Mrs Clinton Interview.

[Meengla]

Hillary may or may not be correct about the 'wild animal' in the backyard. Some one can do a better analysis than me but my understanding is that Pakistan DID enjoy relative peace and stability for a few years when the Talibs ruled Afghanistan. At least that was less threatening than the rampant acts of terrorism inside Pakistan through the 80's when India-Soviet backed regimes ruled Afghanistan.
What if the alternate is not just a 'wild animal' but some kind of a prehistoric giant monster with foreign support? What would Pakistan's Western frontiers look like then? May be even worse than the 80's. How about doing some kind of comparative analyses on the existing 'wild animal' vs what can come instead if Pakistan gives in to the 'do more' demands?
Not for no reasons there is wide consensus in Pakistan--not just in the 'Army Inc'--but by the political class as well--than alternates to the Talibs are even worse, if than can be imagined.

We beat around the bush but the crux of the matter is the age-old India-Pakistan rivalry. Even Hillary manages to point this out. I respect Hillary's words of support for Pakistan. I respect that she, like Kerry, are not shy to defend Pakistan occasionally despite the vicious and inspired media-trial of Pakistan. But she is not altogether truthful in her interview.

 

[LeGenD]

appreciate her honesty. but therein lies the problem, at one point in time Haqqanis are supported, funded, invited to the white house to further american goals and interest and once those are achieved, the haqqanis/mujhadeens are dropped and now they're considered terrorists and "wild animals" - though they've yet to officially declare the haqqanis terrorists. now who's to say some time from now the same "wild animals" wont again become the strategic assets of the Americans again? already there are reports of Haqqanis being approached by Americans.

Now this is the line that Pakistan must tread lightly and they are. Pak knows what happend in the past and is carefully is planning and prepering for the "end game." Making some one friend and foe at the flip of a button and that too on the dictation of a third party is not very wise. And on top of that do it in your own home - your own backyard? Americans are sitting thousands of miles away, they can afford to flip the switch not Pak.

Post Soveit withdrawl and American abandonment of their stratgic assets, Pakistan was left aloneto deal with the fallout. Pakistan is next door to Afghanistan and will be the first to bear the brunt of any wrong move played there. And unlike the post soviet withdrawl if this time Pakistan is looking to safeguard it's national interest than it's not unreasonable.

Bro,

You completely left out the Osama factor. The biggest blunder that Taliban ever committed was to give shelter to Osama and allow him to establish Alqaeda Network, which played a significant role in restarting the bloody conflict between WEST and ISLAMIC blocks. 9/11 incident rings any bells? And please do not quote any conspiracy theories.

USA did left Afghanistan on its own after the USSR invasion ended. However, USA had no issues with Taliban ruling Afghanistan because Taliban managed to control crimes, and drug production with great success.

Thanks to Osama; the haqqanis/mujahideen/taliban of past are now percieved as 'wild animals' of today in the WEST.

 

[iPhone]

^^
Though, I agree with you that Taliban should have never invited AQ and OBL into Afghanistan. But that happened during the 90's and even then the US was mostly ok with it. Some attempts were made to assassinate OBL after the US embassy bombing in Tanzania but for the most part AQ was left unchecked due to US policy of forsaking Afghanistan, the taliban mujhadeen altogether.

Anyway, 9/11 happened and US went back after AQ and many would tell you that the taliban wanted to handover Osama to the US if provided evidence. US wasn't listening and there was invasion and up until two years ago AQ and taliban and haqqanis were considered to be in the same boat. But now the game is changing. Taliban irk the US but Haqqanis are still not labeled terrorists, just a rogue organization. Credible sources confirm CIA approaching the Haqqanis - the old contacts never disappear and after all the Haqqanis were almost equivalents to the forefathers at one point. It's only obvious some tight personal contacts were made that can be used even now.

And that's where Pakistan must be careful.

 

[iPhone]

Hillary may or may not be correct about the 'wild animal' in the backyard. Some one can do a better analysis than me but my understanding is that Pakistan DID enjoy relative peace and stability for a few years when the Talibs ruled Afghanistan. At least that was less threatening than the rampant acts of terrorism inside Pakistan through the 80's when India-Soviet backed regimes ruled Afghanistan.
What if the alternate is not just a 'wild animal' but some kind of a prehistoric giant monster with foreign support? What would Pakistan's Western frontiers look like then? May be even worse than the 80's. How about doing some kind of comparative analyses on the existing 'wild animal' vs what can come instead if Pakistan gives in to the 'do more' demands?
Not for no reasons there is wide consensus in Pakistan--not just in the 'Army Inc'--but by the political class as well--than alternates to the Talibs are even worse, if than can be imagined.

a valid concern that every thinking Pakistani has. My take would be that Pakistan is correct in not going after the Haqqanis. We dont' need to make every Afghan group enemy of Pakistan. But I also wont support imposing any group, even haqqanis, on Afghans if they don't want to be ruled by them. In an ideal world, it should be the Afghan people determining their leader and ruling party. But more than likely post US withdrawl, it would be a power struggle between many groups and countries. It would be good if a party favoring Pakistan comes into power but if it doesn't, initially things might be bad for Pakistan but with time and with right diplomacy Pakistan can moldeven the most anti-Pak party/group to some extent into a favorable one.

 

[muse]

Friends:


What do you make of this:


Haqqanis don’t divide US and Pakistan

The transcript of US secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s Q&A following the Kumpuris Distinguished Lecture Series at Arkansas on Friday was released by state department in Washington only on Monday after careful vetting, and it becomes an authoritative policy position on the US-Pakistan ties.

It comes just in time for Delhi to assimilate a few stunning geopolitical realities before tuning into Afghan president Hamid Karzai’s ORF Memorial Lecture at the Indian capital on Wednesday.

Unsurprisingly, Clinton strove to bury the war cries and instead carry forward the US’s great reconciliation with Pakistan. She put Pakistan back on its high pedestal as not only the US’ close partner in the war on terror, but as “critical” for the “ongoing stability and peace in the region.” Clinton paid fulsome praise to Pakistan for the high sacrifices it is making in the war on terror — more than the US’s own, in fact.

Shockingly, Clinton made it a point to take note that Pakistan lives in a “very difficult security enviornment”, characterised amongst other things by its “deep concerns about India”, which of course places Washington in a “challenging position” – defined, presumably, by the US’ own regional concerns and strategies as well as its so-called “indispensable partnership” with India.

Equally intriguing was Clinton’s admission that US is as much responsible for the Haqqani network’s existence today as Pakistan could be. She sensitises the American opinion by even produced a YouTube to underscore the legitimacy of the Pakistani allegation that the US did encourage it to hobnob with the Haqqanis, who were once America’s blue-eyed boys. She clarified, inter alia, that she is not condoning still the “serious, grievous, strategic error” by Pakistan in supporting the Haqqanis, who are like a “wild animal in the backyard.”

Interestingly, Clinton doesn’t spell out what precisely the US now expects Pakistan to do vis-a-vis Haqqanis — except to say Islamabad should “prevent any attacks against us [US troops] emanating from Pakistan.” Does she want Pakistan to smash up the Haqqanis and erase them out of the AfPak region? She doesn’t say so. Does she say US won’t have any truck with Haqqanis? She doesn’t say so. In fact, by acknowledging that Haqqanis were once US’s valued interlocutor, she implied that they can as well be so again in future. Put plainly, US wants Pakistan to domesticate the “wild animal”.

The hard reality is that the US has got Haji Malik Khan, Sirajuddin Haqqani’s uncle and the ‘brain’ of the Haqqani network in its custody for almost a week by now, and there is no need to second guess that the CIA interrogators and state department’s diplomats have already begun “engaging” the Haqqanis. Clinton’s words of gratitude, hailing Pakistan as a factor of regional security and stability, is timely.

Time for Delhi to ponder what is there in all this for India’s interests? Maybe, Karzai will explain the art of the possible. Or, maybe, Marc Grossman, US’s special representative, who is visiting the Indian capital this week, will comfort our policymakers and and advice them to let bygones be bygones (such as those murderous attacks on the Indian mission in Kabul) and gently accept the fait accompli in the larger interests of the US-India “indispensable partnership” of the 21st century.

The moment of truth has arrived in the 10-year old US invasion of Afghanistan, which Delhi euphorically welcomed in October 2001. The then PM A.B. Vajpayee, in fact, said that it was going to be the best Diwali he ever had in his life — since India’s “natural ally” was taking up habitation in the region

 

[VCheng]

^^^It is part of the old "good cop, bad cop" routine, that's all.

 

[Meengla]

^^^It is part of the old "good cop, bad cop" routine, that's all.

Just like Pakistan is a 'good partner' and 'bad partner'?
It cuts both ways.
Muse has quoted a very interesting article. May be that's what PM Gilani meant by 'policy disarray and confusion'. Hillary is the top diplomat of America and she has Obama's ears--as well as his lips (not physically, of course!)--within her reach. Her words can't be just discounted. Similarly, like her, Kerry has been almost always careful about Pakistan.
It is the damned ageing Panetta who seems too senile to care! As for Mullen: Well, he is leaving. Can't show a winning-war so blame someone else. He has to establish his 'legacy'. These people have studied politicians and generals thoroughly and know what 'legacy' means.