Pakistan Will Not Bow To US Pressure‏

[Areff]

Pakistan Will Not Bow To US Pressure‏

Submitted by NK on September 24, 2011 – 1:09 am


Now that the U.S. has openly accused Pakistan of helping plan and conduct the attack earlier this month on the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, the Obama administration’s exit strategy from Afghanistan is looking increasingly cloudy.

An American departure depends on Pakistan’s cooperation in keeping things quiet. Yet its spy agency, the ISI, helped plan and conduct the embassy assault with the Islamist Haqqani network, according to Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. The U.S. government sees the Haqqani group, which is based in Pakistan, as an al-Qaeda affiliate. Pakistan denies these claims, but it has been unwilling to move against the group’s safe haven within Pakistan’s borders. The U.S. has threatened to take unilateral action if Pakistan doesn’t crack down.

Can the U.S. and Pakistan ever get on the same page?

Since the U.S. killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan last spring, U.S.-Pakistan relations have been in free fall. The U.S. has put pressure on Pakistan to do more to fight terrorism. U.S. officials ended their “strategic dialogue” with Pakistan, suspended $800 million in military aid and, for the first time, made public their private views that Pakistan is duplicitous on counterterrorism matters. Recently, the administration openly implicated Pakistan’s military leaders in the murder of a Pakistani journalist, and now, Mullen has said the ISI and Pakistani army use the Haqqani network as “proxies.”

But pressure tactics haven’t worked. Pakistani officials counter U.S. threats of unilateral action with talk of closing supply routes to Afghanistan and ending all counterterrorism cooperation. In private, they say they have written off U.S. assistance as too small and inconsistent to influence their decision-making. Given the economic climate, they say, Congress would have trimmed the aid anyway.

Pakistan’s leaders also believe they can make friends elsewhere. For instance, when the U.S. rolled back energy assistance, which had been a big part of the bilateral relationship from 2009 to 2011, Pakistan restarted talks with Iran about building a gas pipeline between the two countries. This initiative undermined U.S. efforts to isolate Iran in the region. What’s more, such a pipeline would compete with the U.S.-supported TAPI project, which would bring natural gas from Turkmenistan to India and Pakistan through Afghanistan. The U.S. has been promoting the idea of Afghanistan as a transit corridor connecting resources in Central Asia to markets inSouth Asia and the rest of the world, creating a New Silk Road that would foster stability in Afghanistan.

Pakistan has been generally supportive of the New Silk Road but sees Iranian gas as a quicker and easier alternative to the Turkmenistan option. And this isn’t just about filling Pakistan’s energy needs. President Asif Ali Zardari has lauded the pipeline to Iran as a new paradigm for the region, a homemade alternative to the U.S.-backed New Silk Road. In seeking rapprochement with Iran, Pakistan is sending a clear message of defiance to Washington.

If Pakistan is willing to forgo American aid, what can the U.S. do to win Pakistan’s cooperation on stabilizing Afghanistan and fighting terrorists? The answer is simple: It needs to talk to Pakistan about Afghanistan’s future.

Afghanistan has been at the center of Pakistan’s strategic outlook for the past three decades. Officials in Islamabad worry that a future Afghanistan, at least as America envisions it, will make common cause with India to squeeze Pakistan and even snatch away its restless Pashtun region on the border with Afghanistan. Pakistan continues to look to the Taliban to protect its interests in Afghanistan. Pakistan won’t break with these and associated extremists unless it believes that an independent Afghanistan, with a strong military, won’t pose a threat.

The U.S. has done little to assuage such fears. Rather, it has decided to shape Afghanistan on its own. It is building a strong military and promoting reconciliation between the government of President Hamid Karzai and the Taliban. Afghanistan’s neighbors aren’t a part of this process but are expected to support its outcome. U.S. officials aim to accelerate the course of events with a regional conference in Turkey in November followed by an international conference inGermany in December.

Pakistan isn’t happy sitting on the margins; it wants a major role. The government in Islamabad would like to bypass the international conferences and deal with the U.S. directly in setting the terms of reconciliation talks, controlling the agenda, and keeping a firm hold on the Taliban as they negotiate for turf and power.

The U.S. isn’t ready to give Pakistan this role, especially with the current state of relations. And Karzai officials reject the idea that Pakistan should have a say on the future of their country. They would actually like to secure a U.S. promise to keep Pakistan out of Afghanistanindefinitely. But that would require a continuing, large U.S. troop presence, and the U.S. already has decided to leave.

Somewhere in this, there is a middle ground. The U.S. should reach out to Pakistan and attentively discuss with its leaders their interests and objectives in Afghanistan. Such meetings should precede any further U.S. steps, including talking with the Taliban, setting the stage for the upcoming conferences and signing off on any agreements.

This does not mean giving in to Pakistan’s demands, but rather treating Pakistan, rightfully, as a party with a special interest in Afghanistan’s future. The U.S. should make engagement with Pakistan on these issues contingent on tangible progress in Pakistan’s counterterrorism efforts. That would give Pakistan an incentive to rein in extremism on both sides of the border, which is what the U.S. needs, if it is to leave Afghanistan on schedule.

[Areff]

Can The US Afford a Military Conflict With Pakistan?

Submitted by UAB on September 25, 2011 – 8:56 pm


Pakistan’s forces and its 180 million strong population is ready in ambush. Obama must decide if he is ready to face the wrath of a nation that has held a grudge against this sworn enemy for decades.

Dan Qayyum | PKKH Editorial
In face of the latest and unprecendated downturn in US-Pakistan relations, Pakistan Army can at the very least boast the kind of popular support that President Obama can only dream of. General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is the man of the moment, fast turning into a national hero by default, thanks to the hyperbole emanating from Washington. On the other hand President Obama resembles the captain of a ship that is sinking fast.

Under pressure due to a faltering economy and suffering humiliation in Afghanistan, the Obama administration has kicked off a noisy blame game pointing fingers at Pakistan for America’s failures in what is known as the ‘Graveyard of Empires’. Attacks on what were thought to be some of the most secure targets in Kabul have blown the cover of America’s false claims. With the Afghan Taliban in control of over 80% of Afghan territory and now knocking on the doors of Kabul, one can be forgiven for thinking that things could not get any worse for the American occupying forces. Because it looks that they will.

Around 75% of American and NATO military supplies pass through Pakistan. Shutting off this vital lifeline alone would spell disaster for the American and Nato forces stationed in Afghanistan.
Pakistan has a highly trained army which, unlike the Iraqi forces, are itching to hammer the Americans. It has a fairly strong air force that is, at the very least, capable of downing a good few US bombers. And it also has a modest navy that is quite capable of causing damage.

Around 200,000 US, NATO and Afghan forces that are incapable of fighting against the Haqqani insurgents, numbered between 5000 to 10,000 at most, will prove no match for Pakistan’s highly trained army consisting of around 600,000 active troops and another 550,000 reserves. Add to that the million strong tribals residing on the Pak Afghan border and armed to the teeth, who have pledged support to Pakistan’s armed forces in the event of a direct confrontation with US/NATO forces. Last but not the least are the Jihadi organisation active in Indian Occupied Kashmir, with a strength of around another 100,000.

Pakistan is quite capable of unleashing hell on the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan if it decides to. And that is without even taking into account Pakistan’s fast growing nuclear arsenal and its advanced missile systems that are capable of hitting any US target within a 3,500 mile radius. Already under heavy fire from a rag tag poorly equipped and trained force of the Afghan Taliban, the US and NATO forces will prove easy pickings for Pakistan army’s elite commandos. Its missiles will level US bases and military installations to the ground. President Obama, even in his wildest dreams, cannot dare to enter a military conflict with Pakistan at this moment in time. And therefore the the US tantrums seem nothing more than an immature bluff, without taking into account the geopolitical implications as well as the consequences it will have to face in Afghanistan, if it dares violate Pakistan military’s ‘red lines’. The best they can hope to do is isolate Pakistan internationally declaring it a pariah state that sponsors terror, and enforce economic sanctions. Then again, if the Pakistani intelligence agencies and armed forces are indeed secretly helping the Afghan Taliban under the pretence of being a front line ally, imagine the damage they would be able to do if declared the enemy.

[Areff]

US: Dont Play With Fire!

Submitted by Aurangzeb on September 28, 2011 – 2:30 am


US must remember, Pakistan is a nuclear armed country with professional standing army of over 600,000 men. it can strike back and make the US pay very heavily for her misadventure against Pakistan.



By Dr Raja Muhammad Khan

Pakistani Army Chief General Kayani’s brief and succinct response to the long list of allegations by Admiral Mullen, Pentagon, CIA and US State Department is considered enough for the consumption of all those having misperceptions about Pakistan. This brief response has a message for the US and rest of the world. The message is loud and clear that, US officials are indeed misleading the US people and world at large. It is exactly like they misled the US masses, EU, Arab monarchs and global community before invading Iraq in 2003. CIA led Neoconservatives then projected Saddam Hussain led Iraq as a state having large quantity of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), which is very dangerous for the world peace. However, later events proved that accusation as wrong and misleading. The invaders could not discover any WMD. It was also proved that, US objectives were different and that indeed it was war for the Iraqi hydrocarbons, the black gold.

US invasion in Afghanistan in 2001 was part of a similar strategic agenda. However, after a decade of its brutalities in Afghanistan, US learnt that, Afghan masses have become more hostile and the super power has no acceptance in that country despite spending billions of dollars, the taxpayer’s money. In these long years, US military commanders have been misleading the White House, EU and American masses that they are winning this war. Upon completion of first decade, they found that even US Embassy and ISAF Headquarters at Kabul, a high security zone is not safe from the insurgents. After this they have no excuses to be presented before the American legislatures, US public and its NATO allies for the heavy expenditures and wrong tales they have been narrating to the people beside the wastage of thousands of lives.

In order to justify its own shortcomings and ill planning and to minimize the effects, U.S military commanders like Admiral Mike Mullen started looking here and there for a scapegoat. Together with envisioned military commanders, the US strategic thinkers could find Pakistan, as the best suited to be a scapegoat to apportion the blame for this most likely US failure in Afghanistan. After all Pakistan is the only country, which has scarified its 35,000, people including 5000 security forces personnel, during ten long years of combating the menace of terrorism. It rightly deserve US bully for siding with it, on a single phone call and acted as a frontline state to bear the brunt of terrorists entered into its porous frontiers along Afghanistan after US invasion in October 2001. Today at the global level, Pakistan is the only country that has suffered most during the campaign of combating the terrorism in all the fields viz; military, social, economical and above all on account of internal instability.

Thus, General Kayani’s rejection of Admiral Mullen accusations by saying that, these statements are “very unfortunate and not based on fact”, should serve as an eye opener for the Americans and Europeans alike and indeed for the forty-eight countries collation in Afghanistan. They should now recognize their military marshals, who rather bringing a victory have brought for them a total military failure, indeed, a shame at the hands of ill equipped Afghan insurgents. Declaring Haqqani network as a veritable arm of ISI by admiral Mullen is too low and a tactic of saving his own skin. He indeed is retiring in a few days and has lot of regrets that under his command US Military could have brought victory in Afghanistan. By accusing Pak Army and ISI, he indeed condenses his frustration. But, he is not all alone; it is a group of failed leaders. They include, Defense Secretary Leon Penatta, CIA head General Petraeus and of course Admiral Mullen, beside many others who initially planned the campaign and those who already retired from services. Now, they all are repenting and accusing Pakistan for their failure and presenting Pakistan as the responsible for their failure, as if Pakistan was controlling them and their strategies were made by GHQ Rawalpindi. Now, they cannot befool the world and their own people. It is high time that, this group of failed commanders should present the real picture of their failure before the US law makers and people of USA and other collation partners. These officials must also stop the blame game and work with Pakistan for a peace and stability in Afghanistan.

Pakistan has always emphasized US to negotiate with the insurgent groups in Afghanistan and opt for a political solution to bring stability in Afghanistan. The military operations, night raids and drone attacks may not bring stability in this war-ravaged country. These operations would further fuel the anti-Americanism and number of militants would keep multiplying. Political solution indeed, is the only way forward in Afghanistan. Such an option would enable U.S and its NATO allies to have an honourable exit from Afghan war zone.

Politically negotiated solution will also enable Afghan groups to have a consensus Government at Kabul, having representation from all factions and ethnic groups. In this way, Afghanistan would not plunge into a civil war, a curse; it experienced during the decade 1990s. Unfortunately, so far U.S fails to buy this idea. The super only believes in power politics, and thought that, perhaps its superior war munitions and well-trained armed forces would bring a victory for it. This did not happen even after a decade of ruthless killing of innocent Afghans by US forces. The only thing US could earn after ten years, a probable defeat at the hands of Afghan insurgents and likely economic collapse back home.

This is yet another reality that, under the prevalent security environment in South West Asia, the interest driven Pak-US relationship is passing through a very crucial stage in their entire bilateral history. Criticality of this relationship can be well imagined from the fact that, for the first time U.S has threatened Pakistan with a military action against it in North Waziristan Agency, from where according to US, Haqqanis are operating in Afghanistan. Owing to its geopolitical location, Pakistan has served US objectives throughout in its history without a meaningful gain for itself. Rather the unequal alliance has embarrassed Pakistan in most of the time, causing worst internal destabilization of its history, economic collapse and violation of sovereignty by its senior partner. The distrust between these two unequal partners arose during the last one decade mainly owing to the diverging interests is further deepening with each passing day.

The countless accusations and non-recognition of Pakistani role and its contributions against terrorism by US has further betrayed Pakistan. For the U.S, there is a need to understand the Pakistani viewpoint, its domestic and external compulsions, respect its sovereignty, and take into consideration its national interests. Pakistan definitely would not host any foreign network to operate from its soil against any other country. However, for a better future relationship, stability in Afghanistan, it is mandatory that, both sides should reconcile and resort to engage in a constructive negotiation process, while avoiding making public statements and accusations.

Source: Opinion Maker

[Areff]

What Pakistan wants in Afghanistan? Bitter Truths Facing US

Submitted by Aurangzeb on September 28, 2011 – 2:22 am

Ex CIA Officer says US cannot fight Pakistan, should work to bring Haqqanis to the table and phase out Karzai.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Areff]

US Warned Against Unilateral Actions in Pakistan

Submitted by Aurangzeb on September 27, 2011 – 6:07 pm

Amid heightened tension, the United States is making hectic diplomatic efforts to win back Pakistan’s crucial cooperation for secured NATO supplies as well as safe withdrawal of its overstretched troops from Afghanistan by 2014.

This has transpired from flurry of interactions of the senior US military officials and diplomats with Pakistani authorities ostensibly as a damage control exercise after some key US government functionaries launched efforts to make Pakistan scapegoat largely to cover up its decade-long failure in Afghanistan.

US Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter with same agenda met with Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir on Monday and exchanged views on ways and means to strengthen the relations with Pakistan.

Confirming the development, US Embassy spokesperson Mark Stroh told TheNation that US pays special attention to continue its wide ranging and cooperative relationship with Pakistan.

Without going into specific issues, the Ambassador Munter had discussed with Salman Bashir, the spokesperson said that the United States values its special relations with Pakistan.

He was of the view that there were many common grounds both the estranged partners in the war against terror could continue their cooperation.

In response to a question relating to the statement of US Senator Lindsey Graham that ‘all options are on table against Pakistan’, Stroh said that this was in line with the statements of other US functionaries that Pakistan needs to take actions against those using its soil and attacking US forces in Afghanistan. “The US reserves the right to take action when its troops are targeted and attacked in Afghanistan,” the spokesperson said without naming Haqqani Network.

Although there was no Foreign Office input about the meeting, it was learnt that Salman Bashir told the US envoy that any aggression or unilateral action against Pakistan would be disastrous for both the countries. The duo emphasized the need for bringing an end to statements allegations from both sides to arrest the situation going from bad to worst and agreed on further engagement to address mutual challenges.

The sources said that Munter during the meeting spoke at length on the need for increasing cooperation in counter terrorism.

However, some sources were of the view that US has been seeking Pakistan’s cooperation in a meaningful engagement with some of the resistance groups in Afghanistan to ensure safe withdrawal of international troops.

This stems from the US fears that rate of casualties of its troops would increase manifold in the course of withdrawal as pace of insurgency in Afghanistan was on gradual increase. These notions have been reinforced after the recent attacks on the US Embassy in Kabul as well as the local NATO Headquarters. Moreover, the US is seeking to ensure that NATO/ISAF logistic supplies through Pakistan remain unhindered till withdrawal of the international forces from Afghanistan by 2014.

Source: The Nation