US & Pakistan: The Growing Tensions

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
"Pakistan" as a state is reresentated by several organizations/ groups -
1. there is the Military establishment - which has both pro-western side(s) and pro-silamic sides (opposed to each other), not to mention pro-"nationalistic" sides, which may overlap with the other two.
2. there is the political class, educated elite - again divided into pro-western, pro-islamic and pro-nationalistic groups.
3. there is the ISI/ intelligence network - whose allegiance is partly to the military and partly to the political bosses - with all it's own divisions and internal issues. Generally anti-western, extremely anti-Indian and thinks of itself as the godfather of Islamic insurgency in the south asian region.
4. there are the mercantile and business classes - who woud support any side to further their dollar interests.

None of them sadly represent or are represented by the Pakistani people - who have been brain washed with anti-Indian, anti-minority and anti-western rhetoric for the last 2-6 decades. Still, the average Pakistani is neither a terrorist, nor a muslim fundamentalist - they are like every other average citizen of the third world - trying to find a decent living with all the corruption and irrationality inherent to their society.

Yet - what is the definition of a "terrorist state"?
A state which by design allows / supports insurgents/ terrorists in another soverign country. Pakistan in taht respect has been a terrorist state for ages - sicne the 1980s. when they started arming and supporting the Mujahideens in Afghanistan, followed by the insurgents in J 7 K.

the real question is, WHO makes the definition and for what purpose -

We all know the real certificate has to come from USA - through the UN/ NATO. USA already knows what Pakistan did, has been doing and will do.

What will it take for the US government to make that leap, from knowledge to action?

Very good post.


In other thread, I mentioned that US will not abandon pak unless it earns satisfactory ROI from af-pak. If this alliance is about to end, US will do it within few months else its not happening for a very long time.

IMO clouds should clear by early next year. By that time we'll have firm idea whether US is going to continue military operations in Af-pak or its opting strategy of pressuring pak to act on specified tasks through various economic/political leverages.

If US will continue its presence in af-pak year from now, I'll say Indian strategy is working. GOI has played a very daring card by its attempt to drag Iran in this active equation.

Pak is in safer position here than US/India/Astan since other's have got more to loose. Reaching a mutually agreeable deal is tough.

During this process, it does not matter if US or India calls Pakistan a 'terrorist state'. Its just a meaningless irrelevant slang like 'superpower'. Even if tomorrow UNSC passes some resolution on Pak being a terrorist state, its still irrelevant since the entire argument GOP has is that, its infiltrated with rouge elements & we're fighting against them. You can not take your forces in GOP houses as it'll appear unwise move. For GOP(read pakistan as a whole state) to be taken down, you'll have to frame the govt into a trap to catch them red-handed with highest offices compromised.

Pakistan thrives on the indulgence of world community's understanding (please note here that voices of states affected by paki activities are comfortably undermined)

How close Pakistan is to be declared as terrorist state? I don't know the unit of measuring so but for the sake of question I'll rate it at highest probable magnitude.

"What will it take for the US government to make that leap, from knowledge to action?"

Actions are already there. Osama operation simply left pak terrified. US forces are ready & can engage at will when orders are passed and pak can't do a jack about it. They might not even know if B2s are flying over their head right now.

People talk about disintegrating pak, but even in that situation the larger natives (which are essentially anti-indian, anti-western elements) will have the rightful say in proposed solution. Why afganistan is not stable? Because US has suppressed political opposition of karzai. When you are talking of reconstruction of state, you cant go around setting up pro-US lobby as new regime. It has to be accepted by the natives without which problems like iraq/astan will always remain there.

Question here is, what amount of action from US are we looking for? Honestly speaking, Indians are not ready for US backed boom-boom operation. And US will not go ahead with it unless it has credible & healthy political/military partner in SA. Already NATO chairmans are expressing unhappiness over the way US has handled astan.


For most of the world, pak is already a terrorist state. I fail to assign any significance to the symbolism of someone putting official label over pakistan.

 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
It's very close. US should now closely monitor the movements of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. It's quite likely that Pakistan will undertake some stashing/housekeeping.
 

Mr.Ryu

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
806
Likes
348
Country flag
I really dont want PAK to be a Terrorist state, And if that happens (highly unlikely) then i support Taliban taking over their nuke and thus every other country launch attack on PAK and destroy them completely for the good of World. Hope people of PAK will move to Afghan :(

But i dont want to see PAK a terrorist state.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Pakistan minister hits out at US on Kabul attack charge

Pakistan minister hits out at US on Kabul attack charge

23 September 2011 | BBC News


Ms Khar warns that the US cannot afford to alienate the Pakistani people


Pakistan's foreign minister has warned that the US could lose Pakistan as an ally if it continues to publicly accuse Islamabad of supporting militants.

Hina Rabbani Khar told Geo TV that the US could not afford to alienate Pakistan's government or its people.

The White House kept up the pressure on Friday, urging Islamabad to break any links it has with the Haqqani network.

On Thursday, the US military accused Pakistan's spy agency of helping the group in a recent attack on Kabul.

Some 25 people died in an assault on the US embassy and other buildings.

Pakistan denies its intelligence service has links with the Haqqani network and says it is determined to fight all militants based on its border with Afghanistan.

'At your own cost'

"You will lose an ally," Hina Rabbani Khar told Geo TV in New York, where she has been attending the UN General Assembly.

Analysis

M Ilyas Khan
BBC News, Islamabad

Adm Mike Mullen's statement has made banner headlines in the Pakistani press and has been the main focus of discussion on most television talk shows.

Voices of defiance are clashing with those that warn against misadventure. And there are voices saying that there may be some truth in the US allegations.

The Express Tribune says Pakistan has provided shelter to the Haqqani network in North Waziristan or done little to stop it operating. Telllingly, The News talks of an "urgent need to find common ground before political grandstanding becomes the sound of helicopter rotor blades in the dead of night."

The papers also warn that being on the wrong side of the endgame in Afghanistan, as one newspaper editorial puts it, may prove to be fatal for Pakistan.

But there is still room for severe criticism of US unilateralism and there is an attempt to portray Pakistan's military as being capable of defending its borders.
"You cannot afford to alienate Pakistan, you cannot afford to alienate the Pakistani people," she said. "If they are choosing to do so it will be at their own cost."

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani also weighed in, telling reporters: "They can't live with us. They can't live without us.

"So, I would say to them that if they can't live without us, they should increase contacts with us to remove misunderstandings."

He and Ms Khar were responding to Adm Mike Mullen's testimony on Thursday when he told a Senate panel: "The Haqqani network... acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency.

"With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted a truck bomb attack [on 11 September], as well as the assault on our embassy," said Adm Mullen who steps down this month as chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.

White House spokesman Jay Carney accused Pakistan of failing to take action against Haqqani network "safe havens" on its soil.
"It is critical that the government of Pakistan break any links they have and take strong and immediate action against this network so that they are no longer a threat to the United States or to the people of Pakistan," he said.

'Serious difficulties'

US-Pakistan ties have deteriorated sharply since the killing by US commandos of al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden on Pakistani soil in May.

The last 24 hours have seen some of the angriest exchanges between the countries since they declared their uneasy alliance against militants 10 years ago.

US-Pakistan tensions
  • 2 May: US announces Bin Laden's death and says Pakistan not warned of raid
  • 14 May: Pakistan MPs demand review of US ties
  • 26 May: US announces withdrawal of some US troops at Pakistan's request
  • 27 May: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visits to try to soothe relations
  • 2 June: Top US military chief Adm Mike Mullen admits "significant" cut in US troops in Pakistan
  • 10 June: CIA head Leon Panetta visits Pakistan. US admits "slow progress" in healing ties
  • 8 July: Adm Mullen says Pakistan sanctioned killing of a journalist. Pakistan angrily rejects this
  • 10 July: US suspends $800m of military aid
  • 17 Sept: US envoy to Islamabad cites 'links' between Pakistan government and Haqqanis
  • 23 Sept: Adm Mike Mullen accuses Pakistan of 'supporting a Kabul attack'
"At the operational level it will be appropriate to say that there are serious difficulties" between Islamabad and Washington, Ms Khar admitted.

Ties between the US and Pakistan had already been strained by continuing US drone strikes targeting militants in the tribal areas and the controversy over the release of Raymond Davis, a CIA contractor who killed two Pakistani men in Lahore.

The Haqqani network, which is closely allied to the Taliban and reportedly based in Pakistan, has been blamed for several high-profile attacks against Western, Indian and government targets in Afghanistan.

It is often described by Pakistani officials as a predominantly Afghan group, but correspondents say its roots reach deep inside Pakistani territory, and speculation over its links to Pakistan's security establishment refuses to die down.

US officials have long been frustrated at what they perceive to be Pakistani inaction against the Haqqani network, and analysts say US concern about the group's capabilities is particularly acute as Nato begins withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.

Earlier this month, Washington said it could target the Haqqani network on Pakistani soil if the authorities there failed to take action against the militants.

Pakistan says it has taken very strict action whenever it has received information about militant groups.

Source: BBC News - Pakistan minister hits out at US on Kabul attack charge
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,798
Likes
48,278
Country flag
There is very little USA can do against Pakistan. US has little to no leverage left against Pakistan and drone attacks though hyped have mixed results.USA is in a war where Pakistan is their only hope and in a part of the world where there are no real friends so even the biggest terrorist nation has to be an ally. US is looking out for it's interests in Afghanistan and so is Pakistan. Pakistan seems to be succeeding much more than USA .
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
There is very little USA can do against Pakistan. US has little to no leverage left against Pakistan and drone attacks though hyped have mixed results.USA is in a war where Pakistan is their only hope and in a part of the world where there are no real friends so even the biggest terrorist nation has to be an ally. US is looking out for it's interests in Afghanistan and so is Pakistan. Pakistan seems to be succeeding much more than USA .
I do feel that the US is rather rigid on Iran. Maybe they are forced to be like that to keep their Arab allies happy, given the difficult relationship the Persians have with the Arabs. Keeping Iran is good humour would have enabled an alternative access point to Afghanistan. The US has also failed to keep Russia in confidence and Bush's push for the missile shield close to Russia has not helped matters.

I wish more sensible people assumed roles in the US Foreign Department.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,798
Likes
48,278
Country flag
I do feel that the US is rather rigid on Iran. Maybe they are forced to be like that to keep their Arab allies happy, given the difficult relationship the Persians have with the Arabs. Keeping Iran is good humour would have enabled an alternative access point to Afghanistan. The US has also failed to keep Russia in confidence and Bush's push for the missile shield close to Russia has not helped matters.

I wish more sensible people assumed roles in the US Foreign Department.

Iran seem to have gained more on a diplomatic and strategic front then USA has gained:

Backing of Russia and China
New weapons developed
going nuclear
swaying Turkey away from NATO/Israel
closing of TAPI pipeline
weapons deals with Russia passing
space program advancements
UN outbursts by ahmedinajad
Swaying India back into Iranian camp
collecting Indian oil debt
Restarting IPI talks where Pakistan and maybe India do not care about sanction threats by USA??
Palestinian statehood backing

These are somethings Iran has gained while USA has been in the Afghan quagmire. What has Obama done ???
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
I wonder if the US will be impressed with Begum Hina!

US will take the side of the Arabs over Iran because the maximum oil lies under Arab soil.

Majority of the Arab nations are US proxies.

Also the majority of the Muslim world is Sunni and upsetting Sunnis won't do!
 
Last edited:

mayfair

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
6,032
Likes
13,109
Pakistan's foreign minister has warned that the US could lose Pakistan as an ally
And if,

"The state department has warned that Ms. I-am-a-bloke-down-there could lose her US citizenship",

the-tranny-with-no-f@#$y will do a downhill ski faster than one can say "Hey Dude".
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
What are the chances Iran won't screw the party for a piece of cake?
US wont want Iran to be a part of the party. Also, there is not much Iran can do in Pakistan beyond Balstan and Afstan. Both these areas will be under strong US presence and influence.
 

youngindian

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
1,365
Likes
77
Country flag
Time to call out Pakistan's deadly double-dealing

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is a mild-mannered man who believes in building ties of trust with our military allies.

He's invested many hours over the past four years in developing a relationship with Pakistan's army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, whose help we need to end the Afghan fighting. Over and over, he and other U.S. officials urged Pakistan to cease providing havens for Afghan militants such as the Haqqani network, who kill U.S. soldiers. During the last year when U.S. patience with Pakistan frayed, Mullen still played good cop.

Those days are over.

The chairman charged, at Senate Armed Services Committee hearings last week, that Pakistan's ISI spy agency had helped the Haqqanis attack the U.S. Embassy in Kabul on Sept. 13. The message couldn't have been clearer: No more Mr. Nice Guy, no more tolerating Pakistan's double-dealing.

America is finally calling Pakistan's bluff.

"The government of Pakistan and most especially the Pakistani army and ISI" have chosen "to use violent extremism as an instrument of policy" to extend Pakistan's influence in Afghanistan, Mullen said. Pakistan "supported and protected" the Haqqanis, and the ISI used them as a "strategic arm," he added.

He said there was "ample evidence" the Haqqanis were also behind an attack on Kabul's Intercontinental Hotel and a truck bomb that injured 77 U.S. soldiers near Kabul. Supporting such groups not only undermines U.S. interests but jeopardizes "Pakistan's opportunity to be a respected and prosperous nation."
Worldview: Time to call out Pakistan's deadly double-dealing | Philadelphia Inquirer | 09/25/2011
 

arya

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
3,006
Likes
1,531
Country flag
the best thing they can do open a front against india and all thing will be diverted

win win condition for both Pakistan army and indian govt both are facing problem
 

hit&run

United States of Hindu Empire
Mod
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
14,104
Likes
63,370
the best thing they can do open a front against india and all thing will be diverted

win win condition for both Pakistan army and indian govt both are facing problem
if Pakistan does any misadventure and catches us with surprise. And then If GOI reacts late on taking aggressive action because its minsters busy faking illnesses to courts during corruption trails; Indian govt. will die faster.

Pakistan knows they will only get surgical strike if USA does any unilateral action. Some face saving slogans will do the job to calm their own people but if angry India rushed in, they will loose half of their nation again. Also the possibility of US and India (defending) both attacking Pakistan can not be ruled out in that case. Like we say ''ghandey ve khade te dade ve khade'' (A punishment of either onions or sticks the convict went for both but half of each)

I wonder he was instructing core commander how to react after US's unilateral action and how to convince Pakistani people like they did after OBL ''kand'' scandal.

Sorry for digress: Just while typing this (i may be wrong) i thought that Obama's speech was outstanding after OBL death when he cleverly praised Pakistan for the support. Pakistanis started to score points on that but eventually after good 3-4 days of confusion the fact started to pour in that they were never party to US's unilateral action but were actually screwed in detail with their complicity exposed in small doses thereafter.
 
Last edited:

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
the best thing they can do open a front against india and all thing will be diverted

win win condition for both Pakistan army and indian govt both are facing problem
Win win for Indian Army and it's People. We thrash them, cut them into 4 pcs. Problem solved.
 

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
US wont want Iran to be a part of the party. Also, there is not much Iran can do in Pakistan beyond Balstan and Afstan. Both these areas will be under strong US presence and influence.
India has played dirty trick of pulling Iran inside this. They are signally US that if you leave astan, we'll deal with it sitting beside Iran.
 

arya

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
3,006
Likes
1,531
Country flag
Win win for Indian Army and it's People. We thrash them, cut them into 4 pcs. Problem solved.
that why i am saying they should do the mistake now

its golden time , but one question how china will react
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
that why i am saying they should do the mistake now

its golden time , but one question how china will react
I don't think China would do anything overt. Off course they will give them covert support but I don't think they would risk anything now. China wants to fight India to the last Pakistani not spend Chinis on Pakis.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top