UmarJustice
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2012
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 0
ISLAMABAD: Hillary Clinton, the 67th Untied States Secretary of State, has lost out to Leon Panetta, the 23rd United States Secretary of Defence. Panetta has teamed up with General (R) David Petraeus, the former four-star general of the United States army and the current director of the CIA. As far as Pakistan is concerned, Panetta is deriving additional strength from the mood at the United States House of Representatives as well as the United States Senate; both the houses are gradually embracing a more hawkish stance.
Clinton had been advocating a more reconciliatory approach of dialogue and compromise but the Haqqanis had refused to bow down to US prerogatives. According to Marvin Weinbaum of the University of Illinois, Few question the desirability of finding a political resolution to the Afghan conflict or doubt Pakistans pivotal role. The growing divide of opinion in this country is over how best to achieve that outcome.
The formal Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) designation for the Haqqanis, according to Daniel Markey, CFRs senior fellow for India, Pakistan and South Asia, is largely a bureaucratic, internal, US government manoeuvre but for Pakistan it means that the State versus Defence tug-of-war has been settled in favour of Panetta. It also means that the military half of the US government has won over the more dovish civilian forces.
The FTO designation for the Haqqani network has now made the network subject to US sanctions under section 219 of the US Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). For Pakistan, the worst case scenario flowing out of the designation could be a state sponsor of terrorism label.
For now, Pakistan can treat this as US governments non-military manoeuvre to try and induce a divorce between Pakistans military intelligence apparatus and the Haqqanis.
Our Foreign Office, according to Wajahat Khan, will be able to backstop and goalkeep for Chaklala and Aabpara in the short-run But not against a sustained diplomatic (and/or economic) assault that in all probability will follow.
On September 6, The New York Times reported that the White House also backs the blacklisting of the Haqqani network. To be certain, it is our non-military face that is the most vulnerable as we need a wholesome $24 billion foreign injection over the following 24 months and that is just to avoid a default.
On Pakistans part, it is decision time for our uniformed decision makers. On the American side, there is a definite element of scape-goating as the Haqqanis are responsible for no more than 10 percent of American casualties. All said and done, Clinton has lost and Panetta is giving us a choice between the Haqqanis and the US.
Crunch time: pick one, Haqqani network or the US - thenews.com.pk
Clinton had been advocating a more reconciliatory approach of dialogue and compromise but the Haqqanis had refused to bow down to US prerogatives. According to Marvin Weinbaum of the University of Illinois, Few question the desirability of finding a political resolution to the Afghan conflict or doubt Pakistans pivotal role. The growing divide of opinion in this country is over how best to achieve that outcome.
The formal Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) designation for the Haqqanis, according to Daniel Markey, CFRs senior fellow for India, Pakistan and South Asia, is largely a bureaucratic, internal, US government manoeuvre but for Pakistan it means that the State versus Defence tug-of-war has been settled in favour of Panetta. It also means that the military half of the US government has won over the more dovish civilian forces.
The FTO designation for the Haqqani network has now made the network subject to US sanctions under section 219 of the US Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). For Pakistan, the worst case scenario flowing out of the designation could be a state sponsor of terrorism label.
For now, Pakistan can treat this as US governments non-military manoeuvre to try and induce a divorce between Pakistans military intelligence apparatus and the Haqqanis.
Our Foreign Office, according to Wajahat Khan, will be able to backstop and goalkeep for Chaklala and Aabpara in the short-run But not against a sustained diplomatic (and/or economic) assault that in all probability will follow.
On September 6, The New York Times reported that the White House also backs the blacklisting of the Haqqani network. To be certain, it is our non-military face that is the most vulnerable as we need a wholesome $24 billion foreign injection over the following 24 months and that is just to avoid a default.
On Pakistans part, it is decision time for our uniformed decision makers. On the American side, there is a definite element of scape-goating as the Haqqanis are responsible for no more than 10 percent of American casualties. All said and done, Clinton has lost and Panetta is giving us a choice between the Haqqanis and the US.
Crunch time: pick one, Haqqani network or the US - thenews.com.pk
