Gates discredit Pakistan on WoT.

[Respect4Respect01]

To understand his foresightedness you will have to wait.

lol that made my day. thank you.

 

[Solomon2]

All signs of frustration

Gates has been in defense and intelligence matters for decades. He has been a champion of aid to Pakistan in Congress and remains to this day in favor of maintaining an alliance with Pakistan. But just barely. He is perfectly aware that to Pakistanis we are the Great Milch Cow; to complaints that Pakistan doesn't deal honorably with the U.S. the response has been along the lines of, "We are a sovereign country, so once we have taken your money we do what we want with it, no matter what was originally agreed between us." Simultaneously, he has had to accept the refusal of Pakistani officials to publicly acknowledge their acceptance and encouragement of drone strikes, so the U.S. is left with all the blame and no Pakistani bears moral or political responsibility.

Gates is beyond frustration. Dealing with Pakistan for even a short time is a dirty experience. Having done so for years it may be some time before Gates recovers from the accumulation of f!lth.

 

[iPhone]

I think this is the beginning of the end game of this god forsaken afghan war. For now the biggest casualty of this war seems to be the old Pak-America relation. It has taken huge nose dive and continues to do so. Though just like in life, political relations aren't always the same either. Perhaps in a decade or so both countries will be able to come together in a more trustful and healthy manner with a lot more similar goals.

 

[WAQAS119]

Although American is again doing what it has done after afghan-soviet war i.e., left Pakistan to clean all his left over but this time it seems that Pakistan has got a strategy to counter US dirty game. Leave U.S to do whatever he likes (Unless and untill it does not crosses red lines) and keep Pakistan out of it....! That is making U.S frustrated

 

[Dance]

Afghan war success possible without Pakistan help: US​

WASHINGTON: Success is possible in the war in Afghanistan even if Pakistan fails to fully cooperate in countering militants along its border, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told AFP Thursday.

With Pakistan taking some positive steps, Gates said: “I think that as long as the picture stays mixed like that, that we can be successful.”

Afghan war success possible without Pakistan help: US | World | DAWN.COM

 

[Safriz]

"As Barack Obama announced troops pullout, Robert Gates said US can win war without Pakistan.


Success is possible in the war in Afghanistan even if Pakistan fails to fully cooperate in countering militants along its border, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates told a foreign news agency.



With Pakistan taking some positive steps, Gates said: "I think that as long as the picture stays mixed like that, that we can be successful."
Meanwhile, Obama announced the Afghan troops withdrawal timetable."

---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 PM ----------

same old unthankful ppl.

GOP should agree with them...issue an official statement quoting this goof's comments and then pull out completely from this WOT...
This will be the best thing for Pakistan in many ways..

 

[Meengla]

Gates has been in defense and intelligence matters for decades. He has been a champion of aid to Pakistan in Congress and remains to this day in favor of maintaining an alliance with Pakistan. But just barely. He is perfectly aware that to Pakistanis we are the Great Milch Cow;.

@Solomon2,
I really wish it was as simple as Pakistani elites, both civilians and military, trying to 'milk' the American cow. I wish that because it would be so much easier to get rid of these elites inside Pakistan. I TRULY wish you were right.
Truth be told, even an uber-liberal like me, is now beginning to think that what is Pakistan being asked is to essentially an American client state, sub-servient to India, antagonist to China and Iran, for purely material gains.
Specifically, in case of Afghanistan, Pakistan is being asked to accept a govt. friendly to India even if that govt. is hostile to Pakistan.
I hate General Zia. But even the most liberal of Pakistanis cannot countenance an Afghanistan where Pakistan will have to have two permanent frontiers.

EVERYTHING in and around Pakistan boils down to India. Remove that factor then these Haqqanis etc are really of not much value--in fact, a nuisance. Just like the Talibans were a lesser evil until 9/11.

We REALLY need to learn to look through 'the others' eyes.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

I dont think its discrediting.

So he's saying that Pakistan has no bearing on what goes on in Afghanistan. So that's a good thing, since some of those arm-chair analysts in DC -- some of whom have never even visited and gone into the depths of either country (except perhaps for a few photo-ops under heavy security) -- claim that "Pakistani safe-havens" are hampering the efforts to peace in Afghanistan

as if allllllllll the keys to Afghan stability lied in what Pakistan does.


so okay, you are good to go on your own and can promote peace and stability without Pakistani assistance. So no more "do more" mantra. I'm sure our dear leaders will miss those "do more" lines.


interestingly enough, Mr. Gates (who is stepping down as defence secretary very soon) stated a few months back that

increasing cooperation between Afghanistan, Pakistan and U.S.-led coalition forces was encouraging. It was important to recognize that Pakistan has had nearly 140,000 troops fighting insurgent and terrorist forces in the country’s northwest over the past 18 months

(Gates, Karzai tout cooperation with Pakistan - News - Stripes)



so why bother making mention of that if our help and support was never required in the first place?

 

[Meengla]

On a sort of related topic:
How about posting some videos/news articles from the Soviets upto 1989 in Afghanistan? I remember seeing one where the Soviets were building schools etc--soldiers literally doing manual labor--to help the poor Afghans?!
What purpose would those things serve? Perhaps to portray a picture of human delusions of grandeur and denial.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Gates has been in defense and intelligence matters for decades. He has been a champion of aid to Pakistan in Congress and remains to this day in favor of maintaining an alliance with Pakistan.

First of all, i respect his credentials. He's had an interesting career, no doubt. The fact that Obama retained a former Bush advisor speaks volumes about his abilities.

but with that said (and you've been on this forum long enough now to understand, hopefully) ---> maintaining a credible 'relationship' with Pakistan should not entail "aid" being doled out. The aid is counter-productive, quite frankly it isnt even needed. Why are American tax-payers' money going to a country where the people (who dont benefit from the aid at all) are against the aid in its entirety?

why this injustice to the American tax-payer? This war of terrorism brought more terrorism in the region; it cost our economy tens of billions of dollars worth of losses. The "aid" to Pakistan covers not even a tiny FRACTION of these material and non-material (human) costs, mind you.

"We are a sovereign country, so once we have taken your money we do what we want with it, no matter what was originally agreed between us."

therein lies the sad disconnect between:

a.) the US government and the people of Pakistan

b.) the Pakistan government and the people of Pakistan

Simultaneously, he has had to accept the refusal of Pakistani officials to publicly acknowledge their acceptance and encouragement of drone strikes, so the U.S. is left with all the blame and no Pakistani bears moral or political responsibility.

regardless, it is only in the U.S. interests that the weak, unpopular and highly incompetent PPP government be "kept" in power....if you catch my drift. It would be prudent, however, for me to add that I (and many Pakistanis) value democratic and elected (not selected) leaders who represent the country.

Alas, this govt. has failed in almost every aspect. Hopefully it would be a wake-up call for people to participate more closely in elections (which will be in 2012)

Gates is beyond frustration. Dealing with Pakistan for even a short time is a dirty experience. Having done so for years it may be some time before Gates recovers from the accumulation of f!lth.

aww, sorry you feel that way Suleiman!

so why do it then? Is there a gun to your head forcing you to do so (symbolically or literally?)


Her Royal Thighness Ms. Clinton once said it well:

Nobody's forcing you to take the aid.....


Pakistanis say "nobody is forcing you to shovel the aid down the throats (of the so-called leaders)"



I am sensing some frustration in your tone, Suleiman! Don't worry. You aren't alone.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

are the State Department and the Pentagon on the same page?


Pakistan must be part of Afghan peace process: US | Newspaper | DAWN.COM

an excerpt:

WASHINGTON: Pakistan must be a part of the Afghan peace process, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Congress on Thursday while announcing that senior Afghan, Pakistani and American officials would meet next week for further talks on this issue.

But the outgoing Defence Secretary Robert Gates said that success was possible in the war in Afghanistan even if Pakistan failed to fully cooperate in countering militants along its border.

In an interview to the AFP news agency, Mr Gates said that “some positive steps” by Pakistan were needed but “as long as the picture stays mixed like that, that we can be successful”.

In her opening remarks before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary Clinton disclosed that the United States had also included Iran in the peace process.

 

[Solomon2]

I hate General Zia. But even the most liberal of Pakistanis cannot countenance an Afghanistan where Pakistan will have to have two permanent frontiers...We REALLY need to learn to look through 'the others' eyes.

Then you might want to recall that the U.S., despite fighting wars with each, has peaceful relations with both its contiguous neighbors, Canada and Mexico, and does not fear normal diplomatic, political, and economic relations between them - which is all India is seeking in Afghanistan, as far as I can tell.

If the Afghans prefer Indian company to Pakistani it's because Pakistanis are seen as violent meddlers disrupting Afghan development whereas the Indians are not...if you disagree, then the wisest policy might be to do nothing and let the Indians shoot themselves in the foot.

Truth be told, even an uber-liberal like me, is now beginning to think that what is Pakistan being asked is to essentially an American client state, sub-servient to India, antagonist to China and Iran, for purely material gains.

Think again. Can you quote any American official seeking an antagonistic relationship between Pakistani and China? You can't, can you? That's a pretty good indication that the pressures on your thinking have little to do with fact and much to do with hysteria.

Remove that factor then these Haqqanis etc are really of not much value--in fact, a nuisance.

They are Pakistan's pet terrorists, ready to spring into Afghanistan or India upon any display of weakness. Pakistan was supposed to terminate all its support for terrorists and terror havens according to the post-9/11 resolution UNSC 1373. Just because they aren't attacking Pakistani institutions directly doesn't mean Pakistani doesn't have a sovereign obligation to wipe them out.

I wish that because it would be so much easier to get rid of these elites inside Pakistan. I TRULY wish you were right.

My freshman poli-sci prof analyzed democratic politics by viewing it as a competition between elites. If you don't like the current lot then you develop a new one. As near as I can tell only the MQM has really tried that, but they are handicapped by blind loyalty to their leader and a too-great fondness for violence and allegedly torture.

 

[Solomon2]

Why are American tax-payers' money going to a country where the people (who dont benefit from the aid at all) are against the aid in its entirety? why this injustice to the American tax-payer?

I ask the same questions. Ominously, my congressional representative, who actually went to school in Karachi, does not answer.

therein lies the sad disconnect between: a.) the US government and the people of Pakistan b.) the Pakistan government and the people of Pakistan

Would you expand on this please.

regardless, it is only in the U.S. interests that the weak, unpopular and highly incompetent PPP government be "kept" in power....if you catch my drift.

I am not happy with this, either. In their dealings with other countries diplomats often like to keep things simple and refusing to acknowledge the complexity of another countries' politics by engaging different facets of leadership strikes me as almost a dereliction of duty. It's what leads to endorsing rich friendly dictators rather than poor democrats or bloody efforts to keep states together than would be better off apart, like Ukraine and Russia.

It would be prudent, however, for me to add that I (and many Pakistanis) value democratic and elected (not selected) leaders who represent the country. Alas, this govt. has failed in almost every aspect. Hopefully it would be a wake-up call for people to participate more closely in elections (which will be in 2012)

Hope so. Who do people think is going to count the votes? And who can get air time on radio and TV?

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

--> does Canada arm Mexican drug cartels to fight America? No. In the past, did Canada support rebels within the U.S. sovereign territories? No.

(actually, 70% of the arms used by mexican cartels are US-manufactured)


--> US has avoided commenting on Pak-China cooperation; though it is showing double-standards on Pakistan's existential right to seek civilian nuclear tech. assistance from China; U.S. also has apprehensions about the growth in military cooperation between both countries (though that is a decades old phenomenon)

--> the Haqqani group is mostly an Afghan phenomenon, as is any resistance to NATO occupation of the country (again, no new news.....similar resistance was metted out to the soviets and other invaders in the past)

you cant expect to militarily occupy a country and expect no resistance.....doesnt matter if its Afghanistan, the Maldives or Botswana.


--> any humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan is commendable....any anti-Pakistan activity or support of anti-Pakistan proxies in Afghanistan will be considered an act of war against Pakistan, and will be dealt with via whatever means appropriate and most feasible at the time.


(how's Bramdagh Bugti doing? )

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

I ask the same questions. Ominously, my congressional representative, who actually went to school in Karachi, does not answer.

remain vocal on the issue; dont give up.

by the way, what is Congress Reps name (if you don't mind sharing)?

Would you expand on this please.

You're an intelligent person. Need I?

I am not happy with this, either. In their dealings with other countries diplomats often like to keep things simple and refusing to acknowledge the complexity of another countries' politics by engaging different facets of leadership strikes me as almost a dereliction of duty. It's what leads to endorsing rich friendly dictators rather than poor democrats or bloody efforts to keep states together than would be better off apart, like Ukraine and Russia.

I don't blame the U.S. necessarily......if i put myself in their shoes, I would say "I'm standing up for my own national interest"

but standing up for your national interests at times means supporting and propping up governments which are not in the best national interests of other countries (the ones in question from whom you "need something" -- whether it be 'yes-men' or whoever)

at the same time however, PPP was democratically elected (the party, not the ones running it).

Hope so. Who do people think is going to count the votes?

the Election Commission; which hopefully wont be full of lackeys.....I pray to God it will be a 100% transparent and trouble-free process. Pakistan is a struggling democracy, but unlike the Arab and other countries --- we are fairly (for the most part) democratic people. It should be given a chance, even though to have a true democracy the conditions on the ground must be ripe for it to be conducive.

Pakistanis just want leaders that are answerable, accountable, honest and patriotic. Those who stand up only for the interest of the country. It shouldnt be too much to ask for.

And who can get air time on radio and TV?

media, like the judiciary --is very strong in the country. Opposition definitely gets plenty of air time; especially Imran Khan as of late.


Maybe one day you should visit the country so that your reservations, doubts, and mis-perceptions could be addressed and corrected. You seem to have only negative views on Pakistan. For those who don't dig deep enough and put themselves in our shoes, it can be easy at times to be brain-washed and/or have the wrong facts or views on it.

there's always more than what meets the eye