US & Pakistan Dispute and Tensions over Haqqani group

[karan.1970]

Pakistan does not trusts US anymore with all this negotiations and deals going on in Afghanistan. Earlier US asked Pakistanis to operate against other groups of Taliban in S.W and Fata while conveniently negotiated with them behind the scenes. Pakistan does not wants this to happen again and it believes it should keep some cards up its sleeves the next time US tries to play smart.

Besides the Haqqanis are one of the most deadly fraction of Taliban and so far it is not against the army of Pakistani state. Heck its not even located in Pakistan as per his latest interview. So why would Pakistan want to create an enemy out of this particular group and further destabilise the country at the cost of an untrustworthy 'friend' who in all likelihood would 'engage' them like it did with other Taliban groups?

If Haqquani is not in Pakistan's NW area, then why not go in there and declare it free of Taliban?? Why the reluctance??

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I believe we are getting into semantics and overlooking the issue. US don't need proofs for doing things.. They have shown this to the world during Iraq war...We are yet to see WMD's there....So IMHO it doesn't matter if proofs have been shown or not...Though if we study the activities of past week there is high probability that equilibrium has been shaken...

The reason behind my pointing out past Pakistani comments about 'contacts' with the Haqqanis/Taliban was to debunk the outlandish claim by VCheng that somehow Kayani and the ISPR mentioning this now was 'the first time' and the result of 'irrefutable evidence regarding contacts'.

Anyone who has followed these events for a while would know that, and since VCheng's claims on this issue have been debunked, we can move on.

 

[ramu]

So what stops you from openly stating your support or neutrality towards Afghan Taliban who you claim to be fighting in WoT because of which Pakistan is losing 60 billion USD.. What is the whole hoo-hah about 170 million fighting for the world peace etc etc..

---------- Post added at 11:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 PM ----------



Still no answer.. except letting lose on USA and its supposed failures in Afghanistan.. As I said, why would Pakistan not want to remove a warlord who is encroaching upon a piece of Pakistan's sovereignty where he is more powerful than even Kayani

Karan,

When the politicians from Pakistan have not got an answer , it is unjust to expect people in the forum to give you details of ISI's obligations and compulsions.

In true terms the leverage Pakistan has with the US will be turned on its head with US fixing a gun if it goes the full course.

 

[Rafael]

If Haqquani is not in Pakistan's NW area, then why not go in there and declare it free of Taliban?? Why the reluctance??

Seems like you did not see the recent statements from interior minister?

Haqqani network not present in Pakistan, Malik tells FBI director | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online

 

[karan.1970]

Karan,

When the politicians from Pakistan have not got an answer , it is unjust to expect people in the forum to give you details of ISI's obligations and compulsions.

In true terms the leverage Pakistan has with the US will be turned on its head with US fixing a gun if it goes the full course.

See, thats the point.. No one knows how all this is damaging Pakistan, but everyone is totally on defensive.. I find it baffling that Pakistan is willing to get into a confrontation with USA (its biggest financial aid provider and long time partner) instead of moving against a terrorist encroaching on Pakistan's land..

 

[RazorMC]

If the Haqqani network has gained strength in Afghanistan, then how is Pakistan supposed to target them??

And most of this "all options" stuff isn't worth a dime. They said the same about Iran and then silently backed off. There is very little reason to think of US attacking Pakistan.

America will try hard to prevent a unilateral enagement at all costs otherwise they stand to damage their own image further and isolate themselves.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yessir. Only if you do the same:

Oh but I am.

Thank you for parroting the hopelessly clueless and misguided Pakistani Establishment line for us on this forum. Let us know when you can start thinking for yourself and actually support the positions you are propagating on behalf of the hopelessly clueless and misguided Pakistani Establishment, with blatant disregard for the facts, evidence and rational arguments.

Every single one my posts questions the justification behind the allegations, asks for motive, asks for evidence - you choose to hide behind 'might is right and intelligence cannot be revealed' and therefore 'allegations cannot be publicly substantiated'.

Of course, it would be better that you discuss things politely, but the regression towards such behavior only shows a lack of argument and logic and judgement.

As pointed out above, it is clear who is choosing hide from supporting their POV with facts and/or logic.

I would request you to consider my words carefully.

Your positions are:

1. Might is right, and the therefore the US, being a superpower, is right and Pakistan being weaker should capitulate to its demands, regardless of whether those demands are justified.

2. US allegations cannot be publicly justified or substantiated because 'sources will be revealed', very convenient means to avoid supporting the lies and propaganda you and your war-mongering Establishment are propagating.

 

[Emmie]

So what stops you from openly stating your support or neutrality towards Afghan Taliban who you claim to be fighting in WoT because of which Pakistan is losing 60 billion USD.. What is the whole hoo-hah about 170 million fighting forthe world peace etc etc..

Your mind is racing.. Ill come to your dilemma, but before that answer me a simple question. Why US wants to engage Tabliban of its choice in negotiations?
I suppose they came here to kill them all! why is there a necessity of negotiation? Why not negotiation with Haqqanis, aren't they Taliban?

 

[Rafael]

Karan,

When the politicians from Pakistan have not got an answer , it is unjust to expect people in the forum to give you details of ISI's obligations and compulsions.

In true terms the leverage Pakistan has with the US will be turned on its head with US fixing a gun if it goes the full course.

I feel offended when you compare the politicians and masses of the country. And for your kind info it was the US and UK who brought these ****** politicians to pakistan in the first place.

 

[Windjammer]

But why would Pakistan host a group that is not native to Pakistan but is capable of launching attacks across the border ?

It is fair to admit inability to deal with a group but to be conscious that a group is not supposed to be in your territory and then have warm realtions makes it suspect.

The same question could apply across the border.... while ISAF & Co are present in Afghanistan with all their hi tech gadgets, upto 400 insurgents can accumulate and mount an attack on Pakistani check posts and then disappear into thin air. Fair to question that when wedding parties of a few dozen can easily become collateral damage, how some 400 men with everything blazing can go unnoticed and then simply fan out in their sanctuaries....... takes two to tango. !!!

 

[ramu]

If the Haqqani network has gained strength in Afghanistan, then how is Pakistan supposed to target them??

And most of this "all options" stuff isn't worth a dime. They said the same about Iran and then silently backed off. There is very little reason to think of US attacking Pakistan.

America will try hard to prevent a unilateral enagement at all costs otherwise they stand to damage their own image further and isolate themselves.

Your assesment is a bit out of place. Let me tell you why. US is not expecting Pak to do anything in Afghanistan. They want Pakistan to act in the soveriegn territory of its own. If there is any groups who are based in Pak and can launch attacks on areas outside then it is obvious to expect Pak to take responsibility.

 

[Rafael]

The same question could apply across the border.... while ISAF & Co are present in Afghanistan with all their hi tech gadgets, upto 400 insurgents can accumulate and mount an attack on Pakistani check posts and then disappear into thin air. Fair to question that when wedding parties of a few dozen can easily become collateral damage, how some 400 men with everything blazing can go unnoticed and then simply fan out in their sanctuaries....... takes two to tango. !!!

Also while 70% of Afghanistan is under Taliban control, the ISAF and NATO feels that 400 odd fighters are the real reason for their defeats in Afghanistan. How pathetically funnier it can get?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Removing all past baggage and excuses, is there a single sane reason on why Pakistan wouldnt want to work with USA is solving the Haqquani problem..??

Why should Pakistan take on the group currently, when it is already overstretched dealing with the TTP and trying to control the existing tribal agencies where it has conducted operations, and is suffering large scale cross border attacks out of Eastern Afghanistan?

The US is the one that needs to work with Pakistan and understand Pakistani constraints, not the other way around.

---------- Post added at 02:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:09 PM ----------

If you dont want to attack Haqquanis, why not let USA attack him..??

Because of the reasons I provided to you in my last response on this thread regarding 'punitive expeditions' - the US cannot eliminate the Haqqani network in the sterile and 'arms length' stand-off strike fashion you seem to think will work miracles.

 

[notorious_eagle]

well, Pakistani newspaper makes sense, since Pakistan is the other party in this standoff, but why Indian papers?

Due to India's obsession with Pakistan

 

[ramu]

The same question could apply across the border.... while ISAF & Co are present in Afghanistan with all their hi tech gadgets, upto 400 insurgents can accumulate and mount an attack on Pakistani check posts and then disappear into thin air. Fair to question that when wedding parties of a few dozen can easily become collateral damage, how some 400 men with everything blazing can go unnoticed and then simply fan out in their sanctuaries....... takes two to tango. !!!

Two wrongs cannot make a right. Confront US with evidence instead of supporting foreign fighters directly or indirectly. Ignoring their existance is as good as supporting them as they are hosts in your land.