USA Pakistan Geopolitical Relationship

Discussion in 'International Politics' started by Yusuf, May 20, 2009.

  1. agentperry

    agentperry Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,022
    Likes Received:
    681
    Location:
    delhi
    Closing NATO routes tells a lot about US-Pakistan relationship: General Dempsey

    WASHINGTON: Dubbing the current state of US-Pakistan relations as “strained”, US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey reiterated that the US did not deliberately attack the Pakistani border post on November 26. He added that closing supply routes said a lot about the US relationship with Pakistan.
    In an event organised by the think-tank Atlantic Council, General Dempsey said that it was regrettable that Pakistan’s military thought that the attack on the border post was intentional. “They believe we did this intentionally, in some way or the other to discredit them or to goad them into further action.” He said it was incomprehensible for him that Pakistan believed that, based on the United States’ efforts to build the relationship over time. “If you think we did, I have to ask, what in the world would we hope to gain from doing this.” General Dempsey said, “As I sit here today, I don’t know what happened in the NATO airstrike.”
    Recalling that General Kayani and him were batch mates at Fort Leavenworth, he said that he had spoken to him after the NATO airstrikes, and other US officials had also been in touch with their Pakistani counterparts.
    In response to a question posed by David Ignatius, a Washington Post columnist and moderator of the event on the closure of the supply routes by Pakistan, General Dempsey said that the US could work out how to send supplies in Afghanistan through other options, which included via air and other countries. He added that they could adjust the supply routes for NATO, but said it would be more expensive.
    “The real problem for me is not the cost…what’s troubling to me is that Pakistan would close the routes and what it says about the relationship…and we need to try and get through that,” General Dempsey said.
    Alluding to the torching of NATO oil tankers, the US military chief said the US does not pay for the fuel until it gets delivered. He said there was a need to understand what was going on.
    In response to another question, he said sanctuaries for insurgents persisted in Pakistan, and that the US needed to control their influence in Afghanistan. He also added that he believed that the military aspects of the surge in Afghanistan have achieved their purpose.

    Closing NATO routes tells a lot about US-Pakistan relationship: General Dempsey – The Express Tribune
     
  2. W.G.Ewald

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

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,562
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    Whoever signed that contract for NATO had his wits about him.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2011
    Neil, agentperry and LETHALFORCE like this.
  3. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    22,617
    Likes Received:
    13,197
    'US-Pakistan conflict risk higher than India-Pak'

    'US-Pakistan conflict risk higher than India-Pak' - Hindustan Times

    An influential think-tank has rated a conflict with Pakistan as among the top potential threats facing the United States in 2012, but downgraded the potential for military escalation between Pakistan and India.

    on Friday elevated the risk of US conflict with Pakistan triggered by an attack or counter-terrorism operation amid high tensions in 2011 following the US operation that killed Osama bin Laden.

    But a severe Indo-Pak crisis that carries risk of military escalation, triggered by major terror attack was downgraded from the top to Tier Two contingencies affecting countries of strategic importance to the United States that do not involve a mutual defence treaty commitment.

    The Council's Centre for Preventive Action anonymously surveyed US officials and experts to compile an annual list of the most plausible conflicts for the United States in the new year.

    Besides a US conflict with Pakistan, the 2012 list elevated several contingencies to the top tier of risks: an intensified euro crisis, which could plunge the US back into recession; the threat of a cyberattack; and a Saudi instability, which would threaten global oil supplies.

    Threats that remained at the top of the list from last year included a potential incident between the United States and China involving US or allied forces, internal instability in Pakistan, intensified nuclear crises with Iran or North Korea, and a spillover of drug-related violence from Mexico.

    "The United States has a dismal record of forecasting instability and conflicts. Presently there is no systematic US government process linking forecasting to contingency planning. This survey is intended to meet that need," said CFR fellow for conflict prevention Micah Zenko, who conducted the survey
     
    sesha_maruthi27 likes this.
  4. W.G.Ewald

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

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,562
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    DFI is as good a think tank as CFR.
     
  5. agentperry

    agentperry Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,022
    Likes Received:
    681
    Location:
    delhi
    if both India and usa starts screwing/ squeezing pakistan from both the sides what could be the possible outcomes, what pakistan will do. asking china to interfere, china wont be interfering until unless it is sure of victory and minimum losses. siding up with iran, possible but its own anti-shia population which again and again degrade the pak-iran relationship will come in between to some extent- depending on the media coverage of the murders.
    pakistan will go more rigid no doubt but then it can be bought to table oe by one by both India and the usa to sign something in favor of duo. iran should be made more entangled in the arab politics than south asain politics, saudis help- can be taken.
     
  6. Tshering22

    Tshering22 Sikkimese Saber Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,673
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Location:
    Gangtok, Sikkim, India
    It cannot do anything. Instead, more terrorism will pour out of the country, TTP will take advantage BLA will take advantage and things will actually start working in our favor, provided a strong government to control a spill of terrorism is able to stand in our side of the border.

    China has more investments in USA than 5 times of Pakistani economy combined. With us alone, in the coming 5 years, they will be trading half of what entire Pakistani economy is. Do you seriously think Chinese will interfere directly for Pakistan except on their internet forum? :laugh:.

    It will serve no good to them. Iran is hostile towards USA but not towards us. US has nothing to do with Iran except protect Israel from Iranian missiles. Also Pakistan's own weaponry whatever it is, is quite ahead of Iranian weaponry (other than the attack helicopter they made, which is far better than Pakistan's US-made gyocopter).

    Iranians are not the "Ally" type of nation especially judging by their emotional mullas ruling the nation.

    Iran has and will not do anything to this region. It is content in its own little world without Pakistani mess. In fact, they are troubled by Sunni terrorist groups hiding inside Pakistan and targeting their military and government offices. If not enmity, Iran would actually be mighty pleased to see Pakistan dismembered and cease to exist.

    Getting Pakistan to talk is no option. They are radicalized beyond human now and will continue to do so until they become a Taliban state with nukes. So whatever we have to do (including kicking out this slave government, installing a strong central government, giving 100% autonomy to our military to retaliate any military aggression from across the borders, privatize defense companies, sack a few 100 top military commanders, revamp military production, start rapid upgrading of all military infrastructure and bring state control agencies of defense goods under direct military administration of field level officers etc etc), we will have to do it really fast and before Taliban declares Pakistan as an Islamic Emirate.

    That will only leave us one option; invade Pakistan and get to those Pakistani nuke scientists BEFORE mullas reach them.
     
  7. Virendra

    Virendra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,696
    Likes Received:
    2,996
    Location:
    London
    I agree, but they'd want to keep Pakistan alive. Its a golden egg you know, helps to needle India and keep US busy as well.
    China may act (in however small measure) to save Pakistan enough, from complete destruction. Anything lower than that, China wouldn't involve directly. However even then their funds, HUMINT/SIGINT and military hardware etc would be shared with the bigots whole kindheartedly.
    And that deflects a lot of pressure .... not good.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2011
  8. agentperry

    agentperry Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,022
    Likes Received:
    681
    Location:
    delhi
    its better to get our tumor removed and much better to let our enemy feed a tumor. i wont midn pakistan going north korea or better somalia. terror attacks can be avoided provided police is well equipped. and once pakistan goes into the path of NK, they wont e getting ant visas for anywhere in the world so terrorist will be coming only thru himalayas and we have our snipers ready- right
     
  9. arshi

    arshi Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    mumbai

    "When two dogs fight over a bone, the third one carries it away."
     
  10. Nagraj

    Nagraj Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2011
    Messages:
    804
    Likes Received:
    254
    what's CFR ???
     
  11. sesha_maruthi27

    sesha_maruthi27 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,906
    Likes Received:
    1,609
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Well I would like to remind you all that when THE PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA campaigned for elections before he became the PRESIDENT of U.S.A., he was saying that if he comes to power he will attack pakistan and bring down all the terror outfits inside pakistan. So, this not new everything is preplanned and the mission has come to the execution stage, which will happen in the near future.
     
  12. sesha_maruthi27

    sesha_maruthi27 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,906
    Likes Received:
    1,609
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Waiting to see the pukes army flying and running all over pakistan.......:rofl:
     
  13. agentperry

    agentperry Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,022
    Likes Received:
    681
    Location:
    delhi
    internet is too powerful for your naive questions...
     
  14. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,060
    Likes Received:
    2,290
    U.S. Prepares for a Curtailed Relationship With Pakistan .

    By ERIC SCHMITT , Published: December 25 / 2011 .

    ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — With the United States facing the reality that its broad security partnership with Pakistan is over, American officials are seeking to salvage a more limited counterterrorism alliance that they acknowledge will complicate their ability to launch attacks against extremists and move supplies into Afghanistan.


    The United States will be forced to restrict drone strikes, limit the number of its spies and soldiers on the ground and spend more to transport supplies through Pakistan to allied troops in Afghanistan, American and Pakistani officials said. United States aid to Pakistan will also be reduced sharply, they said.

    “We’ve closed the chapter on the post-9/11 period,” said a senior United States official, who requested anonymity to avoid antagonizing Pakistani officials. “Pakistan has told us very clearly that they are re-evaluating the entire relationship.”

    American officials say that the relationship will endure in some form, but that the contours will not be clear until Pakistan completes its wide-ranging review in the coming weeks.

    The Obama administration got a taste of the new terms immediately after an American airstrike killed 26 Pakistani soldiers near the Afghan border last month. Pakistan closed the supply routes into Afghanistan, boycotted a conference in Germany on the future of Afghanistan and forced the United States to shut its drone operations at a base in southwestern Pakistan.

    Mushahid Hussain Sayed, the secretary general of the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, an opposition political party, summed up the anger that he said many harbored: “We feel like the U.S. treats Pakistan like a rainy-day girlfriend.”

    Whatever emerges will be a shadow of the sweeping strategic relationship that Richard C. Holbrooke, President Obama’s special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, championed before his death a year ago. Officials from both countries filled more than a dozen committees to work on issues like health, the rule of law and economic development.

    All of that has been abandoned and will most likely be replaced by a much narrower set of agreements on core priorities — countering terrorists, stabilizing Afghanistan and ensuring the safety of Pakistan’s arsenal of more than 100 nuclear weapons — that Pakistan will want spelled out in writing and agreed to in advance.

    With American diplomats essentially waiting quietly and Central Intelligence Agency drone strikes on hold since Nov. 16 — the longest pause since 2008 — Pakistan’s government is drawing up what Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani called “red lines” for a new relationship that protects his country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

    Said an American official: “Both countries recognize the benefits of partnering against common threats, but those must be balanced against national interests as well. The balancing is a continuous process.”

    First, officials said, will likely be a series of step-by-step agreements on military cooperation, intelligence sharing and counterterrorism operations, including revamped “kill boxes,” the term for flight zones over Pakistan’s largely ungoverned borderlands where C.I.A. drones will be allowed to hunt a shrinking number of Al Qaeda leaders and other militants.

    The C.I.A. has conducted 64 missile attacks in Pakistan using drones this year, compared with 117 last year and 53 in 2009, according to The Long War Journal, a Web site that tracks the strikes.

    In one of the most visible signs of rising anti-American sentiment in this country, tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets of Lahore and Peshawar this month. And on Sunday in Karachi, Pakistan’s biggest city, at least 100,000 people rallied to support Imran Khan, a cricket celebrity and rising opposition politician who is outspoken in his criticism of the drone strikes and ties with the United States.

    Some Pakistani officers talk openly about shooting down any American drones that violate Pakistani sovereignty. “Nothing is happening on counterterrorism right now,” said a senior Pakistani security official. “It will never go back to the way it was.”

    Any new security framework will also require increased transit fees for the thousands of trucks that supply NATO troops in Afghanistan, a bill that allied officials say could run into the tens of millions of dollars.

    Officials from Pakistan and the United States anticipate steep reductions in American security aid, including the continued suspension of more than $1 billion in military assistance and equipment, frozen since the American raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in May.

    ( page : 1 )

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/world/asia/us-preparing-for-pakistan-to-restrict-support-for-afghan-war.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
     
  15. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,060
    Likes Received:
    2,290
    (Page 2 of 2)

    The number of American military officers, enlisted troops and contractors in Pakistan has dropped to about 100, from about 400 more than a year ago, including scores of American trainers who have all been sent home. Pakistan is also restricting visas to dozens of other embassy personnel, from spies to aid workers.

    Of the nearly two dozen American, Western and Pakistani officials interviewed for this article, a few sought to put the best face on a worsening situation. With Pakistan taking a seat on the United Nations Security Council for two years beginning next month, these officials argued that too much was at stake to rupture ties completely. “It is better to have a predictable, more focused relationship than an incredibly ambitious out-of-control relationship,” said one Western official.

    But another Western diplomat put it more bluntly: “It’s a fairly gloomy picture.”

    Just two months ago, a visit here by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director; and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, seemed to begin to thaw relations that had been nearly frozen since Raymond Davis, a C.I.A. security contractor, shot and killed two Pakistanis in Lahore in January and Navy Seals killed Bin Laden in May.

    Pakistani manufacturers of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, a component of homemade bombs used against American soldiers in Afghanistan, tentatively agreed to dye it for easier tracing, American officials said. Interior Ministry officials pledged to track large, unexplained purchases of the substance.

    At the same time, Pakistani officials indicated that they would help rein in attacks by the Haqqani network, an insurgent group that is the main killer of allied troops in Afghanistan, and there were hints that Pakistan would pave the way for peace talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

    But the fatal airstrike on Nov. 26 erased that preliminary progress, dealing the most serious blow to reconciliation talks involving Pakistan. “It’s not happening,” said Aftab Ahmed Sherpao, a former interior minister.

    All of this comes as the Pakistani economy is in a free fall, civilian and military leaders are clashing over purported coup plots, and 150,000 Pakistani troops are stuck in a stalemate fighting a witches’ brew of militants along the Afghan border.

    “These people are stuck there very badly,” said Javed Ashraf Qazi, a retired lieutenant general and a former head of the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, Pakistan’s main spy agency.

    The number of attacks from homemade bombs throughout the country, but mostly focused in the border areas, skyrocketed to 1,036 through November this year, compared with 413 for all of 2007, according to the Pakistani military. More than 3,500 Pakistani soldiers and police have been killed since 2002.

    The Obama administration is desperately trying to preserve the critical pieces of the relationship. General Dempsey asked the Pakistani Army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, in a phone call on Wednesday if the relationship could be repaired, a person briefed on the conversation said. General Kayani said that he thought it could, but that Pakistan needed some space.

    The State Department this month quietly dispatched a senior diplomat and South Asia specialist, Robin Raphel, to canvass a wide spectrum of Pakistanis. She returned with a sober assessment and the view that many Pakistanis will not move forward without a formal apology from President Obama for the airstrike, which White House aides say is not in the offing.

    Still, administration officials held out hope. “We’ve been very forthright in acknowledging that this is a relationship that needs to work,” a State Department spokesman, Mark Toner, said on Friday.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/world/asia/us-preparing-for-pakistan-to-restrict-support-for-afghan-war.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
     
  16. sehwag1830

    sehwag1830 Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2011
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    275
    Is America scared of Pakistan ?

    The thoughts of talking to LeT or including LeT in peace talks with pakistan, was never contemplated by even Anti-National elements in India. The American administration is already willing to talk to butchers of Americans (the haqqani network).Afghan endgame: US ready for Haqqani talks – The Express Tribune
     
  17. rock127

    rock127 Maulana Rockullah Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    9,334
    Likes Received:
    12,921
    Location:
    India
    US is caught in it's own web and paying for it's neglect and exploitation of Af-Pak... it would be intresting to see how this WOT ends. Right now they are looking to save their face but US would surely like to take revenge of how Pak double crossed it and used same money against it's soldiers which was supposed to kill Talibunnies.
     
  18. Bangalorean

    Bangalorean Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Messages:
    6,216
    Likes Received:
    6,575
    The Pakis have Americans by the balls. The way America is behaving with the Pakis is very telling. For all those who have been cribbing that India is "weak", the American treatment of Pakistan (with kid gloves) is an interesting study.
     
  19. arya

    arya Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,945
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    usa are just like a businessman they will see only profit .
     
    kumar khokhar likes this.
  20. ejazr

    ejazr Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Location:
    Hyderabad and Sydney
    Its not a case of US being scared of Pakistan.

    The US strategists know that a weak dysfunctional Pakistan that can't be used as a counter balance to India is not in their interest. There have been increasing remarks regarding Pakistan and how the US should stop making it more weak by its action because (a) mainly because of the nukes and (b) less frequently to maintain the "balance of power" on the sub-continent.

    What we should be learning is how the US does not put ideological blinkers on and is willing to take unorthodox and out of the box positions to achieve its vision and long term goal. Can India do the same?
     
    Nagraj, The Messiah and Oracle like this.

Share This Page