What's new

Chief of Army Staff | General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anyway, back to the topic, there is more involvment between Pakistani and Russian Militaries than most common public know. So this is not big surprise.

oh really! pls do elaborate for us newbies!

What the general public will usually see are only technological collaborations, as pointed out by another user, the RD-93. Other much less promoted contacts are through the Army and Airforce Officers tours, review of each others operational practices, presentations by both sides on what they preceive as security threats to their respective nations and even high level strategies for intelligence sharing.
 
What the general public will usually see are only technological collaborations, as pointed out by another user, the RD-93. Other much less promoted contacts are through the Army and Airforce Officers tours, review of each others operational practices, presentations by both sides on what they preceive as security threats to their respective nations and even high level strategies for intelligence sharing.

and i thought they went to visit disneyland! silly me!
 
COAS calls on president

ISLAMABAD: Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani called on President Asif Ali Zardari at the Presidency on Monday. The current security situation in the country was discussed during the meeting, a press release said. app
 
pre_chiefofarmystaffmeeting.jpg
 
No PR471/2010-ISPR Dated: November 11, 2010

Rawalpindi - November 11, 2010: Mr Franco Frattini, Italian Foreign Minister called on Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani at General Headquarters today.

The visiting dignitary remained with him for some time and discussed the matters of mutual interest.


2310.jpg
 
Michael Hughes

General Kayani’s Calculus

November 10th, 2010

General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan’s army chief, certainly holds all the cards with respect to regional security in Central Asia, which is why the General occupies the 29th position on Forbes’s annual list of the world’s most powerful people. But, as Michael O’Hanlon alluded to in a Foreign Policy article on Monday, the U.S. doesn’t have any idea how Kayani is going to use that power because after nine years of war, Americans still aren’t sure if Pakistan is with us or against us.

O’Hanlon also clearly lays out how the three major Afghan insurgent groups have sanctuaries in Pakistan that are generally beyond NATO's reach:

Pakistan tolerates sanctuaries on its soil for the major insurgencies fighting in Afghanistan. These include the Afghan Taliban (otherwise known as the Quetta Shura Taliban because its principle base remains in Quetta in the Pakistani province of Baluchistan) as well as the Haqqani and Hezb-i-Islami Gulbuddin (HiG) networks. The Haqqanis straddle the border between the Afghan provinces of Khost, Paktia, and Paktika as well as North Waziristan and other tribal areas within Pakistan; HiG is further north, operating in and around the Khyber Pass connecting Kabul and Jalalabad in Afghanistan with Peshawar and points east in Pakistan.

Since the war began in 2001 the U.S. has asked Pakistan to attack these safe havens, however, Kayani maintains that his forces are too bogged down fighting the Pakistani Taliban in other provinces. As an Afghan intelligence analyst assessed for me back in July:

The Pakistan army consists of 500,000 active duty troops and another 500,000 on reserve. If Pakistan truly wanted to capture the Haqqani Network they would be able to drag them out of their caves by their beards within a few days.:rofl:

The operating term being wanted, because although many believe Pakistan could root-out the extremist leaders of these networks, there currently isn’t enough incentive to do so. Pakistan believes the U.S. is highly-likely to begin withdrawing, as Obama has announced, in July 2011, which they believe will cause Afghanistan to descend further into chaos. O’Hanlon provides insight into Pakistan’s strategic thinking:

Pakistan worries that President Barack Obama's promise to start reducing U.S. troops in Afghanistan come July will lead to anarchy and civil conflict next door, and it is retaining proxies that it can use to ensure that its top goal in Afghanistan -- keeping India out -- can be accomplished come what may.

Pakistan would rather have the Taliban and the Haqqanis back in power, especially in the country's south and east, than any group like the former Northern Alliance, which it views as too close to New Delhi.

It is this strategic calculation, more than constrained Pakistani resources, that constitutes Obama's main challenge in Afghanistan. And it could cost him the war.

The question for the ages then becomes: what will it take to influence the General’s calculus and get him to attack the Haqqanis and the Quetta Shura? The author suggests Obama should make certain that Pakistan is confident that the U.S. will not abandon the region, and believes Obama should get creative and offer Pakistan free trade and civilian nuclear deals as the ultimate carrots.

This approach can work, but is dependent on the trust factor on two fronts: the U.S. building trust with Kayani, while Pakistan and India repair or at least work towards improving their trust deficit. Other factors feeding into this equation include the fragile post-flood economic and political state of Pakistan, highlighted by elites starting to demand that Kayani intervene to shake-up the civilian government which appears ready to collapse. Kayani also cannot afford to risk billions in U.S. aid at a time like this.

Ideological fear cannot be underestimated, however, because Pakistan might be dead-set on controlling southern and eastern Afghanistan – not only for purposes of strategic depth against India – but concern that traditional Pashtun leadership in those areas strongly reject the Durand Line and support the formation of a ‘Pashtunistan’. Hence, Kayani might cling to Haqqani as an asset at what seems like any cost.
 
Pashtunistan is a non-issue; there are more Pakhtuns in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. Pakhtuns have better life in Pakistan than in Afghanistan.

the Afghans already learned the hard way about trying (militarily) to solve this so-called issue (more like non-issue)


as for hedging bets --- that is what any country does, especially one facing so many security nightmares like Pakistan.


Pakistan can not afford to have a hostile govt in Afghanistan.


Pakistan Nation will not ALLOW a hostile govt in Afghanistan to breathe for even one second.

and whoever expects Pakistan to blindly make concessions at the cost of her security and honour should have their legs broken
 
Last edited:
Pashtunistan is a non-issue; there are more Pakhtuns in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. Pakhtuns have better life in Pakistan than bloody Afghanistan.

the Afghans already learned the hard way about trying (militarily) to solve this so-called issue (more like non-issue)


as for hedging bets --- that is what any country does, especially one facing so many security nightmares like Pakistan.


Pakistan can not afford to have a hostile govt in Afghanistan.


Pakistan Nation will not ALLOW a hostile govt in Afghanistan to breathe for even one second.

and whoever expects Pakistan to blindly make concessions at the cost of her security and honour should have their legs broken

please edit your post. secondly, if one day afghanistan will be a better country, will pashtoons of paksitan join afghanistan?
 
well me being one myself, I can assure you we never will ;)

i asked the quesion with regards to your post. interestingly i heard the same thing from a paksitani pakhtun that if afghannistan becomes a better country then they will join afghanistan. interesting, differnt opinions.
 
i asked the quesion with regards to your post. interestingly i heard the same thing from a paksitani pakhtun that if afghannistan becomes a better country then they will join afghanistan. interesting, differnt opinions.

you'd be better served learning how to spell the name of countries (yours included)

second of all, you are again making issues out of non-issues

resist the urge to delve into off-topic nonsense which nobody here is trying to waste time 'pondering' over

I do hope Afghanistan situation improves, so you can reclaim the 4+ million Afghan refugees residing in Pakistan. Focus on rehabilitating them before anything else.

That would make sense, wouldn't it?
 
you'd be better served learning how to spell the name of countries (yours included)

second of all, you are again making issues out of non-issues

resist the urge to delve into off-topic nonsense which nobody here is trying to waste time 'pondering' over

mis spelling and typing is something and calling a country bloody is something else.

no off topic from any more.
 
the anp cannot revert back to the pashtunistan position as it is a 'changed' political party, more 'main-stream' than during the time of KAGK
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom