US & Pakistan Dispute and Tensions over Haqqani group

[muse]

Mullen has screwed himself by taking the advice of Panetta and Biden - go gently into retirement, you've earned it --- but nooo, Think Tanks beckon

 

[muse]

Anyway -- Ejaz Haider says sometimes pressure of issue Y is really to accrue gain on issue X

Is he pointing to the return of CIA assets under the guise of military trainers? I would watch this issue

 

[Devil Soul]

Mullens remarks were a blessing in disguise .... Thank u & good bye

 

[Emmie]

What’s behind the US-Pakistan rift: WP
Submitted 7 mins ago

Beyond the recent verbal confrontation between U.S. and Pakistani officials about the Haqqani network lies a delicate political-military effort to draw the Haqqanis into an end-game strategy for the war in Afghanistan.
Adm. Mike Mullen, the departing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, rebuked the Pakistani spy service, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, for using the Haqqani network as its “veritable arm” in Afghanistan. But U.S. officials know the ISI also facilitated a secret meeting during the last several months between the United States and a representative of the Haqqani clan. This is the double game that’s always operating in U.S.-Pakistani relations.
Some U.S. officials believe that the recent wave of attacks by the Haqqanis on U.S. targets in Afghanistan may, in fact, reflect the determination of hard-line members of the clan to derail any move toward negotiation. The United States wants the Pakistani military’s help in isolating and destroying these “unreconcilable” elements of the network.
The sparring with Pakistan illustrates the wider dilemma of the Afghan war. How does the United States bring pressure on the Haqqanis and other Taliban factions, even as it withdraws troops with a 2014 deadline for completing its mission? As Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, has said: “The more the U.S. says it wants to leave Afghanistan, the harder it will be to leave.”
What angered Mullen and other U.S. officials was Pakistan’s failure to act on intelligence reports about planned Haqqani attacks. A timeline helps untangle the threads of the dispute:
●On Sept. 8, Gen. John Allen, the NATO commander in Afghanistan, is said to have warned Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the Pakistani army chief, that two truck bombs had been assembled in Miran Shah, the Haqqanis’ base in North Waziristan, and were headed for Afghanistan. Kayani is said to have pledged he would take action.
●On Sept. 10, one of those truck bombs struck a NATO base in Wardak, just east of Kabul, wounding 77 U.S. soldiers. That was a trigger for Mullen’s anger: Some senior officials concede that Pakistan may not have had enough time, or precise “actionable” intelligence, to stop the bomb-laden truck.
●On Sept. 13, insurgents from the Haqqani network attacked the U.S. Embassy compound in Kabul. Though Mullen mentioned this attack in his denunciation of ISI-Haqqani links, U.S. officials don’t see clear evidence of a Pakistani role in planning or executing the operation, a message the CIA privately communicated to Islamabad. But in the days after the bombing, U.S. officials presented Pakistan with a series of “what ifs,” to convey the danger of the situation: What if the 77 soldiers at Wardak had been killed? What if the U.S. ambassador in Kabul had died? What then?
●On Sept. 18, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with the Pakistani foreign minister and delivered the first of a series of U.S. rebukes, asking how Pakistan could promote the Haqqanis as a prospective negotiating partner and yet sit by idly while they attacked Americans. On Sept. 22, Mullen delivered his blunt testimony. On Sept. 25 and 26, two longtime congressional supporters of Pakistan, Sens. Lindsey O. Graham and Mark Kirk, warned of a halt in military aid.
But scheduled military discussions continue, with Gen. James Mattis, the head of U.S. Central Command, visiting Islamabad last weekend and warning that Pakistan had to choose sides.
The message seems to have gotten through to Pakistani military leaders, who reportedly concluded at a secret commanders’ conference on Monday that they don’t want a confrontation with the United States. But surely, this is a sick relationship when the partners have to go to the brink of open confrontation to get the other side to listen. If they were a married couple, you would send them to a counselor, or, failing that, a divorce lawyer.
With all the noise about the Haqqanis, it’s important to remember that the real issue here is the larger war in Afghanistan. President Obama’s goal remains a political settlement with “reconcilable” elements of the Taliban, and secret contacts have been continuing around the world. The message to the Haqqanis is that they can best protect political power in their ancestral homeland in Paktika, Paktia and Khost provinces by coming to the table now.
But does the Taliban — or the Pakistani government, for that matter — take the U.S. strategy seriously? How can the United States gain enough leverage to tip the process toward negotiation? That’s what this war of words was really about. (The Washington Post)

Those trucks could travel all the way from Miranshah to Kabul uninterrupted?? Are you kidding me Gen. John Allen?

 

[muse]

Most of this piece is simply rubbish - WHY? because hidden in this piece is the gem, the most relevant bit:

How does the United States bring pressure on the Haqqanis and other Taliban factions, even as it withdraws troops with a 2014 deadline for completing its mission?

And this :

But U.S. officials know the ISI also facilitated a secret meeting during the last several months between the United States and a representative of the Haqqani clan.

And of course the US publicly says that it wants an end to ISI contacts with Haqqani - as if the permission of the US is required.

The time line stuff is simply filler, meant for domestic political consumption in the US.

 

[Meengla]

The US is still the hyperpower and it's not wise to openly declare hostility.

As muse mentioned, despite all the fancy denials, everyone knows that the US view of the region is Indo-Pak, not Af---. Which means that they view Pakistan's subjugation as essential to their strategy of propping up India as the regional hegemon.

See bolded part in your post. So is this the consensus of the Pakistani bloggers in this Forum then? If so, then Pakistan is being made to choose either the India-America alliance or continue the status quo in which there is refusal by Pakistan to follow the orders. In case of the former, there is probably going be a much better 'image' of Pakistan in the world, more peace, better economy, but also alienation with China and Iran. In case of latter, Pakistan risks being at least un-officially (non UN) termed a State Sponsor of Terror with severe 'image' problem, economy destroyed.

 

[Battle Axe]

Why cannot the US military might do the job, alone, on the Afghan side. When they do (if) enter Afghan & speed towards the US bases, why cannot the Uncle smack 'em. Why?

Why don't they fence borders or set up checkposts on Afghan border. Why don't they raise a BSF?

Why?

 

[Respect4Respect01]

mullen wasa idiot to b honest.

 

[53fd]

As I said before, Pakistan needs to take the back seat, relax & not get involved in Afghanistan. The stage has been set in Afghanistan for the US/NATO Forces, perceived by the Afghan people as invaders & occupiers, to count their losses, & cut & run. This has all been evident for quite a few months now. The US will be looking to get Pakistan involved, to get it in a tussle with Afghanistan, to take some of the spotlight off them in Afghanistan, but I doubt it will work now.

 

[lem34]

Do you reckon the guys a bit confused lol

 

[53fd]

Do you reckon the guys a bit confused lol

I guess now that he is retiring, he is just letting out his frustrations out in the open.

 

[Respect4Respect01]

As I said before, Pakistan needs to take the back seat, & not get involved in Afghanistan. The stage has been set in Afghanistan for the US/NATO Forces, perceived by the Afghan people as invaders & occupiers, to count their losses, & cut & run. This has all been evident for quite a few months now. The US will be looking to get Pakistan involved, to get it in a tussle with Afghanistan, to take some of the spotlight off them in Afghanistan, but I doubt it will work now.

and now if someone can explain that to our idiotic politicians.

 

[fd24]

I have spoken to several prominent figures in Pakistan and they have nominated me to say some well chosen words that they have taken 2 days to think of. They explain exactly the sentiments of our people.
F*CK OFF MULLEN.
I am grateful in being chosen as the spokesman so if you see him please pass the message on

 

[53fd]

Mullen is a bit confused. He seems to forget that the US administration set up Taliban offices in Qatar & UAE, for exactly the purpose of not getting Pakistan involved in the Afghanistan end-game. His words are contradicting the actions of the US Administration.

 

[fd24]

Mullen is a bit confused. He seems to forget that the US administration set up Taliban offices in Qatar & UAE, for exactly the purpose of not getting Pakistan involved in the Afghanistan end-game. His words are contradicting the actions of the US Administration.

I disagree. The fool knows exactly what reaction he would get. The question we have to answer is is he the mouth piece of the Americans or did he screw up?