Treat Pakistan As The Enemy It Is
Treat Pakistan As The Enemy It Is - Investors.com
Treat Pakistan As The Enemy It Is
Treat Pakistan As The Enemy It Is - Investors.com
Why Pakistan supports the Haqqani network: Fear for its own security - World Wires - MiamiHerald.com
Why Pakistan supports the Haqqani network
This rat has enough strategy to postpone its demise everytime.
And a small correction from my end, Nobody in India knows what to do with Pakistan.
USA turned out to be even biggest wimp and sucker than compared to india.Atleast indiad did mobilised its forces to border for 6 months but usa capitulated with in 48 hrs of pakistan issuing warning to massive retaliation in response to usa attack.Its better usa learn dossier diplomacy from india and shoot off 1000 page dossier in response to any terror strike on americans.Its the most easiest and cheapest way to counter terrorism.
A Typical Paki troll.
Last edited by Galaxy; 29-09-11 at 01:15 PM.
this week's all 3 episodes of aapas ki baat were concentrated on this very subject. last night's episode:
Pak making error by supporting terror groups against India: US
Pak making error by supporting terror groups against India: US - The Times of India
Pakistan claims victory over US Haqqani spat
Pakistan's prime minister has claimed victory over the US after American officials backed away from accusing his country's intelligence services of supporting the Haqqani network.
By Rob Crilly, Islamabad5:02PM BST 03 Oct 2011
During a public address at the weekend, Yousuf Raza Gilani said Pakistan's political parties had united to face down the US.
"It is the victory of Pakistani nation, political parties as well as the government's policy of reconciliation," he said.
Last month Adml Mike Mullen, in his last few days before retiring as America's most senior military officer, said the Haqqani network, one of the most feared insurgent groups in Afghanistan, was a "veritable arm" of Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency.
He accused Pakistan of exporting violence and also blamed the ISI for directing a 19hr attack on the US embassy and Nato headquarters in Kabul on September 13, as he stepped up demands that Pakistan act against Haqqani bases in North Waziristan.
His statement was the climax of a string of apparently carefully choreographed allegations by senior Administration officials – including the US ambassador to Islamabad – that Pakistan's intelligence service was closely connected to the Haqqanis.
However, with relations between the two countries close to breaking point, the US appeared to row back with a series of statements emphasising the importance of the alliance.
On Friday, President Barack Obama made a point of not endorsing Adml Mullen's accusations.
He admitted that the intelligence was not clear on the exact nature of the relationship between the ISI and the Haqqanis.
The reversal has been greeted with glee in Islamabad.
Mr Gilani, who was speaking at Bili Wala in Punjab, said an all-party conference (APC) held last week had been instrumental in forcing the US to back down.
"It is due to APC as well as the unity of Pakistan's political leaders that the US has a sent a message that they need Pakistan and that they cannot win the war without Pakistan," he said. "They have also distanced themselves from the statement of Mullen."
The climb-down also suggests the US knew it had few options to increase pressure, without risking a total breakdown in relations and the deployment of American forces to Pakistan.
"US options are limited as we don't want a larger war in south Asia," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer who advised the White House on Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2009 and a fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank."
The Train Wreck
U.S.-Pakistan relations have been souring steadily since the start of the year. They’re only going to get worse. By Shuja Nawaz
Complicated and fraught, U.S.-Pakistan relations took a turn for the worse with Adm. Mike Mullen’s Sept. 22 testimony before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee in which he all but declared Pakistan as sponsoring terrorism in Afghanistan.
Admiral Mullen referred to evidence linking Inter-Services Intelligence to the attacks: “Extremist organizations serving as proxies of the government of Pakistan are attacking Afghan troops and civilians as well as U.S. soldiers. For example, we believe the Haqqani network—which has long enjoyed the support and protection of the Pakistani government and is, in many ways, a strategic arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency—is responsible for the Sept. 13 attacks against the U.S. Embassy in Kabul.”
Pakistan protested this accusation, and the Army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, reportedly was surprised by it since he said he had had a good exchange with Mullen in Spain the week before. Kayani termed Mullen’s testimony as “unfortunate and not based on facts.” Harsh words for his once best friend in the U.S. government. Clearly, the two “partners” against terrorism are talking past each other, yet again. And suspicion continues to dog this benighted “friendship.” If the people of Pakistan are angry and confused, they have good reason.
No one has yet spelled out to the Pakistani people the strategy of the Pakistani state’s efforts against insurgents and homegrown as well as foreign-supported terrorists. Who speaks for the state? Who acts on its behalf? At least two if not more centers of gravity exist as far as decision making is concerned. The most powerful voice being that of the Army chief; the quiet whispers of the ISI may be next, followed by the empty rhetoric of the civilian leadership that has failed to exercise effective control over domestic, defense, and foreign policies.
This most recent contretemps with the United States has been fueled by the speeding-up endgame in Afghanistan, as local and regional players vie for influence. Pakistan still appears to be caught in the Pakhtun puzzle: trying to win some influence over the militant Pakhtun groups whose territory abuts Pakistan’s western border and who use its territory as a base for attacking Afghanistan. In doing so, it has failed to recognize and work with all Afghanistan, a mosaic of different ethnic entities and interest groups. Pakistan’s archrival India has meanwhile consolidated its economic and political ties throughout Afghanistan by its infrastructure investments and other forms of economic aid, adding to Pakistan’s concerns about being sandwiched between the two.
This is a time for bold and creative thinking by Pakistan’s civilian government and military and not for the age-old “staff solutions” that inhibit daring action. Neutralizing the hostility on its eastern flank with India is one good option. Reaching out to the Shia and to the Tajik, Uzbek, and Hazara ethnic groups inside Afghanistan may be another, while maintaining links to all Pakhtuns in Afghanistan.
Favoring the Afghan Taliban groups, be they Haqqani’s or Mullah Omar’s people, may well create a new threat to Pakistan as the likely conflict inside Afghanistan after the allies withdraw may reverse the sanctuary available to Pakistan’s own Taliban terrorists. The Kunar sanctuary that prompts attacks in the northern reaches of the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas and Dir may be a precursor of a wider phenomenon. Recall also that Pakistan has never been able to exercise full control over foreign or domestic militants. If it did, its domestic and external relationships would be in far better shape than they are today.
Back to the “frenemy” odd couple: today Pakistan and the United States remain heavily codependent. The U.S. needs both air and land lines of communication via Pakistan for its final years of active fighting in Afghanistan. President Barack Obama will be under increasing pressure from his electorate to bring the boys and girls home sooner rather than later.
Pakistan’s military could benefit from U.S. equipment and technical expertise and its teetering economy badly needs U.S. support not only directly but also through the international financial institutions. Even Pakistan’s friends in the region are concerned about its state of affairs and the rise of terrorism inside the country. At a recent conference that I attended in Beijing on potential U.S.-China cooperation in Central Asia and the Middle East, our Chinese hosts and other well-informed contacts were anxious about the current growth, and support, of Islamist militancy in the region. They have good reason for that concern. So should Pakistan.
The genie of militancy that the Pakistani state once fostered is running rampant. Pakistan does not need the U.S. or other countries to warn it of the consequences of inaction against terrorism at home and abroad. It must recognize the danger of its wars within and come up with a combined civil-military plan under civilian control. As the head of the ISI, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha told Der Spiegel on Jan. 6, 2009: “We may be crazy in Pakistan but not completely out of our minds. We know full well that terror is our enemy, not India.” Those ground realities have not changed since.
Let the prime minister speak to the nation and outline this new strategy that abjures support for any militancy inside its borders or in neighboring countries. President Pervez Musharraf once made such a bold pledge in public to open the doors to India but failed to garner support for it or to implement it fully. That opportunity still remains open for Pakistan’s leaders. (President Richard Nixon ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to cease all operations in mainland China before his historic 1972 visit to Beijing and “leaked” the order to the Chinese.) Pakistan is at yet another critical fork in the road. Will it dither or boldly take the right path?
Nawaz is director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C.
Ruthless squad hunts CIA informers in Pak
Islamabad, Oct. 2 (Reuters): A blindfolded man stands on explosives, trembling as he confesses to spying for the CIA in Pakistan. Armed men in black balaclavas slowly back away. Then he is blown up.
One of his executioners —members of an elite militant hit squad — zooms a camera in on his severed head and body parts for a video later distributed in street markets as a warning.
Al Qaida, the Pakistani Taliban and the Haqqani network — blamed for the September 13 attack on the US embassy in Kabul — picked the most ruthless fighters from their ranks in 2009 to form the Khurasan unit, for a special mission.
The Obama administration was escalating drone strikes on militants in the Pakistani tribal areas on the Afghan border and something had to be done to stop the flow of tips used for the US aerial campaign.
Militant groups don’t have the military technology to match the American drone programme, but they understand the value of human intelligence, and fear, in the conflict.
So the Khurasan were deployed to hunt down and eliminate anyone suspected of helping the Americans or their Pakistani government and military allies.
Just this week, an Afghan couple visiting Pakistan was shot dead for spying in North Waziristan, where the group operates.“The whole community is scared of the Khurasan, and sometimes we ask each other ‘have you seen the videos’,” said one man.
Made up mostly of Arabs and Uzbeks, the Khurasan, named after a province of an old Islamic empire, are a shadowy group of several hundred men who operate in North Waziristan, where Washington believes Haqqani network leaders are based.
CIA pilots, who remotely operate the drones, could step up their pursuit of the Haqqani network leaders after an attack on the US mission in Kabul last month. That would likely prompt the Khurasan to become more ruthless, after capturing about 120 people they’ve accused of being spies since 2009.
When suspected collaborators are caught, they are held in cells in a network of secret prisons across North Waziristan.
A committee of Khurasan clerics decides their fate. Most are declared guilty after what group members admit are “very, very harsh” interrogations.
“They are given electric shocks. If they don’t help then an electric drill is used or the spies are forced to stand on electric heaters,” said one Khurasan operative. “Or nails are hammered into their bodies.”
Any attempt to intervene on behalf of people who are captured is risky. The Khurasan see that as collaboration with the enemy too and it is punishable by death.
Whenever someone is found guilty, the Khurasan make sure everyone knows about it.
“The spies are taken outside residential areas at night and shot dead. Their bodies are thrown on roadsides or squares in the town with a piece of paper warning others to refrain from this ‘dirty’ job of spying,” said one operative.
Their methods have become so brutal and widespread that the Khurasan have alienated some of the militant leaders who created them, men who would not think twice about ordering beheadings.
The Khurasan are not dependent on larger militant groups like the Taliban, funding their operations through kidnappings.
They are making it more difficult for the Pakistani army to persuade Pashtun tribal communities to form pro-government militias.
Obama lashes out at Pak military for ties to terrorists
Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN | Oct 6, 2011, 11.02PM IST
WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama on Thursday lit into Pakistan, virtually accusing the country's all-powerful military of consorting with terrorists, of manufacting threats from India, and creating an environment that threatened the whole region, including the people of Pakistan.
At a short-notice White House press conference, Obama prefaced his stinging critique of Pakistan's regional policy by acknowledging the country's importance and some cooperation it has provided so far. But he did not mince words in speaking about the country's two-faced military who are now regarded in some circles as terrorists in uniform.
''There is no doubt that there's some connections the Pakistani military and intelligence services have with certain individuals that we find troubling," Obama said, endorsing the view of just-retired joint chiefs of staff Mike Mullen. "I think they (Pakistan) have hedged their bets in terms of what Afghanistan would look like and part of hedging their bets is having interactions with some of the unsavory characters who they think might end up regaining power in Afghanistan after coalition forces have left," he added.
Pakistan has variously denied, and sometimes acknowledged and justified, ties with terrorist groups, which they believe further the country's strategic interest in Afghanistan in the event of U.S pull out. Pakistani analysts also believe the military is doing this to prevent India from wielding any influence in Afghanistan, where a broad-based dispensation excluding the Taliban is more inclined towards New Delhi.
But Obama appeared to rubbish the idea, suggesting Pakistan was ill-served by this policy. Pakistan, he said, saw its "security interest threatened by an independent Afghanistan, in part because they think it will ally itself to India and Pakistan still considers India their mortal enemy,'' and "Part of what we want to do is actually get Pakistan to realize that a peaceful approach towards India would be in everybody's interests."
Pakistan itself faced pressing problems such as poverty, illiteracy, a lack of development and weak civil institutions, "and in that environment, you've seen extremism grow, you've seen militancy that threatens the Pakistani government and Pakistani people as well.''
"Trying to get that reorientation is something we continue to work on,'' Obama said, admitting, ''It is not easy.''
US secretly met Kayani to deliver a 'tough message': NYT
Published: October 6, 2011
President Obama’s national security adviser met with Pakistan’s top military officer in a secret meeting in Persian Gulf last week to deliver ‘a tough message’ regarding the Haqqani network, reported The New York Times (NYT).
According to a senior administration official quoted in the report, it was safe to assume that the Haqqani network was discussed during the secret meeting and that the Pakistan Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani was stressed towards taking a direct action against the militant network.
Earlier, the US officials met with the leaders of Haqqani network in efforts to talk the militant organisation into ending the war in Afghanistan. According to the NYT report, both the meetings were an indication of “Obama administration’s complicated and seemingly contradictory policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan”, as well as the efforts of the US to rebuild its deteriorating relationship with Pakistan.
The report states that the US State Department is willing to designate the Haqqani network as a “Foreign Terrorist Organisation,” but some military commanders are holding back the decision fearing that it might “alienate the Haqqanis and drive them away from future talks.”
The US-Pakistan relationship strained after Admiral Mike Mullen, the former chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, accused Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of supporting the Haqqani network and for helping them carry out the attack on US embassy in Kabul on September 10. Pakistan’s top military officials and other leaders have met with US officials in several meeting following the accusations to assure them of Pakistan’s fight against the militants.
The recent allegations have become a major stumbling block in improving the relationship between the two countries which has been on a steady decline since the May 2 US raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
Obama Warns Pakistanis on Militants
President Obama cast some doubt on the long-term relationship between the United States and Pakistan on Thursday, saying his administration was concerned about the Pakistani government’s commitment to American interests because of ties between anti-American militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s own intelligence service.
President Obama said the United States would "constantly evaluate" Pakistan's cooperation.
At a news conference in Washington focused mostly on the American economy, Mr. Obama said he was thankful for cooperation from Pakistan, which has allowed the United States to use drones to strike at Qaeda cells ensconced along the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier.
But he also obliquely criticized Pakistan over its position regarding Afghanistan, where efforts to stabilize the country and wind down the American-led war have been frustrated by what American and Afghan officials have described as Pakistan’s support for insurgent groups, including the Taliban and their allies in the Haqqani network.
“I think that they have hedged their bets in terms of what Afghanistan would look like,” Mr. Obama said. “And part of hedging their bets is having interactions with some of the unsavory characters who they think might end up regaining power in Afghanistan after coalition forces have left.”
The United States will “constantly evaluate” Pakistan’s cooperation, Mr. Obama said. He added: “But there’s no doubt that, you know, we’re not going to feel comfortable with a long-term strategic relationship with Pakistan if we don’t think that they’re mindful of our interests as well.”
Mr. Obama’s remarks seemed to call into question whether the United States could continue supplying Pakistan with billions of dollars in military and civilian aid, as it has since the Sept. 11 attacks, if its intelligence service could not be persuaded to drop its support for militant groups long used as proxies against India and Afghanistan.
Asked, however, if he would be willing to cut off aid to Pakistan, recently ravaged by flooding, Mr. Obama hesitated. The United States has a “great desire to help the Pakistani people strengthen their own society and their own government,” he said. “And so, you know, I’d be hesitant to punish flood victims in Pakistan because of poor decisions by their intelligence services.”
His remarks came against a backdrop of already heightened American tensions with Pakistan, since Adm. Mike Mullen, the just-retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate panel last month that the Haqqani network, a potent part of the insurgency battling American forces in Afghanistan, was a “veritable arm” of Pakistan’s spy agency.
Admiral Mullen also accused the agency of supporting an attack by Haqqani militants on the United States Embassy in Kabul, the Afghan capital.
Mr. Obama said: “What we’ve tried to persuade Pakistan of is that it is in their interest to have a stable Afghanistan, that they should not be feeling threatened by a stable, independent Afghanistan. We’ve tried to get conversations between Afghans and Pakistanis going more effectively than they have been in the past. But we’ve still got more work to do.”
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)