Spy Master
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2014
- Messages
- 1,627
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
it really must have been hurting...After such an investment show and other things, still no seat for the "Super Power" at the table? 
Indians may quietly be told to let US, Pakistan work out Afghan peace policy
- Thread starter nadeemkhan110
- Start date
it really must have been hurting...After such an investment show and other things, still no seat for the "Super Power" at the table? 
ArsalanKhan21
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2015
- Messages
- 4,006
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Pakistan-US relations: What issues does Pakistan's military face? - BBC News
Pakistan-US relations: What issues does Pakistan's military face?
By Ilyas Khan BBC News
Image caption Pakistan's army chief, Gen Raheel Sharif, faces many challenges in his relationship with the US
Pakistan army chief Gen Raheel Sharif's trip to Washington is his second in less than a year.
In 2014, he was given red carpet treatment in recognition of the Pakistani military's long-demanded ground offensive to clear militant sanctuaries in North Waziristan, on the border with Afghanistan.
This time, the significance of his trip was slightly dented when an unnamed Pentagon official revealed the visit was requested by Gen Sharif, not Washington.
But observers have not missed the fact that more doors are being opened for him in Washington than for most other military chiefs from elsewhere in the world.
Apart from nearly the entire US military leadership, Gen Sharif has also held meetings with Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and the head of the CIA, John Brennan.
He is also likely to meet US Vice President Joe Biden and National Security Adviser Susan Rice later on Thursday.
'Tough talking'
Coming as it does on the heels of Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's visit, such a reception for the army chief appears to support the view that it's the military and not the politicians who control Pakistan's defence and foreign affairs.
"Given the current reality of power management in Pakistan, it is only natural that the Americans would want to talk to the military when it comes to discussing their chief concerns in this region," says Hasan Askari Rizvi, a Lahore-based defence analyst.
"The Americans would like to talk about counter-terrorism, or Pakistan's role in Afghanistan, or issues related to the transfer of military hardware and security funds - these are all areas which are controlled by the military," he says.
Pakistan depends on the US for the bulk of its military hardware and security funds. But over the last few years it has also attracted flak from some quarters in Washington for its "double-dealing" in Afghanistan.
Image copyright AP
Image caption Pakistan's army is hugely powerful
Some tough talking was expected during Gen Sharif's stay in Washington, but many feel the Paris attacks may have eclipsed the Afghanistan issue for now.
In the absence of any detailed briefing on talks by both Pakistani and American officials, it is difficult to know what concrete proposals have been discussed or decisions made. But there is wide agreement within informed circles on which issues may have been on the table.
Taliban
The Americans want Pakistan to eliminate militant infrastructure, including the Afghanistan-focused Haqqani network, the India-focused Lashkar-e Taiba (LeT) and their various affiliates.
They have also been pushing Pakistan to use its leverage with the Taliban to open peace talks with Kabul.
The second round of an intra-Afghan dialogue facilitated by Pakistan with US and Chinese support was abandoned in July when Kabul blamed Pakistan for hiding the news of Taliban chief Mullah Omar's death.
Pakistan blamed Afghan intelligence for deliberately leaking this news to scuttle the talks.
Afghanistan, meanwhile, blames Pakistan for the surge in Taliban violence since the talks were abandoned.
Pakistan has been pushing for a power-sharing deal for the Taliban in Kabul, including the Haqqani network, and would like the Americans to "adopt" them as a lesser evil - because the Taliban have a localised agenda and if denied space, they could be gobbled up by the pan-Islamic militant group, Islamic State.
Image copyright AFP/Getty Images
Image caption Pakistan argues that eliminating the Taliban could lead to an IS takeover in the country
Lately, Pakistan has also been complaining about an increasingly belligerent India, which it says is putting pressure on its eastern border, thereby hampering its efforts to eliminate the "bad boys" in its tribal areas to the west.
In addition, Pakistan has accused India of using Afghan territory to foment trouble in the Pakistani regions of Balochistan and Karachi.
Analysts say Pakistan is likely to argue that in the given situation, any action against anti-India groups like LeT may turn them against Pakistan and worsen its problems with India.
Nuclear arsenal
There is also the issue of nuclear weapons, which fall in the exclusive domain of the military.
"The Americans will certainly have raised the issue of Pakistan's growing nuclear arsenal which at the current rate may become the third or even the second largest in the world by 2020," says Ayesha Siddiqa, another defence analyst based in Islamabad.
Americans have been concerned about Pakistan's short-range battlefield nuclear weapons falling into militant hands, as well as its long-range weapons that can hit targets as far away as the Nicobar Islands in the Indian Ocean where India's nuclear arsenal may have been stacked, she says.
In return, there have been suggestions by some American think-tanks that Pakistan could be offered membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), with legitimate access to nuclear research and technology.
Image copyright AFP/Getty Images
Image caption Pakistan has tested missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons in the past
But Pakistan may not be keen because it already has access to technology through China, and also because technology available through the NSG may be prohibitively expensive.
Analysts say the situation is tricky, and there is little the Pakistanis would be willing to offer in strategic terms, although they may offer some tactical support in Afghanistan.
So how is the US likely to respond to this security calculus?
There have been veiled warnings that the US may block some $300m in coalition support funds owed to Pakistan if the US Department of Defence fails to certify that Pakistanis are acting against the Haqqani network.
But analysts suspect Pakistan will stick to its guns, knowing that the Western powers have their hands full with IS at the moment and will continue to depend on Pakistan to deliver in Afghanistan.
Pakistan-US relations: What issues does Pakistan's military face?
By Ilyas Khan BBC News
- 19 November 2015
- From the section Europe
Image caption Pakistan's army chief, Gen Raheel Sharif, faces many challenges in his relationship with the US
Pakistan army chief Gen Raheel Sharif's trip to Washington is his second in less than a year.
In 2014, he was given red carpet treatment in recognition of the Pakistani military's long-demanded ground offensive to clear militant sanctuaries in North Waziristan, on the border with Afghanistan.
This time, the significance of his trip was slightly dented when an unnamed Pentagon official revealed the visit was requested by Gen Sharif, not Washington.
But observers have not missed the fact that more doors are being opened for him in Washington than for most other military chiefs from elsewhere in the world.
Apart from nearly the entire US military leadership, Gen Sharif has also held meetings with Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and the head of the CIA, John Brennan.
He is also likely to meet US Vice President Joe Biden and National Security Adviser Susan Rice later on Thursday.
'Tough talking'
Coming as it does on the heels of Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's visit, such a reception for the army chief appears to support the view that it's the military and not the politicians who control Pakistan's defence and foreign affairs.
"Given the current reality of power management in Pakistan, it is only natural that the Americans would want to talk to the military when it comes to discussing their chief concerns in this region," says Hasan Askari Rizvi, a Lahore-based defence analyst.
"The Americans would like to talk about counter-terrorism, or Pakistan's role in Afghanistan, or issues related to the transfer of military hardware and security funds - these are all areas which are controlled by the military," he says.
Pakistan depends on the US for the bulk of its military hardware and security funds. But over the last few years it has also attracted flak from some quarters in Washington for its "double-dealing" in Afghanistan.
Image copyright AP
Image caption Pakistan's army is hugely powerful
Some tough talking was expected during Gen Sharif's stay in Washington, but many feel the Paris attacks may have eclipsed the Afghanistan issue for now.
In the absence of any detailed briefing on talks by both Pakistani and American officials, it is difficult to know what concrete proposals have been discussed or decisions made. But there is wide agreement within informed circles on which issues may have been on the table.
Taliban
The Americans want Pakistan to eliminate militant infrastructure, including the Afghanistan-focused Haqqani network, the India-focused Lashkar-e Taiba (LeT) and their various affiliates.
They have also been pushing Pakistan to use its leverage with the Taliban to open peace talks with Kabul.
The second round of an intra-Afghan dialogue facilitated by Pakistan with US and Chinese support was abandoned in July when Kabul blamed Pakistan for hiding the news of Taliban chief Mullah Omar's death.
Pakistan blamed Afghan intelligence for deliberately leaking this news to scuttle the talks.
Afghanistan, meanwhile, blames Pakistan for the surge in Taliban violence since the talks were abandoned.
Pakistan has been pushing for a power-sharing deal for the Taliban in Kabul, including the Haqqani network, and would like the Americans to "adopt" them as a lesser evil - because the Taliban have a localised agenda and if denied space, they could be gobbled up by the pan-Islamic militant group, Islamic State.
Image copyright AFP/Getty Images
Image caption Pakistan argues that eliminating the Taliban could lead to an IS takeover in the country
Lately, Pakistan has also been complaining about an increasingly belligerent India, which it says is putting pressure on its eastern border, thereby hampering its efforts to eliminate the "bad boys" in its tribal areas to the west.
In addition, Pakistan has accused India of using Afghan territory to foment trouble in the Pakistani regions of Balochistan and Karachi.
Analysts say Pakistan is likely to argue that in the given situation, any action against anti-India groups like LeT may turn them against Pakistan and worsen its problems with India.
Nuclear arsenal
There is also the issue of nuclear weapons, which fall in the exclusive domain of the military.
"The Americans will certainly have raised the issue of Pakistan's growing nuclear arsenal which at the current rate may become the third or even the second largest in the world by 2020," says Ayesha Siddiqa, another defence analyst based in Islamabad.
Americans have been concerned about Pakistan's short-range battlefield nuclear weapons falling into militant hands, as well as its long-range weapons that can hit targets as far away as the Nicobar Islands in the Indian Ocean where India's nuclear arsenal may have been stacked, she says.
In return, there have been suggestions by some American think-tanks that Pakistan could be offered membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), with legitimate access to nuclear research and technology.
Image copyright AFP/Getty Images
Image caption Pakistan has tested missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons in the past
But Pakistan may not be keen because it already has access to technology through China, and also because technology available through the NSG may be prohibitively expensive.
Analysts say the situation is tricky, and there is little the Pakistanis would be willing to offer in strategic terms, although they may offer some tactical support in Afghanistan.
So how is the US likely to respond to this security calculus?
There have been veiled warnings that the US may block some $300m in coalition support funds owed to Pakistan if the US Department of Defence fails to certify that Pakistanis are acting against the Haqqani network.
But analysts suspect Pakistan will stick to its guns, knowing that the Western powers have their hands full with IS at the moment and will continue to depend on Pakistan to deliver in Afghanistan.
war&peace
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2015
- Messages
- 33,771
- Reaction score
- 18
- Country
- Location
I guess the new thing is that India will be asked to pack up its terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. Presence of indian consulates is providing safe havens to the TTP terrorists wanted by Pakistan. Since after the operation Zarb-e-Azab, Pakistani northern areas have been cleaned and whole command and control structure has been destroyed but the India is protecting the terrorists who have fled Pakistan and hiding in Indian training camps in Afghanistan
Last edited:
Viper0011.
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 7,253
- Reaction score
- 26
- Country
- Location
WASHINGTON: Intense discussions lasting about two and a half hours between US Vice President Joe Biden and Pakistan Army chief General Raheel Sharif at the White House on Thursday have spurred widely believed speculation that the US side now understands Pakistan better.
“Not just our international and regional, but even domestic constraints and compulsions in the war against terror are also very clearly understood in Washington and most of them agree with our outlook,” a highly-placed member of the civil and military team said after meeting Joe Biden.
1) The US understood when NS came to the US and discussed all details about Afghanistan and India. He then wanted to send RS as he's not involved in day to day military ops.
2) The Indians have ALREADY been told to back off the borders and all, and to bring about a positive change. Modi can only run his crazy, war mongering and anti-Pakistan agenda to some degree. At the end, the US can pressure him to do anything the US wants. That's the reality of it. Indian provocation (unnecessary), would take Pak Army's attention off Afghanistan and it would hamper the current range of ops they finally did after a decade and half. No one wants to see those two-three year long ops get wasted due to India's issues on the border. So the US has put India where it needed to be, so Pakistan can work with the US and eliminate terrorism from the FATA area, as well as workout a peace plan with all parties involved.
3) Pakistan always has had issues in really defining a "straight line" on terrorism, in terms of going after ALL terrorist organizations. The military kept protecting groups, which they considered the strategic depth. One of the KEY agreements made between NS and the POTUS were that there will be a straight line, which means, any groups, that represents terrorist like capability, will be dealt with as such. Be it "strategic depth" or not for Pakistan. And RS was then sent to follow up on operational details of this policy level agreement as the military has to implement it.
So overall, good team work between NS and RS and re-establishing better relationship with the US at a very strategic level. Good work!!
Sky lord
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2015
- Messages
- 3,149
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Dude, one addition which I wanted to make.....while you are probably right on above....please also consider the opinion of some of the other posters here.....why this article at this time? .... TBH the language " India quietly told" etc sounds distinctly " non- civilian" shall we say.
The Huskar
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 3, 2014
- Messages
- 1,395
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Wait for joint statement first before celebrating anything.Historically,this type of action is nothing but rhetoric to feed the local populace.
Jacob Martin
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2015
- Messages
- 1,453
- Reaction score
- -8
- Country
- Location
And it must feel great to pretend being a power broker while one's own home is in disarray and hasn't seen a day of peace in decades. What's the functional difference between Pakistan and Afghanistan? There is a peace process initiated in Afghanistan - that's the difference.
Spy Master
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2014
- Messages
- 1,627
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
And there is peace in Pakistan....We have successfully killed all your rats..Go check stats before and after operation if you know how to use Google...!
And don't pretend to be a saint...India have tried hard to get seat on table of peace process...but Alas still not in the equation...!
Jacob Martin
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2015
- Messages
- 1,453
- Reaction score
- -8
- Country
- Location
In the first half of 2015 alone, there were 522 deaths and 615 injured, totaling 1,137 casualties due to terror attacks in Pakistan. The list is 8 pages long. You want me to post it? Unfortunately for you, I DO check the stats....
Spy Master
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2014
- Messages
- 1,627
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
India 6th most affected by terrorism in 2014; ISIS, Boko Haram behind more than half attacks: Report | The Indian Express
Do give it a read...Around 1100 casualties in 2015, not in first quarter whereas 300 in India...
India Fatalities :: South Asia Terrorism portal
And I hope you do understand Pakistan was worst terrorism affected state from 2007-2013...May be this would give you some insight..!
Jacob Martin
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2015
- Messages
- 1,453
- Reaction score
- -8
- Country
- Location
India sixth most affected by terrorism....carried on by Pakistani proxies of LeT, JuD etc. Say the complete sentence.
Misleading as usual. How do Pakistan's numbers add up? I quote:
The actual situation is, likely, worse. According to the United States (US) Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) report titled “Violence towards Religious Communities in Pakistan”, published in August 2014, over the one-year period from July 2013 to June 2014, at least 430 people were killed in a total 122 attacks against minorities. These include 222 Shias in 54 attacks; 128 Christians in 22 recorded incidents; 10 Ahmadis in 10 such attacks; and two Sikhs in three attacks. Four attacks were recorded on the Hindu community in this period, with no fatality reported. 29 attacks resulted in 68 fatalities among other religious/sectarian groups.
These are just attacks on minorities. Not even counting ALL terror attacks. Pakistani civilian plus security forces casualties are listed at 1,172 for attacks officially designated as terrorist attacks?!
If you can make sense of the data, do tell me....
Guynextdoor2
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 12,286
- Reaction score
- -42
- Country
- Location
and India might quietly show the middle finger....
Similar threads
