If we really wish to attack Pakistan in times of war, Afghanistan is not the only place to launch attacks. The ocean is the perfect place.
Afghan Endgame: US Withdrawal, Taliban negotiations, Pakistan's position
- Thread starter Saifullah Sani
- Start date
If we really wish to attack Pakistan in times of war, Afghanistan is not the only place to launch attacks. The ocean is the perfect place.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Afghan drawdown: Implications for Pakistan
By Simbal Khan
Published: June 24, 2011
The writer is Director Afghanistan and Central Asia at the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad
US President Barack Obama on June 22 announced his plan to withdraw all of the 33,000 ‘surge’ troops in Afghanistan by September 2012. The plan seeking the drawdown of 10,000 troops by the end of this year and the remainder by September 2012 fell short of the slower withdrawal timetable demanded by US military commanders, which would have allowed two combat seasons, with the bulk of US forces still available.
Prior to his address, President Obama called President Asif Ali Zardari to intimate him of the details of the plan. One look at the text of his speech reveals the ominous way in which Pakistan figures in this plan for the next stage of this decade-long war. The plan marks a clear shift from a troop-heavy counter-insurgency strategy, which included large-scale military operations in the southern Taliban strongholds of Helmand and Kandahar. His speech frames the already apparent shift to a counter-terror framework, as the earlier objective of degrading the strength of the Taliban is replaced by the goal of ensuring that there is “no safe haven from which al Qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland, or our allies”.
This renewed focus on al Qaeda and its affiliates is likely to shift the momentum of war to eastern Afghanistan. Coming in the wake of downward spiraling Pakistan-US relations in the aftermath of the Osama bin Laden incident, this tactical shift in the US war plan in Afghanistan has some serious implications for Pakistan. Firstly, as Pakistan moves to limit US access to its military infrastructure — Shamsi Air Base etc. — and to reduce its intelligence and security presence inside Pakistan, the US is likely to enhance its troop presence and bases on the eastern Pakistan-Afghanistan border. We are likely to see an intensification of drone strikes in North and South Waziristan, and even an expansion of the strike coverage to Kurram and Mohmand agencies.
Secondly, this eastward shift in the battlefront also has implications for the fragile and reversible peace process. This essentially means that the operating strategy of talking and fighting at the same time is likely to continue. And the US will still continue to pick and choose those Taliban groups that it considers reconcilable. The peace process, for at least another year to come, is not likely to be as inclusive, as hoped by Pakistan. The al Qaeda affiliate that the US is likely to fight on the eastern Pakistan-Afghanistan border is the Haqqani network, which Pakistan hoped would be allowed to join the peace process.
During his recent visit to Islamabad, Frank Ruggiero, the US deputy special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, was asked by Pakistani officials to explain the ‘deliberate ambiguity’ and lack of clarity which shrouds the peace process. The preliminary contacts between US State Department officials and Mullah Omar’s deputy, Tayyab Agha, have also taken place outside the designated core group — Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US — constituted to undertake this very task. It is not clear how long the US will be able to keep Pakistan on board the peace process, as it moves to intensify its military campaign against those Taliban groups which Pakistan considers central to any lasting peace settlement.
Lastly, this counter-terror endeavour also ties in neatly with efforts to explain to an increasingly sceptical American public and a reluctant Congress, the necessity of signing a strategic partnership agreement with Afghanistan. In the president’s words, the US intends to: “Build a partnership with the Afghan people that endures — one that ensures that we will be able to continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign Afghan government.” Such an agreement would oversee the basing of a residual US military presence of approximately 25,000 troops beyond 2014 and commit to long-term economic support to the Afghan state.
By Simbal Khan
Published: June 24, 2011
The writer is Director Afghanistan and Central Asia at the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad
US President Barack Obama on June 22 announced his plan to withdraw all of the 33,000 ‘surge’ troops in Afghanistan by September 2012. The plan seeking the drawdown of 10,000 troops by the end of this year and the remainder by September 2012 fell short of the slower withdrawal timetable demanded by US military commanders, which would have allowed two combat seasons, with the bulk of US forces still available.
Prior to his address, President Obama called President Asif Ali Zardari to intimate him of the details of the plan. One look at the text of his speech reveals the ominous way in which Pakistan figures in this plan for the next stage of this decade-long war. The plan marks a clear shift from a troop-heavy counter-insurgency strategy, which included large-scale military operations in the southern Taliban strongholds of Helmand and Kandahar. His speech frames the already apparent shift to a counter-terror framework, as the earlier objective of degrading the strength of the Taliban is replaced by the goal of ensuring that there is “no safe haven from which al Qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland, or our allies”.
This renewed focus on al Qaeda and its affiliates is likely to shift the momentum of war to eastern Afghanistan. Coming in the wake of downward spiraling Pakistan-US relations in the aftermath of the Osama bin Laden incident, this tactical shift in the US war plan in Afghanistan has some serious implications for Pakistan. Firstly, as Pakistan moves to limit US access to its military infrastructure — Shamsi Air Base etc. — and to reduce its intelligence and security presence inside Pakistan, the US is likely to enhance its troop presence and bases on the eastern Pakistan-Afghanistan border. We are likely to see an intensification of drone strikes in North and South Waziristan, and even an expansion of the strike coverage to Kurram and Mohmand agencies.
Secondly, this eastward shift in the battlefront also has implications for the fragile and reversible peace process. This essentially means that the operating strategy of talking and fighting at the same time is likely to continue. And the US will still continue to pick and choose those Taliban groups that it considers reconcilable. The peace process, for at least another year to come, is not likely to be as inclusive, as hoped by Pakistan. The al Qaeda affiliate that the US is likely to fight on the eastern Pakistan-Afghanistan border is the Haqqani network, which Pakistan hoped would be allowed to join the peace process.
During his recent visit to Islamabad, Frank Ruggiero, the US deputy special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, was asked by Pakistani officials to explain the ‘deliberate ambiguity’ and lack of clarity which shrouds the peace process. The preliminary contacts between US State Department officials and Mullah Omar’s deputy, Tayyab Agha, have also taken place outside the designated core group — Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US — constituted to undertake this very task. It is not clear how long the US will be able to keep Pakistan on board the peace process, as it moves to intensify its military campaign against those Taliban groups which Pakistan considers central to any lasting peace settlement.
Lastly, this counter-terror endeavour also ties in neatly with efforts to explain to an increasingly sceptical American public and a reluctant Congress, the necessity of signing a strategic partnership agreement with Afghanistan. In the president’s words, the US intends to: “Build a partnership with the Afghan people that endures — one that ensures that we will be able to continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign Afghan government.” Such an agreement would oversee the basing of a residual US military presence of approximately 25,000 troops beyond 2014 and commit to long-term economic support to the Afghan state.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Ok, so according to Ms Simbal Khan's analysis, the focus will shift to the East, more reliance on drones and the expansion of the territorial scope of Drones and of course the use of Afghan territory to launch these attacks --- but below are editorials and note their offering, what is clear is that along with most oif us, the media signal a confusion about what the Afghan war was about and what it's potential end is about and for Pakistan and particularly the armed forces, an end, finally to it's relationship with radical Islamism :
Withdrawing from Afghanistan
By Editorial
Published: June 24, 2011
With the US troop draw down in Afghanistan, expect the focus to shift on to Pakistan, who may be tempted to revive its Taliban policy from the 1990's.
After its 10-year adventure in Afghanistan, the US finally seems to be looking for a way out rather than conjuring new ways to get further bogged down in a country that no foreign invader has ever successfully invaded. But US President Barack Obama’s Afghanistan pull-out speech should not be seen as a hasty withdrawal; rather by next year he will have removed only the 33,000 troops that he himself sent to the country as part of his much-hyped ‘surge’.
The president will never admit that much but the surge has failed to the extent that he sees no point in keeping these troops around. The extra soldiers were supposed to help train Afghan police to carry on the fight against the Taliban. Given the fact that the US, too, has now approved negotiations with the Taliban, the surge has not been anything remotely resembling a success.
Even with this initial drawdown, the original Isaf troops who have been bogged down in Afghanistan will remain. And for Pakistan that may be a good thing. If the US decides to wash its hands off Afghanistan altogether, the focus will turn even more heavily on Pakistan. Drone attacks will become even more frequent and, having failed to defeat the Taliban on its own, the US will be even more insistent that Pakistan’s military tackle the Taliban in North Waziristan and elsewhere on its own.
US and Nato troops may still remain in great numbers in Afghanistan but Obama’s announcement is nonetheless a policy shift. And it is one that is likely to make Pakistan and its military continue its double game. With the US likely to be out of the picture soon, the military leadership may feel that Pakistan will need the Taliban as a buffer against India and to secure its interests in Afghanistan more than ever. As predictable as it is that this is what the military will be thinking, it is important to point out that this is a flawed tactic. Empowering the Taliban only leads to greater militancy at home. It is also high time we abandon our obsession with India and realise that peace, not confrontation, is the way ahead.
EDITORIAL: Endgame in Afghanistan
US President Barack Obama is finally going to deliver on his promise of pulling out US troops from Afghanistan. Apart from announcing that 10,000 troops will be removed by the end of this year and some 23,000 next year, Mr Obama said that by 2014, “this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security”. The US’s NATO allies welcomed this decision and will also proceed with a gradual drawdown of their troops. Even though many in Afghanistan are wary of this decision, it has all but established that this war cannot continue endlessly. It is for this reason that the western forces are now negotiating with the Afghan Taliban to reach a political settlement before they leave. When the US invaded Afghanistan back in 2001, the more perceptive analysts had warned that the US would not succeed. By now this has been proved despite the US’s insistence that it has been successful. While the US was able to overthrow the Taliban government and bring a democratic government in place, things generally were far from hunky-dory. With the resurgence of the Taliban, the situation got even worse because of incremental war weariness at home and the global recession on the one hand and the safe havens provided to the Afghan Taliban in Pakistan on the other, which made it impossible to win this war.
It is perhaps because of this reason that Mr Obama made some rather significant points about Pakistan in his speech regarding a phased troop withdrawal. Mr Obama hailed the Abbottabad raid and pressed that “our efforts must also address terrorist safe havens in Pakistan”. He warned that so long as he is the president, “The United States will never tolerate a safe haven for those who aim to kill us: they cannot elude us, nor escape the justice they deserve.” This means there can be more raids like the May 2 one if Pakistan continues to harbour terrorists and there will certainly be more drone attacks. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also stressed that it was time for Pakistan to deliver. Ms Clinton said, “When it comes to our military aid, we are not prepared to continue providing that at the pace we were providing it unless and until we see some steps taken.” It is significant that she mentioned only military aid. Despite receiving billions of dollars in aid to the Pakistan Army, our military top brass continues the policy of exporting jihad. We have consistently cautioned that the shelf life of the policy of pursuing ‘strategic depth’ is over but the military has so far not paid any heed to such warnings. The US is now talking tough when it comes to our military. Whereas Senator John Kerry observed that the US has to continue working with Pakistan, Robert Gates has gone so far as to say that success in Afghanistan is possible even if Pakistan fails to cooperate. What all these statements mean is one thing: the world is no longer ready to support Pakistan’s duality when it comes to terrorist networks.
Statecraft involves that in grave situations and at seminal moments, a country’s leadership has to take hard decisions in the national interest. Having been wedded to the policy of exporting jihad for the last 40 years has only brought about diminishing returns for Pakistan. We have seen the damage that it has already done to our country. If we continue to stubbornly follow it, the consequences can be too dangerous to fathom. It is better to cut our losses now and save Pakistan.
Unclear goals
(10 hours ago) Today
“THE choice facing the Taliban is clear,” said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday, “Be part of Afghanistan`s future or face unrelenting assault. They cannot wait us out.” Except that, now with the American withdrawal a reality, the assault will not be unrelenting and the Taliban could well bide their time. Not that pulling out is a bad idea: Afghanistan`s current violence is a response to foreign occupation. What is troubling is the lack of clarity about America`s goals. President Obama`s speech on troop withdrawals offered little specificity about what the country should look like in three years. Two of three objectives mentioned — “reverse the Taliban`s momentum” and make Afghan forces capable of defending the country — seem beyond reach. Tailored to address domestic concerns in the run-up to an election rather than the more informed worries of international players who have stakes in Afghanistan`s stability, the president`s remarks could easily spark panic among regional governments. Such fears will only hamper America`s ability to depart in three years without leaving an unstable Afghanistan behind.
Statements from American officials also indicate a worrying lack of consensus within the US administration. Military officials had reportedly asked for a slower drawdown, and Adm Mike Mullen has said the timeline is riskier than he would have liked. And various interviews, testimonies and speeches over the last few days have betrayed internal disagreements, as old as the war itself, about what America is trying to achieve in Afghanistan. Adm Mullen used the term `counterinsurgency`, while President Obama said the overarching goal was to deny safe havens to terrorists working against the US or its allies. The same confusion was apparent when the president was devising his Afghanistan strategy in 2009, and it will only encourage regional players to look out for themselves.
Uncertainty also surrounds the reconciliation process, or at least what is publicly known of it. The UK, Germany, Saudi Arabia, America and Pakistan all seem to be involved, despite their public refrain that the process should be `Afghan-owned` and `Afghan-led`. One hopes these various efforts are part of a coordinated international plan. And while it is encouraging that giving up violence, renouncing Al Qaeda and abiding by Afghanistan`s constitution are now “necessary outcomes” of talks (according to Secretary Clinton) rather than preconditions, is it realistic to expect that the Taliban will stop fighting before foreign forces leave, or abide by a constitution they had no role in writing? Like many other aspects of the withdrawal and reconciliation efforts, the answers are unclear and the odds discouraging. The memory of 1989 looms large.
Withdrawing from Afghanistan
By Editorial
Published: June 24, 2011
With the US troop draw down in Afghanistan, expect the focus to shift on to Pakistan, who may be tempted to revive its Taliban policy from the 1990's.
After its 10-year adventure in Afghanistan, the US finally seems to be looking for a way out rather than conjuring new ways to get further bogged down in a country that no foreign invader has ever successfully invaded. But US President Barack Obama’s Afghanistan pull-out speech should not be seen as a hasty withdrawal; rather by next year he will have removed only the 33,000 troops that he himself sent to the country as part of his much-hyped ‘surge’.
The president will never admit that much but the surge has failed to the extent that he sees no point in keeping these troops around. The extra soldiers were supposed to help train Afghan police to carry on the fight against the Taliban. Given the fact that the US, too, has now approved negotiations with the Taliban, the surge has not been anything remotely resembling a success.
Even with this initial drawdown, the original Isaf troops who have been bogged down in Afghanistan will remain. And for Pakistan that may be a good thing. If the US decides to wash its hands off Afghanistan altogether, the focus will turn even more heavily on Pakistan. Drone attacks will become even more frequent and, having failed to defeat the Taliban on its own, the US will be even more insistent that Pakistan’s military tackle the Taliban in North Waziristan and elsewhere on its own.
US and Nato troops may still remain in great numbers in Afghanistan but Obama’s announcement is nonetheless a policy shift. And it is one that is likely to make Pakistan and its military continue its double game. With the US likely to be out of the picture soon, the military leadership may feel that Pakistan will need the Taliban as a buffer against India and to secure its interests in Afghanistan more than ever. As predictable as it is that this is what the military will be thinking, it is important to point out that this is a flawed tactic. Empowering the Taliban only leads to greater militancy at home. It is also high time we abandon our obsession with India and realise that peace, not confrontation, is the way ahead.
EDITORIAL: Endgame in Afghanistan
US President Barack Obama is finally going to deliver on his promise of pulling out US troops from Afghanistan. Apart from announcing that 10,000 troops will be removed by the end of this year and some 23,000 next year, Mr Obama said that by 2014, “this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security”. The US’s NATO allies welcomed this decision and will also proceed with a gradual drawdown of their troops. Even though many in Afghanistan are wary of this decision, it has all but established that this war cannot continue endlessly. It is for this reason that the western forces are now negotiating with the Afghan Taliban to reach a political settlement before they leave. When the US invaded Afghanistan back in 2001, the more perceptive analysts had warned that the US would not succeed. By now this has been proved despite the US’s insistence that it has been successful. While the US was able to overthrow the Taliban government and bring a democratic government in place, things generally were far from hunky-dory. With the resurgence of the Taliban, the situation got even worse because of incremental war weariness at home and the global recession on the one hand and the safe havens provided to the Afghan Taliban in Pakistan on the other, which made it impossible to win this war.
It is perhaps because of this reason that Mr Obama made some rather significant points about Pakistan in his speech regarding a phased troop withdrawal. Mr Obama hailed the Abbottabad raid and pressed that “our efforts must also address terrorist safe havens in Pakistan”. He warned that so long as he is the president, “The United States will never tolerate a safe haven for those who aim to kill us: they cannot elude us, nor escape the justice they deserve.” This means there can be more raids like the May 2 one if Pakistan continues to harbour terrorists and there will certainly be more drone attacks. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also stressed that it was time for Pakistan to deliver. Ms Clinton said, “When it comes to our military aid, we are not prepared to continue providing that at the pace we were providing it unless and until we see some steps taken.” It is significant that she mentioned only military aid. Despite receiving billions of dollars in aid to the Pakistan Army, our military top brass continues the policy of exporting jihad. We have consistently cautioned that the shelf life of the policy of pursuing ‘strategic depth’ is over but the military has so far not paid any heed to such warnings. The US is now talking tough when it comes to our military. Whereas Senator John Kerry observed that the US has to continue working with Pakistan, Robert Gates has gone so far as to say that success in Afghanistan is possible even if Pakistan fails to cooperate. What all these statements mean is one thing: the world is no longer ready to support Pakistan’s duality when it comes to terrorist networks.
Statecraft involves that in grave situations and at seminal moments, a country’s leadership has to take hard decisions in the national interest. Having been wedded to the policy of exporting jihad for the last 40 years has only brought about diminishing returns for Pakistan. We have seen the damage that it has already done to our country. If we continue to stubbornly follow it, the consequences can be too dangerous to fathom. It is better to cut our losses now and save Pakistan.
Unclear goals
(10 hours ago) Today
“THE choice facing the Taliban is clear,” said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday, “Be part of Afghanistan`s future or face unrelenting assault. They cannot wait us out.” Except that, now with the American withdrawal a reality, the assault will not be unrelenting and the Taliban could well bide their time. Not that pulling out is a bad idea: Afghanistan`s current violence is a response to foreign occupation. What is troubling is the lack of clarity about America`s goals. President Obama`s speech on troop withdrawals offered little specificity about what the country should look like in three years. Two of three objectives mentioned — “reverse the Taliban`s momentum” and make Afghan forces capable of defending the country — seem beyond reach. Tailored to address domestic concerns in the run-up to an election rather than the more informed worries of international players who have stakes in Afghanistan`s stability, the president`s remarks could easily spark panic among regional governments. Such fears will only hamper America`s ability to depart in three years without leaving an unstable Afghanistan behind.
Statements from American officials also indicate a worrying lack of consensus within the US administration. Military officials had reportedly asked for a slower drawdown, and Adm Mike Mullen has said the timeline is riskier than he would have liked. And various interviews, testimonies and speeches over the last few days have betrayed internal disagreements, as old as the war itself, about what America is trying to achieve in Afghanistan. Adm Mullen used the term `counterinsurgency`, while President Obama said the overarching goal was to deny safe havens to terrorists working against the US or its allies. The same confusion was apparent when the president was devising his Afghanistan strategy in 2009, and it will only encourage regional players to look out for themselves.
Uncertainty also surrounds the reconciliation process, or at least what is publicly known of it. The UK, Germany, Saudi Arabia, America and Pakistan all seem to be involved, despite their public refrain that the process should be `Afghan-owned` and `Afghan-led`. One hopes these various efforts are part of a coordinated international plan. And while it is encouraging that giving up violence, renouncing Al Qaeda and abiding by Afghanistan`s constitution are now “necessary outcomes” of talks (according to Secretary Clinton) rather than preconditions, is it realistic to expect that the Taliban will stop fighting before foreign forces leave, or abide by a constitution they had no role in writing? Like many other aspects of the withdrawal and reconciliation efforts, the answers are unclear and the odds discouraging. The memory of 1989 looms large.
unicorn
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 1,416
- Reaction score
- 0
At the current point of time there is only one question that should be asked and that is how much USA can put the pressure on Pakistan to conduct operation in Waziristan.And if Pakistan does not conduct operation will the USA let it go?
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
What's your take Unicorn, do you think Kiyani will agree to such an operation or do you think that the ground for such an operation has not been prepared and that the basic dysfunction in the relationship with the US makes it a non-starter ---- But before all this, do you agree that NWA has become terror central and must be cleansed if Pakistan is to rid herself of these radicals?
King Solomon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2011
- Messages
- 2,990
- Reaction score
- 0
US is trying to create enemity between afghanistan and pakistan by the recent TTP cross border attacks. However, Pak army is smart, knows this and is not targeting Afghan taliban, but just the NATO proxies along Pak afghan border with artilleries and missiles. This is why the puppet regime of Karzai and they are so angry.
Had Pak army targeted Afghan taliban, they would laud and encourage Pak army.
Had Pak army targeted Afghan taliban, they would laud and encourage Pak army.
monitor
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 8,570
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
The endgame is nigh
By:Arif Nizami
20 hours ago
In the backdrop of a consistent downward slide in US-Pakistan relations, US President Barack Obama’s plain talking while announcing the withdrawal of 33,000 troops from Afghanistan by next summer is not at all surprising. Islamabad has clearly been put on notice “to fulfill its promises to counter militants’ sanctuaries on its soil.”
As it is also evident from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s tough message, US military assistance for Pakistan has been made contingent on performance. Washington clearly thinks that Pakistan is as much part of the problem as of the solution.
Moreover, Ms Clinton’s disclosure that talks with the Taliban are “not pleasant business but a necessary one”, followed by the Washington Post’s disclosure that US officials already have had three meetings with Mohammad Tayeb al-Agha an aide to Mullah Omar last spring, is another first.
The Pakistani military and its premier intelligence agency, the ISI, have been on the ropes ever since Osama bin Laden was taken out early last month by US Navy SEALs in a fly-by-night operation. The latest disclosure by The New York Times that Osama was using the support base of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, a jihadi organisation perceived to be close to the ISI, further erodes Islamabad’s credibility in the eyes of the West.
Safe havens of the militants in the badlands of Pakistan have been the main bone of contention between Washington and Islamabad for some time now. Although President Obama has admitted that Islamabad has broadly cooperated in the war on terror, he wants the Pakistan army to crush the militants holed up in N Waziristan, which – for its own tactical and strategic reasons – the military is not willing to do.
While contacts between the Taliban and the US and UK are no secret now, Islamabad is dismayed that it is being left out and kept away from the ongoing talks. It is also overtly worried about what it terms as increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan.
It is obvious that President Obama has chartered a new course for the US in the region after a lot of introspection and debate with his advisors. Keeping an eye on his re-election bid next year, he is no longer willing to continue with a war which is unpopular at home. Lofty goals like nation building or reforming the Afghan society have been replaced by declaring victory, post-Osama.
The death of Osama and the consequent disruption of Al-Qaeda in Washington’s view are reasons enough to start withdrawing. Essentially, the process started much earlier when it was decided to kick upstairs General David Petraeus, Commander of the US forces in Afghanistan and the architect of the much-touted COIN (counter insurgency) strategy.
Petraeus had consistently opposed withdrawing more than 10,000 troops till 2012 from Afghanistan. But, in the end, Obama’s civilian advisors led by Vice President Joe Biden and outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates prevailed.
This leaves Islamabad in a quandary. If it does not cooperate with Washington, there is a real danger that it can be marginalised in the endgame. If it wholeheartedly becomes part of the US agenda, it will be extremely unpopular domestically where the approval rating of America is perhaps lowest in the world.
As General Kayani once said while briefing media persons that Afghanistan is a reality that Pakistan cannot wish away. Hence, while Washington as part of its global strategy has the option of walking away (like it did after the Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan in the early eighties), Pakistan cannot afford this luxury.
Despite a litany of complaints against Islamabad, it is however unlikely that the US can entirely quit Afghanistan like it did in the post-Soviet withdrawal. To continue to keep its cities safe, it cannot afford a resurgence of Al-Qaeda in the region. It is precisely for this reason that it will keep on pressing Pakistan to move against their safe havens.
Furthermore, Washington has paid a huge price for abandoning Afghanistan in the past. It cannot afford a nuclear-armed Pakistan to become a hotbed for the Taliban. Hence, despite withdrawing from Afghanistan, its military presence on our western borders will remain a reality in the foreseeable future.
On the other hand, if the US is talking to the Taliban, why should Pakistan abandon them? Even New Delhi, which was opposed to talks with the Taliban, has altered its stance. Thankfully, relations between Kabul and Islamabad have significantly improved in the past year.
In this scenario, Islamabad still has a pivotal role to play in the endgame in Afghanistan. In any future talks with the Taliban, Islamabad will have to be involved provided it plays its cards right.
In this context, meeting of the core group of Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US scheduled for next week in Kabul will be crucial. Hopefully by then, Islamabad will have a full time foreign minister to represent the country in the talks.
But more importantly, the need for change of faces in the intelligence apparatus should be deeply looked into. The credibility of its present leadership has been sorely damaged, both at home and abroad. It will be difficult for it to deliver at such a crucial juncture.
The despondency and disappointment expressed by Pakistan on Obama’s drawdown speech is also slightly misplaced. Instead of looking towards Washington to consistently pat our backs, we should be gearing our policies towards our own vital interests. We should ponder how much these interests are served by our policy of running with the hares and hunting with the hounds.
The recently concluded talks of the foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan have paved the way for foreign ministers of the two countries to formally meet in the near future. This is a good beginning and augurs well for peace and stability in the region. India has invested billions of dollars in Afghanistan. Hence an inclusive policy, without giving New Delhi veto power on any future talks on Afghanistan, will be more beneficial.
Unfortunately, deep polarisation between the PPP and the main opposition party, the PML(N), has emerged at a time when it is crucial to develop a consensus on vital national issues. Even sadder is the fact that the role of the army is being made a subject of controversy in the process of point scoring.
Ironically, a Sindh-based national party is portraying itself as defending the honour of the armed forces. On the other hand, the PML(N) that draws its support from the Punjab is being portrayed as its main critic.
The writer is Editor, Pakistan Today.
By:Arif Nizami
20 hours ago
In the backdrop of a consistent downward slide in US-Pakistan relations, US President Barack Obama’s plain talking while announcing the withdrawal of 33,000 troops from Afghanistan by next summer is not at all surprising. Islamabad has clearly been put on notice “to fulfill its promises to counter militants’ sanctuaries on its soil.”
As it is also evident from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s tough message, US military assistance for Pakistan has been made contingent on performance. Washington clearly thinks that Pakistan is as much part of the problem as of the solution.
Moreover, Ms Clinton’s disclosure that talks with the Taliban are “not pleasant business but a necessary one”, followed by the Washington Post’s disclosure that US officials already have had three meetings with Mohammad Tayeb al-Agha an aide to Mullah Omar last spring, is another first.
The Pakistani military and its premier intelligence agency, the ISI, have been on the ropes ever since Osama bin Laden was taken out early last month by US Navy SEALs in a fly-by-night operation. The latest disclosure by The New York Times that Osama was using the support base of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, a jihadi organisation perceived to be close to the ISI, further erodes Islamabad’s credibility in the eyes of the West.
Safe havens of the militants in the badlands of Pakistan have been the main bone of contention between Washington and Islamabad for some time now. Although President Obama has admitted that Islamabad has broadly cooperated in the war on terror, he wants the Pakistan army to crush the militants holed up in N Waziristan, which – for its own tactical and strategic reasons – the military is not willing to do.
While contacts between the Taliban and the US and UK are no secret now, Islamabad is dismayed that it is being left out and kept away from the ongoing talks. It is also overtly worried about what it terms as increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan.
It is obvious that President Obama has chartered a new course for the US in the region after a lot of introspection and debate with his advisors. Keeping an eye on his re-election bid next year, he is no longer willing to continue with a war which is unpopular at home. Lofty goals like nation building or reforming the Afghan society have been replaced by declaring victory, post-Osama.
The death of Osama and the consequent disruption of Al-Qaeda in Washington’s view are reasons enough to start withdrawing. Essentially, the process started much earlier when it was decided to kick upstairs General David Petraeus, Commander of the US forces in Afghanistan and the architect of the much-touted COIN (counter insurgency) strategy.
Petraeus had consistently opposed withdrawing more than 10,000 troops till 2012 from Afghanistan. But, in the end, Obama’s civilian advisors led by Vice President Joe Biden and outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates prevailed.
This leaves Islamabad in a quandary. If it does not cooperate with Washington, there is a real danger that it can be marginalised in the endgame. If it wholeheartedly becomes part of the US agenda, it will be extremely unpopular domestically where the approval rating of America is perhaps lowest in the world.
As General Kayani once said while briefing media persons that Afghanistan is a reality that Pakistan cannot wish away. Hence, while Washington as part of its global strategy has the option of walking away (like it did after the Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan in the early eighties), Pakistan cannot afford this luxury.
Despite a litany of complaints against Islamabad, it is however unlikely that the US can entirely quit Afghanistan like it did in the post-Soviet withdrawal. To continue to keep its cities safe, it cannot afford a resurgence of Al-Qaeda in the region. It is precisely for this reason that it will keep on pressing Pakistan to move against their safe havens.
Furthermore, Washington has paid a huge price for abandoning Afghanistan in the past. It cannot afford a nuclear-armed Pakistan to become a hotbed for the Taliban. Hence, despite withdrawing from Afghanistan, its military presence on our western borders will remain a reality in the foreseeable future.
On the other hand, if the US is talking to the Taliban, why should Pakistan abandon them? Even New Delhi, which was opposed to talks with the Taliban, has altered its stance. Thankfully, relations between Kabul and Islamabad have significantly improved in the past year.
In this scenario, Islamabad still has a pivotal role to play in the endgame in Afghanistan. In any future talks with the Taliban, Islamabad will have to be involved provided it plays its cards right.
In this context, meeting of the core group of Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US scheduled for next week in Kabul will be crucial. Hopefully by then, Islamabad will have a full time foreign minister to represent the country in the talks.
But more importantly, the need for change of faces in the intelligence apparatus should be deeply looked into. The credibility of its present leadership has been sorely damaged, both at home and abroad. It will be difficult for it to deliver at such a crucial juncture.
The despondency and disappointment expressed by Pakistan on Obama’s drawdown speech is also slightly misplaced. Instead of looking towards Washington to consistently pat our backs, we should be gearing our policies towards our own vital interests. We should ponder how much these interests are served by our policy of running with the hares and hunting with the hounds.
The recently concluded talks of the foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan have paved the way for foreign ministers of the two countries to formally meet in the near future. This is a good beginning and augurs well for peace and stability in the region. India has invested billions of dollars in Afghanistan. Hence an inclusive policy, without giving New Delhi veto power on any future talks on Afghanistan, will be more beneficial.
Unfortunately, deep polarisation between the PPP and the main opposition party, the PML(N), has emerged at a time when it is crucial to develop a consensus on vital national issues. Even sadder is the fact that the role of the army is being made a subject of controversy in the process of point scoring.
Ironically, a Sindh-based national party is portraying itself as defending the honour of the armed forces. On the other hand, the PML(N) that draws its support from the Punjab is being portrayed as its main critic.
The writer is Editor, Pakistan Today.
khanz
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,514
- Reaction score
- 1
They can twist it all they want but pakistan will be the biggest winner and most of us are very happy about this .I have a feeling the indians are getting nervous their position in a-stan is being seriously threatened now this is what pakistan has been wanting all along and end to the wot and dialgue while indians have always been trying to convince the U.S to stay and keep fighting withdrawal means less of their presence and that will be bring much more peace and stability in the region and end to war and occupation also means less refugees for pakistan.The main reason for terror attacks in pakistan is coz of their alliance with america and a spillover from their presence in a-stan.
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
No operation in NWA at this point NOT for US. simple as that.
when US is out then we can think of doing it the way we want. US has joined hands with Taliban and excluded them from UN blacklists so why should Pakistan take up arms for US against the same Taliban
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Opinion Capital suggestion
Dr Farrukh Saleem
Sunday, June 26, 2011
The $500 billion nation building drama is drawing to a close. The Americans are going home. They abandoned Afghanistan back in 1989 as well. The second divorce in less than 25 years is, however, going to be slower-and perhaps more painful-than the first one.
Everything in American politics well, almost everything revolves around electoral timetables. The Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus, the first election for the Democrats of the 2012 presidential election, is scheduled for February 6, 2012. Obama has now announced that 5,000 GIs will be going home in July and an additional 5,000 by the end of this year. Just in time for the Iowa Caucus.
The 2012 Democratic National Convention, in which delegates will elect the partys nominees for president and the vice president, takes place in the week of September 3. Obama has now announced that some 33,000 troops will be back home by September 2012. Just in time both for the Convention and for the United States presidential election of 2012 which is scheduled for November 6, 2012.
By the end of 2014, some 50,000 troops are to be withdrawn so that no combat troops are left in Afghanistan by end-2014 (around 20,000 non-combat, so-called military advisers or special operations will be left behind).
The Obama Doctrine is taking wings. David Petraeus, the four-star United States Army General, the current Commander, US Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A), and the architect of the surge, has been kicked upstairs to the CIA. Robert Gates, the 22nd United States Secretary of Defence, who was not in favour of an accelerated troop draw-down, is retiring. The dreams of a democratic Afghanistan with schools and an independent judiciary have all gone up in smoke.
The $100 billion-a-year Afghan war tag had become politically unpalatable. The military reality in Afghanistan is that the Taliban would not fight the US on American terms and that not even the entire US army will ever be able to subdue the Taliban spirit behind throwing out an occupying force. Obama is therefore transforming the 10-year war into a major, high-tech, intelligence intensive, robot-driven counterterrorism undertaking.
The Obama Doctrine has two goals: one; not to allow Afghanistan to become the source of another attack on the US and, two, to use Afghan soil to hunt Al-Qaeda and other transnational terrorists in Pakistans badlands. For Pakistan, the Obama Doctrine means three things. One; more drone attacks. Two; sophisticated, cross-border, stealth counterterrorism strikes. Three; a decreasing Pakistani leverage over America because of Americas decreasing logistical dependence on Pakistan.
The Obama Doctrine also means leaving behind a 650,000 sq km massive power vacuum a vacuum surrounded by Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Nature abhors vacuums and with the Americans gone, the Pakistan Army would be the largest, most powerful military force in the region.
As far as the War on Terror is concerned, the Pak-US transactional relationship is also drawing to a close. We are free to pick our friends. But would it be in Pakistans interest to pick the US as an adversary? We also need to pick a role model. As a point of reference, North Korea picked the US as an adversary and has always had close relations with the Peoples Republic of China and Russia.
The writer is a columnist based in Islamabad. Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com
Dr Farrukh Saleem
Sunday, June 26, 2011
The $500 billion nation building drama is drawing to a close. The Americans are going home. They abandoned Afghanistan back in 1989 as well. The second divorce in less than 25 years is, however, going to be slower-and perhaps more painful-than the first one.
Everything in American politics well, almost everything revolves around electoral timetables. The Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus, the first election for the Democrats of the 2012 presidential election, is scheduled for February 6, 2012. Obama has now announced that 5,000 GIs will be going home in July and an additional 5,000 by the end of this year. Just in time for the Iowa Caucus.
The 2012 Democratic National Convention, in which delegates will elect the partys nominees for president and the vice president, takes place in the week of September 3. Obama has now announced that some 33,000 troops will be back home by September 2012. Just in time both for the Convention and for the United States presidential election of 2012 which is scheduled for November 6, 2012.
By the end of 2014, some 50,000 troops are to be withdrawn so that no combat troops are left in Afghanistan by end-2014 (around 20,000 non-combat, so-called military advisers or special operations will be left behind).
The Obama Doctrine is taking wings. David Petraeus, the four-star United States Army General, the current Commander, US Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A), and the architect of the surge, has been kicked upstairs to the CIA. Robert Gates, the 22nd United States Secretary of Defence, who was not in favour of an accelerated troop draw-down, is retiring. The dreams of a democratic Afghanistan with schools and an independent judiciary have all gone up in smoke.
The $100 billion-a-year Afghan war tag had become politically unpalatable. The military reality in Afghanistan is that the Taliban would not fight the US on American terms and that not even the entire US army will ever be able to subdue the Taliban spirit behind throwing out an occupying force. Obama is therefore transforming the 10-year war into a major, high-tech, intelligence intensive, robot-driven counterterrorism undertaking.
The Obama Doctrine has two goals: one; not to allow Afghanistan to become the source of another attack on the US and, two, to use Afghan soil to hunt Al-Qaeda and other transnational terrorists in Pakistans badlands. For Pakistan, the Obama Doctrine means three things. One; more drone attacks. Two; sophisticated, cross-border, stealth counterterrorism strikes. Three; a decreasing Pakistani leverage over America because of Americas decreasing logistical dependence on Pakistan.
The Obama Doctrine also means leaving behind a 650,000 sq km massive power vacuum a vacuum surrounded by Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Nature abhors vacuums and with the Americans gone, the Pakistan Army would be the largest, most powerful military force in the region.
As far as the War on Terror is concerned, the Pak-US transactional relationship is also drawing to a close. We are free to pick our friends. But would it be in Pakistans interest to pick the US as an adversary? We also need to pick a role model. As a point of reference, North Korea picked the US as an adversary and has always had close relations with the Peoples Republic of China and Russia.
The writer is a columnist based in Islamabad. Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com
Che Guevara
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 914
- Reaction score
- 0
WASHINGTON: Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States Hussain Haqqani said that Pakistan is not part of the negotiations between Washington and the Taliban and is upset about it.
“We have told America that we are not happy with this,” said Haqqani in an exclusive interview with Express 24/7.
The Obama administration has recently confirmed that it had established contacts with the Afghan Taliban though it insisted the negotiations were at a preliminary stage. It is widely believed that the US has deliberately kept Pakistan at bay about its efforts to seek a peace deal with the Taliban ahead of the phased withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Earlier, a statement issued by the foreign ministry after talks between State Minister for Foreign Affairs Hina Rabbani Khar and US deputy special representative Frank Ruggiero, in cloaked diplomatic language complained that “the minister underscored the importance of clarity and strategic coherence as well as transparency to facilitate the Afghan people and the Afghan government in the process for peace and reconciliation.”
Haqqani’s statement is also the first official recognition of Pakistan’s displeasure at being excluded from the endgame in Afghanistan.
“If America believes that Pakistan’s participation is required for success in Afghanistan, they will have to get Pakistan on board in their negotiations with the Taliban,” said Haqqani.
Visas for CIA operatives
Haqqani dismissed reports that the Pakistan Embassy in the US had issued 67 visas to CIA operatives. A local newspaper last week quoted embassy officials in Washington as saying that the Pakistan embassy has issued visas to CIA officials for deployment in Pakistan.
“The news reports are rubbish, false … the media should be more responsible,” said Haqqani while dismissing the report.
Haqqani also said that Pakistan has lodged a protest with the Americans on militants crossing over from Afghanistan into Pakistan and launching attacks.
“The Americans should wipe out Taliban sanctuaries in Kunar and Nuristan,” he said.
Pakistan upset at being left out of US-Taliban talks – The Express Tribune
“We have told America that we are not happy with this,” said Haqqani in an exclusive interview with Express 24/7.
The Obama administration has recently confirmed that it had established contacts with the Afghan Taliban though it insisted the negotiations were at a preliminary stage. It is widely believed that the US has deliberately kept Pakistan at bay about its efforts to seek a peace deal with the Taliban ahead of the phased withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Earlier, a statement issued by the foreign ministry after talks between State Minister for Foreign Affairs Hina Rabbani Khar and US deputy special representative Frank Ruggiero, in cloaked diplomatic language complained that “the minister underscored the importance of clarity and strategic coherence as well as transparency to facilitate the Afghan people and the Afghan government in the process for peace and reconciliation.”
Haqqani’s statement is also the first official recognition of Pakistan’s displeasure at being excluded from the endgame in Afghanistan.
“If America believes that Pakistan’s participation is required for success in Afghanistan, they will have to get Pakistan on board in their negotiations with the Taliban,” said Haqqani.
Visas for CIA operatives
Haqqani dismissed reports that the Pakistan Embassy in the US had issued 67 visas to CIA operatives. A local newspaper last week quoted embassy officials in Washington as saying that the Pakistan embassy has issued visas to CIA officials for deployment in Pakistan.
“The news reports are rubbish, false … the media should be more responsible,” said Haqqani while dismissing the report.
Haqqani also said that Pakistan has lodged a protest with the Americans on militants crossing over from Afghanistan into Pakistan and launching attacks.
“The Americans should wipe out Taliban sanctuaries in Kunar and Nuristan,” he said.
Pakistan upset at being left out of US-Taliban talks – The Express Tribune
cheekybird
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,945
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Pakistan shouldnt be upset,shouldve seen this coming.US=BACK STABBERS
Similar threads
