After Osama, What?

Discussion in 'China' started by Ray, May 3, 2011.

  1. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    The following events have taken place in quick succession:

    1. Imran Khan's whipping up of popular dissent against the Pak Govt and the Army for impotence against US Drone attacks and being incapable to stand up to the US pressure and mortgaging Pakistan's governance to the US. The people under Imran Khan blockaded the US and ISAF supply route to Afghanistan through Pakistan for 02 days and gave an ultimatum to the Govt to take action within 30 days or they will march to Islamabad and bring the Govt down!

    2. Consequent to the public unrest and protest, the US is said to be winding up its Drone operations from the Shamsi and other bases in Pakistan and move base to Afghanistan from where the originally used to operate.

    3. The US killed Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad, Pakistan. Pakistan is said to have been kept in the dark about the operations, possibly because the US believes that the Army and the ISI leaks like a sieve.
    Yet, this operation proves two issues:

    (a) that the US operation once again takes no cognisance of Pakistan's territorial integrity or sovereignty. ​

    (b) there will be disquiet over (a) and may lead to unrest.​

    Given the above, the issues are

    1. The Pakistan logistic supply route would be seriously compromised and jeopardised.

    Therefore, will the US taken the Northern Route through Central Asian Republic and will it be viable, economically and militarily?

    2. Will the US, having moved its Drone operations into Afghanistan, go whole hog? If so, what will be the Pakistani reactions? What will be the international reaction?

    3. Will the US undertake any ground operations against the Haqqani and other groups in Khyber Pakhtunkwa to ensure that these groups can no longer affect the ISAF operations and thereafter go at will to clean up Afghanistan? If so, what will be the repercussions?

    4. There are speculations that since Osama is dead, the US in Afghanistan will undertake a drawdown and quit. Will it? Can the US leave without cleansing Afghanistan of the AQ and Taliban, because even if OBL is dead, it does not mean that the AQ or the Taliban is dead and will not be able to go their usual ways?

    5. Given that Obama is up for the second term at the Presidency and he has been able to fulfil one of his promises to the American people - getting Osama, would he not be compelled to drawdown or even quit Afghanistan since that was another of his promises to the American people? Can he quit Afghanistan without cleaning it up of the terrorist influences? If not, what are his options.

    Request, please address the points raised, each separately.
     
  2.  
  3. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,287
    Location:
    BANGalore
    I will not bother about what Imran Khan has to say about violation of sovereignty as it falls falt when we see that they have already sold that to the terrorists.

    I am concerned about the continuation of the war on terror. I would not want the US to leave right now as the job has only just begun. The head has been eliminated, now the rest of the gang has to be either eliminates or disarmed if they chose to.

    Now that Pakistani complicity in terrorist activity has been exposed, the US should now mount a campaign in Pakistan probably seek a UN mandate if required. Declare Pakistan a terrorist state and then move boots to the ground. Take care of it's nukes first and then go after all known international terrorists. If it chooses this route, India could be part of this campaign as long as we have guarantees that terrorists who target india will be eliminated. India could then open up a logistic supply route for the US troops. I am sure all their air defense will be suppressed and destroyed which would also allow supply aircrafts to fly with impunity.

    All boils down to how the US sees it's war there go from now on.
     
  4. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    The Northern Route

    Strategic Survey IISS
    2010

    The United States has established several new transit corridors to deliver non-lethal goods to its forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan had previously been the main transit point for all types of supplies, but the increasingly fragile security situation along its border with Afghanistan convinced the US authorities of the need to establish alternative routes. A major component of this strategy is the Northern Distribution Network (NDN), a series of rail, water and road links to deliver cargo to Afghanistan through the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. The network now handles about 30% of all ground supplies.

    The NDN comprises a southern route – starting at the Georgian port of Poti, going over land to the port of Baku, Azerbaijan, then by ferry to Aqtau, Kazakhstan, and on through Uzbekistan to Afghanistan – and a more heavily used northern route, traversing Latvia, Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. A spur of the northern route bypasses Uzbekistan and runs from Kazakhstan via Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, but is hampered by bad roads in Tajikistan. Moving supplies via the northern rail route costs approximately 10% of the cost of movement by air.

    The US military is keen to have a diverse range of supply routes so as to avoid dependency on any particular one. For example, if it were to secure a transit agreement with Turkmenistan, the port of Turkmenbashi could be an additional destination for goods leaving Baku by ferry. US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates visited Baku in June 2010 to strengthen ties with Azerbaijan and discussed ways to diversify routes.

    Washington is also exploring the idea of expanding the NDN eastwards by adding a Chinese
    branch, originating in China’s Pacific ports and travelling via road and rail to Afghanistan.

    Diversifying supplies

    The 2,000km-long Pakistan Ground Lines of Communication (PAKGLOC) have so far been the principal supply route for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. Goods are transported from the port city of Karachi to Afghanistan by two main supply arteries through Pakistan.

    One cuts through the Khyber Pass, west of Peshawar; the other crosses the border further south at Chaman, near the city of Quetta.

    However, cargo making the ten-day journey was notoriously vulnerable to attack by Taliban militants, particularly on the Khyber Pass, which traverses the restive tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan.

    On 18 November 2008, the Taliban conducted a raid on 23 commercial trucks delivering NATO supplies in the Khyber tribal area and on 7 December 2008, insurgents launched the single biggest assault on US supplies in seven years, destroying 160 trucks at two Pakistani terminals near Peshawar.

    In December 2008, 12% of Afghanistan-bound freight crossing Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province en route to the Khyber Pass disappeared, most of it in flames, according to Vice Admiral Mark Harnitchek, deputy commander of the US Transportation Command (TRANSCOM).

    In 2008, security concerns spurred efforts to find alternative routes. US Central Command (CENTCOM) sanctioned the US Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to send a series of trial shipments from Europe to Afghanistan using prime vendors – suppliers with long-term contracts for goods such as food, spare parts and building supplies – to test the viability of northern routes.

    On 16 September 2008, one company agreed to move ten shipping containers filled with sheets of plywood from Germany to Afghanistan.

    Regular deliveries using the NDN began in May 2009 at a rate of seven containers per day. By August 2009, the number had increased to 1,000 containers per month, and by January 2010 the rate was approximately 1,640. Apart from fuel, goods most commonly dispatched included cement, lumber, blast barriers, septic tanks and rubberised matting.

    According to General Duncan McNabb, head of TRANSCOM, 80% of supplies bound for Afghanistan previously flowed through the port of Karachi and on through Pakistan, but this has fallen to about 50% since the opening of the NDN. Of the total cargo heading to US forces in Afghanistan, 30% goes via the NDN and 20% by air. Of all non-lethal cargo delivered by surface transport, about 50% transits the NDN and 50% via Pakistan.

    However, such is the volume of supplies that Peshawar has seen the shipments it
    handles more than double in 2010. The monthly average through PAKGLOC is still 4,200 containers, compared with 1,457 through the NDN. Meanwhile, the situation along the Pakistani routes remains unstable.

    This year on 9 June, Taliban gunmen destroyed 50 trucks carrying supplies for ISAF near the capital Islamabad.

    The NDN has also become a key component of ISAF’s fuel-supply infrastructure. During 2009, its daily fuel consumption increased from 2 million to 4.1m litres per day, meaning that more fuel had to be imported via Afghanistan’s northern borders.

    According to the DLA, approximately 40% of the fuel contracted by the US Defense Energy Support Center is produced in Pakistani refineries and transported via truck into Afghanistan, while the fuel that it acquires from Central Asia (in particular Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan) accounts for approximately 60% of the overall contracted volumes and is shipped via the NDN.

    NATO has also begun using the NDN. The first trial shipment of NATO cargo, consisting of 27 containers of construction materials and food supplies, departed from Riga, Latvia, in May 2010. Russia had offered transit to NATO at the Alliance’s 2008 Bucharest summit, but it was not until 2009 that NATO began negotiating transit rights with Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, and these talks took almost a year to complete.

    Plans are under way for further shipments, subject to the demands of ISAF troop-contributing countries.

    Demand is likely to increase in light of a June 2010 attack on NATO trucks in Pakistan.
    Diplomatic contacts The larger US military footprint in Afghanistan has required greater diplomatic engagement with Central Asian states. In 2009 Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan each reached agreements with Washington on over-land transit of supplies to Afghanistan. Georgia had given permission for over-land supplies in 2005, Azerbaijan in March 2009 and Russia in July 2009 as part of the ‘resetting’ of the US–
    Russia relationship.

    US President Barack Obama’s administration has also worked with countries involved
    in the NDN to secure overflight rights for military equipment and personnel: agreements were reached with Russia and Kazakhstan in July 2009 and April 2010 respectively.

    In December 2009, General Stanley McChrystal, then ISAF commander, said: ‘ISAF’s Northern Distribution Network and logistical hubs are dependent upon support from Russian and Central Asian states, giving them the potential to act as either spoilers or positive influences’. McChrystal’s statement pointed not only to the reliance of the US on Central Asian countries in managing the NDN, but also to the risk of over-reliance on them. Recent political upheavals in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan’s decision in 2005 to close down the US air base at Karshi-Kanabad underline the risks involved.

    Russia has long been concerned about the US military presence in Central Asia, but the NDN could change the dynamic of US–Russian diplomacy in the region. The political troubles in April 2010 in Kyrgyzstan showed cooperation between Russia and the US, and the NDN presents a further opportunity for cooperative interaction.

    At an April 2010 summit in Prague, US and Russian officials declared their willingness to pursue cooperation to avert a new round of skirmishes over the US air base at Manas in
    Kyrgyzstan, as occurred in 2009 when Russia put pressure on Kyrgyz authorities to terminate the US lease. Moscow and Washington had also agreed on the use of Russian airspace by US forces using Manas.

    Supply challenges

    There are a number of major challenges affecting the development of the NDN, especially in light of the fact that demand for its use is projected to increase from 25,000 to 40,000 tonnes per month over the next two years.

    It relies on poor infrastructure, both along its routes and within Afghanistan, which only has two short railway lines across its northern borders with Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

    David Sedney, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia has drawn attention to Afghanistan’s poor road links, saying that despite recent construction efforts, ‘the lack of effective entry points [is a] huge limiting factor ... in our ability to deliver supplies throughout Afghanistan’.

    DLA Director Vice Admiral Alan Thompson noted in March 2010: ‘one issue we’re working on is a time delay at the border with Uzbekistan that was more than 30 days ... We’re closer to 20 days now, but we still need to reduce it further.’

    To address this bottleneck, the Asian Development Bank is financing a $165m project to build a railway line from the Afghan border town of Hairatan to the northern city of Mazar-
    e-Sharif, 75km away, expected to be completed by November 2010. The existing line, which runs only 10km from the Uzbek border town of Termez to Hairatan, where the freight terminal serves as a gateway to Afghanistan, has reached its handling capacity of 4,000 tonnes of cargo per month.

    Until upgrades are completed, this border crossing is likely to remain a choke point.

    Meanwhile, railway experts have questioned whether the existing rail route through Uzbekistan is capable of handling the amount of traffic envisioned by the US military and its allies.

    Beyond infrastructural problems, the NDN inevitably poses political challenges. Some US military strategists fear that as the volume of cargo delivered along the NDN increases, so too will the risk of exporting Afghanistan’s problems into Central Asia. They suggest that bringing Central Asia into the theatre of war could lead to an increased threat of attack by the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and the Islamic Jihad Union, groups that have a loyal following in the restive Fergana valley, which stretches through Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

    In September 2009, two tankers from Tajikistan delivering fuel to ISAF were hijacked by Taliban insurgents in Kunduz Province in Afghanistan, which borders Tajikistan. After the hijacked trucks stalled while crossing the Kunduz River, German forces called in a US
    air strike, resulting in dozens of civilian and insurgent casualties. In recent months, there have been several battles between Taliban insurgents in Kunduz Province and US, NATO and Afghan government forces.

    In January 2010, there was fighting in a small town in Kunduz Province just a few miles from the Tajik border, amid evidence of growing insurgency in the province.
    Nevertheless, the NDN is seen as providing benefits both for ISAF and the region. It encourages Central Asian states to cooperate with each other and is helping to accelerate the development of an integrated regional infrastructure. The network has given much-needed impetus to NATO–Russia and US–Russia
     
  5. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Imran Khan's movement is somewhat similar to what Anna Hazare has done here; maybe even more fiercer and determined.

    It is not only the fundamentalists who are wild about the US, the normal Pakistani, educated, illiterate, rich or poor, is totally fed up to the gills with the manner how Pakistan, over the years, has sold itself to the US.

    Since emotions seems to ride the Movement, they fail to take into account the advantages that has also accrued by tagging onto the US.

    They are only concerned that they are not their Masters of the Fate and Captains of their Souls. Powerful emotions, if you ask me.

    Terrorism, per se, is not paramount in their mind even though it is also tearing the innards of Pakistan.

    Like all drowning souls, they feel, falsely if you will, that if the US goes, all will be well!

    A very sane assessment.

    How many years and how much of resources that were deployed to just find the 'head'?

    Now, if one is to go for the 'gang', the issue how?

    If the US drawsdown in Afghanistan, there is no hope.

    If the US does not enter Pakistan and knock of their bases, then there is no hope.

    Knocking down does not mean raid, for after the raid, the terrorist will re-establish themselves. It means 'occupation' and occupation means war!

    Will China a member of the UNSC permit a UN mandate?

    Therefore, it has to be unilateral, more in the line of Bush's gung ho cowboy stuff. Obama does not seem to be the type who could or would replicate Bush.

    How does anyone take care of the nukes?

    They will be heavily guarded and SEAL type of operations will not to. It has to be a more troops heavy operation and if the US is keen on doing so, it should do now, while they are still capable of operating within Pakistan.

    Going after known terrorists will take years.

    Even if allows transit and bases in India to the US, how will they go to Afghanistan. They will not be able to overfly Pakistan airspace.

    That is the issue.

    What should the US do in real terms?
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2011
  6. Pokemon

    Pokemon New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Chandigarh, India
    1. Imran Khan's whipping up of popular dissent against the Pak Govt and the Army for impotence against US Drone attacks and being incapable to stand up to the US pressure and mortgaging Pakistan's governance to the US. The people under Imran Khan blockaded the US and ISAF supply route to Afghanistan through Pakistan for 02 days and gave an ultimatum to the Govt to take action within 30 days or they will march to Islamabad and bring the Govt down!

    Imran gather the public support because he projects that drone are killing the innocent pakistani. Attack on Osama might not add any agenda to his portfolio.

    2. Consequent to the public unrest and protest, the US is said to be winding up its Drone operations from the Shamsi and other bases in Pakistan and move base to Afghanistan from where the originally used to operate.

    Thats something to watch for. There are Osama's sympathesizers all over pakistan and his killing and thats too on pakistan soil might result in a massive fall out.

    3. The US killed Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad, Pakistan. Pakistan is said to have been kept in the dark about the operations, possibly because the US believes that the Army and the ISI leaks like a sieve.
    Yet, this operation proves two issues:

    (a) that the US operation once again takes no cognisance of Pakistan's territorial integrity or sovereignty. ​

    (b) there will be disquiet over (a) and may lead to unrest.​

    Given the above, the issues are

    1. The Pakistan logistic supply route would be seriously compromised and jeopardised.

    Therefore, will the US taken the Northern Route through Central Asian Republic and will it be viable, economically and militarily?

    Don't think so. Pakistan's leverage on U.S will drop drastically and have to help U.S now out of the box to get any aid.

    2. Will the US, having moved its Drone operations into Afghanistan, go whole hog? If so, what will be the Pakistani reactions? What will be the international reaction?

    There might be reduction in millitary ops in pakistan as political goal of obama has been achieved and U.S will engage in more dialogue with millitants. afterall they can't afford a new Osama.

    3. Will the US undertake any ground operations against the Haqqani and other groups in Khyber Pakhtunkwa to ensure that these groups can no longer affect the ISAF operations and thereafter go at will to clean up Afghanistan? If so, what will be the repercussions?

    Dialogues seems to be more beneficial to U.S now.

    4. There are speculations that since Osama is dead, the US in Afghanistan will undertake a drawdown and quit. Will it? Can the US leave without cleansing Afghanistan of the AQ and Taliban, because even if OBL is dead, it does not mean that the AQ or the Taliban is dead and will not be able to go their usual ways?

    5. Given that Obama is up for the second term at the Presidency and he has been able to fulfil one of his promises to the American people - getting Osama, would he not be compelled to drawdown or even quit Afghanistan since that was another of his promises to the American people? Can he quit Afghanistan without cleaning it up of the terrorist influences? If not, what are his options.

    To fulfill someone else need is not the duty of Obama. His job accompolished and he will never want more of his soldiers dying. U.S. will settle the issue with already weak and willing talibans and lwill left the afghan soon.
     
  7. Illusive

    Illusive Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    2,335
    Likes Received:
    1,418
    I think US should play it safe.

    Pak is a rouge state having nukes which it will threaten to give it to Taliban if any serious operations are held after this.

    India must raise this issue in UN, to put pressure on Pakistan to come clean in 26/11 case, and US must continue supporting Pakistan or mention Pakistan still as an ally, not stop aid money but always delay it.

    Pakistan's ace in its selves are it nukes, so we must not jump on Pakistan like a madman.

    Continue drone strikes and put pressure on Pakistan by the world to irradicate all terror oufits and training camp.
     
  8. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,287
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Sir, the US wasted time and resources because it trusted the wrong people. Now it know who it can trust and who it cannot. Also as the head has been taken out who was the single most and charismatic person to draw the hordes of willing to be terrorists, I am sure they will be in disarray.

    The Americans know everything about Pakistani nukes as they have helped secure it. They have a lot more intel on it than anyone else. The pakistanis have raised fears of their nukes being taken out by CIA and Mossad.

    Finally transit to Astan will not be required if the war on terror changes from being fought in Astan and shifts to Pakistan. Once that begins, first thing is the US will knock off all it's air defenses. A UN mandate will not be opposed by even china as it's now a naked truth that Pakistan provides sanctuary to terrorists. With china having problems of it's own, it will not oppose.

    Looking at the bigger picture, the US could fight separate the Pakistani Chinese nexus as well. A UN mandate that china does not oppose would mean the all weather friend has chosen it's own national interest against Pak. The US should play the game now very carefully. Any mistake now will result in an insecure world for a long time to come. Pakistan has been exposed in trying to remove US out of the equation and get china into Astan. All this is going against any further US support of Pakistan.
     
  9. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    One should analyse without hate or anger.

    First of all, you can trust nobody in the game of geopolitics.

    Do we trust the US.

    Pakistan was the best option since the most economical and shortest route was through and it was a no go for the US.

    Further, Pakistan was a pliant govt and army. The events prove it so. No other nation would be that pliant as Pakistan has been.

    Osama's No 2 the Egyptian doctor is no less of a leader!

    Well, if that is correct, then sooner the better!

    Hope so.

    Bets on!

    Even though gambling is a taboo in your religion and the fools Mamata Bannerjee and Digvijay Singh would not know even that!

    China like it or not will oppose any UN Mandate against Pakistan. Otherwise, it will be China cutting its umbilical cord!

    How has Pakistan tried to get China into Afghanistan?

    If she does not oppose, Pakistan will realise what skunks the Chinese have been.
     
  10. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Don't bank on India to do anything excepting pathetically bleat.
     
  11. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,287
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Sir, in the recent meeting between Karzai and Gilani, Gilani asked Karzai to dump the US and join China instead.
     
  12. AprilLyrics

    AprilLyrics Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Messages:
    380
    Likes Received:
    52
    change a title: After Osama,Who?~~
     
  13. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    No, the title is fine.

    It is not that who will replace, because someone will.

    But what is important is, whether the US will pursue its War on Terror or will it quit.

    In either scenario, what will be the outcome to the War on Terror and the geopolitics and geostrategy of the world!
     
  14. AOE

    AOE Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    437
    Likes Received:
    23
    I would agree with other posters here and say that the US should remain in Afghanistan for security and stability of the region, rather than abandoning it to AQ and the Taliban. Leaving now would be a disasterous move, and I think Obama would be smart to keep this in mind if he wants another term in office; even if he promised to end the war. The Republicans would have a field day if he abandoned the country.

    I like the posts of both Yusuf and Illusive on the Pakistani question, the Pakistanis are religious extremists in possession of nuclear weapons; two things that should never go together. The US will probably have to prevent Pakistan from going over to the side of the Chinese by continuing to give aid (unfortunately), and also to keep calling it an ally.
     
  15. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,161
    Location:
    EST, USA
    I would speculate that the US will be looking for the other honchos of the Mujahideen and Jihad Inc., that was based in Afghanistan but has now relocated to Pakistan.

    They will try to get Mullah Omar and Co. as quickly as possible. Once they do that, they will be able to slowly get out of Afghanistan because the US has a limping economy to tend to plus we cannot have more US soldiers getting killed.
     
  16. amitkriit

    amitkriit Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,465
    Likes Received:
    1,923
    Location:
    La La Land
    Pak an ally in the war on terror: US AfPak envoy

    Islamabad: Pakistan is still the United States of America's ally in the war on terror. US AfPak Ambassador Marc Grossman when asked whether the US's strategic ties with Pakistan will be affected by Osama bin Laden's killing said that Pakistan is crucial to peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan. Grossman also called Osama's killing a shared victory of the US, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    "End of Osama is a sheer achievement for the United States, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The United States, Pakistan and Afghanistan have commitments to end terror. Extremism is not going to affect our relationship (US-Pakistan) in any way," said Grossman after trilateral talks with Pakistan Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir and Afghanistan's Deputy Foreign Minister Jaweed Ludin.

    "Thousands of Pakistanis and soldiers have been a victim of terror. We are trying to bring safety and peace to Pakistan. The process of Afghanistan reconciliation needs efforts of regional countries especially Pakistan," Grossman said.

    Bashir admitted that Pakistan was not happy with the drone strike by US forces inside Pakistani territory, but his country was committed towards building a secure and stable region.

    "This is a good beginning (Osama's killing). We now start working together to write any chapter on stability in the region. Drone attacks have been a issue of discussion between Pakistan and the US. We have got to look towards future in building a secure, stable and prosperous region," said Bashir.

    Afghanistan’s Deputy Foreign Minister Jaweed Ludin thanked Pakistan for its support in the war on terror and in rebuilding his country.

    "We continue to receive the support of our friends in Pakistan. We share a lot of challenges. A new emphasis is needed in the trilateral relationship. We look forward to engaging with Pakistan," said Ludin.

    Osama bin Laden was killed on early Monday morning by a team of US Navy SEALs commandos in a raid at his mansion in Abbottbad, about 60 kms from Pakistan's capital Islamabad. The Osama hideout in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province and just a few hundred meters away from Pakistan Military Academy has, however, raised doubts about Islamabad's claims that it had no clue about the al Qaeda chief who also masterminded 9/11.

    Some big questions that follow Osama's killing:

    Was there a US-Pak deal on Osama?

    What happens to US-Pak ties now?

    Is Pak too embarrassed to admit the truth?

    Will the flow of US funds to Pakistan dry up?

    How long did Osama stay in the Abbottabad house?

    If the US decides to pull out of Afghanistan how will it impact the balance of power in the region?
     
  17. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    I think it's very important to look at how US-Pak relations change after this event. Expect lots of framing and lots of accusations.

    I've always said that a long-term goal of the U.S. in Afghanistan was to destabilize Pakistan. Expect this destabilization process to enter "a new phase".
     
  18. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    Yanks only target al qaeda and taliban but these two don't directly target India. Till they dont target the likes of LeT i will believe that usa and pak have an understanding.

    We must and will be left alone to fight our own battles.
     

Share This Page