What's new

US & Pakistan Dispute and Tensions over Haqqani group

Here comes Ur's US citizenship and alongwith its EGOOOO!!!

I want to just remember you what a small nation...in fact not even a memeber of UN uptill now did to US just days back... he smacks veto threat while seeing in the eyes of US president directly and went ahead....what time you are living in my dear!!!! come out your utopian world before its too late!!!! Don't be stubborn like your president and your country!!!

I have reported your post. It is against the rules of this forum to insult any persons nationality or inclinations(whatever they may be). Mastan and i have often argued , but there has always been a respect worthy of good debaters between us. this is how a good debate should be rahter than insulting someone on the basis of their nationality.
Araz
 
.
It all depends on the choices that Pakistan's leaders make now that will determine the outcome. I hope they will be able to chose wisely for Pakistan. They will see what needs to be done and do it, or they will be shown what needs to be done and how it is done. Simple.

Vcheng.A simple question deserves a simple answer.Why are you hiding behind the skirt of verbosity.Come out and let us know what you think. The worst fear that I have is that your adversary is hell bent on taking drastic action irrespective of whatever choice you make. Will you live like a chicken and then die like a jackal with its tail between its legs or will you face your doom like a man and fight. That is the question. By the way the "YOU" is not meant to be directed at you personally.
Araz
 
.
Assalam alaikum

After so much services to our master, all the killings bombings etc, on top of it the division in our society about this whole issue still we r at under threat of our master

till when we gonna comply?

TARIQ
 
.
Hi,

So---when they are shown what needs to be done or not to be done---then it is not Realpolitik----.

Khan Sahib: First of all, let's review what Realpolitik means:

Realpolitik refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moralistic or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. Realpolitik is a theory of politics that focuses on considerations of power, not ideals, morals, or principles.

So, when the showdown really starts, it is exactly Realpolitiks at play.

Vcheng.A simple question deserves a simple answer.Why are you hiding behind the skirt of verbosity.Come out and let us know what you think. The worst fear that I have is that your adversary is hell bent on taking drastic action irrespective of whatever choice you make. Will you live like a chicken and then die like a jackal with its tail between its legs or will you face your doom like a man and fight. That is the question. By the way the "YOU" is not meant to be directed at you personally.
Araz

There you go again my dear Sir: Notions of living or dying "honorably" or facing the "fight like a man" simply do not apply here. The issue is not one of perceived verbosity, but rather more an issue of a totally different mindset, that hampers your understanding of my carefully articulated points.

BTW, the "YOUR" is not meant to be directed at you personally, but rather at the mindset of the so-called "thinking elite" on PDF as observed by me over the last year or so. The mindset is shockingly out of touch with reality. I hope that this is simply put and not verbose.

Having said that, I do not really need to take up whether the recent past has shown clearly who has chickened out and who has not, do I?


Assalam alaikum

After so much services to our master, all the killings bombings etc, on top of it the division in our society about this whole issue still we r at under threat of our master

till when we gonna comply?

TARIQ

The complying or the consequences are coming relatively soon.
 
.
Assalam alaikum

After so much services to our master, all the killings bombings etc, on top of it the division in our society about this whole issue still we r at under threat of our master

till when we gonna comply?

TARIQ

Hi,

It is the same relationship that a husband has with a wife that always complies to his wishes----. His demands keep getting more and more and she bends over backwards and 'forwards' and he keeps wanting more and he never acknowledges what she does for him.

If they would have been sincere to pakistan and had vision---they would have questioned the integrity of the u s actions when the let OBL escape from tora bora----. You guys must be tired of my talking about this incidence----but that is the point where everything became very obvious and open as to what the u s was thinking and where it was headed.

That was the proverbial "RED FLAG" moment for pak millitary---which everything that has come afterwards----. That incidence was the precursor to what ever happened afterwards. We could have saved us a lots of headache if we had executed all the al qaeda escaping over the hill that day the same day---.
 
.
And then there is, it goes to vindicate VCheng's position and is, to my thinking, sober and entirely against the interests of Pakistan


Time for some hard decisions
By Editorial
Published: September 23, 2011


America’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen told the US Senate on September 22 that the Haqqani network “is a veritable arm of Pakistan’s intelligence service which is exporting violent extremism to Afghanistan”. He added that “with ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted a September 11 truck bomb attack, as well as the assault” on America’s embassy in Kabul. The US military leader also said that the American government had “credible intelligence” that the Haqqanis were behind the June 28 attack on the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul. This was followed by a more menacing definition of Pakistan as a state:”In choosing to use violent extremism as an instrument of policy, the government of Pakistan — and most especially the Pakistani Army and the ISI — jeopardises not only the prospect of our strategic partnership, but also Pakistan’s opportunity to be a respected nation with legitimate regional influence. By exporting violence, they have eroded their internal security and their position in the region. They have undermined their international credibility and threatened their economic well-being.”

A spate of reports has appeared of late in the western press, which, from the point of view of the Americans, would seem to buttress the case against Pakistan. Most allege that the Haqqanis are behind most of the attacks on US targets in Afghanistan. In the face of these clear signs from the US, Pakistan has been cautious, which is the correct posture. This however doesn’t stop the jingoists among the media and the retired bureaucratic community from advising Pakistan to stand up on its hind legs and pay the US back in kind. References are being made in Pakistan to America as an imperial hegemon which has been despoiling other states, starting with Vietnam and ending with Iraq and Afghanistan. This kind of rhetoric is misplaced because the question everyone has to answer next is: knowing all this, why did Pakistan become a strategic partner of the hegemon? Since this question can’t be answered — condemnation of past rulers of Pakistan will not do — let us focus on our internal weaknesses and approach the crisis realistically.

Also, quite crucially, we need to realise that regardless of what the reality on the ground may be, whether the Haqqanis are acting independently or what have you, the fact of the matter is that what Pakistan says in its defence is no longer being believed in foreign capitals. It doesn’t matter if the Foreign Office comes out with statements, as it did on September 20, the point is that no one abroad is ready to believe much of what we are saying. So instead of trying to beat our chests and act hyper-nationalistic we need to assess the situation calmly and do what’s best for the nation. We need to ask ourselves whether providing sanctuary to the Haqqanis is worth all of this. Is it worth jeopardising civilian aid, or in fact all aid, from a country that also happens to be our largest trading partner? And let’s be clear, the military has as much, if not more, to lose compared to civilian institutions if the aid pipeline dries up completely. At the same time, we can try and tell the Americans that they cannot, and should not, blame Pakistan for all their failures in Afghanistan.

As a backgrounder to these very serious allegations, this all started last year in June when a field research paper presented at the Carr Centre for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government contained the following: “Directly or indirectly the ISI appears to exert significant influence on the strategic decision-making and field operations of the Taliban; and has even greater sway over Haqqani insurgents. According to both Taliban and Haqqani commanders, it controls the most violent insurgent units, some of which appear to be based in Pakistan. Insurgent commanders confirmed that the ISI are even represented, as participants or observers, on the Taliban supreme leadership council, known as the Quetta Shura, and the Haqqani command council.”

This is the time to act without passion, and delay as far as possible the unpredictable and possibly dire consequences of starting a new phase with America and its western allies. This is also the time to take decisions that benefit the people of Pakistan and not a particular vested interest or group.


Published in The Express Tribune, September 24th, 2011.
 
.
To paraphrase:

"Abhi bhi time hey bandey ban jaao, warna bari kut parey gee!"

I do wish Pakistan sees the error of its way to avoid a catastrophe.
 
.
The generals have again taken shelter into their barracks and moved the civilian government forward to face the wrath of their American masters, they will crawl out once the current political imbroglio between the USA and Pakistan has been cooled down and then they will take care of these bloody civilians.

Not really. Kiyani is talking too.

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s powerful military responded to accusations from the United States that its spy service was tied to a violent militant faction of the Afghan insurgency as “very unfortunate and not based on facts.”

“While taking note of the recent statements made by Admiral Mullen, chairman joint chief of staff United States, Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, termed these as very unfortunate and not based on facts,” the military said in a statement released on Friday night in Rawalpindi.

He said that the allegations are especially disturbing in view of a rather constructive meeting with Admiral Mullen in Spain.

“On the specific question of contacts with Haqqanis, the (chief of army staff) said that Admiral Mullen knows fully well which all countries are in contact with the Haqqanis. Singling out Pakistan is neither fair nor productive.”

Mullen, speaking in Senate testimony on Thursday, alleged Haqqani operatives launched an attack last week on the US embassy in Kabul with the support of Pakistan’s military intelligence.
 
.
Everyone around appears to be of the idea that Pakistan should go after the terrorists only because they harm the US plans. But is it not pertinent for the state of Pakistan itself to finish off all the insurgents and extremists for the welfare of its own citizens?
 
.
Looks like she is as dumb as she is pretty (DBS alert).. Does she think USA still really considers Pakistan as an ally

how is she dumb? there's nothing wrong with making political statement. US establishment constantly does that, even now they throw around words like 'cooperation' 'ally' 'long time friend'. What do you want her to declare US an enemy openly, that would satisfy the Indian mindset?
 
.
To paraphrase:

"Abhi bhi time hey bandey ban jaao, warna bari kut parey gee!"

I do wish Pakistan sees the error of its way to avoid a catastrophe.

Hi,

What you are saying is very important----but the problem I see is that the u s has done nothing in all these years to secure the border on the other side of waziristan---so---basically---they have given a carte blanche to taliban to come and go as they please----and that also allows proxy fighters to come in and attack pakistan as well---.

That is what needs to be brought out---if the u s and ANA had forces were on the other side of the border---they would not have to worry about taliban movement across the border.

---------- Post added at 04:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:03 PM ----------

Everyone around appears to be of the idea that Pakistan should go after the terrorists only because they harm the US plans. But is it not pertinent for the state of Pakistan itself to finish off all the insurgents and extremists for the welfare of its own citizens?

Hi,

What has happened is that as there is no presence of american troops or ANA on the otherside of the border----when the pak millitary strikes---the taliban just move across the border into afg----that is the major bone of contention between pak and u s---and that is what needs to be brought out in the open on u s channels---.
 
.
I, on the other hand, contrary to advice of the editorial, would suggest that Pakistan stay the course and pursue it's interest with vigor and confidence.

The editorial has it both just right and is exactly wrong - it is just right that the US is the largest trading partner (read aid giver) and that it is a major donor to the Pakistan army, and it is exactly wrong in the advice it offers; This is exactly the right time for Pakistan to assert her interests without apology for having interests in Afghanistan - That the US is today willing to risk what is willing to risk, says much about what the risk to Pakistan will be in the future.

The US is in a very tenuous position in Afghanistan, the entire project can unravel easily and if it is now as unwilling as it is to recognize and respect Pakistani interests, imagine what her attitude will be if and when it's position in Afghanistan were fortified.

The US has chosen to use the excuse of the Haqqani, based as it is on a field research paper base on interviews with captured insurgents who have every motivation to provide information the US wants to hear - this choice is most revealing, the US seeks to pressure Pakistan to fore go the very idea that it has interests in Afghanistan and should Pakistan accept to do that, then it's very claims to being a nation state are forfeit.


My advice would have been, were I confident that there was a will in Pakistan, to send a clear message to the US
"Yaad kakhna, Agaar Pakistan mei Amriki aag laagaygi, tau jo kuch Amrika ka is munteqe mei bacha hai, lut jaiga" -- Pakistan may lose US aid and even trade, what the US would lose would be immeasurable.
If I were confident of a will in Pakistan, that is.
 
.
Below is another Editorial, lets see if there is a consensus:


DailyTimes EDITORIAL: Friend turns Foe

Tensions are high and a relationship that was fragile right from its onset seems ready to crumble. Pakistan and the US are at verbal daggers drawn and one cannot help but worry where the current trend will take us. Statements being issued by the US have taken on an accusatory tone and those given by Pakistan to counter them are of denial. However, it is the extreme change in stance that should really be making Pakistanis unsettled. Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has, in no uncertain terms, declared Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) as a body that uses militants — the Haqqani network — as an instrument to wage a proxy war against the US. He has, in a statement to the US Senate Armed Services Committee, condemned Pakistan’s ISI for “exporting” terror. These are strong words. They are stronger still if you consider that Mike Mullen has been a staunch advocate of keeping Pakistan close as an ally and acknowledging it as a friend of the US, especially in these dire times. It is Mike Mullen who has been at the forefront of keeping the Pak-US alliance intact, especially through his relationship with COAS General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and his many meetings with the Pakistani military commander.

However, now Mullen is at the forefront of accusing Pakistan’s ISI of playing double games. He has unequivocally stated that Pakistan is now staring at the very real possibility of isolating itself from the international community and limiting its influence in the region. Statements from the likes of Interior Minister Rehman Malik denying these charges and nudging the Americans to “prove” their allegations are tantamount to giving them a reason to go on an all out offensive. No one is now ready to believe that Pakistan’s military-intelligence establishment has not played a double game with the US and, some would say, the Pakistani nation. Couple that with Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar’s taut response to Mullen’s statement that the US stands to lose an ally by alienating Pakistan — to the US’s own cost — and you have the stage set for a confrontation.

Whilst Rehman Malik may deliver his usual spiel about “boots on the ground” not being allowed, the US does not need Malik’s permission. One can see just how important the issue of our sovereignty was when the May 2 operation was conducted in Abbottabad:. Our intelligence had not a clue till the Navy SEALS had entered and taken out their target. Once boots on the ground do arrive, there will be no more room for manoeuvre. Even if the prospect of American troops within our borders seems far farfetched, there are many ways the US can harm our national interests. Besides the possibility of stepping up drone attacks on more than just directed targets, the US may carry out its own military operations in the border areas if they locate the Haqqani network and other such militants. When we fail to justify being called an ally of the Americans, they will take matters into their own hands. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani needs to consider which sovereignty he is talking about when he issues statements about it not being compromised. The US Congress has already attached conditions to the next tranche of aid, one of them being our ability to tackle the Haqqani threat.

We are dancing on the edge of a precipice and seem ready to fall over. We must revisit our position before we reach a stage in this war where the US looks at us in hostility. Keeping up support for our so-called proxies to limit Indian expansion is a bet we have lost, according to Mullen. It is time we realise that our time for dual policies is up and that the game is reaching a worrisome end — for us



The News International Editorial:

Growing gulf
Friday, September 23, 2011



There was a certain inevitability about the decision by the US Senate Appropriation Committee which voted on Wednesday to make security and economic aid to Pakistan conditional on its taking determined steps to fight groups such as the Haqqani network. The American contention is that Pakistan is hand-in-glove with the Haqqani network and that it uses it to fight a proxy war in Afghanistan as a part of long-term strategic moves to protect its interests – and flank – post to the US withdrawal. Pakistan’s position broadly is that it is up to the Americans to fight the Haqqani network in Afghanistan and Interior Minister Rehman Malik has said that the Haqqani network is not on this side of the border. The Americans do not believe this to be true, and the growing anger in the Senate reflects a wider view across political America that giving any more money to Pakistan for anything, be it civil or military, is throwing good money after bad. The Senate committee in an ominous move did not specify an amount for aid in the 2012 fiscal year, which means that it is going to be up to the Obama administration to determine how much, if any, will be earmarked for Pakistan. At least one Republican senator said that if nothing came as aid to Pakistan in fiscal 2012 he, for one, would be happy.

America has delivered, not just a warning, but a substantial slap on the wrist that is going to eat into the already corroded relationship between Pakistan and the US. The messages on both sides have been consistent – America believes that Pakistan is playing a double game and Pakistan believes America is exploiting it to suit its wider regional interests and strategic goals. Both sides have a long history of profound mistrust, if not downright deceit and duplicity. Both sides are putting blood and treasure into the battle against terrorism, with a disproportionate cost in both falling on Pakistan – a fact almost never acknowledged in Washington. Even if the Haqqani network is not present here – and that is a very big ‘if’ indeed – then the Quetta Shura certainly is, which America feels Pakistan is less than diligent in pursuing. America has demonstrated a willingness this year to act unilaterally if it believes it has actionable intelligence, and damn the consequences. The Senate committee vote on aid conditionalities has the feel of a watershed moment about it, and there is now an urgent need to find common ground before political grandstanding becomes the sound of helicopter rotor blades in the dead of night.
 
.
how is she dumb? there's nothing wrong with making political statement. US establishment constantly does that, even now they throw around words like 'cooperation' 'ally' 'long time friend'. What do you want her to declare US an enemy openly, that would satisfy the Indian mindset?

And then you accuse the world of stereotyping Pakistanis/Islam..
 
. .

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom