Kayani warns US

[Irfan Baloch]

But Kayani said the same thing about American drone attacks didn't he? He warned the US of A that any violation of Pakistan territory would be construed as an assault on the sovereignty of Pakistan and would result in dire consequences!

Oh well, there have been 162 drone attacks after Kayani's threat!

Indeed and they are already agreed between the two countries, so called threat you are referring to is the invasion on land involving personnel.

there is a difference between the two, I understand some members here lack the capacity to distinguish between the two things.
Pak Generals already said that no army will like someone else operating their drones in its territory but as the things stand, its only America that has the sophisticated setup of attack and recon drones in the world and both the military and the government are part of the agreement. If getting the terrorists solely on the drones was that easy and simple then Americans should have taken out the Taliban commanders in Afghanistan by now. The drones rely on our ground intelligence, even a Pashtun of the adjacent agency cant travel on his own or without the approval of the local Maliks let alone someone from another country. So that’s where the ISI’s local personal come in.
I know already whatever I am writing here means sod all to you, you will be repeating the same thing after few days or few posts but that’s just a reminder for the people who havent thought of this before.

if my words are not enough I will once again quote Chogy, its basically a shut up call for mind numbing postings.. please take heed.

"Hundreds of troops" couldn't seal 1 kilometer of the border.

The title of the article itself is a total impossibility... an amazing leap to a false conclusion. What we have is a simple troop movement/operation in a particular area that happens to be close to the border.

Before Desert Storm, Schwartzkopf wanted hundreds of thousands of troops before he was ready to roll. I don't know what the mission is for these soldiers, but it is neither to seal the border, nor invade Pakistan.

Still not satisified then have a look at the joint meetings between the Pakistani and ISAF commanders.. we are allies not enemies so waky waky from dream land please

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...ys-troops-along-pak-border-3.html#post2199913

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Kayani simply wants US to not treat Pakistan like it treated Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. This war with Pakistan can get messy and much more innocent lives will be lost. This is what his intended message seems to be. However, our media is a master at misrepresenting statements.

Absolutely - that is why the first thing I pointed out was that Kayani's comments were in no way a 'threat to nuke the US', or 'nuke' anyone else for that matter.

His point was simply that if things get out of control in a military confrontation with the US, the consequences for all sides involved will be significant, especially for the region, and especially given Pakistan's nuclear capability. Pakistan's nuclear capability skews the 'cost to benefit ratio', of US military action against Pakistan, heavily towards 'cost'.

At the end of the day what this boils down to, as I repeatedly point out, is, 'what are US objectives for the region'?

Does a destabilized Pakistan with a destroyed military and with no central power center able to keep check on extremists and terrorists (aka Somalia or Afghanistan post-Soviet withdrawal) serve American goals in 'stabilizing the region and reducing terrorism and extremism'? No it does not, which is why open US military confrontation with Pakistan (barring some nutjob getting into the White House) will not really be a feasible policy choice for a US looking to reduce its footprint in Afghanistan post 2014.

Even without Pakistan's nuclear capability the outcomes of destroying the Pakistani military will be extremely negative for regional stability - Pakistan's nuclear capability makes those negative outcomes even worse.

 

[waraich66]

Hardly. Looking at this they're in advanced stages of reaching negotiations with Russians for a CAR route. Your blocking of oil will mean that US Navy 5th Fleet Task Force will come into action. Why do you think US is the only nation on the planet to have 12 supercarriers? Heck! Their naval fighter fleet is larger than many decent air forces on this planet!

Trust me, your generals will know this better as they have a clearer picture than us civilians, which is why they're not doing it. If it was that easy, it would have been done already.

You dont know the US economy condition , in last two wars they destroyed their economy , 40 million US citizen living under poverty line .
US is not economically in the position to mess with Pakistan , Pakistan is not Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Above is not going to happen - trust me.

For we know the past - Musharaf threw the towel, and the present - drones are dancing over Pakistan.
Looking at the past and present, you can predict some future analytically.
Pakistan without foreign assistance will be kaput, because none of the Government owned enterprise is making profit, but thats not enough, they are loosing money big time. Pakistan has FOREX only to cover her import expenses for barely one month. Against these odds, Pakistan wont retaliate and instead will work with the cool head, as it is advised from Jeddah and Beijing to reduce the tension with the US.

Pakistan fighting US is tantamount to Pakistan diging its own grave.

Pakistan has refused to conduct military ops in NW, and Clinton's statements indicated that they would be satisfied with intelligence cooperation to prevent cross-border attacks and give 'negotiations' a chance.

So I don't really see Pakistan as having 'thrown in the towel' during the current round.

 

[waraich66]

Absolutely - that is why the first thing I pointed out was that Kayani's comments were in no way a 'threat to nuke the US', or 'nuke' anyone else for that matter.

His point was simply that if things get out of control in a military confrontation with the US, the consequences for all sides involved will be significant, especially for the region, and especially given Pakistan's nuclear capability. Pakistan's nuclear capability skews the 'cost to benefit ratio', of US military action against Pakistan, heavily towards 'cost'.

At the end of the day what this boils down to, as I repeatedly point out, is, 'what are US objectives for the region'?

Does a destabilized Pakistan with a destroyed military and with no central power center able to keep check on extremists and terrorists (ala Somalia or Afghanistan post-Soviet withdrawal) serve American goals in 'stabilizing the region and reducing terrorism and extremism'? No it does not, which is why open US military confrontation with Pakistan (barring some nutjob getting into the White House) will not really be a feasible policy choice for a US looking to reduce its footprint in Afghanistan post 2014.

Even without Pakistan's nuclear capability the outcomes of destroying the Pakistani military will be extremely negative for regional stability - Pakistan's nuclear capability makes those negative outcomes even worse.

I think both US and Pakistan are not in position to start a war better Haqqani network should be eliminated from Pakistan soil by peace talk or iron hand.

 

[lem34]

I think both US and Pakistan are not in position to start a war better Haqqani network should be eliminated from Pakistan soil by peace talk or iron hand.

peaceful means fine. force no as long as they dont threaten pakistan interests

 

[OrionHunter]

if my words are not enough I will one again quote Chogy, its basically a shut up call for mind numbing postings.. please take heed.

"Hundreds of troops" couldn't seal 1 kilometer of the border. The title of the article itself is a total impossibility... an amazing leap to a false conclusion. What we have is a simple troop movement/operation in a particular area that happens to be close to the border.

Before Desert Storm, Schwartzkopf wanted hundreds of thousands of troops before he was ready to roll. I don't know what the mission is for these soldiers, but it is neither to seal the border, nor invade Pakistan.
Original Post By Chogy

So what's new that Chogy has said? I totally agree with him. A battalion or two occupying some heights to dominate infiltration routes of the Haqqanis is what this deployment is all about. You can't launch an offensive with this kind of force can you? So all this talk of an American attack is nonsensical in the extreme.

However, as I mentioned in another post of mine, this deployment could help as a firm base from where spec ops troops could be launched into Waziristan obviating the need for using choppers every time for insertion and extraction as they're doing now. This deployment would also help in patrolling the areas on the Afghanistan side of the border where some of the Haqqanis are holed up. And needless to say, this forms a fairly good intel base for humint too.

So, Irfan, I'm sure you now realize that I've never contended that America is preparing for an all out war! Just the opposite!

Cheers!

 

[Tshering22]

However, as I mentioned in another post of mine, this deployment could help as a firm base from where spec ops troops could be launched into Waziristan obviating the need for using choppers every time for insertion and extraction as they're doing now. This deployment would also help in patrolling the areas on the Afghanistan side of the border where some of the Haqqanis are holed up. And needless to say, this forms a fairly good intel base for humint too.

That's the whole idea; first secure the heights enough to keep a watchout, and then regularly conduct spec ops until all the Haqqanis are sent packing in matchboxes. Now I daresay that Pakistani military will not be so out of reality that they'd attempt to shoot Chinooks down.

Hence what Kayani talks is nothing but to please local crowds, until some major operation is complete which might be going on as we speak. Remember, the same words were used just before Abottabad raid. It doesn't need an Einstein to figure out what's in store.

 

[Windjammer]

Hate to spoil the party, but I find US Secretary of State's words more credible than your Parrot prophecy.

No possibility of US boots on Pak ground: Hillary


Islamabad: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has ruled out the possibility of US boots on Pakistani ground, saying that the option “may have been raised, but it was not at all considered” at a national security meeting in Washington.

When asked to confirm during a roundtable interview with Pakistani news channels whether the option of sending ground troops to Pakistan was raised in a recent national security meeting chaired by US President Barack Obama, Hillary replied: “Well, everything is raised in a meeting with people sitting around a table, and that has – that reflects the worry and the frustration for this reason.”

She pointed out that as the Secretary of State, she is responsible for the lives and the well-being of US diplomats and employees and America’s local employees in embassies across the globe.



“We have been warning about the Haqqanis, we’ve been warning about safe havens, we have presented information and evidence, we have shared intelligence,” Hillary emphasised.

She stated that the US does not want to launch unilateral military action in Pakistan, but also stressed that there should be no misunderstanding about the necessity of action against militants.

“We don’t want to act unilaterally. We want to act in concert with our friends, our partners, our strategic allies in Pakistan, but we don’t want there to be any misunderstanding that we have to act, otherwise there will be perhaps an incident in the future that takes it out of the hands of any president. We don’t want to get to that, and it’s something that we are doing everything we can to avoid,” Hillary said.

“So when we talk about actions, we talk about specific things we can do together. But a lot of it depends upon cooperation with our Pakistani counterpart. We think that is far better than having some disaster happen that requires some kind of response, which we are not at all interested in getting to. We want to avoid that,” she added.
http://zeenews.**********/news/sout...of-us-boots-on-pak-ground-hillary_737870.html

 

[lem34]

peaceful means fine. force no as long as they dont threaten pakistan interests

self delete

 

[anon45]

The US would definitely think 10 times, even 15 times, but if after those 10-15 the US determined it should attack Pakistan, it would be like lightning.

 

[lem34]

The only place that america is going to attack pakistan is in indian wet dreams cos the indians hate but dare not lift a finger on pakistan. Even when they accuse us of harbouring terrorists who go and kill their civilians all they do is huff and puff they are 6 times or so bigger than us and huffing and incredible puffing is all they can do and have wet dreams that america will attack us

 

[Dalai Lama]

The only place that america is going to attack pakistan is in indian wet dreams cos the indians hate but dare not lift a finger on pakistan. Even when they accuse us of harbouring terrorists who go and kill their civilians all they do is huff and puff they are 6 times or so bigger than us and huffing and incredible puffing is all they can do and have wet dreams that america will attack us

I'd like to see you squeeze out a post which doesn't include the words "India" or "incredible".

 

[Edevelop]

Can an Indian here honestly prove that the United States has has killed 115 Haqqani insurgents from a different (non-indian) source ?

 

[Edevelop]

I'd like to see you squeeze out a post which doesn't include the words "India" or "incredible".

. I now understand why India is called "incredible India" in all over the tv channels. You guys are pretty good exaggerating and doing propoganda. if the news of 115 Haqqanis kiiled by U.S soldiers was confirmed then why isn't it all over the globe.?