What's new

US & Pakistan Dispute and Tensions over Haqqani group

Really good find, Abou!
There are a few in the Western media who can go beyond the media-generated hype. Too bad there are not enough of them to generate peace in the world.
But they are there and we are here to remove misperceptions as much as this Forum can do.
 
A cleaver piece

For a start, we need to understand that Pakistan intends to bring down the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, even if that means taking on its sometime U.S. ally. Pakistan hates Karzai out of a conviction that he has made common cause with Pakistan's strategic nemesis, India, and a suspicion that the Afghan leader intends to harm Pakistan's strategic interests in other ways. And, of course, the hatred is mutual. Rightly or wrongly, Karzai believes that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) assassinated his father, and would do the same to him given half a chance.

In fact it is the US that will kill Karzai should he not toe the line - this is the set up to then blame ISI and Pakistan for the deed.

The option to win and succeed in Afghanistan has been available to US since before she invaded and now occupies - but the US invasion and occupation is informed by a fanatical, pathological even, sense that it is Pakistan and in particular the Pakistan armed forces that must be transformed into a cheer leading role, in particular, for the propulsion of the US's regional ally.

In these ten years the US has not taken the opportunity to recognize and include Pakistan in the effort to transform the region and contribute to the security of the US and Pakistan, it will not take the opportunity to do so now or in the near future -- so for Pakistan the die are cast, so to speak, and she must pursue her interests with those friends as she finds them.
 
Pakistan should close the door, turn the music on and tune in to Cricket , and warn US if it steps foot on Pakistani Soil then we will stop watching TV and confiscate the toys
 
Refer to my post above as you read the piece below - from the NYT - note the author of the piece and remember her


September 29, 2011
Afghanistan’s Leaders Sour on Pakistan and Peace Talks
By ALISSA J. RUBIN

KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghanistan’s president and other senior leaders announced Thursday that they were rethinking the country’s relationship with Pakistan and its negotiations with the Taliban because talks had yielded so little.

As a result, the leaders said, they planned to work closely with the United States, Europe and India to plan the country’s future.

The shift in Afghanistan’s policies emerged in a statement released by the presidential palace on Thursday after a meeting the night before of senior government officials, including the two vice presidents, the national security adviser and several former military commanders who are close advisers to President Hamid Karzai and who fought to push the Russians out of the country in the 1980s.

“Despite making repeated attempts in the past three years, including sending several letters to the Taliban to open negotiations in order to bring peace and stability to the country, our leaders, scholars, influential figures, elders, women and children, old and young are being martyred,” the statement said, referring to a string of assassinations this year, most recently the killing of Burhanuddin Rabbani, the chairman of the peace council.

While the peace talks have yielded little, they had provided Afghanistan and the United States with the hope that there could be a negotiated end to the 10-year-old war. The statement did not rule out the possibility of future talks, but suggested that there was little prospect that they would continue.

With regard to Pakistan, the tone was similarly frustrated.

“Despite three years of talks, coming and going, good intentions and efforts, made by Afghanistan for peace and the initiation of good relations with Pakistan, the Pakistani government has not taken any measures for closing down its terrorist safe havens nor prevented the training and equipping of terrorists on its soil,” the statement said.

One measure of Afghan frustration was the statement’s specific mention of the prospect of a strategic partnership with India, in addition to the United States and Europe. Pakistan considers India its archenemy, and by mentioning it, Afghanistan appeared to be positioning itself in opposition to Pakistan, despite their longtime relationship.

Over the past several months, Afghanistan appeared to have had a reconciliation with Pakistan, and the two countries had been meeting regularly, bilaterally and also with American representatives present. The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Afghanistan was planning to suspend the trilateral talks indefinitely.

It remained unclear how far Afghanistan wished to go in pushing away Pakistan and what approach it would prefer. “The question is peace with whom?” the statement said.
 
“The question is peace with whom?” the statement said.

For the American and Afghan governments to decide -- and since this is after 10 years a question that these governments still find themselves asking, perhaps the Afghan people will have to furnish the answer, when they can.
 
You may or may not agree but the reality is

The U.S OF A was never interested in nation building!!!

It left Afghanistan licking its wounds after Taliban you know what?/

And it went in to Iraq IN 2003 there by destabilising the entire region.

If it was so sincere it would have finished the job and helped the afghan people.

The Taliban regrouped and by 2004 were ready to strike back against us interests.

Only when the going got tough did Uncle Sam realize the quagmire it got itself involved in.

That Quagmire is “AFGHANISTAN”

And at the moment the only people resisting the American occupation are the TaliS( individual log also have reasons)

So it’s natural that the TaliS would be part and parcel for stability of Afghanistan after Nato leaves.

Lets just build up on that Pak plays its role effectively and the afghan people have a say in the aftermath.

Peace
 
Again, who can answer my 'million dollar question'?
Are the Americans in Afghanistan solely to crush the terrorists or they have plans for the natural resources of central Asia as well as some kind of 'contain China' policy?
Answer to this question is vital. Pakistan can salvage whatever its 'reputation' and 'image' if it joins the American camp against China (and possibly Iran). For the same American media that has turned 30,000+ Pakistani casualties as self-inflicted wound has the power to make Pakistan an innocent sufferer. The rest of the world follows that. If Americans and their media decide to portray the Vatican as cabal of sodomizing theocrats then they can do that within a few months.
The other option is a clean break from America. Eat grass. Ride bicycles. Live in darkness because of no electricity. Even foreign remittance from ordinary Pakistanis from most of the West can be termed 'supporting a terrorist state'.
Which way, Pakistan? But first we need an answer about the American intentions.

The US is still the hyperpower and it's not wise to openly declare hostility.

As muse mentioned, despite all the fancy denials, everyone knows that the US view of the region is Indo-Pak, not Af---. Which means that they view Pakistan's subjugation as essential to their strategy of propping up India as the regional hegemon.

We know it, they know it, India knows it, and so does China. Probably the best option is to continue with the pleasantries while knowing that the other guy is carrying a dagger.
 
What’s behind the US-Pakistan rift: WP
Submitted 7 mins ago

Beyond the recent verbal confrontation between U.S. and Pakistani officials about the Haqqani network lies a delicate political-military effort to draw the Haqqanis into an end-game strategy for the war in Afghanistan.
Adm. Mike Mullen, the departing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, rebuked the Pakistani spy service, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, for using the Haqqani network as its “veritable arm” in Afghanistan. But U.S. officials know the ISI also facilitated a secret meeting during the last several months between the United States and a representative of the Haqqani clan. This is the double game that’s always operating in U.S.-Pakistani relations.
Some U.S. officials believe that the recent wave of attacks by the Haqqanis on U.S. targets in Afghanistan may, in fact, reflect the determination of hard-line members of the clan to derail any move toward negotiation. The United States wants the Pakistani military’s help in isolating and destroying these “unreconcilable” elements of the network.
The sparring with Pakistan illustrates the wider dilemma of the Afghan war. How does the United States bring pressure on the Haqqanis and other Taliban factions, even as it withdraws troops with a 2014 deadline for completing its mission? As Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, has said: “The more the U.S. says it wants to leave Afghanistan, the harder it will be to leave.”
What angered Mullen and other U.S. officials was Pakistan’s failure to act on intelligence reports about planned Haqqani attacks. A timeline helps untangle the threads of the dispute:
●On Sept. 8, Gen. John Allen, the NATO commander in Afghanistan, is said to have warned Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the Pakistani army chief, that two truck bombs had been assembled in Miran Shah, the Haqqanis’ base in North Waziristan, and were headed for Afghanistan. Kayani is said to have pledged he would take action.
●On Sept. 10, one of those truck bombs struck a NATO base in Wardak, just east of Kabul, wounding 77 U.S. soldiers. That was a trigger for Mullen’s anger: Some senior officials concede that Pakistan may not have had enough time, or precise “actionable” intelligence, to stop the bomb-laden truck.
●On Sept. 13, insurgents from the Haqqani network attacked the U.S. Embassy compound in Kabul. Though Mullen mentioned this attack in his denunciation of ISI-Haqqani links, U.S. officials don’t see clear evidence of a Pakistani role in planning or executing the operation, a message the CIA privately communicated to Islamabad. But in the days after the bombing, U.S. officials presented Pakistan with a series of “what ifs,” to convey the danger of the situation: What if the 77 soldiers at Wardak had been killed? What if the U.S. ambassador in Kabul had died? What then?
●On Sept. 18, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with the Pakistani foreign minister and delivered the first of a series of U.S. rebukes, asking how Pakistan could promote the Haqqanis as a prospective negotiating partner and yet sit by idly while they attacked Americans. On Sept. 22, Mullen delivered his blunt testimony. On Sept. 25 and 26, two longtime congressional supporters of Pakistan, Sens. Lindsey O. Graham and Mark Kirk, warned of a halt in military aid.
But scheduled military discussions continue, with Gen. James Mattis, the head of U.S. Central Command, visiting Islamabad last weekend and warning that Pakistan had to choose sides.
The message seems to have gotten through to Pakistani military leaders, who reportedly concluded at a secret commanders’ conference on Monday that they don’t want a confrontation with the United States. But surely, this is a sick relationship when the partners have to go to the brink of open confrontation to get the other side to listen. If they were a married couple, you would send them to a counselor, or, failing that, a divorce lawyer.
With all the noise about the Haqqanis, it’s important to remember that the real issue here is the larger war in Afghanistan. President Obama’s goal remains a political settlement with “reconcilable” elements of the Taliban, and secret contacts have been continuing around the world. The message to the Haqqanis is that they can best protect political power in their ancestral homeland in Paktika, Paktia and Khost provinces by coming to the table now.
But does the Taliban — or the Pakistani government, for that matter — take the U.S. strategy seriously? How can the United States gain enough leverage to tip the process toward negotiation? That’s what this war of words was really about. (The Washington Post)
 
Pakistan never backed Haqqani network: spy chief
By Qasim Nauman and Zeeshan Haider | Reuters – 1 hr 8 mins ago
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan's intelligence chief on Thursday denied U.S. accusations that the country supports the Haqqani network, an Afghan militant group blamed for an attack on the American embassy in Kabul.
"There are other intelligence networks supporting groups who operate inside Afghanistan. We have never paid a penny or provided even a single bullet to the Haqqani network," Lieutenant-General Ahmed Shuja Pasha told Reuters after meeting political leaders over heavily strained U.S.-Pakistani ties.
Pasha, one of the most powerful men in the South Asian nation, told the all-party gathering that U.S. military action against insurgents in Pakistan would be unacceptable and the army would be capable of responding, local media said.
But he later said the reports were "baseless".
Pakistan has long faced U.S. demands to attack militants on its side of the border with Afghanistan, but pressure has grown since the top U.S. military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, accused Pasha's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate of supporting a September 13 attack on the U.S. mission in Kabul.
The dozens of political parties that participated in Thursday's meeting rejected the allegations against state links to violent militants in a joint declaration. "The Pakistani nation affirms its full solidarity and support for the armed forces of Pakistan," they said.
The Obama administration appears to be trying to smoothe things over with Pakistan even as it struggles with mounting frustration with Islamabad and seeks to curb speculation about divisions in its ranks.
As some U.S. officials appear to distance themselves, Mullen, who steps down this week, said he stood by the tone and content of his comments.
"I phrased it the way I wanted it to be phrased," he said in an interview aired on Thursday.
He said the ISI was giving the Haqqani group financial and logistical support and "sort of free passage in the (border) safe haven."
"They can't turn it off overnight. I'm not asserting that the Pak mil or the ISI has complete control over the Haqqanis. But the Haqqanis run that safe haven. They're also a home to al Qaeda in that safe haven," he told National Public Radio.
The attacks threaten to become a major obstacle to U.S. hopes of withdrawing smoothly from Afghanistan.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the relationship with Pakistan was "complicated but very important."
"There's no question that we have disagreements, complications in our relationship and we speak openly and candidly with our Pakistani counterparts about those," he said.
PATIENCE WEARING THIN
Support is growing in the U.S. Congress for expanding U.S. military action in Pakistan beyond drone strikes against militants, said Senator Lindsey Graham, an influential Republican voice on foreign policy and military affairs.
Islamabad is reluctant to go after the Haqqanis -- even though the United States provides billions of dollars in aid -- saying its troops are stretched fighting Taliban insurgents.
Pakistan says it has sacrificed more lives than any of the countries that joined the "war on terror" after the September 11 attacks by Islamist militants on the United States in 2001.
Pakistan's military faced withering public criticism after a surprise U.S. raid that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in a garrison town not far from Islamabad in May.
A similar U.S. operation against militants in North Waziristan on the Afghan border, where American officials say the Haqqanis are based, would be another humiliation for the powerful army.
Graham said in an interview with Reuters that U.S. lawmakers might support military options beyond drone strikes that have been going on for years inside Pakistani territory, including using U.S. bomber planes within Pakistan. He added that he did not advocate sending in U.S. ground troops.
"I would say when it comes to defending American troops, you don't want to limit yourself," Graham said.
The Treasury Department on Thursday announced new sanctions on five individuals it said were linked to "the most dangerous terrorist organizations operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan," including the Haqqani network.
But it stopped short -- despite growing political pressure at home -- of officially designating the Haqqani network a terrorist group.
Pakistan was designated a major non-NATO ally by the United States for its support of coalition military operations in Afghanistan after 9/11.
But their relationship has been dogged by mistrust. Although regarded as critical to U.S. efforts to stabilize Afghanistan, Pakistan is often seen from Washington as an unreliable partner.
Following U.S. accusations that some in the Pakistani government have aided anti-U.S. militants, Congress is reevaluating its 2009 promise to triple non-military aid to Pakistan to a total of $7.5 billion over five years.
That aid came on top of billions in security assistance provided since 2001, which Washington is also rethinking.
The al Qaeda-linked Haqqani network has sworn allegiance to the Taliban, but has long been suspected of also having ties to the ISI.
(Additional reporting by Zeeshan Haider, Augustine Anthony and Bushra Takseen in Islamabad, Mirwais Harooni in Kabul and Missy Ryan, Susan Cornwall, Matt Spetalnick and John O'Callaghan in Washington; Writing by Michael Georgy; Editing by John Chalmers, Janet Lawrence and Philip Barbara)
 
The History of the Haqqanis
Posted on September 30, 2011

by SHAUKAT QADIR

When the US suffers a defeat in Afghanistan, it will need another scapegoat. I stated this nine years ago; I give you one guess which country is a made-to-order scapegoat here? Neither history, nor truth, nor realities are of any significance. All that matters is that there is a readymade scapegoat to be proven guilty by media trial and convicted for its defeat. But Pakistan should be very proud. It has replaced the combined might of China and, the other erstwhile super-power; the USSR.

Is that what we are witnessing now?

Yes; and no. There are perhaps, other undercurrents at play. A scapegoat is definitely required so let’s just move on and view facts, before returning to conclusions and questions.

As a matter of fact, the period following Osama’s execution in Abbottabad has resulted, not only in increased attacks within Pakistan, but also in Kabul, Afghanistan, targeting the allied forces of occupation, so as to emphasize their vulnerability even within Kabul.
Merely to list the prominent ones:

On May 18th a NATO military convoy came under attack on the Dar-ul-Aman Road in Kabul, close to the National Assembly building.
On June 28th, heavily armed individuals entered the Hotel Intercontinental Hotel, in the heart of Kabul.
On July 12th, Hamid Karzai’s half-brother, Ahmed Wali, was shot and killed by his own guard.
On September 12th, a dozen or so militants engaged the compound of the American Embassy and NATO HQ for about twenty hours, raining down rockets and heavy weapons fire, killing numerous local employees, before they were killed, though a few are believed to have escaped alive.
And on September 20th, Burhannuddin Rabbani, former President of Afghanistan and, since October last year, the head of the Afghan High Peace Council, was killed by a suicide bomber in his residence in Kabul.

While the US has accused the Haqqani Group of being responsible for these and other attacks, including the December 2009 attack on CIA’s Forward Operating Base Chapman which killed seven CIA personnel, I will confine myself to discussing the last two listed above, due to which US-Pak relations have plummeted to an all time low.

But before discussing these, a brief historical perspective of Jalaluddin Haqqani is essential

Born 1950 in the province of Paktia, he was 29 years old when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. At a time when traditional Pashtun tribal elders were appointing proxies to lead their tribe in the struggle for freedom, Jalal was just the right age, to lead his own tribe; he soon established himself as a formidable leader. According to Wikipedia, he was cultivated as a “unilateral” (which implies exclusive, not shared with the ISI) source by the CIA. US Congressman Charlie Wilson, responsible for aiding the Afghan Mujahideedn in the 1980s, referred to Jalaluddin as “goodness personified”.

When the Taliban began their expansion, after capturing Kandahar, Hamid Karzai was one of the Taliban Salaars (general)—that’s right, the current Afghan President was a Taliban and Jalaludin was fighting against the Taliban. Only when Kabul fell, in 1996, and Jalal realized that the ISI, backed by the CIA were intent on assisting the Taliban, did he join them.

After 1996, when Osama bin Laden entered Afghanistan, Jalal witnessed the metamorphosis in the Taliban, especially Mulla Muhammed Omer, under the influence of OBL, with dismay, but remained a silent spectator.

When the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and the Taliban disintegrated, Jalal went his own way. Interestingly, 1n 2002, the CIA contacted Jalal to join the post-Taliban setup in Kabul, but Jalal was not prepared to serve under Burhanuddin Rabbani as President and was also wary of being associated with the Tajik and Uzbek dominated “Northern Alliance” which had a stranglehold on US decision making at the time.

Jalal has been accused of having assisted OBL’s escape from his base in Khost to the caves of Tora Bora in 2001; which is possible. He might well have considered himself bound by the tradition of Pashtun hospitality to protect someone within his area. However, the inference drawn from this accusation; that he was/is an Al-Quaida affiliate is blatantly false. Jalal, and his son, Siraj, have been fiercely independent Afghans. Even when he joined the Taliban, he never referred to himself as a Talib.

Hoping that the US would pull out, Jalal waited till 2003/4 before renewing his struggle to free Afghanistan from another foreign invader; the US. In 2006 and again in 2007, Hamid Karzai’s emissaries contacted him, obviously with US blessings, offering him the assignment of Prime Minister, but by that time, Karzai had lost all credibility with the Afghan Pashtun and, not wishing to be tainted, Jalal refused.

In September 2008, he was targeted by an American drone strike, killing 10 others, but he had left. Since then, Jalal and Siraj have flitted across the Durand Line, the de facto Pak-Afghan border, to NWA in Pakistan. However, soon after May this year, the Haqqanis started shifting back to Afghanistan and, while no one can be certain where they are, they are, almost certainly, back in Afghanistan.

The attack on the US Embassy

On September 13th, the US accused the Haqqani Group of being responsible for the attack on its Embassy compound. This was soon followed by accusations of a direct link between the attackers and Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, ISI. Although no evidence of this link between the ISI and the September 12th attackers has been made public, the first hint of evidence provided by the US media was that the attackers were in possession of cartons/bottles of Pakistan-made juice, that’s right; Pakistani juice.

But, of course, that is far from being all. From the cell phones recovered from the dead bodies, US intelligence was able to discover that the attackers had been in constant communication with “their ISI handlers”. Now even a low-tech person like this author is aware that any teen aged hacker can make a cell phone sym, or a laptop, for that matter, talk any language and say anything that he wants it to. However, being low-tech, I am mystified by a rather basic question: having recovered the cell numbers that the attackers were in communication with, how did the CIA establish that these cell numbers belonged to “ISI handlers”?

Does the CIA have a list of all cell numbers of ISI personnel? Or did they call the number and the person who replied began with, “ISI handler here”? Now I have never been in the intelligence business; my only knowledge of how it works is because of years of teaching at the Command and Staff College and the NDU (War Wing). But even a novice “handling” such an operation would procure a fresh SIM under a pseudonym and ensure that he/she was miles distant from his/her base for the duration of the attack, so that even if the call could be traced back, it would not lead to the real location of the handler.

Like I said, I am low tech and therefore, perhaps there is technology available to identify the individual’s affiliation as well. I leave it to my readers to judge.

Being a soldier, however, I am mystified by something else; a subject I am more familiar with: basic security measures. The attackers, reportedly, occupied an under construction fourteen story building which overlooks the US Embassy and the adjacent NATO HQ; a building in close proximity of both. Even to the meanest military mind, it posed an obvious threat for just such an attack and American troops in Afghanistan are obsessed with security; as they should be, considering the number of times it has been breached. How is it possible that there were absolutely no security measures to prevent it?

No sentries posted at the foot of the building to prevent attackers climbing to the top? No electronic, sonar, or laser sensors that could give warning? Nothing, nothing at all, or am I seeing something that is invisible to the US military?

Were they incompetent or complicit?

Very interestingly, Sirajuddin Haqqani, Jalaluddin’s son, and now the effective operational commander of the group, rang up from an undisclosed location to speak to a Pakistani daily. Not only did he categorically state that he had been in Afghanistan for some months past (a fact I can testify to), but added that he no longer needed succor, even occasionally, in North Waziristan, NWA, Pakistan. That his following in Afghanistan had grown to the extent that he was safer in Afghanistan.

In response to a direct question, he refused to accept or deny responsibility for the attack; which, if he was responsible for it, is surprising. (A Taliban spokesman, however, did accept responsibility for the attack.) Most interesting was Siraj’s comment, which no one seems to have adverted to, that “we are in contact with the Taliban”, implying thereby that he was not a Taliban, but an “Afghan Freedom Fighter” against a foreign army of occupation.

That is the status that Haqqani; father and son, have always claimed: Afghan Freedom Fighters; and have now been elevated , by the US singling them out since 2009, as the only group that really posed a threat. In 2008, US estimated their group to consist of less than 5,000; today they are estimated to have a following of 15,000, and growing. ISAF’s initial report in 2009, under Stanley McChrystal, categorically advised that the US should be prepared to negotiate with all factions of the Taliban, except the Haqqani Group. I have never understood why this group was singled out. The only reasonable explanation that comes to mind is that perhaps, Mc Chrystal, probably incorrectly, since Mulla Omer is just as intractable, identified Jalal as the one man who would not compromise with a prolonged US presence in Afghanistan.

Whatever the reason, increasing number of Afghans who want to see the back of the Americans are flocking to the Haqqani banner.

Finally; another small question that worries me: if these, Haqqani Group attackers did indeed come from NWA to Kabul, the shortest route leads through the Afghan provinces of Khost, Paktia, and Logar, a distance of approximately 170 kilometers, as the crow flies; but the actual route is much longer. Khost hosts an American airbase, the Combat Team of 3rd Brigade, 1st Infantry division, Camp Clark, and Forward Operating Base, FOB, Salerno. I-279 Infantry, FOB Lightning, and I-10 Attack Aviation are located in Paktia. In Logar, adjacent to Kabul, are 4 Mountain Division, an Engineer Battalion, FOB Shank, and a Combat Team. All of them equipped with high-tech Force Protection Facilities, which includes every conceivable detection device available.

Knowing how the Afghan freedom fighters/Taliban operates, sneaking through in ones and twos, it is possible for them to sneak through this intricate web of US bases, but it certainly does not reflect too well on the state of security, intelligence, and extremely high-tech early warning systems that American forces possess: incompetent, incapable, or complicit?

The assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani

On September 20th, exactly a week after the daring attack on the US Embassy, Burhanuddin Rabbani, was killed by a suicide bomber. Two (supposed) emissaries of the Taliban, were brought by Muhammed Maasoom Stanikzai, also a member of the Afghan High Peace Council, and a trusted friend of Rabbani. Understandably, they would not be submitted to a body search. Presumably, however, knowing that Rabbani was treading on dangerous grounds and in danger, there would have been the usual security machines and sniffer dogs that can smell out explosive?

If these were there, why was there no warning? If they weren’t, why weren’t there any? Was there complicity or incompetence?

But please wait, it is more interesting when the perspective to this is added. February this year, Counterpunch carried an article by me titled, “Why did Joe Biden rush to Pakistan?” In this article, I explained how the so-called “Rabbani initiative” started to facilitate talks between all Afghan stakeholders, including Taliban, for the future of Afghanistan. That these talks would be exclusively between Afghans, excluding ALL non-Afghans, though negotiations with factions of those Taliban who count and the “Haqqani Group” would be facilitated by Pakistan. And that Rabbani got the nod of approval for this from Pakistan army’s chief.

In effect, therefore, Pakistan had a role to play, while the US did not.

It is also worth noting that Rabbani, a Tajik, had also adopted the Taliban stance that the Americans must pull out of Afghanistan, lock, stock, and barrel, and at the earliest possible.

Now there were Taliban who still found Rabbani unacceptable and were willing to kill him; he had a bloody history of targeting Pashtuns, along with other members of The Northern Alliance. Therefore, the very interesting response from Mulla Omer’s faction after his murder, “we cannot comment until we have carried out a thorough investigation.”

Clearly implying, that this was not an act on instructions from Mulla Omer but it could still have been carried out by ‘rogue’ elements from their ranks. If the reader refers to “Why Joe Biden rushed to Pakistan”, it will become obvious that Mulla Omer had accepted Rabbani as an interlocutor and, since Pakistan (GHQ) had given its blessings, Pakistan could not be interested in Rabbani’s elimination. And, if the Haqqani Group has any links with the ISI, neither would they.

A spokesman, who also identified himself as, Zabiullah Mujahid, also a name associated with Mulla Omer’s group, did call the Pakistani media to claim credit; which is actually meaningless, since all glory seekers would jump at the chance to claim credit for an ‘unclaimed hit’ on such a significant target. And who can identify a voice on the phone. What is more, this spokesman talked about an explosive-filled jacket, whereas it has been established by forensics, that the explosive was in his turban.

However, this murder was indeed carried out by mid level Taliban of Omer’s faction, the two individuals who were brought by Stanikzai, were acknowledged members of Omer’s group; but who let them in, but the real question is; why?

Conclusion

On the dangerous game of “Chicken” presently still ongoing, between the US and Pakistan, I will make a separate effort. Will someone blink; if so, who and when? But I had warned of this inevitability in another article carried by CounterPunch; “Has Pakistan declared its independence? This dog won’t come to heel”.

However, in this process of the final brinkmanship, in response to which Pakistan has picked up the gauntlet, the US has done Pakistan a great favor. I have frequently explained the logic behind the now irrelevant and immensely weakened Al-Quaida’s call to arms against Muslim states. It was based on the accusation that the leaders of Muslim majority countries have been bought, body and soul, by the US; and now the leaders are selling their nation to the US, identified as the Kafir (infidel) of all Kafirs — that same US which is at war with Muslims all over the world and backs Israel’s inhuman treatment of Palestinians. Therefore the leaders of these Muslim majority countries and their followers are also Kafirs; legitimate targets for all devout Muslims to kill.

However warped, that was the rationale and many Pakistanis, including the vast majority of non-militant ones genuinely believed this; and with good reason. Despite the fact that the Pakistani nation was unified in its determination to eradicate the scourge of terrorism within; it was still a nation lacking self respect and confidence in its leadership, due toPakistani subservience to the US.

By forcing Pakistan to defy it, to the extent of saying that Pakistan is, militarily, economically, and diplomatically prepared for all consequences, the US has restored Pakistani nation’s self respect and has united it against this common challenge. There is only one individual in this whole wide world capable of gifting us this miracle: the one and only; our dearly beloved uncle: Uncle Sam. I thank you Uncle, from the depths of my heart. That is one favor we, Pakistanis can never repay, and can never thank you for, sufficiently.

SHAUKAT QADIR is a retired brigadier and a former president of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute. He can be reached at shaukatq@gmail.com
Source: counterpunch
 
No solution in Afghanistan minus Pakistan, says Mullen

WASHINGTON: There can be no solution to the conflict in Afghanistan without Pakistan, the outgoing Joint Chief’s of Staff Committee (JCSC) chairman, Admiral Mike Mullen said on Friday.
“I continue to believe that there is no solution in the region without Pakistan, and no stable future in the region without a partnership,” Mullen said at a ceremony where he stood down from the post, handing it over to the incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey.
“I urge Marty to remember the importance of Pakistan to all of this, to try and do a better job than I did with that vexing and yet vital relationship,” Mullen added in remarks.
“Our strategy is the right one. We must keep executing it.”
Last week Mullen accused Pakistan of exporting violence to Afghanistan through proxies and charged that the Haqqani network, an al Qaeda-linked group, was a “veritable arm” of Pakistani intelligence.
His comments triggered new tensions with Washington’s uneasy ally, Islamabad, with Pakistani leaders closing ranks against US pressure for action against the Haqqanis and refusing to be pressured into doing more in the war on terror.
Mullen also told Dempsey at the ceremony at Fort Myers in Virginia that “his biggest challenge is going to be Afghanistan” where more than 100,000 American troops are due to hand over responsibility for security to Afghan forces by the end of 2014.
The challenge would be “in seeing this critical transition through to its completion, in making sure that the security gains we have made are not squandered by the scourge of corruption or the lack of good governance that still plagues the country,” Mullen said.
Mullen retires from the US military after 43 years of service.
Obama talks about Al Awlaki
Speaking at the ceremony, US president Barack Obama reminded US military and the world the lengths that it would go to against its enemies. “We will be determined, we will be deliberate, we will be relentless, we will be resolute in our commitment to destroy terrorist networks that aim to kill Americans,” a steely Obama said after an air raid in Yemen killed Awlaqi Friday.
(Read: Radical US-born cleric Awlaqi killed: Yemen defence ministry)
General Martin Dempsey takes over from Mullen
General Martin Dempsey on Friday took over as the US military’s top officer from Admiral Mike Mullen.
Dempsey has led soldiers in combat in Iraq and is keenly aware of the growing strain on the force after years of war.
An Irish-American who taught English literature to cadets at West Point, the 59-year-old graduated from the same class at the military academy as another four-star general, David Petraeus.
Until now, Petraeus – who rose to fame as commander in Iraq and had stepped down as chief in Afghanistan to take over the CIA – had largely overshadowed his former classmate.
As commander of the 1st Armored Division in Iraq in 2003-2004, Dempsey oversaw tanks and troops that fought insurgents led by Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, pushing the militia out of southern cities.
In his new job as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dempsey’s two combat tours will help shape how he advises the president as the United States wraps up its mission in Iraq and begins to withdraw some of the 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan.
“One of things he’ll bring to the job is current experience in the wars that we’re in,” said David Barno, a retired lieutenant general and senior adviser at the Center for a New American Security.
Dempsey takes over as chairman at a time of turmoil in the Arab world and growing pressure on the defense budget, with the Pentagon bracing for cuts and a possible scaled-back force.
Unlike the outgoing chairman Admiral Mike Mullen – a reserved figure with a soft-spoken manner – Dempsey is an extrovert with an irreverent sense of humour and a penchant for singing in public.
Proud of his working-class roots in New York and New Jersey, Dempsey’s favourite tune is Frank Sinatra’s rendition of “New York, New York,” which he belts out with gusto in unabashed performances captured on YouTube.
Dempsey finds an old acquaintance in his most ‘vexing’ challenge
Apart from Petraeus, Dempsey had another prominent classmate as a younger officer.
At the US Army’s staff college in the 1980s, Dempsey got to know a Pakistani officer, Ashfaq Kayani – now Pakistan’s powerful army chief who has clashed with the United States in the aftermath of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
Dempsey is known as a thoughtful, independent-minded leader who shuns formalities and goes out of his way to hear from junior officers, said Barno, a friend and former colleague.
At Central Command, Dempsey was “known for going to the back rows of the auditorium when he was giving his morning updates, asking junior officers what they thought,” Barno said.
He has “an ability to feel the soul of the organisation, to really feel what young soldiers and young leaders are going through and to connect with them in ways better than almost anyone I know,” Barno told AFP.
Steeped in US strategy on the Middle East having served as a deputy and acting chief of Central Command, Dempsey likely will focus much of his time on potential threats arising from the political earthquake shaking the region.
Formerly in charge of training and doctrine, Dempsey worked to ensure the Army absorbed the lessons of a decade of counter-insurgency warfare, and warned his superiors that the long-running wars have undercut training efforts and jeopardized the health of the force.
In describing his time in Iraq, Dempsey has stressed the importance of restraint, with troops moving in carefully instead of blasting away indiscriminately.
“In terms of precision, at no time did we work our way through a city building by building or room by room,” Dempsey once said in an interview.
“If we did go in on the ground, we penetrated, attacked the militia and then moved back out to minimize the risk of being seen as creating excessive collateral damage or prolonging suffering needlessly.”

http://tribune.com.pk/story/264212/change-of-guard-no-solution-in-afghanistan-minus-pakistan-says-mullen/
 
The way I see it, Pakistan is done with Mullen & his duplicity. The US officials can keep saying what they want, but everything will fall on deaf ears. The US has exposed what they think of Pakistan by their baseless accusations, & there's no point playing good cop now. While ties shouldn't completely break down between the two nations, their demands should fall on deaf ears. There is nothing the US can do in the region that is in the interests of Pakistan's national security.
 

Back
Top Bottom