PKPolitics Discuss » Current Issues

Who Will Blink First: Islamabad or Washington?

(65 posts)
  1. Who Will Blink First: Islamabad or Washington?

    By Salman Masood

    September 25, 2011 "The National" -- ISLAMABAD // A barrage of accusations by senior US officials that the Pakistani army and its spy agency support militants targeting American troops in Afghanistan has further frayed an already shaky alliance.

    On Thursday, Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, accused Pakistan's spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), of directly aiding the militant Haqqani network in the September 13 attack on the US embassy in Kabul.

    He also alleged they were involved in a September 10 lorry bomb attack that injured 77 Americans at a base in Wardak province.

    Adm Mullen has described the Haqqani network as a "veritable arm" of the ISI.

    The US defence secretary, Leon Panetta, hinted on Thursday that the country might take unilateral action against the Haqqani network. He said he did not think the Pakistanis "would be surprised by the actions we might or might not take", without giving any details.

    The accusations and veiled warnings were met with defiance by Pakistani officials.

    Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the Pakistani army chief, said that the US allegations were "not based on facts" and denied that ISI supports the Haqqani network.

    Gen Kayani said that "Admiral Mullen knows fully well which countries are in contact with the Haqqanis".

    The Haqqanis are based in North Waziristan, the north-west Pakistani tribal region straddling the border with Afghanistan.

    But their influence extends to the Paktia, Paktika and Khost provinces of Afghanistan.

    Estimated to have 10,000 to 15,000 fighters, the Haqqani network is described by the US as its most potent foe in the region.

    Pakistanis say that they have little operational control over the Haqqanis, who have allegiance to Mullah Muhammed Omar, the Taliban leader.

    Pakistan has consistently balked at US demands to launch a military operation in North Waziristan, fearing a fierce blowback inside the country.

    But the Haqqani network is also seen as a counterweight available to Pakistanis to any future Indian influence in Afghanistan once US troops leave the region. Pakistani officials and analysts say that as the US efforts against the Taliban have faltered in Afghanistan, it has started to use Pakistan as a scapegoat for its own failures.

    "You cannot afford to alienate Pakistan," Hina Rabbani Khar, the Pakistani foreign minister, said in New York last week on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session.

    "If they are choosing to do so, it will be at their own cost," Ms Khar said, adding that "anything which is said about an ally, about a partner, publicly to recriminate it, to humiliate it, is not acceptable".

    Pakistani Islamist opposition politicians have also condemned the American threats.

    "The US is planning to launch an attack on Pakistan on the pretext of hot pursuit. The Haqqani network and ISI relation is a mere drama to materialise its plan," said Qazi Hussain Ahmed, a former leader of Jamaat-e-Islami, the country's oldest religious political party.

    Analysts view the verbal spats as both sides scrambling to have better leverage over the other.

    "The US and Pakistan are engaged in a game of high-stakes brinkmanship as they battle to secure an Afghanistan endgame to their own favour," said Arif Rafiq, an analyst based in Washington.

    "A real rupture is possible, especially if US forces enter Pakistani territory by helicopter or land and engage in hostilities with Pakistani forces."

    Omar R Quraishi, op-ed page editor of The Express Tribune, a Karachi-based English daily newspaper, agreed that the current standoff with the US "is the worst in living memory" and warned that it "does not augur well for Pakistan, not only in military terms but also in economic terms".

    "The Americans have laid their cards out on the table and, at the very least, expect Pakistan to take measures to neutralise Haqqani network's ability to strike at American and Nato forces," Mr Quraishi said.

    Mr Rafiq said that "despite US pressure, the Pakistani military is unlikely to sever ties with the Haqqani network 10 years into a war that is close to its end".

    He added: "The recent Kabul attacks contribute to the Afghan insurgents' strategic advantage.

    "Why wouldn't the Pakistani military continue to place its bets on the stronger horse?

    "Washington is likely to be the first to blink as it can't afford sustained conflict with Islamabad.

    "All-out hostility with Islamabad could result in greater militant attacks in Afghanistan and an upsurge in nationalist sentiment in Pakistan, emboldening military hardliners and perhaps even threatening the civilian politicians Washington hopes will eventually supplant the military.

    "Washington's options vis-à-vis Islamabad are limited."

    With Pakistan-US relations ebbing to a new low, Mr Rafiq offered a grim prognosis.

    "The Obama administration's Pakistan policy is in total disarray," he said.

    "It now risks having to police an Afghan civil war as it faces the spectre of another recession at home in an election year."

    Despite the public sparrings, Gen James Mattis, head of the US Central Command, arrived in the country late on Friday to hold talks with Gen Kayani.

    foreign.desk@thenational.ae

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29204.htm

    Posted 8 months ago on 26 Sep 2011 12:57 #
  2. sultanalikhan
    Member

    @Mirza Ghalib.....you do have a valid question, and I must admit you put it nicely, but I don't think it is easy for anyone to answer it correctly....only time will tell!!!

    Posted 8 months ago on 26 Sep 2011 14:07 #
  3. Thanks, SultanAliKhan. Sure, time alone will tell who gives in first, if that is what it´s all about, i.e. brinkmanship. For the moment, all we can say with any certitude is that after long weeks of silence, Pakistan has finally begun taking a stand. And so far, personally, I can´t fault any of the spokesmen for the firmness with which they have rejected all US accusations levelled against us for now.

    Posted 8 months ago on 26 Sep 2011 14:53 #
  4. shamwariz
    Member

    Both are eyes and ears of same body will always blink together

    Posted 8 months ago on 26 Sep 2011 14:56 #
  5. scandinavian
    Member

    Yes, finally we are no yes-men any longer or is it once a again a **** kushti?

    I don't know but I doubt it is **** kushti this time. From the time the Yankees entered our neighborhood I knew their real aim was something different than teaching Taliban a lesson in Afghanistan. This is becoming clear to even our establishment now - hence the stand they have taken, but only time will tell the full truth. Our leaders have betrayed us so many times that sometimes it's hard to tell what is right and what is wrong.

    Posted 8 months ago on 26 Sep 2011 15:12 #
  6. shamwariz
    Member

    I bet it is **** kushti...
    you will come to know just in one week...

    its all about some srtings attached to military aid to pakistan. once those strings will be bit loosen by USA it will all be basha bahsa pasha pasha.

    USA says go against haqqani Army wants more money. USA saying if you dont go against we put ristriction to aid.

    this is all wat is game about...

    Posted 8 months ago on 26 Sep 2011 15:16 #
  7. bsobaid
    Member

    Zardari met with Chinese ambassador last week in his presidential office. This week we heard their vice PM is visiting. There is lots of aania jaania of army and civilian leadership. I am guessing all these are happening more to avert the crisis and the mediating role of Saudia and China and etc rather than gathering support against US strike inside Pakistan, although this could be a side point..

    I seriously doubt there will be a battle between the two. I think ISI, GHQ will promise to launch an internal investigation to apprehend ISI operatives who allegedly supported Kabul attacks and Haqqani group. There probably wont be a big operation in N.Waziristan but Haqqani group will be stopped one way or ther other to move their base from Pakistan. This will be done either by expansion of drone attacks, some army action or negotiation.

    The biggest issue is stoppage of military aid to Pakistan.

    Posted 8 months ago on 26 Sep 2011 15:17 #
  8. shamwariz
    Member

    its all about some srtings attached to military aid to pakistan. once those strings will be bit loosen by USA it will all be basha bahsa pasha pasha.

    USA says go against haqqani Army wants more money. USA saying if you dont go against we put ristriction to aid.

    this is all wat is game about...

    Posted 8 months ago on 26 Sep 2011 15:19 #
  9. bsobaid
    Member

    It is also interseting to see a group of our media darling who just loves to see war. Orya Maqbool, Hameed Gul, Ansar Abbasi etc if you read their articles and statements you will notice they all just love war.

    All their talks are about a war between India and Pakistan or Pakistan and USA or Afghanistan and USA and how islamic forces will defeat kuffar forces and all that.

    It almost looks like these people love war and cant wait for the day when F16s are flowing over the skies and air attacks and ambush assaults are all happening.

    This is really sickening.

    On the other hand, we all hav seen Indian FM statements and how happy and excited they are at the deterioirating relations between Amreeka and Pakistan and any possibility of an armed conflict. India always does that whenever they is such a situation in Pakistan but these amn kee asha idiots just wont stop their non-stop utopian propaganda.

    Posted 8 months ago on 26 Sep 2011 15:26 #
  10. If Pakistan really wanted to confront US then 2001 was the best time. But still Pakistan can give good fight alongwith civilians fighting with Pakistani forces provided our leadership specially Military leadership remain firm.

    If you could remember Saddam was also quite well prepared in intial stage of war for long and tough fight. And if there would have been no betrayals from senior Military leadership then US would have to face stiff resistance from brave Arab fighters.

    Pakistan is far better than Iraq. Our forces are famous for their brave fighting skills and they are also very well equipped and self reliant, thanks to sanctions in nineties. So we can give good fight provided our military leadership remains firm.

    Economy is the problem of only Elite and Upper Middle Class. Majority of Pakistanis are poor and villagers so economy is not their big concern. They can live without many things which strong economy provides. These poors can provide good foot soldiers. So I would say come on America we are waiting for you. May Allah give real strength to our Military leadership.

    FAZA-E-BADAR PAIDA KAR FARISHTAY TERI NUSTRAT KO
    UTTAR SAKTAY HAIN GARDOON SAY KATAR ANDAR KATAR AB BHI.

    Posted 8 months ago on 26 Sep 2011 18:02 #
  11. spruce
    Member

    @pak47

    agreed with u, poor people have no concern wether it is war or peace their life will remain same also keep in mind pakistan never fought a war for the benifit of their own country but always made happy to yankees after getting huge ammount $dollars,they killed ZAB,BB because they wanted strong pakistan. if now our brave army is woke up this is too late now, they should knew that who is friend and enemy for them.

    no matter poor people will defend their land with injured heart along with army. but they are asking so many question that you people hanged zab because america wanted that....u people could not safguarded BB because america wnated to eliminate her.

    Posted 8 months ago on 26 Sep 2011 18:35 #
  12. bsobaid
    Member

    Poor people have lots of concern when there is war, more than rich people because when there is war or law and order situation they cant find their deehari or work and they and their families sleep hungry. Also, if any of them get injured or sick, they cant afford health cost. Also, there is a higher chance of poor people sons getting used in war than rich and then their old parents and big family is left helpless under the sky to die. Just go and ask any Afghan or pakhtoon.

    Posted 8 months ago on 26 Sep 2011 19:16 #
  13. Are We At War With Pakistan? 26.9.11

    As one US journalist writes: Today no one is shocked by Admiral Mullen’s testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that we are, for all intents and purposes, already at war with Pakistan:

    “There is ample evidence confirming that the Haqqanis were behind the June 28th attack against the Inter-Continental Hotel in Kabul and the September 10th truck bomb attack that killed five Afghans and injured another 96 individuals, 77 of whom were U.S. soldiers. History teaches us that it is difficult to defeat an insurgency when fighters enjoy a sanctuary outside national boundaries, and we are seeing this again today."

    I´ll skip the rest of the article and simply say: stuff and nonsense. We´ve been at war for ten years already. Only now their real intentions are no longer hidden but wholly out in the open.

    Posted 8 months ago on 26 Sep 2011 21:35 #
  14. Top Chinese security official visits Pakistan amid tensions with Washington - 26.9.11

    China’s top security official visited Pakistan Monday in an effort to strengthen ties with a country whose relationship with the United States is growing more tenuous by the day.

    Pakistani officials and commentators have been talking up their country’s relationship with Beijing, with some suggesting it could one day replace the United States as Islamabad’s main foreign benefactor.

    China’s Public Security Minister Meng Jianzhu was met by his Pakistani counterpart, Interior Minister Rehman Malik, who brushed aside questions on the timing of the visit.

    Posted 8 months ago on 26 Sep 2011 21:41 #
  15. aftab arif
    Member

    Continuing with their real intentions...

    US Senator Mark Kirk said Monday that the Haqqani network was taking action with the help of the ISI.

    Senator Mark Kirk who sits on the Senate subcommittee responsible for international aid argued that military assistance to Pakistan should be eliminated. Kirk said that aid should be tied to concrete steps by the Pakistani government, including allowing American strikes within the country.

    Kirk also suggested turning over responsibility for Afghanistan to India. “India has a strong interest in an Afghanistan that is not a terror base,” Kirk said.

    http://www.geo.tv/9-26-2011/86752.htm

    The cat is out of the bag, but let's see if our Military can take a stand and not capitulate, this is an opportunity for the Military, to right some of the wrongs that they have committed, over the last 60 years.

    Posted 8 months ago on 26 Sep 2011 21:43 #
  16. bsobaid
    Member

    ok, now this can cause a war

    "“India has a strong interest in an Afghanistan that is not a terror base,” "

    Posted 8 months ago on 26 Sep 2011 21:55 #
  17. aftab arif
    Member

    @ bsobaid

    That's what they wanted from the beginning, i think we should be openly talking about cutting off the supply line.

    Posted 8 months ago on 26 Sep 2011 22:02 #
  18. stingingnettle
    Member

    You need a quality leadership at the top to keep its eyes open through challenging times. The joke that is the political leadership in Pakistan, has probably got its eyes closed to avoid having to deal with the problem. You cannot do business with a leadership that lacks spine and integrity.

    Posted 8 months ago on 26 Sep 2011 22:03 #
  19. aftab arif
    Member

    'US, Pakistan honeymoon over'

    http://presstv.com/detail/201320.html

    Posted 8 months ago on 26 Sep 2011 22:27 #
  20. aftab arif
    Member

    Did the Taliban assassination of Berhanuddin Rabbani, the Chairman of the Afghan High Peace Council, bring a potentially permanent end of peace talks in Afghanistan?

    You would have to believe that, based on media coverage of the event. The New York Times reported that the assassination had "struck a body blow to the peace process", and that theme dominated almost every story. Most stories included quotes from Rabbani supporters such as one in the Times article declaring: "The peace process is finished."

    Dexter Filkins was more emphatic, opining in the New Yorker that the Rabbani assassination was a "blow to the very idea that reconciliation with the Taliban is possible - or even desirable." It could even be "the opening shot in the civil war that more and more Afghans believe could follow on the heels of the American and NATO withdrawal", Filkins wrote.

    But this storyline is based on the premise that Rabbani and the High Peace Council had been offering the Taliban a good faith effort to negotiate a peace settlement. In fact, what Rabbani was offering was the same thing Gen David Petraeus had offered to the bogus Quetta Shura official a year earlier: A discussion that could not possibly resolve the overriding issue for the Taliban, which is the indefinite presence of US and NATO troops in the country.

    As the president of the Northern Alliance during its civil war with the Taliban from 1996 to 2001, Rabbani was among the most vociferous foes of the Taliban. He viewed even Karzai's rhetorical gestures toward "reconciliation" with the Taliban as a way of completing the process of Pashtun domination over Tajiks and other non-Pashtun minorities.

    In February 2010, seven months before he was named to head the High Peace Council, Rabbani had declared to Canadian author and journalist Terry Glavin: "Bringing back the Taliban by some kind of reconciliation is not to bring about security. This is to play a card against others ... It is to bring an ethnic card into play in Afghanistan."

    The only program for the Taliban Rabbani had embraced as Chairman of the HPC, in fact, was "offering amnesties and jobs to Taliban foot soldiers and asylum in third countries to leaders", as Reuters reported September 20.

    The Taliban leaders had never believed that the HPC was intended to negotiate a political settlement. On January 12, 2011, the Taliban declared on the website of the "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" that they regarded the High Peace Council as serving solely "cosmetic" purposes as "part and parcel of the American war strategy".

    The article cited, in particular, the fact the HPC "do not consider the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan ... as an important item of the agenda".

    More concretely, the Taliban complained that the HPC did not "follow a roadmap that would lead to a decisive stage where peace and reconciliation will become ... indispensable".

    That was an apparent reference to a proposal dubbed a "road map" to a settlement by four former Taliban officials, including Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, an early leader of the Taliban movement who spent two and a half years in the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay.

    The "road map" proposal assumed that the United States would have to play the key role in any negotiations. It called for the United States to end its night raids and for the Taliban to stop attacks on government personnel and infrastructure as "confidence-building measures", after which the two sides would negotiate on the central issues of the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Afghanistan and the Taliban's renunciation of ties with al-Qaeda.

    Only after they reached agreement on foreign troops and al-Qaeda would the negotiators tackle the question of an internal political settlement, which would revolve around changes to the Afghan constitution. The same Taliban commentary seemed to leave the door open to dealing with the HPC, but only if it dealt with the central problem of the foreign troop presence.

    What pullout?

    "If the peace council wants, in earnest, to usher in peace in Afghanistan," it said, it should confront the Americans on "whether they are ready to respect and accept a solution based on a pullout of their forces from Afghanistan".

    That is not what happened, however, in the months that followed that Taliban statement on the HPC. The Council initiated contact with the Taliban in May, and over the next four months interacted frequently with, and developed trust in, its Taliban interlocutors. But the account provided of those contacts by Council Member Rahmatullah Wahidyar in his September 22 press conference is revealing - primarily for what it fails to mention. Rabbani and his advisors appear to have been unconcerned by the fact that the HPC could offer nothing to the Taliban on the central problem of US and NATO troops.

    And when the Taliban contact informed the Council a week before the assassination that the Taliban leadership was now prepared to enter into talks with the Afghan government, the Council officials were not worried by the fact that such talks would have contradicted the consistent public and private Taliban position that that they could be no negotiations on an internal settlement until the issue of foreign troop presence was resolved.

    These all-too-amiable contacts were taking place, moreover, against a backdrop of the Obama administration and Karzai manoeuvring to keep US troops in Afghanistan indefinitely. In mid-March, US Deputy Undersecretary of Defence Michele Flournoy revealed - in Congressional testimony - the US intention to continue to carry out "counter-terrorism operations" from "joint bases" in Afghanistan well beyond 2014.

    That announcement came just as the Obama administration was beginning a series of secret meetings with a Taliban representative in Germany and Qatar. They were explicitly understood to be "preliminary" rather than substantive talks, but the Taliban certainly posed the question whether the United States was prepared to offer a timetable for withdrawal in substantive negotiations.

    The Taliban broke off the talks in May, and US officials later claimed that it was because the existence of the talks had been leaked to the media. But if the United States had said anything to persuade the Taliban that it was prepared to offer such a withdrawal schedule, the talks would certainly not have been so abruptly terminated.

    As I reported in July, former Afghan Prime Minister Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai told me that a group of Taliban officials he had met earlier that month had said, once the Americans tell them 'we are ready to withdraw', they would agree to have peace talks.

    'Strategic partnership'

    By late August, however, the last ambiguity surrounding the US policy on troops in Afghanistan had been removed. The Telegraph's Ben Farmer reported August 19 that the Obama administration and Karzai were close to an agreement that would keep up to 25,000 US troops, including Special Operations Forces as well as US fighter planes and helicopter gunships, until at least 2024.

    At that point, the Taliban and Rabbani both knew that the HPC had no power to negotiate a real peace settlement with the Taliban. It should be no surprise, therefore, that the Taliban took advantage of the opportunity to kill the credulous Rabbani. The only surprise is that Rabbani and his advisors could have actually believed that the Taliban were giving up their primary war aim so easily.

    After all, the Taliban were continuing to show, month after month, that they could strike at targets in most heavily protected zones in Kabul and elsewhere - and that their targets included prominent political, administrative and security officials such as Rabbani.

    When Karzai's national security advisor, Rangin Dadfar Spanta, revealed the outlines of the "strategic partnership" pact in early August, the Deputy Chairman of the HPC, Abdul Hakim Majid, made a highly revealing comment to The Telegraph's Farmer. He said he suspected the Taliban had "intensified" their insurgency in response to the news that Karzai was about to agree to allow the United States a semi-permanent military presence in Afghanistan.

    That observation puts in sharp relief the profound lack of realism of the popular assumption that a "peace process" could have been underway in the context of the US-Karzai manoeuvring to take US military presence off the negotiating table.

    But we can now expect a cascade of stories for many months blaming the absence of Afghan peace negotiations on the Rabbani assassination - rather than on a fundamental policy decision by President Barack Obama to hold onto a semi-permanent military presence.

    http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/20119257325871362.html

    Posted 8 months ago on 26 Sep 2011 22:43 #
  21. outspokenloud
    Blocked

    Nawaz Corrupt Shareef declared in election commision that he has no income & in heavy debt from his family for personal expenses, now will someone tell me a person who can not support his own living want to become PM of the country, claimed to be a leader & claimed to break the beggers bowl( KASHKOL) & make Pak selfreliance while he himself declared depending on KASHKOL for personal living
    A liar has no sense
    Nawaz Liar Shareef has no sense

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 0:58 #
  22. spruce
    Member

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 6:42 #
  23. spruce
    Member

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 6:45 #
  24. spruce
    Member

    US pressure fuels anti-Americanism in Pakistan

    Pakistani protesters burn representations of US and Indian flags at an anti-American rally in Multan, Pakistan on Friday. (AP)

    By MICHAEL GEORGY | REUTERS

    Published: Sep 26, 2011 15:33 Updated: Sep 27, 2011 00:27

    Mounting pressure on Pakistan to go after a militant group blamed for attacks on US targets in Afghanistan is deepening anti-American sentiment, highlighting how difficult it will be for Washington to win more support for its war on militancy.

    The rising antipathy to the United States also makes it tougher for the government, already unpopular because of widespread allegations of corruption and its failure to tackle poverty, to do anything that will be seen as caving into US demands to crack down harder on militancy.

    US officials allege that Pakistan’s powerful spy agency supported the Haqqani militant network that Washington blames for the recent attack on its embassy and other targets in Kabul.

    Pakistanis view such accusations with deep suspicion and accuse the United States of blaming their country to cover up for its own failures in the region.

    “The allegations it has made against Pakistan were basically meant to hoodwink its own people,” said Shaukat Ali Achakzai, a businessman in the southwestern city of Quetta.

    “The government of Pakistan should strongly and forcefully respond to American allegations. The people of Pakistan will support it if it does so.”

    Washington and Islamabad are engaged in the harshest war of words since Pakistan joined the US “war on terror” following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

    Pakistan’s foreign minister has warned the United States it risked losing an ally by continuing to publicly criticize Islamabad’s performance in the war against militancy.

    Two weeks ago, militants launched an assault against the US embassy and NATO headquarters in Kabul. US officials blamed those attacks on the Haqqani network.

    US officials said there was intelligence, including intercepted phone calls, suggesting those attackers were in communication with people connected to Pakistan’s principal spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate.

    Pakistan denies accusations it has ties with the Haqqanis. But analysts say it sees the powerful group as strategic asset in any future Afghan peace settlement.

    Ungrateful partner

    Like their government, Pakistanis say the United States is ungrateful even though Pakistan has lost thousands of soldiers and security forces fighting Al-Qaeda and other groups.

    “America is oblivious to the fact that Pakistan has suffered the most in its war on terror campaign,” said banker Hamza Khan.

    “To allege that Pakistan is supporting the Haqqani network without providing solid evidence does not give it carte blanche to unilaterally attack or threaten Pakistan.”

    Pakistanis are quick to remind the United States that Jalaluddin Haqqani — the founder of the Haqqani network — was once one of Washington’s best friends in the region.

    He was a legendary mujahideen commander who worked with the Americans in the 1980s to oust the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. Jalaluddin even visited the White House when Ronald Reagan was president.

    “Everybody knows who created the Haqqanis. They were created by the Americans in their fight against the Soviets,” said Sheraz Ahmed, a computer dealer in the city of Multan.

    “We will be happy if Pakistan stands up against the Americans, instead of the Haqqanis.”

    Sirajuddin Haqqani, who heads the group, says it is no longer based in Pakistan’s North Waziristan and feels secure operating in Afghanistan.

    The United States has long pressed Pakistan to launch a major offensive in North Waziristan to root out the Haqqanis.

    Bowing to American demands would be politically risky for the already-unpopular Pakistani government.

    Amina Ansari, who works in the energy sector in Pakistan’s biggest city Karachi, says Pakistan’s “corrupt leaders have already been bought out,” and the United States actually wanted to destroy her country.

    Foreign forces are due to hand over security responsibilities in Afghanistan in 2014.

    Some Pakistanis argue their government had a right to maintain ties with powerful militant groups like the Haqqanis in Afghanistan, where its rival India is gaining influence.

    “We need allies in Afghanistan like anyone else,” said Sarmaz Faraz, a marketing consultant in Islamabad.

    Arabnews

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 7:02 #
  25. sultanalikhan
    Member

    We were always on the US's hit list, it was only a matter of time before US trained its guns on Pakistan.....Alas the pretext is no more, the daggers are drawn.....

    The undeniable hard-evidence against Pakistan that are being produced by USA reminds me of Weapons of Mass Destruction scenario in Iraq....so much so that Collin Powel put his reputation at stake in the UN in front of whole world stating those evidences were true, only later to admit in his book that he had lied...but it was too late for million Iraqis who lost their lives, and the upheavel that Iraq is still facing....But who is to ask USA for the damage caused, human lives lost, and mess created?....

    Once again USA is back to wreak havoc upon yet another Muslim country to fulfill its evil design.......the question is, has our collective leadership finally got out of its illusion that USA is not a trustworthy ALLY but indeed a tricky ENEMY?

    Needless to say war against USA is not an option for Pakistan, the challenge is how to get out of devil's grip unscathed with pride & prestige intact!!!

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 8:45 #
  26. junaid
    Member

    "how to get out of devil's grip unscathed with pride & prestige intact!!! "

    pride and prestige tu musharaf bohet pehlay hi baich kar kah chuka hai.

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 9:16 #
  27. SultanAliKhan, just one question I need to put to you: where exactly did you come across that so-cslled "undeniable hard evidence" produced by US to back up its charges? I have seen nothing of the kind. What I have seen so far are words, words, words, meaningless and often downright lies being thrown about in their usual fashion by the US administration and its slaves-masters, the "journalists" of the mainstream media (MSM).

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 9:42 #
  28. scandinavian
    Member

    Kashaf Abbasi's debate on the threat from USA. Kashaf as well as Imran are quite blunt in their statements. One can see the frustration in especially Kashaf eyes that the politicians and the army has been giving the Yankees too many concession. Watch it yourself!

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 10:20 #
  29. spruce
    Member

    کہتے ہیں حضرت موسیٰ علیہ السلام کی قوم پر آسمان سے کھانا اترتا تھا۔ اس میں جنّت کے پھل اور ناؤ نوش کی چیزیں شامل تھیں ۔ مگر بنی اسرائیل نے اس کی قدر نہ کی ۔جس کے باعث اللہ تعالیٰ نے اپنی یہ نعمت نازل کرنا بند کردی۔

    let us hold the rope of Allah strong and obey the order of Allah and his messenger(saW) before it is too late.

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 10:35 #
  30. mangoman
    Blocked

    "IF" we hold Allah's rope and stand "united"...then amreeka cant do any damage to us...their defeat will be even more humiliating than that of soviets (Insha'Allah), if they dare to attack us. Pakistan is no Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya.

    Uncle sam is choosing the wrong target this time...and if they went ahead with their evil plans and attacked Pakistan, that will be its one last mistake or last misadventure, before its inevitable collapse.

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 11:05 #
  31. Musharraf has pushed us towards the situation we are in.
    can we ever forgive musharraf?

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 11:10 #
  32. Adonis
    Member

    Let musharraf come back to Pakistan. The people of Pakistan will then give him a thorough dose of our "forgiveness" that he so richly deserves.

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 11:25 #
  33. mangoman
    Blocked

    NO! We can't forget and forgive Musharraf! Never!

    He should be brought back in Pakistan...should be given a fair trial...for red Mosque massacre...for selling our Pakistani brothers and sisters to US for $$...for letting US repeatedly violating our sovereignty...for killing Akbar Bugti in Baluchistan that further deteriorated the already fragile situation in Baluchistan and created a leadership gap there, only to be filled in by foreign players who brainwashed some of the angry Baluch youth...compromised on our principled stand on Kashmir with india...for the NRO deal and paving the way for known criminals to parliament...in short his list of crimes is pretty long...he should be brought back in Pakistan, should be given a fair trial, and should be PUBLICLY hanged for his crimes, for what he did to Pakistan and Pakistanis.

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 11:28 #
  34. scandinavian
    Member

    It's not only Musharraf who paved the way for the Yankees. Many other leaders have their share, but we have NO room for infighting. I have my reservations, but let us settle the scores at some other time. Let your leadership know that you expect them to stand united and respond to an aggression from the Yanks in appropriate way this time. If they do something unwanted then start by cutting off the supply lines and never open them again unless they promise to leave Afghanistan immediately! Can you do that?

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 11:30 #
  35. it was basically Musharraf who took a whole sole decision of supporting USA in the war of terror.
    can anybody deny this ?

    BTW,i am initiating a separate thread about it.
    Musharraf is responsible or not for the situation we are in today?

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 11:58 #
  36. sultanalikhan
    Member

    @Mirza Ghalib......I am surprised that you are asking this question?? Bro read my sentence once again and this time link "undeniable evidence" with "Iraq scenario" and the implication that this link unfolds.....

    I am simply saying that USA is as wrong in throwing slur over Pakistan as it had been in case of Iraqi WMD...

    It was meant to be sarcasm, if you like....

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 13:42 #
  37. SultanAliKhan, I´m awfully sorry for failing to see the subtle sarcasm contained in your statement about undeniable hard evidence against Pakistan. I must have read it in something of a hurry to have misjudged it to such an extent. Please to accept my apologies.

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 16:28 #
  38. bsobaid
    Member

    Have to read this...very tense and bitter...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/world/asia/pakistanis-tied-to-2007-attack-on-americans.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 16:30 #
  39. runaway
    Member

    @bsobaid.

    What is more interesting is that how come suddenly there is an article about a 2007 attack in 2011?

    On a another note why are most of the Pakistanis so happy about the prospect of a US-PAK conflict.

    So let say we are able to teach US a lesson. US breaks up like USSR. Everyone declares Pakistan the winner.. Any idea what will be result of this for Pakistan?

    We are happy to turn Pakistan into Afghanistan..as long as we win against USA. Strange Logic..

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 17:40 #
  40. scandinavian
    Member

    @Runaway

    I think your "logic" has run astray. What the heck you are talking about? It is the Yankees who are threatening Pakistan and not the other way round. We have every right to defend our soil. Whether USA survives or not is not our business.

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 17:42 #
  41. bsobaid
    Member

    I agree @run. I dont know why many are so excited about the conflict. I also made a post about it 2 days ago citing Hameed Gul, Orya Maqbool and some other war mongers creating war hysteria again.

    Also, more of such incidents will surface. Intel agencies maintain and update their files to use at a later time for arm twisting.

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 17:57 #
  42. aftab arif
    Member

    Imran has blundered once again, and this is the contradictions that let him down, he should have declined too attend the APC, which in fact is a total waste of time. Actions speak louder then words, take your memories back to September 2008, when the Yanks tried to cross the Durrand Line.

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 18:40 #
  43. runaway
    Member

    @Scandinavian

    We have every right to defend our soil. Whether USA survives or not is not our business.

    However, what happens to us while defending is definitely our business. I am not saying that Pakistan should not defend its borders. All I am saying is the unnecessary war mongering and fake bravado is not a good thing.

    Defend? Can we can shoot down the next drone which flies into Pakistan territory. Oh sorry..the USA did not give us F-16 which can fly that high :)

    Our military (aka Generals ) is heavily dependent on the USA. All this biyan bazi is for the local media and pakistani public. Let's see in Gen Kiayani & Co can stand by their words.

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 18:40 #
  44. syedhussain
    Member

    haha, I would like to laugh on kids here (mainly from the fan club).

    I have to see all your faces when our ghairat mand generals will again make a deal with usa.

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 18:51 #
  45. scandinavian
    Member

    I don't buy this apologetic attitude. I don't want a war, but I want the sovereignty! Enough is enough....We want to be friends! we need not the master save relation any longer!

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 18:53 #
  46. scandinavian
    Member

    @Aftab

    I don't believe there is any harm in participating in the APC. Imran has already said that he doesn't expect anything from these bunch of munafiqeen and fake Syeds.

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 18:59 #
  47. runaway
    Member

    @Scandinavian
    When you keep submitting bills for your services...there is only one option available.. Master/Slave.

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 19:03 #
  48. scandinavian
    Member

    @Run..

    That's exactly what I don't want and that's exactly the evil and corrupt forces of status quo want.

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 19:07 #
  49. runaway
    Member

    Logi..another drone attack today..

    So not much has changed...after all

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 19:43 #
  50. aftab arif
    Member

    Critical to the success of any military mission is the ability to provide timely logistics support throughout the theater of operations. In the case of Afghanistan, the salience of transporting materiel is compounded by the geopolitical sensitivity of the region. The country's neighbors -- Pakistan, Iran, and the Central Asian republics -- all complicate this fundamental aspect of military planning.

    Pakistan offers the most direct and the cheapest routes to Afghanistan. No U.S. military transportation units operate in Pakistan, so the Department of Defense relies on private contractors to transport supplies and equipment along the 1200-mile ground route and to provide security of the cargo while in transit.

    Until recently, the principal contract supporting the U.S. supply chain in Afghanistan was called Host Nation Trucking, a $2.16 billion contract split among eight Afghan, American, and Middle Eastern companies. The companies transported over 70 percent of the supplies for the international forces in Afghanistan, roughly 6,000 to 8,000 truck missions per month.

    However, the HNT contract suffered from serious oversight problems. "Warlord, Inc," a report published by the House Oversight Committee in June 2010, found that by paying local trucking companies to move its supplies across Afghanistan and by leaving it up to the companies to protect themselves, the American military's money ended up being given to warlords to provide security. A Senate study uncovered similar problems with subcontractors funneling money to insurgents.

    To stem the flow of contract money to warlords and insurgents, DOD has recently moved to restructure the contracting process. Instead of dividing the funds between eight companies, at least twenty will be awarded contracts. Moreover, seven of the current contractors will be suspended for a lack of "integrity and business ethics." Under this model, DOD reduces its dependence on individual companies and augments competition among the bidders. The new contracts, which were finalized last Monday and will take effect next month, also aim to eliminate layers of middlemen who skimmed money and directed it into their personal coffers. The hope is that with greater competition, transparency, and oversight, companies will no longer think that they can deliver inferior services and still expect to continue receiving contracts because of the high demand and limited supply of host nation trucking contractors.

    Some of the old problems persist, of course. Limited resources, demanding timelines, and the other constraints of the contracting process mean that DOD cannot stamp out all corruption. Thus, the U.S. and its allies need to be conscious of the fact that some funds may end up in insurgent hands and weigh the potential risks carefully when selecting among the bids.

    Unfortunately, corruption in the trucking contracts is not the only factor complicating U.S. logistics efforts in Afghanistan. The worsening U.S.-Pakistani relationship and increasingly bold attacks by Pakistani Taliban on the southern supply routes have impelled the United States and its allies to diversify their transit corridors, looking north to the Central Asian republics for assistance. Thus, in addition to restructuring the contracts awarded to companies traveling through Pakistan, U.S. military planners have adopted the Northern Distribution Network (NDN), a commercially based logistical corridor connecting Baltic and Black Sea ports with Afghanistan. Between expenses incurred for supplies such as jet fuel, base rental fees, and necessary upgrades to airport facilities, the NDN is an expensive alternative to the southern truck routes. In essence, the NDN represents the ultimate geopolitical cost-benefit calculation: is it better to pay more in transport costs and ship supplies through Afghanistan's northern neighbors or to pay bribes along southern routes?

    Higher transport costs are not the only factor arguing against increased reliance on NDN routes. Greater U.S. involvement with these former Soviet bloc countries has important foreign policy implications. Because Washington is engaging these partners on an issue of utmost priority to U.S. security interests, the participating states (Latvia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan) now have increased leverage in Washington.

    This leverage is particular troubling in the context of these states' authoritarian political systems and poor human rights records, both of which make them difficult partners for Washington. Relations with Uzbekistan, which were initially very close at the start of the war in Afghanistan, have been complicated by human rights concerns, particularly after violence in Andijan in May 2005, when security forces killed several hundred protestors. In response to U.S. criticism, Uzbekistan shut down the K2 airbase on its territory. However, as tensions with and instability inside Pakistan have grown, the utility of Uzbekistan's well-developed road and rail networks to Afghanistan (particularly from Termez to Mazar-i-Sharif) have begun to look increasingly enticing. In April of 2009, the United States and Uzbekistan signed a deal to allow supplies for the NATO effort to travel through Uzbek territory. Since then, criticism of the regime has been muted.

    The participants in the NDN can play a constructive role in the Afghan war effort. However, their persistent authoritarianism and the complications this entails for their dealings with Washington means that they must never be treated as safe default alternatives to the southern routes.

    In the final analysis, choosing how much to rely on the NDN versus the southern supply routes speaks to high-level strategic questions: do the U.S. and its NATO allies want to fund Pakistani army -- ultimately responsible for transport through Pakistan -- or enhance U.S. dependence on the Central Asian republics? Ultimately, they are questions that will be decided by cost considerations. Due to the scale of the operation and the costs involved, host nation trucking will continue to be the logistical lynchpin of the mission. While diversification is important and other options should absolutely be explored, the NDN cannot deliver the same levels of materiel as the trucking routes. Given these realities, it is important that U.S. military planners approach their tasks with the fullest possible awareness. They must realize the implications of relying on the southern routes and take the necessary precautions so that the contracting mistakes of the past are not repeated.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erin-fitzgerald/afghanistan-logistics_b_980988.html

    Posted 8 months ago on 27 Sep 2011 20:20 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.