US & Pakistan Dispute and Tensions over Haqqani group

[Meengla]

The million dollar question remains: Why is America in Afghanistan anymore?
If it is about 'terrorism' then that can be checked by strong, even extreme, immigration checks, espionage etc, without being in Afghanistan. By Panetta's own words, Al-Qaida is breathing its last. Talibans never had any global terrorist intentions.
If it is about saving some 'honor' and finding a graceful exit then there is no better country than Pakistan which can help to achieve that; at any rate, the death of OBL is/was the perfect way to say 'Mission Accomplished' and leave.
But if it is about some 'Contain China' and/or central Asian resources policy then we really have to get out of the decade long paradigm of 'terrorism' being the main reason for American presence in the region. In this case Americans are not going to leave the rgion. In this scenario, Pakistan is being expected to join the American camp, play second fiddle to the India-America alliance. In this case, Pakistan has to decide. It can have 'peace' by being a subordinate power--much like many countries who have benefited from the American backing; or Pakistan can go whole-hog to China and face severe economic and security-related consequences. Or is there a middle way even in this? I see none anymore. The status quo is no more possible.

 

[Devil Soul]

US, Pak ties likely to deteriorate: US think tank
Submitted 37 mins ago

The unusual decision of Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, to send a blunt message to Pakistan reflects that bilateral relations are in trouble and likely to deteriorate further, an influential American think tank has said.
In a blunt statement, Mullen identified the Haqqani network as "a strategic arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency”, which thereby made the spy agency complicit in the September 13 attacks against the US embassy in Kabul, the June 28 attack against the Inter-Continental Hotel in Kabul.
"When Mullen, the foremost US defender of maintaining sound working ties with Pakistan's military, expresses this much exasperation, those who seek to retain decent bilateral relations are in trouble. Ties have become extremely tenuous and are likely to deteriorate further," said Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Stimson Centre, a Washington-based think tank.
"By publicly confirming and not qualifying reality, Mullen has changed the rules of the game, while laying the predicate for US military actions against the sanctuary within Pakistan that the Haqqani network enjoys," he said.
This will embarrass Pakistan's military hierarchy and further inflame anti-US opinion within Pakistan - two consequences that are not unrelated, he said.
"Why would Mullen speak out now? The answer in Pakistan is that Washington needs a scapegoat for a military campaign in Afghanistan that is unlikely to end well," Krepon noted.
"This answer conveniently absolves Pakistan's security establishment of responsibility for this mess. There's another answer: the Haqqani network has raised the stakes and the Obama administration has concluded that it has been unable to influence Rawalpindi's unfortunate choices," he said.
Krepon warned that unless Rawalpindi changes course, Pakistan may find itself reframed from a major non-NATO ally to a state sponsor of terrorism.
US, Pak ties likely to deteriorate: US think tank | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online

 

[Leviza]

The million dollar question remains: Why is America in Afghanistan anymore?
If it is about 'terrorism' then that can be checked by strong, even extreme, immigration checks, espionage etc, without being in Afghanistan. By Panetta's own words, Al-Qaida is breathing its last. Talibans never had any global terrorist intentions.
If it is about saving some 'honor' and finding a graceful exit then there is no better country than Pakistan which can help to achieve that; at any rate, the death of OBL is/was the perfect way to say 'Mission Accomplished' and leave.
But if it is about some 'Contain China' and/or central Asian resources policy then we really have to get out of the decade long paradigm of 'terrorism' being the main reason for American presence in the region. In this case Americans are not going to leave the rgion. In this scenario, Pakistan is being expected to join the American camp, play second fiddle to the India-America alliance. In this case, Pakistan has to decide. It can have 'peace' by being a subordinate power--much like many countries who have benefited from the American backing; or Pakistan can go whole-hog to China and face severe economic and security-related consequences. Or is there a middle way even in this? I see none anymore. The status quo is no more possible.

well i like to tell you that Pakistan should not take sides with America at their terms , America need to know that Pakistan is not willing to accept all of their BS, things have changed in this 10 years of war,

If America need to have Pakistan on their side they need to do more and respect the Pakistan sayings , its wont be 100% it could be 50%-50% now and thats what these Americans are not getting in their minds .....

If Pakistan with the help of USA in 80s make USSR fall, there are still enough powers around in the world who will join Pakistan to take the USA down so , play your cards wisely.... keep in mind in 80s Pakistan started everything and USA joined later when they saw this can be a big win game.....

 

[GOD OF WAR]

Thank you, Admiral Mullen!

South Asian News Agency (SANA) ⋅ September 29, 2011
Shamshad Ahmad

During my recant visit to the US, I found from a yard sale a book entitled ‘America’s Stake in Asia’ written in 1968 by Drew Middleton, a renowned foreign correspondent, first for the Associated Press, and later for The New York Times who covered the World War II from D-Day to V-Day before returning to New York in 1965 to become The New York Times’ chief correspondent at the United Nations.

A chapter in his book entitled ‘Pakistan: The Lost Friend’ gave an incisive account of how Washington’s total insensitivity to its close ally and partner Pakistan’s legitimate security concerns vis-à-vis India had generated a sense of alienation among the people of Pakistan.

While deploring Washington’s nearsighted policies, Middleton presciently called Pakistan the “pattern” for Asian nations of the future; independent, tough and opportunistic. In his view, Pakistan’s “geographical situation and a dozen other considerations made it virtually important to peace in the whole of Asia and the world at large.”

This old book on America’s stakes in Asia may have ended in the trash, but Pakistan, a fiercely independent country, has rarely disappeared for any length of time from America’s strategic radar screen. For more than 60 years now, it has loomed large in one form or another, either as a staunch ally and partner, or a troublesome friend, or even as a target. Now, for the first time, it is all of these things. The war on terror may have provided the rationale for the current US ‘engagement’ with Pakistan but this war neither limits the relationship’s scope nor exhausts the challenges it faces.

The Pakistan-US relationship is not about any particular incident or individual said to be based in our tribal areas or about any Afghanistan-related setback to the US-led Isaf forces. It is an old relationship that has survived many ups and downs, and yet remains fundamentally strong and enduring. As Drew Middleton said nearly half a century ago, Pakistan’s unique geo-strategic importance makes it indispensable to peace and stability not only in this region but also for the world at large.

Its location gave Pakistan an unrivalled relevance to the Cold War dynamics. The policy of containment in its final decisive phase was enacted on our soil. The post-9/11 situation yet again made Pakistan a pivotal US ally and partner in its war on terror in Afghanistan. The Afghans are not the only victims of the Afghan tragedy. Pakistan has suffered more in multiple ways in terms of refugee influx, socio-economic burden, rampant terrorism, unabated violence and protracted conflict in its border areas with Afghanistan.

And yet, one is bewildered at Pakistan’s demonisation by its friends and allies. With almost daily violations of its territorial integrity and sovereign independence in violation of the UN Charter, and regular accusations and slander hurled at it, our people wonder in anguish whether their country is America’s partner or target in fighting a common enemy. Coercive and sometimes accusatory and slanderous approaches towards Pakistan, its armed forces and security agencies have been counterproductive and have only fuelled anti-Americanism. Any perceptional differences could have been sorted out through mutual dialogue channels, not through media or military-led public diplomacy.

There is something fundamentally wrong with US public diplomacy when it comes to Pakistan. Our most distinguished frequent diplomatic interlocutors from Washington are not State Department officials but hardcore senior officials and military commanders from the Pentagon and the CIA. Leon Panetta, Admiral Mike Mullen, Gen Petraeus, and the likes of Bruce Reidel are now the ones calling ‘diplomatic’ shots when it comes to Pakistan. Ambassador Munter, poor he, is standing on the margins caught in this most undiplomatic CIA-led militarist volley against Pakistan. It is time to correct this approach lest the mastless US public diplomacy leads to total alienation of this country and its 180 million people.

Indeed, since 9/11, it is the US military or the CIA that communicates with foreign audiences, at times through missiles and drone attacks. American diplomacy in Pakistan, in particular, is a classic manifestation of this approach. According to a veteran US diplomat, this “mission creep” has gone way out of hand. Pentagon-led US public diplomacy is a dismal failure. Never in our history did we have so much public resentment against US policies and behaviour.

Critics all around, Washington insiders and the public beyond the Beltway, members of both major political parties, even America’s friends abroad, all recognise that US public diplomacy has had a great fall. A number of separate studies, reports and findings on American diplomacy prepared by academic groups and non-governmental commissions endorse this conclusion. The common theme in these reports is that the US now has totally different priorities in the world. US image-building is now left to the Pentagon, leaving very little to non-military institutions for articulation of America’s “ideas and ideals” overseas and advance its foreign policy goals.

Instead of continuing with the lamentable “blame game” using Pakistan as an easy “scapegoat” for their own failures in this war, the US and its allies must accept the reality that for Pakistan, Afghanistan is an area of fundamental strategic importance. If the Soviet presence in Cuba almost triggered a nuclear war in the early 1960s, India’s continued ascendancy in Afghanistan will remain a danger of no less gravity to the already volatile security environment of this nuclearised region. The risk of a Pakistan-India proxy war in Afghanistan is fraught with perilous implications for regional and global peace, and must be averted at all cost.

Whatever the end-game, durable peace in Afghanistan will remain elusive as long as Pakistan’s legitimate security concerns in the region remain unaddressed. The US will need Pakistan’s active involvement in any Afghan-led political settlement if it is genuinely seeking one for its honourable exit from this unwinnable war. It seems over the last couple of years, the two countries have had no control over the growing list of unwanted irritants, some of which could have easily been avoided if both sides were guided by the concept of mutuality of interest in their relationship.

But let’s be honest. The problem is not the US-Pakistan relationship. The problem is its poor and shortsighted management on both sides. For Washington, it remains a transactional relationship. On our side, this relationship has been used by our inept rulers solely as their political and economic crutches, and for their self-serving notorious deals. It is time to make this relationship a normal relationship based on mutuality rather than one-sided transactions, conditionality-based aid packages or notorious deals impinging on this country’s sovereign independence and dignity.

The US may have a long list of its own unlearnt lessons, but for Pakistan and its civilian and military rulers there is only one lesson to be learnt now. There is a silver-lining in this current impasse. Throw your begging bowls and the crutches of foreign aid. America’s first president George Washington in his farewell address in 1796 had left some advice for you. Lamenting the fate of nations that leave themselves at the mercy of other powers, he said, “it was a folly to be the satellite of the latter or looking for disinterested favours from another” because “it must pay with a portion of its independence and its sovereignty for whatever it may accept under that character.”

Our foremost challenge at this critical juncture is not what we are required to do for others’ interests; it is what we ought to do to serve our own national interests. We need to regain our lost sovereignty, independence, freedom of action and national dignity. We should thank Admiral Mike Mullen for shaking us upside down, and giving us this opportunity to stand up again with our chins held high.

The writer is a former foreign secretary. Email: shamshad1941@ yahoo.com
Courtesy News

 

[monitor]

US military and CIA

In fact, whoever assassinated Rabbani was also aiming at ensuring that Afghanistan remains an anti-Pakistan outpost.

Ahmed Quraishi

There are some strange developments that occurred after the assassination of former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani that should not escape our the attention. The post-assassination dynamic has served the interests of lobbies opposed to President Barrack Obama's plan to pull the plug on an endless war. There is also no credible confirmation yet on who exactly eliminated President Karzai's key manager of reconciliation with Afghan Taliban and a man who recently converted into a friend of Pakistan.
The United States military and intelligence took the lead in seizing the assassination to create a wedge between Kabul and Islamabad by invoking an alleged Pakistani hand in the assassination. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani's quick dash to Kabul to offer condolences and support and later the army chief's cool and calm response to Leon Panetta and Mike Mullen's anti-Pakistan outbursts helped counter the attempt to poison Karzai's newfound understandings with Islamabad.
But demonising Pakistan is not the only mileage that the Pentagon and the CIA appear to have drawn from Rabbani's removal from the scene. The US military and intelligence took the lead in promoting the Pakistan conspiracy theory and pushing the US government and media into a corner on this count. Evidence mounts, culminating with the Panetta-Mullen duo's joint anti-Pakistan press briefing on 22 September, indicating that the Pentagon and the CIA rushed to make the most out of the assassination. The briefing was used to save the skin of US military and intelligence officials responsible for security lapses in Afghanistan, dodge accountability, send a message that major cuts in defense budget won't be acceptable, and underline that Afghanistan continues to require foreign military and intelligence presence.
Afghanistan today is the CIA's largest base of operations anywhere in the world. The agency is loath to abandon an outpost that gives it direct access to the backyards of several strategic nations at once: Iran, Pakistan, China and Russia. Rabbani's peace mission may not have shown initial signs of success but it had already upset the policy direction favored by US military, intelligence and their Afghan warlord allies. India was also skeptical about the Rabbani-Karzai plans. Ending the isolation and punishment of the Pakhtun and incorporating them into Afghan power structure has never appealed to these parties. Another common denominator among these parties is their expressed anti-Pakistanism.
In fact, whoever assassinated Rabbani was also aiming at ensuring that Afghanistan remains an anti-Pakistan outpost. Islamabad has advocated ending the policy of isolating the Pashtun and worked hard to convince Mr. Karzai that friendship and respect for the legitimate interests of both Afghanistan and Pakistan is in both nations' interests and would benefit stability in the region. Rabbani had made several overtures to Pakistan in recent months. In January he used the platform of Geo television to address Pakistanis. He spoke in Urdu as a special gesture.
Pakistan is pursuing the right policy with regards to American provocations. What is lacking in this policy is the media edge. For example, several Pakistani officials have sent strong direct and indirect messages to Washington recently. But Pakistan faces a sweeping campaign of demonising. Both political and military establishments have failed to counter the American narrative. The danger in the massive American campaign is that it paves the way for stronger future actions and limits global support. An example is the intense propagandist reporting on Iraq's WMD in 2002 which helped Washington invade that country on fake evidence.
We need to become more overt in questioning US positions with regards to several key issues. This includes CIA support and safe havens for militants meddling in Balochistan, TTP's easy access to US weapons, and the freedom of movement granted to anti-Pakistan terrorists inside US-controlled Afghan territory.
We should also review the argument that we can't abandon America's war on terror to ensure US aid flow and to fight domestic extremism. Washington will keep Pakistan afloat but will continue to drag its feet on key strategic issues such as energy generation and access for Pakistani textiles to US market. The US won't sign any written agreements on the CIA's illegal activities inside Pakistani territory and airspace. As for domestic extremism, apart from TTP terror group that is linked to the Afghan mess, all other forms of domestic extremism are an internal Pakistani issue and should be delinked from America's Afghan war.
All of this strengthens the argument that we need to declare an end to our direct participation in America's Afghan war, known as the war on terror. Bilateral Pak-US cooperation to find an end solution in Afghanistan can continue. The move will give us a chance to redesign our relations with Washington and get rid of the verbal commitments made earlier.

 

[karan.1970]

http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?736661

Army chief Ashfaq Pervez Kayani is the most powerful man in Pakistan and he controls the military-run ISI, which supports terror groups like Haqqani network and LeT, using them as proxies, top US commander Mike Mullen has said.

Standing by his blunt statement that Haqqani network is the "veritable arm" of the ISI, Admiral Mullen asserted that Pakistan Army uses terror groups like Haqqani network and LeT to serve its security interests.


The chairman Joint Chief of Staffs stuck to his guns even as White House and State Departments sought to distance themselves from his remarks that Haqqani group was "veritable arm" of the ISI.

The depiction of General Kayani as the most powerful man in Pakistan was made by Mullen, who was long considered to be the closest friend of Pakistani generals in an interview to the popular National Public Radio (NPR).

Mullen, who hangs his fighting boots at the end of this month said that Kayani wants a secure border on both sides of Pakistan, to a question if the general was seeking peace with India.

"In many discussions I've had with him, he would much rather have a stable, peaceful environment on both his borders than the one he has right now," Mullen said in response.

"Does Gen. Kayani want to make peace with India –- a durable peace with India?" the Admiral was asked by the Radio.

"You asked me about what he feels, what he believes and what we talk about. I think that's the longer-term view, is peace and stability on those two borders, which is what would present opportunities to have a growing economy, forward investment a stable country moving in the right direction," Mullen said. In the last two and half years, Mullen has met Kayani about 30 times.

"The military is a very important organisation in that country, but it shouldn't be the only organisation that we engage," Mullen said.

"Engagements with the civilian leaders, engagements with the economic leaders, engagements in the region," he said.

I've said for a long time: I think unlocking Kashmir, which is a very difficult issue on the Pak-Indian border, is one that opens it all up, and I think -– I believe we have to continue to try to, all of us, figure out a way to work that as well," Mullen observed.

Recalling his visit to Pakistan in 2008, the American military chief said, "One of the things that I spoke to the political and military leadership about was this whole issue of supporting insurgent groups or proxies.

And another one that, quite frankly, historically, has been support has been LeT, basically, originally created to focus on the challenges in Kashmir."


"They are now actually spreading west. But it's part of the strategy, from my perspective, that is there to enhance the security of the country. That's how it is thought about there," Mullen said.

"You're saying the Pakistanis think of these groups as weapons that they can use at some point," he was asked.

"
Clearly to ensure that their security is going to be improved," Mullen said.

"The ISI specifically has enough support for the Haqqanis in terms of financial support, logistic support -– and actually, sort of free passage in the safe haven -– and those links are part of what enable the Haqqanis to carry out their mission," Mullen said.


"I just think those links have to be broken. I don't believe they can be broken overnight, but if they're broken, I think that fundamentally changes the viability of that safe haven and the overall strategy," he asserted.

Mullen said he would not change a word of his testimony.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The White House, however, made slightly more conciliatory noises on Wednesday.

Spokesman Jay Carney said he would not have used the same language as Adm Mullen, while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the two countries have to "work together

BBC News - Pakistan PM: 'We won't be pressured by US' on Haqqanis

So after Pentagon officials, now the Administration is distancing itself from his 'exact words' as well ..

 

[karan.1970]

news.outlookindia.com | Pak Using Haqqani Network, LeT as Proxies: Mullen

Link to the transcript of the interview

Transcript: Interview With Adm. Mike Mullen : NPR

Some key sound bytes

And you spoke earlier, Steve, about what Foreign Minister [Hina] Khar said, which is, certainly contacts are understood. But this is more than contacts. And we've spoken to that -– I've spoken to that many, many times, not just with Gen. Kayani, but with lots of other people. And it is the intensity, the severity, and, quite frankly, for me as a senior military officer in America, the fact that it is so intently focused right now on killing Americans that I felt it necessary to speak up.


Inskeep: Given that, in the last few days, there seem to have been a few officials walking away from your statement, do you want to re-word anything that you said last week?

Mullen: Not a word.

Inskeep: You phrased it the way you want it to be phrased.

Mullen: I phrased it the way I wanted it to be phrased.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Link to the transcript of the interview

Transcript: Interview With Adm. Mike Mullen : NPR

Some key sound bytes

And you spoke earlier, Steve, about what Foreign Minister [Hina] Khar said, which is, certainly contacts are understood. But this is more than contacts. And we've spoken to that -– I've spoken to that many, many times, not just with Gen. Kayani, but with lots of other people. And it is the intensity, the severity, and, quite frankly, for me as a senior military officer in America, the fact that it is so intently focused right now on killing Americans that I felt it necessary to speak up.


Inskeep: Given that, in the last few days, there seem to have been a few officials walking away from your statement, do you want to re-word anything that you said last week?

Mullen: Not a word.

Inskeep: You phrased it the way you want it to be phrased.

Mullen: I phrased it the way I wanted it to be phrased.

Stop whining Mullen, it is a war, and in war people get killed.

Perhaps you should think about the far more Afghan and Pakistan civilians US strikes and raids have massacred, and then apply your own 'outrage' in terms of what the families of those massacred by the US are going through ...

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Pakistan spent hours upon hours upon hours upon hours, trying to reason with NATOs not to make the suicidal mistake of imposing a ground invasion of Afghanistan

they didnt listen, now they are facing the music. History has this funny way of repeating itself.


Pakistan should maintain its stand; stand firm.


Fear is No Policy
Surrender is NO Option.

 

[SpArK]

U.S. levies sanctions on Haqqani commander, others | Reuters

 

[53fd]

U.S. levies sanctions on Haqqani commander, others | Reuters

The US Treasury Department have not declared the Haqqani network as a terrorist group, or asked the UN to do so.

All they have said is that they are linked to "the most dangerous terrorist organizations operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

 

[VCheng]

LOL!! Turth not only Hurts but Bleeds as well!! hahahahah...LOL

I am glad you find bleeding funny. That would explain why the blood of Pakistanis has been so cheap.

(I am not happy at this state of affairs, please be very clear.)

---------- Post added at 01:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:29 PM ----------

The US Treasury Department have not declared the Haqqani network as a terrorist group, or asked the UN to do so.

All they have said is that they are linked to "the most dangerous terrorist organizations operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Another chess piece moving into place, that is all.

 

[Meengla]

Again, who can answer my 'million dollar question'?
Are the Americans in Afghanistan solely to crush the terrorists or they have plans for the natural resources of central Asia as well as some kind of 'contain China' policy?
Answer to this question is vital. Pakistan can salvage whatever its 'reputation' and 'image' if it joins the American camp against China (and possibly Iran). For the same American media that has turned 30,000+ Pakistani casualties as self-inflicted wound has the power to make Pakistan an innocent sufferer. The rest of the world follows that. If Americans and their media decide to portray the Vatican as cabal of sodomizing theocrats then they can do that within a few months.
The other option is a clean break from America. Eat grass. Ride bicycles. Live in darkness because of no electricity. Even foreign remittance from ordinary Pakistanis from most of the West can be termed 'supporting a terrorist state'.
Which way, Pakistan? But first we need an answer about the American intentions.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

BY ROBERT BAER

What does Pakistan really want in Afghanistan? That question has become all the more urgent since Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, accused Pakistan of being indirectly responsible for last week's attack on our embassy in Kabul. Reports of a second possible attack, on Sunday, on the building alleged to house the local CIA station will, no doubt, fuel further speculation. Assessing Pakistan's interests in Afghanistan through the prism of honesty and realpolitik rather than wishful thinking may be the only way we're going to get out of this messy war.

For a start, we need to understand that Pakistan intends to bring down the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, even if that means taking on its sometime U.S. ally. Pakistan hates Karzai out of a conviction that he has made common cause with Pakistan's strategic nemesis, India, and a suspicion that the Afghan leader intends to harm Pakistan's strategic interests in other ways. And, of course, the hatred is mutual. Rightly or wrongly, Karzai believes that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) assassinated his father, and would do the same to him given half a chance.

A second misunderstanding we need to dispense with is that the ISI is somehow a rogue organization outside of Pakistan's chain of command and is pursuing a pro-Taliban agenda all its own. The Pakistani army can remove the ISI director, General Ahmad Shuja Pasha — or any other officer of the organization — at a moment's notice. So, if the ISI did indeed sponsor an attack on the U.S. embassy in Kabul, such a step should be assumed to have been taken with the consent of the power that be in Pakistan, i.e. the military establishment. The idea that to make our Pakistan problem go away, the ISI needs to be "cleaned up" is naive. The Pakistani actions that make life difficult for the U.S. in Afghanistan are driven by a clear-sighted strategic agenda.

As for the Pakistani proxy accused of carrying out the embassy attack, the Haqqani network, we need to understand why Pakistan won't give it up or act against it as the U.S. demands. With up to 15,000 fighters and effective control of large parts of eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan's North Waziristan, the Haqqanis are an indispensible party to a peace settlement in Afghanistan — and a vehicle for securing Pakistan's interests in that country after the U.S. withdraws. To sever relations with the Haqqanis now would mean Pakistan giving up a large degree of influence in Afghanistan after the war is over.

The U.S. has for years demanded that Pakistan mount a sweeping military offensive in North Waziristan to destroy the Haqqanis, but even if they were so inclined, the fact is that the Pakistani military has only ever been able to control the main roads in North Waziristan. The Pakistani army is incapable of occupying and holding this territory, no matter how much money we offer or how dire the threats we make.

At the core of the problem stands a simple proposition: Pakistan doesn't trust us with Afghanistan — and from Islamabad's perspective, not without cause.We took a strategic decision to invade a country central to their national-security doctrine without seriously consulting them, preferring to think in terms of an Afghanistan of our dreams. Nor did we take into account their strategic interests and the proxies through which they have pursued them. The Soviet Union made the same mistake when it invaded Afghanistan in 1979.

Having failed to prevail a decade later, we now have two choices, neither of them particularly attractive to Washington. We can attempt to destroy the Haqqani base in North Waziristan by invading Pakistan. But to do that effectively would require more troops than we currently have in Afghanistan. Doing so would obviously destroy whatever relations we still have with Pakistan, with profoundly dangerous consequences in Afghanistan and far beyond.

Alternatively, we could hash out a settlement with Pakistan, which would inevitably mean accepting the Haqqanis and easing out Karzai in any political settlement to the conflict. Such a deal would also potentially bring in Afghanistan's other neighbor with real strategic interests in the country — Iran. Iran can be unpredictable, but it's by no means certain it would accept true Pakistani-American collusion in Afghanistan. In the mid-'90s, Iran was all but at war with the Taliban, and if Iran isn't consulted on a settlement, it could play the spoiler.

Accepting Pakistan's postconflict agenda and backing off on the Haqqanis at Karzai's expense is too bitter a pill for Washington to swallow in an election year, so we'll muddle through for another year. But when the U.S. finally leaves, don't be surprised to see the Haqqanis in Kabul.

Baer, a former Middle East CIA field officer, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower.



Read more: The U.S.-Pakistan Row Reveals Hard Choices in Afghanistan - TIME

a reasonably good assesment, though i disagree with the notion that Pakistani admin. ''hates'' Karzai

he's an unpredictable, highly emotional, slightly mentally unstable character; but as of late he's been chirping to a different tune. In fact, he removed the warlord Amrullah Saleh because he was vociferously opposed to any peace negotiation (reconciliation) with taleb or pro-taleb factions. I do agree that caution must be exercised as well. The talebs are not our best friends, the way the indians and some other outsiders (who know NOTHING about the ground realities) seem to imply.

it's difficult to say whether Karzai will be taken out, or whether some kind of solution will be reached.....we will have to wait and see


as far as interests are concerned -- like any other country, we must look out for our domestic and regional interests and stand firm by them, during these difficult and testing times.


the APC meeting is a positive development, as Adm. Mullens statements have (ironically) been a sort of blessing in disguise. I look at Pakistanis today and I've never seen such unity and nationalism in the country --despite all the problems affecting our divine motherland.