Hillary Clinton gives clean chit to Pakistan

[Stealth IFV]

anti amercanism will help us reduce American presence in Pakistan....
that is the only way otherwise our leading elite (including army) gets sold out very easily

they came and used us time and again or should i say screwed us?? our leaders assisted them for their own self-interest....... hence we r anti-(all of them)

Do you guys ever read the news? Hillary Clinton just exonerated your entire political and military establishment for hiding Osama. Still you guys want to burn flags and create war hysteria. Pakistan is suffering from a term known as "blowback", something which stems back to 1989 in the fields of Afghanistan, not in 2001.

 

[Hindustani]

Did your Master show that burning flag as well while saying so? Pathetic troll intention.

What? Ironic ain't it comparing the two completely different situations we're in. Nerve to call them my masters knowing they're doing what to which country

Just returning the favor of all the Indian articles by some pak members here, besides as i was surfing for idea for my essay I came across this article.

Want my cell number, address, location etc too? Get some sleep kid

 

[Developereo]

The American agenda in the region, guided by their anti-China obsession, is diametrically opposed to Pakistan's national interests.

It's as simple as that.

 

[ajpirzada]

That is the only travesty. The anti americanism is also being encouraged by the army because US does not agree anymore to the fact that the army has a birthright to govern Pakistan. So now the next stop is the friendlier China. Army's victory if achieved but what about Pakistan?

anti-americanism has nothing to do with army. its actually the army which cooperated with the americans when the whole nation was against it. now if army fuels it time and again, it doesnt make much of a difference...

speaking about post OBL raid, frustration has gone up against both the PA and the US. Given such circumstances, what you are saying cannot be true at least for now.

 

[ajpirzada]

Do you guys ever read the news? Hillary Clinton just exonerated your entire political and military establishment for hiding Osama. Still you guys want to burn flags and create war hysteria. Pakistan is suffering from a term known as "blowback", something which stems back to 1989 in the fields of Afghanistan, not in 2001.

and what exactly in your reply should convince me that I shouldnt be anti-(all of them)? When did anyone of them think about the welfare of the people of pakistan?
they all acted in their self-interest to achieve a certain goal.

 

[Guest01]

the US is much more supportive of Pakistan's Army. It gets free military hardware.

it's the people of Pakistan that don't get any benefit.
Pakistanis see the Chinese providing them with ToT from the latest aircraft and taking a Pakcentric approach to all the problems.

Long term development aid that people can see is another thing, no chinese drone strikes, along with other things. That gets them support from the masses.

That is where the fallacy is. Even though US is providing Pakistani army with the hardware, it is evident that it is the only way to engage with them. Toys. Because engagement is necessary to make any attempt to bring about any change. Even India has a problem with this hardware going cheap or free to the Pakistani army but Indians too need to understand that it is important to engage the Pakistani army while trying to move it away from the fascination of what it thinks as its birth right = rule Pakistan.

US seeks to take the imaginary enemies out. Look at it sanely, what is US telling the army or Pakistan:

1. The danger is not India as Pakistani army projects but in effect the terrorists in Pakistan and hence the army should move away from the doublespeak and act against them.
2. Afghanistan needs a reconciliatory approach and nothing will succeed without Pakistan's agreement. However, Haqqani's need to be let go as a dear leverage in some strategic end game.
3. The government should increase taxes on the elite to grow the internal revenue as aid cannot be a lifelong phenomenon.
4. There needs to be peace in the region for Pakistan to prosper.

Now tell me where is the US wrong? Do you see anything in the major messages that broadly come across to the Pakistani army as being wrong for Pakistan. Surely some or all of the messages are dangerous propositions only for the Pakistani Army.

Hence the obvious inclinations to move to China even when it has been acknowledged that China will not provide budgetery support (that US provides), will not provide aid or grants but loans which have to be ultimately repaid and provide no benefit in short term because the execution of the projects are with Chinese companies and Chinese workforce (so the project is paid up for China by the time it is constructed). Further how will the ToT for an aircraft helps Pakistan? Is the US not better when it says that the region should move to peace and that will eliminate the need for these aircrafts or whatever ToT it brings with them.

I could bring up more such examples for your consideration but I suspect that you know them already and it is just the matter of the changing the looking glasses. Put on positive ones and you will see things more clearly I think.

You may not be seeing chinese drone strikes in future, but take a look at countries which relied on China for their sustenance. North Korea, Cambodia, Myanmaar to name a few. My suggestion, chose wisely.

 

[Stealth IFV]

and what exactly in your reply should convince me that I shouldnt be anti-(all of them)? When did anyone of them think about the welfare of the people of pakistan?
they all acted in their self-interest to achieve a certain goal.

How about the part where I said you guys have been let off the hook by the US? That certainly lends towards your welfare, doesn't it? Or would you prefer ISAF relocate it's central operations to Pakistan?

 

[S.M.R]

ISLAMABAD: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Friday she was even more committed to Pakistan after Osama bin Laden's killing, but said the country needed to do more in its battle with Islamist militants.

Clinton is the most senior US official to visit Islamabad since relations between the wary allies went into freefall over the US Navy SEALs raid on May 2 that killed the al-Qaida chief in the city of Abbottabad.

Shrouded in blanket security, she met Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, before talks with army chief Ashfaq Kayani and the chief of Pakistan's intelligence agency Ahmad Shuja Pasha.

The discovery that the world's most-wanted man was living just a stone's throw from Pakistan's equivalent of West Point raised troubling questions about whether anyone in the Pakistani establishment was protecting him.

She said the United States had "absolutely no evidence that anyone at the highest level of the Pakistani government" knew where bin Laden was and said she would return to Washington "ever more committed" to the relationship.

"This was an especially important visit because we have reached a turning point. Osama bin Laden is dead but Al-Qaeda and his syndicate of terror remain a serious threat to us both," Clinton said.

"There is a momentum toward political reconciliation in Afghanistan but the insurgency continues to operate from safe havens here in Pakistan," she added, saying she believed that Pakistan and the United States had the same goals.

Pakistan has suffered a wave of attacks since the May 2 raid, with the country's main Taliban faction vowing to strike Pakistani and American targets to avenge his death in the American raid.

On the eve of Clinton's visit, 35 people were killed in a suicide car bombing outside a Pakistani police station in the northwestern town of Hangu late Thursday.

Islamabad's alliance with Washington is deeply unpopular in Pakistan, where the bin Laden operation and a CIA drone war against militant commanders in the tribal belt fuels widespread anti-American sentiment.

"America cannot and should not solve Pakistan's problems. That's up to Pakistan," she said.

"Pakistan should understand that anti-Americanism and conspiracy theories will not make the problem disappear," she added.

The chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, who accompanied Clinton in her meetings went on to plead for greater co-operation between the two wary allies in the war against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Clinton denied that the meetings, held under blanket security, were tense and said she had heard Pakistan commit to "some very specific action", saying the country deserved more credit for its efforts in the war on militants.

"We both recognise there is still much more work required and it's urgent."

Her visit was seen as an effort to demand more cooperation from Pakistan in the fight against Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants but also smooth over relations with Islamabad humiliated by the US raid that killed bin Laden.

Kayani has said any similar raid would prompt a review of military cooperation with the United States and Washington is reducing the strength of US military personnel to a minimum following a request from Islamabad.

Western officials have long accused Pakistan's intelligence services of playing a double game by fighting Islamist militants who pose a domestic threat, but protecting those who fight against American troops in Afghanistan.

"They are now having to look at some very tough questions that they either tried to avoid or which they gave inadequate answers to before," a senior US official told reporters travelling with Clinton.

The United States has long put pressure on Pakistan to lead a major air and ground offensive in North Waziristan, the most notorious Taliban and Al-Qaeda bastion used to launch attacks across the border in Afghanistan.

Pakistan has always maintained that any such operation would be of its own time and choosing, arguing that its 140,000 troops committed to the northwest are too overstretched fighting against militants who pose a domestic threat.

Pakistan has been fighting homegrown Taliban for years in its northwest and militant attacks have killed more than 4,400 people across the country since July 2007 in revenge for the government's US alliance.

Hillary Clinton gives clean chit to Pakistan - The Times of India

Any signs we are getting rid of Americans??

 

[Guest01]

anti-americanism has nothing to do with army. its actually the army which cooperated with the americans when the whole nation was against it. now if army fuels it time and again, it doesnt make much of a difference...

speaking about post OBL raid, frustration has gone up against both the PA and the US. Given such circumstances, what you are saying cannot be true at least for now.

On the contrary, I think that the current anti Americanism in Pakistan has everything to do with the Army. US is not accepting the army's feigning anymore and wants the double speak to stop to bring long term peace and stability to the region. Nothing that US is doing is hurting the average Pakistani in the long term. Every current action of US is hurting only the army in Pakistan. Hence the quest for a new hero friendly nation and we are where we are today.

Regarding the increasing frustration post the OBL raid, I would like to bring you back to the narrative that is being discussed in Pakistan. It is not that OBL was killed in Pakistan near the army's premier academy. The narrative as being controlled by the army in Pakistani media is actually that US came in and killed OBL. So in effect US is being portrayed as the devil for killing OBL and taking army's (as they claim the nation's) ghairat away, while the saner voices will rather question the army on its choice of friends and assets which are now leading to this murderous and nationally humiliating period for the citizens of Pakistan.

 

[RazorMC]

... Pakistan is suffering from a term known as "blowback", something which stems back to 1989 in the fields of Afghanistan, not in 2001.

The blowback you mention comes from the Indian media, Stealth IFV. It is insulting to keep on repeating biased versions of events.
The cause of all this mess was a hasty American withdrawal once the job was done and leaving Pakistan to deal with the mess.
Deserting us completely has disappointed the Pakistani population more than anything else.

 

[Stealth IFV]

The blowback you mention comes from the Indian media, Stealth IFV. It is insulting to keep on repeating biased versions of events.
The cause of all this mess was a hasty American withdrawal once the job was done and leaving Pakistan to deal with the mess.
Deserting us completely has disappointed the Pakistani population more than anything else.

I'm not subject to the Indian media here in Canada, so please don't lump people like me in with you guys, first off. Second, a hasty American withdrawal? I thought you guys hate Americans, what did you want them to stick around for, to build the Taliban base camps for you? Pakistan pursued her own agendas during the war and especially afterwards. Now they are back to help you and you want them to desert you. Cycle of confusion, please don't involve me in it.

 

[Developereo]

Every current action of US is hurting only the army in Pakistan.

You are absolutely right. It is America's aim to weaken the Pakistan army by creating a rift between the Pakistani people and the army and thus weaken their morale.

We are on to the Americans' game.

 

[roadrunner]

That is where the fallacy is. Even though US is providing Pakistani army with the hardware, it is evident that it is the only way to engage with them. Toys. Because engagement is necessary to make any attempt to bring about any change. Even India has a problem with this hardware going cheap or free to the Pakistani army but Indians too need to understand that it is important to engage the Pakistani army while trying to move it away from the fascination of what it thinks as its birth right = rule Pakistan.

Yet the Chinese approach is much more effective. It engages everyone. Therefore no anti-chinese sentiment.

US seeks to take the imaginary enemies out. Look at it sanely, what is US telling the army or Pakistan:

1. The danger is not India as Pakistani army projects but in effect the terrorists in Pakistan and hence the army should move away from the doublespeak and act against them.

How did these terrorists come about? 1980's support the mujahideen with some fanatical nonsense. Import books calling everyone a non muslim who doesn't grow a beard? China hasnt done this. so no anti chinese sentiment has been generated.

2. Afghanistan needs a reconciliatory approach and nothing will succeed without Pakistan's agreement. However, Haqqani's need to be let go as a dear leverage in some strategic end game.

The Pashtuns are the powerholders in Afghanistan, not the Tajiks or Uzbeks. Why have they been favoured? I agree that Pakistan is needed because it has leverage over the Pashtuns in Afghanistan. Whoever has might in Afghanistan will be needed for the initial government rotations.

3. The government should increase taxes on the elite to grow the internal revenue as aid cannot be a lifelong phenomenon.

Very true. Who lines the pockets of the government? America. The Chinese try to avoid giving money directly to zardari. No anti-chinese sentiment.

4. There needs to be peace in the region for Pakistan to prosper.

true and pakistan knows this. How do you get peace when Afghanistan has been destabilized a) through radicalizing everyone in the 1980s b) through invading them twice c) through putting Tajiks (a minority) in power at the expense of the majority in a highly tribalistic country? China has not done this. No anti-chinese sentiment.

Now tell me where is the US wrong? Do you see anything in the major messages that broadly come across to the Pakistani army as being wrong for Pakistan. Surely some or all of the messages are dangerous propositions only for the Pakistani Army.

Hence the obvious inclinations to move to China even when it has been acknowledged that China will not provide budgetery support (that US provides), will not provide aid or grants but loans which have to be ultimately repaid and provide no benefit in short term because the execution of the projects are with Chinese companies and Chinese workforce (so the project is paid up for China by the time it is constructed). Further how will the ToT for an aircraft helps Pakistan? Is the US not better when it says that the region should move to peace and that will eliminate the need for these aircrafts or whatever ToT it brings with them.

ToT is important for self reliance and if you think India has no desire to attack Pakistan if it could, you're living in a dream. That will never wash with the people of Pakistan.

Aid to Pakistan from the US does not all arrive. The Luger-Kerry Bill provided hundreds of millions a year and tens of milions arrived. The WoT is expensive for Pak. China is not asking it to do anything and still gives Pakistan aid. No anti-chinese sentiment.

I could bring up more such examples for your consideration but I suspect that you know them already and it is just the matter of the changing the looking glasses. Put on positive ones and you will see things more clearly I think.

You may not be seeing chinese drone strikes in future, but take a look at countries which relied on China for their sustenance. North Korea, Cambodia, Myanmaar to name a few. My suggestion, chose wisely.

So what?

 

[illuminatidinesh]

The blowback you mention comes from the Indian media, Stealth IFV. It is insulting to keep on repeating biased versions of events.
The cause of all this mess was a hasty American withdrawal once the job was done and leaving Pakistan to deal with the mess.
Deserting us completely has disappointed the Pakistani population more than anything else.

We dont here from the Indian Media of what U say. What biased version U are talking about?

 

[Guest01]

You are absolutely right. It is America's aim to weaken the Pakistan army by creating a rift between the Pakistani people and the army and thus weaken their morale.

We are on to the Americans' game.

This is what I do not understand.

What has the Pakistani army done in its history that speaks growth for Pakistan? Which of the choices do you think are paying dividends for the citizens of the country? And in the light of the answers to these queries, tell me why is US wrong when it wants to dilute the influence of the Pakistani army in its policy decisions whether they be economic (largest share of budget to the army) or foreign (make friends out of India and Afghanistan by abandoning the strategic assets theory), educationally (make the society less fundamentalist), monetarily (encourage taxes and financial accountability) etc. etc.

Tell me that it is this ghairat and honor version of Kiyani that Pakistan wants or is it peace and prosperity and respectability and a hope for the families and children of Pakistan that the average citizen desires?