Deal acceptable in Afghanistan, not in Pakistan: US

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

US: Pakistan-style truce in Afghanistan acceptable​

By SLOBODAN LEKIC – 3 hours ago

KRAKOW, Poland (AP) — U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday that Washington could accept a political agreement between the Afghan government and Taliban rebels along the lines of a truce in neighboring Pakistan.

Gates' comments contrasted with those of Richard Holbrooke, the new U.S. envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, who said this week that he was worried that the peace deal was tantamount to surrender by Pakistan.

On Monday, Pakistan announced it would agree to the imposition of Islamic law in the restive Swat valley in the northwest part of the country as part of an agreement aimed at restoring peace after an 18-month military campaign. The pact was spearheaded by a hard-line cleric who is negotiating with the Taliban in the valley to give up their arms.

A reporter from Pakistan's Geo Television brought up the Swat deal and Holbrooke's criticism of it.

The reporter asked whether, if Pakistan succeeds in pacifying militant activity in Swat, the United States would allow Afghans to make a similar type of agreement.

Gates replied: "If there is a reconciliation, if insurgents are willing to put down their arms, if the reconciliation is essentially on the terms being offered by the government then I think we would be very open to that.

"We have said all along that ultimately some sort of political reconciliation has to be part of the long-term solution in Afghanistan," Gates said.

Afghanistan's government has said it wants to persuade Taliban guerrillas who are not "hard-liners" to lay down their arms in return for a political role in the country. But representatives of the Taliban, who have made significant military gains in the last two years and now control vast swathes of countryside, say they will not negotiate while foreign troops remain in Afghanistan.

A similar deal in Swat last year collapsed in a few months and was blamed for giving insurgents time to regroup.

Gates also welcomed the fact that NATO nations have signaled a willingness to provide more troops or other assistance to the war effort in Afghanistan, even though the meeting ended with no firm commitments on either.

"Countries are making new commitments on a fairly steady basis on both the civilian and military sides," he said. "I expect there will be new commitments by the time of the NATO summit (in April)."

The meeting in Krakow came amid intense diplomatic efforts to secure alternate supply routes to Afghanistan, to augment the main logistical lines through Pakistan which have been under increasing rebel attack.

Complicating matters further for the U.S. and for NATO, Kyrgyzstan, the site of a major U.S. air base used to fly troops and supplies to Afghanistan, on Friday ordered U.S. forces to depart within six months.

But Russia and several other Central Asian states have said they would allow NATO to ferry supplies by rail to the borders of Afghanistan, thus easing the supply squeeze faced by the alliance.

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said at the defense ministers' meeting that a broader regional approach was needed to help put down the insurgency in Afghanistan. The focus would be on more involvement from Pakistan, but could include Iran one day, he said.

He said the suggestion does not mean that NATO plans to enter into dialogue with Iran immediately but that Tehran could be involved "at a certain stage ... in a regional approach toward Afghanistan."

De Hoop Scheffer said the allies would also continue a policy of gradual reengagement with Russia, after ties between NATO and that country were suspended in the wake of the Russo-Georgian war in August.

After meeting with the defense ministers of Ukraine and Georgia, de Hoop Scheffer also said NATO would stick by its commitment to help Ukraine undertake "comprehensive reforms" in its defense and security structures.

At a summit in Romania last year, NATO leaders decided to offer Ukraine and Georgia a so-called "membership action plan" to prepare them to become members. But faced with opposition from Moscow, NATO has since backed away from establishing a plan for the two nations.

The ministers also agreed to deploy a new anti-piracy flotilla to the Horn of Africa, as a follow-on to a six week mission by a NATO squadron in November and December.

The task force of six frigates and destroyers is to depart next month and will help to patrol the seas off the lawless coast of Somalia, where pirate attacks have skyrocketed in 2008.

The Associated Press: US: Pakistan-style truce in Afghanistan acceptable
-------------------------

Well now, some sense prevailing I see.

However, the Pakistani 'truce' is nowhere close to being concluded, let alone be successful. How much will the Taliban expect the government to compromise? Will they want restrictions on education for women, influence on the courts and an immediate withdrawal of the Army?

Lots of unanswered questions, but it is good to see that out of hand dismissal of Pakistani efforts is changing somewhat.

It is not Shariah that is the problem, it is what comes afterwards and how peace is implemented and enforced.

 

[UnitedPak]

They want peace... so that the oil giants are not disturbed when exporting fuel and resources out of Central Asia.
Otherwise, if a truce is 'acceptable', US troops should be on their merry way back home.

This is unsettling to say the least. With Obama sending more troops and a truce on its way at the same time, they really plan on setting camp for the next decade or so. People will still not question the 'good intentions' of bringing law and order to the war torn region while the oil and gas flows to the western world right under their noses.
Clearly this energy is not meant for any Asian country, so I can imagine Russia and China setting hell loose some time soon.

Stage two will involve finding (an) Osama in one of the Balochistans. The American controlled trade corridor will then be complete. Democracy restored etc etc.

 

[kidwaibhai]

personally i think that the truce will not hold and there will be a start of a military operation soon but this time the taliban will not have the high moral ground of shariah

 

[metalfalcon]

So Americans as well have realized that You cannot win the War against These People with Force, Actually nobody ever did. The Only Reason Soviet Union Failed in Afghanistan was that They Never had Peaceful solution on Their Table and they Were Never in the Mode of Negotiating or Having a Dialogue with these People.

USA Better Look for Peaceful Approach and a Solution Through Dialogue. And Let Afghans Talk with them and Lets see what Common Terms they can Agree on.

 

[S-2]

Disarm is a good point of departure. Who are we talking to, btw? Whoever it is, they're demanding NATO's withdrawal as a pre-condition. Seems that they like their position.

That won't work so we need to build some leverage. The best, of course, is "talk or die", especially where they believe it. Right now they don't.

 

[batmannow]

Deal acceptble in Afghanistan, not in Pakistan: US
Saturday, 21 Feb, 2009 | 01:17 AM PST |
www.dawn.com

Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON: The United States has rejected the truce in Swat but US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said on Friday that Washington could accept a similar agreement between the government and Taliban militants in Afghanistan.
The US rejection was conveyed by its special envoy Richard Holbrooke who telephoned President Asif Ali Zardari on Thursday evening to tell him that the deal was tantamount to surrender by Pakistan.

Later, Mr Holbrooke told CNN that the Pakistani leader had assured him the Swat deal was only an ‘interim arrangement’ to stabilise the restive region and that he has not yet signed an agreement with the militants.

In a separate briefing on Friday, Defence Secretary Robert Gates told reporters in Poland that the United States could accept a political agreement between the Afghan government and Taliban rebels along the lines of the Swat deal.

‘We have said all along that ultimately some sort of political reconciliation has to be part of the long-term solution in Afghanistan,’ media reports quoted Mr Gates as saying.

Asked whether Washington would approve a Swat like agreement between Kabul and Taliban guerrillas, Mr Gates replied: ‘If there is a reconciliation, if insurgents are willing to put down their arms, if the reconciliation is essentially on the terms being offered by the government then I think we would be very open to that.’
The Swat deal, however, appears to have irked Mr Holbrooke who earlier this week also criticized the Pakistani military for not sharing President Zardari’s commitment to fighting the militants.

Pakistan has defended its effort to make a peace deal with the militants, saying that it was part of a pragmatic military and political strategy to turn Swat’s native populations against the terrorists.

Ambassador Holbrooke, who returned from a fact-finding visit to South Asia earlier this week, rejected this argument.
‘It's hard to understand this deal in Swat, the area you're talking about, less than 100 miles from the capital in Islamabad,’ he said.

Mr Holbrooke described the Swat militants as ‘murderous thugs and militants (who) pose a danger not only to Pakistan, but to the United States and India.’ President Zardari, he said, ‘doesn't disagree’ with this description.

Asked whether President Zardari had given him a commitment to stop the accord, Ambassador Holbrooke said: ‘Well, he hasn't signed the deal.’

‘Will he?’ the US envoy was asked. ‘That I don't know. But the issue isn't whether he signs the deal or not, the issue is the negotiations themselves. And I'm concerned, and I know Secretary Clinton is, and the president (Obama) is, that this deal, which is portrayed in the press as a truce, is not —does not turn into surrender.’

Mr Holbrooke said that President Zardari had not only assured the US that Pakistan will not surrender to the militants but is also sending a very high level delegation to Washington next week for talks on this and other issues.

The delegation will include the foreign minister and several senior military officials, Mr Holbrooke said. He said Pakistan’s army chief General Ashfaq Kayani and the head of ISI will also be in Washington next week for similar talks.

‘And I can assure you, and President Zardari knows this, that this (the Swat deal) will be the top initial subject of conversation,’ said Ambassador Holbrooke.

Mr Holbrooke was then asked to comment on a recent statement by the former secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, who said: ‘Pakistan has everything that gives you an international migraine. It has nuclear weapons. It has terrorism, extremists, corruption, very poor, and it's in a location that's really, really important to us.’

‘How worried are you?’ Ambassador Holbrooke was asked. ‘This is a legitimate concern. The United States cannot ignore it. The American intelligence community has briefed us,’ said the US envoy.

‘But we have been assured by the American intelligence community that this arsenal is under the control of the Pakistan military. But it's an issue of high concern and it can't be ignored.’

Ambassador Holbrooke, who brokered a peace deal in Bosnia, was asked what was harder: Bosnia or his present assignment in Afghanistan and Pakistan. ‘This is harder … much harder,’ he replied.

 

[Awesome]

I agree, there should be no such deal.

But there SHOULD NOT be any such deals in Afghanistan either. Afghanistan is the source of this problem, not Swat. Things would get pretty ugly pretty quick if they went that way.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Threads merged. Please look for existing threads on similar issues before opening new ones.

 

[Omar1984]

Pakistan is a sovereign nation.

Who needs permission from Uncle Sam?

Its time Pakistan looks for its own best interst and keep Pakistanis happy not Americans.

 

[batmannow]

I agree, there should be no such deal.

But there SHOULD NOT be any such deals in Afghanistan either. Afghanistan is the source of this problem, not Swat. Things would get pretty ugly pretty quick if they went that way.

dear , sir
thats the whole probum here, US isnt thinking anything for pakistan, & pakistan is effecting very , very much , from the situation in afghanistan , which is being a product of US occupation ?

 

[S-2]

Vagaries. Gates hasn't said anything new and the afghan taliban haven't said anything at all. We won't talk to factions whom remain armed. They won't talk so long as we're in Afghanistan. Disarming is WAY down their list of objectives.

That's the Grand Canyon between afghan "talks".

The afghan militants have no incentive to talk and no concurrence among one another to present a coherant opposition in any case. Somebody would quite likely be left out of the proceedings. If you don't have everybody involved, you've no peace.

Pakistan is facing very similar problems now in SWAT. All that's been achieved to date is negotiating an agreement to have Sufi Mohammad act as Pakistan's agent in discussions with his son-in-law. Mullah FM is the real local power and HIS demands far exceed simply "sharia" (whatever that seems to be at the moment).

 

[batmannow]

Threads merged. Please look for existing threads on similar issues before opening new ones.

dear sir,
last time i checked the thread "US: Pakistan-style truce in Afghanistan acceptable", its looking more of USA 's acceptence of the "SAWT SHARIH ACCORD" i guss, the title which was chossen before, was not safficiant one.

the thread which, i had posted with the title "Deal acceptable in Afghanistan, not in Pakistan: US" was looking more clear & more open.

plz , try to hilight the pakistani & real subjects!
thanks
regards.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

S-2:

Given the opposition to the term 'disarmament', in terms of Pashtun tradition and culture, I wonder if the rhetoric of the goals in the WoT needs to be changed.

Complete 'Disarmament' will be impossible to enforce, so perhaps the goal and rhetoric should be more of a 'disbanding of militias'. An Ak-47 or two in a household is not going to by itself be a major cause for concern, and by not implying that we intend to take away something that has become such a cultural icon and perceived 'right', we avoid getting into greater tangles.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

dear sir,
last time i checked the thread "US: Pakistan-style truce in Afghanistan acceptable", its looking more of USA 's acceptence of the "SAWT SHARIH ACCORD" i guss, the title which was chossen before, was not safficiant one.

the thread which, i had posted with the title "Deal acceptable in Afghanistan, not in Pakistan: US" was looking more clear & more open.

plz , try to hilight the pakistani & real subjects!
thanks
regards.

They essentially deal with the same subject. If you want a title changed, you can always ask a moderator through the report post feature to change the title.

 

[macintosh]

THE Truce in swat is unacceptable as it will only help Taliban reorganize it's forces and create more trouble for U.S. and if Pak does not listen to dictates by Taliban, then to Pak also.The best way to end global terrorism is for Pak army to join U.S. and nato forces in flushing out Taliban.The decision is very difficult for Pak as most of the Pakistanis are opposed to such a move by Pak, but it is the only way to maintain stability in South Asia.Otherwise Taliban will penetrate deep in Pak howsoever denial Pakistani's remain in.The choice is Pak's anyway.The war with Taliban will be difficult and may be long but if will power of Pak army is strong they will prevail and so will the peace in Pak and every nation will come to help them in their endeavour.