Hashshāshīn
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,068
- Reaction score
- -2
Ok, you're frustrated. So? gtfo our countries.
Obama frustrated with Pakistan: Expert
- Thread starter Papa
- Start date
Zarvan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 54,470
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
WASHINGTON: Air Force One turned into midnight express as US president Barack Obama swept unannounced into Afghanistan on the first anniversary of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden to signal an end to war there ahead of a strenuous election season at home.
Obama flew to into Bagram air base outside Kabul late on Tuesday, signed a pact in the dead of the night with Afghan president Hamid Karzai outlining future advisory US role, spoke to American troops in the wee hours of the morning, and made a primetime TV address to an US audience at the crack of dawn Kabul time, before flying back, symbolically shutting down in ten hours a war that has lasted more than a decade.
Soon after he left, Kabul erupted in violence even as Taliban announced what it called a spring offensive starting May 3, wire reports said. Terrorists armed with guns, suicide vests and a bomb-laden car attacked a heavily fortified compound used by Westerners in Kabul, killing seven people and wounding more than a dozen.
On a militant website, Taliban declared that the new offensive, code-named al Farouq, would target "foreign invaders, their advisors, their contractors, all those who help them militarily and in intelligence."
The so-called "invaders," who by Obama's account came to Afghanistan only because Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida set up base here, would have largely left under a transition the president outlined. But the withdrawal, while more than just symbolic, will also involve continued US role in Afghanistan over the next decade under the strategic accord, including American advisors and trainers, targets Taliban threatened it will aim for.
In his ten-minute address to Americans back home gearing up for elections in November, Obama promised that the goal he set to defeat al-Qaida and deny it a chance to rebuild "is now within our reach," enabling a transition that "will complete our mission and end the war in Afghanistan." At the same time, he signalled that the US would not abandon Afghanistan and will remain invested in the country's security and development for the next decade.
The US president also had sharp and peremptory words for Afghanistan's neighbour Pakistan, whose "strategic depth" policy involving interference in Afghanistan is the cause of much grief to Washington. "I have made it clear to Pakistan," Obama warned grimly, "that it can and should be an equal partner in this process in a way that respects Afghanistan's sovereignty, interests and democratic institutions." He also added: "In pursuit of a durable peace, America has no designs beyond an end to al-Qaida safe havens and respect for Afghan sovereignty."
Implicit in those remarks is advice to Pakistan that it should not seek overlordship of Afghanistan or manipulate who will rule Kabul, while at the same time assuring Islamabad that US is not interested in dismantling Pakistan or its nuclear weapons. Some analysts have suggested Obama is more than just annoyed with Pakistan for being the spoiler in the region.
In a review of the Obama visit, former CIA analyst and Heritage Foundation senior fellow Lisa Curtis said the President's frustration with Pakistan and its lack of cooperation in Afghanistan came through in his remarks. "Islamabad's practice of relying on violent Islamist proxies in Afghanistan (and India) has backfired badly on Pakistan," she wrote Tuesday, advising US officials to "build on this sentiment by convincing Pakistani leaders that unless they ... force the Taliban to compromise in Afghanistan, Pakistan will suffer from an emboldened Taliban leadership that will project its power back into Pakistan."
"Moreover, Pakistan will face increasing isolation and lose credibility with the international community for continuing policies that encourage terrorism and endanger the safety of civilized nations," she added. From Islamabad though, there was little sign of any policy change even as Pakistani analysts gloated at the prospect of US difficulties in drawing down from Afghanistan in the face of continued blockade of Nato supply route.
Obama flew to into Bagram air base outside Kabul late on Tuesday, signed a pact in the dead of the night with Afghan president Hamid Karzai outlining future advisory US role, spoke to American troops in the wee hours of the morning, and made a primetime TV address to an US audience at the crack of dawn Kabul time, before flying back, symbolically shutting down in ten hours a war that has lasted more than a decade.
Soon after he left, Kabul erupted in violence even as Taliban announced what it called a spring offensive starting May 3, wire reports said. Terrorists armed with guns, suicide vests and a bomb-laden car attacked a heavily fortified compound used by Westerners in Kabul, killing seven people and wounding more than a dozen.
On a militant website, Taliban declared that the new offensive, code-named al Farouq, would target "foreign invaders, their advisors, their contractors, all those who help them militarily and in intelligence."
The so-called "invaders," who by Obama's account came to Afghanistan only because Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida set up base here, would have largely left under a transition the president outlined. But the withdrawal, while more than just symbolic, will also involve continued US role in Afghanistan over the next decade under the strategic accord, including American advisors and trainers, targets Taliban threatened it will aim for.
In his ten-minute address to Americans back home gearing up for elections in November, Obama promised that the goal he set to defeat al-Qaida and deny it a chance to rebuild "is now within our reach," enabling a transition that "will complete our mission and end the war in Afghanistan." At the same time, he signalled that the US would not abandon Afghanistan and will remain invested in the country's security and development for the next decade.
The US president also had sharp and peremptory words for Afghanistan's neighbour Pakistan, whose "strategic depth" policy involving interference in Afghanistan is the cause of much grief to Washington. "I have made it clear to Pakistan," Obama warned grimly, "that it can and should be an equal partner in this process in a way that respects Afghanistan's sovereignty, interests and democratic institutions." He also added: "In pursuit of a durable peace, America has no designs beyond an end to al-Qaida safe havens and respect for Afghan sovereignty."
Implicit in those remarks is advice to Pakistan that it should not seek overlordship of Afghanistan or manipulate who will rule Kabul, while at the same time assuring Islamabad that US is not interested in dismantling Pakistan or its nuclear weapons. Some analysts have suggested Obama is more than just annoyed with Pakistan for being the spoiler in the region.
In a review of the Obama visit, former CIA analyst and Heritage Foundation senior fellow Lisa Curtis said the President's frustration with Pakistan and its lack of cooperation in Afghanistan came through in his remarks. "Islamabad's practice of relying on violent Islamist proxies in Afghanistan (and India) has backfired badly on Pakistan," she wrote Tuesday, advising US officials to "build on this sentiment by convincing Pakistani leaders that unless they ... force the Taliban to compromise in Afghanistan, Pakistan will suffer from an emboldened Taliban leadership that will project its power back into Pakistan."
"Moreover, Pakistan will face increasing isolation and lose credibility with the international community for continuing policies that encourage terrorism and endanger the safety of civilized nations," she added. From Islamabad though, there was little sign of any policy change even as Pakistani analysts gloated at the prospect of US difficulties in drawing down from Afghanistan in the face of continued blockade of Nato supply route.
Zarvan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 54,470
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
WASHINGTON: Air Force One turned into midnight express as US president Barack Obama swept unannounced into Afghanistan on the first anniversary of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden to signal an end to war there ahead of a strenuous election season at home.
Obama flew to into Bagram air base outside Kabul late on Tuesday, signed a pact in the dead of the night with Afghan president Hamid Karzai outlining future advisory US role, spoke to American troops in the wee hours of the morning, and made a primetime TV address to an US audience at the crack of dawn Kabul time, before flying back, symbolically shutting down in ten hours a war that has lasted more than a decade.
Soon after he left, Kabul erupted in violence even as Taliban announced what it called a spring offensive starting May 3, wire reports said. Terrorists armed with guns, suicide vests and a bomb-laden car attacked a heavily fortified compound used by Westerners in Kabul, killing seven people and wounding more than a dozen.
On a militant website, Taliban declared that the new offensive, code-named al Farouq, would target "foreign invaders, their advisors, their contractors, all those who help them militarily and in intelligence."
The so-called "invaders," who by Obama's account came to Afghanistan only because Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida set up base here, would have largely left under a transition the president outlined. But the withdrawal, while more than just symbolic, will also involve continued US role in Afghanistan over the next decade under the strategic accord, including American advisors and trainers, targets Taliban threatened it will aim for.
In his ten-minute address to Americans back home gearing up for elections in November, Obama promised that the goal he set to defeat al-Qaida and deny it a chance to rebuild "is now within our reach," enabling a transition that "will complete our mission and end the war in Afghanistan." At the same time, he signalled that the US would not abandon Afghanistan and will remain invested in the country's security and development for the next decade.
The US president also had sharp and peremptory words for Afghanistan's neighbour Pakistan, whose "strategic depth" policy involving interference in Afghanistan is the cause of much grief to Washington. "I have made it clear to Pakistan," Obama warned grimly, "that it can and should be an equal partner in this process in a way that respects Afghanistan's sovereignty, interests and democratic institutions." He also added: "In pursuit of a durable peace, America has no designs beyond an end to al-Qaida safe havens and respect for Afghan sovereignty."
Implicit in those remarks is advice to Pakistan that it should not seek overlordship of Afghanistan or manipulate who will rule Kabul, while at the same time assuring Islamabad that US is not interested in dismantling Pakistan or its nuclear weapons. Some analysts have suggested Obama is more than just annoyed with Pakistan for being the spoiler in the region.
In a review of the Obama visit, former CIA analyst and Heritage Foundation senior fellow Lisa Curtis said the President's frustration with Pakistan and its lack of cooperation in Afghanistan came through in his remarks. "Islamabad's practice of relying on violent Islamist proxies in Afghanistan (and India) has backfired badly on Pakistan," she wrote Tuesday, advising US officials to "build on this sentiment by convincing Pakistani leaders that unless they ... force the Taliban to compromise in Afghanistan, Pakistan will suffer from an emboldened Taliban leadership that will project its power back into Pakistan."
"Moreover, Pakistan will face increasing isolation and lose credibility with the international community for continuing policies that encourage terrorism and endanger the safety of civilized nations," she added. From Islamabad though, there was little sign of any policy change even as Pakistani analysts gloated at the prospect of US difficulties in drawing down from Afghanistan in the face of continued blockade of Nato supply route.
Obama flew to into Bagram air base outside Kabul late on Tuesday, signed a pact in the dead of the night with Afghan president Hamid Karzai outlining future advisory US role, spoke to American troops in the wee hours of the morning, and made a primetime TV address to an US audience at the crack of dawn Kabul time, before flying back, symbolically shutting down in ten hours a war that has lasted more than a decade.
Soon after he left, Kabul erupted in violence even as Taliban announced what it called a spring offensive starting May 3, wire reports said. Terrorists armed with guns, suicide vests and a bomb-laden car attacked a heavily fortified compound used by Westerners in Kabul, killing seven people and wounding more than a dozen.
On a militant website, Taliban declared that the new offensive, code-named al Farouq, would target "foreign invaders, their advisors, their contractors, all those who help them militarily and in intelligence."
The so-called "invaders," who by Obama's account came to Afghanistan only because Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida set up base here, would have largely left under a transition the president outlined. But the withdrawal, while more than just symbolic, will also involve continued US role in Afghanistan over the next decade under the strategic accord, including American advisors and trainers, targets Taliban threatened it will aim for.
In his ten-minute address to Americans back home gearing up for elections in November, Obama promised that the goal he set to defeat al-Qaida and deny it a chance to rebuild "is now within our reach," enabling a transition that "will complete our mission and end the war in Afghanistan." At the same time, he signalled that the US would not abandon Afghanistan and will remain invested in the country's security and development for the next decade.
The US president also had sharp and peremptory words for Afghanistan's neighbour Pakistan, whose "strategic depth" policy involving interference in Afghanistan is the cause of much grief to Washington. "I have made it clear to Pakistan," Obama warned grimly, "that it can and should be an equal partner in this process in a way that respects Afghanistan's sovereignty, interests and democratic institutions." He also added: "In pursuit of a durable peace, America has no designs beyond an end to al-Qaida safe havens and respect for Afghan sovereignty."
Implicit in those remarks is advice to Pakistan that it should not seek overlordship of Afghanistan or manipulate who will rule Kabul, while at the same time assuring Islamabad that US is not interested in dismantling Pakistan or its nuclear weapons. Some analysts have suggested Obama is more than just annoyed with Pakistan for being the spoiler in the region.
In a review of the Obama visit, former CIA analyst and Heritage Foundation senior fellow Lisa Curtis said the President's frustration with Pakistan and its lack of cooperation in Afghanistan came through in his remarks. "Islamabad's practice of relying on violent Islamist proxies in Afghanistan (and India) has backfired badly on Pakistan," she wrote Tuesday, advising US officials to "build on this sentiment by convincing Pakistani leaders that unless they ... force the Taliban to compromise in Afghanistan, Pakistan will suffer from an emboldened Taliban leadership that will project its power back into Pakistan."
"Moreover, Pakistan will face increasing isolation and lose credibility with the international community for continuing policies that encourage terrorism and endanger the safety of civilized nations," she added. From Islamabad though, there was little sign of any policy change even as Pakistani analysts gloated at the prospect of US difficulties in drawing down from Afghanistan in the face of continued blockade of Nato supply route.
v9s
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2010
- Messages
- 1,248
- Reaction score
- -2
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
Been watchin the wire lately:
You cannot lose if you do not play - Marla Daniels
Good one!
However, the reality is quite different, is it not? Look at the state of affairs in and around Pakistan, and one can see that not playing is not a feasible option any more. The game may have been forced upon Pakistan, yes, but now there is no option to withdraw unilaterally this late in the process without consequences.
Leviza
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2010
- Messages
- 3,094
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Good one!
However, the reality is quite different, is it not? Look at the state of affairs in and around Pakistan, and one can see that not playing is not a feasible option any more. The game may have been forced upon Pakistan, yes, but now there is no option to withdraw unilaterally this late in the process without consequences.
lol , its 100% right for USA as well ,
and that is Obama frustration for upcoming general elections
Solomon2
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 19,475
- Reaction score
- -37
- Country
- Location
This is not news. Obama made it clear that he was "frustrated with Pakistan" when he was still a presidential candidate - the only one who publicly pledged to undertake U.S. military operations in Pakistan without the permission of its government.
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
lol , its 100% right for USA as well ,
and that is Obama frustration for upcoming general elections
Of course it is true for USA too, but I don't think it will shy away from any regional or global game, being the superpower that it is, presently.
It would also be prudent to keep in mind that it is the opinion of the "expert" that Obama is indicating frustration. If one keeps in mind his style, it is more likely that he is warning Pakistan more than expressing frustration. It would not be wise to ignore that possibility.
Awesome
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,023
- Reaction score
- 5
Or play a game of your own choosing.
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
Yes, but the time for that decision was when Bush called Musharraf. Now both sides have to finish the game on for the last decade or so first before moving on to the next game.
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
Why should Pakistan depend on being "needed" by USA for things to be "fine" again?
Pakistan should make its own rightful place the same way other nations have: persistent hard work and dedication to achievement.
SamantK
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 5,559
- Reaction score
- -13
- Country
- Location
being here I cannot comment on the actual ground position in Pakistan apart from the AfPak border areas but seems like the situation is pretty bad is hat I felt watching a video of express news "Pakistan Poochta Hai" on Karachi.
The Local MLA, or whatever you call them, says that there are terrorists in a particular area in Karachi very near to his house and that no action is being taken.
The Govt represented by some Lady says that we have given a mandate but the Army does not act as the police cannot counter them.
There is a general who says we also cannot take action, the people ask them that who should and they really have no answer..
<edit> I feel that first the internal problem of Pakistan should be solved before saying this and that</edit>
Any one can comment on that? I might be mistaken in my interpretation cause I did not understand each and every word..
I cannot post the video from office.. so.. please Adjust
The Local MLA, or whatever you call them, says that there are terrorists in a particular area in Karachi very near to his house and that no action is being taken.
The Govt represented by some Lady says that we have given a mandate but the Army does not act as the police cannot counter them.
There is a general who says we also cannot take action, the people ask them that who should and they really have no answer..
<edit> I feel that first the internal problem of Pakistan should be solved before saying this and that</edit>
Any one can comment on that? I might be mistaken in my interpretation cause I did not understand each and every word..
I cannot post the video from office.. so.. please Adjust
Similar threads
