Is that make you feel better to cover your sins and US past history? So be it.
US & Pakistan Dispute and Tensions over Haqqani group
- Thread starter Respect4Respect01
- Start date
Is that make you feel better to cover your sins and US past history? So be it.
Omar1984
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 12,296
- Reaction score
- 0
Talk to, not at, Pakistan
By Asif Ali Zardari, Friday, September 30, 8:01 PM
Democracy always favors dialogue over confrontation. So, too, in Pakistan, where the terrorists who threaten both our country and the United States have gained the most from the recent verbal assaults some in America have made against Pakistan. This strategy is damaging the relationship between Pakistan and the United States and compromising common goals in defeating terrorism, extremism and fanaticism.
It is time for the rhetoric to cool and for serious dialogue between allies to resume.
Pakistan sits on many critical fault lines. Terrorism is not a statistic for us. Our geopolitical location forces us to look to a future where the great global wars will be fought on the battleground of ideas. From the Middle East to South Asia, a hurricane of change is transforming closed societies into marketplaces of competing narratives. The contest between the incendiary politics of extremism and the slow burn of modern democracy is already being fought in every village filled with cellphones, in every schoolroom, on every television talk show. It is a battle that moderation must win.
Our motives are simple. We have a huge population of young people who have few choices in life. Our task is to turn this demographic challenge into a dividend for democracy and pluralism, where the embrace of tolerance elbows out the lure of extremism, where jobs turn desolation into opportunity and empowerment, where plowshares take the place of guns, where women and minorities have a meaningful place in society.
None of this vision for a new Pakistan is premised on the politics of victimhood. It pivots on a worldview where we fight the war against extremism and terrorism as our battle, at every precinct and until the last person, even though we lack the resources to match our commitment. When Pakistan seeks support, we look for trade that will make us sustainable, not aid that will bind us in transactional ties. When we commit to a partnership against terrorism, we do it in the hope that our joint goals will be addressed. When we add our shoulder to the battle, we look for outcomes that leave us stronger.
Yet as Pakistan is pounded by the ravages of globally driven climate change, with floods once again making millions of our citizens homeless, we find that, instead of a dialogue with our closest strategic ally, we are spoken to instead of being heard. We are being battered by nature and by our friends. This has shocked a nation that is bearing the brunt of the terrorist whirlwind in the region. And why?
After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the world’s most powerful democracy compromised its fundamental values to accommodate a dictator in Pakistan. Since then we have lost 30,000 innocent civilians and 5,000 military and police officers to the militant mind-set that the U.S. government is now charging that we support. We have suffered more than 300 suicide bomb attacks by the forces that allegedly find sanctuary within our borders. We have hemorrhaged approximately $100 billion directly in the war effort and tens of billions more in lost foreign investment. The war is being fought in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, yet Washington has invested almost nothing on our side of the border and hundreds of billions of dollars on the other side.
We fight an ideology that feeds on brutality and coercion that has taken the lives of our minister for minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, and Gov. Salman Taseer, among thousands of others. And we have seen our greatest leader, the mother of my children, assassinated by a conspiracy that was powered by the same mind-set we are now accused of tolerating.
Both our nations need to learn from history. South and Central Asia is a region of complexity and nuance where mistakes repeat dangerously and where many empires have floundered. In the 10 years that NATO has been in the neighborhood, it has not even attempted to choke the world’s largest production of narcotic contraband that funds terrorist activity. Yet we struggle to hold the line against the tidal wave of extremism that surges into Pakistan each day from internationally controlled areas of Afghanistan. While we are accused of harboring extremism, the United States is engaged in outreach and negotiations with the very same groups.
The Pakistani street is thick with questions. My people ask, Is our blood so cheap? Are the lives of our children worthless? Must we fight alone in our region all those that others now seek to embrace? And how long can we degrade our capacity by fighting an enemy that the might of the NATO global coalition has failed to eliminate?
As the United States plans to remove its ground forces from Afghanistan and once again leave our region, we are attempting to prepare for post-withdrawal realities. The international community abandoned Central and South Asia a generation ago, triggering the catastrophe that we now find ourselves in. Whoever comes or goes, it is our coming generation that will face the firestorm. We have to live in the neighborhood. So why is it unreasonable for us to be concerned about the immediate and long-term situation of our Western border? History will not forgive us if we don’t take responsibility.
Where do the United States and Pakistan go from here? We are partners in a world where broadcasts and bombs know no borders. We fight a common menace. We share the same democratic values and dreams for a moderate, modern, pluralistic, democratic South and Central Asia. We jointly appreciate that trade, job creation and manufacturing will dry up conscripts for the extremist banner, yet we never saw Congress approve the Reconstruction Opportunity Zones that were meant to secure vulnerable livelihoods. We are on convergent policy tracks, but our rhetoric has split us onto divergent roads.
The recent accusations against us have been a serious setback to the war effort and our joint strategic interests. It is not as if Pakistanis will stop reclaiming our terrain, inch by inch, from the extremists, even without the United States. We are a tenacious people. We will not allow religion to become the trigger for terrorism or persecution.
But when we don’t strategize together, and when an ally is informed instead of consulted, we both suffer. The sooner we stop shooting verbal arrows at each other and coordinate our resources against the advancing flag of fanaticism, the sooner we can restore stability to the land for which so much of humanity continues to sacrifice.
The writer is president of Pakistan.
Talk to, not at, Pakistan - The Washington Post
By Asif Ali Zardari, Friday, September 30, 8:01 PM
Democracy always favors dialogue over confrontation. So, too, in Pakistan, where the terrorists who threaten both our country and the United States have gained the most from the recent verbal assaults some in America have made against Pakistan. This strategy is damaging the relationship between Pakistan and the United States and compromising common goals in defeating terrorism, extremism and fanaticism.
It is time for the rhetoric to cool and for serious dialogue between allies to resume.
Pakistan sits on many critical fault lines. Terrorism is not a statistic for us. Our geopolitical location forces us to look to a future where the great global wars will be fought on the battleground of ideas. From the Middle East to South Asia, a hurricane of change is transforming closed societies into marketplaces of competing narratives. The contest between the incendiary politics of extremism and the slow burn of modern democracy is already being fought in every village filled with cellphones, in every schoolroom, on every television talk show. It is a battle that moderation must win.
Our motives are simple. We have a huge population of young people who have few choices in life. Our task is to turn this demographic challenge into a dividend for democracy and pluralism, where the embrace of tolerance elbows out the lure of extremism, where jobs turn desolation into opportunity and empowerment, where plowshares take the place of guns, where women and minorities have a meaningful place in society.
None of this vision for a new Pakistan is premised on the politics of victimhood. It pivots on a worldview where we fight the war against extremism and terrorism as our battle, at every precinct and until the last person, even though we lack the resources to match our commitment. When Pakistan seeks support, we look for trade that will make us sustainable, not aid that will bind us in transactional ties. When we commit to a partnership against terrorism, we do it in the hope that our joint goals will be addressed. When we add our shoulder to the battle, we look for outcomes that leave us stronger.
Yet as Pakistan is pounded by the ravages of globally driven climate change, with floods once again making millions of our citizens homeless, we find that, instead of a dialogue with our closest strategic ally, we are spoken to instead of being heard. We are being battered by nature and by our friends. This has shocked a nation that is bearing the brunt of the terrorist whirlwind in the region. And why?
After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the world’s most powerful democracy compromised its fundamental values to accommodate a dictator in Pakistan. Since then we have lost 30,000 innocent civilians and 5,000 military and police officers to the militant mind-set that the U.S. government is now charging that we support. We have suffered more than 300 suicide bomb attacks by the forces that allegedly find sanctuary within our borders. We have hemorrhaged approximately $100 billion directly in the war effort and tens of billions more in lost foreign investment. The war is being fought in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, yet Washington has invested almost nothing on our side of the border and hundreds of billions of dollars on the other side.
We fight an ideology that feeds on brutality and coercion that has taken the lives of our minister for minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, and Gov. Salman Taseer, among thousands of others. And we have seen our greatest leader, the mother of my children, assassinated by a conspiracy that was powered by the same mind-set we are now accused of tolerating.
Both our nations need to learn from history. South and Central Asia is a region of complexity and nuance where mistakes repeat dangerously and where many empires have floundered. In the 10 years that NATO has been in the neighborhood, it has not even attempted to choke the world’s largest production of narcotic contraband that funds terrorist activity. Yet we struggle to hold the line against the tidal wave of extremism that surges into Pakistan each day from internationally controlled areas of Afghanistan. While we are accused of harboring extremism, the United States is engaged in outreach and negotiations with the very same groups.
The Pakistani street is thick with questions. My people ask, Is our blood so cheap? Are the lives of our children worthless? Must we fight alone in our region all those that others now seek to embrace? And how long can we degrade our capacity by fighting an enemy that the might of the NATO global coalition has failed to eliminate?
As the United States plans to remove its ground forces from Afghanistan and once again leave our region, we are attempting to prepare for post-withdrawal realities. The international community abandoned Central and South Asia a generation ago, triggering the catastrophe that we now find ourselves in. Whoever comes or goes, it is our coming generation that will face the firestorm. We have to live in the neighborhood. So why is it unreasonable for us to be concerned about the immediate and long-term situation of our Western border? History will not forgive us if we don’t take responsibility.
Where do the United States and Pakistan go from here? We are partners in a world where broadcasts and bombs know no borders. We fight a common menace. We share the same democratic values and dreams for a moderate, modern, pluralistic, democratic South and Central Asia. We jointly appreciate that trade, job creation and manufacturing will dry up conscripts for the extremist banner, yet we never saw Congress approve the Reconstruction Opportunity Zones that were meant to secure vulnerable livelihoods. We are on convergent policy tracks, but our rhetoric has split us onto divergent roads.
The recent accusations against us have been a serious setback to the war effort and our joint strategic interests. It is not as if Pakistanis will stop reclaiming our terrain, inch by inch, from the extremists, even without the United States. We are a tenacious people. We will not allow religion to become the trigger for terrorism or persecution.
But when we don’t strategize together, and when an ally is informed instead of consulted, we both suffer. The sooner we stop shooting verbal arrows at each other and coordinate our resources against the advancing flag of fanaticism, the sooner we can restore stability to the land for which so much of humanity continues to sacrifice.
The writer is president of Pakistan.
Talk to, not at, Pakistan - The Washington Post
Devil Soul
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 22,931
- Reaction score
- 45
- Country
- Location
US struggles to chart fresh course with Pakistan
Reuters (1 hour ago) Today
WASHINGTON: The White Houses attempts to set a fresh course with Pakistan are being hobbled by bad options, bureaucratic tensions and the desire to avoid severing a vexing but critical relationship.
In the wake of a blunt and public accusation by the top US military officer that Pakistani intelligence supported a militant attack on the US Embassy in Kabul, officials at the Pentagon, State Department and White House are urgently debating an array of unattractive choices.
Washington desperately wants to tighten the screws on the Haqqani network, a militant group U.S. officials say was supported by Pakistans powerful ISI intelligence agency in the embassy attack and in other violence that threatens a smooth US withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Despite mounting exasperation in official Washington, dramatic change in US policy looks unlikely in the short term toward Pakistan.
I dont see that we have a comprehensive new strategy on Pakistan in the works, said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official who advised the highest levels of the Obama administration on regional policy. I think we need one, or at least we need to reshape the one we have.
In the face of Pakistani indignation, the White House and State Department appeared quietly to distance themselves from the remarks by Admiral Mike Mullen, who stepped down this week as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
My understanding of the situation is that senior administration officials agree with Admiral Mullens statements, said Lisa Curtis, a former State Department official and CIA analyst.
But they have not developed a Plan B for dealing with Pakistani malfeasance and that is why they are now walking back Mullens tough statements.
DRONE STRIKES
A bureaucratic turf war continues in the meantime, with the Pentagon defending military-military ties with Pakistan; the State Department pushing reconciliation talks with the Taliban and Pakistan-based militants; the CIA holding onto its contacts with the Inter-Services Intelligence agency; and the US Agency for International Development arguing prosperity will further long-term US interests.
What I keep seeing is that each part of the bureaucracy says weve got to get tougher on Pakistan, but not in my lane, Riedel said. If you take all those things together, where is the pressure?
The only thing that appears to be a virtual certainty in the Obama administrations future policy is an intensification of drone strikes on militants in Pakistans lawless tribal regions. Air operations are not a problem, one US official familiar with US counter-terrorism policy in Pakistan said.
Those drone strikes have had the tacit approval of officials in Islamabad, even though the launchpad for such strikes has shifted to Afghanistan since the US raid that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden deep within Pakistan in May bruised Pakistans military pride.
The US official said the United States has what may be surprisingly good intelligence these days about what militants are doing in Pakistan.
Even with increasing public hostility between Washington and Islamabad, the United States is still able to collect what it considers to be adequate information to continue drone strikes without much hesitation.
Other military options drone strikes on urban areas with greater potential for civilian casualties or bombing raids by manned US aircraft do not appear to have garnered much traction so far.
The bin Laden raids success surely has shaped the debate at the Pentagon, where discussions are led by Defence Secretary Leon Panetta and Michael Vickers, the Pentagons senior intelligence official.
While that raid may have also fueled support in some quarters for further manned US incursions into Pakistan against Haqqani militants or others Pakistan has so far not touched, future US ground operations do not yet appear to be a serious possibility.
NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND
One senior US official told Reuters on Friday Pakistan had been informed there would be no boots on the ground.
Whether Washington will stick to the pledge if push came to shove, and if American intelligence is solid enough, is of course another matter.
Beyond military options, the administration also appears undecided what diplomatic or soft power steps it can take to tighten the screws on Pakistan without creating unacceptable backlash cutting aid perhaps, withholding support at the World Bank or bestowing favors on arch-enemy India.
It has not yet acted on calls from Congress to officially declare the Haqqani network a foreign terrorist group apparently because some US officials still hope the Haqqanis will be part of a peace deal someday.
But talk is growing, Riedel said, of declaring Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism diplomacys nuclear option.
The US government would more likely threaten Pakistan with such a declaration than actually do it, especially since a declaration is hard to undo.
The White House meanwhile appears to be scrambling to lower the temperature enough to give Islamabad room to act.
The point has been made loudly, another US official said. But we recognise there is a risk if the Pakistanis feel like theyve been backed into a corner.
In the end, it may be Congress that takes the most draconian measures. Lawmakers are already proposing to restrict US aid by placing more rigorous conditions on it.
Lawmakers are growing more hostile to Pakistan and especially as they face a budget crunch military aid looks certain to be affected.
Reuters (1 hour ago) Today
WASHINGTON: The White Houses attempts to set a fresh course with Pakistan are being hobbled by bad options, bureaucratic tensions and the desire to avoid severing a vexing but critical relationship.
In the wake of a blunt and public accusation by the top US military officer that Pakistani intelligence supported a militant attack on the US Embassy in Kabul, officials at the Pentagon, State Department and White House are urgently debating an array of unattractive choices.
Washington desperately wants to tighten the screws on the Haqqani network, a militant group U.S. officials say was supported by Pakistans powerful ISI intelligence agency in the embassy attack and in other violence that threatens a smooth US withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Despite mounting exasperation in official Washington, dramatic change in US policy looks unlikely in the short term toward Pakistan.
I dont see that we have a comprehensive new strategy on Pakistan in the works, said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official who advised the highest levels of the Obama administration on regional policy. I think we need one, or at least we need to reshape the one we have.
In the face of Pakistani indignation, the White House and State Department appeared quietly to distance themselves from the remarks by Admiral Mike Mullen, who stepped down this week as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
My understanding of the situation is that senior administration officials agree with Admiral Mullens statements, said Lisa Curtis, a former State Department official and CIA analyst.
But they have not developed a Plan B for dealing with Pakistani malfeasance and that is why they are now walking back Mullens tough statements.
DRONE STRIKES
A bureaucratic turf war continues in the meantime, with the Pentagon defending military-military ties with Pakistan; the State Department pushing reconciliation talks with the Taliban and Pakistan-based militants; the CIA holding onto its contacts with the Inter-Services Intelligence agency; and the US Agency for International Development arguing prosperity will further long-term US interests.
What I keep seeing is that each part of the bureaucracy says weve got to get tougher on Pakistan, but not in my lane, Riedel said. If you take all those things together, where is the pressure?
The only thing that appears to be a virtual certainty in the Obama administrations future policy is an intensification of drone strikes on militants in Pakistans lawless tribal regions. Air operations are not a problem, one US official familiar with US counter-terrorism policy in Pakistan said.
Those drone strikes have had the tacit approval of officials in Islamabad, even though the launchpad for such strikes has shifted to Afghanistan since the US raid that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden deep within Pakistan in May bruised Pakistans military pride.
The US official said the United States has what may be surprisingly good intelligence these days about what militants are doing in Pakistan.
Even with increasing public hostility between Washington and Islamabad, the United States is still able to collect what it considers to be adequate information to continue drone strikes without much hesitation.
Other military options drone strikes on urban areas with greater potential for civilian casualties or bombing raids by manned US aircraft do not appear to have garnered much traction so far.
The bin Laden raids success surely has shaped the debate at the Pentagon, where discussions are led by Defence Secretary Leon Panetta and Michael Vickers, the Pentagons senior intelligence official.
While that raid may have also fueled support in some quarters for further manned US incursions into Pakistan against Haqqani militants or others Pakistan has so far not touched, future US ground operations do not yet appear to be a serious possibility.
NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND
One senior US official told Reuters on Friday Pakistan had been informed there would be no boots on the ground.
Whether Washington will stick to the pledge if push came to shove, and if American intelligence is solid enough, is of course another matter.
Beyond military options, the administration also appears undecided what diplomatic or soft power steps it can take to tighten the screws on Pakistan without creating unacceptable backlash cutting aid perhaps, withholding support at the World Bank or bestowing favors on arch-enemy India.
It has not yet acted on calls from Congress to officially declare the Haqqani network a foreign terrorist group apparently because some US officials still hope the Haqqanis will be part of a peace deal someday.
But talk is growing, Riedel said, of declaring Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism diplomacys nuclear option.
The US government would more likely threaten Pakistan with such a declaration than actually do it, especially since a declaration is hard to undo.
The White House meanwhile appears to be scrambling to lower the temperature enough to give Islamabad room to act.
The point has been made loudly, another US official said. But we recognise there is a risk if the Pakistanis feel like theyve been backed into a corner.
In the end, it may be Congress that takes the most draconian measures. Lawmakers are already proposing to restrict US aid by placing more rigorous conditions on it.
Lawmakers are growing more hostile to Pakistan and especially as they face a budget crunch military aid looks certain to be affected.
Sehar Kamran
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2011
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 0
A vision to reality
Emmie
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2011
- Messages
- 5,756
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
As the United States plans to remove its ground forces from Afghanistan and once again leave our region, we are attempting to prepare for post-withdrawal realities. The international community abandoned Central and South Asia a generation ago, triggering the catastrophe that we now find ourselves in. Whoever comes or goes, it is our coming generation that will face the firestorm. We have to live in the neighborhood. So why is it unreasonable for us to be concerned about the immediate and long-term situation of our Western border? History will not forgive us if we don’t take responsibility.
Excerpt, that might help Indians to understand the situation.
Excerpt, that might help Indians to understand the situation.
Haqqanis don’t divide US and Pakistan
The transcript of US secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s Q&A following the Kumpuris Distinguished Lecture Series at Arkansas on Friday was released by state department in Washington only on Monday after careful vetting, and it becomes an authoritative policy position on the US-Pakistan ties.
It comes just in time for Delhi to assimilate a few stunning geopolitical realities before tuning into Afghan president Hamid Karzai’s ORF Memorial Lecture at the Indian capital on Wednesday.
Unsurprisingly, Clinton strove to bury the war cries and instead carry forward the US’s great reconciliation with Pakistan. She put Pakistan back on its high pedestal as not only the US’ close partner in the war on terror, but as “critical” for the “ongoing stability and peace in the region.” Clinton paid fulsome praise to Pakistan for the high sacrifices it is making in the war on terror — more than the US’s own, in fact.
Shockingly, Clinton made it a point to take note that Pakistan lives in a “very difficult security enviornment”, characterised amongst other things by its “deep concerns about India”, which of course places Washington in a “challenging position” – defined, presumably, by the US’ own regional concerns and strategies as well as its so-called “indispensable partnership” with India.
Equally intriguing was Clinton’s admission that US is as much responsible for the Haqqani network’s existence today as Pakistan could be. She sensitises the American opinion by even produced a YouTube to underscore the legitimacy of the Pakistani allegation that the US did encourage it to hobnob with the Haqqanis, who were once America’s blue-eyed boys. She clarified, inter alia, that she is not condoning still the “serious, grievous, strategic error” by Pakistan in supporting the Haqqanis, who are like a “wild animal in the backyard.”
Interestingly, Clinton doesn’t spell out what precisely the US now expects Pakistan to do vis-a-vis Haqqanis — except to say Islamabad should “prevent any attacks against us [US troops] emanating from Pakistan.” Does she want Pakistan to smash up the Haqqanis and erase them out of the AfPak region? She doesn’t say so. Does she say US won’t have any truck with Haqqanis? She doesn’t say so. In fact, by acknowledging that Haqqanis were once US’s valued interlocutor, she implied that they can as well be so again in future. Put plainly, US wants Pakistan to domesticate the “wild animal”.
The hard reality is that the US has got Haji Malik Khan, Sirajuddin Haqqani’s uncle and the ‘brain’ of the Haqqani network in its custody for almost a week by now, and there is no need to second guess that the CIA interrogators and state department’s diplomats have already begun “engaging” the Haqqanis. Clinton’s words of gratitude, hailing Pakistan as a factor of regional security and stability, is timely.
Time for Delhi to ponder what is there in all this for India’s interests? Maybe, Karzai will explain the art of the possible. Or, maybe, Marc Grossman, US’s special representative, who is visiting the Indian capital this week, will comfort our policymakers and and advice them to let bygones be bygones (such as those murderous attacks on the Indian mission in Kabul) and gently accept the fait accompli in the larger interests of the US-India “indispensable partnership” of the 21st century.
The moment of truth has arrived in the 10-year old US invasion of Afghanistan, which Delhi euphorically welcomed in October 2001. The then PM A.B. Vajpayee, in fact, said that it was going to be the best Diwali he ever had in his life — since India’s “natural ally” was taking up habitation in the region. Read Clinton’s Q&A here.
Posted in Politics.
Haqqanis don’t divide US and Pakistan - Indian Punchline
The transcript of US secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s Q&A following the Kumpuris Distinguished Lecture Series at Arkansas on Friday was released by state department in Washington only on Monday after careful vetting, and it becomes an authoritative policy position on the US-Pakistan ties.
It comes just in time for Delhi to assimilate a few stunning geopolitical realities before tuning into Afghan president Hamid Karzai’s ORF Memorial Lecture at the Indian capital on Wednesday.
Unsurprisingly, Clinton strove to bury the war cries and instead carry forward the US’s great reconciliation with Pakistan. She put Pakistan back on its high pedestal as not only the US’ close partner in the war on terror, but as “critical” for the “ongoing stability and peace in the region.” Clinton paid fulsome praise to Pakistan for the high sacrifices it is making in the war on terror — more than the US’s own, in fact.
Shockingly, Clinton made it a point to take note that Pakistan lives in a “very difficult security enviornment”, characterised amongst other things by its “deep concerns about India”, which of course places Washington in a “challenging position” – defined, presumably, by the US’ own regional concerns and strategies as well as its so-called “indispensable partnership” with India.
Equally intriguing was Clinton’s admission that US is as much responsible for the Haqqani network’s existence today as Pakistan could be. She sensitises the American opinion by even produced a YouTube to underscore the legitimacy of the Pakistani allegation that the US did encourage it to hobnob with the Haqqanis, who were once America’s blue-eyed boys. She clarified, inter alia, that she is not condoning still the “serious, grievous, strategic error” by Pakistan in supporting the Haqqanis, who are like a “wild animal in the backyard.”
Interestingly, Clinton doesn’t spell out what precisely the US now expects Pakistan to do vis-a-vis Haqqanis — except to say Islamabad should “prevent any attacks against us [US troops] emanating from Pakistan.” Does she want Pakistan to smash up the Haqqanis and erase them out of the AfPak region? She doesn’t say so. Does she say US won’t have any truck with Haqqanis? She doesn’t say so. In fact, by acknowledging that Haqqanis were once US’s valued interlocutor, she implied that they can as well be so again in future. Put plainly, US wants Pakistan to domesticate the “wild animal”.
The hard reality is that the US has got Haji Malik Khan, Sirajuddin Haqqani’s uncle and the ‘brain’ of the Haqqani network in its custody for almost a week by now, and there is no need to second guess that the CIA interrogators and state department’s diplomats have already begun “engaging” the Haqqanis. Clinton’s words of gratitude, hailing Pakistan as a factor of regional security and stability, is timely.
Time for Delhi to ponder what is there in all this for India’s interests? Maybe, Karzai will explain the art of the possible. Or, maybe, Marc Grossman, US’s special representative, who is visiting the Indian capital this week, will comfort our policymakers and and advice them to let bygones be bygones (such as those murderous attacks on the Indian mission in Kabul) and gently accept the fait accompli in the larger interests of the US-India “indispensable partnership” of the 21st century.
The moment of truth has arrived in the 10-year old US invasion of Afghanistan, which Delhi euphorically welcomed in October 2001. The then PM A.B. Vajpayee, in fact, said that it was going to be the best Diwali he ever had in his life — since India’s “natural ally” was taking up habitation in the region. Read Clinton’s Q&A here.
Posted in Politics.
Haqqanis don’t divide US and Pakistan - Indian Punchline
Meengla
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 7,735
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
So where was the 'natural alliance' for decades after WWII? I thought India was a 'democracy' from 1947 onwards but that did not stop America from arming and grooming Pakistan to the point that Pakistan could not only hold its own conventionally but managed to acquire the nukes.
I know, I know, it was the threat of 'communism' and so Pakistan was better.
So what if now it is the Chinese threat for America? But this time Pakistan can't be yanked away from China; and hence India is a 'natural ally'.
Pakistan today has just as much democracy, freedom of expression and association, and free media as India. Short of some 'Blasphemy' and 'Islam' related issues you can do anything you want--or at least as much as you can do so in India. So why not Pakistan be the 'natural ally' then?
In short, because America's strategic goals in the region are better served by India now. This 'natural ally' and 'alliance of democracies' is a hogwash.
Devil Soul
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 22,931
- Reaction score
- 45
- Country
- Location
US Presidential candidate warns Pak of very serious consequences 'Islamabad playing both sides in Afghansitan'
Submitted 3 hrs 15 mins ago
Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney is talking tough on Pakistan, accusing Islamabad of playing both sides in the war in Afghanistan.
The former Massachusetts governor told New Hampshire voters that it's unacceptable that Pakistan is going after the Taleban within its borders in some cases and helping it in others.
"It's pretty straight forward to say, 'Listen guys, you can't play both sides of this game. You've got to decide if you're with us or with them,'" he said during a campaign stop. "'If you're with them, that will have a very significant consequence. If you're with us, that's very good thing.'"
Romney did not clarify what that consequence might be.
The comments are among his toughest regarding Pakistan and represent a departure from his position the last time he ran for president four years ago.
US Presidential candidate warns Pak of very serious consequences 'Islamabad playing both sides in Afghansitan' | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online
Submitted 3 hrs 15 mins ago
Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney is talking tough on Pakistan, accusing Islamabad of playing both sides in the war in Afghanistan.
The former Massachusetts governor told New Hampshire voters that it's unacceptable that Pakistan is going after the Taleban within its borders in some cases and helping it in others.
"It's pretty straight forward to say, 'Listen guys, you can't play both sides of this game. You've got to decide if you're with us or with them,'" he said during a campaign stop. "'If you're with them, that will have a very significant consequence. If you're with us, that's very good thing.'"
Romney did not clarify what that consequence might be.
The comments are among his toughest regarding Pakistan and represent a departure from his position the last time he ran for president four years ago.
US Presidential candidate warns Pak of very serious consequences 'Islamabad playing both sides in Afghansitan' | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online
sachin@india
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2011
- Messages
- 739
- Reaction score
- -1
Pakistan should pray that Republican loose the election. They are hardliners and pro India.
Riseup
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 30, 2011
- Messages
- 155
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Another Idiot.... in the line of idiots... Bush, Obama ... might be Romney...
Now I can understand the real pain of US public.... what public wants and what leaders want to deliver them.... hua..
Protest Against (Whatever) Coming to Washington, D.C., on Thursday | CNSnews.com
Up to two million march to US Capitol to protest against Obama's spending in 'tea-party' demonstration | Mail Online
Abu Zolfiqar
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 22,555
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
Before Lashing Out, U.S. and Pakistani Intel Reached Out to Insurgent Group
Page 2: U.S., Pakistan Struggle With Haqqani Insurgents, Each Other - ABC News
Page 2: U.S., Pakistan Struggle With Haqqani Insurgents, Each Other - ABC News
Riseup
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 30, 2011
- Messages
- 155
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
US allegations against Pakistan ‘appalling’, says Hussain Haroon
KARACHI: Pakistan’s permanent envoy to the United Nations, Abdullah Hussain Haroon, on Thursday criticised the US government for ignoring Pakistan’s sacrifices in the war against terrorism and declared allegations against the country as ‘appalling’, DawnNews reported.
During his interview to an American media outlet, Haroon credited Pakistan as a ‘savior’ which pulled the US out from the ‘Vietnam war swamp’ and vowed that his country would do the same in the ongoing war in Afghanistan.
The envoy said Pakistan had put an all out effort in the long war in Afghanistan.
He said Pakistan’s role would be vital in restoring peace in Afghanistan as Pakistan’s problems would not be resolved until there was stability in the neighbouring country.
Haroon reminded that the US and Pakistan enjoyed friendly ties for over 60 years and that it was a Pakistani plane which took former US President Henry Kissinger to the negotiating table in Vietnam.
“Pakistan brought US close to China and now China fully supports US views at international fora and is critical for America’s economy,” said Haroon.
Haroon blamed former US President Ronald Reagan for ‘conceiving’ the Taiban and the Haqqani network in the White House.
He blamed the Afghan leadership for Pakistan’s weakened ties with US and Afghanistan.
US allegations against Pakistan ‘appalling’
KARACHI: Pakistan’s permanent envoy to the United Nations, Abdullah Hussain Haroon, on Thursday criticised the US government for ignoring Pakistan’s sacrifices in the war against terrorism and declared allegations against the country as ‘appalling’, DawnNews reported.
During his interview to an American media outlet, Haroon credited Pakistan as a ‘savior’ which pulled the US out from the ‘Vietnam war swamp’ and vowed that his country would do the same in the ongoing war in Afghanistan.
The envoy said Pakistan had put an all out effort in the long war in Afghanistan.
He said Pakistan’s role would be vital in restoring peace in Afghanistan as Pakistan’s problems would not be resolved until there was stability in the neighbouring country.
Haroon reminded that the US and Pakistan enjoyed friendly ties for over 60 years and that it was a Pakistani plane which took former US President Henry Kissinger to the negotiating table in Vietnam.
“Pakistan brought US close to China and now China fully supports US views at international fora and is critical for America’s economy,” said Haroon.
Haroon blamed former US President Ronald Reagan for ‘conceiving’ the Taiban and the Haqqani network in the White House.
He blamed the Afghan leadership for Pakistan’s weakened ties with US and Afghanistan.
US allegations against Pakistan ‘appalling’
Abu Zolfiqar
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 22,555
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
interesting....
good he brought up Vietnam
good he brought up Vietnam
Similar threads
