What's new

Military rift with Pakistan hurts war

AgNoStiC MuSliM

ADVISORS
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
25,259
Reaction score
87
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States

Military rift with Pakistan hurts war
Sara A. Carter (Contact)

Two senior U.S. military officials say the U.S.-led war on terror is facing challenges in part because Pakistan's young military officers don't have the same relationship with their U.S. counterparts that their predecessors had.

In a recent interview with The Washington Times, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a top priority for the Pentagon is healing the longtime rift between the two militaries, which he said has deprived both nations of the trust needed to combat extremism.

"We don't know each other well enough, and us participating with them in their country is equally as important as them participating with us in our country," he said.

Army Maj. Gen. John M. Custer agreed. The commander of the U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., he said U.S. forces are "dealing with guys who don't have any exposure to us."

"The older military leaders love us, they understand American culture, and they know we are not the enemy, but they are aging out of the force," he said.

Tensions with Pakistan's army go back long before the emergence of the Taliban and al Qaeda, both officers said.

"There's not a Pakistani junior officer that doesn't know who former Senator Pressler is, and there's not a junior officer in the U.S. military that knows who Senator Pressler is," Adm. Mullen said.

He was referring to 1985 legislationsponsored by former Sen. Larry Pressler, South Dakota Republican, which banned most economic and military aid to Pakistan unless the U.S. president certified, on an annual basis, that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device. The so-called "Pressler Amendment" also required U.S. aid to be significantly reduced if Pakistan tried to attain nuclear weapons.

The measure was overriden by other legislation in 1995, but still shadows U.S.-Pakistan ties.

In October 1990, then-President George H.W. Bush could not make the certification when it became apparent that Pakistan was pursuing nuclear weapons. As a result, the United States withheld $1.2 billion worth of military equipment already purchased by Pakistan. Relations plummeted as the administration considered having Pakistan designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. More sanctions were imposed when U.S. officials asserted that Pakistan was receiving missile technology from China.

U.S. and Pakistani military exchanges virtually came to a halt during the 1990s, depriving those who are now midlevel officers in Pakistan's military of familiarity with the United States.

Many of these officers still harbor deep resentment toward the United States. Younger military personnel are influenced by their superiors and may be reluctant to cooperate with the U.S. military

Disagreement with the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the perception that U.S. policy in South Asia tilts in favor of India have exacerbated the problems. The U.S.-led war against extremists in Afghanistan is also controversial because many younger Pakistani officers appear to sympathize with Islamic fundamentalists.

The general consensus among many Pakistani citizens is that the U.S. abandoned Pakistan when "we were no longer useful after the Cold War," said a senior Pakistani official who spoke on the condition of anonymity, owing to the sensitivity of the subject.

"The distrust between the two allies goes back to the Pressler Amendment," the Pakistani official added. "The U.S. abandoned Pakistan, and that mutual distrust didn't allow and still in many ways does not allow both parties to find a common strategy to defeat terrorism."

Despite his legislation's impact on U.S.-Pakistan relations, Mr. Pressler told The Times that the Clinton administration's decision to stop implementing the amendment was "one of the great foreign-policy mistakes in recent history."

Mr. Pressler, who retired in 1997 and has served on the boards of several U.S., British and Indian companies, said the measure delayed progress on Pakistan's nuclear program for a decade. Pakistan exploded a nuclear device in 1998 after India carried out nuclear tests.

Adm. Mullen said that even during the most crisis-ridden years, the United States and Pakistan collaborated in international peacekeeping operations in Somalia. But he said he was stunned earlier this year when he was invited to speak to a group of about 30 Pakistani war-college students at the American Embassy in Islamabad. The majority of the questions were about the Pressler Amendment, which was passed before most of the students were born.

The legislation has affected every aspect of the "mil-to-mil relationship," he said. "We have a tendency to move on as Americans, and we can't in this regard."

According to the Pentagon, from 1980 to 1989, more than 1,300 Pakistani military men attended U.S. war-staff colleges and technical and professional schools in the United States.

The current chief of the Pakistani army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kiyani, attended the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and developed close relationships with top U.S. military leaders.

While Gen. Kiyani was head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), comparable to the U.S.'s CIA, he and Gen. Custer, who was then at the Intelligence Directorate at the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), worked closely together.

Gen. Custer said a U.S. lack of understanding of the political situation in Pakistan has led to a very "myopic view" of the region and a distancing of the two allies.

During the '90s, the number of Pakistani students in the United States plummeted to only about 300, Adm. Mullen said. The figure over the past eight years is 98. Considering the crisis in Afghanistan and growing extremism plaguing both Afghanistan and Pakistan, "we need to do more than that," he said.

Senior Pakistani officials have been reluctant to accept U.S. counterterrorism training or to participate in combined missions to fight terrorism. U.S. aid has been limited to military equipment, helicopter maintenance and financial support.

In October, however, Pakistan agreed to accept 25 American master military trainers to advise selected members of the Frontier Corps, who will then train other Pakistanis fighting extremists along the border with Afghanistan.

While the number of trainers isn't large, Adm. Mullen said, the agreement is a significant step in rebuilding relations.

"The offer is still on the table to provide more U.S. military support," he said.

The U.S. offer comes as a new democratic government in Pakistan struggles to fight its own war on terrorism and deal with growing economic fragility.

"Pakistan is not going to be used as a safe haven for anything or anyone," Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, told The Times. "We are also working closely with our U.S. counterparts, but this is Pakistan's war against terror as well."

Mr. Haqqani said that rebuilding the relationship will take time.

"The U.S. has to make it very clear that the U.S. role against terror is a supportive role," he said."Everybody is more willing to fight when it is their war, than to fight somebody else's war."

Washington Times - Military rift with Pakistan hurts war

---------------------------

Very interesting views from the Admiral and the General.
 
.
More American propaganda. The game for hearts and minds is 7 years too late. Our insurgency has been brought on by this so called partnership. They are basically looking for sell outs for them to shift blames upon. For America to win hearts and minds in Pakistan they have to complete their objectives in Afghanistan first, not involve us directly in it again, use us, then disappear. It's not the younger generation at fault, they are just learning from history and mistakes of the past.
 
.
More American propaganda. The game for hearts and minds is 7 years too late. Our insurgency has been brought on by this so called partnership. They are basically looking for sell outs for them to shift blames upon. For America to win hearts and minds in Pakistan they have to complete their objectives in Afghanistan first, not involve us directly in it again, use us, then disappear. It's not the younger generation at fault, they are just learning from history and mistakes of the past.

I agree that these lessons should have been learned earlier, and a better understanding of Pakistan's concerns in Afghanistan and in the region should have been developed, but we have to deal with the present, and try and move beyond past distrust.

We are facing multiple crises regionally, and we can only tackle them through broad based cooperation. It is still significant that the leadership in the US is willing to reassess the relationship, what drives the dynamics, understand concerns and move forward. Its an excellent exercise in evolving and adjusting ones strategy and policies to deal with changing scenario's on the ground.

I am interested in what changes, if any, the US will make moving forward in Afghanistan, and the region, under Obama.
 
.
>>>Disagreement with the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the perception that U.S. policy in South Asia tilts in favor of India have exacerbated the problems. The U.S.-led war against extremists in Afghanistan is also controversial because many younger Pakistani officers appear to sympathize with Islamic fundamentalists.

So many mistakes... Invading Irac was based on WMD... Are we wrong that it was a wrong policy? Tilting towards India not true? They love to get NPT pushed away. All US firms are ready to sell... See F16/F18 offers... And Pakistani do not sympathize with fundamentalists but do not want a traitor as a friend. In this case of Pakistan history showed that USA has been more then once a traitor. You cannot expect that we love those that kicked us many times...
 
.
"...do not want a traitor as a friend. In this case of Pakistan history showed that USA has been more then once a traitor. You cannot expect that we love those that kicked us many times..."

You need to do something about this. Munir, what do you recommend?
 
.
Commanders Praise Increased Cooperation With Pakistani and Afghan Forces


By Walter Pincus
Monday, November 24, 2008; Page A15

"The notion that things are out of control in Afghanistan or that we're sliding toward a disaster, I think, is far too pessimistic," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Friday during a news conference in Nova Scotia.

Gates's view was backed up in part by two briefings, given Tuesday and Friday by Army brigade commanders in Afghanistan who spoke by teleconference to reporters at the Pentagon. Col. John Spiszer covers a four-province area of 3 million people that runs along the northeastern Afghan border with Pakistan, where mountains rise 10,000 feet and many of the passes above 7,000 feet are closed by snow. Col. John P. Johnson is responsible for five provinces to the south -- three along the Pakistani border -- where the average elevation is above 6,000 feet. The area is home to 2.7 million people.

Spiszer said that he had not seen a reduction in combat over the past six months and that in October there was more fighting than there had been a year earlier. Johnson, on the other hand, said that although there was a "significant increase" in fighting in the spring and early summer, "there's been a marked decrease over the last three months."

Both attributed the changes to increased activity by Pakistan's army and other border security forces. In Spiszer's view, increased effort by Pakistan's army in the Bajaur tribal area "might actually be pushing some guys back this way, which might account for some of the rise." Pakistani operations, he said, are "having an impact, both good and bad."

For Johnson, the decline in enemy activity in his area can also be attributed to new operations across the border by the Pakistani military, which he said have led to a "marked decrease" in the number of improvised explosive devices used against coalition and Afghan forces.

Both officers praised a sharp increase in cross-border coordination among themselves, the Afghans and the Pakistanis. Spiszer said he frequently goes to strategy sessions at a "border coordination center" at one of his forward operating bases near the Khyber Pass, where there are representatives of the United States, the Afghan National Army and the Border Police, along with Pakistani army and Frontier Corps personnel. We "figure out what's going on and coordinate our activities," he said.
ad_icon

This "cooperation and coordination" includes "the sharing of the intelligence, the contact numbers, company commanders meeting face to face," Spiszer said.

Johnson echoed the view. "Coordination and communications between us and our Pak mil brothers has steadily increased," he said, going on to describe 13 collaborative actions with the Pakistanis. Among them: coordinated heavy-weapons fire and the positioning of Pakistani military forces to stop insurgents from fleeing back across the border from Afghanistan.

He described sitting down with Pakistani brigade commanders who share the border area to build a relationship that he said he hopes will "assist us in coordinating specific operations designed to improve the security situation along the border."

Spiszer said the enemy includes a variety of groups. To his south, he faces what he called "the Tora Bora front," successors to an Islamist faction that includes drug smugglers. To the north is a group associated with the Pakistan Taliban. There also are Taliban and Kashmiri separatist groups, both of which come across the border to train to return and fight, either in Pakistan or Kashmir.

"Some of them come here because they're paid to," he said. "There's a lot of different reasons and different groups here that don't coordinate their activities very well, which in fact gives us an advantage here. But I don't see large numbers of foreigners."

Though many experts see the Afghan opposition differently, Johnson characterized the enemy as "any actor that draws the population away from the vision of legitimate government of Afghanistan." He described the purpose of the mission as separating "the people from the enemy physically, but more important, psychologically."

"We also strive to . . . connect them with their Afghan national security forces . . . ensuring that our number one priority is the capacity-building of the institutions so vital to convincing the people to reject any alternative vision."
washingtonpost.com
 
.
I agree that these lessons should have been learned earlier, and a better understanding of Pakistan's concerns in Afghanistan and in the region should have been developed, but we have to deal with the present, and try and move beyond past distrust.

We are facing multiple crises regionally, and we can only tackle them through broad based cooperation. It is still significant that the leadership in the US is willing to reassess the relationship, what drives the dynamics, understand concerns and move forward. Its an excellent exercise in evolving and adjusting ones strategy and policies to deal with changing scenario's on the ground.

I am interested in what changes, if any, the US will make moving forward in Afghanistan, and the region, under Obama.

It is indeed a necessity to maintain a level of cooperation with the world's only superpower who is pummeling the country next door, but the current situation is not the type of cooperation I would choose to partake in, to be honest.

As you said it is up to Obama at this point.
May God grant him wisdom.
 
.
^^^pls merge this into battle for bajaur - it is relevant there and also posted there!
thanks
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom