US & Pakistan Dispute and Tensions over Haqqani group

[Devil Soul]

Haqqani network was blue-eyed boy of CIA: Khar
By APP
Published: September 26, 2011
NEW YORK: Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar says the Haqqani network that the US holds responsible for last week’s attack on the American embassy in Kabul was the Central Investigation Agency’s (CIA) “blue-eyed boy” for many years.
Responding to questions during an interview with Al Jazeera, Khar, who is in New York leading Pakistan’s delegation at the UN General Assembly, rejected US accusations against the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, saying it has no links to the Haqqani network.
“If we talk about links, I am sure the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) also has links with many terrorist organisations around the world, by which we mean intelligence links,” she said.
“And this particular network, which [the United States] continues to talk about, is a network which was the blue-eyed boy of the CIA itself for many years.”
Responding to Admiral Mike Mullen’s allegation that the Haqqani group “acts as a veritable arm” of the ISI, the foreign minister said “it is something that goes very, very unappreciated on our side. This is unsubstantiated. No evidence has been shared with us.”
Partners and allies, she said, do not talk to each other through public statements.
Pakistan had taken up the matter with the United States, but the spate of hostile statements coming from senior US officials meant that Washington had taken policy decision. If that was the case then “we have the right to make our own decision.”
(Read: Pakistan, America & the Haqqani network)
Khar went on to say that scapegoating and blame games would not help. Pakistan wanted to be a US partner.
“I just hope that we will be given a chance to cooperate with each other and the doors will remain open – because statements like this are pretty much close to shutting those doors,” she added.
Such statement would alienate the people of Pakistan, she said.
Replying to a question, the foreign minister said that drone attacks not only violated Pakistan’s sovereignty, they were also counterproductive, and greatly angered the people of Pakistan.
“I think we must not be tested more than we have the ability to bear,” she added.
Haqqani network was blue-eyed boy of CIA: Khar – The Express Tribune

 

[Usama86]

http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=23433&title=Saudi-intel-officials-meet-DG-ISI

ISLAMABAD: A delegation comprising Saudi intelligence offcials met with the ISI chief Ahmed Shuja Pasha here Monday, Geo News reported.

According to sources, the delegation met with Pasha along with other ISI officials at the ISI headquarters.

 

[Devil Soul]

A bad romance: Pakistan and US
By Imran Khan in
Asia
on Sun, 2011-09-25 15:22.
Like all great lovers' tiffs, this one started with frustration. Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, decided to make his feelings public.

In a nutshell, he accused Pakistan of state sponsored terrorism, alleging that its Inter-Services Intelligence backs the Haqqani network. The Haqqanis are a fearsome bunch of fighters whose lineage goes back to Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Back then, their leader, Jalaludin Haqqani, was seen as a hero, even sitting in the White House with the then President Ronald Reagan. But it wasn't just the US. The Pakistanis nurtured and encouraged him to go fight in Afghanistan, supplying him with weapons and safe havens.

That was 20 years ago and, like all bad marriages, things left unresolved often explode. And so Pakistan's affair with the Haqqani network has created a split in the US-Pakistani marriage.

The Pakistanis are furious and are on the offensive, at times saying the US is not helping; at other times saying the US is simply blaming Pakistan for its own failings in Afghanistan.

As ever, finding the truth is tricky business. Perhaps more difficult for both parties is figuring out what the real issue is.

Assumptions

That the US needs Pakistan, and vice-versa, is not in dispute. What is, is how you fix this broken relationship. Let us, for example, make certain assumptions that the US holds true:

Firstly, the Pakistani are indeed sponsoring the Haqqani network. Should the Pakistanis stop? On the surface at least it would go a long way to fixing things.

However, Pakistan cannot just publicly say it has stopped supporting the Haqqani network, because then it would have to admit it supported them in the first place.

Secondly, Pakistan needs the Haqqani network. Once the US pulls out of Afghanistan, and it will sooner rather than later, Afghanistan, history has repeatedly shown us, is a cauldron of competing interests and bloodthirsty rivalry. Pakistan needs a dog in that fight. That's what ultimately drives Pakistani support for the Haqqani network.

But with the Haqqani network involved in a bitter and bloody fight with American forces in Afghanistan, the Americans simply want them gone.

So let's take a look at the Pakistani position. Officially it denies any support for the Haqqani network and therefore cannot stop supporting it. It also says the Americans are getting defeated by the group and are looking for someone to blame. The world's most powerful army is effectively being routed by bearded men with light weapons and an unshakeable faith in God.

That simply does not play well in the 'good ole US of A', so there must be someone to blame - the Pakistanis in this case.

Stalemate

Then the Pakistani army steps in. It says by playing up Pakistan's connection with Haqqani, the US is stomping all over the sacrifice Pakistani soldiers have made in the so called war on terror. Thousands of Pakistanis have died and terror attacks are an almost daily occurrence. In short the Pakistanis say they are the victims here, not the aggressor.

So things are at a stalemate. A solution is needed. Pakistan and the US are at loggerheads and at stake is billions of dollars worth of aid for Pakistan, and a decisive victory in Afghanistan for America.

Seasoned diplomats and observers of the US-Pakistan relationship are divided on the subject. A few point to the fact this stalemate may well be the only solution and instead of fighting it, you should embrace it.

One diplomat on the Pakistani side spoke to me candidly but refused to be identified. He said: "Privately a deal should be offered by the US to back away from the Haqqani network, offer us a bigger role in post-occupation Afghanistan to temper the Indian influence. Limit India's role in our neighbour and we won't need any networks, Haqqani or other wise."

But angering India is not on the US agenda. It has a close working relationship with the country and sees its support for the US as key in the wider, global scheme of things. So that option is off the table.

Increasing drone strikes and firepower to go after the Haqqani network is another option. General Petraeus, the new head of the CIA, understands this. That's why many say he is in that job. A military general in charge of an intelligence-gathering organisation can only mean one thing: the CIA is now effectively a military wing in its own right, and one with drone strike capability.

All bets off

But a decade of war and death from the skies has not weakened any of the parties in Afghanistan. So, is there a diplomatic solution? Bring the Taliban and therefore the Haqqanis to the table for talks. It's been mooted and back channels are open, but many Afghans don't want the Taliban anywhere near power so those talks remain tentative and slow moving, shall we say.

Finally, then Pakistan and the US are living in the same house, but not sharing the same bed. What will ultimately split them up is not what happens in Afghanistan. The two countries' fate and that of Afghanistan are far too closely tied to each other.

What about a terror attack on US soil that can be tied back to Pakistan? To a group some in the US say Pakistan sponsors? Then all bets are off. That's the nightmare scenario. So Pakistan-US relations need to be strengthened and forged in steel to stop these two uneasy allies from having to face each other in that scenario.

Publicly it's a war of words right now, but one would hope a backstage deal is being done that will put a stop to this escalation of words. However, as a long-time reporter in the region and of the politics I can tell you the US and Pakistan only have a narrow self interest at heart.

Both sides should be careful for what they wish for, and once again Afghanistan could well be another graveyard of empire.
A bad romance: Pakistan and US | Al Jazeera Blogs

 

[anonymus]

It served you well in past

 

[Major Shaitan Singh]

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

they are now going for peace talk with Taliban, stepping over the mat .

 

[Devil Soul]

Pakistan- US Ally or a Scapegoat?
Madiha Ishtiaque

Politics is a quirky business indeed. It should not be surprising how Pakistan and US, the two strategic partners, after having worked together seamlessly for the past few decades are now at cross roads with each other. Taliban, Haqqani and other militant tribes, a gift of remote and barren mountain terrains of Afghanistan, also shared cordial ties with both Pakistan and US once. To put it boldly, birthed and trained by US, they were one of the few architects of the dissolution of USSR. Clash of interests led to insurgency and rebellion and we witnessed the Twin Towers turning into rubble.

Now, that the US troops plan to back out from Afghanistan in 2014, it appears that the wrap up episode of this friendship includes all the naked and brutal accusations. It started with an overnight, clandestine raid on Osama Bin Laden’s headquarters ironically a couple miles away from Pak-army training base. While this left Pakistani government dead in waters, humiliated by the distorted image of Pakistan’s anti terrorism stance, served as a turning point in the changing chemistry between US and Pakistan, Haqqani’s episode has somehow severed ways for any diplomatic solutions.

US accused ISI of creating information vacuums and allying with Taliban’s and Haqqani’s networks in their anti-US aims. Pakistan vehemently denies these accusations and is wailing against US for the unilateral actions on the soil. Voicing out U.S opinion, Matthew Green in his article writes “Hurtling down Afghanistan's road to perdition” says, “The trend suits Pakistan’s generals, who are stoking the fire by backing the Taliban. A weak Afghanistan is more appealing to them than a pro-Indian Afghanistan. Unbowed by US pressure, Pakistan’s spies will continue to back Afghan proxies such as the Haqqani network to protect their interests.”

An argument against it can be, that at least two of the Pakistani Generals General Zia-ul- Haq and General Pervez Musharraf left no stone unturned to back America in its strategic Interests. While the former befriended Taliban to support it’s far off partner US against USR, the other caved into American pressures and estranged ties with them. Both ways, there was one common factor, alliance with America, the source of all the aids and funds. It appears strange indeed that when funds are needed most at this point in time, why would ISI and Pakistani government set off on a hunting mission against U.S or even least try to offend it? Only to prevent a pro-Indian Afghanistan? Doesn’t appeal logic much.

Or perhaps, it’s the same old story repeating itself, “if you’re no use to me, you’re my enemy”. It was just this way it was with Taliban post USSR war, and now perhaps it’s us. Whatever it may be, U.S seems much agitated and upset with the double game Pakistani government and ISI are apparently playing with them. Hotheads like Mullen blame ISI for a vicious attack on US Embassy in Kabul and claim Haqqani’ s network a “veritable arm” of ISI. Bruce Reidel, Barack Obama’s advisor on Afghanistan and Pakistan, is “pessimistic” about Pak-US relationship since their interests don’t coincide anymore. Truly said, perhaps it’s US strategic disinterest in Pakistan that has turned a former friend into an insidious enemy overnight. As Ms Khar already pointed out, “If many of your goals are not achieved, you do not make someone a scapegoat,” she said. Sadly, the less powerful always become a scapegoat in this cutthroat political game. Also, war against terror has for long been a ploy for American politicians to strengthen their own careers before and after elections. May be this year, the strategy is the dramatic severance of relationships from a masked enemy, may earn them votes.

In the midst of this historic roil, a white hope may be that like always US and Pakistan will settle down for terms that coincide with the vested interests of both the parties. If not this, then perhaps US punitive actions (perhaps, cutting the already trimmed aids or more military action) that will unfold in times to come will decide the future of this relationship of convenience which is on roller coaster for now.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madiha Ishtiaque is the content writer and person-in-charge of the The News Blog. She handles the content development and monitors the social media networking activities of the Blog.

Disclaimer: All views/opinions expressed in this blog don't necessarily reflect the organization's stance on the subject.

 

[XYON]

Was anyone in Pakistan expecting otherwise? History is a good lesson if US-Pakistan relations are anything to go by! Time is ripe for Pakistan to revise its US foreign policy & equate it with today's reality!

USA is already yesterday's news as a Super Power!

 

[RazPaK]

Scapegoat, and Nokar.

 

[VelocuR]

It sadden me again, last time during Soviet War, USA decided to forget Pakistan many years in left behind. And today US is back to make our lovely country-Pakistan a tarnish image, bad reputation, blaming or terrorists country.

Now, we know more the truth of US's motivations and plans, they can't be our best friends or even ally.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Turbanicide and Why the State Department Won’t Call the Taliban Terrorists

Les Grossman in Tropic Thunder said it best: “We don’t negotiate with terrorists.”

Which, given the recent developments here in Kabul, and by developments I mean another turbanicide against a power player (Rabbani) here in Afghanistan, and by power player I mean someone with the connections to hold together at least some of the warring factions long enough to sit everybody’s angry *** down at the table in Bonn in December, got me to thinking. Specifically, thinking about the fact that United States Department of State has yet to officially classify the Taliban as “terrorists.”

Back to “turban go boom” — Rabbani was not a Karzai ally, by the way. He was Aunty Entity to the Flying Karzai Brothers’ Master Blaster act here in Bordertown. Not to drag out the illustration unnecessarily, but I’m not saying that Rabbani ran things completely in this town. I am saying that Rabbani had some pretty significant pull, and Hamid minus Walli is just Master, not Master Blaster. Still smart, sure, but not nearly as intimidating.

After Rabbani’s assassination, CJCS Mike Mullen testified before the Senate for the last time, and pretty much threw the ISI and their Haqqani connections under the bus. Naming three different events (bombing at an ISAF facility, the “Siege of Kabul,” and the attack on the Intercontinental Hotel), ADM Mullen went further than any other public official on the involvement of both ISI and their proxy, the Haqqani Network, in the current conflict in Afghanistan.

The ISI connection, for those of you playing along at home, is the worst kept secret in Afghanistan. While at times the ISI is a convenient bogeyman, a way for Afghans to blame their woes on other foreigners, there is a pretty clear understanding that the ISI is the hand that works the Haqqani puppet, and pretty effectively at that.

Backtracking a bit: an interesting thing happened after Rabbani’s death, which was naturally assumed to have been carried out by the Taliban. Despite many contending that Taliban and Haqqani are intertwined, and I’m sure at some level they are, they are by no means a unified entity. This fact was thrown into stark relief when the Taliban immediately starting distancing themselves from Rabbani’s killing. In fact, in this article their statements sound more like an ISAF press release than the usual gloating we’ve come to expect from the Taliban when they do take credit.

“Until we receive more information and our information is complete, our position is that we cannot say anything on this issue,” the translated comments from spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said.

The Twittersphere booted this statement around a bit, with @ISAFmedia getting into the act:

My 2 cents is this — they said that because they didn’t do it. And by “they” in this case I’m referring to the Quetta Shura Taliban, which is the generally recognized “ruling party” for all things Taliban here in Afghanistan. Primary operators here in Afghanistan for the sake of the argument (and yes, I’m ignoring the Uzbeks et al here just to simplify my life a bit) are al Qaeda (AQ), the Quetta Shura Taliban (QST), the Haqqani Network (HN), and the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). While the TTP primarily raise a ruckus in Pakistan, the other three groups are definitely operating here in Afghanistan.

Recently, the HN have indicated that they would be willing to talk peace if the Taliban were to be at the table as well. All well and good, but if Senator Dianne Feinstein and others have any say in the matter, the HN are well on their way to being declared a terrorist organization. Which puts them in the same company as the AQ and the TTP, which means we won’t be negotiating with them.

So if the HN end up on the list, then that pretty much leaves the QST. Interestingly enough, and please, someone correct me on this if I’m wrong, but I cannot find a single case of the US Department of State declaring the Quetta Shura Taliban a terrorist organization. Sure, they’re called insurgents, etc., but not terrorists. In fact, as of 2010, the exact opposite still appeared to be true.

That being the case, ISAF and the US government can still negotiate with them. However, the United States has no intention of negotiating with the Taliban as a governing entity. Not because they’re going to classify them as a terrorist organization and thereby circumvent negotiations. Not officially, anyway.

Instead, what they are doing is killing off or capturing any and all mid-level and higher Taliban leadership, and the QST is finding it increasingly difficult to control the various factions that currently operate under the umbrella of Taliban, Inc. The Rabbani incident just brought to the surface what ISAF and others I’m sure have known for a while now: the QST is losing its grip on the organization.

Whether this was an HN hit, or something executed by another faction of Taliban that’s not taking its marching orders from the QST anymore, it’s clear that Taliban, Inc., is rapidly transitioning from a monopoly into multiple factions that aren’t necessarily answering to the home office.

What’s at stake? Bonn II. However, if the leadership that could put together a coalition stable enough to actually meet with negotiators at Bonn has all been eliminated, then there’s no way that the remaining Taliban will come to the table. This means that ISAF can continue with its capture/kill operations right up until the 2014 deadline. And beyond.

By killing off the multiple levels of QST leadership now before negotiations can take hold, ISAF ensures the complete breakdown of any possible discussions at Bonn or anywhere else. In turn, this gives ISAF license to continue killing off Taliban leadership until finally, at some point, the rank and file are finally going to just stop fighting and beg for reintegration. At least that seems to be the plan.

By doing so, ISAF ensures that reintegration happens on their terms, rather than putting together a brokered deal across a conference table. The US maintains its reputation of not negotiating with terrorists, while simultaneously never calling the QST a terrorist organization. By encouraging the establishment of the HPC and pushing forward the idea of Bonn, ISAF maintains the appearance of working toward a diplomatic solution, which is politically expedient. When the conference accomplishes nothing, which seems likely, ISAF is still able to claim that it made its best effort to achieve a diplomatic solution to the conflict, while completely undermining the process through its capture/kill campaign.

So the December timeline looms, while at the same time ISAF has increased the frequency of its night raids and operations against Taliban targets to a level that ensures that any leadership that can actually put together a negotiating strategy is going to be either dead or in custody. Mostly dead.

Those of you in the “kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out” crowd are probably thinking this is a good thing. But here’s the issue: the capture/kill campaign only works if the rank and file actually surrender and submit to reintegration. If they don’t, but rather choose to continue to fight as insurgents, what results is a long, lingering war, something on the order of what’s happening in South America with the FARC. Rather than achieiving a diplomatic solution with a fairly intact leadership structure, by killing off anyone that can actually call the shots you create a larger problem for either ISAF or the government of Afghanistan once combat troops leave in 2014.

From my spot in the cheap seats, that’s a fairly possible outcome of the current campaign being executed by ISAF. I suspect that events like Rabbani and AWK’s assassination are only going to increase in frequency. I can’t see how that’s a good thing for Afghanistan. The most likely outcome appears to be a country on the brink of another civil war, where the personalities that held this place together are all gone, and those left behind are scrambling to stake a claim on their piece of a newly divided country.

Good thing we don’t negotiate with terrorists.

Turbanicide and Why the State Department Won’t Call the Taliban Terrorists | Hamsters on the Titanic

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Quintessentially Authoritarian Foreign Policy​

John Glaser, September 26, 2011
Print This | Share This | Comment | Antiwar Forum
Reuters:

Pakistan’s military will not take action against the Haqqani militant group that Washington blames for an attack against its embassy in Kabul, despite mounting American pressure to do so, a Pakistani newspaper reported on Monday.

…The Pakistani commanders agreed to resist U.S. demands for an army offensive in North Waziristan, where the United States believes the Haqqani network is based, the Express Tribune reported, quoting an unnamed military official.

“We have already conveyed to the U.S. that Pakistan cannot go beyond what it has already done,” the official told the newspaper on condition of anonymity.

The root of the US anger over Pakistan’s reluctance to fight the Haqqanis is that it is a prime contributor to the Afghan insurgency against US occupation forces (harmful to the ‘national interest’). But something tells me this piece of news – coming after weeks of aggressive rhetoric and accusations – is an even more dire offense. Pakistan is “resisting US demands.” Disobedience is the cardinal sin in the American Empire. It has led prominent psychotic Senator Lindsey Graham to publicly warn that attacking Pakistan is an option if “we need to elevate our response.” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, too, has implied the potential for a violent response.

Of course, this is not a two way street. A few months ago, the Pakistani government decided the US drone base in Balochistan was destabilizing and harmful to their national interest and so ordered the US to leave it and stop all drone strikes from there. The Obama administration’s official response was pretty straight forward: screw off, Pakistan. US officials insisted that Shamsi would not be vacated, now or in the foreseeable future. (After all the agitation, the US announced that the Shamsi base hadn’t been used for drone strikes in months, but this seemed more a PR move than anything.) Few were saying then what insolence the US displayed in not following orders.

And when Pakistan displayed disapproval for the high profile US attack inside Pakistan with the raid on bin Laden’s home, the US used its leverage and halted hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. “Talk back to me, and lose your treats,” Uncle Sam seemed to say. “You’re meant to follow my orders and welcome my breach of your sovereignty. How you dare object.”

Furthermore, as I’ve pointed out before, the US has repeatedly violated Pakistani sovereignty without permission, conducting kill/capture operations with special operations forces across the Pakistani border an undisclosed number of times. Obama has expanded the drone program exponentially, resulting in untold numbers of civilians casualties and increasing instability along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. One of the primary effects of the war in Afghanistan has been to push militants across the border into Pakistan, destabilizing the country. Indeed, the whole ten years of war in Afghanistan has been a detriment to Pakistan, who has laid virtually prostrate in the face of US demands. Yet, the US leadership sees fit to threaten Pakistan with attack for their intransigence.

This is the nature of US hegemony. It is the quintessential authoritarian relationship and it extends to most of our “allies,” laid prostrate. Rules are rules because we can annihilate you. These rules are meant to be broken, by us. You must follow them.

And again, another perfect example of this approach is US policy in Afghanistan. As the US accuses Pakistan of conducting a proxy war, the US is conducting its own mere miles away.

US-supported Afghan militias are committing widespread human rights abuses, but neither Washington or Kabul are holding them accountable or changing policy in light of the crimes, according to a new Human Rights Watch report.

The report “documents serious abuses, such as killings, rape, arbitrary detention, abductions, forcible land grabs, and illegal raids by irregular armed groups in northern Kunduz province and the Afghan Local Police (ALP).”

…In March 2011, General Petraeus told the US Senate that the ALP is “arguably the most critical element in our effort to help Afghanistan develop the capacity to secure itself.”

…The ALP has been accused of “beating teenage boys and hammering nails into the feet of one boy,” although no arrests were made. “In April,” the report documents, “four armed ALP members in Baghlan abducted a 13-year-old boy on his way home from the bazaar and took him to the house of an ALP sub-commander, where he was gang raped.” The perpetrators are well known, but no arrests have been made.

The US has the right to call Pakistan out on its proxy terrorism. The Afghan government does not, nor does anyone else, have the right to call the US out on its own terrorism. Rules apply to others. Not to America.

Quintessentially Authoritarian Foreign Policy « Antiwar.com Blog

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Bombing Haqqani: A Bad Idea​

Robert Dreyfuss on September 26, 2011 - 10:38am ET

The explicit warnings last week from Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other top US officials to Pakistan about the activities of the so-called Haqqani group in Pakistan and Afghanistan threaten to open a dangerous new front in the war in Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is openly warning that the United States might attack the Haqqanis inside Pakistan directly: “We’ve made clear that we are going to do everything we have to do to defend our forces. I don’t think it would be helpful to describe what those options would look like and what operational steps we may or may not take.” And Pakistan, naturally, is warning that doing so would be a bad idea:

ISLAMABAD (AP)—Pakistan’s foreign minister on Saturday warned the United States against sending ground troops to her country to fight an Afghan militant group that America alleges is used as a proxy by Pakistan’s top intelligence agency for attacks in neighboring Afghanistan.​

If President Obama wants to continue to wind down the war, and run for re-election in 2102 as the president who ended George W. Bush’s two wars, he’d better avoid an attack on the Haqqanis. Among other things, an attack on the entrenched camps of the Haqqanis could risk blowing Pakistan apart, leading to an outright military takeover in Islamabad, an intensified alliance between Pakistan and China, a sharply escalated Pakistani effort to topple the Karzai government in Afghanistan and even a cataclysmic war between Pakistan and India.

But those possibilities aren’t stopping Obama administration officials from making threats. And already the hawks, neoconservatives and militarists in the United States are demanding blood. Let’s see if the Republican presidential candidates, who’ve so far seemed downright dovish when it comes to Afghanistan, join in the bloodlust for calls to go after Haqqani.

Seizing on Mullen’s comments, Senator Lindsey Graham—one-third of the Holy Trinity that includes John McCain and Joltin’ Joe Lieberman—told Fox News that he’s itchin’ to slam the Haqqanis, according to The Hill:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) had tough words for Pakistan, warning the nation to stop assisting the Haqqani Network in attacks on American forces in Afghanistan and urging the US to consider steps to end that threat. “We have to put all options on the table,” Graham warned on Fox News Sunday.​

The Wall Street Journal has also weighed in with its own bombast, and writing in The Diplomat, Jeff M. Smith of the American Foreign Policy Council goes all Curtis LeMay on Pakistan:

It is instructive to remember that there’s one diplomatic mechanism with a track record of success in Pakistan. Immediately after the attacks of 9/11, then deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage warned Pakistan’s leadership that it would be ‘bombed back into the Stone Age’ if it did not support America’s invasion of Afghanistan. That was the first—and last—time the United States received Pakistan’s full cooperation in this war…. Perhaps, at the 11th hour, the Obama administration has realized the folly of this approach and found its own Armitage moment.​

Needless to say, the discovery that Pakistan supports the Haqqanis (and the Taliban) isn’t news. It’s been common knowledge for decades, going back to the 1980s, when the United States, too, supported Jalaluddin Haqqani in the US jihad against the USSR. (Haqqani’s son, Sirajuddin, runs the group a generation later, though the old man is still alive and kicking.) For the United States, perhaps the last straw was the recent, stunningly high-profile attack on the US embassy in Kabul this month, but if so, there’ve been plenty of next-to-last straws for many years now, and it’s long been an open secret that Pakistan’s ISI backs the Haqqani-Taliban alliance.

Since we’re supposed to be getting out of Afghanistan, it might be a good idea to strike a deal with Pakistan, begging that country and its ISI to bring its rambunctious allies into some sort of accord before the US troops presence declines to the point where the United States has zero bargaining power at all. Bombing the Haqqani camps in Pakistan will only makes things a lot, lot worse.

Bombing Haqqani: A Bad Idea | The Nation

 

[Kazhugu]

It sadden me again, last time during Soviet War, USA decided to forget Pakistan many years in left behind. And today US is back to make our lovely country-Pakistan a tarnish image, bad reputation, blaming or terrorists country.

Now, we know more the truth of US's motivations and plans, they can't be our best friends or even ally.

you think there is absolutely no truth in the allegation pakistan harbors jihadis/strategic assets...? and everything is one big propaganda against pak ?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

you think there is absolutely no truth in the allegation pakistan harbors jihadis/strategic assets...? and everything is one big propaganda against pak ?

There is absolutely no truth in the allegation that the ISI/PA/GoP supported/ordered/instigated the Haqqani network (or any other group) in carrying out the attacks on the US Embassy, truck bombing of US troops or the attack on the hotel - there is clearly NO MOTIVE for the ISI/PA/GoP to support/instigate/order these attacks.