COAS, DG ISI & DGMO Briefing to Parliament

[monitor]

Amassing of US troops along North Waziristan
Posted on October 19, 2011
By F Z Khan
Exclusive Article

The amassing of US troops on Pakistan’s border is clearly a dangerous development. The moving of troops and the stepped up allegations against Pakistan have created a situation in which Pakistan’s security is directly threatened putting the whole nation under intense pressure and alarming fearing. Although Pakistan military’s response has so far been sensibly bold and audaciously prudent – military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas timely raised a ‘quid pro quo’ but genuine issue of ISAF and Afghan government giving sanctuaries to Fazlullah and others – yet there is a need to revisit the whole issue and reconsider US demands vis-à-vis own national interests.

One thing is for sure that the entire nation stands behind our political leadership and armed forces for taking a right decision to protect the national interests. The people from across the country welcomed the DG ISPR’s statement and the observers here regarded it as the military leadership’s displeasure as well as resolve to not only diplomatically handle the situation, but justify its response in consonance with its own limitations and domestic ground realities. The October 18 editorials and opinion columns of almost all newspapers have on one hand assailed the American moves, and on the other stressed upon resolving the matter through political means, and not resorting to hostility. This means Pakistan’s masses have shown their collective resolve in different expressions to remain united and face the hostile aggression with their full force.

Hence, the political leadership must devise a comprehensive national stance to defend Pakistan’s interests at all costs. This will enable us to counter all US allegations leveled against our government, the armed forces and the ISI. The ‘mysterious silence’ by the presidency over the Financial Times London report regarding a memorandum handed over to president Obama by the hands of Mike Mullen has been questioned, especially over the proposal to dissolve the S-Section of the ISI which handles the Taliban, the Haqqani network and other groups involved in the war in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which is seen as highly sinister. In my view if the presidency keeps mum, which is creating more ambiguity, the relevant section of the ISI or those at the helm of affairs must clarify whether they are facing any such development.

Since diplomatic channels and the option of political negotiations remain open, therefore, Pakistan should make all out efforts to mould public opinion especially that of the USA to put across its viewpoint, to develop better understanding and reduce the tension. Any kind of extreme view can add to minimizing chances of political settlement. The media, politicians and intelligentsia have greater responsibility not to cash in on by mere slogans of anti-Americanism, but bring in unity and harmony among their ranks through pragmatic approach and reasoning.

While the diplomacy and political mediation works its way, our preparations to face the worst case scenario must also be complete. Media must rightly project steps taken by our own leadership to reduce tension with the US, improve inter state-relations, suggest to the nation to remain united irrespective of their personal interests and remove a sense of fear and panic that war with the US was imminent. This is no time, like one of the leading columnists wrote in an Urdu daily on Tuesday, to criticize and put the blame on each other but to join hands together.

While sensibly rejecting the US demands to act against the Haqqani network, media needs to highlight the sacrifices Pakistan has already made helping the US in the fight against terror. Media has the responsibility to emphasize that Pakistan has neither in the past nor will it now compromise on its sovereignty. In the wake of growing tension between Pakistan and the US, it must make it clear that Pakistan would not tolerate any incursion on its territory by US forces targeting militant groups in North Waziristan. The military spokesman, Major General Athar Abbas’ statement on Fazlullah and others being protected by the Afghan government and ISAF-NATO forces must be taken as a case to project in full voice and concrete evidence, as Pakistan has proofs, video evidences of the Pakistan’s wanted criminals enjoying under the nose of Americans. The media needs to counter the US Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta’s allegations that ISI has ties with the Taliban-allied Haqqani network that allegedly attacked NATO headquarters in Kabul.

According to reports, US secretary of state Hillary Clinton is due in Pakistan on October 20 and it is likely that she would further insist on early launch of military operation against the Taliban factions in North Waziristan, particularly the Haqqani network. But, as it has been the stance in the past, Pakistan army is not going to succumb to the pressure and it would move at a time of its own choosing, after assessing its own priorities, national interests and political consensus that are imperative for the success of this operation.

Since the US special envoy Mark Grossman’s recent visit to the region, the Pak-Afghan border areas have undergone two critical developments which, as an editorial commented, directly impact regional peace and Pakistan’s security situation. One, raids by the CIA-operated drone strikes have substantially increased; in the last five days four attacks were carried out, killing at least 14 people. Not only has this escalation taken the drone attacks score since these began over the 300 mark, of late, the target for this is the Haqqanis tribesmen living around Miranshah. Two, over the weekend, the United States shifted hundreds of its troops to the Afghan areas bordering North Waziristan.

Dangerous developments have already started. Reports from Middle East say the United States on October 17 launched an unprecedented move that may open way for a direct confrontation with deployment of 41 giant transport planes of the 22nd Airlift Squadron preparing for a war game in the region. The report said the US Transportation Command and its Air Forces Transportation will be testing its ability to provide a rapid strategic airlift response to major crises and contingencies. These reports coincide with the US forces preparing to launch further actions in Waziristan area but most Middle Eastern experts say that the deployment could be a part of possible confrontation with Iran.

Besides, the Obama administration has escalated its psychological warfare against the Pakistan military leadership by airing reports of seizing the nation’s nuclear weapons during a crisis. This has been suggested in the recent article by Obama’s national security advisor Bruce Reidel and the former Afghan intelligence chief, Amrullah Saleh, in an interview with BBC, pleaded the same. In my view the US and its allies must desist from taking Pakistan to the brink because the consequences of such a hostile posture would be grave. Pakistan armed forces would certainly react very strongly with all its resources, if any foreign force tried to conduct a misadventure. Should it happen, the people of Pakistan would react violently, not only by demanding a tit-for-tat military response but may force the government to opt out of the US-led anti-terrorism alliance. The American people at home will also join the already flared up anti-capitalists movement, which could turn the tables on Washington.

The writer is a freelance columnist

 

[Solomon2]

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.

That's why the primary elections are important. Real choices in party direction are made in the primaries. I think our "major flaw" is low citizen participation in them.

"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.)

Stuff in English may be open and maturing, but I heard that what's available in Urdu is totally whack and unedited and does much to distort people's minds. Is this true?

---------- Post added at 12:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 PM ----------

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...

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.

These are political issues, not military ones. If India chooses to undertake a nuclear arms race neither the U.S. nor China (I believe) will bankroll Pakistan to keep up with it - yet in the nuclear age, a much smaller number of weapons is sufficient to deter aggressors.

By the early 1980s the Soviet Union actually had more operational nuclear weapons and missiles than the United States, yet such excess did not help the state one little bit. Whether Pakistan forges ahead to Empire and poverty or friendly relations and prosperity shouldn't be left up to the generals.

 

[Solomon2]

At general is a fake & I don’t think he was really a general when he retired” I am shocked that why he has used inappropriate language by calling the politicians claim about Akber’s death as a lie. That General is a fraud

It's clever of Khawaja to call the general a fake as a way to get around the provisions of the Constitution before tearing into the military with the real charges against them. However, in this excerpt he has only criticized the military for the unconstitutional role it has played in government, not the competence of its leadership.

I admit I'd like to read more of this stuff, if anyone is willing to oblige me.

 

[happycanuck]

It is very clear that USA has been increasing the pressure on Pakistan ever since OBL take out, it has been through various press releases and now it has taken a different turn for worse. I think Pakistan's Army leadership in still under an illusion that ISAF will leave Afghanistan in the hands of Pakistan guardianship, it is not going to happen. If Pakistan leadership thinks they have strategic interest than so does USA and other countries as well. What we do not want pre September 2001 situation. In this equation, I have never seen the names of any one of the GCC. Therefore I will take the liberty to name Saudi Arabia as one of them who plays a major role behind the door and they will control the outcome of the situation. One of them is that they will make sure all the terrorist cells are wiped out once for all. No one country will be allowed or should be allowed to have control over the internal affairs of Afghanistan.

In order to achieve the above stated objectives, if USA along with Afghanistan forces have to provoke and pursue the Haqqanis in to Pakistan's territory they will do it. The question is how deep into Waziristan they will go and what type of assets will be used to achieve the goals?

I hope that some sanity prevails and PA takes the appropriate steps to wipe out the terror cells on its territory and stop playing the games with rest of the world otherwise the outcome is going to leave a very bitter taste in Pakistani's mouth.

USA has been thinking for last ten years and giving you all the time to deal with the elements on its soil, now it is time for USA to act and teach you a lesson. I do not think you will dare to use any of nukes on USA forces, which will only turn your country into stone age for very long time.

 

[Dil Pakistan]

NATO + US army on the border and Hilary Clinton coming to Pakistan tomorrrow. It is not difficult to conclude what she is going to say. A perfect example of carrot and stick diplomacy.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It's clever of Khawaja to call the general a fake as a way to get around the provisions of the Constitution before tearing into the military with the real charges against them.

He called Gen. Qureshi a 'fake', but the charges he leveled against the Army had little to nothing to do with Qureshi, and therefore calling Qureshi a fraud did not give Khwaja a 'way around' provisions of the constitution.

However, in this excerpt he has only criticized the military for the unconstitutional role it has played in government, not the competence of its leadership.

The military leadership keeps changing - Kayani may have been COAS since 2007, but many of the senior generals under him have retired and others promoted. The CO's for Swat and FATA operations have changed a number of times. In general Kayani enjoys pretty high approval ratings, and his handling of various domestic political (restoration of the SC Judges and Punjab Government) and foreign challenges has won him admirers.

 

[Solomon2]

He called Gen. Qureshi a 'fake', but the charges he leveled against the Army had little to nothing to do with Qureshi, and therefore calling Qureshi a fraud did not give Khwaja a 'way around' provisions of the constitution.

So do you think this brave MP should be prosecuted?

 

[Dil Pakistan]

A real eye opener.

COAS admits that North Waziristan is a safe-heaven for terror organisations, but he is happily ready to let them endure.

COAS admits that the army and ISI have connections to terror organisations, but excuse it as collecting information.

COAS reaffirm Pakistan's "long-term interests" in Afghanistan (e.g. reinstating the friendly Taliban regime in Kabul) against the "short-terms interests" of the US and NATO. And we all know that the long-term interests are more important and are about to ruin everything the US and the West struggled for in Afghanistan since 9/11.

IF this the US "ally" in the War on Terror, then who is exactly a US enemy?

And another interesting fact - the briefing of the standing committee is taken place in GHQ, not in Parliament. Just to let everyone knows who has the real power: the armed forces, not the representatives of the people.

When US leaves Pakistan in a mess after Russia's exit from Afghanistan

When US blocks the delivery of F-16 to Pakistan that it has already paid for

When US puts Pakistan under sanctions for 10 years, after using Pakistan against Russia

When US supports and prompts India to put its forces on Pakistan's border in 2001 for 1 year

When US attacks Pakistan from Afghanistan and kills Pakistani soldiers

When US says no attacks are taking place from Afghanistan on Pakistan

When US refuses to stop infiltrators from Afghanistan who are attacking on Pakistani checkposts and killing Pakistani soldiers

When US funds and supports attacks on Pakistan from Afghanistan

IF THIS PAKISTAN's "ALLY" AND "FRiEND" IS NOT PAKISTAN's ENEMY, THEN WHO IS REALLY PAKISTAN's ENEMY ?????

 

[Solomon2]

When US leaves Pakistan in a mess after Russia's exit from Afghanistan
When US blocks the delivery of F-16 to Pakistan that it has already paid for
When US puts Pakistan under sanctions for 10 years, after using Pakistan against Russia
When US supports and prompts India to put its forces on Pakistan's border in 2001 for 1 year
When US attacks Pakistan from Afghanistan and kills Pakistani soldiers
When US says no attacks are taking place from Afghanistan on Pakistan
When US refuses to stop infiltrators from Afghanistan who are attacking on Pakistani checkposts and killing Pakistani soldiers
When US funds and supports attacks on Pakistan from Afghanistan
IF THIS PAKISTAN's "ALLY" AND "FRiEND" IS NOT PAKISTAN's ENEMY, THEN WHO IS REALLY PAKISTAN's ENEMY ?????

I don't think all these assertions are true, and for those that are, have you bothered to research and discover why? Not what the Pakistani media said, but from U.S. gov't sources? I doubt it. So you're only telling one side of the story - a highly biased one. Why should other Pakistanis put much stock in it?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So do you think this brave MP should be prosecuted?

No, but the anchor should have stepped in and cut off his mike for engaging in name calling and going completely off-topic, rather than responding to the points raised by Qureshi about the PML-Q government engaging in dialog, and a military operation being started when Bugti chose to continue perpetrating violence and terrorism.

What the MP did was nothing but a rant and Army bashing - what we need our MP's to do is engage in civil and factual debates and offer logical, factual and constructive answers to issues raised, and not their own version of the 'Jerry Springer Show'.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The army and parliament​

By Editorial
Published: October 19, 2011

During a briefing to the defence committees of the Senate and the National Assembly at General Headquarters (GHQ), Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has talked of certain aspects of the crisis of relations with the US and its Nato allies and explained Pakistan’s foreign policy on Afghanistan, commonly known as ‘strategic depth’. On the latest menacing concentration of US-Nato forces along the Durand Line, he said: “They might do it [might attack North Waziristan] but they will have to think 10 times because Pakistan is not Iraq or Afghanistan”.

On Pakistan’s own Afghanistan policy he said: “We cannot leave both our eastern and western borders insecure. It is wishful thinking to achieve strategic depth in Afghanistan. The Russians tried, the Brits tried, the Americans are trying. We don’t have a magic wand.” But he insisted that Pakistan had special strategic interest in the country nonetheless: “We have long-term interests in Afghanistan; others might have short [terms ones]… for short-term gains; we cannot lose [sight of] our long-term interests”. About the pressure being put on the Pakistan Army for going after the Haqqani network in North Waziristan, General Kayani was forthright and honest, describing his position as realistic and not necessarily a legal one: “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.”

As articulated by General Kayani, it is clearly a military-oriented policy focused on a war on two fronts founded on the thesis of permanent confrontation. And the general is right because Pakistan’s parliament has taken charge of foreign policy with the consent of the PPP-led government and an all-parties conference (APC) has endorsed it. Looking at the content of the number of APCs and subsequent parliamentary resolutions, the allocation of the foreign policy portfolio to the Pakistan Army is completely constitutional as endorsed by the elected representatives of the people. Not only that, the Pakistani media and the opinion of the common man as reflected in polls are fully behind the aggressive albeit isolationist stance adopted by the Pakistan Army. In democracies, foreign policy and diplomacy are the domain of the party in power because countries are normally required to deal with situations abroad, which are not subject to any settled law guiding state conduct. Conduct of foreign policy requires flexibility of response and reaching of prudent understandings to guard state interests topped by considerations of economic interest. (The only definition of ‘national interest’ that stands the test of practice is the one attached to the national economy.) Even accords signed with other states don’t require endorsement of parliament — as in the case of India and Pakistan — but if the government is weak it may devolve the conduct of foreign policy to parliament to draw strength from democratic consensus. In the case of Pakistan, foreign policy has been devolved to the Pakistan Army by government and parliament both. Hence no one should complain that Pakistan’s foreign policy is in the hands of GHQ.

No one can be happy over the confrontation Pakistan is embarking upon with the US and its Nato allies. The idea of leaning on the ‘prediction’ that the US will fail in this confrontation is unsettling, given the internal conditions of Pakistan. Even if Pakistan ‘wins’ in this confrontation, it will have to contend with a much bigger problem of dealing with local and foreign non-state actors trespassing on the writ of the Pakistani state. General Kayani says his army will clear the terrorists but the subsequent control of the pacified areas is the job of the civilians. The ‘realistic’ fact is that the army will not tackle the terrorists of a given region unless — as General Kayani explains — it suits “our situation and capabilities”. Pakistan’s ‘long-term’ interest in Afghanistan is not only challenged by the US and its allies but also by other regional states. The Pakistani narrative is not the only valid narrative. It is flawed because it is introverted and presumes the kind of economic muscle Pakistan doesn’t have.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 20th, 2011.
http://tribune.com.pk/story/277389/the-army-and-parliament/

 

[Dil Pakistan]

I don't think all these assertions are true, and for those that are, have you bothered to research and discover why? Not what the Pakistani media said, but from U.S. gov't sources? I doubt it. So you're only telling one side of the story - a highly biased one. Why should other Pakistanis put much stock in it?

BY THE WAY! I WAS REPLYING TO NIRREICH POST




1. You start with that you don't think these assertions are true. It means that even you are not sure yourself.

2. If you read my post again you will find that my points are facts of the last 20 years, not what Pakistani media has said

3. I should believe what US govt says !!!!! - NO my dear NO. That would be the last mistake.

3. All Pakistani know and believe already what I have written in my post. You, sitting in America want to claim you know more than Pakistanis !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Omar1984]

US incursion into Waziristan unlikely: Pakistan

ISLAMABAD — Pakistan's army chief has played down the prospects of a US ground offensive into the militant-infested district of North Waziristan despite US calls for Pakistani action, lawmakers said Wednesday.

Any such attack by US forces from across the Afghan border would prove 10 times harder than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, General Ashfaq Kayani was quoted as saying in a briefing Tuesday with the Pakistani lawmakers.

Kayani's remarks reportedly came at the briefing on what the military called "ongoing military operations" and "matters related to the defence budget".

In Afghanistan, officials say Afghan and NATO troops have launched a new push against the Al-Qaeda-linked Haqqani network along the troubled Pakistani border and in Pakistan there have been media reports of a US build up.

The military refused to comment further on Kayani's briefing, but four lawmakers who attended gave AFP different accounts of what transpired.

One lawmaker said, on condition of anonymity, that Kayani was asked about reports of US troops massing in Afghanistan along the Pakistani border.

"General Kayani said 'we are assessing what their intentions are. So far it does not appear to be a buildup against Pakistan. But if they come across the border they will think 10 times before doing so," he told AFP.

Washington last month escalated pressure on Pakistan to crack down on the Haqqanis after blaming the group for a 19-hour siege of the US embassy in Kabul and a truck bombing on a NATO outpost that wounded 77 Americans in September.

Its leaders are based in North Waziristan and then military chief Admiral Mike Mullen accused Pakistani intelligence of involvement in the embassy siege.

US commanders say the network is their most potent enemy in eastern Afghanistan and increasingly capable of launching high-profile attacks in Kabul, and want Pakistan to open a second front in North Waziristan.

Pakistan has refused and the country has been rife with conspiracy theories that the United States could instead launch a unilateral ground incursion in North Waziristan, although there has been no evidence to support such a theory.

Relations between Islamabad and Kabul, and Islamabad and Washington -- at least in public -- have recently soured over recriminations of cross-border attacks and responsibility for unrest in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

A third lawmaker quoted Kayani as saying that attacks are, for the first time, being mounted on Pakistan from Afghanistan by 150 to 200 people.

"They are coming from Kunar and Nuristan provinces. These attacks are not possible without the knowledge of ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) and NATO troops based on the Afghan side," he quoted Kayani as saying.

This is a mirror image of US and Afghan claims that Pakistan stands up as insurgents launch attacks from Pakistan.

Lawmakers quoted Kayani as saying that any operation in North Waziristan would be Pakistan's decision and not done under any outside pressure.

A second parliamentarian, also on condition of anonymity, told AFP that Kayani was asked whether US troops could launch an attack on Pakistan before withdrawing from Afghanistan.

"General Kayani said 'the Americans are not so foolish, they have their experience in Iraq and Afghanistan and no comparison can be made'," the lawmaker quoted the general as saying.

"They can do it, but if they engage in any such adventure they will find it 10 times more costly and difficult. It is not in their interest to launch such an attack," he added.

The United States has limited its military involvement in Pakistan to a covert CIA drone war focused on Waziristan. In May, its special forces raided a Pakistani garrison town to kill Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Pakistan was humiliated by the raid and insists there can never be a repeat, but the White House has reserved the right to act again if necessary.


AFP: US incursion into Waziristan unlikely: Pakistan

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan lost two brigades in war on terror ​

By Iftikhar A. Khan | From the Newspaper (3 hours ago) Today
The total number of Pakistanis killed in the conflict has gone up to 40,309. —APP file photo.

ISLAMABAD: In the ongoing war on terrorism the armed forces have so far lost the equivalent of two full brigades. Among those killed were one three-star and a couple of two-star generals.

Briefing defence committees of the two houses of parliament at General Headquarters on Tuesday (partly reported in Dawn on Wednesday), Director-General of Military Operations Maj-Gen Ashfaq Nadeem said that 3,097 personnel had been killed and 721 others permanently disabled.

The total number of Pakistanis killed in the conflict has gone up to 40,309. Maj-Gen Nadeem said the Inter-Services Intelligence alone had lost 63 personnel in various incidents, including attacks on its major stations.

Since 2007, he said, more than 140,000 armed forces personnel had been deployed along the Afghan border.

During the briefing, Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani rejected a perception that defence spending consumed a major portion of expenditures allocated in the budget. He also denied that defence spending had been increasing over the years.

Gen Kayani said that in 2001 defence spending was 4.6 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product. But it had now declined to only 2.4 per cent of the GDP.

A parliamentarian who attended the briefing quoted the army chief as saying that about 50 per cent of the budget expenditures went to debt servicing and the Public Sector Development Programme. In contrast, only about 18 per cent of the total outlay was allocated to defence.

Gen Kayani said that up to 75 per cent of what was allocated to the defence services was spent on salary and rations of the personnel and just 25 per cent on “everything else”. According to him, Pakistan spends on three soldiers what India spends on only one soldier.

Organisations like the Army Welfare Trust and Fauji Foundation contributed billions of rupees to the national exchequer every year in the form of taxes, Gen Kayani said.

When asked why did his old friend and former US military chief Admiral Mike Mullen “stab him in the back” by levelling some serious allegations against Pakistan Army, he said: “Friendship does not matter in such issues.

“(Mike) Mullen did what he thought was in the interest of the United States and I will do what I think is in Pakistan’s interest.”

He said that before the attack on the GHQ in October 2009, there was an intelligence report about a possible assault there.

“Fifteen terrorists were living in a house but the neighbours did not bother to inform the relevant quarters about what was going on.”

Gen Kayani said public cooperation was required to effectively combat terrorism.

Pakistan lost two brigades in war on terror | Newspaper | DAWN.COM

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Briefing at GHQ​

OCTOBER 20, 2011 RECORDER REPORT 0 COMMENTS

As the United States government prepares to send here another high-profile mission the Pakistani military high command Tuesday laid out its perspective on their anti-terrorism alliance in detail sufficient enough to help the two governments inject pragmatism to their co-operative relationship that is now beset with profound misperceptions and misgivings.

The occasion for this came during the briefing the members of the Senate and National Assembly committees on Defence and Defence Production received at the General Headquarters (GHQ), Rawalpindi. From what Army Chief General Kayani said in his comments at the briefing the transactional nature of the Pak-US co-operative alliance comes out rather clearly, as against the oft-claimed but never-practiced American contention of having strategic alliance with Pakistan.

As it comes out from his comments, the Obama administration is interested only in a military victory over the insurgents in Afghanistan, and that done the United States would disappear from the scene, but Pakistan has a lasting interest in durable peace on its western border - while it needs to keep under sharper focus the Indian build-up.

General Kayani wanted the Americans to understand that the trouble the US-led coalition forces confront in Afghanistan stems from within that space and in no way it gets transferred from Pakistan. And General Kayani also said what the people eagerly wanted to hear from him on the US military build-up opposite the North Waziristan. Though he didn't rule out a misadventure by the Americans and said they would 'think ten times' before undertaking such a foray but should that happen he promised an appropriate response, qualifying his remark by reminding 'Pakistan is a nuclear power and must not be compared with Iraq and Afghanistan.'

Not that General Kayani was greatly troubled over the latest developments in the Pak-Afghan border region, but he did want the Americans to engage in a serious review of the co-operative alliance. That they should stop dithering over terms of co-operative relationship and remain uncommitted, he said, was no more possible. And then there are some redlines that they have to respect and the one on the top of that is Pakistan's territorial integrity.

If action in North Waziristan was needed it would be a Pakistani action. His blunt talk seems to stem as much from the growing irrationality that now abounds in American perspective as from the fact that quite a big chunk of Afghan territory has passed into the hands of warlords and Taliban with Kabul having no writ there. Fazlullah's fighters have bases in Afghanistan and they feel free to operate against Pakistan from there.

This alarming development clearly suggests that Kabul has no control over those areas if it is accepted that they don't enjoy the patronage of the Afghan government and Isaf commanders. Pakistan military would ask Secretary Clinton when she comes here next week - (her visit here in the company of new Chairman of Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey and CIA chief is not yet confirmed) - to clear up the ambiguity over the nature of military co-operation. Should that not happen the perceptional mismatch between these two anti-terrorism partners would further mushroom.

If the briefing at the GHQ should help the United States leadership refine its expectations of Pakistan's anti-terrorism alliance, it would definitely help also our political leaders imbibe realism in their mindset about our armed forces. That some of them decided not to turn up at the GHQ arguing parliament should be the forum for such a briefing one fails to accept tenability of this logic. Given the enormity of the challenge polemics as to where the briefing should be held are too frivolous to merit a mention.

What is needed, and direly, is the resolve of the civilian set-up to stand up to the challenge by taking the lead. The military, General Kayani told his interlocutors, is at parliament's beck and call. If it wants to talk to the Taliban be it so. If it wants the drones to be shot down it would be done. The ball has been lobbed into the civilians' court, particularly with respect to two issues General Kayani specifically mentioned.

First, he said he is very much prepared to refuse the US military aid which in real terms is quite insignificant. Secondly, he wanted the parliamentarians to revisit the legal framework including evidence law and anti-terrorist act, which in their present form are too inadequate to secure punishment of terrorists. No doubt, the briefing at the GHQ would help Pakistan's anti-terrorism allies comprehend the ground reality in its correct perspective, and also know that beyond what Pakistan has done so far nothing more should be expected, nor would it be delivered.

Briefing at GHQ | Business Recorder