Pakistan to America: What have you done for us lately?

DaRk WaVe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
809
Likes
97
And so says who? Pakistan's words don't match its capabilities.

Leave aside these imperialist ambitions of your wanabe Bonapartes. Afghnaistan and India will decide the level of our relationship. You are nowhere in the picture except that both countries have a territorial dispute with you. We are natural allies as you are in an anti India alliance with China in India's backyard (Pakistan)!

You may have the right to act and we have the right to react as well as proact. The conclusion is foregone. Pakistan's fate has been sealed by the course it has chosen for itself.
ok i leave aside wanabe Bonapartes, so who you think we will let you have our backyard, so easily, Pakistan is no Afghanistan & neither is India = China, though there is a natural alliance but who says that you have altruistic motives in Afghanistan, you target will remain Pakistan as you have pointed out yourself 'we are natural allies'
who says we are not in picture, why would US even give a damn about talks with Pak if we are not in picture the thing right now is you cannot have a 'sealed fate for Afgh' without Pak & what you think about Karzai, we are yet so see something substantial from this India, Iranian & Russian Nexus & you think Americans will tolerate Iranians

Iranians train Taliban to use roadside bombs

March 21, 2010

TALIBAN commanders have revealed that hundreds of insurgents have been trained in Iran to kill Nato forces in Afghanistan.

The commanders said they had learnt to mount complex ambushes and lay improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which have been responsible for most of the deaths of British troops in Helmand province.

The accounts of two commanders, in interviews with The Sunday Times, are the first descriptions of training of the Taliban in Iran.

According to the commanders, Iranian officials paid them to attend three-month courses during the winter.

They were smuggled across the border to the city of Zahidan, in southeast Iran, an hour’s drive from training camps in the desert.

Instructors in plain clothes provided daily exercises in live firing. The first month was devoted largely to teaching the Taliban how to attack convoys and how to escape before Nato forces could respond.

During their second month they were shown how to plant IEDs in sequence so that the rescuers of soldiers wounded in one blast would be caught in further explosions.

The third month was spent on storming bases and checkpoints. A hilltop fort was among the locations used for practice by a Taliban platoon.

Local mediators persuaded the commanders to travel to Kabul to tell their stories. They were interviewed on separate occasions on the edge of the city.

Western officials troubled by growing Iranian support for the Taliban describe the accounts as credible. A military crackdown in Pakistan is thought to have encouraged Taliban leaders to look to Iran for more help.

One of the commanders said: “The military is pressuring the Taliban in Pakistan. It is certainly harder to reach places that were once easy to get into. I think more of my fighters will travel to Iran for training this year.”

Karl Eikenberry, the American ambassador to Afghanistan, recently described signs of co-operation between Iran and the Taliban as disturbing.

“Iran or elements within Iran have provided training assistance and some weapons to the Taliban,” he said.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has publicly backed his Afghan counterpart, Hamid Karzai. But American and British officials have accused Iran of playing a double game by giving covert backing to the Taliban.

Shi’ite Iran had long opposed the Sunni-dominated Taliban. The reason for the change was summarised by one Taliban commander who said of the Iranians: “Our religions and our histories are different but our target is the same. We both want to kill Americans.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article7069779.ece
as for 'Pakistan's words don't match its capabilities', we don't need Indian NOC, actions speak louder than words (thats another case that you make theories out of no where even on 'actions' )
 
Last edited:

DaRk WaVe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
809
Likes
97
Pakistan's role in Afghanistan : Tickets to the endgame

Pakistan wants a say in ending the war, and it knows how to ask

Mar 18th 2010 | ISLAMABAD | From The Economist print edition

A HIGH-LEVEL delegation of Pakistanis is due to sweep into Washington for the restart on March 24th of a “strategic dialogue” with America. The Pakistanis have muscled their way to the table for what looks like a planning session for the endgame in Afghanistan. The recent arrest of the Taliban’s deputy leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, and a clutch of his high-ranking comrades, has won them a seat.

The Pakistani team, led by the foreign minister, will include both the army chief and the head of the army’s spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). America has upgraded its own representation at the talks, last held in mid-2008, from deputy-secretary to secretary-of-state level. The dialogue is supposed to cover the gamut of bilateral issues, including help for Pakistan’s fragile economy, and even, on its ambitious wish-list, civil nuclear technology.

But the future of Afghanistan is the most pressing topic, and in Pakistan that issue is always controlled by the powerful army and the ISI. Pakistan believes that the Americans are coming to understand its fear of encirclement: a rising India to the east, uncertain relations with Iran to the west and growing Indian influence in Afghanistan to the north-west.

Whereas some see in Pakistan’s arrest of Mr Baradar hints of a strategic shift against its old jihadist proxies, it seems depressingly more likely to be an attempt by the ISI to grab control of the Taliban’s negotiating position. Mr Baradar had been making overtures directly to Hamid Karzai’s government in Kabul—bypassing Pakistan.

According to a senior Pakistani official, the detention of Mr Baradar is a double victory for Pakistan. It has captured a Talib who had become troublesome. And it hoped to win plaudits for cracking down on the insurgency’s leaders, meeting longstanding demands from the NATO-led coalition and Afghan government.

Instead, it finds itself criticised anew, despite dropping the denials it has maintained since 2001 that Afghan Taliban leaders were on its soil, and despite having acted against one of them. By some accounts Mr Karzai is angry that his favourite Talib was locked up. Other regional powers, such as India, Iran and Russia, are said to be alarmed that Pakistan is putting itself in the driving seat in the Afghan negotiations. According to Ahmed Rashid, a veteran observer of Afghanistan, Pakistan’s reinvigorated interference in its neighbour’s affairs risks setting off a regional competition for influence that could push Afghanistan back into the sort of civil war it endured in the 1990s, between proxies backed by outside powers.

Pakistan’s position has evolved. Rather than seeing the ethnic-Pushtun Taliban as its best hope of a friendly government in Kabul, its policymakers would now prefer the Taliban to be part of a broader-based Afghan government. Perhaps it has realised at last that extremists wielding unbridled power from Kabul tend to export disaster across the porous border they share. So Pakistan also needs links with non-Taliban elements in Afghanistan.

America is taking a harder line than most of its partners, Britain included, in seeking to weaken the insurgency, perhaps even inducing some rebel commanders to defect, before considering talks with the Taliban leadership. But as America plans to start drawing down its forces next year, the jostling for a political settlement is well under way. Pakistan’s basic demand is that any future regime in Kabul must be Pakistan-friendly, by which it means not too close to India. The Pakistanis believe they are close to convincing America that they hold the key to stabilising Afghanistan.

Pakistan's role in Afghanistan: Tickets to the endgame | The Economist
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
105
ok i leave aside wanabe Bonapartes, so who you think we will let you have our backyard, so easily, Pakistan is no Afghanistan & neither is India = China, though there is a natural alliance but who says that you have altruistic motives in Afghanistan, you target will remain Pakistan as you have pointed out yourself 'we are natural allies'
who says we are not in picture, why would US even give a damn about talks with Pak if we are not in picture the thing right now is you cannot have a 'sealed fate for Afgh' without Pak & what you think about Karzai, we are yet so see something substantial from this India, Iranian & Russian Nexus & you think Americans will tolerate Iranians
This talk of altruistic motives is without basis. No one claims that! We have interests in Afghanistan. Mainly that it doesn't become a hub of terror against India again as it was during Taliban rule.

If it makes the Pakistanis feel a little nervous on the Western borders, that is a bonus.

USA is now behaving in a manner that is not in keeping with its Superpower status. Obama has shown a ray of hope to the Taliban scum and their backers with his pullback announcement and that is why this dependence on Pakistan. You don't even see how this will lead to the Talibanization of Pakistan? Well just wait an year or so after the USA pullout.

It is a short term myopic strategy and is going to result in a bigger mess than 2001.

Yes, Pakistan is no Afghanistan. All Pakistani heroes are their invaders from Afghanistan, Afghans have only contempt for Pakistan.

India may not be "=China" (whatever that means), the difference is not too large either. We are mostly a decade behind on most indicators. Anyway China is not Pakistan. They didn't raise a finger in 1971 and don't believe they will again in a moment of need.

Even now Pakistan is begging for money and weapons from USA, not from China! They returned your preseident empty handed when he went to beg for help (and when Pakistan was supposed to be going bankrupt). Chinese couldn't care less about Pakistan. They just don' know anything about you mostly.

as for 'Pakistan's words don't match its capabilities', we don't need Indian NOC, actions speak louder than words (thats another case that you make theories out of no where even on 'actions' )
Yes, your actions of sustaining the Taliban and AQ all these years speak out loud and clear.
 

DaRk WaVe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
809
Likes
97
This talk of altruistic motives is without basis. No one claims that! We have interests in Afghanistan. Mainly that it doesn't become a hub of terror against India again as it was during Taliban rule.
Thank you atleast some one accepted but don't worry the game is certainly on

If it makes the Pakistanis feel a little nervous on the Western borders, that is a bonus.
yes it makes us feel nervous, just as Indians are nervous on Chinese & Pakistani borders, borders are there to make people nervous & we will make sure that those westren borders are not a problem for us & for that we are working & will continue to work & moreover if a Pro-Pak Gov in Afgh makes Indians nervous then thats also a big bonus don't you think so? Now please don't talk about 'Pak's obsession with India

USA is now behaving in a manner that is not in keeping with its Superpower status. Obama has shown a ray of hope to the Taliban scum and their backers with his pullback announcement and that is why this dependence on Pakistan. You don't even see how this will lead to the Talibanization of Pakistan? Well just wait an year or so after the USA pullout.
who wants to loose super powers status? but you think that Taliban are that stupid that they will believe 'what is been shown', On one hand americans say they want to talk & then they go bonkers in Helmand & send in 30,000 Troops, after Marjah they are going for Kandhar, you think Taliban can't see it all? How is it going to lead to Talibanization of Pakistan, certainly we need to wait & see

Yes, Pakistan is no Afghanistan. All Pakistani heroes are their invaders from Afghanistan, Afghans have only contempt for Pakistan.
'contempt' i see so when are they invading us again? Ohh i got it IA will be training them, man i'm scared, where is my inhaler?

BTW i know those hero's are haunting your memories (sorry if that sounds offensive but you called for it)

India may not be "=China" (whatever that means), the difference is not too large either. We are mostly a decade behind on most indicators. Anyway China is not Pakistan. They didn't raise a finger in 1971 and don't believe they will again in a moment of need.
first, Good luck, second, Enjoy the 1971, we accept it as our defeat,we presented East Pak to you in a plate & you grabbed it, Enjoy the Victory boys & girls, you earned it, we failed
& Chinese don't need to raise a finger but they are certainly making you nervous isn't it?

Yes, your actions of sustaining the Taliban and AQ all these years speak out loud and clear.
now thats called 'twisting', please tell me that Mullah Bradar is a Moderate Taliban & Quetta Shura wanted to throw the crap out of it, ain't that called action

US welcomes Bajaur success, rejects conspiracy theories on Pakistani anti-militant drive

WASHINGTON, March 3 (APP): The United States welcomed Pakistan’s success in wresting control of a strategic militant redoubt in Bajaur tribal area which al-Qaeda- linked militants used as a hub for activities across the Afghan border.“I don’t know the details, but I’m delighted they feel they’re making progress....the fact that they feel they’ve succeeded there is a very positive development,” Richard Holbrooke, Special Representative for Pakistan and Afghanisan said Tuesday upon his return from a visit to South and Central Asian countries.

He spoke hours after a senior Pakistani commander said in Damadola village of Bajaur tribal region on the Afghan border that the Pakistan security forces had seized the infrastructure including a network of caves the militants used for their activities.

Ambassador Holbrooke also hailed Pakistan’s recent arrests of some top Afghan Taliban leaders and rejected “conspiracy theories” and media speculation about motives behind Islamabad’s stepped up anti-militancy drive, which coincides coalition forces’s operation in Marjah in Afghanistan.

“I see no evidence to support that theory. But it’s out there.
Conspiracy theories are stock-in-trade in not just in this part of the world. But I don’t see any evidence for it,” he answered when asked about to comment on a news story speculating that Pakistani captures of Afghan militants were meant to harm the reintegration process underway in Afghanistan or perhaps Pakistan wanted to show its influence over militants.


“And I know somewhat more than I’m at liberty to disclose about the circumstances under which these events took place, and every detail tends to work against that thesis,” Holbrooke stated emphatically.
He elaborated that anti-militant efforts are “work in progress” and particularly noted the fact that Islamabad is continuing its operations in the face of some pressing economic, water and energy problems.
“This is a very important sequence of events, and we hope it will continue. I don’t want to draw any strategic conclusions from it. I just want to express my appreciation to the Pakistani Government and its army for what it’s doing,” he said referring to a series of actions against Taliban in Swat, South Waziristan, elimination of Pakistani Taliban leaders and capture of Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Baradar.

“They’re doing these things in the face of enormous, overwhelming economic problems. They’re doing it in the face of water and energy problems, which are getting more and more of our attention. We, in turn, are trying to increase our support for the Pakistanis.”
Ambassador Holbrooke also cited improvement in US-Pakistan relations over the last year as a result of high-level American engagement with the Pakistani leadership.

“Well, this is a work in progress. This Administration took office just over 13 months ago. I have said before and I’ll say it again today that U.S. relations with the Government of Pakistan, civilian and military side, are much better today than they were 13 months ago,” he said referring to visits by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, National Security Adviser James Jones, Senator Kerry and other American leaders.

“So there’s a cumulative effect, in my view, of this effort.
And to me, the turning point trip was Secretary Clinton’s at the end of October--- she did a very public series of meetings and a very intense private series of meetings. She answered every question, no matter how hostile they were, and won over a lot of people. And this came right on the heels of the misunderstanding over the Kerry-Lugar-Berman legislation, which was an unfortunate misunderstanding, in my view. So this process has produced a gradual improvement in cooperation.”

Holbrooke said a water resources task force has been set up at the State Department and the US is working on ways to help Pakistan grapple with water issues.
 
Last edited:

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
721
so 'taliban commanders' whoever they be made fit to reveal these damning exposes to a Uk rag. How fitting. So what if the resolutely shia Iranians are irreconcilably opposed to the sunni-wahabi talibs.

What's more, it turns out that its the evil iranians only who are semi-directly responsible for NATO deaths in Afghanistan, *not* the non-nato frontline ally. How convenient.

Gotta watch is this is a trial balloon for a new meme that will splattered over the 'world press' in the next few days trying to shift momentum against iran from non-nato frontline ally.

Ex-ISI official says he arranged 5 meetings between Nawaz, Osama

LAHORE: Former Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) official Khalid Khawaja has claimed that he arranged five meetings in the past between former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and al Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden on separate occasions.

In a recent interview with a private TV channel, Khawaja said Nawaz asked the al Qaeda chief to provide financial support for “development projects”.

“I still remember that Osama provided me funds that I handed over to then Punjab chief minister Nawaz to topple Benazir Bhutto’s government,” said Khawaja, adding that Nawaz met Osama thrice in Saudi Arabia alone. “Nawaz insisted that I arrange a direct meeting with Osama, which I did in Saudi Arabia,” he said. “Nawaz was looking for a Rs 500 million grant from Osama. Although Osama provided a comparatively smaller sum ... he secured for Nawaz a meeting with the Saudi royal family.”

The former ISI official also claimed that Nawaz had met leaders of Islamic movements around the world.

Khawaja said following a “forced retirement”, he went straight to Afghanistan in 1987 and fought against the Soviet forces alongside Osama. daily times monitor
 
Last edited:

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
105
Thank you atleast some one accepted but don't worry the game is certainly on

yes it makes feel nervous, just as Indians are nervous on Chinese & Pakistani borders, borders are there to make people nervous & we will make sure that those westren borders are not a problem for us & for that we are working & will continue to work & moreover if a Pro-Pak Gov in Afgh makes Indians nervous then thats also a big bonus don't you think so? Now please don't talk about 'Pak's obsession with India', This obsession is two way
Pakistan is obsessed with India because it is willing to cut its nose to spite the face, so to speak. It doesn't mind being a regressive country as long as it thinks it can also keep India down. You have become a security state because of this sense of enmity. In fact many Pakistanis chose to define the country as "not India", not a positive identity but a negative one.

For India, Pakistan is but a troublesome neighbor. Someone to be kept in check, nothing more. We lose interest in Pakistan if there is no news for a few days.

who wants to loose super powers status? but you think that Taliban are that stupid that they will believe 'what is been shown', On one hand americans say they want to talk & then they go bonkers in Helmand & send in 30,000 Troops, after Marjah they are going for Kandhar, you think Taliban can't see it all? How is it going to lead to Talibanization of Pakistan, certainly we need to wait & see
Talibanism as an ideology has taken a root in Pakistan. Their success in Afghanistan will spur that ideology in Pakistan, this time with strong backing across your Western borders. That will be the new invasion that you mentioned.

'contempt' i see so when are they invading us again? Ohh i got it IA will be training them, man i'm scared
BTW i know those hero's are haunting your memories (sorry if that sounds offensive but you called for it)
Those "heroes" of Pakistan are a distant memory for us, a group of uncivilized barbaric bandits and looters. A shame to civilized society itself. Only you people think they are capable of "haunting" anyone. It is the places they came from that wear a haunted look today.

It is still funny that the converts in Pakistan chose to make heroes out of barbarians who killed and raped their ancestors! Just an example of Pakistan's identity crisis.

first, Good luck, second, Enjoy the 1971, we accept it as our defeat,we presented East Pak to you in a plate & you grabbed it, Enjoy the Victory boys & girls, you earned it, we failed, they don't need to raise a finger but they are certainly making you nervous isn't it?
:lol: Bangladesh making India nervous! I won't even respond to it. They are pretty harmless and overall the relations are doing well.

now thats called 'twisting', please tell me that Mullah Bradar is a Moderate laliban & Quetta Shura wanted to throw the crap out of it, ain't that called action & BTW did u read that Article in my last post
I don't believe in this moderate Taliban business. It is Pakistan's idea. For us, they are all terrorists who should be killed without exception.
 

gogbot

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
937
Likes
119
first, Good luck, second, Enjoy the 1971, we accept it as our defeat,we presented East Pak to you in a plate & you grabbed it, Enjoy the Victory boys & girls, you earned it, we failed, they don't need to raise a finger but they are certainly making you nervous isn't it?

typical Pak mentality.

India garbed East Pakistan. What a joke.
You hide behind that lie because you cant accept the truth.

While i wont go into that now, Bangladesh is a result of your own governments in ability to hold a nation together.
People of Bangladesh suffered under Pakistan, and their apolitical rights went unanswered ,That is why Bangladesh exists today.

Blaming it on India was just the way you kept your nation from discussing their mistakes, and highlighting fundamental flaws
The same tactic is still used today. You blame India and US for all your terrorism issues, whilst no one question the Noble Army And Government why they are helpless to prevent these attacks from Happening.

The same on the water issue.

When People of Pakistan Ask the government why things are the way they are. All blame goes to external Factors.

Did any of you ask why Mighty ISI cant stop these attacks. And in fact gets attacked it self.

Did any ask why Pakistan cant garner a single iota of international support to pressure India. Not even from China.

It is always India this, US that and Israeli something

The brilliant patter on repeating mistakes that is Pakistani Politics.
That is why democracy has never held in Pakistan.

Leader after leader fails to deliver on every promise.

Musharaff tried to negotiate piece and put an end to the Kashmir issue, as a reward he gets ousted.

Bhutto taken out in advance. And the people that killed her probably sit in some government building in Islamabad.

If Pakistan still fails to learn from its mistakes of 1971, how can you expect any one to ask the proper question in 2010.

Enjoy the Victory boys & girls, you earned it, we failed,
the victory is for the people of Bangladesh. For attaining political free and rights denied to them under a military dictatorship.

the failure belongs to the people of the sub-continent for not being able to see eye to eye from the beginning.

they don't need to raise a finger but they are certainly making you nervous isn't it?
That' matter of perspective, China is the only real power ever to pose a threat to India.

Our nervousness stems from a deep suspicion of the other intentions.

Suspicions can either be confirmed or overcome. For now its too early to say either.

I for one , see no reason to be pessimistic.
 

DaRk WaVe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
809
Likes
97
Pakistan is obsessed with India because it is willing to cut its nose to spite the face, so to speak. It doesn't mind being a regressive country as long as it thinks it can also keep India down. You have become a security state because of this sense of enmity. In fact many Pakistanis chose to define the country as "not India", not a positive identity but a negative one.

For India, Pakistan is but a troublesome neighbor. Someone to be kept in check, nothing more. We lose interest in Pakistan if there is no news for a few days.
just as you have right to show 'concern' we also have the that right & we will do what we can to keep Indians in check simple as that, now call it obsession or what ever



Those "heroes" of Pakistan are a distant memory for us, a group of uncivilized barbaric bandits and looters. A shame to civilized society itself. Only you people think they are capable of "haunting" anyone. It is the places they came from that wear a haunted look today.

It is still funny that the converts in Pakistan chose to make heroes out of barbarians who killed and raped their ancestors! Just an example of Pakistan's identity crisis.
ohh i see so what you think about Indian 'converts' i mean after they were also Hindus na, any ways i clearly proves you are still haunted by Heros & you people didnt though about it before helping Afgh with your 'altruistic motives', any ways u can rant on this, I won't interfere & we have seen the acts performed by so almost every 'civilized society', No one is innocent, You have accept that


:lol: Bangladesh making India nervous! I won't even respond to it. They are pretty harmless and overall the relations are doing well.
i was talking about China, though i wasn't clear


I don't believe in this moderate Taliban business. It is Pakistan's idea. For us, they are all terrorists who should be killed without exception.
good so next time you will show the same 'enthusiasm' you showed right now
 
Last edited:

DaRk WaVe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
809
Likes
97
gogbot said:
Bangladesh is a result of your own governments in ability to hold a nation together.
Thats what i meant, you used the situation with your 'humanitarian assistance', Operation Searchlight been an example how stupid our general was


I accept it as our defeat, whats the fuss about???? from where did 'Pakistani mentality' came in, Indians don't have mentality or what?
are you people 'saviors of divine truth'?

That' matter of perspective, China is the only real power ever to pose a threat to India.

Our nervousness stems from a deep suspicion of the other intentions.

Suspicions can either be confirmed or overcome. For now its too early to say either.

I for one , see no reason to be pessimistic.
perspective or 'perception'? I ain't no Chinese but it proves they are certainly making you 'nervous', I just gave you example, rein your horse
 
Last edited:

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
721
Something to ponder about Pathan Heros.

Pathans have a habit of over glorifying themselves and interpreting history to suit their over blown egos. A lot written by 'Afghan Prince' is based on his ethnic racism and pride and the hurt to his ego because some Pathans are marrying with Punjabis (and Balochis, Sindhis, Muhajirs).

If you look at History Pathans never ruled India 3 times. 10 years of self styled Sher Khan does not constitute a Dynasty.

If you go to original sources of history not to fairy tales you will what happened and what is still happening. Pathans have won and have been defeated like all other communities however Pathans have made their defeats into fairy tales. Case in point when Babur pillaged and crushed the Pathans in the present tribal areas he demaded the daughter of Shah Mansur Yusufzai as submission from the tribe. However the Pathans have made that defeat into a fairy tale of Babur dressing up as a qalandar and wooing Bibi Mubaraka which no historian agrees to. Even the modern Pathans don't agree with this.

If you start with Ghaznavi, they were 100% Turk tribes. In fact they fought against Hindu/Buddhist/Atheist/Animast Pashtun tribes to control these areas. The founder of the dynasty was Sebüktigin (ruled 977–997), a former Turkish slave who was recognized by the Samanids (a Persian Muslim dynasty) as governor of Ghazna. As the Samanid dynasty weakened, Sebüktigin consolidated his position and expanded his domains as far as the Indian border.

Muslim historians Ibn Haukal, Utbi and Alberuni are ALL unanimous that uptill the time of Mahmud Ghaznavi i.e. almost four hundred years after the death of the Prophet, most of the Afghans were still non-Muslims. Mahmud Ghaznavi 'had to fight against the infidel Afghans in the Sulaiman mountains.' Even 200 years later in the encounter between Mohammad Ghori and Prithviraj in 1192 A.D., according to Farishta, Hindu/Buddhist/Animist/Pagan/Shamanist/Zoroastrian Afghans were fighting on the side of the Rajput Chief. The cavalry flank of Prithvi Raj Chauhan was made up of Afghans.

After that Mongols invaded these lands and ravaged and pillaged Herat, Balkh and most of Afghanistan. After that the Timurid dynasty rose who was a Tatar/Mongol with strong backing of Uzbek Turks. Again nothing to do with Pashtuns. Prior to arrival of Mughals even Kandahar was ruled by Arghun who are Mongol (ILKHanate) tribe.

Afterwards you had Babur the Mughal invading. He was a Chughtai Turk and even documented the pillars of Afghan heads he created in his own book "Tuzk-e-Babri". In his own book Babur writes:

"...Marching out of Kohat, we took the Hangu-road for Bangash. Between Kohat and Hangu that road runs through a valley shut in on either hand by the mountains. When we entered this valley, the Afghans of Kohat and thereabouts who were gathered on both hill-skirts, raised their war-cry with great clamour. Our then guide, Malik Bu-sa'id Kamarl was well-acquainted with the Afghan locations ; he represented that further on there was a detached hill on our right, where, if the Afghans came down to it from the hill-skirt, we might surround and take them. God brought it right! The Afghans, on reaching the place, did come down. We ordered one party of braves to seize the neck of land between that hill and the mountains, others to move along its sides, so mat under attack made from all sides at once, the Afghans might be made to reach their doom. Against the all around assault, they could not even fight; a hundred or two were taken, some were brought in alive but of most, the heads only were brought. We had been told that when Afghans are powerless to resist, they go before their foe with grass between their teeth, this being as much as to say, " I am your cow." Here we saw this custom ; Afghans unable to make resistance, came before us with grass between their teeth. Those our men had brought in as prisoners were ordered to be beheaded and a pillar of their heads was set up in our camp..."

You can read his biography where he writes about his war on the Yusufzais, quite different from the Pashtun fairly tale of Babur dressing up as a Qalandar.

Moving on, when Babur invaded India and fought an epic battle with the Rajput Chief 'Rana Sanka' (considered a battle betweeen Muslims and Hindus) , the Rajputs had with them Mahmud Lodhi, out to avenge his father's defeat with 10,000 Afghans. Most of the Afghan perished along with the Rajputs defeat against Babur's army.

When Akbar was the emperor of the Mughal empire and this included Kabul and Kandahar there were two rebellions both were crushed by Rajput armies of the Mughals. Even in the twilight of the Mughal empire, Emperor Aurangzeb sent in Rajput chief (Raja Jaswant Singh) to punishing the Afghans for their rebellion.

Finally the favourite of Pashtuns, Ahmed abdali came on the heels of Nadir Shah Afshar Qazilbash (the Persian King). However right after the death of Ahmed Abdali the ares East of Khyber were quickly lost to the Ranjit Singhs army.

When the Sikh were fighting their 3rd and final battle against the British the Afghan king even sent a 5000 strong cavalry (hoping this alliance would help them take Peshawar), however as soon as the Sikhs were defeated the Afghan cavalry ran back to Khyber non-stop!

Later on the British even helped supported the Afghan kings in their war against Persia (First Ango-Persian war which took Herat from Persia for Afghans) and even gave money and arms to the ruling Afghan dynasty as part of their great game strategy against Tsarist Russia and Iran. Until 1910 the foreign policy of so called Afghanistan was controlled by British empire and the so called Afghan king was given a Stipend by the British every year.


However if you talk with Pakistani Pashtoons or Afghan Pashtuns they seem to claim to rule the moon and sun. Similar to Bibi Mubaraka-Babur fairy tales.
I guess the only asset we Pashtuns have is our over-glorified, romanticised history that's why our people are so angry and they keep trying stroke their lil egos about how once we were this and once that...

...All that grandeur has become dust now, we need to live in today and look to the future.

Today our children are rag pickers, let's do something to change their future.. Our people are security guards at best.. Punjabis are not responsible for that we are.

We need to stop scapegoating all Punjabis or Urdudans..

All Punjabis are not responsible for the apathy of some corrupt politicians towards Pashtun areas..

We ourselves are responsible for our backwardness..

The mentality Afghan Prince is exhibiting in this thread is responsible for our backwardness.

We need to realise that our own stubborness in clinging to old customs in the name of pride, our rejection of education in the name of "our own" ways and our own petty disputes (Afghan Pashtun vs. Paki Pashtun, Durrani vs. Yusupzai, Pureblood vs. Mudblood etc.) are getting in the way of our progress...

..The rest of the world has reached the moon and all we care about is whether we're descended from some Turkish Sultan or the Bani Israel.

We can blame Punjabis, ISI, Arabs, West etc. all we want but we ourselves are the main and biggest culprits and untill we realise this no amount of finger-pointing will remedy the situation.

We ourselves will have to take intiative to change.. Get rid of the hate and the self-righteousness. Educate, stop being so skeptical about everyone and everything..

Making imaginary images in photoshop about how Pashtun areas will one day become like Dubai will not make them true.

Nor will a false over-romanticised history help us...

Nor will hating amongst ourselves based on tribe and purity or on other ethnicities...

These are the same heroes under Maj Gen Muhammed Akbar Khan, who were beaten back from srinagar to muzaffarabad in 1947-48 by Major Som Nath Sharma .And these were the same heroes who were again beaten back in 1965 Operation gibraltar and operation grandslam(i think it was under Major General Yahya Khan, the GOC of the 7th Infantry Division.And arun khetrapal of famous poona horse fought here,citation needed) and ayub khan at helm in 1965.And also these were the same heroes who were again beaten back and surrendered under yahya khan and gen niazi to gen aurora in 1971And these are the same heroes who were evicted from Quaid post(now renamed after indian hero bana shingh who captured it) in siachin by bana singh.and these were the same heroes who have been beaten back since 1989 in kashmir. and these are the same pakistani heroes of NLI who were again beaten back in kargil,but mohajir Musharraf and punjabi nawaz sharief didnt even acknowledge there sacrifices and refused to even accept their dead bodies.

And regarding indian hindu converts here is something for our pakistani hero/heroien emo.........



Abdul Hamid

Company Quarter Master Havildar Abdul Hamid (July 1, 1933 - September 10, 1965) was a soldier in the 4 Grenadiers, Indian Army, who died in the Khem Karan sector during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, and was the posthumous recipient of the Republic of India's highest military decoration, the Param Vir Chakra. The award was announced on 16 September 1965, less than a week after the battle that cost his life.

A. P. J. Abdul Kalam:Missile man and former prsident of india


A. R. Rahman


Khushboo Mirza, member of Chandrayaan- 1 team

Khushboo Mirza was a member of the team of engineers of the Check-Out Division of Chandrayaan- I, which carried out the thermal, vacuum and assembling checks on each component of the satellite.
This 23-years-old girl has been a top ranker throughout her career right from 10th to B.Tech from Aligarh Muslim University, pointed out her brother Khushtar Mirza who himself is a B.Tech from Jamia Millia Islamia.

Azim Premji


Nusli Wadia
 
Last edited:

DaRk WaVe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
809
Likes
97
^^^
Lo kr lo gal, see where we have reached now
Vinod must be blamed for brining in Heros :p
 
Last edited:

gogbot

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
937
Likes
119
Thats what i meant, you used the situation with your 'humanitarian assistance', I accept it as our defeat, whats the fuss about???? from where did 'Pakistani mentality' came in, Indians don't have mentality or what?

It is not a defeat.
A defeat implies a battle.

The reality is, it is a failure at the very foundations of Pakistan.

1971 was more then just another lost military war for Pakistan.
Your government failed Pakistan

and you are contempt with it as long as all blame lies squarely in India.

To this day Pakistan has yet to even accept the events that lead to the Bangladesh freedom struggle.

What is written in social studies books. Does it say how you leaders screwed the east Pakistani people to the extreme that they had to fight a bloody war of independence.
Or does it say India supported the east Pakistan Insurgence and then latter cut Pakistan is Half.

Its a matter of accountability and democratic process
This is the rarest Commodity in Pakistan.



where did 'Pakistani mentality' came in, Indians don't have mentality or what?
What if Indian mentality exists , Pakistani mentality is not cancelled out
 
Last edited:

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
105
^^^
Lo kr lo gal, see where we have reached now
Vinod must be blamed for brining in Heros :p
May be it started with the backyard comments!

Anyway, I think now we are going in circles. So I will stop on this particular discussion.
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
105
Something to ponder about Pathan Heros.
Yes, the Pushtuns have a very wrong version of history. They claim to have been never defeated, fact is that everyone and his uncle defeated them, from both East and the West.

The last to humble them were of course the Sikhs. Before that it is a long list of defeats starting from Alexander and that includes Mongols and Turks.

They just have no ability to deal with facts.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
721
whole 40 page pdf file make worth a read

Why Support Islamist Militancy?Evidence From Pakistan

Islamist militancy in Pakistan has long stood at the top of the international security
agenda, yet there is almost no systematic evidence about why individual Pakistanis
support Islamist militant organizations. We address this problem by using data from a
nationally representative survey of urban Pakistanis to assess the correlates of support for
specific militant organizations. Our analysis refutes four influential conventional
wisdoms about why Pakistanis supports Islamic militancy. First, there is no clear
relationship between poverty and support for militancy. If anything, support for militant
organizations is actually increasing in both subjective economic well-being and
community economic performance. Second, personal religiosity and support for sharia
law are poor predictors of support for Islamist militant organizations. Third, support for
political goals espoused by legal Islamist parties is at best a weak indicator of support for
militant organizations. Fourth, those who support core democratic principles or have faith
in Pakistan’s democratic process are not less supportive of militancy. Taken together,
these results suggest that commonly prescribed solutions to Islamist militancy—
economic development, democratization, and the like—may be irrelevant at best and
might even be counterproductive.
2
Introduction
While Pakistan has used Islamist militants to pursue it regional interests since its
inception in 1947, Islamist militancy in Pakistan has become a key international security
concern in the last ten years.1 In December 2001, the attack on the Indian parliament by
militants allegedly based in Pakistan (Jaish-e-Mohammad) nearly sparked a war between
India and Pakistan. The perceived threat has intensified further in recent years as the
Pakistani Taliban have established parallel administrative bodies along the Pakistan-
Afghanistan border, executed suicide attacks against Pakistani government targets, and
even seized a mosque in Pakistan’s capital (the Red Mosque). Concerns about Pakistan’s
stability are exacerbated by its nuclear status, dysfunctional civil-military relationship, a
demonstrated propensity for risk seeking behavior and ever-expanding connections
between local groups and trans-national Islamist terrorist organizations.2
Summarizing the myriad security problems—including Islamist militancy and
nuclear proliferation—posed by Pakistan, during her first appearance before the U.S.
Congress as the U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton argued Pakistan “poses a mortal
threat to the security and safety of our country and the world."3 Similar sentiments were
echoed during recent deliberations on aid to Pakistan in the U.S. House of
Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee. Subcommittee chairman Howard L. Berman
opened the hearings by noting that “The United States has an enormous stake in the
security and stability of that country. We can’t allow al Qaeda or any other terrorist group
that threatens our national security to operate with impunity in the tribal regions of Pakistan. Nor can we permit the Pakistani state – and its nuclear arsenal – to be taken
over by the Taliban.”4
Outside of a substantial investment in security assistance, U.S. and Western
policies towards Pakistan over the last ten years have been geared towards encouraging
economic and social development as explicit means of diminishing the terrorism threat
and turning back Islamization. Legislation currently before the U.S. House of
Representatives calls for the U.S. to “…strengthen Pakistan’s public education system,
increase literacy, expand opportunities for vocational training, and help create an
appropriate national curriculum for all schools in Pakistan.”5 In on this bill, U.S. Special
Envoy Richard Holbrooke argued that Washington should “target the economic and
social roots of extremism in western Pakistan with more economic aid.”6 Washington
also played a pivotal role in a recent donors’ conference in Tokyo where nearly 30
countries and international organizations pledged some $5 billion in development aid
explicitly intended to “enable Pakistan to fight off Islamic extremism.”7
These policy prescriptions rest on four powerful conventional wisdoms. The first
is that poverty is a root cause of support for militancy, or at least that poorer and less
educated individuals are more prone to militants’ appeals.8 The second is that personal
religiosity and support for sharia law are strongly correlated with support for Islamist militancy.9 The third is that support for political goals espoused by legal Islamist parties
predicts support for militant organizations.10 The fourth is that those who support
democracy—either in terms of supporting democratic processes like voting or in terms of
valuing core democratic principles—oppose Islamism and militancy.
None of these conventional wisdoms rest on a firm evidentiary basis, yet they
dominate in varying degrees popular media accounts of Pakistan’s political woes, debates
in the U.S. Congress, and policies adopted to help stabilize Pakistan since 2001.11 Given
the manifest importance of Islamist militancy in Pakistan and the vast resources being
directed against it, this state of affairs is deeply disheartening. While there has been some
systematic survey research on variation over time in how Pakistanis feel about militancy
generally, none has been done on sub-national variation in those trends or on how
Pakistanis feel about specific militant organizations.12 These lacunas leave analysts with
little evidence as to why Pakistanis support specific militant organizations and thus little
evidentiary basis for arguments about how to reduce that support.
 

DaRk WaVe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
809
Likes
97
Pakistan to seek GSP at US strategic dialogue

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan is seeking waiver of 11.3 per cent import duty in the United States to boost market access as compensation of losses suffered by the country in the ongoing war against terrorism.

The issue would be raised during the upcoming Pak-US Strategic Dialogue scheduled to be held on March 24-26 in Washington, sources in the commerce ministry told Dawn.

The commerce ministry has finalised the proposals for presentation to the US delegation that Pakistan be granted Generalised System of Preferences Plus (GSP+) status.

Pakistan is already a beneficiary of GSP status which has increased the country’s exports by 38 per cent to the United States.

However, the GSP+ status would support Pakistan to sell products in the US markets at competitive prices due to lower taxes.

The Pakistani delegation at the strategic dialogue would be led by Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will head the US side.

The government has recently directed all the ministries concerned to identify specific programmes and projects in each sector, in line with the national development priorities that should clearly indicate the priority areas which require support and technical assistance.

The officials have said that gaining access to US markets was desperately needed for the key sectors of the country including textile, apparel and rice, as exports to the United States account for 20 per cent of Pakistan’s total exports.

“By gaining the GSP Plus status, there are strong chances that exports can be doubled to US within one year,” said Secretary Commerce Zafar Mahmood said.

Pakistan has been demanding greater market access in the United States and compensations for the losses suffered by the local industry in the wake of war against terror.

Various measures discussed between the official of both countries are creation of Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZs) in Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), earthquake affected areas of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and economically depressed areas of Balochistan.

However, due to ongoing military operation and poor law and order situation the ROZ concept has not been materialised.

The officials said that in view of difficulties in establishing ROZs, Pakistan now aims to get GSP-Plus status from United States.

The business community has estimated that trade losses suffered by Pakistan due to war against terrorism have crossed over $10 billion during the last eight years.

The official said that after the Pak-US Strategic Dialogue, an expert level Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) Council meeting is scheduled in Islamabad in May for further discussions on the issue of granting GSP-Plus status to Pakistan.

http://paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?225626
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
721
Army Chief Driving Pakistan’s Agenda for Talks

KARACHI, Pakistan — In a sign of the mounting power of the army over the civilian government in Pakistan, the head of the military, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, will be the dominant Pakistani participant in important meetings in Washington this week.

T. Mughal/European Pressphoto Agency
Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has met with cabinet officials at the military's headquarters.

Notes from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and other areas of conflict in the post-9/11 era.
Go to the Blog »
At home, much has been made of how General Kayani has driven the agenda for the talks. They have been billed as cabinet-level meetings, with the foreign minister as the nominal head of the Pakistani delegation. But it has been the general who has been calling the civilian heads of major government departments, including finance and foreign affairs, to his army headquarters to discuss final details, an unusual move in a democratic system.

Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has been taking a public role in trying to set the tone, insisting that the United States needs to do more for Pakistan, as “we have already done too much.” And it was at his request that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed this fall to reopen talks between the countries at the ministerial level.

The talks are expected to help define the relationship between the United States and Pakistan as the war against the Taliban reaches its endgame phase in Afghanistan. It is in that context that General Kayani’s role in organizing the agenda has raised alarm here in Pakistan, a country with a long history of military juntas.

The leading financial newspaper, The Business Recorder, suggested in an editorial that the civilian government of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani should act more forcefully and “shun creating an environment conducive to military intervention.”

The editorial added, “The government needs to consolidate civilian rule instead of handing over its responsibilities, like coordination between different departments, to the military.”

“General Kayani is in the driver’s seat,” said Rifaat Hussain, a professor of international relations at Islamabad University. “It is unprecedented that an army chief of staff preside over a meeting of federal secretaries.”

General Kayani visited the headquarters of the United States Central Command in Tampa, Fla., over the weekend, and will attend meetings at the Pentagon with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Monday. He is also to attend the opening ceremony of the talks between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Qureshi at the State Department on Wednesday, a spokesman at the American Embassy in Islamabad said.

The most pressing concerns in the talks, according to officials on both sides, will be trying to establish confidence after several years of a corrosive relationship between allies, which only in the past few months has started to gain some positive momentum.

But the complexity of the main topics at hand — the eventual American pullout from Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s concerns about India — is expected to make for a tough round of talks.

On the positive side for Pakistan, the Obama administration has been rethinking its policies toward the country, said Maleeha Lodhi, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United States.

“There is a realization that some of its assumptions over the past year were not correct: that Pakistan’s security paradigm could be changed, that its military could be pressured,” Ms. Lodhi said.

Meanwhile, concerned about efforts by the Afghan government to engage in talks with Taliban rebels, who have important bases and allies on Pakistani soil, the Pakistani government will offer itself as a mediator in any such negotiations, Professor Hussain said.

He said that the message would be, “If you want to talk to bring the Afghan Taliban into the mainstream, you should talk to us.”

Tensions with Afghanistan have been raised by some of Pakistan’s recent operations against the Taliban, most notably the recent capture in Pakistan of a senior Afghan Taliban leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar. The former head of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan, Kai Eide, said Friday that the arrest had jeopardized back-channel negotiations with Mr. Baradar’s faction of the Taliban.

But the spokesman for the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, Abdul Basit, said Saturday that Mr. Baradar’s arrest had nothing to do with reconciliation efforts in Afghanistan.

India’s growing role in Afghanistan was also high on Pakistan’s agenda. The spokesman for the Pakistani military, Gen. Athar Abbas, said Pakistan would be “conveying very clearly” its displeasure with India’s offer to help train the Afghan Army at the behest of American and NATO forces. Pakistan has made a counteroffer to train the Afghans, an offer that Pakistan knows is unlikely to be accepted but that it made to pressure Washington to stop the Indian proposal, Pakistani analysts said.

General Kayani arrives in Washington after what the Pakistani military considers a stellar nine months in fighting the Pakistani Taliban, first in the region of Swat and most recently in South Waziristan.

The militants, according to the Pakistanis, have been weakened in their bases in the tribal areas, but at a high cost. According to Pakistani Army figures, 2,377 soldiers were killed in the two campaigns. About 1 in 10 of those killed were officers, a very high rate, Professor Hussain said.

With those sacrifices and the heavy toll on army equipment in mind, Pakistan is expecting quicker reimbursement from the United States of its expenses in fighting the militants, General Abbas said.

Pakistan has complained that the United States has unfairly held up payments of $1.2 billion for 2009 under an agreement to help finance the fight against insurgents. For its part, Washington says its auditors need to satisfy Congress that the Pakistani military has properly spent the money owed.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
721
Naval chief honoured in US

WASHINGTON: Naval Staff Chief Admiral Noman Bashir was decorated on Thursday with US Legion of Merit award in recognition of his meritorious services, visionary leadership and enhancing regional maritime security. US Naval Operations Chief Admiral Gary Roughead decorated Admiral Noman Bashir with the award on behalf of American President Barack Obama. A welcome ceremony was held for the Pakistani naval chief at Washington Navy Yard, according to the Pakistani embassy. app
 

DaRk WaVe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
809
Likes
97
U.S. Sees Hope in Pakistan Requests for Help

Pakistan sent a 56-page document to the U.S. ahead of strategic talks scheduled for Wednesday, seeking expanded military and economic aid in what some American officials believe is an implicit offer to crack down in return on the Afghan Taliban.

The previously undisclosed document includes requests ranging from U.S. help to alleviate Pakistan's chronic water and power shortages to pleas for surveillance aircraft and support in developing the country's civilian nuclear program.

U.S. officials say the document and the talks surrounding it could help redefine one of America's thorniest foreign-policy relationships, if it leads to a serious Pakistani clampdown on the Taliban.

The Taliban uses Pakistan, a U.S. ally, as its rear base in its fight against American and allied forces in neighboring Afghanistan, and has often relied on clandestine support from elements of Pakistan's national security establishment. But in the past few months, Pakistan has rounded up several senior leaders of the Afghan Taliban on its soil, and last year it began a series of offensives against the Pakistan offshoot of the Afghan movement.

U.S. officials are keen to see those moves broadened as a key to shifting the momentum of the Afghan war. "Right now, we're looking at something that could deliver a big part of our success in Afghanistan," said a senior U.S. military official, speaking of the document and talks.

The document outlines a range of aid Pakistan is seeking from the U.S., say American and Pakistani officials who have seen it or been briefed on its contents. A high-level meeting between senior Pakistani and U.S. officials in Washington on Wednesday aims to stitch together their fraying alliance.

Many of Pakistan's requests build on longstanding demands for more U.S. assistance. But officials on both sides say that by detailing them in a single comprehensive document, Islamabad is trying to signal its willingness to align its interests with those of Washington, its vision for a partnership—and its price.


Among the requests is greater cooperation between its spy agency and U.S. intelligence outfits, more helicopter gunships and other military hardware needed to battle its own Taliban insurgency, and improved surveillance technology, such as pilotless drone aircraft.

Pakistan also wants a civilian nuclear energy cooperation deal with the U.S., and a role in any future peace talks between the Western-backed Afghan government and the Taliban.

Many U.S. officials remain wary of such deals with Pakistan. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., Pakistan has received more than $17.5 billion in U.S. aid, the majority earmarked for the military and security, while insisting it was doing all it could to combat the Taliban and its Islamist allies.

U.S. officials have complained that Pakistan's intelligence services continued to offer clandestine support for the Taliban, which it has long viewed as a proxy it could use to secure its influence in Afghanistan and keep archrival India out after an eventual U.S. withdrawal.

"Everything with the Pakistanis is two steps forward and one step back," said a senior U.S. military official involved in talks with the Pakistanis. "Anybody who expects straight linear progress out of a strategic dialogue between these two nations is really kind of naïve. What it will be is a step forward and then we'll see where they go with it."

Pakistan's fears of being outflanked by India, which has forged close ties to the Afghan government, are reflected in the document's indirect language about regional security issues, Pakistani officials say. The document raises concerns about India's effort to modernize its military, in part through buying U.S. equipment and weapons. It urges Washington to take a direct role in reviving the peace process between India and Pakistan, which stalled after the November 2008 terror attacks on Mumbai.

If officials this week can begin setting the U.S. relationship with Pakistan on a footing of greater trust and military cooperation, it would mark a success for the Obama administration's foreign policy at a time when key relations with other nations, from ally Israel to nemesis Iran, are strained.

In response to the document, officials say the Pentagon is considering up to $500 million in additional military aid to Pakistan, paid through the Coalition Support Fund, an account used to reimburse Pakistan for military activities taken in support of U.S. operations in Afghanistan. Last year, the U.S. provided $2.8 billion in economic and security aid to Islamabad.

A spokesman for Pakistan's military, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, confirmed the document's existence and the military's input, but he declined to discuss its contents. Aides to Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Pentagon's primary interlocutor with Pakistan's military leadership, confirmed his staff had received the document and were analyzing it.

Michael Hammer, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said the White House looked forward to this week's talks, but would not comment on any specific proposals made during meetings between "scores" of senior U.S. officials and Pakistani counterparts over the last year.

"During the course of those discussions, a considerable number of ideas, initiatives, and opportunities have been brought up by both sides," Mr. Hammer said. "We are not prepared to comment on any one set of ideas other than to say that we are encouraged by an open and robust dialogue."

The document comes out of months of delicate and often secret negotiations between top political and military officials from both countries., to continue Wednesday at a so-called Strategic Dialogue in Washington. The meeting is to cover issues from the fight against Islamist militants to bolstering Pakistan's struggling economy.Among officials slated to attend are Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the head of Pakistan's army.

"Pakistan and the United States have been partners and allies without always having a complete understanding of each other's strategic and security priorities," said Pakistan's ambassador in Washington, Husain Haqqani, in a telephone interview. "This time we want to build an understanding that can serve as a foundation for the day-to-day relationship."

It remains unclear what has fueled Pakistan's recent apparent shift on the Taliban. Some Western officials believe recent coalition gains in Afghanistan have prompted the Pakistanis to hedge in a new direction. Afghan officials and other Western officials say the Pakistanis may be trying to take control of nascent Taliban peace efforts by detaining the most pragmatic insurgent leaders.

The senior U.S. military official involved in recent talks with Pakistani officials , including Gen. Kayani,said the new seriousness in Pakistan's approach seems to be part of a realization that the U.S. has a limited time frame for directly assisting Islamabad. The official said Gen. Kayani in recent talks has focused on getting U.S. assistance to efforts that the Afghan and Pakistani governments can sustain as U.S. forces and investment in Afghanistan wane.

Some of Pakistan's requests are likely non-starters. India has steadfastly refused any outside mediation in its decades-long dispute with Pakistan. And U.S. officials say a civilian nuclear deal would be a tough sell given Pakistan's history of nuclear weapons proliferation.

To assuage the Pakistanis, the State Department has suggested setting up a bilateral working group to discuss the issue, in essence pushing a decision into the distant future. But U.S. officials, especially in those in the Pentagon, are eager to encourage Pakistan's re-engagement after nearly two years of growing tension between the allies,and say many of the other requests may be doable.

The U.S. may, for example, be willing to give Pakistan drone aircraft, although not the high-end, armed Predator and Reaper drones that have been used by the Central Intelligence Agency to kill hundreds of militants in Pakistan's tribal areas, according to a U.S. official.

The official said Pakistan already gets a few hours a week of surveillance time on those drones, and they're often "not looking at the same targets we'd necessarily want to be looking at."

"We want the U.S. to recognize Pakistan's nuclear status and give us assurances not to undermine the (weapons) program," said a senior Pakistani military officer who serves as an aide to Gen. Kayani. "Energy security is crucial, and we need U.S. help."


Among the proposals the Pentagon is considering is asking Pakistan to allow the U.S. to support expanded Pakistani counterterrorism efforts within their country. Currently, about 150 U.S. Special Operations forces are in Pakistan training the Pakistani military in counterinsurgency tactics. In addition, the U.S. may press the Pakistani government to end what they view as a negative information campaign against the U.S. by elements of Pakistan's powerful intelligence agency, the Inter-Service Intelligence directorate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704841304575137882056806938.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
 
Last edited:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top