Dragon's Teeth

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

if you dont have the resources, let some one who has the resources do it for you.

your argument that you dont have the resources to destroy the taliban sanctuaries presumes that you want to destroy them too.

so if you also want them destroyed let the americans do the dirty job.

Given that even limited drone strikes are considered a violation of sovereignty and hard to justify to the extent that the GoP officially disowns them, allowing large scale military offensives by a foreign entity already disliked and distrusted by Pakistanis is politically unfeasible for any GoP and would in fact allow support for the insurgency to increase and the Islamist message of 'overthrowing the corrupt Pakistani system' to gather more traction.

The answer to a paucity of resources is not to have foreign troops invade, but to provide Pakistan with those resources so it can better manage the situation itself.

For example, Pakistan has always acted when provided with intelligence against AQ and Taliban targets (and has captured perhaps the largest number of AQ members in the world), and according to some reports is also providing intelligence for many US drone strikes.

So the 'will to act' is not lacking, otherwise we would not be acting on the intelligence tip offs the US provides nor would we be providing them intelligence for their own drone strikes.

One important point that needs to be highlighted is that various high level Pakistani military and GoP officials have argued multiple times that IF the US provided actionable intel on the Quetta Shura or AQ, Pakistan would act, and has ALWAYS acted when provided concrete intel in the past.

Not one refutation of that claim by Pakistani officials has been made by US officials. No US official (AFAIK) has claimed that they provided Pakistan with intel and Pakistan did not act. So based on available facts the question of 'will to act' does not arise.

What is left is resources, and if the US has them and Pakistan does not, then those resources need to be transferred to Pakistan so that it can do the job without the dangerous complications of foreign intervention.

That said, let me remind you of what I mentioned to S-2 --- the US is itself withdrawing forces from North Eastern Afghan provinces and allowing the Taliban to take over BECAUSE they claim a lack of resources to maintain a presence and control in those regions among various other 'constraints'. So the US/NATO is hardly the entity that can be argued to be allowed into Pakistan to makeup the balance of resources when they claim they don't even have enough for Afghanistan.

 

[karan.1970]

Yet another one, anyway.

If US has made allegations about its so called ally, then kindly check up, Pakistan has made the same allegations too.

Recently CIA chief came to Pakistan, with other proofs of some other nations interfering in Pakistan by using Afghanistan, ISI gave proofs of even CIA involvement also.

So if you have one side of the story and hell bent believing on it, do check up the other side of the story too.

Thats exactly what I was trying to point out.. Shouldnt USA and Pakistan be on the same side of the story considering they are allies. The tone of the statements (form US and Pakistan) are more accusatory than what ideally should be between 2 partners on the same side in a war..

Anyway, it was just a observation and am not trying to instigate a debate on this. As it is an internal matter between USA and Pakistan..


cheers..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Thats exactly what I was trying to point out.. Shouldnt USA and Pakistan be on the same side of the story considering they are allies. The tone of the statements (form US and Pakistan) are more accusatory than what ideally should be between 2 partners on the same side in a war..

Anyway, it was just a observation and am not trying to instigate a debate on this. As it is an internal matter between USA and Pakistan..


cheers..

They should have been on the same side theoretically, but that is not the manner in which the US pursued its mission in Afghanistan during the Bush Administration nor its relationship with Pakistan, especially from the strategic perspective.

The US has also found it easier (as has India and some would argue has Pakistan) to explain away its failings by scapegoating an external entity, which indeed does not jive with the idea of an 'ally'.

Making unsubstantiated allegations against Pakistan has been used as a policy tool by the US to pressure Pakistan to act, and has backfired IMO in that very few in Pakistan trust the US anymore.

It will take time to remove the distrust, if the Obama Administration is indeed interested in charting a new course in the US-Pak relationship.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

"S-2 who gives a ...... about what usa wants."

What about every other nation trying to help Afghanistan? Or the NGOs that are there? Or the same U.N. that Pakistan allows to care for its own IDPs?

You've a very selfish attitude when you try to equivocate all that's done against Afghanistan as only causing Americans pain and suffering
.

My killing civilians and drone strikes which create more problems for us ur doin a good job
remmember we didnt arm them we r a poor country..YOU LEFT AFGHANS WITH TALIBAN WAT WERE WE SUPPOSED TO DO?TURN EM AGAINST PAKISTAN?REGUADING SELFISH WE HAVE LOST 2200 SOLDIERS 9000 CIVILIANS WHAT THE ...... HAVE U LOST ? TWIN TOWERS? WHOSE ATTACKERS WERE SAUDI?
YOU SEND PRIVATE COMPAINES FIR UR WAR LIKE BACK WATER WHICH HAS AROUND 10000 GUYS IN AFGHAN.
TAKE A GLIMPE INSIDE YOUR COLLAR

 

[karan.1970]

Making unsubstantiated allegations against Pakistan has been used as a policy tool by the US to pressure Pakistan to act, and has backfired IMO in that very few in Pakistan trust the US anymore.

Thats so true.. If only the trust deficit in this region (US - Pak, India - Pak, India - China) wasnt so huge, life for all concerned would have been so much better.. Lets hope that the new decade gets us a better socio-political environment to live in.

cheers

 

[SMC]

Boss you can buy any weapon and ammo here in any quantity.Now do you think they need help either from some corporation or from state to procure these weapons.
dzHYlZSnD_g[/media] - Illegal Gun Market in Pakistan

rT_d9-52D04[/media] - Pakistan Gun Market

[url="

Pakistani Darra made weapons[/url]

Do you think they just use guns and bullets? Check out their weapons. They're NOT just guns and bullets but plenty more. There's no way that can available in black market all alone in that much quantity. I have no doubt guns can be obtained in large quantities from black market.

 

[SekrutYakhni]

They should have been on the same side theoretically, but that is not the manner in which the US pursued its mission in Afghanistan during the Bush Administration nor its relationship with Pakistan, especially from the strategic perspective.

The US has also found it easier (as has India and some would argue has Pakistan) to explain away its failings by scapegoating an external entity, which indeed does not jive with the idea of an 'ally'.

Making unsubstantiated allegations against Pakistan has been used as a policy tool by the US to pressure Pakistan to act, and has backfired IMO in that very few in Pakistan trust the US anymore.

It will take time to remove the distrust, if the Obama Administration is indeed interested in charting a new course in the US-Pak relationship.

Indeed!

but Afghan war is not a war against terrorism...it is to some extent!

If U.S. was truly hit by terrorists so hard than the situation would be different!

The distrust comes when the objectives are not the ones told to the people!

U.S. activities in Pakistan are not the ones friends do....

There are other objectives!

Why do you think U.S. is spending billions in Afghanistan?
Don’t get fooled...

Afghan war is a cap to wear on the head to hide the hair!


If you see the temperature and geographic location of Afghanistan...you can find many resources in it!