• Saturday, November 18, 2017

"Hard talk with Pakistan does not work, they just dig in deeper", observe American analysts. NYT

Discussion in 'Strategic & Foreign Affairs' started by Awan68, Oct 25, 2017.

  1. Awan68

    Awan68 FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,887
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2016
    Ratings:
    +3 / 1,913 / -2
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    U.S. Warning to Pakistan: Stop Backing Terrorism
    • [​IMG]
      Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, center right, with the Pakistani foreign minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, center left, in Islamabad on Tuesday.
      POOL PHOTO BY ALEX BRANDON
      By GARDINER HARRIS
      OCTOBER 24, 2017


    ISLAMABAD — Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson stopped in Islamabad on his way to New Delhi on Tuesday to deliver what he hoped would be a sobering message to Pakistan: Stop funding or providing shelter to terrorist groups. Now.

    It is a message the United States has been giving the Pakistanis in various forms since the Sept. 11 attacks, and it is one the Pakistanis have by turns harkened to, bristled at and shrugged off — sometimes in the same meeting — for years.

    In tackling the deeply dysfunctional relationship between the United States and Pakistan, the Trump administration is finding that it is not unlike some difficult marriages: all but impossible to fix, but also impossible to end.

    There were few signs on Tuesday that this 16-year-old dynamic had changed.

    Mr. Tillerson met with three of Pakistan’s top leaders at the elegant prime minister’s residence in Islamabad: Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi; the foreign minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif; and, most important, the Army’s chief of staff, Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa.


    At a formal greeting before a portrait of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who is considered the father of Pakistan, Mr. Tillerson began with reassurances. “Pakistan is important, as you know, regionally to the U.S. security relationships and so important regionally to our joint goals of providing peace and security to the region and providing opportunity for a greater economic relationship as well,” he said.


    Mr. Abbasi, wearing a traditional white kurta next to Mr. Tillerson’s dark suit, responded cheerfully but pointedly. “The U.S. can rest assured that we are strategic partners in the war against terror and that today Pakistan is fighting the largest war in the world against terror,” he said.

    The United States believes that Pakistan has for years supported terrorist groups, like the Haqqani network, that attack American troops in Afghanistan, undermining the 16-year effort to defeat the Taliban. But for just as long, the United States has relied on Pakistani air and land routes to supply both American and Afghan forces.

    Without Pakistan, the United States would not be able to keep troops in Afghanistan — but it also might not need to, some American observers suggest.

    “What do you do when your allies are part of the problem?” asked Daniel L. Byman, a counterterrorism expert at Georgetown University. “The desire to turn our backs on these people is there, but then you worry that terrorists will have more operational freedom and it will cost you more in the long run.”

    In public, the Pakistanis say they have killed more terrorists at greater cost in lives lost than any other nation. In private, they say they must hedge their bets against the inevitable day when American troops leave Afghanistan.


    In the days leading up to Mr. Tillerson’s visit, the United States conducted a flurry of airstrikes along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, fulfilling President Trump’s promise in August to intensify attacks against the Taliban and Haqqani network, which has run a virtual factory in Pakistan since 2005 to supply suicide bombers in Afghanistan.


    Local news media outlets reported more than a dozen missile strikes that killed scores of Haqqani fighters. The strikes, many of them in Pakistani territory, are deeply irritating to Pakistan, which considers them a threat to its sovereignty.

    Along with the attacks, the Trump administration has toughened its rhetoric. In a speech last week that offered effusive praise for India, Mr. Tillerson warned, “We expect Pakistan to take decisive action against terrorist groups based there that threaten its own people and the broader region.”

    Senior Pakistani army and intelligence officials expressed confidence in background interviews in recent days that the Trump administration cannot sustain a hostile stance for too long. The Pakistanis are keenly aware that the United States relies on them not only for supplies of material, but also for intelligence.

    The Obama administration worked to reduce its reliance on Pakistan in part by reaching a reconciliation with Iran, the only other viable option for supplying troops in Afghanistan. India is building a port in the Iranian city of Chabahar, where supplies could be landed and shipped to Afghanistan.

    C. Christine Fair, an associate professor at Georgetown University, argues that Pakistan represents a far greater threat to American interests than Iran does. It was Pakistan that provided nuclear technology to North Korea and Libya, and Pakistan’s proxies have killed more American troops than Iran’s, she said.


    But the Trump administration’s hostility toward Iran — Mr. Trump has threatened to tear up the Iran nuclear accord — has closed off such a strategy, so the United States must rely on Pakistan.


    “It’s like a woman trying to leave an abusive marriage when she has no money,” Ms. Fair said. “How do you do that?”

    Will tougher rhetoric change Pakistani behavior? Experts are skeptical.

    “Getting tough on Pakistan, which we’ve tried before, never works,” said Ryan C. Crocker, a former ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. “In fact, it has the opposite effect. They just dig in deeper.”

    Salman Masood contributed reporting from Islamabad, and Eric Schmitt from Washington.




    The last parts are pretty amusing , good going to our ninja's who tie the hands of even the most powerful nation on earth...
    @Horus @DESERT FIGHTER @war&peace @The Eagle @Zarvan @El Sidd @HAKIKAT
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  2. Taimoor Khan

    Taimoor Khan SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    4,458
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Ratings:
    +5 / 5,244 / -5
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    In tackling the deeply dysfunctional relationship between the United States and Pakistan, the Trump administration is finding that it is not unlike some difficult marriages: all but impossible to fix, but also impossible to end.


    Getting tough on Pakistan, which we’ve tried before, never works,” said Ryan C. Crocker, a former ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. “In fact, it has the opposite effect. They just dig in deeper.”




    :azn:
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 11
  3. HAKIKAT

    HAKIKAT SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    3,159
    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2015
    Ratings:
    +9 / 11,063 / -0
    Country:
    Turkey
    Location:
    United States
    As I have been saying even the janitor at Pentagon knows that losing Pak isn't an option!!!!!
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 19
  4. Awan68

    Awan68 FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,887
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2016
    Ratings:
    +3 / 1,913 / -2
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    why dont u do us all a favour n bugg off..
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 9
  5. Solomon2

    Solomon2 ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    16,248
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2008
    Ratings:
    +10 / 8,777 / -18
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    Your comment reinforces my conviction that my previous comment adds nothing to Pakistanis' evaluation of the situation. But now you understand that I understand it too - and I understand what that means about Pakistanis as compared to Americans.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  6. Awan68

    Awan68 FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,887
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2016
    Ratings:
    +3 / 1,913 / -2
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    tareef wo jo dushman khud kary na ke
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 7
  7. Syed.Ali.Haider

    Syed.Ali.Haider ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    30,623
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Ratings:
    +52 / 26,824 / -3
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    Two sovereign nations pursuing their own respective national interests as best as each one can, nothing wrong with that. The better player wins.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 4
  8. Solomon2

    Solomon2 ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    16,248
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2008
    Ratings:
    +10 / 8,777 / -18
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    Why won't Pakistan pursue a good-neighbor policy, like the U.S. has with Canada? Military thinking would demand each face the other armed to the teeth but the politicians control and it is their job to evaluate the key question of intent. And over 150 years ago they determined there was no need for quarreling and the relations have been friendly ever since.
     
  9. Syed.Ali.Haider

    Syed.Ali.Haider ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    30,623
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Ratings:
    +52 / 26,824 / -3
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    Pakistan's neighborhood is very different than USA's. Besides, it is not up to others, but for Pakistan itself, to decide what sort of policies it wishes to pursue as a sovereign nation in pursuit of its national interests as they define them.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 4
  10. Solomon2

    Solomon2 ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    16,248
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2008
    Ratings:
    +10 / 8,777 / -18
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    That is what UNSCR 1373 denies: it says that a member-state's sovereignty is null if another nation attacks terror groups on its territory. If the U.S. "switches" to supporting India, the Indians may be emboldened to take action against terror bases in Pakistan. Then Pakistan can either escalate the battle (without U.S. or Chinese support) or else yield to India's will. Pakistan might possibly keep the terror camps aimed at Afghanistan but will lose those it operates in support of Kashmir. Is that the outcome Pakistan really wants?
     
  11. Syed.Ali.Haider

    Syed.Ali.Haider ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    30,623
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Ratings:
    +52 / 26,824 / -3
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    The better players will win, as I said before.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  12. Solomon2

    Solomon2 ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    16,248
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2008
    Ratings:
    +10 / 8,777 / -18
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    I see. Pakistan will lose another conflict with India but the status quo of its power structure will be preserved, even if it costs thousands of Pakistani lives.
     
  13. Storm Force

    Storm Force BANNED

    Messages:
    4,450
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Ratings:
    +1 / 2,692 / -51
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    USA knows deep down Pakistan will not change its SPOTS

    They will support Taliban And maintain proxies to trouble India

    I think its up to USA to simply drop Pakistan AND move 100% into Indian Camp

    I think this process has begun
     
  14. SmartGeek

    SmartGeek SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,463
    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2013
    Ratings:
    +0 / 1,667 / -0
    This article seems to be smokescreen. In reality, USA's troop had no effect in Afghanistan to decrease the terrorism. If anything, the terrorism has increased in the presence of USA army while Terrorist-outfit-aka-TTP has been caught roaming openly in Afghanistan as the guaranteed for safe haven by Afghan governments and intels whereas the very same TTP is responsible for more than 100,000 deaths including children and women in Pakistan.

    USA has been known to sponsor the terrorism given their closet collaboration with Al-CIA-DA, ISIS and now TTP because of their collaboration with India. Hence USA is targeting on Afghan-Taliban which USA collaborated with in late 80s to resist USSR whereas USA is lenient towards TTP that is openly committing terrorism that has claimed the lives of more than 100,000 death including children and women.

    USA has been upset at Pakistan/Russia lately because both Pakistan and Russia have been successful at eradicating terrorism of TTP/ISIS lately, and that is not the result USA was been hoping for. Because of USA betrayal towards Pakistan in regards to USA sponsoring terrorism through TTP to damage Pakistan and CPEC, Pakistan's alliance is now shifted with China and Russia. Also, going by the prophecy as mentioned 1400 years ago. Pakistan-Russia is here to stay.

    Because of USA's arrogance has sealed its own fate by alienating Pakistan. Without Pakistan, USA is screwed in Afghanistan given its exit strategy depends on Pakistan whereas its so-called ally aka India has failed to destabilize Pakistan completely.

    Despite USA so-called paragon of peace but in reality, USA has been purposely promoting anti-peace throughout the history such as ISIS/TTP to sponsor terrorism in order to destabilize Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    And Pakistan has every right to defend itself to eradicate terrorism even if it is USA-foreign-funded elements. USA doesn't like it that Pakistan responds back, and this time stronger than before whereas USA's position is now vulnerable more than ever.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2017
    • Thanks Thanks x 9
  15. Syed.Ali.Haider

    Syed.Ali.Haider ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    30,623
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Ratings:
    +52 / 26,824 / -3
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    I respect Pakistan's right to choose its policies, and reap the consequences thereof, for better and worse, just like any other sovereign nation.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1