After setbacks, U.S. military tries to rebuild ties with Pakistani military

Discussion in 'Pakistan' started by ejazr, Oct 25, 2011.

  1. ejazr

    ejazr Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    1,378
    Location:
    Hyderabad and Sydney
    Why am I not surprised?

    After setbacks, U.S. military tries to rebuild ties with Pakistani military - The Washington Post

    KABUL — When Lt. Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti was the U.S. military commander in eastern Afghanistan last year, he toured the battlefield with his counterparts from Pakistan along both sides of the porous border.

    U.S. and Pakistani troops conducted coordinated operations to squeeze Taliban insurgents seeking sanctuary in the rugged mountains along the border.

    After U.S. commandos killed Osama bin Laden in May on Pakistani soil, however, such border cooperation — and even basic dialogue between American and Pakistani troops — came to a grinding halt.

    As a high-level U.S. delegation led by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pushed for more political cooperation last week, Scaparrotti, now the No. 2 commander in Afghanistan, is working to re-start the military dialogue.

    “After May, this relationship is not what it was, say, a year ago,” Scaparrotti said in an interview at his headquarters here. “My intent is to start rebuilding this on a mil-to-mil basis, at least.”

    A week before Clinton’s visit to Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital, Scaparrotti met with top Pakistani military officials and pressed for reestablishing “routine daily communication” and discussions of how to deal with insurgents.

    “If we work together, we can have a joint effect on [the insurgents], and we need to do so,” Scaparrotti said.

    The main thrust of the American message is that Pakistan must do more to combat the Haqqani network, the Taliban-linked insurgent group that is responsible for many attacks in Kabul. U.S. officials believe Pakistan’s government supports — or at least permits — operations by Haqqani fighters from within Pakistan.

    Tension over the network grew after recent attacks on the U.S. Embassy and a British cultural center in Kabul, as well as an increase in cross-border shelling this year in Paktika province. Scaparrotti said shelling from Pakistan was falling on U.S. and Afghan border units at four times the rate of last year.

    Although some have accused the Pakistani military of firing into Afghanistan, Scaparrotti blamed insurgents, who sometimes use the tactic to divert American attention to one area as they drive truck convoys of weapons and fighters across other parts of the border.

    Pakistani officials say they do not want to wage an operation in the Haqqani stronghold of North Waziristan and risk overextending their military. “When you talk to their military leadership, they will say it’s a matter of capacity, and there’s some truth to that, but we need them to get focused on the Haqqani network,” Scaparrotti said.

    U.S. and Afghan troops have intensified their campaign against the Haqqani network. Last week, two U.S. military brigades, along with Afghan and U.S. Special Operations troops, as well as Afghan police and army units, launched Operation Knife Edge in Logar, Wardak and Ghazni provinces — all Haqqani network strongholds south of Kabul.

    Coalition troops pulled drone aircraft and other intelligence assets away from southern Afghanistan for the operation, which is intended to help pinpoint Haqqani fighters, officials said. A total of 11,000 coalition troops and 25,000 Afghan security forces are involved.

    That operation and another recent one resulted in the death or capture of about 200 insurgents, said a spokesman for the NATO coalition. At least 20 of those captured or killed were Haqqani fighters or had links to the network.

    “We have taken a lot of operatives off the battlefield,” another senior coalition military official said. “The effect has been ‘so far, so good.’ It’s been a classic disrupt operation, in that they’ve gone to ground, they’re laying low, they are moving in response to our operations.

    “And all the time they’re doing that, so far they’ve been able to do very, very little offensively or proactively. And that’s exactly the purpose of the operation.”

    Scaparrotti said he has seen some encouraging signs of resumed Pakistan-U.S. military cooperation in the past month, including a conference between coalition troops and the commander of the Pakistani army’s 11th Corps, which operates along the border.

    “We’ve seen a commitment on their part to begin to reconnect here on some of the things that were more standard a little over a year ago,” Scaparrotti said.
     
  2.  
  3. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    Look at the bigger picture.

    India needs to be bogged down and chinis have to be kept away from the pakis.

    That is game plan of the yanks. War on terrorism my ass....in the last decade have the yanks killed one LeT terrorist ? No, because its not war on terrorism, its war against americas enemies. I pity the Indians who want us to roll over and expect the yanks to eliminate our enemies. And no we don't share common interests with the yanks i.e. if you look deep enough.

    P.S democracy means nothing in geopolitics.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2011
  4. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    We are at odds with America in almost every arena, whether it be Pakistan, Middle East, Indian Ocean, etc.

    This talk of a "super-duper anti-China coalition" consisting of U.S., India, and the various U.S. puppets and lackeys in Asia is a joke. It will never materialize, simply because China is not a big enough threat for us to hand over our sovereignty.
     
  5. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,283
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Seriously when will the US learn? After all the glaring facts they still do this? God helps those who helps themselves. No wonder the US is getting screwe it's not helping itself but it sure is helping the enemy.
     
  6. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    Pakistan is only headache for usa.

    Real rivals are China and then India's rise economically and militarily. They will do everything to counter it.
     
  7. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,550
    Likes Received:
    6,554
    When did military relations ever get bad with Pakistan?? Afghan war has went on like usual. Pakistan getting the aid they want and US drones pounding Pakistan.It's the same -status quo ,this was all just Obama relection stunts to raise money from Indian Americans the idiots who put him in power before when he promised to take the war inside Pakistan (ground troops)and all the Indians believed it.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html

    Obama Says He Would Take Fight To Pakistan
     
  8. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,283
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Even Europe rose after WWII economically and militarily. The US and Europe even compete economically. But then they are one at the end of the day. I see US and India share the same kind of relations. What the US is showing here is daftness more than anything else. Obama admin basically has no ideas to handle the affairs in AfPak. Hillary comes and issues statements and nothing else.

    Like I always say, the US is asking for another terror attack to realize their mistake in dealing with Pak.
     
    W.G.Ewald likes this.
  9. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    You've spelled it out yourself.

    They are one at the end of the day meaning anglo-saxon. We are not and unless we grow ourselves and assert ourselves we wont be respected or given equal footing.
     
  10. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."
     
  11. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    The U.S. has never allowed any other nation to compete with it as a completely independent entity.

    Western Europe, Japan, and South Korea were able to grow only because they were completely under the Americans' thumb; they have no independent foreign policy in the real sense. Their defence and economic needs are highly independent on America, which means that America will not have to worry about them becoming a "threat" to its supremacy.
     
    The Messiah likes this.
  12. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976


    What's with this Indian obsession about "foreign policy independence?" This goes back to Nehru who rather foolishly dumped American overtures. These prosperous countries may be less independent according to you but they are prosperous. Their security ties with the US means that they worry less on security and think more on how to grow their economies. In the end I think prosperity is what is important as it impacts the live sof their people directly.

    "Foreign policy independence" is BS if your people are mired in 3rd World poverty.
     
  13. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    Of course it depends on the ingenuity of each country, but closer association with the US, aside from military and political affairs, also means technological and economic links that if handled wisely will reward a country quiet handsomely. Just ask those above-mentioned puppets. :thumb:
     
    W.G.Ewald likes this.
  14. nitesh

    nitesh Mob Control Manager Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    7,541
    Likes Received:
    1,260
    Location:
    Bangalore
    So paki military has bought US to it's knees, he he he. US's mythical powerful war machine nonsense. US is paying jizya to pakis to keep themselves safe.
     
  15. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,283
    Location:
    BANGalore

    Exactly, national interests should dictate your foreign policy. If it means winking at the super power so be it. What should matter is peace and prosperity for the country.

    We were on the wrong side during the cold war and that there is no doubt about. Even in economic sense the socialist policies didn't do any good. Capitalism has brought prosperity to India. Commie china too moved towards capitalism.

    Well I guess a lot can be said in hindsight but to move forward we have to analyze today's geopolitics and make moves accordingly.
     
  16. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    Foreign policy independence does not equal economic isolation. China is the West's largest trading partner but they maintain their own independent foreign policy. Is it so difficult for India to do the same without becoming slaves like South Koreans and Japanese?


    You think Pakistan was on the right side?
     
    The Messiah likes this.
  17. W.G.Ewald

    W.G.Ewald Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2 Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,528
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    Western Europe, Japan, and South Korea were able to grow because they did not bear the full costs of their own military defense.
     
    asianobserve likes this.
  18. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,159
    Location:
    EST, USA
    That is very true. There was a lot of US benevolence towards these countries. At least these countries are friendly with the US. I am not sure I can say the same thing with confidence about Pakistan in general and its establishment (army, ISI, politicians) in particular.
     
  19. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    It didn't have as much to do with "benevolence" than it did with ensuring that neither Japan nor Germany would ever again pose a threat to U.S. threats.

    70 years down the line, the plan still works remarkably well. If there's one thing to appreciate about Americans and Westerners in general its their foresight in delicate strategic matters like this.
     
  20. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,283
    Location:
    BANGalore
    One you are doing a great disservice to India by bringing in Pak and tryin to compare India with Pak.

    For me Pakistan was on the right side but the powers to be could not use it to their advantage and devise a proper strategy to help itself. It was tunneled in its vision and thought if nothing else but Kashmir and obsessed with India. Remember Pakistan was economically doing far better than India early on but could not make use of that to deliver prosperity to its people and instead chose to radicalize. It chose to present itself as a tissue paper. Dont blame the US for it.

    India is completely different in this regard. Freedom and Democracy is a base point of convergence. India is not a small country without sound institutions. I don't understand why people have this closed mind when it comes to the US? Back in the days when we were opposed to the US, people moved to the US by the thousands than to the Soviet. Why? Best part is many of those who opposed the US either live in the US or are the ones likely to move to the US or have their kids study in the US.

    India is no pushover and the US knows it. I don't know why we approach the US with a negative and defensive mindset.
     
    ejazr and asianobserve like this.
  21. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,159
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Well it is always a great economic strain on any country to keep tabs on a huge country that is far away, landlocked and surrounded by unpredictable neighbours. The USSR tried and gave up when its own economy could not bear it anymore, among other reasons. Now that the US got OBL, and full credit goes to the US marines and intelligence, I think the US should seriously try to reduce their footprint in Afghanistan, concentrate at home and try to bring their economy back on track.

    There is a lot to be done in the domestic front by the US. First of all, those Congressmen who were trying to persuade banks to give out housing loans to people who would otherwise not qualify for loans, should come out in the open, admit their mistake and either propose some ways to get the economy back on track or should simply retire from politics. The US Foreign Department really needs to listen to a few sane minds, like Ron Paul (IMHO), remaining in US politics, stop making ridiculous decisions that eventually backfire, quit giving aid to thankless 'allies' like Pakistan and rather try to use that money to develop public transport in major US cities so that at least the burden of oil imports is reduced.

    I fail to understand why the US is trying to rebuild ties with the Pakistani Military.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2011

Share This Page