USA Pakistan Geopolitical Relationship

Terminator

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
85
Likes
0
Cong panel approves tripling aid to Pak, drops India reference

Washington (PTI): A three-fold increase in US non-military aid to Pakistan to a whopping USD 1.5 billion annually was approved on Thursday by a key Congressional Committee on the condition that it would not allow terrorist activity from its soil against "neighbouring countries" without mentioning India by name.

The original bill had insisted that Pakistan would not let its territory to be used for launching terrorist attacks against and not support any group that indulges in terrorist activities against India but dropped a direct reference to India keeping in mind Pakistan's sensitivities.

The Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement (PEACE) Act 2009 was approved by the House Foreign Affairs Committee by the voice vote, following about an hour of debate, replacing the word India with "neighbouring countries".

Congressional observers said the word "India" had to be deleted because the Obama Administration told the lawmakers that this could be counter-productive to their overall objective given that Pakistan establishment is allergic to it.

While in the original bill, the US President was asked to give a presidential determination about the progress made by Pakistan in preventing cross border attacks into India, the PEACE law passed by the House committee seeks presidential determination on the progress made by Islamabad in "preventing cross border attacks into neighbouring countries."


The Hindu News Update Service
 

Sridhar

House keeper
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
3,474
Likes
1,061
Country flag
India wants benchmarks for US aid to Pakistan

India wants benchmarks for US aid to Pakistan
30 Jun 2009, 1108 hrs IST, PTI
Print Email Discuss Share Save Comment Text:
WASHINGTON: Stating that India welcomes economic assistance to Pakistan, the country's top diplomat in the United States has favoured
establishment of benchmarks to the American security assistance to Islamabad so as to check the use of money against New Delhi.

"We certainly share the objective of the United States that we should help to stabilise Afghanistan and Pakistan and move them in the direction of both stability and moderation," India's Ambassador to the US Meera Shankar said.

There is a shared objective that India has with the United States, Shankar said at a panel discussion organised by the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based think tank.

"As to how best we can pursue the achievement of this objective, well, we support the flow of assistance to Pakistan, particularly economic assistance, which we think is essential at this stage given the very precarious state of Pakistan's economy," Shankar said in response to a question.

The ambassador said the security assistance to Pakistan should be focused specifically on building counterinsurgency capabilities rather than conventional defense equipment.

"The pursuit of the objectives that we share would certainly be easier if there are benchmarks to ensure that the assistance is linked to deliverables on the ground and that there is both transparency and accountability in the process," Shankar said.

During their meetings with US officials and law makers, a delegation of Indian parliamentarians last week had also argued the same and asked Washington to ensure that its security assistance to Pakistan is not used to build up its military against India, as has been the case in the past.

Shankar said India does compare its relationship with the US's relationship with any other country. "We would hope that the US would give priority to India on its own merits," she said.

Referring to the upcoming trip of the US secretary of state Hillary Clinton to India next month, Shankar hoped that it will provide the basis for both countries announcing a road map to take the India-US relationship to the next level.

Asked about Reliance's relationship with Iran and if this could have any impact on India-US relationship, Shankar commented that should not be the case.

"That (Reliance) is a private company, so I can't say what the private company will do. It is not a government company. But we have a relationship with Iran, and what interests me is that US companies also, through some of their subsidiaries, have relationships with Iran in the energy sector. So I think singling out a particular country is not very good," Shankar argued.

"We also see that Pakistan and Iran have signed an agreement on their gas pipeline. That doesn't figure as a condition for aid to Pakistan. So there are double standards operating here," said the ambassador.

India wants benchmarks for US aid to Pakistan - India - The Times of India
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,615
Likes
5,772
Finally, India is showing some spine even if it is just rhetoric. I hope there will be more offensive rhetoric in the coming days to keep the relationship between US and Pakistan precarious and on the edge.
 

A.V.

New Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
6,503
Likes
1,157
Will the Pakistan-US relationship survive?

Ties between Pakistan and the US appear to be growing stronger, but there are still many divisions between the countries. Farhan Bokhari reports

The US's recognition of Pakistan as a vital ally for stabilising Afghanistan has begun to yield growing support from Washington for Islamabad's armed forces. However, concerns continue over the long-term prospects of a relationship that has historically hovered between close proximity and semi-estrangement.

In April US President Barack Obama, during an unannounced visit to Kabul, the Afghan capital, publicly acknowledged the progress made by Pakistan "with respect to the military campaign [in the country]" in a reference to the attacks on suspected Taliban sanctuaries during the past year.

These initially focused on the northern Swat valley, although the campaign has expanded to other parts of the North West Frontier Province along the Afghan border. This is where the US believes that Taliban militants and members of Al-Qaeda maintain their strongholds, from which they launch attacks on Pakistani forces on Pakistan's side of the border and Western troops in Afghanistan.

However, Pakistan's military and air force planners - the two arms mainly involved in the campaign - have noted the extent to which the mobilisation of their forces promises to lay the foundation for a long-term effort to deny space to militants in the border region.

"We have made a significant contribution to the operations against terrorists in this kind of warfare. Our success, in part, has been that collateral damage has been avoided," said Air Chief Marshall Rao Qamar Suleman, Chief of Staff of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF), in an interview with Jane's in March: a statement that indicates the growing levels of self-confidence among key defence planners.

In April Pakistan's Prime Minister, Yusuf Raza Gilani, army chief General Ashfaq Kayani and other senior civilian and armed forces officials were invited by the PAF to watch bombing missions conducted against simulated militant targets carried out by fighter aircraft including the Sino-Pakistani-manufactured JF-17, French-supplied Mirage and US-supplied F-16 in the remote Thal desert.

Personnel from the army and the PAF also demonstrated helicopter-borne operations supported by PAF fighters targeting mock terrorist sanctuaries. The event, also watched by foreign defence officials based in Islamabad, was meant to illustrate the ability of Pakistan's army and air force to take a long-term role in stabilising the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region.

In addition, Pakistan's standing with the US also received a boost in February when Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Taliban military chief in Afghanistan, was arrested in Pakistan in an operation spearheaded by the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, the country's premier counter-espionage asset. Additionally, four other Taliban leaders were also arrested in ISI-led raids.

These arrests served to confirm Pakistan's role as a key stabiliser within the Afghanistan-Pakistan region.

In response to these developments, a formal US acknowledgement came in Washington, DC, on 24 March, when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, leading a team of senior US officials, met with a Pakistani delegation led by Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi. The most notable attendee at the talks was Gen Kayani, who is widely acknowledged among Western officials for having played a key leadership role in planning the campaign of the past year. His presence prompted much interest among Western diplomats, who saw the general's position as central among the members of Pakistan's delegation, as he is responsible for leading the military's ongoing counter-terror campaign.

At the Washington gathering, the US agreed to fast-track military hardware required by the Pakistani forces as well as work towards clearing a backlog of just over USD2 billion in costs incurred by Pakistani forces in carrying out their anti-terror operations. Full details of the equipment to be supplied is yet to be made public.

After the meeting US and Pakistani officials, speaking off the record, suggested that negotiations had begun for the US to consider supplying reconnaissance drones for the border region.

Additionally, Pakistani officials revealed that discussions have also begun for Washington to supply a batch of 14-18 second-hand F-16C/D variants. This will be in addition to 18 new F-16C/Ds already on order.

However, while all this appears to have improved relations between the US administration and the ruling government in Islamabad and helped to overcome some of the mistrust from a year ago, there are still some gaps to be bridged.

The Pakistani government also used the Washington event to formally seek access to US nuclear technology for civilian use, while seeking a larger access for the entry of Pakistani goods into the US market.

On both counts, the US made no firm commitments, leaving many in Pakistan with the impression that engagement with Washington can reap only limited returns for the time being.

The nuclear issue is of interest to many in Pakistan, where power cuts are frequent, while a surge in exports to the US market would help improve employment prospects in a country with a moribund economy.

The nuclear issue is an especially contentious one. Revelations in 2003 that A Q Khan, the founder of Pakistan's nuclear programme, had sold nuclear know-how and technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea focused global attention on Pakistan. These revelations were followed by US demands for direct access for international investigators to interview Khan. It is believed that this access has not yet been granted.

Since 2003 the Pakistani military has taken over the security surrounding the nuclear project, which is reportedly based on between 100 to 120 nuclear bombs. However, Western officials say concerns linked to Pakistan's past record on nuclear proliferation continue to overshadow its search for civil nuclear reactors from the West.

While the US may resist Pakistan's demands on certain issues, Washington is unlikely to be able to keep relations with Islamabad on a tight leash. This is largely in view of the growing number of casualties among US troops stationed in Afghanistan. At least 57 US soldiers were killed in January and February: more than twice the number of casualties in the same period a year ago.

The US is publicly putting on a bold face by promising to continue fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, but its ability to operate over the long term without an alliance with Pakistan is in doubt. The final objective in this engagement appears to be that of the US laying the course for an eventual exit from Afghanistan, leaving Pakistan to fill the security void.

Jane's Defence Weekly

Farhan Bokhari is a JDW Correspondent, based in Islamabad
 

Oracle

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,120
Likes
1,566
Will the Pakistan-US relationship survive?

No

Why?

Because all US of A sees is Dollar Power, Oil and hegemony. I am pro US, but this is the truth.
 

pyromaniac

Founding Member
Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
535
Likes
16
I think US Pakistan relationship will survive just because of the fact that the US has a lot at stake here. Pakistan is a nuclear power...a very unstable and potentially volatile one at that and America will do everything in its power to keep those nukes from falling into the wrong hands. There has been a great emphasis placed on the safeguard of nuclear materials of late and it looks like every major country is very serious about it. Also America is looking for allies to counter China with and having both India and Pakistan in the bag would go a long way in securing that and lets not forget that obama is trying to soften America's image in the eyes of the Islamic world and having the worlds sole nuclear islamic nation as a ally would reap great dividends.
 

ejazr

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,523
Likes
1,388
Pakistan and US at strategic cross roads - NAF seminar


At this Sept. 1 event, New America's National Security Studies Program Director Peter Bergen and Michael J. Mazarr of the National War College unveiled the findings of the NAF/NWC Pakistan Study Group. The report, "Pakistan and the United States: At a Strategic Crossroads," can be downloaded here.

The Study Group, comprised of American and Pakistani experts, came together to devise practical ways to advance the U.S.-Pakistan relationship at a time when relations between the two countries are at possibly their most strained. As the report explains, "a host of interlocking challenges -- grounded in a deteriorating economy -- call into question Pakistan's ability to 'muddle through' as it has in the past, and the next two or three years pose a crucial test for the country's efforts to arrest continuing socioeconomic decline."

At the event, Bergen, Mazarr and other experts outlined the report's "collaborative agenda" to help Pakistan "take its place as a major power in a modernizing South Asia" -- and discussed the many challenges that effort must address.

The full report is available at this address: Pakistan and the United States | NewAmerica.net

Panelists at this event include:

Peter Bergen
Director, National Security Studies Program
New America Foundation

Michael J. Mazarr
Professor of National Security Strategy
National War College

Mohsin S. Khan
Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics
Former Director, Middle East and Central Asia Department, International Monetary Fund

His Excellency Touqir Hussain
Former Ambassador of Pakistan to Brazil, Spain, and Japan
Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University and Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies

Dr. Thomas Lynch III
Colonel-Retired, U.S. Army
Distinguished Research Fellow, National Defense University

---------------------------------------------------------------
This report and seminar is basically discussing ways that the US may plan to take on Pakistan in the medium term, The strategic concept proposed to meet these goals is a collaborative agenda for Pakistan to take its place as a major power in a modernizing South Asia. That is these is the framework they want the US policy to function in.

Some major points proposed in this respect are
Policies for Pakistan (and Outside Partners) to Respond to Domestic Challenges

  • Implement a broad-based tax reform initiative to achieve higher revenues and rationalized tax collection.
  • Complete the long-delayed national census, now underway.
  • Create mechanisms to improve policy coordination in the areas of national security, economy, and energy; empower the energy agency to implement an emergency plan.
  • Take a series of steps (involving visas, border controls, and especially reduction of tariffs and non-tariff barriers) to enhance regional trade, including a multinational trade corridor.
  • Promote effective governance at the provincial level through technical assistance and a strategy of developing repeatable models of success; also increase technical assistance to Pakistani institutions of governance, specifically the parliament and political parties.
  • Create a task force or expert commission to make recommendations on improving the investment climate in Pakistan.

On U.S.-Pakistan Relations

  • Promote greater U.S.-Pakistani trade and investment through a "tariff holiday" on Pakistani imports to the United States and an Enterprise Fund for investment.
  • Create a special investigator on visa issues to ease travel problems.
  • Undertake quasi-governmental mechanisms to develop shared interests and goals.
  • Develop a new model for a joint, publicly articulated counterterrorism (CT) program using the foundation of the Joint CT Task Force.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Galaxy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,086
Likes
3,934
Country flag
In the U.S.-Pakistan fight, India an anxious spectator

In the U.S.-Pakistan fight, India an anxious spectator



SEP 29, 2011

Pakistan and the United States are in the middle of such a public and bruising fight that Islamabad's other pet hate, India, has receded into the background. A Pakistani banker friend, only half in jest, said his country had bigger fish to fry than to worry about India, now that it had locked horns with the superpower.

But more seriously, India itself has kept a low profile, resisting the temptation to twist the knife deeper into its neighbour when it faces the risk of isolation. Much of what Pakistan stands accused of, including the main charge of using violent extremism as an instrument of foreign policy, is an echo of what New Delhi has been blaming Pakistan for, for two decades now. Even the language that America's military officials led by Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, and diplomats have employed such as "proxy wars" , "cross border raids" or terrorism central to describe Pakistan is a throwback to the 1990s and later when India and Pakistan were dueling over Kashmir.

"What Mullen has said with regard to the role of certain forces in Pakistan, is also something which is nothing new to us. In fact when we were the first to flag this issue earlier, the world didn't believe us," the Press Trust of India quoted Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as telling reporters on board his plane on the way home from the UN General Assembly meeting in New York.

But the tone and tenor of the Indian response to Pakistan's predicament, including on the Hindu right, has been remarkably restrained. This, as former Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran wrote in The Indian Express on Thursday, is hardly the time to gloat over Pakistan's situation.

If anything, India and Pakistan this week agreed to overhaul trade ties that everyone recognizes can strengthen the peace constituency in both countries as they develop stakes in each other's economies. Pakistan is moving towards granting India Most Favoured Nation status – the very word used to be anathema to the Pakistani right even if it doesn't really mean a great deal — while India may lift a veto on lifting all tariffs on Pakistan textile exports to Europe as a step toward helping the neighbour climb out of a deep economic downturn.

Actually this might be a time for India to deepen engagement with its neighbour in other areas too, Saran argues, saying Pakistan's western borders were so hot that it had a greater stake in stabilising ties with India than before, even if it was purely tactical. Pakistan's "meddling" in Kashmir, where cross-border violence is already down to its lowest level, may become even less, he says. Given the heat over the security establishment's links to the Haqqani network, it may even tell other militant groups such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba, blamed for the 2008 Mumbai attacks, to further lower their profile.

Pakistan and the United States are in the middle of such a public and bruising fight that Islamabad's other pet hate, India, has receded into the background. A Pakistani banker friend, only half in jest, said his country had bigger fish to fry than to worry about India, now that it had locked horns with the superpower.

But more seriously, India itself has kept a low profile, resisting the temptation to twist the knife deeper into its neighbour when it faces the risk of isolation. Much of what Pakistan stands accused of, including the main charge of using violent extremism as an instrument of foreign policy, is an echo of what New Delhi has been blaming Pakistan for, for two decades now. Even the language that America's military officials led by Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, and diplomats have employed such as "proxy wars" , "cross border raids" or terrorism central to describe Pakistan is a throwback to the 1990s and later when India and Pakistan were dueling over Kashmir.

"What Mullen has said with regard to the role of certain forces in Pakistan, is also something which is nothing new to us. In fact when we were the first to flag this issue earlier, the world didn't believe us," the Press Trust of India quoted Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as telling reporters on board his plane on the way home from the UN General Assembly meeting in New York.

But the tone and tenor of the Indian response to Pakistan's predicament, including on the Hindu right, has been remarkably restrained. This, as former Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran wrote in The Indian Express on Thursday, is hardly the time to gloat over Pakistan's situation.

If anything, India and Pakistan this week agreed to overhaul trade ties that everyone recognizes can strengthen the peace constituency in both countries as they develop stakes in each other's economies. Pakistan is moving towards granting India Most Favoured Nation status – the very word used to be anathema to the Pakistani right even if it doesn't really mean a great deal — while India may lift a veto on lifting all tariffs on Pakistan textile exports to Europe as a step toward helping the neighbour climb out of a deep economic downturn.

Actually this might be a time for India to deepen engagement with its neighbour in other areas too, Saran argues, saying Pakistan's western borders were so hot that it had a greater stake in stabilising ties with India than before, even if it was purely tactical. Pakistan's "meddling" in Kashmir, where cross-border violence is already down to its lowest level, may become even less, he says. Given the heat over the security establishment's links to the Haqqani network, it may even tell other militant groups such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba, blamed for the 2008 Mumbai attacks, to further lower their profile.

For India, it creates an opportunity to test Pakistan's willingness to enter into negotiations on some of the less contentious issues such as a military standoff on the remote Siachen glacier and a dispute over Sir Creek in the Arabian Sea. In New York this week, Pakistani Foreign Minister Hin Rabbani Khar offered uninterrupted dialogue with India.

But the worry lines remain on Afghanistan where the assassination of former president Burhanuddin Rabbani has robbed India of a leader of the old Northern Alliance, which New Delhi supported during the civil war. It could be well be the start of a campaign by Taliban militants and their supporters in Pakistan to finish off Afghan leaders seen to be well disposed to India, B.Raman, the former head of India's Research and Analysis Wing, wrote on his blog. As Western forces thin out, the battle for influence will only intensify.

India, which went on a diplomatic overdrive following the ouster of the Taliban and the installation of the India-friendly Hamid Karzai administration, pouring millions of dollars in aid, faces its toughest challenges yet if the United States sticks to its plan to withdraw forces. One option is to revive the Northern Alliance that fought the Taliban, but quite apart from the fact that members of the alliance have gone into government or splintered away, it is no longer certain that the old regional players such as Russia and Iran would line up behind. Raman said it was doubtful that India could strike the same level of cooperation with Russia as in the past, while an alliance with Iran, the other backer was virtually ruled out because of America's hostility.

Afghan Journal | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters.com

 

hit&run

United States of Hindu Empire
Mod
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
14,104
Likes
63,369
To the hell.

No one gives squat about what happens between USA and Pakistan.

In Punjabi we say ''sup nu sup larey tan zehar kisnu charey'' ''ਸੱਪ ਨੂੰ ਸੱਪ ਲੜੇ ਤਾਂ ਜ਼ਹਰ ਕਿਸਨੁ ਚੜੇ'' If a snake bite another snake; non dies of the poison.
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
let both of them fight it out...........................we will keep the scores............
 

Param

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
2,810
Likes
653
Do people really expect war between Pakistan and US???
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
Do people really expect war between Pakistan and US???
beggars cannot fight war, i dont expect any war but small skimishes which will bring Pakistan to his knees in quick time. Then beggars would start doing US line, but same time back to their dirty game of sleeping with both sides in same bed.
 

SADAKHUSH

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
1,839
Likes
780
Country flag
I have read the contents of the link provided by you. Don't you think USA should have taken out the Pakistan's Army rather than venturing into Iraq to full fill Saudi Arabia's wishes? USA does not have any other option but to deal with unreliable so called partner in"WOT". I think only barrier we are facing is the nuclear arsenal stockpile and its location. If we look back in to the history of second world war British and American commandos had to infiltrate German sites to demolish the facilities before they developed the nuclear arsenal. If and when it takes place it is going to be even bigger than Iraq operation. Once we start imposing the UNO sanctioned resolution the cycle will be set in motion for final showdown with Pakistan.
Let us hope we can do without firing a shot but it has to be done to bring sanity to idiots.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
I have read the contents of the link provided by you. Don't you think USA should have taken out the Pakistan's Army rather than venturing into Iraq to full fill Saudi Arabia's wishes? USA does not have any other option but to deal with unreliable so called partner in"WOT". I think only barrier we are facing is the nuclear arsenal stockpile and its location. If we look back in to the history of second world war British and American commandos had to infiltrate German sites to demolish the facilities before they developed the nuclear arsenal. If and when it takes place it is going to be even bigger than Iraq operation. Once we start imposing the UNO sanctioned resolution the cycle will be set in motion for final showdown with Pakistan.
Let us hope we can do without firing a shot but it has to be done to bring sanity to idiots.
(First, I would like to find out how I can get a notification from the forum when my posts get a reply.)

To answer your question as a US citizen, my first thought is a cynical one. Iraq has extensive oil resources, Pakistan does not. (Just as we have an interest in Libya - "Qaddafi is killing his own people!" - but not in Syria (where Assad is "killing his own people!" too).

Moreover, adding a war in Pakistan (and an ensuing occupation) would just be intolerable to the American people, and the President would have no motivation to order it. Whatever liabilities come with the ties the US military has with Pakistan, losing those ties could bring a worse outcome. A classic case of weighing benefits versus costs.

I would be interested in hearing opinions on what price India pays for the United States' relationship with Pakistan.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,756
Country flag
Oil could have been got by even normalizing relations. The US managed to do that with Libya. It could have with Iraq too.

The wrong war cost the US and the world. What's there in return for the US from Astan? Nothing. What return will you get from Pakistan?

You want an incentive? Balochistan has plenty of oil and gas reserves. It's the south west part of Pakistan and it was forcibly taken over by punjabi Pakistan against the wishes of the Baloch people. There you go!! When are you bombing pak? That is where the real war on terror lies.

PS: you can set your notification my email in settings. The menu is eight at the top
 

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,023
Likes
37,268
Country flag
America will never forgive and forget pakistan's duplicity and deception

Pakistan will pay for all its sins

A super power never cares about right or wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral

US ego has been hurt and US will take revenge from Pakistan

US will not just withdraw from Afghanistan and forget about the whole thing
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
(First, I would like to find out how I can get a notification from the forum when my posts get a reply.)

To answer your question as a US citizen, my first thought is a cynical one. Iraq has extensive oil resources, Pakistan does not. (Just as we have an interest in Libya - "Qaddafi is killing his own people!" - but not in Syria (where Assad is "killing his own people!" too).

Moreover, adding a war in Pakistan (and an ensuing occupation) would just be intolerable to the American people, and the President would have no motivation to order it. Whatever liabilities come with the ties the US military has with Pakistan, losing those ties could bring a worse outcome. A classic case of weighing benefits versus costs.

I would be interested in hearing opinions on what price India pays for the United States' relationship with Pakistan.
The US did not go into Iraq merely for oil, even though Iraq has the largest reserve of 'sweet' oil and the second largest oilfields in the world.

It went into Iraq to:

1. break the OPEC oil cartel which was playing havoc with the world prices and thus affecting the US that depends heavily on oil, by having control over the second largest oilfield in the world.

2. to be in the centre of the Middle East (an international hotspot) so that it could react speedily in that part of the world. [the rationale can be found in Di'cvk Cheney's Defence Policy Guideline when he was the Secretary of Defence. This outlines the US role post Cold War and how to ensure global supremacy].

3. Move closer to the underbelly of the erstwhile USSR and squeeze them further North. (Check US economic and military aid to the Central Asian Republic in the same timeframe). This 'squeeze' was in consonance to the US policy of squeezing Russia from the West by taking the erstwhile Soviet allies under the US wings.

Pakistan does not have oil. That is true. But it has huge reserves of Sui gas and strategic minerals in Balochistan. It also is allowing the Chinese to build road and rail link from Xinjiang to Gwadar in Balochistan. Pakistan has requested China to build a naval base out at Gwadar. Gwadar is nearly at the mouth of the Straits of Hormuz through which flows roughly 33 percent of all seaborne traded oil (40 percent in 2008), or 17 percent of oil traded worldwide. Its strategic importance being at the mouth of a chokepoint requires no elaboration.
Gwadar is also a listening post of the Chinese for US radio and electronic traffic in the Middle East.

Pakistan's Balochistan is important for the US since it is said that the US also sponsors the Jundallah periodically has forays from Pakistan into Iran Balochistan to keep the pressure on Iran from the East and thus sandwiches Iran with the effort from Iraq in the West.

As far as India is concerned, the US Pakistan issue affects in the following areas:

1. US military aid to Pakistan (the equipment and platforms supposed to be given for COIN is, by no stretch of imagination, COIN centric eg F 16, artillery, long range surveillance aircraft etc) is basically to be used against India. Arming Pakistan thus only adds to the arms race and makes India vulnerable to quixotic Pakistani war making as was done in 1965.

2. Not exerting pressure on Pakistan or pretending that the ISI is not encouraging instability in the region by funding, arming, organising, logistically supporting the terrorist, the US is doing a disservice to itself, apart from encouraging terrorism in Afghanistan and India. Even China has complained of Pakistan sponsored terrorism. It is only now that Mike Mullen has opened up this façade and I believe, the US State Dept today, is doing some firefighting to tone it down.

3. The US opposition to the IPI has increased concern about India's energy security.

Oil could have been got by even normalizing relations. The US managed to do that with Libya. It could have with Iraq too.

The wrong war cost the US and the world. What's there in return for the US from Astan? Nothing. What return will you get from Pakistan?

You want an incentive? Balochistan has plenty of oil and gas reserves. It's the south west part of Pakistan and it was forcibly taken over by punjabi Pakistan against the wishes of the Baloch people. There you go!! When are you bombing pak? That is where the real war on terror lies.

PS: you can set your notification my email in settings. The menu is eight at the top
Iraq was was wrong from the point of view of morality as felt by the rest of the world. However, from the US strategic point of view, the US would not find it wrong.

In Afghanistan, it was spurred by the psyche that no one can get away by 'attacking' the US i.e. Osama and 9/11. Therefore, none can deny that there is good justification for the US action.

It must also be remembered that the US felt, given their experience before the Iraq and Afghanistan war, that the nations would capitulate given that Pakistan was an ally and the US could install a pro US govt in Afghanistan. This would thus allow the US to put through the gas pipeline of UNOCAL from the CAR to Gwadar and reap a rich harvest supplying to oil hungry Asia in general and China and India in particular.

However, things have soured in Afghanistan. It is only in hindsight that we comment. If it was calm in Afghanistan as was expected, then the CAR gas would have boosted US fortunes!



America will never forgive and forget pakistan's duplicity and deception

Pakistan will pay for all its sins

A super power never cares about right or wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral

US ego has been hurt and US will take revenge from Pakistan

US will not just withdraw from Afghanistan and forget about the whole thing

It is true that the US is like an elephant. It never forgets.

I would be surprised if the US does not find ways and means to ensure that Pakistan pays.
 

agentperry

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
3,022
Likes
690
its a good time to get rid of a hostile neighbor. not by aggression but by a treaty that we wont cry and fight like kids atleast till India become superpower( anyhow somehow). this country will get more rogue and international community may put it into isolation provided usa works out properly and china is contained. India can work out covertly by wiping out paki influence in afghanistan and iran, which will force pakistan to either make itself military state or divert forces from loc to western borders. baluchis should be given support but just moral and we can just finance the arms and shouldnt sell them one. it will make India indulges with no proof of being indulged.
china needs access to arabian sea that too cheap( pakis will give free) so its time India and china gets into agreement to negotiate passing of chinese goods.
 

Global Defence

Articles

Top