A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan

[Kasrkin]

"Of course you would! I'd imagine both sides would seek out their views to help shape the discourse..."

No you wouldn't imagine any such thing unless you were really deluded. The Indians don't even accept the Disputed Territory status of Kashmir. They say it's sovereign India, no argument. Those who oppose this are crushed or sidelined or ignored.

No, the Indians CANT speak for the Kashmiri people because even a simple plebiscite on the issue is unacceptable to them. Not surprising since most Kashmiris aren’t too happy with Indian rule and they know it.

They'll need some serious conceiving to break this denial, even more if they're to conduct a completely fair verification of the wishes of the Kashmiris. All of this will require a third party involvement.

"My guess, though, is that you presume the prerogative to speak for Kashmiris..."

Nope. That is exactly why we talk about the need for a third party unlike the Indians. Did you read nothing of what I’ve said?

"Where I Kashmiri, one look at your voice for Baluchi or pashtu aspirations as part of a greater Pakistani vision might give me pause…I'd want nothing to do with you..."

BS. Don’t troll.

 

[Kasrkin]

"Be assured that America won't be mediating Kashmir anytime soon. Count on that regardless of what you might know...or not."

Definitely. That’s exactly what I was explaining while talking to AM about prevalent trends of human hypocrisy, selfish priorities and selective freedom.

 

[S-2]

"That’s exactly what I was explaining while talking to AM about prevalent trends of human hypocrisy, selfish priorities and selective freedom."

Well don't your eyes stray any further than your own capital when having this mutually reinforcing discussion, lads.

Trolling? No. The historic concern displayed by Pakistan's for huge segments of your population would suggest to any prudent Kashmiri that your devotion to them be viewed with some sagacity.

Your proven track-record among the aforementioned discussion points would be poor in this regard. You'd likely be the type to criticize Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib while eagerly awaiting the torture of some poor Paktika afghani to "spill the beans".

So cut the pompous B.S., Kasrkin. You're demonstrably not ready for such an elevated discussion.

Thanks.

 

[Kasrkin]

^^^Long useless rant deserves another one I say...

"The historic concern displayed by Pakistan's for huge segments of your population would suggest to any prudent Kashmiri that your devotion to them be viewed with some sagacity..."

According to whom? An obviously biased and ill-informed anti-Pakistani stuck up like yourself? Anything out of proportion, context and relativity is meaningless. This is obviously something trolls can’t grasp and therefore here you are pathetically trying to excuse your country’s lack of interest in the freedom of the Kashmiri people.

"You'd likely be the type to criticize Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib while eagerly awaiting the torture of some poor Paktika afghani to "spill the beans"..."

Well, now we know you suck at judgment calls like you do at everything else. Unlike some people in the US military apparently, I do not think that torture or sexual humiliation is an acceptable or effective way to interrogate. I was definitely upset with the roughing up of the Afghan terrorist. But good way to through off the topic…

"You're demonstrably not ready for such an elevated discussion..."

Well, well isn’t that awfully convenient for you now all of a sudden, as anyone following our discourse would know. You’re the one who’s been flooding our forum with ‘pompous B.S’ for months so why turn it off now? What've I said that you havent to countless others here? Your feinted righteousness isn't impressing anyone, particularly since its comingfrom you.

C'mon so what "lack of historic concern displayed" were you talking about?

 

[S-2]

"C'mon so what "lack of historic concern displayed" were you talking about"

The object lessons in Pakistani repression of local ethnicities are long and sordid. You'll have no problems providing your own discovery.

Do so. It's evident that you need it.

"...prevalent trends of human hypocrisy, selfish priorities and selective freedom..."

Laughable were it not so pathetic.

Thanks Kasrkin.

 

[Kasrkin]

"You'll have no problems providing your own discovery..."

But you certainly will since you don't know what you're talking about. Trolls usually don't.

"Thanks Kasrkin..."

Don't mention it. I just hope this lesson in modesty isn’t forgotten too fast. You say crap about Pakistan all the time here, we take it. Learn to tackle some flak yourself without crying and acting so damn self-righteous.

Also this knee-jerk 'but-we're-still-better-than-you' reaction that you use to derail the topic when corned is a trollish habit. Kick it.

 

[S-2]

"Also this knee-jerk 'but-we're-still-better-than-you' reaction that you use to derail the topic when corned [sic] is a trollish habit. Kick it"

Derail? Hardly. Your question. My answer. When the topic has become

"...prevalent trends of human hypocrisy, selfish priorities and selective freedom..."

there is nothing more central.

Hope that helps your memory. If not, refer back a couple of posts for a refresher.

To bring the thread full-circle lest I appear cornered we shall see no linkage of Kashmir to a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. America almost certainly won't mediate a bi-lateral dispute. Should you choose with India to open this discussion, it will be some other entity whom does so.

America's relationship with both nations makes us the last choice for "impartial". Nothing else, of course, but that alone is sufficient.

Try calling the Brits.

"You say crap about Pakistan all the time here"

Yeah and you ain't exactly singing the virtues of America.

Kasrkin, on a personal note, you won't get terribly far attempting to sling orders my way. Respect is earned and I've happily followed orders from men far better than you'll likely ever know.

I've not asked for your respect and you surely won't be seeing mine anytime soon.

Basically, you've proven an amusing distractor with your "profundities". Therein lies your value for me- a nice break from the real intellects here like Niaz, Muse, and Energon.

Thanks.

 

[Kasrkin]

Derail? Hardly. Your question. My answer

It was not a question, and your 'answer' was just a troll-ish impulse.

Address the issue for what it is. How'd you like it if one of us would start ranting about the American Civil War as an answer to you criticizing aspects of Pakistan's national unity or internal policy. That would be pathetic right? Unworthy of respectable consideration? Troll-ish? Well that’s you.

Even if HYPOTHETICALLY I agree with you that Pakistan has misused great power and has not stood up to its own mighty rhetoric…what bearing does that have on the issue? NONE. Does that change what the US has or has not done for the Kashmiris? NO. So that’s why you’re trolling, you’re primitive, pointless and un-spirited. We can talk about Pakistan’s faults on another thread, but not here where you pathetically use your ignorance to justify yourself.

To bring the thread full-circle lest I appear cornered

You've changed directions three times already. First you tried picking up the Indian line and insisted that mediation is not needed. Then you said Kashmiris don’t like Pakistan so the US doesn’t want to help, seriously WTF? Then you say we don’t want to help because we’re afraid it might not work…And now you’re saying the US doesn’t mediate because it’s not ‘neutral’ enough.

You’re not cornered, you’re expended.

Obviously confused, you’ve been improvising the whole time and you’ve lost the ability to continue the debate on Kashmir. Most of what you’ve said isn’t even worthy of purely theoretical consideration. But now you want to talk about Pakistan's 'horrible' past and how it 'proves' to you that Kashmiri's would prefer India over us…(Quite pointless actually, given Kashmiris can opt for their own state too if given the opportunity to be heard)

All this because you lack the capacity to even consider the possibility that America's presence and policy might anything but morally invincible. Childishly amusing.

you won't get terribly far attempting to sling orders my way.

I don’t in the slightest feel need to sling others your way as anyone who’s been following our discourse would know. I’m enjoying the kill myself but if you think you’re so popular here then who I to argue?

you've proven an amusing distractor with your "profundities"

Lovely. Then why not prolong your amusement (and mine) and get your remaining retarded 'profundities' out of the way, eh? So yes Kashmiris hate us so much more than India because…?

 

[S-2]

"I don’t in the slightest feel need to sling others your way as anyone who’s been following our discourse would know. I’m enjoying the kill myself but if you think you’re so popular here then who I to argue?"

Ratchet up the strawmen as you lack sufficient talent for me to break a sweat.

Living in a dream delusion of righteous indignance just ain't gonna get it there, hoss. As example-

"the Indian line and insisted that mediation is not needed."

OUR line. It's a bilateral dispute. Mediation? Gain India's concurrence, fool, and then find your mediator.

It won't be America.

You've a personal problem at this point, Kasrkin, and your pathetic attempts to score dubious debating points on an issue, Kashmir, for which my government's position is clear and DEFENSIBLE makes difficult any "kill". No doubt, a good portion of your lotus-eating peers might nonetheless celebrate your "victory".

We've seen such before.

There's Kashmir. There's Kashmir in India. There's the Islamic Caliphate of Pashtunistan. No linkage and your west's ablaze.

Fcuk it. Let it burn for all I care. We won't be mediating Kashmir and you seem to be beyond understanding the simple, salient, power of that lil' message.

Try Dave Miliband. The Indians hate him. Maybe he's the ticket.

Try the Chinese yet?

Anyway, good luck and thanks.

 

[Kasrkin]

I know the US won’t be mediating S-2. That is beyond debate. The issue is why…?

You’ve failed to come up with a coherent argument there. I know the US’s position in regards to Kashmir is designed to be ‘defensible’ but that doesn’t make it right or line in with America’s own rhetoric. You’ve done a bang-up job defending it as it is.

The people of Kashmir deserve the right to decide. All you’ve said here is that you don’t care. You are unwilling to exercise your considerable power, authority, respect, leverage to bring about, or encourage a path to, a mediated settlement. That is the only way to break the deadlock and give a voice to the Kashmiris, who need more than just lip-service to be heard. But apparently the US has other priorities…

Lack of Indian acceptance of impartial mediation is the problem, not a lack of mediators. But don’t worry, we’ll figure something out sooner or later…no thanks to you.

Catch you later.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"The issue is why…?"


That was precisely the question I posed, though its wandered into distractions over 'Pakistan's treatment of its other ethnicities' blah blah blah.

The Indians don't want mediation, that much is clear, they also don't really express any desire to resolve the issue, despite the never ending 'back channel diplomacy', which quite frankly is starting to look like a farce and a stall tactic on the GoI's part.

We have had what, three separate occasions when 'breakthrough's' were in sight (the latest in 2007-08) and the Indians have backed out every single time.

And then they make noises along these lines:

“It is possible to discuss the dispute once it becomes clear that Pakistan is no more insisting on dividing or exchanging the territory, or talking about settling the status of the territory,” Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon said.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

This is a clear indication of the lack of intent to resolve Kashmir on the Indian side, when completely unrealistic pre-conditions are imposed upon talks.

The Indians, since the time of Nehru, have never really been sincere about resolving Kashmir, least of all through a resort to the 'will of the Kashmiris' as provided for in the UNSC resolutions, and agreed to by all parties.

Hence the argument of 'coercive diplomacy' from outside parties.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

U.S. experts ask Obama to address Pakistan's concerns on Indian role in Afghanistan
​

Updated at: 1455 PST, Wednesday, April 01, 2009
WASHINGTON: As the Obama administration moves to calibrate a fragmented approach toward Afghanistan in a regional perspective, top U.S. experts have asked Washington to address Pakistan's concerns over Indian role in its insurgency-hit western neighbor.

Appearing before a Congressional hearing, experts and former diplomats argued that removal of Pakistani apprehensions about Indian intentions in Afghanistan would help efforts toward regional stability.

"I think it is India's interest to ensure that its involvement in Afghanistan is transparent to Pakistan and the U.S. has a role to play in ensuring this," Lisa Curtis, a former State Department adviser said Tuesday.

Curtis was among a panel of experts who debated, "Afghanistan and Pakistan: Understanding and Engaging Regional Stakeholders" at the hearing of House National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee.

Curtis, who is associated with The Heritage Foundation, said the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan must also take into account continuing Pakistani concerns about its regional influence vis-a-vis India, and long-term Indian influence in Afghanistan.

"We, of course, should address forthrightly Pakistan's concerns but at the same time dismiss any accusations that are unfounded."

U.S. experts ask Obama to address Pakistan's concerns on Indian role in Afghanistan

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

P.S: can we be done with the ad hominems please, and discuss the merits of the others position alone.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

"We, of course, should address forthrightly Pakistan's concerns but at the same time dismiss any accusations that are unfounded."

I believe no accusations will be unfounded as per Indian anti Pakistan operations in Afghanistan is concerned unless hiden for own interests.
India is providing wepons to anti Pakistani elements in Afghanistan .

I think this issue wont be adressed as india is the CHOSEN ONE by the US.
And even if India is carraying out such operations in Afghanistan i have concerene that
Did the Indians compleetely out smart the US in Afghanistan and carried out Anti Pakistan Espionaje
Or the US agencies blinded itself in support of India.

The US intelligance agencies must have or had some kind of information regarding the Indian activities in Afghanistan which they didnt shared with its Ally . And If they had than Pakistani ISI has a reason to support Taliban..

 

[Neo]

‘US must address Pakistan’s concerns over India’s Afghanistan role’​

* Experts tell Congress sub-committee New Delhi must ensure its involvement is transparent to Islamabad
* Say Pakistanis must be assured they will not be abandoned again​

WASHINGTON: As the Obama administration moves to calibrate a fragmented approach towards Kabul in a regional perspective, top US experts have asked Washington to address Pakistan’s concerns over Indian role in Afghanistan.

At a Congressional hearing on Tuesday, the experts and former diplomats argued that ridding Pakistan of apprehensions over Indian intentions in Afghanistan would facilitate efforts aimed at regional stability.

Transparency: “I think it is India’s interest to ensure that its involvement in Afghanistan is transparent to Pakistan, and the US has a role to play in ensuring this,” said Lisa Curtis, a former State Department adviser.

Curtis was among a panel of experts who debated ‘Afghanistan and Pakistan: Understanding and Engaging Regional Stakeholders’ at the hearing of the House National Security and Foreign Affairs Sub-committee.

The discussion came as President Barack Obama and senior diplomats began a hectic round of diplomacy in Europe to secure support for the US strategy in Afghanistan. Obama’s strategy, unveiled last week, seeks to enlist support of regional countries including China, India and Iran in the overall stabilisation effort.

Curtis – who is associated with The Heritage Foundation – said the US efforts in Afghanistan must also take into account continuing Pakistani concerns over its regional influence in relation to India and the long-term Indian influence in Afghanistan.

“We, of course, should address forthrightly Pakistan’s concerns but at the same time, dismiss any accusations that are unfounded.”

Former US ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain drew President Obama’s attention to the challenge to persuade Pakistan and India to overcome old rivalries in a bid to confront one common enemy.

“The fact, if we are all very honest with ourselves, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, the United States are all facing the same enemy in this region, and that enemy is Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-like terrorist networks that are attacking both us, the far enemy, and the local governments, the near enemy,” she said.

Assure: The diplomat, who served in Islamabad in 2001-02, warned against conditioning US economic assistance for Pakistan, advocating that the US must demonstrate to the people of Pakistan that it would not abandon them again.

Opening the hearing, the chairman of the sub-committee, Democrat John Tierney, said the importance of ‘outside influences’ where Afghanistan and Pakistan were concerned could not be under-emphasised.

Tierney appreciated the regional emphasis as pleaded in the Obama administration’s approach to the region, but called for moving beyond the recognition.

“We have come a long way from looking at Afghanistan and Pakistan in isolation. The role of regional security is now front and centre ... but that’s just step ones. We must go beyond just recognising the vital role of regional players and now examine how the US and our allies can constructively engage them. What is the best way to proceed? What are the top challenges, easy wins, and where are the red lines? As we move from words to action, we must truly strive to understand how these regional players see their own national interests, and we must explore what will motivate each of these neighbours to play constructive roles.” app