Trumps new Afghan Policy

[airtel]

Pakistan could lose status as privileged ally over Afghan militant support, warns US
AFPUpdated August 23, 2017

The United States warned an angry Pakistan on Tuesday that it could lose its status as a privileged military ally if it continues giving safe haven to Afghan militant groups.

One day after President Donald Trump unveiled a new strategy to force the Taliban to negotiate a political settlement with the Kabul government, his top diplomat upped the heat on Islamabad.

Trump had warned that Pakistan's alleged support for the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani extremist network would have consequences, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has now spelled these out.

“We have some leverage,” Tillerson told reporters, as he fleshed out Trump's speech, “in terms of aid, their status as a non-Nato alliance partner — all of that can be put on the table”.

As one of 16 “Non-Nato Major Allies”, Pakistan benefits from billions of dollars in aid and has access to some advanced US military technology banned from other countries.

This year, the US has already withheld $350 million in military funding over concerns Pakistan is not doing enough to fight terror, but the alliance itself was not in question.

Tillerson said Washington wants to work with Pakistan as it expands its own support for Kabul in the battle against the Taliban, but warned it to close alleged militant safe havens.

Some of Pakistan's critics in Washington have urged Trump to go further, by authorising US strikes against militants inside Pakistan or declaring Pakistan a “state sponsor of terror”. Officials have not yet brandished the designation threat, which could lead to severe sanctions and legal threats to Pakistani officials, but Tillerson did not rule out strikes.

The US has hit targets within Pakistan before, most famously when Trump's predecessor Barack Obama ordered US special forces to kill Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.

“The president has been clear that we are going to attack terrorists wherever they live,” Tillerson said.

“We have put people on notice that if you're providing safe haven to terrorists, be warned — we are going to engage those providing safe haven and ask them to change what they are doing.”

And Tillerson added that, aside from the Afghans, Pakistan has more to gain “than any other nation” from an end to the fighting.

Both Tillerson and Trump also called on Pakistan's long-standing rival and fellow nuclear power India to become more involved in Afghanistan, an idea that is anathema to Islamabad.

Beyond the stand-off with Pakistan, Trump's new strategy also authorises US generals to deploy more American troops to support Afghan government forces in what is now a 16-year-old conflict.

The Foreign Office (FO) on Tuesday had rejected Trump's allegations that Pakistan offers safe haven to "agents of chaos".

"As a matter of policy, Pakistan does not allow use of its territory against any country. Instead of relying on the false narrative of safe havens, the US needs to work with Pakistan to eradicate terrorism," it said in a statement.


https://www.dawn.com/news/1353402/p...ed-ally-over-afghan-militant-support-warns-us

 

[airtel]

Why India should buy into Donald Trump's war
By Bloomberg | Aug 23, 2017, 11.30 AM IST

Trump immediately specified that he was focused on “groups that threaten the region and beyond."
By Mihir Sharma

Will Donald Trump’s new approach to South Asia work? Its success depends on whether India is convinced that Trump’s America is a partner to be trusted -- and whether India itself is willing to step up its engagement with Afghanistan as the U.S. president has suggested.

Let’s be clear: the Afghanistan strategy Trump has laid out looks more sensible than what Barack Obama promised in 2009, when he announced his “surge and exit” policy at West Point. There are two big differences, both of which give India reason to trust Trump’s approach more than it did Obama's.

First, Trump didn’t announce a timetable for withdrawal. Obama famously declared the war in Afghanistan would be over by 2014. As many in India -- a country with an unfortunately extensive experience of counter-insurgency -- pointed out at the time, it’s vital to avoid giving insurgents a sense that they can wait out a war. (One Indian columnist quoted Jay Leno to bolster his point: “Obama announces he’ll bring the troops home in 18 months; the Taliban says they will keep fighting for 19.") Your choice to become an insurgent depends not just on where you live, but on your evaluation of the chances of winning in a well-defined timeframe. Obama’s deadline doomed his policy from day one.

Second, although both Obama and Trump mentioned “safe havens” for insurgents in Pakistan, Obama initially insisted that “mutual trust” was the basis of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship and spoke only of targeting “groups that threaten our countries." This bought into Islamabad’s distinction between Islamists that threaten Pakistan and those that threaten India and other countries. (The Obama administration's view of Pakistan grew harsher over time.)

Trump, on the other hand, immediately specified that he was focused on “groups that threaten the region and beyond." His administration has privately underlined this point to Pakistan. And it’s demonstrated its resolve in public, when last week it included a major Kashmir-focused militant group on a State Department list of terrorist organizations.

Yes, it’s worrisome that Trump’s view of international relations is constantly transactional: He mentioned the “billions of dollars” that India “makes” in trade with the U.S. as a reason it should help in Afghanistan. But one of the few times that view fits with reality is when it comes to dealing with the Pakistan military; that’s precisely how Pakistani generals view their relationship with the outside world as well.

Some wonder if the U.S. has any leverage with Pakistan that it hasn’t already used. Congress has been adding more and more conditions to military aid to Pakistan. And when Obama made his speech in 2009, the U.S. was investing $870 million dollars a year in Pakistan; last year it invested only about $70 million. (China has increased investment tenfold to compensate; it pumped in almost $1.2 billion last year.) Plus, of course, the Pakistani military will always control the best land route to Kabul.

But India feels there are multiple ways in which the U.S. could be tougher on the Pakistani establishment. Some are now being explored: A U.S. government spokesman has already said sanctions on specific Pakistani officials might be introduced.

Let’s accept for now that Trump’s speech and his government’s actions help address India’s general distrust of U.S. commitment to the region. It’s then India’s turn to live up to its own aspirations; if it expects to be a “net provider of security” in its region, in the words of former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, then it will have to commit to helping stabilize Afghanistan.

To be fair, India is already doing a great deal, as the Afghan ambassador in New Delhi pointed out recently. It has built roads, electricity lines, a dam and even the Afghan Parliament building. Thousands of Afghan officers are trained in India. It sponsors hundreds of schools.

But it is also true that India could do more. It spends less than 10 percent of its minuscule foreign aid budget on Afghanistan, while delays in New Delhi continue to hold up cooperation in infrastructure. Some Afghans complain that fear of Islamabad’s reaction has kept India from selling arms that the Afghan Army badly needs.

Yes, Pakistan’s military will bristle at any expanded Indian presence in Afghanistan. But, like any irrational belief, there’s no real way to convince them that Indian actions can contribute to stability -- and hence to Pakistan's own security. Such paranoia is hardly legitimate justification for Pakistani -- or Indian -- inaction.

If India wants to become a source of regional stability, then it must start acting like one -- and spending like one. That’s what makes sense for India, whatever Donald Trump may say or do in the years to come.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.


http://m.economictimes.com/news/def...to-donald-trumps-war/articleshow/60186452.cms

 

[Adioz]

But it is also true that India could do more. It spends less than 10 percent of its minuscule foreign aid budget on Afghanistan

My take on this:-

Indian aid to Afghanistan comes around to about $150 million a year. ($137 million in 2015-16, $697 million from 2001 to 2017)

Now lets look at US aid to Afghanistan.

US Spending on Reconstruction As of September 30, 2014, the US had appropriated $104.1 billion dollars for the relief and reconstruction of Afghanistan, with the FY2015 budget request raising that total to $109.9 billion.8 The majority of these funds ($66 billion) have been administered by the 3 Department of Defense, with other amounts funneled through USAID ($18 billion), and, less significantly, through the State Department and other or multiple agencies.9 An additional $10.1 billion has been paid out to Afghanistan through two international trust funds to which the US is the primary donor. A total of $7.7 billion has been paid by the US directly to Afghan government agencies or through these trust funds.10 These amounts far exceed the $61 billion reconstruction dollars spent in Iraq from 2003-2012.

Source:US Reconstruction Aid for Afghanistan: The Dollars and Sense

Another piece of information:-
The only country who has recieved more economic aid from India than Afghanistan is Bhutan. We gave them aid of approximately $5 billion from 2000-01 to 2016-17.

Now lets take a look at what US Secratary of State said after Trump's speech (watch from 10:17 to 10:35):-
What he basically said is that US is not going to put its money in development aid, rather it is going to call on "others" for this job. Once we take that in conjunction with what Trump said about India earning billions in trade with the USA and him wanting India to do a lot more means that India is one of the countries that are going to take the burden of economic assistance to Afghanistan and fill up the share the USA has been paying up until now.

We need to realise that Trump is asking us to spend on Afghanistan aid every year, what we spent on Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna in 2016-17 (which is 15000 crore).

If we decline, I fear that China might come up waving its checkbook and try to influence US strategy and our Chabahar port strategy. It will also try to cut deals with US that will help Paksitan. And Trump might actually let China do that, although he will be hesitant initially. (He is unpredictable)

If we accept, we will be diverting a lot of our infrastructure funding to another country at a time when we need it a lot.

What we need now, is to ensure that Russia and India share the economic burden of it, and that both of us cut good deals with USA. Russia can cut a deal with the sanctions thing. At the same time we need to take a larger interest in a stable Afghanistan. My only problem is that if USA turns back on its promise to "not leave Afghanistan till Taliban is disarmed and defeated", then all the money we spent on Afghanistan will effectively go down the drain, and this time, that monetary sum will not be peanuts for us. We have been playing safe in Afghanistan. Now is the time to be decisive and assertive about it. And we do have a decisive (by Indian standards) government at the center, so at least we are prepared.

 

[airtel]

Recipe for disaster: COAS warns US against growing Indian role in Afghanistan
By Our Correspondent

Published: August 23, 2017

US Ambassador David Hale meets army chief General Qamar Bajwa at the GHQ in Rawalpindi on Wednesday. PHOTO: ISPR

ISLAMABAD: The army chief has apprised the US envoy of Pakistan’s reservations over giving India an enhanced role in Afghanistan, besides reiterating that Pakistan does not need financial assistance from Washington, but simply its trust and acknowledgement for the sacrifices rendered in the fight against terrorism.

The envoy, David Hale, visited General Headquarters in Rawalpindi on Wednesday to brief General Qamar Javed Bajwa about the new US strategy for Afghanistan and South Asia.

In his speech, President Trump targeted Pakistan for ‘not doing enough’ to deal with certain militant outfits including the Afghan Taliban. Trump said Pakistan had to change that approach or face the consequences.



Reports from Washington suggest that the US may revoke Pakistan’s major non-NATO ally status and cut military and other assistance if the country ‘continues to provide sanctuaries’ to the Taliban and the Haqqani network.

Speaking against the backdrop of this development, the army chief informed the US envoy that Pakistan did not need any financial assistance from Washington.

“We are not looking for any material or financial assistance from the US but trust, understanding and acknowledgement of our contributions,” he was quoted as saying by Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR).

US Amb met COAS. "We are not looking for any material or financial asst from USA but trust, understanding & ack of our contributions" COAS. pic.twitter.com/gCac10KCHv

— Maj Gen Asif Ghafoor (@OfficialDGISPR) August 23, 2017

He pointed out that peace in Afghanistan was as important for Pakistan as for any other country, dismissing assertions that the country was a spoiler.

“We have done a lot towards that end and shall keep on doing our best, not to appease anyone, but in line with our national interest and national policy,” General Qamar stressed.


“Collaboration and synergy of effort between all stakeholders is the key to success in bringing this long-drawn war in Afghanistan to its logical conclusion,” he added.

Ambassador Hale said the “US values Pakistan’s role in the war against terror and is seeking cooperation from Pakistan to resolve the Afghan issue.”

Sources said the army chief conveyed his reservations over the manner in which Pakistan was singled out and held responsible for the mess in Afghanistan. He also reportedly cautioned the US ambassador about the negative implications of giving a formal role to India in Afghan affairs.

Pakistan has long suspected that India is using Afghan soil to create instability. In the past, US administrations were wary of giving any direct role to India, but Trump seems intent on increasing New Delhi’s involvement in Afghanistan.



Even American commentators believe this would be a recipe for disaster given the continually high regional tensions between Pakistan and India.

Interestingly, a Trump aide on Tuesday dismissed Pakistan’s concerns about growing Indian involvement in Afghanistan as an ‘excuse’.

“What India is doing in Afghanistan is not a threat to Pakistan. They’re not building military bases. They’re not deploying troops,” the official told journalists on a conference call.

“They’re not doing the things that would constitute encirclement, for lack of a better term, which is one of the things that the Pakistanis complain about,” he added.



The Foreign Office, in its preliminary reaction, expressed disappointment over Trump’s speech for overlooking perennial disputes in South Asia, including the longstanding dispute over Kashmir between Pakistan and India.

A more detailed government response to the new US strategy for Afghanistan is expected today (Thursday) when the National Security Committee, the top decision-making body on national security and foreign policy issues, meets and discusses the evolving situation.

 

[aditya10r]

Recipe for disaster: COAS warns US against growing Indian role in Afghanistan
By Our Correspondent

Published: August 23, 2017

US Ambassador David Hale meets army chief General Qamar Bajwa at the GHQ in Rawalpindi on Wednesday. PHOTO: ISPR

ISLAMABAD: The army chief has apprised the US envoy of Pakistan’s reservations over giving India an enhanced role in Afghanistan, besides reiterating that Pakistan does not need financial assistance from Washington, but simply its trust and acknowledgement for the sacrifices rendered in the fight against terrorism.

The envoy, David Hale, visited General Headquarters in Rawalpindi on Wednesday to brief General Qamar Javed Bajwa about the new US strategy for Afghanistan and South Asia.

In his speech, President Trump targeted Pakistan for ‘not doing enough’ to deal with certain militant outfits including the Afghan Taliban. Trump said Pakistan had to change that approach or face the consequences.



Reports from Washington suggest that the US may revoke Pakistan’s major non-NATO ally status and cut military and other assistance if the country ‘continues to provide sanctuaries’ to the Taliban and the Haqqani network.

Speaking against the backdrop of this development, the army chief informed the US envoy that Pakistan did not need any financial assistance from Washington.

“We are not looking for any material or financial assistance from the US but trust, understanding and acknowledgement of our contributions,” he was quoted as saying by Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR).

US Amb met COAS. "We are not looking for any material or financial asst from USA but trust, understanding & ack of our contributions" COAS. pic.twitter.com/gCac10KCHv

— Maj Gen Asif Ghafoor (@OfficialDGISPR) August 23, 2017

He pointed out that peace in Afghanistan was as important for Pakistan as for any other country, dismissing assertions that the country was a spoiler.

“We have done a lot towards that end and shall keep on doing our best, not to appease anyone, but in line with our national interest and national policy,” General Qamar stressed.


“Collaboration and synergy of effort between all stakeholders is the key to success in bringing this long-drawn war in Afghanistan to its logical conclusion,” he added.

Ambassador Hale said the “US values Pakistan’s role in the war against terror and is seeking cooperation from Pakistan to resolve the Afghan issue.”

Sources said the army chief conveyed his reservations over the manner in which Pakistan was singled out and held responsible for the mess in Afghanistan. He also reportedly cautioned the US ambassador about the negative implications of giving a formal role to India in Afghan affairs.

Pakistan has long suspected that India is using Afghan soil to create instability. In the past, US administrations were wary of giving any direct role to India, but Trump seems intent on increasing New Delhi’s involvement in Afghanistan.



Even American commentators believe this would be a recipe for disaster given the continually high regional tensions between Pakistan and India.

Interestingly, a Trump aide on Tuesday dismissed Pakistan’s concerns about growing Indian involvement in Afghanistan as an ‘excuse’.

“What India is doing in Afghanistan is not a threat to Pakistan. They’re not building military bases. They’re not deploying troops,” the official told journalists on a conference call.

“They’re not doing the things that would constitute encirclement, for lack of a better term, which is one of the things that the Pakistanis complain about,” he added.



The Foreign Office, in its preliminary reaction, expressed disappointment over Trump’s speech for overlooking perennial disputes in South Asia, including the longstanding dispute over Kashmir between Pakistan and India.

A more detailed government response to the new US strategy for Afghanistan is expected today (Thursday) when the National Security Committee, the top decision-making body on national security and foreign policy issues, meets and discusses the evolving situation.

Katve ki jh***t jali re.

====================================================================

 

[airtel]

UN Chief Ready To Assist Pakistan If Help Sought To Dismantle Terror Sanctuaries
Donald Trump had slammed Pakistan for its continued support to terrorist groups and warned Islamabad of consequences if it continues to do so.
Press Trust of India | Updated: Aug 23, 2017 17:21 IST

Antonio Guterres said will help Afghanistan find a solution that will bring peace to the country.

United Nations: The UN Secretary-General is ready to engage with Pakistan to help it dismantle terror sanctuaries if sought, his chief spokesperson has said after US President Donald Trump warned Islamabad for providing safe havens for terrorists.

"As a matter of principle, Secretary-General's good offices are always available to any two parties who, who ask. But that is just a statement of principle," UN chief's spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said.


Dujarric was asked if the good offices of the Secretary- General Antonio Guterres will be offered to help facilitate diplomatic side with Pakistan on dismantling the sanctuaries for terrorists.

Commenting on Trump's speech, Dujarric said the Secretary General's hope is that the international community "will help come together and help Afghanistan find a political solution that will bring peace to the country.

"And that's also obviously through the support and efforts of the UN, of the UN Mission there," he said.

Dujarric added that while the good offices of the Secretary General are available if asked for, the UN's focus is on "finding a political solution to the current crisis in Afghanistan" and help the Afghan people who have suffered so much for decades.

Trump had slammed Pakistan for its continued support to terrorist groups and warned Islamabad of consequences if it continues to do so.

http://m.ndtv.com/world-news/un-chi...ought-to-dismantle-terror-sanctuaries-1741094

 

[ezsasa]

What does the American army do to combat the drug trade from Afghanistan? Isn't that where the Taliban makes a lot of their income?

They should napalm their opium fields.

Keeping morality part aside..

From a pure financial point of view opium ensures consistent revenue to Afghan farmers, it has to stay for some more years.

 

[Mangal]

My take on this:-

Indian aid to Afghanistan comes around to about $150 million a year. ($137 million in 2015-16, $697 million from 2001 to 2017)

Now lets look at US aid to Afghanistan.


Another piece of information:-
The only country who has recieved more economic aid from India than Afghanistan is Bhutan. We gave them aid of approximately $5 billion from 2000-01 to 2016-17.

Now lets take a look at what US Secratary of State said after Trump's speech (watch from 10:17 to 10:35):-
What he basically said is that US is not going to put its money in development aid, rather it is going to call on "others" for this job. Once we take that in conjunction with what Trump said about India earning billions in trade with the USA and him wanting India to do a lot more means that India is one of the countries that are going to take the burden of economic assistance to Afghanistan and fill up the share the USA has been paying up until now.

We need to realise that Trump is asking us to spend on Afghanistan aid every year, what we spent on Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna in 2016-17 (which is 15000 crore).

If we decline, I fear that China might come up waving its checkbook and try to influence US strategy and our Chabahar port strategy. It will also try to cut deals with US that will help Paksitan. And Trump might actually let China do that, although he will be hesitant initially. (He is unpredictable)

If we accept, we will be diverting a lot of our infrastructure funding to another country at a time when we need it a lot.

What we need now, is to ensure that Russia and India share the economic burden of it, and that both of us cut good deals with USA. Russia can cut a deal with the sanctions thing. At the same time we need to take a larger interest in a stable Afghanistan. My only problem is that if USA turns back on its promise to "not leave Afghanistan till Taliban is disarmed and defeated", then all the money we spent on Afghanistan will effectively go down the drain, and this time, that monetary sum will not be peanuts for us. We have been playing safe in Afghanistan. Now is the time to be decisive and assertive about it. And we do have a decisive (by Indian standards) government at the center, so at least we are prepared.

Nice analysis. The only point that I don't see happening is China coming into the picture of US strategy in Afghanistan. The US is sending nearly it's entire naval fleet into the Asia Pacific region just to counter china. Why would they do something that would assist China in the long run. See the game here is not war on terror. It's more about the Petro dollars. It has always been.
Trump is a smart man. He knows that the internal politics will never allow India to act big in Afghanistan. He sees the potential of a trustworthy allie and thus he is forcing India to walk the talk. These policies are decided taking in a long prospective. If you remember when war on terror started Bush was in charge and despite being pro India he chose Pakistan as US Allie. This policy continued for at least sixteen long years. Now the policy makers and the "Powers that be" have lost faith in Pakistan. It can't only be Trump who decides the US future in Asia and world for next coming years. I may be over optimistic but we may see some geographical changes in our Google maps in coming future.
This war is not going to end soon.Fasten seatbelts we are just getting started.

 

[nongaddarliberal]

Nothing short of full fledged economic sanctions will achieve anything. What Trump has done is simply the American version of Ninda turtle. Kadi Ninda from Washington won't get any results, nor will stopping aid. Only if the pakis get the North Korea/Iran treatment can we hope to see any change in their behavior. Iran can bear the sanctions because of it's oil. Pakis can't. Even then it's unlikely that their military/ISI will change their behavior. The only guaranteed way of achieving results is for both India and America to jointly declare war on Pakistan and dismantle their military establishment, but lets not live in a fool's paradise. The Americans don't care about Afghan or Indian interests that much.

And there is always the scare tactic used by the paki army that "if you destabilize us, our Aatmi Bums will fall into Jihadi hands!" Nothing of the sort will happen, but the Americans have bought into that bullshit.

 

[pruthvi24]

coward when $$ were coming treated Afghanistan as his own backyard and made a mess there now that no $$ are coming from USA suddenly tells afghanistan can sink in a hole and suggests India to take million Afghan refugees who are in pakistan

 

[pruthvi24]

I'm totally surprised by Pakistan's reaction that they are talking about new alliance which includes russia ,china and even Iran well i can understand why china foreign office was so quick to issue press release backing Pakistan
1)huge investments in pakistan
2)china is pinning hopes on pakistan to open another front in case of any military standoff with India
3)only country who is willing to surrender without any resistance
here is the catch
1)will china help pakistan militarily if US attacks pakistan
2)will pakistan will be able to handle two front war with US and AFG on 1 side and India on the other side which is also facing threat from eastern front.
now coming to Russia
will it help Pakistan will it support entire taliban ( as they are supporting some faction of taliban) like US did during soviet afghan war ?if not then to what extent it will help ?and will it help Pakistan at all?how will this affect India's relationship with russia ?
russian's have not come openly in support of pakistan like china did.
i don't think russia don't have much problem with current afghan govt like Pakistan.
now coming to Iran
the relationship of Pak with Iran is also not good either with all kulbhushan saga ,regular firing in border, saudi sunni alliance against shia iran and not to forget jundullah group which is based in Pakistan
and will trust pakistan after all they have accused of pak of dealing and betraying them

now coming to us
i don't think we will send troops(it will be bad idea in my opinion have no problem with covert ops if there is any in Afghanistan)
how it will affect our relationship with russia?
are we in contact with any taliban leadership there ?

will all these players form an alliance just to defeat common enemy i.e USA is there any substance in Paki expectations in this new alliance they are dreaming about or is it the case that most of there analysts are suffering from zaid hamid syndrome can anyone enlighten please?

 

[airtel]

Russia warns Trump against piling up pressure on Pakistan
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1490141/new-us-afghan-plan-futile-course-russian-foreign-minister/
^ ANY NON PAKI SOURCE OF THIS NEWS ?

 

[Dovah]

Russia warns Trump against piling up pressure on Pakistan
^ ANY NON PAKI SOURCE OF THIS NEWS ?

This seems to be more of a Russian statement against America's rather than in support of trump.

Also, Tribune is third-rate news portal.

 

[prohumanity]

Does this policy mean OUTSOURCING of the Afghan War ? Because its getting expensive...so lets hire cheap labor...Indian military ? No..India has to fight its own wars...not someone else's mutilated wars .

 

[aditya10r]

==================================================================================================================================================================================

 

[AMCA]

...........................................

 

[Butter Chicken]

India willing to help US with aviation maintenance in Afghanistan: Pentagon

India is willing to help the US with aviation maintenance in Afghanistan, the Pentagon said on Thursday. The Pentagon also praised India’s developmental role in the war-torn country.

“India has been very supportive, and they’ve pledged additional developmental aid in Afghanistan. They’ve been willing to help with aviation maintenance,” Pentagon Chief Spokesperson Dana White told reporters.

“All of that is very helpful in ensuring, again, that this regional approach works. India is an important part of that,” she said. Responding to another question, White said that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis believes that Pakistan has an opportunity to do more with respect to the regional security, and that it’s in its interests to do more with respect to regional security.

“It’s an opportunity, and we would welcome Pakistan’s involvement,” White said.

 

[AMCA]

#Kazakhstan's Senate ratified protocol enabling #US to use KZ #Caspian Sea ports of Kuryk & Aktau to transfer its troops to #Afghanistan. Given US tensions w/ #Pakistan,agreement w/ KZ should come as alternative maintenance route for US going from Azerbaijan via Caspian to KZ,UZB

BTW for pakistan...............

 

[Samsung J7]

#Kazakhstan's Senate ratified protocol enabling #US to use KZ #Caspian Sea ports of Kuryk & Aktau to transfer its troops to #Afghanistan. Given US tensions w/ #Pakistan,agreement w/ KZ should come as alternative maintenance route for US going from Azerbaijan via Caspian to KZ,UZB

BTW for pakistan...............

Its not a good news for pakis........
....

 

[F-14B]

Its not a good news for pakis........
....

There goes the Pakistani strategic position to the dogs