Imran Khan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 68,815
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
US media panic over Taliban threat not helping Pakistan: Haqqani
NEW YORK, Apr 29 (APP): Pakistan has criticized U.S. medias panicked reactions over the growing Taliban threat, saying the campaign was not conducive to strengthening Pakistani democracy or to developing an effective counterterrorism policy for the country. Now that the Taliban have been driven out of Buner, and Pakistani forces have militarily engaged them just outside their Swat Valley stronghold, it should be clear to all that Pakistan can and will defeat the Taliban, Ambassador Husain Haqqani wrote in The Wall Street Journal, referring to his governments strong military countermeasures against the militants.
The specter of extremist Taliban taking over a nuclear‑armed Pakistan is not only a gross exaggeration, it could also lead to misguided policy prescriptions from Pakistans allies, including our friends in Washington, he said in an opinion piece published in the newspaper on Wednesday.
Acknowledging that Pakistan and the international community do face serious challenges in confronting terrorists and the ideologies that sustain them, the Pakistan envoy urged the United Stats to help Islamabad meet that threat.
In the short term, he said, we need the U.S. to share modern technology in anti‑terrorist engagement. Pakistan needs night‑vision equipment, jammers that can knock out FM radio transmissions by the terrorists, and a larger, modernized fleet of helicopter gunships for ground support in the massive sweeps that are necessary to contain, repel and destroy the enemy.
Yet Washington has been reluctant to share this modern equipment, and to train our military in anti‑terrorism techniques, because of concerns that these systems could be used against India, Haqqani pointed out.
Such concerns are misplaced, he said. Pakistanis understand that the primary threat to our homeland today is not from our neighbor to the east but from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) on our border with Afghanistan. To meet this threat, we must be provided the means to fight the terrorists while we work on resuming our composite dialogue with India.
In the long term, Haqqani added, Pakistans security will be predicated on Pakistans economic viability.
That is the central thrust of the Kerry‑Lugar legislation currently before Congress, which would establish a 10‑year, multibillion dollar commitment to Pakistans economic and social system. It is also manifest in the Reconstruction Opportunity Zone (ROZs) legislation currently before Congress that would open U.S. markets to products manufactured in Afghanistan and Pakistans FATA region.
An economically prosperous Pakistan will be less susceptible to the ideology of international terrorismand it will become a model to a billion Muslims across the world that Islam and modernity under democracy are not only compatible, but can thrive together.
In the well‑reasoned article, Ambassador Haqqani put the developments in Pakistan in perspective since the February 2008 elections which rejected Islamists.
But the legacy of dictatorship, including a tolerance for some militant groups, has proven tough to erase, he said. Anti‑American rhetoric and Pakistans traditional security concerns about its neighbors have also dampened popular enthusiasm for strong military action against violent extremists, even though President Asif Zardari has repeatedly declared the war against them a war for Pakistans soul.
Meanwhile, the change of administration in the U.S. has slowed the flow of assistance to Pakistan. Unfortunately, ordinary Pakistanis have begun to wonder if our alliance with the West is bringing any benefits at all.
Referring to the peace deal for Swat, the Pakistan envoy said, The goal for this dialogue was two foldfirst, to restore order and stability to the Swat Valley; and second, to wedge rational elements of the religiously conservative population away from terrorists and fanatics.
The model here was the successful pacification of Fallujah in Iraq, where agreements with more moderate elements broke them away from al Qaeda nihilists. The model worked so well in Fallujah that it is now being resurrected by the American and NATO troops in Afghanistan. The goal in Pakistans Swat Valley was the same.
The dialogue in Swat resulted in an agreement that would allow for elements of Shariah to be applied to the judicial system of the Valley, as it has at other times in our nations history. This agreement demanded that the native Taliban put down their weapons, pledge nonviolence, and accept the writ of the state. It was a local solution for what some in Pakistan viewed as a local problem.
Let me be perfectly clear here: Pakistans civil and military leadership understands that al Qaeda and its allies are not potential negotiating partners. But, as the U.S. did in Iraq, Pakistan sought to distinguish between reconcilable and irreconcilable elements within an expanding insurgency.
The premise of the dialogue was peace. Without peace there is no agreement, and without an agreement the Pakistani government will use all power at its disposal to restore order in the Valley. Wed rather negotiate than fight. But if we have to fight we willand we will fight to win.
NEW YORK, Apr 29 (APP): Pakistan has criticized U.S. medias panicked reactions over the growing Taliban threat, saying the campaign was not conducive to strengthening Pakistani democracy or to developing an effective counterterrorism policy for the country. Now that the Taliban have been driven out of Buner, and Pakistani forces have militarily engaged them just outside their Swat Valley stronghold, it should be clear to all that Pakistan can and will defeat the Taliban, Ambassador Husain Haqqani wrote in The Wall Street Journal, referring to his governments strong military countermeasures against the militants.
The specter of extremist Taliban taking over a nuclear‑armed Pakistan is not only a gross exaggeration, it could also lead to misguided policy prescriptions from Pakistans allies, including our friends in Washington, he said in an opinion piece published in the newspaper on Wednesday.
Acknowledging that Pakistan and the international community do face serious challenges in confronting terrorists and the ideologies that sustain them, the Pakistan envoy urged the United Stats to help Islamabad meet that threat.
In the short term, he said, we need the U.S. to share modern technology in anti‑terrorist engagement. Pakistan needs night‑vision equipment, jammers that can knock out FM radio transmissions by the terrorists, and a larger, modernized fleet of helicopter gunships for ground support in the massive sweeps that are necessary to contain, repel and destroy the enemy.
Yet Washington has been reluctant to share this modern equipment, and to train our military in anti‑terrorism techniques, because of concerns that these systems could be used against India, Haqqani pointed out.
Such concerns are misplaced, he said. Pakistanis understand that the primary threat to our homeland today is not from our neighbor to the east but from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) on our border with Afghanistan. To meet this threat, we must be provided the means to fight the terrorists while we work on resuming our composite dialogue with India.
In the long term, Haqqani added, Pakistans security will be predicated on Pakistans economic viability.
That is the central thrust of the Kerry‑Lugar legislation currently before Congress, which would establish a 10‑year, multibillion dollar commitment to Pakistans economic and social system. It is also manifest in the Reconstruction Opportunity Zone (ROZs) legislation currently before Congress that would open U.S. markets to products manufactured in Afghanistan and Pakistans FATA region.
An economically prosperous Pakistan will be less susceptible to the ideology of international terrorismand it will become a model to a billion Muslims across the world that Islam and modernity under democracy are not only compatible, but can thrive together.
In the well‑reasoned article, Ambassador Haqqani put the developments in Pakistan in perspective since the February 2008 elections which rejected Islamists.
But the legacy of dictatorship, including a tolerance for some militant groups, has proven tough to erase, he said. Anti‑American rhetoric and Pakistans traditional security concerns about its neighbors have also dampened popular enthusiasm for strong military action against violent extremists, even though President Asif Zardari has repeatedly declared the war against them a war for Pakistans soul.
Meanwhile, the change of administration in the U.S. has slowed the flow of assistance to Pakistan. Unfortunately, ordinary Pakistanis have begun to wonder if our alliance with the West is bringing any benefits at all.
Referring to the peace deal for Swat, the Pakistan envoy said, The goal for this dialogue was two foldfirst, to restore order and stability to the Swat Valley; and second, to wedge rational elements of the religiously conservative population away from terrorists and fanatics.
The model here was the successful pacification of Fallujah in Iraq, where agreements with more moderate elements broke them away from al Qaeda nihilists. The model worked so well in Fallujah that it is now being resurrected by the American and NATO troops in Afghanistan. The goal in Pakistans Swat Valley was the same.
The dialogue in Swat resulted in an agreement that would allow for elements of Shariah to be applied to the judicial system of the Valley, as it has at other times in our nations history. This agreement demanded that the native Taliban put down their weapons, pledge nonviolence, and accept the writ of the state. It was a local solution for what some in Pakistan viewed as a local problem.
Let me be perfectly clear here: Pakistans civil and military leadership understands that al Qaeda and its allies are not potential negotiating partners. But, as the U.S. did in Iraq, Pakistan sought to distinguish between reconcilable and irreconcilable elements within an expanding insurgency.
The premise of the dialogue was peace. Without peace there is no agreement, and without an agreement the Pakistani government will use all power at its disposal to restore order in the Valley. Wed rather negotiate than fight. But if we have to fight we willand we will fight to win.
