What's new

No Pak role in fomenting trouble in Afghanistan, says Petraeus

30 years we promoted 'brotherhood', we let in millions of them fleeing from the Russians, and decades of economic and political support.

This is what we get in return.

Afghans really are delusional if they truly think that Pakistan is the sole reason for their countries problems, rather than incompetence, corruption, and pro-Indian policies which have brought their country to ruin, and brought the Taliban closer to victory.

It really is sad when i hear about them allowing civilians to attack border posts, training of anti-Pak militants, and parading around their own refugees to score cheap political points.

and if anyone needs proof of their Indian level of obsession and delusion:
sad.png
 
. .
1- Is this official twitter handle of ANA?

2-Now they have also given PA the honour :astagh: of backing ISIS


Im not sure, but judging by the very obvious propaganda tone, im guessing its some Afghan guy who got access to the internet. Its also funny that the account also loves retweeting Modi and other Indians who talk shit about Pakistan. So it could also just be an Indian guy?

And yeah, its one of the most bizarre thing I've ever seen, although seeing as how 9/10 posts on the account blame us for everything, I wouldn't be surprised if they thought the US invasion was some kind of ISI plot.

https://twitter.com/ArmyAFG?lang=en
 
. .
Why the word 'even'. This guy has been in the positions that gave him insight into the subject more than most. So comes as surprise with your 'even' comment. I rarely take comments by self declared experts on media but Gen. Petraus is a man in 'the know'. Further, he is not beholden to Pakistan to mush his words. Thus what he said carries lot of credibility.

Far from controlling what goes on in Afghanistan it looks more like incompetance shaping Pakistan's position on the Af-Pak region rather than some brilliant strategy by the infamous eyeSeye.
 
.
Patreus would say nothing about India if asked. Even he knows where things are headed between India and US.

Same was the case with Mr Chuck Hagel as 2013 aint that old a date but if he can say so why wudnt Mr. Patraeus?
 
.
Ouch.. I hope bharatis don't have an aneurysm over this. My deep condolences at this development. Hope bharatis can live with the new status quo which has developed over the last 2 years. Most of them still seem to be stuck in 2011.
 
.
What, no Indian trolls in this thread to deny what the Commander said?
 
.
Why would Petraeus admit anything about ISI and Pakistan? That would amount to him admitting being fooled by the double game.

It is like asking ISI or somebody like the late Hamid Gul (hope I have his name right) whether ISI failed during his regime - ofcourse he will never admit failure!

Pak duplicity was exposed a bit after him, may be 2013 or so if memory serves right
 
.
Former US military commander Gen (R) David Petraeus has said that during his long association with his Pakistani counterparts and interaction with ISI as head of CIA, he could never find a convincing piece of evidence which supported the alleged double game by ISI or its explicit support to elements associated with terrorism.

This statement was given by the general while answering a question during an interactive discussion session that was held at Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in the last month during which the commander talked about wide range of issues and challenges likely to be faced by the next US administration.

During the discussion, an Afghan female student from Buckingham University asked the general about the alleged complicity of Pakistan in fomenting trouble in Afghanistan, double role played by ISI and why US was not using its influence to reign in Pakistan. The general gave an elaborate reply and talked for about 7-8 minutes. He said that during his long association with his Pakistani counterparts and interaction with ISI as head of CIA, he could never find a convincing piece of evidence which supported the allegation of double game by ISI or its explicit support to elements associated with terrorism. He said like any other intelligence agency, ISI might have had some sort of communication channels to engage with them and there may have been some degree of accommodation but the talk about explicit support or double game is more of a journalistic conclusion with no concrete evidence. He said that Pakistan Army’s campaign against the Taliban in Swat in 2009 and its subsequent progress in most of the Tribal belt under General Kayani and his successor, General Raheel Sharif, was impressive.

“Pakistan Army suffered casualties and had limited Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities though the US did try to help and there existed enormous amount of cooperation between the two militaries. However, the unfortunate episodes of Raymond Davis and publications of book by Bob Woodward and WikiLeaks did impact negatively on this cooperation”. Petraeus added that he looked hard to establish any linkage between Pakistan Army, FC and ISI with any of the terrorist elements and did not find any supporting evidence. What Pakistani military has not been able to achieve has more to do with its capacity rather than it being complicit. He again said that the popular narrative about ISI double game etc was a journalistic thing. He said that some people refer to Pakistan as FRENEMY but again exact pinning down the blame on Pakistan for attacks on US soldiers in Afghanistan remains ‘very very difficult’.

As regards the leverage, there is a limit to what US can achieve. US did cut of all aid, stopped F-16s but it did not help and the two countries only came together after 9/11. He said that managing its relationship with Pakistan would be among the top two or three challenges for the next administration”. Considering his background as one of the top US military leaders in Afghanistan and Iraq and former head of CIA, comments of General Petraeus against the popular Afghani, Indian and Western propaganda maligning Pakistan Army/ISI is considered very helpful in setting the record straight especially considering the significant attendance of the event by people from various backgrounds. The session was moderated by Sir Peter Ricketts, Senior Association fellow of RUSI.

The event was attended by around 150 people, including members of RUSI, academia and diplomatic community. Another question relating to Pakistan was posed by a British Pakistani (from Mirpur AJ&K) named Owais Rajput which touched multiple issues like Kashmir, terror financing and need for UK-based legislation to check terrorists’ financing. The general first said that he did not understand the essence of the question. Later on, he added that Modi had handled the Kashmir situation well and the retaliatory action by Indian military was a fairly skilful move”.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/16...omenting-trouble-in-Afghanistan-says-Petraeus


Even people who are not really our allies are starting to tell the truth. Pakistan has been feeding, sustaining, paying for and looking after Afghanistan and Afghans for nearly 40 years. Yet we are still blamed for their shortcomings, inferiority and incompetence.
 
Last edited:
.
Why would Petraeus admit anything about ISI and Pakistan? That would amount to him admitting being fooled by the double game.

It is like asking ISI or somebody like the late Hamid Gul (hope I have his name right) whether ISI failed during his regime - ofcourse he will never admit failure!

Pak duplicity was exposed a bit after him, may be 2013 or so if memory serves right

I was about to take Patreaus' words seriously since he knew so much more than anyone on this forum but now that u have provided us with this new information pulled out of ur ***, I'll ignore an actual General that served during the Afghan War.
 
.
Why would Petraeus admit anything about ISI and Pakistan? That would amount to him admitting being fooled by the double game.

It is like asking ISI or somebody like the late Hamid Gul (hope I have his name right) whether ISI failed during his regime - ofcourse he will never admit failure!

Pak duplicity was exposed a bit after him, may be 2013 or so if memory serves right

Completely false analogy and completely false "facts" about duplicity being exposed in 2013. False analogy because Hamid Gul or ISI would be the same entity being accused, so for them to admit is something else, whereas Patreus is not the one being accused here. These allegations have been coming for years from bharatis or Afghans, and in 2016 they are being denied by someone who was ranked higher than anyone else who has made allegations against Pakistan.

I know this is going to be hard to reconcile. You need to get in touch with the new status quo. I know it's not the same favourable one that you used to have, but you can't do anything about it either.
 
.
The ANA is not only incompetent, but grossly incompetent. And it's a reminder of US failure in Afghanistan after spending billions to equip and train a military that is incapable of fighting.
What do you expect from the Americans when the Afghans are unable to get over their petty squabbles and rivalries? Their infighting is the root cause of all problems in the region. Americans can only do so much for them.

I give you a plate and you break it; whose fault is it?

Nonetheless, I wouldn't rule out the potential of ANA so soon. It might be a paper tiger at the moment but it does have capable and patriotic units.

Why the word 'even'. This guy has been in the positions that gave him insight into the subject more than most. So comes as surprise with your 'even' comment. I rarely take comments by self declared experts on media but Gen. Petraus is a man in 'the know'. Further, he is not beholden to Pakistan to mush his words. Thus what he said carries lot of credibility.

Far from controlling what goes on in Afghanistan it looks more like incompetance shaping Pakistan's position on the Af-Pak region rather than some brilliant strategy by the infamous eyeSeye.
Absolutely.

David Howell Petraeus is a professional and have seen it all. His responses only reflect upon his professionalism. I would take this guy seriously.

It is true that some circles and/or individuals feed people with lot of disinformation and propaganda, and attempt to influence geopolitical developments in this manner. Most unfortunate.

Petraeus's remarks mimic those of Raheel Sharif that Pakistan was sparing no one in its operations against terrorists. More importantly, Petraeus's coming clean is a welcome sign.
 
. .
I was about to take Patreaus' words seriously since he knew so much more than anyone on this forum but now that u have provided us with this new information pulled out of ur ***, I'll ignore an actual General that served during the Afghan War.

why are so many of you such drama queens? It is expected that Pak cybernuts will grasp at anything for some semblance of acceptability and naturally this help you. Enjoy.

Completely false analogy and completely false "facts" about duplicity being exposed in 2013. False analogy because Hamid Gul or ISI would be the same entity being accused, so for them to admit is something else, whereas Patreus is not the one being accused here. These allegations have been coming for years from bharatis or Afghans, and in 2016 they are being denied by someone who was ranked higher than anyone else who has made allegations against Pakistan.

I know this is going to be hard to reconcile. You need to get in touch with the new status quo. I know it's not the same favourable one that you used to have, but you can't do anything about it either.

Good to see a Pak fan use the term 'because' but then what follows is not a reasoning but repeat of your opinion. Look up 'motivation'.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom