Analysis: US-pakistan relations in trouble

[|| |\| ||)) || /\\ |\|]

keep on dreaming...

We've been awake
It's actually time you people wake up. Your dreams have turned into nightmares.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

bilateral relations are established on give and take terms, Im sure I dont need to explain, who gained more, depends on how well you play.

It is quite clear how this "giving and taking" has been working up till now.
For example, which one has been talking about 'loss of sovereignty' so far? "Giver" or "taker"?
Most of all, the "giving and taking" has'nt ended yet. So the question then arises; how much more can be "given or taken"?
Till one can "give (in) no more" or"take no more".

 

[hembo]

Kerry, Lugar defend Pakistan aid
By Laurie Ure, CNN National Security Producer
May 5, 2011 -- Updated 2308 GMT (0708 HKT)

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Kerry says the United States should not rush to judgment
• Lugar says Pakistan is "a strategically vital country with which we must engage"
• Witnesses tell a Senate committee a strategy shift is in order

(CNN) -- Two of Pakistan's key supporters in the U.S. Congress have acknowledged "real and serious questions" about Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan, but defend sending money to that country nonetheless.

During a Senate hearing Wednesday assessing the limits of U.S policy in Pakistan, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D- Massachusetts, said that although he is "curious" about whether components of Pakistan's military or intelligence services were involved in protecting the compound's infamous resident, the U.S. should not rush to judgment that might ultimately hurt its national security.

"No matter what we learn about the events that preceded the killing of Osama bin Laden, we still have vital national security interests in this region, and we have worked hard to build a partnership with Pakistan, fragile and difficult and challenged as it may be at times," Kerry said.

Committee Ranking Member Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, said that recent events have raised questions about Pakistan's reliability as an ally, but cautioned that it is "a strategically vital country with which we must engage."

"Distancing ourselves from Pakistan would be unwise and extremely dangerous," Lugar said, because it would weaken U.S. intelligence capabilities, limit America's ability to prevent conflict between India and Pakistan, and further complicate military operations in Afghanistan.

Lugar also pointed out that Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state, has a close working relationship with China, and is a neighbor of Iran, all of which he cited as worthwhile reasons to build stronger relations between Washington and Islamabad.

The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, also known as the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act, authorizes $1.5 billion in annual aid to Pakistan through 2013. Critics question what that money is paying for.

"Pakistan acts very irrational," committee member Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, said. "I mean, I leave there almost feeling like I've had a Rodney Dangerfield moment, you know, whenever I'm there."

Corker advocated that the United States "rearrange" its relationship with Pakistan to focus on routing out the remnants of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups inside the country.

Hearing witness Moeed Yusuf, South Asia advisor at the U.S. Institute for Peace, said the issue goes beyond war fighting.
"You need strong diplomacy and strong signals sent: We will not tolerate an organization which is linked to al Qaeda, that is killing American soldiers across the border in Afghanistan, that is posing threats to U.S. national security interests in the homeland. We will not allow you to continue to support this organization," Yusuf said.

Other witnesses shared the view that a strategy shift is in order.
Samina Ahmed, South Asia project director with the International Crisis Group, said the United States' certification requirements of the Pakistan partnership should ensure Pakistan takes firm action against violent extremist groups.
"We would advise and very strongly urge Congress to condition military assistance on demonstrable steps to combat violent extremists, that go beyond just al Qaeda, the foreign al Qaeda, but also homegrown jihadis," Ahmed said.
Michael Krepon, co-founder and South Asia senior associate with the Henry L. Stimson Center, said the U.S. policies in Afghanistan are hurting Pakistan.
"If authorities in Afghanistan are unable to safeguard our military's hard-won gains, we are obligated to ask how much more blood and treasure ought to be devoted to this cause," Krepon said.
He said the two countries are "now very close to another divorce," but it would be "a serious error in judgment ... to conclude that this relationship cannot be salvaged."

 

[53fd]

Kerry, Lugar defend Pakistan aid
By Laurie Ure, CNN National Security Producer
May 5, 2011 -- Updated 2308 GMT (0708 HKT)

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Kerry says the United States should not rush to judgment
• Lugar says Pakistan is "a strategically vital country with which we must engage"
• Witnesses tell a Senate committee a strategy shift is in order

(CNN) -- Two of Pakistan's key supporters in the U.S. Congress have acknowledged "real and serious questions" about Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan, but defend sending money to that country nonetheless.

During a Senate hearing Wednesday assessing the limits of U.S policy in Pakistan, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D- Massachusetts, said that although he is "curious" about whether components of Pakistan's military or intelligence services were involved in protecting the compound's infamous resident, the U.S. should not rush to judgment that might ultimately hurt its national security.

"No matter what we learn about the events that preceded the killing of Osama bin Laden, we still have vital national security interests in this region, and we have worked hard to build a partnership with Pakistan, fragile and difficult and challenged as it may be at times," Kerry said.

Committee Ranking Member Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, said that recent events have raised questions about Pakistan's reliability as an ally, but cautioned that it is "a strategically vital country with which we must engage."

"Distancing ourselves from Pakistan would be unwise and extremely dangerous," Lugar said, because it would weaken U.S. intelligence capabilities, limit America's ability to prevent conflict between India and Pakistan, and further complicate military operations in Afghanistan.

Lugar also pointed out that Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state, has a close working relationship with China, and is a neighbor of Iran, all of which he cited as worthwhile reasons to build stronger relations between Washington and Islamabad.

The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, also known as the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act, authorizes $1.5 billion in annual aid to Pakistan through 2013. Critics question what that money is paying for.

"Pakistan acts very irrational," committee member Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, said. "I mean, I leave there almost feeling like I've had a Rodney Dangerfield moment, you know, whenever I'm there."

Corker advocated that the United States "rearrange" its relationship with Pakistan to focus on routing out the remnants of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups inside the country.

Hearing witness Moeed Yusuf, South Asia advisor at the U.S. Institute for Peace, said the issue goes beyond war fighting.
"You need strong diplomacy and strong signals sent: We will not tolerate an organization which is linked to al Qaeda, that is killing American soldiers across the border in Afghanistan, that is posing threats to U.S. national security interests in the homeland. We will not allow you to continue to support this organization," Yusuf said.

Other witnesses shared the view that a strategy shift is in order.
Samina Ahmed, South Asia project director with the International Crisis Group, said the United States' certification requirements of the Pakistan partnership should ensure Pakistan takes firm action against violent extremist groups.
"We would advise and very strongly urge Congress to condition military assistance on demonstrable steps to combat violent extremists, that go beyond just al Qaeda, the foreign al Qaeda, but also homegrown jihadis," Ahmed said.
Michael Krepon, co-founder and South Asia senior associate with the Henry L. Stimson Center, said the U.S. policies in Afghanistan are hurting Pakistan.
"If authorities in Afghanistan are unable to safeguard our military's hard-won gains, we are obligated to ask how much more blood and treasure ought to be devoted to this cause," Krepon said.
He said the two countries are "now very close to another divorce," but it would be "a serious error in judgment ... to conclude that this relationship cannot be salvaged."

See, why bother threatening Pakistan when it won't make a difference?

 

[|| |\| ||)) || /\\ |\|]

See, why bother threatening Pakistan when it won't make a difference?

Apparently its to show they ain't fooling around

"I wouldn't mind if this were seen as a precedent," said Daniel Markey, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "It shows we mean business."

 

[Raza88]

The indians will keep on having wet dreams of US and pakistan breaking their relationship but that is not going to happen, sh*t has happened many times before in this relationship and its not gonna get over...

 

[VelocuR]

in sum up of this thread.

House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon said, “I think people who have been married 30 years still have some problems, but they don’t get divorced.”

 

[Capt.Popeye]

The indians will keep on having wet dreams of US and pakistan breaking their relationship but that is not going to happen, sh*t has happened many times before in this relationship and its not gonna get over...

And the saga will go on.................
And more "giving and taking". That is business as usual, heh-heh.
Till.....................one can "give (in) no more" or "take no more".

 

[Humanist]

The indians will keep on having wet dreams of US and pakistan breaking their relationship but that is not going to happen, sh*t has happened many times before in this relationship and its not gonna get over...

We dont want pakistan to break relationship with america... we want u to continue like this...

 

[Humanist]

^^^^If u break relationship with america then u people will end up in china's lap, which is not good for us... its is better for us that u carry on ur friendship with america

 

[Meengla]

Breaking up of relationship or even completely stopping the so-called 'billiions of dollars of aid' to Pakistan is not going to happen until and unless American troops leave Afghanistan. You have to give it to Americans that, above all, they care for the safety and security of their citizens, including those in the armed forces. A break with Pakistan could only mean more bloodbath in Afghanistan--many more coalition troops dying. That is unacceptable to American public, especially since those deaths could have been avoided.

So where to we go from here?
As far as I see there are already very powerful voices which are saying that don't break the relationship and don't even alienate Pakistan. They have their sound reasons. Drones have always been going around with Pakistani approval. Those attacks take place in remote areas and people have gotten 'used' to them in Pakistan. Another commando raid is only likely to happen if none other than Mullah Umar or the witch Dr. Zawyahiri is likely to be grabbed--even that would not be enough to take the risk, considering these gentlemen would have real guards, unlike Osama did. So, for Americans, keep up the pressure on Pakistan, especially via media and some via some officials to 'do more'. That's all.

Where are the Pakistanis then. First thing should have been obvious by Kayani's statement yesterday that the Pakistani democratic civilian govt. is NOT in charge of its foreign and internal security policies. Technically, Kayani had no right to say that more American commando attack would cause a review of intelligence and other kind of cooperation. Okay, so what's new there? Anyway, the Osama-killed operation is most likely tied to the events which started happening around Raymon Davis capture. Since then both sides have been sabre rattling. And yesterday's Kayani statement shows that Pakistani military is certainly not cowed by the post-OBL situation. I think Kayani's statement was more than for domestic consumption. I think Pakistani planners had concluded weeks/months ago that American needs Pakistan more than vice versa. Probably correct. Life is cheap in Pakistan but very expensive in America. Also, a point no one seems to be discussing is that Pakistan's Foreign Secretary said (yesterday?) something to do effect of: 'All we want is showing decency, especially in public opinions'. That clearly implied that public humiliation--unnecessary statements like that of Panetta about ISI tipping off OBL--should be avoided--Pakistan can keep doing America's bid. And indeed killing OBL was also a major good news for Pakistan and Pakistanis and there is a consensus in all places in Pakistan about that.

 

[Secret Service]

US can Not leave Pakistan because of India factor ... if US joins with India so definitely Pakistan will go with China ... which is dangerous for India ...!

 

[luckyyy]

The indians will keep on having wet dreams of US and pakistan breaking their relationship but that is not going to happen, sh*t has happened many times before in this relationship and its not gonna get over...

then face it !!
http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...e-strike-kills-eight-suspected-militants.html