US & Pakistan Dispute and Tensions over Haqqani group

[lem34]

If its true its exellant our army and ISI should be commended for acting in pakistans best interest

 

[Stumper]

How about you read this,written by an American Major.
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/12/26/2543471/is-pakistan-an-ally-in-the-war.html

Haseebullah : The link posted is not correct. Also try googling about the author, it seems he vanished in thin air after this article. Looks fictitious to me.

 

[Drawn_Sword_of_God]

at what cost? and on what benefits,,just for chest....ing?

AT all cost! Pakistan will not be another iraq or afghanistan.

 

[53fd]

Pakistan does not think of the US as an enemy. Pakistan wants to have good relations with the US, but I don't know if the vice versa is true.

 

[Pride]

The one problem which I am seeing is that world is changing rapidly, Equations & relations became dynamic. The world is moving on but Pakistan is failing to do so. Their issues and strategies are still of 90s while 2000 onwards the geopolitical equation got changed and economic powers got changed. Taliban of 90s can never be supported after 9/11 and similarly Haqqani networks. Why to carry on that relation which is giving trouble to you. OBL case already tarnished the image of Pak.

 

[Pride]

I hate it when people talk like this. For god sake, Afghanistan in itself is a sovereign nation and not play ground of US/PAK or India. US is there for vested interest and for same interest they want to move out now by handing over to government but Pak support to "Some" group is not making it easy. Pak have some inbuilt fear that US will "Hand over" AF to India (really? is it a toy?).

 

[Respect4Respect01]

I believe you. Why should you be respected for holding dear patently false analyses? Isn't it time for Pakistan to junk such garbage?

if u read it correctly i said " I THINK", that is my OPINION.

where did Pakistan come from? im expressing my own opinion, not whole nation's opinion.

 

[muse]

Sol

Maybe you'll find this interesting:


Whose terrorists if not of the US?
Mohammad Malick
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
The writer is editor The News, Islamabad.

Pakistan has been served notice to choose between the Haqqani network and the United States. No ambiguity here that depending upon our ‘real future actions against the Haqqani network’, the US would accordingly shape its own future response. They are bad people killing good Americans and if you are a sincere friend and a loyal ally then you better not have anything going on with them, we have been warned.

Think American and this demand makes sense, but think rationally and one cannot ignore the mockery of such an indignant American huff. I have no sympathy for the Haqqanis and if the Haqqani network is indeed nothing but a criminal terrorist outfit murdering innocent Americans as being claimed by Washington, then why in heavens’ name has US still not formally and legally declared the Haqqani network a terrorist outfit?

To date, only a handful of Haqqani network leaders have been declared terrorists but that too purely in their individual capacity. There is no such entity as a Haqqani Network on the state department’s list of terrorist outfits. Could there be a more interesting discrimination causing placement of some ‘terrorists’ on the terrorist list while their network itself is spared the honour?

By avoiding designating the network a terrorist outfit, the United States has endorsed Pakistan’s stance of Haqqanis being the most relevant party to any viable future power settlement in Afghanistan and one that cannot be wished away. By refusing demands of its own senators to place the network on the terrorist list, the US government has tacitly acknowledged Pakistan’s inevitable compulsion to remain engaged with the most important piece in the Afghan jigsaw puzzle. Contrary to what they say publicly, the US policy makers privately concede that while the US remains a transitory part of the Afghan equation, the Haqqanis have been around almost forever and will still be here long after the last American C-130 takes off with its final troops and cargo.

It is now evident that while Pakistan is being threatened with military action, the US itself desperately wants to be in Pakistan’s shoes and be able to engage and involve the Haqqani network in the coming months, if not weeks, and hence the latest pressure on Pakistan to force it into ‘sharing’ its influence with the Haqqanis. If the US is genuinely angry at Pakistan for not going after the Haqqani network then it must prove the genuineness of its claim of Pakistan’s betrayal by first legally declaring the Haqqani network as a terrorist outfit. But that won’t happen.

The US duplicitous approach stands further exposed in a recent report in the Washington Post. It states: “American military officers, who have spent years urging Washington to take action against the Haqqanis, express anger that the Obama administration has still not put the group on the State Department’s list of terrorist organisations out of concern that such a move would scuttle any chances that the group might make peace with Afghanistan’s government.”

“Whoever is in power in Kabul will have to make a deal with the Haqqanis,” said Marc Sageman, a former CIA officer who served in Pakistan during the Soviet-Afghan war. “It won’t be us. We’re going to leave, and those guys know it.”

The report further states: “The new urgency for a political settlement in Afghanistan has further limited Washington’s options for fighting the Haqqani network. During high-level discussions last year, Obama administration’s officials debated listing the group as a “Foreign Terrorist Organisation,” which allows for some assets to be frozen and could dissuade donors from supporting the group. While some military commanders pushed for the designation, the administration ultimately decided that such a move might alienate the Haqqanis and drive them away from future negotiations. Officials chose to take the more incremental step of naming individual Haqqani leaders as terrorists, including Badruddin and Sirajuddin Haqqani. Senior American officials said there was once again a fierce debate inside the Obama administration about whether to put the entire group on the terrorist list.

But as Washington struggles to broker an endgame for the Afghan war, there is widespread doubt about whether the Haqqanis will negotiate, and whether their patrons in Islamabad will even let them. After a decade of war, there is a growing sense among America’s diplomats, soldiers and spies that the United States is getting out of Afghanistan without ever figuring out how a maddeningly complex game is played.”

The US has been unable to fully comprehend the Afghan conundrum and blaming its failures on Pakistan may make good news copy, but not a fact. Pakistan has been accused at times by US of hunting with the hounds and running with the hare and it may rightfully appear so on some occasions, but having said that, Pakistan’s flirting with the goons (from US perspective at least) on the block is not altogether without plausible reasons. Surely Pakistan may have been less than forthcoming on some counts but what has the US done to mitigate Pakistan’s legitimate concerns siring such arguably ‘questionable’ behaviour?

Much to Pakistan’s consternation, the US carved an unjustifiably large role for India in the Afghanistan theatre. A fact bemoaned by none other than its own former military commander, Gen Mac Crystal. The US did nothing to lessen Pakistan’s genuine security concerns vis-à-vis its eastern borders. The US was furnished with detailed reports, with evidence, about Indian involvement in stoking the Baluchistan strife, but it did not even ask its newfound friend to back off even if slightly. It also played dirty by turning the screws through IMF, WB etc, not to talk of trying to scuttle the Pak-Iran gas pipeline deal. It’s a long and ugly list but griping about such actions, or non-actions, doesn’t help anyone. We need to develop a workable relationship based on pragmatic deliverables.

Neither side has to like everything the other does, or the friends either may keep as long as both understand each other’s compulsions and imperatives and are willing to make affordable compromises. Pakistan must not be expected to abandon its safeguards against legitimate concerns unless the elimination, or lessening, of such threats. Sorry to disappoint Bruce Riedel and others of his ilk, but US cannot bomb Pakistan into oblivion so let’s cut the chase and get down to serious readjustment of relationship parameters and firming up of realistic expectations on both sides.

Nothing would be more disastrous than for the Obama administration to engage – in a desperate bid to shore up its dismal 38 percent approval rating – in some ill-advised high profile foreign ‘patriotic endeavour’. Widening the strike area of drones or any surgical strike following a lame nuclear sting operation or any such stupid military foray may yield a fleeting short term rating boost but in the long term, the consequences would be horrendous and not-so fleeting, to say the least.

For their part, Islamabad and Rawalpindi need to abandon their false bravado (they are fooling nobody except their own people) and redefine their priorities and retool the definition of the country’s national strategic interests. They must stop lying and tell the US plainly what can be done and what cannot, and who we need to have a working relationship with and why. As long it’s in our legitimate national interest we don’t have to care whether the Americans like it or not. But whatever little I know of the Americans, it’s far easier for them to adjust to a blunt truth than a crafty evasive response. At the end of the day, if the US makes a big mistake, at worst it loses a big war in a distant land. If we make a big mistake however, we jeopardise our very homeland. The Yanks may afford an error of judgement, we cannot.

 

[Pksecurity]

I hate it when people talk like this. For god sake, Afghanistan in itself is a sovereign nation and not play ground of US/PAK or India. US is there for vested interest and for same interest they want to move out now by handing over to government but Pak support to "Some" group is not making it easy. Pak have some inbuilt fear that US will "Hand over" AF to India (really? is it a toy?).

I wish you had carefully read the thread. It would explain to you the vested interest of India in having a strong presence in Afghanistan.

 

[President Camacho]

^^ That, and then the number given by the Naval PG school in 2008 - Strength of Haqqanis = 1000.

If they managed to expand into an organized force of 15000, from measly 1000 scattered fighters within 3 years, then I suppose they do deserve a say on the negotiation table.

I guess things are a bit more hidden than we perceive.

 

[Lankan Ranger]

Pakistan PM warns US on 'negative messaging'


Pakistan's prime minister has warned the United States that continued accusations of playing a double game in the "war on militancy" only risked fanning anti-Americanism in his country.

Yusuf Raza Gilani, speaking in an interview with Reuters news agency on Tuesday, also said any unilateral military action by the US to hunt down fighters of Taliban-affiliated Haqqani network inside Pakistan would be a violation of his country's sovereignty.

Relations between Washington and Islamabad have deteriorated sharply following last week's blunt allegations by the US joint chiefs of staff that Pakistan's military intelligence agency was linked to fighters who carried out a September 13 attack on the US embassy in Kabul.

"The negative messaging, naturally that is disturbing my people," Gilani said in the interview.

"If there is messaging that is not appropriate to our friendship, then naturally it is extremely difficult to convince my public," he said. "Therefore they should be sending positive messages."

ISI role

Although Pakistan officially abandoned support for the Taliban after the September 11 attacks on the United States in 2001 and allied itself with Washington's "war on terror", analysts say elements of the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) refused to make the doctrinal shift.

In his stunning testimony last week, outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen bluntly described the Haqqani network, the most violent and effective faction among Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, as a "veritable arm" of the ISI.

It was the most serious allegation levelled by Washington against the nuclear-armed South Asian nation since 2001, and the first time it had held Islamabad responsible for an attack against the United States.

Asked how Islamabad would respond if there was a unilateral military operation by the United States inside Pakistan to go after the Haqqanis, Gilani responded: "We are a sovereign country. How can they come and raid in our country?"

He said Pakistan had conveyed to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that such unilateral action "will not be acceptable to Pakistan".

Visit cancelled

Pakistan's army chief on Monday cancelled a planned visit to Britain amid escalating tensions between Islamabad and Washington over security.

Britain's defence ministry said General Ashfaq Kayani had been due to meet UK defence minister Liam Fox for a private meeting in London.

The ministry declined to speculate on why the visit was cancelled.

Kayani was also scheduled to address the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the Royal College of Defence Studies.

A Pakistani official said Kayani was staying in Pakistan to hold talks on the crisis sparked by the US accusations.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation.

Kayani met his army commanders in the capital, Islamabad, on Sunday, days after Mullen's remarks to Congress.

Without giving further details on Sunday's meeting, Major-General Athar Abbas, the Pakistani army spokesman, said: "The prevailing security situation was discussed."

Pakistan PM warns US on 'negative messaging' - Central & South Asia - Al Jazeera English

 

[monitor]

Pakistan served Miranda
September 28, 2011
By S.m. Hali

The US administration has virtually read out the Miranda warning to Pakistan. Miranda is the formal warning given by the police in the United States to criminal suspects in a custodial situation before they are interrogated to make the accused aware of and remind him of his constitutional rights.
Admiral Mike Mullen, Leon Panetta and Jay Carney have virtually issued Miranda warnings to Pakistan accusing it of supporting attacks by the Haqqani network on US targets in Afghanistan, including the September 13 assault on the American Embassy and NATO headquarters in Kabul. While briefing the US Senate, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen categorically stated: “The Haqqani network, for one, acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s intelligence agency.” In a similar tone, US Defence Secretary Panetta told Senators that “the presence of safe havens in Pakistan is giving the insurgents advantages they have otherwise lost.” White House Spokesman Carney called on Pakistan to “break any link they have” with the Haqqani network. The synchronised blame game has, however, been refuted vehemently by Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Defence and Foreign Ministers and the Chief of Army Staff.
History is replete with wrongful US indictments. The US attacked both Afghanistan and Iraq with apparent UN approval, but under trumped-up charges. In the case of Afghanistan, it invoked the self-defence clause, insisting that the Taliban regime was harbouring Osama bin Laden – the purported perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks. Despite the Taliban’s insistence that the US provide evidence pertaining to the allegations after which Osama would be tried under the Afghan law, America invaded Afghanistan that has led to the death of over 40,000 innocent civilians. But it must be understood that “self-defence”, firstly, in both international and US law, must be clearly distinguished from the use of force for revenge or punishment; States, like people, must not act as vigilantes.
Secondly, in criminal law, “self-defence” may be invoked in the face of an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm. In general, the threat must be immediate and the response must not be pushed beyond what is reasonably required to repel that threat. Thus, the invasion of Afghanistan was not a legitimate act of “self-defence” by the US post-9/11. There is no UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution that authorises it, whether alone or in coalition with other countries, to attack Afghanistan. Between September 11 and October 7, 2001, when the Afghanistan invasion began, the Council adopted only one resolution concerning the 9/11 attacks. Resolution 1368 (September 12) condemned the attack, while Resolution 1378 (November 14) adopted – after the bombardment of Afghanistan commenced – only condemns the Taliban and supports “the efforts of the Afghan people to replace the Taliban regime!”
The countries that plan wars in order to capture resources, conquer territories, or advance their strategic interests or hegemonic designs never lack noble-sounding pretexts: Self-defence, defending civilisation, rescuing threatened national minorities, and so on. After no weapons of mass destruction had been found to justify the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration argued that it was legitimate to overthrow a brutal dictatorship in order to free the Iraqi people. But to allow any country to make war entirely on false pretexts means throwing out international law and replacing it with “might is right.”
Now, the US is threatening to throw its erstwhile “most non-NATO ally” Pakistan to the dogs of war. It has already violated our sovereignty on two accounts: First, by launching the drone attacks, and secondly, the May 2 attack to “eliminate” Osama. Pakistan needs to take its case to the UN; however, this step may yield no results if former US Permanent Representative to the UN John Bolton is to be believed: “There is no such thing as the UN. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States, when it suits our interest and we can get others to go along…….When the United States leads, the UN will follow.”
The US, therefore, should take cognisance that attacking Pakistan won’t be a cakewalk. It is a nuclear-equipped and battle hardened country, which will defend itself or go down fighting. It is hoped and prayed that good sense prevails in the US administration!

The writer is a political and defence analyst.
Email: sultanm.hali@gmail.com
-The Nation

 

[S.M.R]

And Pakistan took it as Mirinda.... 'Zor ka jhatka, dheeray say lagay'

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

LOL... I read itas if Pak served teh cold drink Mirinda to some delegates who wanted some sharaap sharoop.................

 

[crimemaster_gogo]

LOL... I read itas if Pak served teh cold drink Mirinda to some delegates who wanted some sharaap sharoop.................

hmmm aaj kar garmi ho rahi hai, mujhy bhi laga ki mirinda ya fir rooh-aafzah ki baat ho rahi hai.