What's new

US puts its faith in Pakistan's military

ajpirzada

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
6,011
Reaction score
11
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

ISLAMABAD - Abdullah Abdullah, who this week withdrew from the presidential election runoff in Afghanistan, thereby handing victory to the incumbent, Hamid Karzai, did so under pressure from the United States, Asia Times Online has learned.

In exchange for the pullout of the non-Pashtun Abdullah, Pakistan's military has agreed to actively mediate between Washington and the Taliban over a reconciliation plan that will allow the US to exit from Afghanistan, as it is doing in Iraq, with a semblance of success.

A senior Pakistani diplomat involved in backchannel negotiations on Pakistan, Afghanistan and US relations told Asia Times Online




on the condition of anonymity that the deal over Abdullah, whom Islamabad considers to be pro-India, was made during the three-day visit to Pakistan last week of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Apart from other senior officials, Clinton met with the chief of army staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani, and the director general of Inter-Services Intelligence, Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha. It was agreed that all US-led negotiations with Abdullah, which included offering him the position of chief executive officer of Afghanistan, would stop, and Karzai would get full backing for a second five-year term.

It was also acknowledged that Washington's political leadership, like the Pentagon, now accepts that the Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan is best tackled with contact between the Pakistan armed forces and the Taliban, and not by the political governments of the region.

Clinton's visit came at a crucial time as Pakistan is engaged in a battle against the Pakistani Taliban and other militants; if it fails, there will be a cascading effect in the whole region and a sure defeat of American interests in Afghanistan.

In this context, Clinton supported Pakistan's vision of Afghanistan, that Abdullah's participation as a major player in the government would be detrimental to the cause of dialogue with the Taliban. Clinton also played a major role in India's decision to pull out its forces from the Pakistan-India border near Kashmir. This allows the Pakistan army to concentrate on its fight against al-Qaeda in the Pakistani tribal areas. The army assured Clinton it would broaden this fight in the coming months.

These developments dramatically unfolded at a juncture when there was clear hostility between the Pakistani armed forces and Washington on the issue of conditions attached to the Kerry-Lugar aid package for Pakistan that was approved in the US last month.

The package, which Senator John Kerry Kerry co-authored with Senator Richard Lugar, triples non-military aid to Pakistan to an annual outlay of US$1.5 billion for five years. The Pakistani army has expressed "serious concerns" about "clauses impacting on national security". The civilian government has hailed the package.

The army is concerned about conditions relating to the non-intervention of the Pakistan armed forces in political affairs and clear guarantees over nuclear non-proliferation and action against proliferators.

In confidential correspondence between the office of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff committee of the armed forces and the Office of the President, the forces called the bill "a conspiracy against the national security of Pakistan".

Prior to her visit, Clinton categorically voiced her support for the democratic Pakistan government and strongly supported the conditions attached to the bill, and, taking a tilt at the military, said that if Pakistan did not like it, it had the option to refuse the package.

Unlike the American military establishment, which has developed a close relationship with Pakistan's military establishment, the American political leadership has tended to view Pakistan's political administration as the real force in the country in the period following the end of the military rule of Pervez Musharraf in August last year.

The military decided, according to diplomatic sources who spoke to Asia Times Online, that Clinton's visit was a good opportunity for it to impress on her the importance of the men in uniform, and that without the support of the army, any political administration is a lame duck.

The "lesson" began when Clinton arrived in the capital, Islamabad. The Office of the President advised the Office of the Prime Minister to receive her at the airport, along with cabinet members. But Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gillani, who is clearly bracketed with the military establishment, refused, saying such protocol was reserved for a head of state.

Similarly, at a reception at the presidential residence in Islamabad, President Asif Ali Zardari wanted the cabinet lined up to meet Clinton, which members did, except for Gillani, who said it was "against his decorum".

And once Clinton sat down with the military bosses, it was made clear she was talking to the real players; she ended up speaking for hours with Kiani, and the meeting endorsed the role of the Pakistan army from Islamabad to Kabul in the coming months.

Setback for Zardari
After what appeared to be a start full of hope after becoming president last September, Zardari's star has faded in the garrison town of Rawalpindi, as well as in Washington.

In 2007, as a result of a Washington-brokered deal between former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and then-president Musharraf under which he pardoned all corruption cases against Zardari and Bhutto (Zardari's wife), Musharraf signed a National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO). This paved the way for Zardari and Bhutto to return to politics. The NRO, which was due to be presented in parliament this month for approval or rejection as a constitutional act, has come under heavy fire from all quarters.

The biggest setback to the ruling Pakistan People's Party came from its main ally, the Muttehida Quami Movement, the only real anti-Taliban and pro-American political party in the country. In a very humiliating way, it advised Zardari to step down as president and face the courts.

As a result, Zardari decided not to present the NRO in parliament and to let the courts, already hostile to Zardari, decide the fate of the ordinance.

The events playing out now between Zardari and the army are similar to those between Musharraf and the army in his final days before he stepped down last August.

Musharraf, who had resigned as chief of army staff in November 2007, picked Kiani to replace him. But after election results in February 2008 went against Musharraf's allies, Kiani distanced himself from Musharraf. Musharraf, being supreme commander of the armed forces by the virtue of being president, twice tried to change the chief of army staff.

In May 2008 and then in April, he urged the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff committee, General Tariq Majeed, to hold both positions, but Tariq refused, saying it would be detrimental to the interests of the army. Kiani then replaced Musharraf's personal security staff with his own. Musharraf got the message, that he had lost his constituency in the army, and resigned in August.

After Zardari became president, he tried to make Kiani a personal friend. He reportedly extended business favors to two of his brothers and feted Kiani with lunches and dinners. This did not go down well with the corps commanders, who criticized the military chief for his closeness to the president.

However, a real breakup emerged after the military felt that Zardari was working as a stand-alone operator on issues of national policies. At this point, they decided to clip his wings.

The army prevented an alliance between the Quaid-i-Azam, a breakaway faction of the Pakistan Muslim League, and the Pakistan People's Party to topple the Nawaz Sharif-led government in Punjab province. Sharif, a former premier, is a leading opponent of Zardari.

In March, when an opposition rally started from Lahore to besiege Islamabad to demand the restoration of the chief justice, Ifikhar Mohammad Chaudhary, who had been sacked by Musharraf, Zardari urged Kiani to control the situation with the army. He refused and prevailed on the prime minister to order the restoration of Chaudhary when the rally was still only half way to Islamabad.

Now, given the latest cooperation between Washington and General Headquarters Rawalpindi, the next step is to further erode Zardari's power by passing some of it to parliament, or even forcing his departure from office.

Very much as the US watched on while Musharraf departed, Washington is ready to see Zardari sidelined. This is in the realization that the army is the last hope for Pakistan to deliver the goods in the Afghan conflict.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com

(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KK06Df02.html
 
Last edited:
.
After reading this post I concur this.

That Democratic process is a way to fool people, other wise it is discussed and action taken by twisting arms. if this stands true in the case of Abdullah, Abdullah. Though I am not in favor of Tajiks ruling the Majority pashtuns and this also is not democratic, than why is Democracy any different than dictatorship.

So when Indians boast about democracy it is just to fool us than to tell us that Democracy or not, it is all the same. Control by powerful people
 
.
After reading this post I concur this.

That Democratic process is a way to fool people, other wise it is discussed and action taken by twisting arms. if this stands true in the case of Abdullah, Abdullah. Though I am not in favor of Tajiks ruling the Majority pashtuns and this also is not democratic, than why is Democracy any different than dictatorship.

So when Indians boast about democracy it is just to fool us than to tell us that Democracy or not, it is all the same. Control by powerful people

Democracy is that Indians Change Governments at their will.
NOT that Our Military Rules on US.

Military Rule is equivalent of "Imprisonment" you cant say a word.. You Dont Choose Who rule on You.

Yes, Powerful people do affect the democracy, but Fundamentally in India under RTI, even I can ask what My PM what did he do the previous day n why , were did he spent his money, using my Income Tax ! And He is Bound to Reply by Law !

Thats the power of democracy.
 
. .
I respect Syed Saleem Shahzad, but before we should believe in this tale there should be confirmation from a U.S. source; the Pakistani dip may be trying to create the impression that the U.S. committed to something that it did not, so as to create the impression later when the U.S. denies it that the U.S. acted in bad faith.

A pretty snarky way of putting pressure on the Obama Administration. But by serving as such a willing vehicle Syed Saleem Shahzad does ensure he will be invited back for further hot tips and stories.
 
.
Going by the article, I feel its perfect time to twist Washington's arm to our terms.
.

:blink: What more could you want?

If the article is accurate you have clinton doing a show piece with parliment then doing the actual negotiations with the army.

The US position being we will block the Indian candidate Pakistan can do what they like in Afghanistan just tell the Taliban to take a year off so we can say things are working and get out.

What else do you expect a squadron of 35's and the keys to the reserve bank?
 
.
From Wiki:

Syed Saleem Shahzad is the Pakistan Bureau Chief of Asia Times Online (Hong Kong). He writes on global security issues, Pakistani armed forces, Islamic movements and Muslim resistance movements in Lebanon and Iraq. Taliban and Al-Qaeda are the regular topics of his writing [1]. He is an international journalist who travelled to Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, Germany, UK, USA, Lebanon, UAE, Thailand and Syria. He also occasionally writes for publications like Le Monde Diplomatique (France), La Stampa (Italy) and Dawn (Pakistan). He is South Asia Correspondent for Italian news agency Adnkronos International (AKI)[2] and writes features for the largest Indian news agency Asian News International (ANI). His opinion pieces appear in Qatar-based Islamonline.net.

Saleem's writings have great influence in the region. His work is regularly reproduced in Pakistani English dailies like Daily Times, Nation and The Post, beside in Urdu newspapers like Mashriq Peshawar and Aaj Peshawar. Many English dailies of Afghanistan and Bangladesh, beside local language dailies, reproduce his articles. His work is often quoted in the Indian press.

Saleem is an associate of the Pakistan Security Research Unit of the department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford. In November 2006 he was held in Taliban captivity in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan for a few days, along with his interpreter. He wrote a detailed account of his days in captivity and time he spent with the Taliban in a series, "In the Land of the Taliban" published in Asia Times Online (Asia Times Online :: Asian news hub providing the latest news and analysis from Asia).

Saleem is also known for his in-depth research articles which often reveal facts which have not been reported by other news agencies and are difficult to corroborate or verify.

Syed Saleem Shahzad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_____________________________________

Obviously someone wanted this spin on things out there. This is just like a New York Times "leak" during the Bush years, except, here, to serve the PA and/or Afghan Taliban agenda, I suppose. Most likely it has some measure of truth to it. But, also, lot's of spin .... Hard to know which is which.
 
.
What else do you expect a squadron of 35's and the keys to the reserve bank?

Please spare us the mead from your heaven, we are but unworthy people. I can only ask for so much.
This is the second time US has put faith in Pak military. What I meant was for US to set its policy straight. Time for quid pro quo.
And the wishlist for Black Friday is:
1. Acknowledge Indian involvement in NWFP, Balochistan and Afghanistan and take counter measures.
2. Acknowledge Pakistan and India on an equal footing.
3. Arbitrate to resolve Kashmir issue.
4. Control CIA, Mossad, RAW and RAMA acting detrimental to the interests of Pakistan.

For the time being I can only think of few aforementioned things, still that's quite a wishlist though.

:pakistan:
 
.
Please spare us the mead from your heaven, we are but unworthy people. I can only ask for so much.
This is the second time US has put faith in Pak military. What I meant was for US to set its policy straight. Time for quid pro quo.
And the wishlist for Black Friday is:
1. Acknowledge Indian involvement in NWFP, Balochistan and Afghanistan and take counter measures.
2. Acknowledge Pakistan and India on an equal footing.
3. Arbitrate to resolve Kashmir issue.
4. Control CIA, Mossad, RAW and RAMA acting detrimental to the interests of Pakistan.

:pakistan:


1. Aknowledgement of Indias involvment will follow soon after Pakistan provides the evidence, seeing you have 5 truck loads of that i cant see how this is a problem. Please deliver the evidence as soon as posible before it is acidently lost or destroyed.

2. The Indian candidate just got the boot so i think it sould be India complaining they deserve equal treatment not Pakistan.

3. Aint ever happening, the US has seen what a nightmare getting involved in local disputes is, ( see Palestine ) you gat all the blame when nothing improves, one side complainss your iterfeering the other complains you arent doing enough both end up hating you for doing what they asked you to in the first place.

4. Funding of good psychiatric services is the only thing that will ever stop people beliving there is an american jewish hindu conspiracy.

The US is on your side, the Israli's have enough problems to worry about, sorry to dent your ego but Pakistan would be so low down the list of Mosad priorities at the moment you probably rate a small in tray and an intern.
India is your problem Raw is going to continue to opperate in Pakistan as long as every time a sparrow farts a dozen articles appear blaming it all on India. Learn to get on with India and RAW can get on with concetrating on China.
 
.
Syed Saleem Shahzad has deep links with the jihadis which allow him to get many scoops. This also means he has to present their viewpoints as much as possible.
 
.
After reading this post I concur this.

That Democratic process is a way to fool people, other wise it is discussed and action taken by twisting arms. if this stands true in the case of Abdullah, Abdullah. Though I am not in favor of Tajiks ruling the Majority pashtuns and this also is not democratic, than why is Democracy any different than dictatorship.

So when Indians boast about democracy it is just to fool us than to tell us that Democracy or not, it is all the same. Control by powerful people

Yes military dictatorship is the way to go :cheers:
 
.
Democracy is that Indians Change Governments at their will.
NOT that Our Military Rules on US.

Military Rule is equivalent of "Imprisonment" you cant say a word.. You Dont Choose Who rule on You.

Yes, Powerful people do affect the democracy, but Fundamentally in India under RTI, even I can ask what My PM what did he do the previous day n why , were did he spent his money, using my Income Tax ! And He is Bound to Reply by Law !

Thats the power of democracy.

Are u kidding me, Democracy works only to please the powerfull for votes in next elections.

There would have been no Babri mosque had there been milatry rule, in Army there is a dicussions based on facts without pleasing any one as there are lives on line if they make dicisions based on personal gains.

They Army rule would have not allowed samjhota train to happen as it would have not stood for disgruntled and inept soldiers and would have taken actions to difuse the situation by not only firing those but keeping an eye on them.

Milatry would have, had they been in power to not allow attacks on its own people's holy place such as Darbar sahib, as they would have studied the impact it will take on its minority group and would have tried ngotiations instead. Indra Gandhi went over board due manily to her inability to forsee the consequences, but milatry would have calculated the impact it will have. I know that u will mention red mosque, from what I understand from the facts, Mushraf started listening to civilians who were looking for blood, he should have stayed with milatry dicipline and acted as a milatry commander and not listen to these nincompoops.

Gujrat would have never happened as the Army would have gotten rid of likes of bal thackerey. Who used extremists by his prejudicial speaches and created an environment of anger among gaulible and thugs.

Politicians are shifty and never tell the truth they please the gaulibles and answer to please them and never do the right thing, lie and cheat to win the end game of elections. on the other hand Army has to, because lives depend on their dicision.

It was milatry ruler who brought freedom to the press in Pakistan as during his rule we have more than 30 tv chalels, comapratively during rule by politicians rule, there was only one GOP chanel controlled by them.

Lahore was same old same old as long as pak was ruled by politicians , only marginal development, during Army rule the city has changed to an international cosmopolitan city and sky line has changed tremendously for the better. there are so many high rises that the Lahore of yesterday is gone and Lahore of today is a modern city.


It were always the milatry chiefs who went to India to discuss problems, politician never did it as they never wanted peace and were motivated by the greed of power and the not in peace, have no guts and courage to talk about peace, as they were and are not intrested in saving lives but in politics.

See it is the dicipline that makes milatry better than politicians as they know the facts about life and death, but politicians are only interested in re-elections and human lifes and facts means niothing to them.

When you ask questions to a politicians he will be motivated by his desire to win votes in next elections, whereas an Army answer will be based on truth and facts as he knows the consequences could cost lives.

So diciplined people would be better rulers as they will think of consequences as compare to polticians who would be interested only in re-election and not in saving lives.

So Indians think clearly and bring in Army for once and u will see lots of good actions rather than continous bickering and minimal progress. I am sure had Army been there, India would have progressed much more, Indian will never know till they never tried it.

Let me tell you, try it you will like it, and don't knock it till you try it.
 
Last edited:
.
US should have put its faith in Pakistan Military a long time ago to have solved the Afghan problem today. But having an ever green shoot-first-act-later bedrock policy, the US now is scratching its head on what the Pakistan Army did right in Swat and SWA while they have been failing and banging their collective ISAF heads in Afghanistan without even getting any results until today!
 
.
Yes military dictatorship is the way to go :cheers:

Democracy by some famous Westerners

Some snippets of wisdom from their own mouths.
George Bernard Shaw - Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the few.
Oscar Wilde - Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people.
HL Mencken stated that Democracy is also a form of religion it is the worship of jackals by jackasses.
 
Last edited:
.
great idea - lets try it one more time in Pakistan first - see if it works this time.

Are u kidding me, Democracy works only to please the powerfull for votes in next elections.

There would have been no Babri mosque had there been milatry rule, in Army there is a dicussions based on facts without pleasing any one as there are lives on line if they make dicisions based on personal gains.

They Army rule would have not allowed samjhota train to happen as it would have not stood for disgruntled and inept soldiers and would have taken actions to difuse the situation by not only firing those but keeping an eye on them.

Milatry would have, had they been in power to not allow attacks on its own people's holy place such as Darbar sahib, as they would have studied the impact it will take on its minority group and would have tried ngotiations instead. Indra Gandhi went over board due manily to her inability to forsee the consequences, but milatry would have calculated the impact it will have. I know that u will mention red mosque, from what I understand from the facts, Mushraf started listening to civilians who were looking for blood, he should have stayed with milatry dicipline and acted as a milatry commander and not listen to these nincompoops.

Gujrat would have never happened as the Army would have gotten rid of likes of bal thackerey. Who used extremists by his prejudicial speaches and created an environment of anger among gaulible and thugs.

Politicians are shifty and never tell the truth they please the gaulibles and answer to please them and never do the right thing, lie and cheat to win the end game of elections. on the other hand Army has to, because lives depend on their dicision.

It was milatry ruler who brought freedom to the press in Pakistan as during his rule we have more than 30 tv chalels, comapratively during rule by politicians rule, there was only one GOP chanel controlled by them.

Lahore was same old same old as long as pak was ruled by politicians , only marginal development, during Army rule the city has changed to an international cosmopolitan city and sky line has changed tremendously for the better. there are so many high rises that the Lahore of yesterday is gone and Lahore of today is a modern city.


It were always the milatry chiefs who went to India to discuss problems, politician never did it as they never wanted peace and were motivated by the greed of power and the not in peace, have no guts and courage to talk about peace, as they were and are not intrested in saving lives but in politics.

See it is the dicipline that makes milatry better than politicians as they know the facts about life and death, but politicians are only interested in re-elections and human lifes and facts means niothing to them.

When you ask questions to a politicians he will be motivated by his desire to win votes in next elections, whereas an Army answer will be based on truth and facts as he knows the consequences could cost lives.

So diciplined people would be better rulers as they will think of consequences as compare to polticians who would be interested only in re-election and not in saving lives.

So Indians think clearly and bring in Army for once and u will see lots of good actions rather than continous bickering and minimal progress. I am sure had Army been there, India would have progressed much more, Indian will never know till they never tried it.

Let me tell you, try it you will like it, and don't knock it till you try it.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom