are completely unjustified.

Agnositc, you have put up an excellent argument. However I think we are at an impasse and have to agree to disagree with regards to Pakistan's actions during the Afghan war. Granted the fault was primarily in American policy, I have yet to be convinced of Pakistan's level of responsibility. Musharraf may be a completely differnt kind of dictator compared to Zia; but the fact still remains that he is still one very powerful man making all the decisions which irks any American policy maker today. Is there a skewed obsession with democracy as a measure to making foreign policy despite a plethora of evidence discrediting said skewed obsession? Sure.. but as I said in my earlier post... I highly doubt anything will change in the near future. The SAC and congress will want to review each and every nut and bolt associated with any military export to Pakistan.