US must deny Pak army aid: Brajesh Mishra

[Salahadin]

New Delhi: The US should deny the Pakistani army all aid till it cooperates fully with the international community in controlling the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as in Pakistan, India's former national security adviser Brajesh Mishra said here Thursday.

“The Pakistan Army can't survive without aid and the economic support of the US,” Mishra said here at a discussion on 'Future directions of US' relations with India and the region'. The seminar was organised by the Confederation of Indian Industry and The Asia Foundation, a US think tank.

“Aid must be denied to the Pakistan Army unless it cooperates fully with the US and the international community in controlling the Taliban,” Mishra said while arguing that the denial of economic support to Pakistan military holds the key to the success of the US' policy in Afghanistan.

The Barack Obama administration has made the restoration of stability in Afghanistan the chief plank of its fight against terror and the centrepiece of its foreign policy in the region.

“If the US mission in Afghanistan is to succeed, it must deny a role to the Taliban in Afghanistan as it did in the nineties,” Mishra, a close aide of former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, said.

“The idea is to put as much pressure as possible on the Pakistan military to control the Taliban both inside Pakistan as well as in Afghanistan,” he added. He also criticised Pakistan's policy on deceiving the US “by taking all the money while doing as little as possible to control Taliban".

“Pakistan wants the Taliban to succeed in Afghanistan but it does not want the Taliban to succeed in Pakistan,” Mishra said while stressing that the Pakistani military doctrine to use the Taliban to gain strategic depth in that region has not changed at all.

Alluding to the appointment of Richard Holbrooke as the US' special representative on Pakistan and Afghanistan, Mishra said any attempt to link Kashmir to terrorism in the region is an erroneous one. “No matter which government in India is in power it will not relinquish control over Jammu and Kashmir. It's written in stone and it can't be changed,” he said.

Striking an upbeat tone on the future of India-US relations, Mishra, however, cautioned that the closer India gets to the US, there will be some problems in relations due to divergences in perception over their role in world affairs.

“The US has a global agenda. India is not a global player yet; it has a regional agenda. There are possibilities of divergences of interests and perception,” he said while citing the refusal of India to send troops to Iraq as an example.

Karl Inderfurth, US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia during the second Clinton presidency (1997-2001), called for greater cooperation between India and the US in bringing stability in Afghanistan and South Asia.

“There is no military solution to the problems in Afghanistan. We have to restore peace and stability in that country. India could be a valuable partner in this regard,” he said.

“There is a clear and present danger between what is happening in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan. It can't be diplomatic business as usual,” he said.

That's why the US has decided to appoint a special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan, he said.


Source : IANS

 

[Jihad]

Geez, I wonder how many of these nutcases have served or are serving in Indias politics/government right now.
Doesn't look very good regarding relations between Pakistan and India if people like him continue to have their say.
These useless comments are becoming a cancer from important Indian icons, when will they stop?

 

[Beskar]

Yap yap yap NEXT!

That's the right attitude to deal with these morons!

 

[Jihad]

Yap yap yap NEXT!

That's the right attitude to deal with these morons!

Give me some of the popcorn will you..?

 

[Omar1984]

Indian yap.

They are really obsessed with Pakistan.

 

[zombie]

actually this is something that the pakistanis should be telling.

 

[koolio]

First of all its not Pakistan's responsibility to make sure that Taliban doesn't exist in Afghanistan, secondly its not Pakistan's responsibility to guarantee Hindustan's security Pakistan is only responsible for itself it has enough plate already dealing with so many fronts. Pakistan comes first. Why is USA and Hindustan shoving everything at Pakistan's throat when nothing for them is going right.

 

[Zovc]

We dont need aid. Already the Government of Pakistan is paying Rs.2080 billion out of its own pocket for America's war.

If they refuse aid, we will stop all NATO supply routed via Pakistan and will stop fighting Taliban/Al-Qaida from our side of the border.

People think Pakistan is on the weak side, but if we wanted, we could screw America over in no time.

So the proposal of stopping aid is idiotically stupid and immature. Only someone like a Indian Security National Security adviser could be that stupid.

 

[suresh_]

he said that pak army must be forced to cut off its links with taliban and other terrorists for peace and stability to return to this region. that can be done by not giving any MILITARY aid, pak army must be weakened. but at the same time pakistan must be streghtened by giving NON-military aid.

this is not an isolated view, but an opinion shared by the world. thats the reason US is giving you NON-military aid, that too is based on your performance against terror/taliban.

dont shoot the messenger.

 

[suresh_]

We dont need aid. Already the Government of Pakistan is paying Rs.2080 billion out of its own pocket for America's war.

If they refuse aid, we will stop all NATO supply routed via Pakistan and will stop fighting Taliban/Al-Qaida from our side of the border.

People think Pakistan is on the weak side, but if we wanted, we could screw America over in no time.

So the proposal of stopping aid is idiotically stupid and immature. Only someone like a Indian Security National Security adviser could be that stupid.

and when you go on this non-cooperation movement, you expect US to sit quiet?
when pak joined the war on terror, there was no NATO route, no aid to fight terror, then why did it join? because US 'gave you an offer that you couldnt resist'. get my drift.

 

[roadrunner]

and when you go on this non-cooperation movement, you expect US to sit quiet?
when pak joined the war on terror, there was no NATO route, no aid to fight terror, then why did it join? because US 'gave you an offer that you couldnt resist'. get my drift.

There was a time when the US could have invaded Pak.

If they did now, there'd be a lot less support for it. It would be silly to do.

One would have thought that Pakistan would have developed an ICBM (or just bought some) along with those cruise missiles.

 

[suresh_]

There was a time when the US could have invaded Pak.

If they did now, there'd be a lot less support for it. It would be silly to do.

One would have thought that Pakistan would have developed an ICBM (or just bought some) along with those cruise missiles.

I agree. but at the same time it would be silly for pakistan to test the patience or limit of US. I am sure you understand that US cant afford losing this war since, that would leave it with no face for its future interference in any region.

but you mentioned good points.

 

[Gokul]

In fact, if I hear right Obama has already started tightening the screws... He has said (in so many words) that the military aid will be cut...

It seems that Pak produced a bill of 155 million dollars for their support in the fight against terror, but Obama is only paying up about 95 million dollars...

 

[moha199]

and when you go on this non-cooperation movement, you expect US to sit quiet?
when pak joined the war on terror, there was no NATO route, no aid to fight terror, then why did it join? because US 'gave you an offer that you couldnt resist'. get my drift.

Buddy boy When USA asked Pakistan for corporation it was 9/11 the entire world was sympathetic to USA but now things have changed. US has lost the trust of world in wider context, If Pakistani army break all the ties with Taliban then winners will be only the enemies of Pakistan since they know that Pakistan can always USA Talibans when needed, now don't go and use my previous statement as proving that Pakistan is not serious lol. In Iraq USA is staying quite over Al Sadr, who had fought with US forces Nato, Iraqi forces, but now, He is a political leader and trying to join coming elections under US supervision!!!!! So what does it show, is that even US army also use different characters to do the certain jobs, This is what you call invisible controlled negative assets.......

 

[suresh_]

Buddy boy When USA asked Pakistan for corporation it was 9/11 the entire world was sympathetic to USA but now things have changed. US has lost the trust of world in wider context, If Pakistani army break all the ties with Taliban then winners will be only the enemies of Pakistan since they know that Pakistan can always USA Talibans when needed, now don't go and use my previous statement as proving that Pakistan is not serious lol. In Iraq USA is staying quite over Al Sadr, who had fought with US forces Nato, Iraqi forces, but now, He is a political leader and trying to join coming elections under US supervision!!!!! So what does it show, is that even US army also use different characters to do the certain jobs, This is what you call invisible controlled negative assets.......

yes, buddy boy, but pakistan didnt join US out of sympathy. it joined because it had practically no other choice. whether the world is sypathetic to US' interest or not, US knows how to get ppl do their job.
and not much has changed today from 9/11. if anything, you have obama who is much tougher than bush. if you think that as soon as US leaves PA can go back to being friends with taliban, you are mistaken. taliban is now on a rampage and wants to take over everything and turn it into 'islamic'.
so, it is in pak's interest to assist US in fighting taliban. but, whether it is in PA's interest or not is a different debate.