Mullen & Kayani Attempt to Salvage US-Pak Relationship

[notsuperstitious]

So now you're coming up with conjectures and conspiracy theories and then blame Pakistanis for doing the same?

Pakistan recognising the Taliban govt in Afghanistan is NOT a conspiracy theory, neither is it conjecture. I said that in the context of Pakistan's cordial relationship with Taliban in the past, in reply to karthic and Naushad's posts.

Besides, Pakistan is NOT attacking the Haqqani's are they? Well you admit they are NOT, hence there is little room for conjecture there too, its obvious Pakistan is protecting the Afghan taliban haqqani faction for reasons best known to their best brains, who call the shots in that country, whoever they are.

But its NOT you, hence you, like I, do not know those reasons, and I do not want to conjecture, contrary to your claims and practice.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Its 10 year since pakistan joined wot and have been given a lot of military and non military aid for its participation.Why haven't pakistan taken any action against afghan taliban factions like haqqanis in its soil?

Why has the US not taken any action against the Qari Zia-ur-Rehman who led thousands of Taliban fighters into Bajaur and Mohmand to support the TTP when the PA launched an operation against it? Not only is he still operating on the Afghan side of the border, but now Mullah Fazlullah from Swat is also reportedly sheltering there and rebuilding his terrorist group.

On top of that the US was also aware of the presence of one of Pakistan's most wanted terrorists, Brahamdegh Bugti and his terrorist organization, being sheltered by the Afghan government and intelligence in Kabul (See wikileaks) and did nothing about it. Instead we now hear that he has been allowed to travel to Switzerland to seek 'asylum'.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan recognising the Taliban govt in Afghanistan is NOT a conspiracy theory, neither is it conjecture. I said that in the context of Pakistan's cordial relationship with Taliban in the past, in reply to karthic and Naushad's posts.

No, it is not 'conspiracy and conjecture', but it is also true that Pakistan was not the only country recognizing the Taliban regime or doing business with them. The Taliban regime was primarily funded by the Gulf States, and the US itself had extensive direct contacts (business and diplomatic) with the Taliban in a drive to get US companies the contracts for building pipelines from the CAR's to Pakistan. So making allegations on the basis of a past relationship, against Pakistan alone, in this case is completely disingenuous given that the US and other nations also had relationships with them.

Besides, Pakistan is NOT attacking the Haqqani's are they? Well you admit they are NOT, hence there is little room for conjecture there too, its obvious Pakistan is protecting the Afghan taliban haqqani faction for reasons best known to their best brains, who call the shots in that country, whoever they are.

Pakistan's constraints behind its decision to not launch a military offensive against the Haqqanis are well documented, and Pakistan has articulated them time and again. If you have anything new to add, please read through the threads on that issue and comment on the arguments made in support of the Pakistani position.

The current hysteria and propaganda by the US is primarily because Pakistan is squeezing US cajones and making it squeal over Pakistan's legitimate and just demands to limit CIA covert operations and strikes on Pakistani soil and ensure that any US operations in Pakistan are coordinated with Pakistan and approved by Pakistan. This hysteria is not based on any kind of 'sudden realization of ISI complicity or new evidence of complicity' - it is US squealing to pressurize Pakistan after Pakistan acted to end illegal US operations on its soil.

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

- - Hamid Gul is absolutely right about the U.S-Afghan war. . .

Because U.S Armed Forces coulnd'nt win in afghanistan and now they have to answer their people. They have come up with the excuse that because Pakistan is aiding terrorists, we could'nt win . .. .

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Kayani vows to defeat terrorism​

By AFP
Published: April 21, 2011

Army chief says the drone attacks are undermining Pakistan's efforts against terrorism. PHOTO: APP/FILE

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s army chief General Ashfaq Kayani vowed to defeat terrorism and rejected the notion of Islamabad “not doing enough” in the war against terrorism, the military said on Thursday.

His comments followed remarks by Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, accusing Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency of having ties with militants in the northwest tribal belt.

The army chief “strongly rejected negative propaganda of Pakistan not doing enough and Pakistan army’s lack of clarity on the way forward,” the military said in a statement, a day after Mullen met top military generals in Islamabad.

Kayani said that the “army’s ongoing operations are a testimony of our national resolve to defeat terrorism”, according to the statement.

In an interview with TV channel Geo, Mullen — the highest ranking officer in the US armed forces — said: “ISI has a long standing relationship with the Haqqani network, that does not mean everybody in ISI but it is there.”

But the military statement said Mullen “lauded the sacrifices and efforts of people of Pakistan and its security forces” in the war against terror.

He also made reassurances that “security ties will not be allowed to unravel between the two armed forces”.

The Haqqani network is an al Qaeda-allied organisation run by Afghan warlord Sirajuddin Haqqani and based in the North Waziristan tribal district.

The group has been blamed for some of the deadliest anti-US attacks in Afghanistan.

Kayani and Mullen re-stated their aims of building “reciprocal respect towards each other’s sovereignty” and addressing the “trust deficit between the institutions as well as the people on both the sides,” the statement said.

Kayani described public support as the key to success in the war against terrorism but said that controversial US drone strikes “not only undermine our national effort against terrorism but also turn public support against our efforts”.

Kayani vows to defeat terrorism – The Express Tribune

 

[VCheng]

What aid? The US owes Pakistan a billion dollars in CSF reimbursements, and as the Pakistani FM pointed out, the US has only disbursed about $300 million out of the annual 1.5 billion KLL funds it claims at every instance.

And how would 'rejecting aid' make any sort of a point?

Trying Raymond Davis the murderer would make a point .. but you were against that.

Shutting down NATO supplies through Pakistan would make a point ... but you are against that as well.

Kicking out all non-essential US personnel, as determined by Pakistan, would make a point ... but you would probably throw a fit over that as well.

Shooting down a few US drones carrying out illegal strikes on Pakistani territory would make a point ... and you would disagree with that as well.

Anything that Pakistan could actually do to 'make a point' you would disagree with, and instead you propose something trivial like 'reject aid'.

AM: Actually, I was replying to Asim's point about the US stopping aid.

Further, IF Pakistan wanted to MAKE a POINT, then ANY or ALL of the things that you mention would suffice. However, that "IF" is never going to happen in the foreseeable future, and for the reasons, look to Islamabad rather than Washington.

That is what I am trying to say Sir.

 

[Musafar]

If we are supporting afghan taliban can we please make it overt for example provide them with surface to air missiles to drop apaches and blackhawks in Afghanistan. Then when they see the extent of our REAL support they will be out of Afghanistan in a matter of weeks.


We all know the yanks can't fight on land, the minute they get any "contact " they start radio-ing in for an airstrike or gunship back up.

Taliban have infiltrated all their bases and are carrying out high level attacks daily - USA can't take the heat so they are making Pakistan scapegoat.

Don't worry same thing happened in Vietnam they blamed Cambodia when they were getting spanked. Nothin new from USA.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM: Actually, I was replying to Asim's point about the US stopping aid.

Most Pakistanis on this forum at least are just as much in favor of the US stopping aid as they are in favor of the other steps mentioned.

Further, IF Pakistan wanted to MAKE a POINT, then ANY or ALL of the things that you mention would suffice. However, that "IF" is never going to happen in the foreseeable future, and for the reasons, look to Islamabad rather than Washington.

In the case of any of these steps, the onus is on Islamabad, no Washington, no one has contested that. My point to you was that when you openly opposed Pakistan taking steps that could actually 'make a point', why now call for Pakistan taking steps that will have little to no impact?

Stay consistent - if you oppose confrontation with the US, then you should not be recommending any sort of 'confrontational steps' from Pakistan, be it rejection of aid or the trial of Raymond Davis for murdering two Pakistanis.

That is what I am trying to say Sir.

I fail to understand what you are saying other than taking contradictory positions so long as they bash Pakistan.

Asim merely told the US to go ahead and call its 'bluff' to cancel aid, most Pakistanis would not give a shite, if it does not like Pakistani policy. Why should Pakistan do anything about the aid?

 

[VCheng]

AM: You misunderstand my positions too simplistically, perhaps due to an overdose of dogmatic zeal, perhaps because I am not very good at explaining myself.

I have never bashed Pakistan but rather have spoken the truth as impartially as I can understand it, never caring whether it is unpalatable or not, simply because I do have Pakistan's best interests at heart. The only reason I have made the post responding to Asim is based on the fact that I am so SURE that NONE of the steps need to make a "point" will realistically be forthcoming. I am sure you will now see the analogy of my saying that "Why don't we ask the sun not to come up tomorrow?".

If you go over ALL my posts, you will see worrying about the economy, asking for restraint and the due legal process over the RD affair, pointing out the critical role of good governance and education etc. etc., which are all consistent with the long term welfare of the state and the people of Pakistan.

My posts here at PDF from the day I joined onwards speak for themselves, providing they are taken in context of the discussions to which they pertain, and analyzed with a logical thought process.

I am glad that you clearly understand that the onus for changing the future direction of the US-Pak relationship at this critical juncture lies much much more with Islamabad than it does with Washington. The US will pursue its national interests with a single minded determination, that much should be very clear. It is now up to Pakistan's leadership, both military and civil, to figure out any possible ways to change this direction better suited to Pakistan's national interest.

Where we do differ is the fact that I am sadly convinced that any such initiative coming from Pakistan has a close to zero chance of happening or indeed succeeding. Therefore, however anguished you (and Asim, and many others here) may be at my blunt statements, my heartfelt and well-thought out advice will continue to be simple and straightforward: Blaming others for Pakistan's ailments will not change anything, and the tasks of rectifying them will take decades of determined and disciplined effort, if international geopolitics will allow Pakistan to make up for the lost decades.

I say all of the above with all due respect, Sir, and I would be more than happy to explain myself further as I look forward to participating in all relevant discussions on PDF.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM: You misunderstand my positions too simplistically, perhaps due to an overdose of dogmatic zeal, perhaps because I am not very good at explaining myself.

I have never bashed Pakistan but rather have spoken the truth as impartially as I can understand it, never caring whether it is unpalatable or not, simply because I do have Pakistan's best interests at heart. The only reason I have made the post responding to Asim is based on the fact that I am so SURE that NONE of the steps need to make a "point" will realistically be forthcoming. I am sure you will now see the analogy of my saying that "Why don't we ask the sun not to come up tomorrow?".

If you go over ALL my posts, you will see worrying about the economy, asking for restraint and the due legal process over the RD affair, pointing out the critical role of good governance and education etc. etc., which are all consistent with the long term welfare of the state and the people of Pakistan.

My posts here at PDF from the day I joined onwards speak for themselves, providing they are taken in context of the discussions to which they pertain, and analyzed with a logical thought process.

I am glad that you clearly understand that the onus for changing the future direction of the US-Pak relationship at this critical juncture lies much much more with Islamabad than it does with Washington. The US will pursue its national interests with a single minded determination, that much should be very clear. It is now up to Pakistan's leadership, both military and civil, to figure out any possible ways to change this direction better suited to Pakistan's national interest.

Where we do differ is the fact that I am sadly convinced that any such initiative coming from Pakistan has a close to zero chance of happening or indeed succeeding. Therefore, however anguished you (and Asim, and many others here) may be at my blunt statements, my heartfelt and well-thought out advice will continue to be simple and straightforward: Blaming others for Pakistan's ailments will not change anything, and the tasks of rectifying them will take decades of determined and disciplined effort, if international geopolitics will allow Pakistan to make up for the lost decades.

I say all of the above with all due respect, Sir, and I would be more than happy to explain myself further as I look forward to participating in all relevant discussions on PDF.

Having Pakistan's 'best interests at heart' would also involve criticizing the US when it has patently resorted to bullying, illegal and unethical actions. The Raymond Davis issue and the current refusal to coordinate all CIA operations inside Pakistan with Pakistan would be excellent opportunities to do so. Instead, there was nary a word of critique for the US position on Raymond Davis, nor much encouragement for the Pakistani position and arguments of why Davis did not qualify for blanket immunity.

Many of us did not think, and do not think, that the GoP would do much in any of these situations, and we said as much - but that did not prevent us from critiquing the patently wrong policies of the US either. The issue I have with your posts is that you have essentially given the US a free pass on every one of these issues - I certainly cannot recollect the last time you criticized the US for ignoring Pakistani concerns over conducting Drone strikes unilaterally, or running CIA operations in Pakistan unilaterally, or 'inflaming tensions with Pakistan' through unsubstantiated propaganda and rhetoric (such as Mullen's).

Having 'Pakistan's best interests at heart' would involve both criticism of its weaknesses as well as criticism of the 'wrong' policies of the US and other nations Pakistan deals with. You have not shown that balance IMO.

 

[VCheng]

Having Pakistan's 'best interests at heart' would also involve criticizing the US when it has patently resorted to bullying, illegal and unethical actions. The Raymond Davis issue and the current refusal to coordinate all CIA operations inside Pakistan with Pakistan would be excellent opportunities to do so. Instead, there was nary a word of critique for the US position on Raymond Davis, nor much encouragement for the Pakistani position and arguments of why Davis did not qualify for blanket immunity.

My dear Sir, "bullying, illegal and unethical" are words that simply do not apply to international politics. I do not wish to rehash my positon on the RD affair, but I made the point that Pakistan will have to release RD and that all the hyperbole was unjustified. I will stress again that concepts like "fairness" do not apply to international politics, and more so to covert operations of all kinds, no matter which country is being discussed.

Many of us did not think, and do not think, that the GoP would do much in any of these situations, and we said as much - but that did not prevent us from critiquing the patently wrong policies of the US either. The issue I have with your posts is that you have essentially given the US a free pass on every one of these issues - I certainly cannot recollect the last time you criticized the US for ignoring Pakistani concerns over conducting Drone strikes unilaterally, or running CIA operations in Pakistan unilaterally, or 'inflaming tensions with Pakistan' through unsubstantiated propaganda and rhetoric (such as Mullen's).

I am sorry that that you perceive me as having given the US a free pass, but for now, let me just respond briefly by saying that (a) drone strikes were, are, and will be a joint operation, (b) certain CIA operations are never bilateral in all countries and it would be naive to think that they ever will be no matter how critical ISI support may be perceived to be, and (c) Mullen's "propaganda" is a carefully thought out position that provides certain hints as to the direction of future policies. (I will be happy to discuss these in detail later on as we proceed with our discussion.)

Having 'Pakistan's best interests at heart' would involve both criticism of its weaknesses as well as criticism of the 'wrong' policies of the US and other nations Pakistan deals with. You have not shown that balance IMO.

Fair enough, if your opinion is that I have not been even-handed, then I will disagree, but will respect your position. By the same token, I think that your position is totally lopsided as well. I am fairly confident that future events unfolding over the next few years and months, will support my positions far more robustly than any of yours. Again, I will say that concepts of "right" and "wrong" are too simplistic to apply in international politics. These are mere moral descriptions that cannot be ascribed to nations.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My dear Sir, "bullying, illegal and unethical" are words that simply do not apply to international politics.

Does not matter whether they apply or not - injustice must be pointed out where it occurs or it will never cease.

I do not wish to rehash my positon on the RD affair, but I made the point that Pakistan will have to release RD and that all the hyperbole was unjustified.

You (or for that matter anyone else) failed to offer any credible arguments against the position that Davis had no blanket diplomatic immunity. You cheered everyone who made flawed arguments calling for his release after murdering two Pakistanis, and you cheered every flawed argument arguing he had blanket diplomatic immunity, when he clearly did not.

I will stress again that concepts like "fairness" do not apply to international politics, and more so to covert operations of all kinds, no matter which country is being discussed.

Translation - there is really no room for discussion about disagreements with US policy. Simply roll over, beg and lick their balls.

You sir, are a classic example of an American lackey. If you are of Pakistani heritage, you certainly are not one with any loyalty left for the country, nor one with the best interests of Pakistan at heart.

I am sorry that that you perceive me as having given the US a free pass, but for now, let me just respond briefly by saying that (a) drone strikes were, are, and will be a joint operation, and

Drone attacks no longer appear to be joint operations. A few months ago officials from both sides were talking about cooperation (anonymously of course) on target acquisition and strikes. That is gone now. Now the majority of officials on both sides talk of very little coordination and cooperation on drone strikes or covert CIA operations.

(b) certain CIA operations are never bilateral in all countries and it would be naive to think that they ever will be no matter how critical ISI support may be perceived to be,

I don't give a flying Frack about what CIA operations have historically been or are. As a Pakistani I want these goons monitored and their operations coordinated and approved by Pakistani intelligence, or they can spend their time in Pakistan shut up in their embassy jerking themselves off.

(c) Mullen's "propaganda" is a carefully thought out position that provides certain hints as to the direction of future policies. (I will be happy to discuss these in detail later on as we proceed with our discussion.)

The implication of Mullen's position is simply the same as yours, as translated by me.

Enough is enough - the US can frack off. They have no long term plan in Afghanistan, and they have used their time there to shelter anti-Pakistan Taliban groups and Baluch terrorists. Many Pakistani commentators were warning of this years ago.

Fair enough, if your opinion is that I have not been even-handed, then I will disagree, but will respect your position. By the same token, I think that your position is totally lopsided as well. I am fairly confident that future events unfolding over the next few years and months, will support my positions far more robustly than any of yours. Again, I will say that concepts of "right" and "wrong" are too simplistic to apply in international politics. These are mere moral descriptions that cannot be ascribed to nations.

I am sorry, but your position on Raymond Davis was shown to be wrong back then - he was no diplomat and Pakistan never declared him one. His release was a compromise. The part where you claim to be 'right', that he would be released, was in fact pointed out by many, especially after Qureshi was fired. You however sold out the country you claim to 'care for' by supporting the dishonest and unsubstantiated US position of Davis's diplomatic immunity.

Again, whether the drone strikes continue despite Pakistani objections, and covert CIA operations in Pakistan continue despite Pakistani objections, has very little to do with condemning patently illegal and imperialistic behavior on the part of the US. But nothing else could be expected from an American lackey.

 

[Pak_Sher]

As long as US does not stop selling advanced arms to India, there would not be strong realtions with the US in the medium and long term. The Afghan conflict will come to and end in a year or two and we will Inshallah come out stronger in both combat experience and as a nation.

 

[VCheng]

AM: I could continue to respond point by point, but the fact that your responses are much too personal lead me to the conclusion that you do not have any logical arguments. I could easily call you names too, but that will degrade the discussion so I will refrain.

Call me anything you want, but my points are valid and I stand by them. Please try to respond with cool logic rather than hot-headed rhetroic.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM: I could continue to respond point by point, but the fact that your responses are much too personal lead me to the conclusion that you do not have any logical arguments. I could easily call you names too, but that will degrade the discussion so I will refrain.

Call me anything you want, but my points are valid and I stand by them. Please try to respond with cool logic rather than hot-headed rhetroic.

You have no argument other than to keep regurgitating the same tired bit about the 'weak rolling over and begging for scraps from the US and doing whatever it pleases'.

Illustrating your argument for what it is and exposing you for who you are is not 'hot headed rhetoric', it is an honest and clear assessment.