Doctor09
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,467
- Reaction score
- 0
read the last line of 1ST POST its military intelligence and you are right about MO too..... but i think media misinterpret MO and write MI in last line ......
COAS, DG ISI & DGMO Briefing to Parliament
- Thread starter Doctor09
- Start date
Solomon2
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 19,475
- Reaction score
- -37
- Country
- Location
That strikes me as a very difficult, perhaps impossible, task for the Assembly to fulfill as their tongues had been tied under the Constitution:
A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), if he has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for propagating any opinion, or acting in any manner, prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan, or the sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan, or morality, or the maintenance of public order, or the integrity or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan, or which defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary or the Armed Forces of Pakistan, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release; (Article 63-1g)
It's very difficult to review and take action on military matters if you can't criticize the Army! Before the 18th Amendment passed a court conviction wasn't even needed to disqualify an MP for speaking out.
As a comparison, Pakistan's Parliament seems to have less power over the Pakistani Army than the Queen of England has over the British Army. For the Queen retains the power of unlimited review whereas the Pakistani parliament clearly does not.
The British monarch is, of course, commonly regarded as a mere figurehead, so why should the Pakistani parliament rate any higher?
It has to start somewhere. As imperfect as the Pakistani parliamentary system is, the Army presenting and opening up to the cabinet is a good omen.
On that topic, how long would it take you folks to move away from a two party system? That certainly isn't very democratic in my mind, yet its something that would take time. The same goes for our way of governance and the issues between the different parts of the government.
On that topic, how long would it take you folks to move away from a two party system? That certainly isn't very democratic in my mind, yet its something that would take time. The same goes for our way of governance and the issues between the different parts of the government.
Defaming a national institution is considered a problem anywhere in the world, critique is different and the Pakistani society and government are opening up to it.
Solomon2
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 19,475
- Reaction score
- -37
- Country
- Location
Our two-party system is not in the Constitution. We do have other parties (Libertarian, Socialist, etc.) but the D's and R's are dominant.
Political competition has evolved into a two-party system over time. There are several factors involved: a natural tendency to vote only for a united and powerful opposition rather than "waste" one's vote on a smaller party; the tendency of the opposition party to co-opt popular issues from smaller parties (and thus gather votes that would otherwise be denied them); and the flexibility of our primary system by which party members select candidates to elective office via an election of their own (choosing a party is merely a matter of registering at the local vote office).
Unless there is some major failure in the habits of a party's leading elected officials - like refusing to co-opt popular positions - then the survival of a big party is pretty much assured, though their politics will change and even reverse over time! For example, in the Civil War the Republicans were undoubtedly the party of radical civil rights and property nationalization, whereas a century later they were seen as conservatives opposing these very issues.
Parliament can't really do it yet, though. That's why the voice of the people has to be heard instead - online, in print, on the street, etc.
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Criticism in private briefings is completely possible, and would be very hard to prove in a court of law to convict/disqualify parliamentarians.
At the end of the day, civilian oversight will arise from civilians taking ownership of policies in private and in public, and not merely through public rhetoric condemning the military.
BTW, as far as 'defaming the military' is concerned, there are plenty of parliamentarians currently sitting in the NA who have been visceral critics of the military, and continue to be.
And I doubt that logical/factual criticizm of a 'policy' promoted/advocated by the military would be construed by a court as 'defamation or ridicule' of the military - two vastly different issues.
Irfan Baloch
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2009
- Messages
- 20,975
- Reaction score
- 214
- Country
- Location
you might want to get the translations of what is talked about in the lower house, out in the public speeches and in the talk shows then you might be forced to eat your own words. Its anything but the tied tongues as you put it.
In Pakistan, bashing army and “establishment” is a fashion statement and has been done in both democratic and dictator run governments. Opposition openly criticises the “inaction” of Pakistan army over the drone attacks and the leader of the opposition Chaudry Nisar was so condescending and scornful toward the DG ISI during an earlier briefing that Shujah Pasha offered his resignation.
Don’t believe me? Try searching “go Musharraf Go” and see how many of the presently sitting parliamentarians were involved in those rallies during the time when he was the army chief.
If you care then I will translate some talk shows of Nawaz league members and their choice of words and use of language will make your usual posts about Pakistan look like rose petals. You can independently verify my translation with your Indian friends.
Solomon2
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 19,475
- Reaction score
- -37
- Country
- Location
That sounds like my kind of meal! Go for it!
Wasting ones vote on a smaller party should be the prerogative of the voter and not the two dominant parties. An example in contrast, even though a much more messier one, is the options available to a voter in Pakistan (despite our flawed democracy), India or even Israel where majority governments are a rarity due to the split vote. Nobody is allowed to hog up the voter bank for lack of alternates and this is what I find as a major flaw in the US democracy. But in any case, the point is that all such systems have their issues and evolve over time. Pakistan's democracy and its civilian-military relations are no exceptions to the case.
"Yet" is correct. However this is why there is a need for this to carry on and mature over time. There is no quick fix here. People's voice is being communicated and heard through the E/Print media very openly (more openly than the vast majority of Arab/Muslim countries and easily at par with India where the media has had a much longer run of unfettered publishing.)
Some bits of information on what was discussed in the meeting with the Parliamentarians:
Kayani: US attack in N. Waziristan unlikely
ISLAMABAD: Chief of the Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has ruled out the possibility of an immediate unilateral US military offensive in North Waziristan, saying the Americans will have to think 10 times before going for this.
The comments came at a rare briefing held on Tuesday for members of the standing committees on defence of the two houses of parliament at the General Headquarters.
A participant of the meeting told Dawn that the army chief had been asked to comment on the possibility of a US strike in Pakistan for its failure in Afghanistan, like it had attacked Laos and Cambodia before leaving Vietnam.
Gen Kayani did not say what would be Pakistan’s response in such an eventuality, but reminded that it was a nuclear power and must not be compared with Iraq and Afghanistan.
The briefing was mainly given by the Director General of Military Operations, Maj-Gen Ashfaq Nadeem, but the army chief also shared his views with the lawmakers, mainly about fears of US military build-up close to North Waziristan and the possibility of a unilateral attack in the region, and the army’s concern over the weak legal framework hindering trial and prosecution of terrorists.
It was probably for the first time that two parliamentary bodies jointly attended a comprehensive briefing on national security at the GHQ. The briefing was originally scheduled for Oct 13 and an invitation was also extended to the Parliamentary Committee on National Security, headed by Mian Raza Rabbani, to attend the meeting. But the committee had decided to boycott the briefing and wanted it to be held at the Parliament House.
Almost all other members of the standing committees on defence attended the GHQ meeting. However, Professor Khurshid Ahmad, who is a member of both the Parliamentary Committee on National Security and the Senate’s Standing Committee on Defence, boycotted the briefing.
Another participant said Gen Kayani had rejected the US allegations that Pakistan was using the Haqqani network for waging a proxy war in Afghanistan and said his country was a part of solution, and not the problem.
He said he had told the Americans that Pakistan would go for a military action in North Waziristan keeping in view the situation and capabilities, and would not do it under any pressure. “If somebody convinces me that military action in North Waziristan will resolve all problems, I am ready to go for it tomorrow,” he said.
He said the problem was within Afghanistan and made it clear that some principles governed relations between states and nobody would be allowed to cross the red line. Gen Kayani rejected a perception that Pakistan wanted to control Afghanistan and said it was evident from history that nobody ever succeeded in doing so.
“When the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union failed to do so how can it be expected of Pakistan? We do not have a magic wand to succeed in doing what others failed,” he added.
The army chief said Pakistan wanted peace and stability in Afghanistan so that it did not face any challenge from its eastern and western borders.
He said Pakistan had handed over its position in black and white to US President Barack Obama and desired to get their position in writing as well. He said Pakistan would never allow its territory to be used for attacks against any other country.
Gen Kayani said the US had been told that Pakistan did not need military aid, adding that he had received a call from Washington asking if he meant it. “My reply was we mean what we say”. He said only 20 per cent of the $1.5 billion aid under the Kerry-Lugar bill had so far been received.
About the allegations of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) having ‘unsavoury characters’, he said the intelligence information came from links and all international intelligence agencies, including Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and MI6, had such contacts. He stressed that these contacts must be positively used.
Gen Kayani said it had been conveyed to the US that Pakistan had a long-term interest in the region and would not like to lose its long-term interest for short-term gains.
He underlined the need for revisiting the legal framework to prosecute those involved in terrorist activities. “The present law does not allow us to detain suspects for more than three months. This was not a sufficient time and terrorists gain out of it.”
The army chief said the weak law on terrorism and counter-insurgency was a problem because presently there was no deterrence. He said the law of evidence was outdated and not in conformity with the present scenario. He said a bill seeking to amend the Anti-Terrorist Act of 1997 had been pending before a Senate committee for almost a year.
Maj-Gen Ashfaq Nadeem informed the legislators that Taliban activity in Afghanistan had increased by 40 per cent, despite 10 years of military presence of 49 countries. He said there were safe havens of Taliban in Kunar and Nuristan in Afghanistan.
“Taliban operate from there (Afghanistan) to launch attacks inside Pakistan.”
Maj-Gen Nadeem said India’s cold start doctrine had added to the threats confronting Pakistan. He said seven out of nine Indian commands and three strike corps were along the border with Pakistan. Eighty-one per cent of forward and main operating bases were positioned against Pakistan.
“We cannot base our strategies on any good intentions, no matter how noble they may be, as intentions can change overnight.
Our strategy has to be based on India’s capability,” he added.
Kayani: US attack in N. Waziristan unlikely
ISLAMABAD: Chief of the Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has ruled out the possibility of an immediate unilateral US military offensive in North Waziristan, saying the Americans will have to think 10 times before going for this.
The comments came at a rare briefing held on Tuesday for members of the standing committees on defence of the two houses of parliament at the General Headquarters.
A participant of the meeting told Dawn that the army chief had been asked to comment on the possibility of a US strike in Pakistan for its failure in Afghanistan, like it had attacked Laos and Cambodia before leaving Vietnam.
Gen Kayani did not say what would be Pakistan’s response in such an eventuality, but reminded that it was a nuclear power and must not be compared with Iraq and Afghanistan.
The briefing was mainly given by the Director General of Military Operations, Maj-Gen Ashfaq Nadeem, but the army chief also shared his views with the lawmakers, mainly about fears of US military build-up close to North Waziristan and the possibility of a unilateral attack in the region, and the army’s concern over the weak legal framework hindering trial and prosecution of terrorists.
It was probably for the first time that two parliamentary bodies jointly attended a comprehensive briefing on national security at the GHQ. The briefing was originally scheduled for Oct 13 and an invitation was also extended to the Parliamentary Committee on National Security, headed by Mian Raza Rabbani, to attend the meeting. But the committee had decided to boycott the briefing and wanted it to be held at the Parliament House.
Almost all other members of the standing committees on defence attended the GHQ meeting. However, Professor Khurshid Ahmad, who is a member of both the Parliamentary Committee on National Security and the Senate’s Standing Committee on Defence, boycotted the briefing.
Another participant said Gen Kayani had rejected the US allegations that Pakistan was using the Haqqani network for waging a proxy war in Afghanistan and said his country was a part of solution, and not the problem.
He said he had told the Americans that Pakistan would go for a military action in North Waziristan keeping in view the situation and capabilities, and would not do it under any pressure. “If somebody convinces me that military action in North Waziristan will resolve all problems, I am ready to go for it tomorrow,” he said.
He said the problem was within Afghanistan and made it clear that some principles governed relations between states and nobody would be allowed to cross the red line. Gen Kayani rejected a perception that Pakistan wanted to control Afghanistan and said it was evident from history that nobody ever succeeded in doing so.
“When the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union failed to do so how can it be expected of Pakistan? We do not have a magic wand to succeed in doing what others failed,” he added.
The army chief said Pakistan wanted peace and stability in Afghanistan so that it did not face any challenge from its eastern and western borders.
He said Pakistan had handed over its position in black and white to US President Barack Obama and desired to get their position in writing as well. He said Pakistan would never allow its territory to be used for attacks against any other country.
Gen Kayani said the US had been told that Pakistan did not need military aid, adding that he had received a call from Washington asking if he meant it. “My reply was we mean what we say”. He said only 20 per cent of the $1.5 billion aid under the Kerry-Lugar bill had so far been received.
About the allegations of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) having ‘unsavoury characters’, he said the intelligence information came from links and all international intelligence agencies, including Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and MI6, had such contacts. He stressed that these contacts must be positively used.
Gen Kayani said it had been conveyed to the US that Pakistan had a long-term interest in the region and would not like to lose its long-term interest for short-term gains.
He underlined the need for revisiting the legal framework to prosecute those involved in terrorist activities. “The present law does not allow us to detain suspects for more than three months. This was not a sufficient time and terrorists gain out of it.”
The army chief said the weak law on terrorism and counter-insurgency was a problem because presently there was no deterrence. He said the law of evidence was outdated and not in conformity with the present scenario. He said a bill seeking to amend the Anti-Terrorist Act of 1997 had been pending before a Senate committee for almost a year.
Maj-Gen Ashfaq Nadeem informed the legislators that Taliban activity in Afghanistan had increased by 40 per cent, despite 10 years of military presence of 49 countries. He said there were safe havens of Taliban in Kunar and Nuristan in Afghanistan.
“Taliban operate from there (Afghanistan) to launch attacks inside Pakistan.”
Maj-Gen Nadeem said India’s cold start doctrine had added to the threats confronting Pakistan. He said seven out of nine Indian commands and three strike corps were along the border with Pakistan. Eighty-one per cent of forward and main operating bases were positioned against Pakistan.
“We cannot base our strategies on any good intentions, no matter how noble they may be, as intentions can change overnight.
Our strategy has to be based on India’s capability,” he added.
AUz
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2010
- Messages
- 8,595
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
ISLAMABAD:
The army chief did not rule out the possibility of a US ground offensive in North Waziristan, but told parliamentarians at a briefing on Tuesday that Washington will think many times before launching such an attack.
They [the US] might do it but they will have to think ten times because Pakistan is not Iraq or Afghanistan, Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani was quoted as telling members of parliaments defence committees at a briefing at the General Headquarters that went on for over three hours.
Acknowledging that the US is pressing Pakistan to launch a military operation in North Waziristan, Kayani said that the ongoing build-up of Afghan and International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) troops along the Pak-Afghan border is a tactic to intensify that pressure.
We have made it clear to the US that we will decide the timing of any such action according to our situation and capabilities. We have also told them that the problem lies within Afghanistan. If anyone convinces me that everything will be sorted out if we act in North Waziristan, I will take immediate action, a parliamentarian, requesting anonymity, quoted Kayani as saying.
General Kayanis statement came hours after senior Afghan defence officials said the countrys security forces and their Nato allies have launched a new push against the Haqqani network.
Leaving no ambiguity over reasons for the operation, an Afghan defence ministry official told AFP on condition of anonymity that the action was tied to recent spats between Washington and Islamabad. While he declined to specify the operations scope, another senior official from the ministry said it was largely against the Haqqani network.
According to Afghan Defence Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak, the operation has been codenamed Knife Edge and was launched two days ago. This operation is launched along the border because the enemy lately operates along the border on both sides. Sometimes on this side and sometimes on the other side, Afghan Chief of Army Staff Sher Mohammad Karimi said.
General Kayani said that Pakistan had handed over its position on Afghanistan to the Obama administration in writing in 2010 and had asked the Americans to elaborate on their position but they had not done so. We have long-term interests in Afghanistan, others might have short For short-term gains, we cannot lose [sight of] our long-term interests, the army chief said.
But responding to a question on Pakistans interests in Afghanistan, Kayani sought to dispel the perception that Pakistan was seeking so-called strategic depth in Afghanistan.
We cannot leave both our eastern and western borders insecure, Kayani asserted. It is wishful thinking to achieve strategic depth in Afghanistan. The Russians tried, the Brits tried, the Americans are trying. We dont have a magic wand, a participant quoted Kayanis response.
However, Kayani did not deny that Pakistani secret agencies maintained contacts with certain elements within the hierarchy of Afghan insurgent groups. That is where we get our information, the intelligence, from, he yielded. The important thing is how we use the information gathered from these elements. You can do it positively and negatively.
No need for US aid
In a press release issued by the military after a recent corps commanders meeting, Kayani is said to have stressed that the Pakistan Army does not need US aid and that he had told American officials that he means what he said.
We got only 25% of the aid from the Kerry-Lugar Act. Pakistan Army has no objection if the US converts its military aid into civilian assistance, he said. Stressing on civilian responsibility for peace, he said that the military can only secure areas where it conducts operations, but civilians need to take control and maintain law and order.
North Waziristan:
The army chief did not rule out the possibility of a US ground offensive in North Waziristan, but told parliamentarians at a briefing on Tuesday that Washington will think many times before launching such an attack.
They [the US] might do it but they will have to think ten times because Pakistan is not Iraq or Afghanistan, Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani was quoted as telling members of parliaments defence committees at a briefing at the General Headquarters that went on for over three hours.
Acknowledging that the US is pressing Pakistan to launch a military operation in North Waziristan, Kayani said that the ongoing build-up of Afghan and International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) troops along the Pak-Afghan border is a tactic to intensify that pressure.
We have made it clear to the US that we will decide the timing of any such action according to our situation and capabilities. We have also told them that the problem lies within Afghanistan. If anyone convinces me that everything will be sorted out if we act in North Waziristan, I will take immediate action, a parliamentarian, requesting anonymity, quoted Kayani as saying.
General Kayanis statement came hours after senior Afghan defence officials said the countrys security forces and their Nato allies have launched a new push against the Haqqani network.
Leaving no ambiguity over reasons for the operation, an Afghan defence ministry official told AFP on condition of anonymity that the action was tied to recent spats between Washington and Islamabad. While he declined to specify the operations scope, another senior official from the ministry said it was largely against the Haqqani network.
According to Afghan Defence Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak, the operation has been codenamed Knife Edge and was launched two days ago. This operation is launched along the border because the enemy lately operates along the border on both sides. Sometimes on this side and sometimes on the other side, Afghan Chief of Army Staff Sher Mohammad Karimi said.
General Kayani said that Pakistan had handed over its position on Afghanistan to the Obama administration in writing in 2010 and had asked the Americans to elaborate on their position but they had not done so. We have long-term interests in Afghanistan, others might have short For short-term gains, we cannot lose [sight of] our long-term interests, the army chief said.
But responding to a question on Pakistans interests in Afghanistan, Kayani sought to dispel the perception that Pakistan was seeking so-called strategic depth in Afghanistan.
We cannot leave both our eastern and western borders insecure, Kayani asserted. It is wishful thinking to achieve strategic depth in Afghanistan. The Russians tried, the Brits tried, the Americans are trying. We dont have a magic wand, a participant quoted Kayanis response.
However, Kayani did not deny that Pakistani secret agencies maintained contacts with certain elements within the hierarchy of Afghan insurgent groups. That is where we get our information, the intelligence, from, he yielded. The important thing is how we use the information gathered from these elements. You can do it positively and negatively.
No need for US aid
In a press release issued by the military after a recent corps commanders meeting, Kayani is said to have stressed that the Pakistan Army does not need US aid and that he had told American officials that he means what he said.
We got only 25% of the aid from the Kerry-Lugar Act. Pakistan Army has no objection if the US converts its military aid into civilian assistance, he said. Stressing on civilian responsibility for peace, he said that the military can only secure areas where it conducts operations, but civilians need to take control and maintain law and order.
North Waziristan:
I think you need to change the title of the thread. The title of the thread almost suggests that the US/NATO Forces might be conducting a ground operation in North Waziristan with the blessing of the Pakistani Establishment. Besides a ground operation in North Waziristan, the US can also launch nukes into Pakistan; doesn't mean it is going to happen, is it?
A ground offensive in North Waziristan would be suicide on part of the US. If the Pakistan Army approves of such a mission, it would suicide for them as well. The Army would rather go themselves into North Waziristan than let the US troops conduct a ground operation in North Waziristan.
A ground offensive in North Waziristan would be suicide on part of the US. If the Pakistan Army approves of such a mission, it would suicide for them as well. The Army would rather go themselves into North Waziristan than let the US troops conduct a ground operation in North Waziristan.
roadrunner
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 5,696
- Reaction score
- 0
I doubt the US would invade if they're leaving Afghanistan in a couple of years. wouldnt be any point.
Interesting Dawn News take on the same story, much more impartial:
US attack in N. Waziristan unlikely
ISLAMABAD: Chief of the Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has ruled out the possibility of an immediate unilateral US military offensive in North Waziristan, saying the Americans will have to think 10 times before going for this.
The comments came at a rare briefing held on Tuesday for members of the standing committees on defence of the two houses of parliament at the General Headquarters.
A participant of the meeting told Dawn that the army chief had been asked to comment on the possibility of a US strike in Pakistan for its failure in Afghanistan, like it had attacked Laos and Cambodia before leaving Vietnam.
Gen Kayani did not say what would be Pakistan’s response in such an eventuality, but reminded that it was a nuclear power and must not be compared with Iraq and Afghanistan.
The briefing was mainly given by the Director General of Military Operations, Maj-Gen Ashfaq Nadeem, but the army chief also shared his views with the lawmakers, mainly about fears of US military build-up close to North Waziristan and the possibility of a unilateral attack in the region, and the army’s concern over the weak legal framework hindering trial and prosecution of terrorists.
It was probably for the first time that two parliamentary bodies jointly attended a comprehensive briefing on national security at the GHQ. The briefing was originally scheduled for Oct 13 and an invitation was also extended to the Parliamentary Committee on National Security, headed by Mian Raza Rabbani, to attend the meeting. But the committee had decided to boycott the briefing and wanted it to be held at the Parliament House.
Almost all other members of the standing committees on defence attended the GHQ meeting. However, Professor Khurshid Ahmad, who is a member of both the Parliamentary Committee on National Security and the Senate’s Standing Committee on Defence, boycotted the briefing.
Another participant said Gen Kayani had rejected the US allegations that Pakistan was using the Haqqani network for waging a proxy war in Afghanistan and said his country was a part of solution, and not the problem.
He said he had told the Americans that Pakistan would go for a military action in North Waziristan keeping in view the situation and capabilities, and would not do it under any pressure. “If somebody convinces me that military action in North Waziristan will resolve all problems, I am ready to go for it tomorrow,” he said.
He said the problem was within Afghanistan and made it clear that some principles governed relations between states and nobody would be allowed to cross the red line. Gen Kayani rejected a perception that Pakistan wanted to control Afghanistan and said it was evident from history that nobody ever succeeded in doing so.
“When the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union failed to do so how can it be expected of Pakistan? We do not have a magic wand to succeed in doing what others failed,” he added.
The army chief said Pakistan wanted peace and stability in Afghanistan so that it did not face any challenge from its eastern and western borders.
He said Pakistan had handed over its position in black and white to US President Barack Obama and desired to get their position in writing as well. He said Pakistan would never allow its territory to be used for attacks against any other country.
Gen Kayani said the US had been told that Pakistan did not need military aid, adding that he had received a call from Washington asking if he meant it. “My reply was we mean what we say”. He said only 20 per cent of the $1.5 billion aid under the Kerry-Lugar bill had so far been received.
About the allegations of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) having ‘unsavoury characters’, he said the intelligence information came from links and all international intelligence agencies, including Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and MI6, had such contacts. He stressed that these contacts must be positively used.
Gen Kayani said it had been conveyed to the US that Pakistan had a long-term interest in the region and would not like to lose its long-term interest for short-term gains.
He underlined the need for revisiting the legal framework to prosecute those involved in terrorist activities. “The present law does not allow us to detain suspects for more than three months. This was not a sufficient time and terrorists gain out of it.”
The army chief said the weak law on terrorism and counter-insurgency was a problem because presently there was no deterrence. He said the law of evidence was outdated and not in conformity with the present scenario. He said a bill seeking to amend the Anti-Terrorist Act of 1997 had been pending before a Senate committee for almost a year.
Maj-Gen Ashfaq Nadeem informed the legislators that Taliban activity in Afghanistan had increased by 40 per cent, despite 10 years of military presence of 49 countries. He said there were safe havens of Taliban in Kunar and Nuristan in Afghanistan.
“Taliban operate from there (Afghanistan) to launch attacks inside Pakistan.”
Maj-Gen Nadeem said India’s cold start doctrine had added to the threats confronting Pakistan. He said seven out of nine Indian commands and three strike corps were along the border with Pakistan. Eighty-one per cent of forward and main operating bases were positioned against Pakistan.
“We cannot base our strategies on any good intentions, no matter how noble they may be, as intentions can change overnight.
Our strategy has to be based on India’s capability,” he added.
US attack in N. Waziristan unlikely | Newspaper | DAWN.COM
US attack in N. Waziristan unlikely
ISLAMABAD: Chief of the Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has ruled out the possibility of an immediate unilateral US military offensive in North Waziristan, saying the Americans will have to think 10 times before going for this.
The comments came at a rare briefing held on Tuesday for members of the standing committees on defence of the two houses of parliament at the General Headquarters.
A participant of the meeting told Dawn that the army chief had been asked to comment on the possibility of a US strike in Pakistan for its failure in Afghanistan, like it had attacked Laos and Cambodia before leaving Vietnam.
Gen Kayani did not say what would be Pakistan’s response in such an eventuality, but reminded that it was a nuclear power and must not be compared with Iraq and Afghanistan.
The briefing was mainly given by the Director General of Military Operations, Maj-Gen Ashfaq Nadeem, but the army chief also shared his views with the lawmakers, mainly about fears of US military build-up close to North Waziristan and the possibility of a unilateral attack in the region, and the army’s concern over the weak legal framework hindering trial and prosecution of terrorists.
It was probably for the first time that two parliamentary bodies jointly attended a comprehensive briefing on national security at the GHQ. The briefing was originally scheduled for Oct 13 and an invitation was also extended to the Parliamentary Committee on National Security, headed by Mian Raza Rabbani, to attend the meeting. But the committee had decided to boycott the briefing and wanted it to be held at the Parliament House.
Almost all other members of the standing committees on defence attended the GHQ meeting. However, Professor Khurshid Ahmad, who is a member of both the Parliamentary Committee on National Security and the Senate’s Standing Committee on Defence, boycotted the briefing.
Another participant said Gen Kayani had rejected the US allegations that Pakistan was using the Haqqani network for waging a proxy war in Afghanistan and said his country was a part of solution, and not the problem.
He said he had told the Americans that Pakistan would go for a military action in North Waziristan keeping in view the situation and capabilities, and would not do it under any pressure. “If somebody convinces me that military action in North Waziristan will resolve all problems, I am ready to go for it tomorrow,” he said.
He said the problem was within Afghanistan and made it clear that some principles governed relations between states and nobody would be allowed to cross the red line. Gen Kayani rejected a perception that Pakistan wanted to control Afghanistan and said it was evident from history that nobody ever succeeded in doing so.
“When the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union failed to do so how can it be expected of Pakistan? We do not have a magic wand to succeed in doing what others failed,” he added.
The army chief said Pakistan wanted peace and stability in Afghanistan so that it did not face any challenge from its eastern and western borders.
He said Pakistan had handed over its position in black and white to US President Barack Obama and desired to get their position in writing as well. He said Pakistan would never allow its territory to be used for attacks against any other country.
Gen Kayani said the US had been told that Pakistan did not need military aid, adding that he had received a call from Washington asking if he meant it. “My reply was we mean what we say”. He said only 20 per cent of the $1.5 billion aid under the Kerry-Lugar bill had so far been received.
About the allegations of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) having ‘unsavoury characters’, he said the intelligence information came from links and all international intelligence agencies, including Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and MI6, had such contacts. He stressed that these contacts must be positively used.
Gen Kayani said it had been conveyed to the US that Pakistan had a long-term interest in the region and would not like to lose its long-term interest for short-term gains.
He underlined the need for revisiting the legal framework to prosecute those involved in terrorist activities. “The present law does not allow us to detain suspects for more than three months. This was not a sufficient time and terrorists gain out of it.”
The army chief said the weak law on terrorism and counter-insurgency was a problem because presently there was no deterrence. He said the law of evidence was outdated and not in conformity with the present scenario. He said a bill seeking to amend the Anti-Terrorist Act of 1997 had been pending before a Senate committee for almost a year.
Maj-Gen Ashfaq Nadeem informed the legislators that Taliban activity in Afghanistan had increased by 40 per cent, despite 10 years of military presence of 49 countries. He said there were safe havens of Taliban in Kunar and Nuristan in Afghanistan.
“Taliban operate from there (Afghanistan) to launch attacks inside Pakistan.”
Maj-Gen Nadeem said India’s cold start doctrine had added to the threats confronting Pakistan. He said seven out of nine Indian commands and three strike corps were along the border with Pakistan. Eighty-one per cent of forward and main operating bases were positioned against Pakistan.
“We cannot base our strategies on any good intentions, no matter how noble they may be, as intentions can change overnight.
Our strategy has to be based on India’s capability,” he added.
US attack in N. Waziristan unlikely | Newspaper | DAWN.COM
RajputWarrior
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 691
- Reaction score
- -9
Similar threads
