US Poised to Attack Extremists in FATA

[Majnun]

US problem should be solved by the politicians, and militants problem by the soldiers.
We're up against both.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Part of the problem is that the US has gotten used to coordinating directly with the military, and given the essentially 'one man rule' of Musharraf, has been able to get its policies implemented quicker, to a large degree.

But as this article posted by Muse elsewhere, the policies of Gen. Kiyani and other developments related to the Army suggest, the military has decided to remove itself from the scene and leave the decisions to the elected representatives, necessitating a change of tact from the US.

Outgoing Gen. McNeill's expressions of frustration at the inability to meet with Kiyani, and his berating of the newly elected GoP was essentially his lack of ability to understand how the dynamics had changed within Pakistan. To a large degree the frustration seen currently from the US side is an extension of that incapability to understand the shifting tide in Pakistan.

Working with coalition governments that have to answer to the electorate come election time is a painstaking process, far more arduous than dealing with an autocrat, and without taking into account the constraints on the Pakistani side (the constraints of the political parties in terms of what the electorate demands), current US policy is only going to make a bad situation worse.

Subtle, behind the scenes 'carrots and pressure' is really the only way I see forward that does not destabilize the situation.

‘Army’s withdrawal from politics is strategic’​

By Anwar Iqbal


WASHINGTON, July 22: The Pakistan Army’s withdrawal from politics is strategic and not tactical and it will not return to politics unless there’s a crisis in the country, scholars said at a seminar in Washington.

“The army realises that the last years have hurt the institution badly,” said Shuja Nawaz, the author of a recent book on the Pakistan Army. “They are out and they want to stay out.”

The discussion on US-Pakistan military ties was held against the backdrop of the recent increase in attacks on US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan. The speakers also noted that Pakistan grappled with its own burgeoning Taliban insurgency in the tribal borderlands.

Such developments, they noted, had created new challenges for US-Pakistan military ties.

They said that more aggressive coalition counter-insurgency tactics in eastern Afghanistan were bringing US troops closer to the border with Pakistan and the situation required ever closer communication and joint efforts to strengthen counter-terrorism cooperation.

The organisers, the Heritage Foundation, pointed out that the US frustration with an entrenched terrorist safe haven in Pakistan’s tribal areas and lack of faith in the efficacy of Pakistani negotiations to deal with the problem “also are creating misunderstanding and crossed wires.”

In this charged atmosphere, what are the future prospects for addressing terrorism challenges on a joint basis? Should the US shift its strategy vis-à-vis Pakistan? What can be expected from Pakistan in the near and long-term? How can both sides build trust in each other and strengthen the chances of overall success against the terrorist scourge in South Asia? These were some of the questions the speakers addressed in their presentations.

David Smith, a senior director for Pakistan at the Office of the US Undersecretary of Defence, highlighted a change in Islamabad, saying that the Pakistani policy makers now realise the need to coordinate their defence needs with economic developments and are willing to spend more on social projects.

He disagreed with the suggestion that the Afghans were getting tired of the US military presence in their country. “I have not seen any indication that the tolerance for US presence is decreasing,” he said.

Mr Smith also disagreed with another suggestion that the weapons given to Pakistan for fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda will be used against India. The US military assistance to Pakistan cannot bring any significant changes to the conventional balance of power in South Asia, he said. “Besides, the 2006 joint statement also talked about meeting Pakistan’s genuine defence needs,” he added.

The US official rejected the suggestion that Pakistan was protecting the Taliban so that it can use them to fight its war in Kashmir.

“Whatever utility anyone thought they had is false,” he said. “They are a threat to the Pakistani army, they are a threat to the Pakistani government and they are a threat to the Pakistani nation.”

Mr Smith insisted that the militants had established a safe haven in Pakistan’s tribal areas and were using it to attack US and coalition forces in Afghanistan.

“We will not rest until that goal (of destroying the militant groups) is achieved,” he declared.

Mr Nawaz, who is the younger brother of Gen Asif Nawaz Janjua, the 10th army chief, emphasised the need for the United States to expand its ties with Pakistan and reach out to democratic forces.

“The United States should move away from the what-you-have-done-lately- for-us approach,” he said. “If the Americans insist on dealing with the military alone and on ignoring the politicians, it will hurt US interests in Pakistan.”

Mr Nawaz noted that the new army chief, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, has categorically assured Pakistan’s new rulers that they army has no plan to return to politics. “Now it is up to the politicians to ensure that the country is not plunged into yet another crisis because if there is a crisis, the army may come back,” he warned.

Mr Nawaz advised the new government to “take difficult but useful decisions, so that the army learns to respect you.”

‘Army’s withdrawal from politics is strategic’ -DAWN - National; July 23, 2008

Everything else aside, I thing its an extremely positive move for the Army to disengage from politics and policy selection in the WoT.

The people of Pakistan need to have ownership of this war for it to succeed, and they can only do that is the GoP is seen as running the show, not the military.

 

[ejaz007]

The Government has decided to hold talks in FATA rather than carrying out military operation. This was decided in yesterdays meeting of the coalition partners. US will be monitoring the new development closely and weighing its own options more aggressively.

Lets wait and see what happens. August and September are going to be crucial.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"We have been told in very clear terms that the Bush administration wanted the political government to take charge of all national policies, take decisions and organise itself without fear or what others may be thinking or saying and Washington will back them," a senior diplomat in Washington said on Wednesday.

The timeframe to test out the new leadership in Pakistan and to give them political space is broadly being mentioned as six months to one year in which the Americans will patiently try to work with the civilian government, modifying their habit of issuing orders to military rulers who in turn would issue orders and get things done.

But the administration would emphasise that decisions regarding the war on terror should be taken keeping the interests of Pakistan's allies, their views and goals in view and every party must be consulted and taken into confidence on these decisions.

While top US military, intelligence and government leaders are repeatedly making their positions clear, including their annoyance at failure of Pakistan to deal with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Fata, and press for more military action, there is a sort of resigned acceptance that if a dialogue with the militants can produce positive results, the new government should be provided the space to try this option.

"Washington is telling us clearly that they are not interested in Pakistan's domestic affairs but there is a growing expectancy that the new government should exercise its authority over major domestic issues, including the economy and domestic terrorism," Pakistani sources here say.

US overcomes Musharraf phobia to support new set-up

If Sehbai is correct, then this is a good move by the US - settling down to work with the civilian government, and trying to remove the perceptions that it would wink and look the other way if a 'coup' took place.

Lets see what comes out of Gillani's meeting with Bush though, especially since a decision was made yesterday by the coalition to attempt talks in FATA (with whom though? Not the TTP and Mehsud I hope!)

 

[batmannow]

Afghan Surge Could Start in Weeks
July 17, 2008
Associated Press WASHINGTON -

Pentagon leaders on July 16 signaled a surge in U.S. forces in Afghanistan "sooner rather than later," a shift that could send some units there within weeks, as officials prepare to cut troop levels in Iraq.
Senior military officials are looking across the services to identify smaller units and other equipment that could be sent to Afghanistan, according to a defense official.

Although there are no brigade-sized units that can be deployed quickly into Afghanistan, military leaders believe they can find a number of smaller units such as aviation, engineering and surveillance troops that can be moved more swiftly, said the official, who requested anonymity because the discussions are private.

The moves are expected to happen within weeks rather than months, the official said.

The decisions are being made against the backdrop of shifting priorities for the U.S. military, and were discussed during a meeting Wednesday of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Military leaders are weighing requests from commanders in Afghanistan for more troops, aircraft and other assistance. And they are trying to determine the right balance between the needs of the force in Iraq, versus troops in Afghanistan who are facing a Taliban resurgence.

To date, the fight in Afghanistan has taken a back seat to Iraq, which has been the strategic priority. While Iraq will remains the top goal, it now appears the military believes there should be a more urgent emphasis on Afghanistan than there has been.

Faced with an increasingly sophisticated insurgency, particularly along Afghanistan's border with Pakistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that sending more troops would have a significant impact on the violence.

"I think that we are clearly working very hard to see if there are opportunities to send additional forces sooner rather than later," Gates told Pentagon reporters. But, he added that no final decisions or recommendations have been made.
His comments suggested an acceleration in what had been plans to shift forces there early next year. And they came as the political discourse on Afghanistan as a key military priority escalated on both Capitol Hill and the presidential campaign trail.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who recently returned from meetings with commanders in Afghanistan, said they clearly want more troops now.
"It's a tougher fight, it's a more complex fight, and they need more troops to have the long-term impact that we all want to have there," said Mullen, who also met last week with Pakistani leaders.

The Pentagon has been wrestling with how to provide what they say is a much needed military buildup in Afghanistan, while they still have 150,000 troops in Iraq. Gates and Mullen have repeatedly said they would have to reduce troop levels in Iraq before they could dedicate more forces to Afghanistan.
Mullen, who was in Iraq last week, told reporters that he is likely to recommend further troop reductions there this fall. He said he found that conditions in Iraq had improved more than he expected.

"I won't go so far as to say that progress in Iraq from a military perspective has reached a tipping point or is irreversible - it has not, and it is not," Mullen told a Pentagon press conference.
"But security is unquestionably and remarkably better. Indeed, if these trends continue I expect to be able early this fall to recommend to the secretary and the president further troop reductions," he said.

The military buildup in Iraq that began more than 18 months ago has ended, now that the last of the five additional combat brigades sent in by President Bush last year has left the country.
Its departure marks the end of what the Pentagon called the "surge." And it starts the 45-day evaluation period that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Congress he would need to assess the security situation and determine how many more troops he could send home
Neither Gates nor Mullen would detail how they intend to juggle the military requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they spoke more aggressively about meeting Afghan needs more quickly.
Gates said commanders are looking at moving forces around to take advantage of a small boost in French troops expected in Afghanistan. But he ruled out rolling back some of the promises the Pentagon made to soldiers limiting their deployments to 12 months.
"I think we're looking at a variety of options on how to respond here," Gates said. "I will tell you that I have sought assurances that there will be no return to longer-than-12-month deployments, so that's not something we're considering."
Also, he said he is not aware of any plans to extend the deployments of any U.S. troops currently there.

Gates and Mullen also has strong words for Pakistan, saying Islamabad must do a better job preventing Taliban and other insurgents from crossing the border into Afghanistan to wage attacks.
The absence of pressure from the Pakistanis, Gates said, is giving militants a greater opportunity to penetrate the porous mountain border. He said the key is to further convince the Pakistani government that their country is also at great risk from the insurgents.

Gates said it is an exaggeration to say that the border problems have escalated into a war between Pakistan and Afghanistan. And he also dismissed as untrue suggestions that the U.S. is massing troops along the border preparing to launch attacks into Pakistan.

His comments came as U.S. troops abandoned a remote outpost in eastern Afghanistan where militants killed nine of their comrades this week in a large, coordinated attack. Elsewhere in the frontier region, NATO launched artillery and helicopter strikes in Pakistan after coming under insurgent rocket fire, officials said.
There are currently 36,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, including 17,500 with the NATO-led force, and 18,500 who are fighting insurgents and training Afghan forces. © Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

I think Pakistan should take the matter in hand more seriously.

If more troops from the US arrive and if there is more kills by the terrorists, then the US may hae to take matters in its own hands to appease their domestic audience and that would not be conducive for Pakistan or Pakistani politics.

Musharraf is having the last laugh!

 

[batmannow]

I think Pakistan should take the matter in hand more seriously.

If more troops from the US arrive and if there is more kills by the terrorists, then the US may hae to take matters in its own hands to appease their domestic audience and that would not be conducive for Pakistan or Pakistani politics.

Musharraf is having the last laugh!

washingtonpost
Civilian Airstrike Deaths Probed
78 Have Died in Three Incidents This Month Alone, Afghan Officials S
By Candace Rondeaux
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, July 25, 2008;

KABUL -- U.S. and NATO military officials in Afghanistan have launched investigations into three separate U.S.-led airstrikes that Afghan officials say killed at least 78 civilians this month.
The investigations come during what U.N. and Afghan officials say is one of the deadliest years for civilians since the war began. In the first six months of this year, the number of civilians killed in fighting has increased by nearly 40 percent over the same period last year, according to U.N. data.

"We have seen a number of occurrences lately where a large number of civilians have been killed. It would be fair to say that this year so far there has been an increase in the number of civilians killed by all sides," said Dan McNorton, a spokesman for the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.

More than half of those killed in the three recent U.S.-led airstrikes -- which occurred in a three-week span in three provinces in eastern and western Afghanistan -- were women and children, according to Afghan and Western officials. In one case, about 47 women and children in a wedding party were killed.

The death toll from Western airstrikes has renewed political furor over foreign military operations in Afghanistan as the Taliban insurgency is intensifying.

NATO protocols require high-level approval for airstrikes when civilians are known to be in or near Taliban targets. Military officials say fighters with the insurgent group commonly take up positions in civilians' homes, mosques or schools -- increasing the chances of civilian casualties. Those casualties, in turn, help the Taliban win the sympathies of locals and draw new recruits.
The first airstrike under investigation took place July 4 in Zoomia Bala village in the eastern province of Nurestan. Two U.S. helicopters unleashed missiles and gunfire on a pair of vehicles fleeing an area near a NATO and Afghan military base shortly before an attack, according to a confidential cable about the incident sent by the E.U. delegation in Kabul to its member states. At least 16 civilians were killed, according to Afghan media reports and interviews conducted with the E.U. delegation. Nurestan's governor, Tamim Nuristani, said at the time that 22 civilians were killed. He was fired by Karzai days after making the claim.

The second airstrike, which took place the morning of July 6 in the eastern province of Nangahar, claimed the lives of members of the wedding party, according to Afghan and Western officials. A Western official in Afghanistan familiar with details of the aerial assault, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the inquiry is ongoing, said U.S. forces dropped bombs on the party as it traveled through a wide, open area, where presumably it would have been easier for the air attack coordinator or the pilot to determine whether those in the party were civilians, not Taliban fighters. Nader Nadery, a commissioner with the government-funded Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, agreed, saying that even though the commission's investigators had found that a few men may have been traveling with the wedding party, the presence of women and children should have been clear.
"In large Afghan weddings, women typically wear big green chadors or big red chadors. Their clothes are shiny for the celebration," Nadery said.
The third incident occurred Sunday in the western province of Farah. At least eight Afghan police officers were killed in the district of Ana Darreh when a convoy of U.S. and Afghan soldiers mistakenly called in an airstrike on the officers' location, according to a statement issued by U.S. military officials immediately after the attack.
Last week, Karzai visited the site of the wedding-party bombing and spoke with grieving relatives of those killed. A spokesman for Karzai said this week that the Afghan president continues to talk with NATO officials about progress on the investigation and efforts to minimize civilian casualties from airstrikes.

"We are working very closely with our international friends. We would like the incidences of civilian casualties brought to an absolute minimum," said the spokesman, Humayun Hamidzada.

An estimated 698 civilians were killed in the first six months of this year, compared with 430 during the same period last year, the United Nations says. Of those, 255 were killed by NATO forces.

According to a count in a forthcoming report from Human Rights Watch, airstrikes alone have been responsible for 119 civilian deaths this year.
Civilian casualties from airstrikes are a particularly prevalent issue in a war where low NATO troop numbers on the ground combine with difficult and in some areas impassable terrain to create a heavy dependency on air power. Western and Afghan officials agree that the growing reliance on air cover has in some cases served to undermine the public image of the NATO mission in Afghanistan.

"It's an easy tool for the hands of the Taliban. Whenever there's an airstrike, the first person who calls and gives exaggerated numbers and information is the Taliban spokesman," Nadery said. "That certainly feeds into the negative feelings that Afghans have about foreign forces operating here." Mark Laity, a spokesman for NATO in Afghanistan, said the coalition is working hard to adhere to the strict protocols on airstrikes. He said Taliban propaganda on civilian casualties has been effective.
"If we don't drop a bomb, they win because they're protected and can remain in the area. If we do drop a bomb and there are civilian casualties, then they win because they can say that we are here to rape, pillage and plunder," Laity said.
Investigations into the three airstrikes could take months to complete.



Staff researcher Julie Tate in Washington contributed to this report.

SO, this is the way, how SO CALLED COLATION... forces fought the " WAR OF TERROR"

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

I am also having the last laugh!

You All thought MUsharraf was a fool.

He was the dole saviour!

 

[sunny_aus]

Another War: Is the US Preparing To Attack Pakistan? ​

Thursday July 17, 2008

Eric Margolis

The U.S. military has grown used to attacking small, weak nations like Grenada, Panama, and Iraq. Pakistan, with 163 million people, and an inadequately equipped but very tough 550,000-man army, will offer no easy victories. Those Bush Administration officials who foolishly advocate attacking Pakistan are playing with fire. Pakistan’s army officers who refuse to be bought may resist a U.S. attack on their homeland. The war will revive the old plan of chopping off Pakistan’s tribal region to merge it with Afghanistan. ​

The Bush Administration may be preparing to lash out at old ally Pakistan, which Washington now blames for its humiliating failures to crush al-Qaeda, capture its elusive leaders, or defeat Taliban resistance forces in Afghanistan.

One is immediately reminded of the Vietnam War when the Pentagon, unable to defeat North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong forces, urged invasion of Cambodia.

Sources in Washington say the Pentagon is drawing up plans to attack Pakistan’s "autonomous" tribal region bordering Afghanistan. Limited "hot pursuit" ground incursions by U.S. forces based in Afghanistan, intensive air attacks, and special-forces raids into Pakistan’s autonomous tribal region are being evaluated.

This weekend, the U.S. national intelligence chief and other intelligence spokesmen confirmed that strikes against "terrorist targets" in Pakistan’s tribal belt are increasingly possible. These warnings were designed to both further pressure Pakistan’s beleaguered strongman, President Pervez Musharraf, into sending more troops to the tribal areas to fight his own people, and to prepare U.S. public opinion for a possible widening of the Afghanistan war into Pakistan.

Pakistan’s 27, 200 sq km tribal belt, officially known as the Federal Autonomous Tribal Area, or FATA, is home to 3.3 million Pashtun tribesmen. It has become a safe haven for al-Qaeda, Taliban, other Afghan resistance groups, and a hotbed of anti-American activity, thanks mostly to the U.S.-led occupation of Afghanistan which drove many militants across the border into Pakistan. Osama bin Laden is very likely sheltered in this region, as U.S. intelligence claims. [Editor’s Note: Likely, but as much likely to be anywhere else too.]

I spent a remarkable time in this wild, medieval region during the 1980’s and 90’s, traveling alone where even Pakistani government officials dared not go, visiting the tribes of Waziristan, Orakzai, Khyber, Chitral, and Kurram, and meeting their chiefs, called "maliks."

These tribal belts are always referred to as "lawless." Pashtun tribesmen could shoot you if they didn’t like your looks. Rudyard Kipling warned British Imperial soldiers over a century ago, when fighting cruel, ferocious Pashtun warriors of the Afridi clan, if they fell wounded, "save your last bullet for yourself."

But there is law: the traditional Pashtun tribal code, Pashtunwali, that strictly governs behavior and personal honor. Protecting guests was sacred. I was captivated by this majestic mountain region and wrote of it extensively in my book, "War at the Top of the World."

Pakistan’s Pashtun number 28–30 million, plus an additional 2.5 million refugees from Afghanistan. Pashtuns, one of the British Indian Army’s famed "martial races," occupy many senior positions in Pakistan’s military, intelligence service and bureaucracy, and naturally have much sympathy for their embattled tribal cousins in Afghanistan. The 15 million Pashtun of Afghanistan form that nation’s largest ethnic group and just under half the population.

The tribal agency’s Pashtun joined newly-created Pakistan in 1947 under express constitutional guarantee of total autonomy and a ban on Pakistani troops ever entering there.

But under intense U.S. pressure, President Pervez Musharraf violated Pakistan’s constitution by sending 80,000 federal troops to fight the region’s tribes, killing 3,000 of them. In best British imperial tradition, Washington pays Musharraf $100 million monthly to rent his sepoys (native soldiers) to fight Pashtun tribesmen. As a result, Pakistan is fast edging towards civil war.

The anti-Communist Taliban movement is part of the Pashtun people. Taliban fighters move across the artificial Pakistan-Afghanistan border, to borrow Maoism, like fish through the sea. Osama bin Laden is a hero in the region, and likely shelters there.

The U.S. just increased its reward for bin Laden to $50 million and plans to shower $750 million on the tribal region in an effort to buy loyalty. Bush/Cheney & Co. do not understand that while they can rent President Musharraf’s government in Islamabad, many Pashtun value personal honor far more than money, and cannot be bought. That is likely why bin Laden has not yet been betrayed.

Any U.S. attack on Pakistan would be a catastrophic mistake. First, air and ground assaults will succeed only in widening the anti-U.S. war and merging it with Afghanistan’s resistance to western occupation. U.S. forces are already too over-stretched to get involved in yet another little war.

Second, Pakistan’s army officers who refuse to be bought may resist a U.S. attack on their homeland, and overthrow the man who allowed it, Gen. Musharraf. A U.S. attack would sharply raise the threat of anti-U.S. extremists seizing control of strategic Pakistan and marginalize those seeking return to democratic government.

Third, a U.S. attack on the tribal areas could re-ignite the old irredentist movement to reunite Pashtun parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan into an independent state, "Pashtunistan." That could begin unraveling Pakistan, leaving its nuclear arsenal up for grabs, and India tempted to intervene.

The U.S. military has grown used to attacking small, weak nations like Grenada, Panama, and Iraq. Pakistan, with 163 million people, and a poorly equipped but very tough 550,000-man army, will offer no easy victories. Those Bush Administration officials who foolishly advocate attacking Pakistan are playing with fire.

Pakistan News Service - PakTribune

Presence of US led coalition forces in Afghanistan is on the invitation of democratically elected Karzai government which is recognised by UN. Mr Hamid Karzai is prime minister of Afghanistan by a proper voting process in Afghanistan, not by the use of gun as Taliban were ruling in Afghanistan before.

Pakistan has two choices right now.

1. Either Pakistan would take responsibilities if anything happens in Afghanistan from by the militants who are Pakistani nationals, residents of NWFP or of any other part of Pakistan, and the pak government would keep accepting that a level of interference in Afghanistan is being done from the side of Pakistan.

Or

2. Pakistan would either be able to remove any type of militancy growing inside the Pakistan or as a responsible member of UN and having close friendship with US and western countries, Pakistan wont hesitate to ask US and other friend countries for any type of help, including military operations in certain areas of Pakistan where the Pakistan government would need some help to fight with militants.

I would like to ask one question here, if Pakistan may use arms of US including aircrafts then why Pakistan can’t take any military help of US (or use US military to remove militants) for few certain areas of Pakistan only?????

Yes for the honour of a nation, it may be done is such a way that US military is doing the work of Pakistan under the orders of top Pakistani Kernels and Brigadiers.

What I mean that, if there is a problem which may cause serious threats in future, then it would be solved without any excuses.

 

[sunny_aus]

Does US consider Pakistan a friend at all? Atleast i don't think so. US is bent on to destabilize Pakistan first covertly and now openly. So while we have a talban threat going on inside, we have another one rising on the border. That is why i mentioned in my previous post, that at this stage we need to set our priorities straight and be clear about, "who are we up against" The US or the tailban or perhaps both.

Now days it is said that world can’t be completed without nuclear deal between India and US. And here, I may add that world can’t really be completed without a similar type of nuclear deal (of little more or less benefits as compare to Indo-US) between US and Pakistan also.

As it clear that this type of deal will not only give a type of nuclear security to non NPT signatory countries India, Pakistan and Israel (the only 3 non NPT signatory countries) but also a level of interference of International Nuclear Inspectors will be established in these countries which will result in a more confident world structure.

A US-Pak nuclear deal will not only maintain a type of reputation of Pakistan as compare to India but also it will create a certain level of understanding between US and Pakistan which will finally result in a better progress of Pakistan and thus, a combined progress of whole South Asia region

 

[sunny_aus]

What would happen to US if she attacks Pakistan? We being a front line ally in WoT prevented repetition of atleast two major attacks a la 9/11 on US soil by providing intelligence.
Who's going to protect America and her citizens if she loses a friend like Pakistan?

Neo, brother I have seen few people who are very honest and of pretty good behaviour but if even 50paisa get dropped from their pocket on the ground, they think it’s a very less money why bother to pick it from the ground. I think, Pakistan has to think one time that the nation wont really be insulted if US led forces conduct any type of certain level of military operations in certain areas of Pakistan, under the control and superiority of Pakistani military.

Here it is worth saying that, I don’t say that whatever I’m saying is right. Learning process continues whole life and I would also get opportunities to learn something if I ever said anything which was wrong. If there is something in my statements which I may improve then I will certainly try to.

Also, if I say anything which may hurt feeling of any member of PDF then I must get atleast one chance to apologize to those who didn’t like my any of the statements . Thanks

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Originally Posted by Neo View Post
What would happen to US if she attacks Pakistan? We being a front line ally in WoT prevented repetition of atleast two major attacks a la 9/11 on US soil by providing intelligence.
Who's going to protect America and her citizens if she loses a friend like Pakistan?

Neo,

That is an odd statement that who will protect the US if Pakistan is no longer a friend.

Are you suggesting that Pakistan is the source of international terrorism?

The same terrorists are gnawing at the innards of Pakistan itself and the GoP are combating them.

 

[Neo]

Gilani hits back, cites US failure in Afghanistan​

WASHINGTON, July 30: Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has rebuffed demands for unilateral US action against suspected terrorist targets inside Fata, saying that such strikes further complicate an already difficult situation.

“We can do it ourselves,” Mr Gilani told a joint meeting of two Washington think-tanks, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Middle East Institute, on Tuesday night. He, however, added that Pakistan wanted better cooperation with the United States to share intelligence about foreign militants who moved freely across the rugged Pakistan-Afghan border.

The prime minister rejected the suggestion that Pakistan had failed to curb terrorism in Fata. He noted that despite having “all sophisticated weapons they need,” the US forces in Afghanistan also had failed to eradicate militancy from the areas under their control.
“If we are not able to control them, you are not able to control them (either),” he said.

Mr Gilani insisted that Pakistan was “no one’s surrogate” in the fight against extremists. “We are fighting to save the soul of our homeland.”

When asked about the federal government’s lack of control over the tribal areas, the prime minister responded that all elected senators from that region supported him.

Mr Gilani also rejected the suggestion that the ISI was not under his control. He insisted that he had direct control over the agency which would now follow his instructions. “And now I am responsible for whatever they do.”

He recalled that during the Afghan war the US supported the spy agency and it preferred to deal with military rulers.

America’s sudden withdrawal from Afghanistan, he said, “created vacuum in the region” which allowed militants to establish themselves.

Talking about his meetings with President Bush and with Republican and Democratic candidates for the 2008 US presidential election, Mr Gilani said all these leaders had assured him that they supported the new democratic dispensation in Islamabad and wanted to help establish democracy in the country.

The prime minister told the audience that Pakistan expected a similar nuclear deal from the United States that it had offered to India.

“There should be no preferential (treatment), there should be no discrimination. And if they want to give civilian nuclear status to India, we would expect the same for Pakistan too,” he said.

Mr Gilani said that the Khan network was no more active, when a questioner suggested that because of the activities of this network Pakistan cannot be offered a nuclear deal.

“Certainly it cannot happen again and that chapter is over. The network is broken,” said Mr Gilani. He said that the civilian government in Islamabad wanted to have good relations with India, was working for enhancing bilateral trade and would like to resolve all issues, including the “core issue” of Kashmir.

On Kashmir, Mr Gilani said: “They (the United States) should encourage and support this issue. That means only they can understand,” but refrained from asking Washington to play the role of a mediator.

However, when pressed by president of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haas on whether Washington should appoint a special envoy or play a high-visibility or mediatory role, Mr Gilani quipped: “Actually what the United States really want, they can do it.”

Although the prime minister’s formal address was a well-prepared document, which successfully presented Pakistan’s case in the war against terror, balancing domestic concerns with its international obligations, the question-answer session was a different story.

Apparently, the prime minister had come to the meeting without proper briefing and preparations.

It was obvious that the format was difficult for him. And it did not help that the CFR president conducted the meeting.

The method he used – a combination of wit and probe – could have shaken even a seasoned speaker and had the desired effect on the prime minister as well. Later, some in the audience observed that the prime minister’s team had failed him.

A PPP enthusiast suggested that “this was a conspiracy to make the prime minister look bad”.

Others saw no conspiracy but they, too, appeared unhappy.

Gilani hits back, cites US failure in Afghanistan -DAWN - Top Stories; July 31, 2008

 

[JK!]

I read that earlier and Gilanis statement is spot on.

If the forces of ISAF can't defeat the taliban why expect us too.

 

[Neo]

I read that earlier and Gilanis statement is spot on.

If the forces of ISAF can't defeat the taliban why expect us too.

Its time they stop blaming us for their failures and join in hands to defeat terrorism which's become enemy nr 1 for both US and Pakistan. Let them deliver new military gagets and technology to help us assist ISAF in hot persuit of militants crossing border and reduce colateral damage at our side.